The Italian Archaeological Mission (M.A.I.) at Hemamieh (1905): a preliminary re-contextualisation of past excavations

Introduction: the site and the history of the archaeological investigations

The village of Hemamieh is located on the eastern bank of the Nile about 50 km south of Asyut, in the so-called “Badari region”. This district is well-known for its Predynastic to Early Dynastic cemeteries extensively re-used also during the following periods, and for the first uncovered evidence of the Badarian cultural phase (fig. 1).

The region has been extensively excavated by the British School of Archaeology in Egypt between 1922 and 1931, but the exploration of the area closer to Hemamieh was limited to two campaigns.¹ During the 1923-1924 campaign, Brunton and his team excavated along the cliffs, within the narrow strip of desert left between the rocky plateau and the fields. Their investigations focused on a series of spurs, made of limestone detritus, where several cemeteries and settlements were uncovered. Two of these foothills, located north of the modern village of Hemamieh, were excavated and numbered area 1500-1800 and area 1900-2100 (fig. 2). Despite being heavily disturbed by later burials, cemetery 1500-1800 could be dated to S.D. 40 to 70/Naqada IIC-IIIA2, from the second half of the Predynastic to the beginning of the Dynastic Period.² Scattered remains of charcoal, sherds and flint flakes were identified in another spur, just north of the above mentioned area, among pit-tombs mostly of the First Intermediate Period. In spite of the precarious state of preservation, the stratification of area 1900-2100 could be interpreted as a Predynastic settlement, whose origin could be dated back to the Badarian period and its major occupation not later than S.D. 45/Naqada IIC.³ Quite surprisingly, the settlement seemed not to be coeval and in use at the same time as the nearest cemetery.

Another important archaeological feature dated from the Badarian to the Naqada II period was excavated by Caton-Thompson during her 1924-1925 mission on site: a prehistoric settlement, known as North Spur Hemamieh.⁴ Her rigorous excavation methods revealed the presence of nine mud hut circles of various diameters, located on another spur 2,5 km north of the modern village. The original extension of this settlement could not be ascertained, but the excavation covered an area of 37 x 46 m circa.⁵ The main aim of her excavation was to obtain more data for correlating prehistoric pottery types and flints from a settlement context, rather than cemeteries; moreover, it could offer the opportunity for a detailed analysis of the stratigraphical relations between the Badarian phase and the beginning of the Predynastic period.

More than 60 years after the British School’s excavations, the same area was re-investigated by Holmes and Friedman, who conducted new fieldwork on this site, an extensive survey campaign of the Badari region, and a complete analysis of the Brunton and Caton-Thompson collection of lithic and pottery artefacts in the Petrie, Ashmolean and Manchester Museums.⁶

The main objectives of their fieldwork were to relocate the sites originally identified and excavated by Brunton, assessing the impact of contemporary urban and agricultural encroachment, to evaluate the preservation of Predynastic sites for future excavations/surveys, and to record new features, especially in areas not previously taken into consideration⁷. The survey conducted in “Area 1, between the modern villages of El Hemamieh and Sheikh ‘Esa”⁸ is of particular interest for the present study (fig. 3).

Within this surveyed sector, Holmes and Friedman relocated Cemetery 1500-1800, Cemetery 1900-2100 and Settlement 1900-2000, confirming the chronological attribution given by previous excavators, and adding more information about Predynastic subphases. Noteworthy to mention is the lack of Predynastic artefacts for Cemetery 1500-1800 (dated mainly to the 1st Dynasty, but reused till the Roman period), while an abundance of Predynastic sherds (from Badarian to Naqada II) is recognized for Area 1900-2100.⁹ New test pits were also excavated in Caton-Thompson’s North Spur Hemamieh: the detailed documentation, the analysis of the uncovered artefacts and the C14 dating on selected charcoal samples contributed to re-evaluate the relative sequence of Badarian and Naqada I phases and the (inter-)regional character of the earlier tradition.¹⁰

In addition to the previously identified sites, the survey recorded two new archaeological features: a Predynastic settlement, named BD-2 and dated mainly from Naqada II to Naqada III with a possible occupation during also Naqada I horizon; and a quarry site, designated as BD-16, of uncertain historic date.¹¹ A third one, named BD-1, designated a “location adjacent, and in fact continuing under, the Moslem cemetery on the north side of the modern village of El-Hemamieh. Caton-Thompson¹² mentioned this site but did not give it a name or identifying number”.¹³

Despite the bad preservation of the site, it was possible to identify abundant sherds related to a Predynastic settlement and traces of a Naqada II cemetery on the spur’s northern side; as in other cases, the area has been then reused in dynastic times.¹⁴ The fact that Brunton and Caton-Thompson neither recorded nor excavated the site and that Holmes and Friedman’s survey found it in a very poor state of preservation is not accidental. As the present paper intends to demonstrate, this is the area originally excavated by the M.A.I. (Italian Archaeological Mission) in 1905.

The M.A.I. (Italian Archaeological Mission) at Hemamieh

Re-contextualizing a forgotten excavation

After completing fieldwork in the Valley of the Queens on 8th March 1905, two days later the Italian team started new excavations at the site of Qau el-Kebir, a recent addition to Schiaparelli’s concessions. Although the focus of the work was the investigation of the Middle Kingdom monumental tombs,²⁹ Schiaparelli charged Roberto Paribeni with conducting excavations in a location about 2 km further north, near the modern village of Hemamieh:

“At the same time as the excavations were being carried out at Qau, I began the exploration of a prehistoric necropolis which is situated less than two kilometres away, on the slopes of the Arabian chain, near the village of Hammamyah. I entrusted the direction of this excavation to Dr. Paribeni, who, assisted by Dr. Malvezzi, carried out the work with singular skill and conscientiousness, collecting valuable and meticulously excavated material”. ³⁰

While Schiaparelli provides no further details, it is Paribeni himself, who informs us of the reasons behind the choice of this location:³¹ the presence of numerous Predynastic pottery sherds clearly visible and scattered on the surface of four “rocky spurs”. Small trench pits and extensive excavations were conducted for an extension of approximately 200 m, parallel to the road leading from Hemamieh to Badari.

As no sketches or plans are available, it is fundamental to retrieve among the existing data a clear landmark, which can be used as a fixed, though relative, topographical point for re-locating the trenches excavated by the Italian mission. Paribeni³² indicates that the starting point for the excavations of the necropolis was an area immediately north of the Muslim cemetery and, in particular, of the tomb of Sheikh Haji Ali:

“The focus of the excavation was then on two of the low spurs of rubble material, that descend from the mountain into the valley. One of the two closest to the village now houses the tomb of a Muslim saint, the Schekh Hagi Ali, and around this revered tomb is the present-day Arab cemetery.”

This tomb, which can still be identified thanks to satellite images, is an essential reference point for the numbering of the so-called “speroni” (i.e spurs). A recent photographic campaign promoted by the Museo Egizio in 2024 confirmed the location of this tomb and allowed for a direct comparison between the old photographic plates and the actual state of preservation of the site (fig. 4).³³

The so-called first spur, where the Muslim cemetery was located, could be excavated only in its uppermost section, since the lowest part was already occupied by the modern burials. Because of the relatively low stratigraphic thickness, due to the outcropping of the rocky layers of the plateau, archaeological finds were scarce: in a rectangular trench of about 5 x 3 m, six extremely disturbed graves were found (tombs I-VI); a test pit dug 1 m south to this group uncovered another disturbed burial, tomb VII.³⁴

Despite the activities of sebakh diggers and the presence of later tombs and a settlement dated to the Coptic period, the second spur, which was situated just north of the first one, could be investigated in its near totality. Excavations started with two test trenches, where 4 tombs were unearthed:³⁵ one located mid-slope (burials VIII-X) and one on the eastern side of the spur, facing the Muslim cemetery (burial XI). Once the preliminary excavation had confirmed better preservation conditions for this area, Paribeni decided to work systematically along the entire spur, starting from the lowest section and going up the slopes: in thirty-two tombs (numbered XII-XLIII) a great deal of Predynastic material, mainly R-, B-, P-, D- and W-ware, was found. Different inhumation customs were observed: corpses laying on their sides, sometimes wrapped in mats or deposited within wooden coffins.³⁶

Other quick test-pits, excavated in the third and fourth spurs, confirmed that the necropolis extended further northwards: unfortunately, no details about their location is given by the excavators, who just record the presence of Coptic tombs in the third spur and of Graeco-Roman tombs in the fourth.³⁷ Due to time constraints, the excavation of these last two spurs was postponed.³⁸ But the following year, during the 1906 campaign, excavations at Hemamieh focused on another sector of the necropolis, which was situated on the cliffs overlooking the modern village, where rock-cut tombs dated to the Old Kingdom were investigated.³⁹

Filling a gap: the Italian excavations within the framework of the investigations carried in the area of Hemamieh

Thanks to the re-analysis of all the available information, it could be possible to finally recognized the area excavated by the Italian Archaeological Mission and to link the spur numeration given at the time with precise landscape features: Spur 1 coincide with the slope where the tomb of Sheik Haji Ali is still located, and where the modern cemetery was located; Spur 2 lies immediately to the north of the first one: completely cleared of buildings at the beginning of the 20th century, it is now entirely occupied by the extension of the modern cemetery. Further to the north, another long, narrow spur extends out into the plain and is bounded to its upper edge by a small depression that marks the access to a wadi: this corresponds to Spur 3, while Spur 4 is situated at the other edge of the depression, north of the wadi (fig. 5).

The integration of the above-mentioned data with the results of the British School of Archaeology excavations and the survey carried out by Holmes and Friedman might allow us to state that the area occupied by cemetery 1500-1800 is to be identified with Spur 3, while area 1900-2100 corresponds to Spur 4. Moreover, the new site classified as BD-1⁴⁰ might be identified with Spur 1 (with possible extension into Spur 2), where the presence of pottery dating from Naqada II onwards is very consistent with the results of the Italian excavations (fig. 6). As mentioned above, the fact that Brunton and Caton-Thompson mentioned it only briefly and that the site conditions were quite poor may support this hypothesis of identification: the Italian Archaeological Mission was thus able to excavate an area neither investigated before nor re-excavated later, due to the expansion of the modern cemetery in the area originally occupied by a Predynastic cemetery. Because of this fact, the results of the Italian excavations, and especially the archaeological material there unearthed may provide new opportunities for (scientific/archaeometric) studies and analyses of the material culture of this period.

Artefacts without a context? From the museum back to the field

Despite the limited time available, the results of the 1905 campaign were very rewarding for the Italian Archaeological Mission. Thanks to the partage system of that time, Schiaparelli was able to increase the Museo Egizio collection with around 300 newly-excavated artefacts. The quantity and quality of this material can be deduced from the so-called “Manuscript Inventory”, a paper register in which all new acquisitions were recorded (fig. 7).⁴¹ All the material from the 1905 and 1906 excavations a Hemamieh was divided up as follows:

What appears to be a simple list is in fact an important source of information about the artefacts provenance and context.⁴² The criteria Schiaparelli used to inventory his new acquisitions could be topographical, contextual and typological. The choice was influenced by several circumstances: the possibility of numbering the finds directly on site or of keeping the crates of materials divided according to excavation contexts in order to proceed later at the museum, the presence of notes or indications left by the excavators. In this case, the material was not registered according to burial context (with one exception), but according to a typological and/or raw material classification:

The fact that the artefacts uncovered during the 1905 campaign have not been inventoried on site is indirectly confirmed by Paribeni himself:⁴³ despite the quite accurate description provided for each burial context, the lack of inventory numbers is striking. However, the absence of this important piece of information, which is undoubtedly due to the long period between the excavation and the publication, could indicate that even if the materials had been sent to Turin in boxes according to their context, this information was no longer available when they were inventoried.

The lack of inventory numbers in the above mentioned article also makes it impossible to establish how many and which materials were left to Cairo Museum according to the partage agreements. Moreover, the identification between the excavated material and the material that entered the Museo Egizio collection is also complicated by two other factors. First of all, the rather sketchy description of the pottery: despite the precise indication of the typology of the vessels, based on Petrie’s translated into Italian, there are no further diagnostic elements to unambiguously identify the material:

Furthermore, a comparison of the material numbered on the Manuscript Inventory with the artefacts currently kept in the Museo Egizio reveals some gaps. In several cases the original inventory number was directly inked on the object, but unfortunately some of these numbers are no longer readable o preserved. For this reason, a new progressive numbering system was introduced. This new inventorying involved all those objects that had lost their original number, assigning them a new provisional one (P.). The aim in the future will be to re-identify all provisional objects, through a detailed study of all the retrievable and available information. Nevertheless, searching through the Museo Egizio database allowed us to identify a group of pottery vases (P. 7030-7046), which could be linked with the Italian excavation at Hemamieh: further research is necessary to confirm this attribution and to retrieve more material associated with this site. At present, it is not yet possible to define with certainty the exact amount of material from the 1905 Italian excavations.

However, the preliminary results of the recent studies conducted on the artefacts with secure provenance from Hemamieh could help us in defining the chronological horizon of the necropolis located on Spur 1 and Spur 2, at least in post and ante quem terms (fig. 8).⁴⁴

The absence of C-ware, the limited presence of B-ware (see, for example, S. 4750, S. 4751, S. 4752, S. 4763, S. 4764) and the abundance of R-ware, D-ware and of W-ware suggest to dating this necropolis starting from the end of Naqada IIB period until at least Naqada IIIA2.⁴⁵ Another group of diagnostic artefacts is represented by six cosmetic palettes: five are fish-shaped (S. 4955, S. 4956, S. 4959/03, S. 4960, S. 4961), one scutiform with double birds heads on top (S. 4959/02). Compared with other excavated material, this assemblage can be dated to Naqada II (C-D) period, which is coherent with the one above suggested. Last, but not least, this chronological horizon can be confirmed by the stone vessels still preserved, made of different raw materials in the shape of jars with pierced handles (S. 4680-4683, 4685-4687).

Although chronological consistency is established for several classes of material, it is still very problematic to reconstruct the original excavation contexts on the basis of Paribeni’s descriptions. While for some highly recognizable items (e.g. D ware, cosmetic palettes and stone vessels) the attempt may be successful, for most of the pottery one is forced to remain in the realm of hypothesis. Only a time-consuming and painstaking process of data evaluation could lead to the formulation of an acceptable set of identifications.⁴⁶

Nevertheless, a comparison with the results of successive fieldworks is still possible and can help to fill in gaps in interpreting the archaeological topography of the site and historical occupation of the necropolis.

Despite the difficulties caused by the reuse of this area until the Coptic period, it is possible to state that the sector immediately north of the modern village of Hemamieh was already of interest in the Badarian period, as evidenced by the findings of Brunton and Caton-Thompson and the later investigations of Holmes and Friedman. The paucity of material from the earliest phase of the Naqada period unearthed from funerary contexts is also confirmed by the Italian excavations, at least as far as spurs 1 and 2 (or site BD-1) and cemeteries 1500-1800 and 1900-2100 are concerned. Instead, all investigations seem to confirm that the area was mainly occupied and exploited from Naqada II onwards, and especially between Naqada IIC and the beginning of the later Naqada III phase, until at least Naqada IIIC (First Dynasty). During the Old Kingdom, the uphill necropolis was preferred to the lowland one, where some of the rock-cut tombs investigated by MAI in 1906 are located. This shift may have been dictated by the scarcity of available land, but also by different choices in the construction of the tombs.

Conclusions

Despite the important results obtained by the Italian Archaeological Mission at Hemamieh, the lack of a comprehensive publication has so far excluded the collection of artefacts unearthed by the Italian team in 1905 (and now housed in the Museo Egizio) from the wider framework of studies concerning the Badari region. Despite its quantity and quality, the lack of a secure archaeological context has prevented this collection from receiving the recognition it deserves. In spite of all the limitations of museum collections from the early 20th century, a careful re-contextualization can contribute to their appreciation and recognition as crucial elements in the study of the Predynastic period.

While the analysis of archival material can shed new light on the biographies/itineraries of these artefact, providing de-contextualized objects with new contextual information, the comparison with the results obtained by more recent investigations can help filling the gaps in the current state of knowledge. This is particularly useful in the case of sites threatened by rural and urban expansion, where new excavations would be extremely difficult.

Properly interrogated, museum collections can provide answers to a wide range of research questions, not only about the artefacts’ chronological and typological definition, but also about their manufacture, production, technology and about the owners’/producers’ identities. The archaeological re-contextualization of the material excavated by the Italian Archaeological Mission at the site of Hemamieh is therefore only the first in a potential series of research projects, which are waiting to be pursued.