Exploration of the late prehistoric occupation in the western part of Jebel Sabaloka in central Sudan: findings of the 2022 field campaign

Exploration of the late prehistoric occupation in the western part of Jebel Sabaloka in central Sudan: findings of the 2022 field campaign Lenka Varadzinová– Ladislav Varadzin– Isabelle Crevecoeur– Nicolas Martin– Saddam Hassan ABSTRACT In the autumn of 2022, field research was resumed in the western part of Jebel Sabaloka in central Sudan. Attention was paid to two sites: Garn el -Tamada (SBK.W-67) investigated for the first time only in the reported field campaign, and Fox Hill (SBK.W-20) whose archaeological potential had been explored in detail already in previous years. In this report we present the main findings and observations made during three weeks in the field and highlight their relevance for extending the understanding of late prehistory of central Sudan as regards both the diversity of hunter -gatherer way of life as well as the complexity of the Mesolithic- -Neolithic transition. KEYWORDS Sixth Nile Cataract– Mesolithic– Neolithic– settlement landscape– human burials– bedrock ground stone features :نادوسلا طسوب اكولبس لبج نم ىبرغلا ءزجلا ىف رخأتملا خيراتلا لبق ام رصع نم ناطوتسا فاشكتسا 2022 ماع مسوم جئاتن نسح مادص – نترام سلاوكين – روكيفيرك ليبازيإ – نيزداراف فلاسيدلا – افونيزداراف اكنيل صخلملا ىلع مامتهلاا زيكرت مت .نادوسلا طسو ىف اكولبس لبج نم ىبرغلا ءزجلا ىف ىناديملا ثحبلا فنؤُتسا ،2022 ماع فيرخ يف لبج عقومو ،مسوملا اذه للاخ ةرم لولأ بيقنتلا لامعأ هيف ترج عقوم وهو ، (SBK.W-67) ةدامتلا نرق :نييسيئر نيعقوم ضرعن ،ريرقتلا اذه ىف .ةقباسلا تاونسلا ىف رئافحلا مساوم للاخ ليصفتلاب هنع فشكلا قبس ىذلا (SBK.W-20) بلعتلا نيعقوملا ةيمهأ ىلع ءوضلا طلسن امك ،عيباسأ ةثلاثل دتما ىذلا مسوملا للاخ اهيلإ لصوتلا مت ىتلا ةيسيئرلا تاظحلاملاو جئاتنلا ىعماجو نيدايصلا ةايح بيلاسأ عونتب قلعتي اميف كلذو ،نادوسلا طسو ةقطنم ىف رخأتملا خيراتلا لبق ام ةرتفل انمهف عيسوت ىف .ثيدحلا ىرجحلا رصعلا ىلإ طيسولا ىرجحلا رصعلا نم لاقتنلاا ةيلاكشإ ىلإ ةفاضلإاب ،رامثلا ةيحاتفملا تاملكلا نفادملا تامس – ةيرشبلا نفادملا – تانطوتسملا – ثيدحلا ىرجحلا رصعلا – طيسولا ىرجحلا رصعلا – سداسلا لينلا للاش ةيرخصلا PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXXIII/2024, 28–53 29L. VARADZINOVÁ– L. VARADZIN– I. CREVECOEUR– N. MARTIN– S. HASSAN Jebel Sabaloka at the Sixth Nile Cataract in central Sudan constitutes ageographically distinctive landscape where the waters and resources of the Nile, the wealth of raw materials in the volcanic mountain, and the plants and animals in the vast savannas extending further inland must have once constituted most favourable conditions for human settlement. The attraction of the region for settlement in different periods has been confirmed during archaeological reconnaissance of the region in the autumn of 2009 and spring of 2011 that brought to light abundant remains of occupation dated from the Early Stone Age to modern era (Sukováetal. 2010; Suková– Cílek 2012). While distinct archaeological potential was evident on both banks of the river, detailed archaeological research has been performed since the autumn of 2011 due to administrative limitations only on the west bank of the Nile. The main attention has been paid to the remains of occupation by hunter -gatherers of the Khartoum Mesolithic, dated in Jebel Sabaloka based on alarge series of radiocarbon dates to ca. 8750–4750 BC (Varadzinováetal. 2023a), and by early food producers of the Early Neolithic, dated broadly in central Sudan to ca. 5000–3800 BC (Garcea 2020), with remains from both earlier and later periods documented for afuture dedicated research (Suková– Cílek 2012). After the initial reconnaissance, exploration of most sites with identified late prehistoric (Khartoum Mesolithic and/or Early Neolithic) remains has involved since the autumn of 2011 adetailed systematic (analytical) surface survey combined with excavation of test trenches aimed at ascertaining the state of preservation of archaeological deposits at the surveyed sites and the potential of the locations for larger -scale excavations (in 2011, 2012, 2019) (Suková– Varadzin 2012; Varadzinová 2021). The latter have been conducted so far on two major locations, Sphinx and Fox Hill, where well -preserved deposits and abroad spectrum of finds– artefacts, ecofacts, and human burials– have allowed for establishing the chronology of local settlement, subsistence, and material culture and for extending the understanding of the social life of the late prehistoric communities in central Sudan (in 2011–2012, 2014–2015, 2017–2018) (Suková– Varadzin 2012; Varadzinová– Varadzin 2017; Varadzinováetal. 2022a; Varadzinováetal. 2022b; Varadzinováetal. 2023b). The field research resumed in the western part of Jebel Sabaloka in the autumn of 2022 also followed these two lines of investigation, focusing on two sites: Garn el -Tamada (SBK.W-67), explored for the first time in some detail only during this field campaign, and Fox Hill (SBK.W-20), whose archaeological potential has been investigated through detailed surface research and large -scale excavations since the autumn of 2011 (fig. 1).1 The aim of this paper is to provide the first report on the main findings at both sites. GARN EL ‑TAMADA (SBK.W‑67) Garn el -Tamada is adesignation used by the local inhabitants for the area of agranite outcrop ca. 3.5 km to the north of the Nile and 1.3 km to the west of the Sabaloka massif located between two major wadis that drain the area of the western periphery of the mountain (fig.1). 1 The fieldwork took place between 8–30 November 2022, with participation of two archaeologists (Ladislav Varadzin and Lenka Varadzinová), two biological anthropologists (Isabelle Crevecoeur and Nicolas Martin), the representative of the National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums of the Sudan (Saddam Hassan), and three students -trainees from the University of Khartoum (Hajir Fadlallah Marhoum, Tasneem Abdurrahman Mahjoub Elhaj and Nahid Adam Hdob Suliman). 30 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXXIII/2024 The name means the “Horn of awater basin” and may derive from the fact that this place retains water for an extended period after annual rains. The outcrop is of red mica granite and is broken by mural jointing into several sectors (Almond– Ahmed 1993) that are adjoined by low -lying areas forming more -or -less levelled platforms. Small veins of quartz, one of the raw materials exploited in the Holocene prehistory for lithic production (Kapustka 2017), occur sparingly within the granite. Garn el -Tamada was registered as of possible interest for prehistoric research during reconnaissance of the research area in the autumn of 2011, with three areas reported to contain lithics and/or prehistoric pottery (locations 131, 132, and 134) and one to host aseries of oval basin hollows on the surfaces of the exposed bedrock (location 133). The archaeological potential of the outcrop was confirmed in the spring of 2019 when three of the locations were revisited and the whole outcrop was pinpointed for detailed investigation (see Varadzinováetal. 2021). METHODS Detailed investigation within and around the granite outcrop was performed by three persons over four days in the autumn of 2022. The area was first described from the point of view of geomorphology and topography and was surveyed for remains of former human occupation in the form of surface finds and features. With the former, their general distributions (including densities of lithics) were noted and the sectors with prehistoric evidence (lithics, Fig. 1 Research area of the Charles University Sabaloka Expedition in the western part of Jebel Sabaloka. A – Map with locations of the late prehistoric (Khartoum Mesolithic and Early Neolithic) sites studied since 2011; B – Detail view of the geographically distinctive settlement landscape along the western and south-western periphery of the mountain, with larger squares indicating the two sites investigated in 2022. Site names are given with the locations referred to in the text (background: ESRI Base Map – World Imagery Source, Digital Globe, updated by L. Varadzinová) 31L. VARADZINOVÁ– L. VARADZIN– I. CREVECOEUR– N. MARTIN– S. HASSAN pottery, ground stone artefacts) were subsequently delimited as distinct units for further surface survey. Stone structures were localised by aGPS placed on the ground surface and were documented by verbal description (category, type) and photography. With artificial bedrock features (sensu Rosenberg– Nadel 2017: 1), more detailed documentation was performed, with each of them measured (length, width, depth), described as to type (e.g. basins, flat grinding surfaces, cup -marks, cupules, smoothed areas), and photographed. Systematic analytical surface survey using standardized survey forms and procedure (see Varadzinováetal. 2021) was subsequently performed in selected areas. Basic quantitative and qualitative data were collected for pottery (density, fragmentation, state of preservation, represented types), lithics (quantity/density, raw material spectrum, presence of diagnostic/peculiar pieces), and ground stone artefacts (represented categories and their quantities). With other types of finds, only their categories and quantities were noted. In selected areas, small -scale excavation was performed to ascertain the presence of archaeological deposits and to assess the potential of the areas for more in -depth research. Trenches measuring 1 m2 or 0.5 m2 or smaller excavation units were explored. With the former, after removal of the surface layer (stratigraphic unit 1, SU1), the excavation progressed in spits (mechanical units, MU) ca. 50 mm in thickness that respected the interfaces between stratigraphic units where ascertained. All levels were documented by means of verbal description, photography, and drawings, with the excavated sediment dry -sieved using a4-mm mesh and the coarse fraction sorted for artefacts and ecofacts. The smaller excavation units measured not more than ca. 0.16 m 2 and were explored by means of aone -hand hoe as “micro -soundings” into the subsurface deposits, with description of the ascertained sediments, depths, and archaeological finds. After excavation and documentation, both test trenches and micro -soundings were backfilled using the excavated sediment. MAIN FINDINGS Based on the survey of the outcrop and its vicinity, 16 areas with remains of late prehistoric occupation were delimited as distinct research units for further investigation (Areas A–P; fig.2). All are confined to the southern part of the outcrop and its vicinity but differ in size and setting. Table 1 provides an overview of some of the quantitative and qualitative data collected through both basic and systematic (Areas A–H, O) and only basic (Areas I–N, P) survey of the research units. There are clear differences in the quantity and character of the identified remains, which suggests avaried intensity and character of use of the individual areas in the past. Medium to high abundances of prehistoric pottery, medium to high densities of lithics, and abundant finds of ground stone artefacts, in particular grinding -milling tools, indicate more significant late prehistoric occupation in three areas investigated in detail: Area A, an enclosed platform in the southern part of the outcrop delimited on all sides by granite bedrock (2,308 m2), Areas E–H, situated on the top of alow granite hill at the western perimeter of the outcrop (102 m2 in total), and Area Oon the low-lying plain between the south -eastern perimeter of the outcrop and the easterly of the two wadis (21,023 m2) (table 1; fig. 2). Mesolithic pottery clearly predominates (fig. 3), but occasional finds of burnished pottery and macrolithic industry (incl. one gouge on red rhyolite in Area A) point to some occupation also during the Neolithic. In addition, singular finds of pottery with organic temper (Areas F and 32 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXXIII/2024 H) and one sherd of awheel -made vessel (Area G, fig. 3: A) hint at occupation of these spaces also during later periods. Occasional finds of eolized lithics on red rhyolite in Area Opoint to apossible human presence in the area also during the Pleistocene. In the remaining three areas surveyed in detail (Areas B–D), only very low densities of lithics were recorded. In Area C– anarrow, elongated strip to the west of Area A(538 m2) –, pottery was nearly absent and ground stone artefacts present only in afew fragments (table 1). The slightly higher presence of pottery and grinding -milling tools in Areas B (141 m2) and D (2,034 m2), on the other hand, may be connected with the spatial proximity of Area B to Area Aand the granite surfaces with bedrock ground stone features and of the western part of Area D, where most of the surface finds concentrated within this area, to the granite hill that hosts Areas E–H and another concentration of bedrock ground stone features (table 1; fig. 2). In both Areas B and D, Mesolithic remains clearly prevailed, with Neolithic pottery also present, but rare. Use of the three areas in post -Neolithic times is indicated by singular surface finds of pottery with organic temper or distinct decorative patterns and, in Areas C and D, also by presence of funerary (Area D) and non -funerary (Area C) stone structures. One test trench and four micro -soundings were excavated in Areas A, B and H (fig. 2). In Trench 1 (1 × 1 m, max. depth 57 cm) delimited at the southern edge of Area A, abrown, silty indurated layer, containing medium -sized pieces of granite grus, only aminimum quantity Fig. 2 Garn el-Tamada (SBK.W-67). A – View of the entire granite outcrop between two wadis; B – Detail view of the southern part of the granite outcrop with identified research units (Areas A–P) with remains of late prehistoric occupation; bold type = category A locations, regular type = category B locations; light-coloured (yellow) dots = finds of bedrock ground stone features (oval basin hollows), empty squares = locations of excavated trenches (T), full squares = locations of micro-soundings (MS) (background: Google Earth 2023, updated by L. Varadzin and L. Varadzinová) 33L. VARADZINOVÁ– L. VARADZIN– I. CREVECOEUR– N. MARTIN– S. HASSAN of sand, and comparatively numerous fragments of pottery (Mesolithic, but possibly also Neolithic) with sharp fractures, lithics, fragments of animal bones, incl. burnt ones, and molluscs, was uncovered at adepth of 2–20 cm below the ground surface (fig. 4: A). This layer, designated SU2, was located mostly in the south -western corner and along the eastern perimeter of the trench. It was overlaid by athin surface layer of drifted sand with numerous pebbles and occasional finds of lithics and pottery (SU1, depth 0–2 cm) and was resting on asterile, massive layer of pebbles (90%) (SU3, depth 20–57 cm) (fig. 4: B). This SU2 possibly represents meagre remains of acultural deposit filling in natural depressions in wadi gravels. Astratigraphic sequence similar to that in Trench 1 was also uncovered in micro -sounding (MS) 2 at the northern edge of Area A. In the remaining three micro -soundings explored in Areas A, B and H, no remains of cultural deposits were detected. This points to only alimited potential of the tested areas for future excavation. In Area H, which featured dense and abundant surface finds, the absence of cultural deposits is evidently the result of advanced deflation of the original archaeological terrain. Fig. 3 Garn el-Tamada, selection of classifiable sherds of pottery. A – Area G, with a wheel-made sherd at the bottom right among fragments with mineral temper and decorated with Rocker Stamp or Simple Impression; B – Area O, western part, with one group of the large quantities of fragments with mineral temper and decorated mostly with Rocker Stamp (photo by L. Varadzin) Fig. 4 Garn el-Tamada, Area A, Trench 1. A – Stratigraphic units after removal of MU2; B – Eastern section of the trench after excavation. See text for more information (photo by L. Varadzin) 34 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXXIII/2024 Area Size (m2)Survey Movable finds Movable finds Stone structures Bedrock features Excavation Category Pottery Lithics Ground stones Other TT M-S A 2,308 basic systematic relatively high abundance, but weathered and fragmented, mostly unclassifiable n=70, mostly MES (Rocker Stamp, incl. DWL), 1 NEOL density 2–5 1 gouge on red rhyolite both lower and upper grinders in high tens or low hundreds; 1 complete stone ring and several pieces reworked from upper grinders 3 (type I) 1 m22 A B 141 basic systematic medium to low abundance, very fragmented and weathered n=6, mostly MES (Rocker Stamp, incl. DWL), also later (organic temper, NEOL, post-NEOL?) density 4–5 both lower and upper grinders in low tens 18 (type I) 1 B C 538 basic systematic scarce to absent n=1 (total sample), post-NEOL density 4–5 less than 10 finds of both lower and upper grinders, all fragments settlement 2 (type I) B D 2,034 basic systematic very low abundance, mostly in the western part n=7, mostly MES, 1 post-NEOL density 4–5 both lower and upper grinders in lower tens, in the western part burial 9 (type I) B E 20 basic systematic medium abundance n=38, all prehistoric, badly weathered, mostly MES (Rocker Stamp) density 3 no lower grinders, less than 10 finds of upper grinders 9 (type I) A F 27 basic systematic medium abundance n=53, 1 post-NEOL (organic temper), the rest prehistoric, mineral temper, badly weathered, mostly MES, 2 NEOL density 1–5 less than 10 finds of both lower and upper grinders 4 (type I) A G 11 basic systematic medium abundance n=15, most prehistoric, mineral temper, MES (Rocker Stamp or Simple Impression), 1 post-NEOL (wheel-made) density 2 less than 10 finds of lower grinders, no upper grinders 4 (type I) A H 44 basic systematic high abundance n=253, most prehistoric, mineral temper, weathered, mostly MES (Rocker Stamp, Simple Impression), some probably NEOL, 1 post-NEOL (organic temper) density 2 less than 10 finds of both lower and upper grinders 3 (type I) 1 A I 190 basic density 5 B J 246 basic density 4–5 B K 15 basic density 4–5 B L 14 basic density 4–5 B M 52 basic density 5 B N 112 basic density 4–5 B O 21,023 basic systematic low abundance (E) and medium to high abundance (W), in patches n=65 (E) and 178 (W), some sherds join together (W), most prehistoric, mineral temper, mostly MES (Rocker Stamp, incl. DWL), also NEOL, 5 post-NEOL density 3–5 also Palaeolithic lower and upper grinders in high(er) tens (E) and lower hundreds (W), incl. a large complete lower grinder on granite; fragment of 1 stone ring from an upper grinder (E) and 1 regular stone ring (W) burial A P 4,860 basic concentrations of large fragments of the same vessels, MES density 1–2 also Palaeolithic comparatively large quantity of stone rings (fragments), many (fragments of) lower and upper grinders, some incorporated into stone structures animal bones settlement, burial 1 (type III) 39 (type IV) 0.5 m2 0.5 m21 A Table 1 Garn el-Tamada (SBK.W-67). Overview of selected quantitative and qualitative data collected during the surface survey in 2022. With Area O, E = eastern part, W = western part. With pottery, MES = Mesolithic, NEOL = Neolithic, post-NEOL = post-Neolithic, DWL = Dotted Wavy Line. With lithic densities, 1 = very abundant, 2 = abundant, 3 = frequent, 4 = infrequent, 5 = scarce to absent. With bedrock features, the number of features per area is indicated, with specification of the type of supports following in parentheses: I = bedrock outcrops, III = large blocks or slabs requiring special effort to transport, IV = smaller 35L. VARADZINOVÁ– L. VARADZIN– I. CREVECOEUR– N. MARTIN– S. HASSAN Area Size (m2)Survey Movable finds Movable finds Stone structures Bedrock features Excavation Category Pottery Lithics Ground stones Other TT M-S A 2,308 basic systematic relatively high abundance, but weathered and fragmented, mostly unclassifiable n=70, mostly MES (Rocker Stamp, incl. DWL), 1 NEOL density 2–5 1 gouge on red rhyolite both lower and upper grinders in high tens or low hundreds; 1 complete stone ring and several pieces reworked from upper grinders 3 (type I) 1 m22 A B 141 basic systematic medium to low abundance, very fragmented and weathered n=6, mostly MES (Rocker Stamp, incl. DWL), also later (organic temper, NEOL, post-NEOL?) density 4–5 both lower and upper grinders in low tens 18 (type I) 1 B C 538 basic systematic scarce to absent n=1 (total sample), post-NEOL density 4–5 less than 10 finds of both lower and upper grinders, all fragments settlement 2 (type I) B D 2,034 basic systematic very low abundance, mostly in the western part n=7, mostly MES, 1 post-NEOL density 4–5 both lower and upper grinders in lower tens, in the western part burial 9 (type I) B E 20 basic systematic medium abundance n=38, all prehistoric, badly weathered, mostly MES (Rocker Stamp) density 3 no lower grinders, less than 10 finds of upper grinders 9 (type I) A F 27 basic systematic medium abundance n=53, 1 post-NEOL (organic temper), the rest prehistoric, mineral temper, badly weathered, mostly MES, 2 NEOL density 1–5 less than 10 finds of both lower and upper grinders 4 (type I) A G 11 basic systematic medium abundance n=15, most prehistoric, mineral temper, MES (Rocker Stamp or Simple Impression), 1 post-NEOL (wheel-made) density 2 less than 10 finds of lower grinders, no upper grinders 4 (type I) A H 44 basic systematic high abundance n=253, most prehistoric, mineral temper, weathered, mostly MES (Rocker Stamp, Simple Impression), some probably NEOL, 1 post-NEOL (organic temper) density 2 less than 10 finds of both lower and upper grinders 3 (type I) 1 A I 190 basic density 5 B J 246 basic density 4–5 B K 15 basic density 4–5 B L 14 basic density 4–5 B M 52 basic density 5 B N 112 basic density 4–5 B O 21,023 basic systematic low abundance (E) and medium to high abundance (W), in patches n=65 (E) and 178 (W), some sherds join together (W), most prehistoric, mineral temper, mostly MES (Rocker Stamp, incl. DWL), also NEOL, 5 post-NEOL density 3–5 also Palaeolithic lower and upper grinders in high(er) tens (E) and lower hundreds (W), incl. a large complete lower grinder on granite; fragment of 1 stone ring from an upper grinder (E) and 1 regular stone ring (W) burial A P 4,860 basic concentrations of large fragments of the same vessels, MES density 1–2 also Palaeolithic comparatively large quantity of stone rings (fragments), many (fragments of) lower and upper grinders, some incorporated into stone structures animal bones settlement, burial 1 (type III) 39 (type IV) 0.5 m2 0.5 m21 A blocks transportable without special equipment by four persons or less (classification after David 1998). Category refers only to the Mesolithic evidence and assigns the areas to one of the two site categories following the criteria defined in Varadzinová et al. (2021): A = main area with substantial density and quantity of the three main categories of finds (lithics, pottery, ground stones) suggesting long-term or repeated occupation and probable residential function, B = ephemeral location with an incomplete spectrum and/or low density of finds, suggesting limited use and/or non-residential function 36 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXXIII/2024 While no detailed quantitative data (except for surface densities of lithics) are available for the remaining Areas I–N and P (fig. 2), the data collected during the basic survey still provide important hints as to the history of occupation of these locations (table 1). In two narrow elongated areas within the outcrop marked as Areas Iand J (190 m2 and 246 m2, respectively), only thin scatters of fragments of vein quartz, in some cases with evidence of striking, but no other remains of human presence, were recorded, suggesting the two areas may have been used to test the quality of this raw material for lithic production. Only very low densities of lithics and other remains were also recorded in Areas K–N distributed between Areas Aand Oalong the southern foot of the granite outcrop, suggesting that the use of these comparatively small areas (measuring between 14 m2 and 112 m2) in the past might have been limited as to its duration or the spectrum of activities performed within their limits. Markedly different findings were made when surveying the comparatively large level platform set within the south -eastern part of the granite outcrop (fig. 5). This Area P (4,860 m 2 ) was found to feature among the highest densities of lithics at the site, in addition to high abundance of Mesolithic pottery, with concentrations of large fragments of the same vessels, significant quantities of grinding -milling tools and their fragments, numerous fragments of stone rings, and singular finds of earlier lithics, including one Middle Stone (or even Early Stone) Age sandstone handaxe. 2 In the south -central part of the platform, alarge concen2 No Neolithic pottery was noted during this first survey of the area. Nevertheless, given its presence, even if in meagre quantities, in most of the assemblages collected in the systematically surveyed platforms, its presence also in Area P cannot be excluded. Fig. 5 Garn el-Tamada, view from top of a hill in the southern part of the granite outcrop towards southwest, showing the locations of three occupation platforms with evidence of significant Khartoum Mesolithic settlement. In Area P, a white oval indicates the location of feature F.1, white dots pinpoint some of the identified grinding tables and slabs, and white numbers point to grinding tables no. 1 and 23 shown in detail on figures 7 and 8A, respectively (photo by L. Varadzin, updated by L. Varadzinová) 43L. VARADZINOVÁ– L. VARADZIN– I. CREVECOEUR– N. MARTIN– S. HASSAN In total, twelve funerary deposits (burials) were identified in Trench 29. While one of them (B.14) was already known from Trench 22 explored in 2017 and 2018 (fig. 12: D), the remaining units constituted new finds and were assigned numbers in asequence introduced for this site (B.28–B.37). The burials were found in all squares but were not distributed evenly. They formed four spatial groups within the excavated area, with some of the units occurring Fig. 11 Fox Hill, Platform 3, Trench 29. A – Upper part of the deposit at a depth of 20 cm (MU2), with remains of the light grey-brown silty layer (SU2) at the base of which the first stratigraphic units – features (F), burials (B) – and scattered fragments of human bones (black stars) could be identified; B – Lower part of the deposit (after MU3, depth 25–30 cm) in the course of excavation, with indicated locations of other features, some of which were found to constitute burial structures (orthophoto by J. Unger using photographs by L. Varadzin, updated by L. Varadzinová) 44 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXXIII/2024 45L. VARADZINOVÁ– L. VARADZIN– I. CREVECOEUR– N. MARTIN– S. HASSAN in astratigraphic relation to one another. Five units (B.14/F.100, B.28, B.34, B.32/F.98, and B.33/F.98) clustered in the northern and north -eastern part of the trench (Squares A, B, and D) (figs. 11: B, 12: A, C, D), four units (B.20b, B.35, B.36/F.101, B.37) formed agroup in the central part of the trench (Squares C, E, and F) (figs. 11: B, 12: F), one unit (B.29/F.75) was situated at the western to south -western edge of the excavated area (Squares E and G) (figs. 11: B, 12: B), and two units (B.30, B.31) were confined to the south -eastern corner of the trench (Square H). Of the latter two units, B.31 was situated partly beyond the eastern limit of the excavated area (fig. 12: E), indicating continuation of the burial ground further to the east. Of the twelve funerary deposits, nine were associated with avisible grave pit and/or asubsurface structure made of pieces of granite placed around or above the human remains (fig. 12: B–D, F)– these were designated as features and were assigned unique numbers in the sequence established for the site. Where burial position could be assessed, the individuals had their lower limbs in acontracted (n=3) or hypercontracted (n=4) position and were placed on their right (n=5) or left (n=1) side, and, in one case, on the back with the lower limbs turned to the left (fig.12: A, B, D, F). Other three units may also represent the remains of primary deposits based on some preserved anatomical connection or anatomical coherence of the skeletal elements to one another, but the original burial position of these individuals could not be reconstructed due to substantial incompleteness of the human remains (e.g. fig. 12: E). This group also includes the fragmented and very weathered remains of the left upper limb and fragments of the cranium, mandible, and teeth found within an ovoid pit structure delimited by stones that were found at aplace where the upper part of body of individual B.20 recorded along the eastern limit of Trench 22 were lifted from the deposits in 2018 (Varadzinová– Varadzin 2020: 124, fig. 2a; see F.74 in fig. 11: B). As they were markedly more weathered and recorded in aposition inconsistent with the extended position of the lower limbs of B.20 in the former trench, the human remains in Trench 29 were designated as B.20b to indicate that the two units might not be associated. Of the remaining two burial units, B.32 refers to the cranial and postcranial remains of one individual that were contained in the same structure (F.98) as primary deposit B.33 but lacking anatomical connection (see fig. 11: B). The remains, highly weathered and fragmented, were gathered along the northern and north -eastern perimeter of the structure where they might have been redeposited upon interment of the latter individual. While B.32 fulfils the characteristics of asecondary deposit, the type of deposit remains uncertain with B.34, of which only the skull and upper part of the body with some preserved anatomical connections ← Fig. 12 Fox Hill, Platform 3, Trench 29, selection of burials. A – Burial B.28 on the solid granite boulder, with evidence of disturbance in the area of the skull (now missing); the white oval marks the location of the pit-shaped feature possibly associated with feature F.109; B – Burial B.29 within structure F.75; C – Burial B.34 consisting of the skull and upper part of the body in a very constricted space between granite boulders; D – Burial B.14, whose calva was found projecting from the eastern section of Trench 22 and carefully removed from the deposit in 2018; E – Burial B.31 in the south-eastern corner of Trench 29, of which only chest, vertebral column and part of a humerus were recorded, with the lower part of the body missing and the skull and the rest of the upper part situated beyond the eastern limit of the excavated area; F – Burial B.35 superimposed over burial B.37, with the grave pit of the former outlined on one side with granite cobbles and fragments of grinders and that of the latter still partly filled with stones. Small white arrows point to grinders and lithics found in contact with the human remains or incorporated within the stone structures associated with human burials (photos by L. Varadzin (A, B, D–F) and I. Crevecoeur (C)) 46 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXXIII/2024 were found in avery confined space between granite blocks in Square A, but no traces of– and even space for– the rest of the body (fig. 12: C). The processes that might have led to the formation of this specific deposit require further investigation. The human remains uncovered in Trench 29 differed in their state of preservation, with the integrity of the deposits affected by both natural (bioturbation, weathering) and cultural (truncation, destruction) factors and processes. The state of preservation has also limited the possibilities of estimation of sex and age without an in -depth anthropological study. For this reason, only tentative assessment of age could be made in the field based on bone maturation stages with ten individuals, of which eight were assessed as adults, with five possibly older than 30 years, and two as immatures. In some of the funerary deposits, lower and upper grinders, including some large ones made of granite, and larger pieces of lithics were found placed over the skeletal remains (e.g. B.14/F.100, B.28) or incorporated into the burial structures (e.g. B.29/F.75, B.35) (fig. 12). Apart from that, there were no finds that could be unequivocally considered as grave goods. In this regard, an interesting assemblage of several large fish and animal bones, fragments of incised wavy line pottery, and large flaked lithic artefacts was found in apit -shaped feature on the side of the large, inclined granite boulder by the northern section in Square B. While first considered to be associated with B.28, at the bottom of whose deposit it was first detected (fig. 12: A),3 subsequent cleaning of the area after collection of these finds identified long human bones surrounded by several granite cobbles and extending beyond the northern limit of the excavated area, indicating that the peculiar assemblage might rather be associated with another burial unit. Designated as feature F.109 for the time being (figs. 11: B, 12: C), this feature containing human remains was only documented and subsequently covered by fine sediment to preserve the finds for excavation in one of the subsequent field campaigns. The sediment surrounding the human remains and/or filling in the grave pits was found to contain diverse categories of settlement debris. Similar finds were more common in the archaeological deposit outside the graves, which shows that the grave pits had been excavated within an earlier settlement deposit, with the finds introduced into the vicinity of human burials during backfilling of the graves. The same is confirmed by stratigraphic observations. In many parts of the trench the settlement remains had been reduced and reworked in connection with deposition of the burials, with portions of both settlement layers and non -funerary features remaining in the space between the burial units. More substantial settlement remains in situ were preserved in Squares G and H in the southern part of the trench. Here we uncovered features F.96 and F.102 (fig. 11: A, B) associated with distinct settlement layers (SU3, and SU5 and SU11, respectively) and obtained large quantities of settlement debris, in particular lithics, fragments of ground stones, pottery, animal bones and teeth, but also fragments of worked bone and shell, pigment, lumps of clay, and mica. Several unusual finds were also retrieved from these two squares, including three fragments of the same pointed bone tool (fig. 13: A) and afew sherds with typical dotted wavy line decoration but locally unusual organic temper (fig. 13: B, C). Afragment of granite with asmooth concave grinding surface and part of atwo -sided lower grinder on granite were also found associated with the settlement remains in the southern part of the trench (fig. 13: D, E), suggesting amore frequent employment of the local microgranite for grinding on this platform. 3 This assemblage was registered as find no. 44 in the sequence of finds in the area of B.28. 47L. VARADZINOVÁ– L. VARADZIN– I. CREVECOEUR– N. MARTIN– S. HASSAN Fig. 13 Fox Hill, Platform 3, Trench 29. A – Nearly complete pointed bone tool found in three fragments in the upper part of Square H; B, C – Sherds of pottery decorated with the dotted wavy line motif with organic temper from the upper part of Square H; D, E – Views from top and side of a fragment of lower grinder on granite with two active surfaces (see arrows) that formed part of feature F.102 in Square H (photos by L. Varadzin) In Trench 30, atest pit excavated at the very southern edge of Platform 3 (fig. 10), asimple stratigraphic sequence was revealed, consisting of two stratigraphic units beneath the colluvial surface layer (SU1, depth 0–7 cm): an upper light grey, silty, very indurated layer, containing granite grus (40%), Mesolithic and Neolithic pottery, and frequent lithics (SU2, max. depth 18–21 cm) and, beneath it, acoarse granite grus formed by in situ disintegration of granite boulders (SU3). At adepth of 29–32 cm beneath surface, human bones that were part of aburial in situ (B.38) were found projecting from the southern section of the trench (fig. 14: A). Only the lower limbs in acontracted position were recorded, with most of the burial situated beyond the limit of the excavated area (fig. 14: B). The burial was surrounded by light brown -grey to grey silty sediment, slightly to moderately indurated, containing granite grus (40–50%) and 48 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXXIII/2024 finds of lithics, pottery, and sparingly animal bones (SU4). Alarge piece of granite with one surface featuring asmoothed, slightly concave working area and afragment of asandstone lower grinder were placed with the working area upwards directly on the human remains (fig. 14: A). In the north -western corner of the test pit, at adepth of 29–42 cm, brown silty sediment featuring asmall quantity of granite grus and only slight induration (SU5) formed the fill of one of the depressions in the weathered granite bedrock, where an animal burrow with fine yellow -brown laminated sediment was also found. SIGNIFICANCE Trenches 29 and 30 excavated at Fox Hill made it possible to approximate the perimeter of the burial ground on Platform 3, which probably extended as far as the very eastern and southern limits of this platform (see fig. 10). With the reported field campaign, the total number of burial units on Platform 3 increased to 37 (B.1–B.3 and B.5–B.38).4 Nevertheless, this total represents only aminimum number of individuals once buried at this place as an unknown number of other individuals may be concealed in the unexcavated sectors of the southern part of Platform3 and among the numerous fragments of human bones and teeth found scattered throughout the archaeological deposit in Trench 29 as well as in Trenches 3, 21, and 22 explored in previous field campaigns (Varadzinová– Varadzin 2020; Varadzinováetal. 2022b). At least twelve individuals were recorded in Trench 29 (8 m2), with the average density of 1.5 individuals per 1 m2 in this trench even exceeding the already high density noted in adjacent Trench 22 (1.08 individuals per 1 m2; Varadzinováetal. 2022b). As in the latter trench, the burials in Trench 29 were distributed unevenly, appearing either as isolated units or in clusters. Stratigraphic sequences of up to three burial events were recorded. The later events often 4 Burial B.4, which is part of the same sequence of numbers, was recorded on Platform 14 (see Suková– Varadzin 2012; Varadzinová– Varadzin 2020). Fig. 14 Fox Hill, Platform 3, Trench 30. A – Test trench after excavation to bedrock; 1 = burial B.38, 2 = fragment of a sandstone lower grinder, 3 = piece of granite with a smoothed, slightly concave surface (scale = 1m); B – Lower limbs of B.38 after cleaning (photo by L. Varadzin) 49L. VARADZINOVÁ– L. VARADZIN– I. CREVECOEUR– N. MARTIN– S. HASSAN involved reduction of the earlier inhumations and redeposition of the earlier remains into later deposits, attesting to acomplex history of burial depositions at the site. Reincorporation of skeletal elements from earlier burials into later units was also present at the site of Sphinx, where at least 28 groups of redeposited human remains (secondary depositions, SD) were uncovered in the southern part of the settlement platform and in the northern shelter, in addition to 41 primary depositions (PD) (e.g. Varadzinová– Varadzin 2017; Varadzinováetal. 2022a; Brukner Havelkováetal. 2022). Based on arobust series of direct AMS radiocarbon dates on enamel apatite, the burial ground at Sphinx has been dated into awell -defined burial phase from ca. 6700 to ca. 5900 cal BC (Varadzinováetal. 2023a). At Fox Hill, on the other hand, there are indications that the southern part of Platform 3 might have been used for burying over amuch longer period of time, including not only the Khartoum Mesolithic, dated in Jebel Sabaloka to ca. 8750–4750 cal BC (Varadzinováetal. 2023a), but also the Early Neolithic, dated broadly in central Sudan to ca. 5000–3800 BC (Garcea 2020)– the latter is suggested by burial B.19 in Trench 22 at Fox Hill with stone beads retrieved from the sediment surrounding the skeletal remains of an infant (see Varadzinová– Varadzin 2020; Varadzinováetal. 2022b) and now also by burial B.28 in Trench 29 found surrounded by the loose silty sediment containing mixed Mesolithic and Neolithic pottery fragments. The presence of Neolithic burials at the place of an earlier hunter -gatherer burial ground suggests apersistence of this burial location across the Mesolithic -Neolithic transition that could indicate some form of cultural continuity between these two epochs. The latter has been adebated topic both in prehistoric archaeology of the Sudan (e.g. Garcea 2020) as well as in biological anthropology that focuses on whether the biological differences observed during this transition are related to in situ micro -evolutionary processes or population changes (e.g. Anderson 1968; Carlson– Van Gerven 1977; Irish 2005; Gallandetal. 2016; Benoistonetal. 2018; Irish– Usai 2021). In this context, once direct chronometric dating and cultural attribution of the human burials at Fox Hill is completed, the confirmed Neolithic individuals from this site may extend the possibilities of studying the Neolithization in central Sudan, including the question of biological affinity of the Neolithic herders to the earlier hunter -gatherer populations in the region (Martinetal. 2024). The same dates will also make it possible to address the question of behavioural vs. chronological variability in burial practices at Fox Hill and between individual prehistoric burial sites in Sabaloka West. While human burials constitute most conspicuous remains of former human presence in the southern part of Platform 3, Trench 29 provides further evidence that the burial area was first used for settlement during the Khartoum Mesolithic. As in other trenches on Platform 3 (see Varadzinováetal. 2022b), the archaeological deposit in Trench 29 has widely preserved visible stratigraphy, which is not as common at prehistoric sites in the western part of Jebel Sabaloka and which significantly extends the possibilities of reconstructing the past human uses of the site. While small portions of settlement layers and non -funerary features were identified in -between some of the burials in Trench 29, larger remnants of both features and layers were recorded in Squares G and H. Among them, SU3, SU5, and SU11 are of particular interest with a view to their association with distinct features, the peculiar distribution and character of finds found within them, and their stratigraphic relation to human remains at the site. Completion of study of the find assemblages and radiocarbon dating of organic remains from these units is indispensable for establishing the extent and timing of both types of 50 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXXIII/2024 activities– settlement and burying– within Fox Hill and for addressing the question of their contemporaneity or, as the case may be, changes in the use of some areas of the site over time. CONCLUSION During three weeks in the autumn of 2022, important findings and observations were gathered in the western part of Jebel Sabaloka through the two lines of research pursued in the region since the autumn of 2011. With Garn el -Tamada, explored for the first time only in 2022, anew major Khartoum Mesolithic site emerges in the geographically distinctive settlement landscape under study, providing further evidence of persistence of human presence on certain Khartoum Mesolithic sites in Sabaloka located further from the Nile also during the Early Neolithic and unprecedented finds which indicate that structured spatial arrangements may have been present at some of the late prehistoric settlements in this region. At Fox Hill, one of the two most important and best investigated sites in the research area, further evidence has been brought to light concerning the marked complexity and variability of late prehistoric burial practices in central Sudan, together with new data relevant for establishing both spatial and temporal extent of the burial ground in the southern part of Platform 3 and its relation to settlement stratigraphies. Detailed evaluation of the field observations combined with specialized study of the material finds and radiocarbon dating of distinct settlement and burial contexts is in progress and is bound to enrich the current understanding of late prehistory of the region as regards both the diversity of the hunter -gatherer way of life and the complexity of the Mesolithic -Neolithic transition in central Sudan. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums of the Sudan for their long -term support to the Sabaloka (West Bank) Research Project of the Charles University in Prague. The field research in 2022 was made possible thanks to the financial support from the Cooperatio Programme provided by Charles University, research area Archaeology, implemented at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University, and from the International Research Project ABASC (2020–2024) funded by the CNRS -INEE, France. This report forms part of the research project on “Settlement and social networks of early Holocene hunter -gatherers of the Eastern Sahel: the case of Jebel Sabaloka in central Sudan” supported by the Czech Science Foundation (no. GAČR 23-06488S, 2023–2025). BIBLIOGRAPHY Almond, DavidC.– Ahmed, Farouk 1993 Field Guide to the Geology of the Sabaloka Inlier, Central Sudan, Khartoum: University of Khartoum. Anderson, James E. 1968 “Late Paleolithic skeletal remains from Nubia”, in: Wendorf, Fred (ed.). Prehistory of Nubia, Vol. II, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, pp. 996–1040. 51L. VARADZINOVÁ– L. VARADZIN– I. CREVECOEUR– N. MARTIN– S. HASSAN Benoiston, Anne -Sophie– Bayle, Priscilla– Crevecoeur, Isabelle 2018 “Biological affinity of the Mesolithic and Neolithic populations from El -Barga, Sudan: The dental remains”, in: Honegger, M. (ed.). Nubian Archaeology in the XXIst Century. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference for Nubian Studies, Neuchâtel, 1st–6th September 2014, Leuven– Paris– Bristol, CT: Peeters, pp. 805–817. Boulestin, Bruno– Duday, Henri 2006 “Ethnology and Archaeology of Death: From the Illusion of References to the Use of aTerminology”, Archaeologia Polona 44, pp. 149–169. Borcowski, Zbigniew– Welsby, Derek 2012 “The Merowe Dam Archaeological Salvage Project (MDASP): Provisional type seris of monuments”, in: Wotzka, Hans -Peter (ed.). Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Archaeology of the Fourth Nile Cataract. University of Cologne, 13–14 July 2006, Köln: Heinrich -Barth Institut [Africa Praehistorica 22], pp. 15–32. Brukner Havelková, Petra– Crevecoeur, Isabelle– Villotte, Sébastien– Velemínský, Petr– Varadzin, Ladislav– Varadzinová, Lenka 2022 “Palaeodemography and palaeopathology of Khartoum Mesolithic skeletal remains from Jebel Sabaloka in central Sudan: first insights from the site of Sphinx”, Journal of the National Museum (Prague), Natural History Series 192, pp. 65–82. Carlson, David S.– Van Gerven, Dennis P. 1979 “Diffusion, Biological Determinism, and Biocultural Adaptation in the Nubian Corridor”, American Anthropologist 81/3, pp. 561–580 (https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1979.81.3.02a00030). David, Nicolas 1998 “The Ethnoarchaeology and Field Archaeology of Grinding at Sukur, Adamawa State, Nigeria”, African Archaeological Review 15, pp. 13–63 (https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022270208256). Duday, Henri 2009 The Archaeology of the Dead. Lectures in Archaeothanatology, Oxford: Oxbow Books. Galland, Manon– Van Gerven, Dennis P.– Von Cramon -Taubadel, Noreen– Pinhasi, Ron 2016 “11,000 years of craniofacial and mandibular variation in Lower Nubia”, Scientific Reports 6/1, 31040 (https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31040). Garcea, Elena A. A. 2020 The Prehistory of the Sudan, Cham: Springer International Publishing. Garcea, Elena A. A.– D’Ercole, Giulia– Varadzin, Ladislav– Varadzinová, Lenka 2023 “Pottery and settlement dynamics in the late prehistory of Jebel Sabaloka: Results of the 2019 season”, in: Kabaciński, Jacek– Winiarska -Kabacińska, Malgorzata– Chłodnicki, Marek (eds.). Society and Subsistence in the Prehistory of Northeastern Africa. Papers in Honor of Romuald Schild, Poznań: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology and Poznań Archaeological Museum [Studies in African Archaeology 17], pp. 163–180. Irish, JoelD. 2005 “Population continuity vs. discontinuity revisited: Dental affinities among late Paleolithic through Christian -era Nubians”, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 128/3, pp. 520–535 (https://doi. org/10.1002/ajpa.20109). 52 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXXIII/2024 Irish, JoelD.– Usai, Donatella 2021 “The transition from hunting–gathering to agriculture in Nubia: Dental evidence for and against selection, population continuity and discontinuity”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 288/1952, 20210969 (https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.0969). Kapustka, Katarína 2017 “The lithics from Sphinx”, Sudan & Nubia 21, pp. 36–38, 48–49. Krzyżaniak, Lech 2011 “Changes in the natural environment between 8000 and 3000 BC”, in: Chłodnicki, Marek– Kobusiewicz, Michał– Kroeper, Karla (eds.). The Lech Krzyżaniak Excavations in the Sudan, Poznań: Poznań Archaeological Museum [Studies in African Archaeology 10], pp. 17–38. Martin, Nicolas– Thibeault, Adrien– Varadzinová, Lenka– Ambrose, Stanley H.– Antoine, Daniel– Brukner Havelková, Petra– Honegger, Matthieu– Irish, JoelD.– Osypiński, Piotr– Usai, Donatella– Vanderesse, Nicolas– Varadzin, Ladislav– Whiting, Rebecca J.– Velemínský, Petr– Crevecoeur, Isabelle 2024 “From hunter -gatherers to food producers: New dental insdights into the Nile Valley population history (Late Paleolithic–Neolithic)”, American Journal of Biological Anthropology 184/4, e24948 (https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24948). Parker Pearson, Mike 1999 The Archaeology of Death and Burial, Texas: Texas A & M University Press. Rosenberg, Danny– Nadel, Dani 2017 “‘Down to bedrock’– General perspectives on bedrock features”, Quaternary International 439, pp. 1–4 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.05.033). Suková, Lenka– Cílek, Václav 2012 “The Landscape and Archaeology of Jebel Sabaloka and the Sixth Nile Cataract, Sudan”, Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica: Natural Sciences in Archaeology III/2, pp. 189–201. Suková, Lenka– Cílek, Václav– Lisá, Lenka– Lisý, Pavel– Murtada Bushara 2010 “Report on the geoarchaeological survey in the area of Sabaloka, the Sixth Nile Cataract, Sudan”, Studia Oecologica III, pp. 40–53. Suková, Lenka– Varadzin, Ladislav 2012 “Preliminary report on the exploration of Jebel Sabaloka (West Bank), 2009–2012”, Sudan & Nubia 16, pp. 118–131. Varadzinová, Lenka– Varadzin, Ladislav 2017 “Sabaloka (West Bank) Research Project. Exploration of the site of Sphinx (SBK.W-60): findings of the 2014 and 2015 field seasons”, Sudan & Nubia 21, pp. 23–33, 48–49. 2020 “The First Notes on the Second Khartoum Mesolithic Cemetery at Jebel Sabaloka (Sudan)”, Archaeologia Polona 58, pp. 121–134. Varadzinová, Lenka– Varadzin, Ladislav– Kapustka, Katarína– Pacina, Jan 2018 “Výzkum lokality Liščí kopec (SBK.W-20) vpohoří Sabaloka: poznatky zvýzkumné sezóny 2017“, Pražské egyptologické studie 20, pp. 35–45.