Fotos und Bilder verschiedenster Art sind schon seit langem ein wichtiger Bestandteil in der Archäologie. Mit zahlreichen Methoden und Herangehensweisen können den Betrachtenden die unterschiedlichsten Informationen über Funde und Befunde vermittelt werden. Von einfachen Fotografien bis zum virtuellen 3D-Modell ist heute beinahe alles möglich.
Sogar auf der Suche nach archäologisch relevanten Strukturen können Fotos äußerst nützlich sein. Mit Hilfe von Aufnahmen aus Flugzeugen, Drohnen, Satelliten etc. ist es möglich, Spuren längst vergangener Kulturen zu entdecken. Dieses Verfahren, die so genannte Luftbildarchäologie/Fernerkundung, wird bereits seit über 100 Jahren angewandt. Aufgrund des technischen Fortschritts werden immer bessere Ergebnisse erzielt. Neben der Technik braucht es allerdings auch geschulte Expert*innen, welche die relevanten Strukturen auf den großflächigen Geländeaufnahmen erkennen können. Als Anfänger*in steht man dabei vor einer gewissen Herausforderung. Zu Beginn sollte man sich deshalb eine passende Strategie zurechtlegen, wie das oft mehrere km² große Areal aufgeteilt werden kann, um nicht den Überblick zu verlieren. Wenn man im Anschluss Teilbereich für Teilbereich genauer betrachtet, fallen einem schnell einzelne markante Bodenverfärbungen, Bewuchsmerkmale oder Steinformationen auf. Mit einem Augenmerk auf unnatürliche Formen, beispielsweise rechte Winkel oder konzentrische Kreise, können noch weitere archäologische Spuren gefunden werden (Abb.1). Allerdings wird man als unerfahrener Studierender beim Markieren der einzelnen Strukturen über kurz oder lang immer unkonzentrierter und unsicherer. Häufig stellt sich dann die Frage: „Ist das jetzt antik, oder doch eher neuzeitlich?“ So werden im Zweifelsfall auch zahlreiche aktuelle Bauten auf den Aufnahmen gekennzeichnet. Bei der späteren Geländebegehung vor Ort präsentiert sich dann die ernüchternde Realität. Durch häufiges Üben und mit der Hilfe geschulter Archäolog*innen lassen sich jedoch viele dieser Fehlinterpretationen vermeiden; denn Übung macht ja bekanntlich den Meister.
Abbildung 1A: Luftaufnahmen zur Fernerkundung aus dem Sudan (Quelle: C. Geiger, MUAFS Projekt, bearbeitet). Markierung archäologisch relevanter Strukturen durch Studierende (viele neuzeitliche Elemente gekennzeichnet)Abbildung 1B: Markierung der wichtigsten realen archäologischen Fundplätze (MUAFS Projekt).
Dies lässt sich auch über die Fotographie am Boden sagen. So findet man leider in Publikationen, die man selbst vielleicht gerade für einen Vortrag oder eine Facharbeit benötigt, immer wieder unbrauchbare Bilder. In den meisten Fällen sind Fotos, die teilweise über- bzw. unterbelichtet, schlecht beleuchtet oder unscharf aufgenommen wurden, später für die Betrachtenden nutzlos. Bilddateien, die möglichst viele Details der einzelnen Objekte, Befunde, Landschaften etc. beinhalten, sind demnach für die Archäologie unabdingbar. So können möglichst detailgetreue Aufnahmen durch archäologisch versierte Fotograf*innen sowohl die Recherche, als auch die weiterführende Forschung ungemein erleichtern. Mit heutigen Spiegelreflexkameras und dem richtigen Equipment sind der Anzahl an neu aufgenommenen Bilddateien in der Regel keine Grenzen gesetzt. Schnell am PC nachbearbeitet, können sie zeitnah anderen Personen zugänglich gemacht werden. Aufgrund dieser technischen Entwicklung sind auch Verfahren, wie die Photogrammetrie, möglich. Hierbei werden aus zahlreichen, sich überlappenden Fotos digitale 3D‑Modelle erstellt. So kann beispielsweise bei einer Ausgrabung jeder einzelne Grabungsschritt dokumentiert und später virtuell noch einmal nachvollzogen werden. Abschließend lässt sich also festhalten, dass die Fotografie aus der Archäologie nicht wegzudenken ist. Mit den zahlreichen Anwendungsmöglichkeiten aus der Luft und am Boden bildet sie einen wichtigen Bestandteil bei der Dokumentation. Mit entsprechender Übung und der Hilfe von Expert*innen, können grobe Fehler vermieden und passende Fotografien angefertigt werden. Obwohl die Fotodokumentation schon seit vielen Jahren in der Archäologie eingesetzt wird, dürfen wir gespannt sein, wie sich die Arbeit der Archäolog*innen von Morgen durch die technischen Weiterentwicklungen im Bereich der Fotografie verändern wird.
Die Autoren sind BA Studierende der Archäologie an der LMU.
Um im Studium auch Grabungspraxis zu erlernen, haben wir uns für die Grabungsarchäologie eingeschrieben und waren schon sehr gespannt im Englischen Garten besondere Funde machen zu können. Leider kam auch hier Corona dazwischen und unsere Dozierenden mussten einen kreativen Weg finden, trotz dieser Umstände, doch noch graben zu können. Durch ein Online-Grabungspraktikum wurde dies möglich.
Wie bei der ursprünglich geplanten Präsenzveranstaltung wurden 3 Tage für das Onlinepraktikum angesetzt. Am ersten Tag erhielten die einzelnen Teams jeweils Luftbilder des MUAFS-Projektes mit einem Ausschnitt unterschiedlicher Bereiche. Anhand dieser Bilder führten wir einen Fernerkundungssurvey durch und erkundeten die Gebiete im Detail am Bildschirm. Dabei lag der Fokus darauf die gefundenen Strukturen in Kategorien einzuteilen; unser Team hat sich dabei für eine farbliche Kodierung entschieden. So konnten verschiedene Strukturen und allgemeine Beobachtungen sichtbar gemacht werden.
Um keine Strukturen zu übersehen, analysierten und diskutierten wir gemeinsam unser Gebiet von Norden nach Süden und von Westen nach Osten. Anschließend bereiteten wir unsere Ergebnisse auf, um sie am nächsten Tag unseren Mitstudierenden und dem Lehrteam vorzustellen. Die von uns identifizierten Funde, waren oft nicht genau das was wir vermutet hatten und moderne Bauten und Spuren von Bauarbeiten und Feldarbeiten hatten leider oft Strukturen überdeckt, die archäologisch sehr interessant gewesen wären. Daher ist es unbedingt notwendig, das Areal auch real zu begehen, da nur so gewissen Formationen sichtbar sind oder erkannt werden können. Allerdings kann der Luftbildsurvey einen ersten Eindruck über das Gebiet geben, bevor man mit der Grabung beginnt.
Abbildung 1: Luftbild von Ginis/Kosha Ost (MUAFS Konzession) mit eingezeichneten Strukturen (Karte: Cajetan Geiger, Einzeichnungen: Markus Kutschka).
Am folgenden Tag erhielten wir einen Einblick in Bereiche der Photogrammatrie (Photoscan/3D-Erstellung). Dabei wurde uns von Cajetan Geiger der Vorgang bei der Erstellung einer 2D-, „2,5“D- und 3D-Abbildung von Grabungsbefunden gezeigt. Diese Abbildungen basieren auf geodätischen Daten, welche durch die Einmessung mit einem Tachy(meter), einem Gerät zur Messung von Horizontal- bzw. Vertikalwinkel und der Distanz, gewonnen wurden, und Bildern, die vor Ort aufgenommen werden. Es werden zuerst die Bilder ins Programm eingelesen, die im nächsten Schritt überprüft werden sollten, um ungeeignete Bilder, die zu unscharf waren oder auf denen zu viele Schatten zu sehen sind, auszusortieren; dies ermöglicht ein möglichst gutes und weiterverwendbares Ergebnis.
Im nächsten Schritt werden Marker mit Koordinaten der Einmessung auf den Bildern an den jeweiligen Stellen gesetzt. Damit lässt sich nun eine sogenannte Punktwolke („Dense Cloud“) erstellen, indem die Software gleiche Punkte auf den Fotos erkennt und diese „verbindet“. So kann eine Rekonstruktion erstellt werden, die im besten Fall nur wenige Millimeter vom Original abweicht. Als nächstes wird die Dense Cloud verdichtet zu einem Mesh, damit eine zusammenhängende Oberfläche entsteht, indem das Programm die dazwischenliegenden Punkte berechnet und zu einer zusammengehörigen Fläche verbinden kann. Für weitere Analysen und publikationsmögliche Abbildungen sind ein Digitales-Gelände-Modell (DEM; „2,5“D-Model) und ein Orthomosaik, bei dem alle Bilder zu einem Bild zusammengefasst werden, notwendig.
Trotz der ganzen fortschrittlichen Technik ist in den meisten Fällen eine Zeichnung des untersuchten und fotografierten Gebietes unerlässlich. Denn auf der Zeichnung können noch viel feinere, oft auch persönlich betrachtete Strukturen und Abgrenzungen eingezeichnet werden, welche bei Fotographien und Konstruktionen verloren gehen könnten. Daher kann die Kombination aus Orthomosaik und Feldzeichnung als eine sehr geeignete Variante angesehen werden.
Als nächste Aufgabe erwartete uns eine Übung zur Stratigraphie bzw. Grabungstechnik. Doch wie sollten wir online graben? Patrizia Heindl hatte hier die Idee, dass sich jeder einen eigenen „Fundplatz“ machen sollte in Form eines Marmorkuchens, in diesen man „Fundstücke“ wie Nüsse, kleine Früchte, Butterkekse oder ähnliches einbacken sollte. Dabei ist wichtig, dass der helle und dunkle Teig im besten Fall immer einzelne Schichten ergeben sollte und die Funde so eingebacken werden sollten, damit sie auch der jeweiligen Schicht zugeordnet werden können. Dies hatte es uns ermöglicht einen kleinen Einblick in die Grabungspraxis zu erhalten. Da Sandra ihren fertig gebackenen Kuchen noch sehr traurig aussehend fand, hat sie den Kuchen noch etwas dekoriert.
In der praktischen Übung wurden dann die einzelnen Arbeitsschritte einer Grabung an einem Stück unseres Kuchens ausprobiert. Mit einem großen Messer haben wir den ersten Schritt vollzogen, das Erstellen des Baggerplanums, und uns angesehen, welche Befunde hier schon vorliegen. Diese würden in Realität mit Befundnummern versehen und dokumentiert werde. Für die nächsten Schritte gibt es verschiedene Möglichkeiten weiter zu graben: entweder nach natürlichen oder künstlichen Schichten, die je nach Notwendigkeit und Bedarf ausgewählt werden. Es werden Profile angelegt und diese dokumentiert. Auf diese Weise arbeiteten wir uns durch unseren Kuchen und machten verschiedenste „Funde“. Selbstverständlich kam das Kuchenessen dabei auch nicht zu kurz.
Abbildung 2: Dekorierter Stratigraphiekuchen (Foto und Kuchen: Sandra Kraus).Abbildung 3: Dekorierter Stratigraphiekuchen (Foto und Kuchen: Iulia Comsa).
Da Iulia schon an einem realen Grabungspraktikum in Italien teilnehmen durfte, kann so ein Vergleich gezogen werden. Erstens: es war natürlich bequemer innerhalb einer Küche oder eines Zimmers einen Kuchen zu backen und später aus diesem auszugraben, als draußen in der Hitze und/oder im Schlamm stundenlang zu sitzen. Zweitens: die Bekleidung, die man bei einer Ausgrabung braucht (in Italien: schwere Arbeitsschuhe, Handschuhe, Arbeitshosen und weiße Hemden) werden beim Backen und bei der „Ausgrabung“ der Torte nicht benötigt. Drittens: die Werkzeuge der Ausgrabungsaktivität unterscheiden sich. Bei einem Kuchen benötigt man Küchengeschirr, das bei einer in-Vivo-Ausgrabung durch Kellen und Bürsten ersetzt wird. Viertens: die Zusammenarbeit mit anderen Archäolog*innen ist bei einer Ausgrabungsstelle „Herz und Seele” und kann bei einer Online-Kuchen-Ausgrabung nicht umgesetzt werden. Fünftens: man kann überraschenderweise eines bei beiden Methoden machen, und zwar Singen. Bei einer Ausgrabung, wird oft Musik benutzt, um diese entspannter zu gestalten. Beim Mitsingen wird man gegebenenfalls von Touristen seltsam angestarrt, aber davon sollte man sich einfach nicht ablenken lassen. Zusammenfassend kann man feststellen, dass es viel bequemer ist durch eine Ausgrabungstorte die stratigrafische Ausgrabungsmethode zu lernen. Aber es ist nicht mit einer realen Ausgrabung zu vergleichen, insbesondere da man die anderen Mitglieder des Ausgrabungsteams beim Essen des Kuchens sehr vermisst.
Den zweiten Tag beendeten wir mit dem Zeichnen von Keramik. Dabei durften wir uns ein Stück Keramik aussuchen, welches von Julia Budka dann für uns gezeichnet wurde. Dabei lag der Fokus darauf, dass wir mit ihr die einzelnen Arbeitsschritte durchgingen und gemeinsam erörterten wie man die Scherbe orientiert, abmisst und in korrekter Weise auf das Papier bringt. Dabei spielen die korrekte Handhabung der Messgeräte, räumliches Denken, sowie Präzision eine große Rolle. Zuerst werden Richtlinien mit der Höhe einer Scherbe angelegt, an denen man sich für die Zeichnung orientieren konnte. In der Ägyptologie wird allgemein die Außenansicht links einer senkrechten Mittellinie und die Innenansicht rechts dieser Mittellinie gezeichnet. Nun wird die Keramik unter regelmäßiger Abmessung detailgetreu (nach-)gezeichnet. Es war toll zu sehen, wie die Abbildung immer mehr Form annahm und man das Scherbenstück darin wiedererkennen konnte. Vor allem das Einzeichnen bestimmter Merkmale verlieh der Zeichnung Charakter und machte es letztendlich sehr realistisch.
Am dritten und letzten Tag wurden wir in die Basics der digitalen Zeichnung von Patrizia Heindl eingeführt. Dies ist der weiterführende Schritt der mit der Hand gemachten Zeichnung, damit diese auch später in Publikationen abgedruckt werden kann. Für die Digitalisierung ist eine gute Grundlage unerlässlich und entspricht einer digitalen Umzeichnung. Die Erschaffung der digitalen Zeichnung ist wirklich faszinierend und hat uns sehr viel Spaß gemacht.
Als nächstes folgte die Fotografie von Objekten, z. B. für Publikationen. Dabei wurde uns von Giulia D’Ercole, Cajetan Geiger und Julia Budka zunächst erklärt wie wichtig die korrekte Einstellung der Kamera ist. Sowohl optimale Lichtverhältnisse, als auch ein passender Hintergrund haben auf ein optimales Bild sehr viel Einfluss und können die Nachbearbeitungszeit erheblich verkürzen, wenn nicht sogar komplett überflüssig machen. Die Nachbearbeitung und Optimierung der geschossenen Fotos dürften wir auch mitverfolgen und es war sehr spannend zu sehen, welche Auswirkungen die einzelnen Einstellungen auf die Qualität der Fotos haben.
Als abschließende Einheit durften wir uns mit Marion Scheiblecker verschiedenste Luftbilder aus Teilen Bayerns ansehen, um zu entscheiden welche Prospektionsmethode, d.h. zerstörungsfreie Methoden zum Auffinden von Strukturen und Stätten im Boden, am geeignetsten wäre. Diese Methoden sind sinnvoll, um erste Informationen bezüglich der darunter vermuteten archäologischen Befunde zu erhalten. Man unterscheidet grundlegend zwischen Prospektion über Magnetprospektion, über die elektrische Leitfähigkeit und über Radarmessungen des Bodens. Auch hier war es sehr interessant zu sehen, was man aus den bayerischen Luftbildern schon alles „ablesen“ konnte und was unter unseren Feldern versteckt liegen könnte.
Als Fazit dieser drei Tage lässt sich grundlegend feststellen, dass wir in unserem Team vergleichsweise unsicher an diese Art eines Grabungspraktikums herangegangen sind und keinerlei Vorstellungen hatten, wie man diese Art von Praktika online umsetzen könnte. Letztendlich war die Umsetzung aber mehr als überragend und im Gesamten wurde uns ein wunderbarer Einblick in die verschiedenen Methoden und praktischen Anwendungen gegeben. Wir freuen uns sehr darauf, das Gelernte in der Corona-freien Zeit anwenden zu können.
Die Autor*innen sind BA Studierende der Ägyptologie an der LMU.
Since almost two decades, my research and teaching complement one another. Probably influenced by my own education in Vienna – at a department with traditional connections to a museum collection and a strong record in the archaeological fieldwork in Egypt, thus resulting in a very practically oriented academic curriculum – I believe that subjects like Archaeology and Egyptology need a practical approach as well as a good basic understanding of its methodologies and theories. There are things students will never learn from textbooks but can only experience on site and face-to-face with the object. Furthermore, for me the general goal is not only to submit the tools, methods and knowledge but also to pass on our own enthusiasm for the subject to the future generation. The latter makes the hard work, all the accuracy and patience needed to become an academic scholar endurable – and magnificent.
It goes without saying that in times of the Covid-19 pandemic, there are many challenges for academic teaching (and learning), in particular for practical classes. The block seminar “Introduction to field archaeology” I was offering this winter term together with DiverseNile team members had to be completely revised as an online format because of the lockdown in Munich.
This online seminar run via zoom, we used several breakout rooms and offered plenty of material to the participants via a moodle class, in particular short videos on subjects like photogrammetry and drawing and photographing objects/pottery sherds.
Although this was a kind of ‘test’ and we were a bit unsure about the success the seminar will have, the results were amazing. The participants, arranged in three teams, submitted very strong results on the task “remote sensing” (for which we used satellite/drone pictures of the MUAFS concession) and were all really active in the individual sessions of the seminar.
In order to emphasise the strong links between teaching and research and to highlight the importance of outreach, one of the tasks for the participants was to write a short blog post about their experiences in the seminar. Therefore, I am more than happy that I can introduce three guest blogs by our teams of students – they are written in German but they offer an insight and personal view of experiences of LMU students in challenging times. All of the students of our seminar showed an impressive motivation for archaeology – this is all a teacher can ask for and thus many thanks again from my side and on behalf of my team! Enjoy these guest blog posts and any feedback is of course very much appreciated.
As my colleague and ‘scientific counterpart’ Rennan Lemos, responsible together with our PI for Work Package 2 (The Variability of Funerary Monuments), pointed out so perfectly in his blog entry On the footsteps of Vila and the archaeology of monumental surveys in northern Sudan, a number of different factors determine how we have to approach our engagement with the past today. Not only do we archaeologists have to keep in mind our own social or cultural conditioning, our own socialisation, which is always an on-going process, but we also have to take into account the zeitgeist of our predecessors, and thus the working methods influenced by it, when we include their previous results.
In this regard, the method that Vila and his team applied for their Archaeological Survey in the 1970ies, which also covered the MUAFS concession area from Attab to Ferka, is equally relevant for settlement sites and thus for Work Package 1 (The Variability of Domestic Architecture).
Although Vila and his team also followed up on earlier surveys in Sudan, they deliberately chose an approach that was kind of new for their time. Their main aim was to give an idea and thus evidence of the cultural legacy, to raise awareness of the archaeological value of the explored regions. Linked to that was the explicit wish to pave the way for further fieldwork in the future.
Concerning the settlements, in slight contrast to the cemeteries, where clearing or minor excavations were carried out more frequently, the major rule was that survey work must avoid disturbing the original condition of the archaeological sites. Instead of using invasive methods that would have resulted in significant destruction, (in most cases) work was limited to indicating the existence of the sites, documenting their visible remains and giving a current status report on them. The documentation system chosen by Vila and his team was based on a strict, predetermined catalogue of guidelines (Vila 1975, Volume I). Exemplarily mentioned shall be the given information about the localisation, the extent of the sites or the geographical features, and – in this point naturally somewhat more subjective – the classification of the respective archaeological value. The latter dictated quite decisively, f. ex. the extent of sampling, which was also subjected to strict rules. Another positive aspect to be highlighted is a topic usually rather neglected: The consistent application of the terms chosen for their survey (f. ex. vestiges for removable witnesses, like sherds or stone implements; remains for any kind of fixed structure) as well as the explanation of chosen terms like settlement, camp site, occupation site etc., and not least the description of the problems they were confronted with when creating their system.
Although Vila and his team likeable (and very well understandable for any field archaeologist) admitted their own hardships in this approach, having to leave to other people what they discovered, it is especially this transparency that makes it particularly helpful for us subsequent scholars to comprehend the information they gained, documented and what they understood by it.
This systematics, which at that time was still applied in the field via punched cards created according to the guidelines and not unlike an analogue database (Fig. 1), enables the old survey results to be easily transferred to a now digital Database (FileMaker Pro), the ERC DiverseNile Database for ‘Kerma’ and ‘New Kingdom’ sites, I designed for Work Package 1 (see also the Petrographic Database my colleague Giulia D’Ercole designed for Work Package 3).
Figure 1. Selective card used for documentation in the 1970ies (Vila 1975: 19, Fig. 2).
This new database contains on one hand all the available documentation published by Vila concerning the settlement sites, whereas the then state of research is contrasted in a clear and critical separation with the new data gained from our own studies, which includes f. ex. not only new sites, new maps, new photographs but also a revised dating for several dates given by Vila. As strongly intertwined topics it also includes basic information on cemeteries.
This easy to handle database, which I will give you here a short overview of, can be flexibly modified and adapted to the on-going work process (Fig. 2): Structured in three parts, the database first provides a short general information about the site, f. ex. its Name and location, the AMS-No (alphanumeric classification regarding the 1, 250 000 map sheets of the Sudan Survey Department, a method firstly implemented by W.Y. Adams 1961, further elaborated by F.W. Hinkel and used by Vila), or new Way Points (taken by the MUAFS team). Important entries are of course the site’s Dating given by Vila, which has been updated if necessary (Site Date new). The second, more detailed part includes the elaborated Site description by Vila together with already published photos, drawings or sketches, again updated and compared with new results collected in our last seasons (f. ex. Observation/New Excavations). The third section serves to cover specific data relevant for the settlements within Work Package 1, such as f. ex. Superstructure or Building Techniques, as well as entries like Shape or Material.
Figure 2. Layout of the ERC DiverseNile Database for ‘Kerma’ and ‘New Kingdom’ sites (detail).
An equally beneficial option within FileMaker is the integration of other databases I made, the ERC DiverseNile Object Database (Fig. 3) and the MUAFS All Finds Database, which contain the data of all the new finds we so far recorded and are accessible through an easy command.
Figure 3. Layout of the ERC DiverseNile Object Database.
Altogether these databases are an extremely helpful and time-saving working tool to sort and select relevant data at a glance (or a click), revealing not only the wide variability of sites in our concession area but also the cultural diversity of the archaeological remains in the Attab to Ferka region, including at the moment 53 recorded sites relevant for Work Package 1.
Being able to expand and optimise these databases during the work process, they also reflect at one glance the development of past and present research: This holds f. ex. true for the attribution of sites indicated by Vila as either ‘Kerma’ or ‘Egyptian New Kingdom’, defining them then still as more rigid cultural units, than we do today. Numerous data from revisited sites and newly added ones show a much closer interconnection of cultures in this region – thus supporting our new approach to move away from these strict categories and going a step further, with our PI introducing the preliminary term Bronze Age Nubia as a starting point (Fig. 4). Provided with newer methods in archaeology and fresh promising data we are looking forward to further shedding light on this flourishing and dynamic region in the periphery of Sai and Amara West.
Figure 4. New distribution of ‘Bronze Age’ sites according to the results of the MUAFS 2018/2019 season (Budka 2019: Map 7).
References
Adams, W. Y. and Verwers C. J. 1961. ‘Archaeological Survey of Sudanese Nubia’. Kush 9, 7–43.
Budka, J. 2019 (with contributions by G. D’Ercole, C. Geiger, V. Hinterhuber and M. Scheiblecker). Towards Middle Nile Biographies: the Munich University Attab to Ferka Survey Project 2018/2019. Sudan & Nubia 23, 13–26.
Hinkel, F.W. 1977. The Archaeological Map of the Sudan. A Guide to its Use and Explanation of its Principles. Berlin.
Vila. A. 1975. La prospection archéologique de la vallée du Nil au sud de la Cataracte de Dal. Vol. 1. Paris.
A year ago today, the last official steps of our 2020 season of the MUAFS project were carried out, I submitted all paperwork to the Sudanese authorities and we were getting ready to leave Khartoum – of course not knowing that a) a sandstorm will delay our flight out, b) because of the extra night in Khartoum we will just catch the last flight to Munich from Istanbul before flights were closed in Turkey because of the pandemic and c) it will take us more than a year to return to Sudan.
One of my personal rituals I have developed in the last 10 years is that on the occasion of my last day in Khartoum, I always try to visit the Sudan National Museum, at least the garden with its wonderful monuments, but preferably the galleries with its treasures as well.
The entrance of the museum with rams of Kawa showing king Taharqa. Photo: J. Budka.
My first visit to the museum was exactly 20 years ago – but the building and its treasures impress and inspire me deeply every time anew. The Sudan National Museum in Khartoum clearly belongs to my favourite museums, together with the splendid Aswan Nubian Museum and the Luxor Museum in Egypt.
A glimpse into the ground floor gallery housing Egyptian, Napatan and Meroitic statues and much more. Photo: J. Budka.
It is always a great pleasure to give newcomers of the team a special tour though the museum – last year this was Jessica and we had the luck that our dear friend and colleague Huda Magzoub joined us. This photo shows us in the entrance alley to the museum together with one of the marvelous Meroitic lion sandstone statues of Basa, representations of the lion-god Apedemak.
The last selfie I took back in Khartoum in 2020: Huda, Jessica and me in front of one of the Basa lions.
I can just recommend to everyone: do not miss this marvelous museum and please calculate several hours for your visit – the ground floor gallery is full of important objects from all areas of Sudan, from Palaeolithic to Post-Meroitic times. And the upper floor gallery focusing on the Christian Medieval Kingdoms of Nubia is equally a must, featuring the world-famous wall paintings from the cathedral in Faras (a very useful guide through the collection is available online for free).
One of the impressive ceramic vessels in the museum: a painted Meroitic fine ware bowl. Photo: J. Budka.Another stunning object from Meroitic times: a glass chalice of highest quality from a tomb in Sedeigna. Photo: J. Budka.
Like at Aswan, I think the most charming aspect of the museum is its garden. Here, one can visit complete temples (the splendid New Kingdom temples of Buhen, Semna-West and Kumma) and one rock-cut tomb (of Djehuti-Hotep) but also a large number of statues, including monumental royal statues, reliefs and rock art respectively rock inscriptions are exhibited.
The entrance alley of the Museum flanked with Meroitic lion statues. Photo: J. Budka.
I very much hope that my yearly ritual of a stroll through this wonderful collection and enjoying the view of the monuments in the garden will be possible again soon, hopefully somewhen later this year.
As recently outlined by Rennan Lemos, a remarkable tomb of Ramesside date was found by Vila in Ginis West. We identified this monument during our survey in 2019 and it clearly once had a tumulus superstructure; the descent to the rock-cut chambers is still visible. Some broken pottery as well as bone fragments are scattered around the superstructure, but otherwise this structure is isolated and cannot be associated with burial monuments (apart from a few Christian tombs close by).
Figure 1: Site 3-P-50 in 2019 (photo: J. Budka).
A look at the distribution map of New Kingdom sites in our MUAFS concession (see Budka 2020, 65, fig. 14) is useful for a tentative contextualisation of the tomb which, among others, yielded shabtis of the lady of the house, Isis (Vila 1977, 151). The New Kingdom sites are clustered within the southwestern part of the research area, thus close to the urban sites Amara West and Sai Island. The role of these administrative centres Amara West and Sai Island needs to be considered when looking at the ‘periphery’ (cf. Spencer 2019; see also Stevens and Garnett 2017) and might have influenced the pattern of site distribution. The latter, however, is still preliminary as I pointed out in a earlier post.
Figure 2: Distribution of New Kingdom sites in the MUAFS concession including 3-P-50, 2-T-58 and 3-P-15 (see Budka 2020, fig. 14).
The closest possible New Kingdom site located in the neighbourhood of 3-P-50 is 2-T-58. This site is a small cemetery of several tumuli which can be attributed to the Late New Kingdom and/or the Pre-Napatan period. Unfortunately, 2-T-58 was already very much destroyed and plundered in the 1970s. There is little hope that more information than gathered by Vila can be gained from these tombs (Vila 1977, 119-122, figs. 53-54).
Figure 3: One of the looted tombs of site 2-T-58 in 2019 (photo: J. Budka).
Vila excavated one of the tombs and found the remains of four burials, of funerary beds, bodily adornment like beads and amulets and some ceramic vessels which seem to date to the late Ramesside period and the Pre-Napatan phase, finding close parallels at Amara West (Binder 2014, passim) and also at Hillat el-Arab (Vincetelli 2006, passim). A post-New Kingdom date is maybe the most likely for this excavated tumulus and its interments.
Especially interesting and most probably contemporaneous to the isolated tomb 3-P-50 is site 3-P-15 in Kosha West which is part of a cluster formed by three settlement sites (3-P-15, 3-P-16 and 3-P-17).
This habitation site on a mound of c. 55-100m shows a surface covered by schist blocks and sherds. In the northeastern part, remains of mud bricks are visible. The surface ceramics we documented show a continuation from late Ramesside times well into the ninth and maybe even the eight century BCE, thus into the Napatan era.
Figure 4: Overview of site 3-P-15 in 2019 (photo: J. Budka).
A more precise dating and a concise characterisation will require excavations – but the site seems to have been in use during the time the cemeteries at Amara West flourished and 3-P-50 was built. As already pointed out by Michaela Binder, the best parallel for 3-P-50 is tomb G244 at Amara West (Binder 2014, Binder 2017, 599-606). The latter is the largest multi-chambered tomb at Amara West with a tumulus as superstructure and, like 3-P-50, also situated in what seems to have been an isolated position during the 20th Dynasty. Maybe these tombs, their architecture, their seemingly isolated location and rich equipment (which is an intriguing mixture of Egyptian- and Nubian-style material culture) point to common aspects of local elite communities in the Amara and Ginis regions we are still far away from understanding in detail.
Our planned excavations at 3-P-15 and especially the joint efforts of Rennan Lemos focusing on the mortuary evidence and Veronica Hinterhuber on the settlement remains will hopefully allow a closer assessment of the Ramesside period in the MUAFS concession and corresponding lived experiences in the near future.
References
Binder, M. 2014. Health and Diet in Upper Nubia through Climate and Political Change. A bioarchaeological investigation of health and living conditions at ancient Amara West between 1300 and 800 BC. Unpublished PhD thesis, Durham University.
Binder, M. 2017. The New Kingdom tombs at Amara West: Funerary perspectives on Nubian-Egyptian interactions, in: N. Spencer, A. Stevens, and M. Binder (eds), Nubia in the New Kingdom. Lived experience, pharaonic control and indigenous traditions. British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan 3. Leuven, 591-613.
Budka, J. 2020. Kerma presence at Ginis East: the 2020 season of the Munich Universit Attab to Ferka Survey Project, Sudan and Nubia 24, 57-71.
Spencer, N. 2019. Settlements of the Second Intermediate Period and New Kingdom, in D. Raue (ed), Handbook of ancient Nubia, vol. 1. Berlin, 433-464.
Stevens, A. and A. Garnett 2017. Surveying the pharaonic desert hinterland of Amara West, in: N. Spencer, A. Stevens, and M. Binder (eds), Nubia in the New Kingdom. Lived experience, pharaonic control and indigenous traditions. British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan 3. Leuven, 287-306.
Vila, A. 1977. La prospection archéologique de la Vallée du Nil, au Sud de la Cataracte de Dal (Nubie Soudanaise). Fascicule 5: Le district de Ginis, Est et Ouest. Paris.
Vincentelli, I. 2006. Hillat El-Arab. The Joint Sudanese-Italian Expedition in the Napatan Region, Sudan. Sudan Archaeological Research Society Publication 15. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1570. Oxford.
Most of the available burial evidence in New Kingdom Nubia come from large cemeteries associated with temple-towns. Evidence from the hinterland of colonial towns or ‘peripheral’ areas such as the Batn al-Hajar are usually discontinuous and pose various challenges to interpretation (figure 1). Edwards recently raised discussion on the role of isolated tombs in such areas. According to him, mortuary evidence from such locations, in contrast with evidence from formal cemeteries, “should not narrow our perspectives, to the exclusion from our narratives of the vast majority of the population who were buried otherwise” (Edwards 2020: 396).
Figure 1: different physiographic zones along the Middle Nile. Wikimedia Commons.
Ginis West is located north of Amara West, on the way to the Batn al-Hajar. In our concession area, evidence for formal cemeteries associated with established settlements is scarce, although continuing research and excavations will likely shed more light on this topic. In the New Kingdom, the whole area between Amara West and Lower Nubia, comprising the north Abri-Delgo Reach and the Batn el-Hajar represents a gap in our knowledge of New Kingdom Nubia. Revisiting the evidence produced by various surveys in these areas is crucial for us to develop new comparative research, especially evidence produced by the Archaeological Survey of Sudanese Nubia (ASSN, Edwards 2020), the Finnish Expedition to Sudanese Nubia (Donner 1998) and other projects working in the Batn el-Hajar; and, particularly for us working in the Attab-Ferka stretch of the Nile, Vila’s survey south of Dal cataract (Vila 1975-79).
In the Batn el-Hajar, the ASSN uncovered not only simple pit graves, characteristic of non-elite burial grounds, but also a few elaborate tombs. Those can be compared to tombs at main cemeteries throughout the Nile Valley, at least in terms of substructures (Edwards 2020; see Spence 2019). At Ginis West, Vila’s team excavated a remarkable New Kingdom tomb (site 3-P-50). Based on a first look at the material culture retrieved inside, I would say it was used especially in the later part of the New Kingdom. The tomb was cut at the intersection between the alluvial plain and bedrock, and a few supporting slabs were used to reinforce the four subterranean chambers, accessible through a descending passage (figure 2).
Figure 2: plan and section of tomb 3-P-50 at Ginis West (Villa 1977: 146).
The tomb was heavily looted, with scattered bones found in the descending passage and chamber three. The tomb likely housed the burials of various contemporaneous individuals, as well as later burials. No superstructure has been detected, although Binder pointed out to later New Kingdom tombs combining Egyptian-style substructures with tumuli superstructures at Amara West, Ginis and Sesebi (Binder 2014: 45).
The material culture from tomb 3-P-50 suggest cultural affinities with both Egypt and Nubia. On the Egyptian side, there are figurative scarabs, pendants representing deities and animals, including a rare crocodile pendant, an equally rare wooden headrest, and two late 19th Dynasty shabtis of Isis, lady of the house (figure 3). Various types of beads were also excavated, including long beads and spacers, which are characteristic of elite cemeteries and monumental tombs in New Kingdom Nubia (Lemos 2020). However, various earrings made of shell and carnelian were also found (figure 4), which represent affinities with local styles, which were later exported to Egypt (Lemos 2020). The combination of Egyptian-style objects with stone/ivory/shell earrings and bangles is especially strong at Soleb (Schiff Giorgini 1971).
Tomb 3-P-50 did not belong to a formal cemetery as its material culture alone would suggest. Vila only identified two later (likely Christian) tombs in the vicinity of the site. What is a relatively elaborate tomb containing a large quantity of restricted items typical of large New Kingdom colonial cemeteries doing at Ginis West? There is still so much for us to understand about ‘peripheral’ zones in New Kingdom Nubia. Tombs like 3-P-50 at Ginis West and a few examples from the Batn el-Hajar allow us to think that, at least for some people, what we characterise as ‘peripheries’ were actually the centre of life and death experiences of colonisation in New Kingdom Nubia. My research for DiverseNile will hopefully shed light onto shifting conceptions and experiences of ‘centres’ and ‘peripheries’, which will allow us to rewrite historical narratives of Nubia in the New Kingdom based on local experiences instead of Egyptian ways of classifying history.
References
Binder, M. 2014. Health and Diet in Upper Nubia through Climate and Political Change. A bioarchaeological investigation of health and living conditions at ancient Amara West between 1300 and 800 BC. Unpublished PhD thesis, Durham University.
Donner, G. 1998. The Finnish Nubia Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, 1964–65. Helsinki: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy.
Edwards, D. ed. 2020. The Archaeological Survey of Sudanese Nubia, 1963-69. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Lemos, R. 2020. Foreign Objects in Local Contexts: Mortuary Objectscapes in Late Colonial Nubia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
Schiff Giorgini, M. 1971. Soleb II: Les Nécropoles. Firenze: Sansone.
Spence, K. 2019. New Kingdom Tombs in Lower and Upper Nubia. In Handbook of Ancient Nubia, ed. D. Raue, 541–566. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Vila. A. 1975-79. La prospection archéologique de la vallée du Nil au sud de la Cataracte de Dal. Vols 1-11. Paris: CNRS.
One of the small advantages in the Covid-19 pandemic is that there was a boost of online formats of lectures, seminars and workshops around the world. I consider this especially important since prior to the pandemic, it was a real challenge and a financial issue to ensure the participation of colleagues from Egypt and Sudan, that is, from the countries who’s archaeological remains our discipline investigates. With online formats, the place of stay is almost unimportant, if a stable internet connection is available. Numerous events are already trying to find time slots that are compatible for several time zones around the world. This new form of internationality has enormous potential and the high number of participants in Egyptological events worldwide over the last few months shows that for many people this is an incredible added value – which will hopefully also continue after the pandemic.
Therefore, I am proud to introduce the new DiverseNile Online Seminar Series which will run via Zoom, starting in April. Participation is free but registration via email is mandatory. For composing the programme and the organisation of the seminars, I am very grateful to Rennan Lemos. He did an excellent job, inviting a number of highly distinguished colleagues working in Sudan whose contributions fit perfectly under the general topic of “Cultural Diversity in Northeast Africa”.
Programme of the forthcoming DiverseNile Seminar Series 2021, starting in April!
I am very much looking forward to this new format discussing key issues of the DiverseNile project with an international audience and from various perspectives – fresh ideas are thus as good as guaranteed.
Documentation is the bread and butter of archaeological research. Archaeologists are daily committed to documenting everything: sites formation processes, dwellings, funerary remains, and above all the various products of material culture.
Any method of documentation, from the most essential and traditional (i.e., technical drawing of archaeological strata and finds) to the most elaborated (i.e., image-based 3D-modelling of artefacts, human remains, and sites) constitutes a fundamental step toward archaeological reconstruction. Documentation mainly serves the archaeologist to record and understand the material remains, settlement and funerary features identified during the archaeological excavation and to leave a trace of it. Also, through documentation, a preliminary process of interpretation and critical reading of the data is carried out. Furthermore, the system we adopt to document and classify archaeological data is not unbiased, rather it already implies a methodological choice and a specific scholarly interpretative approach.
As responsible, within the Work Package 3 of the DiverseNile project, for the technological and compositional analyses of the ceramic materials, I want to outline the method I use for the petrographic classification of the ceramic samples which we are going to analyse from the new concession area in the Attab to Ferka region and from our reference collections (e.g., the AcrossBorders ceramic samples from Sai Island; the New Kingdom/Kerma-Dukki Gel pottery samples; see also D’Ercole and Sterba 2018).
Generally speaking, petrography, via optical microscopy (OM), is a well-established procedure employed to examine ceramic objects and identify the source of clay raw materials and tempers used to manufacture the vessels (Fig. 1). This technique allows answering to crucial archaeological questions on pottery provenance and technology.
Figure 1. Example of ceramic thin section illustrating some common features documented for petrographic analysis. Adapted from Smith 2008: 74, Fig. 6.1.
In Sudanese archaeology, the interest in provenance and technological studies on pottery started approx. 50 years ago. In 1972, Nordström, referring to the work of Anna Shepard (1956), produced a systematic publication on early Nubian ceramics from the region of Abka-Wadi Halfa and defined the term fabric meaning the set of the compositional and anthropogenic characteristics of the ceramic material that could be determined by microscopic observation and comprised both the composition of the groundmass (or clay matrix) and non-plastic inclusions plus the potter’s technological choices adopted to make the vessel.
For the study of the ceramic material of our DiverseNile project I have designed a specific petrographic layout within the Filemaker database of the ceramic samples (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Layout of the petrographic database designed for the DiverseNile project.
The petrographic layout includes information on the archaeological provenance and dating of the samples. It also correlates the micro fabric or petrographic group to the macroscopic evidence, that is the visual description, shape, function, and macro ware of the ceramic specimens. The consecutive entries inform on a) the groundmass or clay matrix of the sample (i.e., colour, homogeneity and optical activity); b) non-plastic inclusions (i.e., sorting, dominant grain size, maximum grain size, abundance, and mineral composition); c) plastic inclusions (i.e., clay pellets, argillaceous rock fragments etc.); d) porosity (i.e., voids abundance, type, dominant size, iso-orientation); e) organics (i.e., abundance, type, dominant size). The database also notifies on the firing regime of the ceramic sample (i.e., oxidised, reduced, reduced with narrow ox margins, dark core due to insufficient ox, oxidised to reduced). Finally, a graphic field incorporates the microscopic photos of the thin section taken under both cross-polarised (XPL) and plane polarised (PPL) light. Comments, possible comparison with other samples, and a link to the iNAA compositional groups are included as further relevant information.
The purpose of this database is to simplify the data entry of the petrographic evidence and to standardize it according to an easy-to-use, flexible, and consistent classificatory system that embraces the main information on the composition and technology of production of the ceramic data (see among others Quinn 2013).
At a subsequent step, this information will be intertwined with the results obtained from the other laboratory analyses and eventually with the archaeological data to provide a further analytical and interpretive tool for understanding the diversity and complexity of the material culture of the human groups living in the periphery of the Egyptian towns in Sudanese Nubia.
References
D’Ercole, G. and Sterba, J. H. 2018. From macro wares to micro fabrics and INAA compositional groups: the Pottery Corpus of the New Kingdom town on Sai Island (northern Sudan), 171–183, in: J. Budka and J. Auenmüller (eds.), From Microcosm to Macrocosm: Individual households and cities in Ancient Egypt and Nubia. Leiden.
Nordström, H. – Å 1972. Neolithic and A-Group sites. Uppsala, Scandinavian University.
Quinn, P. S. 2013. Ceramic Petrography: The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery & Related Artefacts in Thin Section. Oxford, Archaeopress.
Shepard, A. O. 1956. Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Smith, M. S. 2008. Petrography, Chapter 6, 73-107, in: J. M. Herbert, T. E. Mc Reynold (eds.), Woodland Pottery Sourcing in the Carolina Sandhills. Research Report No. 29, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
These are challenging times – for everybody, for many groups more than others (just think of the heroes in hospitals, schools, kindergarten and supermarkets as well as many other places and the awful situation for everybody involved in gastronomy, tourism and culture). We as archaeologists are more or less well prepared for doing much of our work from home. Spending weeks and moths per year in the field, often stuck on an island somewhere, we are also used to a certain kind of isolation.
However, there are of course real problematic issues for us we are currently facing. First of all, of course going to the field in Sudan and Egypt – nothing that is possible at the moment and also planning our next season in the MUAFS concession is still extremely difficult because of the pandemic. Second, our teaching activities are restricted to online formats. Whereas this works without problems for lecture classes and seminars, our planned block seminar “Introduction to field archaeology” where we wanted to have various practical training for our participants would need to be completely revised as an online format. We have postponed it for now, hoping that it might be possible in March – I remain skeptical (or realistic?) since the extension of the lockdown in Munich is very likely, but let’s wait and see. Third, working at home and taking shifts in working in the office to secure isolation and limited risks for everybody is currently without alternative, but I miss having the complete team present and exchanging in a casual way.
Well – as archaeologists we are trained to be patient, and all will be better somewhen!
For now, I wanted to give a small update on our work progress. Everybody of the team is busy with several work tasks within the work packages – much efforts are currently spent by Giulia and Veronica on databases, by Jessica on enlarging our digital library and by Cajetan on various aspects of remote sensing. Rennan was busy with his PhD viva at Cambridge which he passed very successfully and now continues with collecting data useful to approach the mortuary archaeology of the MUAFS concession.
It was very silent from my side as PI and this with good reasons – it is the end of the teaching term, there’s a lot of administration keeping me busy and most importantly: I tried to finish a monograph about Tomb 26 on Sai Island in the last months. This process has taken quite some time and actually benefitted from the lockdown and that I was unable to leave Europe over the winter. This book is now almost ready and I could easy repeat what I had written in 2018 about the merits and flaws of preparing archaeological publications, especially about crazy working hours and panic attacks. And about the feeling of being overwhelmed when you know exactly that the really important things in life are neglected but you can’t help it – partner, family, friends and pets suffer and need to be very patient and supportive (or bribed in the case of animals). Friends and family got used to my slightly bizarre answers on the phone “yes, all is fine, I am still in my tomb, can we speak later?” and for this I am very grateful! Interestingly, there was not much difference between the last months in lockdown and the final book preparation period back in 2018. The results of isolation are just the same, with more silence in the office and maybe with the slight difference that I could not meet friends now, even if I could spare the time.
For the DiverseNile project, preparing the AcrossBorders publications is hugely relevant. There are so many aspects we will be able to compare with sites in our new concession which are after all located in the ‘periphery’ of Sai Island. Tomb 26 is one of the Egyptian style pyramid tombs on Sai where the local elite was buried. We had more than 36 burials in this monument and we are now able to reconstruct in detail the life history of the tomb and its users. Although the burial assemblages like the one of Khnummose follow Egyptian standards, there are also certain local markers and individual concepts which I describe in the forthcoming book. We assume that none of the users of Tomb 26 was actually coming from Egypt, all of them are belonging to the local elite with indigenous roots. Interestingly, we also have some Nubian features, especially traceable by the choice of ceramics and bodily adornment.
The probably best example is a young female who was buried with an ivory bracelet in Tomb 26 (Fig. 1). This bracelet was badly damaged and broken, but its find position over the ulna of the individual allowed a clear interpretation. Similar bracelets are known from several New Kingdom sites in Nubia (e.g. Buhen, Mirgissa and Fadrus) and can be regarded as typical ‘Nubian’.
In situ position of ivory bracelet in Tomb 26 on Sai (photo: J. Budka).
Overall, Tomb 26 on Sai Island illustrates as a case study the potential of investigating the variability of funerary practices within a common repertoire of burial customs adopted from Egyptian standards as being rooted in distinct social practices. One of the main tasks for the near future within the framework of the DiverseNile project is, therefore, to determine the degree of diversity not only in elite contexts such as the pyramid cemetery on Sai but also in social groups not belonging to the elite of New Kingdom Nubia in order to achieve a more comprehensive picture of past communities in the Middle Nile region. Our cemeteries in the Attab to Ferka region will allow us to make here considerable progress in the next years, especially because of our joint approach using both funerary and settlement records to reconstruct past communities.
