JOA Journal of Open Archaeology Volume 2. 2013  X.Cathedra Publications The meta-morphic lines: A re-examination of C-Ware in terms of chronology, typology and Iconography G. D. NEWELL Abstract A comprehensive study of Egyptian Predynastic C-ware suggests there is little substantive evidence to support many of the interpretive revisions assigned to the ware in the past few decades, especially in regard to the symbolic and ideological content of its painted decoration.  And although C-ware still remains enigmatic, this paper nonetheless uses the available data to amend a number of conclusions with regard to the chronology, development and 'meaning' of the C-ware decorative designs. Firstly, the evidence for the ware being placed at the very beginning of the Nagada sequence (i.e. PNC 1a) is robust and based, in part, on a general seriation of the Nagada period, as well as on the direct morphological links the C-ware ‘keeled’ pots have with their Badarian counterparts. The development of the C-ware decorative linage is similarly interrogated and leads to the conclusion that a number of recurrent design features are likely to have been taken directly from basketry. It is also argued that the wares’ ‘function’ was simply a ceramic derivative of the ritual and symbolic utility given to its basket antecedent. Introduction White cross-lined pottery, or C-ware, is the idiosyncratic, but often understated, decorated pottery of the Amration/PNC I phase of the Egyptian Predynastic (Petrie 1901: 9, Newell 2012a). It was first described by Petrie in: ‘Nagada and Balles’ in 1895 where it also formed one of his nine classes of Predynastic pottery. These classes were in turn used by Petrie in his famous relative chronology of the period (1899: 295-301, 1901: 4-12). Former, and more provisional, names of the ‘ware’ were given in the earlier ‘Nagada and Ballas’ publication (Petrie and Quibell.1895) in which Quibell called an unpolished variant of the ware ‘White painted pottery’ (1895: 13) whilst Petrie chose to call its polished counterpart: ‘Polished red pottery with white cross-lines’ (1895: 37 to 38). Today both the polished and unpolished variations come under the same C-ware categorization, as the white/cream paint, which is applied to the surface finish of the pot, is now recognized as the main determinant of the ware. Many of the previous publications on the subject have tended to focus on a few atypical pieces, from which generalizations for the entire corpus have been extrapolated. Unfortunately many of these papers have become standard texts, which have resulted in a whole generation of Egyptologists being potentially misinformed about the more representative and generalized features of the ware. A further distortion of the class comes about through the seaming preference in many museums to displays mostly atypical examples of it. A more worrisome aspect of many of the displays is that they often contain unprovenanced materials, and there can be little doubt that, within this category, a number of forgeries must exist (see: Brunton, 1934: 149-156; Hendrickx, 2002: 29-30; Lupton, 1992; Petrie, 1920. Although the aforementioned authors deal with forgeries within D-ware, I suggest the demand for C- ware pots would have driven a similar response in the production and trading in C-ware forgeries. This paper is then, an attempt to rebalance the knowledge base in terms of what can and cannot be stated with a reasonable degree of confidence about the wares more representative characteristics. Within this more measured framework of analysis, a number of hypotheses are developed regarding the wares possible function in terms of its chronology, conceptual origins, utility, and the symbolism of its decoration. These ideas remain semi-quantitative in nature, that is: a class of theory in which, although a quantitative analysis can be usefully undertaken, its overall contribution is not substantive enough to support a given argument with a high degree of confidence. This is an important admission, which is sadly often neglected or deliberately bye passed by authors who want to claim for their work a degree of authority it often does not possess. From C-wares’ first published appearance in the 1890s a number of researchers have made significant contributions in respect to the description and analysis of the ware. Some of the more prominent researchers include: Arkell (1965), Baumgartel (1955, 1960, 1965), Brunton (1928), Friedman (1985, 1994), Finkenstaedt (1980, 1981, 1982 and 1985), Graff (2007, 2009, 2010), Navajas (2007 to 2010), Scharff (1929),Van Lepp (1995) and Wengrow (2007). The contributions from a number of these authors will be discussed throughout this document. Pertaining to the methodology used in this paper: the initial analysis was undertaken on some one hundred and seventy individual C-ware pots, most of which were clearly drawn and provenanced by either Brunton (1928) or Petrie (1921). Many of the a-fore mentioned vessels are now housed in various museums of the world. However, the two largest and most important collections of C-ware pottery remain a few blocks from each other: in the British and Petrie museums of London. Additional vessels have occasionally been used when their inclusion assists with the fuller exploration of particular aspects of the ware such as painting styles and regionality. This paper is arranged into four main sections. The first is a short statistical review, whilst section two discusses a variety of historic ideas regarding the origins and chronology of the ware. Section three is a longer and more comprehensive description of the morphological features of the pottery in terms of shape, size, fabric, finish, decoration and probable firing methodology. Also included in this section is the examination of the pottery decoration. The last section is the discussion where a number of ideas regarding the origins and functionality of the decoration are explored. SECTION ONE Statistical summery A non technical paper such as this is arguably not an appropriate setting for a full review of the statistics used during its construction. I will accordingly limit myself to a generalized reading of some of the more pertinent observations - a summery of which is given in Table 1. It will be noted that the data sets are not large; nonetheless they probably constitute a statistically representative proportion of the C-ware types present in the cemeteries used in this paper. It is also evident from the proportion of graves which can be ascribed to the period of C-ware use, that the populations appear to be very small: no larger than 5 to 10 adults per generation. When looking at this group of internments, the excavation reports show that a quarter of the population were not buried with any ceramics at all. From this, it is clear that the number of graves which contain C-ware makes up a relatively large proportion of the entire pottery assemblage from this period. That is, during its ascendancy, which probably lasted no more than eighty years, the ware would have accounted for well over 30% of the total number of pots deposited as grave goods. In summery then, and counter to declarations made by many researchers, C-ware was a relatively abundant ware. Table 1. C-ware data sets separated - by column - into their source publications (Inclusive of both surface and grave finds). Nagada 1 Nagada 2 Corpus Matmar Badari No of pots 59 50 166 3 11 No of graves ~30 25 N/A 2 10 C-ware dec. containing animals 5 1 21 0 1 C-ware dec. containing humans 0 0 3 0 1 C-ware duplicate types N/A 5 N/A 0 1 2 or more C-ware types per grave N/A 14 N/A 1 1 Columns Index Nagada 1 Nagada 2 Corpus Matmar Badari Nagada & Ballas. Petrie and Quibell (1896) Supplement and Appendix to Nagada and Ballas. Baumgartel and Payne (1965 and 1987) Corpus of Predynastic pottery. Petrie (1921) Matmar. Brunton (1948) The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari. Brunton (1928) The first column of table 1 displays the areas of the relevant data sets which are quantized in the subsequent five columns e.g. the first row displays the total number of pots reported in the headed excavation reports, whilst row two displays the number of graves from which the total number of pots were found. The animals and human rows give the total number of C-ware pots in which recognizable zoomorphic and human forms are contained within the painted decoration of the relevant pots. The duplicates row gives the number of copies of a particular type which were recognized by the authors of the said excavation reports whilst the last row displays the number of graves in which two or more C-ware pots were found. The second column ‘Nagada 1 pertains to Petrie’s and Quibell’s 1896 ‘Nagada and Ballas’ publication. The book contains a number of plates in which all the C-ware pots found during the 1894/5 season are drawn to a reduced scale of 1: 6 inches (plates: XXVIII - XXIX). As can be read from table 1, fifty nine pots are drawn, of which only five contain zoomorphic elements within the painted decoration. The third column contains the relevant details provided by Joan Crowfoot Payne in her 1984 ‘Appendix’ to Baumgartel’s 1970 ‘Petrie’s Naqada Excavations: a Supplement’. It will be noted that, despite the fact that the Nagada 1 and Nagada 2 publications are both based on Petrie’s original 1895/6 excavations, there are nevertheless a number of differences between them. The reasons for these variations are discussed in the ‘Supplement’ (ibid). These variations do however mean that a fuller analysis of the C-ware inventory from the Nagada cemetery is only possible when both sources are examined together. The forth column headed ‘Corpus’ contains the details from Petrie’s ‘Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery and Palettes’ (1921). The publication contains most, if not all, of the C-ware types Petrie found during his excavations between 1895 and 1920. It will certainly contain, in addition to the Nagada material, the C-ware types found during the seminal 1898/9 excavations at Hu. The ‘Matmar’ (1948) and ‘Badari’ (1928) columns contain the important contributions made by Guy Brunton during his field work in Egypt during the 1920s and early 30s. The drawings of the Badari C-ware types are set out on plate XXXVIII of the Badari publication. Bullet point summaries for graves containing pots There are a total of 183 C-ware types illustrated in the Corpus, Matmar and Badari publications The mean number of pots per grave is just under two The mode number of pots per grave is one. The maximum number of C-ware pots per grave is four (in 3 graves) If we use Petrie’s S.D. ranges used in his 1921 Corpus as an approximate guide upon which to calculate the ratios of each class, we find that C-ware makes up around thirty percent of all the types used during the C-ware phase (more than P-ware). The authors’ seriation of the Nagada Cemetery shows a marked drop in the prevalence of C-ware during the latter stages of the Amration/PNC I phase (see chronology below). This observation will tend to push up the percentage of C-ware pots in the very early ‘pottery’ graves into the mid 30s range. SECTION TWO Chronology A number of deeply frustrating problems still beset the relative chronology of the Nagada culture (see Hendrickx (1996: 36; Newell 2012b, 2012c; Savage 2001: 1255-1277). And even though most researchers tend to agree on the broad sequence, there is still disagreement in respect to much of the detail. This lack of concurrence is due in part by a nomenclature and relative chronology which are both notoriously ill defined and occasionally just plain wrong. This lack of precision can be clearly seen in the chronological parameters of C-ware as outlined by a number of authors which include Crowfoot (1992); Finkenstaedt (1981: 7); Hartmann (2011); Hendrickx (1996, 1999, 2006, 2010); Wilkinson (1993) and Friedman (1985). The first effort to pin point the genesis of C-ware was made by Petrie as part of his seriation based relative chronology of the Predynastic, a process described in Diopolis Parva (1901:14). Within this chronology, C-ware is given a very limited life span of SD31 to SD34 (1920: 14-16), that is, in Petrie’s so called ‘earlier Amration’. Petrie also suggested that the bowls and dishes with painted centre circles are generally older than those vessels in which the central area has been left blank. He also suggested that the tall jars and jugs were probably also later. In Kaiser’s later relative chronology (1956, 1957) C-ware is also put at the beginning of the sequence, which in Kaiser’s revised nomenclature is called Stufe Ia. This very early genesis of C-ware within the Amration/PNC 1 (Newell 2012a, 2013a) phase has however been questions by both Finkenstaedt (1981: 7) and Friedman (1985), although only the latter author has qualified this divergence as being (somewhat vaguely), sometime after the beginning of the Amration. My own re-examination of the data replaces the genesis at the very beginnings of the Predynastic Nagada culture: PNC Ia (Newell 2012a, 2012b, 2013a). As with its beginnings, there are a variety of estimates routinely quoted with regards to the disappearance of C-ware. Petrie, it will be recalled, placed this episode around SD34, that is a little more than half way through his Amration phase, whilst Kaiser argues for a later ‘date’ located somewhere between the end of his Nagada I phase and the end of Stufe IIa in Nagada II . This ‘seepage’ between the two major phases of the Predynastic is all the more bazaar when one notes that one of Kaiser’s defining characteristics of Nagada II is the absence of C-ware. Anderson (2006:11); Friedman (1994:23); and Hendrickx (2010: 19) have however, to some extent, vindicated Kaiser’s fluidity of definition by arguing that, when other characterizations of Stufe IIa are brought into play, there is a clear argument for listing C-ware within this sub-phase. My own analysis of the relative chronology of C-ware places its end point approximately eighty to one hundred years after its introduction, that is, around the mid point of PNC I (again roughly in line with Petrie’s original estimations). It is a worthwhile exercise at this point to review the methodological robustness of each of the major players in the chronological debate. Petrie initially used the data from 700 and later some 900 graves, from at least four major cemeteries, in the construction of his relative chronology of the Predynastic. Kaiser, in contrast, used a single Predynastic cemetery at Armant, which only provided 148 graves and 119 usable types. The first burials in the cemetery also appears to be placed within Kaiser’s Stufe Ic, which may account for why only a single C-ware pot had been found by the original excavators. As this cemetery was clearly unsuited for providing a holistic relative chronology for the entire Predynastic, Kaiser added additional types, and C-ware pots, from a variety of undisclosed sources in order to fill in the gaps. These additions were also ‘spliced’ into the Armant data without recourse to the original horizontal stratagraphic methodology. Friedman’s studies Naga ed Der (1981) and Payne’s studies at Nagada (1990, 1992) were both unable to resolve the inconclusive nature of the C-ware’s relative chronology within the Stufen system. A seriation by Kemp (1982), at another Predynastic cemetery, used an even smaller data set than Kaiser’s, in this case: only seventy graves. The seriation was further compromised in its ability to project a precise and accurate relative chronology through its grouping of types into single seriation entities. This ‘grouping’ methodology was again used by one of Kemp’s PhD students in another seriation of the Predynastic. The resultant PhD dissertation (Wilkinson, 1993) was quickly published and is now routinely used as a bench mark for the relative dating of the Predynastic. This reliance on Wilkinson’s work (in many ways as a check on Kaiser’s chronology) is manifestly unsound as the relatively small number of seriation units (119) are each made up of similarly shaped types which often have radically disparate SD and Stufen ranges. An examination of Wilkinson’s first pottery group: P001 (1993:105 ) illustrates how this methodology is hard to defend (see table 2). The group consists of twenty six B-ware bowls of which eleven are given SD ranges by Petrie in his 1921 Corpus. Table 2 displays the mean, mode, median and range obtained from these eleven bowls. Table 2 List and Statistical data from Wilkinson’s group P001. Group: P001 SD Range Statistics B1f, B11a, B11b, B11d, B11e, B11f, B11k, B11M, B11N B12a B15 31-70 35-61 31-56 31-44 36-63 31-63 38 38 31-38 57 31-61 Mean SD 44 Median SD 50 Mode SD 38 Range SD 31 to 70 A number of the more patent methodological limitations are displayed in the table. Perhaps the most serous of these, in terms of the aims and objectives of the original thesis, is the given chronological range of the group. Regardless of the precision and accuracy of Petrie’s sequence dating, many of the above bowls have nevertheless been found in provenanced association with pottery types which range from C-ware in Nagada I to later variations of W-ware in Nagada III. That is, the types within the group collectively span the entire period of the Predynastic. Even a superficial examination of the data in column 1 shows the problem lies in the inclusion within the group of a number of the types (e.g. B1f, B11f and B15), which have plotted ranges which are too long for a seriation constructed specifically to produce a relative chronology of the period. The second problem is that a similar examination will pick out a number of possible sub groups within this data set, such as: B11k, 11M and 11N which are certainly strong contenders for becoming a separate group in their own right. The third systemic difficulty, and itself a product of the first, is that the mean. median and mode figures produced from the SD ranges are not tightly grouped. This data is in effect signalling that there is a potential problem with either the overall composition of the group or with outliers distorting the stats of the main cluster. There are of course perfectly sound and valid reasons why, in most instances, the methodology chosen by Wilkinson would be acceptable -.the development of a robust relative chronology of the Egyptian Predynastic is however not one of them. The reason is simply that each and every group containing types with individually disparate ranges is nevertheless measured and converted into single units by the seriation programme. These units are in turn, via a number of algorithmic compromises, translated, sorted and ranked along a matrix which becomes the seriated relative chronology. The use of P001, even in combination with a relatively small number of similarly poorly sorted groups will therefore produce a relative chronology which is potentially grossly distorted, and as such incapable of delivering the necessary precision and accuracy required to support any form of meaningful research. In my own re-examination of the relative chronology of the Predynastic - using the techniques of seriation and horizontal stratigraphy on a data set of approximately one thousand graves and one thousand individual pottery types ( see Newell 2012b: dissertation proposal) - the relative position and density of the C-ware closely parallels Petrie’s original hypothesis. The only variation is in the genesis of C-ware, which, to reiterate Petrie’s supposition is at SD 31, whilst my own, if the same classification system is used , is placed at the very beginning of the sequence, namely, SD 30. A further argument in favour of C-ware occurring at the very beginning of the sequence is that the carinated vessels found within the C-ware range closely parallel those found in previous Badarian cultural phase. In summery, although, in principle, the superiority of Petrie’s system is now widely acknowledged, there is little evidence that Kaiser’s relative chronology, and its variants, are declining in popularity amongst Egyptologists. This somewhat bazaar situation is know doubt because Kaiser’s system makes a virtue out of not being too accurate, that is , academics using the system are less likely to be compelled, over time, to make amendments to their published hypothesis. Happily, as both Petrie and Kaiser place C-ware at the beginning of the Predynastic, my own estimates can be seen as relatively free of controversy. Cultural traditions during the fifth and forth Millenniums B.C. It has bee argued that the evidence for increasing desertification of large areas of North East Africa from around 5300 B.C. (Kuper and Kropelin, 2006) would have forced its peoples to develop new socio-cultural stratagems to survive the new environmental constraints. Crucially many of these groups would have needed to alter their migration patterns in order to access the dwindling water supplies. An almost inevitable corollary of this change would have been the formation of new socio cultural affiliations which in turn would have helped foster an environment open to technological innovation and change (Duff 2002). It has also been suggested that this ‘cultural interplay’ should include inputs from the Mesopotamian heartlands (Smith, 1992: 23-46). This cultural cross-fertilization can be observed in the use and manufacture of ceramics within the Badarian, Tasian and the Nubian A-group sub-cultures. e.g. Black-topped pottery and burnished thin walled Ripple-ware (e.g. Gatto 2009: 127). In the case of the new PNC I ceramic corpus, this was almost inevitably a further amalgamation of old styles and new ideas shaped in order to more properly reflect and sustain their evolving needs (see Hassan 1988: 144; Nelson 2002; Warfe 2003; Kuper and Kropelin 2006; Gatto 2001: 51-60, 2009: 126-145, 2011: 21-29). With regard to links between the Badarian and PNC I ‘sub-cultures’: although many features, particularly in terms of pottery and funerary traditions, show obvious similarities, I would argue that there are nevertheless enough differences to suggest that the links are based on a common socio-cultural ancestry rather than a direct lineage from one to the other (see Newell 2012c). However, this is far from being unequivocally resolved as the Badarian pottery corpus does, as outlined above, contain a number of carinated pots in which a number are themselves decorated (see Brunton 1928: plates XIII to XVI). This feature of the Badarian pottery corpus does therefore provide some evidence for a direct material connection. Another accepted avenue of investigation pertaining to the common cultural roots and affinities amongst the peoples North East Africa is driven by the rock art which has been found within its geographic boundaries. A sizable percentage of the art has been provisionally dated to the Predynastic period largely on the basis that its petroglyphic themes regularly appear in C-ware decoration e.g. boats, human figures, ibexes, antelopes/gazelles, bulls ostriches, dogs, a giraffe, an elephant and a hippopotamus (see Gatto et al. 2009). The relevance of the rock art has however been recently down played by a number of archaeologists (e.g. Wengrow 2006: 112-114). Friedman (2008) nevertheless continues to maintain that cosmological and ideological elements are present which are clearly related to the Nagada culture. SECTION THREE Generic descriptions of ware Shape Petrie was the first to note that C-ware types generally differed in shape from the undecorated variants of red polished ware, indeed a number of the types are unique to it. Petrie went on to suggest that this difference was manly to facilitate the painting and viewing of the ware (1895 :38). The most numerous of the C-ware types are the wide mouthed beakers (34% of the total) which typically have bevelled sides and flat bases - see Diagram 1B. The second most numerous form is the jar (19%), which usually has a narrow mouth (sometimes with a constricted neck), on top of a body length which is more than twice its base diameter. Shallow round bottomed dishes also occur relatively frequently. Rarer still, but by no means uncommon, are the carinated types - see Diagram 1A, and a number of other recurrent miscellaneous shapes. Most of the more exotic forms also occur as undecorated vessels in other ware classes, such as: F46 (double cups), F39 (the U shaped horns) and F24 (lugged tables). The full series of C-ware pots found at Nagada are reproduced as line drawings in the Petrie 1895 publication (Plates XXVIII, XXIX) Size The typical C-ware beaker has a maximum diameter of ~ 15cm and a max height of ~ 10cm, whereas a round bottomed dish will tend to have a slightly larger maximum diameter of 18 cm. And whilst it is very rare for individual types within the beaker/bowl categories to exceed these means by more than a few cms, there are however a few examples which are conspicuously smaller e.g. C50s with a height of 2cm and a diameter of 8 cm. The rarer vases/jars are generally taller than the beakers with some examples being ~ 36 cm high. In general terms then, the C-ware type is typified by its small and even miniature size, which would make the details of the decoration hard to discern unless the observer was very close to the object as would occur if it was being held in his/her hand. Fabric The three main ware categories within the early Predynastic, namely the B, C and P wares are all made from the same basic Nile silt source, which produces a ‘fine ware’ with a plum red colour. Finewares throughout Upper Egypt are typically, but not exclusively (see Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002), made of un-tempered clays, that is, no artificial materials is added to the clay during manufacture (Friedman 1994:93). Another similarity between these wares is that their surfaces tend to be burnished to give the polished effect noted in the fuller name for P ware, namely ‘red polished ware.’ This similarity was of cause noted by Petrie (1895: 37) who argued from it, that all these classes of pottery were made by the same potters who used and the same clay fabrics and the same modelling, firing and primary finishing techniques. There are a couple of fabric classification systems which tend to be used in the study of Predynastic pottery. The oldest of these are the Hierakonpolis Temper Classes devised by Hoffman (1982). This system was later revised and updated by Friedman (1994) who placed C-ware in both her tempered and un-tempered plum-red Nile silt categories. The other main scheme is the Vienna System (Nordström &Bourriau 1993) which places C-ware in the Nile A and B1 categories. Firing method Although the method or methods used to fire the ‘Nile silt plum-red’ pottery types is still controversial, the experimental work already undertaken strongly suggests that it is unlikely to have been an open or bonfire type firing method. Instead, (Baba and Saito (2002) suggest that good and consistent results could only have been obtained from a more sophisticated methodology such as a Unnan style mud -covered bonfire. A number of alternate views are also held by other researchers in the field, such as Hendrickx et al (2000: 171-185) and Hodges (1982: 45-51) Regional and local distribution Even though C-ware appears to have had a relatively limited ‘life’ it has nevertheless been found in locations as far South as Aswan and, in the opposite direction, as far as Asyut in the North - a navigation by river of some four hundred and sixty kilometres. C-ware was arguably then not a product which was made for a small and parochial clientele. However, even though regional and even super regional types are evidenced in many of the Early Predynastic cemeteries in Upper and Middle Egypt (see Newell 2012a, 2012d, 2013a; Hendrickx et al 2010), it is also clear that the ‘markets’ in which these potters were embedded tolerated, and perhaps even encouraged a reasonable degree of freedom in interpretation and innovation of design. Nevertheless, the ware is very rarely found outside of a cemetery context i.e. single sherds have been found in settlement contexts at Armant (Mond and Myers 1937: Pl. 54:6), and Halfia Gibli (Swain JSSEA 30 2003: 163), and a few pieces have been found at Hierakonpolis (Hoffman 1982: 16, 66-85), Badari Brunton 1928 :45) and Hemamieh (Caton-Thompson 1928:95-112) This disparity between settlement and cemetery contexts strongly suggests that the wares ‘function’ was predominantly associated with the dead. This finding is supported by Friedman (1997-81) who argues that objects routinely found within settlements are rarely recovered from Amration/PNC 1 graves. Decoration Thematic origins The fluid affiliations which must have existed between the different socio-cultural groups in North East Africa during the Neolithic period must undoubtedly have stimulated many of these groups to modify and coordinate their craft repertoires (see Lightfoot and Martinez 1995). It is therefore unsurprising that several authors have sought to relate the C-ware painted imagery with other known aspects of visual culture extant during the fifth and forth millennium B.C. Arkell (1965) for instance, argues that elements of the Khartoum Neolithic traditions can be seen in the C-ware decorations, whilst Baumgartel suggests that the ‘inspiration’ for many of the elements may have came from Mesopotamian prototypes (1955: 12 - 49, 102-3 and 1960: 105 and 1966: 13). Parallels with the rock art of the western desert have also been attempted but have not been particularly successful due to the difficulties of establishing reliable convergent chronologies Other Egyptologists (Petrie 1895: 37 to 38; 1920:14 Frankfort 1924: 94) have suggested that some of the designs are probably derived from basket-work. This theme will be covered much more extensively later on in the paper, when the evidence for both skeuomorphic and plectomorphic practices are examined in more detail. Paint The paint used on C-ware pottery, irrespective of theme, is composed of relatively thick lines of a material which, as far as I am aware, has never been chemically analysed but has been described variously as ‘gypsum’ by Quibell (1895: 13), a white slip clay by Petrie (1895: 37) and pinkish granular material by Finkenstaedt (1981:9). The painted lines themselves are raised slightly above the surface of the pot which, on very rare occasions has been incised before being filled with the white paste. The paint is applied before firing. A similar monochrome tradition is found in the earlier Badarian, Tasian and Nubian A groups (see Brunton 1928). The painted area is generally on the inner surface of the various beaker and bowl types. This means that the decoration can only be examined when the vessel is viewed from above. The less frequent use of decoration on the outside of the vessel ( about one third of the entire corpus) tends to be reserved for closed forms such as the carinated and jug types. Themes An analysis of the painted themes clearly show that a number of elements tend to be grouped together in a relatively large number of pots. Nonetheless, only a handful of pots have been found in which identical designs have been used. The typical C-ware design consists of a central outline of a circle surrounded by cross hatched chevrons which often form the outline of a star, or cruciform shape. There are, as outlined above, many variations on this basis theme and it is not uncommon for individual elements, such as the central circle, to be modified by the additional decorative component or even removed entirely from the field. Numbers of parallel lines are also often incorporated within this ‘standard’ compositional framework. Very infrequently the chevrons (as in C93) or the inner circle (as in C18e) are in-filled with paint. A relatively small number of pots are decorated with less formulaic themes whilst an even fewer group can be arguably described as positively liberal and creative in their painted subject matter (see C32, and 43 to 46 series). A great deal has been written about the figurative elements in the C-ware painted corpus. This penchant does however need to be examined within a more measured context in which the majority of types show no discernable figurative presence. That is, looking at the Nagada and Badari C-ware types as a single corpus we see that less than a quarter of the pots have animal and/or plant themes. And when the plant like objects are removed from the calculations the animals in the form of giraffes, elephants, hippos, cattle, goats, sheep, antelopes, dog’s crocodiles, scorpions and humans- account for only one tenth of the pots within the data set. When human like figures are analysed in isolation they are only found on approximately two percent of the pots. In other words, the C-ware painted repertoire is dominated by the more abstract themes, which tend to be marginalized or ignored by many commentators. Nonetheless, within this sub-class, a small number of reasonably straightforward figurative caricatures of plants, animal, and, even more rarely, boats, can be found within the compositional themes. The majority of these images are found running along the outside of vase and jar types. Three such pieces of figurative C-ware found at Nagada namely, C91, 92 and 93M (Petrie: 1921, plate XXV) (designated as C91, 93 and 95 in Petrie: 1896, plate XXIX) share an almost identical theme and artistic style which strongly suggests that they were made by the same artisan. That C92 and 93M were found in the same grave (1644) only adds strength to this suggestion. Another interesting observation is that the boats and human like figures found on the C-ware pots are similar to these found on the later D-ware types. SECTION FOUR Discussion The interpretative analysis of the C-ware painted decoration has been, and continues to be, controversial. A number of reasons may be responsible for this, although the largest single factor remains, as already noted, that many commentators have chosen to concentrate on highly selective and none ‘standard’ pieces. Another reason is that the decoration although mostly abstract to modern eyes also occasionally contains both abstract and figurative elements within the same composition. These factors, in isolation, and in combination, have contributed to a situation in which it has become too easy to construct speculate inferences about individual pieces which are then translated to the entire corpus. The worst example of this practice in recent years is undoubtedly Wengrow’s ( 2007) radical post-modernist narratives on the decorative ‘meaning’ of Predynastic artefacts (see Newell, 2013d) . When appraising the entire corpus, the evidence, I suggest, unequivocally points to the existence of a ‘template’ of ideal features and themes which each painter is obliged, via the strictures of tradition, to consult. There is however clearly no compulsion or desire on the part of the painter to copy or standardize a particular design. This postulate in turn suggests that the work was probably produced by local craftsmen for whom super-regional signals are neither implicit nor particularly well rehearsed. Scharff (1928), Finkenstaedt (1981: 7) and Friedman (1985, 1994) all argue that there is clear evidence for regionalism in some wares, and, in particular, in the aesthetic styles and skill levels of the C-ware decorative repertoire. In particular, Friedman (1985: 143) writes in terms of the Nagada region having a more ‘pictorial sureness’ and symmetry of line. Although this sort of observation by Friedman is too subjective and personal to be entirely reliable, the combined research of all three authors builds a convincing case for an appreciable degree of regionalism within the manufacture of pottery. Although this regionalism is a characteristic which is, in many respects, to be expected, it nevertheless gives a potentially important insight into socio-cultural dynamics of early Predynastic life. Hendrickx is (2010:18) is therefore right to argue that many of the themes in the C-ware decoration have idiosyncratic characteristics. If we assume that the regional and super regional types (of which there are several) were being used to transport commodities of one sort or another, then a relatively vibrant and well established trading network, almost certainly linked to the river, was in place. The local potter would accordingly be in an ideal position to copy or reject, on utilitarian and aesthetic terms, the work of potters working in a variety of locations up and down the river. But, as already expressed above, the similarities of C-ware decoration does suggest that very strong, but not rigid, cultural ties existed in terms of its decoration and usage. Finkensteadt (1980) and Fairservis (1983) have sought to identify some of the elements of the art form with specific features of the landscape e.g. mountains, water and plants. Remaining with the water theme, Van Lepp (1995) suggests that a few C-ware vessels are in essence pictograms of hydraulic projects built by the PNC I peoples to manage the river for agricultural purposes. Another proposal comes from Navajas (2007) who suggests that the ancient Egyptian preoccupation with duality can be seen in the painted iconography of C- ware. She also argues that some of the rich symbolism which is so characteristic of Dynastic Egypt was already being developed in the symbolism of the C-ware. This conclusion is, however, based on a very small number of pots in which certain well-used ideological images of the later Pharoanic Age appear to be present, e.g. a Ruler smiting a prisoner (see Hendricks 2004; 2010: 29; Wengrow 2009: 107-115). The fact that the imagery is often confined to a single pot which is itself separated from Dynastic Egypt by close on a millennia of socio- cultural change is argument enough, I suggest, for the evidence to be critically challenged. This topic will be explored again in later paragraphs. The examination of the possible symbolic meaning behind the choice and arrangement of animals on C-ware pottery probably began with Benedite (1918) who proposed, that these animals could be linked to myths, magic or clan totems. The figurative vessels may then be more personal in terms of commemorating specific events or part of the paraphernalia surrounding things such as shamanistic narratives. The circumstances and meaning of these events are however likely to remain highly speculative, even in the ‘hunting’ themes with later Predynastic pedigrees, but especially so in terms of perceived cultural bias in the modern interpretation of their symbolic messaging (see Morphy 1991). The limited number of examples which depict a line of animals (usually hippo) circling the mouth of the vessel; certainly suggest a degree of symbolic organization in the compositions (see Raffaele, 2010). It is also possible however, that the original source of this regimented format was, like other aspects of their art, imposed upon the artist by the materials and craft traditions of the world around them e.g. the designs used on, say, the carinated basket would be automatically transferred to the carinated pot (see: Diagram 1,figure A below). Diagram 1. Two C-ware types A carinated (A) and beaker (B) type. The beaker type is slightly stylized in order to illustrate the most typical and numerous features of the ware. . A. B. The underlying thesis of this paper is then, that the templates for most, if not all, of the decorative themes seen in the C-ware pottery came directly from the decorative traditions of the local basket makers. This is however by no means a novel idea (see Petrie 1920 14; Frankfort 1924: 94; Kantor 1953: 76 and Hendrickx et al (2010:18). In the context of the seemingly nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyles of many of the early peoples of North East Africa, the advantages of basketry over pottery: in terms of its weight, its ability to withstand rough usage and its capacity to be repaired would have made it both a necessary and ubiquitous piece of equipment. And when a more settled lifestyle became the norm the advantages of basketry would have still made it an invaluable commodity. Another feature of basketry is that it can be decorated in a large variety of colours and patterns. Several design elements in C-ware, such as the zig-zag triangular themes which typically circumnavigate a central roundel or boss shape are easily produced from simple wrapping stitches, and appear to be almost ubiquitous in terms of their world wide use within basketry (e.g. Ugandan Bukedo and Ruffia bowls) These forms, designs and motifs can also be readily copied to other materials in an adaptive process which is called skeuomorphism; whilst the more specific practice of copying woven designs onto clay is more properly called plectomorphism. Ethnographic evidence also clearly shows that basketry was readily used in domestic, ceremonial and religious contexts. Indeed basketry still remains an important element in the ceremonial and ritual practices for many cultures of the world. This is often attributed to basketry’s perceived transformative and protective qualities, which are again, often eulogized in the mythologies of creation and divinely created order. Within the ritualistic context, in Central Africa, healers and diviners called banganga communicate with the dead in an attempt to channel the powers of the spirit world against witchcraft and disease. The main tools in this divination are spiritually-charged items which are kept in containers called minkisi (often translated as portable graves) which are often made from decorated basketry. These containers become so potent in themselves that they have to be ‘stored’ in secret places (see Visona et al, 2000; MacGaffey 1998: 217-235 and 2000) At a more mundane level, basketry is given in several North American Tribes as a girl’s coming of age gift, where they are known variously as life cycle, dowry or puberty baskets. And in Africa the Zulu beer basket is used to serve sorghum beer at ceremonial events such as fertility rites, births and even at funerals where they are buried with the dead to provide them with sustenance in the afterlife. The variety of uses in which basketry was, and still is employed, accordingly gives an expansive insight into the possible uses it fulfilled during the Nagada period. The technological and artistic prowess of the basket makers is certainly evident in the decorated baskets which have been preserved from this time (Wendrich and Cappers 2005; Caton-Thompson and Garner 1934; Lerniaa, et al, 2012 If Predynastic basketry also contained elements of ceremonial and religious meaning, it is far from inconceivable that its shape and decoration would eventually be copied in clay, particularly when the more settled lifestyle gave clay-built containers an expanded practicality in terms of storage and even symbolic usage. Arguably this plectomorphic displacement had become an accepted feature of the ceremonial and ideological aspects of burial well before the Nagada culture became archaeologically visible in the Nile Valley. The question of the ‘functionality’ of the pottery found in the graves of early Nagada culture has been considered by Hendrickx (1994:94), who suggests vessels related to the production of food are rarely included in funerary assemblages. This hypothesis is based on the evidence that settlement pottery tends to made from the coarse R ware and is often accompanied by soot and scorch marks. In contrast, most funerary ware during this period is made from the much finer and harder Nile silt wares e.g. the B, P and C classes of pottery. This situational dichotomy of use between the fine and coarse wares suggests that a vessels ideological function within the grave was not primarily directed at providing materials for food production in the after life. A note of caution does however need to be placed here as ceramics from the Western deserts early and middle Neolithic also show no evidence of being used on or near fires (Close 1995), which may suggest that, at this time, hot stone cooking was the norm. The main problem with attempting to argue for a narrow or even singular usage for the ware is however, the fact that it comes in both open and closed forms. The former is more often associated with aspects of food preparation and consumption whilst the latter closed forms are better suited to storage and transportation applications. The main obstacle with C-wares possible function in terms of food preparation, consumption and transportation is however its general small size - this I suggest would precludes most practical applications of the aforementioned utilities. It is however possible that some of the some C-ware beakers could have functioned as personal or even communal drinking cups. The shallow dish shapes are however less suited, and in some cases, wholly inappropriate for this usage. They could nonetheless have been used, along with the carinated types, as decorative lips for the beakers. The reading of the data sets used in this paper also suggests that the ware was not confined to a particular rank or gender-based group - the ware is too numerous and non-disparate to comfortably support such an argument. The mix of shapes and sizes is also suggestive that C-ware did not function on a single level of ceremonial use, that is, we are probably looking at a number of roles which may have included communal drinking, as in the Zulu bear baskets, whilst others may presage a more personal or intimate symbolic meaning such as a dowry cup or dish whilst the small vases may have contained exotic oils. The function of the decorative designs may have carried variants of everyday or ethereal meaning or it may have had no meaning beyond it being simply the traditional way to ‘beautify’ an object (Wendrich 1999: 264). But even in its more mundane guise, traditional decoration will often give social, regional, symbolic and ritualistic meaning to the object (see Hendrickx 2010: 27). Again, in respect to its diminutive size, many of the types within the C-ware corpus are arguably unsuited for ritual practices designed to be performed in front of a group of people, nor were they particularly suited for ostentatious display. The size instead suggests that its purpose was better suited to more intimate levels of use and display. This in turn suggests that it could not be used as an outwardly ostentatious or reliable cipher of rank or ritual giving. From a purely painterly perspective, there does appear to be two main compositional groups within the more populous themes. The first, I suggest, clearly shows its skeuomorphic credentials whilst the other displays more complex and asymmetric themes as seen in C25, 28, 32 and 32N (Petrie, 1926: XXI- XXII). If we make the bold assumption that the skeumorphs are generally earlier than the others, then a process, either evolutionary or revolutionary, is arguably taking place. What this then suggests is that, although the themes of an earlier generation remained relevant to the next, the liberating medium of paint is allowing the painter to move away from the more traditional and formulaic interpretations. Within a more subjective tone, it is as if meaning and context slowly morph away from the purely decorative into ideagrams, pictograms and narrative. As idiosyncrasy appears to have been an accepted part of the craftsperson’s ‘art’, this move away from the traditional may not have been considered revolutionary within the context of that person’s generation. But, how these changes would have been interpreted by the grandparents of a late C-ware artisan is nonetheless, open to thought provoking speculation and re-energises again the debate regarding C-wares form and function. CONCLUSION This paper has provided evidence in support of a number of suggestions regarding the chronology, evolution and function of C-ware. In the case of its chronology it has argued via several complementary ‘proofs’ that the ware began at the very beginning of the Nagada sequence (i.e. PNC 1a) and is likely to have ended after three or four generations which would place its discontinuation well before the terminus given by most modern commentators. The corroborations offered in support of this argument include a large and comprehensive seriation of the Nagada period as well as direct morphological links the C-ware ‘keeled’ pots have with their Badarian counterparts. The direct linkage with the Badarian culture and, and through it , with other North East African pot painting traditions gives ample evidence that C-ware did not appear in a socio cultural vacuum, but is rather a product of a moderated evolution of an established art form. The thesis which this paper defends is that the art form which formed the basis of many, if not all, of the decorative ‘themes’ seen in C-ware are taken from the traditions of basketry. And whilst several of the basic design elements appears to change very little, the inclusion of figurative elements and the gradual ‘creep’ towards more ‘abstract’ and non uniform compositions suggests that its role in terms of symbolism and meaning may, under an array of influencing and ‘liberating’ factors, have undergone a dramatic shift, which may have contributed to its eventual disappearance from the PNC I pottery corpus. References Anderson, D.A. 2006. Power and competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic: A view from the Predynastic settlement at el-Mahâsna. PhD dissertation. University of Pittsburgh. Arkell, A. J. 1975. The Prehistory of the Nile Valley. Leiden koln Arkell, A. J. & Ucko, P. J. 1965. Review of Predynastic Development in the Nile Valley. Current Anthropology 6(2):145-166 Arnold, D. 1988. Ceramic theory and cultural process. Cambridge. Baba, M, & Saito, M. 2002. Experimental Studies on the Firing Methods of the Black-topped Pottery in Predynastic Egypt. International Conference Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Cracow Bard, K. A. 1994. The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence.  Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3): 265-288. Bard, K. A. 2000. The Emergence of the Egyptian State (c.3200-2686 B.C.). In: The Oxford History of  Ancient Egypt  edited by Ian Shaw, pp. 57-82. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Baumgartel, E. J. 1955. The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt. 1. Revised Edition. London: Oxford University Press. Baumgartel, E. J. 1960. The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt. II. London: Oxford University Press. Baumgartel, E. J. 1965. The Predynastic Cemetery at Naqada. Antiquity 39:299 Baumgartel, E. J. 1966,  Scorpion and Rosette and the Fragments of the Large Hieraconpolis Mace Head. In: Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 93 (1966) 9-13 Baumgartel, E. J. 1970. Petrie's Naqada Excavations: a Supplement, London.  Brunton, G. 1934. Modern Painting on Predynastic Pots. ASAE 34:149-156 Brunton, G. 1937.  Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture. .London, Bernard Quaritch. Brunton G. 1948. Matmar. London. Egyptian Research Account. Brunton, G. and Caton-Thompson, G. 1928. The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari. BSAE 46. London Benedite, G. 1918. The Carnarvan Ivory. JEA 5: 225-241 Caton-Thompson, G. & Gardner, E.W. 1934. The Desert Fayum, vol. 2, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. London. Close, A. E. 1995. Few and far between. Early ceramics in North Africa, in W. K. Barnett & J.W. Hoopes (ed.) The emergence of pottery: technology and innovation in ancient societies: 23-37. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press. Duff, A. 2002. Western Pueblo identities. Tucson. Fairservis Jr., W. A. 1983. Hierakonpolis: The graffiti and the origins of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. Hierakonpolis Occasional Papers in Anthropology 2. Poughkeepsie, NY. Finkenstaedt, E. 1980. Painting style and place association in most ancient Egypt. BCE 7 : 37-39 Finkenstaedt, E. 1980. Regional painting style in prehistoric Egypt ZAS 107:116-120 Finkenstaedt, E. 1983. The Location of Styles in Painting: White Cross-Lined Ware at Naqada. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Vol. 18: pp 7-10 Finkenstaedt E 1985. Cognitive vs. ecological niches in prehistoric Egypt -  JARCE 22: 143-147 Frankfort, H. 1924. Studies in early- pottery of the Near-East. — I. Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt. and their earliest interrelations. Occasional Papers of the Royal Anthropological Institute, n° 6. Friedman, R. F. 1981. Spatial distribution in a Predynastic cemetery: Naga-ed-Dêr 7000 [M.A. thesis]. University of California, Berkeley. Friedman, R. F. 1985. On the meaning of some anthropoid busts from Deir-el-Medina. JEA 71: 82-97. Friedman, R. F. 1994. Predynastic settlement ceramics of Upper Egypt: A com- parative study of the ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Friedman, R. F. 1997. Hierakonpolis: a new look at an old site, Egyptian Archaeology: Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society 11: 12-14. Friedman, R. F. 2008. The Cemeteries of Hierakonpolis. Archéo-Nil 18: 8-29 Gatto, M. C. 2001. Two Predynastic pottery caches at Bir Sahara (Egyptian Western Desert). Sahara 13: 51-60 Gatto, M. C. 2011. The Nubian Pastoral Culture as Link between Egypt and Africa: A View from the Archaeological Record. Egypt in its African Context Proceedings of the conference held at The Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, 2-4 October 2009: pp 21-29 Gatto, M. C., Hendrickx, S., Roma, S. & Zampetti, D. 2009. Rock art from West Bank Aswanand Wadi Abu Subeira. Archéo-Nil, 19: 151-168. Geller J 1984.The Predynastic Ceramics Industry at Hierakonpolis, Egypt. Publisher, Washington University Graff, G. 2007. La peau animale nagadienne et la nébride IMY-WT.  Biblio-theca Orientalis 64: 259–288. Graff , G. 2009. Les peintures sur vases de Naqada I–Naqada II: Nouvell eapproche sémiologique de l’iconographie prédynastique. Egyptian Prehistory Monograph 6. Leuven. University Press, Egyptian Prehistory Monographs, 6: 432 . Haddon, A. C. 1895. Evolution in Art. Walter Scott Ltd. London. Hartmann, R. 2011. The chronology of Naqada I tombs in the Predynastic Cemetery U at Abydos . In: Friedman, R. F. & Fiske, P. N. (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Proceedings of the International Conference. Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early DynasticEgypt. London, 27th July -1st August 2008. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 205. Peeters, Leuven, pp. 917-938. Hassan, F.A. 1988. The Predynastic of Egypt. Journal of World Prehistory 2(2):135–85. Hendrickx, S. 1993. Relative chronology of the Naqada culture. Paper delivered at the British Museum colloquium on early Egypt. London, 22 July 1993. Hendrickx, S. 1994. Antiquités préhistoriques et protodynastiques d’Égypte. Guides du département égyptien 8. Bruxelles Hendrickx, S. 1996. The relative chronology of the Naqada culture: Problems and possibilities In: Spencer, A. J. (ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 1996: 36-69. Hendrickx, S. 1998. Peaux d animaux comme symboles prédynastiques. À propos de quelques représentations sur les vases White Cross-lined. Chronique d Égypte, 73, fasc. 146: 203-230. Hendrickx, S. 2002. Checklist of Predynastic Decorated pottery with human figuration. In Cahiers Caribéens d Égyptologie, 3-4: 29-50. Hendrickx, S. 2006. Predynastic–Early Dynastic chronology. In: Hornung, E., Krauss, R. & Warburton, D. A. (eds.),  Ancient Egyptian chronology. .Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1: Near and Middle East 83. Leiden: 55–93. Hendrickx. S, Darnell, J, Gatto M and Eyckerman M. 2012. Iconographic and Palaeographic Elements Dating a Late Dynasty 0 Rock Art Site at Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan, Egypt). In: International Colloquium. The Signs of Which Times? Chronological and Palaeo-environmental Issues in the Rock Art of Northern Africa. Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences Brussels, 3-5 June, 2010 pp. 295-326 Hendrickx, S. & Depraetere, D. 2004. A theriomorphic Predynastic stone jar and hippopotamus symbolism. In: Hendrickx, S., Friedman, R. F., Ciałowicz, K. M. & Chodnicki, M. (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egy pt”, Krakow, 28 th August  – 1st September 2002. Orientalia LovaniensiaAnalecta 138. Peeters, Leuven, pp. 801-822. Hendrickx, S. & Eyckerman, M. 2010. Continuity and change in the visual representations of Predynastic Egypt. In: Raffaele, F., Nuzzolo, M. & Incordino, I. (Eds.), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology (Naples, June 18th-20th 2008). Harrassowitz Wiesbaden pp. 121-144. Hendrickx, S., Friedman, R. F. & Loyens, F. 2000. Experimental archaeology concerning black-topped pottery from ancient Egypt and the Sudan. In: Marchand, S. (ed.), Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 6: 171-187. Hodges, H.1982. Black-Topped pottery: An empirical study. Bulletin de Liason du Groupe International d’Étude de la Ceramique égyptienne 7: 45–51. Hoffman, M.A.1982. The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis. Egyptian Studies Association Publication No. 1. Cairo University Herbarium, Cairo. Howard, H. 1981. In the wake of distribution: Towards an integrated approach to ceramic studies in prehistoric Britain. In Production and distribution: A ceramic viewpoint, H. Howard and E. Morris (eds.), British Archaeological Reports Int. Ser. 120: 1–30. Kaiser, W. 1957. Zur inneren chronologie der Nagadakultur. Archaeologia Geographica 6:69–77. Kantor, H. J. 1953. Prehistoric Egyptian pottery in the Art Museum. Record of the Art Museum Princeton University, 12: 67-83. Kaczmarczyk, A. and Fleming, S.1977. J. Forged decoration on Predynastic pots JEA 63: 5-12 Kemp, B. J. 1982. Automatic analysis of Predynastic cemeteries: a new method for an old problem. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 68:5–15. Kuper, R. and Kröpelin S. 2006. Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa's Evolution Science Vol. 313 no. 5788: 803-807 Lanna, S. and Gatto, M. C. 2006. Prehistoric human occupation in the Nubian eastern Desert: An overview. Between the cataracts: PAM Supplement Series 2.2/1: 319-328 Leeman, D. 2007. An overview of the Predynastic pottery of Ancient Egypt. Brisbane Australia. Lerniaa, S., N’sialaa, I. M. & Mercuric, A. M. 2012. Saharan prehistoric basketry. Archaeological and archaeobotanical analysis of the early-middle Holocene assemblage from Takarkori (Acacus Mts., SW Libya). Journal of Archaeological Science. Volume 39, Issue 6: 1837–1853 Lightfoot, K. G. and Martinez, A. 1995. Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 471-92. Lupton, C. 1992. Another Predynastic Pot with Forged Decoration. In: Friedman, R. & Adams, B. (eds.), Followers of Horus. Studies Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman. Oxford: 243-206. MacGaffey, W. 1998. ‘Magic’, or as we usually say ‘Art’: A Framework for Comparing African and European Art. In: Schildkrout, E. and Keim, C. (eds). The Scramble for Art in Central Africa. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press: 217–235. MacGaffey, W. 2000. Religion and Society in Central Africa: The BaKongo of Lower Zaire Chicago: University of Chicago Press Midant-Reynes, B & Buchez, N. (eds) 2002. Adaima 1: Economie et habitat IFAQ, Cairo. Mond, Sir Oliver, Meyers, R. H. 1937. Cemeteries of Armant I. London: Egyptian Exploration Society. Morphy, H. 1991. Ancestral Connections: Art and an Aboriginal System of Knowledge. University of Chicago Press Navajas, A. 2007. La percepción de la fauna y su plasmación en la época predinatica egipcia de Nagada I-II. Las representaciones sobre las cerámicas White Cross-lined. Navajas, A. 2009. Bos primigenius / Luxodonta Africana Icongraphie et symbolisme au travers de la céramique White Cross-lined. Chronique d’Egypte 84:50-87. Nelson, K. 2002. Ceramic types of the Nabta-Kiseiba area. In: Holocene settlement of the Egyptian Sahara II: The pottery of Nabta Playa, K. Nelson and Associates (eds.): 9–20. New York. Newell, G. D. 2012a. A re-examination of the relative chronology and socio/economic structures of the Badarian culture via an algorithmic seriation of its ceramic and slate artefact assemblages. Journal of Open Archaeology. Volume 1. X.Cathedra Publications. Newell, G. D. 2012b An analytical study of the multi - dimensional transitions in the Nagada period of the Egyptian Predynastic via the theoretical modelling of structural pragmatism. Draft PH.D. proposal. Newell, G. D. 2012b. A Map of the Chronological Sequence from ‘The Great Cemetery’ at Nagada. Journal of Open Archaeology. Volume 1. X.Cathedra Publications. Newell, G. D. 2012c. A data set of the seriated pottery types from regional and super- regional Egyptian Predynastic cemetery contexts. (Doc 1.) Journal of Open Archaeology. Volume 1. X.Cathedra Publications. Newell, G. D. 2013a. The relative chronology of PNC I. A new chronological synthesis for the Egyptian Predynastic (part one). Awaiting publication. Newell, G. D. 2013b. Careless subversions or avant-garde? Recent post-modernist narratives of complexity in Egyptian archaeological theory and methodology. Awaiting publication. Nordstrom, H. A. & Bourriau, J. D. 1993. Ceramic technology: clays and fabrics. In: Arnold, D & Bourriau, J.D. (eds.) An introduction to Ancient Egyptian pottery. Mainz: 143-190. Payne, J. C.; Kaczarczyk, A. & Fleming, S. J. 1977. Forged Decoration on Predynastic Pots. JEA, 63: 5-12. Payne, J. C. 1987. Appendix to Naqada Excavations Supplement. JEA 73: 181-189 Payne, J.C. 1992. Predynastic Chronology at Naqada’, In: Friedman, R and Adams, B (eds.), The Followers of Horus: Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, Oxbow books: Oxford, 185-192. Petrie, F. 1921. Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery and Palettes. BSAE.. Petrie, F. & Quibell. J. E. 1896. Naqada and Ballas. London Petrie, F. 1899. Sequences in prehistoric remains. Journal of the Anthropological Institute 29:295–301 Petrie, F. & Mace, 1901 Diospolis Parva Raff, G. 2009. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. (eds), Nicholson, P. T. & Shaw, I. Raffaele, F. 2010. Animal rows and ceremonial processions in late Predynastic Egypt. In: Raffaele, F. Nuzzolo, M. & Incordino, I. (eds.), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology. Naples, June 18th -20 th 2008. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, pp. 245-286. Savage, S. H. 2001. Towards an AMS radiocarbon chronology of Predynastic Egyptian ceramics. Near East Chronology: Archaeology and Environment. Radiocarbon, Vol 43, Nr 3: 1255–1277 Scharff, A. 1929. Die Altertümer der Vor – und Frühzeit Ägyptens’ I (Berlin, 1929-31), no. 118 Shirai, N. 2006. Supra-regional concepts in Near Eastern Neolithisation from a viewpoint of Egyptian Neolithic research. Paléorient 32: 7-31. Smith, H. S. 1992. The Making of Egypt. A Review of the Influence of Susa and Sumer on Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the 4th Millenium B.C. In: The Followers of Horus. Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman 1944-1990. (eds), Renee Friedman, R. & Adams, B. Oxford Swain, S. 2003. Pottery from the Predynastic settlement at Halfia Gibli (Diospolis Parva) JSSEA 30:159-171. Van de Leeuw, S. 1993.Giving the pottery a choice. In: Technological choices: Transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic. Lemonnier, P. (ed.): 238–88. New York. Van Lepp, J. 1995. Evidence for artificial irrigation in Amratian art. JARCE 32: 197-209. Visona, M. B., Poynor, R. & Herbert M. C. 2000. A History of Art in Africa.  (New York: Prentice-Hall. Warfe, A. 2003. Cultural origins of the Egyptian Neolithic and Predynastic: An evaluation of the evidence from the Dakhleh Oasis (South Central Egypt). African Archaeological Review 20.4: 175–202. Wendrich, W.Z. 1999. The World According to Basketry; an Ethnoarchaeological Interpretation of Basketry Production in Egypt, CNWS publication series no. 83), with a 60 minutes video tape of present-day Egyptian basket makers, Leiden: Research School for Asian, African and Amerindian Studies (CNWS). Wendrich, W.Z. 2000. Basketry. In: Nicholson, P.T. & Shaw I. (eds): Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, pp. 254 267. Cambridge University Press. Wendrich, W.Z. & Cappers, R.T.J. 2005. Egypt’s earliest granaries: evidence from the Fayum. In: Egyptian Archaeology 27, Autumn: 12-15. Wendorf, F. & Schild, R. 2001. Holocene Settlements of the Egyptian Sahara. vol. 1. The Archaeology of Nabta Playa. New York. Wengrow, D. 2009. The archaeology of early Egypt, Social transformations in North-East Africa. Cambridge University Press. Wilkinson, T.A.H. 1996. State formation in Egypt: chronology and society. In: Alexander J, editor. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 40. BAR International Series 651. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum. Wilkinson, T.A.H . 1999. Early  Dynastic Egypt . Routledge, London. __________________________________________________________________________________CC. Creative common licence <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en_GB"><img alt="Creative Commons Licence" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/3.0/88x31.png" /></a><br /><span xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" href="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text" property="dct:title" rel="dct:type">The meta-morphic lines: A re-examination of C-Ware in terms of chronology, typology and Iconography</span> by <span xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" property="cc:attributionName">G. D. Newell</span> is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en_GB">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License</a>.