I see everybody has managed to
find a seat one way or another,
so let me begin with the
welcome task of welcoming you,
everybody here, to the Joukowsky
Institute of Archeology
in the Ancient World.
My name is Peter van
Dommelen, and I'm the Director
at the Institute here.
And, as I said, it's my
pleasure to welcome everybody
to this conference
today and tomorrow--
State of the Field
and the 2016 edition.
And I just want to say, by
way of brief introduction,
a few words about these
kind of conferences.
The State of the
Field conferences,
it's not a title that we
invented just for this occasion
today.
It's actually a
series of conferences
that we've been having
here since 2011.
In that year, 2011, we began
with a conference State
of the Field on Italy.
And since then we've been
to-- and let me check here--
Turkey, Greece, Iberian
Peninsula, and North Africa.
So about in an annual sequence
we've been having these.
And as you see,
we've done something
of a grand tour of
the Mediterranean
with these conferences,
and now Egypt
is today and tomorrow,
where we'll be pausing.
And afterwards, we'll go
off-- from our regional tour,
we'll go off on a thematic
diversion or direction
as next year, or within a
year, more or less, we'll
be having our State of the
Field on diversity and inclusion
in archaeology.
But the State of the Field,
the idea of State of the Field
conferences was to
get a better look
at points of archaeological
practice and methodology.
Of course, those are
the obvious points.
There's also attention for
new finds and new projects.
Although just to know what's
new, the latest finds,
the newest sites, that's
not sort of the main point,
although obviously not ignored.
But it's also very
much a looking ahead.
It's State of the Field
and looking ahead.
What's going to come?
What are the challenges?
What are the opportunities
that lie ahead
for this particular field?
Challenges, opportunities
created by modern context,
or simply new technologies.
And I've seen a
couple of topics that
precisely go in that direction.
And if I sort of have
a-- well, as I just said,
a quick look at this
weekend's program
shows that there's quite a
few of those things going on.
Given the nature of all the
fields [INAUDIBLE], in fact,
we've been looking at, they're
inherently international.
And I think that's what
we try to bring out
in the speakers' fields today.
In fact, in all of these
conferences as well.
So speakers from within the
country, but also a good number
of speakers from elsewhere.
And my final point here to
do, then, in my role here,
is to introduce you to three
organizers of this conference.
As all of these
conferences have always
been organized in
a collaboration
between the
Institute's faculty, it
includes the post-docs
at our Institute,
as well as involvement of one
or more graduate students.
And the three organizers of
this year are precisely those.
So if I can introduce
to you, Jenn.
[APPLAUSE]
And with that point, I
immediately hand over
to Laurel, who will do
the more sort of informed
to this conference.
Thank you so much, Peter.
And have a good
conference, everybody.
Thank you, Peter.
And Peter has given you really
an institutional introduction
to the State of the Field.
I'm going to let Jenn
and Miriam, who've
done the lion's share of work
of putting this together,
give you the more formal and
intellectual introduction.
What I want to give you is a
more personal introduction,
in fact, to this particular
State of the Field conference.
It's really coming at an
interesting moment for me.
I have loved Brown
for a long time.
I have loved the field
of Egyptian archaeology
for a long time.
As many of you know,
because I think I probably
know more people in this
room than anyone else,
I recently received tenure,
and the chance for me--
[APPLAUSE]
Not for me.
But the idea to have
a State of the Field
of Egyptian archeology
at Brown was
born at a time when I was
very nervous about tenure.
And when I really
thought of justifying
the state of
Egyptian archeology,
both to my colleagues
in Egyptology-- look,
archeology is more than just
finding new artifacts that
fit into our understanding
of Egyptian history--
and of justifying it to my
archaeological colleagues--
Egypt is more than just a silo.
We do things that are informed
and engaged with archeology
in a bigger way-- the fact
that I can do this at Brown--
so that was an anxious moment.
Now I think that we can
open this up and say, well,
that's not just an apology.
This is a really
exciting conversation
we can be having on this front.
But the fact that I
can do this at Brown,
Brown is really in a
great place to have
this kind of conversation.
Brown has historically
been strong
in both Egyptology
and archeology,
but it's only for
the past 10 years
that Brown has taught
Egyptian archaeology.
And that, I think,
is the challenge
and the exciting
thing about talking
about the State of the Field
of Egyptian archeology, right?
It is archeology,
and it is Egyptology,
but it's not quite either one.
And so for me, the idea was how
can we have this conversation
more broadly?
And this is really a chance
to bring you guys together
for what I hope will be a
conversation and really not
just a conference,
but a workshop.
A platform for discussing what
the current state in the field
is, why it's good, where
we need to get better,
how we can go forward.
And in addition to the
boundaries that we're
going to be talking
about specifically
within the structure
of the conference,
I would urge us
collectively to talk also
about the boundary of
institutions and pedagogy
and how we are
breaking boundaries
in terms of where Egyptian
archeology is being taught--
It's not just the big
eight that it used
to be-- of who is participating
in this conversation,
or what we want our graduate
students, our undergraduates,
to learn, how we can move
forward with our teaching
as well as with our research.
So these are sort
of the ideas that
were in play in my own
personal trajectory
as I was putting this together.
But as I said, I was most
fortunate to be working
so closely with a post-doc
in Egyptian archeology-- this
is also something relatively
new for us at Brown--
and with one of our really
excellent graduate students
who is working on a
project on archaeological
and Egyptological.
You yourself embody some of
these breaking of boundaries
that we'll be talking about.
So I will turn it over
to Jenn and to Miriam
to give you the
formal introduction.
And please join me in thanking
them from the very beginning.
These two and Jess Porter,
who's in the back, and Sarah
Sharpe, who's even
more in the back,
have really done an
astonishing amount
to make this weekend possible.
And I'm so glad that you
can be here to join us
in this conversation.
[APPLAUSE]
Thank you, Laurel.
We'd like to echo
Peter and Laurel's
welcome to the sixth edition
of State of the Field
at the Joukowsky Institute.
Since 2011, the
Institute has hosted
annual State of
the Field workshops
centered on the current shape
of archaeological research
in a given region.
Past workshops focused on the
archeology of Italy, Turkey,
Greece, Iberia,
and most recently,
North Africa, which you may
notice also encompasses Egypt.
Our Egyptian Archeology
professor, former Egyptologist
post-doc, and numerous graduate
students in Egyptian archeology
realized as well.
And it was State of
the Field North Africa
that got us all thinking
about the place of Egypt
in the region, the
places of other regions
within the Egyptian cultural
sphere and worldview,
and the need for the workshop
we're kicking off this evening.
Traditionally,
State of the Field
has been a venue for us to
reflect upon trends in North
American archaeological
work and pedagogy
in the region of focus.
Our gathering honors
this tradition,
but also builds on it.
With generous support from
the Joukowsky Institute,
we were also able to invite
scholars from Europe and Egypt
to share their thoughts
with us this weekend.
We cannot claim to offer
a comprehensive view
of the innovative and meaningful
work that's being done
by our colleagues
from around the world,
but we hope to offer a
representative sample of that
work.
What you will
witness this weekend
is the exchange of ideas between
a selection of scholars who've
worked on projects ranging far
and wide in their location,
methodology, and
chronology as they consider
common obstacles in the
study of this region
and identify key
questions for the future.
For a number of years now,
the modern state of Egypt
has been at a
crossroads, and that
means that archaeological
missions to Egypt, heritage
protection, and the Supreme
Council of Antiquities,
now the Ministry of
State for Antiquities,
are at a crossroads, too.
Changes to how we
conduct our work
have prompted a
re-evaluation of our methods,
a grappling with new challenges,
and the increased expansion
of projects outside of
the modern state of Egypt,
most notably into Sudan.
At the same time,
Egyptian archeology
has witnessed exciting new
discoveries-- the exploration
of under-represented
territories,
a huge leap forward
in the implementation
of new techniques
and approaches,
and new requirements for
archaeological fieldwork
in the post-revolutionary era.
So the aim of this
workshop is to explore
the practice of Egyptian
archeology in various ways,
to clarify where that
archaeology has been,
where it is today, and where we
hope to take it in the future.
On the theme of
breaking boundaries,
we have identified
four areas in which
to brainstorm on the successes
and problems of our field
today.
We'll begin with a session on
breaking temporal boundaries--
and you can follow the
different sessions here
on the slide-- were our
invited speakers will discuss
their research on periods
that have for a long time
been under-represented
in Egyptology.
The intermediate periods,
traditionally painted
as times of decentralization,
disarray, and declining
artistic expressions and
building activities--
in short, dark ages-- in the
minds of past Egyptologists
have now come to the forefront
of archaeological research.
Scholars have also ventured
into the later periods, which
followed the demise of
pharaonic Egyptian power,
and the kingdom's integration
into the Roman Empire.
New projects are
helping us to discover
Egypt's role in
the Byzantine world
and to uncover and preserve
early Christian architecture
and material culture
that have been neglected
in favor of the older pharaonic
remains for such a long time.
Building on the previous State
of the Field North Africa
workshop, the Breaking
Geographic Boundaries session
will consider, in part,
Egypt's role in the wider
region and its influence
but also mutual exchange
with the cultures to its South
in modern northern Sudan.
Workshop participants will
explore and challenge us
to think about long-standing
ideas of "Egyptianization,"
the process of the
"superior" culture taking
over adjacent territories.
Beyond this, a discussion
of new field work
in peripheral areas
of Egypt itself,
such as the Red Sea
coast and the delta,
and the difficulties
of exploration
in these environmental
conditions
will demonstrate the need for
the continuing development
of new techniques and
approaches in documentation
and preservation.
Already represented to some
degree in the first two
sessions, our dialogue on
Breaking Methodological
Boundaries will expand
on the advances that
have been, and are
continuously being made,
in our technical
methods and consider
the place of Egyptology
in the digital humanities.
We'll hear about the
importance and challenges
of dendrochronology and efforts
to move Egyptology under water.
We will also discuss
surveying techniques
that are relatively new
to Egyptian archeology,
such as satellite imaging,
kite and drone photography,
and magnetometry.
3D models of
archaeological landscapes
play an invaluable part
in the preservation
of sites and monuments.
Given the current political
situation in Egypt,
virtual reconstructions
will be all the more
important for our
work in the future.
Working in Egypt in the
post-revolutionary era
will be the theme of our final
session on Breaking Political
Boundaries.
With a dramatic
decrease in tourism
and the unstable
political situation,
organized looting has been a
problem in many parts of Egypt.
As a result, Egypt is
increasingly aware of the need
to protect its
cultural heritage.
What started as local
initiatives have now
been acknowledged by
official authorities
and integrated into an ongoing
process of restructuring
and modifying the now
so-called Ministry of State
for Antiquities.
There are other
changes that began
before the revolution which
have wide-ranging political
implications, such
as the creation
of archaeological
parts that have
led to the resettlement
of Egyptian villages.
The continued creation of
these residence-free zones
will certainly affect
archaeological fieldwork
in Egypt in the future.
Each of these sessions will
be followed by a response
from a Brown-based discussant
who works in an aligned field.
This is both with the aim
of including the wider Brown
community in State of the Field
and also to give us a chance
to learn from the
problems, solutions,
and successes of scholars
working outside of Egypt.
Our discussants will
couch the session's paper
in the context of
their own research
and that of their colleagues
in other regions and related
disciplines.
After reflecting on
the approaches that
have been both successful
and challenging,
they will open the discussion
to a larger audience.
We have allocated ample time
for questions and remarks
after each session.
We're thrilled to see,
from reading the papers
that everyone was kind
enough to circulate ahead
of time, that every
paper could, in fact, fit
into multiple sessions
of this workshop.
That is really a
testament to how
things have changed to become
increasingly methodologically
diverse and interdisciplinary
in our field.
We've invited the
speakers to offer comments
on new developments,
new discoveries,
new areas of exploration,
new technologies,
and new policies in
Egyptian archeology.
We wish to discuss the
benefits and drawbacks
of these developments, and to
find new avenues for our field
work.
We feel that this
discussion has its place
not only among those
working in Egypt and Sudan,
but also beyond our discipline.
Eventually, we wish to
identify areas of collaboration
with related fields
in geographic areas
where future work
is much needed.
We also advocate for the
continued integration
of periods outside
the traditional limits
of pharaonic culture and
history within Egyptology.
And finally, we wish to discuss
the merits of new technologies
and their implementation
in the field
where it be conducted in
the particular environmental
settings that comprise
ancient Egypt.
Before we introduce
our keynote speaker,
we'd like to thank everyone
at the Joukowsky Institute
for their hard work in
putting this together,
especially Laurel Bestock,
Jess Porter, Darcy
Hackley, and the graduate and
undergraduate students who've
kindly volunteered to
help us this weekend.
We'd also like to think Jim
Allen and the Department
of Egyptology and Assyriology
for joint-sponsoring portions
of this event.
And of course we
owe a great deal
of thanks to the speakers who've
joined us from as far away
as Cairo and California, and
to our Brown-based chairs
and discussants.
Thank you for making
State of the Field
the archeology of Egypt.
[APPLAUSE]
So we would like to welcome our
keynote speaker, Stuart Tyson
Smith, to the floor.
Stuart holds a PhD in
Archeology from the University
of California, Los Angeles.
And he's currently
Professor of Anthropology
at the University of
California in Santa Barbara,
having just stepped down
from a five-year term
as Chair of Anthropology.
Stuart's research centers on the
civilizations of ancient Egypt
and Nubia, with a
theoretical focus
on the social and ethnic
dynamics of colonial encounters
and the origins of
the Napatan state,
who's rulers conquered Egypt.
He has published on the
dynamics of Egyptian imperialism
and royal ideology, the use
of sealings in administration,
death, and burial in
ancient Egypt and Nubia,
and the ethnic, social,
and economic dynamics
of intercultural interaction
between Egypt and Nubia.
He has also participated in and
led archaeological expeditions
to Egypt and, since
1997, to Sudanese Nubia,
where he co-directs the
UCSB/Purdue University Tombos
expedition to the third
cataract of the Nile.
In addition to
the field work, he
is also engaged in a long-term
study and write-up of the UCLA
excavations conducted by
the late Alexander Badawy
at the Fortress of Askut.
And this is not all, actually.
In 1993, he became the
Egyptological Consultant,
recreating spoken ancient
Egyptian for the hit movie
Stargate, and in 1998 and
2000 for the Universal remake
of The Mummy and it's
sequel, The Mummy Returns.
Super.
We're very happy
having you here today.
And I'm sure we can discuss
your involvement with Hollywood
later during the reception.
After the talk, we will have
a reception right here outside
of the lecture
venue, and we hope
you will all be staying and
having a glass of wine with us.
Thanks for coming.
And with this, I give
the floor to Stuart.
[APPLAUSE]
[SIDE CONVERSATION]
There we go.
Is that good?
Yeah.
Well, thank you very much
for that kind introduction.
And also, thank you
to the organizers
for not only inviting
me to come here,
but for organizing
what promises to be
a really stimulating workshop
on the future of Egyptology
in a very forward-thinking way,
which I find personally very
encouraging.
So let's see, I need to
get my presentation up.
There we go.
Oops.
Sorry, wrong slide.
OK.
And there it is.
Here we go.
OK, so Egyptologists often
neglect the central role
that the everyday
interactions of individuals
play in the creation
and trajectory
of ancient civilizations.
Arguing against antiquarianism's
focus on monuments and display
objects, William
Mathew Flinders Petrie
advocated for just this
kind of perspective saying,
and I quote, "the work
of the archaeologist
is to save lives, to go to
some senseless mound of earth,
some hidden cemetery"--
oops, sorry.
Back.
There we go.
"Some"-- yeah, sorry.
"Some senseless mound of earth,
some hidden cemetery, and then
spring into the
comradeship of man
some portions of the
lives of the sculptor
of that artist of
the other scribe
to make their labor
familiar to us as a friend,
to resuscitate them again,
and make them live."
Egyptian archeology
has been slow to break
past its antiquarian roots.
The recent excess of
enthusiasm over the possibility
of new chambers in
Tutankhamun's tomb,
and possible, but a frankly
highly implausible, burial
of Nefertiti within, shows
that the discipline's treasure
hunting instinct
is still strong.
And some of us were
a little skeptical
about that whole thing.
While new chambers in
the tomb of Tutankhamun
and even the improbable
burial of Nefertiti
would of course be of
interest, their discovery
would not transform our
understanding of ancient Egypt,
as some asserted at the time.
It is the hard
work of archeology
that values and studies every
fragment from the past, a goal
envisioned by Petrie
over a hundred years
ago, that has a real potential
to transform our understanding
of Egyptian civilization.
And I have to say,
with this meeting,
I think we see not that
old antiquarian view,
but very much the modern
forefront, the way forward
for Egyptology in a truly
interdisciplinary way.
So this is particularly the
case with Egypt's relationship
to its southern neighbor, Nubia.
Using my own work in the ancient
Egyptian colony of Tombos
as a case study--
and we'll hear more
about Sudanese Nubia from
Neal Spencer tomorrow--
I explore how recent
archaeological work in Nubia's
breaking the cultural,
biological, temporal,
and disciplinary
boundaries that have
characterized previous
discussions of the two
African cultures.
Taking their cue from
Egyptian ideology,
Egyptologists often
depicted Nubia as inferior,
dominated both
militarily and culturally
by its northern neighbor.
The symbolic and
material imprint
of the Egyptian
New Kingdom empire,
from about 1500 to 1070 BC,
seems to unambiguously reflect
the heavy-handed
approach directed
from the Egyptian core,
resulting in the disappearance
of Nubian culture.
Yet distinctively
Nubian practices,
with roots before the conquest,
never completely disappeared.
And the Egyptian colonies,
and even Egypt itself,
were influenced
by Nubia, breaking
the symbolic boundary erected
by ancient Egyptian ideologues,
as you can see from
this wonderful example
from Tutankhamun's tomb.
Similarly, the Third
Intermediate period in Nubia
has been seen as a
dark age-- as we've
heard earlier-- a boundary
between civilization
and a kind of
return to barbarism
and breaking down
into chiefdoms.
Excavation at
Tombos and elsewhere
has increasingly broken
this temporal boundary,
reflecting a continuity between
the periods characterized
by the emergence of a new
cultural constellation
interweaving and juxtaposing
Egyptian and Nubian features.
This process of cultural and
political regeneration in Nubia
eventually led to the rise of
the Kushite 25th Dynasty, whose
pharaohs ruled Egypt for
nearly a hundred years
from about 747 to 656 BC.
Understanding this
complicated transition
requires a nuanced approach
that avoids simple explanations
based upon the deeds and
pronouncements of kings
in favor of an archaeological
focus on the accumulation
of subtle shifts in
local interactions
and the cultural and
biological entanglements
that lead to regional change.
In particular,
anthropological theories
of cultural interaction,
post-colonial approaches
like Dietler's model of
cultural entanglement,
which I'll pursue here, can
bridge disciplinary boundaries
to help shed light on how
individual choices contributed
to the relationship between
Egypt and Nubia long term.
So I'll begin by
talking a little bit
about the theoretical
arguments and bringing
in some examples of this kind of
theory that we can apply here.
Then I'll move on to breaking
past that regional boundary
by looking at the New
Kingdom empire in Nubia,
and then break the
temporal boundary
by looking at the transition
between the New Kingdom
and the Third Intermediate
Period, which we're
very fortunate to have at Tombos
to examine all the way down
to the 25th Dynasty, the Kushite
rulers who dominated Egypt
for about a hundred years.
So first of all,
the idea of-- oops.
OK.
Yeah, no, this is good.
So the-- sorry.
Sorry.
I had these interviews
set up here,
but it seems to
have disappeared.
So I'm flying a little
by the seat of my pants.
OK, the notion that the
use of Egyptian material
culture in emulation of
Egyptian practices by Nubians,
like this kind of Amun
statue of King Taharqa,
represents a natural
acculturation
towards a more sophisticated,
and therefore inherently
appealing, Egyptian
culture is heavily
embedded within Egyptology
since the days of archaeologists
like George Andrew Reisner.
Moreover, the possibility
that the conquered Nubians
might have maintained
native practices
or even influenced
Egyptian society
is either ignored or denied.
And yet we do have examples
like the ram imagery associated
with Amun and other theological
elements that seem to have been
borrowed from Nubia into Egypt.
It's a little hard to find them,
but you can figure them out.
And then here George
Andrew Reisner.
Great archaeologist.
Theorist?
Not so much.
Barry Kemp articulated a common
view of Egyptianization--
also put forth by Reisner
and early archeologists--
asserting that, and I
quote, "Egyptian culture
must have had a considerable
glamor in the eyes of Nubians.
It is not hard to
understand how,
in an age innocent of
the esoteric delights
of full culture, many
of the local products,
such as the decorated handmade
pottery and mother of pearl
trinkets, did not
survive the flood
of cheap, mass-produced
Egyptian wares," end quote.
He concludes that,
and I quote again,
"some recognition
at least should
be given to the positive
side of this early attempt
to extend what, to the
Egyptians themselves,
was a civilized way
of life," end quote.
And we've had a
little back and forth
in this in some
publications, including
Cambridge Archaeological
Journal, about
Egyptian motivations.
But this draws upon models of
Hellenization and Romanization
that are founded on similar
sets of assumptions that have
come under increasing scrutiny.
As Michael Dietler
points out, the notion
of the civilizing impulse
of classical civilization
was created in the 19th century
to justify modern colonialism
with a romanticized
appeal to Hellenism.
A notion that Kemp echoes with
a kind of Egyptological twist.
The modern colonial
narrative has increasingly
been replaced by a more nuanced
interaction-based model,
like the one I propose here.
The key to understanding
this phenomenon
lies in a bottom-up
agent-centered approach
rather than a top-down
normative view that
draws from a state ideology that
emphasized civilized Egyptians'
natural superiority over, quote
unquote, "barbaric" Nubians.
Archaeologists tend
to think of agency
in terms of somehow finding
individual actors, which
[INAUDIBLE] is difficult in the
absence of historical records.
But this represents a rather
elitist view of agency,
since text tends to
be written by men
and in an imperial context are
often ideologically charged
and reflect imperial interests,
especially in antiquity.
[INAUDIBLE] can help
us find individuals
in the more mundane
archaeological record that
reflects the everyday
activities and encounters.
Cultures do not produce people.
Rather, people produce cultures
through a constant dialectic
between the
constraints of habitus,
cultural disposition
to some extent shared
by other members of
society, and the pressure
of individual adaptation
and innovation.
The tension between
individuals and habitus
is particularly
highlighted in situations
of cultural interaction, like
the one I discussed here.
Practice can be
applied in this case
by replacing
Egyptianization with a model
of cultural entanglement,
an intertwining that impacts
the historical trajectories
of both the colonial power
and the colonized.
Dietler's materialist
consumption-based model
of cultural
entanglement provides
a robust theoretical framework
that can be used to understand,
and I quote, "the complex webs
of economic, political, social,
and cultural linkages
that can often
result, often inadvertently,
from the consumption
of alien material culture."
For example, in characterizing
the recent archaeological
and material
culture-based approaches
to European colonialism, Painter
notes an emerging understanding
of contact based
on, and I quote,
"how the culture of
the colonial power
arrived and entangled itself in
indigenous social, political,
and economic affairs."
Colonial interactions are
not a passive acceptance
of a dominant culture,
but can instead
be seen as an active process
of intecultural consumption
involving the appropriation
and adaptation, but also
indifference and rejection
of different objects
and practices.
Entanglement takes
into consideration
the agency of both indigenous
and intrusive groups,
in spite of the often unequal
relationship between the two
that characterizes violent
conquest and occupation.
Dietler argues persuasively
that through a nuanced analysis
of the intersection of different
social and cultural logics
of the party involved, agency
is both potentially discernible
and historically
crucial in understanding
larger developments.
I focus here on burial
practices, a social field where
preferences are not simply the
result of habitual patterns
of the appropriate,
but are shaped
by the colonial encounter.
OK, so now on to
looking at Tombos.
Oh, sorry.
I should have put
this slide up before.
Oh, well.
But so Tombos was
founded around 1427 BCE,
around the reigns of
Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV,
based on pottery and,
so far, radiocarbon
dates that we have
gotten from the site.
It was a very
substantial colony.
We have done some
excavation in the area
of the settlement,
which unfortunately
is under the modern village.
So limits our possibilities.
But the cemetery has proven
very interesting indeed.
So during the New Kingdom, we
see a large field to the south
where pyramid tombs were
built of a kind that
was quite popular during the
New Kingdom for high officials.
And then to the north, a
group of subterranean chamber
tombs that seemed
to represent still
fairly wealthy burials,
but not quite the same
as the group in the south.
And this lasted right through
the end of the New Kingdom
with, as far as we can tell,
no major interruptions.
The tombs are reduced
mainly to foundations,
but you can see here
a mud brick foundation
of probably a small chapel
tomb with a shaft leading down
to chambers.
Very much in-line with ancient
Egyptian burial practices.
And at first glance,
Tombos really
looks like a transplant of
Egyptian culture in Nubia.
And the distance there-- you
can't really see it in detail--
but there's a small
pyramid tomb that
probably had a
chapel inside of it,
again, reduced to foundations.
The largest tomb that
we've found so far
was a tomb dedicated
to a man named Siamun,
who was-- we just
figured-- I just
revised the translation
of his title
based on some new
funerary cones that we
found with his name and title on
it as you can see to the right.
His title was Scribe
Reckoner of the Gold of Kush
and his mother, Mistress
of the House [INAUDIBLE].
So you got to love a guy
who takes care of his mom.
That's all I've got to say.
Such a nice boy.
So this would be a
relatively high position
within the bureaucracy.
And the fact that we're
within 10 kilometers
of the former capital
of Kush at Kerma
suggests that, in
fact, we are dealing
with a kind of a key point of
assembly of the annual tribute
going north into Egypt.
And so this makes Tombos
a kind of important place.
It also sits at the headwaters
of the Third Cataract,
and so would be a kind
of natural gateway
as well as a political gateway
from the farther south in Nubia
to the north.
The presence of funerary
cones is quite interesting,
because they are
normally thought
of as a kind of
Theban phenomenon,
but in fact appear
only twice in Nubia.
Once at the political capital
of the colony at Aniba,
and here at Tombos.
Not only does he
have the round cones,
which, as you can see
from the illustration,
would have been placed in
a frieze above the entrance
of the tomb, but he also has
these rectangular cones, which
aren't really cones, but I don't
know what else to call them.
There probably is a mathematical
term for them, but anyway.
And also, stamped bricks.
So had an elaborate
treatment, perhaps
corners or framings of
doorways that would have
included these cones as well.
And only a minority
in Thebes has them.
So he's really kind
of going all-out.
And it's quite a large
pyramid complex as well.
And elaborate, as you can see
from the reconstruction here.
We also have evidence
that these tombs
were painted and decorated
like tombs at Thebes.
This is just a small fragment
with two heads on it.
You have to use your
imagination a little bit,
but I think you can see
the shaved heads of priests
and kind of an eyebrow
here and there.
And this is really exciting
because we don't normally
get fragments of decoration in
Nubia, because these tombs are
made out of mud brick and
are usually quite ruinous.
So you don't get very
much preserved decoration.
This brick was actually
reused in a later tomb
and was preserved
because of that,
and not preserved in situ.
We also have other indications
of Egyptian burial practice,
including coffins like this one.
Organic preservation,
unfortunately,
is not very good.
But we can often trace out
the outline of, in this case,
a mummiform coffin.
In the foreground you can
see the remains of a coffin,
but not so clear.
But with two burials extended,
supine, head to the west,
facing towards the east
and the rising sun,
very much consistent with
ancient Egyptian burial
practices.
This coffin was very
exciting because it
had some of the best-preserved
paint that we've ever found.
And you can see here an image of
one of the four sons of Horus.
I mean, it may not be
exciting for those of you who
find, like, intact,
beautiful coffins,
but for us it was-- I was
so jazzed that immediately,
of course, I had
to start reading
the inscription in ancient
Egyptian, as one does.
And, I mean, and so--
[SPEAKING ANCIENT EGYPTIAN]
Blessed before [INAUDIBLE].
And fortunately,
Michele Buzon, who's
right here in the audience,
my bioarcheology co-director,
rushed up to me and
said, Stuart, no.
Don't do that,
because you know what
happens when you start
reading ancient Egyptian
next to mummies.
I mean, it's just terrible.
I mean, you know, the
living dead get up.
They chase your
team members around,
and it's just
seriously unpleasant.
Just a bummer for everybody.
But fortunately
disaster was averted
and everything went
fine, and we found
a number of other indications
of Egyptian beliefs and burial
practices, including high-end
objects like this heart scarab.
Very cute with the head
of a human being instead
of the head of a scarab
and dedicated to a woman
named Weret.
This was from an
intact burial we just
found last year of a very
elderly woman in a coffin which
unfortunately had
been totally consumed.
But she had this
nice heart scarab.
And for those of you who may
not be familiar with Egyptology,
this was meant to
prevent the heart
from testifying against
you in the divine judgment.
So basically of ratting
you out to the gods.
So you didn't when that happen,
so you had a special spell.
Also, help for the afterlife
through Ushabti figurines.
Ushabtis had a
special spell on them
that caused them
to leap up and say,
here I am, here I am, whenever
the gods called upon you
to do work in the afterlife,
which you can see here
in an image from the
tomb of Sennedjem,
from The Book of the Dead.
So rather than having to
slog it out in the fields,
you could be hanging
out with the gods
and having a good time.
I would have bought one for
sure if I could afford it.
But again, a kind
of high-end item.
This one particularly
beautiful in its design.
But the hieroglyphic
inscription, although literate,
is at best rather crude.
So it seems to have been
acquired as a kind of blank
and then a scribe went
in and decorated it.
In this case, not with
the Ushabti spell,
but decorated as if it were
the design on a coffin, which
that does appear on Ushabitis,
but it's rather rare.
So very unusual and interesting
to see these nuances
so far south.
OK, and this slide
somehow got out of order.
I apologize.
This was supposed to be at
the beginning of this section.
I was wondering
where it went to.
And so this is just a quick
historical background.
The Tombos of the
first conquered
in Nubia in about 1502
BCE established a stela
at Tombos, which, again, is why
we think that Tombos represents
an important transition point,
and then created an empire that
lasted for about 500 years.
So we're dealing with a
long-term, extended example
of imperial interaction.
North of the Third Cataract
we see a number of colonies
inserted.
South of the Third
Cataract, not so much.
And, in fact, there's
no good evidence
for a permanent colony ever
being inserted above the Third
Cataract.
But, you know, of course,
archeology may reveal that.
But certainly a more
heavy-handed approach
between the Second and
Third Cataracts with subtle,
you know, modifications in
the landscape like Abu Simbel
and so on.
So they also created a
kind religious landscape
of temples and institutions
that ran all along,
especially the area between
the Second and Third Cataracts,
also lower Nubia between the
First and Second Cataracts,
but then in a few key
places, but far fewer,
between the Third
and Fourth Cataracts.
And the sacred landscape,
it's important,
was something that
was quite permanent
and would have still been
present long after even
the end of the New King empire.
It's something I'll return
to in just a minute.
OK, back to Tombos again.
And I apologize.
I don't know how that
slide got out of order.
So we also have
evidence of, again,
a very close relationship
between Tombos and Egypt.
So you have a blue
painted wear, which
is a kind of
palace-sponsored pottery.
And I have to say,
as far as I know,
this is as far south as
this has ever been found.
So it does indicate that
the residents of Tombos
had close connections
with the north
and with the political
structure of Egypt,
not surprisingly
given their role.
Also, trade goods coming in
from the Mediterranean world.
So this-- we found two complete,
and a number of sherds,
of Mycenaean pots.
This one a beautiful
example that would
have carried probably perfume.
And, again, Tombos is
plugged into this larger
political economy
that circulated
within the Mediterranean
world in Egypt all the way up
to the Third Cataract.
We also see typical kinds
of jewelry that we find.
Scarabs, of course,
being the most common.
This one still in situ
on the person's hand.
Very cool.
Also assorted rings,
penannular earrings.
But in the lower
right-hand corner
you can see something
that speaks perhaps more
to Nubian preferences--
earrings of ivory and quartz,
which contrast with
contemporary Egyptian ones.
So we already get a sense,
perhaps, of some material
entanglements appearing
in the New Kingdom.
And this became
even more obvious
when we found
examples of burials
of women-- all women, so
far-- in Nubian style.
We have, I believe, a
total of eight burials
in this flexed position.
Again, all of women interspersed
within otherwise Egyptian,
architecturally Egyptian, tombs
next to Egyptian-style coffin
burials with evidence of
mummification and so on.
And as I've argued
elsewhere, this
would have presented
a real contrast
with Egyptian burial practice.
So I think this was a
very deliberate assertion
of a Nubian identity but yet,
at the same time, a good example
of entanglement, both in terms
of the juxtaposition of Nubian
burial practices and
Egyptian burial practices
with a kind of gender
dimension to it, but also
in the use of amulets.
So this woman had this little
amulet of Khepri and Nefertum
associated with her, although
it could have fallen through
from above.
But it was right under the body.
You can see this
kind of flex burial
also appears at other
sites in Nubia, including
Soleb and a number of
sites in lower Nubia.
So this juxtaposition between
Egyptian a Nubian burial
practice is something
that actually
occurs as the
minority of burials,
but throughout the region.
This burial provides an
even more dramatic example.
It's, as you can see, an odd
relaxes position, I guess.
I don't know.
But in fact, this is
really cool because it's
an example of ancient
looting, because she would
have originally been in this
position, the flex position
like you saw
before, but someone,
while the body was still
very fresh and flexible,
must have pushed
the arm up this way,
because everything's still
articulated, and grabbed
at something quite
valuable around the neck.
I think probably a piece
of gold, silver jewelry.
Something like that.
Because behind her neck, we
found the rest of the string,
including amulets of
the little dwarf god
Bes, who was extremely
popular in the household.
Protected the household
kind of scaring off-- you
can see his kind of
scary leonine visage.
He would scare off evildoers
and snakes, scorpions,
other threatening
things, evil spirits
and so forth, and protect
the person during life.
And of course could also be
brought into the afterlife.
Bes has a kind of
liminal character
that translates both from
daily life into the afterlife.
And in fact, the amulet
on the right where you
can see the head is broken off.
The dancing Bes, which may
have had more fertility
connotations, was actually
strung through the arms.
So this woman loved
this little Bes amulet
so much that even though
the head had broken off,
she kept wearing it.
And this reflects,
again, an example
of this kind of entanglement.
This Nubian woman who--
at least her or her heirs.
Of course, she
didn't bury herself.
But they, you know,
insisted on being
buried in the
Nubian style, which
would've been a really
obvious assertion of identity
compared to an Egyptian burial,
being brought out on a bed.
We do have some evidence of
beds being buried with some
of these women at least.
And, you know, yet
she had to have
these Egyptian amulets
around her neck
with this little god Bes.
And I'll return to
this god Bes who
is a rather important figure
later on in Nubian history.
We also have the continuation
of Nubian traditions
of pottery in their
decoration and manufacture.
Handmade blacktop redware,
like these two pieces here.
The one on the left
from Siamun's courtyard,
used obviously for cooking and
presumably for a funerary feast
and suggesting a further
entanglement through foodways.
Again, perhaps with
a gender dynamic.
And then this nice
little [INAUDIBLE] style
or Nubian style bowl found
with a couple of the other flex
burials.
So again, these practices,
Nubian practices-- flex burial,
bed burial, blacktop
pottery, and so on--
didn't disappear under
the colonial regime.
It was muted, admittedly,
but still existed.
Another example of
a flex burial came
from a small tomb very early
in the history of the colony
with some ceramic coffins
in the background, which
seems to be a thing at Tombos.
As you can see, this one
was very nicely painted up.
Its the one on the top
with burial five there.
But in the middle,
burial four, you
can see another flex
burial of a woman.
And she had a degenerative
condition of her spine
so bad that it actually
broke and paralyzed her legs.
And yet she lived long enough
for those bones to atrophy.
So it's clear that
these Nubian women
weren't, you know, treated as
at least severely inferior.
We don't know exactly what
the relationships were,
but it seems that with
at least one woman
having something valuable
enough around her neck
that someone would yank
it away, and this woman
being cared for long after
she had been paralyzed,
suggests that
Nubian women became
an integral part of the
colonial communities
and weren't sort of segregated.
They're also buried
right in amongst all
of the other burials.
So it speaks, again, to this
idea of entanglement, including
biological entanglement.
And here I'd like
to just mention
a little bit about
bioarcheology.
Again, I acknowledge my
co-director Michele Buzon,
who's right here
in the audience.
So if you have any
questions about that,
you can direct them to her.
But in this set of
underground tombs,
chambered tombs, where
we found a number
of these female burials
in Nubian style,
we're able to get a kind of
history of the New Kingdom
through the continual
use of this tomb.
And those of you
you've worked in Egypt
will be quite familiar
with this aspect of reuse.
We can't say for sure if
these burials represent
continuous use by
family or whether it's
periodic reuse by other
folks as an expedient place
and a place that has
some commemorative value
in the cemetery,
because we have not
been able to get DNA
to work at all, which
is a common problem
in areas like this
that have a very hot climate.
But in any case, we have been
able to use strontium isotope
analysis to match people up
with a local pattern and people
who came from somewhere
else, probably Egypt.
And we can see here
that initially,
not surprisingly, in the
earliest burials in this tomb
and elsewhere in
the cemetery, we
find a large number of
immigrants coming from outside.
Again, presumably Egypt.
Then that drops off as we go
farther into the New Kingdom,
after the founding of the site.
Perhaps an uptick in
the Ramesside period,
although that's not
statistically significant.
So it could just be an
artifact of the data.
But in any case, continuing
presence of immigrants
throughout this period
but then cutting off
at the end of the New Kingdom.
Similarly, using
craniofacial proportions
and other measurements,
Michele has
been able to
determine that we have
what appear to be two
populations, one with more
affinities towards an
Egyptian population,
and another with more affinities
towards a Nubian population,
gradually blending together.
And so again, by the
Third Immediate Period,
which I'll talk about
in just a minute,
we see a population
that seems to be
the descendants of those two
populations' intermarriage
and interbreeding, if you will.
So moving on to the
Third Intermediate Period
and breaking that
temporal boundary.
Of course, the New
Kingdom lasted,
as I mentioned, for
about 500 years.
But then the empire came
to an end under Ramses XI,
right at the very end
of the New Kingdom
when the last viceroy, or
last real viceroy of Kush,
his name was Panehesy, attempted
to take over Egypt after having
been installed in Thebes to put
down a kind of disorder there,
was chased back into Nubia by
Herihor and was never defeated.
So the colony broke away.
I've always found it
odd that in many cases
Egyptologists have suggested
that the colony was somehow
withdrawn, like the
garrisons were taken away
and the people came out.
But why would they?
I mean, for one thing, it
broke away under Panhesey.
For another thing,
these people had
lived, in many cases for
hundreds of years, in Nubia.
They no longer had those
kind of close ties to Egypt,
and they were intermarried
with the local population.
Why would they leave?
It makes no sense at all.
And what we're finding
archaeologically
at sites like Tombos,
also Amar West,
are continuities across that
New Kingdom/Third Intermediate
Period divide that belied
that idea of a sort of return
to barbarism under
local leaders.
And that's generally the model
is that this colony broke up
into small chiefdoms.
And I think the
use of "chiefdoms"
is rather telling in terms of
the kind of terminology coming
out of a kind of 19th century
colonial view, quite frankly.
The term, interestingly enough,
used for "chief" in Nubia
and used for "prince"
in Western Asia
is the same from an ancient
Egyptian perspective.
So why do we use
a different term?
Plus, there is evidence,
admittedly somewhat ambiguous,
that this dark age was, in fact,
not a return to smaller scale
polities broken up.
There's really no direct
evidence for that.
But instead, represents a
kind of successor state, which
actually, from a
comparative perspective,
would make a lot more sense.
And the key piece
of evidence for this
is the inscription of
Queen Katamala, which,
again, is a bit controversial.
But I agree with John
Darnell and Colleen Manassa
that this dates somewhere into
the 10th century, 9th century,
BC before the 25th
dynasty, Kushite dynasty,
after the end of the New
Kingdom, which would suggest
some sort of successor state.
The text itself is obscure, but
it describes some sort of civil
war that would, again, suggest
that some kind of successor
polity, or perhaps a
couple of polities,
existed rather than all
these small individual,
quote unquote, "chiefdoms.'
Whatever the case,
by 750 BCE, Nubians
had gained control over Egypt.
And by 727, Piankhi
cemented his control
over the entire country,
subduing the Libyan dynas
in the Nile Delta and
presenting himself
as this legitimate successor to
Egyptian kingship as, in a way,
quite literally more
Egyptian than the Egyptians,
or at least than
these Libyan guys.
And in a wonderful vignette,
kind of schools them
on how to be a proper Egyptian.
If you want details, I
can go into that later.
So Tombos and other
sites, like Amar West,
can help provide some
of the background
to these general developments.
So again, we see
evidence for continuity.
So here's the map
of Tombos again.
The main part of the
cemetery, the older part,
continues in use through
the reuse of older tombs
and the construction
of new tombs.
At least one, and
perhaps one very recently
discovered, new pyramid complex.
But also, the construction
of a new cemetery
using a Nubian burial
superstructure, a tumulus.
In this case, an
irregular mound.
But ovoid to circular
of piled granite stones
that would have marked the
superstructure of the grave
is something that's consistent
with long Nubian traditions.
And both of these
last-- from the
begin-- the tumuli begin
in the Ramesside period
and last through
the 25th dynasty.
And again, the older part
of the colonial cemetery
continues right through
the 25th dynasty as well.
Although we have a
little bit of issue
with dating amongst the tumuli,
which I'll touch on right now.
So you have a long series
of radiocarbon dates
that, again, indicates
that these tumuli began
in the Ramesside period
at the end of the New
Kingdom continued
across that boundary
and on into maybe
the 25th dynasty.
We do have a little
bit of a disconnect
between the 25th dynasty
and then the pyramid tomb,
which you see at the very
last radiocarbon date, which
is solidly in the 25th dynasty.
But pottery like this
one would strongly
suggest that the cemetery
continues in use right
through the 25th dynasty.
However, my one caveat is
that pottery in the Third
Intermediate Period is
still-- the seriation is still
very underdeveloped
and ambiguous because
of the very slow
changes that happened
over that period of time and the
kind of graduality of things.
So it's not entirely
impossible that there
is a break there if this kind
of pot could be dated earlier.
But according to,
at least notions
that we have now, that
kind of pot should
date firmly to the 25th
dynasty and not much before.
You'll notice also
that asterisk dates
are from the main
part of the cemetery.
So we definitely
do have overlap,
at least during the Third
Intermediate Period,
between the use of
both areas of the site.
And then pyramid tombs
being built again
in the 25th dynasty in the
older part of the cemetery.
But I think also
probably the tumuli
continuing to be built
also during that period.
So the tumuli look like this.
Again, they're kind
of very roughly made,
but would have been
pretty impressive
with these big granite blocks.
And trust me, we've had to
move some of these things.
That it's not easy, although,
of course, very doable.
But still takes a bit of work.
They all have a very
consistent substructure.
It's an east-west
oriented shaft going down
to a northern side chamber.
It's a substructure type that
begins with the New Kingdom,
so it's something that
represents an entanglement
from Egypt.
But within the
side chamber, there
are two pits on the
eastern and western ends
that are probably to
accommodate the feet of a bed.
At least that's the
thinking about it,
and it would make sense.
That would be more of a
Nubian feature, something
that we'd see at other
cemeteries in Nubia as well.
And as you can see from just the
remains of the skeleton here,
east-west orientation,
supine, head to the west,
facing towards the eastern
horizon and the rising sun,
a very Egyptian kind
of burial position.
Here's an example
that shows, however,
the kind of entanglements that
ensued during this period.
So here's one of these burials.
And you have to trust
me a bit on this,
but very carefully
tracing out, we
can trace out the
outline of a bed.
But then the body itself
was clearly within a coffin.
Again, all the wood completely
termite-eaten, but again,
we could trace out
some of those details.
When we lifted that
big rock, there
was a big piece of
wood on his chest,
and there was wood covering
his legs and so on.
You can see the
legs are tilted up,
and that's to go over
the footboard of the bed.
So we have a coffin burial,
Egyptian practice, supine,
evidence of wrapping as well.
So you find scraps of linen and
the tight position of the legs
and other body parts of the body
would suggest a tight wrapping.
Perhaps mummification.
We can't say for sure.
But then also place in a coffin.
So again, interweaving Egyptian
and Nubian burial practices.
Oops.
And also amulets.
In this case,
amulets that had been
collected in a little basket.
All of them broken.
It's kind of interesting.
It's a very odd little
collection of things.
Perhaps for medical purposes.
Perhaps, I don't know, maybe a
childhood collection of things?
I don't know.
I had a little collection
of broken things
when I was a kid, so could be.
I don't know.
But anyway, I am thinking
probably something
magical to do with.
It had a very interesting
collection of materials,
but with very sort of
Egyptian connotations.
Only one burial so
far in the tumuli
of a woman in flex position.
Interestingly enough, in exactly
the same distinctive position
that the women of the
New Kingdom were in.
So here you can see-- I've
just cropped the top of it--
that the legs were in a
similar position as well.
But with the hands up like this.
And in this case, maybe
fallen to the side.
In the case of the Third
Intermediate Burial,
on the right-hand side.
But suggestive, perhaps, of some
cultural continuities as well.
But for the most part,
every other burial
was, again, supine in burial
position with a mixture.
Sometimes with a coffin.
Sometimes without.
We did have some indication
of decoration on coffins.
Although most of the
decoration had disappeared.
Sometimes with a bed.
Sometimes only with a bed.
Sometimes with a bed and
a coffin, like the example
I showed earlier.
This is a really interesting
example of a burial.
She also showed strong
evidence for being
wrapped with lots of linen.
And you can, you know,
trace, again, the materials.
The decayed remnant
of linen looks
very different from the decayed
remnant of a wooden coffin
or a bed, for example.
And we actually got
some scraps of linen.
We were able to get
radiocarbon dates,
placing this burial solidly in
the Third Intermediate period.
And in fact, this one
is a good candidate.
The date actually
came from the bed,
the material taken from the
bed underneath the body here.
And so it may, in
fact, represent
an older bed that could push
it into the 25th Dynasty.
It's hard to say.
But in any case, very
close to that transition.
She also had--
there are actually
two interments in this tomb.
And with both of them
having been looted,
so these were mixed
up a little bit.
The larger amulets probably
came from a later burial.
The smaller ones from
the oldest burial.
But a nice example of Bes
with the later iconography
of the feathered headdress.
Isis, a goddess that had a
great appeal in Nubia where
women, and especially queens,
had a much more strong
political role than in Egypt.
Pataikos, another dwarf god,
also very popular in Nubia.
Eye of Horace connected
with the Isis cycle.
So the adoption of
the use of amulets,
the adoption of
deities in Nubia,
was very much conditioned
by a selective choice
of which deities
held a special appeal
to Nubians, and
with a logic that
must have been a Nubian logic.
And this is one way
we can try and get out
how Nubians thought
about how this,
how these entanglements
played out
through individual choices
of specific deities,
amulets, and so on, Bes
being one of the most
prominent examples of this.
This is the finest example
of an amulet from this tomb
with a very elaborate Pataikos.
Comparable to amulets found
with the royal burials
at the 25th Dynasty
cemetery at El-Kurru.
You can see here with the
goddess in the back, usually
Sakhmet.
The iconography looks more
like it might be Isis to me,
but even a little magical
inscription on the base.
These are quite common in Egypt
as well during this period.
And a scarab on the top.
So it's symbolizing rebirth
and rejuvenation and so forth.
This scarab, quite interesting.
Very large for a scarab,
with a unique design on it.
If anybody's seen
anything like that,
I would love to hear about it.
I have not before.
A couple of offering bearers.
So this may indicate a kind
of adaptation and innovation
with a kind of Egyptian
spin, but showing
that Nubians are actually going
kind of their own direction
in adapting Egyptian ideas
to suit their own ideas.
This burial was quite
wealthy, so the tumuli weren't
a bunch of poorer
people in the community,
you know, against
the individuals
buried in the mud
brick tombs and whatnot
in the older colonial
part of the cemetery.
They were clearly very well-off.
So you have these
[INAUDIBLE] sort
of signaling of identity
from a mud brick
tomb with a more Egyptian
resonating with a more
Egyptian past and
then these tumuli
resonating with a
more Nubian past,
but with this
entanglement going on.
So a couple of handles
from copper alloy vessels.
The vessels themselves
were stolen,
but the handles fell
off, thankfully.
So we have some evidence
for them being there.
A large calcite spool.
The only thing I can think is
that it might be an ear spool.
Someone suggested this.
It would have gone into a big
hole in your ear, as we see in,
for example, the New Kingdom.
And then bits of ebony
from a fine piece
of furniture, probably the bed.
And then a bit of ivory
inlay with a very Nubian sort
of decorative pattern on it.
So, again, looking
at entanglement.
Nubian style jewelry
like ivory bracelets.
Very common in this
part of the cemetery,
although they do appear in
the New Kingdom as well,
but in much smaller numbers.
Shell beads of a kind that I
don't know from Egypt at all.
Glazed quartz crystal, which
is a very Nubian kind of thing,
again.
So again, this kind
of entanglement.
So we have elements from both
Nubian and Egyptian burial
practices that have been
interwoven in a variety of ways
depending on the individual.
But the characteristic
is the mixing
of these different features.
As I mentioned,
we also see reuse
in the older part
of the cemetery.
And here's a mud brick
tomb that was presumably
built in the New Kingdom.
Evidence from the ceramics
at the bottom of the shaft
would tend to indicate that.
You can see here
it's been reused.
Granite beams have
been placed to seal
across the shaft of the tomb,
and then were, of course,
displaced by tomb robbers.
Here's from the
bottom of the shaft
this wonderful
little duck censer,
that would date to the-- I would
date to the Ramesside period.
Other pottery would be very
late in the Ramesside period
or into the early Third
Intermediate Period.
Again, the pottery
typologies are
rather ambiguous during
this period of time.
But the most extraordinary
thing about this tomb
was about halfway down the shaft
we found the burial of a horse.
This is a deliberate burial.
It's not just a horse that fell
in, as someone suggested to me.
I actually have a
horse, and I know
if my horse fell in
a shaft like that,
it would not look like that.
It's clearly been very
carefully laid out.
And in fact, was
wrapped in linen.
And even had some fur preserved.
So I can tell that this
horse had white socks,
if you know horse
terminology, on her hind legs.
Which is, interestingly
enough, a feature
of the Dongolawi breed, which
is famous in this region,
or at least was in
the medieval era.
So kind of interesting
to think about that.
We do have a horse
specialist who's
looking at this from the
perspective of the introduction
of horses into Africa.
But it's very interesting
from our perspective,
because these horse burials
provide an example of, again,
a very complex cultural
entanglement, so horses,
of course, come in
from trans-Caucus area
into the Middle East into
Egypt with the Hyksos.
Horse burials being very
characteristic of the Hyksos,
not so much in Egypt.
I don't know of many.
In fact, the one
that stands out to me
is Senemut had the burial of a
horse associated with his tomb.
I don't really know of any
others in Egypt outside
of the Hyksos realm.
But it pops up in Nubia.
And then during
the 25th Dynasty,
the rulers buried whole
chariot teams in El-Kurru.
So this seems to be a looking
kind of example early example
of this kind of practice on
a private level that was then
expanded on a royal
level later on.
And this particular
burial, too, was-- sorry,
I lost my train of thought.
So this, yeah.
Oh, this particular
horse, too, there's
evidence on the bones of
wear consistent with it
being harnessed.
So most likely a chariot
horse at this period of time.
So that would be,
again, consistent
with that kind of practice.
Was found with a scarab, which
is attested from the Ramesside
period.
But, of course,
could be an heirloom.
Or it could be later.
Notice quite a bit
of wear on the back.
It could have been
part of the tack.
Of course, it could
have just fallen in
and been associated with it.
It also had a piece of iron
work associated with it as well.
And this does look
like a piece of tack.
And I had that confirmed.
It looked to me like
a piece of tack,
and our horse specialist
confirmed that as well.
This would be a very early
piece of iron from Nubia
if that does prove
to be the case.
You know, about 900 BC, or, at
the earliest, about 1000 BC.
And in fact, recent
evidence from Meroe
suggests that iron
production in Nubia
may have started
very early indeed.
Certainly before the 25th
Dynasty, or at least,
hypothetically, before
the 25th Dynasty.
And future excavations will
help pin that down hopefully.
But it's very
unusual to find that.
Also new construction
of mud brick monuments.
A pyramid tomb--
you have to imagine
the pyramid in the
back, but there's just
the foundations left again.
And a mud brick chapel with
the kind of pylon entryway.
A pyramid dedicated--
I've labeled
it here the pyramid of Tuwy.
Note the two little offering
tables out in front of it.
And that's because we found this
heart scarab thrown out nearby.
It has close parallels
from El-Kurru,
so I think it is a 25th
Dynasty heart scarab naming
a scribe named Tuwy.
So better to say Tuwy than
the unit nine pyramid tomb.
I like personalizing
things when we can.
And it's pretty likely that
if it did come from the tomb,
that he was the main occupant.
We found lots of, again,
evidence of Egyptian amulets,
jewelry, and so on, scarabs,
inlays from coffins.
We also found the
remains of coffins,
but the entire
underground chamber
had been filled with mud.
And so what we ended up with
was plaster and paint on mud
that we had to very carefully
excavate with consolidant
and as we were going along.
And we were actually
able to get most
of a head of a coffin
and an inscription.
And they would appear
to be consistent
with Third Intermediate
Period style coffins.
Here's the underground complex,
which is a bit unusual.
Here you can see
the shoring that we
had to use because the
ceiling was collapsing.
But that was very effective in
protecting everyone involved.
And you can see it has a very
idiosyncratic, very scattered
sort of ad hoc plan to it, which
is more consistent of tombs
in the Third Intermediate Period
than it is in the New Kingdom
when they follow
a more set plan.
Also, the burials themselves
are at odd angles.
So a couple of them are
nicely oriented east-west,
as one would expect.
But others oriented
north-south or south-north.
And so this kind of
erratic burial pattern
also consistent with tombs in
the Third Intermediate Period,
like those at [INAUDIBLE], where
we find sort of mixed burial
practices again a bit
south of the more intensive
occupied area of the empire.
So we may be seeing,
again, adaptations.
Maybe a breaking down of
some of the strict rules as
has appeared in other
tombs at Tombos as well.
The pottery indicates a 25th
Dynasty date very clearly
in this case, but also
includes a bit of entanglement.
So you can see the continuation
still of black-topped redware
as part of the assemblage.
The red polished
sherds also come
from a special
kind of beaker that
was developed
during this period,
but that seems to
involve a kind of blend
of Egyptian and
Nubian technologies
and decorative
techniques that I'll
show you a nice example
of in just a second.
So just to round out our
discussion of Tombos,
an example of a really
interesting tomb, a mud brick
vaulted chamber tomb that
had begun to be looted.
The torso the body
was taken out.
Again, presumably to get at some
nice jewelry around the neck.
And at that point,
the vaulting collapsed
and the tomb robbers
being lazy, I
love lazy tomb robbers,
left everything in situ.
And so we have an
individual in a coffin--
again, you'll have
to trust me a bit,
but we traced this very
carefully out-- with strong
evidence of mummification.
Great mats of evidence
for linen wrapping
as well as scraps
of linen itself.
And also sitting on a
bed with a foot board,
so you can see the coffin and
feet are actually angled up.
This was a really rich tomb.
It had a number of
interesting objects in it.
Radiocarbon date would place
it in the right period.
And the scarab of
Shabaka is probably
fairly close to the
actual date of the tomb,
somewhere during
the 25th Dynasty,
after, obviously, Shabaka's
reign around somewhere
after 700 BC.
Again, iron.
So an iron spear point
and other weaponry.
But right next to
it, microlith tipped
arrowheads that represent
a long tradition in Nubia.
And so this can be seen as a
kind of polyvalent identity
where on the one hand you're
expressing kind of the latest
technology,
affiliations with Egypt
with columns and
things like this,
but with these
traditional arrowheads
perhaps hearkening
back to a more
traditional Nubian identity.
Or incorporating
all of these things
in a new identity, a
process of ethnogenesis.
Again, similarly,
with this pot thrown
on a wheel, an
Egyptian technology,
with a black top decoration,
a Nubian style declaration.
But the shape itself, although
it plays off of older types,
is really innovative
to this period.
Other objects show that
this individual had
strong connections with Egypt.
And in this case, the god Amun.
A cryptographic
scarab that, again, I
have not found a direct
parallel for this.
Beautiful thing made of some
kind of probably copper alloy
with a cryptographic inscription
that might be read "Amun
loves the one who loves him."
It's a very sort of
high-end esoteric object,
but Amun being a very
important god in Nubia.
And, again, kind of taken
over on their own terms.
Jewelry associated with him.
A number of Egyptian
amulets, but also
these quartz and hematite
beads that maybe reflect
more of a Nubian sensibility.
But also, he's tapped into
the international style
of the period.
And you have to look
very closely here,
but this is a
copper alloyed bowl
with images of
bulls running along
in the International style.
Very similar to an example
from the wives of King Piankhi.
This one in the Boston
Museum of Fine Arts.
A fayence bowl, but with
the same iconography.
And in fact, it's
quite possible these
may have been imported
from the Levant,
but I haven't had an
opportunity to test them yet.
And I'll just finish off with
one extraordinary object--
you can see it in the
corner here-- a wooden box.
And we had a conservator
out-- so, again,
another example of
multi-disciplinarity and sort
of using the latest
technologies-- to examine this.
I had a block lifted,
and this was the side
that I had been able
to expose myself
when I realized that I really
needed to get a conservator.
And, again, you have
to look carefully,
but you can see it's
a papyrus swamp.
And the design is
actually cut out.
So it's open work
at the top, and then
a solid base with lotus
blossoms along the bottom.
And you can see here a
cow with a calf suckling,
and then in front of it, a
heron or a stork striding along.
And this matches this very
common international style
motif of a kind of Hathoric
cow looking at a calf.
It's really an
extraordinary object.
And the conservator was
able to remove the debris,
stabilize it, and
expose the other side.
So here again you have to
use your imagination a bit,
but two cows flanking something.
Looks like a lotus?
Maybe Nefertum?
I don't know.
We'll see as it gets clear.
If anyone has an idea,
I'd be happy to hear it.
But again, kind of a papyrus
swamp motif with lotuses
underneath and papyrus
stalks in the background.
And then on the other side, a
person with, perhaps, a calf.
And then two standards
or they almost
look like pots and
papyrus columns.
Again, all open work.
Really an extraordinary object.
Again, I know of no real direct
parallel to it, but very much
playing off of themes in
the international style,
Hathoric things.
And not surprisingly,
holding cosmetic vessels.
So you can see just
peeking through a couple
of cosmetic vessels.
And this is a nice example
of delayed gratification,
because this is as far
as we got opening it.
But one side had and badly
damaged, of the conservator
pulled it off.
You can see here a couple
of fayence vessels.
A nice blue one.
And a very elaborately
decorated green one.
And then another
piece is more iron.
So perhaps cosmet-- it seems to
be some sort of cosmetic set,
so perhaps razors,
that kind of thing.
Really extraordinary to find
iron again, even at 700 BC.
This would be, at
least according
to conventional
wisdom, very early.
But again, this new evidence
coming out of Meroe strongly
suggests that there was
a Nubian iron industry
already by this period in time.
Again, this is part of
kind of reformulating
our ideas about the
sophistication of Nubian
civilization.
And I think these burials
and other evidence coming out
of Nubia shows that these
were not just subordinate
or sort of converted to
an Egyptian way of life
by a new entanglement
with Egypt,
but rather a very
sophisticated culture that
approached these
things on its own terms
and deployed both traditional
and Egyptian ideas,
but also ideas coming out
of the international style
of very cosmopolitan culture.
But, again, I would say
driven on their own terms,
not from Egypt, as, again, has
tended to be the case before.
OK, and let me just give
you a few final thoughts.
So the notion of
Nubian Egyptianization
presupposes a binary
opposition between
Egyptian and Nubian culture.
Transitional forms
and mixing are
part of a gradual
process of assimilation
or, alternatively, a return
to, quote unquote, "barbarism."
Native material,
culture, and practices
are seen as survivals or
islets irrelevant to the larger
pattern of Egyptian
cultural domination.
This unidirectional view is
in-line with older frontier
studies, which tend to
see colonial boundaries
in a similar way as a polarized
opposition between colonial
and indigenous populations.
In practice, however, frontiers
act as zones of interaction
the cross-cut political,
social, and cultural boundaries.
In colonial encounters,
contextual histories
of entangled objects,
preferences, and practices
capture the inner penetration
of cultures and contact.
Now, the appearance
and rejection
of objects and practices results
in cultural juxtapositions
as much as hybridity.
In the case presented
here, the outcome
is further conditioned
by the cultural impacts
of imperial strategies and
a gender dynamic common
in similar colonial
situations with women playing
a fundamental and active
role in negotiating
cultural identities.
Some of the Egyptianizing
features in Kushite
civilization certainly were the
result of contemporary contact
as we move into
the 25th Dynasty,
but many, or even most,
came from a long history
of entanglement
with Egypt, starting
in particular during the
New Kingdom expansion that
absorbed lower Nubia and the
northern half of Upper Nubia.
The constellation
of features that
appear at Tombos in the
Third Intermediate Period
were widespread, if a bit
variable in their combinations,
reflecting particular local
social context and histories.
And here you just see
just a few examples.
And you could include
Amara West on this as well.
This is where these amulets of
Bes and Pataikos have appeared,
but we can see all of
these other features--
the east-west orientation,
bed burials but supine,
burial position, and so
forth-- with a wide spread
stretching all the way
down south to Meroe,
at least during the 25th Dynasty
and probably a bit before that
as well.
We also see the adaptation
of figures like Bes
into a new cultural context.
In this case, moving
from a private god
worshiped in daily life in the
sorts of amulets like this one
to a more public
and royal context
with these monumental
expressions
like this these Bes
columns in the Amun Temple
at Jebel Barkal as well as
other similar kinds of examples
of Bes coming into
the formal temple role
that he did not occupy
in Egypt at all.
Also the use of pyramids
as a burial monument
by kings, queens, and the
elite also illustrates
this principle.
So these Nubian
pyramids were often--
people have suggested
they were inspired
by ancient Egyptian
royal pyramids,
but in fact, they don't
bear much resemblance at all
to royal pyramids, which
had, after all, ceased
to be used at the very
beginning of the New Kingdom.
But instead, they
do closely resemble
the kind of New Kingdom pyramids
and the continuing construction
of private monuments
of this type
over the course of the
Third Intermediate Period.
So in a way, we can
see these pyramids
not as an Egyptianized feature,
but a kind of local innovation.
Again, a Nubian
monument that plays off
of those Egyptian
ties and maybe even
signaled, to some extent, ties
to Egypt, but was very much
a Nubian thing.
Let's see.
Oh, I think that they
did, in some cases,
recognize the antecedents
of some of these features.
At Tombos, for example,
signaling an affiliation
with the more recent Egyptian
or more ancient Nubian past
through the use of
funerary monuments
like tumuli end pyramids.
It is nonetheless
important to realize
that what we see as Egyptian
features had, by this time,
fully integrated
into Kushite culture.
And that's something
that others,
like Stephen [INAUDIBLE],
have pointed out
in more recent colonial
contacts and interactions.
At the same time,
the Nubian features
interwoven or juxtaposed
with Egyptian practices,
like women buried on
beds in flex position,
were not just survivals
of an earlier time.
Hall warns against the tendency
to interpret the preservation
of traditional culture
as an isolated part,
pointing out that even the
[INAUDIBLE] Bushmen were never
really cut off from
colonial society,
and native identity
can survive even
in the setting of
apparent assimilation
to the culture of
the colonial power
through the subtle practice
of tastes, of choices
that individuals make based
on sets of preferences
and the kind of constraints of
a larger cultural situation.
As Laszlo Torok points
out, and I quote,
"it would be a
misleading simplification
to describe this process
as a direct Egyptianization
of native mortuary, religion,
burial, and tomb types.
In reality, it was a more
comprehensive process
in which native concepts
were continuously
amalgamated with, rather than
replaced by, Egyptian ideas.
Thus immigration and
influence after a reversion
to a"-- excuse me.
"Thus the emergence
of the Nubian dynasty
was not the direct
result of a new wave
of Egyptian immigration
and influence
after a reversion to
indigenous practices,
nor was it a direct survival
of Egyptian colonial culture.
Instead, long-term
cultural entanglements
and an accumulation of
individual traits as coming out
of the colonial encounter were
responsible for the formation
of a new Kushite
identity that interwove
features from both traditions
in a process of ethnogenesis."
When they conquered Egypt.
These Kushite kings
portrayed themselves
as the saviors of Egyptian
civilization, such as Taharqa,
against foreign influences,
like the Libyan dynas.
But in reality, they
had redefined what
it was to be an Egyptian king.
So that's the end of my talk.
Here's some acknowledgements.
But I just wanted to make
one comment on Egyptology
in general, if you can put
up with me for just a minute.
Egyptology is increasingly
reevaluating the boundaries
of the discipline
created, breaking
through to a better
understanding
of the dynamics that underpin
this great civilization.
The kind of archeology
envisioned by Petrie,
if not fully
realized, is uniquely
suited to investigating broad
social issues-- like the one
I've explored here.
Neal's going to be talking
about this tomorrow, and others
too-- and gaining some insight
into the lived experience
of individuals from
rulers to the commons.
As [INAUDIBLE] pointed
out decades ago,
archeology is also our
best hope to shine light
on the so-called dark ages--
as Joe Wegner is going
to be talking with
us about tomorrow as
well-- like the Second and
Third Intermediate Periods,
transforming
historical narratives
and becoming a partner
to philology in text
rather than a, quote
unquote, "handmaiden
of history," which I'm
afraid has all too often
been the mentality.
As we'll see tomorrow,
the best projects-- and I
include everyone speaking
tomorrow in this category--
are challenging
those boundaries,
shaking Egyptology out of
its antiquarian preoccupation
with spectacular discoveries,
like with the tomb
of Tutankhamun,
instead addressing
important questions of interest
both within and outside
the discipline, of
taking advantage
of the theoretical
approaches and increasingly
multi-disciplinary
collaboration that includes
indigenous archaeologists,
a process that
can place Egyptology back at the
forefront of world archeology.
And I think this workshop
will play an important role
in moving that agenda forward.
Thank you very much.
[APPLAUSE]
