Tohamy Abulgasim and Dana AlSalamin joined the MAEASaM project in January 2024 and December 2023 respectively and are based at the University of Cambridge. Here they give readers an insight into their work, part of which is using ‘legacy data’ to help map archaeological sites in Sudan.
What is ‘legacy data’?
Legacy data is the material we gather from existing sources about the location and function of archaeological sites. Sources include everything from archaeological surveys to project reports, authored by credible and experienced professionals.
How do we use this data?
First, we abstract the data from the source. This literally involves choosing a source and reading through it. Once we find a site mentioned, we assign it a MAEASaM identification number, for example ‘SITE-SDN-00000001’, and note down the publication details (date, author, digital object identifier (DOI) etc). We then extract key pieces of information about the site: its coordinates if there are any, its geometry and condition, its landowners, its relationship to other sites, its chronology, the environment, the history of research, associated intangible heritage, and the name of the recorder (e.g. Tohamy or Dana). We also collect information on historic and contemporary threats to the site, as this is one of MAEASaM’s major objectives alongside the geometry. At the same time as data collection, we perform data entry, which essentially means inserting this data into a shared Excel spreadsheet with the same categories.
Then we mark the site’s geometry. It’s complicated to explain, but this step requires us to use Google Earth Pro and QGIS to identify the site using the coordinates we found in the source. If the source author didn’t note any coordinates (as is frequently the case) we use the other contextual information as primary identifiers. Once we’ve found the site, we ‘pin’ it on to the project’s digital map.
To ensure accuracy, we conduct regular auditing sessions. This is ‘collaborative correction’: a process by which we join forces with the wider MAEASaM research team, then divide ourselves into smaller groups to scrutinise and cross-check each other’s data. This is an important step because the aim of our mapping endeavours is to make our work open access. In other words, other people will be using our resource model, and we need to ensure that the data we provide is fully accurate and reliable. Indeed, the needs of our future user base requires us to be painstaking in our attention to detail throughout the cycle.
Here’s an overview of the process applied to our work for Sudan:
Sudan is one of the largest countries in Africa. To build up legacy data of any country, you need to start small, choosing one area or region, mapping the sites comprehensively and accurately, and then moving out from there.
We wanted to start by mapping as many sites in one region as possible, and we chose Darfur, which is in western Sudan.
To do this, we used two of the best (and frankly two of the only) sources on Darfuri heritage: firstly, which is a PhD thesis written by Sudanese archaeologist, Prof Ibrahim Musa (Tohamy’s source), and secondly, the A.J. Arkell archives (Dana’s source). Prof Musa was former director of Sudan’s National Corporation of Antiquities and Museums, and lecturer throughout Sudan and Yemen; Arkell was a British archaeologist and colonial administrator in Sudan from the 1920s to 1940s and had experience working in Darfur.
Image 1 (below) shows an image from Arkell’s archive, specifically a picture he took in 1936 of a site called Ayn Farah, which was once the capital of the Tunjur Kingdom (15th – 17th centuries CE). The image is blurry but detailed – it shows the shape and characteristics of the site and its location in the context of a hill or mountain.
This is therefore a piece of legacy data that we could use to find Ayn Farah on Google Earth and pin it to our map – which is what we successfully did (see image 2 below).
Our reflections on working with legacy data so far
In the months we’ve been working on this, we’ve identified two major barriers to working with legacy data for Sudan:
- The first barrier is that there is a dearth of existing sources on Sudan’s archaeological sites outside of the Nile Valley. One reason for this is because interest in Sudan initially grew out of scholarly focus with Pharaonic Egypt. Beginning in the Old Kingdom (c. 2650-2170 BCE), Egyptian kings developed trade networks in northern Sudan – which they called ‘Nubia’ and ‘Kush’ – and which would eventually annex riverine Sudan to its empire in the New Kingdom (c. 1550-1070 BCE). Archaeologists from the 18th century CE onwards therefore focused their efforts on finding monumental relics in and around the valley, spurning adjacent landscapes. Fast-forward to the 21st century and this uneven understanding of Sudan’s archaeological landscape has continued, exacerbated by post-colonial warfare and instability throughout the non-central regions of the country, particularly Darfur.
- The second barrier is one that we anticipate, which is that there will be a delay in the production of new sources on Sudan’s archaeological sites in general, again due to conflict. In late 2018 Sudan’s civilians launched a revolution against the dictator Gen. Omar al-Bashir and his Islamist state, before the military conducted a coup in 2021. In April 2023 fighting broke out again between the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and paramilitary group the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). As of April 2024, almost 10m people have been displaced. Calamity on such a scale has prevented both Sudanese and Western archaeologists from conducting research, particularly in conflict hubs such as Darfur, and, sadly, it is unlikely much will change any time soon.
Notwithstanding these obstacles, and despite the sheer size of Darfur at almost 500,000km² (!), we are making good and steady progress. Our task will be to continue with these efforts, maintain our collaborative approach, refine our process and consequently expand our resource model as we go.