The ERC DiverseNile project is embedded in the MUAFS project. In a recent post I explained the meaning of the new DiverseNile logo. The MUAFS logo was already created in 2018, but what exactly does it show?
We tried to illustrate the main aims of the project in the logo which is based on a rock art drawing in our concession (see Vila 1976, fig. 22).
Rock art motif at 3-L-24 after Vila 1976, fig. 22.
Within the MUAFS project, the area between Attab and Ferka will be investigated with a biography of a landscape approach and a long durée approach, considering all attested periods; the area is a natural and cultural border zone and therefore relevant for border studies.
We are very much interested in humans and cultural groups inhabiting and shaping the area. Objects and the material culture throughout the time is another of our research aims. Animals and other non-humans like plants will also be considered with priority. And finally, bringing these aspects together, we also focus on general activities and production within this area.
Although I was not aware of it when I chose the specific piece of rock art as the future MUAFS logo, the logo is also graphic evidence for the emergency affecting the project: Modern gold mining, construction works and building activities are endangering the cultural heritage of the area.
The rock art site 3-L-24 in Mograkka East comprising the picture of a herdsman we used for the MUAFS logo is presently buried below sand and debris from recent channel construction.
Present situation of the site 3-L-24: rock art including the MUAFS logo is buried below the debris of modern construction work and no longer accessible.
The area between Attab and Ferka has changed tremendously since the time of Vila – and this will also be illustrated and studied by both the MUAFS and the DiverseNile project in the next years.
Reference
Vila 1976 = Vila, A. 1976. La prospection archéologique de la Vallée du Nil, au Sud de la Cataracte de Dal (Nubie Soudanaise). Vol. 4. Paris.
Research projects are of course not comparable with companies selling products and thus the relevance and importance of a proper logo is for sure much lower.
Nevertheless, especially for dissemination purposes, the online presence and to reach our target groups, logos are also essential for us scientists.
A logo graphically represents the corporate identity of a project and is therefore part of its visual appearance. Just as one example, I was extremely proud of the logo for my previous ERC project AcrossBorders which is easy to recognize (I believe).
A logo should hold ideally a signal effect and provide information about the project at one glance – thus, it is not an easy task to design such a logo which also meets aesthetic values underlining the independence of the specific project.
Today, I am very proud to introduce the new DiverseNile logo – as with the MUAFS logo, the original ideas came from my side, but the realisation, complex design and final version are indebted to the creativity of hertha produziert, the Viennese graphic specialists who also produced already the great AcrossBorders image video.
The new logo of my ERC project DiverseNile
So let’s see together what the new logo wants to sell:
The outline of the logo is the exact outline of our concession area. The DiverseNile project will investigate this specific region of the Middle Nile in Sudan as a case study.
The two outstretched arms represent both the very specific course of the Nile in our concession as well as the cultural contacts between Egyptians (coming from the north) and Nubians (coming from the south). We are by now much aware that this cultural contact during the Bronze Age in Nubia did not happen in a one direction only, with the Egyptians as the prominent actors but that technological transfer, exchange and contact occurred in both directions and was very dynamic, including diverse groups of people. To reconstruct the actual cultural diversity in our research concession is one of the prime goals, highlighted by the colourful letters of “Diverse” in the logo. The arms almost touching each other in the logo also illustrate our understanding of contact spaces. Within the DiverseNile project, we comprehend contact spaces as “social spaces where human actors meet, perceive and constitute otherness, clash, and grapple with each other” (Stockhammer and Athanassov 2018: 106).
The slightly different colour shades of the DiverseNile logo symbolise the landscape approach of the project – the Nile as a changing environment and the concession area as a geological border zone are important factors. The colour shades also illustrate the major differences between the East and West banks of the Nile in our concession – with desert environment and open hinterland towards oases and transport routes on the West bank and rocky hills and mountains on the East bank with ancient mining and quarrying activities.
I really hope our efforts in pointing out the most relevant aspects of DiverseNile in this graphic design were successful and will help introducing the new project to our target groups. Feedback is of course much appreciated!
Reference
Stockhammer/Athanassov 2018 = Stockhammer, P.W. and Athanassov, B. 2018. Conceptualising Contact Zones and Contact Spaces: An Archaeological Perspective, 93‒112, in: S. Gimatzidis, M. Pieniążek and S. Mangaloğlu-Votruba (eds.), Archaeology across Frontiers and Borderlands. Fragmentation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and the Central Balkans from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. OREA 9. Vienna.
As already reported, the 2020 test excavations of the MUAFS project focused on Bronze Age sites at Ginis East, including Gie 001, where much Egyptian New Kingdom material was found. The following is a very short summary of our work at the Kerma sites GiE 004, 005 and 006.
GiE 004
In 2019, we assumed
that the site GiE 004 was documented by Andrè Vila in the 1970s as site 2-T-5.
However, new georeferenced data and fresh GPS waypoints made it clear that this
needs to be corrected and that GiE 004 was not documented by Vila, being
located further to the south than 2-T-5.
The magnetometry survey of the site by MUAFS in 2019 yielded promising results which, according to the finds and the structures visible on the magnetogram, were interpreted as remains of a Kerma village. Rounded huts, fences and walls seemed to be visible. The borders of the wadi systems were also clearly visible in the magnetogram. Our 2020 test trenches were chosen to proof if there was a kind of fortification along the wadi and whether the interpretation of the anomalies were correct.
Three trenches were laid out (Trench 1: 18 x 3 m, at
the edge of a wadi; Trench 2: 14 x 4 m, at the top of the plateau of the site;
Trench 3: 2 x 3.5 m, within a circular depression around the central part of
the site). After a shallow, sandy surface layer with many finds, no
sedimentation and no structures were found in all three trenches. All features
documented and which were alternating areas of sand and clay are clearly
natural. Thus, the clear result of the 2020 text excavation at GiE 004 was that
the anomalies of the magnetometry were over interpreted as structures and are
actually natural features.
GiE 005 (Vila 2-T-5)
The Kerma site documented by Vila as 2-T-5 was labelled by MUAFS as GIE 005. The site is situated on the alluvial plain, and extends east west on the remains of a shallow, barely visible terrace (25-40 cm high). The site covered in the 1970s an area of c. 500 EW x 35 m NS – part of this is now below modern houses or destroyed because of car tracks. Two test trenches were laid out in 2020 in the eastern part of GIE 005.
Trench 1 (8 x 2 m) yielded some small depressions and pits below a shallow sandy surface. Very few Kerma sherds were discovered in a lower muddy level, without evidence of structures or stratigraphy.
Work in progress at Trench 1.
Trench 2 (6 x 3 m) comprised a small sandy hill with many schist stones scattered around. Here again, no structures and no sedimentation or stratigraphy were observed. The sandy hill seems to be a sub-recent assemblage of wind-blown sand. Interestingly, the same muddy layer like in Trench 1 below the sand yielded one single artefact, a Kerma sherd laying on a solid clay surface.
Overall, the camp site 2-T-5 is badly preserved, and no stratification is present, as already observed by Vila. One important result of our work in 2020, however, is a tentative dating to the Kerma Classique period and the presence of 18th Dynasty Egyptian material which has not been noted before. There were some Egyptian wheel-made pottery sherds between the ceramics – nicely datable to the early New Kingdom!
GiE 006 (south of Vila 2-T-5)
Surface finds suggest that the camp site 2-T-5 might also extend further to the south, south of the barely visible terrace of GiE 005. In order to test this, a trench was opened at a site now labelled as GIE 006. Trench 1 (3 x 5 m) only yielded surface finds and showed an irregular muddy, natural surface below the sandy surface layer. As in GiE 005, no stratification is preserved.
Cleaning the surface at GiE 006.
Although the finds are mixed and can also be explained with a multi-period use of the site, most of the material belongs to the Kerma horizon. Thus, this is probably an extension of a Kerma camp identical or similar to GiE 005.
Summary
In sum, the test
excavations at Ginis East – including the results from GIE 001, provided
important new data on 1) the character of the sites, 2) the dating of the sites
and 3) the clarification that the interpretation of the magnetometry survey
from 2019 turned out to show no actual structures, but different natural layers
at GiE 001 and GiE 004.
As it was already observed by Vila, at many sites on the east bank in the MUAFS concession there is little or no sedimentation preserved. This is an important aspect to consider in our next field seasons – the situation is markedly different on the west bank where we also documented some intriguing Bronze Age sites with mud brick remains. There is still much work ahead of us!
Despite of the recent
developments because of the crisis due to the COVID-19 virus, my new ERC project,
DiverseNile, will start on April 1st 2020 here at LMU Munich. I am very
grateful to the wonderful support of the administrative staff both in Brussels
and in Munich – it was quite a challenge, but now all is set to go!
More information on the project, my team and our intermediate goals will follow shortly – for now I would like to share a new dissemination article in which I tried to highlight the challenges and aims of DiverseNile (read it open access or download it here as PDF).
DiverseNile will be conducted within the framework of the MUAFS project – the Attab to Ferka region in Sudan is the perfect area for our new study.
Location of the MUAFS concession in relation to the Batn el-Haggar, Amara West and Sai Island.
I believe that in order to address the actual diversity of ancient groups in the Nile Valley a new approach focusing on the periphery and hinterland of the main centres is needed, considering both landscape and people in an integrative method. This is where DiverseNile will step in with our perfect case study between Attab and Ferka. The main objective of DiverseNile is to reconstruct Middle Nile landscape biographies beyond established cultural categories, enabling new insights into ancient dynamics of social spaces. Can’t wait to get started in April!
The world has changed since last week – COVID-19 has a major influence on archaeological fieldwork, universities and museums. MUAFS was very lucky in this respect – after our odyssey with the extra day in Khartoum and a night in Istanbul, we made it safely to Munich, just in time before borders got closed and flights cancelled. Of course all planned fieldwork in Egypt in April had to be cancelled and I could also not make my home visit to Vienna. But difficult times require flexibility and the most important thing now is of course to flatten the curve and to stay safe (and home)!
Well –
research for MUAFS is of course still possible and all of us are using the time
in home office for reading things and compiling the data from the 2020 season.
The following is just a short summary of our test excavations of the 2020 season – this season was a preparation season for the next, longer field season which will be the start of my new European Research Council Project DiverseNile. Thus, the focus was on promising sites dating to the Bronze Age/Kerma Period in the Ginis East area where also Egyptian presence of the New Kingdom is attested.
In order to get familiar with the site formation processes and sedimentation in the area, we conducted at four sites in the district of Ginis East small test excavations. A total of 8 trenches were excavated by the team; local workmen will be engaged in the next season.
Location of sites and test trenches at Ginis East 2020.
As you will see in the following – the results from the individual sites were not as we hoped for but are nevertheless very important outcomes of what was designed as a test season.
I will start with site GIE 001 and a separate post will present the results from the other sites at Ginis East.
GiE 001 – a New Kingdom (and Kerma?) settlement site
Recorded by Vila
as 2-T-36B, this domestic site at Ginis East can be assigned to the Egyptian
New Kingdom, showing also an intriguing Kerma presence according to the surface
finds. Magnetometry was conducted by MUAFS in 2019. In the 2020 season, two
trenches were laid out above promising anomalies in the magnetometry in the
northeastern part of the site.
Trench 1 (6 x 4
m) yielded, apart from surface finds which were mixed and dated from the Kerma
Period, the New Kingdom, the Napatan Period and Christian times, some Kerma
Classique sherds from lower levels. However, no structures were found and the
magnetometry seems to show natural features, especially more sandy areas which
contrast to clay layers/alluvial sediments.
Trench 2 (10 x 4 m) generated large quantities of ceramics and stone tools from the surface. The main archaeological features found in this trench were sub-recent pits deriving from marog activities. The largest of these pits in Trench 2, Feature 1, is 2.40 m in diameter and 75 cm deep. It was filled with fine sand and the traces of the tools the marog diggers used are clearly visible on the sloping edges. We documented everything in 3D according to our standard procedure. The find material comprised mostly mixed pottery from the New Kingdom, Napatan and Medieval era as well as some recent date seeds and small pieces of charcoal and bone.
Feature 1, the marog pit, in Trench 2 at GIE 001.
Both trenches in GiE 001 did not yield mud bricks or
any structures from the New Kingdom; it is likely that this part with the
trenches is already located outside of the former settlement area. That the
area was inhabited and used during both the 18th Dynasty and the
Ramesside period, becomes nevertheless evident from the find assemblages we
collected.
Excavation and processing of data at GIE 001 will continue, but for now the New Kingdom site with later use seems associated with gold exploitation in the periphery of Sai Island and Amara West, as I have already proposed in an earlier post based on the finds (ceramics and stone tools).
We are
already approaching the end of our second season of the MUAFS project.
As planned, we finished our test excavations at GiE 001 and GiE 004 earlier this week and were then busy with surveying areas of the concession on the East bank.
The marog digging activities at GiE 001 were fully documented and surface cleaning at GiE 004 yielded some interesting information regarding the possible function of the site where Kerma Classique material dominates the assemblage.
Thanks to the introduction by Cajetan before he left to Munich, we are also up-to-date regarding our 3D surface models and digital documentation– Jessica managed the processing with PhotoScan and QGis very well.
Three days of survey at Ginis, Kosha and Mograkka were exciting, but also partly very frustrating – we relocated a total of 27 sites documented by Vila in the 1970s, but unfortunately a number of these have been completely destroyed, especially because of the road construction work of the asphalt street going to Wadi Halfa. This holds in particular true for cemeteries laid out on sandy plains and alluvial platforms.
Example of changes in the landscape at Kosha East, due to the road construction and modern gold mining.
Further destruction is caused by modern gold mining and some areas of the region have been completely modified since the 1970s, making a crosscheck with Vila’s documentation sometimes were difficult. Sites located further into the hillsides were in most cases more lucky and still represent excellent example for the occupation of the region. We documented camp sites from various periods, especially Neolithic times and Kerma periods, but very often also multi-period sites.
Bristish pyramidal memorial at Kosha East.
An unexpected discovery was a small stone pyramid at Kosha East – I simply did not know that one of these pyramidal memorials set up by the British in Sudan and of which I have already seen quite a number further north, was also erected in our concession. Its label reads: „To the memory of British officers and men who died here in the Anglo-Egyptian campaigns”. This memorial is not the only reminder and evidence for the Anglo-Egyptian campaigns in our area – as already observed by Vila, several of our camp sites located in the hills show traces of recent re-use. Many of these sites were probably re-used by the Anglo-Egyptian soldiers. This is one of the more modern aspects of the landscape biography of the Attab to Ferka region which we will also incorporate into our general assessment.
We will continue with the survey next week, focusing now on the area around Ferka – fingers crossed that the storm that came up tonight will hopefully cease very soon.
We finished
our test trenches and surface documentation at the Ginis East Kerma/New Kingdom
sites yesterday. The last 6 working days until our departure to Khartoum will
be dedicated to a foot survey – like last year, we will check the sites
recorded by Vila and whether there are more findings, additional sites or other
changes.
But back to
the test trenches and our results from site GiE 004 where we documented in
total 5 test areas. 3 were excavated, in 2 we only cleaned the surface and
checked the find distribution/density.
I will deal with the relation between our results and the magnetometry from 2019 in another “Lessons learned from the 2020 season” blog post in the next days – for today, I’d like to share some news about the finds from GiE 004.
Initially,
we thought that it is a Kerma site with a long occupation. This was partly
confirmed and interestingly, Kerma Classique material dominants the ceramics!
But more important, especially for our investigations of “cultural markers”, is
that 18th Dynasty, Egyptian New Kingdom pottery is also present,
including imported Canaanite amphora and very few Marl clay sherds. A quite
unexpected result, which gives us much food for thought!
But let’s
look at some basic numbers of finds – of course you have to keep in mind the
differing sizes of our test trenches, but the quantities of stone tools and
pottery are quite significant:
Trench 1 –
stone 3, pottery 5
Trench 2 –
stone 167, pottery 412
Trench 3 –
stone 7, pottery 105
Trench 4 –
stone 242, pottery 991
Trench 5 – stone 110, pottery 503
These numbers support the interpretation that Trench 1 and 3 are located at the edges or even outside the actual site; Trenches 2, 4 and 5 are very similar and all yielded much Kerma Classique material as well as Egyptian wheel-made pottery of the New Kingdom. The majority comes here from Trench 4 where almost 50% of the pottery from GiE 004 was found.
Trench 4 also yielded very nice stone tools, including a wonderful small arrowhead.
Overall,
although much of the surface material in these trenches from GiE 004 was
wind-worn and eroded as well as mixed (of course, there were also Medieval
pieces present), both the pottery and lithics/stone tools speak for a domestic
character of the site with different activity zones.
The last
two days were really nice – hot and sunny. Today, the weather has changed
again, a very strong wind made work difficult today and the temperatures are
again a bit cooler.
Since work
in the field with such a wind was not possible after lunch, I spent this
afternoon playing with some statistics for the two test trenches in GiE 001
where we are currently working.
Of course, any interpretation based on two test trenches only must remain very tentative, but I believe there are already some interesting facts and possible glues for understanding the function of the site. The domestic character of GIE 001 was already noted by Vila and we confirmed its dating to the New Kingdom with a strong Kerma presence in 2019. What new data derives now from our test trenches?
Let’s look at the pottery – the surface material was mixed in both trenches, comprising Kerma, Egyptian New Kingdom, Napatan and Christian wares. Many of the sherds are very eroded (wind-worn).
Trench 1
only yielded a total of 328 sherds, of which 13 are diagnostic pieces (4%). 271
pieces from all sherds (83%) can be dated to the Kerma/New Kingdom period.
This
pattern is repeated in Trench 2 were a larger quantity of pottery was found. As
of today, a total of 3709 sherds were collected, 177 of which are diagnostic
pieces (5%). In this trench, 3203 sherds belong to the Kerma/New Kingdom horizon
(86% and thus the clear majority).
Especially relevant was today’s muddy layer in a deep level which yielded only 13 small pottery sherds, but of which all are New Kingdom in date, 6 wheel-made of the Egyptian tradition, 7 handmade Nubian wares.
Some stone artefacts from Trench 2 in GiE 001.
The second
most frequent category of finds after pottery are stone tools and lithics.
These were quite numerous, especially in Trench 2, where for example 102 pieces
were collected from the surface layer. The stone artefacts are mostly flakes
and here predominately quartz flakes; very frequent are also fragments from
sandstone grindstones and handmills. A few chert flakes and some pounders and
hammer stones were also noted.
All in all, the stone artefacts seem to attest first of all quartz working and grinding of materials. This fits perfectly to the topographical situation of the site – just south of GiE 001, there is a large quartz vein visible on the surface. And this might very well be connected with ancient gold working like it is well attested in the general region of Upper Nubia and especially around the main centres of the New Kingdom empire like Sai, Sesebi and Amara West.
Overview of quartz vein just south of site GiE 001.
In the 1970s, Vila documented a gold working site at Kosha East (the neighbouring village of Ginis) where New Kingdom and Napatan ceramics on the surface next to a quartz vein resemble the evidence from GiE 001.
Excavation and processing of data at GiE 001 must of course continue, but for now, this New Kingdom ocupation site seems associated with gold exploitation in the periphery of Sai Island. Exciting first glimpses into the use of the Bronze and Iron Age landscapes in the MUAFS concession!
Our second
MUAFS season started very promising and successful – we arrived as planned last
Wednesday in Ginis East and moved into a beautiful house we have rented for
this season.
On
Thursday, we set out our test trenches at the site of Ginis East 004, a Kerma
camp which was already recorded by Vila in the 1970s and where we made a magnetometer
survey last year.
The aim for this season is to check the stratigraphy of the site and especially to test whether the results of the magnetometry correspond to the actual archaeology.
The general site of GiE 004, a Kerma village.
Three test trenches were laid out on Thursday and I started already surface cleaning in Trench 1 while the rest of the team was busy mapping and taking survey points. And here some of our problems started – our total station sent error messages and a big drawback was when we discovered on Friday that some of our benchmarks we set last year have been destroyed and are no longer usable… And our printer did not work anymore… To make things worse, I caught a food poisoning and had to go to the clinic in Abri for treatment. Thus, fieldwork at GiE 004 was stopped for the last 2 days. We hope to continue this afternoon since after hours and hours Cajetan seems to have solved the problem with the total station and I am more or less recovered.
Well – sometimes life as an archaeologist is really like a box of chocolate, full of surprises and not always of the sweet kind. As difficult as it is, we will try to stick with our schedule – hoping that we are now done with all the major problems of this season!
News about
proper fieldwork will therefore hopefully follow shortly…
We safely arrived in Khartoum Sunday night and we were really lucky this time, as we just left Munich before storm “Sabine” caused big problems for flights and other transportation. In the last two days here in Sudan, we were busy preparing everything for the second MUAFS seasons.
Quite a number of things have changed with the new government, with new regulations – there are still some pending Tasks for tonight but all in all, everything went well and we can stick to our time schedule and leave Khartoum tomorrow morning as planned.
Many thanks
go already to the National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums (NCAM) in
Sudan for all their support. Our NCAM inspector will be again our dear old
friend and colleague, Huda Magzoub, who worked with us already in the first
MUAFS season.
Looking very much forward to our travel to the beautiful area of northern Sudan and starting fieldwork in Ginis at a Kerma settlement site on Thursday! Given that our mobile connection allows it, we will of course keep you updated about our progress.
