(2013[2016], with M. Drzewiecki) Fortified Sites in the Area of the Fifth and Sixth Cataract in Contexts. Preliminary Reflections

Gdańsk Archaeological Museum African Reports, vol. 8 Fortiied Sites in the Area of the Fifth and Sixth Cataract in Context: Preliminary Relections Mariusz Drzewiecki Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw & Paweł Polkowski Archaeological Museum, Poznań Introduction In 2008, a students’ scientiic expedition with the title of The Fortresses of Sudan was organized to explore selected fortiied sites in the area of the Nile valley, between the island of Mograt and the Fifth Cataract (Drzewiecki & Rączkowski 2008; Drzewiecki 2011). The objective of the expedition idea has been continued by a Polish-Sudanese project, also called The Fortresses of Sudan. This 3-year project concentrates on issues related to fortiied sites located south of the Fifth Cataract. This area has been litle explored so far, and yet it features an abundance of fortiied sites erected from the Meroitic Period to the time of the Mahdi uprising. On the basis of architectural and archaeological analyses of the complexes and an investigation of the archaeological and topographic contexts, atempts will be made to interpret the inluence of fortiied sites on the functioning of communities living in the times of the Meroitic Empire, the medieval Nubian kingdoms, the Funj Sultanate, the Turkiyya and the Mahdiyya. The irst season of ieldwork (January 2011) concentrated on three complexes: Hosh esh-Sheitan, Wad Mukhtar and Hosh el-Kab (Fig. 1). Nile south of the Fifth Cataract are setlements), the ieldwork was not limited to analyzing architectural features. A reconnaissance was also carried out around each fort in order to record archaeological sites of any kind in an atempt to develop context of interpretation for each of the fortresses by studying its immediate surroundings. It had been assumed a priori that fortiied sites could not function as isolated entities and that their surrounding areas should exhibit traces of relationships between the fortresses and other elements of the landscape. In this context, landscape refers not only to the natural environment, but also the entirety of cultural elements, such as setlements, cemeteries and footpaths (for more information about the landscape concept see: Tilley 1994; Grzymski 2002; Branton 2009). Another important category is the place, being a particular component of the landscape. It is the places and the spaces between them that constitute cultural landscapes – places are understood not only as points on a map, but also as a broad range of activities, actions and meanings related to them (cf. Branton 2009, 52). From the perspective of our explorations, Scope and aims of explorations While the explorations focused on the setlements (undoubtedly, fortiied sites on both banks of the Fig. 1. Location of fortresses surveyed in 2011 season. Mariusz Drzewiecki & Paweł Polkowski fortiied sites are a particular type of place, which – due to their function, size and/or location – must have been elements inluencing the landscapes of the Nile valley. Surface research and architectural analyses of the complexes seem to prove that human activity in the area explored continued for centuries. Numerous traces of human existence can be found here, atributable to communities and individuals representing a variety of periods. Not unlike other areas in the Nile Valley, one deals here with an archaeological palimpsest, both horizontal (spatial), and vertical (e.g. in the form of the phases of the fortiications in each consecutive period). It is important not to use the said palimpsest merely for the purpose of determining relationships of time and space, but also to remember that such a palimpsest is also a kaleidoscope of evolving meanings (Bailey 2006, 207–208), because fortiied sites – over a time span of several centuries – probably carried diverse meanings. One of the ways to look at these fortresses is to take the perspective of an individual, whereby the landscape and the place are treated as individual formations of everyone who experiences them. On the basis of an analysis of late medieval and renaissance castles in England, Mathew Johnson indicates that a single place could be perceived diferently by diferent people; thus, the meanings of such places were determined by those dwelling in or near them. He also claimed that fortified sites and their surroundings in England constituted a form of image created by their owners to express various ideologies (Johnson 2002, 131). Alternatively, fortified sites could be interpreted by reference to economic research applied in archaeology since the 1970s, as part of processual archaeology (Clarke 1977). One deals here e.g. with a central place theory or an analysis of areas exploited by the setlement (Vita-Finzi & Higgs 1970). In this approach, the landscape could be compared to a stage, understood as a static background, diachronically unchanging and requiring adaptation strategies from those dwelling within it. An atempt at analyzing fortresses using this kind of interpretation excludes individually created meaningful layers of the landscape, but it allows one to identify processes (often in a regional scale), and the function becomes the key research issue. 80 Irrespective of the theory adopted, the first season of exploration indicated a number of factors largely limiting our ability to make interpretations. These factors include inter alia: • lack of detailed research and writen sources on the history of each complex, • depositional and post-depositional processes, as a result of which some artifacts could have been lost without trace, • geographical changes, such as the meandering of the river or contemporary adaptation of land for agricultural or residential purposes, • the nature of surface surveys, characterized by a varying likelihood of inding archaeological sites (Plog, Plog & Wait 1978). These are the main factors resulting in a varying degree of reliability of the information collected. Atempted interpretations of fortiied sites should be treated as preliminary relections and suggestions. The fundamental question during the ieldwork was as follows: how did the presence of fortiied sites affect the perception and use/creation of the landscape? This kind of question can be helpful in analyzing the functions of each fortiied site and trying to answer the question as to why fortified sites were built. Therefore, we divided the archaeological sites surrounding the fortresses into: • sites founded before the fortiied site, • sites whose origin is approximately contemporary with the fortiied site, • sites founded after the fortified site had become disused. Unfortunately, many sites cannot be reliably dated due to the lack of appropriate material (e.g. potery sherds) or the lack of distinct features (e.g. tumulus cemeteries). Dating of fortiied sites On the basis of potery found on the surface of the Hosh esh-Sheitan site, this particular complex can be dated as medieval/post-medieval (according to Fortiied Sites in the Area of the Fifth and Sixth Cataract in Context: Preliminary Relections Fig. 2. Hosh esh-Sheitan plan. (Drawing: Ł. Banaszek and M. Drzewiecki) Edwards 2004 classiication). The complex is very large (approximately 220 x 230 m), of an irregular shape, with bastions concentrated on the desert side (Fig. 2). The method of building the wall (in particular the use of ill-ited irregular stones in wall faces), as well as the relative thinness of the wall (0.9 to 2.0 m) seem to conirm the dating made on the basis of potery typology (Fig. 3). The only other complex of similar shape and size is located at Bakhit in the southern Dongola Reach. It is dated to Early Dongola period (Żurawski 2003, 369–373). However, a comparison of building methods reveals some diferences. The walls of Bakhit are up to 5 m thick. The complex is regular, built of mudbrick and well-ited stones. Common to both sites is the opening to the riverside, which in both cases forms a convenient and long (approximately 210 m) quay. This may be related to similar functions at both complexes. On the basis of potery inds, Wad Mukhtar and Hosh el-Kab can be dated to the late or post Meroitic period (2nd to 6th century ad). Structural features of the walls of both complexes are diicult to trace due Fig. 3. Hosh esh-Sheitan. Eastern part of the wall. (Photo: M. Drzewiecki) 81 Mariusz Drzewiecki & Paweł Polkowski to poorly preserved surface traces. However, both complexes are regular in shape (Figs 4 and 5). They were forming squares, with bastions in the corners and at regular intervals all along each of the curtain walls. The complexes had two gates each, usually with additional fortifications. One of the gates faced the river, whereas the other faced the desert. This regularity is also found in other complexes in this area of the Nile valley, dated to the late/ post Meroitic period, such as: Jebel Umm Marrihi and Jebel Nakharu (Ahmed Ali Hakem 1979, 155; Ahmed Abulgasim El-Hassan 2006; Welsby 1996, 50) or el-Ar (Żurawski pers. comm.). Reconnaissance around fortresses Hosh esh-Sheitan Hosh esh-Sheitan is a complex built of irregular stones. Wall faces are made of bigger stones, while the core consists of smaller stones joined by means of mud mortar with an admixture of bone fragments (Fig. 6). Fig. 4. Wad Mukhtar plan. (Drawing: Ł. Banaszek and M. Drzewiecki) 82 Fortiied Sites in the Area of the Fifth and Sixth Cataract in Context: Preliminary Relections Fig. 5. Hosh el-Kab plan. (Drawing: Ł. Banaszek and M. Drzewiecki) The maximum height of the walls is 3 m. In most cases the walls have been reduced to stone rubble. The hill occupied by the complex is part of a plateau that ends in a fairly steep clif, less than 10 m from the river. From the east and the west the plateau is enclosed by large widyan, which constituted the limits of our reconnaissance (Fig. 7). As in the case of the other fortresses, the area surveyed was selected arbitrarily and it is extremely diicult to judge to what extent it may correspond to the area once used and occupied by the residents of the fortress. The plateau proved abundant in archeological sites. Fig. 6. Hosh esh-Sheitan, cross section through the wall (Photo: M. Drzewiecki). Most of them are tumulus cemeteries. The largest concentrations of graves with mounds built of stone were recorded at the southernmost extreme of the plateau, near the clif. The mounds are 2 to 5 m in diameter and usually 1.5 to 2 m high (Fig. 8). Most of the graves have not been looted. Given that the graves seem to form clusters with clearly identiiable empty spaces between them, they were considered as separate sites. However, it is possible that in fact they constitute one huge cemetery, because the reason for the non-uniform distribution of the graves is unknown. Between the mounds there are a small number of objects of a totally diferent structure: rectangular, lat, illed with pebbles, encircled by larger stones (Fig. 9). They are of random orientation and they have been preserved in good condition. The largest concentration of these rectangular lat graves is HS2 site, which is located c. 0.25 km west of the fortress. Intact stone tumuli are reminiscent of the grave type referred to by Derek Welsby as T.V or T.VIII (Welsby 2005, 4). However, due to the lack of potery or other material it is extremely diicult to propose a chronology of these cemeteries. Nonetheless, it may be claimed that the tumuli on the plateau probably precede the fortiied site. Surface exploration did not answer the question about the near location of a medieval (Christian) cemetery. It is not impossible that the small number of lat 83 Mariusz Drzewiecki & Paweł Polkowski Fig. 7. Hosh esh-Sheitan and its surroundings: blue point – tumulus; green point – irregular or oval object with small superstructure; red point – lat rectangular object; red square – architectural remains; yellow triangle – Arabic rock engravings and/or cup-marks; white circle – oval stone structures, probably remains of huts; yellow circle – oval structure of unknown chronology and function. (Google Earth satellite image adjusted by P. Polkowski) Fig. 8. Hosh esh-Sheitan, typical tumulus grave at HS10 site. (Photo: P. Polkowski) Fig. 10. Hosh esh-Sheitan, modern rock inscription at HS13. (Photo: P. Polkowski). Fig. 9. Hosh esh-Sheitan, lat rectangular object at HS3 site (Photo: P. Polkowski). Fig. 11. Hosh esh-Sheitan, cup-marks in regular rows – probably a board game – at HS14. (Photo: P. Polkowski). 84 Fortiied Sites in the Area of the Fifth and Sixth Cataract in Context: Preliminary Relections Fig. 12. Wad Mukhtar plan (Drawing: Ł. Banaszek, M. Drzewiecki). structures should be dated to that period. Still, there are no cemeteries with box graves. Approximately 1 km north-east away from the fortiied site a tumulus cemetery comprising graves with gravel mounds was recorded. One of the components of the landscape of Hosh esh-Sheitan fortress are relatively recent remnants in the form of modern Arabic inscriptions (Fig. 10), rock drawings and cup marks (Fig. 11), which are most probably game boards (Davies 1925; Dunbar 1941). The content of the inscriptions is usually limited to the name of a person and the date of the inscription. The only exception is a long religious text writen on a rock near one of the hilltops (approx. 21 m above the river level). Out of all the recorded sites, it is worth mentioning stone structures, usually rectangular, with walls built of stones joined with mud mortar, preserved to a height of 0.5 m. Their dating, however, is uncertain. Wad Mukhtar This complex was built in the northern part of Sabaloqa Gorge. It is the smallest of all the fortresses (Fig. 12) explored during this season (65.5 x 56 m), preserved to a maximum height of 0.5 m. However, the wall faces are visible in a number of places, which allowed us to conclude that all reinforcements (bastions and gates) extending beyond the perimeter 85 Mariusz Drzewiecki & Paweł Polkowski Fig. 13. Wad Mukhtar location. (Photo: A. Chlebowski) Fig. 14. Wad Mukhtar environs: red square – remains of enclosure; white circle – oval stone structures. (Google Earth satellite image, adjusted by P. Polkowski) Fig. 15. Wad Mukhtar, small oval stone structure at WM2 site, probably modern. (Photo: P. Polkowski) 86 Fig. 16. Hosh el-Kab, remains of the fortiication. (Photo: M. Drzewiecki) Fortiied Sites in the Area of the Fifth and Sixth Cataract in Context: Preliminary Relections Fig. 17. Hosh el-Kab fortress plan. (Drawing: Ł. Banaszek, M. Drzewiecki) wall were built on a rectangular plan (Fig. 13). Only in the corner bastion (east) we managed to record some traces of redevelopment. The remains of a rectangular bastion show traces of a rounded feature at the top. The fortiied site is located in a lat area, surrounded by high jubal (hills) on three sides (Fig. 14). A great number of such hills form the mountainous landscape of the Sixth Cataract. Given the fact that the area was diicult to explore, surface survey was limited to a slightly smaller area than in the case of the other sites. Only two sites (remnants of houses?) were recorded (Fig. 15). Most probably both of them should be regarded as modern. A vast cemetery with stone tumuli was identiied by an analysis of satellite images. However, it is located at a distance of some 3.5 km from the complex, which – given the conditions of Sabaloqa – rendered reconnaissance impossible. The isolated nature of the fortress may be indicative of a diferent purpose. Thus, the following questions may be raised: why did the inhabitants of the complex not leave any traces of their presence outside the walls? Why are there no cemeteries nearby? Hosh el-Kab The area of this fortiied site is characteristic by a lat topography. There are hardly any rocks, which makes the landscape diferent from Hosh esh-Sheitan and Wad Mukhtar. Despite this, the complex is built of irregular stones (Fig. 16), and it is even bigger than Wad Mukhtar (102 x 96 m). It has 13 rounded bastions (Fig. 17). 87 Mariusz Drzewiecki & Paweł Polkowski Fig. 18. Hosh el-Kab and its surroundings: blue point – tumulus; green point – irregular or oval object with small superstructure; red square – architectural remains; yellow triangle – cup-marks. (Google Earth satellite image, adjusted by P. Polkowski) Once again, exploration was carried out on an arbitrarily demarcated area. To the east, it was limited by farm ields along the Nile; to the north and the south explorations reached to wadi located at a distance of respectively 1.5 and 2 km from the fortiied site; to the west the demarcation line was an asphalt road and contemporary buildings (Fig. 18). The identiied sites include irst of all tumulus cemeteries comprising graves with gravel mounds. These necropolises contain mostly graves of diameters from a few to nearly 20 m. There is also a small number of graves of which the diameter exceeds 20 meters. The vast majority have been looted – in some cases quite recently (Fig. 19). Potery is scarce (Fig. 20). Nonetheless, in site HK8 sherds decorated with an incised patern were found – they could be dated to late Meroitic period (Bagińska pers. comm.), which corresponds to the dating of the fortiications. Therefore, the large cemeteries with tumuli (which could also be considered as one, vast cemetery) are preliminarily dated to the late/postMeroitic period. The mounds surround the fortiied site on all sides, apart from that where the farm ields are located. Within a radius of 1 kilometer around the fortiied site a few sites with smaller, Fig. 19. Hosh el-Kab, robbed tumulus at HK13 site. (Photo: P. Polkowski) Fig. 20. Hosh el-Kab, potery sherd from HK8 site. (Photo: P. Polkowski) 88 Fortiied Sites in the Area of the Fifth and Sixth Cataract in Context: Preliminary Relections Fig. 21. Hosh el-Kab, small oval feature at HK4 site. (Photo: P. Polkowski) irregular mounds were also identiied (Fig. 21). They are either isolated or clustered, and their chronology is unclear. The area of Hosh el-Kab is also interesting due to the proximity of other fortiied setlements. Some 500 m to the north-east there is a fortiication with a stone enclosing wall, known as Abu Naisa (after the cenotaph of a sheikh, located at the place). 3.8 km to the south, on the top of Umm Marrihi hill, there is another regular complex (cf. Fig. 1). Both are visible to the naked eye from Hosh el-Kab. Why would three fortresses be built so close to one another? Were they in operation at diferent periods? In the case of Hosh el-Kab and Abu Naisa this is quite likely, but Jebel Umm Marrihi could have been a contemporary of Hosh el-Kab. Landscapes of the fortresses The seting of each of the three fortresses explored seems to have some distinctive features. The diferences relate both to morphological features of the sites themselves, their location and topography, and to the type and density of archaeological sites around the fortresses. For a start, let us look at these objects from a functional perspective. In this perspective, one of the key issues is the question about the origin of the fortiied sites. What was the reason for building them? What did the architects have in mind, selecting the construction methods and the location of the fortress? It could be assumed that the architect selected a location and architectural solutions that proved the most useful in the context of the contemporary social and political situation. This is a typical assumption for middle range theories, such as site catchment analysis or central place theories, which – while partly negating geographic determinism – see human actions as the result of striving for the most conducive solutions. They are based on the assumption that humans want to achieve the best results at the lowest cost (Clarke 1977). On a micro scale, the location of the fortresses is the irst characteristic analyzed. In the case of Hosh esh-Sheitan and Wad Mukhtar a shift of the construction site in any direction would afect the shape of the complex, because in topographical terms the area is highly irregular. In the case of Hosh el-Kab any such shift would have litle impact on the building itself. While Hosh esh-Sheitan and Wad Mukhtar were relatively easily accessible only from the river, Hosh el-Kab – built on lat terrain – was easily accessible from any direction. This could be the reason why the architects paid so much atention to the defenses of this fortress. With as many as 13 bastions, it is one of the best-fortiied sites in Upper Nubia. In contrast, Hosh esh-Sheitan’s fortiications are the weakest. Its perimeter wall is over 500 meters long, and yet it has only six bastions, located at short intervals on the northern side of the enclosure. The perimeter wall, whose width hardly ever reaches 2 metres, could not have been a parapet wall. Thus, it did not provide efective defense against an organized assault. Another important study could be an analysis of materials used to erect the fortresses. Hosh el-Kab is built of irregular stones, scarce in the vicinity of the fortress. The other two fortiied sites were built of boulders derived from the rocks on which the fortresses are built. Therefore, in these two cases the supply of materials was not challenging. In the case of Hosh esh-Sheitan, it was additionally possible to shape the hill by using material from preselected parts of the jebel in order to adapt it to practical requirements. What was the concept of the architect who built Hosh el-Kab? The location of this fortress is devoid of any natural elements of the landscape supporting the defense system of the complex and, on top of that, there were few rock outcrops in the area, thus making supplies of material diicult. The number of cemeteries located around this fortress suggest that it was used intensively 89 Mariusz Drzewiecki & Paweł Polkowski for a long time (as long as one assumes that the tumuli are contemporary with the fortiied site). The neighbouring extensive farm-land most probably damaged many traces of social activities connected with the fortiied site, which is why our understanding of its functioning will be partial. Hosh el-Kab is self-evidently the central point around which these cemeteries concentrate. It is still an open question how far into the desert the area utilized by this fortiied site reached. The above-mentioned limit of the survey (contemporary buildings and an asphalt road) surely does not make answering this question any easier. The functions of Hosh el-Kab could have been determined in some way by the proximity of the other Fortress Sites mentioned above: Abu Naisa and Jebel Umm Marrihi. If all of them prove to be contemporary, then one should perhaps consider them to be parts of a bigger system. Exploration of Jebel Umm Marrihi, planned for the next season, should improve our knowledge in this respect. In the area surrounding Hosh esh-Sheitan we also identified numerous cemeteries. However, being unable to correlate the fortiied site and the graves chronologically, we do not consider the later as something related to the enclosure. This is also because the fortiications are dated to the late Middle Ages, whereas tumuli with stone superstructures are the most common type of earlier grave (however, it is possible that lat rectangular structures and some of the oval graves with small stone superstructures can be ascribed to the Middle Ages). Also the more distant surroundings do not indicate intensive activity contemporary with the fortiied site. The area certainly was signiicant in Meroitic and post-Meroitic times. At a distance of approximately 18 kilometers there is the cemetery of El-Hobagi, followed by the Hosh el-Khair enclosure and the ruins of Wad Ben Naqa on the opposite bank of the Nile (Edwards 1989, 64). If a broader perspective is taken, atention should be paid to Wad Mukhtar, located at the northern extreme of the Sixth Cataract, a place optimally located for controlling transportation on the river and its banks. Owing to its small size, the setlement could not have been used for storage of transported goods. Thus, it could have been built only in order to supervise transportation, and manned by a small 90 crew whose activities in the area are diicult to identify today. As in the case of Wad Mukhtar, architecture can be helpful in interpreting Hosh esh-Sheitan, being a setlement open to the riverside. Hosh esh-Sheitan is one of the larger fortiied port complexes, and – given its size – it seems to be a convenient location for the storage of transported goods. However, let us tentatively take a different approach. The fortiied site landscapes were part of the world of people living in the area. They perceived both the fortiications and many other remains of earlier periods (e.g. cemeteries). For many of them such facilities as the fortiied sites could have constituted a kind of a reference axis, organizing their lives and beliefs (for more information about creating the landscape by erecting monuments see: e.g. Bradley 2000). Therefore, irrespective of its administrative and political functions, the fortiied sites must have been an important element in the local population’s perception of the landscape. Thus, we can surmise that the fortiied sites were part of people’s lives, e.g. by inspiring emotions, such as fear or a sense of security. Surely, the perception of the fortiications held by a fellah working for the people living inside the fortiications difered from that held by a soldier or an official residing in them. Thus, the same site, which archaeology tries to objectivize using descriptions and plans, becomes multidimensional. But are there any material traces that could cast some light on the semantic polyphony proposed by us? Unfortunately, this is where a problem arises – particularly in the case of sites like Wad Mukhtar, where we recorded virtually no other traces of past human activity. The landscape of Hosh el-Kab gives us more opportunities, although the remains contemporary with the fortiied site are mostly limited to cemeteries. However, in this case one can at least recognize a tendency to place necropolises near the enclosure. The space between the sacred (cemeteries) and the profane (residential area) is thus small. The place of the fortiied site seems to be central, around which many diferent activities concentrated. The fortified site, not unlike other artifacts, were probably noticed also in later periods. The perception, and therefore also the interpretation, of Fortiied Sites in the Area of the Fifth and Sixth Cataract in Context: Preliminary Relections the enclosures must have varied from one period to another (or even within the same period). Some form of inspiration for interpretation could be the Arabic inscriptions and the various kinds of images engraved on the rocks of Hosh esh-Sheitan. These inscriptions, irst and foremost commemorating the names of visitors to the place, indicate that for some reason the fortiied site had become again an important part of the local landscape. The name of the place (Satan’s Courtyard) shows that religious beliefs are involved here. Thus, the meanings atributed to the enclosure over the last one hundred years are quite diferent from those from several centuries ago. This situation gives us a clue for interpretation; namely, it helps us realize that over centuries one archaeological item may ‘accumulate various meanings’ (Bailey 2006, 207–208). It becomes a palimpsest of meanings. However, the problem of our surveys is the lack of convincing archaeological evidence from periods preceding the modern inscriptions. Rock art dated to or before the Middle Ages was not discovered. The most valuable source of information required for interpreting the semantic layers of the fortiied site are cemeteries but they, in their turn, are very diicult to date. Conclusions The remarks presented above are the result of our preliminary thoughts on the fortiied sites and their contexts, inspired by literature and by the indings from the irst season of ield research. We are increasingly of the opinion that context is a very important element of each archaeological phenomenon (cf. for instance Hodder 1987). No fortified settlement functioned as an isolated entity. The fortified sites have always been a part of their respective landscapes. This is why interpretations based exclusively on elements (such as the fortified sites) isolated from their surroundings seem to be insuicient. In the forthcoming seasons our aim will be to search in more detail for the relationships between the fortiied sites and other landscape elements. With each enclosure surveyed it will be easier to propose interpretations at a regional scale. In our opinion, comprehensive interpretations could be developed by applying various theoretical ap- proaches and by taking diferent perspectives when analyzing the issues in question. [Poznań 2012] Bibliography Ahmed Abuelgasim El-Hassan 2006 ‘Jebel Um Marrihi: A Late Post-Meroitic and Early Medieval Site (c. 325-650 ad) in Khartoum Province (Sudan)’, Adumatu 13, 15–38. Ahmed M. Ali Hakem 1979 ‘University of Khartoum Excavations at Sarurab and Bauda, North of Omdurman’, Meroitica 5: F. Hinze (ed), Africa in Antiquity. The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Conjunction with the Exhibition, Brooklyn, September 29 – October 1, 1978, 151–155. Bailey, G. N. 2007 ‘Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26, 198–223. Bradley, R. 2000 An archaeology of natural places, London – New York. Branton, N. 2009 ‘Landscape approaches in historical archaeology: The archaeology of places’ in: T. Majewski, D. Gaimster (eds), International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, New York, 51–66. Clarke, D. L. 1977 ‘Spatial Information in Archaeology’ in: D.L. Clarke (ed), Spatial archaeology, London, 1–32. Davies, R. 1925 ‘Some Arab Games and Puzzles’, SNR 8, 137–152. Drzewiecki, M. 2011 ‘The Southern Border of the Kingdom of Makuria in the Nile Valley’, EtTrav 24, 93–107. Drzewiecki, M. and W. Rączkowski 2008 ‘Following O.G.S. Crawford: satellite images and ield archaeology in Sudan’ in: R. Lasaponara, N. Masini (eds), Remote Sensing for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management. Proceedings of the 1st International EARSeL Workshop on “Remote Sensing for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management”, Rome, 3–6. Dunbar, J. H. 1941 The Rock-pictures of Lower Nubia, Cairo. Edwards, D. N. 1989 Archaeology and Setlement in Upper Nubia in the 1st Millennium A.D., Oxford (Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 36; BAR International Series 537). 2004 The Nubian Past: An archaeology of the Sudan. London – New York. Grzymski, K. 2006 ‘Territory and landscape archaeology in the Middle Nile Valley 1000 bc - ad 1500’ in: I. Caneva, A. Roccati (eds), Acta Nubica, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of Nubian Studies, Rome 9–14 September 2002, Rome. 91 Mariusz Drzewiecki & Paweł Polkowski Hakem, Ahmed M. Ali see Ahmed, Ali Hakem Hodder, I. 1987 The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings, Cambridge. Johnson, M. 2002 Behind the Castle Gate. From Medieval to Renaissance. London – New York. Plog, S., F. Plog and W. Wait 1978 ‘Decision making in modern surveys’, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1, 383–421. Tilley, Ch. 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape, Oxford – Providence. 92 Vita-Finzi, C. and E. Higgs 1970 ‘Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine: site catchment analysis’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, 1–37. Welsby, D. A. 1996 The Kingdom of Kush. The Napatan and Meroitic Empires. London. 2005 ‘The Merowe Dam Archaeological Salvage Project. Survey in the vicinity of ed-Doma (AKSE), 20042005’, S&N 9, 2–8. Żurawski, B. 2003 Survey and Excavations between Old Dongola and EzZuma, SDRS 1, Nubia II, Warsaw.