JOURNAL

OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL

ARCHAEOLOGY

11,

l-24 (1992)

Toward an Interpretation of the Role of Ideology in the

Evolution of Complex Society in Egypt
KATHRYN A. BARD
Department of Archaeology, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue,
Boston, Massachusetts 02215
Received August 1, 1990

INTRODUCTION
Members of all societies perceive the real world through systems of
beliefs in order to provide explanations for phenomena. Such perceptions
develop within the frameworks of specific cultures. Through these perceptions of the world come forms of symbolizing by which humans interact
and communicate,
such as by spoken language. Some symbols are material, and therefore can be recovered by excavation.
In Egypt, as a Predynastic culture emerged by ca. 4000 B.C., rich forms
of symbolizing are seen in the material remains, mainly in the form of
burials and their grave goods, and to a more limited extent, in rock art.
Unfortunately,
there are great gaps in the archaeological record of the
early Holocene in Egypt, and the origins of this mortuary symbolism are
unclear. But with the rise of Predynastic culture, the most striking form
of this cultures archaeological evidence is mortuary.
The Predynastic period in Egypt spans the fourth millennium
B.C. At
the beginning of this millennium
there is evidence of the first farming
communities
in the Nile Valley, and by 3000 B.C. one of the earliest
known states had emerged. Two different material cultures are found in
the Predynastic period: the Maadian culture in the north (Cairo region and
the Delta), and the Nagadan culture in Middle and Upper Egypt. Evidence for the rise of complex society is mainly in Upper Egypt, in a core
area from Abydos to Hierakonpolis.
In the past 25 years there has been
a greater interest in settlement archaeology in both Upper and Lower
Egypt, but most of the archaeological evidence for the Predynastic in
Upper Egypt--and the rise of complex society-is
still from cemeteries
excavated 60-100 years ago. The sequence of Predynastic development
(first in Upper Egypt and later in Lower Egypt) is divided into three
relative periods: Nagada I, II, and III, also known as the Amratian,
Gerzean, and Semainean. In later Nagada II times the Maadi culture
0278-4165192 $3.00
Copyright 0 195-2 by Academic Fress, Inc.
AU tights of reproduction
in any form rcsctved.

KATHRYN

A.

BARD

disappears archaeologically
in the north and is replaced by Nagada material culture (Kaiser 1964:105-l 13). Following the Nagada III period
comes the beginning of the Early Dynastic period, with a centrally unified
state that stretched from the Delta possibly as far south as Aswan.
That the explosion of symbolic representation which is recognizable
archaeologically
in burials takes place in the Predynastic period in Egypt
is not mere coincidence.
With increasingly complex social relations
among groups living in more densely populated regions, material symbols
and rules for behavior used by subgroups would help create individual
identity and membership in specific social groups, as well as help maintain interregional affiliations. Material symbols are also the visible expressions of complex concepts and relationships. Therefore, such symbols often accompany more complex forms of social interaction that developed with the rise of Neolithic villages, and also with more complex
hunter-gatherer societies, such as some Upper Paleolithic groups of Europe.
Kinship systems would also have provided social and economic cohesion in early farming villages in Egypt, particularly for activities which
have a delayed payoff, such as farming. Some material symbols undoubtedly arose to give definition to village roles, but specific interpretations of
these symbols may not always be possible. How, then, is the vast body of
Predynastic data and their symbolic meanings to be interpreted in sociocultural terms in the absence of texts and data which clearly reveal social
structure?
At the most basic level of interpretation,
with the rise of sedentary
farming villages in which people lived more closely together, there was a
need to dispose of the dead, and in a warm climate like Egypts this has
to be done quickly following death. Dense occupation and cultivation of
the Nile floodplain during the past 5000 years have probably destroyed
many early sites, and what is known about Predynastic settlement patterns is incomplete. Known Predynastic settlements are located on the
low desert and spurs above the floodplain, with cemeteries located close
to the settlements. Given a floodplain as wide as 10 km in some parts,
many prehistoric villages were located some distance from the Nile, and
it would have been easier to dispose of a body near the village than in the
river. Because preserved Predynastic villages are located on the low desert where the soil is thin, it was probably preferable to place burials in a
pit away from the house and outside of the village. But the very act of
burial implies some belief in the efficacy of burial (as opposed to exposure), even if only to protect the remains from scavengers.
In later Predynastic times some burials contained great numbers of
grave goods, and an explanation for burial as a simple means of body
disposal is not a very adequate one: Predynastic burials became symbols

IDEOLOGY

IN

THE

EVOLUTION

OF

SOCIETY

IN

EGYPT

of something beyond the mere act of body disposal In some centers in

Upper Egypt mortuary differentiation increased through time, and what
have been interpreted as elite burials were larger and contained more
grave goods than non-elite burials (Bard 1989a). Specific grave goods
were included in burials because value for burial was attached to these
goods. The inclusion of foodstuffs (and jars), body ornaments, cosmetics,
tools, and small-scale model tools in burials possibly suggests a belief in
their usefulness following death.
Funerary ceremonies and burials are a rite of passage, a means of
restoring social fabric after death has transformed it (Huntington
and
Metcalf 1979:16). Funerals are also a socially acceptable means of expressing grief by the kin of the deceased. In some societies, such as the
Navaho, the dead become dangerous spirits, and for the safety of the
living there is a need to sever ties at death. The treatment of the dead,
then, can symbolize deep-seated belief systems and values held by societies .
As the Predynastic culture of Upper Egypt evolved in complexity so
did its ideologies. The most striking form of Predynastic ideology for
which there is evidence is in burial practices and changes in these through
time. Burial symbolism is not only reflective of Predynastic beliefs surrounding death, which provided a sense of social cohesion, but I suggest
that burials also became symbolic of the means of social and economic
control.
With the rise of large powerful political units (chiefdoms?) in the late
Predynastic, economic interaction may have become more predatory,
which probably resulted in conflict and eventually warfare leading to the
unification of Egypt into the Early Dynastic state. The legitimation
of
conquest warfare and the superiority of the society of the (god-) king are
ideologies symbolized on royal ceremonial art, such as the Narmer Palette and Macehead. As a strongly centralized state evolved by the Old
Kingdom, a very hierarchical social structure can be inferred from the
(mainly) mortuary evidence, but there were also beliefs operative in this
society that motivated such elaborate, expensive, and labor-intensive behavior. Ideology, as symbolized in the mortuary cult, was a dynamic
force-first
as social complexity evolved in Upper Egypt and later as
state institutions were formed. It is not only important to understand the
sociocultural processes involved in the evolution or devolution of social
complexity,
but also the ideas and beliefs which played a role in such
transformations-which
may be elusive and difficult to infer from archaeological evidence.
Although the belief systems and rituals of prehistoric people have died
with them, some part of their cognitive universe may have been preserved
in the material remains. Ideas in a culture do not develop independently

KATHRYN

A. BARD

of cultural processes, nor can cultural processes be understood entirely

from an adaptive perspective (both social and environmental),
devoid of
the role of beliefs shared within a society, as symbolized in patterns from
what remains of the material culture. The symbolism of power which
developed as societies became increasingly complex and elites emerged is
not just part of the general social evolutionary process, but the symbolism
has meaning within the belief systems of cultures and therefore can take
different forms (the Sumerian temple versus the Egyptian pyramid, for
example).
In recent years there has been great disagreement about method and
theory between the processual and postprocessual schools of archaeology, especially method and theory relating to mortuary practices. Binfords 1972 study of 40 cases of non-state organized societies demonstrates that-in
his sample-most
settled agriculturalists had symbolized
a greater number of distinctions in mortuary ritual than hunter-gatherers,
shifting agriculturalists,
or pastoralists. Mortuary differentiation
is patterned, and a number of processual archaeologists believe that these patterns can be linked to other aspects of the sociocultural system (OShea
1984:21).
Ethnographic research has shown a wide range of mortuary customs,
the symbols of which are culture-specific, and postprocessual archaeologists such as Hodder (1982b) claim that mortuary evidence may be misunderstood without the explanations of living informants. Mortuary evidence may be distorted and inverted, expressing an ideal but not actual
social relations (Hodder 1982b: 198,210). Ethnographic evidence also suggests a major problem in interpreting what remains archaeologically from
mortuary practices. The elaborate and lengthy funerary ceremonies for an
Ashanti king which take place up to a year after his death (Rattray
1969: 104-121) demonstrate that only a fraction of all the symbolic behavior surrounding death in a culture may be preserved in the material remains from which to interpret sociocultural roles and beliefs. Specific
interpretations of the symbolic meaning of the material remains from such
burials may be known only because oral explanations were recorded
within the living societies.
Beliefs held by a society undoubtedly affect that societys symbolic
behavior-what
is symbolized and how it is symbolized, particularly in
(non-subsistence) activities such as mortuary practices. Some of this symbolic behavior may take a material form and is therefore potentially recoverable through archaeology. But a concept of the beliefs and ideas
behind the symbolism in burials, which directly affected mortuary behavior in a specific cultural context, is first needed. Such insights, as may be
interpreted from a postprocessual perspective, are then of benefit for
making better inferences about social organization from mortuary data,

IDEOLOGY

IN

THE

EVOLUTION

OF SOCIETY

IN

EGYPT

important for analysis in processual archaeology. Mortuary data are a

reflection, first, of the beliefs held by a society concerning death and the
nature of existence, and, second, of how those beliefs relate to different
individuals in that society. Even though the ideas of a prehistoric society
died with them, I suggest that a more generalized analysis of ideas and
beliefs which played a role in burial patterns of a society, as well as a
more dynamic role within the (once) living society, can and should be
done.
EVOLUTION

OF MORTUARY

SYMBOLISM

IN EGYPT

How theory of postprocessual archaeology can enhance processual

analyses of mortuary data is illustrated here by archaeological data from
Egypt. Most of the archaeological evidence for the Predynastic period,
when complex society evolved, is mortuary, as is much of the archaeological evidence for dynastic Egypt. Therefore, the Egyptian data may be
particularly appropriate to illustrate such an approach.
Unless a replacement of society by dynastic conquerors is postulated,
for which there is no real archaeological evidence, the change in burial
practices in Egypt must be seen as a process of indigenous evolution from
Predynastic to dynastic times. From the Early Dynastic period (Dyn. l-2,
ca. 3050-2686 B.C.) there is clear-cut evidence of a stratified class society
in the mortuary evidence. The kings were buried in a royal cemetery at
Abydos, and, according to Kemp, high officials built large tombs with
elaborately niched superstructures at North Saqqara (Kemp 1966:21). At
Helwan are tombs of lower officials consisting of l-5 underground chambers, sometimes with a staircase leading to the exterior (Saad 1947). Cemeteries of lower-class burials of the Early Dynastic period, consisting
simply of pit graves with a few grave goods, are found throughout Egypt
(Abu Roash, Gurob, Naga-ed-Der, Saqqara). After the royal tombs, the
high status burials at North Saqqara represent actual political roles, as
titles on artifacts in these tombs indicate, and such tomb constructions are
seen as a more permanent symbolic fixture in the landscape (Miller and
Tilley 1984b: 149).
This is what the state does: it erects large monuments as symbols of
authority. Just as the city-states of Sumer focused corporate projects on
the institution of the temple, the Egyptian state focused corporate projects on the institution of the king. And in the Old and Middle Kingdoms
the permanent monuments were mainly in the form of funerary architecture. Death of the political leader became the occasion for the symbolic
maintenance of the social structure and the reproduction of power relations (Shanks & Tilley 1982:151-152).
Just as village cemeteries may represent the legitimacy of a socially

KATHRYN

A.

BARD

related group to inhabit and farm a certain area (Flannery 1972b:28-29),

the presence of large, monumental architecture of the state may represent
the legitimacy of the state to control a large territory, the economy, and
the labor force. The ultimate form of authority is actual power, which is
symbolized by the Old Kingdom pyramids. What is symbolized are two
forms of power: (1) coercive power to collect taxes and to conscript large
labor forces, and (2) the ideological power of the state. These two forms
of power cannot be fully effective individually,
but together they supplement and enhance the power base (Miller and Tilley 1984a: 14).
Other means of legitimation
are myths explaining roles of authority
descended from a supernatural source, and the maintenance of cult centers for the mythical beings. Kemp documents four early cult centers
which he believes belong to a Preformal group of local tradition, lying
beneath temples of the Middle and New Kingdoms and constructed before the superimposition
of state styles (Kemp 1989:65-83). But little is
known about royal cults originating at the beginning of Dyn. 1 except
from the evidence of the Royal Cemetery at Abydos and perhaps the
so-called Main Deposit at Hierakonpolis,
where late Predynastic and
Early Dynastic artifacts were buried beneath a later temple (Quibell and
Green 1902:40-41). A state religion headed by a god-king most likely
originated at this time to legitimize the new political order. Depicted on
the Narmer Palette is the ideology not only of the role of the king as
supreme conqueror, but also an ideology of the superiority over all others
of the society ruled by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, therefore
justifying such conquest. This is an ideology that is seen in texts and royal
art throughout the dynastic period.
Kemp suggests that the Early Dynastic evidence of royal funerary palaces at Abydos and the pictorial depiction of the Sed-festival (a ceremony in which the living king ritually renewed his vigor, thereby justifying his continued rule) became crystallized in the Dyn. 3 Step Pyramid at
Saqqara, showing the role of the king as supreme territorial claimant
(Kemp 1989:62). The cult center of the king in the Old Kingdom was, of
course, his pyramid complex, and the emergence of the true pyramid in
Dyn. 4 is symbolic of the recodification of the royal myth: the king is
now sublimated into a manifestation of the sun-god (Kemp 1989:62).
When there is no strong centralized rule there is no corresponding
monumental architecture in Egypt. Large monuments are lacking for the
royal burials of the First Intermediate Period, following the collapse of the
centralized state of the Old Kingdom. Likewise the Nagada III graves at
Nagada demonstrate a break with tradition and a decline in criteria which
symbolized rich or high status burials, such as sumptuary grave goods,
large numbers of grave goods, and large grave size (Bard 1989a:240). In
times of great social/political
upheaval or change in Egypt there is a lack

IDEOLOGY

IN

THE

EVOLUTION

OF

SOCIETY

IN

EGYPT

of monumental architecture, which reflects a shift in real and symbolized

power and a breakdown of the centralized economy.
The elaborate mortuary symbolism that evolved in dynastic Egypt had
its origins in much simpler forms of burial in the Predynastic period.
Probably the greatest range of burial types is seen in the Predynastic
cemeteries at Nagada, excavated by Petrie in 1894-1895 (Petrie and Quibell 18%). The main cemetery at Nagada, which Petrie called the Great
New Race Cemetery, contained 2043 burials, as drawn on his map (Petrie and Quibell 18%:Pl. 1A). It is the largest known place of burial in
Predynastic Egypt, and if the graves recorded by Quibell at nearby Ballas
are included, around 3000 Predynastic burials were excavated in the Nagada region (Petrie and Quibell 1896:9). Typical graves at Nagada were
vertical pits with contracted burials, none of which were embalmed (Petrie and Quibell 18%:18), a practice which evolved later in dynastic times.
Multiple burials were rare. Sometimes the body was covered with reed
matting, animal skin, or cloth, and a few of the larger graves were roofed
over with beams and brushwood (Petrie and Quibell 1896:18). Pottery
was the most common type of grave goods found in Nagada burials.
Just as the Predynastic culture evolved socially and economically
in
complexity from Nagada I to Nagada II times (Hassan 1988:159-61), so
did the number of distinctions of grave differentiation.
Although many of
the Predynastic burial data were disturbed and poorly recorded, there is
evidence to suggest ranked or increasingly stratified society in later Predynastic burials, such as at Nagada (Bard 1989a). Some burials with large
quantities of grave goods probably represent a certain amount of control
over resources. In chiefdoms those of high rank reinforce their status with
sumptuary goods (Flannery 1972a:403), which can often be seen in burials. There are much easier ways to dispose of a body than in the elaborate
burials that evolved in later Predynastic times, such as the undisturbed
Nagada II period burial (TS) in Nagada Cemetery T, which contained 42
pots, 5 stone vessels, and beads of gold, lapis lazuli, carnelian, garnet,
marble, and glazed steatite (Baumgartel 1970:67).
Kemp suggests that the large Predynastic tombs in Cemetery T at Nagada (Petrie and Quibell 1896:17) and the Decorated Tomb at Hierakonpolis (Tomb 100, Quibell and Green 1901:2&23) should be recognized as
the burial places of Predynastic kings (Kemp 1973:42, contra Davis
1983:28). Case and Payne have stated that Cemetery T was the burial
place of chiefs (Case and Payne 1962: 15). Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis
was
a large rectangular, brick-lined tomb with wall paintings, and grave goods
of Nagada II date (Case and Payne 1962: l&l 1). Cemetery T at Nagada
contained three similar brick-lined tombs (T15, T20, T23) that were articulated with interior walls (Kemp 1973:Fig. 2). The earliest tombs in the
Dyn. 1 Royal Cemetery at Abydos evolved in form from the large Pre-

KATHRYN

A. BARD

dynastic graves in Nagada Cemetery T (Kaiser and Dreyer 1982; Kemp

1973:42-43). Such large and sumptuous burials are indicative of emerging
political leadership as well as social differentiation,
as symbolized in a
discrete and wealthy cemetery. Presumably those buried in Cemetery T at
Nagada and Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis
would have been interred with
more elaborate funeral rites than other individuals in the society, and
wealth has its own aura in the rise of political authority (Chang 1983:97).
At Nagada there is mortuary symbolism of the early state in the form of
two large royal tombs of early Dyn. 1 (Kemp 1%7:24-25). Excavated by
Jacques de Morgan in the 1890s the Nagada Royal Tomb had an
elaborately niched mud-brick superstructure with 21 interior chambers
for grave goods; a second similar but pillaged grave pit was located
nearby (de Morgan 1897:Figs. 513 and 518). The grave goods from the two
Nagada royal tombs are similar in form and quantity to the Predynastic
grave T5 (Petrie and Quibell18%:Pl.
82). Likewise at North Saqqara, where
there are large Dyn. 1 tombs with elaborately niched mud-brick superstructures, there is no need to posit an invading dynastic race to account
for the origins of these tombs, as Emery did (Emery 1%7:38), when the
pottery in these tombs clearly evolved from Nagada II and III wares.
In Predynastic times cemeteries increasingly became the focus of status
display and status rivalry (Trigger 1987:60), as the society and economy
became more complex, and the addition of monumental architecture in
Dyn. 1 symbolized a political order on a new scale. But status display and
rivalry, seen in later Predynastic burials of elites with many grave goods,
would only have been experienced by the living during the funeral ceremonies. This, of course, was a very time-limited
means of status display:
it ended after the burial. With the rise of the state in Dyn. 1, status display
was not only visible in the funeral ceremony and goods placed in the grave
at the time of burial, but status became more permanent and visible in the
form of above-ground monuments symbolizing real power, which developed into the form of the royal pyramid in the Old Kingdom. Competitive
display in mortuary styles in Egypt led to elaboration of mortuary behavior, which took different and more elaborate forms from later Predynastic
times into the dynastic period. But decline and redundancy in style as part
of the dynamics of mortuary behavior (Cannon 1989:437) were dependent
in Egypt on variables which can be specified, such as shifting power
bases, the state of the economy and the centralized state, and the amount
of economic control held by the crown and elites.
Underlying the stratum of social and political symbolism in the evolution of burial practices in Egypt, however, is a more basic symbolism, the
origins of which lie in the Predynastic period. Just as scenes of the produce of estates in reliefs of elite Old Kingdom tombs were to magically
provide sustenance for the deceased, the inclusion of actual food in Pre-

IDEOLOGY

IN THE

EVOLUTION

OF

SOCIETY

IN

EGYPT

dynastic burials provided for life after death. Increasingly in later Predynastic burials this meant surplus agricultural wealth and great quantities
of craft goods, which were permanently going out of circulation in the
economy, not only because of actual and symbolic hierarchical differentiation (Bard 1989a:241-43), but also because of a belief in the efficacy
and value of specific goods to accompany burial. And for elite Predynastic burials, such as grave T5 at Nagada, the belief that more and larger
are better seems to have been operational, which becomes more greatly
articulated with royal burial practices of the dynastic period.
Grave goods for Predynastic burials fall into two basic categories: (1)
containers (pots and stone vessels), and (2) body ornaments (such as
carved beads, bracelets, hair-pins, and combs). Although the contents of
most Predynastic pots were not examined by earlier archaeologists, the
pots were probably primarily containers for foodstuffs. Bread has been
found in Predynastic graves (Mond and Myers 1937:133), and Petrie reports jars of ashes in Predynastic burials at Abadiyeh, one of which was
covered with a film of brown matter, apparently dried dregs of buzeh
beer (Petrie 1901:32). Some Rough-ware pots which Petrie excavated at
Nagada contained the dorsal spines of fish (Petrie and Quibell 18%: lo),
and gazelle bones were found in four burials at Armant (Mond and Myers
1937:12). These fauna1 remains were of species which were eaten as food,
and not non-food species (such as jackals and hyenas).
At Nagada, I excavated a burial (KH3, Burial 4) with a bowl containing
barley seeds intentionally
placed on top of soil. This bowl may be the
earliest evidence of a type of fertility symbol found in some dynastic
tombs: the Osiris-form filled with soil and sprouted grain, such as found
in Tutankhamens
tomb (W. Wetterstrom:personal
communication).
In
dynastic times, Osiris was not only the god associated with the dead king,
but in reliefs and paintings his skin was colored green because of his
association with agricultural fertility and the germination of crops.
Evidence for cosmetics is also found in Predynastic burials: slate palettes for grinding eye paint were frequent at Nagada, placed before the
skeletons face and sometimes accompanied by minerals for the eye paint
and pebbles to grind the minerals (Petrie and Quibell lS%:lO). Petrie
describes excavating Wavy-handled Ware with a strong smell of aromatic
fat (Petrie and Quibell 1896:lO). In daily life foodstuffs, body ornaments,
and cosmetics were for physical sustenance and personal pleasure, but
some of these goods would also have enhanced status differentiation.
In
burials, the inclusion of such goods suggests their usefulness and enhancement of an existence following death.
Chipped stone tools used for village subsistence activities, such as
knives and projectile points, have also been found in Predynastic graves
(Petrie and Quibell 1896:Pls. 72-74). Some of the ripple-flaked knives are

10

KATHRYN

A.

BARD

so thin (3 mm), however, that they could not have been used for any
practical purpose without breaking, and were probably ceremonial objects. Copper tools, such as harpoons, axe-heads, and needles, were also
found in some Nagada burials (Petrie and Quibell 1896:Pl. 65) and may
have been status goods because of the scarcity of copper in the Nile
Valley. Ground stone maceheads are found at Nagada, but not in the
much smaller Predynastic Cemetery 1400-1500 at Armant. Maceheads
may have been symbols of position or leadership, and as a powerfact
the macehead came to symbolize the emergent pharaonic state (Hoffman
1982:146). Unfortunately,
at Nagada not enough information
was recorded to differentiate burials with maceheads from others.
Along with actual tools, small-scale models of tools have been found in
some Predynastic burials. Petrie excavated other model grave goods at
Abadiyeh, including model ostrich eggs, and animal figures made of clay,
stone, or paste (Petrie 1901:33). Substituting model goods for real ones
involves an act of symbolizing in which the models take on the same value
as the real materials.
Symbolism is also seen in grave goods which could have no value for
sustenance, subsistence, or personal adornment. Jars with specimens of
scarabus beetles were placed in five burials at Abadiyeh (Petrie 1901:33).
Given the symbolism of the beetle in later Egyptian mythology pertaining
to the sun-god and immortality,
the inclusion of actual beetles in burials
may represent an early form of this belief.
Along with the symbolic status of certain grave goods in Predynastic
burials, there was also an increasing concern for the preservation of human remains. Mummification
in dynastic times was done to preserve the
body as well as possible so that it was recognizable to the ba, the psychic
and physical forces of the deceased represented as a bird (DAuria, Lacovara, and Roehrig 1988:29). This practice was the end result of beliefs
surrounding mortuary behavior which developed in Predynastic times. As
at Nagada, Armant Predynastic burials were sometimes covered with
reed matting, and two burials were covered with animal skins (Mond and
Myers 1937:12). In the Nagada III Cemetery H at Semaineh, several
burials had disarticulated limbs wrapped in bark fibre and then rejoined (Petrie 1901:35). As greater measures developed in Early Dynastic
times to protect the body from external harm (scavengers such as jackals
and hyenas, and grave robbers), such as the construction of coffins and
tombs, the need for artificial means of preservation arose, as the body
was no longer naturally dehydrated in the hot sand of a burial pit. As
Elliot Smith (192364) and others have observed, it is probably not just
coincidence that mortuary beliefs in the preservation of the body for the
existence of an afterlife arose in a country where the dead were well
preserved in burials in the desert, beginning in early Predynastic times.

IDEOLOGY

IN THE

EVOLUTION

OF

SOCIETY

IN

EGYPT

11

The symbolizing of age/sex differences in burials may also have been

important for Predynastic beliefs. Unfortunately
age/sex data were not
recorded for many burials excavated earlier in this century and in the late
nineteenth century. At Armant where some age/sex data were recorded,
a childs burial dating to the early Predynastic (Nagada Ic) was the largest
grave of that period (Bard 198852). But for the most part, evidence for
inherited (not achieved) position and status cannot be determined for
Predynastic burials.
In addition to variables of grave goods and body treatment, body orientation may also have had symbolic meaning. In the absence of texts to
elucidate symbolism, orientation to the points of the compass may be
symbolic of how societies view themselves in the cosmos. The sides of
the Giza pyramids are cardinally oriented, and cosmological symbolism
may be a main component of patterns of orientation in Egyptian burials.
Of the 200 body orientations recorded by Petrie at Nagada, all but 6 are
with the head to the south, lying on the left side, with the head facing west
(Bard 1987a:143, after data recorded by Juan-Jose Castillos). Castillos
(1981: 105) suggests that body orientation at Nagada is in parallel to the
Nile rather than toward true south or north, but some burials are 2 km or
more from the river, and it would be more likely that at such a distance
orientations were calculated by bisecting the east-west path of the sun.
Standardization
of body orientation at Nagada is much more rigid than at
other Predynastic cemeteries, and the Nagada evidence may represent a
major cult center during Nagada I and II times in which rules for symbolic
behavior were more strictly adhered to than in other cemeteries with less
cultic importance (Fekri Hassan personal communication).
The standardization
of body orientation has traditionally
been interpreted as a desire to position the body facing the West, where the sun sets
and where the location of the netherworld is according to dynastic beliefs.
But why not place the body on its right side with the head to the north and
facing west? A possible explanation is that in Predynastic burials the head
was placed to the south, symbolizing the direction from which the lifegiving Nile flowed. Then why not alternatively place the body with head
to the west, facing south? Perhaps the answer to this question is that it
was important to have the body facing the direction in which it would
journey after life. Van Genneps survey of death rituals throughout the
world emphasizes how the theme of transition seems to dominate funeral
symbolism: water journeys and island afterworlds appear frequently (Van
Gennep 1960).
At Hu Petrie recorded this same burial orientation: on left side, head
south, as described in Nag&u (Petrie 1901:34). Such an orientation is
curious because in this region the Nile bends and flows from east to west,
which suggests a belief concerning burial orientation that originated else-

12

KATHRYN

A.

BARD

where and was later adopted at Hu as its members interacted with other
Predynastic centers. Whatever the symbolism of body orientation actually was, I suggest that it is related to a concept of the mythic sphere of
the cosmos and the journey of individual members of the society in that
cosmos following death.
Symbolism in the Predynastic burials of Upper Egypt, then, is complex, and became more complex through time as the early state evolved.
What was symbolized in Predynastic burials is seemingly more than social
roles, and a complex belief system is also reflected in the burial evidence.
This belief system in turn affected the symbolizing of social roles in burials, and it is important to understand this when making inferences about
social evolution from the mortuary data.
DISCUSSION

The belief system that is reflected in the Predynastic burial evidence of

Upper Egypt has broader social evolutionary implications than the structuring of social hierarchies. Predynastic settlements were not isolated
farming villages from their inception, as evidenced by the widespread
adoption throughout the Egyptian Nile Valley of cereal agriculture, with
its probable origins in southwest Asia (Trigger 1983: 17). Predynastic sites
in Upper Egypt exhibit the same material culture, and it is likely, too, that
these peoples spoke the same language, though language does not necessarily have a direct correspondence with material culture. The distribution of characteristic Predynastic burials in cemeteries in a core area in
Upper Egypt, from Abydos to Hierakonpolis
(Bard 1987b:90), suggests
continued interaction-not
only economic, but an interaction of ideas and
shared symbolic behavior in a widespread regional belief system. Consistent similarities in (1) choice of grave goods, (2) construction of grave/
tomb, (3) body treatment, and (4) body orientation are indicative of underlying beliefs with symbolic meaning beyond the village level. These
beliefs concern one of the most significant rites of passage within any
culture: the transition from life to death. Similar material culture is seen
in similar grave goods, such as specific pottery wares and types of slate
palettes, found in graves of Upper Egyptian Predynastic cemeteries. But
widespread similarity of material culture and shared technology does not
necessarily represent integrated political systems, and that would be an
incorrect interpretation,
especially before complex society arose, in the
Badarian and Nagada I periods. Possibly before large-scale exchange
took place in the Nagada II period, belief systems were spread in Upper
Egypt via exogamous marriages and simple exchanges within the material
culture. Fissioning of farming villages as the population increased may

IDEOLOGY

IN THE

EVOLUTION

OF

SOCIETY

IN

EGYPT

13

also have played a role in the spread of Predynastic culture. This cultural
interaction may have been similar to what Shennan describes for the
Early Bronze Age of western Europe: What we see is a convergence of
local trajectories and interaction between them based on the influence of
a wide-spread ideology [barrow burial] and subsequent elite interactions
(Shennan 1982: 160).
Although death abruptly ends all social relationships, belief systems in
most cultures espouse some form of continued existence after death. If a
belief of continued fertility connected with the ancestors was the only
concern in provisioning burials, as the inclusion of grain and meat in
burials of agriculturalists
in the Baring0 district of north central Kenya
symbolizes (Hodder 1982b:168-69), then other craft goods which enhanced status and the enrichment of life would not be included in Predynastic burials along with food. The material provisioning of Predynastic
graves with food and goods used in life strongly suggests the origin of the
Egyptian belief of some kind of afterlife for which such goods continued
to be used. This belief is even more strongly developed in dynastic times.
Possibly the evolution of certain wares throughout the Predynastic period is also symbolic of cultural evolution. Designs on White Cross-lined
Ware from the Nagada I period are mainly linear and abstract, but simple
animal forms, such as crocodiles, hippopotamus,
and dogs, and plant
designs are sometimes found. Such designs are reflective of potters working in a simple village farming society, whereas designs on Decorated
Ware of the Nagada II period may suggest a specialized ware produced
for a society in which ceremonialism of burial was becoming increasingly
important in the belief system. Themes painted on this ware center on
boats and possibly mortuary rituals (Baines 1989:47677). Scenes of the
desert, with ostriches and triangular mountains, may be depicted because
that was the location of the cemeteries.
Boats were the major means of travel and communication
in Egypt, and
boats with cabins (containing the prepared body for burial?) painted on
Decorated Ware jars may have been symbolic of a journey to the afterlife. Boat pits are found in association with three elite Dyn. 1 tombs at
North Saqqara (Emery 1949:75; 1954:138; 1958:37), and boat pits are
known from the Giza pyramids. The Giza boat pits are probably to be
associated with the celestial journey of the king with the sun god Re, an
association of boats with a cosmic journey. With the standardization of
wares and mass production using the potters wheel in the Early Dynastic
period and Old Kingdom, the evolution of a state with wide-ranging control over production and exchange (mainly via boat transport) is demonstrated, and the association of boats with a celestial journey became an
elite and royal prerogative.
Pots appeared in Predynastic burials in much greater quantities than

14

KATHRYN

A.

BARD

stone vessels; the latter were much more time-consuming

to produce.
Perhaps stone vessels were placed in elite burials (Bard 1989a:237) not
only because they were rare and costly, and were aesthetically appealing,
but also because they were more permanent than clay or pottery. I suggest that highly decorated wares, such as Greek painted vases, did not
evolve in Egypt because of the greater value attached to hard stone vessels. In dynastic times stone and copper vessels were primarily an elite
product (Baines 1988:206). Stone vessels were less likely to break than
pots and therefore were possibly better suited for burials for eternity: thus
the material itself was symbolic and consistent with certain beliefs. The
more permanent nature of graves and their conspicuous consumption of
wealth, in contrast to settlements, are distinctions seen in Neolithic burials in Sweden (Tilley 1984:136), as well as being represented in Predynastic burials.
Partly because of differential preservation of archaeological evidence,
in Predynastic and dynastic Egypt we have much more evidence of how
people viewed death, as opposed to how they actually lived. The role that
sumptuary goods played in the society is overwhelmingly
biased to their
use in the mortuary cult and not in life. Settlement data may be biased
because some sites have been destroyed by recent development,
and
possibly early settlements on the floodplain are now gone, but the most
visible archaeological evidence is still from Upper Egyptian Predynastic
cemeteries. Despite differential preservation, the mortuary cult seems to
be where the greatest material effort was directed in Egypt.
Death was not just a rite of passage in Predynastic village society requiring the proper ceremony, but was also probably a means of giving
meaning to and reasserting the role of the individual in the mythological
world. Specific myths and deities are unknown in Egypt until there are
texts of myths and/or representational
art of deities. But the cyclical
nature of important events of agricultural life in Predynastic Egypt-the
daily cycle of the sun (night/day), the seasons of the year, and the annual
flooding-must
have influenced the developing belief system. These were
the forces of nature that ensured agricultural fertility. And perhaps the
cyclical nature of life/death was tied into a mythical framework of the
cosmos, which was symbolized in body orientation of burials. From the
south (the direction in which the skeletons head pointed) came the lifegiving waters of the Nile, and the sun set each day in the west (the
direction in which the head faced). Orientation of burial gave meaning to
the individuals
place, and to a larger extent, the groups place in this
cosmos. Social harmony was embedded in the natural cosmological order
(Kus 1982:52), thereby legitimizing
the social order, as symbolized in
burials.
It was in the cemeteries where cult was practiced most visibly in

IDEOLOGY

IN

THE

EVOLUTION

OF

SOCIETY

IN

EGYPT

15

Predynastic Egypt, and burials are possibly the material evidence of the
mythic beliefs of this mortuary cult. Although the symbolism of orientation is somewhat abstract in specific meaning, Predynastic burials are to
be read in terms of their cosmological symbolism, as well as other
more obvious forms of symbolism, which gave meaning and explanation
to village agricultural life. Perhaps in burials the symbolic dichotomy of
opposing forces (life/death) is first seen, which takes clear form in dynastic times: the good son (Horus) vs. the bad son (Seth), the living king
(Hot-us) vs. the dead king (Osiris), the Black Land (Egypt, kmr) vs. the
Red Land (the deserts, &rt), the kingdom of Upper Egypt vs. that of
Lower Egypt.
Predynastic cemeteries in Upper Egypt represent more than beliefs
associated with the death of individuals and the living who performed the
burials, however. The cemeteries were symbolic space for the dead, set
apart in the low desert from the space of the living-the
villages, fields,
and river. This was a form of ancestor worship outside the house and the
village. The cemeteries represent at the minimum a sense of membership
in that community,
and perhaps an ideology of the right of that community to farm and control the surrounding land, as legitimized by descent
from common ancestors buried in the village cemetery.
Ideology of the mortuary cult was functional for early agriculturalists in
Egypt because it (1) legitimized exclusive rights of access to land to farm,
and (2) provided social cohesion as a rite of passage for members of a
social unit. This ideology also gave explanation and meaning to an individuals position in village society, and that is why there were differentiated burials-which
were symbols of different positions. But in a larger
sense this ideology also gave meaning to the individuals
place in the
mythological cosmos.
Even a huge Predynastic cemetery such as the main cemetery at Nagada, with over 2000 burials spanning all three Nagada periods (close to
1000 years), could not represent an entire population. That some members of society were excluded from burial may have been a means of
social control. Group affinity can perhaps be interpreted from the earliest
Predynastic cemeteries, which may also have served as symbols of constraint for deviant social behavior (resulting in the denial of a proper
burial). Possibly the cemeteries were not only the focus of activity during
burial rites, but places where the living would reaffirm their association
with the dead ancestors periodically after burial, such as Kemp suggests
for dynastic times by the pilgrimage
to the family tomb (Kemp
1989:313).
Most likely the family of the deceased was responsible for excavation
of the grave, burial, and funeral rites. But who was responsible for the
collection of grave goods, sometimes in great quantities with some items

16

KATHRYN

A. BARD

made of rare materials-the

deceased while he/she was living, his/her
family, the chief heir, members of the community obligated to the deceased, or a combination
of these? This question probably cannot be
answered from archaeological
evidence, but inheritance patterns and
what was actually buried with the deceased would have depended on such
roles. Perhaps grave goods were of three types: (1) personal goods used
by the deceased in life, such as jewelry; (2) symbolic goods for use in the
afterlife, such as food; and (3) gifts by those obligated to the deceased by
social and/or kin ties. For elite burials, the prestige of the chief heir could
only have been enhanced among the living by ritual gift-giving in the
burial of the person from whom he inherited, which in turn would have
enhanced his position or actual power.
Not all Predynastic villages remained simple farming communities. Although I no longer see population pressure as a major factor when complex society first emerged in Egypt (Bard and Cameiro 1989), as more
permanent facilities accumulated in villages, and as a particular subsistence strategy (farming) proved to be effective in the long-run, villagers
would have become less motivated to move elsewhere (away from the
ancestors). Villages that became increasingly dependent on specialized
agriculture were vulnerable to periodic fluctuations in yields (Hassan
1984:223), and village farmers would have been motivated to grow a surplus. Leaders/managers
of that surplus, or shamans who successfully
predicted and ensured agricultural success, might have acted as distributors of the surplus (Hassan 1988: 169). But at some point the distributors
became appropriators
of the surplus and managers of the economy, and
finally chiefs(?) who exacted tribute. And controlling surplus agricultural
wealth was the key to social differentiation.
The surplus could then be
transformed into other forms of wealth--craft
goods and increasingly
elaborate burials-first
as symbols of status and then as symbols of emergent power, involving an ideological
manipulation of the material symbols (Tilley 1984: 143).
In opposition to an earlier position (Bard and Cameiro 1989:22), I am
becoming more convinced that the rise of complex society in Predynastic
Egypt was the result of increasing economic exchange and integration
between formerly economically autonomous villages (Hassan 1988: 165).
Some grave goods undoubtedly were a result of exchange and trade with
centers of production. At Hierakonpolis
archaeological evidence for craft
specialization has been reported by Hoffman (1988:45), who suggests that
those who managed craft production and exchange became powerful
community leaders.
Interest in goods beyond those required for basic subsistence is based
on the premise that given the opportunity, people in most complex societies are acquisitive and want to own status goods. Perhaps elites arose in

IDEOLOGY

IN THE

EVOLUTION

OF

SOCIETY

IN

EGYPT

17

Predynastic Egypt not only by appropriating food surpluses, but also by

controlling acquisition of raw materials, craft production, and distribution. Control of craft production would not only have increased the base
of wealth of elites, but more supporters could then have been rewarded
with the distribution of status goods. Chiefly distribution of craft items
and materials became a mechanism which regulated the tributary economy (Wright 1984:45).
How an elite which controlled the economy arose was perhaps through
the skillful manipulation of economic interactions. Qualities of leadership
for increasingly larger social units, during times of prosperity as well as
during times of conflict, which inevitably arose, would also have enhanced an elites position. And the invocation of a special relationship
with supernatural forces would have justified the material advantages of
such status, as symbolized in rich burials, through which the ruling elite
may have guaranteed the continued maintenance of prosperity. Through
time an ideological shift probably occurred in which chiefs(?) became
more closely linked to supernatural beings, and finally the ruler of the
Early Dynastic state became a god-king.
In this culture acquisition of wealth was directed toward burial because
of the underlying belief system. There is a striking lack of material acquisition in the Predynastic settlements surveyed in the Hu-Semaineh
region, and cultural deposits are thin (Bard 1989b:477). Although over
1000 burials are found in the Predynastic cemeteries in this region, residential diversity, or even any architecture of a more permanent nature,
such as in mud-brick, could not be found in a survey of the associated
villages. I cannot explain a lack of more permanent architecture which
might represent the administration of more complex regional and longdistance economic interactions except that relevant settlement data must
be missing.
If archaeological evidence for Predynastic villages suggestsvery perishable architecture for the most part, evidence for Predynastic cult centers is even more elusive. Only one late Predynastic shrine is known from
Hierakonpolis at HK-29A (Hoffman, Hamroush, and Allen 1986:184;
Hoffman 1987:48-67), and evidence for Early Dynastic shrines is not
extensive (Kemp 1989:65-83). Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egyptians
clearly put their greatest material effort into cemeteries, which reinforced
the evolving ideologies of legitimacy and control. As complex society
emerged in Egypt with elites, there was a transformation of the ideology
from that of simple agricultural villages with the right to farm their land,
established/legitimized through descent from ancestors, as demonstrated
by the presence of those ancestors burials in adjacent cemeteries, to an
ideology that legitimized social differentiation (Pearson 1982:112).
In a recent overview of Predynastic cultural development, Hassan links

18

KATHRYN

A. BARD

the power legitimation

of chiefs to the association between chiefs and
mothers, among mothers, sons, and fertility goddesses, and between fertility and funeral rites (Hassan 1988: 170). Hoffman (1982: 146) states that
the Predynastic mortuary cult at Hierakonpolis
had a latent function to
glorify and legitimize the emerging elite. But ideology was used not only
to manipulate and justify changing social/political
organization. Ideology
was also an effective means of real social and economic control, while
maintaining
social cohesiveness by those who participated in specific
burial ritual. Behind the mortuary evidence for social hierarchies at Nagada (Bard 1989a) is the ideological sanctity for such differentiation.
This
ideological sanctity developed to justify increasing socio-economic divisions, control of the economy and exchange systems, and possibly emergent political roles. In the absence of institutionalized
power, chiefdoms
as well as emerging states were preoccupied with displays of power (Marcus 1974:83). In a period of such rapid social change as the Predynastic,
symbols of power-and
legitimacy-may
have evolved with disproportionate significance in the material culture, as symbolized in burial practices. Ritual activities [including mortuary] may be conceived as a particular form of the ideological legitimation of the social order (Shanks and
Tilley 1982:130), which became successfully integrated into the underlying belief system surrounding death.
Control of the exchange system was not motivated by gaining access to
basic subsistence materials lacking in the local environment, which were
plentiful, but for control of sumptuary goods important to the symbolism
of the ideology, as seen in burials, which was a means of social control
and legitimation.
There is a definite relationship between the burial system and elite goods and pottery (Hoffman 1982: 130). Exchange of exotic
materials, such as lapis lazuli and gold, and goods from different regions,
occurred as the ritual and ideological subsystem became a motivating
force for increasing regional exchange and interaction, which I believe
was a major factor in the rise of social complexity in Predynastic Egypt.
The management of this exchange system in goods, as well as in specialized agricultural produce, was facilitated and indeed enhanced in Egypt
by the ease of river transport, and managers of the exchange system may
have been responsible for sponsoring boat-building and other exchangerelated activities.
Increasing economic interaction
combined with a
shared belief system surrounding death/the afterlife would have facilitated
regional political integration.
Perhaps because so many goods were going into burials and taken out
of circulation in the economy (particularly in later Predynastic times), this
in part may have stimulated economic expansion and eventually conquest. Conrad and Demarest (1984:218) have suggested for the Mexica

IDEOLOGY

IN

THE

EVOLUTION

OF

SOCIETY

IN

EGYPT

19

and Inca that ideology necessitated expansionism by creating dynamic

imbalances in these two societies. Although ideology itself was not directly responsible for economic expansion in Predynastic Egypt, the material form that the burial ideology took must have stimulated increasing
craft production and exchange. And perhaps control of much of the economy and a monopoly of long-distance trade in the Old Kingdom were a
result of expansionist economic policies aimed at direct control begun in
the late Predynastic (into northern Egypt) and in the Early Dynastic period (into Nubia and the northern Sinai). Direct control of much larger
economic units in late Predynastic times could logically be extended to
other spheres of economic control of the state in dynastic times: of monumental architecture, labor, taxation, and land ownership. State religion
of the god-king was manipulated to legitimize the power of the Early
Dynastic state, but it also greatly influenced the type of highly centralized
state that evolved by Dyn. 3, in control of vast resources and most of the
land.
CONCLUSION

What I see, then, in the evidence for symbolic behavior in Predynastic

burials is both a reflection of social hierarchies and increasing stratification through time, as well as the transformation into material remains of
concepts in the societys ideational subsystem. Those in control of the
socio-economic system manipulated the ideological subsystem of beliefs
concerning death (afterlife?) and legitimacy to reinforce their position, for
their own legitimacy. Within this belief system was the symbolic code
which reinforced social differentiation within the material culture of burials (Hodder 1982a: 153). Through ideology and its symbolic material form
in burials, widely held beliefs concerning the dead came to reflect the
hierarchical social organization of the living as effectively controlled by a
political elite. And the belief in the importance of participation in specific
burial ritual provided cohesiveness and acceptance as true social hierarchies evolved.
Ideology played a fundamental and dynamic role in actual social and
economic relations as complex society emerged in Egypt. Once formulated, beliefs can assume a life of their own, substantially effecting a
societys productive activities (Kohl 198 1: 109). Evidence that ideology
was not static is seen in the evolving form of burials: from village cemeteries, to isolated elite cemeteries (Cemetery T), to royal tombs and funerary palaces of Dyn. 1, to the Step Pyramid, and tinally the true pyramid. Such transformations of burial type not only reflect the evolution of
social complexity, but also the politically motivated transformation of the

20

KATHRYN

A. BARD

belief system with direct consequences in the socio-economic

system.
Ideology was a source of power and functioned as a dynamic element in
the evolution of a new social order (Demarest 1989:97-98).
This was a very powerful ideology: that major economic effort would
be expended to provide for death, and with the emergence of the state, the
greatest effort was expended on the kings death. Not only was the king
accorded the most elaborate burial, but the standard offering formula of
the Old Kingdom (htp d!nsw: a boon which the king gives to Osiris . . .
for the k3 of X) demonstrates that the kings legitimate position was
associated with the mortuary cult of his subjects, as mediator between the
powers of the netherworld and his deceased subjects. But this was also an
ideology in which individuals continued to play a part, as evidenced by
the wide range of burial forms in dynastic times. The motivation to provide for a good burial, and therefore to guarantee some form of afterlife,
also provided a certain amount of social cohesiveness through a belief in
an earthly and cosmic order.
The belief system surrounding Egyptian mortuary practices originated
in a core area in Upper Egypt in early Predynastic times, and through
expanding interaction and exchange spread to northern Egypt (Gerza in
the Fayum region; Petrie, Wainwright, and MacKay 1912) and Nubia (the
A-Group; Nordstrom 1972) by Nagada II times, and finally to the Delta in
the Nagada III period (Minshat Abu Omar; Wildung 1984). When style of
burial changed in the north, from simple Maadian burials with few or no
grave goods, to much more elaborate burials with Nagada culture grave
goods, as seen at Minshat Abu Omar, this change of style is informative
about the processes of political unification in Egypt. That some dynastic
mortuary symbolism has direct antecedents in patterns seen in the Predynastic burials of Upper Egypt suggests that the major ideological roots
of the dynastic state are probably to be found in Predynastic Upper
Egypt, which also tells us something about the political and economic
origins of the early state in Egypt.
Symbolism, as interpreted from the material remains of burials, may be
multi-faceted. What might appear to be a straightforward interpretation of
social differentiation
may be multi-dimensional.
I suggest that Predynastic mortuary evidence can be analyzed not only from a cultural processual
perspective, but also for more specific interpretations
of symbolism as
suggested by proponents of the postprocessual school because there is
cultural continuity from prehistoric into dynastic times, when writing
appears and texts concerning Egyptian beliefs are known. It is not a
matter of interpreting the social, political, economic, and ideological aspects of society as different spheres, but cultural spheres which reinforce
each other positively as society evolves in complexity. In the Egyptian

IDEOLOGY

IN THE

EVOLUTION

OF

SOCIETY

IN

EGYPT

21

Predynastic of Upper Egypt an ideology evolved in which the most striking archaeological evidence is mortuary, and it is important to examine all
dimensions of burials to determine the various levels of meaning.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A. Bernard Knapp, Joyce Marcus, Curtis Runnels, Bruce Trigger, Irene Winter, and an
anonymous reviewer provided helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

REFERENCES CITED
Baines, John
1988 Literacy, social organization, and the archaeological record: The case of early
Egypt. In Stare and society. The emergence and development of social hierarchy and political centralization, edited by G. Gledhill, B. Bender, and M. T.
Larsen, pp. 192-214. Unwin Hyman, London.
1989 Communication and display: The integration of early Egyptian art and writing.
Antiquity 63:471482.
Bard, Kathryn
1987a An Analysis of the Predynastic Cemeteries of Nagada and Armant in Terms of
Social Differentiation. The Origin of the State in Predynastic Egypt. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Toronto.
1987b The geography of excavated Predynastic sites and the rise of complex society.
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt X81-93.
1988 A quantitative analysis of the Predynastic burials in Armant Cemetery MOO1500. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 7439-55.
1989a The evolution of social complexity in Predynastic Egypt: An analysis of the
Nagada cemeteries. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2(2):223-248.
1989b Predynastic settlement patterns in the Hu-Semaineh region, Egypt. Journal of
Field Archaeology 16(4):475-478.
Bard,
K. A., and Robert L. Cameiro
1989 Patterns of Predynastic settlement location, social evolution, and the circumscription theory. Cahier de Recherches de Ilnstitut de Papyrologie et dZ&yptologie de Lille 11:15-23.
Baumgartel, Elise
1970 Petries Nagada Excavation. A Supplement. Bernard Quaritch, London.
Binford, Lewis R.
1972 Mortuary practices: Their study and their potential. In An Archaeological Perspective, edited by L. R. Binford, pp. 208-243. Seminar Press, New York.
Cannon, Aubrey
1989 The historical dimension in mortuary expressions of status and sentiment. Current Anthropology 30(4):437458.
Case, Humphrey, and Joan C. Payne
1%2 Tomb 100: The Decorated Tomb at Hierakonpolis. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 485-18.
Castillos, J. J.
1981 An analysis of the tombs in the Predynastic cemeteries at Nagada. Journal of the
Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 10(2):97-106.

22

KATHRYN

A.

BARD

Chang, K. C.
Myth,
and Ritual.
The Path to Political
Authority
in Ancient
China. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Conrad, Geoffrey W., and Arthur A. Demarest
1984 Religion and Empire. The Dynamics
of Aztec and Inca Expansionism.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
DAuria, Sue, Peter Lacovara, and Catharine H. Roehrig
1988 Mummies
and Magic.
The Funerary
Arts of Ancient
Egypt. Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston.
Davis, Whitney
1983 Cemetery T at Nagada. Mitteilungen
des deutschen
Instituts
fiir tigyptische
Altertumskunde
in Kairo 3917-28.
Demarest, Arthur A.
1989 Ideology and evolutionism in American archaeology: Looking beyond the economic base. In Archaeological
Thought in America,
edited by C. C. LambergKarlovsky, pp. 89-102. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
de Morgan, J.
1897 Recherches
sur les Origines
de IRgypte.
Ethnographie
prehistorique
et tombeau royal de Negaduh.
Ernest Leroux, Paris.
Emery, W. B.
1949 Great Tombs of the First Dynasty (Vol. I). Government Press, Cairo.
1954 Great Tombs ofthe First Dynasty (Vol. II). Egypt Exploration Society, London.
1958 Great Tombs of the First Dynasty (Vol. III). Egypt Exploration Society, London.
1%7 Archaic Egypt. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
Flannery, Kent V.
1972a The cultural evolution of civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and System1983

Art,

atics

3:399426.

1972b The origins of the village as a settlement type in Mesoamerica and the Near
East: A comparative study. In Man, Settlement,
and Urbanism,
edited by P. J.
Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 23-53. Schenkman, Cambridge,
Mass.
Hassan, Fekri A.
1984 Toward a model of agricultural developments in Predynastic Egypt. In Origin
and Early

Development

of Food-producing

cultures

in North-eastern

Africa,

edited by L. Krzyzaniak and Michal Kobusiewicz, pp. 221-224. Polska Akademia Nauk-Oddzial W. Poznaniu, Poznan.
1988 The Predynastic of Egypt. Journal of World Prehistory
2(2): 135-185.
Hodder, Ian
1982a The identification and interpretation of ranking in prehistory: A contextual perspective. In Ranking,
Resource
and Exchange,
edited by C. Renfrewand S.
Sherman, pp. 150-154. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1982b Symbols in Action.
Ethnoarchaeological
Studies of Material
Culture.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hoffman, Michael Allen
1982 The Predynastic
of Hierakonpolis-An
Interim
Report.
Egyptian Studies Association Publication No. 1, Cairo.
1987 A Final Report to the National Endowment
for the Humanities
on Predynastic
Research
at Hierakonpolis,
198546.
Earth Sciences and Resources Institute,
University of South Carolina.

IDEOLOGY
1988

IN THE EVOLUTION

OF SOCIETY IN EGYPT

23

Before the Pharaohs. How Egypt became the worlds first nation-state. The
Sciences, Jan.-&h. 198840-47.
Hoffman, M. A., H. A. Hamroush, and R. 0. Allen
1986 A model of urban development for the Hierakonpolis region from Predynastic
through Old Kingdom times. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
23:175-187.
Huntington, Richard, and Peter Metcalf
1979 Celebrations ofDeath. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kaiser, Werner
1964 Eine Bemerkungen zur iigyptischen Friihzeit. Zeitschrifrfur iigyptische Sprache
und Altertumskunde 91:86-125.
Kaiser, Werner, and Gunter Dreyer
1982 Umm el-Qaab Nachuntersuchungen in friihzeitlichen Konigfriedhof. 2. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des deutschen Znstituts ftir cigyptische Altertumskunde in
Kairo 5821 l-269.
Kemp, Barry J.
1966 Abydos and the royal tombs of the First Dynasty. Journal ofEgyptian Archaeology 52: 13-22.
1%7 The Egyptian 1st Dynasty Royal Cemetery. Antiquity 41:22-32.
1973 Photographs of the Decorated Tomb at Hierakonpolis. Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 593643.
1989 Ancient Egypt. Anatomy of a Civilization. Routledge, London.
Kohl, P. L.
1981 Materialist approaches in prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 10~8%
118.
Kus, Susan
1982 Matters material and ideal. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by
Ian Hodder, pp. 47-62. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Marcus, Joyce
1974 The Iconography of power among the Classic Maya. World Archaeology
6(1):83-94.
Miller, Daniel, and Christopher Tilley (editors)
1984a Ideology, power and prehistory: An introduction. In Ideology, Power and Prehistory, edited by D. Miller and C. Tilley, pp. 1-15. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
1984b Conclusions. Ideology, power and long-term social change. In Ideology, Power
and Prehistory, edited by D. Miller and C. Tilley, pp. 147-152. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Mond, Sir Robert, and Oliver H. Myers
1937 Cemeteries of Armant I. Egypt Exploration Society, London.
Nordstrom, Hans-dike
1972 Neolithic and A-Group Sites. Scandinavian University Books, Stockholm.
OShea, John
1984 Mortuary Variability. An Archaeological Investigation. Academic Press, Orlando.
Pearson, Michael Parker
1982 Mortuary practices, society, and ideology. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 99-113. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

24

KATHRYN

A. BARD

Petrie, W. M. Flinders
1901 Diospolis Parva. The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu. Egypt Exploration Fund,
London.
Petrie, W. M. F., and J. E. Quibell
18% Nagada and Ballas. British School of Egyptian Archaeology Publications, London.
Petrie, W. M. F., G. A. Wainwright, and E. MacKay
1912 The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazguneh. British School of Archaeology in Egypt,
London.
Quibell, J. E., and F. W. Green
1902 Hierakonpolis. Part II. Egypt Research Account, London.
Rattray, R. S.
1%9 Religion and Art in Ashanti. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Saad, Zaki Y.
1947 Royal Excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1941-1945). Imprimerie de IInstitut
Fran@ darcheologie orientale, Cairo.
Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley
1982 Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: A reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by
Ian Hodder, pp. 129154. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shennan, Stephen
1982 Ideology, change and the European Early Bronze Age. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 155-161. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Smith, G. Elliot
1923 The Ancient Egyptians and the Origin of Civilization. Harper & Brothers, London.
Tilley, Christopher
1984 Ideology and the legitimation of power in the Middle Neolithic of Southern
Sweden. In Ideology, Power and Prehistory, edited by D. Miller and Christopher Tilley, pp. 11l-146. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1983 The rise of Egyptian civilization. In Ancient Egypt: A Social Histoty, edited by
B. G. Trigger, B. J. Kemp, D. OConnor and A. B. Lloyd, pp. l-70. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
1987 Egypt: a fledgling nation. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian
Antiquities 17( l/2):58-66.
Van Gennup, A.
1960 The Rites ofpassage, translated by hi. B. Vizedom and G. L. Caffee. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Wildung, Dietrich
1984 Terminal Prehistory of the Nile Delta: Theses. In Origin and Early Development
of Food-Producing Cultures in North-eastern Africa, edited by L. Krzyzaniak
and M. Kobusiewicz, pp. 265-269. Muzeum Archeologiczne W. Poznaniu,
Poznan.
Wright, Henry T.
1984 Prestate political formations. In On the Evolution of Complex Societies. Essays
in Honor of Harry Hoijer 1982, edited by Timothy Earle, pp. 41-77. Undena
Publications, Malibu.