THE MEROITIC URBAN TOWN OF HAMADAB IN 2010

PAWEL WOLF, ULRIKE NOWOTNICK AND CATHARINE HOF

From 2002 until 2008, the combination of geophys-ical investigations with extensive surface clearing ena-bled us to map substantial parts of the ‘Upper Town’, the urban core of the Meroitic settlement on the north-ern mound of Hamadab, and to get an idea of its south-ern suburb (Figure 1; cf. Wolf et al. 2009, 196-219 and

Abb. 52; 2009, 234-241). At that point, it became essential to place special emphasis on the analysis of the settlement’s history. The fruitful cooperation with the German Archaeological Institute since 2006 and

funding by the DFG1 enabled us to commence strati-graphic excavations focusing on the development of the settlement and its domestic architecture. The last three seasons produced the first detailed information on the Upper Town’s construction history at the town walls, at Temple H 1000 as well as at house blocks H 1200

1 Since 2007, the research program has been part of the joint project ‘Hamadab and Meroe’, led by Simone Wolf and funded by the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) as well as between 2008 and 2010 by the German Research Foundation (DFG). We would like to express our gratitude to both institu-tions for their generous support. In addition, we would like to thank all our cooperation partners – especially the National Cor-poration for Antiquities and Museums, Khartoum, and the Uni-versity of Shendi - and to all our team members.

Figure 1. Schematic plan of the Upper Town indicating excavation trenches of season 2010 and basic building orientations in the town’s earliest occupation period.

96798.indb 719 23/05/14 14:11

720 PAWEL WOLF, ULRIKE NOWOTNICK AND CATHARINE HOF

and H 1600 (see below and cf. Wolf et al. 2010, 241-249; Wolf et al. 2012, 223-243). In addition, the first radiocarbon dates related to the early periods of the town were obtained. Finally, the discovery of four kilns of a pottery workshop in the suburb yielded the first data on Hamadab’s significance as a Meroitic produc-tion centre and geophysical investigations at the south-ern mound of Hamadab uncovered the complete layout of a Meroitic cemetery.

EXCAVATIONS IN THE UPPER TOWN OF HAMADAB

Excavations near the town’s centre and at its south-ern enclosure wall revealed significant information that supports some of our previously suggested assumptions concerning the settlement’s structural development. The main section of our trenches, cutting perpendicular through the main street, exposed stratification more than 3m deep of numerous street levels and construc-tion phases of the adjoining house façades (Plate 1). It

illustrates that the history of the edifices near the town’s centre can be subdivided into main periods associated with three main occupation horizons: C, B, and A, with

A being the latest preserved horizon (Figure 2).2 Fur-thermore, the excavations yielded an overall time span for these three periods between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 3rd/4th century AD. Radiocarbon samples associated with the earliest levels of occupa-tion, horizon C, at the southern town wall and below

the oldest main street levels at about 6.7m local height3 date the beginning of that possibly initial occupation period4 to the 2nd to 1st century BC. The uppermost horizon A comprises the latest preserved building structures of the Upper Town, including the last con-struction phase of house H 1600 next to the town’s centre and ruins mapped by surface clearings to the south of the central part of the town. According to a late Meroitic intra-mural burial dug into these struc-tures near the Upper Town’s southern enclosure, occu-pation period A can be dated to the 3rd or 4th century AD. Thus, the urban occupation of Hamadab spans at least the last five centuries of the Meroitic period.

Finally, it has been suggested that the Upper Town was originally designed according to a regular plan with a more or less orthogonal road system and corre-sponding building plots, and that the town structure gradually changed towards the less regular morphology perceivable in the map of the latest preserved of these occupation horizons (cf. Wolf et al. 2010, 242). This assumption, which is quite relevant for the interpreta-tion of the town’s development, was fully corroborated by the trenches near the town’s centre for periods B and A, as well as partially confirmed for period C: the main street with its general orientation was apparently established at the very beginning of period C. Its detailed course and width, however, varied according

2 As was already suggested by previous soundings in other parts of the Upper Town, cf. Wolf et al. 2009, 204f.

3 Samples HSP 10-022, 10-023, and 10-084 (see below). The local altitudes refer to station point HV64 with a local height of 10m corresponding to a height of 359.25m AMSL.

4 Red-brick debris in the lowest layer below the main street, unfortunately only touched as yet by our excavations near the centre, indicates, however, a possible destruction horizon of even earlier structures – evidence to be confirmed by future excavations.

Plate 1. Northern profile of trench 2010-03 through the Upper Town’s main street illustrating the

three main horizons C, B and A.

Figure 2. Schematic section through the Upper Town illustrating the occupation horizons A, B and C.

96798.indb 720 23/05/14 14:11

THE MEROITIC URBAN TOWN OF HAMADAB IN 2010 721

to modifications of the adjacent building plots. For example, the house façades at its northern side were gradually set back period by period (Plate 1, cf. Figure 1); at its southern side, blocks H 1500 and H 1600 pro-truded far into the street at the beginning of period B, but soon afterwards, their façades were set back towards the south.5 Such alterations resulted in an overall shift and a widening of the main street, without, however, disturbing the general morphology of the town. The side lanes, between blocks H 1300 and H 1800 as well as between H 1500 and H 1600, existed at least since period B and remained in place with only minor changes in their course and width until period A.6 It is thus obvious from the trenches near the town’s centre, that the road system and the centrally situated building plots experienced gradual transformations in the course of the settlement’s lifetime through smaller structural changes. Similar modifications of the town’s morphol-ogy are readily observable in other quarters of the Upper Town. The nature of the interruptions between occupation periods C, B and A, however, remains to be explained. The break between periods C and B seems to represent greater structural changes affecting larger town quarters or even the entire settlement, which is corroborated by the evidence at the southern town wall. The break between B and A seems to have been of a less disruptive character, according to the evidence inside house H 1600.

Two trenches were dug to investigate the southern enclosure of the Upper Town and its relation to the southern suburb (Figure 3 and Plate 2, cf. Figure 1). The excavation unearthed the ruins of the 2.9m thick town wall and the findings – like dimension, construc-tion and stratigraphic situation – correspond to those in the northern part of the enclosure more than 100m away (cf. Wolf et al. 2010, 238-239). The mud-brick masonry of the southern town wall was regularly built in headers with a red-brick facing on both sides. Its red-brick foundation of about 1m in height was set into a nearly sterile sand dune, indicating that it was the earliest substantial structure in that area. The top of its foundation at 7m local height7 equals that of the north-ern town wall and coincides with the oldest walking levels of the main street near the town centre, while Temple H 1000 in the east was founded slightly higher.

5 Perhaps in order to restore the original course of the street (see below).

6 Whether they were already established in period C, could not yet be determined with certainty.

7 That is about 3m below the mound’s present surface.

These similarities give rise to the assumption that the ground was levelled before the construction of the first buildings at the beginning of the Upper Town’s occu-pation period C. With a depth of over 4m, we were not yet able to trace larger areas beyond the wall. Directly in front of the wall, at least, we did not find indications of early building structures in the suburban area. Albeit, it is conceivable that early structures existed further away from the wall.

Figure 3. North-south section through the southern city wall in trench 2010-01 (looking east). - a: mud-brick core

- b: red-brick facing - c: foundation.

Plate 2. Exterior side of the southern city wall in trench 2010-01. - a: later walls - b: remains of city wall -

c: foundation of city wall.

96798.indb 721 23/05/14 14:11

722 PAWEL WOLF, ULRIKE NOWOTNICK AND CATHARINE HOF

The destruction levels of period C are similar in various parts of the Upper Town. The destruction level of the southern town wall at about 1.8m above its foun-dation coincides with the destruction level of period C in the town’s centre, those of Temple H 1000, and of the northern town wall.8 This implies that the interrup-tion between occupation periods C and B represents a substantial change in the settlement’s development affecting larger settlement areas. Clear evidence of the southern wall’s collapse was found at the bottom of the trench. A complete block of mud-brick masonry about 1 x 1.5m in size, still retaining its red-brick facing, had slumped and fallen into a 900mm deep ditch at the foot of the wall. The event either marks the erosion of that enclosure or its sudden destruction. While evidence of a disastrous high flood could not be found, a levelling of large quarters of the town within the scope of an urban renewal is not unlikely.

Thereafter, the wall was no longer properly main-tained in this area. Instead, a new mud-brick wall was erected on top of its ruin. The new wall was only 600mm thick and was built against a north-south wall belonging to a large suburban building plot (cf. Wolf et al. 2009, Abb. 52). Rather than serving defensive functions, these later walls are plot boundaries at the periphery of the Upper Town and thus indicate the settlement’s expan-sion into its immediate suburbs and/or the fusion of both areas – possibly at the beginning of period B.

About 1000m2 of surface clearance shed light on a larger part of the latest preserved urban structures within the Upper Town’s southern half (cf. Figure 1). The investigated area, representing probably occupa-tion period A, was apparently not as regularly divided into blocks as the settlement’s northern quarters since fewer orthogonal walls were present here. In addition, an area of 350m² possibly had been left vacant during that latest construction period9 – a circumstance that contrasts to some extent with the overcrowding of the contemporary horizon in the town’s centre.

The final abandonment of at least that southern part of the Upper Town is indicated by a late Meroitic intra-mural burial of probably the 3rd/4th century AD near the former enclosure wall (Plate 3). Apparently it belongs to a period in time during which this town quarter was

8 The red-brick casing of the southern town wall is preserved to a local level of 8.7m; the upper edge of the northern town wall lies at 8.3m; the remains of the temple and the eastern town wall behind it survive to a height of 8.4m and 8.3m respectively, and the earlier buildings in the town’s centre were truncated at 8.7m.

9 The geophysical prospection of this area showed structures in deeper layers (Wolf et al. 2010, 237-238 and fig. 26).

already depopulated, since graves were usually not placed in inhabited settlement areas during Meroitic times. The upper part of the grave structure was denuded by erosion. However, the deceased and most of the associated grave goods were found almost undamaged. The body had been placed extended on its back, head to the north facing west, with the hands crossed in front of the pelvis. The grave furniture con-sisted of a copper-alloy bowl and at least 13 pottery vessels, amongst them three globular jars with short necks, the lower part of a tall cylindrical jar, several shallow bowls, and a decorated bouteille noire near the head of the adult individual. Parallels can be found among the late Meroitic burials of el-Kadada (Geus 1984, 36-38) and Begrawiya West (Edwards 1999a, 61-62).

RADIOCARBON DATES

Six samples from different contexts were submitted for radiocarbon dating.10 Table 1 summarizes the rele-vant data (raw dates, dates calibrated by OxCal v4.1.5, as well a short description of the stratigraphic contexts). The dating of the bone samples HSP 10-002 and 10-003 was not successful, as the bones did not contain enough collagen11 – dating of animal bones is problematic due to their poor preservation in this region.

Samples HSP 10-022 and 10-023 are associated with construction and post-construction levels of the south-

10 Dating has been carried out by the Poznań Radiocarbon Labora-tory (T. Goszlar; c.fourteen@radiocarbon.pl).

11 There was the same outcome with an animal bone sample from an earlier context at the so-called ‘Royal Baths’ of Meroe, sub-mitted to the laboratory.

Plate 3. Late Meroitic burial near the former southern city wall.

96798.indb 722 23/05/14 14:11

THE MEROITIC URBAN TOWN OF HAMADAB IN 2010 723

ern town wall, while sample HSP 10-084 was found in debris layers below the earliest walking levels of the main street. These three samples produced quite coher-ent dates apparently related to the early construction history of the Upper Town during period C. Charcoal sample HSP 10-024 was selected to give a rough date for the collapse of the town wall and the end of period C. It seems, however, that these rubbish layers above the ruin of the town wall contained re-deposited mate-rial and perhaps old wood, since the sample consider-ably predates the stratigraphically ‘older’ samples HSP 10-022 and 10-023.

The first three charcoal samples mentioned above have been used to calculate a Bayesian Sequence to test whether we can achieve a better differentiation between the almost congruent dates of these samples by such a probability model.12 It was hypothetically assumed that sample HSP 10-022 representing the oldest date related to the foundation or construction of the town wall was chronologically followed by HSP 10-084 that is associ-ated with the probably slightly later construction activ-ities of period C along the town’s main street. HSP 10-023, finally, was found in a layer accumulated shortly after the construction phases of occupation period C. Presupposing such a ‘statistical hypothesis’, the calculations generated a sequence that is consistent with the archaeological stratigraphy and that fits well into our general chronological assumptions.

Table 2 and Figure 4 illustrate the results, according to which it is probable that the town wall was con-structed between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the middle of the 1st century BC. The building program of the houses along the main street started slightly later within that period. According to this sequence, it is likely that the stelae of Amanirenas and Akinidad from the end of the 1st century BC do not indicate the date of the town’s foundation but a rebuilding program affecting large parts of the town (cf. Wolf et al. 2010, 245f).

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY AT THE SOUTHERN MOUND OF HAMADAB

In 2005, several looted Meroitic graves were discov-ered on a mound less than a kilometre to the south of

12 Cf. Bronk Ramsey 2009; using calibration curve IntCal 2009 (Riemer et al. 2009) and OxCal 4.1.7. We are grateful to Felix Höflmayer, DAI Berlin, Orient Department, who introduced us to these calculations.

the Meroitic town. Our magnetometric survey at that southern mound13 almost revealed the complete plan of the Meroitic cemetery. The magnetometer image shows a roughly rectangular, north east - south west oriented burial ground of 80 x 130-170m. At least 100 more or less regularly distributed anomalies can be interpreted as tomb structures (Plate 4).

DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE - HOUSE H 1600

Once again, the north-eastern ‘core house’ of block H 1600 near the centre of the Upper Town was the focus of our investigations on the nature of Hamadab’s domestic architecture. The excavations revealed the complex spatial and functional development through nine phases during the last two occupation periods B and A of the Upper Town (Figure 5).14 Founded about 1.2m below the present-day surface, H 1600 stands on top of an earlier building discovered in three corner rooms of house H 1600. That former building of occu-pation period C had been levelled and used as a sub-structure. The dwelling’s nine habitation stages can be grouped into three substantial construction phases:

Phase 1 - This initial construction can be linked with the middle period B of Hamadab’s Upper Town. The core house with a floor area of 154m² was erected in one go. Its northern façade protruded far into the main street apparently disregarding this previously public area. The exterior walls were only one brick thick and were constructed mainly with mud bricks of c. 350 x 200mm.

Phase 2 - The main characteristic of the second phase is the dismantling of the northern façade which apparently had extended beyond the former course of the main street (thus coming into conflict with it) – a public area of the town.15 By widening the street, the northern walls of the house were set back about 1.7m to the south, resulting in the reduction of its floor area by c. 20m². Only a little time seems to have passed between the initial construction of H 1600 and this alteration, since only 150mm of occupation deposits

13 The survey, carried out by Mohammed Abdelwahab Moham-med Ali (Wadi Halfa University/Sudan; Institute of Geodesy and Geophysics, Hubei/China) with a fluxgate gradiometer had revealed parts of that cemetery, as well as medieval remains at the mound (see Wolf et al. 2010, 252f and Abb. 42).

14 For the results of the excavations in 2008 see S. Wolf et al. 2010, 246-249; Wolf et al. 2012, 230-234.

15 These modifications play an important role for the understand-ing the town’s development.

96798.indb 723 23/05/14 14:11

724 PAWEL WOLF, ULRIKE NOWOTNICK AND CATHARINE HOF

�am

eM

odel

led

date

s 1

σM

odel

led

date

s 2

σco

nstr

ucti

on p

hase

cit

y w

all

161

BC

- 5

4 B

C26

0 B

C -

26

BC

Poz

-410

85 (

HS

P 1

0-02

2)14

8 B

C -

51

BC

171

BC

- 4

1 B

C

cons

truc

tion

pha

se m

ain

stre

et11

0 B

C -

46

BC

161

BC

- 3

1 B

C

Poz

-410

87 (

HS

P 1

0-08

4)10

0 B

C -

42

BC

152

BC

- 1

9 B

C

post

-con

stru

ctio

n ph

ase

95

BC

- 3

4 B

C14

5 B

C -

AD

2

Poz

-410

86 (

HS

P 1

0-02

3)87

BC

- 5

BC

139

BC

- A

D 2

0

end

of s

eque

nce

85 B

C -

AD

314

5 B

C -

AD

101

Sam

ple

�o.

Lab

. �o.

cont

ext

R_D

ate

cal D

ate

2 σ

cal D

ate

1 σ

sam

ple

shor

t str

atig

raph

ic in

form

atio

n re

mar

ks

HS

P 1

0-00

2P

oz-0

1043

9>

0 B

Pan

imal

bo

ne

kiln

H 3

201,

low

er p

arts

of

firi

ng

cham

ber,

belo

w d

ebri

s of

fur

nace

cha

mbe

r

not

suit

able

, col

lage

n am

ount

too

low

,0.

1%N

1.1

%C

HS

P 1

0-00

3P

oz-4

0024

1014

422

30 ±

60

BP

401

BC

- 1

63 B

C (

94.6

%)

130

BC

- 1

19 B

C (

0.8%

)31

6 B

C -

208

BC

(52

.6%

)38

1 B

C -

349

BC

(15

.6%

)an

imal

bo

neho

use

H 1

600,

lay

er o

f ph

ase

1,

occu

pati

on p

erio

d B

unce

rtai

n, c

olla

gen

amou

nt l

ow,

0.4%

N 1

.3%

C t

o be

HS

P 1

0-02

2P

oz-4

1085

1023

420

65 ±

30

BP

171

BC

- A

D 2

(95

.4%

)15

6 B

C -

136

BC

(11

.4%

)11

4 B

C -

42

BC

(56

.8%

)ch

arco

al

sout

hern

cit

y w

all,

pos

thol

e as

soci

ated

w

ith

foun

dati

on l

evel

s;

prob

ably

pre

dati

ng o

r co

eval

wit

h co

nstr

ucti

on o

f ci

ty w

all

HS

P 1

0-02

3P

oz-4

1086

1023

020

55 ±

30

BP

169

BC

- A

D 5

(94

.6%

)

AD

12

- A

D 1

7 (0

.8%

)

151

BC

- 1

40 B

C (

5%)

112

BC

- 3

7 B

C (

55.1

%)

29

BC

- 2

2 B

C (

3.6%

) 1

1 B

C -

2 B

C (

4.6%

)

char

coal

sout

hern

cit

y w

all,

lay

er a

t or

aft

er(?

) w

all

cons

truc

tion

,pr

obab

ly p

ost-

dati

ng c

onst

ruct

ion

and

pre-

dati

ng c

olla

pse

of c

ity

wal

l

HS

P 1

0-02

4P

oz-4

0026

1022

021

70 ±

30

BP

362

BC

- 1

57 B

C (

92.6

%)

135

BC

- 1

16 B

C (

2.8%

)

352

BC

- 2

96 B

C (

40.4

%)

211

BC

- 1

75 B

C (

24.1

%)

228

BC

- 2

21 B

C (

3.8%

)ch

arco

also

uthe

rn c

ity

wal

l, d

ebri

s la

yer

afte

r co

llap

se o

f ci

ty w

all,

prob

ably

‘ol

d w

ood’

HS

P 1

0-08

4P

oz-4

1087

1039

920

55 ±

30

BP

169

BC

- A

D 5

(94

.6%

)

AD

12

- A

D 1

7 (0

.8%

)

151

BC

- 1

40 B

C (

5%)

112

BC

- 3

7 B

C (

55.1

%)

29

BC

- 2

2 B

C (

3.6%

) 1

1 B

C -

2 B

C (

4.6%

)

char

coal

mai

n st

reet

, deb

ris

laye

r be

low

ear

lies

t st

reet

lev

els

Tab

le 1

. R

adio

carb

on d

ates

of

char

coal

and

bon

e sa

mpl

es f

rom

sea

son

2010

.

Tab

le 2

. R

adio

carb

on d

ates

rel

ated

to

the

earl

y pe

riod

s of

the

Upp

er T

own,

mod

elle

d by

a B

ayes

ian

sequ

ence

.

96798.indb 724 23/05/14 14:11

THE MEROITIC URBAN TOWN OF HAMADAB IN 2010 725

had accumulated. Presumably at the same time, the inhabitants extended the house by c. 65m² to the south.16 Thereafter followed a longer period of con-

16 The walls of the southern extension also lie about 150mm above the house foundation (cf. Wolf et al. 2010, 247, fig. 36).

tinuous use without any major modifications to the house, which was marked by a 300-400mm thick accu-mulation of cultural layers within the rooms. In this second phase, the largest documented brick format, of about 400 x 200mm, was used.

Figure 4. Bayesian sequence of radiocarbon dates related to the early periods of the Upper Town.

96798.indb 725 23/05/14 14:11

726 PAWEL WOLF, ULRIKE NOWOTNICK AND CATHARINE HOF

Figure 5. Schematic plan illustrating the development of residential building H 1600.

Plate 4. North part of the southern mound of Hamadab with the magnetometer image of the Meroitic cemetery.

96798.indb 726 23/05/14 14:11

THE MEROITIC URBAN TOWN OF HAMADAB IN 2010 727

Phase 3 - The latest construction phase marks a clear change in the structure of the house and corresponds to the Upper Town’s latest preserved occupation horizon A: The house witnessed a comprehensive rebuilding program with a general trend towards a downsizing of rooms and densification of space. While the exterior walls were maintained, inner partition walls were erected. Existing walls were reinforced to 1½ or 2 bricks thick, probably to achieve an appropriate sub-structure for an additional storey. The dimensions of the primarily used bricks are now c. 360 x 190mm.

Subsequent use - No new architectural features are preserved after the third phase. The house was heavily disturbed by pitting, dumping and the digging of fire-places into former walls. Post-Meroitic ceramic frag-ments are associated with these contexts, indicating a squatter occupation as is testified at Meroe (Shinnie and Anderson 2004, 64).

Structural and functional organisation of house H 1600

Only indirect indications let us assume which of the house units may have been roofed and which repre-sented open courtyards. The larger units with sandy floors like 1619 or the central area 1618/1632 might have been open patios, providing light and air to neigh-bouring rooms, while units with coloured wall plaster must have been roofed, since the water-soluble plaster would not have withstood the precipitation during the rainy seasons.

The rooms were filled with alternating strata of sed-iment layers and collapsed mud bricks, indicating vari-ous periods of utilisation. Yet, beyond such building materials, furniture and perishable household objects did not survive. Besides a relatively large number of potsherds, rather few objects were recovered. Querns, rubbers and pounders, seals and jewellery, spindle whorls, as well as occasional iron objects and animal figurines were lost or left behind. Nevertheless, some clues for the use of the room units could be drawn from the house’s general organisation and certain features like different kinds of wall plasters, post-holes, door-ways, water drains, brick storage containers, as well as from installed ceramic vessels. Rooms containing evi-dence of food processing, like ovens that were clearly used and maintained over longer periods, have been identified as kitchens. Their continuously renewed cooking installations comprise two types of vessels: handmade ovens especially made for this purpose and

reused wheel-made jars with carefully abraded rims (Plate 5, cf. Figure 7). It remains uncertain, how exactly these oven pots functioned.17 Also found within these rooms were grinders, rubbers and iron tools. While these ‘kitchens’ are our most valuable evidence for the recognition of living units, not all fireplaces or storage

facilities were located in the ‘kitchens’ alone. In many other rooms we found pottery vessels set into the floor – some with and some without traces of burning. Since built-in benches, bed niches or mastabat did not belong to the household inventory at Hamadab, bedrooms or living rooms – provided these existed as such – have unfortunately not been identifiable.

The internal arrangement and the distribution of the small finds allow us to reconstruct a first outline of the house’s spatial organisation. Three obviously affiliated groups of rooms units, which we call ‘suites’ are dis-tinguishable by doors and passageways (Plate 6). Despite all of the modifications made throughout the entire history of the house, its main entrance was always situated near the north-eastern corner where several thresholds were installed over time. Entering

17 It is unlikely that the handmade pots were used as cooking ves-sels because of their coarseness, their huge size of more than 500mm in height, and their considerable fillings of ash and char-coal. On the other hand, none of them had a ventilation hole (cf. Welsby 2010; 48, pl. 1; Spencer 2009; 53, pl. 11, col. pl. XVII).

Plate 5. View into kitchen H 1634. The western section cuts through in situ oven pots and floor levels covering

wall remains of the predecessor building.

96798.indb 727 23/05/14 14:11

728 PAWEL WOLF, ULRIKE NOWOTNICK AND CATHARINE HOF

the house from that entrance and passing the narrow hall 1633, the eastern suite of rooms 1619-1621 and 1634 was a possible self-sufficient unit. The rather small kitchen 1634 was occupied during all phases of the house with constantly renewed oven pots and other cooking facilities.18 However, also within the other rooms of the eastern suite, we found at least one cook-ing place, storage vessels and grinding equipment. Two large ceramic jars, dug into the floor of the red-plas-tered ‘salon’ 1620, were presumably used as water or storage containers. In the adjoining room 1621, we dis-covered traces of a ‘handicraft activity zone’ with an unusually large number of grinders, pestles and palettes as well as a seal and a lamp on the floor.

Access to the central suite of rooms was probably provided from the north-eastern entrance passing straight on to rooms 1607 and 1606, and subsequently entering the central area within the house. In ‘salon’ 1615 with red-plastered walls we found several spindle whorls,19 some pieces of jewellery and a large quern. The other rooms along the house’s northern façade revealed a mud-brick storage bin (Plate 7) and single oven pots.

The earliest mode of access to the western part of the house is yet to be found. A doorway in the southern façade seems to have provided access to these rooms after the house was enlarged to the south in the second construction phase. The functional centre of this suite was presumably the kitchen in room 1636 of almost 11m². Along its western wall, we discovered 12 oven pots dating to different occupation periods. Two or three of these ovens might have been simultaneously in use. Other fireplaces, one with a large flat baking plate (doka), add to the picture of a central place for food preparation. In the latest phase of the house, when

18 Even the earlier building had two oven pots in this part of the house.

19 Remarkably, all ten spindle whorls were recovered in the north-western rooms (1604, 1614, 1605, 1615).

kitchen 1636 was subdivided into rooms 1614 and 1617, the larger part 1614 still contained several fire-places.

Conclusion

House H 1600 can be divided into at least two not entirely separate residential units each with its own entrance, a red-plastered living space, and a continu-ously used kitchen. Whether the two sections served particular functions or whether certain individuals were running their own households, is still a matter of spec-ulation. Both kitchens 1634 and 1636 are most signifi-cant regarding the function of these suites and the con-tinuity of occupation in the house. The question arises, for whom the food was prepared and why two kitchens were simultaneously in use throughout the entire his-tory of the house.

Generally, we can refer to H 1600 as a Meroitic domestic house. By transferring our knowledge about finds and use patterns from H 1600 to similar buildings at Hamadab, we might assume that most buildings revealed by surface clearing at Hamadab were domestic houses and thus large parts of the Upper Town most probably served as residential quarters.

POTTERY PRODUCTION IN THE SUBURB OF THE UPPER TOWN

Abutting the south-eastern corner of the Upper Town, surface clearing revealed an almost rectangular courtyard enclosing an area of about 380m² (cf. Figure 1). Inside this court, we identified the remains of at

Plate 6. Doorway between rooms H 1607 and H 1606 with the thresholds of several building phases.

Plate 7. Mud-brick storage bin in the corner of room H 1605.

96798.indb 728 23/05/14 14:11

THE MEROITIC URBAN TOWN OF HAMADAB IN 2010 729

least four pottery kilns (Plate 8), which – together with the surrounding waste dumps, ash, ceramic fragments and other production refuse - had caused strong anom-alies during the magnetometric survey in 2006 (cf. Wolf et al. 2009, 198 fig. 52).20 All four kilns were built of mud bricks. They are of cylindrical shape with interior diameters of 1.4-2.2m and had two auxiliary walls added to the exterior giving access to the stoke-hole.

Excavation of kiln H 3201 exposed the lower portion of a so-called updraught or double chamber kiln, where the heat rises from the lower furnace chamber to the firing chamber above it (Plate 9). The furnace chamber was preserved to a height of 1m, its inside diameter was 1.5-1.7m. The 400mm thick mud-brick walls were constructed with alternating courses of headers and stretchers covered with mud plaster on the interior. Plaster and bricks were reddened and partially melted by the heat in the chamber. Remains of brick abutments and the springing of an arch could be discerned on the chamber’s inner wall – course lesenes and springer bricks indicate that arches supported the floor between

20 In addition to the four kilns, we discovered circular structures of similar size – possibly the remains of further kilns in deeper layers.

the furnace and firing chambers. Similar buttresses have been reported from a kiln at the Meroitic site of Kedurma at the Third Cataract (Edwards 1995, 40; 1999b, 41; Welsby 1996, 168). Crossing arches also supported the brick floor of the kilns in Abdel Qadir and Debeira in Lower Nubia (Adams 2004, 46-47, 112-116). A floor with air holes was still preserved in one of the kilns in the pottery workshop M 620 at Meroe (Török 1997, pl. 143). We can only speculate about the construction of the upper firing chamber at Hamadab: considering better-preserved examples, these cylindri-cal kilns might have been open shaft kilns without domes (cf. Adams 1986, 31; Török 1997, 174). Hence, such open furnace chambers would have been charged from the top and had to be temporary covered for each firing process.

The stoke-hole of kiln H 3201 measured 800 x 400mm and was situated on the north-eastern side, while those of kilns H 3202 and 3203 were situated at the south-eastern and western sides respectively.21 A sloping ramp provided access to the hole. Two walls about 1m long on either side kept this area free from the steadily growing dumps of ash and production

21 In an updraught kiln the air draught is strong enough without the need to consider prevailing winds.

Plate 8. Courtyard H 3200 with pottery kilns H 3201-3203 at the south-eastern periphery of the Upper Town.

Plate 9. Pottery kiln H 3201. - a: view from south (photo horizontally mirrored) - b: view from top into the firing

chamber with remains of the spring of vault at the southern side.

96798.indb 729 23/05/14 14:11

730 PAWEL WOLF, ULRIKE NOWOTNICK AND CATHARINE HOF

waste. The workshop refuse contained large quantities of wasters and over-fired fragments of a large variety of ceramic vessels – from coarse wares to decorated fine wares – as well as some fragments of animal figu-rines.

Considering the number of kilns, some of which might have been used simultaneously, courtyard H 3200 can be regarded as a local ‘industrial’ area spe-cializing in pottery production. Kiln sites of similar scale have been discovered at Meroe and Muweis.22 These finds illustrate that specialized workshops asso-ciated with the settlements in the Meroitic heartland maintained a large-scale local pottery production. Pot-tery workshops with kilns and workspaces are also known from Post-Meroitic and Medieval sites in Lower Nubia (Adams 1962; Adams 1986, 13-33; Adams 2004, 46-47, 112-116) which yielded similar kilns in form and dimension, being most frequently situated at the settlement’s fringes while the Medieval pottery kiln at Soba East lay in the centre of the town (Welsby and Daniels 1991, 105-106).

The kiln site of Hamadab demonstrates that work-shops for specialized crafts like iron smelting and ceramic production, as well as possibly copper alloy, faience and glass workshops were situated within the suburbs of the town. A separation of inner-city residen-tial, sacral and administrative quarters on the one hand and suburban production areas on the other hand is thus quite evident in Hamadab’s urban settlement structure. The considerable scale of production at Hamadab, as estimated, for example, by the iron slag heaps and other production waste,23 points to the town’s significance within the network of urban settlements in the Meroitic heartland as a local production centre near the capital of Meroe. However, at which point in time during the development of the settlement these production and workshop areas were established, is still to be deter-mined.

22 For Meroe see Török 1997, 173-174, pl. 140-143; for Muweis see Baud 2008, 53-54; 2010, 215-216. Wasters and remains of a Meroitic pottery workshop were excavated in Courtyard 224 at Musawwarat es-Sufra (cf. Edwards 1999b).

23 See, for example, the magnetic image in Wolf et al. 2009, Abb. 52. Iron production areas are indicated by strong anomalies resulting from iron slag heaps at the eastern and southern fringes of the suburbs; the pottery production centre H 3200 is indicated by the magnetic anomalies next to the south-eastern corner of the Upper Town; strong magnetic anomalies near the north-western corner of the town point to further workshop areas. For a geophysical investigation of the iron slag heaps by geo-resis-tivity measurements and ground penetrating radar, see Ullrich in Wolf et al. 2010, 250-252.

THE POTTERY OF HAMADAB

According to the initial pottery documentation sys-tem at Hamadab established in 2002, the pottery fabrics were divided on the basis of visual perception into main clay types like Nile mud, mixed clay, kaolin and marl clay. In order to improve this classification by a scientific approach, 143 samples from Hamadab and from the ‘Royal Baths’ at Meroe have been examined using several archaeometric methods.24 By refiring ceramic fragments up to 1200°C (MGR analysis), it was possible to differentiate various clay types used for pottery making. In addition, some raw material sources could be identified by determining the geo-chemical composition of 25 potsherds from Hamadab and of two clay samples from the region by X-ray fluorescence (WD-XRF).

The samples from Hamadab were classified into 17 similarity groups according to their clay types, named A to X for non-calcareous clays and CAL for marl clays. Each of these groups comprises fabrics made of the same clay type. The main resources at Hamadab were Nile alluvium A, wadi clays B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, M and kaolinitic clays Y, YB, YG (Plate 10). According to their geo-chemical makeup, most of the clays are of local provenance whereas the clays of groups R, X and marl clays CAL are imports to the region. Finally, these 17 clay groups have been classi-fied into ’reference’ or ‘provenance’ groups25 that point to individual extraction places of the same raw material source. These are interpreted as representing distinctive ‘production centres’.

Returning to our collection in Sudan in 2009, we re-examined all potsherds using a reference set with the classified samples. In most cases, it was possible to recognise the differences between the individual raw material groups. Thus, by comparing our ceramic mate-rial with the reference set, we were able to assign most of the pottery from Hamadab to the specific clay types and their provenance groups.26

24 The following account on the fabrics of Hamadab is based on the analysis undertaken by E. Bobryk, M. Daszkiewicz and G. Schneider. For a detailed description of applied methods, tables with the mineralogical composition and colour photographs see Daszkiewicz and Schneider 2012.

25 These are labelled with an additional digit, e.g. A7, J2, Y3.26 Of most importance is the texture of the fabric in the fresh

break, whereas differences in colour often result from firing con-ditions. However, some hues in the break are distinctive of cer-tain clay groups, particularly the wadi clays display characteris-tic colour shades.

96798.indb 730 23/05/14 14:11

THE MEROITIC URBAN TOWN OF HAMADAB IN 2010 731

The former classification of fabrics for Hamadab (cf. Dittrich 2003; 2010) did distinguish between Nile mud, ‘mixed clays’, kaolinitic clays and marl clays. How-ever, it was not always successful in recognising and assigning the right clay type. Thus, based on the archaeometric analysis (cf. Wolf et al. 2010, 256f), a new recording system was established in 2009 that per-mits us to assign each potsherd to one of the archaeo-metrically defined clay groups and to record details of manufacture and firing conditions independently.

A preliminary assessment of the pottery fabrics at Hamadab demonstrates some local specifications in the pottery assemblage.27 The main resource was alluvial Nile clay A, of which several different sub-groups are attested. Almost half of the assemblage (44%) and most

27 The following ratios are preliminary figures that reflect the state of research in 2010, referring to c. 1,700 vessel units from Ham-adab that have been macroscopically assigned to one of the ana-lysed clay groups.

of the handmade vessels were made from this Nile allu-vium (Figure 6). Amounting to 29%, wadi clays have been frequently used as well, in particular groups H and J. Besides, the ceramic corpus shows a remarkably high proportion of kaolinitic fine wares (22%).28 Approximately three quarters of the total assemblage at Hamadab was wheel-made, while one quarter was handmade. Vessels made of wadi clays and kaolinitic clays were mainly produced on the wheel.

In the Hamadab collection, the wide variety of dif-ferent raw materials exploited for pottery making is remarkable: most of the 17 clay groups identified so far are associated with pottery from the Meroitic period.29

28 Because these frequently decorated pieces were preferentially documented, the percentage might be too high; however, kaoli-nitic fine wares are predominately found at Hamadab.

29 One sample, a fragment of a smoking pipe from the surface collection, makes up clay type X which is of later date and non-local to the area.

Plate 10. Archaeometrically analysed samples sorted by clay types (MGR = Matrix Group by Refiring; MD = laboratory number of sample).

96798.indb 731 23/05/14 14:11

732 PAWEL WOLF, ULRIKE NOWOTNICK AND CATHARINE HOF

Fabrics differing from Nile alluvium have been hitherto called ’mixed clays‘ and occasional kaolinitic inclu-sions have led scholars to assume the utilisation of a mixture of Nile alluvium with kaolinite (Dittrich 2003, 81; Mason and Grzymski 2009, 88-89; Seiler 1999, 59-60; Smith 1999, 45-49). Among the Hamadab sam-ples, a mixing of clays is not attested; however, the archaeometric results clearly identified wadi deposits as raw material sources for pottery production. The thermal behaviour of clay types B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and M at Hamadab corresponds to a clay sample taken from the nearby Wadi el-Hawad, indicating a similar raw material origin. These groups can, there-fore, be called ‘wadi clays’ – albeit the specific wadis are yet to be identified.30

The fine ware at Hamadab was made of kaolinitic clay Y, available in the nearby sandstone hills (cf. Rob-ertson 1992, 47), which is whitish or slightly yellowish in its purest variety. The inventory at Hamadab com-prises at least three different varieties of kaolinitic clay Y1, Y2 and Y3 as well as some ‘impure’ kaolinitic clays YB and YG with pinkish or greyish shades (cf. Plate 10). In addition, several vessels of kaolinitic clays were intentionally blackened in a reducing atmosphere during firing (cf. Robertson and Hill 2004, 125).

30 Edwards (1999b, 18) and Robertson and Hill (2004, 113-114) already suggested that wadi clays were a major raw material source for Meroitic pottery found at Musawwarat es-Sufra and Meroe.

Pottery from kiln H 3201

Of special interest are numerous misfired potsherds from the excavation of the pottery kiln H 3201, which yielded a significant variety of different wares and clay types. Labratory examination of nine overfired sherds found inside the kiln indicates that a diversity of goods were fired in a single kiln: wheel-made and handmade vessels from Nile clay (A2, A7), different wadi clays (J2, M1) as well as fine wares from kaolin (Y2, Y3.1). These kiln wasters provide a valuable reference for comparative analyses with the pottery corpus of, for example, the Upper Town of Hamadab and other Meroitic sites, to study Meroitic pottery production and distribution patterns.

Two clay sources that were apparently used by the potters of Hamadab have been identified by examining the kiln wasters and additional clay samples. Clay group M1, repeatedly found in the pottery kiln, corre-sponds to a raw material sample taken from the Wadi el-Hawad c. 5km south east of Hamadab. Their similar thermal behaviour implies that the local potters exploited the clay deposits of that wadi. The second source refers to fineware group Y2, a kaolinitic clay which was used to produce slightly yellowish fine ware, found in the Upper Town as well as inside kiln H 3201. Y2 chemically corresponds to a raw material sample taken in the quarry area of Jebel Umm Ali about 14km north of Hamadab. Not only was the source of the kaolinitic clay Y2 localised at Umm Ali, also its place of production and utilisation at Hamadab is now recognised. These results document that the local pro-duction centre made use of various raw material sources in the region and moreover that Meroitic finewares were produced at Hamadab.

Domestic pottery of the Upper Town

The pottery collection from the urban town of Ham-adab is a typical Meroitic assemblage that corresponds to vessel shapes from the later Meroitic period (Edwards 1999a, 60-62). During the occupation at Hamadab, a wide variety of clays, vessel shapes and designs of Meroitic domestic wares are attested. It is notable that for example wheel-made coarse wares, white finewares and black handmade vessels are often found in the same assemblages.

From the residential houses of Hamadab’s Upper Town the function of some vessels is evident from their original find spots. This gives us the opportunity to

Figure 6. Proportions of the main clay types in the vessel assemblage of Hamadab (based on c. 1700 vessel units

being visually assigned until 2010 to one of the clay types established by archaeometric analysis).

96798.indb 732 23/05/14 14:11

THE MEROITIC URBAN TOWN OF HAMADAB IN 2010 733

relate the ceramic inventory of a household directly to the residents and to reconstruct details of their daily life. Certain vessel types reveal distinct use patterns: large coarseware vessels, so-called ‘oven pots’, are assumed to have contained the kitchen fire above which the cooking vessels were placed. These ovens are hand-made vessels with slightly pointed bases made from distinctive clay mixtures (Figure 7 top). According to thin section analysis, local Nile alluvium A1 was coarsely tempered with clay aggregates and possibly grog, presumably to improve the thermal shock resist-ance of these vessels. Tall cylindrical jars made of Nile silt or wadi clays (mainly group H) mark another char-acteristic vessel type (Figure 7 bottom; cf. Hofmann 1988). According to specific labratory tests, the jars made of wadi clay H have excellent functional proper-ties regarding water permeability and thermal shock resistance so that they could serve different purposes. Such cylindrical jars were not only suitable as storage containers for dry and liquid foodstuffs as indicated by archaeometric analysis. In addition, they were fre-quently re-used as oven pots in the kitchens or placed as grave goods amongst the Meroitic funerary equip-ment (cf. Wolf et al. 2010, 249, fig. 38).

Figure 7. Two distinctive vessel types found in the domestic houses at Hamadab - top: handmade ‘oven pots’ of coarsely tempered Nile mud - bottom: reused wheelmade jars with abraded necks and post-firing perforations, made of Nile

mud or wadi clays, often with red slipped exterior (VU 09-143 with cream coloured stripe painted on shoulder).

TOWARDS RECONSTRUCTING THE OCCUPATION HISTORY OF MEROITIC HAMADAB

Surface clearing in combination with the archaeo-logical trenches of the last three seasons permit a pre-liminary reconstruction of Hamadab’s development and occupation history from the beginning of the Upper Town in the last centuries BC to its decline in the 4th-5th centuries AD. A significant prerequisite is the obser-vation that the edges of the settlement mound are more heavily denuded than its centre. Therefore, the Upper Town’s occupation horizon C is exposed at the eastern and northern fringes of the mound, while the later hori-zons B and A are preserved in the central parts only (cf. Figure 2). Consequently, the surface clearing not only identified various building structures of the town, but also revealed a ‘horizontal stratification’.

Based on the present evidence, the Upper Town developed more or less continuously through three main periods, C, B and A, during which it probably expanded into its immediate surroundings and underwent certain modifications that transformed its originally regular morphology into a lesser degree of regularity. Both grad-ual internal transformation, as well as an external expan-sion, are common processes of urban development.

96798.indb 733 23/05/14 14:11

734 PAWEL WOLF, ULRIKE NOWOTNICK AND CATHARINE HOF

thick and apparently covers a considerable period of time during which the structure of the town certainly experienced smaller modifications, but perhaps also larger transformations. The course of the eastern and the western town walls, as well as the orientation of buildings H 1900, H 3000 and the southern part of house H 1200, might represent the result of such a larger modification of the town’s plan. These structures correspond to a grid differing slightly from the orienta-tion of temple H 1000 and the town walls in the north and south (cf. Figure 1).31

In accordance with the Bayesian sequence calculated for the radiocarbon dates it is, therefore, intriguing to assume the beginnings of occupation period C – the erection of the southern town wall and a slightly later construction of the edifices along the main street – sometime between 150 and 50 BC for large-scale town-planning activities. The stelae of Amanirenas and Aki-nidad, however, rather mark (and probably reflect) a larger town renovation during their reign at the end of the 1st century BC (cf. Wolf et al. 2010, 245f). These dates would fit well into the (re)urbanization process of the Meroitic heartland, culminating finally in the exten-sive building program of Natakamani and Amanitore throughout the entire Kushite empire in the 1st century AD.32 However, these assumptions need to be proven by further excavations.

In the present state of research, the significance of the Upper Town during its early development remains a matter of speculation. Although the investigation of the town’s enclosure is still at its early stages, we could not yet find substantial evidence for its defensive func-tion. Thus, we might have to question previous assump-tions of a military relevance of the Upper Town (i.e. Wolf 2004). More data is needed to describe the situa-

31 That these two different grid orientations refer to different con-struction periods, is very likely, but could not be verified by larger excavations as yet. Our soundings in front of Temple H 1000 show that the southern façade of house H 1200 that refers to the second grid was indeed constructed at a later stage than the temple (Wolf et al. 2010, 242). What previously had been interpreted as the foundation of the eastern town gate (Wolf et al. 2010, 241, Abb. 32 a), might well be the remains of an earlier eastern town wall. This earlier wall was contemporary with Temple H 1000, predating the reoriented wall traced by the sur-face clearing (Wolf et al. 2010, Abb. 32 b). Instead of assigning these reoriented buildings to occupation periods B or A, we cau-tiously date them into period C according to their topographic position at the edges of the settlement mound, where the remains of later occupation horizons are presumably eroded.

32 See for instance the building activities of these rulers at Meroe and Napata as well as Amara East, Tabo, Naqa, Muweis, Wad ban Naqa, Duanib and Dangeil.

Horizon C - foundation and/or renovation of the Upper Town

Notwithstanding the possibility of as yet unknown earlier settlement remains, the walled Upper Town is the earliest identifiable urban structure at the northern mound of Hamadab (cf. Figure 1). Its main temple H 1000, its southern and northern town walls and sev-eral buildings like H 1100, 1200 and 1400 apparently belong to the oldest structures of that town. They were founded on relatively clean subsoil with few ash layers and weathered potsherds testifying to an earlier human presence, but no substantial construction activities. The remarkably similar surface level of that subsoil in var-ious parts of the town and its correspondence with the lowest walking levels in the main street point to a lev-elling of the ground and supports the assumption of a projected town foundation rather than the gradual development of the settlement. The present evidence does not exclude the existence of earlier structures beyond the few excavated trenches and red-brick debris in the layers below the lowest floor levels of the main street which could indicate older settlement remains that might have been levelled prior to the foundation of the town. In any event that at the beginning of occupa-tion period C, a settlement was founded as (or trans-formed into) a town with a regular, more or less orthog-onal plan, is furthermore supported by its overall geometry. The parallel course of the town walls, the central position of temple H 1000, the axis of which divides the walled Upper Town into equal halves, the main street with its opposed town gates and the more or less regular system of side lanes, all display an inten-tional urban layout.

Congruent radiocarbon dates associated with the construction levels at the southern town wall and with levels below the main street date the construction of the Upper Town to the last 150 years BC, with a bias towards the earlier part of this period. This corresponds with the pottery types found in the lower levels of our trenches, as well as with the early date proposed for the statuette of Sebiumeker found in Temple H 1000 (cf. Wolf 2003, 100f). The well-known stelae of Amanire-nas and Akinidad hint to another date – the end of the 1st century BC – indicating perhaps extensive construc-tion activities in the town. They were erected in a prominent location flanking the doorway of Temple H 1000 and they might thus reflect larger town-planning measures by the Meroitic royal house (cf. Wolf et al. 2010, 242-246). Occupation horizon C is up to 1.8m

96798.indb 734 23/05/14 14:11

THE MEROITIC URBAN TOWN OF HAMADAB IN 2010 735

tion beyond the Upper Town during occupation period C. Since the existence of suburban structures of this early stage has not yet been proven it remains unclear whether the settlement area at the northern mound was already divided into domestic, administrative, and reli-gious districts inside the walled town as opposed to production sites beyond the walls. Accordingly, it is not certain whether the settlement possessed substantial economic capability from its inception, or whether these developed during later periods.

The destruction of the town’s southern enclosure wall seems to mark the end of period C. It probably took place at a yet unknown point in time during the early centuries AD33 and might represent a break or interruption of the town’s development evidenced by the almost identical destruction levels of various build-ings in different parts of the town. In the north as well as in the south of the Upper Town, the debris of the town wall covers the ruins of horizon C (cf. Wolf et al. 2010, 238-239).

Horizon B - external expansion and internal trans-formation

Based on the present findings, two parallel develop-ments seem to be characteristic of the settlement’s his-tory in the following occupation period B: the urban sprawl of the Upper Town extending into its immediate surroundings and the renewal of the town’s centre. The abandonment of the town wall and the erection of new mud-brick structures at the southern periphery of the Upper Town illustrate the first development. These new walls, being erected on top of debris layers cover-ing the ruined town wall, obviously served neither as the symbolic boundary of an urban settlement nor as defensive structures. Instead, they represent courtyard walls separating properties and settlement quarters and thus testify to the expansion of the originally walled settlement into its immediate surroundings. Structure H 1900 at the town’s main gate also extends beyond the town wall and thus indicates similar developments at the western side of the town.

A ‘colonization’ of suburban areas is quite common for the growth of urban settlements, population increase and/or the extension of commercial functions being usually the most probable reasons. At Hamadab, both might have been the case. Due to limited possibilities

33 Charcoal sample HSP 10-024 from above the destruction layer of the southern town wall, radiocarbon dated to 362-157 BC seems to represent ‘old wood’.

for expansion, pollution and the risk of fire inside the densely populated town, certain crafts like ceramic pro-duction and iron metallurgy were probably now estab-lished (or intensified) in the suburbs. Only outside the enclosed settlement, could sufficient free space for such production activities be provided.34 With the growth of the settlement – probably also its centre moved towards the suburbs – and with the increasing fusion of Upper Town and suburbs the border between both districts finally faded.

The second development during period B was the renewal of the town centre. While enough space for new building activities was available in the suburbs, any renewal inside the Upper Town necessarily came into conflict with already established structures. This is clearly seen in the less regular structures of the later occupation periods in contrast to the regular orientation of buildings in the suburban quarters of Hamadab (cf. Wolf et al. 2009, 198 and Abb. 52). A good example for such a conflict and its resolution is the construction history of house H 1600: In the course of its renovation during its first construction phase, plot boundaries of the town’s earlier occupation horizon C were main-tained with slight modifications. However, its northern expansion far into the main street apparently disre-garded the originally public space in the centre of the town. It is possible that this was soon thereafter not deemed acceptable and consequently was reversed dur-ing the building’s next construction phase 2 (see above), during which, however, plot H 1600 was extended to the south involving the annexation of struc-tures south of H 1600. This detail not only illustrates the implications of (re)building inside already estab-lished structures, it likewise demonstrates that a higher (municipal) institution was apparently supervising con-struction activities in the town’s public sectors. Inside their individual plot boundaries, however, the inhabit-ants could obviously act independently, which resulted in numerous construction phases and modifications inside these houses.

Horizon A – compaction and decline

The former Upper Town probably did not maintain its initial character during the later stages of the set-tlement – it turned into the ‛old town’, the structural

34 It is likewise conceivable that workshops like the pottery kiln site H 3200 had already developed during earlier occupation periods, gradually making the defensive function of the town wall obsolete.

96798.indb 735 23/05/14 14:11

736 PAWEL WOLF, ULRIKE NOWOTNICK AND CATHARINE HOF

history of which is again illustrated by house H 1600. After a period of stability during the town’s occupa-tion period B, the last construction phase 3 of the house during horizon A witnessed substantial rebuild-ing and densification process by splitting larger rooms into smaller ones and probably by the addition of a second storey. These measures are clear indications of an increased population density in that old city centre. However, the retention of plot boundaries and the con-tinuous, uninterrupted use of specific rooms like the kitchens display a certain continuity. Beyond the cen-tral main street, however, the density and regularity of building structures decreased as is evident in the large empty building lot in the Upper Town’s south-western quarter and the structures next to it. These phenomena illustrate a decline of building activities and control mechanisms. They indicate that growth of the settle-ment had ended. A compaction of the building struc-tures in town centres and a structural decline are quite common for late and final stages of town develop-ment.

Final phase

The final phase of Hamadab’s urban occupation might be dated to the 3rd/4th century AD according to the late-Meroitic grave discovered intra-muros near the former southern town wall. Post-Meroitic squatter occupation without distinct structures is indicated by disturbances like pits with Post-Meroitic potsherds and hearths dug into the walls of the latest preserved build-ing horizon A. The end of the town was most probably associated with the decline and depopulation of urban settlements in the south of the Kushite Empire at the end of its history.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, W. Y. 1962. ‘Pottery Kiln Excavations’, Kush 10, 62-75.

Adams, W. Y. 1986. Ceramic Industries of Medieval �ubia. Lexington.

Adams, W. Y. 2004. The West Bank Survey from Faras to Gemai, 2. Sites of Meroitic and Ballaña Age. Sudan Archaeological Research Society Publication 13. London.

Baud, M. 2008. ‘The Meroitic Royal City of Muweis: First Steps into an Urban Settlement of Riverine Upper Nubia’, Sudan & �ubia 12, 52-63.

Baud, M. 2010. ‘Méroé, un monde urbain’, in M. Baud (ed.), Méroé. Un empire sur le �il, Paris 2010, 211-224.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. ‘Bayesian Analysis of Radio-carbon Dates’, Radiocarbon 51(1), 337-360.

Daszkiewicz, M. and G. Schneider 2012. ‘Keramik aus Meroe und Hamadab, Bericht über die ersten Ergeb-nisse zur Klassifizierung durch Nachbrennen (MGR-Analyse) und chemische Analyse (WD-XRF)’, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2011/2, 247-265.

Dittrich, A. 2003. ‘Meroitische und spätmeroitische Keramik aus Hamadab’, Der antike Sudan 14, 77-91.

Dittrich, A. 2010. ‘Using Functional Aspects for the Classification of Meroitic Pottery from Hamadab, Sudan’, Der antike Sudan 21, 87-96.

Edwards, D. N. 1995. ‘A Meroitic Settlement and Cemetery at Kedurma in the Third Cataract Region, Northern Sudan’, A�M 7, 37-51.

Edwards, D. N. 1999a. ‘Meroitic Ceramic Studies I: A Preliminary Study of the Meroe West Cemetery’, M�L 26, 53-77.

Edwards, D. N. 1999b. A Meroitic Pottery Workshop at Musawwarat es Sufra. Meroitica 17,2. Wies-baden.

Geus, F. 1984. Rescuing Sudan Ancient Cultures. Khar-toum.

Hofmann, I. 1988. ‘Ein Gefäßtyp der Endphase des meroitischen Reiches’, Varia Aegyptiaca 4, 121-142.

Mason, R. B. J. and K. Grzymski 2009. ‘Petrography of Pottery from Meroe, Sudan’, Sudan & �ubia 13, 87-91.

Reimer, P. J., M. G. L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, C. E. Buck, G. S. Burr, R. L. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, I. Hajdas, T. J. Hea-ton, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, K. F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, F. G. McCormac, S. W. Manning, R. W. Reimer, D. A. Richards, J. R. Southon, S. Talamo, C. S. M. Turney, J. van der Plicht and C. E. Wey-henmeyer 2009. ‘IntCal09 and Marine09 Radiocar-bon Age Calibration Curves, 0-50,000 Years Cal BP’, Radiocarbon 51(4), 1111-1150.

Robertson, J. H. 1992. ‘History and Archaeology at Meroe’, in J. Sterner and N. David (eds), An African Commitment, Papers in Honour of P. L. Shinnie. Calgary, 35-50.

Robertson, J. H. and E. M. Hill 2004. ‘The Meroitic Pottery Industry’, in P. L. Shinnie and J. R. Ander-son (eds), The Capital of Kush 2. Meroe Excavations 1973-1984. Meroitica 20. Wiesbaden, 109-136.

96798.indb 736 23/05/14 14:11

THE MEROITIC URBAN TOWN OF HAMADAB IN 2010 737

Seiler, A. 1999. ‘Die Keramik – Form und Funktion’, in S. Wenig (ed.), Die Kleine Anlage. Meroitica 17,2. Wiesbaden, 53-78.

Shinnie, P. L. and J. R. Anderson (eds) 2004. The Cap-ital of Kush 2. Meroe Excavations 1973-1984. Meroitica 20, Wiesbaden.

Spencer, N. 2009. ‘Cemeteries and a Late Ramesside Suburb at Amara West’, Sudan & �ubia 13, 47-61.

Smith, L. M. V. 1999. ‘Investigation of the Provenance of Meroitic Finewares’ Continued: A Perspective from Musawwarat es Sufra’, in D. N. Edwards, A Meroitic Pottery Workshop at Musawwarat es Sufra. Meroitica 17,2. Wiesbaden, 43-52.

Török, L. 1997. Meroe City - An Ancient African Cap-ital. John Garstang’s Excavations in the Sudan I. Text, II. Figures and Plates. Egypt Exploration Soci-ety Occasional Publications 12. London.

Welsby, D. A. 2010. ’Kawa Excavations 2009-2010’, Sudan & �ubia 14, 48-55.

Welsby, D. A. and C. M. Daniels 1991. Soba. Archae-ological research at a medieval capital on the Blue �ile, London.

Wolf, P. 2003. ‘Die Bronzestatuette des kuschitischen Gottes Sebiumeker aus dem Tempel von Hamadab’, Der Antike Sudan 14, 97-107.

Wolf, P. 2003. ‘Hamadab - das Hauptquartier des Aki-nidad?’, Der antike Sudan 15, 83-98.

Wolf, S., P. Wolf, H.-U. Onasch, C. Hof and U. Now-otnick 2009. ‘Meroë und Hamadab – Zwei Städte im Mittleren Niltal in den Jahrhunderten um die Zeiten-wende. Bericht über die Arbeiten zwischen 1999 und 2007’, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2008/2, 157-230.

Wolf, S., P. Wolf, H.-U. Onasch, C. Hof and U. Now-otnick mit einem Beitrag von Burkart Ulrich 2010. ‘Meroë und Hamadab – Stadtstrukturen und Lebens-formen im afrikanischen Reich von Kusch, Die Arbeiten der Kampagnen 2008 und 2009’, Archäo-logischer Anzeiger 2009/2, 215-262.

Wolf, S., P. Wolf, H.-U. Onasch, C. Hof and U. Nowot-nick 2012. ‘Meroë und Hamadab – Stadtstrukturen und Lebensformen im afrikanischen Reich von Kusch, Die Arbeiten der Kampagne 2010’, Archäo-logischer Anzeiger 2011/2, 213-245 .

Wolf, P., U. Nowotnick and C. Hof in press. ‘Hamadab – Insights into Development and Lifestyle of a Meroitic Urban Settlement’, in M. Zach (ed.), Pro-ceedings of the 11th International Conference for Meroitic Studies, Vienna, 1-4 September 2008.

96798.indb 737 23/05/14 14:11

B R I T I S H M U S E U M P U B L I C A T I O N S O N E G Y P T A N D S U D A N 1

THE FOURTH CATARACT AND BEYOND

Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Nubian Studies

edited by

Julie R. ANDERSON and Derek A. WELSBY

PEETERS

LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA

2014