Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-g6grg Total loading time: 0.301 Render date: 2022-01-21T06:25:56.186Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Survival kit for the afterlife or instruction manual for prehistorians? Staging artefact production in Middle Neolithic cemetery Kadruka 23, Upper Nubia, Sudan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2021

Hala Alarashi*
Affiliation:
IMF-CSIC, Barcelona, Spain
Lionel Gourichon
Affiliation:
Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS, CEPAM, Nice, France
Lamya Khalidi
Affiliation:
Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS, CEPAM, Nice, France
Philippe Chambon
Affiliation:
CNRS-Éco-anthropologie, Anthropologie biologique et Bio-archéologie, Paris, France
Pascal Sellier
Affiliation:
CNRS-Éco-anthropologie, Anthropologie biologique et Bio-archéologie, Paris, France
Emma Maines
Affiliation:
CNRS-Éco-anthropologie, Anthropologie biologique et Bio-archéologie, Paris, France
Louiza Aoudia
Affiliation:
Centre National de Recherches Préhistoriques, Anthropologiques et Historiques (CNRPAH), Alger, Algéria
Patricia Anderson
Affiliation:
Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS, CEPAM, Nice, France
Malvina Baumann
Affiliation:
Liege University, TraceoLab, Belgium
Olivier Langlois
Affiliation:
Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS, CEPAM, Nice, France
*
*Author for correspondence ✉ alarashi.hala@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The burials at the Neolithic cemetery Kadruka 23 in Sudan have yielded adornments and bone and lithic artefacts that occur as distinct stages of the chaîne opératoire. This article reports on a hitherto unrecognised funerary practice that highlights the importance of craftsmanship for Neolithic communities in life and beyond.

Type
Project Gallery
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd

Introduction

Neolithic funerary practices in the Sudanese Nile Valley are varied and complex; they are also thoroughly and richly documented (e.g. Salvatori & Usai Reference Salvatori and Usai2008, Reference Salvatori and Usai2019; Maines Reference Maines2019; Sellier et al. Reference Sellier, Aoudi, Mains and Chambon2019). In Upper Nubia, in the District of Kadruka, around 20 Neolithic cemeteries were discovered in the 1980–1990s by J. Reinold (Reference Reinold2001). Among them, Kadruka 23 (KDK23), located 14km east of the Nile River (Figure 1), is currently under excavation by a multidisciplinary Franco-Sudanese team (Langlois et al. Reference Langlois2019).

Figure 1. Map showing the location of KDK23 (map by H. Alarashi).

Material culture studies suggest that the cemetery functioned during the Middle Neolithic. Radiocarbon dates obtained from an eroded settlement area to the west (KDK23H) place its occupation from the mid-fifth to the early fourth millennium cal BC (Langlois et al. Reference Langlois2019).

To date, KDK23 has revealed 142 human burials and three animal deposits (Figure 2). Individuals buried are predominantly juveniles (0–9 years) and adults (30–49 years) (Maines Reference Maines2019), and all graves were endowed with funerary goods. Among the latter, beads, bone and lithic tools occur as finished objects and as distinct stages of the chaîne opératoire, including raw fragments, cores, preforms and unfinished items, some of which refit.

Figure 2. General plan of the cemetery (illustration by P. Chambon).

Burying raw materials and unfinished artefacts

While finished beads (Figure 3c & f; Figure 6a) were found with juveniles, sub-adults and adults, unfinished items were discovered exclusively in adult graves (Figure 3b & e). In burial st. 84, a concentration of items representing the production sequences of ostrich eggshell (OES) beads was discovered next to an adult male (Figure 3a & b). Preforms of agate and carnelian beads (Figure 3e) were also found in adult graves, including a male (st. 93) and an indeterminate adult (st. 73) (Maines Reference Maines2019). In addition, a knapped bead core was recorded in the nearby settlement area (Figure 3d).

Figure 3. a) Adult grave st. 84, with concentration of OES items (b), raw refitted fragments, sub-circular preforms and perforated preforms; c) finished OES beads from other graves; d–e) carnelian and agate bead core and preforms; f) finished agate beads (photograph (a) by Kadruka Project; photographs (b–f) by H. Alarashi).

Knapped flint cobbles, associated flake debitage and backed microliths were recovered from several burials. Use-wear analysis of backed microliths recovered alongside an indeterminate adult (st. 24) indicates that these were unused. Moreover, almost all debitage flakes could be refitted together, allowing us to reconstruct the reduction sequences of the flake-on-cobble production (Figure 4). The freshness of the removals and number of refits suggest that they may have been produced shortly before burial.

Figure 4. a) Grave st. 24, with knapped lithics, including flint backed microliths (b–c) and refits of cobbles from which they were knapped (illustration by P. Chambon; photographs by L. Khalidi).

Raw bone materials, preforms and final tools were also frequent. In an adult grave (st. 65), we recovered one unworked caprine tibia with two bevelled tools (‘spatulae’), one cattle rib split longitudinally and two flat tools (Figure 5).

Figure 5. a) Grave st. 65, with animal bones (b), including ‘spatulae’ from caprine tibia (1 & 5); ‘polishers’ from a cattle rib (2–3); unworked tibia of caprine (4); and cattle rib split longitudinally (6) (illustration by P. Chambon; photographs by Kadruka Project).

Some graves contain the production sequences of composite artefacts. In a female grave (st. 92), decorated ochre, four unworked animal bones and bone tools were discovered (Figure 6). Below them, rows of yellow backed microliths bound in resin were found, suggesting hafted sickles or composite cutting tools. Ephemeral imprints observed in the resin may suggest the use of handles that have not survived. Near this group, a concentration of red jasper backed microliths and small flakes were also recovered, but with no evidence of resin (Figure 6). These lithics, along with the unfinished long bones, may have been deposited together as the constituent elements of a sickle, representing its production sequence. This assemblage suggests the contents of a satchel that had disintegrated after being deposited near the deceased. Similar observations were documented at KDK1 (Reinold Reference Reinold2005: 108).

Figure 6. a) Grave st. 92, with backed microliths (1); spatula (2); unworked bone blade (3); red backed microliths (4); backed microliths bound in resin (5); and an incised bone containing a complete needle (6); b) detail of incised bone (illustration by P. Chambon; photograph by L. Khalidi).

Food for thought

While there has been little documentation of Neolithic craft activities in the District of Kadruka due to the paucity of preserved occupation sites, the presence of artefacts in different stages of production in some adult burials at KDK23 is akin to an instruction manual for prehistorians, offering crucial insight into the fabrication steps of different artefacts and tools. Notably, this practice concerns local materials, such as OES, chalcedony and bone; it is not evidenced for objects made from non-local materials, such as amazonite.

These findings are not exclusive to KDK23, but occur in other Neolithic cemeteries in Upper Nubia, such as KDK1, R12, Ghaba and Geili (Caneva & Baracchini Reference Caneva and Baracchini1988; Reinold Reference Reinold2001; Salvatori & Usai Reference Salvatori and Usai2008; Salvatori et al. Reference Salvatori, Usai and Lecointe2016). For instance, at R12, a very rich group of finished and unfinished beads, raw materials, sandstone palettes probably used for bead abrasion, and a perforator were found in the grave of a male adult (38 Inf.), thus hinting at “an artisan specialized in bead-making” (Usai Reference Usai, Salvatori, Usai and Lecointe2016: 69). In the case of KDK23, it is still unclear whether this practice illustrates the artisanal activity of the buried adults and represented ‘survival kits’ for the afterlife (i.e. rebirth or metempsychosis rites), or whether they carry further symbolic or sociocultural values related to the identity of the deceased (Stevenson Reference Stevenson2009). Although this practice does not appear to be gender specific, it is premature to advance interpretations regarding gender-related patterns, as further data are required. Nevertheless, the deposition of raw materials, unfinished objects and tools in graves indicates that these artefacts, and the fabrication processes, had as much symbolic value as the finished products themselves (Appadurai Reference Appadurai1986).

By showcasing this practice through a diversity of utilitarian and non-utilitarian categories of artefacts at KDK23, our aim is to piece together aspects of the daily lives of Neolithic Nubian communities and to better understand the importance of craft activities for these populations and their social status in life and death. These sophisticated early inhumation rituals provide a glimpse into what could be a nascent manifestation of the more explicit funerary traditions of the renowned Predynastic and early kingdoms of the Nile Valley (e.g. Davis Reference Davis1983).

Acknowledgements

We thank the NCAM and the SFDAS institutions in Sudan for their support. This article is dedicated to the memory of our friend from Kadruka, Abdul Ghani Osman Idriss (1969–2018).

Funding statement

Part of this study has received funding from the EU's Horizon 2020, under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship (grant 846097) PRECIOUS: making and wearing semi-precious stone beads in the Near East and the Nile Valley during the Neolithic. Fieldwork was funded by the Qatar-Sudan Archaeological Project and supported by the CNRS laboratories CEPAM-7264 (Nice), and Éco-anthropologie, Anthropologie biologique et Bio-archéologie-7206 (Paris).

References

Appadurai, A. 1986. The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caneva, I. & Baracchini, P.. 1988. El Geili: the history of a Middle Nile environment, 7000 BC–AD 1500 (British Archaeological Reports International Series 242). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860545484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. 1983. Artistes and patrons in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 10: 119–39.Google Scholar
Langlois, O. et al. 2019. Chronicle of a destruction foretold: a belated reassessment of the preservation status of Neolithic habitation sites in the Kadruka concession (Northern Dongola Reach, Sudan). Sudan & Nubia 23: 6167.Google Scholar
Maines, E. 2019. Diversité biologique et archéologie de la mort: une approche populationnelle et culturelle du Néolithique soudanais (Haute-Nubie). Unpublished PhD dissertation, Univ. Panthéon-Sorbonne-Paris I.Google Scholar
Reinold, J. 2001. Kadruka and the Neolithic in the Northern Dongola Reach. Sudan & Nubia 5: 210.Google Scholar
Reinold, J. 2005. Note sur le monde animal dans le funéraire néolithique du Soudan. Revue de Paléobiologie 10: 107–19.Google Scholar
Salvatori, S. & Usai, D.. 2008. A Neolithic cemetery in the Northern Dongola Reach: excavations at Site R12 (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1814). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407303000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvatori, S. & Usai, D.. 2019. The Neolithic and ‘pastoralism’ along the Nile: a dissenting view. Journal of World Prehistory 32: 251–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-019-09132-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvatori, S., Usai, D. & Lecointe, Y.. 2016. Ghaba: an Early Neolithic cemetery in Central Sudan. Frankfurt: Africa Magna.Google Scholar
Sellier, P., Aoudi, L., Mains, E. & Chambon, P.. 2019. A Neolithic burial ground from Upper Nubia as seen from recent work at Kadruka 23 (KDK23). Sudan & Nubia 23: 6876.Google Scholar
Stevenson, A. 2009. Social relationships in Predynastic burials. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 95: 175–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/030751330909500110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usai, D. 2016. Bead-making in Neolithic Sudan, in Salvatori, S., Usai, D. & Lecointe, Y. (ed.) Ghaba: an Early Neolithic cemetery in Central Sudan: 5970. Frankfurt: Africa Magna.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Map showing the location of KDK23 (map by H. Alarashi).

Figure 1

Figure 2. General plan of the cemetery (illustration by P. Chambon).

Figure 2

Figure 3. a) Adult grave st. 84, with concentration of OES items (b), raw refitted fragments, sub-circular preforms and perforated preforms; c) finished OES beads from other graves; d–e) carnelian and agate bead core and preforms; f) finished agate beads (photograph (a) by Kadruka Project; photographs (b–f) by H. Alarashi).

Figure 3

Figure 4. a) Grave st. 24, with knapped lithics, including flint backed microliths (b–c) and refits of cobbles from which they were knapped (illustration by P. Chambon; photographs by L. Khalidi).

Figure 4

Figure 5. a) Grave st. 65, with animal bones (b), including ‘spatulae’ from caprine tibia (1 & 5); ‘polishers’ from a cattle rib (2–3); unworked tibia of caprine (4); and cattle rib split longitudinally (6) (illustration by P. Chambon; photographs by Kadruka Project).

Figure 5

Figure 6. a) Grave st. 92, with backed microliths (1); spatula (2); unworked bone blade (3); red backed microliths (4); backed microliths bound in resin (5); and an incised bone containing a complete needle (6); b) detail of incised bone (illustration by P. Chambon; photograph by L. Khalidi).

You have Access
Open access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Survival kit for the afterlife or instruction manual for prehistorians? Staging artefact production in Middle Neolithic cemetery Kadruka 23, Upper Nubia, Sudan
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Survival kit for the afterlife or instruction manual for prehistorians? Staging artefact production in Middle Neolithic cemetery Kadruka 23, Upper Nubia, Sudan
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Survival kit for the afterlife or instruction manual for prehistorians? Staging artefact production in Middle Neolithic cemetery Kadruka 23, Upper Nubia, Sudan
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *