TERRITORY AND LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE NILE VALLEY
1000 BC - AD 1500
1. Introduction
The subject-oriented arrangement of sessions at this Nubian Studies conference is a
welcome departure from the straightjacket of the chronology-driven discussions
characterizing past gatherings of Nubiologists. Francis Geus and I have been asked to
discuss the subject of "territory" in the "Nile Valley" and "Nubia", respectively. Since the
two areas substantially overlap we decided to concentrate on the same geographical zone,
namely the Middle Nile Valley but during different time periods.The purpose of this
particular paper is to present an overview of the study of large units (territories) in the Nile
Valley area between Aswan and the Sudan-Ethiopia border between 1000 BC and AD
1500. Regional scale research is quite common in Nubia, in striking contrast to Egypt,
where emphasis is clearly placed on the site-centred projects. In fact the regional scale field
work lies at the very heart of Nubiology and it was through a series of archaeological
surveys that the ancient cultures of Nubia were identified and the entire discipline came
into being. It is not my purpose, however, to discuss the survey as the means of
archaeological research as this has been already dealt with at the Geneva Conference
(Caneva and Marks 1992) and in an article by Garcea and Sebastiani (1998). Neither do I
intend to list or produce a map showing all the post-New Kingdom sites discovered by the
survey projects. Such maps and lists already exist in the works of Trigger (1965), Vila
(1975-1982), Edwards (1989), Welsby (2001) and others, and there is an even longer list of
1
as yet unpublished sites, especially those discovered during the last field campaign.
Moreover, an exhaustive list of sites has already been compiled by F.W. Hinkel and we
must simply await the publication of the Archaeological Map of the Sudan. Rather, the
purpose of this paper is to examine the regional scale research in the Middle Nile Valley
within the context of historical development of archaeology of Nubia and in light of the
new advancements in archaeological methods and theory in general.
2. Territory, region, landscape
Territory is usually defined as a geographical area representing a political, administrative
or natural unit. The synonyms listed in various English dictionaries include terms such as
region, district, kingdom, state, province. In French dictionaries one would find
expressions such as arrondissement, commune, district, йtat, pays, rйgion, domaine espace as
synonyms of territoire. Clearly it is the concept of space that is the common denominator
shared by all these words. In terms of archaeological research this spatial aspect has a long
and distinguished history. It is perhaps best known from the British archaeological
tradition where John Aubrey (b.1626) is seen as the founder of field archaeology meant as
surficial, regional study, as opposed to excavations. Aubrey's unpublished Monumenta
Britannica held in the Bodleian Library provided the detailed description of ancient sites in
Britain and attempted at the reconstruction of past environments (Ashbee 1972:47). This
British tradition of regional and spatial studies involving the non-destructive field surveys
2
received a major boost through the novel approaches of O.G.S. Crawford who combined
the purpose-made air photography with actual fieldwork (Ashbee 1972:61-62). Crawford's
pioneering work extended, of course, to the Sudan with his important publications of the
Funj and the sites of the Middle Nile region, although in this case, aerial photography did
not play a major role (Crawford 1951; 1953). This regional-scale research was carried out
in two different, but related, ways: by means of spatial studies (spatial archaeology) and as
regional (or landscape) archaeology. The former, whose best known proponent was David
Clarke (Clarke 1977), was concerned predominantly with the use of spatial information in
archaeology in general. This ranged from a spatial analysis on the micro-level, beginning
with an individual structure such as a house or even a room, all the way to the macro scale
involving urban landscape and regional study. A classic work involving this type of spatial
analysis, drawing both on the British tradition and the American interest in settlement
patterns, was Kent Flannery's 1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. This kind of research
was also heavily influenced by the New Archaeology and its emphasis on sampling
techniques and statistical studies. The second line of research, namely the regional study,
was more oriented towards empirical analysis. Here the emphasis was placed on regional
survey, extensive fieldwalking, study of the historical geography and the natural
environment. From among many practitioners of this type of archaeology, a group of
researchers from the University of Leicester became most influential and Graeme Barker,
in particular, became the best known proponent of this approach, perhaps because of his
many publications and the fact that he worked not only in Britain but also in Libya and
Italy. Clarke, Flannery and Barker were, in turn, strongly influenced by Vita-Finzi and
3
Higgs's (1970) concept of the Site Catchment Analysis (SCA). The site catchment analysis is
primarily concerned with the study of the resource potential within a spatial context easily
accessible to the occupants of the area. Higgs and Vita-Finzi's work was inspired by both
the new developments in geography exemplified in Haggett's groundbreaking Locational
Analysis in Human Geography (Haggett 1965) and by Chisholm's work on settlements and
land use (Chisholm 1968), although the ultimate roots of the SCA go back to von Thьnen's
law of diminishing returns with distance presented in his 1826 book Der isolierte Staat (see
Hodges 1987:119; Clarke 1977:21-22). As Walsh (1999:1) has pointed out, the SCA concept
had enormous impact on field archaeology in the Mediterranean. This does not seem to be
the case in the archaeology of the post-New Kingdom Nubia, perhaps with the exception of
K. A. Ahmed (1984:85-86). Another model originating in the locational analysis stemmed
from Christaller's central-place theory (Christaller 1933) and analysed the boundaries, site
hierarchy, rank and size. It was applied with great success to the study of the territorial
organization of Mesoamerica (Marcus 1973) and Mesopotamia (Adams 1981). Although
Christaller's model was based on dispersed, hexagonal patterns (see Hodges 1987:124, fig.
1), attempts have been made to apply it to the linear settlement systems (Flannery 1976a;
Reynolds 1976) which are, of course, more relevant in the Nile Valley. To my knowledge,
the only attempt to apply some of these locational models (network analysis and the gravity
model) to Nubian archaeology was made by Grzymski (1986).
In the 1990's these various types of territorial and spacial studies evolved into what is most
commonly termed "landscape archaeology" (French "archйologie du paysage", Italian
4
"archeologia del paesaggio"), although the term "regional archaeology" is also
occasionally used. Both the term and the technique are most commonly associated with
Britain (d'Agostino 1992:19), although historically the application of geographical analysis
to the study of ancient sites and regions was not, of course, a uniquely British phenomenon.
One can be certain that practically everywhere in the world archaeologists have drawn
evidence from the distribution maps, from the toponymical studies and from the study of
the environment (e.g. Dufournet 1978; Trawkowski 1962). In fact, according to Roberts
(1987:78-79), the roots of this kind of research lie in the 1895 study of the German scholar
Meitzen (Siedlung und Agrarwesen der Westgermanen und Ostgermanen, der Kelten, Rцmer,
Finnen und Slawen). Nevertheless, it is mainly through the work of the British and, in a
somewhat different way, North American archaeologists that during the last decade
"landscape archaeology" became perhaps the most interesting new development in
archaeological theory and practice. It can be seen as a further development and a
replacement of the study of settlement patterns, historical geography, regional and
environmental archaeology and cultural ecology. Many of these approaches are, of course,
familiar to the practitioners of Nubian archaeology and the identification and development
of various methodologies, or rather paradigms, were presented in papers by Trigger (1982)
and Adams (1987). Archaeology, however, is a very dynamic discipline, not only in terms of
the actual fieldwork which seems to be expanding rapidly in Nubia, but also as a branch of
humanities and social sciences where technological advancements (e.g. GPS, GIS,
geophysical survey instruments) offer new possibilities for the collection and interpretation
of data. This leads to the formation of new paradigms, offers new approaches and allows
5
the development of new perspectives on Nubian archaeology. It is thus my intention to
review and discuss from the perspective of landscape archaeology the work (both
archaeological and non-archaeological) carried out in Nubia on a regional scale.
Although the concept of landscape archaeology is of a relatively recent date there is already
a substantial literature dealing with the subject (e.g. Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Bernardi
1992; Gillings, Mattingly and van Dalen 1999; Leveau et al. 1999; Lock and Stan_i_ 1995;
Tilley 1994; Ucko and Layton 1999; Wagstaff 1987), and there even exists a specialized
journal Historical Landscapes. Two issues of World Archaeology (vol. 9, No.3, 1978
"Landscape Archaeology" and vol. 28, No.2, 1996 "Sacred Geography") also covered this
topic. Significantly, there are different understandings of the term itself. Generally
speaking British and European scholars concentrate on the visual, physical landscapes,
while the North American researchers expand the meaning of "landscape" and "landscape
archaeology" to include conceptual and idealized landscapes. Thus, in a traditional and
narrower sense, landscape archaeology is defined as:
"(...) the investigation of the long-term relationship between people and their environment
at a regional scale. Such an approach must inevitably be multidisciplinary" (Barker
1992:265).
This is a succinct definition proposed by a field archaeologist and, therefore, emphasizes
the empirical, field-oriented approach; basically an archaeology of a region. This
approach, however, is not entirely satisfactory because, as has been pointed out:
6
"Through field surveys, documentary study, and cartographic analysis, as well as selective
excavation, it has proved possible to prize apart the different phases of a landscape's
development [but] (...) the end product of this kind of analysis is 'a history of things that
have been done to the land' which often seems quite remote from the past human lives that
were lived in these places." (Thomas 2001:165)
Thus, the more encompassing definition would see landscape as a cultural phenomenon. In
such a case, landscape archaeology is not just a new version of traditional, geographically
inspired spatial study concentrated on topography, resources and land use. This broader
understanding of landscape as a cultural and conceptual entity defines it as a set of
relationships between people and places and the impact these relationships had on the
social, political, cultural, and indeed the daily lives of people. In other words, this kind of
landscape archaeology doesn't treat the environment as the passive backdrop of
archaeological studies, usually presented as a "geographical introduction" to the
traditional culture historical works. It goes also beyond treating the landscape and
environment as the determinant of culture so characteristic of cultural ecology. In this
respect it is instructive to consider Bertrand's definition of landscape (paysage):
"qui n'est pas la seule addition d'йlйments gйographiques disparates, mais, sur une
certaine portion d'espace, le rйsultat de la combinaison dynamique, donc instable,
d'йlйments physiques, biologiques et anthropiques qui, en rйagissant dialectiquement les
uns sur les autres, font du paysage un ensemble unique et indissociable en perpйtuelle
йvolution."
(Bertrand in Chevallier 1978:5).
Even more all-encompassing is the definition forwarded by Michael Shanks:
"(...) landscape is a syncretic field. The space of landscape is at once cultural and natural,
7
connecting values, modes of perception and representation, experiences, artifacts, histories,
natural histories, dreams, identities, narratives, memories in networks of cultural ecology.
(...) landscape is a multitemporal and complicated, folded cultural topology." (Shanks
2001:293)
In other words, landscape is a holistic term. These various definitions of landscape show
that the concept is quite complex and that the word has different meanings, depending on
the scholars' background and interests. In the field of Nubian studies any discussion on
landscape archaeology would also, of course, reflect a variety of approaches and differing
scholarly traditions. Some 15 years ago, Adams had already conveniently and,
notwithstanding Tцrцk's criticism (Tцrцk 1992:111), quite correctly summed up these
different perspectives on the past as those of a historian, an art historian and a prehistorian
(Adams 1987). The concept of landscape archaeology favoured by the author of the present
paper allows us to bypass, or rather to integrate all these various perspectives by means of
using landscape as a framework for the study of many different aspects of human life in the
Middle Nile Valley. It links the artifacts and the ecofacts to a specific place and deals with
issues of interest not only to historians, art historians and prehistorians (archaeologists) but
also geographers, sociologists, demographers and others. Thus, the landscape has not only
a geographical and ecological meaning but also has an artistic and socio-symbolic
dimension. We can speak, for example, of the "sacred landscapes" with reference to manmade structures such as temples and sacred districts (Richards 1999) or the natural
features such as sacred groves, caves or mountains. In the latter case, Jebel Barkal is a
perfect example, although there may possibly be others. If we turn our attention to
8
landscape as "scenery" we can study the depiction and meaning of landscapes, or natural
features, in Nubian art. This may lead us to quite disparate investigations such as, for
example, the study of ancient fauna (Hofmann and Tomandl 1987; Tigani 1995) or the
study of the belief system. In this respect the results of Kendall's research on interpreting
the meaning and function of Jebel Barkal by integrating textual, iconographic and
archaeological data is most illuminating (Kendall 1990:111, 122-123; 1997). In sum, it is
this network of connections, not necessarily limited to the archaeological field studies of a
region or a territory, that lies at the heart of the broadly understood landscape
archaeology. Nevertheless, it is the regional field study that often forms the foundation for
interpreting the material and on which one may build the comprehensive syntheses.
3. Natural landscapes
Within a global or continental perspective the entire Nile Valley represents a unique
natural landscape feature. The Nile is the spine on which rests the entire construct of
ancient and modern life in Egypt and Sudan. The internal division of this river valley in
Egypt is quite well defined: the Nile Delta (Lower Egypt) and the Nile Valley (Upper
Egypt) up to the First Cataract; but it is the region south of Aswan, and which Vercoutter
termed the Middle Nile (Geus 1986:5-6), that concerns us here. This entire Middle Nile area
between Aswan and Khartoum can be subdivided into smaller units (Adams 1977; Barbour
1961; Lebon 1965). Traditionally, we distinguish between Lower and Upper Nubia,
9
although the latter is ill-defined and, depending on viewpoint, ends near Ed Debba, or at
the Fourth Cataract, or at Abu Hamed, or at the Sixth Cataract or even at the confluence
of the two Niles. Many scholars, including this author refer to the region south of Atbara as
Central Sudan, while O'Connor (1993:X-XI) proposed the term Southern Nubia.
Physiographic subdivisions of the Middle Nile Valley outside Lower Nubia are listed by
Adams (1977:25, Fig.5) as Batn el Hajar, Abri-Delgo Reach, Dongola Reach, Abu Hamed
Reach and Shendi Reach, although perhaps an additional term should be used to describe
the region between Atbara and the Fifth Cataract. This physiographic division reflects to a
large extend the geological division of the same area (see Adams 1977:23, Fig.4) although
there are exceptions (Abri-Delgo and Atbara). We might add to this that the cataracts
themselves represent very specific and separate entities.
From the climatic point of view the area can be divided in a different way, namely into two
parts reflecting the rainfall patterns. The dividing line between the dry zone and the
rainfall zone presently lies in the Atbara-Berber-Dangeil region. Climate, however, unlike
geology is more prone to change in the relatively short time span. Moreover, a very slight
fluctuation of rain patterns may have very substantial effects on the natural habitat. This
author personally witnessed such a dramatic, though short-lived, environmental change in
northern Bayuda after the heavy rains of 1988.
While this macro-scale division of the Middle Nile Valley has been universally accepted, the
first hand knowledge of these areas shows that this subdivision will not suffice. It does not
10
reflect local conditions and nuances. Any field worker familiar with his/her area of
operation quickly realizes that there are local zones with different geomorphology, unique
microclimates and natural resources, etc. Moreover, the natural landscape is a dynamic
entity and it changes constantly. Perhaps it was the interest in the reconstruction of past
environments that made the archaeologists, rather than geologists or geographers, the
leaders in the geomorphological and palaeoenvironmental studies of Nubia. While the
expertise was provided by the specialists, it was the projects' directors that stimulated this
kind of research (see especially Caneva 1988; Welsby 2001). Changes in the direction of the
Nile channels, desertification, movement of sand dunes, erosion of soil and rock surface,
depositon of Nile alluvium, earthquakes - they all affect site preservation and site
discovery; in turn influencing our identification of settlement patterns and our
interpretation of settlement systems. Considering the enormous size of the potential study
area, we are clearly only at the early stages of research into the changes of the natural
landscape. Additionally, these changes are easier to grasp over a longer time span placing
historical archaeologists interested only in the last two or three thousand years of Nubian
history at a disadvantage. It also seems that prehistorians, who do not have iconographic
and historical data to consult, are more conditioned to study and observe the changes in the
natural landscape. Future archaeological research will have to pay more attention to the
present and past natural landscape of the Middle Nile Valley even when dealing with the
later periods of Nubian history . One can also hope that more colleagues interested in the
environmental studies (I include here geologists, archaeobotanists, archaeozologists etc.)
will carry out research on the natural landscape of Nubia building on the work already
11
done by Cartwright (2001), Chaix (1998), De Paepe (1990), Fuller (1998; Fuller and
Edwards 1998), Harrell (1999), Marcolongo and his colleagues (1988; 1997), Tigani (1996)
and others.
4. Economic landscapes
The question of different economic landscapes is closely related to the research on natural
resources. In our attempts to reconstruct ancient subsistence patterns we inevitably end up
relying on relevant passages from Tothill's Agriculture in the Sudan (1948). The types of
soils, the grains, fruits and vegetables grown, the location of lands most suitable for
agriculture, such as the Shendi, Letti, Seleim and Karima basins are all described in this
wonderful publication. What we often forget is that Tothill's compendium describes the
situation as it was in the mid-twentieth century; the archaeologists, however, must also
consider the historical aspect. Techniques of agriculture have changed, different plants
were planted, different animals were raised and/or hunted. A good example would be the
saqiya problem. It is universally agreed that the introduction of saqiya had tremendous
impact on the agriculture of Nubia. Clearly, the expansion of arable land and the resulting
increase of food production must have had a dramatic impact on the economic and social
life. However, if the saqyia was introduced only at the very end of the Meroitic period as
has been recently suggested by Edwards (1996:80-81), then we have a problem of
perception versus reality. The Post-Meroitic period is usually considered to have been a
12
period of social, cultural and economic decline, yet the spread of the saqiya would be
expected to result in the increased prosperity. Perhaps our perception is incorrect and it
was indeed during the Post-Meroitic rather than Meroitc period that a truly prosperous
agrarian (and pastoral?) society developed culminating later on in the Classic Christian
period? Yet, intuitively, and despite the presence of rich royal burials in Ballana and
Qustul, and the obtrusive remains of the millions of tumuli in Central Sudan (Lenoble
1992:90-91) we tend to see the Meroitic civilization as representing the peak of cultural and
economic development in ancient Nubia. Indeed, Trigger stated so explicitly by suggesting
the highest population numbers in Lower Nubia during that period (60,000 inhabitants in
the Ptolemaic/Roman/Meroitic Nubia vs. 44,000 during the Post-Meroitic and 50, 000
during the Christian Period, Trigger 1965:160). I have already argued elsewhere, and for
reasons unrelated to the spread of the saqiya, that the population figures for the Meroitic
Lower Nubia were too high (Grzymski 1981). Since much has been made about the reoccupation of Lower Nubia as a result of the introduction of saqiya, a re-appraisal of the
dating and distribution patterns of the qadus is certainly overdue, as Edwards has pointed
out. If saqiya was unknown to the Meroites, then the location of Meroitic villages and fields
relying solely on the basin cultivation, shaduf and, in the case of the Island of Meroe, on the
rainfall cultivation would be more dependent on the river than the location of the postMeroitic settlements. Here, of course, we face another problem: we have identified many
Meroitic and Christian settlements, but very few Post-Meroitic ones. Is it because the postMeroites built flimsy rakubas, while the Meroites and Christian Nubians lived in brick
houses? Or were the Post-Meroitic lifestyle and subsistance patterns substantially different
13
from those of their predecessors and successors?
Certainly the economic landscape must have changed dramatically as a result of this
technological revolution. One would expect that the patterns of land use in the pre-saqiya
Napatan and Meroitic society must have been quite different from the saqiya-using PostMeroitic, Christian and Islamic societies. Unfortunately this change has not yet been
identified in the archaeological record, perhaps because no one was specifically looking for
the evidence of such changes (see Edwards 1989:21-22).
The location of major political centres of Nubia between 1000 BC and AD 1500 seems to
indicate the dependence on agriculture. Although it would be interesting to speculate why
in different times different areas played the key role, the fact remains that Kawa, Old
Dongola, Napata, Meroe and Soba were all located within or on the edge of a large basin.
There is not much direct evidence for the importance of pastoral lifestyle and animal
husbandry, and the discussions on the subject rely almost exlusively on the comparisons
with the present-day grazing conditions and land use (Ahmed 1984:83-85; 1999:295-304;
Bradley 1986; Edwards 1989:147-154). The hard data coming from archaeological sites of
the period under review are still scarce (Meroe: Carter and Foley 1980; Hambukol:
Grzymski and Anderson 2001:103-107; Debeira: Shinnie and Shinnie 1978:107; Soba:
Chaix 1998a) it is, therefore, difficult to make interregional comparisons. Was hunting an
important element of the economy in some regions but not others? How far north did one
encounter the savannah fauna (elephants, giraffes, rhinoceri, lions, etc.) in the different
14
periods and during different seasons? Did it affect the regional lifestyle and/or social
systems? Was the horse and camel breeding a regional specialty? Did the territories of the
nomadic, semi-nomadic and sedentary populations overlap and what impact did this have
on their relationships? Perhaps some answers could be provided by means of comparative
studies with other cultures that developed in the arid lands (Barker and Gilbertson 2000)
Very few projects attempted to tackle the regional-scale economic problems as the major
research objective, but there are some exceptions. Apart from the studies of Ahmed (1984)
and Bradley (1992) one must mention M. Hinkel's work on the hafirs in Central Sudan
(Hinkel 1991; 1994; see also Kleinschroth 1986). All these studies were concerned primarily
with the Meroitic period although Bradley's work was really an ethnographic study of
several present-day nomad families. It is a pity that a panorama of economic and social life
in medieval Nubia presented in Ali Osman's doctoral thesis remains unpublished (Osman
1978). Fortunately, a true treasure trove of information on the economic life of the
twentieth century agrarian Nubian society, and applicable to earlier periods, can be found
in Ali Osman's 1984 publication. There, Osman was also able to use his insider's first-hand
knowledge of his native land to outline the economic life of Nubian farmers, their various
practices and traditions, their attitudes towards and the relationships with the nomadic
people and the patterns of trade and exchange.
Ethnographic analogy remains an important research tool because identifying the actual
evidence of land use in archaeological record is a very difficult task considering the
15
geomorphology of the Middle Nile Valley. Ancient fields, palm groves and animal pastures
have never been successfuly identified by means of archaeological fieldwork and/or remote
sensing. We only have the material remains such as the qaduz vessels, various agricultural
tools and implements, as well as plant remains and animal bones, although in the Letti area
we have found at least one emplacement of a medieval saqyia. Several Old Nubian texts
from Qasr Ibrim specifically refer to the land deeds and sales of land and frequently
mention the saqiyas (Brown 1991). Otherwise we have little knowledge about the land use
in the period under consideration. Future archaeological investigations must clearly find a
way to address these problems, perhaps by means of remote sensing, searching the
archives (see e.g. Grzymski and Anderson 2001:5-6) and studying the early travellers
reports.
Another interesting area of investigation would be the industrial landscape. In terms of
technological studies only the Nubian pottery production and Meroitic iron making were
adequately studied. An even more important issue, however, is not the technology per se,
but how factors other than agricultural production, affected the rise and fall of certain sites
and regions. The site catchment analysis is hardly adequate as an explanatory tool for the
non-agricultural situation in the non-market economy of an early agrarian society. Despite
the seeming corellation between the site distribution patterns and the soil one should
seriously consider the possibility of non-agricultural origins of settlements and political
centres in Nubia. As Welsby (1996:137-138) has already pointed out, the possibility of
shipping goods over long distances by means of river transport allowed the economic and
16
political, rather than purely environmental factors to affect the location of settlements.
Among such factors we could consider, for example, the extraction of gold (Dangeil?), iron
(Meroe?), ivory (Wad ben Naga?), stones and minerals (sites near the Cataracts?) and, of
course, trade (various sites in Lower Nubia). In the latter case we know from the Arab
accounts that sites like Baqwa (Wadi Halfa?) and Upper Maqs (Akasha?) served as
trade/custom posts (Vantini 1975:325, 603-604)) between the Muslim merchants and the
kings of Dongola. It would seem that in such cases the commercial and military function
was more important for the development of the site/region than was the soil quality.
The issue of the long-distance trade cannot be addressed in isolation from the local
exchange systems and village markets. The author's personal observations in the presentday Letti Basin suggest that the system could be quite complex with certain items traded
only in specific places and/or on specific days. In other words, the economic landscapes,
like the natural landscapes must be approached in a multi-scalar way: from the micro-scale
local subsistence agriculture and trade, through the meso-scale regional production and
exchange of goods to the macro-scale analysis of the economy of large territories. Only the
latter have been attempted so far in the field of Nubian studies, namely in the works of
Osman (1978), Ahmed (1998), Edwards (1996:20-48) and relevant chapters in Adams
(1977) and Welsby (1996; 2001).
5. Political landscapes
17
Archaeology can help little in identifying the administrative and political entities except by
the fieldwork resulting in the discovery of new textual and iconographic sources. An
occasional exception may be the delineation of political boundries by means of the
distribution of certain classes of artefacts. Such an equation (artifact distribution =
political entity) obviously entails many risks. Nevertheless, there are clasess of artifacts,
such as e.g. inscribed stelae and offering tables that might serve the purpose. An ingenious
way to delineate the extent of the Meroitic Empire was the use of a distribution map of the
archers rings (Hayes 1973). By and large, however, the study of political and
administrative division is clearly the domain of history.
Nothing is known about the political landscape of the post-New Kingdom, pre-Napatan
period Nubia. The political and administrative divisions in the Middle Nile Valley during
the succeeding Napatan and Meroitic periods are, however, better documented. The
relevant hieroglyphic references have been assembled by Zibelius (1972); Egyptian and
later place names have been studied by Priese (1984) and a mass of textual data has been
presented in the volumes of the Fontes Historiae Nubiorum (Eide et al. 1994-2000). The
most detailed analysis, however, was produced by Laszlo Tцrцk (1979). While here and
there one might argue about his identification and/or location of certain places, Tцrцk's
book remains the definitive study of the subject. It would be thus redundant for this paper
to deal with the matter in more than a summary way. According to the information
preserved in various Napatan stelae, especially those found at Kawa, the country was
divided into nomes. The same system presumably continued throughout the Meroitic
18
Period although, as Millet (1981:138) has stated, the scarce textual record makes the
attempts to identify the territorial subdivision of the Meroitic Kingdom rather speculative.
This is perhaps an instance where it would be interesting to integrate not only the
Ptolemaic town lists and actual archaeological sites, as Tцrцk has already done in his
territorial reconstruction, but also the information gained through the application of the
central place theory. The district (nome) capitals would presumably be equidistant from
each other, although taking into consideration the nature of the Nile Valley, this distance
may not necessarily be expressed in absolute kilometers. Rather, the placements may
reflect the travel time between two points. We can deduce the existence of such evenly
spaced stations (towns, villages) from the reference to "ten halting places" within medieval
Nobadia (Ibn Selim in Vantini 1975:601). We may recall here Hein's observations
regarding the regular spatial arrangement of Ramesses’ II Nubian temples (Hein 1994).
Another issue of the spatial arrangement of settlements within the linear river systems
concerns the selection of a particular river bank (left-right) for the location of towns and
villages. A study by an American geographer Burghardt suggested that the choice
depended on where the more distant sustaining hinterland was located Flannery
(1976:174). At first glance it would seem that this proposition may be applicable in the
context of Central Sudan and Upper Nubia, but unlikely in the case of Lower Nubia. There
is, however, a possibility that even in a narrow river valley of Lower Nubia, the access to
the desert routes and stone quaries might have played a role in site setting.
The above-presented discussion of the administrative and political divisions of the
19
Napatan-Meroitic Nubia relied primarily on the economic and/or purely geographical
factors. When considering the Post-Meroitic times, and perhaps in earlier periods as well,
another variable must also be taken into account, namely the ethnic make up of the
population of the Nile Valley. We know of several different groups such as the Nobadians,
the Blemmyes, the Black Noba and the Red Noba all presumably occupying separate, but
contiguous regions. Assuming that all the major burial grounds of the Post-Meroitic rulers
where located near their capitals one may propose the existence of political centres near
Ballana/Qustul (Gebel Adda or Faras?), El Ghaddar/Baganarti (Old Dongola?),
Zuma/Tangasi (Korti?), Hobagi (Hosh el-Kafir?). One would also expect another regional
centre in the Berber - Dangeil area, but the Post-Meroitic tombs found there so far are
relatively modest in size (Ahmed and Anderson 2000; Anderson and Ahmed, in press). This
location of Post-Meroitic burial grounds may well help explaining the rise of Faras and
Dongola as major centres of Christian Nubia. They would have been the seats of local preChristian rulers buried in the tumuli nearby. Soba, however, remains the odd site out.
The political and administrative division of Christian Nubia is much better known thanks
to the accounts of various Arab travellers and therefore all the standard publications
dealing with Christian Nubia discuss the topography (most recently Welsby 2002:83-88).
The three Christian Kingdoms included Nobadia (Lower Nubia and Batn el Hajar),
Makuria (Upper Nubia) and Alwa (Central Sudan). At some point Nobadia became part of
the Makurian (Muqurra) Kingdom and was known to the Arabs as the province of Maris.
According to Ibn Selim, the frontier between the two parts lied at the Third Cataract, thus
20
coincinding with the modern frontier between the Mahas and Dongolawi-speaking people.
This medieval, and perhaps also earlier frontier apparently was also the frontier between
the Ottoman Empire and the Funj Kingdom in the Islamic Period, although it by no means
remained stable (Alexander 1995).
It is interesting to note that Maris, former Nobadia, incorporated both the Dodekaschoinos,
previously lying outside the Meroitic realm, and the Triakontaschoinos, which politically
was a Meroitic territory. Administratively Maris comprised two districts: Maris proper,
between Al-Qasr, near Aswan, and Upper Maqs (Akasha) and Sagludha. Within Makuria
we know of districts such as Baqun (Kerma and Seleim Basins) and Safad Ba'al (Letti
Basin). Further up-river there were the districts of Shankir (Abu Hamed?) and Abwab
(Abadiya-Atbara region?) It is unclear whether any of these districts, or parts thereof,
were ruled by one of the thirteen kinglets under the supremacy of the great king reigning in
(Old) Dongola, the capital of Makuria as mentioned in the eighth century sources (John the
Deacon in Vantini 1975:44). It is also unclear whether the Lower Nubian kingdom of
Dotawo centred around Jebel Adda was one of them as well. The sources date to different
periods during which the internal divisions might have changed several times. On the other
hand there is some evidence for the continuity of territorial divisions. Jakobielski (1972:27)
has pointed out that the church administration followed the ancient secular divisions of the
land. In the Dodekaschoinos, where there were two old toparchies, we have two bishoprics
(Kalabsha and Qurta). In the Triakontaschoinos there were also two bishoprics (Qasr
Ibrim and Faras), presumably reflecting an earlier administrative and/or political division.
21
Further south, the five districts mentioned by Ibn Selim (Saghluda, Baqun, Safad Ba'al,
Dongola and Shankir) are presumably identical with the five known dioceses (Sai, Merke,
Kallama, Dongola and Suenkur). In contrast to Makuria, the internal division of the
southernmost kingdom of Alwa remains a mystery. If the ecclesiastical divisions did indeed
reflect the secular, administrative entities, then the six bishoprics of Alwa recorded by
Vansleben (Welsby 2002:99) must have been the equivalent of six Alwan provinces .
The large number of administrative titles known from the Meroitic and Christian periods
suggest further subdivisions. These smaller districts may eventually be identified through
spatial analysis once site distribution maps resulting from archaeological fieldwork are
produced. Another potential source of information will be the new finds of textual material
mentioning place names and territories. It is a pity that very few Christian Nubian sites are
presently being excavated (Qasr Ibrim, Hambukol, Old Dongola, Sinada).
6. Cultural landscapes
From its very beginning, the archaeology of Nubia was the study of cultural history and the
very framework on which this cultural history was built was the result of a regional survey
conducted by Reisner on behalf of the Egyptian government. Reisner and Firth's
astonishing success in creating a cultural-chronological framework and discovering
remarkable remains of Nubia's many civilizations set the path for future fieldwork in the
22
Middle Nile Valley. The use of surveys for achieving major research goals was never
questioned and, in fact, has become a standard element of archaeological investigations in
Nubia and Central Sudan (Caneva and Marks 1992; Garcea and Sebastiani 1998:61-63).
These post-Reisner surveys confirmed the overall correctness of his general outline of
Nubia's cultural groups, although many gaps remain to be filled. Some of the gaps simply
reflect the fact that many sections of the Nile Valley are still unexplored. Others, like the
real or apparent hiatus in the occupation of Lower Nubia, the lack of data for the post-New
Kingdom/pre-Napatan period and the absence of the post-Neolithic/pre-Kushite material in
Central Sudan remain to be solved. While the excavation of an individual site might help in
solving some of these enigmas, it is the regional study that will likely be the most suitable
approach in finding the answers. The examination of regional surveys in the Middle Nile
Valley suggests that, despite some overlaps, they all can be grouped in three main classes:
I. salvage surveys
II. locational surveys
III. surveys of regions
I. Salvage surveys
These projects represent the very foundation of Nubiology. Indeed, the concept of
recording and/or salvaging ancient heritage, now taken for granted all over the world, was
born in Nubia. Although the credit is usually given to Reisner, the actual idea was
conceived by the Government of Egypt and the Egyptian Antiquities Service under
23
Maspero with the preliminary work carried out by Weigall (1907). Reisner's greatest
achievement was, of course, the identification of various Nubian cultures. His other
important contribution was designing the logistics of such a project and introducing
standard forms for data recording (Adams 1977:71) As is commonly known, this
pioneering salvage campaign was conducted in response to the destruction of the
antiquities of Lower Nubia caused by the heightening of the Aswan Dam. The Temples
immergйs series, the volumes of the Archaeological Survey of Nubia, and a survey of
Christian antiquities (Clarke 1912) were the first regional salvage projects in the Middle
Nile Valley. They were followed by similar surveys carried out by Emery and Kirwan, and
Monneret de Villard, in response to the second heightening of the dam. The often-discussed
UNESCO Nubian Camapaign may be considered a single project, although within this
massive enterpise many separate regional salvage surveys were carried out (e.g. work of the
UNESCO/ Sudan Antiquities Service mission, the activities of the Scandinavian Joint
Expedition etc.). In the Sudan, one of the practical long-term effects of these salvage
operations was the establishment of the French Archaeological Unit within the Sudan
Antiquities Service with a specific mandate to carry out archaeological rescue projects. The
publications of these three major salvage campaigns resulting from the construction of the
Aswan dams are too numerous to be listed here and in any case are well known to the
participants of this conference.
Having been conditioned by such a distinguished tradition of international cooperation in
rescuing ancient Nubian cultures, practically every foreign expedition operating presently
24
in the unflooded part of the Middle Nile Valley conducts from time to time local-scale
rescue operations at the request of the antiquities' authorities. This is, of course, in addition
to the activities of the Egyptian and Sudanese authorities which often must react on short
notice to unexpected emergencies. There are, however, new and bigger challenges and new
salvage surveys are being carried out. In Egypt, the work is related to the construction of
the Toshka canal, but to the best of my knowledge no finds of the period covered in the
present paper have been reported. In the Sudanese Nile Valley the following rescue
surveys took place:
(1) The Kadada irrigation scheme with survey and excavations conducted by French and
Sudanese archaeologists from the National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums
(NCAM) (overviews in Geus 1984; Reinold 2000:120-124);
(2) The Khartoum-Atbara road (Mallinson et al. 1996; Paner 1997)
(3) The Omdurman-Ganetti road (Mallinson 1998)
(4) The Hamadab Dam project in the Fourth Cataract has already involved the
participation of several teams from NCAM (Hakem 1993), University of Dongola (Abdul
Rahman and Kabbashi 1999), Rome University (Caneva 1988; Donadoni 1997) UNESCO
(Leclant 1990) Sudan Archaeological Research Society (Welsby 2000) and Gdansk
Archaeological Museum (el-Tayeb 1998; Paner 1998). Early investigation carried out on
behalf of the Steering Committee also resulted in a number of unpublished, internal
reports (El-Nur, Reinold, Grzymski);
(5) The resettlement area upriver from Ganetti on the left bank of the Nile; the project,
25
carried out by NCAM, began in 2001/2002 season and is ongoing.
(6) Dinder National Park, 2000 (NCAM)
Additionally, projects such as the Mahas Survey (Edwards and Osman 1992; 1994; 2000)
and the Khandaq to Tombos Survey directed by Smith may potentially turn into salvage
surveys should the proposed Kajbar Dam project take place.
There are certain aspects of the salvage surveys that are relevant to all the projects,
whether involving the preservation, documenation or excavations. These chief
characteristics of surveys conducted as part of a salvage operation are (a) an attempt to
register and, if possible, to preserve all the records of human presence in the given area; (b)
the inclusion of sites from all the time periods; (c) limiting field operation to the
geographical parameters of the threatened area, and (d) prioritizing field activities
according to the time schedule of the developmental activity.
II. Locational surveys
This class of regional survey projects is most common and the main objective may be
described as the "let's see what's there", which is not meant in a negative way. On the
contrary, these projects play an extremely important role in locating and identifying the
sites in previously unknown regions and are, therefore, the bread-and-butter of the
landscape archaeology. One may also include in this category the work of early scholars
such as Cailliaud, Champollion and Rosellini, Linant de Bellefonds, Lepsius and others.
26
The reports written by these early explorers clearly show the importance of these
"locational surveys"; they are often the only records of sites and areas now long gone. The
projects carried out in more recent times are not only of scholarly importance, but also
serve as a basic tool for the cultural resources management, allowing the appropriate
authorities to take the necessary protective measures and mitigating actions. One
characteristic of these locational projects is their concentration on the archaeological
component and the team composition is, therefore, rarely multidisciplinary. This, however,
is changing and in this respect the recently completed Northern Dongola Reach Survey
(Welsby 2002) set a new standard. Another typical aspect of the locational surveys is that
they often serve as preliminary studies of the areas, undertaken with a view towards
future excavations of selected site (or sites). The study area is usually delineated in an
arbitrary way reflecting the modern administrative boundries or limits imposed by the
license requirements, rather than a natural or cultural region. The "salvage archaeology"
aspect is often present, but is not the main factor in the execution of the project.
Occasionally, only specific time periods are considered (e.g. surveys directed exlusively at
prehistoric or Meroitic sites). This "locational survey" category would include the
following projects dealing with the material of the time periods covered by this paper (1000
BC to AD 1500):
(1) Archaeological Survey South of the Dal Cataract (Vila 1975-1982)
(2) Mahas Survey (Edwards and Osman 1992; 1994; 2000); but see also comments below
(3) Khandaq - Tombos Survey (S.T. Smith, personal communicatoin)
27
(4) Northern Dongola Reach Survey (Welsby 2002); but see also comments below.
(5) Dongola Reach Reconnaissance (Grzymski 1987)
(6) Khandaq - Debba Reconnaissance (Reinold 1993)
(7) Southern Dongola Reach Survey (_urawski 1998)
(8) Napata Region (Garcea and Sebastiani 1998)
(9) The Fourth Cataract (Gray 1949)
(10) Abu Hamed Reach (Jackson 1926)
(11) Mograt Island (Abbas 1971)
(12) Fifth Cataract (Elamin and Edwards 2000)
(13) Berber-Abidiya (Ahmed and Anderson 2000)
(14) Butana Project (Hintze, 1959)
(15) Island of Meroe (Crowfoot 1911)
(16) Western Butana (Ahmed 1984; Bradley 1992)
(17) White Nile Project (Eisa 1994)
(18) Shilluk Mounds (Kleppe 1982)
III. Surveys of regions
The difference between this group and the previous one is that it is the study of a region
rather than a regional study. The study of a region covers all aspects of the natural,
political, economic and cultural landscapes of a well defined territory, be it a geographic,
political or cultural entity (e.g. the Letti Basin or the Kingdom of Dotawo). Regional
studies, on the other hand, are locational surveys whose main objective is simply to locate
28
archaeological sites in an arbitrarily selected area usually delimited by a SCA or NCAM
license (e.g. surveys south of the Dal cataract or in parts of the Dongola Reach) and
disregarding the geographical or cultural units (regions, territories). Obviously, the most
difficult task is to define what constitutes “a region” and how to handle the issue of scale.
One could, for example, consider the works of Trigger (1965), Edwards (1989) and Khidir
A. Ahmed (1984) as representing the studies of regions as they clearly dealt with macroregions such as, respectively, Lower Nubia, Upper Nubia, and the Island of Meroe, and
relied on a wide variety of data, which included but were not limited to the archaeological
material. Interestingly, all three studies were originally produced as university theses and
only one (Ahmed) was designed as a field study. The recently completed Northern Dongola
Reach Survey is also difficult to classify. Its stated goal of simply assessing the
archaeological potential of the concession area (Welsby 2002:1) puts the NDRS into the
"locational survey" category, but the use of a multidisciplinary team and the resulting
richness of data collected distinguish it in many respects from the traditional surveys.
Much of the material gathered, and promptly published, will take a long time to be
absorbed. At this point, the publication is more a collection of reports, than a regional
synthesis. This should not be construed as criticism, especially since the NDRS was not
conceived as a regional study. The area of operation was an arbitrarily outlined concession.
Paradoxically, through the discovery of the paleochannels of the Nile the NDRS has, in fact,
identified previously unsuspected geomorphological units. This project went beyond the
simple aspect of locating and dating the sites; it also provided a large quantity of data for
the reconstruction of the natural and cultural landscapes and, thus, it blurred the lines
29
separating the two categories. Irrespectively of this somewhat artificial taxonomic problem,
the NDRS stands out among the area-scale projects.
The list of projects that were consciously conceived as studies of well defined regions is very
short, especially when covering the historical time frame that interests us here (i.e. post1000 BC):
(1) The El Geili Region Project (Caneva 1988)
(2) The Sai Project (Geus 1998)
(3) The Letti Basin Project (Grzymski 1997)
(4) The Study of the Kingdom of Kokka (Osman 1982)
While Vila and his Franco-Sudanese team working south of the Dal Cataract started the
modern-era, post-UNESCO locational surveys in Nubia, Caneva may be considered a
pioneer of the landscape archaeology in the Sudan with her specific, region-oriented
research objectives and design. Although the project concerned itself primarily with the
dynamics of the human - environmental interaction and ecological adaptations in the Geili
region up to the Islamic period, the emphasis was clearly put on prehistory. This was not
the case with Sai. The island of Sai is usually treated as a single site but, in fact, it is a well
defined region containing cultural material from all the phases of ancient Nubia's history.
Furthermore, the work of the French mission encompasses many different facets of life and
30
culture. While I have not come across any specific references to the over-all goals of the
project, the composition of the team and the quality and variety of the material published
place the Sai Island project within the realm of the study of a region. My own project in the
Letti Basin is an outgrowth of a rapid reconnaissance conducted in the central part of the
Dongola Reach. It began as a rescue operation to locate and investigate sites threatened by
the expansion of settlements and new irrigation schemes (Grzymski 1997a), but gradually
transformed into a total survey of the well defined natural region which may perhaps also
represent a political entity (assuming that the Safad Ba'al = Letti equivalence is correct).
The original objective of eliciting the cultural history of the region evolved into the study of
the natural and cultural landscape. Environmental adaptation and interaction, changes in
the dietary patterns, analysis of the architectural landscape, and the search for the
identifiers of the local cultural landscape are all parts of the project. Some aspects have
been studied, others remain on the wish list for the reasons frequently overlooked by the
armchair theoreticians of archaeology, namely the logistical difficulties and prohibitive
costs of operating a multidisciplinary team. Incidentally, these rarely mentioned but
extremely important factors make many, of what the archaeological theory considers to be
highly desirable objectives difficult to achieve. Such practical considerations certainly
affected my own work in the Letti Basin and I am certain it was also the case with other
projects. The prevalence of the conceptually simple locational surveys over the study of
regions may, to a large extent, reflect the difficult reality of funding problems rather than
represent intellectual choices. There is, however, one element favourably distinguishing
Nubian archaeology from research carried out in other parts of Africa: namely the
31
tendency of the practitioners of Nubian archaeology to commit themselves to the long-term
study of a specific region. This is an important and highly desirable aspect of landscape
archaeology (Bower 1988: 38). It may be worth mentioning here that an important,
informative and highly influential study of a medieval English village and rural land use
was carried out over a forty-year period (Beresford and Hunt 1990). In the Middle Nile
Valley context such long-term commitment to a site and, effectively, to its hinterland paid
off, for example, in Kerma; and it is also evident, not only in the ongoing work at Sai and in
Letti, but also in another region-oriented, multidisciplinary study of a well-defined area,
namely the Mahas survey. The latter, which makes such an extensive use of the oral
tradition, historical, ethnographic, linguistic and archaeological data (Hashim and Bell
2000) is also an outgrowth of an earlier research project, namely the above-mentioned
study of the post-medieval kingdom of Kokka. This particular research project is especially
noteworthy because, unlike most of the other regional studies which tend to be ecologically
oriented, it relies on the use and application of data originating from various humanities
and social sciences disciplines (Osman 1992).
A separate and rather heterogenous group is formed by projects concerned with a specific
category of sites and/or structures undertaken from a regional perspective. In this kind of
project much of the material gets gathered through library research, although ultimately
the data come from the field research. This shows that while the archaeological field
surveys are by their very nature regional in character, not all regional projects need to be
field surveys. Indeed, they can use the data drawn exclusively from excavations of
32
individual sites, providing the approach is territorial in scope. Some of these projects
represent overviews and analyses of the cultural history of a given region, while others
concentrate on identifying the distribution patterns of a particular class of site or
structure; many of these projects produced extremely useful distribution maps and
extensive site gazeteers. One could include here the following:
(1) Castles and churches of the Middle Nile (Crawford 1953)
(2) Settlements and cemeteries in Lower Nubia (Trigger 1965)
(3) The 1st millennium AD settlements and cemeteries in Upper Nubia (Edwards 1989)
(4) Christian Period settlements in the Middle Nile Valley (Anderson 1996)
(5) Roman military camps (Welsby 1998)
(6) Hafirs of Central Sudan (M. Hinkel 1994)
(7) Amun Temples in Upper Nubia (Zach and Tomandl 2000)
(8) Islamic Qubbas of Eastern Sudan (Elsadig 2000)
(9) Islamic Qubbas of Central Sudan (el-Zein 2000)
(10) Post-Meroitic tumuli of Central Sudan (Lenoble 1994)
(11) Christian castle-houses (Adams 1994)
(12) Meroitic settlements in the Butana (Ahmed 1984)
(13) Meroitic Lower and Upper Nubia (Williams 1985)
(14) Christian sites and architecture in Lower Nubia (Deichmann and Grossmann 1988)
What sort of cultural landscapes can we draw from these disparate ways of searching for
33
and collecting data on the regional level? Having already made a point that it was through
the large-scale regional surveys that we came to understand the culture history of Nubia, I
would like to suggest now that the time has come to concentrate on the studies of smallscale areas in order to identify regional differences. We can easily recogize the macro-scale
regional differences in the natural landscape and the material culture, the arts and the
economy (with the old North vs. South dichotomy being the usual focus of discussions and
regional comparisons). This also applies to the recognition of the regional (territorial)
linguistic differences between various modern Nubian groups which was also certainly the
case in medieval times. There are even some indications of the regional variations in
Meroitic language. In the realm of art we can occasionally identify different regional
artistic traditions. An excellent example of the identification of regional art styles and
production centres is provided by the study of Meroitic globular bottles. The painted
globular bottles with long necks were identified by Leclant (1985) as a product
characteristic of the Second Cataract region. Lenoble (1995:154-155) was able to show that
in another region, namely the area of Meroe, the functional equivalent of the long-necked
bottles were small, black-ware bottles. Another example is Wenig's identification of
regional pottery painting styles (Wenig 1979), which clearly shows the existence of regional
artistic traditions. Adams (1986), of course, also makes frequent comments regarding the
regional distribution of certain ware types. Other vessel types reflecting different regional
traditions can be mentioned here: the Post-Meroitic Alwa ware beer jars and the
characteristic Christian Period Soba wares. Apart from ceramics, it is the wall paintings
that show potential for regional (territorial) analysis. The discovery of the astonishing
34
collections of medieval wall paintings at Old Dongola (Martens-Czarnecka 1998;
Jakobielski, personal communication) and Sinada (_urawski, personal communication) is
bound to lead eventually to a comparative study of the Nobatian and Makurian painting
traditions in an attempt to distinguish regional styles and variations.
The overall impression one gains from this review of regional surveys and cultural
landscapes is that, like in the case of the natural and economic landscapes, we have a well
developed understanding of larger regions; yet when it comes to the small-scale regional
variations much remains to be done. This does not necessarily mean more surveys. The
syntheses are based on data collected in various ways. As Barker put it:
"Excavations and surveys must go hand in hand in any regional archaeological study, each
infinitely the poorer without the other" (Barker 1991:7)
7. Sacred landscapes
One important fact emerging from the discussion of the past research on these various
landscapes of the ancient Nubian territory is an overwhelming reliance on ecological
arguments in explaining the past adaptation strategies. Clearly, in a land where the amount
of the arable soil is limited, where the rainfall is either non-existent or affecting directly
only parts of the study area, this emphasis on the ecologically-driven explanations of
cultural development is understandable. The patterns of resource exploitation were and are
seen as the driving force explaining the behaviour of the ancient inhabitants of the Middle
Nile Valley. This materialistic, ecosystems approach is prevailing in our interpretation of
35
the Nubian culture, but it ignores the way the ancient Nubian societies conceptualized their
land. It is, of course, a very difficult undertaking to investigate ancient concepts of the
landscape, especially when the amount of written data is very modest. The use of the
ethnohistoric comparisons is also constrained by the sparsity of anthropological studies and
the fact that the pre-Islamic societies might have had different concepts and understanding
of their landscape from those of the modern Islamic societies. Yet it is not entirely beyond
our capability to identify ancient cultural constructs and meanings. This was admirably
done by Lenoble in his studies of the mortuary customs. Careful analysis of the physical
arrangement of the archaeological material in the funerary context was interpreted by
means of Isiac beliefs, whose tenets were known to us from ancient texts. The use of the
ehnographic data as an explanatory tool was also succesfully applied in the Nubian
contexts in the studies by Bradley and Osman. Finally, we can also rely on comparative
studies using the information obtained from the better known traditions of ancient Egypt
(in case of the Napatan-Meroitic period) or the Christian Eastern Mediterranean (Medieval
Period). In the latter case _urawski's 1987 study of the vernacular Christian Nubian
traditions and superstition is comparable to Lenoble's.
Having established that it is possible to reconstruct the conceptual landscapes, I would like
to concentrate on the recognition of sacred landscapes in the Middle Nile Valley. The need
to study the man-made expressions of such sacred landscapes (temples and pyramid fields)
in the Napatan-Meroitic Nubia has been recognized by a number of scholars, notably
Kendall (1990; 1997) and F. Hinkel (2000). This is a good beginning but much more has to
36
be done. I am convinced, that like the Greeks, Romans, Germans, Slavs and Mayas, the
Kushites also had their sacred groves, caves and water springs. The importance of Jebel
Barkal (and I am referring here to the mountain itself) is universally recognized and we
even know its ancient Egyptian name explicitly stated its sacred status. Another example of
an archaeologically identified sacred natural feature is the rock niche in the Satet temple at
Elephantine (Dreyer 1986). One is tempted to suggest that such conspicuous elements of the
natural landscape as Jebel Adda, Jebel Adu (Sai), Jebel Ghaddar (Letti) or Jebel Qeili
(Butana) might also have been recognized as sacred areas. An intriguing possibilty for
explaining the layout and orientation of the Amun Temple and the Processional Way at
Meroe would be to suggest that it is aligned to a still-unrecognized sacred natural feature,
perhaps in the neighbourhood of Jebel Qudeim or Jebel el Hadjies (see the map in Hinkel
2000:13, fig.1).
Although, in contrast to the Kushite temples which served as dwellings of the gods, the
Christian churches and Muslim mosques are gathering places for the congregation, they
also represent sacred landscapes as do the monasteries which even physically separate the
secular and spiritual worlds. In Christian Nubia, there certainly must have been local
centres to which the faithful would make a pilgrimage, just like Philae in the Meroitic
times. All of us are familiar with the fact that the qubbas and baniyas of various Muslim
sheikhs are often visted by pilgrims. Such a sacred ground with which I am most familiar is
the Islamic cemetery of Old Dongola with its famous tomb of Swar ad-Dahab. The study of
the sacred landscape is still in its infancy, but deserves to be taken into account when
37
investigating the ancient Middle Nile Valley civilizations. Furthermore, the study of sacred
landscapes need not be limited to the religious aspects. It can also help with the
interpretation of such things as social change, best exemplified in Roth’s study of the
spatial organization of the Giza necropolis (Roth 1993).
8. Back to the future
Looking back at the work accomplished over the last decade or so, we can see not only
what and how research was done, but also where the future lies. The dramatic increase in
the field and library research, combined with the influx of new scholars with different
backgrounds and novel ideas, is bound to produce new, exciting results. Some new trends
are already emerging. Taking into account these new developments and looking at the past
activities involving the area-study one reaches rather obvious conlusions.
1. The vagaries of the economic development in the Middle Nile Valley (mainly the
construction of the dams) resulted in a true flourishing of regional archaeology. The
paradox, however, lies in the fact that the most intensively studied areas were, or will be,
what can only be described as the marginal regions: Lower Nubia and the badlands of the
Fourth Cataract.
2. Since the mid 1990's certain parts of the Sudanese Nile Valley have become particularly
popular with a number of archaeological teams conducting both the surveys and
38
excavations. These emerging clusters of increased scholarly activity, which will eventually
help with the better understanding of the affected regions (territories) are: (a) the Third
Cataract to Kawa area, (b) Old Dongola and its hinterland, (c) Napata and the Fourth
Cataract area, and (d) the Island of Meroe.
3. Although, as Trigger (1970:347) has pointed out, much of the work done and
information gathered through the regional projects is repetitive. I, unlike Trigger, see it as
a good thing. There is strength in numbers. Interpretations and assessments of the Middle
Nile Valley cultures based on similar type of material collected in a similar way can only
gain legitimacy still lacking in statistical sampling. The case for the full-coverage surveys
has been powerfully made in studies compiled by Fish and Kowalewski (1990) and need not
be repeated here.
4. Over the last decade the technological advances and the multidisciplinary composition of
teams directly affected the quality of field work and interpretation: the use of the Global
Positioning System (GPS), remote sensing (satellite photography), geophysical,
archaeozoological, archaeobotanical, geomorphological, petrographic and other analyses is
gradually becoming a new standard in archaeological research.
5. The emergence of the concept of landscape archaeology as a unifying force integrating
the data and approaches based in the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities
will lead to the reappraisal of our understanding of the Nubian past. Moreover, much of
39
the information gathered through this research is of relevance to contemporary situations
(land use, demographic trends, the role of heritage sites). It is noticeable that the European
Union, within the context of the POPULUS project (EU Human Capital and Mobility
programme), has funded a massive, international landscape archaeology project in the
Mediterranean and the subsequent five volume publication of its results.
6. New methods of data processing and manipulation, such as the Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) will have enormous impact on our way of interpreting the material.
Presently GIS in archaeology are still mainly used for the presentation and display of
results ("pretty pictures" of Baena Preysler et al. 1999:133), but even these can be of
scholarly value. We are already familiar with the three-dimensional computer
reconstructions of the Jebel Barkal temples (Kendall 1990:108-109). Now we can expect the
use of virtual reality (VR) systems in our scholarly analyses. What was limited to the
computer games and computer reconstructions made by film-makers will become a tool of
serious research. Through computer simulations and data manipulation we will be able to
reconstruct ancient lifestyles and produce three-dimensional images of ancient sites and
landscapes, an exciting and promising way of testing our hypotheses.
While awaiting this radiant future we should enjoy the fact that, in the continental
perspective, the past and present achievements and experiences of the Middle Nile Valley
archaeology can serve as an inspiration to colleagues working in other countries. In terms
of regional (territorial) research more is being done in Nubia than in any other part of
40
Africa. The challenge is to maintain the momentum and to integrate all the new intellectual
and technological advances into our work.
Krzysztof Grzymski
Toronto
30 May 2002
POSTCRIPTUM
The most recent and extremely important book by Laszlo Tцrцk (2002) has reached me
after this paper was completed. The publication deals extensively with the concept of
“place” and in particular the sacred landscape in Nubia. A quick glance at this massive
(500+ pages) work has convinced me that Tцrцk has in many ways succeeded in
“reconstructing the cognitive relationship between ancient society of Nubia and its natural
and artificial surroundings” (Tцrцk 2002:9), and especially the latter.
41
Bibliography
Abbas, S.A.
1971, “The antiquities of Mograt Island”, Sudan Notes and Records LII pp. 1-22
Abdul Rahman A.M. and Kabbashi Hussein
1999, "Two Seasons in the Fourth Cataract Region. Preliminary Results", Sudan & Nubia
3, pp. 60-70
Adams, R. Mc.
1981, Heartland of Cities, Chicago
Adams, W.Y.
1977, Nubia Corridor to Africa, London
1986, Ceramic Industries of Medieval Nubia, Lexington
1987, "Three Perspectives on the Past: The Historian, the Art Historian, and the
Prehistorian", in T. Hдgg (ed.) Nubian Culture Past and Present, Stockholm pp. 285-291
1994, "Castle-houses of Late Medieval Nubia", Archйologie du Nil Moyen 6 pp. 11-46
d'Agostino, B.
1992, "Introduzione", in M. Bernardi (ed.) Archeologia del paesaggio, vol. I, Firenze pp.
17-21
Ahmed, K. A.
1984, Meroitic Settlement in the Central Sudan, Cambridge
1998, "Economy and Environment in the Empire of Kush" in S. Wenig (ed.) Studien zum
antiken Sudan pp. 291-311
Ahmed, S.M. and J. Anderson
2000, "Prospections archйologiques et fouilles de sauvetage dans le voisinage du site de
Dangeil (1997 et 1999)", Cahier de recherches de l'Institut de papyrologie et d'йgyptologie de
Lille 21 pp. 17-37
Alexander, J.
1995, "The Turks on the Middle Nile", Archйologie du Nil Moyen 7 pp. 15-35
el-Amin Y.M. and D. Edwards
2000, “Archaeological Survey in the Fifth Cataract Region” Sudan & Nubia 4 pp.44-50
Anderson, J.
1996, Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Domestic and Civil Architecture in Christian
42
Nubia, Unpublished Ph. Thesis, University of Toronto
Anderson J. and S.M Ahmed
in press, "Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Berber - Abidiya Region, 1997. A PostMeroitic Double-Shaft Tomb in El-Fereikha" Archйologie du Nil Moyen 9
Ashbee, P.
1972, "Field Archaeology: Its Origins and Development", in P.J. Fowler (ed.) Archaeology
and the Landscape, London, pp.38-74
Ashmore, W. and A.B. Knapp, eds.
1999, Archaeologies of Landscape, Malden and Oxford
Baena Preysler, J. et al.
1999, "Geographic Information Systems and Archaeology: Methodological Aspects of the
Presentation and Display of Results", in M. Gillings, D. Mattingly and J. van Dalen (eds.)
Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology, Oxford pp. 133-137
Barbour, K.M.
1961, The Republic of the Sudan: A Regional Geography, London
Barker, G.
1991, "Approaches to archaeological survey", in Barker, G. and J. Lloyd eds.) Roman
Landscapes: Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Region, London pp.1-9
1992, "From Bones to Farmers: The Contribution of Archaeozoology to Landscape
Archaeology", in M. Bernardi (ed.) Archeologia del paesaggio, Firenze, vol. I, pp. 265-285
Barker, G. and D. Gilbertson
2000, The Archaeology of Drylands, London - New York
Beresford, M. and J. Hurst
1990, Wharram Percy, Deserted Medieval Village, London
Bernardi, M., ed.
1992, Archeologia del paesaggio, Firenze
Bower, J.
1986, “A survey of surveys: aspects of surface archaeology in sub-Saharan Africa” African
Archaeological Review 4 pp. 21-40
Bradley, R.
1986, "A Model for Pastoralism in the Meroitic Butana" in M. Krause (ed.) , Mainz pp. 2531
1992, Nomads in the Archaeological Record (=Meroitica 13), Berlin
43
Brown, G.M.
1991, Old Nubian Texts from Qasr Irbim, vol. III, London
Caneva, I.
1988, El Geili. The History of a Middle Nile Environment 7000 BC - AD 1500, Oxford
1988a, "A Prospection of the IV Cataract", Nubian Letters 10
Caneva, I. and A.E. Marks,
1992, "Prehistoric Surveys in the Upper Nile Valley: From Site to Region", in C. Bonnet
(ed.) Йtudes nubiennes, vol. I, Genиve pp. 61-78
Cartwright, C.
2001, "The Plant Remains", in D. Welsby, Life on the Desert Edge, vol. II London pp. 556567
Chaix, L.
1998, “Nouvelles donnйes sur l’exploitation du monde animal au Soudan central et
septentrional” Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Йgyptologie de Lille
17/3 pp. 79-84
1998a, "The Fauna" in D. Welsby, Soba II, London pp. 233-255
Chevallier, R.
1978, "Prйface", in P. Dufournet, Pour une archйologie du paysage, Paris, pp. 5-7
Chisholm, M.
1968, Rural Settlement and Land Use, London
Clarke, S.
1912, Christian Antiquities in the Nile Valley, Oxford
Christaller, W.
1933, Die zentralen Orte in Sьddeutschland, Jena
Clarke, D. L., ed.
1977, Spatial Archaeology, London - New York - San Francisco
Crawford, O.G.S.
1951, The Fung Kingdom of Sennar, Gloucester
1953, Castles and Churches in the Middle Nile Region, Khartoum
Crowfoot, J.W.
1911, The Island of Meroe, London
44
Deichmann F.W. and P. Grossmann
1988, Nubische Forschungen, Berlin
De Paepe, P.
1990, "Les roches de la rйgion", in C. Bonnet (ed.), Kerma, royaume de Nubie, Genиve pp.
115-117
Donadoni, S.
1997, "A Survey North of the Fourth Cataract", Mitteilungen der Sudanarchдologischen
Gessellschaft zu Berlin 7, pp. 10-22
Dreyer, G.
1986, Der Temple der Satet, Mainz
Dufournet, P.
1978, Pour une archйologie du paysage, Paris
Edwards, D.
1989, Archaeology and Settlement in Upper Nubia in the 1st Millennium A.D., Cambridge
1996, The Archaeology of the Meroitic State, Oxford
Edwards, D. and A. Osman
1992, Mahas Survey Reports 1, Cambridge
1994, Mahas Survey Reports 2, Cambridge
2000, The Archaeology of Arduan Island - the Mahas Survey 2000, Sudan & Nubia 4 pp.
58-70
Eide, T. et al.
1994-2000, Fontes Historiae Nubiorum, 4 vols, Bergen
Eissa, K.A.
1994, “Problems of Archaeology in the Sudan: The Region South of Khartoum”, in C.
Bonnet (ed.) Йtudes nubiennes, Genиve pp.59-64
Elsadig, S.O.
2000, “The Domed Tombs of the Eastern Sudan”, Sudan & Nubia 4 pp. 37-43
Fish, S.K. and S.A. Kowalewski, eds.
1990, The Archaeology of Regions. A Case for Full-Coverage Survey, Washington and
London
Flannery, K.V.
1976a, "Linear Stream Patterns and Riverside Settlement Rules", in K.V. Flannery (ed.)
45
The Early Mesoamerican Village, New York - San Francisco - London pp. 173-180
Fuller, D.Q.
1998, "SARS Survey from Omdurman to Gabolab 1997. Palaeoecology: the significance of
the plant and animal remains", Sudan & Nubia 2 pp. 52-60
Fuller, D.Q. and D.N. Edwards
2001, Medieval Plant Economy in Middle Nubia: Preliminary Archaeobotanical Evidence
from Nauri”, Sudan & Nubia 5 pp. 97-103
Garcea E.A.A. and R. Sebastiani
1998, "Advantages and Limitations of Surveys: the Case of the Napatan Region",
Archйologie du Nil Moyen 8 pp. 55-83
Geus, F.
1984, Rescuing Sudan Ancient Cultures, Khartoum
1986, "Editorial", Archйologie du Nil Moyen 1 pp. 5-6
1998, “Sai 1996-1997", Archйologie du Nil Moyen 8 pp. 85-126
Gillings, M, D. Mattingly and J. van Dalen, eds.
1999, Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology, Oxford
Gray, T.
1949, “The Fourth Cataract”, Sudan Notes and Records 30 pp. 120-121
Grzymski, K.
1981, “The Population Size of the Meroitic Kingdom: an Estimation”, in Fyfe, C. and
McMaster, D. (eds.) African Historical Demography, II, Edinburgh pp. 259-273
1986, "Locational Patterns in Ancient Nubia", in M. Krause (ed.), Nubische Studien, Mainz
pp. 93-97
1987, Archaeological Reconnaissance in Upper Nubia, Toronto
1997, “The Debba Bend in the New Kingdom”, Warsaw Egyptological Studies I pp. 93-100
1997a, “Canadian Expedition to Nubia: the 1994 Season at Hambukol and in the Letti
Basin”, Kush XVII pp. 236-243
Grzymski, K. and Anderson, J.
2001, Hambukol Excavations 1986-1989, Mississauga
Haggett, P.
1965, Locational Analysis in Human Geography, London
Hakem, A.M.A.
1993, "Merowe (Hamadab) high Dam and its impacts", Kush XVI, pp. 1-25
46
Harrell, J.
1999, "Ancient Stone Quarries at the Third and Fourth Nile Cataracts, Northern Sudan",
Sudan & Nubia 3, pp. 21-27
Hashim, M. J. and H. Bell
2000, “Reconstructing the History of Settlement Patterns in the Mahas: Evidence from
Language and Place-names”, Sudan & Nubia 4 pp. 71-78
Hayes, R.O.
1973, The Distribution of Meroitic Archer’s Rings: An Outline of Political Borders, in F.
Hintze (ed.) Sudan im Altertum (= Meroitica 1), Berlin pp. 113-122
Hein, I.
1994, “Ьberlegungen zur Lage der Felstempel Ramses’ II in Nubien” in R. Gundlach and
M. Rochholz (eds.) Дgyptische Temple - Struktur, Funktion und Programm (= Hildesheimer
Дgyptologische Beitrдge 37), Hildesheim pp. 131-135
Hinkel, F.
2000, "The Royal Pyramids of Meroe. Architecture, Construction and Reconstruction of a
Sacred Landscape" Sudan & Nubia 4 pp. 11-26
Hinkel, M.
1991, “Hafire im antiken Sudan” Zeitschrift fur Дgyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
118, pp. 32-48
1994, “The Water Reservoirs in Ancient Sudan” in C. Bonnet (ed.) Йtudes nubiennes vol.
II, Genиve pp. 171-175
Hintze, F.
1959, "Preliminary Report on the Butana Expedition", Kush VII pp.171-196
Hodder, I., ed.
2001, Archaeological Theory Today, Cambridge
Hodges, R.
1987, "Spatial Models, Anthropology and Archaeology", in J.M. Wagstaff (ed.) Landscape
and Culture, Oxford and New York, pp. 118-133
Hofmann I. and H. Tomandl
1987, Die Bedeutung des Tieres in der meroitischen Kultur (= Beitrдge zur Sudanforschung.
Beiheft 2), Wien - Mцdling
Jackson, H.C.
1926, "A Trek in Abu Hamed District", Sudan Notes and Records 9 pp. 1-36
Jakobielski, S.
47
1972, Faras III. A History of the Bishopric of Pachoras, Warszawa
Kendall, T.
1990, "Kingdom of Kush" National Geographic 178 (5) pp. 96-125
1997, “Les souverains de la Montagne sacrиe. Napata et la dynastie des Koushites”, in
Soudan. Royaumes sur le Nile, Paris pp. 161-171
Kleinschroth, A.
1986, "Die Verwendung des Hafirs im meroitisschen Reich" Beitrдge zur Sudanforschung 1
pp. 79-96
Kleppe, E.J.
1982, "Habitation mounds in Shilluk Land" in P. van Moorsel (ed.) New Discoveries in
Nubia, Leiden, pp. 57-66
Lebon, J.H.B.
1965, Land use in Sudan Bude
Leclant, J.
1985, “Bouteilles globulaires de Moyenne-Nubie” in Mйlanges offerts б Jean Vercoutter,
Paris pp. 185-204
1990, "L'exploration archйologique de la zone de la IVe cataracte du Nil" Comptes Rendus.
Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres pp. 316-320
Lenoble, P.
1992, "Documentation tumulaire et cйramique entre 5e et 6e cataractes. Un exemple de
'prospection orientйe' visant а renseigner la 'Fin de Mйroй' dan la rйgion de Mйroй", in
C. Bonnet (ed.) Йtudes nubiennes, vol. I Genиve pp. 79-97
1995, "La petite bouteille noire, un r йcipient mйroйen de la libation funйraire",
Archиologie du Nil Moyen 7 pp. 143-162
Leveau, P. et al., eds.
1999, Environmental Reconstruction in Mediterranean Archaeology, Oxford
Lock, G. and Z. Stan_i_, eds.
1995, Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective, London
Mallinson, M.
1998, "SARS Survey from Omdurman to Gabolab 1997", Sudan & Nubia 2, pp. 42-45
Mallinson et al.
1996, Road Archaeology in the Middle Nile, vol. 1, London
Marcolongo, B. and A.M. Palmieri
1988, “Dynamics of the natural environment in the Geili area” in I. Caneva (ed.) El Geili,
48
the History of a Middle Nile Environment 7000 BC - AD 1500, Cambridge pp. 35-47
Marcolongo, B. and N. Surian
1997 “Kerma: les sites archйologiques de Kerma et de Kadruka dans leur contexte
gйomorphologique” Genava n.s. XLV pp. 119-123
Marcus, J.
1973, "Territorial organization of the lowland Classic Maya, Science 180, pp. 911-916
Martens-Czarnecka, M.
1998, “Mural Paintings from Old Dongola” Gda_sk Archaeological Museum African
Reports 1 pp. 95-113
Millet, N.B.
1981, "Social and Political Organisation in Meroe" Zeitschrift fьr Дgyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde 108 pp. 124-141
O’Connor
1993, Ancient Nubia Egypt’s Rival in Africa, Philadelphia
Osman, A.
1978, The Economy and Trade of Medieval Nubia, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Cambridge
1982, "The Post-Medieval Kingdom of Kokka: a Means for a Better Understanding of the
Administration of the Medieval Kingdom of Dongola", in M.J. Plumley (ed.) Nubian
Studies, Warminster pp. 185-197
1984, "The Nile and the Nubians", in M.O. Beshir (ed.) The Nile Valley Countries
Continuity and Change, Khartoum pp. 123-142
1992, "Nationalist Archaeology. The Case of the Sudan", in C. Bonnet (ed.), Йtudes
nubiennes, vol. I, Genиve pp. 225-236
Paner, H.
1998, The Hamdab Dam Project, Preliminary Report of Results from Work in the Fourth
Cataract Region, 1996-1997, Gdansk Archaeological Museum African Reports 1, pp. 115-132
Reinold, J.
1993, "S.F.D.A.S. Rapport preliminaire de la camapgne 1991 - 1992 dans la province du
Nord" Kush XVI pp. 142-168
2000, Archйologie au Soudan, Paris
Reynolds, R.G.D.
1976, "Linear Settlement Systems on the Upper Grijalva River. The Application of a
Markovian Model", in K.V. Flannery (ed.) The Early Mesoamercan Village, New York 49
San Francisco - London pp. 180-194
Richards, J.
1999, "Conceptual Landscapes in the Egyptian Nile Valley", in W. Ashmore and A.B.
Knapp (eds.) Archaeologies of Landscape, Malden and Oxford pp. 83-100
Roberts, B.K.
1987, "Landscape Archaeology", in J.M. Wagstaff (ed.) Landscape and Culture, Oxford
and New York pp. 77-95
Roth, A.M.
1993, "Social Change in the Fourth Dynasty: The Spatial Organization of Pyramids,
Tombs, and Cemeteries", Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt XXX pp. 33-55
Shanks, M.
2001, "Culture/Archaeology. The Dispertion of a Discipline and its Objects", in I. Hodder
(ed.) Archaeological Theory Today, Cambridge pp. 284-306
Shinnie, P.L. and M. Shinnie
1978, Debeira West, Warminster
el-Tayeb, M.
1998, "The Fourth Cataract archaeological survey project, Kareima - Abu Hamed
Section", Sudan & Nubia 2, pp. 35-41
Thomas, J.
2001, "Archaeologies of Place and Landscape", in I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory
Today, Cambridge pp. 165-186
Tigani, A.
1995, "Paintings with Guinea Fowl: an Early Evidence of Snaring in the Sudanese Nile
Valley", Archйologie du Nil Moyen 7 pp. 59-67
1996, "The Wildlife of the Sudan in a Historical Perspective" Beitrдge zur Sudanforschung
6 pp. 89-114
Tilley, C.
1994, A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments, Oxford
Tothill, J.D., ed.
1948, Agriculture in the Sudan, London
Tцrцk, L.
1979, Economic Offices and Officials in Meroitic Nubia (A Study in Territorial
Administration of the Late Meroitic Kingdom), (= Studia Aegyptiaca V), Budapest
1992, “Ambulatory Kingship and Settlement History. A Study on the Contribution of
50
Archaeology to Meroitic History”, in C. Bonnet (ed.) Йtudes nubiennes, Genиve pp. 111126
2002, The Images of the Ordered World in Ancient Nubian Art. The Construction of the
Kushite Mind (800 BC - 300 AD), Leiden - Boston - Kцln
Trawkowski, S.
1962, "Geneza regionu kaliskiego" in A. Gieysztor and K. D_browski (eds.) Osiemna_cie
Wiekтw Kalisza, vol. III, Kalisz pp. 7-51
Trigger, B.G.
1965, History and Settlement in Lower Nubia, New Haven
1970, "The Cultural Ecology of Christian Nubia", in E. Dinkler (ed.) Kunst und Geschichte
Nubiens in Christlicher Zeit, Recklinghausen pp. 347-379
1982, "Reisner to Adams: Paradigms of Nubian Cultural History", in J.M. Plumley (ed.)
Nubian Studies, Warminster pp. 223-226
Ucko, P. and R. Layton, eds.
1999, The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape, London
Vantini, G.
1975, Oriental Sources Concerning Nubia, Heidelberg and Warsaw
Vila, A.
1975-1982 , La prospection archйologique de la vallйe du Nil au sud de la cataracte de Dal,
Paris
Vita-Finzi C. and Higgs, E.
1970, "Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine: site catchment
analysis", Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, pp. 1-37
Wagstaff, J.M. ed.
1987, Landscape and Culture, Oxford and New York
Walsh, K.
1999, "Mediterranean Landscape Archaeology and Environmental Reconstruction" in P.
Leveau et al. (eds), Environmental Reconstruction in Mediterranean Landscape Archaeology,
Oxford pp. 1-8
Weigall, A.
1907, Antiquities of Lower Nubia in 1906-1907, Oxford
Welsby, D.
1996, The Kingdom of Kush, London
1998, "Roman Military Installations along the Nile South of the First Cataract"
51
Archйologie du Nil Moyen 8 pp. 157-182
2000, The Amri to Kirbekan Survey 1999, Sudan & Nubia 4, pp. 51-57
2001, Life on the Desert Edge, London
2002, The Medieval Kingdoms of Nubia, London
Wenig, S.
1979, “Meroitic Painted Ceramics” in F. Hintze (ed) Africa in Antiquity (= Meroitica 5),
Berlin pp. 129-134
Williams, B.
1985, "A Chronology of Meroitic Occupation below the Fourth Cataract", Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt XXII pp. 149-195
Zach, M.H. and H. Tomandl
2000, “Bemerkungen zu den Amunheiligtьmern im Sьden des meroitischen Reiches”,
Beitrдge zur Sudanforschung 7 pp. 129-158
el-Zein, I.S.
2000, "The Archaeology of the Early Islamic Period in the Republic of Sudan", Sudan &
Nubia 4 pp. 32-36
Zibelius, K.
1972, Afrikanische Orts- und Vцlkernamen in hieroglyphischen Texten, Wiesbaden
_urawski, B.
1987, Kult zmar_ych w Nubii chrze_cija_skiej, Unpublished Ph. Thesis, University of
Warsaw
1998, “Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Abkor/Tergis Area (February 1997)” Gda_sk
Archaeological Museum African Reports 1 pp. 133-143
52