A Historiography of Archaeological Research at Meroë, Sudan*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
doi: 10.2143/AWE.16.0.3214940 AWE 16 (2017) 209-248 A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AT MEROË, SUDAN* ANNA LUCILLE BOOZER Abstract This article joins together a substantial survey of antiquarian and archaeological research at ancient Meroë (Sudan), capital of the Meroitic kingdom (ca. 7th century BC–4th century AD, most broadly), with an exploration of contemporaneous historical events in Sudan, Egypt and Europe. This contextual approach makes it possible to trace influences upon past archaeological research trends and the changing views upon Sudanese heritage within Sudan and internationally. Introduction This article explores early archaeological research in Meroë city (Sudan) through the lenses of broad archaeological trends and regional history. Based upon our cur- rent knowledge, Meroë city was one of the most significant administrative, religious and artistic centres of the ancient kingdom of Kush between approximately the 7th century BC and the 4th century AD.1 It is regarded as one of the oldest and most significant urban settlements in Africa south of Egypt. Despite its national and international importance, research at Meroë has often lagged behind the periph- eral regions of Kush. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Salvage Campaigns in the 1970s, followed by the present concerns over dam building in Sudan, have focused archaeological attention to threatened areas instead of Meroë itself.2 Moreover, excavations within Meroë have experienced significant time lags between excavation and final publication, which has hindered more thorough archaeological interpretations of the material. The present work recounts the history of research at Meroë city in order to embed this regional research history within broader trends in Sudanese archaeology, Egyptology, archaeology and world historical events in Sudan, Egypt and Europe * Andrew Bednarski, Giovanni Ruffini and Ian Rutherford read and commented upon a draft of this paper. Anonymous referees provided valuable suggestions, for which I am most grateful. All errors remain my own. 1 Meroë is located at 16.54° N and 33.44° E, ca. 120 km north-east (downstream) of modern Khartoum (Török 1997b, xxi). The dates given are rough brackets only and are debated by scholars still today. 2 Earlier, smaller, rescue projects also took place (see below). 210 A.L. BOOZER Fig. 1: Map of Sudan (QUEST, University of Reading). Fig. 2: Map of the Island of Meroe (QUEST, University of Reading). A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AT MEROË 211 (Figs. 1–2).3 This historiography of early research at Meroë provides four useful outcomes. First, it enables us to understand this site as both a geographical and an academic periphery. Meroë’s placement within Sudan cannot be severed from the development of archaeology in Sudan as well as the contours of the history of Sudan itself. Second, this research survey enables us to understand changes in monument preservation. When Meroë was first explored, in the early 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, many structures were still visible and in good condition that were subse- quently destroyed or damaged. A historiographical approach to these monuments, as prior scholars saw them, helps us to comprehend the fragmentary records that remain and the potential causes behind the monuments’ destruction. These causes can inform present and future decisions about heritage preservation and presentation. Third, past research developments enable us to understand the contours of cur- rent research projects within the region and, most significantly, highlight the engagement between foreign and Sudanese researchers in Sudanese archaeology. Fourth, this overview promotes a holistic understanding of how expeditions per- ceived Meroë’s historical development, as well as how these perceptions changed over time. The temporal parameters of this paper, 1772–1984, cover the range between the first European discovery of Meroë until the end of Peter L. Shinnie’s excavations at this site.4 The end of Shinnie’s excavations marked a shift in site management towards multiple projects being pursued at the site, many of which are active today. In reviewing this research history, I work through the evidence chronologically, embedding each major research expedition within its archaeological and historical framework. There is insufficient space to fully enumerate and explain the observa- tions and discoveries of each expedition, although I have highlighted particularly significant missions as well as monument descriptions and techniques.5 3 As the Arabic sources on Meroë have been destroyed for the most part, and what does remain are not accessible to most Western scholars, this article relies primarily upon contemporary western accounts of this disciplinary history. For a recent consideration of the Merowe Dam Archaeological Salvage Project, its aftermath, and its impact upon the selection of archaeological sites threated by dam construction, consult papers in Anderson and Welsby 2014. 4 Research after Shinnie continues at Meroë and these projects are noted in brief, as appropriate, below. 5 See www.Meroecity.org for representative publications of research at Meroë. For a recent overview of Meroë, including present-day campaigns, see Boozer forthcoming. 212 A.L. BOOZER Classical Sources After its collapse, Meroë largely disappeared from the historical record, but the memory of this important city was preserved in Greek and Roman sources, where the region was known as Aithiopia. This Graeco-Roman perspective influenced subsequent researchers who were educated in a Classical tradition. A brief review of these texts helps to underscore subsequent interpretations and biases.6 Strabo and the Elder Pliny provide us with early accounts of Roman-Meroitic interactions shortly after Rome’s annexation of Egypt. Rome appears to have con- tacted Meroë in an attempt to create a client kingdom with them, which means that Meroë would agree to subordinate their own military, economic and political interests to those of Rome. This agreement did not last long. Unrest to the south of Aswan appears to have been supported by the armies of Kush. The Roman forces at Aswan were depleted as many of their numbers were withdrawn to fight in the Arabian campaigns of 24 BC. The Kushites seized their chance and sacked Aswan with an army of 30,000 men and destroyed imperial statues that had been set up at Philae (Strabo 17. 1. 53–54). Garstang’s excavations at Meroë in 1910 revealed a fine over-life-sized bronze head of the emperor Augustus, which had been buried underneath the threshold of one of the smaller temples (see below). This head may have belonged to one of the bronze statues from Philae, although Strabo claims that all of the statues were returned to the Romans early on in the fighting.7 Strabo and Pliny the Elder provide us with contemporary Roman reactions to these events, while a Kushite perspective is lacking.8 A potentially highly significant historic episode, which may have seriously impacted the Triacontaschoinos, the ‘frontier’ region between southern Roman Egypt and Meroë, occurred at the end of the 1st century BC with the Roman campaign of Petronius against the Meroites after the Meroitic attack on Aswan.9 Sources state that Gaius Petronius, the prefect of Egypt, pushed back the invaders to Pselchis (Dakka) with the force of one legion and auxiliaries.10 6 Additional, Christian sources mention the Kingdom of Kush more generally. For example, we find mention in the Acts of the Apostles (see Hofmann 1988) and Christian exegetists commenting on the Song of Songs (among others) (for example Benz 1969, 225–26). 7 Török (1989–90, 181–82) doubts that such a statue would have been in place at Syene in 23 BC because he suggests a date later than 25 BC for the head, based upon stylistic comparanda. 8 An inscription set up by Akinidad and Amanitore at a small baked-brick temple at Hamadab (several kilometres south of Meroë city) provides the Kushite views of these events, but we only have hints as to the meaning of this inscription. It seems to date to 10 BC or later (Griffith 1917, 168). Early explorers did not know about these inscriptions. 9 Unfortunately, the archaeological evidence for this event remains unclear, as opposed to the archaeological evidence for the Kushite sackings of Aswan. 10 Strabo 17. 1. 53–54: 10,000 infantry and 800 horses. Negotiations took place at Pselchis, but they broke down, and the Romans moved south, taking Pselchis and the fortress at Primis (Qasr A HISTORIOGRAPHY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AT MEROË 213 Pliny records that Nero sent an exploratory party south while contemplating an attack on Aithiopia and this southern journey was the instance when they met a Kushite queen (Pliny NH 6. 35. 181). Seneca recounts that the expedition met a Kushite king and notes that there were marshes of such concentrations that the entangled plants were impenetrable (Seneca Naturales Quaestiones 6. 8. 3).11 The Jewish Revolt of AD 66 put Nero’s ambitions on hold and he died in AD 68. From this time on, there is a gap in Western knowledge about Meroë until the 18th century, when European explorers visited the site for the first time. 18th-Century Background The 18th century opens with the vicinity of Meroë under fairly stable political conditions. The Sennar was the capital of Funj Sultanate (also known as the Blue Sultanate). The Funj ruled the north of Sudan from the early 16th century until 1823, although the state had begun to weaken already in the 18th century. The Funj held firm control over the economy and were strongly militarised with a stand- ing army. It is also notable that the Funj converted to Islam from traditional African religions and Christianity in 1523, which contributed to the spread of Islam in north-east Africa. At this stage in scholarship, it is not clear that any Funj texts or maps informed European inquiry in the region surrounding Meroë.12 The first Europeans began to enter the Middle Nile region during the early 18th century and their perceptions of the region derived predominately from the classical Ibrim) (Welsby 1996).