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