Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Fortresses of Sudan 2008

AI-generated Abstract

The project investigates fortified settlements along the middle Nile valley in Sudan, focusing on ancient fortresses from the Meroe Kingdom to the British-Egyptian Condominium. Fieldwork conducted in February 2008 aimed to record archaeological remains, analyze their cultural context, and compare existing knowledge with physical evidence through various methods including photographic documentation, interviews, and satellite image analysis. Significant findings include descriptions and conditions of several fortresses, highlighting their construction materials and the archaeological landscape surrounding them.

Fortresses of Sudan: following O.G.S. Crawford PRELIMINARY REPORT by Mariusz Drzewiecki, Piotr Maliński and Włodzimierz Rączkowski Khartoum, February 2008 1. INTRODUCTION The middle Nile valley is rich in remains of fortified settlements. In the region between Abu Hamed and Atbara they are dated from the times of the Meroe Kingdom (richly described by Herodotus) to the British-Egyptian Condominium. Previous investigations within territories to be crossed by the expedition have been poor. One of the few who did try to examine these territories was O.G.S. Crawford whose reports filled two monumental works: Castles and Churches of Middle Nile Region and Fung Kingdom of Sennar which are for many scholars the only source of data for/from this part of world. The main idea of the project has been to visit the sites described/mentioned by O.G.S. Crawford. The project has been organized by The Scientific Club of Students of Archaeology and The Sudanic Section of the Scientific Club of Students of Anthropology under the umbrella of Adam Mickiewicz University of Poznań (Poland). Within the project participated students of archaeology, cultural anthropology and tutors from the University as follows: Natalia Wasielewska, Małgorzata Kozędra, Marta BłaŜejewska, Urszula Stępień, Mariusz Kania, Paweł Polkowski, Łukasz Banaszek, Tomasz Michalik, Piotr Michał Starosta, Radosław Biczak, Marek Polaszewski, Mariusz Drzewiecki (Project Leader), Piotr Maliński, MA (Project Co-leader), Prof. Włodzimierz Rączkowski (Supervisor). Mr Mohammed Eltoum Mohammed took part in the project as the Inspector of NCAM. The project was carried out starting from December 2006. The first stage covered preparation which consisted enquiry in literature and cultural situation in the Sudan. The basic books and papers read as basis of the project were: Abbas Sid Ahmed 1971 Antiquities on Mograt Island, Sudan Notes and Records 52, 1–22. Bellefonds, Linant de 1958 Journal d’un voyage a Meroe dans les annees 1821 et 1822 (ed.) M. Shinnie (Sudan Antiquities Service Occasional Papers 4), Gloucester. Caillaiud F. 1826 Voyage a Meroe, au Fleuve Blanc, 4 vols, Paris. Crawford O.G.S. 1951 Fung Kingdom of Sennar, Gloucester. Crawford O.G.S. 1953a Castles and Churches in the Middle Nile Region (Sudan Antiquities Service Occasional Papers 2), Khatuom. Crawford O.G.S. 1953b Field Archaeology of the Middle Nile, Kush I, 1–29. Crawford O.G.S. 1955 Said and Done the autobiography of an Archaeologist, London. Crawford O.G.S. 1958 Field Archeology of the Middle Nile Region – Notes, Kush 6, 170–171. Edwards D.N. 1989 Settlement and Archaeology in Upper Nubia in the 1st Millennium AD. (BAR S 537), Oxford. Edwards D.N., El-Amin Y.M. 2000 Archaeological Survey in the Fifth Cataract Region, Sudan and Nubia 4, 44 –50. Eisa K.A. 1995 The Middle Nile Region: Abidiya to Karaba, Antiquities and History, Archeologie du Nil Moyen 7, 53–58. Haycock B.G. 1972 The History Tours in the Area from Abidya to Mograt, Aidab, Journal of Faculty of Arts, University of Khartuom. Jackson H.C. 1926 A trek in Abu Hamed District, Sudan Notes and Records 9, 1–35. Kleppe E. 1982 Antiquities in the Middle Nile Region, a preliminary report, in J. Plumley (ed.) Nubian Studies, Warminster, 151–154. Naser C. 2006 Die Humbolt University Nubian Expedition 2006, Arbeiten auf Us und Mograt, Mitteilungen der Sudanarchaologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin 17, 89–116. The second stage of the project was to examine the satellite images available in the Internet. The fieldwork was carried out since February 14th till February 26th, 2008. During the fieldwork several ancient fortresses were visited as follows: Karmel (14-15.02.2008), Mikeisir (16.02.2008), Korta Island (17-18.02.2008), Fillikol (19.02.2008), Kuweib (20.02.2008), El 2 Koro (21-22.02.2008), Wadi Damm et Tor (23.02.2008), Gandeisi (23.02.2008), El Usheir (24-25.02.2008), Tarfaya (26.02.2008). There were three main goals of the project: 1) to record the remains of fortresses which lie on both sides of the Nile; 2) to record archaeological remains within the area around fortresses; 3) to investigate the present-day cultural context of old fortifications and other sites. Variety of methods have been applied to realize these aims. The photographic documentation, sketches representing arrangements of fortresses, GPS locations, detailed description and measurement of structures were the basic methods used for the first aim. Within the work special attention was put on the comparing existing plans with current state of preservation. Interpretation of the satellite images and field walking methods were used to recognize the archaeological contexts of fortresses. Interviews with local people were the main method for the third goal. 2. RESULTS 2.1 Fortresses 2.1.1 Karmel Fortress on the southern edge of the Mograt Island is situated on the top of a hill and in the area between the hill and a river bank. GPS coordinates: N 19o27’26.4” E 33o20’12.7” – northern edge (Tower C) N 19o27’24.5” E 33o20’14.7” – eastern edge (Tower A) N 19o27’23.5” E 33o20’12.8” – southern edge (end of the wall going towards the river) N 19o27’25.5” E 33o20’12.2” – western edge (corner of the fortifications) Fortress’ walls are build from: - in the area of the hilltop from stones (outer face) and mud brick (inner face and core). - walls coming down to the river bank are built from stones. In this area there are traces of red brick used in the construction of the wall and settlement inside. The best preserved parts of the fortress are standing on the hilltop reaching in the highest points up to 6.3 meters. Moving to the river the state of preservation is falling down. Some of the constructions are hardly visible and the wall has been dismantled to the foundations in the SE area of the site. Occupation inside of the enclosure was probably very dense in the past. When we visited Karmel the remains of this was hardly visible on the surface, preserved in the highest points up to 1 meter. We distinguished 20 separate constructions inside the fortress. At the bottom of the hill we have also recorded traces of human activities (2-3 kom ?). Extensive agricultural development and very close location of the village has caused and may cause much destruction of this site in the next couple of years. 3 Fig. 01. Karmel fortress. Satellite image (top left), plan made by Sid Ahmed 1971: 3 (top right), view on the main gate from SE (central right), view on SW corner from N (bottom left), view on the inner court next to main entrance (bottom right). 2.1.2 Mikeisir Fort on the northern bank of Mograt Island built from irregular, stone blocs in unusual vertical manner. GPS coordinates: N 19o32’12.4” E 33o09’14.0” – SE corner N 19o32’12.7” E 33o09’11.9” – SW corner N 19o32’14.8” E 33o09’12.2” – NW corner N 19o32’14.2” E 33o09’13.0” – NE corner Construction is based on rectangular plan with four corner towers and two entrances (from N and S). From the NE tower towards the river we have recorded another stone wall. Inside of the enclosure there are faint traces of stone and mud brick constructions especially next to the inner face of the western wall. A couple of freshly made robbery pits were spotted there. The walls are standing to about 2 meters. Western wall have been reused and now it is a part of an irrigation system. SW tower is in the worst state of preservation. It serves now as a well for a palm tree. 4 Fig. 02. Mikeisir fort. Satellite image (left), view on NE corner tower and inner court in the background (top right), view on the western wall with irrigation channel running along it’s outer face (bottom right). 2.1.3 Korta Island Fortress is located on the western edge of the island, on the rocky surface inhabited in the present. GPS coordinates: N 19o31’41.7” E 33o12’11.0” – SE corner (Tower B) N 19o31’42.2” E 33o12’09.5” – SW corner (Tower A) N 19o31’43.4” E 33o12’09.3” – NW corner (wall partly destroyed, there are visible structures of a tower in this part of the wall) o o N 19 31’44.1” E 33 12’10.8” – NE corner (tower) Rampart was built from irregular stones with the use of a mud mortar. In case of tower B we have recorded fragments of red bricks in the structure of the fortifications. Wall are partly covered by dunes and in the highest points are preserved probably to about 4-5 meters. Inside and outside of the fort there are traces of a settlement. Outside, moving eastward, they consist mainly from a stone structures. We have recorded three large structures and a cemetery. Inside, in the NE area, there is one construction from mud brick and stones described by Ahmed as a palace and seven others, hardly visible on the surface stone arrangements. In the area of the “palace” plenty of robbery pits can be seen, some of them must have been made in a very recent times. Such pits also were recorded in the other parts of the site. 5 Fig. 03. Korta Island. Satellite image (top left), plan made by Sid Ahmed 1971: 8 (top right), outer face of southern wall view from SE (bottom left), view on inner court with robbery pit in the middle (bottom right). 2.1.4 Fillikol Island Stone constructions are scattered in the central part of the island around a rocky hill. GPS coordinates: N 19o28’41.6” E 33o17’23.5” – southern edge of the area. N 19o28’52.4” E 33o17’27.6” – northern edge of the area. The walls (thick around 1-2 meters) in the southern part of the area can be linked. They are forming an irregular arrangement protecting the hill from the south and are preserved to about 0,5 meter height. Walls to the north from the hill are preserved fragmentary. They do not create one structure but are running in different directions. We had made GPS measurements of them. The next step is to locate them on the satellite images and to make a plan of the site. To the west of the hill we have recorded fragments of bones which might suggest that this was the area of a cemetery (GPS coordinates: N 19o28’45.9” E 33o17’21.2”). All the remains are poorly preserved. The site is now used as the area of cultivation. The walls are been removed to make place for new fields. 6 Fig. 04. Fillikol Island. Southern part of eastern wall (left), northern part of eastern wall (right). 2.1.5 El Kuweib Fortress located on the right bank of the Nile, west from Abu Hamed. GPS coordinates: 19o32’01.9” N E 33o13’47.8” – northern corner. 19o32’00.6” N E 33o13’46.9” – western wall incorporating rocky parts of hill as outer face. 19o31’58.3” N E 33o13’47.4” – southern corner of fortifications. 19o31’58.7” N E 33o13’48.8” – eastern part of fortifications. Main construction had been built on rocky hill. It is irregular in shape. Wall are built from mud brick and rough stones, in many areas builders used parts of the hill as a component of fortifications. Two separate wall are visible at the bottom of the hill, they run westwards to another hill located at the river bank. Fortress is preserved in the highest points to about 3 meters but modern interventions in the site are visible. In the southern part of court in recent times large enclosure had been built. Partly it sits on remains of curtain wall. Close to that structure many robbery pits have been recorded, some of then probably of recent origins. Other parts of the site are also rich in traces of that kind of activities. Walls connecting two hill, mentioned before, are hardly visible. This area is intensively cultivated. 7 Fig. 05. El Kuweib. Northern corner (left), inner face of western wall (top right), SE corner of fortifications and modern enclosure in the background (bottom right). 2.1.6 El Koro Fortress located on the left bank of the Nile. GPS coordinates: N 19022’33.2” E 33022’35.0” – NW corner tower. N 19022’32.7” E 33022’36.0” – NE corner tower. N 19022’30.7” E 33022’33.9” – SW corner tower. N 19022’30.3” E 33022’35.4” – SE corner tower. Walls built from irregular stones, mud and red bricks. It is divided into an upper and lower castles. Fortifications are preserved up to 4 meters height but in comparison to the plan made by O.G.S. Crawford in the middle of 20th century, they are much more defected. Structures inside, described by O.G.S. Crawford, are hardly visible today especially in the southern part of the castle. During our visit water was getting inside the enclosure through a water pipe set into the wall close to SE corner tower. Irrigation channel is running along the southern wall and across the SE and SW corner tower. Occupation area between fortress and the river is covered by palm trees copse. Upper castles is the best preserved construction on the site. The mud bricks wall of the occupation inside are standing up to about 2 meters height. 8 Fig. 06. El Koro. Satellite image (top left), plan made by Crawford 1953: fig. 10 (top right), upper castle court (bottom left), SW corner of fortifications – modern irrigation channel running across corner tower (bottom right). 2.1.7 Gandeisi Fort located on southern end of Gandeisi Island. GPS coordinates: N 18042’09.8” E 33038’30.6” – S corner tower N 18042’10.9” E 33038’31.9” – E corner tower N 18042’12.2” E 33038’30.8” – N corner tower N 18042’10.5” E 33038’29.3” – W corner tower It is a small almost rectangular arrangement with four corner towers, three semicircular towers/bastions and two defended entrances (from NE and SE). Construction of the fortification seems to be in a nearly the same state of preservation as it was in the times of Crawford’s visit. Wall are visibly destroyed in the area of NE entrance and in the centre of SW wall by a modern pathway. Wall are standing to the height of about 1,2 meter. Traces of the occupation inside are barely visible. Western corner of fortification is currently used as a grazing land for animals and all rock debris had been remove from this area. Occupation in the area around the fortress is very elaborated and comparing to other sites quite well preserved. It consists of series of kom coming to 1 meter in height untouched by modern activities. 9 Fig. 07. Gandeisi Island. Satellite image (top left), plan made by Crawford 1953: fig. 8 (top right), view at inner court with traces of modern activities in the left (bottom left), remains of settlement in area to the east of fortress (bottom right). 2.1.8 El Usheir Fortress located on the northern end of Usheir Island on a rocky hill. GPS coordinates: N 18029’07.2” E 33040’59.7” – tower number 3. N 18029’08.8” E 33040’57.9” – tower number 8. N 18029’09.9” E 33040’59.1” – tower number 10. N 18029’11.9” E 33041’00.7” – Crawford „brick wharf”. Fortifications are built from irregular stones. It consists of three lines of defence. First one is the field of rough stone placed in the areas where the access to the hill is quite smooth. Second one is the small wall, about 0,5 meter thick, today preserved only as a foundation level. We have recorded one bastion attached to that structure. Third one are the main walls creating the fortress. According to Crawford’s plan fortress is divided into three parts. Two smaller in the north and one bigger in the south. When we visited the fortress there were no traces of outside surrounding wall of the smaller NW enclosure. Rest of the main walls are preserved quite good, standing in places to 4 meters height. Comparing to Crawford’s plan we can see that the main wall suffer losses and some of the parts of the walls have collapsed. Inside the fortress there are traces of occupation but they do not present a clear layout, additionally they are disturbed by robbery pits probably of a fresh origin. 10 Fig. 08. El Usheir Island. Satellite image (top left), plan made by Crawford 1953: fig. 4 (top right), field of rough stones in front of the main wall view from the E (bottom left), robbery pit at the inner court close to tower 4 (bottom right). 2.1.9 Tarfaya Enclosure located on a flat ground on the right bank of the Nile. GPS coordinates: N 18044’11.4” E 33034’12.9” – southern end of the inner wall. N 18044’13.1” E 33034’13.3” – northern semicircular tower. N 18044’13.6” E 33034’12.0” – northern corner tower. N 18044’12.4” E 33034’11.4” – SW end of the inner wall. Fortification are built from rough stones. It consists of the inner and outer wall. The SW part of the site is destroyed, no traces can by spotted. Now this area is under cultivation. Rest of the site is still standing but close neighbourhood of modern houses causes rapid decay. Material from the site is richly used in the modern constructions. One of the house is partly built on the structure of outer wall. Also an animal pen is created on the NW side of outer wall, built from the stone taken from the site. In the other places outer wall is preserved at the foundations level. The inner wall stands up to 2 meters. No traces of round structures, mapped by Crawford (1-5), were recorded. Also other occupation remains, mentioned by Crawford in the SE part of the site, were not visible. This is the site that suffer most losses between Crawford and Our visit (56 years). 11 Fig. 09. Tarfaya. Satellite image (top left), plan made by Crawford 1953: fig. 3 (top right), southern end of inner wall view from S (bottom left), outer face of inner west wall (bottom right). 2.2 Satellite Images and Field walking O.G.S. Crawford known as father of aerial archaeology had complained many times in his publications he was not able to use aerial photographs in his research in the Sudan. One of the idea of the project was to undertake aerial survey on the area of interest. As well as Crawford we were not able to manage it. But we got access to satellite images available in the Gogle Earth environment. Detailed analysis of the area allowed us to identify many archaeological sites within the fortresses’ catchments. Effective interpretation of the satellite images needs an archaeological knowledge of the area reviewing. It is necessary to study the results of archaeological surveys and excavations in particular. Also we need some knowledge about current farming practices of local communities which leave traces in the landscape. Consequently, we prepared a list of potential sites based on the interpretation of satellite images and we have checked those sites during field walking. We have also recorded sites which were not identified on the satellite images. All together we have located 76 archaeological sites during field walking (see Table 1). Table 1. List of archaeological sites recorded during field walking No 01 02 03 04 Site’s ID PL_Karmel_05 PL_Karmel_06 PL_Karmel_08 PL_Karmel_09 05 PL_Karmel_10 06 PL_Karmel_11 07 PL_Karmel_12 Northing Easting 19,27,23.1 19,27,22.5 19,27,21.0 19,27,26.1 19,27,24.7 19,27,26.8 19,27,25.5 19,27,23.1 19,27,21.3 19,27,21.6 33,20,18.3 33,20,18.3 33,20,16.8 33,20,22.2 33,20,19.5 33,20,23.7 33,20,25.9 33,20,24.5 33,20,27.3 33,20,27.8 Function Period enclosure, field cemetery settlement cemetery unknown Christian unknown Christian ? 4 stony burial mounds unknown stony grave, fields cemetery unknown unknown 12 08 09 10 11 12 PL_Karmel_13 PL_Karmel_14 PL_Karmel_15 PL_Karmel_16 PL_Karmel_17 PL_Korta_11 PL_Korta_12 PL_Korta_13 PL_Korta_14 PL_El_Kuweib_02 PL_El_Kuweib_03 PL_El_Kuweib_04 PL_El_Kuweib_05 PL_El_Koro_02 PL_El_Koro_03 PL_El_Koro_04 PL_El_Koro_05 PL_El_Koro_06 PL_El_Koro_08 PL_Wadi Damm et Tor_01 PL_Wadi Damm et Tor_02 PL_Wadi Damm et Tor_03 19,27,39.5 19,27,42.4 19,27,40.0 19,27,52.9 19,27,49.1 19,27,42.8 19,27,41.8 19,27,40.0 19,27,33.9 19,27,36.3 19,27,33.6 19,27,35.1 19,27,34.4 19,27,25.2 19,27,55.5 19,27,23.2 19,27,18.6 19,27,11.6 19,32,08,3 19,32,05.9 19,32,03.7 19,32,03.4 19,32,02.9 19,32,02.1 19,31,55.5 19,31,55.7 19,31,48.5 19,31,48.1 19,31,42.9 19,31,43.1 19,31,39.5 19,31,39.5 19,31,23.3 19,31,31.5 19,31,25.9 19,31,24.1 19,32,48.8 19,32,40.1 19,32,19.0 19,32,17.4 19,22,59.0 19,22,42.7 19,22,40.0 19,22,39.2 19,22,25.5 19,22,34.8 18,43,53.1 18,43,59.2 18,43,51.5 47 PL_Wadi Damm et Tor_04 48 PL_Wadi Damm et Tor_05 49 PL_Gandeisi_02 18,43,52.3 18,43,48.5 18,42,16.7 13 PL_Karmel_18 14 PL_Karmel_19 15 PL_Karmel_20 16 PL_Karmel_21 17 PL_Karmel_22 18 PL_Karmel_23 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PL_Karmel_24 PL_Karmel_25 PL_Mikeisir_07 PL_Mikeisir_08 PL_Mikeisir_09 PL_Mikeisir_10 PL_Mikeisir_11 26 PL_Abu Al Alig_01 27 PL_Abu Al Alig_02 28 PL_Korta_02 29 PL_Korta_07 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 33,20,21.5 33,20,29.4 33,20,31.1 33,20,29.7 33,20,34.6 33,20,35.7 33,20,35.8 33,20,36.0 33,20,37.7 33,20,28.8 33,20,29,6 33,20,27.4 33,20,27.4 33,20,17.1 33,20,56.5 33,21,04.4 33,21,03.5 33,20,55.4 33,08,45.8 33,08,40.1 33,08,40.3 33,08,38.9 33,08,38.1 33,08,38.5 33,07,40.5 33,07,43.2 33,07,20.8 33,07,18.9 33,12,13.0 33,12,14.1 33,12,19.3 33,12,20.1 33,11,41.0 33,11,34.6 33,12,08.3 33,12,12.3 33,13,52.2 33,14,05.3 33,14,40.1 33,14,38.3 33,22,27.5 33,22,21.3 33,22,13.6 33,21,57.6 33,22,11.4 33,21,44.8 33,33,55.0 33,33,27.4 33,33,42.6 burial mounds 3 burial mounds 2 burial mounds 2 graves ? burial mounds (over 30) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown 4 burial mounds unknown 2 burial mounds 14 burial mounds, graves cover by stones 14 burial mounds, flat graves (c. 10) kom? tumuli unknown unknown 1 stony burial mound settlement ? 2 graves 2 graves cemetery cluster of graves c. 10 graves unknown unknown unknown Kerma ? Kerma ? Kerma ? Kerma ? cemetery cemetery early(?) Christian early(?) Christian Christian stony wall unknown cemetery tumuli tumuli settlement?; stony graves grave? 4 stony burial mounds 1 stony burial mound 1 stony burial mound stony burial mounds cemetery cemetery burial mounds burial mounds cemetery tumuli defended settlement stony burial mounds tumulus made from red bricks 33,33,49.2 cemetery 33,33,41.4 stony burial mounds 33,38,55.8 cemetery unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Islamic Christian Christian unknown Christian unknown Christian ? Christian unknown Islamic 13 51 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 PL_Gandeisi_03 PL_Gandeisi_04 PL_Gandeisi_05 PL_Gandeisi_06 PL_El_Usheir_02 PL_El_Usheir_07 PL_El_Usheir_08 PL_El_Usheir_09 18,42,19.0 18,42,16.1 18,42,19.8 18,42,22.1 18,29,07.8 18,29,04.1 18,28,59.8 18,28,57.6 33,38,51.5 33,38,50.2 33,38,47.7 33,38,47.8 33,41,01.9 33,41,09.6 33,41,20.1 33,41,22.6 58 59 60 61 62 62 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 PL_El_Usheir_12 PL_El_Usheir_13 PL_El_Usheir_14 PL_El_Usheir_15 PL_El_Usheir_16 PL_El_Usheir_17 PL_El_Usheir_19 PL_El_Usheir_20 PL_El_Usheir_23 PL_El_Usheir_24 PL_El_Usheir_26 PL_El_Usheir_27 PL_El_Usheir_28 PL_El_Usheir_29 PL_Tarfaya_02 PL_Tarfaya_03 18,29,01.2 18,29,03.5 18,29,00.1 18,29,02.7 18,29,00.2 18,28,59.9 18,28,54.7 18,28,52.5 18,28,47.7 18,28,47.6 18,28,57.3 18,28,58.3 18,28,59.6 18,29,02.0 18,44,19.4 18,44,31.5 33,41,21.6 33,40,53.1 33,40,55.0 33,41,02.3 33,40,59.5 33,40,59.7 33,41,00.5 33,40,59.9 33,41,14.6 33,41,17.2 33,41,16.4 33,41,15.7 33,41,14.7 33,41,09.2 33,34,12.8 33,34,05.3 18,44,21.9 18,44,17.4 18,44,15.2 33,34,10.8 33,34,21.8 33,34,31.0 74 PL_Tarfaya_04 75 PL_Tarfaya_05 76 PL_Tarfaya_06 church house cemetery stony graves cemetery stony graves graves ? 1 stony burial mound; flat graves cemetery cemetery ? kom ? stony grave church cemetery cemetery settlement ? 4 stony circular features stony burial mounds stony grave stony grave small stony features stony graves grave ? tumulus on the top of a rock kom ? burial mounds burial mounds Christian Islamic unknown Islamic unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Christian Islamic unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Summing up, we have achieved a very good correlations between results of the interpretation of the satellite images and field walking. The most frequently the positive results have been achieved with the interpretation of burial mounds (see Fig. 10). 14 Fig. 10. PL_Karmel_12. Levelled burial mounds are visible as circular features thanks to specific distribution of black stones. Another type of burials – mounds built from stones are also visible at satellite images (see Fig. 11). Fig. 11. PL_Karmel_17. Group of stony burial mounds visible at satellite images as black dots and in the field. 15 The easiest was the interpretation of tumuli. There are plenty of these type of cemeteries in all areas explored during the project (see Fig. 12). Most of them were robbed. Fig. 12. PL_Korta_11. Big tumuli are very well visible at both satellite images and in the field. The light dots represents holes done by the robbers. Even flat cemeteries might be recognised during the analysis of satellite images (see Fig. 13). Fig. 13. PL_El_Koro_06. Christian cemetery recognised at satellite image and identify during field walking. Graves are at very good state of preservation but some have been destroyed. Fields system are very well visible at satellite images – even those currently not in use (see Fig. 14). It is hardly to say if faintly visible at both satellite images and in the field were abandoned in remote past or temporally quite recently. 16 Fig. 14. Fields systems in El_Koro (top) and Karmel (bottom) Analysis of satellite images allowed us to identify many other sites beside cemeteries and fields. The most spectacular was the site discovered in Wadi Damm et Tor. On the left bank of the Nile, opposite to fortress in Tarfaya, a very complex structure has been recognised. The field walking confirmed the presence of defended settlement with the remains coming from the Christian period (Fig. 15) . Fig. 15. PL_Wadi Damm et Tor_01. Defended settlement on satellite image and in the field. Elements of defensive system are visible: stony wall (red arrow) and mud brick wall (green arrow). 2.3 The present-day cultural context of sites The contemporary socio-cultural context of the archaeological sites was the subject of research. Methodological assumption concerned the efficiency of using research tools characteristic for ethnology. Within the fieldwork, an ethnological observation was applied as 17 well as open interview. Part of the material was collected during informal discussions with local community of the Rubatab tribe (classified as belonging to Ja’alin-Danagla group of tribes). Research results were documented by means of digital photographs and recordings. Ethnological research on each site was realized at two stages. First of them was to define functions of archaeological sites, features and artefacts in traditional material culture of the Rubatab tribe. At the second stage, folks oral tradition texts concerning heritage of the past were collected. For the sake of argument all sites were of similar character (medieval fortresses and cemeteries related to them) and were located in ethnic territory of one tribe (the Rubatab), results of research were not very diverse. Archaeological heritage usually serves an utilitarian function in traditional economy of the Rubatab tribe. For example relics of an old architecture are a source of ready-made, freeof-charge building materials. Whenever cemeteries are found in the Nile valley on a narrow strip of land suitable for agriculture, they are turned into fields and palm orchards. Quite recently archaeological sites were also dug up for searching of certain natural fertilizer called marög. Distinct phenomenon which exists on researched area was/is a professional graverobbing. With regard to the Rubatab’s knowledge about material heritage of the past, it comes from three kinds of sources: • from observation of archaeological features and artefacts as well as from direct contact with them during traditional earthwork (for example agriculture, irrigation, building, etc.); • from oral tradition texts which say that fortresses and cemeteries were built by the ‘Anag’ – ancient race (tribe?) of giants; • from archaeologists conducting survey and excavations in discussed region (for example Humboldt University Nubian Expedition on the Island of Mograt). It should to be mentioned here that information coming from the last source often displaced texts of local oral tradition. In places where archaeological mission worked in the past, local inhabitants (often employed at excavations) reached quite substantial knowledge about sites, their types and even chronology. So that, on the one hand traditional economy of the Rubatab caused destruction (or rather deconstruction) of archaeological sites, on the other hand archaeologists fieldwork caused destruction of folk vision of the past, as well as disappearance of traditional tales and beliefs. Anyway, results of fieldwork proved that the role of heritage of the past in the contemporary culture of the Rubatab tribe is an interesting subject of ethnological research. There is, therefore, a wide perspective of continuing field studies about this problem in the next seasons. 3. CONCLUSIONS To conclude, the results of the project are very good in all main fields. We may the advantages pointed out as follow: 1) it is necessary to make a proper survey of all fortresses as not all of them published are correct; 2) sites are not effectively protected and consequently modern activities are taking place there; 3) satellite images are good source of information about the current state of sites and processes going out around them; 4) satellite images are very useful tool to identify archaeological sites and rapid survey; 18 5) many sites are being destroyed by natural processes as well as past and modern human activities; some of them were published and still are referenced but in fact not exist (see Fig. 16); 6) satellite images might be also useful for ethnographic studies; 7) there is a need to educate local people about the presence and value of archaeological sites. Fig. 16. PL_El_Koro_03. Christian cemetery described by O.G.S. Crawford. Nowadays the cemetery is completely damaged Acknowledgments Organisers and participants of the project are very grateful to Dr. Mohamed Ahmed Abdel Mageed, Director of the Centre for Archaeological Studies and Research, University of Nile Valley in Atbara and Dr. Yahia Fadl Tahir, Head of Department of Archaeology, University of Khartoum for their help and very kind permission for carrying out our project in the area of 5th Cataract and North on its. We would like to thank for support to Prof. Dr. hab. Kazimierz Przyszczypkowski, Rector of Students Affairs at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Prof. Dr. hab. Danuta MintaTworzowska, Dean of Faculty of History, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Prof. Dr. hab. Hanna Kóčka-Krenz, Head of Institute of Prehistory, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań and Prof. Dr. hab. Aleksander Posern-Zieliński, Head of Institute of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. We are very happy and grateful for the financial support we have got from Aerial Archaeology Research Group. Thanks to help of Dr. Dobiesława Bagińska, Poznań Archaeological Museum we were able to spend incredible time at Bajarawiya (site of ancient capital of Meroe). Mariusz Drzewiecki [email protected] Piotr Maliński [email protected] Włodzimierz Rączkowski [email protected] 19