The Archaeology of the Meroitic State: New perspectives on its social and political organisation 9780860548256, 9781407349480

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Figures and Tables
Preface and Acknowledgements
Chapter 1: Towards an Archaeology of the Meroitic State
Chapter 2: Meroe in Context: Early States and Sudanic Kingdoms
Chapter 3: The Power Bases of the Meroitic State
Chapter 4: Long-Distance Exchanges and a Prestige-Goods Economy
Chapter 5: Meroitic Settlement in Lower Nubia: A Case Study
Chapter 6: An Interpretation of Meroitic Settlement in Lower Nubia
Chapter 7: Conclusion: Towards an Archaeology of the Meroitic State
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Abbreviations
Bibliography
Series Listing

Citation preview

BAR S640 1996  EDWARDS  THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE MEROITIC STATE

9 780860 548256

B A R

Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 38 Series editor: John Alexander

The Archaeology of the Meroitic State New perspectives on its social and political organisation

David N. Edwards

BAR International Series 640 1996

Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 38 Series editor: John Alexander

The Archaeology of the Meroitic State New perspectives on its social and political organisation

David N. Edwards

BAR International Series 640 1996

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 640

Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 38 The Archaeology of the Meroitic State

© D N Edwards and the Publisher 1996 Volume Editor: Rajka Makjanic The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9780860548256 paperback ISBN 9781407349480 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860548256 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Tempvs Reparatvm in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 1996. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Table of Contents Table of Contents

ii

List of Figures and Tables

iv

Preface and Acknowledgements

V

Chapter 1

Towards an Archaeology of the Meroitic State

Introduction Research Background The Middle Nile Basin and Sudanic Africa The archaeology of the Meroitic state

Chapter2

20 21 22 22

26 27 28 29 33 36 38

Long-Distance Exchanges and a Prestige-Goods Economy

Introduction The Prestige-Goods model and political power Prestige-Goods and Ranking Social Differentiation in Meroitic burial Prestige Goods and status signifiers Funerary Banquets Towards a hierarchy of prestige-goods A general model of a Meroitic prestige-goods economy Discussion

Chapter 5

8 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

The Power Bases of the Meroitic State

Meroe as a Sudanic State A summary of the Meroitic-Sudanic model Subsistence and production Settlement in the Westem Butana: the control of water Economic Administration Manufactures and their distribution Long-distance Trade and Exchange Meroitic modes of exchange and trading mechanisms The spatial distribution of imported artefacts The scale of trade Conclusions

Chapter 4

3 5

Meroe in Context: Early States and Sudanic kingdoms

Introduction Political systems and defininitions of the state The Segmentary state and African kingdoms Approaching the Meroitic state Power relations and the state Meroe and the Sudanic kingdoms Early Sudanic states: the sources of social power Middle Nile Basin states and the 'Sudanic' model Subsistence and Production Warfare and Raiding Trade Conclusions

Chapter 3

1 1

39

40 40 41 43 44 45 46 47

Meroitic settlement in Lower Nubia: a case-study

Introduction Previous perceptions of the Meroitic north The scale and character of Meroitic settlement in Lower Nubia Assessing the scale of Meroitic settlement The chronology of settlement

48 48 51 56 56

58

Population size Estimating the living population of Lower Nubia Meroitic settlements in Lower Nubia The spatial patterns of settlement Discussion The phasing of settlement at a regional level Conclusions

Chapter6

60 62 70

75 78 78

An Interpretation of Meroitic Settlement in Lower Nubia 80 80 81

Introduction The introduction of the saqia Lower Nubia during the Meroitic period Trade and settlement patterning Conclusions

Chapter7

86 87

Conclusion: towards an archaeology of the Meroitic state

Introduction Social and Political power in the Meroitic state Subsistence Production Exchange, Production and a Prestige-Goods economy The territorial organisation of the state Changing power relations and the 'end ofMeroe'

88 88 88 89 90 92

Appendices Appendix 1 Appendix2 Appendix 3 Appendix4

An inventory of Meroitic sites between Maharraqa and the Third Cataract Meroitic cemeteries in Lower Nubia The Meroitic Settlement on Illa Island (16-J-20) The Meroitic Settlement at Kedurma

Bibliography

94 103 106 115 118

ii

Figures and Tables

2

Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3. Fig.4. Fig. 5. Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8. Fig. 9. Fig. 10. Fig. 11. Fig. 12. Fig. 13. Fig. 14. Fig. 15. Fig. 16. Fig. 17. Fig. 18. Fig. 19. Fig. 20. Fig. 21. Fig. 22. Fig. 23. Fig. 24. Fig. 25. Fig. 26. Fig. 27. Fig. 28. Fig. 29. Fig. 30. Fig. 31. Fig. 32. Fig. 33. Fig. 34. Fig. 35. Fig. 36. Fig. 37. Fig. 38.

Meroe and the Middle Nile Valley Early states in Sudanic Africa Meroitic settlement south of the 1bird Cataract Principle forms of circulation andproductive relations Meroitic settlement in the Western Butana Location map for sites listed in Table 1 Lower Nubia Tombos to Dal The Batn el Hagar. Dal to the Second Cataract Seond Cataract to Paras Paras to Maharraqa General plan of Karanog General plan of Ash-Shaukan Meroitic occupation at Paras Meroitic Meinarti Meroitic Gaminarti Meroitic building at Sai Meroitic sites between the Third Cataract and Dal Meroitic settlement within the Batn el Hagar Meroitic settlement between the Second Cataract and Abu Simbel Meroitic settlement between Abu Simbel and Tomas Meroitic settlement between Tomas and Maharraqa The main population centres of Lower Nubia, as reflected in the size of cemeteries Keclurma, 'Building A' The 'Western Palace' at Paras Karanog 'Castle' (top) & House 2 (bottom) Possible 'loggia' plan house at Gaminarti Tila Island. General plan of the Meroitic settlement Plan of House I General plan of early ('level 4') House Il complex Plan oflate ('level 2') House Il complex Plan of House m Plan of House IV Plan of House V Plan of House VI complex, (middle phase) General plan of surface remains at Kedurma and modem structures Surface remains at the north end of Kedurma settlement

21 24 35 49 52 53 54 55 63 64 65 67 67 68 69 71 72 73 74 76 77 82 82 83 84 107 108 109 110 110 111 112 113 115 116

Table Table Table Table Table

The occurrence of imported artefacts in cemeteries Frequency of imported artefacts in Lower Nubian graves Contrasts between the Meroitic north and south Chronological phasing of Lower Nubian sites Population estimates from cemetery and settlement evidence

34 36 51 57 70

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Melli

iii

4 6

Preface and Acknowledgements with a savannah landscape and the Nile lacking the seemingly timeless 'nomads' and Nubian farmers with which we are so familiar. Equally we need to develop a wider discourse which is open to the many and diverse developments which have enriched archaeology in other areas in recent years. In this respect we have much to learn from the history and anthropology of Sudanic Africa, as well as other fields of the social sciences. In view of the unusual and largely untapped potential of Meroitic archaeology, it may be hoped that such work will also be of interest to scholars in other disciplines, providing new perspectives and a much greater time-depth for the study of early subSaharan societies and their power dynamics, as well as contributing to broader debates concerning the development of early states.

This study is a revised version of a doctoral dissertation, completed in the Department of Archaeology, Cambridge University during 1994. Due to limitations of space it was impossible to develop many lines of research as fully as I would have wished and many problems which could only be touched upon, require much further study. As ever, all too many new questions have been raised. However, it is hoped that this preliminary study will stimulate further work and debate which will begin to address some of the problems raised here; not only matters of detail, but also some of the larger issues concerning the way we perceive and portray the Meroitic state, and indeed other ancient societies of the Middle Nile. My underlying concern in this work has been to develop new lines of research into the Meroitic state and society which explicitly acknowledge its Sudanic African context and identity. The Middle Nile region has a particular interest and importance, not only as the home of the most ancient states of sub-Saharan Africa, but due to its long history of contacts with the north, linking Sudanic Africa and the Mediterranean and near East through Egypt. Such contacts have undoubtedly played a major role in the creation of the complex tapestry of cultures and identities of the modem Sudan and have attracted much attention. However, the indigenous roots of its ancient cultures and kingdoms remain little understood and we remain poorly equipped to assess the significance of these contacts, beyond their more obvious material manifestations.

I am indebted to a number of institutions and individuals for their support and encouragement during the course of my research. My doctoral research and fieldwork was funded by a Major State Studentship from the British Academy, together with generous grants from St.John's College, Cambridge, The Society of Antiquaries of London, the Thomas Mulvey Fund, Cambridge and indirectly through the Faculty of Arts and the Department of Archaeology, University of Khartoum. I am particularly grateful to Dr. John Alexander who has continually encouraged and supported me in my work and whose enthusiasm, breadth of vision and many kindnesses added much to my quality of life as a research student. Thanks are also due to many colleagues and friends who have helped, criticised and stimulated my work in many ways, especially Bill Adams, Charles Bonnet, Patrice Lenoble, Tony Mills, Ali Osman, Jacques Reinold, Pam Rose and Derek Welsby. Also to Joe and Janet Kovacik and Mary Alexander, who saw this completed, and Claudia Naser whose work helped me clarify, and at times made me rethink some of my more intuitive early conclusions.

In attempting to address some of the larger issues arising in Meroitic archaeology it has thus seemed both necessary and appropriate to look beyond the traditionally somewhat narrow foci of research, particularly monuments and 'art' objects. The traditional concentration on the more prominent remains and their description has yet, to my mind, done little to establish their place in the history of ancient Sudanic Africa. Adopting a broader historical perspective, their particular interest would seem to lie not so much in themselves, but in what they can tell us concerning their roles and significance within the social and political fabric of the ancient Middle Nile. In tum, research in this region, benefiting from the relative wealth of Meroitic archaeology, bas a potential to inform and help us develop new lines of research in other areas of the continent, generally less well explored and lacking such highly visible material remains. Developing a more 'social archaeology' may also begin to redress the balance of Sudanese archaeology which has tended to neglect, and all too often largely dismiss, the unknown or the unfamiliar elements of its 'African' cultural background.

While carrying out this research I was fortunate to be able to carry out several periods of fieldwork in Sudan and Egyptian Nubia, including work with the University of Khartoum Mahas Survey Project, and at Qasr !brim with the Egypt Exploration Society excavations directed by Dr. Mark Horton. As ever, my work in Sudan benefited greatly from the support and encouragement of the Sudan National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums. I owe a particular debt to Dr. Ali Osman for inviting my participation in the Mahas Survey, a project which has allowed me to maintain a close and happy association with Nubia, and to Tony Mills for encouraging me to work on the unpublished records of the Sudan Antiquities ServiceUNESCO Gemai-Dal Survey. A final thanks to Anna Constantas for all her support while completing the thesis, and yet again, to my parents and family.

Considerable challenges remain if we are to begin to reconstruct and understand such a different, but indubitably 'African' (for want of a better term) world and its early kingdoms and civilisations, long before the advent of the Arabs and Islam in the region, with all the major transformations they brought. We need to come to terms

Cambridge January 1996

V

CHAPTERl Towards an Archaeology of the Meroitic state. Introduction century BC. However, we have, as yet, virtually no information concerning the processes of cultural change and development over this period and how they may be associated with political restructurings we assume to have taken place.

The Meroitic or Kushite kingdom of the Middle Nile is one of the most important early states yet found within subSaharan Africa; one of the largest of a long sequence of polities situated in the Middle Nile, which may be traced back to the Kerma kingdom, whose origins may be found during the late third millennium BC (Bonnet 1990, 1992). Current perceptions of its historical development suggest a political continuity from the eighth century BC, when Kushite rulers briefly ruled Egypt as the XXV Dynasty, until the fourth century AD. Following its disintegration and a still little-understood period of political restructuring, it was superseded by three smaller kingdoms of Nobatia, Makouria and Alodia, which were converted to Christianity during the sixth century. These survived into the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries, being ultimately replaced by the Islamic sultanate of Funj Sennar, which at the peak of its power, controlled much of the Middle Nile from far south of Sennar as far north as the Third Cataract. The remnants of this state finally succumbed to the invading army of Muhammed Ali in 1820-1821.

Any attempt to demarcate the full extent of the kingdom also remains difficult. Problems encountered in defining territory will be discussed in more detail in later chapters, but at its peak it probably constituted the largest state located in the Middle Nile until the nineteenth century. Available evidence suggests that the kingdom may have controlled territory from as far north as Maharraqa in Lower Nubia, to south of Sennar on the Blue Nile, a distance of some 1,100km. This area may be broken down into four main regions (fig.I). The core areas of the kingdom lay in the Dongola Reach between the Third and Fourth Cataracts, where the state developed in the early first millennium BC, and the 'Island of Meroe' comprising the Shendi Reach and the Western Butana, which became its focus during the later Meroitic phase. To the south, there is some evidence that the state controlled a significant stretch of the Blue Nile valley and perhaps parts of the Gezira region between the White and Blue Niles. In the far north, it also controlled the relatively inhospitable and arid 'Nubian corridor' extending from the Third Cataract to the Egyptian frontier. Its eastwest extent remains uncertain, but overall, it far surpassed the size of any of the medieval Christian kingdoms and was perhaps larger than the Funj sultanate (Crawford 1951), controlling as it did a considerable length of the river valley north of the Third Cataract, which the Funj never conquered.

When studying the Meroitic kingdom and its archaeology, it is important to recognise from the outset how little we still know about it, and that many of our presumptions concerning underlying continmtles in its political organisation, or indeed its culture, still remain difficult to demonstrate. While we talk of the Meroitic Kingdom (or Empire), the political realities behind this remain obscure. It seems very likely that the kingdom's political institutions may not have been as enduring and stable as most general histories of the region tend to suggest, implicitly or explicitly. As Adams has pointed out, if the kingdom endured intact over the long period, its longevity was impressive, exceeding the duration of any of Pharaonic Egypt's periods of political unity (1977: 250). However, it would be more realistic to assume that the political power of the Meroitic kings fluctuated considerably over the centuries. lntimately, it is only the sequence of royal tombs that provides us with an appearance of continuity over this great span of time. Even here, the possibility remains that this neat sequence may not be as straightforward as we have tended to suppose. There are indications that at least in the late first millennium BC there may have existed rival dynasties, buried at Jebel Barkal and Meroe respectively (Adams 1977: 309-10). This notwithstanding, the existence of a large and culturally sophisticated kingdom dominating the Middle Nile throughout this period cannot be doubted.

Research background Developing the archaeological study of the Meroitic state clearly presents many challenges. Many key areas of its archaeology remain very poorly developed, both in terms of research orientations and basic data. Historically, Meroitic studies has developed as a sub-discipline of the dominant tradition of Egyptological scholarship, sharing similar research perspectives and biases, developed from experience of the Egyptian Lower Nile, including Lower Nubia. From the early part of this century, when the field first developed, this has contributed to a pervasive Egyptocentrism which has tended to attribute the early development of urbanism and state level societies in the Middle Nile to the direct influences of Pharaonic, Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine Egypt (Connah 1987: 24). For George Reisner who initiated the first systematic archaeological fieldwork in the region with the First Archaeological Survey of Nubia (1907-1912), and who later excavated at Kerma and the Kushite royal cemeteries, Nubian history was "hardly more than an account of its use or neglect by Egypt" (1910: 348).

Definition of cultural continuities across the centuries also remains problematic in many areas once we look beyond the most generalised features of Kushite/Meroitic 'civilisation'. Very significant changes clearly took place during this period, with very marked differences between the early 'Napatan' (c.750-300 BC) and the later 'Meroitic' (c.300 BC-AD 350) phases. These seem to relate to the shift in the focus of royal authority from Napata to Meroe by the third

While such extreme interpretations

1

have been largely

Egyptian royal power and foreign policy (O'Connor 1991).

rejected, Middle Nile political developments are still generally regarded as dependent on the ebb and flow of

Aswan

.:,'

' 'I W. Butana

.,. Cataracts

0

Fig. 1. Meroe and the Middle Nile Valley. 2

of the use of Egyptian hieroglyphs (Eide et al. 1994). Meroitic, wri~ten in both hieroglyphs and a cursive form, which replaced it as the official language of record, remains impenetrable. Despite the existence of some further external references to Meroe in Classical sources, their potential for informing us about the social and political organisation of the state remains extremely limited.

More fundamentally perhaps, the Egyptocentric bias which pervades much past research has not been conducive to promoting the investigation of the indigenous background to the state, viewed from the perspective of sub-Saharan Africa. The importance of redressing this imbalance should not be underestimated. Throughout its history, it is clear that the centres of Meroitic power lay in the Sahel and savannah lands south of the Sahara. Despite this, even at a basic level, while the radical differences in environment and economy which distinguish the Middle Nile from the Lower Nile of Pharaonic Egypt are on occasions acknowledged in the literature (Shinnie 1967, Adams 1981), the implications of such differences still remain little explored. Certainly, little interest has been shown in considering the ways in which such factors may have influenced the development of sociopolitical relations in this region, or that, as a consequence, the state may have been organised on very different principles from those known from Egypt. Above all, research which has been based largely on the sparse historical and textual sources, has tended to look for Egyptian analogies rather than looking to Sudanic African models of socio-economic and political organisation in developing interpretations of the Meroitic state.

The emphasis on the most obviously Egyptian influenced features of Meroitic civilisation, its monumental architecture, higher arts and religion, and as a field of ancient history has not been balanced by developing the full potential of the archaeological data. Studies of, for example, Meroitic settlement, subsistence, manufactures, trade and exchange, remain poorly developed and many fundamental areas, such as the study of Meroitic ceramics, remain neglected. Such work as has been done has also, by necessity, tended to be focused on the northern periphery of the kingdom in Lower Nubia, the area where most of the more recent fieldwork has been carried out. More generally, the practice of archaeology has also remained little touched by the major methodological and theoretical advances made by the discipline over the last 30 years. This is particularly the case with historic archaeologies, with the distinctions between prehistoric and historic archaeologies still remaining strong. Little interest has been shown in developing what may be termed a more 'social archaeology' or in beginning to start exploring and interpreting the linkages between the Meroitic state, 'society' and its material culture.

If traditional perspectives have tended to direct research

along an Egyptocentric path, the development and subsequent concentration of fieldwork within arid northern Lower Nubia has further contributed to the maintenance of the same riverine focus which necessarily dominates Egyptian research. Within Sudanese archaeology in general, there still exists a strong research bias towards riverine areas (Alexander 1992), which remain largely divorced from their regional context. While it is acknowledged that the Middle Nile valley has remained a major focus for permanent settlement during the last three millennia, only very recently has there been recognition of the importance of the environmental richness of the surrounding savannah (Lenoble 1989: 106). The results of recent work by Fattovich (1989, 1991) and Sadr (1991) has begun to demonstrate that the Middle Nile valley represented only one, albeit especially favoured, ecological zone within a far broader environmental system which supported the development of other quite complex societies. Unlike the Lower Nile where environmental circumscription, and the resulting 'socialcaging', was clearly influential in the development of the Egyptian state (Mann 1986: 74ff; Wenke 1989), cultural and political developments in the Middle Nile must be explored within the context of this very different environment. Above all, this region cannot be treated in isolation from the open savannah belt of Sudanic Africa within which it lay.

The Middle Nile Basin and Sudanic Africa Against this background, a general concern in this study is to develop some new and alternative perspectives on the Meroitic state which, first and foremost, explicitly acknowledge its broader environmental and historical context within sub-Saharan Africa. Rather than starting from a consideration of higher level interactions with its northern neighbour, developing an understanding of the some of the underlying general patterns of social and political development within Sudanic Africa seems a more appropriate and indeed essential way of grounding research. To do this, it is possible to draw on an extensive range of both general and comparative studies of social, economic and political development within Sudanic Africa, particularly with its western parts. It is recognised that such an approach diverges from the traditional delineation of historical and archaeological research in the region. Archaeology within the Middle Nile still remains, all too often, 'self-referencing', rarely looking outside the region for comparative purposes, and even more rarely looking to other disciplines among the historical and social sciences. With regard to the development of regional research traditions, there has been a tendency to treat western Sudanic Africa and the Middle Nile Basin as distinct and effectively unrelated fields of study. However, it can be argued that such large-scale regional divisions are poorly founded and mask important similarities and continuities between the two regions which suggest that they may usefully be studied as a larger unit, comprising the Sudanic savannah belt as a whole.

It is probably fair to say that the dominance of Egyptological research traditions in the Middle Nile, with their focus on inscriptions, monuments and works of art (Kemp 1977: 185), has been a major factor in restricting the development of archaeological research. Following such traditions, the construction of historical narratives and the establishment of historical linkages with Egypt still maintains a particular interest for many scholars, notwithstanding the paucity of historical sources. While some textual sources are available for the early phases of the state especially during the period of the XXV Dynasty, these become increasingly scarce by the mid-first millennium BC with the gradual disappearance 3

The case has been argued by Horowitz (1967) who suggested that the long-standing and influential division of Sudanic Africa into two major regions by Herskovits (1924), which differentiated between the Western and Eastern Sudan as culturally and politically distinct regions, was misleading and poorly founded. Contrary to Herskovits, who saw the Eastern Sudan as quite distinct due to its 'marginality', 'heterogeneity' and 'marked political fragmentation', Horowitz argued that both regions shared many common characteristics which extended to their political development. As he noted, the whole Sudanic region "was one of developed political States - 'Sudanic empires' - from. Fung in the East, to Darfur, Wadai, Bomu-Kanem, Songhai, Mali and Ghana (to list the best known)" (op.cit: 396).

back as the emergence of the Kenna kingdom in the late third millennium BC. The development of this kingdom within Sudanic Africa at such an early date clearly poses many new problems for the way we consider the development of social and political complexity south of the Sahara. To what extent was this a unique phenomenon within Sudanic Africa? What were the particular circumstances within the Middle Nile which promoted such social and political integration? If the medieval and postmedieval kingdoms of the Middle Nile bear comparison with other 'Sudanic states', should we perhaps look to Meroe, Napata and Kerma as part of a far longer tradition of political integration in this part of Sudanic Africa? Were such early developments really confined to the Middle Nile? How would we recognise early kingdoms elsewhere?

The adoption of a broader perspective in the study of Middle Nile states has found some support among a number of Sudanic historians and other specialists (see Hasan and Doornbos 1979: 4; Holt 1963; O'Fahey and Spaulding 1974) who have noted many similarities in the structure and organisation of medieval and later states across Sudanic Africa. However, it has as yet made little impact on archaeological studies of 'prehistoric' states, and there remains little or no dialogue between those working in western and eastern areas of Sudanic Africa.

To ignore such possible linkages runs the risk of assuming that early Middle Nile states were unique and anomalous within Sudanic Africa, purely secondary phenomena created in the shadow of Egypt, lacking any indigenous background worthy of study. Until recently, the limited archaeological research in the west African savannahs has also tended to limit the potential for addressing such wider issues, although as O'Fahey has pointed out "our perspective on state formation is simply foreshortened through lack of external references and archaeological investigation rather than that states were late on the scene" (1980: 145). However, new evidence is emerging for the development of social and political complexity in the west much earlier than previously supposed.

The value and interest of introducing broader and comparative perspectives to the way we approach research in the Sudanic belt is likely to be particularly great in the study of early states in the Middle Nile, which we may take as far

Fig. 2. Early states in Sudanic Africa.

4

studies in political and economic anthropology, which, despite their predominantly African basis, have as yet made relatively little impact in African archaeology.

The existence of significant urban settlements in West Africa as early as the third century BC has now been demonstrated (McIntosh and McIntosh 1980, 1983), long before the first Arab records of the kingdom of Ghana. Although it remains unclear as yet what level of political development the urbanised society of Jenne-Jeno was associated with, such evidence demonstrates the potential, and necessity for further research into the emergence of complex societies and large-scale political units within Sudanic Africa, before the establishment of long-distance contacts with states north of the Sahara. While complex polities still seem to have appeared much earlier in the Middle Nile, a balanced assessment of the contribution of Pharaonic Egypt towards their development can only be made with an understanding of their indigenous background. tntimately, it is of interest to consider whether Meroe, and indeed Kerma before it, should be seen as the early examples of a long and enduring tradition of Sudanic kingdoms.

As discussed above, my primary research concerns underlying this project were to develop a more explicitly archaeological analysis of the Meroitic state as a political phenomenon within the context of Sudanic Africa The study has focused on the later Meroitic period of the Kushite state spanning the period from approximately the third century BC to the fourth century AD, although reference will be made to earlier periods. No attempt has been made to explore the complexities of the debates surrounding the origins of the Kushite state, a period for which there is very little archaeological data and research remains focused on textual sources (Morkot 1992a,b; Torok 1994). Due to the nature of the available evidence, particular emphasis has been placed on the last four centuries of the kingdom from the first century BC, the period which probably saw the peak of Meroitic power and also the period during which settlement data is most abundant. Geographically, the study will initially focus on the savannah regions of the kingdom, where the state developed and had its main centres (fig.3). It is undoubtedly in these regions that research must concentrate if we are to begin to understand the basic character of the state.

The archaeology of the Meroitic state As well as adopting a more 'African' oriented approach to the study of Meroe, a research concern has been to develop a more specifically archaeological study of the structure and organisation of the Meroitic state. In many respects, such an approach marks another departure from earlier research orientations which have tended to focus on the artistic and culture-historical development of Meroitic 'civilisation', with limited interest in exploring social and political processes beyond what could be reconstructed from literary sources.

The archaeology of the the kingdom's northern periphery, in Lower Nubia, has had to be considered separately in Chapters 5 and 6. While it bas become widely recognised in recent years that the material remains of Meroitic settlement in this region differed markedly from that in other areas of the kingdom, the wider significance of such differences have still been little explored. During the course of my research, it has become increasingly clear that the evidence demanded a new and very different interpretation of its settlement history and its relationship with other areas of the kingdom.

As will be further discussed in Chapter 2, the study of the Meroitic state as a political phenomenon has been limited to a traditional narrative history, often preoccupied with royal genealogies and the interpretation of the limited corpus of textual sources. Moreover, the interweaving of historical and archaeological data and their interpretation, often remains less than satisfactory. Due to the scarcity of documentary sources, many aspects of Kushite 'history' remain largely 'archaeological' phenomena Thus, the transition from the Napatan to the Meroitic phases of the kingdom and ultimately the disappearance of the Meroitic state, both major political developments, are still largely represented and discussed in terms of cultural changes, with little consideration of how the two may have been related. Problems surrounding the interpretation of material culture and its relation to society remain largely unaddressed.

Within this framework, this study begins to explore and interpret aspects of the broader social contexts of Meroitic material culture and to identify some of the possible interrelationships between socio-political developments and culture change. The identification of such relationships is of particular interest in the light of recent work in the Shendi region (Lenoble and Sharif 1992; Lenoble 1994a) which has thrown new light on cultural changes taking place in the third and fourth centuries AD at what has traditionally been regarded as the 'end of Meroe',questioning many long-held assumptions. However, establishing such interrelationships and providing new interpretations of the decline of Meroe and the ensuing political devolution presupposes an adequate understanding of its earlier structure and organisation.

The extent to which explicitly archaeological analyses of social, economic and political organisation have been developed remains very limited, despite the clear potential for such an approach not only in Meroitic research but in African history and archaeology in general (Clarence-Smith 1977). However, the development of a broadly framed 'social archaeology' requires the adoption of theoretical approaches of the kind which have to date, been largely lacking in Meroitic archaeology, as in Egyptology (Janssen 1975: 128). Creating a suitable framework has involved drawing on a range of especially anthropological research which has come to be commonly used in many other fields of archaeology. In particular, I have drawn on a range of

Adopting often wide-ranging comparative approaches this research has first sought to develop a theoretical framework suitable for the analysis of the social and especially political structure and organisation of the Meroitic state. I have looked to studies in political anthropology, especially those concerned with African societies, to see whether they could provide an appropriate conceptual framework for approaching the study of early states, and identify the salient features of their political organisation which should be 5

' ''

-', -- ..... -.. '\-

' ''

,'

'\ \ \

J

I

' :'

,I

Alim

·•,,\.

,..

',,

\e

\■

~

s:::

·\,_■

Cl)

J. Kherelq \

(1)

i= -· s tx::1

a::

!

liJMUSAWWARA!

\::\

/

..

'\ '·,

•

Umm Usuda

': ':

(/ /1

•

Ambasa

J. Surat

~

·-.

\-_

,

....

g

~

Duanib

J. Matruqa\■ :~ NAOA Nasb es Sarni ■/ -~ J. Hardan -

(1)

"'

t\

. -..,

(")

.i:,.

Basa

\

8e: N

17

el Hosh

',;

'11 ~-

,'

Ji

17'

!

.,:/-.\, \

\\

16'

16°

•

i

Abu DeleiQ/,

.

--:.

,,

~

'

Murabba ■ 1

:

:, ,,

,,/\'

,'

■ Settlements

_):'

/-/ -';·/. '

•

•

J Qeili

■ Rutaa

0

0

,,,,

Cemeteries

& other

miles

kms

/

34

35'

sites

50

80

differences appear to be based more on misplaced implicit assumptions and confused terminology, rather than more substantial disagreements. In particular, the assumptions that clear distinctions must necessarily be drawn between agriculturalists and herders or that pastoralism should be equated with specialised nomadic adaptations cannot be sustained empirically (Haaland 1969, 1972). The interest in demonstrating the existence of different tribal and possibly nomadic pastoralist groups represents a continuing, if rather outmoded concern with the 'tribes' recorded in the ancient histories. Strabo's account of the nomadic Nubae (Kirwan 1972b: 462) would seemto be particularly influential here.

effort to increase surface water availability to both groups during the dry season" (1985: 305). In the absence of more detailed palaeosubsistence or settlement data from the region, there is currently little scope for resolving debates concerning the relative importance of agriculture or herding. A similar lack of data from smaller 'rural' sites in riverine areas makes it impossible to reconstruct in any detail the organisation of subsistence production. The wider economic and political dimensions of Meroitic settlement within the Western Butana also still remain unaddressed. In particular, while the known sites, with their combinations of temple/shrines and haft.rs have been used as indicators of permanent settlement and as evidence for the extension and/or intensification of production within the region, their significance as evidence for state involvement in subsistence activities has not been fully appreciated.

The assumptions underlying such arguments may certainly be questioned. Ethnographic and historical studies suggest that all nomadic pastoralists interact with settled populations and relatively few groups do not engage in cultivation at all (S.Smith 1980). As Khazanov (1983) has argued, specialised nomadism remains a highly specific and relatively unusual adaptation and forms of 'semi-sedentary' or 'semi-nomadic' pastoralism are far more widespread (op.cit: 19-24). While more specialised nomadic groups may have existed for several millennia in eastern Sudan and the eastern desert of Egypt (Sadr 1991) there is to date no evidence that such groups existed in areas closer to the Nile. Analogies drawn with populations of specialised camel pastoralists in more recent periods may also be very misleading.

The construction of haft.rs, involved considerable organisation and mobilisation of labour. As their use in the Butana has shown in more recent times, they also require significant institutional structures to ensure their regular maintenance (Shepherd 1984: 75-6). The presence of royal inscriptions such as that of Amanikhabale at Basa (Crowfoot and Griffith 1911: 12-18), and the stela at Umm Usuda (Hofmann and Tomandl 1986) would seem to confirm that they were royal and state enterprises. The building of the larger examples, such as those at Musawwarat es Sofra and Basa, involved the excavation of an estimated 135200,000m3. This would represent a year's work for a workforce of 1,250 or, as Hinkel suggested, up to five years' work for 250 workers (M.Hinkel 1994: 172).

More detailed studies of the Western Butana have again tended to focus on developing models of the subsistence strategies involved in its exploitation. Ahmed (1984) presented an environmental analysis of the region's settlement which argued for a predominantly agricultural exploitation, based on undifferentiated extensive cultivation (op.cit: 276). However, while he acknowledged a need to consider the social relations of production in determining the nature of the region's exploitation during the Meroitic period, no attempt was made to establish linkages between subsistence activities and the very obvious manifestations of the state in the region.

The organisation and investment in labour which these projects involved (Kleinschroth 1986; M.Hinkel 1991, 1994), cannot be treated as politically neutral 'public works', provided by a benevolent state, as both Haycock and Bradley seem to imply. Rather, while the creation of such waterpoints may be assumed to have significantly benefited local production, their importance for the Meroitic state lay in their role in enhancing and extending royal power through the control of the region's population and their produce.

An alternative model developed by Bradley (1985, 1986, 1992), focused on the possibility of predominantly pastoral exploitation of the region and the clay plains of the Butana proper, further east. On the basis of a more critical approach to the archaeological problems encountered in the recognition of nomadic populations, she argued that the visible surface structures and associated permanent water sources could be interpreted as elements of a system of seasonally patterned mobile pastoralism. Such exploitation was part of a more symbiotic relationship between mobile and settled populations (1985: 222-5).

As was seen in the previous chapter, within the savannah, permanent water supplies provide focal points for the settlement of rainland cultivators as well as for more mobile herding groups during their seasonal cycles. The provision of new or improved water resources may also attract new populations, through opening up new areas to permanent occupation or by diverting mobile groups from existing seasonal cycles of movement

The construction of new permanent water sources and other structures within the western Butana during the later first millennium BC was seen as reflecting a shift in the zone of interaction between pastoral groups and settled populations, moving away from the riverine zone into the hinterland (1986: 28). The wider economic or political dimensions of such exploitation was not further explored, except in suggesting that "the construction of haft.rsmay relate to an

Politically, the concentration of population at such points also provided opportunities for state control (M.Hinkel 1994: 174) and particularly for the collection of taxes or tribute; opportunities which were otherwise very restricted in areas of dispersed or mobile populations. In view of this we should not conceive of their role simply in terms of their impact on subsistence, but as a source of power providing the means of controlling people and their produce. While it 25

of magazines (M.740). However, Torok has suggested that their construction may be associated as much with the nearby palace M.750 during the first century AD, as the temple (Torok 1990: 15).

remains impossible to confirm Bradley's hypothesis concerning the range of seasonal movements of pastoral groups and how far to the east Meroitic control may have extended, emphasis should be placed on the Western Butana as a zone of political interaction. More generally, the history of the Meroitic expansion into the Western Butana should be conceived of as an essentially political phenomenon.

More evidence exists which suggests that the royal palaces acted not only as centres of accumulation, but were also involved in the distribution or redistribution of goods. Recent work at Jebel Barkal on the 'Palace of Natakhamani' (B.1500), provides some important insights into aspects of economic administration in the early first century AD. Caches of deliberately preserved sealings from jars, baskets, sacks, wooden chests and doors found within the palace (Donadoni 1989: 9-10, fig.42) reflect its role in storing and processing a range of materials. Most of the evidence points to foodstuffs, probably for the supply and maintenance of the palace, although imported Egyptian amphorae suggest that other traded commodities may have been present. Vincentelli has suggested that the evidence from the sealings and their use compares with administrative systems commonly found within the eastern Mediterranean and Near East during the second millennium BC. These relied on the use of seals by officials for the processing, checking and secure storage of goods, without the use of more sophisticated written accounting systems (1993: 141). On current evidence this would seem to indicate the survival of a relatively archaic administrative system in the palaces (loc.cit), although this would not appear to be the only one in view of the use of written accounts preserved as ostraca from other sites.

The character of the Western Butana settlements again draws attention to other mechanisms through which the state controlled the region's population. The close association of small temples with the ha,firs appears particularly significant, although little attention has yet been paid to explaining what functions these religious centres may have served. The royal cult of Apedemak is closely associated with the region (Zabkar 1975), with centres at Musawwarat es Sofra, Naqa and Basa, and many other of the smaller temples, classed as 'Lion-Temples' by AlHakem (1988: 179) may have housed his cult His character as a war-god is well-established, while there are some indications of a more provident role as a provider of food or even as a god of fertility (Zabkar op.cit: 13, 21). While the details of such associations remain unclear, these material representations of royal and imperial ideology may have played a complementary role in sustaining the economic demands of the monarchy. There is certainly no reason to assume that their construction by the state was purely to satisfy spiritual needs. Rather, their proximity to the ha,firs suggests that ideological sanctions played a significant role in supporting taxation or tribute-gathering, along with the ultimate threat of military coercion.

An interesting feature of the iconography of the seals is the predominance of sealings depicting Apedemak, found on 80% of some 1000 examples. This contrasts with the surprising rarity of Amon symbolism in the god's ancient cult centre of Jebel Barkal (1994: 155-6). While this may reflect the royal context in which the material was found, it may again be an indication that it was the palaces and the royal institutions, rather than the temples, which played the central role in economic administration, and the palaces provided the foci for royal administration of the provinces.

Economic Administration The settlement data from the Western Butana provide some indications of the means by which control could be exercised over the savannah population and its produce at the core of the Meroitic state, but evidence for the organisation of state control over subsistence resources more generally is very limited. The textual and archaeological sources provide no clear evidence for a centralised system for the storage and redistribution of foodstuffs (Adams 1981: 8; Torok 1979: 58). The most likely foci for the collection, administration and possible redistribution of commodities are the temples and/or the royal palaces. This area is of particular importance in drawing comparisons or contrasts with Egyptian models of state organisation.

Close parallels between the sealings at Jebel Barkal and seals known from both Meroe and Faras (Vincentelli 1993: 155) suggest links with other major centres and that the crown controlled an extensive distributive or redistributive system. At Wad Ben Naqa the excavation of the extensive magazines within the 'Palace of Amanishakheto' (late first century BC) provided further evidence of their function. Several chambers housed large groups of storage jars, which probably relate to subsistence goods. Others included quantities of raw ivory and wooden blocks, possibly ebony, which represent the accumulation of more exotic and valuable materials, possibly used in long-distance exchanges (Vercoutter 1962: pl.XXb). Several other palaces of similar construction are known from Meroe (Al-Hakem 1988: 8797) and Jebel Barkal (Kendall 1991, 1994), although we have no further evidence concerning their magazines.

The presence of major temple complexes in the main settlement centres, many devoted to Egyptian-derived cults suggests the possibility that they may have functioned as economic institutions in a similar fashion to their Egyptian counterparts (Janssen 1975: 184). However, no evidence exists that they possessed significant landed endowments which might bear comparison with the temple estates of Egypt, or that they played an active role in the organisation of production. Our only textual sources indicate that they were at times dependent on royal largesse (Adams 1981: 8). Excavations at Jebel Barkal, Kawa and Sanam, have revealed no evidence that major magazines or storage facilities were regularly associated with temple establishments. Only at Meroe within the precinct of the largest temple of Aman(ote) (M.260) do we find large blocks

Another interesting structure at Wad Ben Naqa was the large circular building close to the palace. No comparable Meroitic structures are known and it was initially interpreted as some kind of funerary structure (Vercoutter 1962: 274). 26

relative scarcity within Meroitic contexts remains surprising, and they only become common finds when they begin to be regularly deposited as grave-goods in the very late and post-Meroitic period. Phillipson has suggested that much of the production may have been dispersed through trade (1985: 156-7), although the recycling of iron tools may also be a factor in their relative rarity.

However, in view of the lack of any religious elements, the presence of internal partitions and indeed quantities of coarse pottery it seems likely that this was a large granary, as proposed by Sadik en Nur (1962). If such was the case, this building was the only example of a storehouse not enclosed either within a palace or temple. Located at the mouth of the Wadi Awateib, leading into the heart of the Western Butana, Wad Ben Naqa was likely to have been closely linked to the management of agricultural production in the interior.

While the artefactual evidence remains sparse, it is possible to suggest a number of spheres in which the centralised control of iron working may have been significant power source. The military potential of iron weaponry was clearly very great, although there is almost no evidence for the use of iron weapons such as swords or battle axes during this period. The only evidence we have for such weaponry comes from a small number of royal reliefs. However, iron arrowheads would seem to have been sufficiently abundant by the late first millennium BC to have totally supplanted the production of worked-stone points.

The evidence from the palaces indicates some royal control of subsistence resources although it is unclear whether they were for support of royal households and non-productive elements of urban centres, or as part of a more extensive redistributive system. Much of their extensive storage facilities may relate to their role as centres of consumption. Temples may have played a role in the administration of such a system, perhaps in providing the bureaucratic and administrative capability through literate officials, although there is no evidence from Jebel Barkal for a complex accounting system.

The use of improved utilitarian artefacts requires consideration although it is by no means certain that minor items such as knives, axes or hoes were centrally produced. The availability of improved axes and hoes may have facilitated land clearance and cultivation, but the significance and relevance of such technological improvements to Meroitic subsistence farming remains to be demonstrated.

Overall, on the evidence of excavations carried out at the regional centres, centralised storage facilities appear to be limited to the royal palaces and there are no indications that the provincial elites or the major temples were independently controlling local production on a significant scale. It seems likely that the royal palaces were central to the maintenance of royal control of the different regions of the kingdom, and such direct exploitation of the subsistence resources which existed, was channelled through them. While our information remains limited, the evidence suggests that direct control of subsistence was relatively limited in most areas, and only likely to have been on a large scale within the core regions of the Shendi Reach and Western Butana There is no evidence for the existence of a sophisticated and extensive economic administration or its bureaucratic institutions as existed in contemporary Egypt Such a picture conforms well with the Sudanic model and as Adams suggested, other sources of economic power must be sought.

Ceramics

The most prominent and widespread manufacture was pottery. In the absence of excavated production centres, it is uncertain to what extent the wheelmade Meroitic ceramic industries were centralised, or how exactly they were organised. Large Meroitic kilns were identified at Meroe (Garstang et al 1911: 46), but the only other known production centre is at the small settlement of Kedurma just north of the Third Cataract (see Appendix 4). At present, the differences in the character of ceramic assemblages encountered in different regions indicate the existence of several production centres. Major differences are also apparent between material from sites as close as Meroe and Musawwarat es Sofia (Bradley 1984: 205). It is also clear that there existed very extensive networks through which certain products were widely distributed. Some of the finer handmade wares of the late first millennium BC were distributed throughout the kingdom from the Gezira to Lower Nubia (Adams 1986: 419; O'Connor 1993: pl.98).

Manufactures and their distribution A possible alternative source of economic power, which requires much further study, was the control of the production and distribution of crafts and manufactures. A range of different manufactures may have been important although on current evidence few definite conclusions may be drawn concerning their economic or other significance.

The distinctiveness of so many of the decorated wheelmade ceramics found in Lower Nubia marks them off from material found in central Sudan, although where they were produced remains unknown. While useful study of the distribution of the coarse wheelmade wares cannot yet be extended beyond Lower Nubia due to the limited data, recent work at Kerma (Bonnet 1991) and in the Shendi Reach at Gabati (Edwards et al. 1995) has identified some material closely paralleling finds from Lower Nubian contexts such as Gemai (Bates and Dunham 1927). At present it remains uncertain whether these examples, probably of quite an early date, represent widespread stylistic uniformity, or whether these are the products of specialised centres being widely

Iron The Meroitic iron working industry has attracted considerable attention since the first excavations at Meroe (Garstang et al 1911: 55; Shinnie and Kense 1982; Shinnie 1985). While the scale of production appears to have been considerable (fylecote 1982; Haaland 1985), the use and distribution of iron artefacts remains poorly documented. Such artefacts as have been recovered archaeologically have been small and utilitarian such as arrow-heads, spears, knives and hoes (Shinnie 1967: 162-5). However, their 27

no stylistic evidence to suggest a source. However, in view of the existence of a number of quite elaborately decorated examples, which stylistically seem almost certain to be local, it should be assumed that the technology and expertise was indeed available. The recently discovered sets of elaborately decorated bronze vessels, including examples with Meroitic hieroglyphics incised on them, at Hobaji (Lenoble and Sharif 1992: 634-35, fig.6), would seem to represent the end of a long tradition of such metal working.

distributed. The existence of a number of different production centres for the fine eggshell wares, including Meroe, also seemslikely (Bradley 1984: 206) but again their distribution outside Lower Nubia is too poorly documented to allow more de1ailed analyses.

Textiles As was noted in Chapter 2, in more recent periods, cloth has enjoyed considerable importance in Sudanic contexts both as a medium of exchange and as a socially important artefact used in defining status. There is good reason to believe that the control of its production and distribution may have been of considerable social and political importance (Schneider and Weiner 1989). Little evidence exists relating to its production in the core areas of the kingdom beyond the identification of stone loom-weights at Meroe (Shinnie and Bradley 1980: 192). Other production centres can only be identified in Lower Nubian contexts where finds of mud loom-weights are common, with many examples found at for example Qasr Ibrim, Argin (Lister 1967: 69), Melli Island (Adams 1977: 371), Tila Island {Appendix 3) and Kedurma (Appendix 4).

While de1ailed evidence for how such local manufactures were produced and distributed remains very limited, it is likely that such goods will have had a considerable significance. Specialist manufacture seems likely for many of these goods and there are suggestions, if no firm evidence, that they were centrally focused, if not centrally controlled. More generally, we have as yet very little internal evidence to suggest the mechanisms through which they were distributed, and in order to assess their wider economic or other significance, we must further define the economic networks within which they moved.

Long-DistanceTrade and Exchange

Faience

While we still have insufficient direct evidence on the scale and location of the production of local manufactures to suggest to what extent this may have been a source of economic power, there is a general consensus that longdistance 'trade' and exchange was of considerable importance to the Meroitic economy, a feature which it shares with many African states. The 'wealth' generated by this 'trade' provided a major power base for the Meroitic elite and played an important role in the maintenance of the state.

The production of faience objects, particularly amulets, is well attested from Meroe (Shinnie and Bradley 1980: 190) and Kawa (Macadam 1955: 186-7). In the latter case, production may have been associated with the Amon temple, although at Meroe, workshops were identified within the 'royal city' (George 1914: 13). Fmds of faience vessels were quite common at Meroe city (Bradley 1984: 206) and they may have been a local luxury product

Bronzeworking

No de1ailed studies of the nature and scale of this trade have yet been undertaken and little attention has been paid to defining the mechanisms by which it was carried out or of the organising principles on which imported goods circulated within the Meroitic kingdom. More generally no attention has been paid to explaining how social and political power was derived from long-distance trade and the 'wealth' it generated in an economy which must have been dominated by barter and other forms of non-monetary transactions.

As will be further discussed below the extent of local manufacture of bronze artefacts remains quite uncertain. We have as yet no direct evidence for Meroitic bronze manufacture and reports of 'slag heaps' related to copperworking at, for example Tabo, Kawa and Napata (Adams 1981: 4-5) have never been confirmed, and may indeed refer to the mounds of burnt debris relating to the temple bakeries. Haycock suggested that most of the bronzework in Meroitic contexts was locally made (1976: 41), and Wenig has similarly argued for a local origin for many of the Graeco-Roman style objects in his catalogue of the Brooklyn exhibition (1978). Much of the supposed evidence for the production of high-quality cast bronze and other objects will be discussed below, but it seems very likely that many of the simpler bronze objects found in Meroitic contexts were indeed local products. Unfortunately, technical analysis of metals have proved to be unable to distinguish between Meroitic. and contemporary Egyptian copperalloys (Cowell 1995: 37). One possibility which must be entertained is that the raw metal was imported and then worked up into finished articles. This might account for the enigmatic dump of bronze 'scrap' found at Meinarti (Adams 1977: 372).

Most attention has focused on explaining the range of exotic artefacts encountered in the royal cemeteries at Meroe. Many of these seem to represent examples of 'diplomatic gifts' sent by Persian, Ptolemaic and latterly Roman rulers, conveyed through embassies of various kinds to neighbouring courts (Torok 1989: 61). However, it has been assumed that other forms of trade also existed which were essentially royal monopolies and centralised enterprises (Torok 1979: 162; Adams 1981: 9), while on the northern periphery in Lower Nubia, where imported goods appeared unusually abundant (Adams 1976, 1981: 10; Torok 1979: 58), different forms of locally controlled trading relations may have existed. Such studies have suggested the existence of a variety of different and potentially incompatible forms of trade and exchange, operating through very different mechanisms. A

Most problematic are the range of simpler bronze bowls and cups. Due to their simplicity and lack of decoration, there is 28

much Meroitic trade and exchange. As Torok (1989) argued, it is indeed likely that a significant number of the more elaborate or rare imported objects, especially those recovered from the Meroitic royal cemeteries, were acquired not through 'Market Trade' but 'Embassy-Trade': a form of elite Gift-Exchange commonly encountered in the contemporary Mediterranean and West Asiatic world. However, despite this recognition his work failed to recognise the important socio-political aspects of such exchanges, and further assessment of their significance and the principles which directed their operation is necessary.

more obvious weakness of these analyses has been their consistent interpretation of Meroitic 'trade' in general as an essentially commercial enterprise, using the concepts and terminology of modem market-based economics. Torok, for example, who has examined the external relations of the Meroites in some detail, describes "the unfolding of profitable trade contacts with Egypt" [my italics] during the Persian period (1987: 151). He went on to suggest that due to the interruption of trade following political disturbances in the Thebaid in the early second century BC "the loss of the profit from export must have confronted the Meroitic kingdom with the imminent possibility of an economic crisis" [my italics] (op.cit: 157). Latterly, towards the end of the Meroitic kingdom it has been suggested that economic problems within the Roman Empire and the development of Axumite trade in the Red Sea, competing with that of the Meroites, both served to undermine the commercial power and economy of Meroe and contributed to the collapse of the kingdom (Adams 1977: 383-5; Torok 1987a: 179).

Such exchanges represent a form of the more general practices of gift-giving in 'archaic societies', including early states; practices thoroughly explored by Mauss (1954). As he observed, "the spirit of gift exchange is characteristic of societies which have passed the phase of 'total prestations' (between clan and clan, family and family) but have not yet reached the stage of pure individual contract, the money market, sale proper, fixed price, and weighed and coined money" (op.cit: 45). In this context such exchanges had considerable political importance. Their role in what may be termed 'diplomatic' contacts was an essential element in the maintenance of peaceful intergroup relations. As LeviStrauss latterly observed there is: "a link, a continuity, between hostile relations and the provision of reciprocal prestations. Exchanges are peacefully resolved wars and wars are the result of unsuccessful transactions" (1969: 67).

This stress on the commercial aspects of 'trade', a lack of appreciation of the potential differences between early and modem economies and a persistent tendency to rely upon market-based theory, concepts and terminology to analyse non-market economies (Dalton 1975: 68) maintains what Polanyi called the "economistic prejudice". This is reflected in the treatment of 'trade' as a purely economic phenomenon, despite an awareness that distinguishing the 'economy' as an independent sphere of practice may only be characteristic of capitalist societies (Giddens 1981).

While much of the anthropological research has been concerned with 'Chiefdoms' and related political systems, it must be stressed that forms of gift-exchange survived the development of early States, both in the maintenance of diplomatic relations and as an integral element of internal social relations. Such exchanges have continued to play an important role in the socio-political relations of sub-Saharan African states until today and have been well-documentedin archaic Greece (Morris 1986), early Byzantium (Patlaegen 1977) and early medieval Europe (Grierson 1959; Duby 1974).

Instead, it is important to recognise that there may have existed a number of different modes of exchange with different operating mechanisms ranging from Royal GiftExchange, Emissary-Trading and Administered Trade, and as implied by references to 'commerce', the possibility of true Market Trade (Renfrew 1975; Knapp 1993). It is well recognised that these can be distinguished not only in terms of the mechanisms through which they were organised but also in terms of the different ranges of goods and indeed different 'trading' partners they may have involved (Renfrew 1975: 46).

The dispatch of gifts or subsidies by the great imperial powers to their peripheral states such as Meroe, in the interests of maintaining peaceful relations may thus be seen as an alternative to more coercive inducements. It is also important to note that purely economic considerations, for example the ensurance of a reciprocal flow of valuable African exotica, need not be a significant determinant. There may be less tangible imperatives at work, where the act of receiving tribute may be more important than the economic value of the tribute. This was seen for example in Imperial Chinese foreign relations where there was a considerable symbolic importance attached to 'tribute' gathering, if necessary at very real economic costs to the tribute gathering power (Dalton op.cit: 105-7). It has been clearly recognised that similar ideologically-embedded concepts played an important role in determining how such exchanges were perceived by the different partners involved. This has been well-documented in the way that various forms of Egyptian long-distance exchanges were recorded as 'tribute' (Kemp 1978: 8-9; Liverani 1990: 67), and was also true of the Persian Empire.

As with most case studies of early African 'trading', the social and political dimensions of what is loosely termed 'long-distance trade' and the associated non-market aspects of ancient economies have been almost entirely neglected. No attention has been paid to the social significance of material goods and their consumption or the social mechanisms which may organise and control economic transactions, questions increasingly being addressed by economic anthropologists (Douglas and Isherwood 1980; Appadurai 1986). An awareness of the social dimensions of economic activities is essential in clarifying exactly what we mean when discussing Meroitic 'trade'. The different modes of exchange considered above need to be explored not only as different 'economic' practices but in relation to different areas of socio-political relations.

Meroitic Modes mechanisms

of

Exchange

and

Trading

A range of sources serve to highlight the royal focus of

29

It is also important to recognise the dynamic and changing nature of such exchange relations. Studies of 'coreperiphery' interactions have drawn attention to the possible dependence of 'peripheral' economies on external systems over which they had no control, as was seen in Europe during the first millennium BC (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978: 79). In such cases the maintenance of diplomatic GiftExchanges were as much determined by external as internal circumstances. Thus, in a Meroitic context, the inflow of goods may be largely dependent on the changing imperatives and demands of the frontier policies of the successive rulers of Egypt and their attitudes to conciliating or subsidising 'client' kingdoms.

The later history of such diplomatic exchanges during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods is less clear although some contacts seem to have been maintained. Torok has argued that the Ptolemaic interest in elephants and the incidence of large quantities of ivory, ebony and gold (although not the silver) at the festival of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (c.274 BC) represented, as he terms it, "a sudden unfolding of trade connections with Meroe" (1987a: 153). Latterly we have a record of Meroitic envoys in Egypt between 60-56 BC (Diodorus III.11,3). At the beginning of Roman control in Egypt, the appointment, in 30-29 BC of a tyrannos(governor) in the Triakontaschoinos south of Aswan has been interpreted as an abortive diplomatic attempt to bring the Meroitic king under Roman protection (Torok op.cit: 162). Explicit accounts are lacking for the state of Meroitic-Roman contacts following the Petronius campaigns of 23-2 BC. However, as will be further discussed in Chapter 6, the Meroitic office of apote (envoy), more specifically apote aromelis(envoy to the Romans) remained an important title in Lower Nubia, indicating regular links with the Empire. These which may have included the receiving of subsidies, diplomatic exchanges as well as other forms of trading relations. The important demotic graffito at Philae (Ph.416) shows that in 253 AD the Meroitic apote Pasan, while presenting gifts from King Taqorideamani to the temple at Philae was also charged with taking back unspecified items "for which I came" to the king at Meroe (Burkhardt 1985: 114-17).

Textual evidence Literary sources indicate the existence of diplomatic giftexchange between Meroitic kings and their northern neighbours from an early date and Kush appears in Assyrian records as early as 732 BC. There is evidence for close ties between Piye and Tiglath-Pilaser III and between Shabako and Sargon II, and it has been argued that many of the chariot horses used in Levant during the ninth and eighth centuries BC were acquired from Kush through royal exchanges (Dalley 1985: 44-7; Bokonyi 1993). Such diplomatic gift-giving can be recognised in Herodotus's account of the Persian mission to 'Ethiopia' during Cambyses's rule (525-521 BC). The embassy took as gifts "a purple cloak and a twisted gold necklace and armlets and an alabaster box of incense and an earthenware jar of palm wine" (Herodotus III.20-1). An interesting feature of this episode is the scornful refusal of these gifts by the Meroitic king, which precipitated Cambyses' abortive military expedition. This recalls Mauss' observations concerning the refusal of gifts as "an assertion of victory and invincibility" and that "to refuse to give, or to fail to invite is .. the equivalent of a declaration of war" (1954: 11, 39).

The identification of forms of market trade in the literary sources is more equivocal. Torok cites a demotic text (P.Berlin Dem.13615) from the reign of Amasis, (c.529 BC) as evidence for "trade contacts" between Egypt and the south (1987: 150). This text records the mission of a caravan into Nubia, accompanied by a military escort (Erichsen 1942; Porten 1968: 41). However, in the light of Heidorn's (1991) recent identification of Saite and Persian period occupation at Dorginarti, on the Second Cataract, it remains possible that this text may simply relate to the garrisoning of that fortress rather than to a trading enterprise. Attention has been drawn to the account of Philostratus, dating to the first century AD, who records the existence of a market centre at Maharraqa (Hierasykaminos) where Ethiopian "uncoined gold and linen and an elephant and various roots and myrrh and spices" were bartered through 'silent trade' for Egyptian goods. However, as Torok has shown, there are good reasons to question the historical reliability of this source (1989: 83).

Peaceful reciprocation of such gifts is recorded in the time of Darius I (521-486 BC) when Herodotus noted the biennial despatch of two choenixes of unrefined gold, presumably dust or nuggets, 200 blocks of ebony, five Ethiopian boys and 20 elephant tusks to the Persian king (Herodotus III.97). On the Apadana stairway at Persepolis, completed under Xerxes (486-466 BC), three "tribute" -bearing Kushites are portrayed bringing an offering in a jar, elephant tusks and an okapi-like animal (Schmidt 1953: 90, pl.49). The existence of a small unit of Ethiopians serving within Xerxes' army (Herodotus VII.6-9) has also been discussed by Torok as evidence for official contacts between the two states (1987a: 150).

Archaeological evidence Considerable debate has surrounded the interpretation of the Persian lists of tributary nations and the gifts or tribute delivered to the Persian kings (Roaf 1974; Heidorn 1991: 219, n.34). However, the establishment of gift-exchanges between the two courts continued a long history of earlier links between Mesopotamian and Egyptian courts. It is sufficient here to recognise the existence of a tradition of such high-level contacts through which certain prestigious imported items might reach Meroe, and through which certain African exotica might reach Egypt and beyond.

There is a substantial body of archaeological evidence for long-distance trade and gift-exchange. Excavated finds indicate the range of goods imported into the Meroitic Empire, and indeed are our only positive evidence of the scale and importance of such transactions. A brief study of their use and distribution also provides valuable insights into their social significance and more particularly this aspect of the 'economic' power-base of the Meroitic elite. With the exception of Torok's preliminary catalogue of imported objects (1989: 117-156) no general studies of such 30

objects once thought to be locally made, especially the more elaborate lamps and vessels, were all imported.

material have been undertaken. Most of the material comes from burials but the occasional occurrence of such material within settlements will be noted below. Imported goods include jewellery, in a range of materials, metal goods including lamps and vessels, worked stone, glassware, wooden furniture, faience, and a wide range of ceramics including tableware, wine and oil amphorae and other containers.

Arguments for local manufacture of these otherwise typically 'Hellenistic' and 'Roman' lamps and other vessels have drawn attention to their carrying Meroitic insignia and/or inscriptions. However, in most cases these were engraved post-manufacture and there can be almost no doubt that they were of foreign manufacture (Torok 1989: 143). What has been considered the most unequivocal evidence for local manufacture was the example of a hanging lamp from Meroe Beg.N.29 (21-3-160) (Dunham 1957: 170, fig.109), where a Meroitic 'property-mark' appeared to have been cast onto the vessel. However, even in this case the low relief of the emblem suggests that it may have been carved onto the lamp rather than cast (Kendall 1982: 58).

Our understanding of such material is hampered by the lack of specialist studies of many types of artefact and in some cases considerable problems remain in differentiating imported from locally manufactured items. In many instances there has been a tendency to assume that such items were local manufactures, albeit 'influenced' by foreign styles (cf.Wenig 1978: 318), despite good evidence that many of the goods were imports, of types well-known from Egypt and beyond.

Torok's catalogue of imported artefacts (1989) allows us to source a large number of bronze items with some degree of confidence. These fall into two main groups of drinking/serving vessels, including of bowls, jugs, strainers and paterae, and a number of elaborate ornamental lamps and pieces of minor statuary. Most examples were found in burials although a small number of bronze vessels and lamps were found within the 'Royal Enclosure' at Meroe (Garstang 1914, pl.V,2) and the palace at Wad Ben Naqa (Vercoutter 1962: fig.20)

Jewellery Amongst the quantities of rings and necklaces which form the bulk of Meroitic jewellery finds, a small number of Mediterranean imports, especially from royal tombs can be definitely identified. The best examples are the Hellenistic cameos and signet rings included in the treasure of Amanishakheto dated to the end of the first century BC (Priese 1992: 28, pl.25,45), as well as rings with Greek inscriptions and motifs from Meroe West cemetery (Shinnie 1967: pl.61). It should also be noted that, as yet, the place of manufacture of the large numbers of bronze signet rings of Ptolemaic/Roman types, commonly found in burial contexts is unknown and not all of them may be local manufactures. Other imports include scattered examples of Roman mosaic glass beads.

Sourcing the wide range of simpler bronze bowls remains more problematic, as noted before. As Torok has observed, the relative abundance of some types in burials, especially the plain hemispherical bowls in the first century BC and first century AD might suggest local manufacture, but this might equally reflect a peak of activity in long-distance exchange. He suggested that their apparent replacement by fineware ceramic bowls in later periods might suggest they were imports (1990: 241, n.365). Such contextual information clearly remains quite equivocal. However, it is clear that at least some of the simpler bronze vessels were also imports.

Silver vessels A number of silver vessels have been recovered from Meroitic graves, primarily in the royal cemeteries at Meroe and Barkal. Due to the absence of silver sources in the Nile Valley, there is no basis for assuming local manufacture for such objects and most of the examples can be clearly paralleled from finds from Egypt and elsewhere in the Mediterranean world. Some Ptolemaic examples, dated to the fourth and third centuries BC, are of types distributed as far afield as Bulgaria and southern Russia (Torok 1989: 119-21). The 'Bocchoris' drinking cup from the royal grave of Amanikhabale at Meroe (Beg.N.2) can be closely dated to the Augustan period and it is likely that it was a special gift to the Meroitic king, possibly at the time of the RomanMeroitic settlement in 21 BC (ibid: 97). Rare examples are encountered as late as the third century (Kendall 1982: 57).

Glassware A wide range of imported glassware is known from Meroitic burials. Few finds have been reported from settlement sites. While this may reflect the bias towards cemetery excavations it is noteworthy that Shinnie' s work on the townsite produced very little glass (Shinnie and Bradley 1980: 183). The small, unpublished collection of glassware recovered from Tila Island in southern Lower Nubia appears unusual (see Appendix 3). There is as yet no unequivocal evidence for local manufacture (Torok 1989: 102) as assumed by, for example Endesfelder (1977: 153). Arguments (Leclant 1973) that the exceptionally fine decorated glassware found at Sedeinga was of Meroitic manufacture remain unconvincing in view of the well-documented closely related imported vessels from Arminna (Simpson 1964: 20) and Kalabsha (Ricke 1967: fig.64). Other detailed specialist analyses of particular groups of glass, for example the rich collections from the royal cemeteries at Meroe and Jebel Barkal, confirm a Mediterranean, and probably Egyptian source for much of it

Bronzework A wide range of bronze vessels, lamps, minor statuary and other artefacts have been found in Meroitic contexts. As was seen, considerable uncertainty surrounds the possibility of local production, and preliminary studies of a group of bronze objects from Kawa remain inconclusive (Cowell 1995). However, there is now good evidence that many other 31

(Stem 1977, 1981). Stem's recent work on Roman glass finds from Somalia (1987) and India (1991), where direct parallels to finds from Meroe were identified, demonstrates that the Meroitic imports must be placed within the context of widespread exchange networks operative during the early first millennium AD.

Empire is extremely wide (Greene 1986: 167) are found in Meroitic contexts. The amphorae and similar vessels reflect the importation of commodities rather than ceramics. The amphorae proper include both Mediterranean and Egyptian products although some difficulties remain in sourcing a number of types encountered in the Midcile Nile more definitely than to the 'Eastern Mediterranean'. Some types can, however, be sourced from as far afield as Tubusuctu in the Maghreb and Gaul (Peacock 1986: 142). The range of different types and their possible sources have been discussed recently in some detail by Hofmann (1991). This study includes most known examples of imported large amphorae, although some of her identifications must be treated with caution, for example that of a supposed Type 12 (Peacock 45B) from Jebel Barkal (Hofmann op.cit: 242). With the addition of some recently published material this provides a useful basis for studying their distribution.

Two classes of glassware must be recognised, which take into account changes in glass production, particularly in Egypt, during the Meroitic period. Torok (1989) argues that until the late first or second centuries AD, glass remained a rare high value/high status material. Conditions changed from the second century with the expansion of the RomanoEgyptian glass industry which made available a new range of mass-produced items which became far more widely distributed. However, these co-existed with a range of highquality items, of which the Sedeinga blue glass flutes and cut-glass vessels are examples. In view of this, it is important to distinguish two ranges of glassware, differentiating the later mass-produced wares from the highvalue earlier products and/or high-quality later wares. Such changes will clearly have affected the distribution of glassware although again it cannot be assumed that purely commercial imperatives on the supply side were the primary factors in determining the distribution of such items beyond the frontiers of the Empire.

It is probable that to these larger amphorae should also be added the 'table amphorae' (Adams Form Class J) and 'Jugs' (Class I), most of which were of Egyptian manufacture, as well as a large proportion of the 'lekythoi' oil bottles which were definitely of Egyptian origin (Adams 1986: 103-7). Many of the larger handled jars and small 'table amphorae' were also probably oil or wine containers. We have as yet, little definite evidence for their contents from analysis, but we know, for example from a demotic graffito from Serra East (Grave 25/245:1), that a quite common type of Aswani handled jar/table amphora was used as an oil container (Save-Soderbergh 1981: 51, 113).

Faience Torok has identified a number of faience objects which are likely to be of Egyptian origin, produced by the important but little studied Egyptian workshops such as those at Memphis (Petrie at al 1911) during the first to fourth centuries AD. Such vessels, paralleled by examples from Tripolitania (Tagart 1983), occur at Meroe and in Lower Nubian burials, but they remain poorly documented. For want of local parallels, an elaborately decorated mould-made jar found at Gabati (Edwards et al 1995) may also be identified as an import A group of faience vessels from Tila Island (Edwards 1995a: fig.40) may include Egyptian material.

The largest groups of imports are the Aswani/Egyptian coarsewares whose profusion in Lower Nubia is wellrecognised. Apart from the oil/wine containers these consist largely of utility vessels for storage or cooking and serving food (Adams 1986: 525-38). Many of these vessels, including the Aswani barbotine drinking cups were simply decorated, but these should be distinguished from the true finewares.

Woodenfurniture and artefacts

With these few exceptions, little attention has been paid to faience in Meroitic contexts and little attempt has been made to distinguish imported from locally made products. As was noted in the previous section, there was local manufacture of a range of objects at cult centres such as Kawa as well as at Meroe.

It is likely that many of the wooden caskets and turned kohlpots, often with ivory inlays, were of Egyptian manufacture. Very close parallels can be drawn with Egyptian examples, as was apparent to Woolley and Randall-Maciver (1910: 70-1). It is certainly very likely, as Shinnie suggested (1967: 131), that the wooden box containing eight glass bottles, found in Meroe Beg.N.18 was imported. Examples of wooden folding stools with bronze and silver fittings from the Meroe West cemetery (Beg.W.415, W.130) were also imported (Kendall 1982: 50). A bronze head of Dionysius from Meroe has also been identified as an ornament from a piece of imported luxury furniture (Chamoux 1960). Adams has suggested that some of these items may have been made specially for the Meroitic market (1981: 6-7).

Ceramics Three basic categories of imported pottery can be recognised, distinguished on a functional basis; fine tablewares, wine and oil containers and utilitarian 'kitchen' and storage vessels. Fine imported tablewares form a small but significant class of material. Early examples of Mediterranean fine wares include Attic black wares datable to the late sixth century BC from Meroe (Bradley 1984: 199), Hellenistic 'Pergamene' vessels from Jebel Barkal (Dunham 1957: 91), and Aegean black glaze and red-figure vessels from Meroe (Torok 1989: 94). From the first century AD, limited quantities of the 'terra sigillata' tablewares (Bradley op.cit: 207), whose distribution within the Roman

Stone A small number of worked stone objects are known which 32

can be identified as Egyptian imports, either stylistically or due to the lack of the raw material south of Aswan. Ti>ri>k bas suggested that a group of granite stands, offering tables and the funerary stela of Tedeqen from Meroe Beg.W.19 were imported. In view of the "exceptionally egyptianized" nature of the associated funerary texts, this remains probable (1989: 122). A serpentine vessel from Jebel Barkal (Bar.6), identified as an offering vessel, appears to be an imported type, with similar examples known from Egyptian contexts (Wildung and Grimm 1979: No.147-8). While there are sources of serpentine in central Sudan, notably around Qaia en Nahl in the southern Butaoa (Whiteman 1971: 15-7), there is no evidence that this material was worked by the Meroites. From the range of imported objects discussed above, it can be seen that they consisted largely of non-utilitarian 'luxury' items, many of which appear to have been unavailable as local manufactures. The notable exception is the Egyptian coarse pottery. With the exception of amphorae and jars imported for their contents, this appears to have been essentially utilitarian, complementing well-recognised Meroitic ceramic industries. This exception will be further explored in the next section.

Despite the limitations of the data, this material provides a clear indication of the relatively restricted and hierarchical distribution of most imported artefacts, which fall into three major groups: (i) A substantial group of particularly rich imported items including silver vessels, f"me jewellery and early and fine glass are only found in royal contexts, accompanied by the richest collections of local materials, especially gold. (ii) Elaborate Hellenistic or Roman bronze bowls and lamps, Mediterranean wine amphorae and fine tablewares are only found in royal or elite burials at Meroe, Faras and Karaoog and (one grave) at Gemai. In spatial terms the scarcity of such types of objects in Lower Nubia, close to the Egyptian frontier, is very marked. (iii) Glassware, simple bronze bowls, and some wine or oil containers and minor metalwork, are distributed more widely. However it remains uncertain whether many of the simple bronze bowls, notably those found in rural cemeteries in the Meroitic heartlands are def"mitely imports. The wider distribution of such items south of the Third Cataract remains unknown and in view of the very limited number of excavations outside of the main urban centres, it would be premature to conclude that they were more abundant only in Lower Nubia. Certainly, recent finds from Kedurma and Kerma indicate that glass, bronze vessels and wine or oil containers were not uncommon in larger settlements this far south. What is more marked however is the scarcity of imports from any of the rural cemeteries in the south. The very few examples of imported faience and stone objects preclude any confident assessment of their significance.

The Spatial Distributions of imported artefacts Our knowledge of the patterns of distribution of imports still remains very incomplete due to the limited and often poorquality data available from many areas and the overwhelming bias towards cemetery excavations which bas characterised most fieldwork. Further problems are encountered when dealing with possible variation through time, which may also have significantly affected these patterns. It remains only an assumption that the supply of such objects remained constant over the period from the last centuries BC to the fourth century AD. If fluctuations in the volume of trade existed it still remains impossible to identify them in the absence of a reliable chronology for most of these sites. When we consider the spatial distribution of imports there are, however, indications of the modes of exchange through which the goods entered the Meroitic sphere and evidence for the existence of a number of different modes of exchange which may have operated in parallel. This is of particular interest in view of the literary/historical evidence for exchanges focused on the royal sphere.

The pattern of distribution of the different types of ceramics appears more complex than that of other items. As was seen, the more exotic Mediterranean amphorae and f"me tablewares are restricted to royal or elite graves. Egyptian wine or oil containers appear to be widely distributed within Lower Nubia, but are also found further south. At Kerma, the only site where a significant number of Meroitic graves have been excavated in the Dongola Reach, apart from an unusual 'face-bottle', which was almost certainly of foreign manufacture (Reisner 1923a: 45), the only imports appear to be oil-bottles (Bonnet 1990: 246). At Barkal and Meroe various amphorae, oil bottles and 'askos' bottles are represented in both the 'royal' and elite west cemeteries (Dunham 1957: fig.135-6), while the only imported pottery known from further south are the two 'askos' and a small oil bottle from Sennar (Addison 1935: 291, pl.VI.20-1).

A preliminary analysis of their distribution within the major published cemeteries is presented in Table 1, arranged geographically from north to south (see fig. 6). Our knowledge of most of the core Meroitic regions remains very poor and it should also be noted that even within Lower Nubia, the lack of publication of major excavated cemeteries such as those at Aniba and Semna leave important gaps in our data. The Lower Nubian data is drawn from sources listed in Appendix 1. Further south, outside the royal cemeteries, there is evidence from Kerma (Reisner 1923a, Bonnet 1980-1990), Kadada (Leooble 1994a), Geili (Caneva 1988d), Kadero (Krzyzaniak 1974-79), Khartoum (Arkell 1949), Gereif (Geus 1983, 1986), Umm Soot, Abu Geili (Edwards 1991) and Sennar (Dixon 1963).

It is noteworthy that the same very limited range of imports were reported from the townsite excavations. At Meroe, very small quantities of Egyptian wares and 'terra sigillata' table wares were recovered (Bradley 1984: 205-6). Recognised forms included amphorae and the 'askos' bottles (Shinnie and Bradley 1980: figs.37,43). Another imported ware, Bradley's type Fd, which corresponds to Adams' Ware R.31 is also known to have been used primarily for oil bottles (Adams 1986: 536). Similar material was found within the palace area at Wad Ben Naqa, including amphorae, 'askos' jars and an unusual moulded Roman lamp (Vercoutter 1962: 288-95). Similarly, at Kawa the only recognisable Egyptian 33

1 1 Shablul 2 Karanog 3 Masmas ~ K:em.214 5 Jebel Adda 6 Qustul (Cem 220) 7 Ballana (Cem 221) 8 Faras 9 Aksha 10 Serra East (sie25) 11 Nag el Arab 12 Nag Shayeg 13 Nelluah 14 K]emai 15 SemnaW 16 fTila 17 Dal 18 Amir Abdallah 19 Abri-Missiminia 20 Sai 21 Sedeinga 22 Soleb 23 Kedurma 24 Kerma 25 lJebel Barkal 26 Meroe N. 27 MeroeS &W 28 Kadada 29 Geili 30 Kadero 31 Khartoum 32 Gereif 33 Umm Sunt 34 Karim's Garden 35 Sennar

X

X

2

3

4

5

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

6 ?

7 X

8

9

X

X

X

X

10 11 12 13 14 X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

?

?

X

X

X

X

X

X

? X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

?

X

X

?

? X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

?

X

X

X

?

X

X

?

X

X

?

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

?

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

? ?

X

X

X

Key: I-fine tablewares, 2-mediterranean amphorae, 3-minor metalwork, 4-wood, 5-glass, 6-fine/early glass, 7-silver vessels, 8-bronzc vessels, 9-other bronzework, 10-faience, 11-stone vessels, 12-fine jewellery, 13- coarse pottery, 14-oil/wine containers.

Table 1. The occurrence of imported artefacts in cemeteries 34

X

20 21

0

.

.

Fig. 6. Location map for sites listed in Table 1.

35

imports were amphorae (Macadam 1957: pl.xxxII, (lower)2a-c). Ifwe have evidence for the limited importation of oil and wine and fine tablewares into elite religious and urban centres south of the Third Cataract, this contrasts markedly with the absence of Egyptian coarse wares which are so abundant north of the Second Cataract. It can be seen that this class seems to include all the kitchen and utility wares, as well as 'fancier' decorated types such as barbotine cups, which are almost totally absent from southern sites, including Meroe. Shinnie and Bradley found no examples of the barbotine wares during recent excavations of the Meroe townsite (1980: 159), although at least one example was found during earlier work within the 'royal city' (Shinnie 1967: pl.54).

Even within the extensively published royal cemeteries at Meroe it is apparent that the documentation is very selective and many individual artefacts are too poorly described to be identified with any certainty. Many of the provincial cemeteries also remain inadequately published and the material either no longer exists or is not available for study. Further difficulties exist with data from the larger and most important cemeteries such as Faras, Karanog, Ballana and Qustul where the presence of multiple burials, often heavily disturbed, makes the reconstruction of individual grave groups with any precision impossible. It is only recently that excavators have begun to deal with the very real problems of interpreting robbed and/or re-used burials (Bonnet 1978: 120-6). Poor excavation and recording techniques and the exigencies of rescue work have also tended to exclude the recovery of fragmentary material, for example pottery and glass fragments, while some materials like wooden and metal objects are likely to have been less well-preserved in the less arid conditions encountered in more southerly areas.

The scale of trade When we look at the quantities of imports represented in the cemeteries, the amount of material recovered is quite limited. Table 2 shows the frequency of imported (and potentially imported) objects recovered from a group of the most fully recorded cemeteries in Lower Nubia. Even in these cemeteries, the available data are often quite imprecise, but they serve to demonstrate that such items were present in only a small number of graves, even within what are presumed to have been elite centres. Even in the richer cemeteries such as Shablul, Karanog and Faras, only a small proportion of graves included imported glass and bronze vessels while other minor objects such as wooden items (e.g. kobl pots, boxes) and small metal artefacts, some of which could be imported, were also scarce.

However, despite ancient and modem disturbance of graves, there is good evidence that much of the tomb robbing was very selective, a fact of crucial importance in assessing excavated assemblages as valid samples. This selectivity also suggests a need to be more critical in the values we ascribe to individual classes of artefacts when clarifying our perceptions of the 'economic' rather than social or symbolic significance placed on artefacts; not least because it has been assumed that 'luxury imports' per se, will have been, wherever possible, systematically robbed.

Some doubts have been expressed concerning the value of such data in assessing the quantities of imported artefacts entering the Meroitic sphere. Torok believed that the combination of plundering, partial excavation and incomplete publication provides an unacceptably incomplete and biased sample: "hardly to be called significative [sic]" (1989: 118). However, as the archaeological data remains our only source of evidence concerning the types and quantities of imported goods in circulation, a more detailed and critical consideration of the relationship between the excavated data and the original tomb contents is necessary.

Graves

% metal

% wood

% dass

% bronze/lead

Shablul

54

1.8

1.8

7.4

5.5

Masrnas

150