Monthly Archives: July 2015

A Lab-orious Summer

Posted on by
Reply

Our readers must be thinking why ‘lab-orious’? Well, our geoarchaeological samples are grabbing all my attention during this time of the summer. As a result, quite willingly, a lot of laborious time is being spent in the ‘lab’. Obviously, the reason behind this is an underlying eagerness towards analysing the end products, i.e., the thin sections as soon as possible!

After having travelled quite a few thousand kilometers from Sai Island, all the samples had arrived at the McBurney Laboratory of Geoarchaeology, University of Cambridge in perfect condition in June 2015. Thereafter, laboratory procedures had begun which include thin section manufacturing followed by microscopic analysis, geochemical analyses of loose soil/sediments and finally integration of these several strands of data for interpretation.

The process of manufacturing the thin sections is being undertaken following the method described by Murphy (Murphy 1986; Goldberg and Macphail 2006). The soil/sediment blocks were first removed from the cling film, air dried on a shelf for one to two weeks, before being dried in an oven for two days (48 hours) at 40°C. This was followed by impregnation with a mixture of crystallitic polymer resin (1700ml), acetone (200ml) and catalyst (methyl ethyl ketone peroxide or MEKP) (0.5ml). The samples were then left under a vacuum-pumping machine for 24 hours so as to allow infiltration of the resin into the soil pore space.

These impregnated blocks have now been left for curing in a fume cupboard (at least for two-three months) for complete hardening. When fully consolidated, they will be converted into thin sections.

Stay tuned for more updates on last stage of thin section manufacturing and obviously for the updates on analysis.

 

References:

Goldberg, P. and Macphail, R. (2006). Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford.

Murphy, C. (1986). Thin Section Preparation of Soils and Sediments. AB Academic Publishers, Berhamsted.

Two scarabs from tomb 26

Posted on by
Reply

Tomb 26, newly discovered in cemetery SAC5 on Sai Island during AcrossBorders’ field season in 2015, is not yet completely excavated. Our work focused on a careful cleaning of its rectangular shaft – north-south aligned, it measures c. 2.60 x 1.80m with a depth of more than 5.20m. Several flood deposits were exposed and slight differences in the filling material will allow a detailed reconstruction of the use-life of the tomb. Obviously, there were several phases of burials, plundering and abandonment spanning the period from the late 18th Dynasty to Napatan times.

Besides a number of ceramics, including intact vessels, a total of 146 finds was recorded from the shaft filling of tomb 26. The majority are beads in different shapes and made of various materials (jasper, carnelian, faience etc.). The most important objects from the shaft filling are three sandstone fragments giving the name and title of the jdnw of Kush Hornakht who was active during the reign of Ramesses II (Kitchen 1980, 117-118; Budka 2001, 210-212 with further literature).

Several finds indicate a Ramesside burial in tomb 26. Among them there is the scarab SAC5 121, found just above the base of the shaft. This small intact piece made of steatite (17 x 8 x 13 mm) shows on the reverse a seated Maat, a recumbent sphinx with a double-crown and a winged cobra.

SAC5 121a (thumbnail)Parallels are known from the New Kingdom, especially the 19th Dynasty. A nice example was found in Amrit in Syria and is now in the British Museum (BM E48260). To the best of my knowledge, SAC5 121 is the first scarab with this motif found on Sai Island (see Minault-Gout/Thill 2012, pls. 115-118 for other scarabs from SAC5).

SAC5 120a (thumbnail)Another scarab, SAC5 120, of smaller size (12 x 6 x 9 mm) and perhaps also made of steatite, was discovered in the upper levels of the shaft filling of tomb 26. The reading of its reverse is not entirely clear, as is its date. To the left, a mn-sign above an n-sign, above two small signs, perhaps a sun-disc and stroke suggest a reading as “Jmn-Ra”. Is the boat-shaped sign to the right maybe just an irregular version of the j-hieroglyph (reed sign)? Or is it something completely different? Any suggestions are highly welcome! For me, the scarab SAC5 120 seems to post-date the New Kingdom. A number of Napatan vessels from the upper levels of the shaft filling suggest a use of tomb 26 during this period and the scarab might belong to this later phase of burials.

Prior to excavating the burial chamber of tomb 26, it is of course much too early to reconstruct a clear sequence of burials – nevertheless, the interesting material from the shaft allows us a to suggest a complex period of use covering several centuries.

References:

Budka 2001 = J. Budka, Der König an der Haustür. Die Rolle des ägyptischen Herrschers an dekorierten Türgewänden von Be­a­m­ten im Neuen Reich. Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 19. Vienna 2001.

Kitchen 1980 = K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions. Historical and Biographical, Vol. III. Oxford 1980.

Minault-Gout/Thill 2012 = A. Minault-Gout, F. Thill, Saï II. Le cimetière des tombes hypogées du Nouvel Empire (SAC5). Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 69. Cairo 2012.

We proudly present: Bavarian recruitment

Posted on by
Reply

With July 2015, AcrossBorders warmly welcomes new team members: Vanessa Becker and Daniela Penzer joined the project as student assistants.

Vanessa received her BA in Egyptology and Coptic Studies at our LMU institute in 2014. Thereafter, she switched to Near Eastern Archaeology. Still holding a strong interest for Egyptian archaeology and here especially for Pre- and Early Dynastic Egypt, she now joined AcrossBorders bringing in some valuable experience in fieldwork and in digitalizing drawings.

Daniela also got her BA degree in Egyptology and Coptic Studies in 2014. Since 2014, she is doing her MA in the same field. Daniela is very enthusiastic about Egyptian pottery and was keen to get involved in AcrossBorders.

Both new team members are currently working on digitalising pottery drawings with our interactive tablet. Hopefully, Daniela and Vanessa will also join us in the field in the upcoming season.

I am very happy about this new indigenous Bavarian recruitment and looking much forward to a fruitful collaboration!

Small steps forward into the terrain of settlement archaeology in Egypt & Nubia

Posted on by
Reply

With a splendid evening lecture by Dominique Valbelle, the AcrossBorders workshop “Settlements patterns in Egypt and Nubia” came to an end. I am very grateful to all participants for making it a successful and also very pleasant event! Special thanks go to all AcrossBorders’ team members and the LMU students helping with the organization. The location of the workshop was just perfect – many thanks again to the Egyptian State Museum Munich – and here not only to the first and second directors Silvia Schoske and Arnulf Schlüter, but also to Dietrich Wildung. His special offer of a guided tour through the galleries was much appreciated by all participants – it complemented the programme of the workshop in a perfect way and illustrated the complex and changing relations between Egypt and Nubia/Sudan throughout the millennia.

Most talks were concentrating on settlement architecture and the planning of settlements. Ingrid Adenstedt presented her 3D reconstruction of the Pharaonic town on Sai – from my perspective a very big step forward for a better understanding of the evolution of the site! Florence Doyen shared her by now much advanced assessment of SAV1 North, proposing interesting ideas about the layout and foundation of the town on Sai.

Cornelius von Pilgrim impressed everyone with speaking about the intriguing house 55 on Elephantine island – I really can’t wait for our upcoming field season to go back there and continue sorting out the complex phases of use of this unusual structure!

Amara West and its huge potential were beautifully presented by Neal Spencer – the state of preservation of the mud brick houses is simply amazing. Manfred Bietak closed Day 1 with new observations on the structure and function of the monumental palace of the Middle Kingdom in Bubastis.

Day 2 was opened with a very interesting session dedicated to settlement patterns in Prehistoric times and to the Pre-Kerma and Kerma periods. Elena Garcea presented her work at Khartoum Variant, Abkan and Pre-Kerma sites at Amara West and on Sai – and was able to pose some thought-provoking questions highly relevant also for the historic periods.

Giulia D’Ercole and Johannes Sterba presented their ongoing chemical analyses of Nubian and Egyptian style sherds from Sai. Johannes got huge complements afterwards: “A contribution by a scientist which was completely understandable!” Of course I totally agree.

Recent discoveries in the ceremonial city of Kerma were the topic of Charles Bonnet’s talk – he showed beautiful 3D reconstructions of these very peculiar buildings of an African kind of architecture. Kate Spence used Sesebi as a case study to pose several key questions for our understanding of so-called temple towns. Her assessment that it is crucial to understand the foundation processes of these sites seems especially noteworthy.

Stuart Tyson Smith led us to Tombos, one of the major bounderies between the Nubian and Egyptian realm during the New Kingdom. He focused on a very large, enigmatic building of 18th Dynasty date found in recent excavations. So much more remains to be excavated at this important site at the Third Cataract!

The last afternoon session was dedicated to 18th Dynasty Egypt – the important site of South Abydos, the Ahmose town, was presented by Stephen Harvey. He addressed not only the oracle cult of Ahmose, but also interesting ideas about ancestor’s cult.

The paper by Anna Stevens was the perfect transition to the final discussion: Anna addressed community and sub-communities at Amarna and raised important issues. “How much did the occupants feel they are part of their/a community” would nicely apply to open but crucial questions we have regarding the occupants of Egyptian sites in Kush – all of us working there have found increasing evidence for a complex social stratification and the entanglement of Egyptian and Nubian cultures.

Dominique Valbelle considered a wide range of textual records for the assessment of settlement patterns in Egypt and Nubia – most importantly, she showed us new material from the excavations in Dokki Gel.

Without doubt, the ongoing excavations of the international missions working in Northern Sudan have widened our understanding of the complexity of settlement patterns in Nubia. There is some hope that we will continue in these lines and might also be able to learn more about Egyptian urbanism by taking into accounts the sites located in Kush.