Past, Present, Future

The objects and research fields of the archaeology of Nubia—the topics we pursue, the sources we consult, and the approaches we use in making sense of them—are historically and socially contingent constructs. Present-day knowledge about the Nubian past and the frame within which archaeological practice in the Middle Nile valley operates derive from a history of archaeological interest and work that spans almost two hundred years. They resonate with manifold influences, among which the colonial and imperial aspirations of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries are the strongest. Other dominant themes that permeate the archaeology of Nubia—indeed the construction of the entity “Nubia” as it is used today, also in the present publication—include Egyptocentrism, the divorce from a wider African archaeology, the concept and the practices of archaeological salvage, and the idea of universal heritage. After looking into these aspects, the chapter also deals with the transposition of the archaeology of the Middle Nile valley into the postcolonial present and the potentials and challenges it faces today.

Nubian Texts, Nubian Lives

Nubian texts provide valuable insight into Nubian social and economic history. Accounts reveal economic priorities both secular and sacred. Documentary evidence hints at the nature of state centralization and the movement of goods and coins in and out of Nubia. Magic reveals Nubia’s deep-seated hopes and fears. Literature shows innovative theology and Nubia’s sense of its place in world history. Funerary inscriptions record the careers of the elite and their sense of their own place in the cosmos. But much is missing from the Nubian textual record as well, suggesting that major literary genres never indigenized in Nubia the way they did in Egypt or Ethiopia. Other genres ebb and flow over time, hinting at the economy of Nubian literacy and the processes through which it ultimately dies.

Arts and Crafts of the Medieval Kingdoms of Nubia

After the collapse of the Meroitic Empire, three independent kingdoms arose within its former territory. Because of a lack of centralized political authority and artistic production, their early development, although based on the Meroitic inheritance, was determined by different sources of influence. From the 8th century two united northern kingdoms became a powerful state, which is also reflected in its art. Rising creativity from the 9th century onwards reflected local needs and ambitions. In the course of time, surrounded by Islamic neighbors, Nubian art on one hand remained independent in its forms of art, but on the other hand absorbed a new style and iconographic details, which is most visible in 12th-century wall painting. Most probably it reflected a changing lifestyle, inspired by the wider Middle Eastern world at that time. The late period, although characterized by much less activity and financial possibilities of individuals or communities, still shows flourishing activities of Nubian artists. Christian Nubian culture ended almost simultaneously with the Byzantine empire, leaving almost one thousand years of its unique heritage.

Egyptian Fortresses and the Colonization of Lower Nubia in the Middle Kingdom

In the early part of the 2nd millennium bce, the Egyptian state took control of Lower Nubia, building a series of monumental fortresses along the Nile that are remarkable for their sophisticated military architecture. This was Egypt’s first major expansion beyond its traditional borders. Various theoretical models of imperialism and core-periphery interactions have been brought to bear on studies of the forts and their populations, seeking to explain the military, economic, and ideological purposes behind the original construction of the monuments as well as the apparently shifting nature of their occupation, from probable rotating garrisons to more permanent settlement, and their interactions with local populations (cf. Trigger 1976:64–81; Adams 1977:183–88; Zibelius-Chen 1988:69–135; S.T. Smith 1995, 2003; Williams 1999; Flammini 2008; Török 2009:79–101; Vogel 2004; Knoblauch 2008). The resulting picture of Egyptian occupation of Nubia is a nuanced if not entirely agreed upon one. The fortresses are important to archaeology more broadly because they offer a richly documented case study for consideration of state control of foreign territory; they belong in the broader discourse about imperialism, colonization, and colonialism, how different state strategies of control can be understood in the material record, and how people live and interact in border zones. That the methods of Middle Kingdom control can be contrasted to both earlier and later Egyptian strategies of interaction with Nubia, and that the region is one of modern colonial entanglements, makes a critical approach to its occupation in the Middle Kingdom all the more vital.

Jebel Barkal

Jebel (“Mt”) Barkal stood at the center of ancient Napata, the city farthest up the Nile from Thebes in Egypt’s Nubian empire. Following their conquest of Kush, the Egyptians identified this hill as a residence of a primeval aspect (“ka”) of Amun of Karnak, whom they depicted locally as a ram-headed man but who is revealed here to be a form of Kamutef. Once perceived as a creation site and a birthplace of Amun (being nearest the Nile sources), Jebel Barkal naturally came to be understood as the birthplace of the “royal ka.” This “discovery” apparently prompted the pharaohs to build Luxor Temple at Thebes as a ritual substitute for Amun’s temple at Napata, enabling the kings to house the Nubian god (their imagined “father”) in their capital and to reunite locally with him and with their “royal kas.” The Egyptian belief that their kingship sprang from “Amun of Karnak” at Jebel Barkal/Luxor was revived in the 8th century bce by the kings of Kush, who used it to claim Egyptian kingship for themselves during the 25th Dynasty and subsequently. This paper summarizes what is currently known of Jebel Barkal’s historical and religious significance and presents the results of the latest archaeological investigations.

The Archaeology of Medieval Nubian Kingdoms

The following chapter approaches the archaeology of medieval Nubia from a regional perspective. First, it presents the nomenclature used for chronology, then the history of archaeological research in Nubia determined by construction of dams on the Nile. The focus of the paper are the settlement systems of two medieval Nubian kingdoms: Nobadia and Makuria. Alwa is treated lightly due to the limited data. They are discussed in a static (settlement hierarchy) and dynamic perspective (integration of settlement systems in time). Church architecture as an indicator of regionalism is also debated. Some topics integrally associated with archaeology of Nubia like historical sources (Ruffini, this volume), languages (Łajtar and Ochała, this volume), capitals of the states (Żurawski, this volume), art and pottery (Zielińska, this volume) are generally absent here but are tackled by other authors in the same volume.

Post-Meroe in Upper Nubia

Upper Nubia stretches from the Second Cataract upstream to the Gezira region south of Khartoum, including Sinnar-Roseires on the southern Blue Nile and Kosti on the White Nile, a distance of not less than 1,500 km. Close observation of the material culture excavated in this ample territory shows a subdivision of Upper Nubia into three zones after the Meroitic Period, in spite of the broad similarities within this cultural horizon. Aspects of regionalism are based on geographical and natural elements in addition to the variety of mortuary practice and pottery production, which are the main sources of information about the period under study. One of the major problems is the lack of organized comprehensive studies in Upper Nubia. Therefore, still debatable are the conventional theories on the Axumite and Noba invasions, while as demonstrated in this text, there is no tangible evidence for such theories in archaeological material. Still open for discussion is the term “Post-Meroe.”

The Royal and Elite Cemeteries at Meroe

The earliest of the three royal cemeteries at Meroe, the Western Royal Cemetery (early 9th century bce) had elite Napatan and Meroitic burials including those of Meroitic queens and princes, while the slightly later Southern Royal Cemetery had elite Napatan and Meroitic burials as well as the first two generations of royal burials at Meroe. Both have areas in which smaller pyramids belonging to family members and dependents surrounded larger (patron) ones. The Northern Royal Cemetery (ca. 270 bce–350 ce), inaugurated when the southern one filled, has the pyramid burials of Meroitic kings, ruling queens, and important (crown?) princes. The small chapels abutting royal and important elite pyramids had reliefs showing funeral rites and the establishment of their owners’ mortuary/ancestor cults. These burials and their decorations are important for understanding Meroitic history, social organization, art, and religion.

Language and Writing in the Kingdom of Meroe

Sudan is one the rare places in inner Africa where the study of languages can rely on a long historical depth, thanks to ancient Egyptian sources. Two linguistic phyla, Afro-Asiatic and Nilo-Saharan, are present in the region for millennia. Meroitic, belonging to the Nilo-Saharan phylum, was since the 2nd millennium bce the main spoken language of Nubia. Although its two scripts were deciphered in 1911, the language is not yet fully understood. Further progress is expected from linguistic comparison with living languages of the same family and from future excavations.

Pan-Grave and Medjay

For almost a century, many scholars have assumed that the Medjay of the Egyptian textual record can be directly associated with the Pan-Grave archaeological culture. In this article, the authors deconstruct this connection and consider the extent to which the archaeological and textual evidence can be reconciled based on geography and cultural circumstances. Both groups shared pastoral nomadic roots linked to the Eastern Desert, both went through similar processes of acculturation, and both groups had some of their members fight as mercenaries during the wars of the Second Intermediate Period. However, the evidence from the Nile Valley and Eastern Desert of Egypt and Nubia demonstrates that a direct connection between the Pan-Grave culture and the Medjay cannot be supported.