image/svg+xml
299
XII/2/2021
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Thematic Review
The Introduction of the Potter’s Wheel to Ancient Sudan
Sarah K. Doherty
1*
1
Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Rewley House, 1 Wellington Square, Oxford, OX1 2JA, United Kingdom
1. Introduction: The potter’s wheel in Egypt
The potter’s wheel is now generally considered to have
originated in Mesopotamia in the 5
th
millennium BC and
subsequently its use spread to the Levant and Egypt (Baldi
and Roux, 2016; Freestone and Gaimster, 1997, p.15; Kuhrt,
1995, p.22; Pollock, 1999, p.5; Simpson, 1997, pp.50–55).
The potter’s wheel came to Egypt before Sudan, during
Egypt’s 4
th
dynasty c. 2600 BC, with the invention of the
wheel originating in the Near East c. 4500–3800 BC (Doherty,
2015). Recent research by Baldi and Roux (2016, pp.236–
253) postulated two independent centres of potter’s wheel
invention in northern Mesopotamia and southern Levant,
resulting from a mutual demand for ceremonial vessels.
How the pottery wheel was adopted and developed in Egypt
was the topic of the author’s PhD research, now published as
“The Origins and Use of the Potter’s wheel in ancient Egypt”
(Doherty, 2015). Like Baldi and Roux (2016), Doherty
(2015) also revealed that the initial use of the potter’s wheel
in Egypt was for manufacturing small ceremonial vessels.
The potter’s wheel was arguably the most signifcant machine
introduced into Africa, second only perhaps to the lever
and loom. Shapes noted in the natural world inspired most
ancient inventions. However, wheels do not exist in nature,
and so can be viewed entirely as a human-inspired invention.
The impact of this innovation would not just have afected
the potters themselves through the learning of a new skill,
but it also signalled the beginnings of a more complex and
technologically advanced nation. The use of machinery would
have almost certainly required some form of elite sponsorship
to instigate the use of the new technology, and perhaps elite
monopoly of the products that the machine was used to make
(in this case wheel-thrown or wheel-coiled pottery) prior to it
being more widely available. The sponsorship sources would
have come from the royal court (Papazian, 2005, p.76) or
temples (Janssen, 1975, p.183). This seems to be the case
particularly for the Egyptians as the Egyptian hierarchical
structuring of Dynastic times is thought to have been quite
rigid and controlling of the lower status members of society
(Shaw, 2004, pp.12–24).
Volume XII ● Issue 2/2021 ● Pages 299–309
*Corresponding author. E-mail: Skdoherty28@msn.com
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received: 1
st
February 2021
Accepted: 12
th
November 2021
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2021.2.14
Key words:
potter’s wheel
Middle-Late Bronze Age
ceramics
Sudan
Egypt
colonisation
ABSTRACT
Doherty (2015) has previously investigated the origins of the potter’s wheel in Egypt in depth. However,
how the potter’s wheel came to be used in Sudan has not yet been properly analysed. This paper will
present the author’s initial investigations into the pottery industry of Sudan and the manufacturing
techniques employed by Sudanese potters.
Evidence seems to suggest that rather than being an indigenous invention, the potter’s wheel came to
Sudan as part of the colonisation of Sudan by Egypt during the Middle-Late Bronze Age. Throughout
this period, various Egyptian towns were founded along the river Nile. One such town was Amara West
(inhabited c. 1306–1290 BC).
By the Middle Bronze Age, Sudanese potters had well-developed pottery techniques, principally
coil- and slab-building. Amara West and other Egyptian colonies used the by then well-established
wheel-throwing and coiling techniques (RKE) to manufacture their pottery, principally imported from
Egypt. However, these colony towns contained both Sudanese and Egyptian vessels, sometimes in the
same contexts, and occasionally with blended manufacture techniques and decoration. This paper will
endeavour to postulate upon the efect and legacy of the imposed technology of the potter’s wheel on
the Sudanese pottery industry.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 299–309
Sarah K. Doherty: The Introduction of the Potter’s Wheel to Ancient Sudan
300
After a few false starts (Doherty, 2015, pp.55–57) the
Egyptians adopted the invention of the potter’s wheel from
Near Eastern potters during the reign of Pharaoh Sneferu
(c. 2600 BC), the father of the famous Khufu or Cheops.
Levantine potters had been using the wheel to delicately
thin and fnish coil-built vessels, as seen in Tell Yarmuth,
Israel and other sites across the Levant (Courty and Roux,
1995; Roux and de Miroschedji, 2009). Roux and Courty
(Roux, 1994; Courty and Roux, 1995; Pierret, 1995; Roux
and Courty, 1997) demonstrated that during the earliest use
of the potter’s wheel, potters did not start wheel-throwing
vessels immediately. Rather, they employed pre-existing
coiling techniques in combination with rotation on the
wheel. There is evidence to suggest that from the start, the
Egyptians utilised the Levantine wheel to throw vessels of
the hump of clay rather than fnish wheel-coil-built vessels,
at least for the very small “miniature” vessels (Allen, 2006,
pp.19–26; Bárta, 1995; Doherty, 2015, pp.66–69). However,
throwing of the hump has, as yet, been undetected in other
larger contemporary vessel types, so further work is required.
The initial evidence suggests that potters began making
small pieces on the wheel, in the same manner as apprentice
potters do, fashioning miniature ofering pots about 7–8 cm
in height (Roux and Corbetta, 1989, pp.11–24). Interestingly,
these potters appear to have been state-sponsored, as these
frst wheel-made vessels solely occur in elite cemetery sites
and are encountered in all the Old Kingdom great pyramid
sites (Bárta, 1995, pp.15–24; Charvát, 1981; Doherty,
2015, p.67; el-Khouli, 1991; Reisner, 1931). These vessels
exhibit similar traces to those seen in wheel-coiled vessels,
but without traces of coils as they are very small. This may
mean that the Egyptian potters used very small coils of
clay employing wheel-coiling which are now undetectable
to the ceramicist. The use of very small coils is inefcient
and difcult to achieve on a wheel. Alternatively, the potters
were beginning the frst steps into throwing of the hump and
learning the techniques of manipulating and centring a mass
of clay. The wheel would have been spun with one hand,
and the clay manipulated with the other, resulting in initially
the centring of the clay, and the drawing up and opening out
and shaping of these miniature vessels. When the Egyptians
began to utilise the wheel for larger vessels, they appear to
have used the wheel-coiling technique as noted in Levantine
and Mesopotamian contexts (Roux and Baldi, 2016). The
Egyptians were clearly aware of the wheel-coiling technique
as V-shaped bowls in Nile Clay have been uncovered at the
site of Buto in the Delta (Dessel, 2009, pp.100–101; Faltings,
1998a, p.23; 1998b, pp.367–369).
Some of the earliest examples of these miniature
vessels were uncovered from the foundation deposit of
Pharaoh Sneferu’s pyramid at Medum (Petrie, 1892, Plate
XXX; Petrie, Mackay and Wainwright, 1910, Plate XXV,
Figure 1). These show traces similar to those identifed in
throwing of the hump experiments on ceramics at Phaistos
Figure 1.
Miniature vessels from the foundation deposit of Pharaoh Sneferu’s pyramid at Medum dating to circa 2600 BC with manufacturing details
highlighted. These are remarkably similar to those throwing traces identifed in throwing of the hump experiments by Caloi (2019). Vessels photographs are
a courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UCL.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 299–309
Sarah K. Doherty: The Introduction of the Potter’s Wheel to Ancient Sudan
301
recently published by Caloi (2019, pp.14–16). Like the
Phaistian plain handleless cups, the Egyptian miniature
vessels are: (1) small (the plates are >4 cm in height, and
jars >8 cm); (2) of standard measurements (max 8 cm tall
and 6.5 cm in diameter; (3) of similar profles on both the
plates and jars; (4) with a deep hollow or well in the interior
base; (5) with clearly visible throwing marks on the interior
and exterior; (6) with poorly-executed or fnished surfaces;
and (7) mass-produced – some 10,000s were uncovered at
the pyramid of Dashur (Fakhry, 1961, p.135). There are
also additional traces such as string cutting marks, clay
bulges where the pot was removed from the wheel, and
sticky fnger impressions.
Further supporting the use of throwing of the hump
at this early date can be noted in the 6
th
dynasty Tomb of
Khentika/Ikhekhi at Saqqara, which depicts two potters
preparing clay by centring it on the wheel before it would
be later shaped into a vessel (Figure 2). A mound of clay
is positioned in front of one potter who uses the side of
his hand to press down onto the cone of clay and begin the
centring process. Some of the fnished pots are shown on
shelves between them. Later depictions such as the Middle
Kingdom tombs of Bakt III and Amenemhat at Beni Hassan
(Holthoer, 1977, p.12, Figure 14; Doherty, 2015 p.27,
Figure 3.6; Newberry, 1893, pp.30–31, Plate XI) also depict
at least four potters throwing of the hump. This process of
using a cone-shaped mound of clay makes centring easier,
and enables the potter to utilise the weight of the lump of
clay to increase the momentum of the wheel (Rice, 1987,
p.129). This system is still in use by the potters of el-Fustat
in Cairo where several standard sized pots are thrown from
the same lump (Van der Kooij and Wendrich, 2002, p.150).
Despite the introduction of the potter’s wheel from the
4
th
dynasty in Egypt for producing miniature vessels, other
techniques of hand-building and -coiling were not forgotten.
Most medium-large dynastic jars
1
,
such as beer jars, were
1
I use Wodzińska (2009) terminology for Egyptian dynastic pottery types.
made through coiling, bread moulds were formed over
a core or patrix, while large platters and bread trays were
fnger moulded and pinched (Bourriau, 1981, pp.17–23).
Jars, bowls, and plates continued to be coil-built or wheel-
coiled until the First Intermediate Period (c. 2181–2025
BC). Though as Bourriau (1981, p.15) suggests, this may
have been later in the Second Intermediate Period (2040–
1551 BC). After this point, almost all pottery types, with the
exception of coarse wares and some of the largest amphorae,
were wheel-coiled (or possibly thrown, although more work
is needed). The Egyptians formed pottery using clay recipes
of both Nile Silt, gathered from the edges of the river Nile,
and Marl clays, mined from desert regions mostly to the East
or along the Nile Valley between Esna and Cairo (Bourriau
et al.
, 2000b, p.121), and sometimes a mixture of the two. The
clays were then mixed with chaf, pebbles and, in some cases,
grog to the particular recipes of the potter (Bourriau, 1981,
pp.14–15; Bourriau
et al.
, 2000a). The clays were usually
gathered from one source and pottery workshops seem to
have produced either Silt or Marl clay wares (Nordström and
Bourriau, 1993, p.166; Bourriau
et al.
, 2000b, p.122), with
some exceptions,
e.g.
, at Hierakonpolis (Allen
et al.
, 1982,
pp.199–212; Allen, 1989).
2. Egyptian Colonisation of Sudan
By the beginning of the second millennium BC, the second
to fourth cataracts of the Nile in North Sudan were occupied
by several Kushite polities associated with the city of Kerma
and the C-group, with vassal polities around the island of
Sai (Edwards 2004, pp.78–79). From about 2000 BC, the
Egyptians began a military campaign to conquer Nubia, eager
to own the gold mines and other wealth that the Nubians
possessed (D’Ercole
et al.
, 2017; Graves, 2010, Figure 3). The
Egyptians conquered Lower Nubia, the entire reach between
the frst and second cataracts of the Nile, at the beginning
of the Middle Kingdom (c. 2050 to 1710 BC). One should
Figure 2.
Potters centring clay on wheel from the Tomb of Khentika/Ikhekhi, Saqqara, Teti Cemetery (After Holthoer, 1977, pp.8–9; James and Apted,
1953, Plate XLII: XII [244]).
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 299–309
Sarah K. Doherty: The Introduction of the Potter’s Wheel to Ancient Sudan
302
not consider Nubia as “one culture” but as “various Nubias”
of disparate groups, each with diferent social structures
and diferent approaches to adapting and adopting Egyptian
colonisation and the associated goods (Edwards, 2004,
pp.78–81; O’Connor, 1991; 1993). These “various Nubias”
and their diferent political structures (and the potential
for local rebellion) was perhaps why the construction of
thirteen Egyptian fortresses was deemed necessary by the
reign of Senwosret III (circa 1850 BC) (Edwards, 2004,
pp.91–94; S.T. Smith, 1995, pp.51–80; Knoblauch, 2019,
pp.367–389). Initially occupied by military personnel, these
fortresses suggest that at the beginning of their construction,
the architecture and objects used were mostly imported
from Egypt. However, there is evidence for an easing or
a blending of the two cultures suggested by later changes
in building design, cooking and domestic pottery types, and
the appearance of elite tombs and stelae. This demonstrated
that the Egyptian occupation shifted to permanent settlers
in more self-sufcient communities, connecting more with
their conquered neighbours at the end of the Twelfth dynasty
(circa 1802 BC) (H. Smith, 1976, pp.67–69; S.T. Smith,
1995, pp.51–80).
Some scholars (
e.g.
, Emery
et al.
, 1979) have suggested
that some fortresses were abandoned in the late Thirteenth
dynasty (circa 1750 BC) due to a Kerman-based Kushite
expansion into Lower Nubia. On the other hand, S.T. Smith
(1995, pp.81–145) argues for a generally peaceful handover
to Kerma control. However, there is evidence suggesting that
Figure 3.
Kerma Beaker with huntite applied
as a slip prior to fring to create the silver
band efect. From Metropolitan Museum
of Art. 20.2.45 (CC0 1.0). Rogers Fund,
1920. Purchased from the Oxford University
Expedition to Nubia by the Museum, 1920.
Dated to circa 1802–1640 B.C.
Table 1.
Relevant Chronology (after Edwards 2004).
DATE BCEGYPTIAN DYNASTYLOWER NUBIAUPPER NUBIA
2050–1650Middle Kingdom (11–13)C-GroupMiddle Kerma
1650–1550Second Intermediate (14–17)C-GroupClassic Kerma
1550–1050New Kingdom (18–20)C-GroupRecent Kerma
1050–750Third Intermediate (21–24)UncertainPre-Napata
750–332Late Period (25–30)UncertainNapata
332–c AD 300Ptolemaic and RomanMeriotic
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 299–309
Sarah K. Doherty: The Introduction of the Potter’s Wheel to Ancient Sudan
303
some fortresses like Buhen and perhaps others were violently
attacked later during the New Kingdom (Emery
et al.
, 1979).
This period corresponds to when the town of Kerma reached
its greatest extent (Bonnet, 1999). From about 750 BC,
the Napatan culture emerged around the Dongola Reach
with major settlements at Napata, el-Kurru, Nuri and Jebel
Barkal. During this time, the Egyptian infuence waned after
there was a war between Egypt and Kush in 593 BC, when
Psammatik II invaded Kush. During the last centuries of the
frst millennium BC, the Kushite state focused on Meroe in
the Shendi reach between the ffth and sixth cataracts. The
Meriotic Kingdom gained control of the Middle Nile and
its hinterlands (Adams, 1977; Edwards, 2004, pp.122–141;
O’Connor, 1993).
3. Sudanese Pottery circa 2000–1500 BC
In general, by circa 2000 BC, Egyptian pottery was wheel-
thrown or wheel-coiled, whereas Nubian pottery employed
hand-building and did not use the wheel yet (Nordström
and Bourriau, 1993, p.184; Rose, 2012, p.13 and p.16).
Nubian pottery was highly sophisticated, utilising hand-
building techniques and fring styles largely abandoned
by the Egyptians by the 4
th
dynasty (Arnold, 1993, p.17).
Construction of vessels was via the paddle and anvil, coiling,
pinching, or slab-building techniques, or combinations of
these (Bourriau, 1981, p.15). Pots were often decorated
with hatching, raised criss-cross mouldings and stamps
(Robertson and Hill, 1999, pp.321–330). By the Classic
Kerma period (1750–1500 BC), the manufacture of vessels
was highly developed. The Kerman potters regularly highly
burnished and decorated their wares and made their vessels
with remarkably thin walls. These vessels reached their peak
in the Kerma beakers with walls as thin as 2–5 mm, highly-
polished and fred with great skill (Figure 3 or
e.g.
, Bourriau,
1981, Types 207–208, British Museum 65577). Most vessels
were manufactured using Nile Clay, often from a mixture of
sources and recipes (Adams, 1962, p.249).
In terms of the diference in fring techniques, Egyptian
pottery was fred in box or updraught kilns, while most
Nubian pottery was produced in bonfres (Bourriau
et al.
,
2000b, p.128; Gratien, 2000, p.114). Classic Kerman potters
in particular were extremely skilful in utilising the oxidising
and reduction conditions of pit fring. Experiments by
Doherty (forthcoming) postulates that the Kerman potters
applied the white carbonate mineral huntite Mg
3
Ca(CO
3
)
4
to
their beakers as a slip prior to fring to produce a beautiful
white-silver band (Figure 3). Sources of huntite are attested
in the Persian Gulf (Kinsman, 1967, pp.1332–1340) and
Tunisia (Perthuisot, 1971, pp.185–188) and have been
detected within pigments in Egyptian tomb scenes and
cofns (Blom-Böer, 1994, p.67 and p.76; Lee and Quirke,
2000, pp.114–115). While utilised in funerary architecture
and furniture, huntite was never employed by the Egyptians
when they made their black-topped pottery during the
Predynastic Period.
4. The Egyptian Colonisation of Sudan
and its efects on pottery
Evidence from the excavations of the diferent fortresses
suggest that at the beginning of the Egyptian military
campaigns the soldiers brought with them all the objects
and trappings from home that they required to establish
themselves, including pottery vessels flled with foodstufs.
In particular, the presence of pottery made from marl clays
in Sudan is important (labelled as “drab ware” by Reisner at
the Egyptian colony excavations at Kerma (Reisner, 1924,
pp.320–321
e.g.
, BM EA65586)). Such marl clays were
mostly not employed by Kerman potters, as there are limited
supplies in Sudan. This implies that ceramic vessels were
regularly imported from Egyptian workshops in both Upper
and Lower Egypt (Spencer, 2002, pp.13–32). However,
large-scale pottery production of Egyptian-style, Nile Silt
vessels have been excavated at the fortresses of Mirgissa and
Serra East during the Middle Kingdom which suggests that
most of this pottery was produced locally in Nubia (Williams
et al.
, 1993; Williams, 2017, pp.309–322; Vercoutter, 1966,
pp.276–283; 1970). There is also evidence of at least bread
moulds being manufactured at the fortress of Buhen, where
a ceramic dump outside the inner walls of Block H by the
temple area revealed 1015 bread moulds (of the 5535 found
at Buhen) (Emery
et al.
, 1979, pp.175–176; Graves, 2010,
p.23). Therefore, the Egyptians were evidentially quite self-
sufcient for at least the Nile Silt vessels.
Later period Egyptian colonies were found by excavators
to have a mixture of Nubian and Egyptian pottery, as well
as other “Sudanese style” objects being used in Egyptian
colonies. Funerary customs such as beds, intermarriage,
cultural permeability, and shifting identities led to a blending
of the two cultures, neither totally Egyptian nor Nubian.
One such site is Amara West, recently excavated by teams
from the British and Khartoum Museums (Spencer
et al.
,
2014; N. Spencer, 2017), and previously by the Egypt
Exploration Society (P. Spencer, 2002). Amara West was
the administrative capital of Upper Nubia (19
th
–25
th
dynasty,
1550–656 BC). The site is located on the west bank of the
Nile between the second and third cataracts in northern
Sudan. The mudbrick-walled garrison town is comprised
of densely-packed mudbrick buildings, including large-
scale storage places, houses of various sizes (from 50 to
500 m²) and structures of unclear function (N. Spencer,
2017; P. Spencer, 2002; Spencer
et al.
, 2014). Some of the
architecture and objects uncovered at Amara West suggest
an intriguing blending of Egyptian and Nubian cultures.
For example, N. Spencer (2017, p.465) cites a Nubian style
ovoid structure E12.11 discovered at Amara West with both
20
th
dynasty Egyptian and Nubian pottery discovered within
it (Spataro
et al.
, 2014). This circular building echoes the
“great hut” at Kerma (Bonnet, 1996, pp.32–34, Figure 7,
Plate 10) and similar buildings at Dokki Gel (Bonnet,
2008, v–vi), Kawa (Welsby, 2001, pp.64–66, Plate 1) and
Kulubnarti (Adams, 1994, pp.236–7, Maps 7.4 and 7.5).
At other Egyptian colonies, excavators are increasingly
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 299–309
Sarah K. Doherty: The Introduction of the Potter’s Wheel to Ancient Sudan
304
uncovering Nubian sherds alongside Egyptian sherds within
domestic settings, as well as in funerary pyramids and tombs.
These colonies have some examples of kilns and Nile silt
wasters, but identifed pottery workshops are relatively rare.
Two exceptions, as mentioned above, are at the Egyptian
fortresses of Mirgissa and Serra East (Williams
et al.
, 1993;
Vercoutter, 1966, pp.276–283; Vercoutter, 1970).
It appears that the Egyptians allowed access to their
pottery skills and were interested in producing self-
sufcient colonies in Sudan, and working with acculturated
indigenous groups to produce a variety of crafts, including
pottery industries. Petrographic analyses of the clays
utilised by Nubian and Egyptian potters demonstrate that
prior to the Egyptian colonisation, the Nubian clays were
mixed, whereas the Egyptian clays were more homogenous
(Carrano
et al.
, 2008, pp.95–96). The diversity of chemical
signatures from Nubian pottery suggests that these pots were
being made on a smaller scale than the Egyptian, likely
by part-time potters who were exploiting a range of clay
sources. However, once Egyptian colonisation began, there
is evidence that Egyptian and Nubian silt wares were made
from the same clay sources in Sudan. This suggests that
colonial communities were not entirely reliant on trade with
Egypt itself to supply manufactured goods. Moreover, the
apparent lack of change in ceramic composition throughout
the New Kingdom and early Napatan period demonstrates
that there was no wholesale rejection of Egyptian-style
manufacturing techniques with the gradual decline in
imperial power. Together, this evidence supports at least
limited acculturation once the Egyptians left Sudan (Carrano
et al.
, 2009, pp.785–797).
The evidence for when the potter’s wheel came to be used
in Sudan rather than Egyptian imported pottery relates to the
form of the clays used in Sudan. So called “gilded wares”
are covered with a micaceous (muscovite) slip on both sides,
giving the sherd a “golden” appearance. Such fragments were
produced in the Second Cataract forts, recently re-studied
by Knoblauch (2011, pp.167‒183). A rare example comes
from the Egyptian site at Elephantine (Budka, 2016a; 2016b;
Budka and Doyen, 2013). This small fragment (3.1 × 3 cm) of
a thin-walled jar with faring rim made in a very fne Nile Silt
(Vienna classifcation B2, Nordström and Bourriau, 1993,
pp.168–182) was found in material below the foundations
of a large house, number 55. Most examples of the clay
come from the Second Cataract fort sites and in the Kerman
cemeteries at Kerma (Bourriau, 2004, p.9), Ukma West (Vila,
1987, p.203) and Sai (Gratien, 1986, Figure 300 EVI). The
potters at these fortresses were creating standard Egyptian
wheel-coiled wares in Nile silt, but adding a local twist by
slipping with the micaceous (muscovite) slip, presumably
having brought a potter’s wheel with them.
Micaceous clays are an interesting choice, as they are
good for creating hard, durable vessels that are resistant
to thermal shock (Anderson, 1999, pp.3–5). However, the
Egyptian potters working in Sudan seemed to recognise
that mica-rich clays are also unsuitable for long-term liquid
storage, as the vessels tended to fall apart. They appear to
have used mica-rich clays for making tableware rather
than cooking pots
e.g.
, globular jars, cups, bowls, spouted
vessels with applied animal motifs (Budka, 2016a; 2016b;
Budka and Doyen, 2013). This rare, wheel-made Nile clay
ware was locally produced in Lower Nubia during the
late Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period
(circa 1782–1500 BC), but stopped being created shortly
afterwards.
The co-existence of locally-made, Egyptian-style, wheel-
coiled cooking pots and Nubian, hand-coiled and paddled
ones appears at many Egyptian colony sites (
e.g.
, at Amara
West, Garnett, 2014, pp.62–63). Budka (2016b, pp.285–290),
however, noted imported Egyptian cooking pots and Nubian
cooking pots being used across the settlement areas of Sai,
dating to the 18
th
dynasty, and traced a gradual trend towards
local copies in Upper Nubian fabrics from the mid-18
th
Dynasty
onwards. Sai seems to be the exception to the rule for cooking
vessels. Most other colony sites used local Nubian clays to
fashion their Egyptian cooking vessels, and increasingly
favoured Nubian cooking types as they became more self-
reliant. However, there was still a need for some imported
Egyptian wares, presumably so they could take advantage of
importing the foodstufs and liquids they contained (Bourriau,
1995, pp.129–144; S.T. Smith 2002, pp.43–79).
5. The Potter’s Wheel in Sudan
Unfortunately, potter’s workshops are extremely rare in both
Egypt and Sudan, and evidence of potter’s wheels even more
so (Doherty, 2020). Egyptian dynastic potter’s wheel bearings
are very similar to those known across the Levant and the
Middle East (Roux, 1994; 2008; 2009; Roux and Courty,
1997; 1998; Roux and de Miroschedji, 2009, pp.155–173).
They comprise a socket and pivot of stone, usually limestone,
granodiorite or basalt, or a combination as seen in Figure 4
(Doherty, 2015, pp.16–22 and Powell, 1995, pp.310–311,
Figure 10.1). The socket would have been buried into the
ground, and a wheelhead of unfred clay, wood or terracotta
attached to the top of the pivot (Figure 4). The potter would
have spun it with one hand and fashioned coils of clay with
the other. The concept of the potter’s wheel was borrowed
from the Levantine neighbours around 2600 BC and was
gradually introduced to state-controlled potters (Doherty,
2015, pp.43–69). As suggested above, the miniature wheel-
thrown vessels were produced exclusively for elite funerary
sites, but the pottery repertoires were gradually expanded
until almost all pottery vessels were formed on the wheel
by about 2100 BC, probably by wheel-coiling, although
further work is needed. By bringing this new technology to
Sudan, the Egyptians were in efect stamping their objects
and culture upon the new colonies. Producing Egyptian-
style, thrown vessels required the mastering of an entirely
new skill, using the potter’s wheel, and one which can take
up to 10 years to be truly profcient (Ericsson and Lehmann,
1996, pp.273–305; Roux and Corbetta, 1989). The potter’s
wheel bearings can be very heavy, with most bearing stones
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 299–309
Sarah K. Doherty: The Introduction of the Potter’s Wheel to Ancient Sudan
305
weighing between 3 and 7 kg (Powell, 1995). Transporting
these around would have taken some consideration. However,
there are several other factors which would need to be in
place in order to set up the workshop. There would need to
be suitable locations for the machinery, cold and wet places
for the clay, open areas to dry and fre the pots, and a market
demand for wheel-made pottery. There would also have been
the need for sponsorship by an estate owner to provision the
estate with suitable vessels or in state-controlled industrial
quarters. Archaeological evidence suggests that there was
a variety of diferent types of potter’s workshops, from those
at the domestic household level (making pinch and coil
vessels) through to industrial complexes creating vessels by
the tens of thousands for the funerary market using throwing
and wheel-coiling techniques (
e.g.
, at Abusir; Verner, 1992,
pp.55–59). At any one time, there would have been both
domestic and industrial pottery production taking place (Rice,
1897, pp.183–191), which would also have infuenced the
developing use of the wheel (Bourriau, 2000, pp.141–142).
6. Potter’s Workshops with Wheels in Sudan
Pottery workshops with wheel bearings or wheelheads are
extremely rare in Sudan. An example of a clay wheelhead
from a potter’s wheel has been recently recognised and
published by Stuart Tyson Smith (2014, pp 103–121)
from the fortress of Askut, dating to the Middle Kingdom
(circa 1850 BC). It was discovered within a storehouse
complex, perhaps suggesting state control of production
of the craft. Interestingly, it is made of fred terracotta and
quite an unusual shape, with fnger holes for the wheel to be
attached to a pivot with wet clay (S.T. Smith 2014, pp.103–
121). It was probably designed for the mushroom headed
shaped pivot stones (Doherty, 2015, pp.16–22; Figure 4).
The wheelhead’s side measured 42 cm in diameter, much
smaller than those thought by Powell (1995, pp.309–335)
and the author’s own experiences to be useful for throwing.
In her experiments, Powell determined that around 70–75 cm
unfred clay wheelheads worked best, similar to an example
uncovered at the site of Abu Sir, Egypt. This author’s
experimental reconstructions found that wooden wheelheads
of 55 cm also worked well. With this example, we can add
terracotta to the repertoire of wheelhead materials.
In 1977, Holthoer described a Middle Kingdom period
pottery workshop, which also may have contained a wheel
(Holthoer, 1977, p.16). Site no. 228, dated to the Middle
Kingdom (circa 1850 BC), is a contemporary site to Aksut
discovered by the Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudan
in the 1960s as part of the Aswan High Dam Archaeology
Rescue Missions. The wheel was found within Room 7,
described as a pivot located near the east wall, lubricated
with black resin (Holthoer, 1977, p.16; Säve- Söderburg,
1963). It was located in a workshop, which featured a kiln,
Figure 4.
Potter’s wheel bearing BM32622 from the British Museum Collection, and sketch of how the wheel bearings would have been arranged with
a wheelhead.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 299–309
Sarah K. Doherty: The Introduction of the Potter’s Wheel to Ancient Sudan
306
two small drying bins, and an area with dung and straw
probably as fuel for the kiln. Unfortunately, there does not
appear to have been any published photographs or drawings
of the wheel bearings. All of the pottery sherds uncovered at
the workshop were wheel-made, with the exception of one
complete hand-built cup, so it is more than likely that this
was an Egyptian pottery wheel-coiling (or possibly wheel-
throwing) workshop.
The often distinctive potting traditions of Bronze Age
“Kush/Nubia” seem to have been, at least temporarily,
disrupted during the later second millennium BC, one legacy
of Egypt’s southwards expansion during the New Kingdom
(Lacovara, 1997). A lack of archaeologically recognisable
and distinctive “indigenous” ceramic culture(s) over
subsequent centuries is in itself of interest. This seems to
persist through the frst half of the frst millennium BC. Not
long after the Egyptians abandoned their empire in Nubia
during the Third Intermediate Period, the powerful complex
indigenous polity of Napata arose. In turn, most of what we
encounter in later “Napatan” pottery (see Figure 1) draws
heavily on Egyptian production techniques and repertoires
(Welsby-Sjöström and Thomas, 2011, pp.64–71).
However, in the Meroitic period (332 BC – circa AD 300)
these production techniques were to change markedly, with
the appearance of what were in fact often quite new types
of pottery (Rose, 1998; Ting and Humphris, 2020, pp.141–
160). These may have looked to both internal (Sudanic)
and external (Mediterranean) traditions, in turn relating to
a number of distinct modes of production and technologies.
Meroe, located between the ffth and sixth cataracts of the
Nile, had become the new capital of the Kushite state by
about 270 BC. During the Meroitic period, Kushite culture
showed less Egyptian infuence and increasingly displayed
a Nubian character, including the worship of new local
deities and the creation of a Meroitic alphabet. The rule of
Meroe’s kings extended hundreds of miles to the north, and
most of northern Nubia between the frst and second cataracts
became a Meroitic province (Edwards, 2004, pp.141–181).
The Egyptian-style potter’s wheel apparently was one of
the items that survived the Egyptians departure from Sudan,
and was perhaps a deliberately chosen technology by the
Kushite culture (van der Leeuw, 2002). Two other Meriotic
pottery workshops (without wheels) have been uncovered
at Hamadab (Wolf and Nowotnick, 2006, pp.257–272)
and Muweis (Buad, 2008). Some Meriotic wheel-made
sherds have been dated to as early as the frst half of the
third century AD (Lenoble and Sharif, 1992, pp. 626–
635). At the site of Musawwarat es-Sufra, which dates to
the 1
st
millennium AD, a pottery workshop that included
a wheel was discovered in 1965, and reanalysed in 1997 by
Edwards (1999). Musawwarat es- Sufra is situated about
180 km northeast of Sudan’s modern capital Khartoum,
25 km outside of the Nile valley in the semi-arid landscape
of the Keraba. The recovery of substantial quantities
of fnely-decorated kaolinitic fnewares, apparently the
remains of manufacturing failures, and a signifcant body of
other material relating to pottery manufacturing, including
a granite potter’s wheel, was identifed. The wheel was
discovered in a small room (225) in the north of a temple
complex known as the Great Enclosure (Näser, 2010a,
pp.225–226; 2010b, pp.20–25). In addition, a substantial
body of other pottery, much of it thought likely to be locally
made, provided valuable new insights into the ceramic
culture associated with this very special site. At the same
point in time as this pottery workshop was in use, there were
a wide variety of handmade wares circulating, particularly in
domestic settings, whereas the wheel-made fnewares were
rarer (Edwards, 1999). This may suggest that the potter’s
wheel and wheel-made pottery was regarded as an urban
specialism, perhaps a “royal monopoly” similar to how iron
workers were considered at that time (Ting and Humphris,
2020, pp.141–160; Humphris
et al.
, 2018, pp.291–311). The
potter’s wheel may have been maintained to just produce
fnewares for the elites of Musawwarat es- Sufra, as had been
the case for the 4
th
dynasty Pharaohs (Doherty, 2015; Gibli
and Remigius, 2012) and in the Levantine city states (Roux,
2008; Roux and de Miroschedji, 2009).
7. Conclusion
When building their Middle Kingdom fortresses, the
Egyptians attempts to make themselves self-sufcient
while there included importing skilled Egyptian potters
and their wheels. The Egyptian imperial presence was
particularly strong in Lower Nubia, and the archaeological
record indicates that at least some aspects of the local
Nubian societies were afected by Egyptian infuences,
and vice-versa. This was particularly the case for pottery.
Most Egyptian colony sites contained a mixture of pottery
techniques, particularly Nubian handmade cooking pots
and Egyptian wheel-coiled vessels initially imported from
Egypt, and later made using local clays (Rose, 2019, p.678).
Both domestic and funerary contexts demonstrate that there
was a blending of cultures. Rather than an independent
indigenous invention, the potter’s wheel was deliberately
brought to Sudan from Egypt and was part of a suite of
new Egyptian technologies imposed upon the Sudanese.
However, once the Egyptians left, during the Napatan and
Meriotic periods, the potters made a deliberate choice to
maintain the Egyptian technologies that were useful to them.
In doing so they adapted them to their own needs, creating
magnifcent fneware pottery using kaolinite clays and their
own decorative fair.
References
ADAMS, W.Y., 1962. Archaeological Survey of the West Bank of the Nile.
Kush
,
10,
10–18.
ADAMS, W., 1977.
Nubia: Corridor to Africa
. London: Allen Lane.
ADAMS, W.Y. 1994.
Kulubnarti I. The Architectural Remains.
Lexington:
Program for Cultural Resource Assessment, University of Kentucky.
ALLEN, R.O., ROGERS, M.S, MITCHELL, R.S, and HOFFMAN,
M.A., 1982. A Geochemical Approach to the Understanding of Ceramic
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 299–309
Sarah K. Doherty: The Introduction of the Potter’s Wheel to Ancient Sudan
307
Technology in Predynastic Egypt.
Archaeometry,
24(2), 199–212.
ALLEN, R.O., 1989. Archaeological Implications of diferences in the
composition of Nile Sediments. In: R.O. Allen, ed.
Archaeological
Chemistry IV
. Washington: American Chemical Society, pp. 33–56.
ALLEN, S., 2006. Miniature and model vessels in Ancient Egypt. In:
M. Bárta, ed.
The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology
. Proceedings of
the conference held in Prague, May 31–4 June 2004. Prague: Czech
Acedemy of Sciences, pp. 19–24.
ANDERSON, D., 1999.
All that Glitters. The emergence of Native American
Micaceous Art Pottery in Northern New Mexico
. Tucson: School of
American Research Press.
ARNOLD, D., 1993. Fascicle 1 Techniques and Traditions of Manufacture
in the Pottery of Ancient Egypt. In: D. Arnold, and J. Bourriau, eds.
An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery.
Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut, Abteilung Kairo. Mainz Am Rhein: Verlag Philipp Von Zabern.
BÁRTA, M., 1995. Pottery Inventory and the Beginning of the IVth
Dynasty.
Gottinger Mitteilungen
, 149, 15–24.
BALDI, J., and ROUX, V., 2016. The innovation of the potter’s wheel:
a comparative perspective between Mesopotamia and the southern
Levant.
Levant
, 48(3), 236–253. DOI: 10.1080/00758914.2016.1230379
BLOM-BÖER, I., 1994. Zusammensetzung altägyptischer Farbpigmente
und ihre Herkunftslagerstätten in Zeit und Raum.
OMRO,
74, 55–107.
BONNET, C., 1996.
Kerma. Territoire et métropole.
Cairo : IFAO.
BONNET, C., 1999. Aux origines de des Palais Kouchites. In: S. Wenig,
ed.
Studien zum antiken Sudan.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 484–494.
BONNET, C., 2008. The Town of Doukki Gel after the Last Archaeological
Works. Kerma, 2006–7, 2007–8.
Genava
, 55, 183–246.
BONNET, C., and AHMED, S.EL-D.M., 1991. Un atelier de potiers
d’époque napatéenne et quelques tombes chrétiennes.
Genava :
revue d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie
,
39, 25–28. DOI: 10.5169/
seals-728320
BOURRIAU, J., 1981.
Umm el Ga’ab Pottery from the Nile Valley from
before the Arab Conquest.
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
BOURRIAU, J., 1995. Relations Between Egypt and Kerma During the
Middle and New Kingdoms. In: W.V. Davies, ed.
Egypt and Africa. Nubia
from Prehistory to Islam.
London: British Museum Press, pp. 129–144.
BOURRIAU, J., 2004. Egyptian Pottery found at Kerma Ancien, Kerma
Moyen and Kerma Classique Graves at Kerma. In: T. Kendall, ed.
Ninth
International Conference of Nubian Studies.
Boston: Museum of Fine
Arts, Northeastern University, pp. 3–13.
BOURRIAU, J., SMITH, L.M.V., NICHOLSON, P.T., 2000a.
New Kingdom
pottery fabrics. Nile clay and mixed Nile/Marl clay fabrics from Memphis
and Amarna.
London: The Egypt Exploration Society.
BOURRIAU, J, NICHOLSON, P, ROSE, P., 2000b. Pottery. In:
N. Nicholson, and I. Shaw, eds.
Ancient Egyptian Material and
Technology
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121–147.
BUAD, M., 2008. The Meroitic royal city of Muweis: frst steps into
an urban settlement of riverine Upper Nubia.
Sudan & Nubia
, 12, 52–63.
BUDKA, J., 2016a. Beneath the golden hill…
Across Borders blog.
Blog of
the ERC starting grant project AcrossBorders (ERC grant agreement n°
313668). Post written 11 Nov 2016 [viewed 29.01.2021]. Available from:
https://acrossborders.oeaw.ac.at/beneath-the-golden-hill/
BUDKA, J. 2016b. Egyptian Cooking Pots from the Pharaonic Town of
Sai Island, Nubia.
Bulletin de liaison de la céramique égyptienne
,
26,
285–295.
BUDKA, J., 2017. Pyramid Cemetery SAC5, Sai Island, Northern Sudan
an update based on Fieldwork from 2015–2017.
Ägypten und Levante/
Egypt and the Levant,
27, 107–130.
BUDKA, J., and DOYEN, F., 2013. Living in New Kingdom towns in
Upper Nubia – New evidence from recent excavations on Sai Island.
Ägypten und Levante/Egypt and the Levant
,
22, 167–208.
CALOI, I., 2019. Breaking with Tradition? The Adoption of the Wheel-
throwing Technique at Protopalatial Phaistos: Combining Macroscopic
Analysis, Experimental Archaeology and Contextual Information.
Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane
in Oriente
, 97, 9–25.
CARRANO, J. FERGUSON, J.R., GIRTY, G.H., SMITH, S.T. CARRANO,
C.J., 2008. A Chemical and Mineralogical Comparison of Nubian and
Egyptian Style Ceramics and the Implications for Culture Contact:
Preliminary Report.
Sudan and Nubia Bulletin,
12, 90–98.
CARRANO, J.L, GIRTY, G.H, and CARRANO, C.J., 2009. Re-examining
the Egyptian colonial encounter in Nubia through a compositional,
mineralogical, and textural comparison of ceramics.
Journal of
Archaeological Science
, 36(3), 785–797.
CHARVÁT, P., 1981.
The Mastaba of Ptahshepses. The Pottery.
Prague:
Charles University.
COURTY, M.A., and ROUX, V., 1995. Identifcation of Wheel Throwing
on the basis of Ceramic Surface Features and Microfabrics.
Journal of
Archaeological Science
, 22, 17–50.
DESSEL, J.P., 2009.
Lahav I. Pottery and Politics: The Halif Terrace
Site 101 and Egypt in the 4
th
millennium BCE.
Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
DOHERTY, S.K., 2015.
The Origins and Use of the Potter’s Wheel in
ancient Egypt
. Oxford: Archaeopress.
DOHERTY S.K., 2020. Investigating Dynastic Egyptian Pottery-Making:
Archaeological and Ethnographical Considerations. In: A.K. Hodgkinson,
and C. Lelek Tvetmarken, eds.
Approaches to the Analysis of Production
Activity at Archaeological Sites
. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 122–140.
EDWARDS, D., 1999.
Musawwarst Es Sufra III. A Meriotic Pottery
Workshop at Musawwarat es Sufra
. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
EDWARDS, D., 2004.
The Nubian Past: An Archaeology of the Sudan
.
London: Taylor & Francis.
EDWARDS, D., 2014. Early Meroitic Pottery and the creation of
an early imperial culture? In:
Der antike Sudan
. Mitteilungen der
Sudanarchäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin e.V. Sonderheft, Berlin:
Sudanarchäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, pp. 51–63.
EL-KHOULI, A., 1991.
Meidum.
The Australian Centre for Egyptology:
Reports 3, Sydney: The Australian Centre for Egyptology.
EMERY, W., SMITH, H.S., and MILLARD, A., 1979.
The Fortress of
Buhen: The Archaeological Report
. Excavations at Buhen, 1. EES
EM, 49, London: Egypt Exploration Society.
D’ERCOLE, G., BUDKA, J., STERBA, J.H., GARCEA, E.A.A., and
MADER, D., 2017. The Successful “recipe” for a long-lasting tradition:
Nubian ceramic assemblages from Sai Island (northern Sudan) from
prehistory to the New Kingdom.
Antiquity
, 91(355), 24– 42. DOI:
10.15184/aqy.2016.262.
ERICSSON, K.A., and LEHMANN, A.C., 1996. Expert and exceptional
performance: Evidence from maximal adaptation to task restraints.
Annual Review of Psychology
,
47, 273–305.
FAKHRY, A., 1961.
The Monuments of Sneferu at Dashur. Vol II. The Valley
Temple, Part II: The Finds.
Cairo: General Organisation for Government
Printing Ofce.
FALTINGS, D., 1998a. Canaanites at Buto in the early fourth millennium
BC.
Egyptian Archaeology
, 13, 29–32.
FALTINGS, D., 1998b. Recent Excavations in Tell el-Fara’in/ Buto: New
Finds and Their Chronological Implications. In: C.J. Eyre, ed.
Proceedings
of the 7
th
International Congress of Egyptologists. Cambridge 3–9
September 1995.
Leuven: Peeters. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta,
pp. 365–375.
FREESTONE, I., and GAIMSTER, D., 1997.
Pottery in the Making: World
Ceramic Traditions
.
London: BM Press.
GARNETT, A., 2014. Making and Using Pottery. In: N. Spencer, A. Stevens,
and M. Binder, eds.
Amara West: Living in New Kingdom Nubia.
London:
British Museum, pp. 62–63.
GIBLI, J.D., and REMIGIUS, K., 2012. The social and symbolic context of
the royal potters of Buganda,
Azania
,
47(1), 64–80.
GRATIEN, B., 1986.
Sai I. La necropole Kerma
. Paris: Centre National de
la Recherche Scientifque Mission Archéologique Française au Soudan,
Institut de Papyrologie et D’Egyptologie de L’Université de Lille.
GRATIEN, B., 2000. Les pots de caisson nubiens et les bols décorés de
la première moitié du IIe millénaire avant J.-C.
Cahiers Céramique
Égyptienne
,
6, 113–148.
GRAVES, C., 2010.
Egyptian Imperialism in Nubia c. 2009–1191
BC
. Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of Birmingham.
HOLTHOER, R., 1977.
New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites
.
The Pottery.
Lund:
Esselte Studium.
HUMPHRIS, J., BUSSERT, R., ALSHISHANI, F., and SCHEIBNER, T.,
2018. The ancient iron mines of Meroe.
Azania: Archaeological Research
in Africa
,
53, 291–311.
JAMES, T.G.H., and APTED, M.R., 1953.
The mastaba of Khentika called
Ikhekhi
. Archaeological survey of Egypt, 30
th
memoir, London: Egypt
Exploration Society.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 299–309
Sarah K. Doherty: The Introduction of the Potter’s Wheel to Ancient Sudan
308
JANSSEN, J., 1975. Prolegomena to the Study of Egypt’s Economic History
during the New Kingdom.
Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur
, 3, 127–185.
KINSMAN, D.J.J., 1967. Huntite from a carbonate – Evaporite Environment.
American Mineralogist
, 52, 1332–1340.
KNOBLAUCH, C., 2011. Not all that glitters: a case study of regional
aspects of Egyptian Middle Kingdom pottery production in Lower Nubia
and the second cataract.
Cahiers de la Céramique égyptienne
,
9, 167‒183.
KNOBLAUCH, C., 2019. Middle Kingdom Fortresses. In: D. Raue, ed.
Handbook of Ancient Nubia.
Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.
KUHRT, A., 1995.
The Ancient Near East, c3000–300 BC (Vol. 1).
London
and New York: Routledge Press.
LACOVARA, P., 1997. Egypt and Nubia during the Second Intermediate
Period. In: E.D. Oren, ed.
The Hyksos. New Historical and Archaeological
Perspectives.
Proceedings of the International Seminar on Cultural
Interconnections in the Ancient Near East, held at the University of
Pennsylvania, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, January–
April 1992. University Museum Monograph, 96. University Museum
Symposium Series, 8. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum,
pp. 69–83.
LEE, L., and QUIRKE, S., 2000. Painting Materials. In: P.T. Nicholson,
and I. Shaw, ed.
Ancient Egyptian materials and technology
. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 104–120.
LENOBLE, P., SHARIF, N.M., 1992. Barbarians at the gates? The royal
mounds of El Hobagi and the end of Meroe.
Antiquity,
66, 626–635.
NÄSER, C., 2010a. Le grand enclos de Moussawarrat es-Soufra: une
énigme monumentale. In: M. Baud, ed.
Méroé. Un empire sur le Nil.
Paris
and Milan: Ofcina Libraria, pp. 225–226.
NÄSER, C., 2010b. Moussawarat es-Soufra, une énigme monumentale de
la période méroïtique. In:
Méroé, un empire sur le Nil aux confns de
multiples cultures.
Dossiers d’Archéologie hors-série,
18, pp. 20–25.
NEWBERRY, P., 1893.
Beni Hasan. Part 1, Archaeological Survey of
Egypt.
London: Paul Kegan.
NORDSTRÖM, H., and BOURRIAU, J., 1993. The Vienna System. In:
D. Arnold, and J. Bourriau, eds.
Ceramic technology: clays and fabrics,
Fascicle 2, an introduction to ancient Egyptian pottery
. Deutsches
Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo, Sonderschrift 17, Mainz am
Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, pp. 168–182.
O’CONNOR, D., 1991. Early States along the Nubian Nile. In: W.D.
Davies, ed.
Egypt and Africa.
London: Routledge.
O’CONNOR, D., 1993.
Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa.
Philadelphia:
University Museum.
PAPAZIAN, H., 2005.
Domain of the Pharaoh: The Structure and
Components of the Economy of the Old Kingdom.
Unpublished thesis
(PhD), University of Chicago.
PERTHUISOT, J.P., 1971. Présence de magnésite et de huntite dans le
sebkha el Melah de Zarzis.
Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie
des Sciences de Paris, Série D
, 272, 185–188.
PETRIE, W.M.F., 1892.
Medum.
London: David Nutt, Strand.
PETRIE, W.M.F., MACKAY, E., WAINWRIGHT, G., 1910.
Meydum
and Memphis III.
London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and
Egyptian Research Account, UCL and Bernard Quaritch.
PIERRET, A., 1995.
Analyse technologique des céramiques archéologiques:
développements méthodologiques pour l’identifcation des techniques de
façonnage. Un exemple d’application: le matériel du village des Arènes
à Levroux (Indre).
Paris: Université de Paris I Sorbonne.
POLLOCK, S., 1999.
Ancient Mesopotamia: The Eden that Never Was
.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
POWELL, C., 1995. The Nature and Use of Ancient Egyptian Potter’s
Wheels.
Amarna Reports
, 6, 309–335.
RICE, P.M., 1987.
Pottery Analysis, a Sourcebook
, Chicago and London:
The University of Chicago Press.
REISNER, G.A., 1931.
Mycerinus: The Temples of the Third Pyramid at
Giza.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ROBERTSON, J.H., and HILL, E.M., 1999. Two traditions or one? New
interpretation of the hand- made/wheel-made ceramics from Meroe. In:
D. Welsby, ed.
Recent Research in Kushite History and Archaeology.
London: British Museum, pp. 321–330.
ROSE, P., 2012. Early 18
th
Dynasty Nubian Pottery from the site of
Sesebi, Sudan. In: I. Forstner-Müller, and P. Rose, eds.
Nubian pottery
from Egyptian cultural contexts of the middle and early New Kingdom,
Proceedings of a Workshop held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute
at Cairo, 1–12 December 2010
. Vienna: Austrian Archaeological
Institute, pp. 13–29.
ROSE, P., 1998. The Meroitic pottery. In: D.N. Edwards, ed.
Gabati.
A Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Medieval cemetery in Central Sudan
.
Volume 1. Sudan Archaeological Research Society Publication, 3, British
Archaeological Reports, International Series, 740. London and Oxford:
BAR Publishing, pp.138–177.
ROSE, P.J., 2019. Early Kushite Ceramics of the Earlier 1
st
Millennium BC
in Lower and Upper Nubia. In: D. Raue, ed.
Handbook of Ancient Nubia.
Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.
ROSS, J., FOWLER, K.D, SHAI, I., GREENFIELD, H.J, MAEIR, A.M.,
2018. A scanning method for the identifcation of pottery forming
techniques at the mesoscopic scale: A pilot study in the manufacture of
Early Bronze Age III holemouth jars and platters from Tell es-Saf/Gath.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
, 18, 551–561.
ROUX, V., 1994. La technique du tournage: défnition et reconnaissance par
les macrotraces. In: D. Binder, and J. Courtin, eds.
Terre cuite et société.
La céramique, document technique, économique, culturel.
Juan-les-Pins:
Editions APDCA, pp. 45–58.
ROUX, V., 2008. Evolutionary Trajectories of Technological Traits and
Cultural Transmission: A Qualitative Approach to the Emergence and
Disappearance of the Ceramic Wheel-fashioning Technique in the
Southern Levant. In: M. Stark, B. Bowser, and L. Horne, eds.
Cultural
Transmission and Material Culture. Breaking Down Boundaries.
Tuscon:
Arizona University Press, pp. 82–104.
ROUX, V., 2009. Wheel Fashioned Ceramic Production during the Third
Millennium BCE in the Southern Levant: A Perspective from Tell
Yarmuth. In: S.A. Rosen, and V. Roux, eds.
Techniques and People:
Anthropological Perspectives in the Archaeology of Proto-Historic and
Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant.
Paris: De Boccard, pp.
195–212.
ROUX, V., and DE MIROSCHEDJI, P., 2009. Revisiting the History of the
Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Levant.
Levant,
41(2), 155–173.
ROUX, V., and CORBETTA, D., 1989.
The Potter’s Wheel: Craft
Specialization and Technical Competence
. Oxford: Oxford & IBH
Publishing.
ROUX, V., and COURTY, M.A., 1997. Les bols élaborés au tour d’Abu
Hamid: rupture technique au 4emill. avt J.–C. dans le Levant sud.
Paléorient
,
23, 25–43.
ROUX, V., and COURTY, M.-A., 1998. Identifcation of Wheel-fashioning
methods: Technological Analysis of 4
th
–3
rd
millennium BC Oriental
Ceramics.
Journal of Archaeological Science
, 25, 747–763.
SÄVE-SÖDERBURG, T., 1963. Archaeological Investigations between
Faras and Gemai, November 1962-March 1963.
Kush
, 2, 47–99.
SIMPSON, S.J., 1997. Early Urban Ceramic Industries in Mesopotamia. In:
D. Gaimster, and I. Freestone, eds.
Pottery in the Making: Early Ceramic
Traditions.
London: British Museum Press, pp. 50–55.
SHAW, I., 2004. Identity and Occupation. How did individuals defne
themselves and their work in the Egyptian New Kingdom? In: J. Bourriau,
and J. Phillips, eds.
Invention and Innovation. The Social Context of
Technological Change 2: Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East. 1650–
1150 BCE
. London and Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 12–24.
SMITH, H., 1976.
The Fortress of Buhen: The Inscriptions
. Excavations at
Buhen, 2. EES EM, 48, London: Egypt Exploration Society.
SMITH, S.T., 1995.
Askut in Nubia: The Economics and Ideology of
Egyptian Imperialism in the Second Millennium BC.
London and
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SMITH, S.T., 2002. Pots and Politics: Ceramics from Askut and
Egyptian Colonialism during the Middle through New Kingdoms. In:
C.A. Redmount, and C.A. Keller, eds.
Egyptian Pottery, Proceedings of
the 1990 Pottery Symposium at the University of California.
University of
California Publications in Egyptian Archaeology, 8. Berkeley: University
of California, pp. 43–79.
SMITH, S.T., 2014. A Potter’s Wheelhead from Askut and the Organization
of the Egyptian Ceramic Industry in Nubia.
Journal of the American
Research Center in Egypt
, 50, 103–121. DOI: 10.5913/jarce.50.2014.
a018
SPATARO, M., MILLET, M., and SPENCER, N., 2014. The New Kingdom
settlement of Amara West (Nubia, Sudan): mineralogical and chemical
investigation of the ceramics.
Archaeological and Anthropological
Sciences
, 7, 399–421.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2021 ● XII/2 ● 299–309
Sarah K. Doherty: The Introduction of the Potter’s Wheel to Ancient Sudan
309
SPENCER, N., 2014. Amara West: considerations on urban life in occupied
Kush. In: J.R. Anderson, and D.A. Welsby, eds.
The Fourth Cataract and
Beyond. Proceedings of the 12
th
International Conference for Nubian
Studies
. British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan, 1, Leuven:
British Museum, pp. 457– 485.
SPENCER, N., STEVENS, A., and BINDER, M., eds., 2014.
Amara West:
Living in New Kingdom Nubia.
London: British Museum.
SPENCER, N., 2017. Building on new ground: the foundation of a colonial
centre at Amara West. In: N. Spencer, A. Stevens, and M. Binder, eds.
The New Kingdom in Nubia: lived experience, pharaonic control and
indigenous traditions.
British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan,
3. Peeters, Leuven, Paris and Walpole MA: British Museum, pp. 321–
353.
SPENCER, P., 2002.
Amara West, II: The cemetery and the pottery corpus
.
Excavation Memoir, 69. London: Egypt Exploration Society.
THÉR, R., 2020. Ceramic technology. How to reconstruct and describe
pottery-forming practices.
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
,
12(8), 17–50.
TING, C., and HUMPHRIS, J. 2020. Pottery Production in Ancient Sudan:
A Case Study of the Pottery from the Slag Heaps of Meroe and Hamadab.
In: A. K. Hodgkinson, and C. Lelek Tvetmarken, eds.
Approaches to
the Analysis of Production Activity at Archaeological Sites.
Oxford:
Archaeopress, p.122–140.
VANDER KOOIJ, G., 2002. The Potters of el-Fustat (Cairo) and el-Nazla
(Fayoum). In: G. Vander Kooij, and W.Z. Wendrich, eds.
Moving Matters,
Ethnoarchaeology in the Near East.
Leiden: University of Leiden, pp.
147–158.
VAN DER LEEUW, S., 2002. Giving the potter a choice, conceptual aspects
of pottery techniques. In: P. Lemonnier, ed.
Technological Choices.
Transformations in material culture since the Neolithic.
London:
Routledge Press, pp. 238–288.
VERCOUTTER, J., 1966. Trois campagnes de fouilles à Mirgissa en Nubie
soudanaise (1963–1966).
Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie
des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres
, 110(2), 276–283. DOI: 10.3406/
crai.1966.11979
VERCOUTTER, J., 1970.
Mirgissa
. Paris: Direction générale des relations
culturelles, scientifques et techniques.
VERNER, M., 1992. The Discovery of a Potter’s Workshop in the Pyramid
Complex of Khentkaus at Abusir.
Cahiers de la Céramique de la
Égyptienn
e, 3 (3), 55–59.
VILA, A., 1987.
Le cimitière kermaique d’Ukma Ouest.
Paris: CNRS.
WELSBY, D.A., 2001. Excavations within the Pharaonic and Kushite site
at Kawa and in its Hinterland, 2000–2001.
Sudan & Nubia
,
5, 64–70.
WELSBY-SJÖSTRÖM., I., and THOMAS, R.I., 2011. The Kushite pottery
sequence at Kawa: Parallels at home and abroad.
Sudan & Nubia
,
15,
64–71.
WILLIAMS, B., 2017. The New Kingdom town at Serra East and its
cemetery. In: N. Spencer, A. Stevens, and M. Binder, eds.
The New
Kingdom in Nubia: lived experience, pharaonic control and indigenous
traditions.
British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan, 3. Peeters,
Leuven, Paris and Walpole MA: British Museum, pp. 309–322.
WILLIAMS, B., HUGHES, G.R., and KNUDSTAD, J.W., 1993.
Excavations at Serra East: parts 1–5, A-Group, C-Group, Pan Grave,
New Kingdom, and X-Group remains from cemeteries A-G and rock
shelters.
Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
WODZIŃSKA, A., 2009.
A Manual of Egyptian Pottery: Naqada III –
Middle Kingdom (Vol. II).
London: Ancient Egypt Research Associates
– Oxbow Books.
WOLF, P., NOWOTNICK, U., 2006. Hamadab – a Meroitic Urban
Settlement. Excavations 2001–2003.
Archeologie du Nil Moyen
,
10,
257–272.
image/svg+xml