Six Predynastic Human Figures in the Royal Ontario Museum

Author(s): Winifred Needler

Source: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 5 (1966), pp. 11-17
Published by: American Research Center in Egypt
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40000166
Accessed: 10/06/2010 08:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=arce.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Research Center in Egypt is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt.

http://www.jstor.org
 Six PredynasticHuman Figuresin the Royal Ontario Museum
Winifred Needler
plates v-ix
All six of the Predynastic figuresin the Royal
Ontario Museum discussed in this paper were
purchased in Egypt about 1908, and their
provenance is unknown. To a varying extent
their antiquity has never been firmlyestablished,
and yet the evidence is lacking to condemn any
of them. It is partly in the hope of soliciting
information which may help to establish them
as either ancient or modernthat I am venturing
to present them here. None of them would
likely find a place in a good museumif offered on
the antiquities market today. Yet they have
achieved a kind of respectability through long
service. Of course the burden of proof lies with
each object, whose authenticity does not rest
on the negative groundsthat it cannot be proved
to be a forgery. On the other hand, a museum
cannot with a clear conscience discard such old
acquisitions until they are shown beyond rea-
sonable doubt to be modern.
1. PL V, figs. 1 and 2. This is a beak-face,
steatopygous female, with arms raised, hands
turned inward, and probably made of mud.1
1 Ace. No. 948.34.91.Total height (to hands) 33 cm.
The figure has been extensively repaired but is
essentially complete. Surfaces are worn, and altered
by a consolidating agent. From the collection of Sir
Robert Mond, a share of which was presented to the
Royal OntarioMuseumin 1939, kindly stored by the
British Museum until after the Second World War.
The material of this figure could only be examined
superficially. It is unbaked, and seems to be of a
lighter color than No. 2 (see note 8). It is surely
identical with that of the rest of its series, called by
Ucko "drab grey clay", and "nude, coarse and sum-
marily modelled" (note 4, below).
11
The figure leans forward precariously from the
hips. Like the much finer Predynastic beak-face
female figures with raised arms excavated at
Mohamerieh,it strongly recalls the "dancing"
women who appear on the painted pottery of
both the Amratian and the Gerzean periods.2
Clay or mud figures of women frequently occur
in female graves, and possibly are fertility
charms or idols.3
Our figure can be identified with about
twenty very similar figures, sixteen of which
are in the British Museum, two in the Petrie
Collection (University College, London), and
others in the Brussels, Berlin and Bremen
museums. The British Museum specimens, and
probably the others, were bought from Moham-
med Mohasseb of Luxor. In a recent article
which questions, with emphasison methodology,
various types of bought figures attributed to
the Predynastic periods Ucko4discusses figures
2 For type and provenance of figures with arms
raisedabove the head see Kantor,JNES 3 (1944)117;
she discusses their relationship to similar figures on
the painted pottery, which occur more frequently on
Gerzean vessels. The females on the pottery have
human heads with voluminous hair, but Baumgartel
points out a Gerzeanvessel from Naqada with male
figuresin the same pose, one of which is bird-headed
and the other unidentified animal-headed (The
Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt I [1955] 80, pl. 10,
nos. 3-5).
3 Baumgartel, The Culturesof PrehistoricEgypt II
(i960) 65-70, where many examples are cited.
4 Peter J. Ucko and H. W. M. Hodges, "Some Pre-
dynastic Egyptian Figurines: Problems of Authenti-
city," Journal of the Warburgand CourtauldInstitute
26 (1963) 205-222 (to be quoted repeatedly below).
12 JARCE5 (1966)
of this type, and also the types to which belong
the two female figures discussed immediately
below. While the article contains valuable
material it achieves little in the way of positive
results. This is perhaps because the material
does not lend itself well to quantitative analysis
nor can it be rigidly classified.
For example, the fact that the Mohasseb
figures form a type quite distinct from the large
group (about eighteen) excavated at Mohame-
rieh ought not in itself to lead to suspicion of
the bought figures. Although the evidence from
excavations is scanty there is no reason to
suppose that different districts did not develop
local differences,and indeed there is a surprising
variety of style and material among the few
surviving figures, and fragments of figures, from
Predynastic excavations. A ''statistical" treat-
ment of surviving specimens can be misleading
when local variation is not taken into account.
The Mohasseb figures, if genuine, would pre-
sumably have come from a single district. Other
quite different figures, notably an incomplete
standing figure of a steatopygous female of
unbaked clay, having heavy formless feet and
legs, from Naqada,5 resemble our figures in
style more closely than do the comparatively
well-preserved peg figures in pottery from
gives the location of bought specimens of the type,
with other information (pp. 215-217, fig. 30c). The
writer differs with Ucko on many points but has
derived much profit from his excellent article. He
notes that the sixteen British Museum specimens
"representall posturesfromthe standingto the seated
with many examples in postures somewherebetween
in a sort of semi-recliningposition." Such"in-between"
poses are known in excavated specimens,e.g. Brunton
and Caton-Thompson,Badarian Civilization pl. 24,
no. 3, and pl. 53, no. 46.
5 Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Balias (1896) 29
pl. 6, no. 4 (Tomb 1611). Better photographs in
Baumgartel I (1925) pl. 6, nos. 2 and 3, and Capart,
Primitive Art in Egypt fig. 123. The figure is crude
and poorly preserved; it has heavy formless feet and
thick legs with separation indicated, and apparently
stump arms; the head is missing. Fragments of a
second figure were found in the same grave. In ex-
cavated Predynastic standing figures the separation
between the legs is often indicated, as for example in
Mohamerieh.6 Ucko rightly points out the
difference between the clumsy beak-face of the
Mohasseb figures and the Mohamerieh type.
But comparison between the Mohamerieh
figures and the head of a large beak-face figure
from Mahasna7(none of the rest of which was
recovered) suggests that the beak may have
varied greatly in form. The painted figures of
calcareous clay, to be discussed below, have
beaks which are again quite different (PI. VI.
figs. 5 and 6).
2. PL V, figs. 3 and 4. This figure8belongs to a
suspect type of female closely related to the
the figuresfrom Diospolis Parva, Grave B 101, best
illustratedin BaumgartelII pl. 5, nos. 2 and 3. A poor
photographof an excavated figure from Nubia called
"Early Dynastic or Late Predynastic black pottery
steatopygousdoll"is publishedin Firth, Archaeological
Surveyof Nubia igog-10, 61, pl. 11f. (Dakka); it may
not have been provided with arms, but the pose is
similar. Six "unbakedmud steatopygous dolls" were
excavated from another grave in the same cemetery
(P- 55)-
6 De Morgan, Rev. de VEcole de I'Anthropologie de
Paris 19 (1912-13) 260-30. Kantor JNES 3 (1944)
117, also cited by Ucko (p. 206-07). Goodphotographs
of the complete specimenin Brooklyn: Ucko pl. 28a;
Baumgartel II pl. 5, and often elsewhere. The white
dress of these figures, covering only the lower part
of the body and the legs, resemblesthat of five female
figures in the Hierakonpolis wall-painting. Perhaps
none of the bought type here discussedshows any trace
of paint, but the complete "nudity" of this and the
related type discussed immediately below is open to
doubt (cf. note 1, above).
7 Ayrton and Loat, The Pre-Dynastic Cemeteryat
El Mahasna (1911) 7 and pl. 9, no. 11. This is cited
and illustrated by Ucko (pp. 214, 217, pl. 3of.), but
in an entirelydifferentconnection(green-paintedeyes).
8 Ace. No. 910.2.46. Total height 35.5 cm. Crude
mud. The figure seems essentially complete except
for the arms, which are repaired in several places,
with some restoration, as is one hand. The head is
complete except for the face. Like the first figure,the
surfaces are worn, and altered by a consolidating
agent. The ROM possesses fragments of another
specimenof this type, which are of identical material.
They were examined by R. M. Organ, the Museum's
Curator of Conservation.Under the microscope the
typical mixture of sand, calcium carbonate and
vegetablematterwas foundto containminuteparticles
of gold-like material. For the British Museum's
 WINIFRED NEEDLER, SIX PREDYNASTIC FIGURES
first. It is made of mud, a material certainly
used for human figures in Predynastic times.9
It is still more stooped, has a narrow waist,
wide hips and pendulous breasts, and its heavy
modelled hair or wig, with layers of separately
applied 'locks/' almost obscures the small
damaged face. Admittedly, as Ucko says, these
figures are unparalleledamong excavated speci-
mens. It can only be argued that they are
equally reminiscent of the dancing figures on
the painted pottery, which are normallyprovided
with hair or wigs rather than with beaks, and
that hair of this style and technique is known
from excavated Predynastic figures.10 Three
others are known: one in the British Museum,
and two in the Petrie Collection. Ours was
purchased from Mohasseb as was the British
Museum specimen.
Female figures, simply conceived and crudely
executed like the two Toronto specimens de-
scribed above and doubtless representing the
same general area of superstition, were made,
of course, at all periods down to the present. It
is unlikely that, if genuine, these figures belong
to the historical periods because there does not
seem to be any evidence for the "dancing"pose,
specimen see Hornblower, "Predynastic Figures of
Women and their Successors,"JEA 15 (1929) pl. 6,
nos. 3 and 4. For the two Petrie Collectionspecimens
see Petrie, PrehistoricEgypt (1920)pl. 3, nos. 4 and 5.
9 In Prehistoric Egypt (1920) p. 7 Petrie says,
"Female figures were often made of vegetable paste
and Nile mud." In Naqada and Balias one figure is
called "vegetablepaste" (p. 46 and pl. 59, no. 11) and
another "Nile mud" (p. 14, not illustrated). In Petrie,
Diospolis Paw a (1901)both female figuresfrom Grave
B 101 are called 'paste" (p. 33, pl. 5) while Baum-
gartel identifiesthe largeras "pottery"and the smaller
as "clay or mud" (BaumgartelII 68, pl. 5, no. 3). See
also note 5, above.
10For example, the simplerhair in Diospolis Parva
pl. 6, no. 1, better illustrated in Baumgartel II pl. 5,
no. 2. Fragments of more complex wigs, in the same
technique as our example, from large figures, were
found at Naqada (Grave 1546, mentioned and illus-
trated only in PrehistoricEgypt 7, pl. 45, nos. 31, 32;
on the same plate, two mud figures modelled on a
stick, with separately made wigs, from Naqada,
Grave 1413 [?]).
13
with arms raised above the head, after the
Predynastic periods, nor for such large mud
figures. Some might even doubt their authenti-
'
city on the groundsthat they are 'un-Egyptian."
In the writer's opinion this view would be
mistaken because "Egyptian" characteristicsin
sculpture did not develop until the beginning
of the Early Dynastic period. The variety, the
freedomand the "un-Egyptian" characterof the
excavated Predynastic figures are undeniable.
The later female figures, widely as they too vary,
do seem in general to be more rigid in style.
It may be added that Mohasseb'sreputation
was unusually good among Egyptologists. Why
would he risk it by flooding the market with
so many almost identical forgeries? To the
writer it seems more likely that these female
figures came to him by native Egyptian hands
from one or two of the Predynastic sites ex-
cavated at the turn of the century. Few of the
tombs were intact when excavated. Petrie
wrote of the Naqada-Ballas Predynastic ceme-
teries, ". .so soon as we left, a native dealer-
without any delays about permission, or any
tribute to the Government Museum- went to
work with a gang of men, and continued for
many weeks to turn over the outskirts of our
work. Whatever we left behind was absolutely
lost to all record. Such destruction continually
goes on all over the country . . . The hundreds-
thousands- of open tomb-pits all along the
desert, rifled and re-rifled in recent years show
this only too plainly."11 We should perhaps
also take into account the mention of unillustra-
ted excavated fragments in the early reports, as
it seems clear that many more were found than
were illustrated and still more must have been
crumbled beyond recognition.12
3. PL VI, figs. 5, 6 and 7. This figure,13made of
calcareous clay, is a seated steatopygous female
with beak-face, long hair falling in front on
11Naqada and B alias vii, x.
12.E.g., Predynastic Cemeteryat El Mahasna 12, 13,
19, Graves H29, H42, H85.
13Ace. No. 910.92.7. Height 17 cm. Hard unfired
calcareousclay, apparentlycarved; surfacesworn and
flaked off in places; head badly damaged. Purchased
14 JARCE5 (1966)
each side of shoulder, and short thin arms over
breasts ; it is decorated with black paint showing
details of the features and dress, unidentified
linear designs, and two confronted animals on
the upper part of the back. Seven other speci-
mens, clearly of this distinctive painted type,
are probably all of the same material: two in
the British Museum, three in the Petrie collec-
tion, one in the MetropolitanMuseum, and one
in Turin. These were all bought. Several Predy-
nastic seated steatopygous figures of mud or
lightly baked clay but without these paintings
and other distinctive details have been exca-
vated;14 they occur with or without arms and
with or without division between the thighs.
Petrie published in the excavation report for
Naqada a figure (head missing) with raised
arms made of the same material and decorated
with exactly the same type of painted designs :
chevrons, rectangular forms, animals.15It bears
no grave number and nothing is stated about
its provenance. More recent publications refer
to it as bought. Since no other painted figures
have been properly excavated much depends
on the credibility of Petrie's publication of this
fine specimen as from Naqada. Ucko has done
much to substantiate it by publishing an un-
in Egypt dealer unknown. Specimensof this class are
listed by Ucko 213-14. Hornblowercalls the British
Museum specimens "soft limestone" (JEA 15 [1929]
pl. 7, nos. 3 and 4). The materialis not well attested;
possibly it is to be identified with the clay used for
the Gerzean drab wrare(Lucas and Harris, Ancient
Egyptian Materials and Industries [1962] 383-384).
But Predynasticfiguresof this materialhave apparent-
ly been excavated. Accordingto Petrie, "In the graves
at both Ballas and Naqada were found several figures
modelled in whitish marly clay or in Nile mud"
{Naqadaand Ballas 34).
14Naqada and Ballas pl. 6, nos. 1-3; Pre-Dynastic
Cemeteryat El Mahasnapl. 16, nos. 1 and 2; Badarian
Civilizationpl. 24, no. 3; one of two such figuresfrom
an "A-Group"female burial excavated by the Scan-
dinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia has
stump arms and the other thin arms curving below
the breasts (UNESCO Courier,Dec. 1964, pp. 28-29).
15Naqada and Ballas pl. 59, no. 6, p. 45, where its
materialis called "hard,white clay." A drawingonly
is published there; Ucko publishes a photograph of
the figure (pl. 29e).
published fragment in the Ashmolean Museum
from the Naqada excavations.16 It is a piece
from the torso of a seated figure showing geo-
metric painted decoration on the side of the
thigh. At the same time he points out the
possible identification of the "horizontal band
on the front of the figure," seen also on the
Toronto specimen, with a similar delineation
on some Predynastic ivory figures. A seated
steatopygous figure from Badari has an incised
pattern on the back which led the excavator to
write, 'The tatued chevrons on the back are
rather like the V-marks on the clay steatopy-
gous figure bought at Naqada/'17
The anklets which regularly occur on these
figures (the ankles are missing in the specimen
published by Petrie) are without parallel in
Predynastic representations of the human
figure. Some support for them, however, may
be drawn from the fact that traces of bead
anklets were found on Gerzean female skele-
tons.18 Another feature which has brought
perhaps unjustified suspicion of anachronism
upon this class of figure is the painted object
on one of the British Museum'sspecimens which
Hornblower fancifully identified as a scarab.19
A shred of technical evidence in favor of our
specimen, and therefore of the whole class, was
obtained recently when a large fresh flake
became detached from it, and it was found that
the surface weathering of the figure has pene-
trated deeply.20
4. PI. VII, figs. 8 and 9. A seated female of
baked clay carrying a pot on her head.21The
16Ucko p. 213, pl. 29a; from Grave 1687.
17Badarian Civilization29, pl. 24, no. 3.
18Naqadaand Ballas 16 (Grave 100), 26 (Grave346),
27 (Grave 822). The ankle of the single remainingleg
of the skeleton in Grave 346 wore "a band of bead-
work, lines parallelto the bone, long and short beads
alternatinground bottom edge."
19 Hornblower, "Predynastic Figures of Women
and their Successors,"JEA 15 (1929) 33 and fig. 2.
20 Technical report of R. M. Organ, Curator of
Conservationin the Museum,who also confirmedthe
identificationof the material as calcareousclay.
21 Ace. No. 910.92.13. Height 15 cm. Reddish
pottery, unevenly fired; repair at base of pot. Purch-
ased in Egypt before 1910, dealer unknown.
 WINIFREDNEEDLER,SIX PREDYNASTIC
figure is rounded off at the "knees" with no
separation between the thighs. The arms are
simple rolls of clay without hands. The eyes
and mouth are crudely incised. The hair is
applied in separate strands. The fabric compares
well with Predynastic pottery of undoubted
antiquity.
This is very similar in size, form, fabric and
style to an unpublished figure at the Metro-
politan Museum (PL VII, fig. 10), which does
not carry a pot but curves her arms over her
breasts.22Unfortunately the Metropolitan Mu-
seum figure was also bought, probably about
the same time as was ours. There seems little
reason, however, to doubt the Toronto and
New York figures. Excavated pottery figures of
Predynastic date are well known; their fabric
and style have a distinctive character which is
recognizable if not easily definable.23The hair
is technically comparable to the hair of the
Diospolis figure noted above and indeed to the
more elaborate "stratified" wigs.24 A row of
armlessivory figurescarryingpots on their heads
was found in a Naqada grave:25 their pots
doubtless contained magic provisions for the
dead, and our pot-carrier may have served the
same purpose. A vessel in the shape of a woman
carrying a pot was found at Diospolis.26
5. PL VII, fig. 11 and PL VIII, fig. 12. This
figure of a standing man is also made of a
pottery which is familiar, in fabric and manu-
facture, for the Predynastic periods.27Three
22 Metropolitan Museum Ace. No. 07.228.53.
Height 11.6 cm. Purchased in 1907 from Ghabrial,
Luxor. Miss Virginia Burton kindly supplied the
photographandthe information.Thanksarealso due to
Dr. Henry Fischerfor permissionto publishthe figure.
23For human and animal figures of pottery from
Predynastic burials see, for example, Diospolis Parva
pls. 5 and 6; Pre-Dynastic Cemeteryat El Mahasna
pl. 21; Randall-Madver and Mace, El Amrah and
Abydos(1902)pl. 9.
24See note 10, above.
25Naqadaand Balias 21, pl. 59, no. 7.
26Diospolis Parva pl. 6, Grave B 83.
27Ace. No. 910.92.14. Height 19.5 cm. Coarsered
pottery, surfacesweatheredand cracked,arms broken
off near shoulders. Purchased in Egypt before 1910,
dealer unknown.
FIGURES 15
very similar pottery figures of men with pointed
beard and perhaps wearing the phallic sheath,
were found in Predynastic graves at Diospolis.28
A fine head from a figure of a bearded man was
found at Qau;29it is remarkably similar to our
figure. The pointed beard may indicate divine
status.
6. PL VIII, figs. 13 and 14.30This small calcite
figure does not belong to any known type. It
apparently represents a bearded man, seated
with his arms joined over his stomach. The
mouth and nose are rendered in rudimentary
plastic form. The ears are very small and
angular. The eyes were not carved; they may
have been painted but no trace of paint remains
on the figure. The stump legs are divided by a
shallow groove.
Ourfigureleads us, perhapsnot too fancifully,
to the well-knowncarved hippopotamustusks.31
From an Amratian tomb at Mahasnacome two
pairs of these tusks, illustrated in the excavation
report on each side of an ivory figure of a naked
man (PL VIII, fig. 15).32The figurein the centre
of this group photograph exhibits the small
angular ears which are typical of Predynastic
ivory carvings and which are echoed, perhaps,
28 Diospolis Parva pl. 5; El Amrah and Abydos
pl. 9, no. 11, and pl. 12, no. 7; the El Amrah figure
certainlywearsthe phallic sheath as both this garment
and the girdle which supports it are painted on the
figurein black; see also BaumgartelII 69.
29BadarianCivilization60, pl. 34, no. 6, and pl. 53,
no. 45. Calledclay in the text, mud on pl. 53.
30Ace. No. 910.92.19. Height 7.5 cm. The figure is
essentially complete; there are some losses in the
softer reddishbands; it has been washedsince it came
to the Museumand this unfortunateoccurrencemay
have removed any possible traces of paint. The
appearance and condition of the stone have been
compared with the ROM's calcite vessels, and frag-
ments of vessels, from the "Royal Tombs"of Dynasty
I at Abydos, which it resembles closely. To judge
from the published photographonly, the calcite idol
from Naqada (fig. 18) appears to be made from the
same kind of banded calcite.
31 For general discussion of the tusks: Vandier,
Manuel d'archeologieegyptienne II 416-421; Baum-
gartel II 60-63; Petrie, PrehistoricEgypt 33-34 and
pl. 32.
32Pre-DynasticCemeteryat El Mahasnapl. 11.
l6 JARCE
5 (1966)
in our calcite figure. The tusks, which usually
carry simple linear or punctated decoration,
appear regularly in pairs; one is solid and the
other hollow, and it is generally supposed that
they represent male and female, perhaps for a
fertility rite or charm. Occasionally a bearded
face is carved beneath the tip of the tusk,33but
the more elaborately carved specimens are
bought. Two tusks without provenance in the
Royal Ontario Museum are fine examples
(PI. IX, figs. 16 and 17),34The bearded face
appears in more summary form in the ivory or
slate plaques which may have performed the
same magic function as the tusks.35
A pair of calcite and ivory peg-shaped charms
or idols found in a Naqada grave of the Gerzean
period (PL IX, fig. 18)36are clearly related to
the pairs of tusks and also to the bearded
plaques. The Toronto calcite bearded figure
bears a curious resemblance to these bearded
idols, especially to the calcite and ivory pair
from Naqada. It is tempting to think that it is
in some way connected with the same magical
concepts.
At the end of the Gerzean period stone
sculpture in the round was still exceedingly
rare, and the few examples known are very
small.37Our calcite figure, too, may represent
33Naqadaand Ballas 18-19, pls. 62, no. 35, and 64,
no. 81; Badarian Civilization 45-46, pl. 53, no. 16
(from village site). See also Baumgartel I (1955)
35-36, II 60-62; Vandier, Manuel 416-421.
34Fig. 16: Ace. No. 936.16.5, length 13.5 cm.,
from BrummerCollection, New York, 1936. Fig. 17:
Ace. No. 921.26.1, length 10.5 cm.
35 Naqada and Ballas 19, pl. 59; Baumgartel I
(I955) 35 > Vandier, Manuel 421-426. According to
Baumgartel, some examples must represent females
in spite of their pointed "beard," which is none the
less certainly a beard in other examples.
36Baumgartel I (1955) pl. 5, nos. n and 12. Tomb
1329. They are not photographedin the excavation
report, which shows only a drawing (Naqada and
Ballas pl. 59). Baumgartel (p. 35) suggests that these
too, are male and female. Original photographs by
Mrs. Baumgartel;I must also thank Mrs. J. Crowfoot
Payne of the AshmoleanMuseumfor providing them,
and for permissionto publish.
37Wolf, Die Kunst Aegyptens (1957) 41- Only two
small human figuresof stone which are definitelyfrom
the early gropings towards monumental sculp-
ture in the round, of which the earliest known
dated example, the baboon of Narmer, is carved
out of this same stone.38At present it seems
unlikely that we shall be able to establish the
date, or even the antiquity, of our figure on a
firmer basis. Yet it seems at least as probable
that the figure comes from one of the hundreds
of tombs rifled during Petrie's time as that it
was thought up by a forger.
Conclusion.A few positive arguments have been
put forwrardhere in support of our six human
figures.These are admittedly tenuous and based
on qualitative judgements. It has also been
pointed out that in a few cases statements which
tend to discredit our figures may be challenged.
None of them reveals features w7hichwould
positively identify it as a forgery. Moreover,it
should be recalled that a disproportionate
numberof the best and most complete Egyptian
antiquities of all periods have been bought, and
that sometimes whole classes of undoubtedly
genuine material, for example the historical
scarabs of Amenophis III, are without the
benefit of a single excavated specimen. Quanti-
tative studies of Predynastic figures which do
not take into account the results of wholesale
plundering are likely to be misleading, parti-
cularly if the excavation reports are not ran-
sacked for shreds of evidence. This caution
would even include physico-chemical analyses,
such as Ucko's analysis of the white paint.39
excavations are known. Both are dated to the end of
the Gerzeanperiod.The first is a black steatite female
figure, height 5.7 cm. (Scharff,Abusir el-Meleq[1926]
pl. 39); the second is a limestone male figure,height
5.5 cm. (Petrie TarkhanII [1914] pl. 1).
38Wolf, op.cit. 56, figs. 24 and 25: Scharff, Die
Altertilmerder Vor-undFriihzeitAegyptens(Staatliche
Museen zu Berlin) II (1931), no. 95. Height 52 cm.
Ourfigureis not, of course,comparableto this famous
baboon, but we would venture to suggest, in spite of
the vastly different scale, that the large limestone
statues of Min from Coptos, which also wore beards,
resemble our little figure in the treatment of
the arms, (Wolf, op. cit. 57 and fig. 27; height
about 2 m.).
39Ucko pp. 209-210, 221.
 WINIFRED NEEDLER, SIX PREDYNASTIC FIGURES V]

Moreover,statistical studies of individual fea-
tures (e.g. beak-face, raised arms, etc.) are per-
haps less trustworthy than long and intimate
knowledge of a great number of specimens
such as Petrie possessed. But his familiaritywith
Predynastic figures, which may even be com-
pared to the field archaeologist's recognition of
the diagnostic potsherd or to the palaeographer's
recognition of handwriting, was not enough to
prove the antiquity of his purchased specimens.
Judgements of this kind, to be objective, must
be shared by a sufficiently large group of people
equally familiarwith the material. Ourtwo mud
figures (1 and 2) are still notoriously doubtful,
while the present writer is inclined to believe in
them. The calcareous clay figure (3), also of
well-known type, perhaps has more points in
its favor. The calcite figure (6), while not re-
sembling closely any excavated figures, has
nothing positively suspicious about it, and
relates in several significant details to various
pieces of proved antiquity. The two figures of
baked clay (4 and 5) are similar in style, tech-
nique and material to excavated specimens but
their antiquity cannot be established beyond
all doubt.
With more knowledge,new testing techniques
and more general concensus of opinion, some
at least of these six figures may cross the
shadowy line between hypothesis and fact, and
become either useful archaeologicaldocuments
or, what would be equally gratifying, proved
forgeries. Their prospects seem brighter now
than at any time since Petrie's day, because
important Predynastic sites will surely be ex-
cavated in the near future.
Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto

List of Plates
PI. V, fig. i. Large beak-face female figure (front view). R.O.M. Acc.No. 948.34.91.
fig. 2. Large beak-face female figure (profile).R.O.M. Acc.No. 948.34.91.
fig. 3. Large female figure with applied "wig" (front view). R.O.M. Acc.No. 910.2.46.
fig. 4. Large female figure with applied "wig" (profile).R.O.M. Acc.No. 910.2.46.
PI. VI, fig. 5. Seated female figure (front view). R.O.M. Acc.No. 910.92.7.
fig. 6. Seated female figure (profile).R.O.M. Acc.No. 910.92.7.
fig. 7. Seated female figure (back). R.O.M. Acc.No. 910.92.7.
PI. VII, fig. 8. Female figure carrying pot (front view). R.O.M. Acc.No. 910.92.13.
fig. 9. Female figure carrying pot (profile).R.O.M. Ace. No. 910.92.13.
fig. 10. Seated female figure. MetropolitanMuseum.
fig. 11. Pottery male figure (front view). R.O.M. Acc.No. 910.92.14.
PI. VIII, fig. 12. Pottery male figure (profile). R.O.M. Acc.No. 910.92.14.
fig. 13. Calcite male figure (front view). R.O.M. Acc.No. 910.92.19.
fig. 14. Calcite male figure (profile). R.O.M. Acc.No. 910.92.19.
fig. 15. Tusks and ivory male figure.Ayrton and Loat, PredynasticCemeteryat El-Mahasna,
PI. 11.
PL IX, fig. 16. Carved tusk. R.O.M. Acc.No. 936.16.5.
fig. 17. Carved tusk. R.O.M. Acc.No. 921.26.1.
fig. 18. Pair of calcite and ivory idols from Naqada. Baumgartel Culturesof Prehistoric
Egypt, PL 5, nos. 11 and 12.
WINFRED NEEDLER, SIX PREDYNASTICFIGURES V

I 2

3 4
VI JARCE5 (1966)

5 7

6
WINFRED NEEDLER, SIX PREDYNASTICFIGURES VII

8 9

10 ii
VIII JARCE5 (1966)

12
14

13 15
WINFRED NEEDLER, SIX PREDYNASTICFIGURES '.