A STUDY OF LAPIS LAZULI IN THE FORMATIVE PERIOD OF EGYPTIAN CULTURE: AN APPROACH IN TERMS OF CULTURE CONTACT

Transcription

1 A STUDY OF LAPIS LAZULI IN THE FORMATIVE PERIOD OF EGYPTIAN CULTURE: AN APPROACH IN TERMS OF CULTURE CONTACT Michinori OHSHIRO* Introduction The purpose of this paper is to clarify the starting and terminating dates of the formative period of ancient Egyptian culture. Although a large number of studies have been made on ancient Egyptian culture, little is known about the formative period. The exact periodization still remains a matter of debate. It has been suggested that the fundamental structure of ancient Egyptian culture was generally completed in the Old Kingdom. W. M. F. Petrie and other scholars have insisted that all significant characteristics of ancient Egyptian culture had already appeared at the end of the Third Dynasty(1). However no one has clearly explained the process. Since the Semainean Period and the Dynastic Race theory defined by Petrie have been rejected by the research of H. Kantor by using archaeological materials(2), it has been suggested that ancient Egyptian culture had an inherent continuity from the Predynastic Period to the Early Dynastic Period. On the other hand, Kantor recognized that cylinder seals or stone vessels clearly had an influence from Mesopotamia or Syria-Palestine just before organizing the unified Dynasty. She suggested that it is not a result of an accidental trade relationship(3). Although H. Frankfort has suggested that the formation of ancient Egyptian culture was not affected by contact with Mesopotamia, on the other hand he considered that many questions were still open to speculation(4). Concerning this significant theme of Egyptology, J. A. Wilson also recognized the influence of Mesopotamia on ancient Egypt, and theorized that Egypt made a great spurt because of its influence(5). He called it the Mesopotamian Stimulation. A Japanese Egyptologist I. Kato refers to this theme in some papers. He basically agrees with Kantor. Kato insisted that ancient Egyptian * Ph.D. Student, Kansai University 60 ORIENT

2 culture directly developed from the New Stone Age culture created by native Egyptians under the influence of Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine(6). Considering the above-mentioned situation, how should we understand the formation of ancient Egyptian culture? In other words when did ancient Egyptians create The Egyptian Characteristics, for example the solar calendar, hieroglyphs, their unique artistic style, the concept of Maat and the dualistic consideration? We do not have a definite explanation about the appearance of the formative period until now. Accordingly, I am going to suggest a theory about the formative period by using lapis lazuli as a unique material in Egypt because lapis lazuli is often quoted as evidence of long distance trade. C. Renfrew also insists that the study of the trade helps to understand culture change(7). The focus of this paper is lapis lazuli as a key to understanding ancient Egyptian culture(8). In the first chapter I will survey the preceding studies with special emphasis on culture contact and trade as currents of some information. In the second chapter I will attempt to trace the Lapis Lazuli road from its place of the origin (Afghanistan) to the place of consumption (Egypt), and to consider some of the information brought with lapis lazuli. In the third chapter I will attempt to make clear the formative period of ancient Egyptian culture from excavations of lapis lazuli. 1. The Long-distance trade as Culture Contact Although diffusionism, which means that new culture element is conveyed from one region to another and becomes influential in the second region, was criticized by J. Steward who insisted on Multilinear Evolutionism, it has been supported by some scholars like O. Montelius and V. G. Childe. It is still accepted that the diffusionism is indispensable for understanding culture development. B. G. Trigger also has suggested that diffusion means the spread of new ideas or new units of culture from one person or group to another(9). He also thinks that diffusion is a sort of culture change. Renfrew points out the significance of trade as culture contact as well. He attempts to explain prehistorical culture change by using System Theory, and holds the view that a study of trade helps us to understand culture change. According to Renfrew, Childe has described culture contact and its influence in terms of diffusionism as per the following: Once the new economy had been established in the three Vol. XXXV

3 primary centres it spread thence to secondary centres, much like Western capitalism spread to colonies and economic dependencies. First on the borders of Egypt, Babylonia and the Indus valley-in Crete and the Greek islands, Syria, Assyria, Iran and Baluchistan-then further afield, on the Greek mainland, the Anatolian plateau, South Russia, we see villages converted into cities and self-sufficing food-producers turning to industrial specialization and external trade. And the process is repeated in ever widening circles around each secondary and tertiary centre...the second revolution was obviously propagated by diffusion; the urban economy in the secondary centres was inspired or imposed by the primary foci. And it is easy to show that the process was inevitable...in one way or another Sumerian trade and the imperialism it inspired were propagating metallurgy and the new economy it implies... These secondary and tertiary civilizations are not original, but result from the adoption of traditions, idea and processes received by diffusion from older centres. And every village converted into a city by the spread became at once a new centre of infection(10). The diffusionism of Childe in terms of economics was regarded as the foundation theory of the origin of ancient civilizations. However at present Childe's theory is out-of-date as a result of radiocarbon dating and various scientific methods such as: simple inspection (materials of unique appearance, e.g., lapis lazuli, ostrich egg); petrologic examination of thin section (e.g., stone tools, pottery, etc.); optical spectroscopy (e.g., pottery, metals, obsidian, faience, etc.); X-ray fluorescence (e.g., metals, obsidian, glass, jade, etc.); neutron activation (e.g., metals, pottery, obsidian, etc.); B-ray back-scatter (e.g., glass, glaze); infra-red absorption (e.g., amber); cathode-luminescence (e.g., marble); X-ray diffraction (e.g., jade, emery); Fission-track dating (e.g., obsidian)(11). We have confirmed that the oldest megalithic architecture is not the pyramids in Egypt but megalithic temples in Malta (Saflieni Period BC) and Gozo (Ggantija Period BC), and Stonehenge already has completed before the birth of Mycenaean civilization(12). According to Childe's view, it has been assumed that copper metallurgy also came to Europe from the Near East, reaching first the Aegean and then Balkan peninsula. However it is clear now that copper metallurgy was already flourishing in the Balkans before it reached a comparable stage of development in the Aegean(13). Because of these facts we have to rule out not only the magnificent fantastic theory by G. E. Smith and J. Perry, and G. Kossinna's biased Indo-Germanic principle based on 62 ORIENT

4 ultranationalismic diffusionism, but also Childe's theory which is even called revised diffusionism. We have to look for new theory or new explanation. Renfrew pays attention to trade as supporting the understanding of culture change under present conditions. He regards that trade works (1) as a source of wealth to the trader and to the community, since efficient or favourable exchange can encourage the production of, or produce, a surplus; (2) towards specialized and hence more efficient production; (3) to promote contact between communities and the interchange of ideas through personal contact; and (4) to create new demand and ultimately the production of new commodities (e.g., silk in the classical world or metal in prehistoric Europe)(14). Especially in (3) and (4), the function of trade often changes by absorbing a conception of the outside. Although these functions of trade do not apply to every circumstance, when culture change or interaction are the main theme, trade should be always considered as the first problem. Do the above-mentioned conditions as a function of the trade apply to the formative period of ancient Egyptian culture? Renfrew's functions (1) and (2) are unsuitable because the Near East was not a market economy in those days and there was not a merchant class in this period of Egypt. Moreover, I do not know any examples of (4). Because of these reasons, I suggest that (3), an exchange of the idea, is the most likely theory. M. Hoffman has suggested that the trade of luxury goods in ancient Egypt suddenly appeared with the unity of the nation(15). His opinion is that the influence of trade contributed to the birth of the nation. Although the influence of Mesopotamia was not sufficient to establish ancient Egyptian culture, everybody knows that there is certainly the influence of Mesopotamia, for example Mesopotamian cylinder seals and the Gebel el-arak knife handle depicted in Mesopotamian style. I would suggest that direct or indirect contact mean the exchange of information with some new information from the East. How did information flow in Egypt? Where did Egypt and Mesopotamia contact? Since Petrie has suggested a theory of Egypt by way of Arabian Gulf and a theory of Egypt by way of Syria in his book The Making of Egypt(16), the answer to these important questions became a focus during the debate involving in the Dynastic Race theory. However, we do not have an obvious answer yet. The only fact that we already know is the appearance of the Mesopotamian influence in Egypt from the Gerzean Period to the First Dynasty. As Frankfort has suggested, there was no Sumerian influence in Syria. He denied that the Vol. XXXV

5 influence of Mesopotamia reached Egypt from the North. He has suggested that the influence of Mesopotamia reached Egypt from the Red Sea via the Persian Gulf(17). W. Ward has the opposite opinion concerning this contact with Syria. He pays attention to the close relation with Syria in the First Dynasty. According to Ward, this interruption of Mesopotamian influence is the result of a decline of extensive international trade at the end of the First Dynasty(18). Wilson or W. B. Emery assume that at first Mesopotamian merchants went down the Persian Gulf and reached El-Quseir on the shore of the Red Sea via the Arabian Peninsula, and finally entered Koptos through Wadi Hammamat(19) Kantor distinguished between the route of Syria-Palestine and that of Mesopotamia because of the distribution of four-handled vessels or seals as archaeological materials. She suggested that the former means a long route via the north Sinai and transportation from the Mediterranean by ships, the latter means a sea route to Wadi Hammamat via the Arabian Peninsula(20). W. Helck has suggested that the influence of Mesopotamia first went across the north part of Mesopotamia using a land route, and reached the seashore of Syria-Palestine and, was brought from there to the Delta using a land route or a sea route with ships(21). If we accept Helck's theory, I think that it is also possible to use a river route, for example the Euphrates or the Orontes. P. R. S. Moorey and B. Teissier have recently suggested a sea route theory via Syria, especially Byblos, by showing new archaeological evidence, from the Persian Gulf to Wadi Hammamat via the Arabian Gulf(22). M. Rice has suggested a possibility of a land route crossing the Arabian Peninsula, and insisted the consideration of the above-mentioned theories should not rule out(23) (see Fig. 1). It is generally agreed that some informations from Mesopotamia were brought to Egypt. Now I wish to focus my attention on the Gerzean Period to the First Dynasty, and the following period. I suggest that the Egyptian Characteristics as some special features of ancient Egyptian culture were formed after the disappearance of Mesopotamian Stimulation. Although many scholars have chosen a variety of Mesopotamian motifs and styles as their subject of study until now, according to Renfrew's theory, the existence of a certain trade should be confirmed by a material which played a significant role in order to understand the regional relation between the place of origin and the place of consumption rather than the motifs or style(24). I suggest a new way of defining the formative period of ancient Egypt by using lapis lazuli as a basis. Lapis lazuli had a very high value in the ancient oriental world. I propose a hypothesis 64 ORIENT

6 Vol. XXXV

7 to define the formative period of ancient Egyptian culture based on the flow of information about lapis lazuli and the blank period of lapis lazuli discovered by excavations. 2. The Image of Lapis Lazuli Road Many scholars have actively studied trade goods. For example the amber trade was firstly studied by J. N. von Sadvsky in Amber is regarded as luxury goods because of its special fragrance and colour, and was generally used as funeral goods in various culture regions in the Mediterranean world in about the 2nd millennium. In 1925 J. M. de Navarro established the Amber Road. It covers from west Jutland to the Po and Adriatic region in Italy(25). His theory was a transportive theory by using rivers. At present this trade is generally known to be the route which is from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean. Childe has suggested that there were some trade contacts between northern Europe and Mycenaean world because most amber excavated in Mycenaean world were identified as Baltic products, and he has insisted that the result gave birth to the European culture in the Bronze Age. S. Piggot also pointed out that there was a direct possibility of the contact between Wessex culture in England and Mycenaean world. However Childe's and Piggot's theories are almost overruled as the result of radiocarbon dating. It was obvious now that there were some cultures in Europe before Mycenaean civilization. Amber is regarded as one cause of the birth of civilization in many studies until now(26). In 19th century many scholars have also studied jade. The study of Chinese jade was very popular and was completed by B. Laufer(27). Jade was very well known not only in China but also in Europe, especially in the Wessex culture of England (2nd millennium BC) and the Borodino culture in south Russia (2nd millennium BC). In the Maori of New Zealand and the New World such as the Maya culture or Aztec culture, jade was dealt with precious goods as well. It is thought that jade was used not only for necessaries like hand axes but also probably for religious worship in these regions. Obsidian has been studied because it is the most well known material for making tools or weapons. The scholars who pay attention to the trade of obsidian have considered that the date, which was indicated by the trade of obsidian, indicates the oldest route of earliest culture contact and information exchange by human beings. They think that the trade of obsidian can easily 66 ORIENT

8 Vol. XXXV

9 demonstrate the route as diffusion of some ideas. Scientific study of obsidian recently made clear the place of origin and established the relationship of trade in the Near East in 8th millennium. Renfrew considers that these patterns of contact, from the earliest Neolithic period, are significant for the development and dissemination of the Neolithic way of life in the three nuclear regions of the Near East. He insists that the method is applicable in America, Australia, and Africa, as much as in Europe and the Near East(28). Although lapis lazuli has had abundant excavations in every period and location as amber, jade and obsidian, it was hardly dealt with as the main subject until now. A few scholars have studied the place of the origin and the circulation route. Although the problem of the origin has been variously guessed from ancient times as a theme about Arrata(29), which often appears in Sumerian epics, or Tfrrt(30), which appears in Egyptian inscriptions, the place of the origin of lapis lazuli is now confirmed in Badakhshan (Afghanistan), Pamir, Lake Baikal, Mogok (Burma), Baffin Islands (Canada), Edwards Islands (U.S.A.), the Green River (U.S.A.), Atlas Mountains (North Africa), Angola, Ovalle Cordillera (Chile), Cuba, and Brazil(31). However G. Herrmann made it clear that most lapis lazuli which circulated in Oriental World in the 4th and 3rd millennium BC were produced in Badakhshan(32). Then she suggested that there were three routes, the north land route, the south land route, and the sea route from Arabian Gulf to the Red Sea, as the trade route of lapis lazuli. In the following, I will pursue some main sites, which already confirmed lapis lazuli by excavations from Badakhshan to Egypt (see Fig. 2). The north route supported by Herrmann starts from Sar-i-Sang as the main mine in Badakhshan, then goes to Koh-i-Baba passing via the Panjshir, and finally goes to the Kunduz separated from the Amu Darya(33). After going out Kerano-Munjan valley by such a route, lapis lazuli goes to Tepe-Hissar via Kara-Tepe where is regarded as playing an intermediary trade role. At present Tepe-Hissar has been recognized not only as a mere intermediary site but also having factories for working lapis lazuli by the excavation in 1972(34). Drills for lapis lazuli work, beads of lapis lazuli, and fragments proved the existence of the factories in Tepe-Hissar. Because of this reason, it has been suggested that the raw ore of lapis lazuli was firstly polished for carrying easily and it was secondary cut as being easy to process in Tepe-Hissar. Some beads and seals made of lapis lazuli were also excavated in Tepe-Giyan from a stratum, which is dated between the late Ubaid and the Jemdat Nasr period (about 4th 68 ORIENT

10 millennium)(35). Because of the many examples of lapis lazuli goods in the above-mentioned sites, it makes possible for us to guess the diffusion to the west through the north route. It has been suggested that another land theory, the south route used the system of the rivers like the Helmand. It is easy to reach the Helmand from Sari-Sang by going along the Kabur. V. I. Sarianidi suggests the south route because of its abundant water(36). His theory is that lapis lazuli went through Mundigak and Kandahar to Shahr-i-Sokhta, then entered Mesopotamia along the Persian Gulf, and finally went to Syria and Egypt. His theory was demonstrated by the excavation in Shahr-i-Sokhta situated in the lower reaches of the Helmand. It made clear that there was a site of more than 30 hectares in the delta of the Helmand in the middle of 3rd millennium. It was possible for this barren region to have an agricultural system efficient to supply food to the big city or other sites, and that various animals lived there in those days. Moreover there was an important discovery in Shahr-i-Sokhta in Many lapis lazuli goods and the ruins of a lapis lazuli factory played the same role as Tepe-Hissar in the north route were excavated in Shahr-i-Sokhta on the south route(37). The difference of Tepe-Hissar and Shahr-i-Sokhta is that there are many small lapis lazuli factories in Tepe-Hissar as compared with Shari-i-Sokhta that has one huge factory. Because of this fact, it is supposed that there were special craftsmen depending on the centralized authority that had enough power to control supply and demand of lapis lazuli(38). Beads made of lapis lazuli were also excavated by C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky in Tepe-Yahya in 1967(39). It is suggested that one possibility is that lapis lazuli moved south from Tepe-Yahya to the Oman Peninsula crossing the Strait of Hormuz. Although this theory would suppose many lapis lazuli goods in Bahrain, the most remarkable fact is that Egyptian seals or Egyptianized seals were found there(40). Now it is thought that there are roughly three routes, the north and south route as land routes, and sea route via Arabian Gulf, where lapis lazuli with information and ideas from Mesopotamia entered Egypt. Then I became aware that these three routes entirely coincide with the current of the influence from the East in the formative period of ancient Egyptian culture (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Vol. XXXV

11 3. A Blank Period of Mesopotamian Stimulation and Excavations of Lapis Lazuli Although the existence of the Gebel el-arak knife-handle, the painted wall and cylinder seals at Hierakonpolis, and Mesopotamian mythical animals (e.g., panthers with a snake's head, griffin with wings, crossing snakes with rosette pattern and hero calming two opposite lions) were the main theme for the study so far, I suggest that lapis lazuli should be also added to these as evidence of Mesopotamian influence(41). Because lapis lazuli is the only raw material which is impossible to obtain around Egypt, and it's only proven place of origin is Badakhshan in Afghanistan. It is supposed that lapis lazuli certainly accompanied information from the East, especially Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian stimulation appeared in the end of the Gerzean period just before the unified dynasty appeared, and it gradually disappeared over the First Dynasty. Excavations of lapis lazuli goods appear in Egypt are from the Naqada I period (about 4000 BC), and after that lapis lazuli was used and dealt with valuable goods through all the dynasties in Pharaonic Egypt. However there is a blank period or exceptional period of excavations of lapis lazuli. According to J. C. Payne's table in her article, during the most of the First dynasty, and the whole of the Second and Third dynasties, there is apparently a complete absence of lapis lazuli in Egypt(42). There is also the same phenomenon in Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum VI-Jewelry 1 by C. Andrews(43). Payne points out that the supply of lapis lazuli to Egypt apparently closely parallels in Mesopotamia, and concludes that the break of its use in Egypt is directly connected with the same break in Mesopotamia(44). Rice also pays attention to the same phenomenon(45). Herrmann explains that the absence of lapis lazuli in both regions does not means disappearing of interest on lapis lazuli but it may be that the trade was disrupted within Iran for reasons as yet unknown(46). Ward has suggested that there was a political confusion that was hindered in the relationship of the extensive trade in the interior of Egypt(47). At any rate everybody considers that some incidents occurred in the orient world and stopped the supply of lapis lazuli to Egypt. Then I arranged a time-line (see Fig. 3). The cultural influence of Mesopotamia in Egypt appears in the Gerzean period and disappears in the middle of the First Dynasty. On the other hand, the excavations of lapis lazuli in Egypt are missing in half of the First Dynasty and whole the Second Dynasty 70 ORIENT

12 and the Third Dynasty. I focused on the synchronicity of the blank period of Mesopotamian influences and the period of disappearance of lapis lazuli in Egypt. Although we can not completely ignore other cultural influences, for example the Aegean World and Nubian culture in the upper of the Nile, the period of the disappearance of lapis lazuli and the break period of Mesopotamian influence simultaneously mean to be completely shut off the new cultural information to Egypt. Fig. 3: Comparative Time-line Egypt became like a solitary island because of missing information from outside. Then ancient Egypt might form the so-called Egyptian Characteristics egyptianizing information or ideas from Mesopotamia, which already flowed in Egypt before the blank period. If we accept the blank period, the view of a gradual succession from the Predynastic Period to the Dynastic Period by Kantor and Ward is easy to understand. It seems that the reason of sudden disappearance of Mesopotamian influence is understandable(48). I suggest that the disappearance of Mesopotamian Stimulation and the period when excavations of lapis lazuli were not found mean the break of information from Mesopotamia so that they gave birth to a period of culture development of ancient Egyptian. Conclusion I have made use of lapis lazuli as a new material for defining the formative period of ancient Egyptian culture. Then I suggested a hypothesis because of the synchronicity on the period of disappearance of Mesopotamian influence from Vol. XXXV

13 the second half of the First Dynasty and the blank period of lapis lazuli's excavations in Egypt. Ancient Egypt could not influenced from Mesopotamia as the only advanced culture region for Egypt in this period. As a result, these blank periods made the so-called Egyptian Characteristics in Egypt. It may be possible to say that this period which excavations of lapis lazuli disappeared and appeared again in Egypt is the formative period of ancient Egyptian culture. I suggest that the development of the unique culture in Egypt was promoted by the confusion in the Eastern World that should be ironically have sent new information, which was sought by Egypt. Some scholars may criticize my use of lapis lazuli as transformative material. However it is also fact that Herrmann's theory that an amount of retention of lapis lazuli and a monopoly of the route of transportation were reflected in the balance of power in Mesopotamian city-states in 4th millennium BC is still accepted. Then it is very strange to say that nobody has used lapis lazuli as the main material in describing ancient Egyptian history, because a large quantity of lapis lazuli are excavated in Egypt as much as Mesopotamia. In this paper, I am not going to revive the Dynastic Race Theory by Petrie. I will only suggest that his indication concerning the culture relationship between the Gerzean Period and Mesopotamia in those days should be valuable even now. It may be impossible that new evidence that affirms direct contact between Egypt just before the birth of the United Dynasty and Mesopotamia is discovered hereafter. However, I consider that a new approach from its aspect as transmission of information or idea is available. Notes This article is a revised version of my Japanese article in "The Formative Period of Ancient Egyptian Culture-An Approach in Terms of the Culture Contact-", Cultura Antiqua 48-3 (1996), pp I am grateful to Dr M. A. Leahy and Dr L. M. Leahy of the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology of the University of Birmingham for their helpful comments and lectures. My special thanks are due to Dr A. J. Spencer (British Museum), Dr Y. Kite (Kansai University) and Mr. C. A. Kite. (1) H. Frankfort, The Birth of Civilization in the Near East (London, 1951), p. 25. (2) H. Kantor, "The Final Phase of Predynastic Culture Gerzean or Semainean (?)", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3 (1944), p (3) Kantor, "Further Evidence for Early Mesopotamian Relations with Egypt", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 11 (1952), p (4) Frankfort, op. cit., p (5) J. A. Wilson, The Culture of Ancient Egypt (London, 1951), p ORIENT

14 (6) I. Kato, Note on the Late Prehistoric Egypt, Essay and Studies by Members of the Faculty of Letters (Kansai University) 8 (1959), p (7) C. Renfrew, "Trade and Culture Process in European History", Current Anthropology 10 (1969), p (8) L. von Rosen made an outline of lapis lazuli study. However, she didn't have studied lapis lazuli in Egypt in depth. L. von Rosen, Lapis lazuli in Geological Contexts and in Ancient Written Sources (Partille, 1988); id., Lapis Lazuli in Archaeological Contexts (Jonsered, 1990). (9) B. G. Trigger, Beyond History: The Methods of Prehistory (New York, 1985), p. 27. (10) Renfrew, Before Civilization: the Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe (London, 1973), p (11) Renfrew, (1969), op. cit., p (12) J. A. S. Evans, "Redating Prehistory in Europe", Archaeology 30 (1977), pp (13) Renfrew, (1973), op. cit., p (14) Renfrew, (1969), op. cit., p. 153f. (15) M. Hoffman, Egypt before the Pharaohs (New York, 1980), p (16) W. M. F. Petrie, The Making of Egypt (London, 1939), p. 30. (17) Frankfort, op. cit., p. 110f. (18) W. Ward, "Egypt and the East Mediterranean from Predynastic Times to the End of Old Kingdom", Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 6 (1963), pp. 44f. (19) Wilson, op. cit., p. 41; W. B. Emery, Archaic Egypt (London, 1961), pp. 40, 125; L. Bell, J. H. Johnson, and D. Whitcomb, "The Eastern Desert of Upper Egypt: Routes and Inscriptions", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43 (1984), pp (20) R. W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology 1 (3rd ed.) (Chicago, 1992), p. 17. (21) W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. Und 2 Jahrtadsend 5. Chr. (Wiesbaden, 1971), pp (22) B. Teissier, "Glyptic Evidence for a Connection between Iran, Syro-Palestine and Egypt in the Fourth and Third Millennia", Iran 25 (1987), pp.27-53; P. R. S. Moorey, "From Gulf to Delta in the Fourth Millennium BCE: The Syrian Connection", Eretz Israel 21 (1990), pp (23) M. Rice, The Archaeology of the Arabian Gulf (London, 1994), p. 49. (24) Renfrew, (1969), op. cit., p (25) J. M. De Navarro, "Prehistoric Routes between Northern Europe and Italy Defined by the Amber Trade", Geographical Journal 66 (1925), pp (26) Renfrew, (1973), op. cit., pp (27) B. Laufer, Jade-a study in Chinese Archaeology and Religion (Chicago, 1912), p. 6f. (28) Renfrew, (1969), op. cit., p (29) Y. Majidzadeh, "The Land of Aratta", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35 (1976), pp ; J. F. Hansman, "The Question of Aratta", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37 (1978), pp (30) J. R. Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals (Berlin, 1961), p. 125f; Ward, Egypt and the East Mediterranean World B. C. (Beirut, 1971), pp (31) M. Tosi, "The Lapis Lazuli Trade across the Iranian Plateau in the 3rd Millennium B.C.", Instituto Universitario Orientale Gururajamanjarika Studi in Onore di Giuseppe Tucci 1 (1974), pp. 1-20; von Rosen, (1988), op. cit., pp (32) G. Herrmann, "Lapis Lazuli: The Early Phases of Its Trade", Iraq 30 (1968), pp (33) Tosi, op. cit., p. 9. (34) G. Bulgarelli, "Tepe Hissar Preliminary Report on a Surface Survey August 1972", East and West 24 (1974), pp Vol. XXXV

15 (35) Herrmann, op. cit., 36f. (36) V. I. Sarianidi, "The Lapis Lazuli Route in the Ancient East", Archaeology 24 (1971), p. 15. (37) C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and M. Tosi, "Shahr-I Sokhta and Tepe Yahya: Tracks on the Earlist History of the Iranian Plateau", East and West 23 (1973), p. 27; M. Piperno and Tosi, "The Graveyard of Shahr-I Sokhta, Iran", Archaeology 28 (1975), pp (38) Tosi and Piperno, "Lithic Technology behind the Ancient Lapis Lazuli Trade", Expedition 16 (1973), p. 22. (39) Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi, op. cit., p. 47. (40) Rice, Egypt's Making: The Origins of Ancient Egypt BC (London, 1990), p (41) M. Oshiro, "A Study of Lapis Lazuli in Ancient Egypt-Its Practical Values and Symbolic Meanings-", Shisen 81 (1995), pp (42) J. C. Payne, "Lapis Lazuli in Early Egypt", Iraq 30 (1968), pp (43) C. Andrews, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum-Jewelry 1 (London, 1981). (44) Payne, op. cit., p. 59. (45) Rice, (1990), op. cit., p. 89f. (46) Herrmann, op. cit., p. 53. (47) A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (London, 1961), p. 415f; Ward, (1963), op. cit., 44f. (48) Frankfort, op. cit., p ORIENT