All roads lead to Rome – this was especially true last week for 5000 archaeologists who all came to the 30th annual meeting of the EAA.
Chloe Ward and I were among this impressive number of participants to present the DiverseNile project. Fortunately, both sessions in which we presented also included a number of other presentations on Egypt and Sudan, which shows that our field is also increasingly represented at the EAA.
My talk was on the very first day in a session organised by Maria Gatto and colleagues entitled “The Archaeology of ancient Borderscapes: Multiple approaches, new paradigms.” This session was related to Maria’s The Borderscape Project. The lectures covered a great depth of time and geographical range – and yet we had a very solid thematic basis for discussion, regardless of whether it was about the Nile Valley, the Middle East, the Levant or various parts of Europe.
In my own presentation, I focused on the Dal cataract area as a kind of buffer zone between Lower and Upper Nubia and explored what we can learn about it from the finds in the MUAFS concession. My case studies included results from surveys, rock art and excavations at the sites GiE 003 and AtW 001. I also argued that our contact space biography approach is well suited to understanding the complexity of cultural dynamics often found in borderscapes.
Chloe found the perfect session for her expertise in the construction and production of knowledge in excavation archives. She attended the session “Old excavations and finds, new data and interpretations: The use of archices in current archaeological research projects”, which was organised by Kerstin Hofmann and colleagues on Saturday. This session also included a wide range of very exciting presentations. Chloe emphasised in her talk „Knowledge construction in and with the archaeological archive“ the methodological challenges we need to consider when working in the MUAFS concession and with the data published by André Vila in the 1970s.
As with every conference, however, the EAA in Rome was primarily about the discussions outside of the presentations, meeting old friends again and getting to know new colleagues. And of course, there was also Rome – a beautiful city that had far too much to offer. The social events of the conference were real highlights here – starting with the great location of the welcome party directly at the Palatine in the Vigna Barberini – what a luxury to be able to enjoy this place in the evening as an archaeological community!
One of the stunning sunsets last week in Rome – here with the obelisk on the Esquilin.
Of course, there was also time for some city tours – in my case, of course, tours to the various obelisks. Museums were also freely accessible to all participants – I was particularly impressed by the Villa Giulia and the National Etruscan Museum housed there.
Both the architecture of Villa Giulia, but also the contents of the museum are breathtaking and simply beautiful!
In any case, we are already looking forward to the next EAA, which will take place in Belgrade in 2025.
Since joining the project in June, I have been busy catching up on the research that has been conducted to date. A considerable amount of this goes back much further than the start of the DiverseNile project to an archaeological survey which took place between 1969 and 1973 directed by André Vila (Budka 2020). As much as we archaeologists enjoy excavation, we also spend a huge amount of time using and building on the work of our predecessors (see also the earlier blog posts by Rennan Lemos and Veronica Hinterhuber). This is particularly important when considering large concession areas such as the one held by the DiverseNile project and the questions the project poses.
Published plan of the area surveyed between 1969 and 1973 (Vila 1979)
Past work such as Vila’s survey can help inform current (and future!) projects in myriad ways. At the most basic level, we can use the results to help locate potential sites of interest for the project and then identify and re-explore them in the field in Sudan. This can also be significant in noting changes in archaeological sites since Vila’s survey, which is crucial for their preservation (Budka 2019; 2020). We can also integrate past data into our current research, increasing the data we have available at our disposal to answer our present research questions. Finally, we can use this survey data to explore research and archaeological practices both today and in the past. Understanding these practices is crucial as they directly influence the way that archaeological knowledge is constructed (Ward 2022). Therefore, a key consideration when using Vila’s data is to understand how it was collected and presented at the time, this means we can make use of it much more effectively. To this end, considering Vila’s results as ‘legacy data’ is a useful way of integrating this past research into our current project.
Normally, the term legacy data in archaeology is used to define ‘obsolete’ archaeological data but, given the vast importance of digital data for any kind of analysis, manipulation, or mapping, this can broadly be applied to any data which is not digital (Allison 2008). As such, any work involving the re-contextualisation, application of modern techniques, or modelling of past data can be considered working with legacy data (Wylie 2016). Thinking of this evidence as legacy data rather than simply data is crucial when using it in any new or future research as it demands a more complex engagement with the material then simply extracting quantitative data. It would be redundant to simply apply new methods to old data, without engaging with more fundamental questions which consider how the data was originally collected and how it fits into the broader historical and methodological contexts of previous studies.
Fortunately for us, Vila’s survey is comprehensively published across 11 volumes, all of which are available on the website of the SFDAS (Section française de la direction des antiquités du Soudan). The volumes are nicely bookended by an introductory volume — which provides crucial information on how the survey and recording was conducted by the team, as well as the classification system used — and a concluding volume — which provides some quantitative analyses of the results of the survey.
Classification of sites used by Vila during the survey (after Vila 1975)
This is a fantastic resource for the project to draw upon as a key consideration when making effective use of legacy data is not only to understand the methodological processes used, but also to ensure the replication of past results (Corti and Thompson 2004; Corti 2007; Corti 2011). As in any science, the reproducibility of results is fundamental in ensuring the accuracy — and therefore usability — of past research, which is crucial when incorporating it into contemporary research. Furthermore, advances in the archaeology of Sudan means that some of Vila’s results — for example, in terms of phasing — may well need to be re-examined and ‘updated’ to take into account the half-century of subsequent research.
Of course, all of this leads to additional questions on the future of the research and data created by the DiverseNile project. This includes thinking about the best ways to collect, store, and share our data and ‘futureproof’ our work.
Keep reading the blog for future updates on Vila’s work and its integration into the DiverseNile project!
References
Allison, P. 2008. Dealing with Legacy Data ‒ an introduction. Internet Archaeology 24. DOI:10.11141/ia.24.8
Budka, J. 2019 (with contributions by Giulia D’Ercole, Cajetan Geiger, Veronica Hinterhuber & Marion Scheiblecker). Towards Middle Nile Biographies: The Munich University Attab to Ferka Survey Project 2018/2019, Sudan & Nubia 23:13‒26
Budka, J. 2020. Kerma presence at Ginis East: the 2020 season of the Munich University Attab to Ferka Survey Project, Sudan & Nubia 24: 57‒71
Corti, L. 2007. Re-using archived qualitative data ‒ where, how, why? Archival Science: 37‒54
Corti, L. 2011. The European Landscape of Qualitative Social Research Archives: Methodological and Practical Issues. Forum: Qualitative Soical Research 12(3)
Corti, L. and Thompson, P. 2004. Secondary Analysis of Archive Data. In: Seale, Gobo, Gubrium, et al. (eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage: 327‒343
Vila, A. 1975. La prospection archéologique de la Vallée du Nil, au Sud de la Cataracte de Dal (Nubie Soudanaise).Fascicule 1: General introduction. Paris: CNRS
Vila, A. 1979. La prospection archéologique de la Vallée du Nil, au Sud de la Cataracte de Dal (Nubie Soudanaise).Fascicule 11: Récapitulations et conclusions. Paris: CNRS
Ward, C. 2022. Excavating the Archive/Archiving the Excavation: Archival Processes and Contexts in Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Practice 10(2). DOI:10.1017/aap.2022.1
Wylie, A. 2016. How Archaeological Evidence Bites Back: Strategies for Putting Old Data to Work in New Ways. Science, Technology, & Human Values 42(2): 203‒225
