Graham, Angus

Hunter, Morag

Jones, Sarah

Masson, Aurélia

Millet, Marie

Pennington, Benjamin

Strutt, Kristian D.

Institutional Repository of the Freie Universität Berlin

Special Volume 3 (2012), pp. 135–142Angus Graham – Kristian D. Strutt – Morag Hunter – SarahJones – Aurélia Masson – Marie Millet – Benjamin PenningtonReconstructing Landscapes and Waterscapes inThebes, Egyptin Wiebke Bebermeier – Robert Hebenstreit – Elke Kaiser – Jan Krause (eds.), LandscapeArchaeology. Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Berlin, 6th – 8th June 2012Edited by Gerd Graßhoff and Michael Meyer,Excellence Cluster Topoi, BerlineTopoi ISSN 2192-2608http://journal.topoi.orgExcept where otherwise noted,content is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution 3.0 License:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0Angus Graham – Kristian D. Strutt – Morag Hunter – Sarah Jones –Aurélia Masson – Marie Millet – Benjamin PenningtonReconstructing Landscapes and Waterscapes inThebes, EgyptWaterscapes; geophysics; geoarchaeology; canals; River Nile; temples; festival proces-sions.IntroductionThe Egypt Exploration Society Theban Harbours and Waterscapes Survey (THaWS) car-ried out their first full season of work between February and April 2012 using geophysicaland geoarchaeological techniques to collect subsurface data.1 The aim of the project is toadvance our understanding of the past locations and migrations of the river Nile in theTheban Region over the last five millennia, and locate any basins and canals that mayhave been excavated to connect palaces and temples on the West Bank to the River Nile,including the enormous basin known today as Birket Habu. On the ‘East Bank’ our workcontinues to clarify interpretations of the geomorphological origins and developmentof the complex of temples at Karnak2 as well as investigating a further possible lake,‘Birket el-Hubeil/Birket Luxor’ to the southwest of Luxor city.3 The paper will presentthe background to the work on the West Bank, the methodology, the work undertakenand some preliminary findings.Research BackgroundPrevious reconstructions of the Theban floodplain4 have been based upon the modernriver location combined with ancient textual sources as well as scenes from New Kingdom(c. 1550–1060 BCE) Theban tombs. However, to date there is a lack of any geoarchaeo-logical and geophysical foundation to these reconstructions.We know that the Festival of the Valley saw the images of Amun, Mut and Khonsujourney from Karnak to the West Bank to visit royal cult complexes and the necropolis onthe West Bank in an act of reunion and reintegration between the living and the dead.5Although we have a number of textual sources providing important evidence for thefestival and many suggestions from scholars about the itinerary of this festival from thetime of Montuhotep II (c. 2055–2004 BCE), to date there has been no investigation of thefloodplain to locate possible canals or land routes that may have been used by this festival.A number of scenes depicted on the walls in the tombs of the New Kingdom (1550–1060BCE) elite on the West Bank show basins in front of temples and chapels, some withcanals and often with a tribune or reception platform. This is supported by evidence of anumber of actual extant platforms associated with temples in Egypt.61 Graham 2011.2 Bunbury, Graham, and Hunter 2008; Ghilardi and Boraik 2011; Graham 2010a; Graham 2010b; Grahamand Bunbury 2004; Graham and Bunbury 2005.3 Graham 2011.4 e.g., Aufrère, Golvin, and Goyon 1997.5 Bell 1997, 136–137; Foucart 1924; Graefe 1986; Nims 1965; Schott 1953.6 Jaritz 2005, 345–349; Schlüter 2009.136 Angus Graham et al.Canals of kings Thutmose I and Thutmose III from the 15th century BCE are listedon the so-called Red Chapel of Hatshepsut and are thought to link their respective Memo-rial Temples on the west edge of the Nile Valley with the Nile,7 but their existenceremains to be verified archaeologically.Recent cartographic and satellite studies combined with photographic archives haveclearly shown the dynamic nature of the River Nile in the Theban region over the lasttwo centuries with the Nile migrating eastwards back towards Karnak since the late 1790swhen Napoleon’s geographers surveyed the Nile Valley.8 A series of enormous spoilheaps enclose a huge area (2.4km by 1km) known today as Birket Habu (see Fig. 1),which is now under cultivation but once held a lake/basin associated with the palacecomplex of Amenhotep III at Malkata.9 Excavations in 1971 and 1973 through the spoilheaps have enabled an estimate to be made of spoil for the southern half of the basinof c. 5.56 million cubic metres. This equates to excavating almost 6m from the originalfloodplain surface, based upon the southern half of the basin measuring 850m by 1100m.Kemp and O’Connor10 concluded that it would be unusable for roughly six months ayear between February and July. However, inscriptions accompanying the scenes in thetomb of Kheruef (TT192) documenting the events of Amenhotep III’s first and thirdjubilees show Amenhotep III and Queen Tiy being towed in the morning and eveningbarks of Ra11 and may suggest a perennial lake based upon the coincidence of the jubileein the annual cycle of the Nile.Survey MethodologyWe have begun to investigate the ancient landscapes, waterways and location of the RiverNile within the Theban region using geophysical techniques, principally Electrical Resis-tivity Tomography (ERT), followed up by hand augering along the geophysical profilesin order to ground-truth the results.During past surveys in the Egyptian Nile valley we found ERT to be a very effectivetool for detecting sub-surface features and former channels at Karnak12 and in the Edfufloodplain.13 For the ERT surveys in these seasons a Geoscan Research RM15 resistancemeter was configured with a PA3 probe array to take readings using an expanding Wennerarray.14 In the 2012 season an Allied Associates Tigre 64 multi-probe system was used. Allthe data has been processed using the Res 2D Inv software program. All the ERT profiles(and all other work e.g. hand augering and magnetometry) have been geo-referenced usinga Total Station and the topographic data has been incorporated in the processing of theprofiles.To complement this work we also made limited use of magnetometry to map poten-tial near-surface archaeological features in broader 2-D area survey. As magnetometryis limited to collecting data to only 1.5 to 2m below the surface we plan to furthercomplement this with the use of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) in coming seasons.Our geophysical work was followed by geoarchaeological investigation. Locationswere selected based upon the results of our geophysical survey data for hand augeringin order to assess what the resistance readings corresponded to below the ground. An7 Gessler-Loehr 1983, 94–95; Hölscher 1932, 8; Jaritz 2005, 345 N. 27; Lacau and Chevrier 1977, 80–81;Nims 1955, 114–115; Stadelmann 1979, 306.8 Bunbury, Graham, and Hunter 2008, 356; Graham 2010b, 130. 133; Hillier, Bunbury, and Graham 2007;Pimpaud (forthcoming).9 Kemp and O’Connor 1974, 108.10 Kemp and O’Connor 1974, 128.11 Johnson 1998, 86; The Epigraphic Survey 1980, pl. 24.12 Graham 2010b.13 Bunbury, Graham, and Strutt 2009.14 Aspinall and Crummett 1997; Bates and Bates 2000.Reconstructing Landscapes and Waterscapes in Thebes, Egypt 137Fig. 1 | The larger satellite image shows the location of the spoil mounds of Birket Habu on the West Bankwith our ERT and augering located across the entrance and Karnak on the East Bank. The inset imageshows the locations of ERT profiles in the floodplain in front of the Memorial Temple of Thutmose III (T),Amenhotep II (A) and Ramesses II (R) as well as the area of the Memorial temple of Amenhotep III with thecolossal statues (C) and auger site AS35 and magnetometry area 1 (M1) marked on the image (Backgroundimages © Google Earth).Eijkelkamp hand-auger was used to retrieve sediment from the floodplain to a depth of8m. The sediments are recorded on-site immediately after retrieval and all sediment issieved using 2mm and 4mm mesh to recover any artefacts (e.g. ceramic and stone frag-ments) and non-artefacts (e.g. other stones, rhizocretions etc).15 These small fragments ofevidence are all studied to help date the sediments and build up an understanding of theenvironment in which they were found. The ceramic fragments are treated as arteclasts aswell as artefacts and their abrasion and roundedness are recorded as they can be a usefulindicator of the conditions of transport and deposition.162012 West Bank SurveyThis season 11 ERT profiles were carried out on the West Bank (P4-P13 and P16). Res-olutions of each profile varied, with probes set at 1m, 2m and 3m spacings according tolength of the profile, the required depth, time constraints and the questions that eachprofile hope to illuminate. Lengths of ERT profiles range from 60m to >800m going todepths of 6.5m to 19.5m (on the East Bank depths up to 32m were recorded). For example,a short 60m profile (P6—see Fig. 1) with probes at 1m spacing taking readings to a depthof 10m, was placed across the line of a trench dug in recent years as part of the dewateringsystem in order to assess the readings recorded from such a feature.Much of our focus was in the floodplain between the Memorial Temples of ThutmoseIII and Ramesses II and also at the building work of Amenhotep III, in and in front ofhis Memorial Temple (P7, P8 and P13) and also across the entrance to his enormous15 Bunbury, Graham, and Hunter 2008, 359–360.16 Rapp and Hill 2006, 51–52.138 Angus Graham et al.project of Birket Habu (P16). This reflects a mixture of planning and pragmatism giventhe generous access to floodplain path and field boundaries by farmers where we carriedout our work.One of our initial findings this season was the relocation of a rectangular ‘struc-ture’ identified and placed on a map by Gardner Wilkinson.17 High resistance readingsin the area of the junction between P4 and P5 suggested an interesting anomaly andthe curvature in the dirt road at this point was distinctive. In the southwest corner ofthe magnetometry (M1) a linear feature was visible. Augering (AS35) retrieved roundedsandstone fragments to >2m below the surface up to phi -6 in size and angular to sub-rounded limestone fragments in smaller quantities to >3m below the surface. Theseclasts with the matrix were contributing to the higher resistance readings seen in theERT. All these findings were checked with Alban-Brice Pimpaud, who has geo-rectifiedWilkinson’s map, showing that they fit the location with high precision, providing uswith a degree of confidence in our methodology.We are currently undertaking a complete analysis of the survey and auger data andfurther results will follow.17 Wilkinson 1830.Reconstructing Landscapes and Waterscapes in Thebes, Egypt 139BibliographyAspinall and Crummett 1997A. Aspinall and J.G. Crummett. “The Electrical Pseudosection”. Archaeological Pro-spection 4 (1997), 37–47.Aufrère, Golvin, and Goyon 1997S. Aufrère, J.C. Golvin, and J.C. Goyon. L’Égypte restituée. Tome 1 : Sites et temples deHaute Égypte. 2. Edition. Paris: Errance, 1997.Bates and Bates 2000M.R. Bates and C.R. Bates. “Multidisciplinary Approaches to the GeoarchaeologicalEvaluation of Deeply Stratified Sedimentary Sequences. Examples from Pleistoceneand Holocene Deposits in Southern England, United Kingdom”. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science 27 (2000), 845–858.Bell 1997L. Bell. “The New Kingdom «Divine» Temple. The Example of Luxor”. In Templesof Ancient Egypt. Ed. by B.E. Shafer. New York: Cornell University Press, 1997,127–184.Bunbury, Graham, and Hunter 2008J.M. Bunbury, A. Graham, and M. Hunter. “Stratigraphic Landscape Analysis. Chart-ing the Holocene Movements of the Nile at Karnak through Ancient Egyptian Time”.Geoarchaeology 23.3 (2008), 351–373.Bunbury, Graham, and Strutt 2009J.M. Bunbury, A. Graham, and K.D. Strutt. “Kom el-Farahy. A New Kingdom Islandin an Evolving Edfu Floodplain”. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan14 (2009), 1–23.Foucart 1924G. Foucart. “Études thébaines. La belle fête de la vallée”. Bulletin de l’Institut Françaisd’Archéologie Orientale 24 (1924), 1–209.Gessler-Loehr 1983B. Gessler-Loehr. Die heiligen Seen ägyptischer Tempel. Ein Beitrag zur Deutung sakralerBaukunst im alten Ägypten. Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beiträge 21. Hildesheim:Gerstenberg Verlag, 1983.Ghilardi and Boraik 2011M. Ghilardi and M. Boraik. “Reconstructing the Holocene Depositional Environ-ments in the Western Part of Ancient Karnak Temples Complex (Egypt). A Geoar-chaeological Approach”. Journal of Archaeological Science 38.12 (2011), 3204–3216.Graefe 1986E. Graefe. “Talfest”. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Stele – Zypresse. Vol. VI. Ed. by W.Helck and E. Otto. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1986, 187–189.Graham 2010aA. Graham. “Ancient Landscapes Around the Opet Temple, Karnak”. Egyptian Ar-chaeology 36 (2010), 25–28.140 Angus Graham et al.Graham 2010bA. Graham. “Islands in the Nile. A Geoarchaeological Approach to Settlement Loca-tions in the Egyptian Nile Valley and the Case of Karnak”. In Cities and Urbanismin Ancient Egypt. Papers from a Workshop in November 2006 at the Austrian Academyof Sciences. Ed. by M. Bietak, E. Czerny, and I. Forstner-Müller. Denkschriften derGesamtakademie 60. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten, 2010, 125–143.Graham 2011A. Graham. “Ancient Theban Waterways”. Egyptian Archaeology 38 (2011), 3.Graham and Bunbury 2004A. Graham and J.M. Bunbury. “Pottery from the Alluvial Environments at KarnakNorth”. Bulletin de Liaison du Groupe International d’Étude de la Céramique Égypti-enne 22 (2004), 55–59.Graham and Bunbury 2005A. Graham and J.M. Bunbury. “The Ancient Landscapes and Waterscapes of Kar-nak”. Egyptian Archaeology 27 (2005), 17–19.Hillier, Bunbury, and Graham 2007J.K. Hillier, J.M. Bunbury, and A. Graham. “Monuments on a Migrating Nile”.Journal of Archaeological Science 34.7 (2007), 1011–1015.Hölscher 1932U. Hölscher. Excavations at Ancient Thebes 1930/31. The Oriental Institute of theUniversity of Chicago Oriental Institute Communications 15. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1932.Jaritz 2005H. Jaritz. “Die Tribünen vor ägyptischen Tempeln der 18. Dynastie bis zur Römerzeit.Ein Deutungsversuch zur Funktion”. In Structure and Significance: thoughts on An-cient Egyptian Architecture. Ed. by P. Jánosi. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 33.Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2005, 341–400.Johnson 1998W.R. Johnson. “Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III. Evolutionand Meaning”. In Amenhotep III. Perspectives on His Reign. Ed. by O’Connor andE.H. Cline. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998, 63–94.Kemp and O’Connor 1974B.J. Kemp and D. O’Connor. “An Ancient Nile Harbour. University Museum Exca-vations at the ’Birket Habu’”. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology andUnderwater Exploration 3.1 (1974), 101–136.Lacau and Chevrier 1977P. Lacau and H. Chevrier. Une chapelle d’Hatshepsout à Karnak I. Paris: Publicationsde l’Institut français d’Archéologie orientale du Caire, 1977.Nims 1955C.F. Nims. “Places about Thebes”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), 110–123.Reconstructing Landscapes and Waterscapes in Thebes, Egypt 141Nims 1965C.F. Nims. Thebes of the Pharaohs. Pattern for Every City. London: Elek Books, 1965.Pimpaud (forthcoming)A.-B. Pimpaud. “Étude cartographique et topographique en Thébaïde”. In Archéologiedu paysage. L’Egypte et le monde méditerranéen. Proceedings of the International col-loquium on Geoarchaeology (Cairo, Egypt, 19-21 September 2011). Ed. by Y. Tristantand M. Ghilardi. Bibliothèque d’étude. Le Caire: Publications de l’Institut françaisd’Archéologie orientale du Caire. Forthcoming.Rapp and Hill 2006G.R. Rapp and C.L. Hill. Geoarchaeology. The Earth-science Approach to ArchaeologicalInterpretation. 2. Edition. New Haven/ London: Yale University Press, 2006.Schlüter 2009A. Schlüter. Sakrale Architektur im Flachbild. Zum Realitätsbezug Von Tempeldarstel-lungen. Ägypten und Altes Testament 78. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2009.Schott 1953S. Schott. Das schöne Fest vom Wüstentale. Festbräuche einer Totenstadt. Abhandlungender Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse / Akademie der Wissenschaften undder Literatur, Jahrgang 1952 11. Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaftenund der Literatur in Mainz, in Kommission bei Franz Steiner, 1953.Stadelmann 1979R. Stadelmann. “Totentempel und Millionenjahrhaus in Theben”. Mitteilungen desDeutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 35 (1979), 303–321.The Epigraphic Survey 1980The Epigraphic Survey. The Tomb of Kheruef. Theban Tomb 192. The University ofChicago Oriental Institute Publications 102. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the Uni-versity of Chicago, 1980.Wilkinson 1830J.G. Wilkinson. Topographical Survey of Thebes, Tape, Thaba, or Diospolis Magna. Lon-don: Royal Geographical Society, 1830.Angus Graham (corresponding author), Field Director, Egypt Exploration Society, 3Doughty Mews, London, WC1N 2PG, United Kingdom, angus_graham@yahoo.co.ukKristian D. Strutt, Geophysical Researcher, Department of Archaeology, University ofSouthampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BF, United KingdomMorag Hunter, Sedimentologist, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cam-bridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EQ, United Kingdom142 Angus Graham et al.Sarah Jones, Head of Geomatics, Museum of London Archaeology, Mortimer WheelerHouse 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED, United KingdomAurélia Masson, Research Associate, Division of Archaeology, University of Cambridge,Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ, United KingdomMarie Millet, Project Curator, Amara West Project, Department and Ancient Egypt andSudan, British Museum, Great Russell Street, London, WC1B 3DG, United KingdomBenjamin Pennington, Geologist, alumnus Department of Earth Sciences, University ofCambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EQ, United Kingdom

Reconstructing Landscapes and Waterscapes in Thebes, Egypt

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Institutional Repository of the Freie Universität Berlin

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)