on a nubian frontier — landscapes of settlement on the third cataract of the nile, sudan
Post on 29-Mar-2017
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Alberta]On: 26 November 2014, At: 18:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Azania: Archaeological Research inAfricaPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raza20
On a Nubian frontier — landscapes ofsettlement on the Third Cataract of theNile, SudanDavid N. Edwards a , Ali Osman b , Yahia Fadl Tahir b , AzhariMustafa Sadig c & Intisar Soghayroun el-Zein ba School of Archaeology and Ancient History , University ofLeicester , LE1 7RH , United Kingdomb Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts , University ofKhartoum , P.O. Box 321, Khartoum , Sudanc College of Tourism and Archaeology , King Saud University , P.O.Box 2627, Riyadh , 12372 , Saudi ArabiaPublished online: 13 Nov 2012.
To cite this article: David N. Edwards , Ali Osman , Yahia Fadl Tahir , Azhari Mustafa Sadig &Intisar Soghayroun el-Zein (2012) On a Nubian frontier — landscapes of settlement on the ThirdCataract of the Nile, Sudan, Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 47:4, 450-487, DOI:10.1080/0067270X.2012.727615
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2012.727615
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
On a Nubian frontier * landscapes of settlement on the Third Cataractof the Nile, Sudan
David N. Edwardsa*, Ali Osmanb, Yahia Fadl Tahirb, Azhari Mustafa Sadigc and
Intisar Soghayroun el-Zeinb
aSchool of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, LE1 7RH, UnitedKingdom; bDepartment of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Khartoum, P.O. Box 321,Khartoum, Sudan; cCollege of Tourism and Archaeology, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2627,Riyadh 12372, Saudi Arabia
Through the twentieth century much of the Nubian Nile Valley has seenarchaeological survey and excavation, largely in response to its destruction bysuccessive dams built at Aswan. The Mahas Survey Project of the University ofKhartoum has continued this work on the Third Cataract approximately 700 kmupriver of the First Cataract, within a survey concession extending over some80 km of the Nile and its immediate hinterlands, an area now under threat by theconstruction of a dam at Kajbaar. We present here an outline of the long-termdevelopment of the region’s settlement landscapes, broadly conceptualised, andtheir relation to those encountered in adjoining regions. It is possible to draw outsome aspects of its cultural distinctiveness at a regional or larger scale, as well asthe varying role of the Third Cataract as a cultural and political frontier in differentperiods. A contextual approach to its rock art suggests some fresh insights into thelatter’s likely significance. A complex and varied settlement history is beginning toemerge which both challenges representations of a uniquely timeless and ancientoccupation of the land by autochthonous ‘Nubians’, while raising many newquestions concerning the history of this frontier land.
Keywords: Nubia; Mahas; landscape archaeology; frontier; settlement
La majorite de la vallee du Nil nubienne a, au cours du vingtieme siecle, faitl’objet de prospections et de fouilles, largement en raison de sa destruction par lesbarrages successifs batis a Assouan. Le Mahas Survey Project de l’Universite deKhartoum a poursuivi ce travail sur la Troisieme Cataracte, a environ 700kilometres en amont de la Premiere Cataracte, au sein d’une concession deprospection qui s’etend de part et d’autre du fleuve sur environ 80 kilometres,zone a present menacee par la construction d’un barrage a Kajbaar. Nouspresentons ici un apercu du developpement a long terme des dynamiquesd’occupation de la region, concues largement, et leur relation avec celles quel’on trouve dans les zones voisines. Il est possible d’isoler certains aspects despecificite culturelle a l’echelle regionale ou a une echelle plus vaste, et de revelerle role variable que prit a differentes periodes la Troisieme Cataracte en tant quefrontiere culturelle ou politique. Une approche contextuelle de l’art rupestrefournit de nouveaux elements sur la probable signification de cette derniere. Unesequence d’occupation complexe et variee commence a emerger, qui remet enquestion l’idee d’une occupation par des populations ‘nubiennes’ autochtonesdepuis les temps immemoriaux, et qui souleve bien des nouvelles questions quanta l’histoire de cette zone-frontiere.
*Email: dne1@le.ac.uk
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa
Vol. 47, No. 4, December 2012, 450�487
ISSN 0067-270X print/ISSN 1945-5534 online
# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2012.727615
http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Introduction
Through the twentieth century much of the Nubian Nile Valley has seen
archaeological survey and excavation, largely in response to the destruction of its
landscapes by successive dams built at Aswan. The reservoir of the High Dam,
completed in 1970, completed the inundation of some 480 km of the river valley.
Building on two exploratory survey seasons in the early 1990s, the Mahas Survey
Project of the University of Khartoum has continued the archaeological exploration
of Sudanese Nubia. Supplementing fieldwork south of the Dal Cataract in the 1970s
(Vila 1979), the project has extended archaeological survey upriver to the Third
Cataract. With a survey concession extending over approximately 80 km of the Nile,
from the southern end of the Third Cataract (Hannik-Tombos) to Delgo (Figure 1),
only about 70 km (of the northern Mahas region) between the Third and First
Cataracts have yet to see any field survey. The imminent threat of further dams
at Kajbaar and perhaps Dal may, however, complete the destruction of most of this
700 km-stretch of the Nile Valley.While the Department of Archaeology of the University of Khartoum has carried
out student field training in the region since the late 1980s, the support of the
Haycock Fund of the British Institute in Eastern Africa allowed the research
objectives of the project to be extended, supporting fieldwork seasons in 2000, 2002
and 2005 and the collaboration of expatriate researchers. In addition to archae-
ological survey, research was extended into Nubian language-use, linguistics and
toponymy (Bell 2000; Hashim and Bell 2000; Bell and Hashim 2002) and
palaeoenvironmental conditions (Tahir 2010). Earlier studies had explored aspects
of its ‘traditional’ farming regimes (al-Batal 1994a, 1994b) and folklore (Osman
1992). Various intensities of pedestrian survey were employed in the main riverine
focus of the survey, in later phases greatly aided by freely available high-resolution
satellite imagery, which proved especially valuable in more open ‘hinterland’
landscapes. Some significant lacunae are known to exist, especially within areas of
modern settlement and their fields, and are outlined in more detailed published
reports elsewhere (Osman and Edwards 2012, 33�36).
Notwithstanding our varied research interests, by the later 1990s a further
imperative was emerging with the development of plans for a dam at Kajbaar at the
downstream end of the Third Cataract, construction of which threatened to inundate
large parts of the southern Mahas region. These plans were temporarily shelved with
the decision to build the Merowe (Hamdab) Dam on the Fourth Cataract, which was
completed in 2008. However, in 2012 the prospects for the construction of the
Kajbaar Dam again seem high (Haaland et al. 2011). Following several seasons of
field survey in the region, data relating to more than 690 registered ‘sites’ or other
features (Osman and Edwards 2012) now provide us with a basis for developing
strategies for responding to dam construction. Enough data have, however, already
been collected to present an outline of the long-term development of the region’s
settlement landscapes. Such regional patterns may also be related to those
encountered in adjoining regions to the north (in Lower and Middle Nubia) and
south (the Dongola Reach and the Fourth Cataract region).
From the project’s outset it has been clear that the survey area has a number of
features that enhance its interest as a focus for a regional survey. Set astride some
60 km of rapids and rocky islands that together form the Third Cataract, the
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 451
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
southern Mahas represents the southern end of a much larger Middle Nubian
landscape dominated by its rugged geology (Precambrian basement complex). In
many periods this has clearly marked a zone of transition, with both political and
cultural frontiers coalescing at times around the physical barrier of the cataract. The
very marked physical manifestations of the geology also allow clear contrasts to be
drawn with neighbouring regions. This is particularly evident in relation to the basin
lands of the Dongola Reach immediately to the south, and indeed the open plains
that form much of northern and central Sudan. Throughout the later Holocene the
Figure 1. The Mahas region and the Third Cataract zone, Sudan.
452 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
margins of the braided river channels of the fertile Kerma Basin supported a densely
populated landscape (Welsby 2001). With the ongoing desiccation of northern Nubia
(which lay within the expanding Saharan zone), these environmental contrasts only
became more pronounced, with areas to the north of the Third Cataract becomingincreasingly inhospitable.
The later prehistoric archaeology
Sparse populations were reappearing in this region during the early Holocene, after
many centuries of what may have been near total abandonment in the face of extreme
aridity. Even at this early date the Kerma Basin was becoming a focus for settlement.
Recent survey has mapped many sites on the eastern margins of the Kerma Basinwith both Mesolithic occupation (dating to c. 8000 BC or earlier [we use calendar
years throughout this paper])) and a (predominantly pastoral) Neolithic presence
from the early sixth millennium BC. Recent work suggests the presence there of
domesticated cattle within settlements as early as 7200�6500 BC (Honegger 2011, 4),
with cattle found associated with a cemetery dated to c. 5750 BC (Honegger 2005).
The moister conditions of the early Holocene introduced a grassland and scrub
mosaic to the region, although by the mid-Holocene (6000�5000 BP) conditions were
again becoming drier, with denser vegetation likely to have been increasinglyrestricted to the wadis of the hinterland. By such times, distinctions between riverine
areas and their ‘hinterlands’ were becoming more pronounced.
Within the survey area, a number of mid-Holocene sites have been encountered
(Figure 2), although most occupation may be expected to lie beyond the riverine
areas where most survey work has been focused to date. Where the ‘hinterland’ has
begun to be explored, for example along the Wadi Farja, such a mid-Holocene
presence is very evident, reflecting very different environmental conditions from now.
Dated samples of Nile oyster shells (Etheria elliptica) from the central wadi areasuggest abundant, probably flowing water along the wadi in the mid-seventh
millennium BC (Wk-20617: 7617950 BP; Wk-20618 7687950 BP). One further
interesting relic of this more ancient landscape can be recognised in the burnt out tree
lines, most commonly along ancient watercourses/palaeochannels (Figure 3). These
manifest themselves as raised mounds of hard-fired (sometimes vitrified) red clay/
soil. Similar burnt trees have been identified in the Wadi Hariq, some 400 km to the
west of our survey area, where examples of ‘entire trees with their top and branches
and almost 1m thick trunks’, dateable to the third millennium BC, have been founderoding out of playa sediments (Jesse et al. 2004, 124).
Along the main river channel there are numerous indications of significantly
higher river levels during the early-to-mid Holocene and the existence of several
palaeochannels and/or swampy embayments. These survive today as often prominent
silt/gravel terraces, commonly up to 1 km from the modern river channel. North of
Kajbaar, in the Kokke area, some such terraces lie 3�4 km west of the modern river
in areas now disappearing beneath agricultural schemes. Extensive thin spreads of
stone tools have been noted in this general area. As was found in the Fourth Cataractregion (Gabriel and Wolf 2007), the distribution of sites reflects these hydrological
regimes. In particular, riverine early-to-mid Holocene sites may be expected to lie
above the high flood levels of the period, that is above a contour of 214�216 m asl
(the 216 m contour is the likely reservoir level for the proposed Kajbaar Dam).
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 453
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Relatively high flood levels may have persisted, at least intermittently, as late as the
third or even second millennia BC, as Kerma period sites are also generally found
located on raised ground approaching such levels.
Until relatively recently, debates centred on specific sites in the eastern Sahara,
notably those around Nabta Playa (Wendorf and Schild 1998), have perhaps unduly
Figure 2. Late prehistoric sites (Neolithic and ‘Kerma’) in survey area.
454 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
dominated our understandings of the ‘Mesolithic-Neolithic’ transitions played out
over large landscapes of today’s Sahara and Sahel. Notwithstanding controversial
claims for an exceptionally early domestication of African cattle in that region
(Wengrow 2006, 47�48), we now have growing evidence for the widespread
appearance of herding in the centuries after c. 6000 BC, the defining characteristic
of this regional ‘Neolithic’ as in much of the rest of Sudanic Africa (Marshall and
Hildebrand 2002). Ceramic studies of the ‘Khartoum Variant’ tradition (notably
Gatto 2006) have now established a credible basis for tracing the development of the
‘Dotted Wavy Line’ (Impressed Wavy Line) pottery of this region’s hunter-fisher-
gatherer (Mesolithic) populations through to the ‘Early Neolithic’ of riverine
northern Sudan. A sequence of later sites of the fifth to third millennia BC is now
known from the northern Dongola Reach region (Honegger 1999, 2004b; Reinold
1987, 2001; Welsby 2001; Salvatori and Usai 2008). Survey and excavations there
have identified the presence of substantial cemeteries associated with what may have
been several active Nile channels, east of the present Nile. Some developed into long-
lived landscape features, with some larger examples (]1000 burials) potentially
remaining in use for 500�600 years.
The focus of relatively sedentary pottery-using hunter-fisher-gatherers in more
favoured, mainly riverine environments in north and central Sudan is now well
recognised (Edwards 2004, 26�31). The margins of the rich alluvium of the Kerma
Basin lands just to the south was clearly one such focus for settlement from the mid-
Holocene, and settlement sites are now being found with structural remains and
perhaps burials dated as early as c. 7200�6500 BC (Honegger 2011). Mesolithic or
Early Neolithic presence outside the basin lands appears more limited, with only a
small number of sites, all found within the cataract region. Where tested, such sites
Figure 3. ‘Burnt mounds’ representing ancient tree lines along Wadi Farjar.
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 455
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
seem to be heavily deflated and restricted to surface deposits. This includes material
quite comparable with that from the ‘Mesolithic’ occupation (c. 7300 BC) at Barga
(Honegger 2004a, 2005, 243), while several other sites seem likely to date to the first
half of the sixth millennium BC. Exploratory work away from the modern Nile,
especially along the Wadi Farja, has also made clear the importance of extending
research into what are today the river’s arid hinterlands if we are to gain an
appreciation of the full extent of later prehistoric landscape use. Such material is
most abundant in the central Wadi Farja, an area dominated by some quite well
defined contours along the ancient watercourse. Examples of small sub-circular
stone features about 1.5 m in diameter have also been recorded. They are reminiscent
of the ‘Steinplatzen’ commonly encountered in the Sahara and usually interpreted as
fireplaces (Gabriel 2001; Paner and Borcowski 2005, 104). Neolithic cemeteries have,
however, so far proved elusive. One possibility is that the cemeteries of the Kerma
Basin lands were used by populations with quite a wide landscape range. The quite
common occurrence of very tightly flexed burials indicative of the tight wrapping/
binding of Neolithic bodies would, of course, be consistent with the practical
requirements of transporting the dead to such established places of burial. Only in
the very late Neolithic have indications of local burials been encountered, in the form
of some ‘cleft burials’, with bodies being inserted into open spaces on exposed
sandstone terraces (e.g. behind Mashakeela village-MSK003).
A small number of sites were located that may be dated to the ‘Late Neolithic’ of
this region (also known as the ‘pre-Kerma), during the later fourth/early third
millennia BC. Their distinctive pottery shows many correspondences with the long-
known ‘A-Group’ of Lower Nubia (Honegger 2004a, 2004b; Edwards 2004, 66�68).
Test excavations at Arduan (ARD002) suggest the presence of a large site there with
Figure 4. Late prehistoric ‘wall’ along Wadi Farjar.
456 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
large numbers of storage pits, containing large quantities of pottery, as well as post-
built structures. Similar pits dating to the early third millennium BC are known from
Sai Island, where well-preserved examples contained barley and emmer wheat, as
well as millets and fruit stones (Hildebrand 2007). Pottery from the Arduan site
compares well with material published from recent excavations of a ‘pre-Kerma’
settlement at Kerma (Privati 1988; Bonnet 1990, figure 108; Honegger 1999, 2004b)
currently dated to around 3000 BC. Such sites provide some of our earliest evidencefor significant agricultural production in the region that built on earlier pastoral
traditions; a full investigation of this site will be a priority for future work. The
location of the Arduan site remains slightly puzzling as the seasonal island otherwise
shows little evidence of later prehistoric occupation. That the choice of location may
relate to very early riverine trade is one possibility that might be considered.
Another important consideration is that Neolithic exploitation of the landscape
outside the fertile Kerma Basin lands may also have continued to use these areas for
hunting (and gathering?) as much as for herding. Late prehistoric hunting may be
manifested in the form of often extensive networks of stone ‘walls’ encountered
across much of the Third Cataract region, likely to represent hunting drives or traps.
A broad mid-Holocene date seems likely, although it is quite possible that some may
have continued in use as late as the third/second millennia BC. Similar structures
have been recorded in Egypt’s Western Desert (Hester and Hobler 1969; Riemer
2004, 2009). Comparisons may be drawn with known hunting traditions recorded in
both Egypt and Arabia that are sometimes associated with pit traps and snares(Edwards 2006a) or with hunting methods documented in the Kanem and Bahr el-
Ghazal regions of the Chad Basin (Chapelle 1957, 202; Nicolaisen 2010).
The recognition of these ‘walls’ has prompted an interest in their wider
distribution (and the forms of hunting with which they may have been associated)
in the landscapes of Northeast Africa. Following their recognition within the rocky
landscapes of both the Third and Fourth Cataract regions (e.g. Wolf and Nowotnick
2006, 29) the availability of satellite imagery has made further investigation of their
distribution possible, confirming their presence further north toward the Second
Cataract, most commonly on the west bank of the Nile. They are not visible today,
however, further north or in Egyptian Lower Nubia, where the width of Lake Nubia
is wider. As such, they were clearly once very widely encountered in large areas of the
Egyptian Western Desert, as well as within the cataract landscapes of northern
Sudan. Interestingly, however, no examples have yet been identified elsewhere in
Sudan.
If such ‘hunting walls’ relate to a more extensive form of land use in the laterprehistoric period, from the third millennium BC settled occupation becomes more
visible in the form of at least 70 Kerma period (c. 2500�1500 BC) sites (Figure 2).
While most are close to the river, some continuing wadi-focused occupation is also
perhaps signalled by the clustering of sites near the two ends of the Wadi Farja, as
well as along other ancient palaeochannels. Some occupation has been found on the
islands of Simit and Musul, although not, as yet, on Arduan Island. Along the Nile
bend a further series of sites was identified along the edge of embayments in the
Jawgul area on the lower terraces about 1 km or more from the modern riverbank.
Around the Kajbaar Cataract, the area of Jebel Wahaaba seems likely to have been
another focus of activity, with evidence for a Kerma presence on the hilltop (masked
by several later phases of occupation) and a large cemetery below.
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 457
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
As yet we probably do not know the full landscape range of Kerma populations,
elements of which may still have been ranging significant distances away from the
river in search of grazing, at least on a seasonal basis. While it is certainly tempting to
see this period as one of growing populations with a more permanent occupation of
at least parts of the landscape, it is also apparent that the scale of population within
the region remained considerably less than in the more welcoming landscapes of the
Kerma Basin just to the south, which seems to have been quite densely occupied by
permanent agricultural settlements (Gratien 1998; Gratien et al. 2003).
The broad focus of occupation relatively close to the Nile by this period remains
clear. However, as work along the Wadi Farja has also shown, some use was still
being made of inland areas, probably mainly for relatively short-term (seasonal?)
herding (and perhaps hunting). That, however, some may have maintained a more
permanent presence away from the river may be suggested by the occasional clusters
of graves located in this hinterland (Figure 5). This raises interesting questions
concerning possible social distinctions between groups buried in riverine zones and
those in the interior, sometimes 5�6 km from the Nile, set apart from larger riverine
cemeteries. Such spatial variability amongst the Kerma period population may reflect
distinctions between those who were more agriculturally focused and those who
favoured a more pastoral lifestyle. Potentially similar distinctions have previously
been identified in more northerly parts of Middle Nubia, there perceived as two
populations, ‘differenciees par la technologie et la status social’ (Vila 1979, 34�35).
Interesting parallels may perhaps be drawn with patterns of recent landscape
occupation in the Fourth Cataract region where more mobile pastorally oriented
groups locate their dry-season settlements some distance (1�2 km) from the river
(Wolf and Nowotnick 2005, 28), while ranging into the interior following the rains.
Figure 5. Cluster of Kerma burials (c. 1800�1500 BC) along Wadi Farjar, some 6 km from theNile.
458 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
While most settlement sites survive as surface scatters much eroded by
deflationary processes, a small number of sites with surviving architecture have
been located on the east bank north of the Kajbaar Cataract. As rectilinear buildings
built of mudbrick and stone, such structures are very similar to examples
encountered in the Kerma Basin (Gratien et al. 2003), as well as further north
(Vila 1979, 35). The chronological span of pottery from the sites suggests long-term
occupation of these locations. On the west bank downstream of Kajbaar mostpermanent occupation may well have been located well to the west of the current
river channel, above the levels then still liable to seasonal flooding. The open plains
to the west of Sesi will also have offered opportunities for grazing and hunting.
However, to date, it is only at the extreme north end of the survey area around
Handikke that Kerma sites have been located. Ongoing excavations will hopefully
confirm whether the Egyptian colony town of Sesibi was established on the site of an
existing Kerma settlement (Spence et al. 2009, 2011).
An awareness of the differences between the physical landscapes of the Kerma
Basin and our survey area also draws attention to the ways in which the physical
form of the landscapes may have shaped cultural practices and, in turn, our
perceptions of cultural variability. This is most obvious, perhaps, in the variable
construction of Kerma grave superstructures, where both pebble-covered earth
tumuli and stone superstructures are encountered. In the literature, such different
forms of burial superstructure continue to be associated with different Kushite
cultural traditions, for example distinguishing ‘early Kerma’ from ‘early C-Group’burials (Gratien 2011, 228). However, we note that graves in the northern Dongola
Reach/Kerma Basin (where pebble-covered tumuli are the norm) lie in an area
generally lacking surface stone. Stone superstructures begin to be found within the
Third Cataract region wherever surface stone becomes available (as indeed they are
in the rocky Fourth Cataract region). Rather than representing a significant cultural
choice, such variability might perhaps therefore be more convincingly interpreted in
terms of a pragmatic engagement with available local materials.
Another prominent manifestation of the later prehistoric inhabitation of the
region may be found in the numerous rock engravings found in more than 30 ‘sites’
(varying from single images to large panel complexes of multiple images). The later
prehistoric rock art probably includes a large proportion of the zoomorphic designs,
especially those with cattle, and their herders (Figure 6). There is little to suggest an
earlier (Neolithic) date for many of these. Much similar material may be found
amongst the large corpora of rock art previously recorded in northern Nubia (e.g.
Hellstrom 1970; Otto and Buschendorf-Otto 1993) and more recently in the Fourth
Cataract region (Kleinitz 2004, 2008). This mass of data clearly invites much moresystematic analysis, but initial studies certainly suggest that a large proportion of the
approximately 12,000 drawings so far recorded between the Third and Second
Cataracts are likely to be associated with Kushite (Kerma and C-Group) occupation
during the third and second millennia BC. This growing body of material also clearly
invites inter-regional comparative studies, both within Nubia and between riverine
areas and adjoining Saharan regions.
While attributing ‘meanings’ to such engravings must remain speculative, the
possibility that they might usefully be conceptualised as forms of ‘shrines’ has
suggested some interesting lines of research that could be developed further. That
their common emphasis on cattle may also be related to a developing ‘bovine
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 459
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
aesthetic’ in this period also merits exploration (Edwards 2006b). This, in turn, may
suggest something of the potential role of rock art in enculturing the landscape. That
rock engraving sites can function as shrines is clear. Within this region examples are
known of modern shrines associated with ancient rock drawings, while ethnographic
records exist of rock drawings in use as active shrines elsewhere in the Sudan (e.g.
Balfour Paul 1956). We may also recall Evans-Pritchard’s (1940, 209) evocative
description of how a Nuer’s ‘beasts dedicated to ghosts and spirits are his wandering
shrines’. Where cattle may be dedicated to protective spirits and ancestral ghosts, the
spirits and ghosts are in turn present within the herds. In such terms, it may be not
too fanciful to envisage mobile ‘beasts as shrines’ transformed into static shrines.
Through rock art, the animals, their protective spirits and ancestral ghosts may all be
fixed in place.
Such a line of interpretation raises, of course, many further interesting questions
concerning the relationship of such practices to more general ritual practices and the
‘domestication of the landscape’ (Mather 2003). If, by its nature, the production of
rock art is constrained by the geology that allows its creation (and survival), how
may it be related to ritual practices performed within different landscapes? To what
extent should we perceive the making of rock art as a (significantly?) different form
of practice, rather than merely an unusually durable manifestation of more
generalised forms of practice? Did the boulders of the cataract regions simply
provide a new medium for celebrating and inscribing on the landscape the special
significance of cattle, or indeed other natural wonders? Did the (hypothetical) shrines
Figure 6. Rock drawings of cattle and herders at Sabu (third/second millennia BC).
460 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
simply take on new forms? In the open plains of central Sudan, and indeed much of
Sudanic Africa (e.g. Dawson 2009), ancient and long-lived trees may, for example,
have performed potentially similar roles as ‘powerful places’ for ritual performances,
and have continued to do so into recent times.
On a colonial frontier
The mid-second millennium BC imposed a new political structure on the region’s
landscape. The revived Eighteenth Dynasty Pharaonic state reconquered Lower
Nubia and, within a few generations, struck south into the heartland of Kush and its
capital at Kerma. From the reign of Tuthmosis I (1504�1492 BC), Egyptian military
campaigns penetrated south of the Third Cataract to Kerma itself, with a morecomplete defeat of the Kushites achieved under Tuthmosis III (c. 1450 BC). The
Mahas region sat astride the northern approaches to Kerma and here too the
Egyptian imperial power anchored its southern boundary in the mid-second
millennium BC. An Egyptian viceregal administration was created in the conquered
territories of Middle and Lower Nubia, the headquarters of the idnw of Kush being
located north of the Third Cataract, first at Soleb and then at Amara West. The
Egyptian presence in the landscape was centred on these and a small number of other
substantial settlements, potent material expressions of a new Egyptian spatial order.Of these, the site of Sesibi is still the southernmost yet identified, although a number
of Egyptian temples were constructed further south (Bonnet 2008; Kendall and Wolf
2011). Notwithstanding such activities, the Third Cataract marked a significant
frontier south of which an Egyptian presence was much more poorly defined.
This Egyptian presence in northern Nubia and its impact on existing settlement
landscapes has a considerable interest as an early imperial and colonial enterprise
(Smith 2003). The construction of large enclosed settlements certainly introduced
new landscape foci in Middle Nubia, although the extent to which the colonialpresence introduced a new spatial order to the larger region remains to be fully
determined. That this may have required the relocation/resettling of local popula-
tions, who survived the campaigns of conquest populations, seems not unlikely. The
regional focus of the Egyptian presence was the town site of Sesibi, in an enclosed
settlement covering about 5.4 ha, set within massive mudbrick walls. Excavated in the
1930s, this was not further examined by our project and a new fieldwork project has
recently been established there (Spence et al. 2009, 2011). While such work promises
to throw much new light on the place and role of Sesibi within the wider regionallandscape, a number of observations can be made now. The choice of location may
partly have been determined by the local availability of agricultural land. Sesibi also
lies at the south end of a �45-km stretch of exceptionally rocky and broken
landscape that continues to near Soleb, the site of the next large Egyptian centre. A
more specific imperative for the choice of location may perhaps be found in the local
geology and gold-bearing properties of the nearby hills. That the function of Sesibi
was, in fact, at least partially linked to mining activities seems clear from discoveries
made during the 1937 excavations of a ‘work-room in which quartz had beencrushed’ (Fairman 1938, 153). Recent fieldwork at the site (Spence et al. 2009) has
recovered further evidence relating to gold-production.
While the existence of the New Kingdom settlement at Sesibi and of royal and
official inscriptions at Tombos and Nauri has been known since the nineteenth
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 461
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
century, further survey has only identified a small number of additional sites. The
distinctiveness of New Kingdom pottery suggests that this is not a factor of
inadequate survey and the scarcity of sites dated to the second half of the second
millennium BC is itself noteworthy. The most important discovery was of a cemetery
at Tombos, close to several Eighteenth Dynasty inscriptions (Davies 2008, 2009) and
some adjoining granite quarries known to be the source of a number of New
Kingdom objects (Harrell 1999). Work at the site has since been passed to Dr S. T.Smith of the University of California, Santa Barbara, whose ongoing excavations
have confirmed that this is a most unusual site containing burials of both Egyptian
colonial officials (e.g. one Siamun ‘Overseer of Foreign Lands’ and his wife Weren)
and Nubians (Smith 2003, 2008; Buzon et al. 2007). Established in an early phase of
the New Kingdom ‘colonial’ adventure in Nubia, the cemetery may have been in use
over at least 200 years, an Egyptian presence of some eight to ten generations. The
location of this enigmatic site is perhaps itself indicative of a specifically frontier role.
Some 75 km upriver of the fortified colony town at Sesibi, it is also set apart from
(outside) the ‘Nubian’ heartlands of the Kerma Basin.
Little other evidence for a more general Egyptian presence within the cataract
zone has been encountered. Nauri is long known as the site of a large formal
inscription of Sethos I (1294�1279 BC), on the easternmost of two prominent hills.
Only two further, probably associated, sites have otherwise been found, both on the
east (right) bank about 20 km downriver of Tombos. A settlement site (Habaraab-
HBB017) consists of a complex of stone-built structures covering about 1 ha.Lacking an enclosure wall, the architecture of the complex would seem to be within
indigenous traditions although the abundant surface pottery seems entirely
‘Egyptian’. A cluster of five Egyptian graffiti some 700 m away and close to the
river may also hint at some sort of riverine connection for the site.
Elsewhere, a few other Egyptian inscriptions/graffiti have been found nearer the
Kajbaar Cataract, in an area already marked by large numbers of rock drawings by
the mid-second millennium BC. Like similar graffiti in Egypt and Lower Nubia, such
texts were left by Egyptian officials passing along the river. Relatively few have been
found south of the Second Cataract, but an association with areas where rapids (as at
Tanjur) interrupted river movement may be suggested (Hintze and Reineke 1989;
Peden 2001, 93�94). Similar associations may perhaps account for the presence of
these graffiti close to the Kajbaar Cataract, intertwined with cultic practices in a
location already marked by many rock drawings as a ‘special place’. The ritual
importance of prominent landscape features may be seen demonstrated at a much
greater scale at places such as Sehel Island at the First Cataract (Gasse and Rondot
2008), where some of the same individuals also carved their names. A carvedcartouche of Ahmose I (reigned 1550�1525 BC) was also found on the hilltop
overlooking the rapids. This provides an intriguing indication of some form of
Egyptian presence this far south in the early Eighteenth Dynasty, nearly a century
before the conquest of Kerma. More enigmatically, a single New Kingdom tomb
(DFF012) was has been found on the west bank just above the Kajbaar Cataract.
Why this should be set apart from cemeteries at Sesibi only a few hours travel to the
north is unclear.
The limited extent of an Egyptian presence south of Sesibi and within the
cataract zone further brings into focus the unusual nature of the Egyptian presence
at Tombos, interpreted by Smith (2008, 99) as ‘a diplomatic enclave and watch-post
462 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
outside of the temple-town system . . . farther to the north’. In general terms, the
absence of even New Kingdom sherd material outside the few better-defined sites
might suggest a real ‘emptiness’ on the southern margins of the viceregal province.
Landscape in transition in the first millennium BC?
Following the Egyptian withdrawal from Nubia in the last centuries of the second
millennium BC very little is known of the region’s history until the re-emergence of a
revived Kushite state in the early first millennium BC. During the first half of that
millennium, we now have growing evidence for quite widespread Napatan occupa-
tion throughout the northern Dongola Reach, especially on the east bank with major
centres at Kawa and Tabo, as well as in the vicinity of the old second millenniumcentre of Kerma, which again emerges as a significant settlement focus in the
Twenty-Fifth Dynasty/Napatan period (Bonnet and Valbelle 2006, 34�39).
While a number of broadly dated Napatan sites have now been identified further
north in Lower and Middle Nubia, occupation seems to have remained sparse. The
relatively widespread settlement evident in the early second millennium BC was never
re-established. Some areas seem to have been largely devoid of occupation sufficient
to leave archaeological traces, although between the Third and Dal Cataract, several
settlements are known (e.g. Sedeinga, Sai, Abri and Amara). The character anddistribution of such northern sites may perhaps best be explained by the political and
perhaps economic concerns of the state, maintaining a necessary presence along the
otherwise inhospitable river corridor linking the Kushite heartlands with Egypt. This
established a pattern that seems to have been maintained throughout the Kushite
period into the first millennium AD.
Survey work within the Third Cataract region further confirms this picture
through the first millennium BC. Virtually no traces of Napatan occupation have
been found within the broken landscape of the cataract zone north of Tombos-Hannik. While the Tombos quarries supplied many Napatan royal statues of the
seventh and eighth centuries BC (Bonnet and Valbelle 2006), this in itself does not
presuppose significant permanent settlement in the locality, as the quarries were
easily accessible from the Kerma area, even though two Napatan cemeteries have
been located close by. One such statue was abandoned in the quarry, becoming a
prominent landscape feature (with its own folklore) that has remained into modern
times.
North of the Kajbaar Cataract one significant discovery in the early years of theproject was of a previously unrecognised Napatan presence within the walls of the
old Egyptian settlement at Sesibi (SES002) and the adjoining cemeteries, marked by
spreads of Napatan pottery. Subsequent fieldwork has confirmed this presence
(Spence et al. 2009, 2011). The choice of Sesibi may reflect its continued presence as a
very visible landscape feature as much as a continuous history of occupation. Its
temple was almost certainly a prominent upstanding ruin, perhaps still quite well
preserved in the early centuries of the first millennium BC. Sesibi was also well
placed as a way station on the Nile route north.The extent to which the Kushite state maintained a continuous presence in
Middle and Lower Nubia throughout the first millennium BC remains uncertain. If
occupation appears very limited in the early first millennium BC, by the last centuries
of the millennium some Meroitic presence begins to be evident, still quite limited in
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 463
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
scale, but suggesting differences with what had gone before. While little evidence for
permanent settlement within the cataract zone has yet been found, a few sherd
scatters indicate at least some presence in several areas. More interestingly, a
Meroitic cemetery was found near Arduan village on Arduan Island and test
excavated in 2000 (Edwards and Osman 2000). Further investigation of this
potentially important site and its environs is highly desirable.
North of the Kajbaar Cataract, no Meroitic material has yet been identified on
the west bank in or around Sesibi or on Jebel Sesi. That the Napatan (re-)occupation
of Sesibi was not maintained into the Meroitic period suggest a further transforma-
tion in the region’s settlement landscape in the later first millennium BC. This break
is accentuated by a shift in occupation to the opposite bank of the river, about 9 km
below the Kajbaar Cataract, where a substantial settlement was established at
Kidurma (Figure 7). In modern times this part of the east bank has been sparsely
populated. The presence of a temple on the site seems likely and there is an extensive
cemetery beside it. Surface survey and some limited salvage excavations in disturbed
areas have confirmed that much of the site is very well preserved with some
potentially excellent conditions of preservation in the arid Nubian environment.
While drifting sand obscures many areas, the site contains large mudbrick structures
suggestive of ‘official’ functions, as well as more lightly constructed buildings.
Possible industrial areas were also identified, including at least one circular pottery
kiln, which compares well with examples found in the Meroitic heartlands. Pottery
from the site includes a wide range of typical Meroitic material, including some
imports and decorated finewares. Some of it seems likely to represent products of a
still unidentified regional production centre, producing some very distinctive
Figure 7. Large mudbrick Meroitic structure (partially cleared in 1930s) at Kidurma.
464 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
decorated wares. Other finds (e.g. imported glass, loomweights, ostraca) compare
well with the range of material encountered at other sites in Middle and Lower
Nubia and Kidurma was clearly an important and substantial settlement, probably
established in the second-first centuries BC.The limited extent of both Napatan and Meroitic settlement within the cataract
zone through the first millennium BC is likely to reflect its limited attractions in a
period when the landscape was becoming increasingly inhospitable. That the
northern Kerma Basin will have presented far greater opportunities for all forms
of existence cannot be doubted, with few incentives to settle in more northerly areas.
No evidence has yet been found for any Meroitic presence in the rangelands of the
interior. The discovery of the Meroitic presence on Arduan Island is, however, of
interest, not least because of its relatively isolated position within the widerlandscape. That its location may best be explained in relation to the management
of river transport through the cataract zone seems likely. Downstream of the Kajbaar
Cataract, the early (Napatan) focus on Sesibi, and subsequent shift to the east bank
at Kidurma, raises further interesting questions. The substantial Meroitic settlement
at Kidurma has much in common with Meroitic settlements encountered throughout
Middle and Lower Nubia. The indications of an ‘official’ character again suggest
that, like most northern settlements, it was established through state-sponsorship.
That it in fact stands apart from (west bank) areas where we might expectagricultural settlements to have been located is especially noteworthy, while it does
not appear to have survived beyond the Meroitic period.
Post-Meroitic transitions * a new beginning?
The survey area has a particular interest in relation to the development of the new
‘Nubian’ political structures that emerged during the early to mid-first millennium
AD, out of which developed the medieval kingdoms of Nobadia, Makuria andAlodia. In al-Aswani’s tenth-century description of Nubia, the Third Cataract was,
by that time, recognised as both a linguistic and administrative frontier, the
boundary between Makuria proper and its northern province (al-Maris to the
Arabs), after Nobadia came under the rule of kings of Dongola: ‘from this place to
the frontier of the Muslims the language of the people is the Marısı, and this
(al-Marıs) is the last (most northerly) district of their king’ (Vantini 1975, 605).
However, how and when this frontier may have first developed at this point are
clearly questions of considerable interest. That such a frontier could have emerged inthe formative years of the kingdoms of Makuria and Nobadia, perhaps during the
fifth to sixth centuries, has certainly seemed likely.
The possible existence of a significant cultural frontier in this area during the
post-Meroitic period had already been suggested when this project began, Sesibi
being the southernmost site where ‘Nobadian’ (‘X-Group’/Ballana) pottery had been
found (Kirwan 1939). Such material is readily distinguishable from contemporary
post-Meroitic wares produced further south in the Dongola Reach. While one or two
examples of ‘northern’ pottery types have since been found in the Dongola Reach,for example at ez-Zuma (El-Tayeb 2010, Figure 13, top left) it seems increasingly
evident that their distribution does respect the Third Cataract ‘frontier’. That
emerging political boundaries may have been manifested materially in such a way in
these formative centuries seems likely, although the dating evidence suggests that this
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 465
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Nobadian presence appears in the area of the Third Cataract relatively late in this
period, only in the sixth century. The virtual absence of post-Meroitic pottery of
recognisably ‘early’ or ‘classic’ forms in Middle Nubia (including the Third Cataract
region) leaves unanswered questions about the nature of any occupation during the
fourth and fifth centuries.
Research in the 1990s had suggested that there were major changes in the
character of settlement in northern Nubia during the first millennium AD, suggestive
of significant differences between the Meroitic and post-Meroitic settlement regimes
(Edwards 1996). The (albeit sparse) evidence from this region would seem to further
confirm this. No more than seven sites can be dated to this period with any
confidence, but some potentially significant changes in the character and distribution
of settlement may be suggested when compared with the Meroitic presence. While the
largest Meroitic centre in the region had been at Kidurma, a new centre developed by
the sixth century, focused on Jebel Sesi (Figure 8) on the opposite bank. The
inhabitants of this hilltop settlement were buried in cemeteries of large tumuli to the
west and north. The scale of some of these burials (Edwards 1994) suggests that this
was a centre of some importance. Notwithstanding the presence of the likely
important settlement at Sesi, relatively little other trace of settlement has been found.
Only a few of the distinctive stone-clad tumuli that are typical of this period are
found near the Kajbaar Cataract and on the west bank of the cataract zone at Foogo
(TJB012) and Hannik (HNK009). Finds of post-Meroitic pottery on Simit Island
also indicate the presence of a settlement there, within the area of what was the main
island settlement through the medieval (and into the modern) period. The choice of
an island location is of interest in what is very likely to have been a time of political
instability and insecurity within a developing frontier zone.
Figure 8. Fortified hilltop at Sesi * a regional centre during medieval and post-medievalperiods, probably established in mid-first millennium AD.
466 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
That this period saw the development of a new settlement focus in the Jebel Sesi
area seems clear, with some further settlement reaching into the cataract zone.
Comparisons with the post-Meroitic archaeology of other regions also suggest
interesting avenues for further research. Recent work in the Fourth Cataract region,
for example, makes clear the very different character of post-Meroitic settlement
there. Its numerous tumulus cemetery sites confirm the presence of a significant
population, albeit one exploiting the Baiyuda and probably the eastern hinterlands.The very different opportunities available in those latitudes for exploiting the
(pastoral?) potential of the non-riverine hinterlands seem likely to have shaped very
different settlement landscapes. Such differences are still very evident today as the
much more arid environment of northern Nubia confines life to the linear oasis
provided by the Nile. As was the case further north, irrigated agriculture using
waterwheels (saqia) linked with new cropping regimes seems to have established a
basis for a new agricultural colonisation of the Middle Nubian landscape during this
period (Edwards 2004, 202�204).
While the conversion of Nubia to Christianity from the sixth century has
traditionally been seen to mark the beginning of a new era, here as elsewhere in
Lower and Middle Nubia the medieval settlement landscapes have their origins in the
post-Meroitic centuries. Regional evidence for medieval settlement is abundant and
widely encountered, with some 150 sites identified to date. At times, upstanding
medieval ruins still remain prominent features within the modern landscape. In some
areas, especially within the cataract zone, medieval ruins may represent the onlysignificant marks of human occupation, being found in areas lacking any other
evidence of settlement. One focus of early medieval settlement was around Jebel Sesi
and probably more generally in the fertile ‘birka al-Mahas’, although there seems to
have been further expansion of settlement into the less hospitable cataract zone.
Several other sites are marked simply by sherd scatters and no upstanding remains
survive. In at least two locations within the cataract zone extensive spreads of early
medieval (Early Christian) pottery, partly masked by dunes, may mark the site of
pottery workshops. Whether these were associated with settlements remains to be
determined. As in a number of other areas in Nubia, it seems possible that the dunes
overlie, and perhaps formed over, abandoned settlements of this period, as has also
recently been found in the Fourth Cataract region (Wolf and Nowotnick 2007, 27�29). Other examples of what are probably quite substantial medieval settlements
masked by stabilised halfa-grass covered dunes are known from further north in
Middle Nubia (Vila 1976a, 59). What is as yet uncertain is the extent to which early
medieval settlement was concentrated in nucleated villages, or whether it was framed
around a pattern of more widely dispersed farmsteads, for example. The recognition
of some small Christian cemeteries, some associated with ‘pagan’ tumuli of the latepost-Meroitic period suggest that there were at least some small-scale communities,
perhaps single farmsteads, scattered through the region. Previous research in the
Batn al-Hajar has shown that such was also the case there.
While relatively few smaller settlements have been identified in the region, a small
number of more substantial fortified sites have been found that seem likely to date to
this general period. Such an early date may be given for a number of similarly
impressive fortified sites found both further north in Nobadia, as well as in Makuria
and Alodia. The two most substantial of these are two massively constructed stone-
built enclosures on the left (west/north) bank within the cataract zone at Shoofeen
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 467
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
(Figure 9) and Markuul. These two sites, a little under 10 km apart, have much in
common in their design and construction; in view of their location they may have
served some formal role as frontier posts. Reliable dating evidence for their
construction is still lacking. However, formal similarities with sites in the Fourth
Cataract region that saw their main use in the sixth to eighth centuries (e.g. Wiewiora
2005; Paner 2010), suggest that these are of a similar date. Further south, there is
another cluster of smaller fortified sites on both banks of the river, close to the
southern end of the cataract zone.
If relatively few early medieval sites can confidently be identified, many more
later medieval settlements have been located. Some at least of the early medieval sites
seem not to have survived into later centuries, hinting at dynamic and changing
settlement regimes during the medieval period. It is also of interest to find a number
of settlements dating to the early medieval period in localities that may not again
have been occupied until recent times, if at all. Medieval occupation, as evidenced by
sherd scatters, can be identified in the vicinity of nearly all modern villages, although
such indications are often slight in some areas, notably those that have been more
densely settled in modern times (e.g. Mashakeela, Farreig, Jeddi, Kajbaar). In such
areas, it seems likely that many sites have disappeared beneath modern settlement
and/or cultivated areas. Both the islands of Simit and Musul seem to have attracted
significant settlement, although the evidence on Nab Island is less certain.
If many modern villages may find their origins in the medieval period, a few other
significant locations may also be identified. Occupying a strategic position over-
looking the Kajbaar Cataract, the hilltop of Jebel Wahaaba (SBU003) seems likely to
have been occupied throughout much the medieval period and beyond. There are
also medieval cemeteries below the hilltop and medieval rock drawings on the cliffs
Figure 9. Early medieval fortification at Shofeen, within the cataract zone.
468 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
along its southern side. Amongst several other clusters of rock drawings around
Sabu-Jeddi several of medieval date are dominated by Christian symbolism, some
which may well represent some form of Christian shrine (Figure 10), continuing the
long history of this locality being recognised as a ‘special place’. Comparable foci of
Christian imagery have recently been recorded in the Fourth Cataract region
(Kleinitz and Olsson 2005, Figure 2). A further large group of medieval drawings on
a nearby rock face includes depictions of church buildings or shrines (Hintze and
Reineke 1989, Tafel 265). As ever, assigning ‘meaning(s)’ must remain a speculative
undertaking, although a generally apotropaic role certainly seems likely. In terms of
movement through the landscape, it may be suggested that many crosses are located
on routes linking centres of medieval population and may ‘signpost’, literally as well
as symbolically, the presence of settlements close by.Carved graffiti or other inscribed names (personal names, or those of saints/holy
figures) are relatively rare elsewhere in medieval Nubia and few were found in this
region. The only example of a personal name (Mariankouda) so far recorded is one
on a flat peak overlooking the Kajbaar Cataract. The only other appearance of an
inscribed name so far recorded, invoking the Virgin Mary, is an inscription of Maria
at Hannik. When viewed as the product of possibly 1,000 years of a Christian
presence in the region, the scarcity of such marks is perhaps noteworthy. The
presence of inscribed names of saints at a (small) number of sites in Nubia also
perhaps deserves some further comment. That these inscriptions related to the
construction of sacred places analogous to forms of Christian shrines known from
medieval (and more recent) Egypt, often revealed through the visions/apparitions of
saints and other holy figures (Meinardus 2002), might be considered. The establish-
ment of shrines on the basis of apparitions/visions/dreams is widely encountered
Figure 10. Medieval Christian rock drawings at Sabu. Associated sherd scatters suggest thatthis site served as a shrine, attracting deposits of pottery.
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 469
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
across time and space (and in different religious traditions) within the Nile Valley
(e.g. Taylor 1990). Individual vision experiences are a ‘normal’ way in which places
can, and do, acquire a special significance and they continue to be ‘normal’ in the
Nubia of today.
One of the most substantial medieval settlements was located below the western
hill at Nauri (NAR001). Toponymic work has noted that the commonly used name isa form of the Nubian ‘Nawir’, the Old Nubian term for ‘shrine’ (Nayor). That the
two prominent peaks at Nauri have enjoyed a special significance in the region’s
landscape seems very likely, a significance perhaps enhanced by the presence of New
Kingdom Pharaonic inscriptions on the eastern peak. Nauri is unusual as the find
spot of a rare medieval document written in Old Nubian (Griffith 1928). One
significant feature of this text may be found in its reference to the bishop of Sai (see
also Łajtar 2006), indicating that this area looked to the north, rather than to the
south (and the bishop of Dongola), in terms of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
Two other site complexes found within the cataract zone have more unusual
features. At Kisseenfarki what is probably an enclosed church lies close to a large
fortified structure on the riverbank to the east (that was still being used in the early
nineteenth century). The site occupies quite a strategic and prominent position in
relation to riverside movement. While there are many medieval sites on the nearby
islands, no other medieval occupation has been found in the immediate area.
Similarly isolated enclosed churches are known from areas to both north and south(e.g. at Kageras, Ginis, Koyekka and Kosha; Maystre 1970; Vila 1977a, 1978;
Zurawski 2003). While this, and similar sites may simply be churches, it may also
have had a monastic role. If so, the second large structure might have formed a
monastic keep (‘qasr’) that was subsequently refurbished and reused in later
centuries. In the adjoining cemetery a number of graves with substantial fired brick
superstructures are of the type most commonly found associated with monasteries.
Some 12 km downstream, another unusual settlement is located at Fagirinfenti,
an otherwise rocky locale overlooking the river bend where the Nile turns east.
Enjoying good views both up and down the river, this location also marks the point
of arrival/departure of the north-south route on the west side of the Nile. The
complex includes a church and associated structures. Surface sherds suggest a long
history of occupation. Most puzzling is a single large structure on the north side of
the site. Measuring approximately 18 m�16.5 m and built on a stone foundation,
the structure could originally have been three storeys high, forming a substantial
tower. The unusual character of the complex as a whole suggests that an official/
religious function is likely. A monastic presence is again possible. The massive tower-house represents a form of structure that cannot easily be paralleled elsewhere in
Nubia, but such an impressive structure might perhaps fit well with the strategic
(frontier?) position of Fagirinfenti located at the terminus of the desert route north as
well as at a major river bend, the frontier between the medieval kingdoms of
Nobadia and Makuria.
Amongst the many examples of later medieval domestic architecture that still
survive as standing remains, the most common are multi-storied tower-houses, also
termed ‘castle-houses (Adams 1994b). In the Middle Nile such structures (Figure 11)
are only common in Lower and Middle Nubia and may perhaps be linked to a much
wider tradition of tower-house building encountered in many parts of northern
Africa and around much of the eastern and central Mediterranean (e.g. Decker
470 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
2006). Examples on the Third Cataract would seem to represent the southernmost
known examples of this structural form. Most have substantial stone foundations, up
to 2 m high, on to which the main mudbrick superstructure walls were set. Smaller
tower-houses may measure 6�7 m a side, while some larger examples may measure as
much as 11�15 m a side; the structure at Fagirinfenti would certainly represent an
exceptionally large tower-house. A distinctive feature of these buildings is that the
ground floor rooms essentially served as storage cellars, only being accessible from
above through overhead hatchways. Most seem to have had vaulted ceilings. The
buildings themselves were entered through a doorway in the upper storey. Well-
preserved examples have been recorded standing 7 m tall, with flat roofs supported
by wooden beams (Adams 1994b, 17�18).
Several tower-houses have been identified in settlements around Arduan Island,
sometimes located within larger settlements, sometimes in isolation. The largest
group of such buildings was found on Jawgul Island (JWG002) where at least 17
examples are ranged along a rocky ridge. No similar group of tower-houses is known
elsewhere in Nubia. Potentially similar multi-storey structures, but built entirely in
mudbrick, may also be found in the medieval village of Tinutti (DFF008). As yet no
examples have been found in the area between the Kajbaar Cataract and Sesi-Delgo,
but further examples have been found at the north end of the survey area, mainly on
rocky islands. These buildings are commonly associated with ‘Late Christian’ pottery,
which suggests that they may date to the twelfth/thirteenth centuries, or perhaps
slightly later. As with tower-houses found elsewhere in North Africa and the
Figure 11. One of several late medieval tower-houses on Jawgul Island, within the cataractzone.
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 471
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Mediterranean world, their form seems to reflect a concern for security (and secure
storage). Their overall distribution also suggests that within Nubia they could
represent a distinctive regional architectural form, occurring in the area between the
southern Batn al-Hajar and the southern end of the Third Cataract.
The sites of at least eight churches have now been located within the survey area,
all within the cataract zone, while a number of other possible church sites can beidentified; in Lower and Middle Nubia north of the Third Cataract somewhere in the
order of 150 churches (Adams 2009) have now been identified. As in other parts of
northern Nubia, some still survive today as standing monuments, sometimes
enjoying reputations as places of ‘baraka’ (blessing). These include examples of the
most typical ‘Nubian’ church plans, although one church (Miseeda) is anomalous in
a number of ways. That it was built against a boulder on which a large male figure
and animals had been carved at a much earlier (most likely Kushite) date suggests a
Christian appropriation of a much older sacred place. Fragmentary inscriptions
within the church suggest a possible link with the military saint Merkourios.
The relationship between known churches and the main medieval settlements of
the region is sometimes uncertain. Many churches may be ‘community’ churches,
serving lineage-based communities of the kind that have provided the basic
settlement unit into very recent times in this part of Nubia. However, some
otherwise quite well preserved settlements seem to lack churches, while some
churches are located in areas with little other evidence for medieval habitation in thevicinity. In addition, there were also monastic churches and episcopal churches,
which will have received a different level of support, some perhaps ‘owned’ by kings.
The church at Fagirinfenti and the probable church at Kisseenfarki may represent
examples of these, both possibly associated with a small monastic communities. As
found in other parts of Nubia, churches do not seem to have necessarily been foci for
burial and in general terms there seems to have been a continued preference for
placing burials on the margins of settlements, as had been the case in pre-Christian
periods.
Survey work has begun to establish the general patterns of medieval settlement
within the region, albeit with important lacunae, mainly in those areas now occupied
by larger villages. Within the cataract zone, medieval settlement was widespread,
often reaching into areas that were largely uninhabited in more recent centuries. That
this period may have seen the development of nucleated village settlements, which
coexisted with more isolated farmsteads, may be noted, although no indications have
yet been found of densely packed settlements like those encountered in Lower Nubia
(e.g. Debeira West, Arminna). It is quite possible that the more rugged terrainaround Arduan Island, for example, was, at least in some periods, quite attractive to
settlement. As may have been the case in other regions of northern Sudan, the broken
rocky landscape and islands may have provided an additional measure of security in
periods of instability. That Jawgul Island seems to have become one such ‘refuge’
settlement in the later medieval period is certainly possible for its numerous tower-
houses mark it off as very unusual and hard to parallel elsewhere in Middle or Lower
Nubia. As in other periods, it may also be expected that areas north of the Kajbaar
Cataract (on the river’s west bank) may have been more densely settled than the
evidence currently suggests. In view of its more recent importance as a focus for
settlement, the Kokke area clearly requires further exploration, as does the hilltop of
Jebel Sesi.
472 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
The later medieval and early post-medieval archaeology of the region still
remains poorly understood, although it seems likely that many settlements occupied
in the later medieval period continued to be occupied into later centuries. That the
political fragmentation of Nubia underway in this period impacted negatively onrural settlement nevertheless seems likely, while it remains an open question as to
whether the invisible sword of the Black Death was also visited on Nubia in the mid-
fourteenth century. That it could have had a significant demographic impact cannot
be excluded, a possibility recently raised by Chouin and DeCorse (2010) in West
Africa. However, with the disappearance of decorated fineware pottery (the last such
wares probably date no later than the late thirteenth or fourteenth centuries) dating
sites of later periods still remains difficult.
Ottoman Nubia
If we know very little of the history of this, or adjoining regions during the late
medieval period, the appearance of the Ottomans in Nubia during the later sixteenth
century established new political structures in the region. Following Ottoman
campaigns up the Nile in the later sixteenth century, a frontier zone was established
‘behind’ the Third Cataract, anchored on a fortress on Sai Island. It is now (1584)
that the earliest use is made of the term ‘Mahas’, when Ottoman accounts of theirconquest of Nubia recorded the creation of a ‘Sanjak of the Mahas’ (Menage 1988).
By this time distinctions were already being drawn between the Mahas and Sikood
(‘Sochut’) regions, the latter a name already in use in the twelfth century (Browne
1996). As suggested in an early study by Ali Osman (1982), local Mahas traditions
suggest that this period saw the development of a relatively independent Mahas
‘kingdom’ occupying the frontier zone between Ottoman-administered (‘kashif ’)
Nubia and the Dongola Reach. That the Ottoman presence was probably a crucial
factor in the survival of culturally distinct Nobiin-speaking ‘Nubian’ populationsshould be emphasised as a specific outcome of this frontier context. The specificity of
this regional history is perhaps more obvious when viewed in relation to other areas
of riverine northern Sudan where Arabic has now almost totally displaced the use of
the Nubian language (Spaulding 1990; Salih 1999).
Exploring the wider settlement archaeology of this post-medieval frontier
landscape continues to present particular problems. Diagnostic datable finds remain
scarce, while it is also clear than many of the settlements likely to have been occupied
in this period lie beneath modern villages and their fields. Nevertheless, a number ofsites have now been identified that may have had more specific links with the
Ottoman presence. One, at Jebel Kadamusa (Figure 12), located on the east bank of
the Nile north of the cataract overlooking Narnarti Island, has proved to be
particularly important. Bounded by a low wall, it encloses some 15�20 regular
mudbrick buildings, terraced into the rocky hill slope, within a total area of some 2
ha. These structures are constructed of highly distinctive large flat mud bricks. Some
of the buildings have walls preserved up to a height of 1 m, but many have collapsed
(or have been deliberately demolished, a further rather unusual feature of the site). Afurther mudbrick enclosure on the west (river) side of the site may represent an
earlier phase of use.
When first examined, the predominantly handmade pottery, together with
occasional glazed wares and an Islamic cemetery below the hill, suggested a very
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 473
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
late medieval or post-medieval date. The architectural forms of the upstanding ruins
were also highly distinctive and unlike anything encountered elsewhere in the region.
Further small-scale test-excavations were carried out in 2002 by one of us (Intisar
Soghayroun el-Zein). This work made clear the presence of a distinctive range of
pottery wares at the site, including decorated incised and painted redwares (Adams
Wares H6 and H7) and a white-slipped ware (cf. Adams Ware W14), as well as
occasional imported glazed wares and Egyptian marl clay jugs and some distinctive
schist-tempered cooking wares (Adams Wares H15, H16). Some of the coarser
handmade vessels also had quite distinctive forms, which appear in other samples of
post-medieval pottery from the region. According to the broad chronological ranges
proposed for such wares by Adams (1986, 427�432), a very late medieval or early
post-medieval (pre-1600?) could be suggested for this assemblage.
Comparisons, both general and more specific, may be made with a series of other
sites within the survey region and also further north. The closest is at Jebel Wahaaba
(SBU003) overlooking the Kajbaar Cataract where, amongst the many building
phases, structures constructed with similar large tabular bricks are associated with the
same distinctive handmade pottery wares (H6 and H7). Similar pottery has also been
found on Simit Island. Looking beyond the survey area, a number of other settlement
sites can also now be identified that bear comparison with Jebel Kadamusa both in
terms of building construction (and perhaps deliberate demolition) and their material
culture, especially the pottery. The most distinctive structural features of such sites are
the regularly planned rectangular brick buildings that are commonly near square
(6 m2) with one larger open room adjoined by one or more long narrow side-rooms/
chambers. The use of large mud bricks in their construction is also very distinctive.
Figure 12. Distinctive mudbrick structures with collapsed (demolished?) walls at Kadamusa,likely to be associated with an early (sixteenth-century?) Ottoman military presence.
474 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Two such sites can be identified near Sai Island, approximately 90 km downriver, at
Kayendi (8-G-18) and at Soumbot-Koyekka (8-G-12) (Vila 1978, 29�30 Figure 4).
Some 25 km downstream, another example (with 11 such buildings) is sited on
Gergetti Island amongst the Attab Rapids (Vila 1977b: 32�37). The best documented
parallels can, however, be recognised among the ‘Post-Christian’ sites on the island of
Kulubnarti, investigated in the 1970s by W. Adams. The first of these is the site 21-S-
10, overlooking the river at the northeast side of Kulubnarti Island, with buildingsconstructed with the distinctive tabular bricks and many walls ‘toppled over sideways’
(Adams 1994a, Figure 5.4a). A second group of these distinctive buildings (21-S-25)
was built close to, but distinct from, the main settlement (21-S-2) on the south side of
the island (Adams 1994a, 185). Similar structures are also found on the small island of
Attiri-Diffinarti (site 16-J-6), about 65 km downriver of Kulubnarti.
That Kadamusa may be linked with these other sites in Middle Nubia suggests
new interpretations concerning their date and nature. According to existing ceramic
chronologies, a very late medieval or early post-medieval (pre-1600?) date seems
likely, while the painted pottery (Adams Ware H7) is already linked with the
‘Bosnian’ Ottoman presence at Qasr Ibrim (Adams 1986, 432). Three AMS
radiocarbon dates from Kadamusa support this broad dating, indicating a range
within a period from the mid-fifteenth to mid-seventeenth centuries. However, the
contextual information suggests that a more definite and direct link might be sought
between Jebel Kadamusa (and the other sites?) and the initial Ottoman incursions
into Nubia in the later sixteenth century. That they might, in fact, represent Ottomanmilitary outposts seems one credible explanation of some of their more distinctive
features, many of which also suggest an alien, ‘non-Nubian’ origin. If such proves to
be the case these may then represent one very particular facies of post-medieval
settlement in Middle Nubia, potentially one with strong links to Ottoman Egypt and
perhaps the Ottoman military in particular.
If such sites may be linked more specifically with an Ottoman presence, the
‘Nubian’ presence remains more difficult to discern until it is manifested more
obviously architecturally in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. One site
seems likely to have maintained its prominence from the medieval period, namely the
fortified hilltop of Jebel Sesi. Local traditions suggest that it retained at least some
symbolic significance for the ‘Mahas kings’ into the nineteenth century (Osman
1982). A more enigmatic site lies on the east bank of the Nile at Agetteri (AGT001)
at the foot of Jebel Barbar/Agetteri, a large stone-built settlement, reported by
Waddington and Hanbury (1822, 31) in the early nineteenth century as ‘a ruined
village, with the remains of a wall around it’. Surface collections on the site indicate
that the pottery is of post-medieval date and dominated by handmade wares,although with little of the distinctive painted redwares encountered at Kadamusa.
The lack of any more closely datable material makes it impossible to define the site’s
date further, except that its ruination by the beginning of the nineteenth century
would seem to place it somewhere in the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries.
The more general character of settlement throughout the post-medieval period
still remains elusive. Our first external accounts of the early nineteenth century
certainly suggest that settlements of that date contained examples of both more
substantial architecture (in clay, mudbrick and rough stone), as well as more
ephemeral wooden structures. Some elements of this settlement landscape survive in
the form of larger structures known locally as ‘diffi’, effectively fortified houses with
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 475
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
one of more corner towers (Figure 13). Nearly all such structures are constructed in
laid clay blocks (jalus), a constructional technique that appeared in the region in or
before the eighteenth century and resulted in the use of mudbrick becoming much
more limited.
More than 90 examples have now been registered in the Mahas region, while
more remain to be recorded. They are already recognised as a distinctive feature of
the Middle Nubian landscape (Adams 1987) and at least 39 other examples have
been recorded in the Sikood region between Dal and Nilwatti (Vila 1979, 71�120.
While clearly quite abundant in more northerly areas, they do not appear to be
common in areas to the south of the Third Cataract. Some clearly have the capability
of serving defensive purposes, as ‘fortified houses’, but they show considerable
variety in form and construction. Some contain complexes of internal rooms and
yards, while others have very little in the way of internal structures and are little more
than enclosed yards attached to one or more towers. Some are likely to have a more
military function; this is particularly the case with some associated in local traditions
with the Mahdiyya period (1881�1898). Some ‘folk’ traditions also associate them
with a (chronologically poorly defined) period of ‘Shaiqiyya’ raiding in a more-or-
less distant past, while others hint at their construction (‘in a single night’) to provide
security against rapacious (nineteenth-century?) landlords and/or tax collectors
during the Turkiyya (the period of Turco-Egyptian rule from 1821 to 1881).
Their distribution is also quite variable (Figure 14). The diffi on Arduan Island
are quite widely dispersed, with usually only one within the environs of existing
communities. Some are sited in quite isolated areas, suggesting that they may have
Figure 13. Typical diffi structure (nineteenth-century?) of large courtyard and corner towers,combining mudbrick, laid mud (jalus) and stone construction, in the village of Mashakeela.
476 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
served as defensible refuges in times of insecurity. In other parts of the region they
are more abundant, and in villages such as Mashakeela, as well as in the Delgo area,
several examples may be found in very close proximity. Sometimes no more than
400�500 m apart, they are linked with individual lineage-based hamlets. Dating
individual sites still remains problematic and such structures were clearly built over
Figure 14. Distribution of diffi buildings, broadly reflecting the main foci of nineteenth- andtwentieth-century settlement.
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 477
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
an extended period, already being a prominent feature of the landscape in the 1820s
when first reported by European travellers passing through the region (e.g. English
1822, 23). There were probably several distinct periods when such structures were
constructed, or when more ancient structures were refurbished and reoccupied. Some
may date back to the early post-medieval period, when medieval tower-houses
(castle-houses) were incorporated into larger enclosed structures to create a diffi, as
on Kulubnarti (Adams 1994a).
Evidence for the distinctive regional architectural forms in both the late medieval
(‘Late Christian’) and post-medieval periods, in the form of the tower-houses (castle-
houses) and diffis is of considerable interest in relation to the emergence of Mahas
and Sikood regional identities. While we are far from fully understanding their
histories, they are prominent material manifestations of a distinctive Middle Nubian
settlement landscape. In its turn, this landscape may be distinguished from that of
both Lower Nubia proper to the north and the Dongola Reach to the south. That
these regions derived much of their special character from the peculiar social
conditions created by the Ottoman presence in Nubia seems likely.
Qubbas and holymen
The growing presence and influence of Islamic holymen (fuqara) is a prominent
theme in the post-medieval history of the Sudan, and indeed much of Sudanic Africa.
This process was marked upon the landscape by the settlements that grew up around
these individuals, creating new ‘Islamic’ settlement landscapes and new landscapes of
religious power (Spaulding 1985; McHugh 1994). The most obvious markers of the
fuqara are their domed qubba tombs, which are widely encountered across much of
northern and central Sudan (El-Sadig 2004; Soghayroun el-Zein 2004).
Within the Third Cataract region, such qubba tombs are found in at least 20
locations. Some are relatively recent, relating to individuals whose histories are well
known, while others are much older, associated with individuals of near mythical
status, if not persons now entirely forgotten. A qubba at Abu Fatma (ABF001) seems
likely to be a quite ancient example of a slightly different class of long-established
shrine * still active in recent years. Its origins are quite obscure, although it would
seem to have been constructed over a medieval building. Some mark the burials of
men with religious reputations recognised as settlement founders, while at Kokke the
cemetery of the ‘kings’ (Figure 14) provides one focus of both religious and secular
power. Some potentially much more ancient examples at Shadda have enjoyed a
wider reputation and have, in the past, attracted pilgrims from around and beyond
the region. The identities of the holymen buried there, however, (interestingly known
only by Nubian names) are now no longer clear, at least to our informants.Oral traditions encountered by the project can sometimes provide some
information on these individuals and their origins. Mobility is one common theme,
interesting in itself when we may be predisposed to imagine conservative and deeply
rooted Nubian autochthonous communities. Virtually every local ‘holyman’ of the
Mahas region would seem to have been an ‘immigrant’ of one form or another, if
only from a village a few kilometres away. Many, however, may be credited with a
non-Mahas origin, perhaps coming from one of the religious schools (khalwas)
elsewhere in Sudan, or more rarely from further afield. These include some of West
478 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
African (Takruri/Fallata) origin. On Nilwatti Island in the Sikood region, ‘Qubba
Fellati’ (Vila 1979, 118) hints at a similar West African link.
While the first Ottoman presence in Middle Nubia had faded away during the
eighteenth century, with the assimilation of its garrisons with the local populations
(Alexander 1995), the last months of 1820 brought the region under the control of
the new Turco-Egyptian government when the army of Ismail Pasha passed through
it. In the immediate aftermath of the conquest, the north escaped the devastation
that accompanied the revolts within central Sudan and their bloody suppression
during the troubled period of 1822�1823. From an early date the significance of the
far north, including the Mahas region, seems largely to have been limited to its role
in providing the route linking core regions of the newly acquired Sudanese territories
to Egypt, a route along which troops and officials moved, as well as consignments of
slaves and cattle.
There is no evidence for direct government ‘investment’ in the Mahas region, as,
for example, took place with the construction of indigo manufactories at several
locations in northern and central Sudan. The local elites, now confirmed as ‘kashifs’,
were supplemented by a few government officials. A ‘kaimakan’ reported at Kokke
soon after the conquest may be linked to a large diffi-like structure with an associated
mosque that is reputedly the first congregational mosque at this site; Turkish
inscriptions from it include one dated AH 1244 (1828�1829). A large proportion of
surviving diffi also seem likely to date to the nineteenth century ‘Turkiyya’. As
elsewhere in the Sudan, tax-exactions proved a considerable burden to the
population and caused much disruption. Many local traditions record families
being dispossessed due to their inability to meet tax demands, in several cases causing
their relocation to otherwise thinly populated areas. This seems to have been the case
with several hamlets in the cataract zone that were reputedly founded by displaced
migrants from more fertile parts of the region. Other local traditions suggest that this
may also have been the period in which various ‘Arab’ groups established settlements
in the region. Some local opinion would link their appearance with one or other
periods of drought during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in more westerly
Figure 15. Qubba tombs at Kokke in a cemetery associated with post-medieval Mahas ‘kings’.
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 479
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
parts of Sudan and/or the oases west of Dongola. Such an origin is perhaps reflected
in the location of most, but not all, significant ‘Arab’ hamlets on the west bank of the
Nile.
The outbreak of the Mahdist rising against the Turco-Egyptian government in
1881 brought a further period of very considerable disruption and upheaval to the
Mahas region, as in most areas of the Middle and Upper Nile. Following the failureof the 1884/1885 British Relief Expedition, Middle Nubia was abandoned as
government forces fell back to the Wadi Halfa frontier. During the next decade
significant elements of the Mahas population left the region, most apparently to
Egypt. Large scale migration to Egypt and the devastating famine of ‘Year 6’ were
among several factors that clearly brought major disruption to the region, reducing
its resident population to probably less than 5,000. Population estimates made in
1896 suggested a population reduced to just 3,354 (Wingate 1896, Appendix A). The
often difficult relations with Ansar (i.e. Mahdist) forces, sometimes manifest in open
fighting, are apparent in many local oral traditions. A valuable eyewitness account of
the Mahdist occupation of the region is found in the memoirs of Babikr Bedri (1969),
who, as a young man, joined the Mahdist army in the north during 1886. He too
makes clear the frequently tense relations between the forces of the new government
and local inhabitants. The ruins of several likely Mahdist outposts can be identified
in the cataract zone, some reported as the bases for agents who managed traffic
through the area and provided supplies for the Ansar troops (Bedri 1969, 52�53).
Some islands are locally reputed to have served as refuges during this period andseem to have been regarded as relatively safe, at least from more casual plundering
(‘tax-collecting’). Extensive intelligence reports prepared by the Anglo-Egyptian
forces also survive and include a considerable body of information relating to the
population of the region under Mahdist control (Johnson 2004).
Following the defeat of the Mahdist forces and the establishment of the Anglo-
Egyptian Condominium government in 1898 new forces continued to reshape the
Mahas settlement landscape. Returning refugees and political stability created
conditions for a fast-expanding population. In some areas population expansion is
perhaps a prime cause for the creation of new riverside settlements founded by
groups moving off islands. Narratives of migration from islands to the ‘mainland’ are
commonly encountered in oral histories and have been recorded elsewhere in
northern Nubia, for example in the Second Cataract area (Kronenberg and
Kronenberg 1965). Other new settlements were reportedly established in the first
half of the twentieth century by groups of freed ex-slaves who chose to remain in the
region. In general, such ‘ex-slaves’ are Nubian-speaking and may retain links with
their ex-masters, but when lacking their own (‘milk’) land often work as share-croppers and labourers.
Growing populations also caused the expansion of (lineage-based) hamlets to
create the modern landscape of extended linear settlements familiar today. By the
later twentieth century hamlets once set amongst fields and palm gardens were
increasingly being abandoned, with new settlements with larger houses constructed
farther from the river. The expansion of land under cultivation, especially when
linked with new forms of pumped irrigation, also contributed to major shifts in
organisation of the lived-environment over the last century, on occasions dislocating
existing cultural understandings of landscape organisation. As ‘new’ villages are
being built further inland they are, for example, moving into more liminal areas,
480 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
areas where cemeteries were traditionally located. These may once have been seen as
potentially ‘dangerous’ areas of the landscape, inhabited by bad spirits and within
the ordering of modern communities, resident ‘aliens’ as well as ogres (al-Shahi and
Moore 1978, 23). Such transformations have, at times, clearly been contested withinindividual communities, with resistance shown by more conservative individuals to
making the move to living in potentially ‘inappropriate’ areas. However, despite such
forces of ‘tradition’, within three to four generations, family homes may have moved
from within the heart of their riverbank palm gardens to bare rock outcrops on the
desert’s edge 1 km from the Nile.
If the ordering of village communities has changed markedly over the last
century, the Condominium (1898�1956) was also an important factor in encouraging
shifts in the local settlement hierarchy. In this respect, the development of anadministrative centre and associated market at the east bank village of Delgo seems
to have been a significant innovation. The development of Kerma as a market centre,
also accessible to the southern Mahas population, may also have had a significant
impact on social and economic networks amongst the inhabitants of the southern
Mahas region. This was interlinked with new transport and trading opportunities
that developed during the twentieth century, beginning with the short-lived Wadi
Halfa-Kerma railway completed in May 1897 (Welsby 2011). Some further shifts in
the focus of settlement may also be linked with the introduction of the telegraph, therailway and then a motor road, now a tarmac highway, running to Wadi Halfa and
the north. Their location on the east bank has surely introduced a new influence in
the relationship between the two sides of the river and would be worth further
exploring.
Conclusion
Most earlier discussions of Nubian settlement and land use in the archaeologicalliterature (notably in Trigger 1965) have tended to assume that relatively direct
analogies could be drawn between Nubian practice of the later nineteenth/early
twentieth centuries and much earlier periods. The extent to which Nubian settlement
systems may have changed and developed over time has, as yet, received little
attention. While larger-scale population continuities need not be doubted, this
regional survey has begun to make clear the extent to which, over the long term,
regional populations experienced a number of episodes of disruption, as well as
reconstruction and recolonisation. One relatively recent rupture may have come withthe establishment of the Condominium government at the beginning of the twentieth
century, notwithstanding claims that it was re-establishing existing traditional
practices. Perhaps more significantly, the Turco-Egyptian conquest of the Sudan in
the earlier nineteenth century clearly also brought major changes to many aspects of
agricultural practice and, indeed, rural life more generally. Over the longer term this
region has clearly experienced a number of major disjunctures in its occupation,
brought about by a range of both environmental and socio-political forces.
That a number of frontiers coalesced around the Third Cataract in variousperiods has given the history of this particular region a special interest. Despite
comforting (and misleading) myths of a timeless and ancient occupation of the land
by autochthonous ‘Nubians’, we can better appreciate that its history was far more
dynamic and complex than has been popularly imagined. It was shaped by complex
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 481
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
historical forces emanating from both north and south, operating at many different
scales, some distinctively local, some much larger in scale. Within this dynamism,
there is good reason to believe that there were a number of distinct historical phases
of occupation, of ebb-and-flow, between which there may have been significant
hiatuses of occupation. The end of the New Kingdom Egyptian colonial period may
have introduced one such interlude, at a time where environmental conditions
increasingly constrained occupation to the river margins. After this, the region’s
settlement (as for much of Middle and Lower Nubia) remained limited until a new
phase of (agriculture-based) colonisation in the early to mid-first millennium AD,
itself of northern origin.
This is not necessarily to suggest that the region was totally abandoned in such
periods, but population levels may, at times, have fallen to very low levels and
meaningful continuities of settled life may well have been largely broken. One
implication of this is that on this particular African frontier (sensu Kopytoff 1987) we
may, over several millennia, be seeing a succession of phases of landscape
colonisation and recolonisation by populations of varied origins. These created a
succession of settlement landscapes, differing in terms of ideas of place and ways of
being, as much as in their spatial patterning. At times they also occupied spaces with
liminal qualities, sometimes on the margins beyond, as well as between, more
favoured locales, or centres of power. At times, too, the presence of a frontier could
create quite empty space, as was perhaps the case during the Egyptian New
Kingdom, in others provide places of refuge, as during the late medieval period.
Specific regional cultural features, albeit as part of a larger regional unit, developed
new forms within the shadow of the Ottoman frontier, when it appears as a vibrant, if
contested domain. The Ottoman presence was, in turn, clearly a powerful cultural
force in the subsequent development of ‘Mahas’ and other ‘Nubian’ identities
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all those who have assisted with this project over many years, especially themany staff and students of University of Khartoum who have contributed so much. We mustalso thank our Mahasi hosts, who have provided unstinting support and so much hospitalityover many years. We have benefited in countless ways from their assistance and learnt so muchfrom them. We are also grateful for much support from the University of Khartoum overmany years, the University of Leicester and a generous grant made from the Haycock Fund ofthe British Institute in Eastern Africa. The late Bryan Haycock was an inspiration to ageneration of students at the University of Khartoum.
Notes on contributors
David Edwards studied History at York University and then took an M.Litt. in Archaeologyat Newcastle University and a PhD at the University of Cambridge. He has extensive fieldexperience in Nubia/Sudan, as well as in many parts of Britain, Egypt, Jordan and Libya. Hefirst went to the Mahas region in 1980.
Ali Osman, is Professor of Archaeology in the Department of Archaeology, Khartoum, andcomes from Mashakeela in the Mahas region of Sudanese Nubia. He studied in Calgary withPeter Shinnie and completed a PhD at the University of Cambridge relating to medievalNubia.
482 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Yahia Fadl Tahir comes from the Difoi in the Mahas region of Sudanese Nubia. He has aspecial interest in palaeoenvironmental research and is currently working in the oasis of the ElGa’ab Basin in northwestern Sudan. He teaches at the Department of Archaeology, Universityof Khartoum.
Azhari Mustafa Sadig has special interests in the Neolithic of Sudan and has directedfieldwork in the Mahas region, in the Shendi Reach and along the White Nile. He haspreviously taught at the University of Khartoum and is currently an Associate Professor in theCollege of Tourism and Archaeology, King Saud University, Riyadh.
Intisar Soghayroun el-Zein is currently Dean of the Faculty of Arts, University of Khartoum.She completed an MA at the American University in Cairo and a PhD at the University ofKhartoum and has special interests in Islamic archaeology. She has directed field projects inthe Mahas region as well as around the important nineteenth-century centre of El Khandaq.
References
Adams, W.Y. 1986. Ceramic industries of medieval Nubia. Lexington: University of KentuckyPress.
Adams, W.Y. 1987. Islamic archaeology in Nubia: an introductory survey. In Nubian culturepast and present, ed. T. Hagg, 327�361. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiskell.
Adams, W.Y. 1994a. Kulubnarti. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Adams, W.Y. 1994b. Castle-houses of late medieval Nubia. Archeologie du Nil Moyen 6: 11�46.Adams, W.Y. 2009. The churches of Nobadia. London: Sudan Archaeological Research Society.Al-Batal, S.M.A. 1994a. Agricultural systems, practices and traditions in northern Sudan: a
case study of the Nubian region. In Indigenous farming systems, knowledge and practices inthe Sudan, ed. M.M.M. Ahmed, 41�87. Khartoum: IAAS.
Al-Batal, S.M.A. 1994b. Indigenous water-lifting devices and agricultural implements in thenorthern Sudan. In Indigenous knowledge for sustainable development, ed. M.M.M. Ahmed,233�309. Khartoum: IAAS.
Alexander, J. 1995. The Turks on the Middle Nile. Archeologie du Nil Moyen 7: 15�35.Al-Shahi, A. and F.C.T. Moore. 1978. Wisdom from the Nile. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Balfour Paul, G. 1956. A prehistoric cult still practised in Muslim Darfur. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 86: 77�86.Bedri, B. 1969. The memoirs of Babikr Bedri. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bell, H. 2000. Arabic orthography and African place-names in the Sudan. Can a conflict
between diverse solutions be resolved? Onoma 35: 321�355.Bell, H. and M.J. Hashim. 2002. Does Aten live on in Kawa (Kowwa)? Sudan and Nubia 6: 42�46.Bonnet, C. 1990. Kerma, royaume de Nubie. Geneva: Musee d’Art et d’Histoire.Bonnet, C. 2008. L’occupation egyptienne au Nouvel Empire a Doukki Gel. In Between the
Cataracts (Part 1), ed. W. Godlewski and A. Łajtar, 75�84. Warsaw: Warsaw UniversityPress.
Bonnet, C. and D. Valbelle. 2006. The Nubian pharaohs. Cairo: American University in CairoPress.
Browne, G. 1996. Old Nubian dictionary. Leuven: Peeters.Buzon, M.R., A. Simonetti and R.A. Creaser. 2007. Migration in the Nile Valley during the
New Kingdom period: a preliminary strontium isotope study. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 34: 1391�1401.
Chapelle, J. 1957. Nomades noirs du Sahara. Paris: Librairie Plon.Chouin, G. and C.R. DeCorse. 2010. Prelude to the Atlantic trade: new perspectives on
southern Ghana’s pre-Atlantic history (800�1500). Journal of African History 51: 123�145.Davies, W.V. 2008. Tombos and the Viceroy Inebny/Amenemnekhu. Sudan and Nubia 12: 25�33.Davies, W.V. 2009. The British Museum epigraphic survey at Tombos: the stela of Usertatet
and Hekaemasen. Sudan and Nubia 13: 21�29.Dawson, A.C. (ed.). 2009. Shrines in Africa: history, politics, and society. Calgary: University of
Calgary Press.
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 483
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Decker, M. 2006. Towers, refuges and fortified farms in the late Roman East. Liber Annuus 56:499�520.
Edwards, D.N. 1994. A Meroitic settlement and cemetery at Kedurma in the Third Cataractregion, northern Sudan. Archeologie du Nil Moyen 7: 37�51.
Edwards, D.N. 1996. The archaeology of the Meroitic state: new perspectives on its social andpolitical organisation. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Edwards, D.N. 2004. The Nubian past: an archaeology of the Sudan. London: Routledge.Edwards, D.N. 2006a. Mid-Holocene game drives in Nubian landscapes? In Archaeology of
early northeastern Africa, ed. K. Kroeper, M. Chlodnicki and M. Kobusiewicz, 49�64.Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum.
Edwards, D.N. 2006b. Drawing on rocks, the most enduring monuments of Middle Nubia.Sudan and Nubia 10: 55�63.
Edwards, D.N. and Ali Osman. 2000. The archaeology of Arduan Island-the Mahas Survey2000. Sudan and Nubia 4: 58�70.
El-Sadig, S.O. 2004. The domed tombs of Eastern Sudan. Khartoum: Azza.El-Tayeb, M. 2010. Early Makuria Research Project * excavations at el-Zuma. In Between the
Cataracts, (Part 2/1), ed. W. Godlewski and A. Łajtar, 205�217. Warsaw: WarsawUniversity Press.
English, G.B. 1822. A narrative of the expedition to Dongola and Sennaar. London: John Murray.Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 1940. The Nuer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Fairman, H.W. 1938. Preliminary report on the excavations at Sesebi (Sudla) and Amarah
West, 1937�8. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 24: 151�156.Gabriel, B. 2001. Neolithic camp sites in the Sahara-anticipation of future research. In Tides of
the desert, ed. Jennerstrasse 8, 51�66. Koln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut.Gabriel, B. and P. Wolf. 2007. River and landscape at the Fourth Nile cataract (Sudan) during
the late Quaternary. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on theArchaeology of the Fourth Nile Cataract, ed. C. Naser and M. Lange, 23�33. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.
Gasse, A. and V. Rondot. 2008. Les inscriptions de Sehel. Cairo: IFAO.Gatto, M.C. 2006. The Khartoum Variant pottery: the early Holocene Nubian ceramic
production. Archeologie du Nil Moyen 10: 57�72.Gratien, B. 1998. Gism el-Arba, un habitat rural Kerma. Campagnes 1995�1996 et 1996�
1997. Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille 19: 21�29.Gratien, B. 2011. Les Cultures Kerma. Essai de classification, trente ans apres. In La pioche et
la plume, ed. V. Rondot, F. Alpi and F. Villeneuve, 225�236. Paris: PUPS.Gratien, B., S. Marchi, O. Thuriot and J-M. Willot. 2003. Gism el-Arba, habitat 2. Cahiers de
Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille 23: 29�42.Griffith, F.Ll. 1928. Christian documents from Nubia. Proceedings of the British Academy 14:
117�146.Haaland, R., Mitchell, P., Hafsaas-Tsakos, H., Tsakos, A., Garcea, E. and H.-A. Nordstrom
2011. Preserving the Middle Nile (Sudan). Antiquity 86. http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/haaland332/ (accessed 1 June 2012)
Harrell, J.A. 1999. The Tumbos Quarry at the Third Nile Cataract, northern Sudan. In Recentresearch in Kushite history and archaeology, ed. D. Welsby, 239�250. London: BritishMuseum.
Hashim, M. and H. Bell. 2000. Reconstructing the history of settlement patterns in the Mahas:evidence from language and place-names. Sudan and Nubia 4: 71�78.
Hellstrom, P. 1970. The rock drawings. Stockholm: Scandinavian University Books.Hester, J. and P.M. Hobler. 1969. Prehistoric settlement patterns in the Libyan Desert. Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press.Hildebrand, E. 2007. The significance of Sai Island for early plant food production in Sudan.
Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille 26: 173�181.Hintze, F. and W.F. Reineke. 1989. Felsinschriften aus dem sudanesischen Nubien. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag.Honegger, M. 1999. Kerma: les occupations Neolithique et pre-Kerma de la necropole
orientale. Genava 47: 77�82.
484 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Honegger, M. 2004a. Settlement and cemeteries of the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic atel-Barga (Kerma region). Sudan and Nubia 8: 27�32.
Honegger, M. 2004b. The Pre-Kerma period. In Sudan ancient treasures, ed. D. Welsby andJ. Anderson, 61�69. London: British Museum Press.
Honegger, M. 2005. Kerma et les debuts du neolithique Africain. Genava 53: 239�249.Honegger, M. 2011. Excavation at Wadi el-Arab. Documents de la Mission Archeologique
Suisse au Soudan 3: 3�8.Jesse, F., S. Kropelin, M. Lange, N. Pollath and H. Berke. 2004. On the periphery of Kerma *
the Handessi Horizon in Wadi Hariq, northwestern Sudan. Journal of African Archaeology2: 123�164.
Johnson, D.H. 2004. Sources of intelligence: a bibliography of the monthly Sudan IntelligenceReports. Northeast African Studies 11: 55�123.
Kendall, T. and P. Wolf. 2011. B600: a temple of Thutmose IV at Jebel Barkal. In La pioche etla plume, ed. V. Rondot, F. Alpi and F. Villeneuve, 237�259. Paris: PUPS.
Kirwan, L. 1939. Firka: The Oxford University Excavations at Firka. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Kleinitz, C. 2004. Rock art and ‘rock gongs’ in the Fourth Nile Cataract region: the Ishashiisland rock art survey. Sudan and Nubia 8: 11�16.
Kleinitz, C. 2008. Rock art landscapes of the Fourth Nile cataract: characterisations andfirst comparisons. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Archaeologyof the Fourth Nile Cataract, ed. C. Naser and M. Lange, 213�234. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.
Kleinitz, C. and C. Olsson. 2005. Christian period rock art landscapes in the Fourth Cataractregion: the Dar el-Arab and et-Tereif rock art surveys. Sudan and Nubia 9: 32�39.
Kopytoff, I. 1987. The internal African frontier: the making of African political culture. InThe African frontier, ed. I. Kopytoff, 3�84. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kronenberg, A. and W. Kronenberg. 1965. Preliminary report on the anthropological fieldwork in Sudanese Nubia, 1964. Kush 13: 205�212.
Łajtar, A. 2006. Christian Saı in written records (inscriptions and manuscripts). Journal ofJuristic Papyrology 36: 91�105.
Marshall, F. and E. Hildebrand. 2002. Cattle before crops: the beginnings of food productionin Africa. Journal of World Prehistory 16: 99�142.
Mather, C. 2003. Shrines and the domestication of landscape. Journal of AnthropologicalResearch 59: 23�45.
Maystre, C. 1970. Fouilles americano-suisses aux eglises de Kageras, Ukma Est et Songi Sud.In Kunst und Geschichte Nubiens in Christlicher Zeit, ed. E. Dinkler, 181�208. Reck-linghausen: Aurel Bongers.
McHugh, N. 1994. Holymen of the Blue Nile. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Meinardus, O.F.A. 2002. Coptic saints and pilgrimage. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.Menage, V. 1988. The Ottomans and Nubia in the 16th century. Annales Islamologiques 24:
137�153.Nicolaisen, I. 2010. Elusive hunters. The Haddad of Kanem and the Bahr el Ghazal. Aarhus:
Aarhus University Press.Osman, A. 1982. The post-medieval kingdom of Kokka. In Nubian studies, ed. J. Plumley,
185�197. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.Osman, A. 1992. The folklore of archaeological sites: a case study from Nawri in the Third
Cataract region. In An African commitment, ed. J. Sterner and N. David, 31�34. Calgary:University of Calgary Press.
Osman, A. and D.N. Edwards. 2012. The archaeology of a Nubian frontier. Survey on the NileThird Cataract, Sudan. Leicester: Mauhaus Publishing.
Otto, K.-H. and G. Buschendorf-Otto. 1993. Felsbilder aus dem Sudanesischen Nubien. Berlin:Akademie Verlag.
Paner, H. 2010. The Haraz fortress. Gdansk Archaeological Museum African Reports 6: 147�164.Paner, H. and Z. Borcowski. 2005. Gdansk Archaeological Museum expedition. A summary
of eight seasons’ work at the Fourth Cataract. Gdansk Archaeological Museum AfricanReports 4: 89�115.
Peden, A. J. 2001. The graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt. Leiden: Brill.
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 485
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Privati, B. 1988. La ceramique de l’etablissement pre-Kerma. Genava 36: 21�29.Reinold, J. 1987. Les fouilles pre- et proto-historiques de la Section Francaise de la Direction
des Antiquites de Soudan: les campagnes 1984�85 et 1985�86. Archeologie du Nil Moyen 2:17�60.
Reinold, J. 2001. Kadruka and the Neolithic of the Northern Dongola Reach. Sudan andNubia 2: 2�10.
Riemer, H. 2004. Holocene game drives in the Great Sand Sea of Egypt? Stone structures andtheir archaeological evidence. Sahara 15: 31�42.
Riemer, H. 2009. Prehistoric trap hunting in the eastern Saharan deserts: a re-evaluation ofthe game trap structures. In Desert animals in the eastern Sahara, ed. H. Riemer, F. Forster,M. Herb and N. Pollatch, 175�188. Koln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut.
Salih, A.M. 1999. The Manasir of northern Sudan: land and people. Koln: Rudiger Koppe.Salvatori, S. and D. Usai. 2008. A Neolithic cemetery in the northern Dongola Reach. London:
Sudan Archaeological Research Society.Smith, S.T. 2003. Wretched Kush. London: Routledge.Smith, S.T. 2008. Tombos and the transition period from the New Kingdom to the Napatan
Period in Upper Nubia. In Between the Cataracts, (Part 1), ed. W. Godlewski and A. Łajtar,95�115. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.
Soghayroun el-Zein, I. 2004. The Ottomans and the Mahas in the Third Cataract region.Azania 39: 50�57.
Spaulding, J. 1985. The heroic age in Sinnar. East Lansing: Madison State University Press.Spaulding, J. 1990. The Old Shaiqi language in historical perspective. History in Africa 17:
283�292.Spence, K., P. Rose, J. Bunbury, A. Clapham, P. Collet, G. Smith and N. Soderberg. 2009.
Fieldwork at Sesibi, 2009. Sudan and Nubia 13: 38�46.Spence, K., P. Rose, R. Bradshaw, P. Collet, A. Hassan, J. MacGinnis, A. Masson and P. van
Pelt. 2011. Sesibi 2011. Sudan and Nubia 15: 34�38.Tahir, Y.F. 2010. Palaeoenvironmental implications of zooarchaeological remains from
Wadi Farja, Third Cataract region (Sudan). In Between the Cataracts, (Part 2/1), ed.W. Godlewski and A. Łajtar, 285�290. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.
Taylor, C.S. 1990. Sacred history and the cult of Muslim saints in late medieval Egypt. MuslimWorld 80: 72�80.
Trigger, B. 1965. History and settlement in Lower Nubia. New Haven: Yale.Vantini, G. 1975. Oriental sources concerning Nubia. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences.Vila, A. 1976a. La prospection archeologique de la vallee du Nil, au sud de la Cataracte de
Dal. 3. Paris: CNRS.Vila, A. 1977a. La prospection archeologique de la vallee du Nil, au sud de la Cataracte
de Dal. 5. Paris: CNRS.Vila, A. 1977b. La prospection archeologique de la vallee du Nil, au sud de la Cataracte de
Dal. 6. Paris: CNRS.Vila, A. 1978. La prospection archeologique de la vallee du Nil, au sud de la Cataracte de
Dal. 10. Paris: CNRS.Vila, A. 1979. La prospection archeologique de la vallee du Nil au sud de la Cataracte de Dal. 11.
Paris: CNRS.Waddington, G. and B. Hanbury. 1822. Journal of a visit to some parts of Ethiopia. London:
John Murray.Welsby, D. 2001. Life on the desert edge. London: Sudan Archaeological Research Society.Welsby, D. 2011. Sudan’s first railway. London: Sudan Archaeological Research Society.Wendorf, F. and R. Schild. 1998. Nabta Playa and its role in northeastern African prehistory.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 97: 97�123.Wengrow, D. 2006. The archaeology of early Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wiewiora, M. 2005. Suegi: a fortified settlement near the Fourth Cataract. Gdansk
Archaeological Museum African Reports 4: 167�179.Wingate, R.F. 1896. Intelligence report, Egypt no. 52. Cairo.Wolf, P. and U. Nowotnick. 2005. The 2nd season of the SARS Anglo-German Expedition to
the 4th Cataract of the Nile (Sudan). Sudan and Nubia 9: 22�30.
486 D.N. Edwards et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Wolf, P. and U. Nowotnick. 2006. The third season of the SARS Anglo-German Expedition tothe Fourth Cataract. Sudan and Nubia 10: 20�32.
Wolf, P. and U. Nowotnick. 2007. The 4th season of the SARS Anglo-German Expedition tothe 4th Nile Cataract. Sudan and Nubia 11: 26�33.
Zurawski, B. (ed.). 2003. Nubia II. Southern Dongola Reach Survey 1. Warsaw: EditionsNeriton.
Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 487
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
lber
ta]
at 1
8:58
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
top related