Alan Sorrell: Archaeological illustrator of Nubia and illustrator of archaeologists.

The ongoing Wunderkammer exhibition at Southend Central Museum also includes some fascinating pictures of the UNESCO Campaign to save the Monuments of Nubia by local painter Alan Sorrell. I mentioned these briefly in my review of the exhibition, but they are sufficiently interesting to merit another post.

Painting of the frontage of the Great Temple of Abu Simbel with a view to the south in the background.
Looking upriver across the frontage of the Great Temple of Abu Simbel, as painted by Alan Sorrell in 1962 (Author photograph from the Wunderkammer exhibition).

Alan Sorrell (1907-1974)

I had briefly heard of Alan Sorrell thanks to my work in British Archaeology. Sorrell was a prolific artist specialising in archaeological illustration. If you’ve seen a reconstruction of an archaeological site, medieval abbey, or castle in an older book or exhibition in the UK it was probably done by Alan Sorrell. Sorrell was born in 1904 in South London and brought up in Westcliff in Southend. Several volumes have been written about the life and work of Alan Sorrell. Here I have used information from Llewellyn and Sorrell (eds.) 2013, and Sorrell and Sorrell (2018). From the age of 10, Sorrell attended Chalkwell Hall School, just a short distance from where I am writing this post. His artistic skill developed from a relatively early age, attending Southend Municipal Art School from age 14 and subsequently working for a commercial art studio. Following a scholarship in 1925, he put himself through the Royal College of Art by undertaking commercial commissions on the side. After a stint at the British School at Rome and various professional commissions and accolades, Sorrell created his first set of historical reconstructions for a set of panels in Southend library 1933-38. Having encountered archaeology and archaeologists in Rome, Sorrell’s first archaeological commission was an image of the excavations at Leicester published in The Illustrated London News in 1937. After World War II his career in archaeological reconstruction and illustration expanded with the corresponding increase in archaeological excavations and Sorrell published many history books as an artist and coauthor, providing reconstruction drawings in collaboration with archaeologists and historians including Anthony Birley, Aileen Fox, and Margaret Drower.

Sara Perry and Matthew Johnson deconstructed Sorrell’s collaborative process for generating reconstruction drawings in their contribution, Alan Sorrell as Reconstruction Artist: ‘Making dry bones live’ to Llewellyn and Sorrell’s (2013) edited volume. Perry and Johnson (2013, 145-9) reveal that Sorrell undertook considerable research for his reconstructions, before sending drafts to the relevant archaeological collaborator for further comments, questions, and ammendations. The information flowed both ways. In the process of creating his reconstructions, Sorrell would identify problems or questions archaeologists had not considered and sometimes provided useful insights and suggestions from his experience (Sorrell and Sorrell 2018). Later in his career, Sorrell published a variety of books of his reconstructions of British Castles, Roman London, Roman Towns in Britain, Early Wales, and Living History.

Drawings of Nubia and the UNESCO campaign

Until the Wunderkammer exhibition, I didn’t know that Alan Sorrell painted the Nubian monuments and the archaeologists recording and moving them. According to Sorrell and Sorrell (2018, 177) Alan Sorrell’s interest in Nubia developed after working with Emery on a reconstruction of the Middle Kingdom fortress of Buhen for The Illustrated London News in 1962. The ILN was subsequently prevailed upon to sponsor Sorrell’s trip to Nubia and he was provided with suitable letters of recommendation to the international missions working in the area. During his two months in Egypt, Sorrell made 62 paintings. These were later purchased as a set by F. D. Todman, of Rayleigh and bequeathed to the Beecroft Art Gallery in Southend upon his death.

View of the temples of Abu Simbel from the south showing their original position.
The temples of Abu Simbel as painted by Alan Sorrell in 1962 (Author photograph from the Wunderkammer exhibition).

A small group of Alan Sorrell’s paintings of Nubia and the UNESCO campaign are featured in the Wunderkammer exhibition. These focus on images of Abu Simbel, the most famous poster-child for the UNESCO campaign, and are dominated by an absolutely spectacular landscape (above) showing the two Abu Simbel temples alongside the Nile in their original setting surrounding by tourists, Nubians and archaeologists. Another view shows the landscape downriver with the frontage of the great temple in the right foreground (top). As a landscape archaeologist I was hugely excited to see these images. Although 19th century views of Abu Simbel are relatively common in books and exhibitions, 20th century photographs and paintings are much less frequently reproduced. Where they are shown they often focus upon the temples to the exclusion of the landscape. Seeing the temples within the landscape, so close to the Nile and in the context of the sweep of the river really draws out their ancient setting. As a recent photograph shows (below), the setting is rather different now that the temples have been raised to the top of what was a steep cliff. The landscape setting and topographical context of a site provide interesting and important information about how that site was created, perceived, and used. Sources, like the Sorrell paintings, which provide information on the original location and setting of structures that have moved, are of huge interest to me and other landscape archaeologists.

View of the temples of Abu Simbel today showing their new position above Lake Nasser
Abu Simbel now, from a similar position to Sorrell’s 1962 painting of the two temples. (Zakaria Rabia, reproduced under CC BY-SA 4.0, license from Wikimedia Commons
Sketch of a colossus inside the Great Temple of Abu Simbel
Engage statue of Ramesses II inside the Great Temple at Abu Simbel as depicted by Alan Sorrell 1962. (Author photograph at the Wunderkammer exhibition).

There are also several views of the inside of the temples of Abu Simbel, including one showing a modern Nubian looking at a statue of Ramesses II and several studies of statues in the interior (left). There is also the image of archaeologists preparing to drill inside the Great Temple, which was featured in my previous Wunderkammer review. In that review, I noted that these images remind us of the complex history of a discipline like Egyptology, where colonial features may survive alongside modern methods and changing attitudes. Having learned more about the paintings Sorrell made, I wondered what prompted the inclusion of these particular images? According to Sorrell and Sorrell (2018, 179) he drew many images of the Nubian villages (image below) and became increasingly angry that amid the focus on the archaeology, the local Nubians were largely forgotten. The inclusion of one of these images could have focussed upon attitudes to archaeology and local communities and the privileging of archaeological needs above those of a resident community as a colonialist hangover.

‘A drowning land’

Many of Sorrell’s paintings and sketches from his visit to Egypt in 1962 are reproduced in a joint publication with Maragaret Drower, Nubia; A drowning land, published in 1970. This volume tells the history of Nubia as revealed by the excavations undertaken during the UNESCO campaign. The Foreword describes the circumstances of Alan Sorrell’s trip to Egypt. The Introduction and Postscript offer a description and some consideration of the wider causes and implications of the construction of the High Dam and the flooding of c. 300 miles of the Nile valley.

Sketch of a Nubian village showing a canal bridged by palm trunks with stalls on either side and a minaret in the distance.
Sketch of the town of Ballana, made in 1962 by Alan Sorrell. (After Drower 1970, 3)

Nubia; a drowning land still offers a useful introduction to the archaeology of Nubia and the circumstances of the UNESCO campaign for the beginner or casual tourist despite being dated. Archaeological theory and methods have naturally advanced a great deal beyond those mentioned, and the culture-historical approach of Drower’s text is no longer used in current histories. There are other dated features. A modern author would also likely use ‘humanity’ or ‘humankind’ in place of her ‘man’. Such features are to be expected in a book over 50 years old. Nevertheless, Drower’s book provides a useful introduction to the UNESCO campaign, with hints of the types of criticism that would later attend such forced movement of people as the resettlement of the Nubians from their submerged villages (see Tully and Hanna 2013 or Bednarski and Tully 2020 for example).

Sketch of a large mushroom shaped rock surrounded by low cairns. Two individuals are carving into the rock while a donkey caravan moves past in the foreground.
Reconstruction of ancient activities at the ‘rock of offerings’, probably Gebel Tingar, near Aswan, by Alan Sorrell. (After Drower 1970, 15)

The great joy of Drower’s book is the publication of so much of Sorrell’s imagery. Unless you are able to visit the Beecroft Art Gallery in Southend, a copy of Nubia; A drowned land, is your best chance of seeing a large number of Sorrells images of Nubia during the UNESCO campaign. Many of these are extremely illuminating. I had previously read about the ‘Rock of Offerings at Aswan’ as Drower (1907, 15) calls the ‘shrine’ at Gebel Tingar (Weigall 1907, 182; Harrell and Storemyr 2009), but seeing Sorrell’s reconstructive sketch reminded me how much more work needs to be done on these types of small, ‘informal’ structures that formed the focus of many day-to-day rituals and activities. Many will be familiar with Sorrell’s reconstruction of the Fortress of Buhen (Drower 1970, 29) but his sketch of the surviving remains is perhaps even more illuminating (Drower 1970, 28).

An artist worth remembering

Sorrell’s contribution is little known amongst archaeologists of Egypt, but his sketches and paintings remain an important resource for the impact of the High Dam, the UNESCO campaign, and the physical landscape context of so many archaeological structures that have since been moved or lost beneath Lake Nasser. Like any art or photography, his images are not neutral or objective. They present the specific perspective of a given individual, whether they show the archaeologists at work, the archaeology as uncovered, or an archaeology-inspired reconstruction. As such, they also represent the perspectives of the specific period in which he worked. Nevertheless, they are an important historical source for a major event in the archaeology of Egypt and Nubia, and deserve to be better known by those researching Egyptian and Nubian archaeology and the history of Egyptology.


For more details of Sorrell’s life and work see; Sacha Llewellyn and Richard Sorrell, 2013. Alan Sorrell: The Life and Works of an English Neo-Romantic Artist. Sanson and Co: Bristol

For Sorrell’s legacy as an archaeological illustrator see;

Mark Sorrell, 1981. Alan Sorrell: Reconstructing the Past. Batsford.

Julia Sorrell and Mark Sorrell, 2018. Alan Sorrell: The Man Who Created Roman Britain, Oxbow.

Margaret Drower, with illustrations by Alan Sorrell, 1970, Nubia: A drowning land. Longmans.

Weigall, A. 1907. A Report on the Antiquities of Lower Nubia (The first cataract to the Sudan frontier) and their Condition in 1906-7. Oxford University Press.

Harrell, J. A. and Storemyr, P. 2009. Ancient Egyptian quarries – an illustrated overview. In: N. Abu-Jaber, E. G. Bloxam, P. Degryse, and T. Heldal, (eds.) QuarryScapes: Ancient Stone Quarry Landscapes in the Eastern Mediterranean Oslo: NGU, Norges geologiske undersøkelse. 7–50.

For a more recent example of the tension between the needs of archaeology and local communities, focussed upon Luxor, see;

G. Tully, M. Hanna, 2013, “One landscape, many tenants: uncovering multiple claims, visions and meanings on the Theban necropolis”, Archaeologies 9/3: 362–97;

A. Bednarski, and G. Tully, 2020 “Aspects of the relationships between the community of Sheikh Abd al-Qurna and ancient Egyptian monuments”, in V. Davies, D. Laboury, (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Egyptian Epigraphy and Palaeography, New York, 508–22

Posted in Archaeology and Egyptology, Exhibition review, Public archaeology, Traditional and Social Media | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Egyptian Artefacts in the Southend Museum

In my previous post, I reviewed the Wunderkammer exhibition at Southend Museum. This exhibition includes a number of interesting Egyptian artefacts in the Southend Museum collection, which I felt merited their own post. For those visiting the exhibition, the Egyptian artefacts are displayed on glass shelves in a case in the rear right corner of the exhibition room.

Image of Egyptian artefacts in a glass case, including shabtis, cosmetic vases, a faience semi-circle with hieroglyphs, mummy cloth, and faience beads.
Overview of some of the Egyptian artefacts in the Wunderkammer exhibition. (Author photograph)
Image of a portrait of Charles Nicholson I, painted c.1850.
Charles Nicholson I c. 1850, who probably collected the Egyptian artefacts in the Southend Museum. (Painter unknown, photographer Toby Hudson via Wikimedia Commons.)


According to the information in the exhibition and a post on the Southend Museum blog, the Egyptian artefacts were acquired by the Museum in the early 20th-century from Porter’s Civic House, a 15th-century manor house and official mayoral residence of the City of Southend. They probably originated in the collection of Sir Charles Nicholson, who undertook a Grand Tour of Italy, Greece, and Egypt in 1857-8. Nicholson donated over 1000 objects to the University of Sydney, where they were curated in the Nicholson Museum before being transferred to the Chau Chak Wing Museum in 2020. In 1862 Nicholson left Australia, marrying Sarah Elizabeth Keightley in 1865. His eldest son was born in 1867 in Hadleigh, just west of Southend, and was also christened Charles. Charles Nicholson II became a celebrated architect and in 1916 he purchased Porter’s Manor House in Southend, to save it from demolition, later selling it to the town. The Egyptian artefacts came to the Museum from Porter’s Manor following the sale. It is most likely that the Egyptian artefacts are remnants of the collection of Charles Nicholson I, although it is also possible that they were collected by Charles Nicholson II, who travelled widely at a time when Egypt had become a popular tourist destination for people of his class. Either way, these objects were collected during the 19th or early 20th century.

Two faience shabtis, with black ink inscriptions on their mummiform bodies, standing up in the case.
Two shabtis from the Southend Museum collection. (Author photograph from the Wunderkammer Exhibition)

Eclectic objects

The Egyptian artefacts on display in the Wunderkammer exhibition are an eclectic group. Some of them are typical of the small antiquities that were widely collected; an alabaster cosmetic jar, small items of jewellery, a human-headed Canopic jar stopper and blue-faience shabtis. A faience semi-circle with a hieroglyphic inscription may be half the lid of a faience jar or a faience plaque.

The signage is largely accurate, although I was sorry there were no museum numbers. The shabtis are correctly identified in the signage, but they are incorrectly described as surrogate bodies for the soul to use if the mummy was destroyed. Although shabtis might have functioned as such, this would have been a secondary purpose. The most important role of the shabti was as a ‘servant’ for the tomb owner, who would undertake any unpleasant duties required of him in the afterlife.

A semi-circular faience plaque or half jar lid inscribed with hieroglyphs.
Half jar lid or faience plaque in the Southend Collection (Author photograph at the Wunderkammer exhibition)


The overarching theme of the signage and artefact descriptions is the impact of 19th to 20th-century looting, uncontrolled and unethical excavation, and antiquities purchase, particularly in terms of tomb-robbing and the desecration of mummies. Personally, I would have liked to see a wider focus, given the widespread damage that the antiquities trade did (and still does) to Egyptian cultural heritage. Although the casual desecration of human remains and the thoughtless destruction of their tombs is repellent – any ‘excavations’ that are not performed systematically destroy both objects and their archaeological context. The archaeological context is the physical location, surrounding objects, the matrix, and other traces that allow us to understand what the objects are and how they were used. This archaeological context is essential if we are to understand the culture that produced it. Artefacts alone are simply interesting curiosities. Archaeological context allows us to understand their function and their meaning to those who made them. If that context is lost due to careless looters or unethical ‘archaeologists’, information about the ancient culture is lost, understanding is impaired and it is much more likely that surviving artefacts will be perceived as ‘exotic’ and form loci for ‘othering’ of their culture, including orientalism and systemic racism. Whether or not mummies or tombs are involved, the removal of artefacts from the ground or reliefs from structures as part of looting or unrecorded excavation, is as much a desecration as tomb-robbing and unwrapping of mummies.

Fragment of sunk relief showing a man's torso and head in Egyptian style.
Fragment of relief, cut from a larger tomb scene, showing an Egyptian man with cords wrapped around his elbow (Author photograph at the Wunderkammer exhibition).

The exhibition includes several fragments of high-quality relief. An unpainted fragment with a section of vertical text was perhaps part of a door jamb. Another fragment shows a man’s head and torso with his arm reaching forward and several straps hanging from his elbow (right). It probably originally included dogs, horses or other animals walking, hunting, or otherwise involved in agricultural activities in a larger tomb scene. There is also a fine square fragment in raised relief with the paint partially surviving (below). It shows a falcon-headed god crowned with a sun-disk nose to nose with a red-crowned Pharaoh, who brings to mind the reliefs of Montuhotep II in his mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri.

The piecemeal removal of relief scenes was as significant an impact upon Egyptian cultural heritage as looting and mummy unwrapping. The removal of reliefs from tomb and temple walls likely caused serious damage to the surrounding scenes. The dispersal of such fragments around the globe makes it difficult to connect them to each other and to their original location. It’s a shame that the signage does not discuss the problems with unprovenanced reliefs hacked out of tomb and temple scenes for sale on the antiquities market.

Image of a Pharaoh wearing the red crown and a coloured collar of black, green and red, nose to nose with a falcon god wearing a sun disc with a double uraeus.
Fragment of raised relief showing a Pharaoh interacting with a falcon-god crowned with a sun-disk. (Author photograph from the Wunderkammer exhibition).
Image of two objects each comprising a blue faience shabti, a string of tubular faience beads in various colours and a bundle of browned linen knotted on the end.
Two curious shabti souvenirs from the Wunderkammer exhibition. Each one consists of a small blue-faience shabti attached to a string of tubular faience beads with a knot of linen at the other end. (Author photograph at the Wunderkammer exhibition)

Souvenirs of looting?

The exhibition also features two curious objects comprising small blue-faience shabtis attached to a long necklace of tubular faience beads with fragments of linen at the other end. The description in the exhibition suggests these may have been created out of objects removed from a tomb by tourists undertaking a little looting. Alternatively, they also have the feel of something an early antiquities dealer might create as a souvenir. With an ‘idol’ (really a shabti), faience beads and ‘mummy cloth’ these objects include three of the ‘must sees’ or ‘must haves’ of Victorian Egyptomania. They seem calculated to appeal to the more superficial type of Victorian tourist, who wanted to collect ‘idols’ and ‘mummies’ but perhaps didn’t have the resources or the interest to seek out the larger antiquities. Tourists with a superficial orientalist impression of ancient Egypt wouldn’t have realised these objects would never have been put together in this format by the ancient Egyptians. We probably won’t ever know if these were created directly following touristic looting, or represent an antiquities dealer ‘adding value’ to otherwise commonplace antiquities to improve their appeal. Either way, these objects reveal how ancient artefacts were reused as part of the antiquities trade in the colonial era.


Image of a small glass vial containing brown material held in a box by browned linen.
Small glass vial of mummia, a medicine made from ground-up Egyptian mummies, wrapped in linen. (Author photograph from the Wunderkammer exhibition).

The orientalist fetishisation of ancient Egyptian materials by Europeans is also represented in the exhibition by a vial of mummia, the ‘medicine’ produced from ground-up Egyptian mummies. Through convoluted medieval mistranslation embalmed ancient Egyptians were confused for the black bitumen ‘mummia’ from Persia, used as a medicine in the ancient and medieval world. This confusion was compounded by the mystical, orientalist aura that surrounded ancient Egypt as Renaissance learning discovered the Greco-Roman texts on Egypt and explorers brought back tales of treasure, mummies and ‘exotica’. Given the strong association between Egypt, mysticism, and ancient wisdom, it probably seemed reasonable to assume that ground-up mummy would make an excellent cure for a multitude of ailments. As a result, ‘Mummia’ mummy powder was sold as a standard remedy in many apothecaries across Europe and several different types of container survive in museums around the continent. The example in the Southend museum is a small glass vial, wrapped in linen, perhaps from the same mummy.

Mummy hair

If they weren’t ground up into mummia, mummies faced other unpleasant fates. The Wunderkammer exhibition includes a necklace of faience beads accompanied by an envelope marked ‘Hair of a mummy 3000 years old’. A handwritten note details that the necklace and mummy hair were given to the writer’s grandfather (presumably Charles Nicholson I) by a naturalist Dr Frank Buckland, who had been present at the unwrapping of the mummy in about 1878. Mummy unwrappings were extremely popular at this time, satisfying a ghoulish and orientalist urge under the guise of scientific curiosity. Given his previous history of collecting, it is perfectly likely that Charles Nicholson knew individuals who took part in these events, and that they gave him relevant objects.

Image of a faience necklace with a handwritten label, a description written in black ink reads 'Egyptian necklace over 3000 years old. This necklace, with the accompanying lock of hair and a small idol was given to my grandfather by Dr Frank Buckland, the naturalist, who was present when the mummy was unwrapped about 1878.' Below is a blue envelope with 'On her majesty's service' at the top and 'The Hair of a Mummy 3000 years old' written below it.
Faience necklace, handwritten note and envelope containing mummy hair from the Wunderkammer exhibition. (Author photograph)

I found the Egyptian artefacts to be one of the highlights of the Wunderkammer exhibition. Although they have formed part of the collection for almost 100 years, they have not been on display for a long time. They complement the rest of the exhibition and, despite a slight error regarding the shabtis, their signage draws an important connection between their history and the rest of the exhibition. I thought the inclusion of documents relating to the necklace and mummy hair was a particularly useful form of contextualisation, which documented the attitudes prevalent at the time they were collected and demonstrates the importance of the archival material which sometimes accompanies artefacts. I would have liked to see consideration of the impacts of collecting extend beyond the desecration of mummies and tomb-robbing to the wider effect on Egyptian cultural heritage. Although tombs and mummies are typically thought synonymous with Egypt and discussions of decolonisation and repatriation are often directed at human remains, in focussing narrowly upon these aspects of ancient Egyptian culture we risk reinforcing orientalist attitudes. We also lose valuable opportunities to educate on the importance of archaeological context to understanding the purpose and meanings of ancient objects and the impact of looting upon cultural heritage more generally.

There are 53 objects in the collection according to the Mehen Foundation website and only a fraction are on display in Wunderkammer. It would be interesting to see what other objects might be present and attempt to determine exactly who collected them. There is also work to be done with the individual artefacts. I have not attempted to translate any of the inscriptions or undertake any further work on the reliefs, in the hopes that the research by the Mehen Foundation will provide new information and publications on these objects. I am sure there is much more to learn about them and from them.

Further reading

More information about mummification and mummy unwrapping can be found in Christina Riggs, 2014, Unwrapping Ancient Egypt, Bloomsbury Publishing.

For more information on the history of the discipline see:

  • Thompson, J. 2015. Wonderful Things: A History of Egyptology. Cairo: AUC Press.
  • And the various chapters in William Carruthers (ed.) 2015. Histories of Egyptology. Routledge.
Posted in Archaeology and Egyptology, Exhibition review, Public archaeology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Wunderkammer: Southend’s Cabinet of Curiosities

On 2 October 2021, the ‘Wunderkammer‘ exhibition opened at Southend Museum. It examines early modern Cabinets of Curiosities (‘Wunderkammer’ in German) and shows how these private collections evolved into the modern museum. In addition to the thought-provoking and sometimes uncomfortable history of collecting, museums and museology, it offers an opportunity to see rarely seen Egyptian artefacts in the Southend collection, paintings of Nubia, and several fascinating objects such as a Neo-Assyrian chariot and an Ophicleide.

A small stone toy chariot with two stone wheels and a central 'seat' for the charioteer.
Neo-Assyrian stone toy chariot in the Southend Museum collection. The charioteer is in the British Museum according to Southend Museum’s documentation. (Author photograph at the Wunderkammer exhibition)

The Wunderkammer exhibition is housed in a large room at the rear of the Central Museum, on Victoria Avenue. It is conveniently located right next to Southend Victoria Railway Station, and about a 10-minute walk up Southend High Street from Southend Central Railway Station. The museum is open 11-5 Wednesday to Sunday and the exhibition runs until 3 October 2022. Both are free to enter.

After entering the Museum lobby and following the signs to the exhibition, you follow a clockwise path around the exhibition room on a broadly chronological journey. Recordings by relevant individuals or actors portraying them are cleverly located beneath parasols so as to only be audible from a specific point in the exhibition, marked by a pair of white footprints on the floor. An audiovisual display allows you to sit and review the objects projected on a blank wall and there are also activities for children, including a ‘create your own Wunderkammer’ task to tell your own story about the exhibition.

A brass musical instrument that looks partway between a tuba and a saxophone on a red background.
Ophicleide, a predecessor of the tuba, once owned by Sam Hughes, one of the greatest players of the instrument. (Author photograph at the Wunderkammer Exhibition)

Origins of the museum

The first part of the exhibition covers Wunderkammer, their Medieval origins, early-modern development and renaissance in the Victorian era. We are led from the treasuries of Medieval castles to the studios of 15-16th century Italy and the Wunderkammer of Germany, meeting significant early collectors like Isabelle D’Este. From the first museum catalogue of Ole Worm in mid-15th century Denmark to the beginnings of object classification and early treatises on museology, the early modern Cabinets of Curiosities were foundational to the development of museums.

Engraving of Ole Worm's museum showing a variety of objects entirely filling the walls and shelves of a tiled room.
The Museum of Ole Worm, from the frontispiece of the Musei Wormianum catalogue made by G. Wigendorp 1655. (Author photograph at the Wunderkammer exhibition).

‘One of Everything’

A partially broken black argillite carved image of a bird in a typically North American Indigenous style.
Haida Argillite flute carving, by unknown Haida maker, Haid Gwaii, 19th century Canada. The signage indicates that objects like this were often made to please colonisers’ tastes in styles and types otherwise unused by the Indigenous makers (Author photograph from the Wunderkammer Exhibition)

In one episode of “Dinopaws” (one of my daughter’s favourite shows) talkative young dinosaur Gwen develops a passion for collecting, before discovering that some things don’t want to be collected. The same desire to ‘collect one of everything’ as Gwen puts it, lay behind the earliest ‘Cabinets of Curiosities’ or ‘Rooms of Wonder’ that give the exhibition its name. The exhibition does not shy away from the uncomfortable history of European collecting, that began with Wunderkammer. Collecting was a determinedly elite exercise in knowledge acquisition, creation, and reproduction. Only the very richest and most powerful were able to amass and display such collections. Although catalogues widened participation in the scholarly aspects of collecting, they were expensive to purchase and were only accessible to the literate.

The exhibition also draws clear links between collecting, colonialism, and the racist objectification of other cultures. Many Wunderkammer included large numbers of objects, obtained by exploitative means from Indigenous cultures. Whether forcibly removed or obtained through unequal gifting or exchange mechanisms, such items were the product of the unequal power dynamics between European coloniser and colonised society.

The inclusion of Indigenous objects in Wunderkammer as rarities, curios and ‘exotics’, reified the othering of those cultures as part of systematic racism. The very first sign in the exhibition notes that museums no longer use the word ‘exotic’ except where transcribed from historical sources or to deliberately emphasise its role in othering and trivialsing other cultures. A subsequent sign, associated with a glass case featuring objects of Indigenous North American and Australian Aboriginal origin, explores how the collection, classification and dispersal of such objects formed part of the erasure and objectification of Native and Indigenous cultures. This type of othering, erasure and objectification, reinforced racist stereotypes that were used to justify further colonialism in a toxic hermeneutic spiral of racism. The Wunderkammer exhibition reminds us that, like Gwen the dinosaur, we need to learn that some things aren’t ours to collect.

Image of a canopic jar stopper in the shape of a human head, with red painted skin, white painted eyes and black drawn eyebrows and mouth. The hair is striped blue and black.
Canopic jar stopper in the form of a human head, identified as Imsety by the exhibition signage. (Author photograph at the Wunderkammer exhibition).


In the opposite corner from the Indigenous artefacts, is a case of Egyptian artefacts from the Southend collection. There is too much to say about these to cover them in detail here, and you will have to wait for next month for a detailed discussion. It is enough to say that they complement the other objects and fit well into the exhibition story. All the Egyptian artefacts presented in the exhibition are products of the 19th and early 20th-century fashion for collecting. I would have included the wider impact of uncontrolled excavation upon the Egyptian cultural landscape, since mummies often form the focus of interest in Egypt the signage focuses on the effects of looting, tomb-robbing, and the desecration of Egyptian mummies. Despite this more limited focus, the Egyptian artefacts contribute well to the exhibition as a whole.

Following the Egyptian artefacts, we are introduced to several beautiful paintings of Abu Simbel and the UNESCO Campaign to move the monuments that would otherwise have been flooded by the rising waters of Lake Nasser behind the Aswan High Dam. These sketches and paintings were made by local artist Alan Sorrell, who is also famous for his archaeological reconstructions. I was delighted to see these wonderful images of the UNESCO campaign, but I did wonder how the curators intended them to fit into the overall narrative of the Wunderkammer exhibition. They might be taken as evidence of changing attitudes to Egyptian heritage in European countries, from 19th-century looting to collaborative preservation working with the Egyptian government. Alternatively, although aimed at the preservation of the temples, the imagery has a distinctly early 20th-century colonialist feel to it. The archaeologists are all white, and one wears a pith helmet. These images remind me that history, particularly the history of a discipline like archaeology, is complex and nuanced. Colonialist features survive alongside changing attitudes and approaches.

Painting showing three white men in pith helmets sitting at desks and/or standing with equipment of various types inside a rectangular room with Egyptian imagery on its walls.
Sweedish Egyptologists preparing for drilling inside the Great Temple at Abu Simbel during the UNESCO Campaign to save the monuments of Nubia, Alan Sorrell c.1962 (Author photograph during the Wunderkammer Exhibition).

From Wunderkammer to modern Museum

Opposite the Alan Sorrell paintings, the exhibition returns to the origins of the museum. This part of the exhibition was a little difficult to follow, mainly because of the constraints of the space, with the Egyptian artefacts forming a break in the narrative. A sign on the back wall of the exhibition space to the left of the Egyptian artefacts discusses how modern museums ‘break down the Wunderkammer’ into new categories and organise their exhibits into a coherent visitor-conscious narrative. Beyond the Egyptian artefacts, and opposite the Alan Sorrell paintings, another panel describes how the Pitt Rivers Museum maintains the eclectic approach to object display, first exemplified in the earliest Wunderkammer. It would have been interesting to consider the relationship between the Pitt Rivers Museum’s eccentric displays and its colonial origins, rather than the brief discussion of the imperial context for the creation of the Ashmolean and British Museums, which are thoroughly covered elsewhere.

Overview of a large vaulted museum hall filled with display cases full of various objects.
Photo of the interior of the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, showing the Wunderkammer-like display. Taken in 2015 by Geni (Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0,

The late Victorian age saw a revival of collecting and Cabinets of Curiosities amongst various upper and middle-class intellectuals. The Wunderkammer exhibition ascribes this to the Great Exhibition of 1851, which brought elite exoticism and orientalism to middle and working-class people and stimulated new interest in natural and historical heritage. Many small private collections and Wunderkammer ended up in local museums, including Southend Museum.

Southend Museum began in 1884 as the ‘Southend Institute’, but the earliest collections were initially housed in Southend Town Hall, which was built in the 1890s on Clarence Road. These collections included Parsons Natural History collection and Benton’s antiquities, while a further ‘Cabinet of Curiosities’ could be found at the Cornucopia Pub, owned by Mr A. H. Trigg. The Museum has come a long way since those early days.

The final display boards bring museum practice right up to 2022, reflecting on the changes brought about by COVID-19, responses to contemporary issues, and the increasing importance of digitisation. It also suggests that digitisation of museum collections and online catalogues have created a renewal of interest in the archaeology, art and science akin to the age of the Wunderkammer or the heyday of private Victorian collecting. The exhibition now looks forward to meeting the challenges of the present day and the museum of the future.

An exhibition room with display cases containing various objects of archaeological and historical interest.
View of the Wunderkammer exhibition in Southend Central museum (Author photograph)

Overall Wunderkammer is a fascinating trip through the history of museums, with the added bonus of some wonderful and rarely seen Egyptian objects and beautiful paintings by Alan Sorrell. There are also a number of natural history, botanical, and fossil objects on display. This makes the exhibition itself feel like a Wunderkammer, even while it retains a determinedly modern approach by telling a specific story through suitable objects, with text and relevant interactive displays. In several places, the constraints of the space have conspired to interrupt the flow of panels, but the narrative remains coherent. The story of the modern museum begins with elite curiosities, continues with imperial collecting, and ends with the creation of the museum out of various private collections at the end of the 19th century. Southend Museum stands as a local example of a process that took place on a national and global scale.

Posted in Archaeology and Egyptology, Exhibition review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The afterlife of the Prittlewell Prince

In my two previous posts, I discussed the effect of visiting archaeological tourist attractions on me and upon the public perception of archaeology. Despite the hard work of curators, managers and excavators, archaeological tourist attractions and publicly accessible sites can feel somewhat sterile to the archaeologist and generate misconceptions about archaeology amongst other visitors. These misconceptions lie at the root of most of the myths about archaeology in the public consciousness. I believe that better communication by archaeologists about archaeological practice and increasing the numbers of people who are able to take part in archaeological activities can help in correcting these misconceptions and laying to rest various myths about archaeology and archaeologists. Correcting these misconceptions and laying these myths to rest certainly has important implications for the reception of archaeology, but it can also influence public policy in positive ways. The Prittlewell Princely burial offers a curious example of how misconceptions about archaeology and the myths they generate can have a negative effect upon public discourse and policy more widely.

Public policy and the Prittlewell Princely burial

Map showing the location of the Prittlewell Princely burial
Location of the Pirttlewell Princely burial. (Map by Openstreetmap contributors from Wikimedia Commons on a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license).

The Prittlewell Prince was discovered in 2003 during excavations in advance of a road-widening scheme on the A127/A1159. The burial site was crammed on an oval of undeveloped land between the cutting of the Southend to Liverpool Street railway line to the east, the A127/A1159 main road to the west and south, and further development to the north. The planned road-widening scheme would have extended the A127/A1159 into a dual carriageway, necessitating building over the oval of land where the burial was found. The discovery of the Princely burial proved a focal point for anti-road protestors, who moved into a temporary camp (Camp Bling) on the site. Local residents resoundingly rejected the road-widening proposal during a subsequent consultation. After much debate, the council reduced the scope, and later shelved the scheme. The A127/A1159 remains unaltered to this day.

Protecting the Prince

Much of the local opposition to the road-widening proposal was rooted in a desire to protect the Princely burial. The threat to the Princely burial was emphasised by media coverage. In July 2005, The Guardian asked ‘is it worth destroying the burial ground of an East Saxon king?’ After the Council reduced the scope of the scheme in 2009, BBC News noted that the new plans would ‘leave the eighth-century burial site . . . unaffected’. Archaeologically speaking, the BBC’s statement is so ridiculous as to be laughable. At the time these headlines were written, the ‘eight-century burial’ had already been affected by the road-widening scheme. Thanks to the road-widening proposal the Princely burial had been discovered, excavated and removed in 2003. By the time the BBC trumpeted that the burial would be unaffected, it had already been destroyed; meticulously, with the greatest care and most careful recoding methods offered by modern archaeological techniques. Any concerned citizens of Southend who voted against the road-widening to protect a Princely burial did so based on a false premise – that there was anything left on the site to protect. At the same time, the focus on protecting the burial detracted from good environmental, social, and town-planning reasons to oppose the road-widening scheme or propose an alternative.

Reconstruction of the Prittlewell Prince's burial chamber showing a wood-lined chamber with a body in a wood coffin in the centre and various artefacts laid out around the walls.
Reconstruction of the burial chamber from the digital displays in the exhibition. Hirst and Scull (2019, 88-89) contains the same reconstruction. (Author Photograph, June 2019 at Southend Museum).

A time to destroy and a time to protect

Opposition to the road-widening scheme based in the protection of the Princely burial, reflects another archaeological myth, that excavated sites always require protecion. Like most myths, there is some truth behind it. Unexcavated, partially excavated and sites with archaeological remains in situ do require preservation. But fully excavated sites do not because all the archaeological remains have been removed, archaeologically. This is the practical effect of the reality that archaeology is destruction! Once archaeologists have fully excavated a site, there should not be any archaeology left!

The idea that archaeology is destruction isn’t particularly common in public discourse. Understanding that archaeology is destruction can be difficult when visiting an archaeological tourist attraction. Here is a site that has been excavated, but the archaeological structures are very clearly visible. The information, guidebooks and apps may describe the excavation process and emphasise that the site has been conserved to ensure its longevity. You may hear and understand that excavation removes the archaeological deposits, but how far do you believe it when you are faced with a meticulously conserved mosaic? Does that intellectual knowledge overwhelm your sensory experience or will you mainly remember the beautiful floor? Given that most people only interact with conserved and protected archaeology, in person or via press resports, it is hardly surprising that the idea that archaeology removes what it excavates is not widely recognised.

A grassed around with a mound beside a road, with planting in the background.
The reconstructed tumulus on the site of the burial of the Prittlewell Prince. (Author photograph)


Although the ancient tumulus which originally covered the Prittlewell Princely burial was removed centuries ago, a new one has been rebuilt slightly south of the location of the Princely burial chamber to commemorate the burial’s location. It looks a little incongruous beside a busy road, but provides something of a focal point for the adjacent flower beds. Archaeologically it is harmless, but meaningless since it reveals almost nothing about the original burial except for its approximate location. Nevetheless, it does make me wonder how many of those who conceived, implemented and approved the tumulus’ recreation understand that the Prince is no longer in residence. It also raises questions of archaeological honesty. Should we encourage such re-creations? There’s nothing wrong with a memorial, but does a rebuilt tumulus, without additional context, contribute to the idea that this excavated burial is somehow still present? Are we disneyfying our environment and creating fantasies out of our past? And how might the tumulus be viewed in the future? Might it ever be assumed to be genuine? These are all difficult questions, variations on which can be asked for almost any conservation or preservation work. Whatever answers we arrive at can only be improved by a better public understanding of what archaeology entails, including its destructive aspects.

Posted in Archaeology and Egyptology, Public archaeology, Sites | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Missing the matrix: The invisibility of archaeological deposits and public misconceptions of archaeology

In my previous post, I described how visiting publicly accessible archaeological sites as a professional archaeologist can be a somewhat sterile and occasionally soulless experience because the vibrant ‘living’ deposits archaeologists work with every day have, by necessity, either been removed or covered up to protect them. That this affected me viscerally despite my professional archaeologist’s training, reveals how experience can trump intellectual knowledge. It forced me to reevaluate how the nature of archaeology constrains the visitor experience. Although site presentation boards, museums and guidebooks make much effort to explain the archaeological process and the missing phases, the deposits which comprise the bulk of the archaeological record are not visible as part of the physical site experience. If this was true for me, a trained and experienced archaeologist, how might it affect the experience of another visitor? What misconceptions might be fostered despite the best efforts of curators and site managers? I strongly suspect that these misconceptions, fostered by the experience of visiting archaeological sites, are at the heart of several common myths about archaeology and archaeological excavation.

A black and white mosaic partially preserved on a conservation substrate with the missing section sketched in outline.
A lifted and relaid monochrome mosaic in the Barcelona History Museum. (Author Photograph)

The missing matrix

For the most part, members of the public do not see the various layers, fills and deposits that make up most of the archaeological record. The many sites without structures are almost never conserved for long-term display, are rarely publicly accessible during excavation, and if they are publicised in the press, are represented by plans, reconstructions and digital models. At archaeological tourist attractions, the public see in situ archaeological structures after conservation. The archaeological deposits surrounding those structures have already been removed (and recorded), the archaeological deposits beneath those structures have either been removed or are preserved in situ and invisible beneath the floors and walls of the conserved structures. Either way, many of the archaeological deposits that comprised the original ‘site’ are invisible to the public.

A reconstructed wall painting of a Roman horseman in a white tunic.
Conserved Roman fresco, remounted with modern additions showing how the surviving pieces formed part of the whole image. Barcelona History Museum. (Author photograph)

Any visit to an archaeological tourist attraction follows roughly the same pattern. After obtaining entry you follow a designated (modern) path through carefully laid out archaeological structures. These structures will be original but have likely undergone conservation. Walls may be consolidated, floors lifted and relaid on conservation substrate. Wall paintings, frescoes and plasterwork will also have been consolidated. There may be kilns, hearths, fireplaces and in situ artefacts, such as amphorae. If you are very lucky and the site is covered, there may be exposed archaeological soil deposits around the structures, but your eyes are unlikely to be drawn to what amounts to dried earth.

The display and presentation boards, guidebooks and, museum contain information intended to dispel this misconception. They usually include information about the archaeological process, details of removed or invisible phases, and the archaeological and stratigraphic history of the site. But even if these sources of information are read and understood, they are unintentionally contradicted by the visual experience of visiting the site. Perceptions based on experience often live on in our minds, untaxed by intellectual interrogation, overwhelming mere information and dominating our understanding. This is why I experienced such a sense of sterility and soullessness when visiting Vindolanda. Despite my archaeological knowledge, my perception was still dominated by past experience. Excellent visitor information may not, therefore, overcome perceptions derived from the physical experience of visiting archaeological tourist attractions.

Aerial view of archaeological excavations of a courtyard with a white floor and partially sunken large pottery vessels set into it.
Structural archaeology: Roman court with embedded jars for produce. Some archaeological deposits are visible where the jars have been removed, but are not particularly noticeable compared to the white court floor or surviving jars. Barcelona History Museum. (Author photograph)

Archaeological misconceptions

The physical experience of visiting an archaeological tourist attraction or publicly accessible site produces a powerful impression that archaeology is all about exposing structures (often structures of a particular period) by removing the surrounding earth while extracting suitable artefacts for display in the museum. This naturally leads to certain misconceptions in the public understanding of archaeology:

  • Archaeology is about finding and uncovering structures and/or artefacts. This is a perfectly sensible and understanable misconception. Early archaeology was all about finding structures and artefacts! And when you visit an archaeological site you normally see structures conserved in situ and artefacts in museums. The resulting impression is that archaeology is all about finding those structures and artefacts for conservation and public consumption.
  • Surrounding deposits are just earth to be removed. The invisibility of the archaeological deposit in publicly accessible sites and the domination of the structures and artefacts can make it seem that the matrix surrounding them is just spoil. This misconception is reinforced by visits to archaeological trourist attractions, where visitors see structures conserved and laid out on display, and artefacts presented in a museum, but archaeological deposits are largely missing or appear unimportant.
  • Archaeology is not a destructive process. If people believe that archaeology is all about uncovering structures and artefacts and that the deposits surrounding them are irrelevant and archaeologically insignificant, they are unlikely to consider archaeology a destructive process. After all, when you visit an archaeological tourist attraction the sturctures are quite clearly visible and the artefacts are on display in the museum. Press coverage of significant archaeological discoveries preserved in situ beneath modern buildings only serves to reinforce this impression. People have the impression that archaeology is preserved in situ, leading to the assumption that anything which is not preserved is, by definition, not archaeology.

Generating myths

These misconceptions matter because they lie at the root of most of the myths about archaeology, which drive public reception of archaeology and attitudes to archaeology and archaeologists. Myths like the idea that archaeology is ‘just legalised treasure hunting’ or ‘tomb robbery’ contain grains of truth, but also fundamentally misrepresent archaeological practice. Archaeology began with antiquarians looking for interesting objects and exposing the walls and mosaic floors of Roman villas for public entertainment. The ethical archaeologist is well aware that we are only a couple of stages removed from looters, antiquarians or grave robbers. Pop-culture representations of treasure hunters like Indiana Jones or Lara Croft as ‘archaeologists’ and televisual nostalgia for historic, and often colonial, excavations bolster this myth further. But it wouldn’t be so persistent without the unintended effect of archaeological sites and museums upon visitors.

The experience of visiting an archaeological site supports the false impression that archaeology is all about finding structures and artefacts of aesthetic appeal or monetary value. It also obscures the features of archaeology that distinguish it from looting, treasure hunting or grave robbing: Archaeology involves the careful excavation and meticulous recording of fragile, plimpsest archaeological layers, with due care for all artefacts, irrespective of value or aesthetic appeal. Its goal is the discovery of information about the past, rather than valuable objects or structures that might appeal to the public. Unfortunately, too often the experience of visiting a site cements the idea that archaeology exists to provide an exciting, historical day out amongst picturesque ruins, or pretty objects for a museum to display. The public does not see the fragile, carefully excavated layers, but conserved consolidated structural remains and artefacts. Such a powerful experience, irrespective of what people might read on information panels, easily gives rise to a false perception of archaeology, as a process of extracting artefacts and structures from detritus that is surprisingly similar to treasure hunting.

A museum case with conserved gold and wood artefacts.
Many of the artefacts from the Prittlewell Princely burial were lifted as a block and excavated in the lab to ensure they were as well preserved as possible. Such care and attention for all archaeological remains, irrespective of whether they are valuable or not, is what distinguishes archaeologists from treasure hunters. (Author photograph).

Another myth fostered by the experience of visiting archaeological tourist attractions and publicly accessible sites is that sites without structures are not ‘archaeology’! Archaeological tourist attractions are largely composed of structural features and can give the impression that only structural features are ‘archaeological’. Yet many (perhaps most) of the sites excavated by commercial archaeologists in advance of development have no structures at all. The archaeological remains comprise different types of archaeological deposit (i.e. fills and layers) within various features cut into the natural geology. Given the focus upon structures and the invisibility of archaeological deposits at tourist sites and in the press, it is hardly surprising that sites without structures are written off as unimportant. A lack of awareness of non-structural archaeology probably explains why developers and even local people can view planning archaeology and pre-construction excavation as unncessary and wasteful (although money undoubtedly plays a role).

View of an excavation showing reused, upside down columns around a red soiil surface with sections through archaeological deposits.
Excavation through various deposits and floors, exposing walls and reused columns in the Barcelona History Museum. Although the image is dominated by the columns and walls, the earth deposits visible in the sections are just as important. (Author photograph)

Presenting reality

Cultural heritage professionals, curators, site managers and excavators work hard to present archaeology in a coherent and meaningful format for the public, doing justice to both historic data and archaeological practice. Yet the physical experience of seeing, walking amongst and interacting with the archaeology can provoke a powerful response that can negate their best efforts and provoke significant misconceptions. These misconceptions, often reified and mirrored by media coverage, exert a much greater power on public perception than knowledge imparted by guides, information boards and apps. Such misconceptions are not the fault of cultural heritage managers, conservators, excavators or site managers. They are inherent in the nature of archaeology as a palimpsest of human activity surviving as a series of often fragile deposits that are difficult, if not impossible, to present for long-term public visitation. Nevetheless, we need to find ways to address, explain and correct such misconceptions. Blogs like this one are one possible method. Honest discussions and explanations on social and traditional media about what archaeology is and what it does are another. TV programmes like Time Team, The Great British Dig and Digging for Britain, which show the reality of archaeology can also play an important role. There are also multiple newer methods, from platforms like YouTube for showing a more personal view of archaeology, to apps for digitally reconstructing ancient sites and the excavations that exposed them. Fundamentally, however, archaeology is a practice, an activity! Allowing more of us to personally experience that activity will rapidly dispel many of the myths that surround it.

Posted in Archaeology and Egyptology, Public archaeology | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Public presentation and archaeological experience

Like many other archaeologists, I visit publicly accessible sites whenever the opportunity arises, but some five or six years after I attended my first excavation I had an unnerving experience. I was visiting Vindolanda, a fort on Hadrian’s wall in Northumberland, made famous by the discovery of a series of Roman letters, written on wooden tablets, and preserved in a waterlogged ditch. I had visited the site as a child and now returned as an adult archaeologist to see the new discoveries. Although the exhibition of the waterlogged finds in the museum was fascinating, I was shocked when I walked around the fort. Although the site remained as well-presented as ever, I found it dead and soulless. As I child I had loved exploring the excavated fort structures, as an adult, I felt only emptiness!

View of the Roman fort at Vindolanda showing conserved walls, surrounded by gravel.
 Headquarters building (Principia) at Vindolanda Roman Fort as laid out for public display (Photograph Phil Champion  CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

Over time I have become used to experiencing varying degrees of this feeling when visiting publicly accessible sites. I have also begun to understand why these sites feel so desolate to me. It’s not due to any lack or failure on the part of the site management teams, who shouldn’t be criticised for their often exemplary conservation and display of cultural heritage assets. Rather it reflects the transient nature of archaeology and the destructive realities of excavation. By necessity, the public presentation of sites often excludes the very deposits which comprise the bulk of the archaeological record, rendering them sterile to archaeological eyes.

Into the matrix

In order to explain why publicly accessible sites can feel so ‘dead’ to an archaeologist, we need to recognise the importance of the archaeological matrix. The matrix is archaeological jargon for the earth that was excavated from around the structures you see on display at sites like Vindolanda. Before excavation, the spaces within and between the structures (walls, staircases, wells, drains, floors, silos and kilns) were filled with soil deposits of different colours and textures (see below, the image of Plaosnik Monastery under excavation). These deposits are removed during excavation, but as they represent events during the history of the site, each deposit must be carefully recorded, with appropriate samples taken as necessary. There are various different methods of excavation, but whichever is used, the aim is to identify, obtain and record as much information about that deposit (or context in the archaeological jargon) as possible. Each context is recorded visually (with measured plans and sections, sketch drawings and photographs) and verbally (on a context record form). These records include any artefacts or samples taken from the deposit and there is additional documentation for special features, such as walls and burials. The records are all cross-referenced by unique identification numbers for the site, context, drawings, photographs, samples and finds, so that they can be associated with each other during post-excavation analysis and by any future researcher working with the site archive. To the archaeologist then, a site includes a large number of soil deposits of varying types, colours and textures. The walls, hearths, drains, kilns and other structures that are conserved and presented to the public are only a small proportion of all the archaeological contexts.

View of an archaeological site showing coloured soil deposits between stone walls.
 Plaosnik Monastery under excavation in 2008. Note the varied colours of the soil deposits between the walls. (Photograph by Colin W. 18 October 2008 CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

On many sites (such as the excavation of a medieval village in the image below), structures are entirely absent and the archaeology consists entirely of deposits (fills or layers in the archaeological jargon), filling various types of features (ditches, pits, post-holes etc) cut into the ground by past people. Sites without structures are almost never conserved for long-term display because an archaeological site comprising a series of excavated pits, ditches and post-holes is neither interesting nor durable. The public rarely visit such sites and if they are publicised in the press, various plans, reconstructions and digital models are used to inform the public about their original appearance or layout.

View of an archaeological site showing yellow natural with brown archaeological features cut into it. Some of the features are part excavated or under excavation.
Archaeology without structures: A medieval village under excavation (Photography Evelyn Simak  The site of a medieval village – partially unearthed  CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

Living archaeology

When viewed with archaeological eyes, archaeological deposits are not only important, but they are also strangely vibrant. This is partly because they have meaning for the trained archaeologist, partly because of the various colours and textures within them, and partly because they are so transient. Archaeologists spend most of their fieldwork excavating and recording archaeological deposits. We become skilled in identifying different deposits and understanding which types of past activity produced them. Such features have intrinsic meaning for us, and we feel their importance. Archaeological soil deposits also have a visual beauty and vibrancy. Some sites are particularly colourful, with deep red burnt clay features, black charcoal features, yellow sand and greenish cess deposits (as in the image of Plaosnik Monastery above). Chalk landscapes produce a fascinating monochrome, with dark soils filling pits, ditches and post-holes cut into a white chalk background. Even the dullest soil colours take on a new significance when viewed by the archaeologist seeking subtle changes in colour or texture.

View of an archaeological site on chalk. The brown archaeological features show up very clearly on the white chalk soil.
Archaeological features in white chalk natural (Photo courtesy of Clare King)

Despite their significance for the archaeologist, the vibrant colours of archaeological deposits do not last long! Once the archaeology has been exposed it rapidly dries out, dulling the colours. This is why on many sites, pre-excavation plans of all the visible deposits are created as soon as possible after the archaeological layers are exposed. Some excavators water the ground with killer sprays or watering cans to bring out the colour before recording or photography. Careful records are also made of the soil colour using the Munsell colour system, which allows a deposit to be categorized by a precise colour, hue and chroma and ensures subtle differences in deposits can be accurately recorded. All these methods allow archaeologists to record the archaeological deposit as accurately as possible, but they do not assist in conveying its true appearance, vibrancy or importance if the site is opened to the public. Even with photographs of sites under excavation, it is all too easy for visitors to miss the significance of the soil between the structures.

View of excavations of a Roman wall in London.
Roman wall under excavation in London in 2007, the right angle of the wall has been removed where the boards are shown, leaving the remains of the wall in section beside the yellow hoe. The archaeologist is recording the deposits. Even in this low-light the vivid colours of the deposits are visible (Author Photograph)

Archaeology as destruction

It is an archaeological cliche that ‘archaeology is destruction’ and, while built structures are often more durable and easier to preserve, excavation is particularly destructive to archaeological deposits. By definition, a deposit that is excavated has been removed! The soil matrix has been recorded, extracted, sifted, sampled and dumped and the artefacts have been identified and removed for processing and recording. This is why archaeological recording is so crucial. If a deposit is excavated but not recorded, all the information about the context has been lost; its appearance, texture, physical extent, and relationship with other deposits are irretrievable. Artefacts cannot be related to their original deposit or other artefacts from the same context. This is why nighthawking (illegal metal detecting on protected archaeological sites), looting of antiquities for sale on the black market, and excavation without record are unethical. They destroy archaeological deposits without recording, depriving artefacts of their contexts and society of the scientific information that could be obtained from proper archaeological excavation and recording.

It is of course impossible to present the excavated (and thereby removed) deposits to the public alongside the structures they contained. Some publicly accessible sites have been fully excavated, down to the geological deposits (the natural in archaeological jargon). The structures which will be displayed were removed during excavation and are then reconstructed in their original positions using the archaeological records as a guide. Various efforts may be made to show the original deposits under excavation or display the information they produced, but these contexts are inevitably absent from view and therefore from the physical embodied experience of visiting the site.

View of a villa at Herculaneum showing a courtyard with partially preserved white marble tiles on red modern base.
Large villa at Herculaneum in 2012, showing features in use at the time of the eruption in 79 AD. The surviving ancient paving of the courtyard has been lifted and relaid. It is surrounded by a modern, protective (red) surface. (Author Photograph)

Other publicly accessible sites are not fully excavated down to the natural. Instead, excavation ends when a suitable level is reached and the exposed structures and underlying deposits are conserved in their original position (or in situ as the archaeological jargon has it). Pompeii and Herculaneum (image above) are classic examples of this approach. Because their destruction and burial comprise a single event, large-scale excavation stopped at the floor and street levels associated with the final phase of occupation (i.e. the floors and streets that were in use when Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD), even though there are many earlier phases buried beneath these floors (Fulford and Wallace-Hadrill 1995, 77). These earlier phases are only accessible by relatively limited sondages, small trenches, carefully located to minise any impact on the structures of the final phase (more information about these sondages can be found in various blogs and recent excavation reports). At Pompeii, Herculaneum and any other site where structures are preserved without fully excavating the deposits beneath them, the conservation and presentation of the structures in position arrests the controlled destruction of excavation. Most of the archaeological remains beneath the conserved structures remain unexcavated. This is a perfectly valid and necessary archaeological approach, but one that excludes certain archaeological deposits from visitor view, whether those deposits were entirely removed by excavation or survive protected beneath the conserved structures.

Efforts to present archaeological deposits within and around the various structures produce further difficulties. Since archaeological sites comprise many phases and layers, choices must be made about which phases should be presented to the public. At Pompeii the choice is fairly easy since the final phase produces a coherent visitor experience and historic excavations rarely extended below. But at other sites, use and abandonment deposits above, and earlier features below a phase, maybe just as archaeologically interesting. Managing the presentation of such deposits can be difficult, as is the protection of exposed floor and courtyard spaces. If located outside, exposed archaeological deposits (and even some floors) are rapidly degraded by the elements and attract disturbance from vegetation growing within them. They also cannot be walked upon, meaning sites like Vindolanda grass or gravel the spaces between exposed walls and structures to allow tourists to wander freely. Indoor presentation (such as the Roman amphitheatre preserved under the Guildhall Library) offers more options, but is much more expensive and mostly used where a site is located beneath existing or proposed new buildings. Presenting exposed archaeological deposits inside can reveal more of the reality of ‘living archaeology’, but fragile deposits dry out and cannot be walked over, excluding the visitor from the closest contact. No current method can permanently preserve the vibrant living archaeological deposits in a visible format for presentation to the public, although developing technology may offer additional opportunities in the future.

The absence of archaeological deposits from the visitor experience is not the fault of cultural heritage managers, conservators, excavators or site managers. It is inherent in the nature of archaeology as a palimpsest of human activity surviving as a series of often fragile deposits that are difficult, if not impossible, to present for long-term public visitation. Out of the perhaps hundreds or thousands of years of occupation preserved in the archaeological record, decisions must be made about which phases to present and which structures to preserve in order to provide a coherent but archaeologically honest visitor experience. Later phases are excavated entirely and removed to expose the chosen phases, their presentation limited to phase plans and reconstructions in the site museum. Earlier phases may not be excavated at all, or only partially, in order to preserve the structures of the chosen phase(s) in situ above them. Archaeological deposits, those most fragile of archaeological contexts, are doubly difficult to present meaningfully in situ, while preserving the site and presenting a coherent visitor experience.

Presenting experience

When visiting Vindolanda as an adult I was unprepared for the differences between my experiences as an excavator of archaeological sites and as a visitor to them. With extensive training in archaeological methods, I should not have been surprised at the absence of the vibrant archaeological deposits that were so familiar to me and other archaeologists. I was well aware that archaeology is destruction, that sites are complex palimpsests of phases and that choices must be made about what should be displayed in situ and what should be preserved as archive. I was also well able to understand the descriptions in the museum and detailed excavation reports. Nevertheless, when experiencing the site I was still struck by the visual absence of the archaeological deposits I expected, and its visceral effect upon me. This is an important reminder that knowledge and experience are very different. A physical experience can have a much more powerful effect than intellectual knowledge. We rely on information boards, apps, museums and guidebooks to inform visitors about the archaeology they cannot see. Yet all my knowledge could not negate my visceral reaction to the experience of a, to me, sterilised archaeology. I wonder how far site visitors are influenced by archaeological information and how far by their own visceral experience? What misconceptions might be fostered by the primacy of the latter?


FULFORD, MICHAEL, ANDREW WALLACE-HADRILL, K. Clark, R. Daniels, J. DeLaine, I. Dormor, R. MacPhail, A. Powell, M. Robinson, and P. Wiltshire. “The House of ‘Amarantus’ at Pompeii (I, 9,11-12): An Interim Report on Survey and Excavations in 1995-96.” Rivista Di Studi Pompeiani 7 (1995): 77–113.


I wish to thank the many folk of the Mentoring Womxn in Archaeology and Heritage Facebook group for their suggestions for images of chalk archaeology.

Posted in Archaeology and Egyptology, Public archaeology | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Lessons from Little Miss Sobek in Ptolemaic breasts, ancient clothing and nursing

Photograph of a toddler wearing a crocodile mask on her head.
Little Miss Sobek in her crocodile mask

At the time of writing its a little over four years since my last fieldwork in Egypt (at Hatnub), during which I discovered I was pregnant. After three years of nursing, motherhood and Egyptology, I now have a three-year-old pre-schooler (codename Little Miss Sobek) and a lot of new experiences which have made me think anew about various aspects Egyptology and reconsider some previous assumptions.

Given that nursing was the only safe method of feeding an infant until the 20th century and most people in ancient societies nursed their children for much longer than we do, it must have been incredibly commonplace in ancient Egyptian society and a regular part of most women’s lives. Yet the implications of this for Egyptology are rarely explored, probably because Egyptologists with direct experience of nursing have been relatively limited. Archaeology and Egyptology were historically dominated by men. Most of the early Trowel Blazers were white, upper-class women, whose children were largely fed and brought-up by others. More recently, advances in contraception, social change, and the problems of pursuing an academic and fieldwork-driven career while engaging in caring responsibilities have meant many Egyptologists have chosen not to have children. Those with direct experience of nursing are fewer still, owing to the cultural norms of the mid-20th century and the existence of safe and effective bottle feeding methods. Considerations of the effect of nursing on ancient Egyptian society are therefore very limited. Despite a long interest in clothing and textiles, it was only when I became a nursing mother myself, that I realised what an impact such an activity would necessarily have on society when it was a task performed by most women for a substantial part of their lives.

Ptolemaic Breasts

Some years ago I was visiting an Egyptian site and my husband asked me what date it was. I looked at the reliefs and said confidently, ‘Ptolemaic’. ‘How can you tell?’ he asked. ‘Well there are number of features, but what really gives it away are the Ptolemaic breasts’, was my response. If you look carefully at Ptolemaic period reliefs the breasts have a distinctive shape, with a rounded top that always looked to me like the shape produced by breast-implants. You can clearly see the typical Ptolemaic shape in the female deity behind Sobek in the wall relief from Kom Ombo, below, and also in the female deities in the featured image at the top of this blog.

An ancient Egyptian relief showing three gods, Sobek to the right followed by a goddess and juvenile in a divine triad.
Ptolemaic image of Sobek, crocodile-headed god on the right, from Kom Ombo (Image Rémih/CC BY-SA 3.0 from )
A limestone statue of a late 18th Dynasty lady in a wrapped and pleated dress and a bouffant wig.
The wife of Nahktmin wearing a wrapped-dress of the type that would become popular in the Ramesside period. 18th Dynasty, reign of Ay (Cairo Museum CG779b)

I had always assumed that Ptolemaic breasts were a feature of the ‘male gaze‘, a sexualising of female deities consciously or unconsciously undertaken by heterosexual male designers and masons. That is until I woke up five days after the birth of my daughter with my very own Ptolemaic breasts! For those who are unfamiliar with the nursing process, when a child is born the first milk produced (called colostrum) is very limited, although rich in nutrients and various important immunological elements. About five days after birth the ‘milk comes in’ which means the colostrum is replaced by milk that is less rich but much greater in volume. The physical effect of this is that the breasts swell up like little water-balloons, and they will do so again and again any time milk consumption drops. The balloon-like Ptolemaic breasts of statuary and relief may or may not have been sexually titillating, but their similarity to the full breasts of nursing mothers makes me wonder if they are intended to represent fertility and abundance. The human breast in its role as provider par excellence.

Easy access

Another lesson I learned early in my experience was how inefficient modern clothes are for feeding a child. Clothes with flaps that are either held in place by gravity or can be undone one handed (while cuddling a screaming infant in the other hand) are by far the most efficient type of clothing for nursing. Something like an ancient Greek Peplos or one of the draped, wrap-around dresses of the Ramesside period (right) would offer a lot of options. Draped and wrapped dresses also offer a flexibility over time. The same garment could be converted into an efficient nursing outfit simply by draping or wrapping it differently.

11th Dynasty wooden statue of a female offering bearer wearing a tight 'sheath-dress' with a diamond pattern. The dress is cut below her breasts, which are covered by broad shoulder straps.
Female offering bearer wearing a ‘sheath dress’ with wide breast-covering straps. The band beneath the breasts and straps would provide helpful support while permitting access for breastfeeding if required. 11th Dynasty tomb of Meketre, Luxor (Author Photograph, Cairo Museum JE 46725).

Of course if your climate and culture permit them, bare nipples are even better for nursing. This may be why so many Egyptian dresses leave the breasts bare, such as the the various styles worn by offering bearers and servants and the typically Egyptian ‘sheath-dress’ (left). Vogelsang-Eastwood (1993, 96-97) identified the ‘sheath-dress’ as a type of wrap-around, but either as a sheath or as a wrap-around it would have been an efficient nursing outfit.

Tyets for the tits?

Nursing necessitates a lot of time when the only breast support is the band around the chest, the shoulder strap of the bra being unclasped to allow the child access. I was surprised to find the band alone offered a great deal of support. Ancient Egyptian dresses with straps or fabric wrapped immediately underneath the breasts would have provided their wearers with similar support, while leaving the breasts uncovered for access. Shoulder straps, whether they covered or left the breasts bare, could have contributed further support while maintaining access for the feeding child. These discoveries made me wonder about the origins of the tyet amulet. It clearly represents a knot of cloth and its association with red had led some to suggest it represents a menstrual cloth, but there isn’t any conclusive evidence of this. Alternatively the tyet may have its origins in the straps and bands worn on the upper body. A role in supporting the breasts, nourishers of children, would also be consistent with its attribution to with Isis and its associations with ‘health’ and ‘welfare’.


They say that having children changes you, but I had no idea it would also change many of my ideas about ancient Egyptian culture, particularly those associated with nursing. What this has taught me is how important it is to have varied lifestyles and a myriad of experiences amongst archaeologists and Egyptologists. I might have personal experience of nursing a child, but there are myriad ways in which I am far removed from the lives and experiences of the ancient Egyptians. In incorporating a range of voices amongst Egyptologists and archaeologists we will tap into multiple sources of practical and experiential knowledge that may change our understanding of ancient cultures in the same way my nursing experiences have altered my understanding of ancient Egyptian clothing.


Vogelsang-Eastwood, G. 1993. Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing. Brill: Leiden.

Posted in Archaeology and Egyptology, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

5 pieces of advice I wish I’d heard in the first year of my PhD

If you read this blog regularly, you’ll know that I’m currently thinking about those starting a PhD and the things I wish I had known when I began mine 11 years ago. This post focuses on advice I wish I’d heard, either to reassure me or to set me up for career success. In Should I do a PhD I reminded readers that a PhD is not a guarantee of a job, that the academic job market is saturated and that PhD candidates need to start making choices that will aid them in creating their career, right from the point they start considering a PhD. The advice and skills in 10 practical things I wish I knew in the first year of my PhD will not only help new PhD candidates create structure, develop useful skills and get control of their research, but also provide foundational skills for their future research career. This post offers further advice to help you make positive choices early in your PhD and create a solid foundation for your future career. I assume here that the reader aims for an academic career. The advice in this post is equally applicable to ‘alt-ac’ careers, but if you don’t intend to undertake further research in any forum there is less need to create a solid research foundation.

1. Your thesis is only the first piece of original research you will do

It’s easy to think that this PhD you are starting is going to be your best piece of work ever! People who begin PhDs have generally been high academic achievers during earlier phases of their careers and its sensible to assume that will continue. What’s more, as I mention in a previous blog post, there is a general idea that PhDs are something intelligent people do, almost effortlessly, to achieve recognition. These ideas can combine to make you feel like you should be easily writing the most incredible piece of original research – that’s what PhDs do, right?

There may be some people who experience a PhD like that, but for most of us it’s much harder. Original research is, by definition, difficult. It involves dead ends. It involves learning new skills. It involves getting criticised over and over again (hopefully constructively). If you begin with the idea that this should be effortless and incredible, you will rapidly experience anxiety when the inevitable difficulties arise. Begin your research career by reminding yourself that your PhD is an apprenticeship in original research – to achieve it you simply need to demonstrate that you can do research. Let go of perfectionist tendencies. It’s your first piece of original research, it doesn’t need to be the best thing you will ever write or the most awesome research you will ever do. Your masterpiece can come later.

A two-leafed wooden tablet with Greek writing visible inside.
A wooden tablet for writing practice, Greek. (Cairo Museum JE 51323)

2. Academic brand and mission statement

Your ‘academic brand‘ as Cathy Mazak terms it, sounds terribly corporate, but it’s really just shorthand for knowing what fields, specialisms, and techniques you want people to associate with you. Consider those you cited regularly in your previous research, I bet if you think about your most cited academics you can quickly associate them with a field, site, subject, opinion, or research method. That’s their academic brand!

Partially erased figures of Akhenaten and Nefertiti worshipping the sun-disk of the Aten in an Egyptian tomb.
Akhenaten’s brand was so strong it got him erased from history. Akhenaten and Nefertiti worshipping the Aten, Tomb of Meryre, Amarna.

Now you may think it’s a bit early to start branding yourself, when you’ve barely begun your PhD, but it’s never too early to start thinking about what kind of academic you want to be. You have already started creating an academic brand in terms of your past research (particularly any previous dissertations for your Masters) and your PhD subject. Your brand is important because everything in academia is easier when people can identify your research profile, see cohesion in your career history (this is especially important for jobs and grants), and recognise you as the academic who does X. Building your academic brand from the beginning of your PhD will ensure you are easily identifiable and can present a cohesive narrative in grants and job applications.

Mission statement

If your academic brand describes the type of academic you are, your academic mission statement describes how you will implement that brand in your field. My academic mission statement is in bold at the top of the About Hannah page of this blog and it’s followed up by further statements about where I want to go with my research.

Cathy Mazak has a lot of advice on identifying and solidifying your academic brand into something meaningful and effective for you and creating an academic mission statement. Although your PhD research and academic interests are likely to evolve over the course of your studies and into your early-career research, it’s never too early to start thinking about what kind of academic you want to be. What do you want to research? What methods do you want to use? What theoretical paradigms and principles inform your perspective? And what effect do you want your research to have on academia and beyond? I found thinking about these questions incredibly valuable for deciding how to direct my research, in writing grants and research proposals, and even for preparing author biographies for papers and presentations.

3. Plan your career

An ancient Egyptian stela with a large hieroglyphic inscription in the top two thirds and an image of the deceased in front of an offering table at the bottom.
Plan your career with the confidence of an ancient Egyptian writing a biographical inscription. Stela with biographical inscription of Samontuoser, Middle Kingdom, 12th Dynasty, Florence Museum #6365.

Thinking about your academic brand and mission statement is important because it can help you position yourself for your future research career. Your academic brand should ideally include those skills and research areas that, I suggest in my previous post, will help you in your future career: a practical skill and, for Egyptologists, ancient language. You should also consider another horrible corporate phrase ‘unique selling point’ or USP. This is what makes you distinct from all the other researchers and will, therefore, hopefully, make you a desirable prospect on the job market. There is a caveat of course. If you are too novel or unique you may prove threatening or confusing. Academia tends towards the conservative and likes what is familiar. The aim of your USP is to be unique enough to be desirable but familiar enough to be comforting. Obviously, this is a difficult trick to pull off, and one that we really shouldn’t need. Academia ought to be dynamic and truly interested in inter-disciplinarity, but until the culture of academia catches up we work with what we have. This is also where having ancient language can be an asset for an Egyptologist because it instantly satisfies some of the inherent conservatism that we occasionally find in our discipline.

Now of course during the first year of your PhD you are unlikely to be able to make any firm plans for the rest of your career, but you can start putting your academic brand in place, thinking about the niche you could occupy in academia and developing and teaching the practical and linguistic skills you will need. Your brand, mission statement, and career focus may all change during the course of your research, but if you start with the intention of effective career development it will help you to maintain focus and create that cohesive career narrative.

4. Begin publishing

Publications will be essential to your future career, particularly if you are hoping for an academic post. Cathy Mazak is right to describe publications as a kind of currency in academia. Preparing and submitting publications during your PhD provides another outlet for your academic writing practice, lets you develop the skills of preparing and submitting publications, and will hopefully mean you have some published works on your CV by the time you graduate. Ideally, you want to develop a ‘publication pipeline‘ as Cathy Mazak has it or ‘research pipeline‘ as Raul Pacheco Vega describes it, with a series of publications moving through from grants to published outputs. In the first year of your PhD you want to start to create that pipeline.

The obvious place to start your publishing career is with your Masters dissertation. Getting your dissertation polished up for publication might seem daunting, but having something under editing will provide another outlet for your writing practice while you do you literature review and develop ideas about your PhD research. If your PhD evolved from your Masters then writing the latter up for publication may improve your PhD research as well.

A Trello Kanban board showing five lists entitled 'Submitted', 'Revisions', 'Accepted', 'Proofs' and 'Published' with cards for individual publications occupying the lists.
The ‘published’ end of my research pipeline in Trello. Each card represents a publication and they move along the pipeline from left to right as they progress.

Practically there are a lot of resources available for those writing their first academic article. As ever Raul Pacheco Vega and Pat Thompson have various posts about writing a journal article. There is also Wendy Belcher‘s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks which is a step-by-step method for writing a journal article. Your supervisor or a trusted mentor can also offer help and advice and may offer to co-author the article with you if your dissertation is associated directly with their research.

5. Start a blog or vlog

In my previous post, I suggested harnessing the resources of social media, especially Twitter and Facebook, to find a wider academic community and learn new research and writing tips and tricks. While starting a blog or vlog (video blog) might not seem to be the most important thing while you’re developing your PhD research, it will have a number of positive effects that I recommend you harness. Firstly a blog or vlog gives you a ‘home’ in the online research community, a place to curate your academic brand and develop who you are as an academic. When I first developed my academic mission statement I included it on the ‘About’ page of this blog, together with a slightly more detailed discussion of my interests and research. A business card is all well and good, but a blog or vlog gives you a permanent online presence that anyone can find and learn more about who you are and what your research is all about.

Old Kingdom statue of a seated scribe.
‘Be a scribe’ . . . start a blog!
Henka, overseer of the two pyramids of Snefru, as a scribe from Meidum, 5th Dynasty. (Berlin ÄM 7334)

Secondly, a blog or vlog gives you experience in writing for a more general audience. A demonstrable ability to condense academic discussion for a popular audience is going to be helpful in the job market whether you’re aiming for an academic career or not. Relatedly, blogging offers another outlet for your writing practice, another place to explore ideas, essay out arguments and go on flights of fancy that you couldn’t indulge in your PhD or publications. My recent post about the Turin Papyrus and the shrines of Tutankhamun is exactly the kind of post that takes a different view of otherwise well-covered artefacts and couldn’t really be included in a formal publication. It occurred to me while writing about the Turin Papyrus for a serious academic article and my blog gave me an outlet to explore it further.

Fourthly, writing a blog can help you recover your individual style. By the time you start your PhD you’ve probably been writing for so long that academic or business style has rather crushed the personality out of your written products. As you progress through your research, the power of academic style over your writing is only going to get stronger. Having a blog or vlog where you can write more freely can allow you to maintain your stylistic independence. Since regularly writing this blog I have found elements of my personal style creeping in to my academic writing. It’s enough to make my academic writing feel like my own, without attracting criticism from eagle-eyed reviewers and I believe it makes my publications better.

Blogging and/or vlogging can be hugely beneficial to your writing and your career, but it’s worth exercising some caution. Blogging and vlogging are forms of publication so it’s important to make sure you cite anyone you quote, get permission to use other people’s images, avoid defamation and include any relevant acknowledgements. You’ll see in my recent posts (for example here) and youtube videos (such as this one) about georeferencing and satellite imagery I always take care to include a citation for the software and satellite imagery as required by the providers. This is just good manners, and it pays to avoid irritating potentially powerful corporations.

Caution is also merited regarding comments and hot-button topics. For the most part it’s unlikely you’re going to be blogging about anything politically incendiary but if you do it’s important to be prepared. A politically difficult subject will rapidly attract attention, you’ll get trolling and personal comments and can, in some cases, be the victim of threats and digital stalking. Please be cautious and take advice if you intend to say anything that could provoke such a response. More generally, if you’re blogging about archaeology, and particularly about Egypt, you should probably set comments to be screened before they are published. This means you can delete pseudo-science, advertising, trolling, and edgelord comments before they appear on your blog and will avoid you getting into fruitless debates with weirdos.


Petra M. Boynton 2017. The Research Companion: A practical guide for those in the social sciences, health and development. Routledge

Mark Carrington 2019 Social Media for Academics. 2nd Edition. Sage

Cal Newport 2016, Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World. Piatkus

Maggie Berg and Barbara Seeber 2016 Slow Professor: Challenging the Culture of Speed in the Academy. University of Toronto Press.

Jon Acuff 2019. Finish: Give Yourself the Gift of Done. Portfolio.

Posted in Academic life, Traditional and Social Media | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fuel shortages, Google Maps and adapting your tools

Archaeologists have always used tools invented for other purposes. Our ‘signature’ tool, the trowel, was designed for brick-laying; our hoes, mattocks, shovels and wheelbarrows are gardening tools; and I doubt the inventors of the JCB dreamt that with the right bucket and a skilled operator their heavy earth-moving equipment could delicately strip off a few tens-of-centimetres of topsoil to cleanly expose archaeology in the subsoil beneath. What is true of physical tools is also true of technological ones; total stations and computer-aided design were created for construction; satellite imagery had its genesis in espionage; GIS were first used by geographers. Even our theoretical and methodological foundations are often borrowed from others. As archaeologists we specialise in taking something made for something else, and tweaking it to answer our questions. Adapting an existing tool to answer our research questions is as archaeological as brushing dirt from a precious artefact and, as I recently discovered, is widely applicable to a variety of situations beyond the excavation, lab or library.

Seeking petrol

At the time of writing, the UK is currently experiencing a temporary fuel shortage, resulting from a combination of panic-buying and a shortage in HGV drivers. I live in a suburban area, but public transport is limited and I have a pre-schooler, so I have always done a modest amount of driving. The fuel shortage caught us unawares with limited petrol in the car and after a few days of taking my little one to school we were running seriously short. At this time fuel deliveries were still being made, but the number of people seeking fuel and the intermittent nature of the deliveries meant that it was impossible to know which petrol station would have fuel. I needed to find a way to determine exactly which petrol station might have what I needed before I left. Where could I find real-time information on which petrol stations had fuel? How could I locate the closest one?

Real-time feedback in Google maps

Thanks to years of archaeological research, I have a long history of looking at maps and satellite imagery and I’m used to combining data, maps and visual imagery to address research questions. So when I was faced with a very real problem my brain automatically thought along the same lines. Since I was looking for the closest petrol station with fuel, the problem was obviously a question of mapping. Google maps is one of the most powerful mapping tools available for simple tasks and offers real-time information, it was a sensible place to start looking for a solution.

Google maps image showing the Southend-on-sea area, with petrol stations marked.
Google Maps showing petrol stations near my home in Leigh-on-sea. Screenshot taken at 12.30pm on Monday 4 October (Google Map data ©2021).

When teaching basic GIS I often use Google maps as an example of a deceptively simple but immensely powerful GIS. Behind the Google maps interface is an incredibly complex programme collating vast quantities of data, from satellite imagery and road maps, to data about speed limits and real-time information about traffic movements. Despite this complexity and vast processing power, it appears simple to us because the interface places substantial limits on what we can do with it; see a map of the area around us, search for a location, navigate from one place to another, or find a simple amenity, like a petrol station. Google Maps is immensely powerful but setup to be used in certain specific ways. It contains the locations of nearby petrol stations (as in the image above) and real-time traffic information (image below), but its not setup to find petrol stations with fuel. If I wanted do that I would need use it in a way its designers had never intended. I would need to adapt this tool to access the data I needed, just like generations of archaeologists before.

Google maps image showing the Southend-on-sea area, with traffic information turned on.
The borough of Southend-on-sea in Google Maps, with traffic information turned on. Screenshot taken at 12.45pm on Monday 4 October (Google Map data ©2021)

Adapting the tools

Adapting the data from Google Maps to answer my question necessitated current background knowledge of the situation and its impact on my society. The one thing everyone in any urban or suburban area knows about the petrol shortage is that any petrol station with fuel rapidly creates a jam along the adjacent road as people queue up to get fuel and block the road. So I combined the petrol station locations with the traffic information to identify petrol stations with queues outside. Since people don’t queue outside a petrol station without fuel, those with queues must have fuel. In the image to the right Tesco Petrol Station and the West Street BP to the right of the map just above the ‘Southend’ label, both have queues outside. The Shell to the right of Tesco does not. We promptly went to the West Street BP and fuelled-up without difficulty.

Google maps image showing a detail of the Southend-on-sea area, with petrol stations marked and traffic information turned on. Some petrol stations show a red queue of traffic approaching their entrances, while others do not.
Google Maps extract from 28 September 2021, 8pm. (Google Map data ©2021)

‘Improper use may cause damage!’

As when using any tool in a way its creators did not intend, a certain amount of local knowledge, experience and common sense is required. In the image to the right the BP with a Wild Bean Cafe in the bottom left also has queues shown to the west of it, but I can’t be sure those indicate it has petrol. It’s on the A13 and close to a junction. The A13 is a major road that is often slow and can have queues and jams almost anywhere on it for any reason, and the traffic lights often produce short local jams like those shown in the image. So if I was really desperate to go straight to a petrol station with fuel, seek out queues at petrol stations on a minor roads some distance from intersections. The BP petrol station on West Street, Prittlewell, is an excellent example. The West Street BP is centre right, just above the ‘Southend’ label in the image above right. When I checked traffic information against petrol stations I found a dark red tail leading away from the West Street BP (centre right in the image below). West Street is not a major road and the BP is not close to a major intersection. The only likely reason there’s a queue leading straight to that petrol station at 8pm is that those people are waiting for fuel.

Checks and balances

Google maps image showing a detail of the Southend-on-sea area, with petrol stations marked and traffic information turned on. Some petrol stations show a red queue of traffic approaching their entrances, while others do not.
Google Maps of the area near Leigh-on-sea showing petrol station locations and traffic information. Screenshot taken at 1pm on Monday 4 October (Google Map data ©2021)

Its possible to double-check that a petrol station has fuel using the powerful statistics held in Google maps. At the time of writing it is 1pm on a sunny weekday. There should not be a lot of unusual traffic or unexpected jams that are unrelated to fuel queues and might confuse me, but if it was rush-hour I’d have to be more careful. Checking the petrol situation at the present (image above) it seems that the Tesco Petrol Station and Shell in the centre right of the image have fuel, while the Esso MFG Kent Elms does not.

Details of the Tesco Petrol Station in Southend on sea showing its address, opening hours, phone number and times when it is busiest.
Tesco Petrol Station statistics from Google Maps on 4 October 2021 at 1.25pm.
Details of the Tesco Petrol Station in Southend on sea showing its address, opening hours, phone number and times when it is busiest.
West Street BP petrol station statistics from Google Maps on 4 October 2021 at 1.25pm..

I can confirm that the traffic information reflects queues for fuel rather than any other traffic incident by checking the real-time statistics in Google Maps (this was Paul Barrett’s idea). If you click on the little marker balloon for a likely petrol station and scroll down, there’s a little graph showing popular times. If the queue on the traffic information is for fuel, the graph should show that the petrol station is currently ‘busier than usual’. If we check on the Tesco Petrol Station for now 1pm on 4 October 2021, we find it is ‘busier than usual’ (image above left), confirming the evidence of the traffic information, that showed a queue outside it. This contrasts quite nicely with the BP on West Street, which is now running out or is out of fuel and is therefore ‘less busy than usual’ (image above right).

Adapting and mis-using tools

Aside from being an interesting use of an incredibly powerful free GIS, why is my solution to a personal fuel crisis of archaeological or Egyptological significance? I believe there are two reasons. The real-world value of humanities and social science disciplines like archaeology and Egyptology are often questioned and those who study them expected to explain how their supposedly arcane subject prepares them for the real world of work. I developed this particular method of solving my real-world fuel shortage problem because of my long history of looking at maps and satellite imagery and combining various sources of data and visual imagery to address research questions. While students learn many valuable skills studying archaeology or Egyptology, the ability to marshal varied sources of data in textual, statistical and visual formats; and judiciously adapt tools for new purposes, is highly valuable in many professions.

Secondly, my method of finding petrol stations with fuel follows the same model of adaptation that is common in archaeology and Egyptology. I took an existing, common tool (Google Maps) and combined two established features of that tool (real-time traffic information and the local search function) with specific cultural knowledge (that petrol stations with fuel attract queues) to extract information on which petrol stations were likely to have fuel. I improved the rigour of my method with additional background cultural and cartographic knowledge (of the main roads and traffic hotspots) and checked it against an independent dataset (Google Maps real-time statistics on how busy locations are). The result is an efficient and effective method of obtaining information I did not previously have direct access to but which was present in existing datasets, all without developing new software or diagnostic tools. For me this is what GIS, landscape and archaeological research is all about!

Posted in Archaeology and Egyptology, GIS | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Ten practical things I wish in knew in the first year of my PhD

So you’ve gone through the arduous process of deciding you need to do a PhD, applying and getting accepted. Maybe you’ve even got funding (Congratulations if you have – getting funding is huge!). And now you’re ready to start the process. A quick search will reveal a large number of articles with similar titles to this one, including a whole collection by Pat Thompson. It seems like almost everyone is writing about their PhD experience. There’ll be practical advice about finding the library, setting up your IT and emails, arranging meetings with your supervisor and more general suggestions about keeping your focus, finding your feet, being flexible and prepared, growing a thick skin, and discovering the resources available to help you. It’s all good advice, but general comments like ‘grow a thick skin’ and ‘be organised’ don’t always point you in the right direction. It’s easy to say ‘Oh yes I’ll be organised’ without really thinking about what that means.

This October will mark 11 years since I began my PhD research, and July 2021 marks six years since I graduated. During the process of completing my PhD, and even more so since I graduated, I learned a number of things I wish I had known in that first year. Things that turn general advice like ‘be organised’ into specifics, with links to places you can learn more about what ‘being organised’ might look like, and how you can organise yourself in a way that works for you. Your first year is an ideal time for moving from being a student to a professional researcher, learning new processes and exploring how you work best. Making these changes will also help you feel in control of your PhD during a time when many are overwhelmed and uncertain about how to tackle such a large project.

1. Academic research requires project management

Project management is not something we think of in the same terms as academia. But successful academic research, writing and publishing absolutely requires project management skills. If you start you PhD with a good project management system you’re much less likely to lose track of something important. Your project management system needs to allow you to plan, organise and control your research. It should involve breaking down your project into manageable tasks and setting realistic goals. With an effective project management system you will always know what project(s) you are working on, how far along they are, what needs to be done next and how long this current task will take you. This early in your research you probably aren’t going to be able to plan out your entire PhD research, but you can certainly experiment with organising your current tasks. Practicing your project management skills this early in your research career will give you an opportunity to hone them so they are ready when you really need them, and embedding your PhD project in your project management system from the beginning will make forward planning easier once you can do so in more detail.

It may be that you already have a project management system from a previous job that you can adapt, but if not there are a variety of online options and academic coaches with suggestions. It can be analogue or digital or a combination of both. Raul Pacheco-Vega has pages of advice about planning research and I have personally found Cathy Mazak‘s academic project management advice to be very helpful. Cathy is an academic writing coach whose work I discovered after having a baby in the middle of a research job. She helped me organise my work, keep researching and writing through the COVID-19 pandemic and feel more confident in my academic career and development. Cathy offers paid programmes, but there’s a ton of free advice that can get you going, including a podcast, blog and Facebook page. Cathy recommends using Trello for practical project management and has some sample boards to help you get started. Whether or not her personal system is for you, sorting yourself out with some form of project management system at the start of your PhD will help you get organised and feel more in control of your research.

Trello Kanban board showing five lists labelled 'Tasklist', 'To Do', 'Doing', 'Awaiting Response' and 'Done'. There are two cards in 'Tasklist', one in 'Doing' and multiple in 'Done'
My Trello kanban board for a recently completed article, showing remaining tasks in the ‘Tasklist’ column and ‘Doing’ column and completed tasks in the ‘Done’ column. I use Trello for most of my project management, ranging from preparing individual papers to long term planning.

2. Writing is everything and everything is writing

It may seem like you have years until you need to write up your PhD, but the sooner you start writing the quicker you will start developing your academic writing skills. Academic writing is what produces publications, grants and jobs. It really is the essential academic skill and you cannot start practicing it too early. You can think of it like practising a musical instrument or running. During undergraduate and taught post-graduate study your academic writing is short and limited to maybe 10,000 words, like learning to play a modest piece of music or run 5k. But a PhD is book-length. This is like playing an opera or running a marathon and you need to train your mind for it.

Writing will also help you to develop ideas. You don’t need to polish everything you write to publishable standard either. As Pat Thompson points out, we write much more than we publish. Writing is an intellectual workout. It can be done simply to exercise your writing muscles and develop your ideas, everything else is a bonus.

Image shows the author working at her GIS in Olynthos in 2015.
Everything is writing – even working with the GIS

What can you write about when you’ve barely started? Writing may refer the process of putting pen to paper, fingers to keyboard or mouth to microphone, but as Cathy Mazak reminded me three years ago writing is everything you do from grant writing to proof-reading. Everything you do from the outset of your PhD contributes to that final written product – so everything is writing.

And everything should involve writing. Whatever research task you are undertaking you should be writing about it. Fieldwork involves recording; archival research and reading involves note-taking. Learning a new piece of technology, organise your thoughts by writing a blog post about it. Undertaking a piece of GIS research, write down what you’re doing; the data, the methods, the outputs, the errors, the logic. Record everything. In my experience that one map that I georeferenced without writing down the RMSE, will be the one I need to include in the paper (or in your case thesis/dissertation)!

So whatever you are doing and at whatever stage of your research remember that everything your are doing contributes to your thesis (yes even the dead-ends). Everything is writing. And write about everything, in the old fashioned pen-to-paper, fingers-to-keyboard sense, to exercise your intellectual muscles and to record what you’ve done. In 3 years time when you’re ‘writing up’ your thesis, those records will save you time and energy.

3. Learn how you like to write (and research)

As PhD student you’re either going to have a lot of unstructured time for research (if you’re full -time) or highly specific time constraints (if you are part-time and writing your PhD around work and/or family). Either way, you need to make the best use of your time and the first thing you need to know is when you write best. Research writing is hard intellectual work and there will be times it feels easy and times it feels hard. Cathy Mazak calls those easy times your ‘soar state’ (formerly ‘Tiger Time’). Maybe you write best first thing in the morning, or perhaps you’re an evening person. It doesn’t matter when you do your best work, but if possible try to schedule your most intellectually taxing writing and research for those times.

You should also consider what props, rewards and rituals set you up for success in your writing. The rituals we use vary hugely but their purpose is to get us ‘in the mood’ for writing, demonstrate what we’ve achieved and reward us for reaching our goals. Pat Thompson has a collection of blogposts about this type of ‘Writing stuff‘. It may seem inconsequential during the excitement at the outset of your project, but when you’re struggling with theory, getting frustrated with tech or surviving a crisis, simple rewards, rituals and props suddenly mean so much more. During the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown I had a nearly 2-year-old entirely at home for almost 3 months, with nowhere to take her (apart from a daily walk) and my husband working full-time at the dining-room table. There was no way I could undertake ‘research as usual’. Instead when she went to sleep for her daily nap I would sit down at my computer. I consciously told myself it didn’t matter how long I worked for, only that I sat down and began. As soon as I sat down I put a bronze or silver star on the calendar. Some days I only worked for 10 minutes. Other days it was two or three hours. And sometimes I would nap too, or rest. It didn’t matter because over time those little stars accumulated. I felt good. I was exercising my brain despite the crisis and making steady progress on my research. By the time I reached August I had submitted a paper begun during COVID-19 nap time.

A calendar from July 2020 with bronze, silver and gold stars overlying the dates.
Calendar from July 2020 (after nurseries reopened) showing the days I worked during nap time (bronze stars), the days I worked longer while the toddler was at nursery (silver stars), and the days I submitted something (gold stars).

You also need to understand when to stop writing. You wouldn’t train for a marathon or practice for an opera every working minute – your body would rapidly become exhausted. In the same way writing is hard intellectual work, Deep Work as Cal Newport has it in his book of the same name. Like a muscle or skill it must be developed and like a muscle or skill it must also be rested. How long you can sustain fluid, soaring writing will depend on your energy levels and past experience but you need to learn to stop when it becomes a slog and rest regularly.

4. Develop a writing system

Once you understand when and how you write best you can start to create a ‘writing system‘ or routine. This should be a method that allows you to maintain momentum, writing regularly and exercising your intellectual muscles. The most important thing about a writing system is that it needs to suit your personality and situation and ensure you keep writing. Your writing system also needs to be encouraging and adaptable, particularly if you have work or family commitments. You don’t want to end up feeling guilty about ‘not writing’ when circumstances prevent it and you want to be able to pick it back up after a pause. It should also work with your project management system so you are always in control.

Writing systems boil down to three different types that can also be combined: write every day; write regularly but not every day; write in intensive bursts. Cathy Mazak teaches a system combining regular writing with intensive bursts. You can also try the write every day approach like Raul Pacheco-Vega. I recommend you try a variety of different systems and see which one works for you.

5. Learn time management

You’re ready to write regularly, have discovered when you work best, and are experimenting with project management and writing systems. Now you can start managing your time, corralling your PhD work into the time your have or structuring all those unstructured days. As with almost anything else there are multiple methods of approaching time management. Raul Pacheco-Vega has a lot of helpful posts ranging from semester planning to thesis planning. For managing your everyday life I like Cathy Mazak’s ideal week approach that helps you plan out how you would ideally spend your week, beginning with necessary rest and recuperation (such as lunch or regular exercise) and professional and personal commitments, before planning research and writing time at those hours that you do you best work. You can then use your ideal week in concert with your project management data to plan your weekly workload by allotting project tasks to specific time periods. Alternative approaches could include planning your research tasks on web-based calendar or in a physical planner, like Raul Pacheco-Vega’s Everything Notebook.

Trello Kanban board showing 5 columns with the days of the working week and cards below detailing activities between 9.00-5.30.
My current ideal week

In my current ideal week Monday is mostly devoted to childcare because I have my toddler at home on Mondays. Tuesday I allot time for catching up on email and social media and committee work, with teaching, my freelance work and CPD also possibilities. On Wednesday the morning is devoted to research writing. On Thursday and Friday I spend my mornings doing teaching prep, freelance work or CPD depending on what is more urgent. Afternoons include what I call ‘environment maintenance’ which means household chores I can’t do with a toddler around, plus emails.

As you become better at project and time management and get further into your PhD research you will become better at breaking your work into manageable tasks, estimating their length, and planning when they will be completed. Combining this with a better grasp of how your research is going to develop should make it easier for you to plan out your PhD project and thesis write-up. Raul Pacheco-Vega and Pat Thompson both have blogs on planning and structuring your thesis. Any type of long-term planning becomes easier once you are proficient at small-scale time and project management and your first year is an ideal point to start developing those skills.

6. Develop your literature review skills

The ‘literature review’ is something you will come across in academic discussions, but it isn’t a major topic of conversation amongst archaeologists or Egyptologists. In our disciplines it seems to be simply expected that we will engage thoroughly with the literature surrounding our subject and somehow be able to express that suitably in academic writing. This is a shame because explicit discussion of the literature review and how to do it can be liberating. Learning how to efficiently read, record and regurgitate the literature is both encouraging and a huge time-saver.

Succinctly, the purpose of the literature review is to demonstrate how your research fits in with the current state of your discipline. You will use it to show which ‘gap’ in the pre-existing research you are filling (and therefore reminding everyone that yours is truly ‘original’ research) and which other authors you are in a dialogue with: who do you admire, who inspired your research and (just as importantly) who’s work do you despise. You won’t need to read or cite every single piece of literature ever written on your discipline, but you do need to demonstrate you have a good grasp of it and be certain you haven’t missed anyone or anything really important.

A quarried face with traces of red paint from multiple First Intermediate Period graffitos.
Literature review involves entering into a dialogue with others in your discipline, much like the interleaving graffiti of the First Intermediate Period expeditions in Quarry P at Hatnub.

In order to complete your literature review you will need to develop a method of academic reading, and your first year is the ideal time to do so. There’s no right method of reading academic literature, but whatever method you choose needs to enable you to efficiently:

  • Understand what any given academic paper is about;
  • Summarise the paper
  • Identify any specifics of relevance to your research
  • Identify any interactions with other academic papers
  • Retain this information for the future.

What this boils down to in practice is typically a method for reading the paper, a method of summarising the paper and a method for storing the summary and bibliographic information where you can easily retrieve it. What methods you use will depend on how you read, summarise and store. Personally I like Raul Pacheco-Vega’s and Pat Thompson (Patter’s) advice on reading literature and undertaking literature reviews. I also like the Zettelkasten concept of recording ideas singly and linking them to each other and you can use Trello for it. I am slowly working on recording the common concepts I need to reference again and again, but after so many years of research, building something like a Zettel archive is difficult. The first year of your PhD is an ideal time for investigating literature review methods and developing something that will work for you.

7. Hone your writing

I have mentioned that writing is a skill and one that needs practice. But just like our marathon runner’s muscles, getting the right kind of help can dramatically improve your abilities. If you’re anything like me you came through academia with a certain innate ability to write academic prose (in my case its because I’m a stylistic mimic – my written thoughts start to fall into the same style as the last things I read). If you were never consciously taught to write, why would you think of honing that skill and actively improving? But however good your academic prose is, it can always be better, and happily there are many resources out there to help train your academic writing muscle. Both Raul Pacheco-Vega and Pat Thompson have resources on improving your academic writing. Pat Thompson has a many posts about writing the different parts of your thesis as well as collections of posts on writing a journal article or book. You may also find additional sources like the Explorations of Academic Style blog and advice on social media using the twitter hashtag #AcWri. The hastag #AcademicChatter and handles @WriteThatPhD @ThesisWhisperer and @AcademicsWrite also contain incredibly useful advice and links to other hashtags and handles. Wendy Belcher’s Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks Discussion Facebook group also has a lot of useful advice and tips. If vocabulary is an issue you can try the University of Manchester Academic Phrasebank. There are also many books on the subject, including:

Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein 2018. They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. 4th edition. W. W. Norton & Company.

Eric Hayot 2014. The Elements of Academic Style: Writing for the Humanities. Columbia University Press.

Inger Mewburn, Katherine Firth and Shawn Lehmann 2018. How to Fix Your Academic Writing Trouble. Open University Press

Rowena Murray 2011. How To Write A Thesis (Open Up Study Skills). 3rd Edition. Open University Press.

John M. Swales and Christine Feak 2012. Academic Writing for Graduate Students. 23rd edition. The University of Michigan Press.

Helen Sword 2012. Stylish Academic Writing. Harvard University Press.

Eric Hayot’s book merits a particular mention as it includes one of the most useful pieces of advice I have ever read: The Uneven U, which is a method for arranging your sentences, paragraphs or chapters in a format that clarifies your argument and ties your evidence clearly to the statements it supports.

A statue of an Old Kingdom Egyptian official in scribal pose
Limestone statue of the Priest Ptahshepses as a scribe, reading. 5th Dynasty, from Saqqara. Now in the Cairo Museum.

Learning new ways of improving your academic writing will help you train your mind more rapidly and reduce the chances of getting negative or frustrating criticism about your writing style from supervisors or reviewers.

8. Learn the basics of your word processing and spreadsheet software

This sounds obvious but its amazing how many people don’t know basic tricks that will make their word processing software so much more ergonomic. You’re practicing your writing and beginning your research. Now is the ideal time to start checking out the functionality of your word processing software and change it if necessary. You’d be surprised how much you can do with Microsoft Word as I found reading a list of hacks in a Wendy Belcher’s Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks Discussion Facebook group (this is a private group so if you want to read the list I recommend you join – it also has a lot of other useful academic writing resources). You could do an online course, see if your University runs one or just start searching for solutions to the features of your word processor that have most annoyed you in the past. Over the years I have found that at lot of my annoyance with Word resulted from me not understanding how to get what I needed to from the programme.

9. Explore Reference Managers

Reference Managers promise to end those frustrating hours compiling a bibliography, checking every comma and parenthesis is in the right place and whether you’ve included the publisher and place of publication in the right order. Whether its Endnote, Zotero, Mendeley Paperpile, or another type of bibliographic software they all allow you to construct a database of references. These references can be inserted as citations into your document and those citations are then used to compile your bibliography in the format you specify. Theoretically its brilliant, but there are some caveats. Different reference managers have slightly different functionalities, as this comparison table from Oxford University shows. Some are proprietary and others are open source. Proprietary types are generally slicker, but can be expensive and may prompt ethical concerns. You may get a reference manager free from your University, but may need to pay or export your references elsewhere when you leave. Different reference managers also have different integration with tablets and phones, which may be a consideration depending on how you like to work.

At the start of your PhD you have the opportunity to test out reference managers. Your best option is to begin with the version preferred by your University and seek assistance from your library in getting any necessary training. If your University offers a choice you should probably check with your supervisors, mentors or peers which reference manager they prefer. However, you may find they don’t use one. In a poll I put up on a Facebook page frequented by many Egyptologists 62 didn’t use a reference manager, 27 used Zotero, 10 used Endnote and 5 used Mendeley. Quigga, Bookends, Ibidem and Refworks all got one vote each. I suspect for those of us who have a lot of analogue references, finding the time to input them all into a reference manager proves rather off-putting. Using a reference manager from the very start of your PhD should prevent you ever ending up in the same position, ensuring your references are consistently imported into the reference manager, ideally during the literature review and reading process. It will also provide an opportunity to learn how to make best use of your reference manager in concert with the rest of your reading and literature review process.

10. Go social

Social media have something of a mixed reputation, but whatever you think about the social media fandoms, twitter trolls or Mark Zuckerberg, social media represent a huge resource and intensely valuable community. Almost everything I have discussed or linked to in this blog I originally found on social media and I’ve discussed before my engagement in various Facebook Egyptology groups. You do not need to engage with toxicity or trolling if you chose not to. You can lock down your profiles, restrict your interests to academic subjects and limit the information you provide about yourself. By all means be cautious, but avoiding social media entirely cuts off an important resource and community.

A scene from an ancient Egyptian tomb showing various guests at a party.
Engaging with your community is important. Party scene, tomb of Nebamun, now in the British Museum (BM EA 37986)

Twitter is extremely popular amongst academics and you can find and follow mentors, supervisors, fieldwork and research projects of interest to you. It’s often the first place to locate the newest research in your field and catch up with recent discoveries on site. The wide range of twitter hashtags and tweeps in the academic writing, PhD, research and post-doc communities also provide up-to-date information on job postings, research opportunities and grants, as well as more general advice and encouragement on getting through a PhD. In addition to the academic writing hashtags above try #PhDChat #AcademicTwitter #PhDAdvice #PhdLife @AcademicChatter @Homo_Academicus @PhDSpeaks @PhD_Connect. Your favourite academic coaches are also on twitter including @ProfessorIsIn @ThesisWhisperer @MurrayRowena @RaulPacheco and @ThompsonPat. @RaulPacheco also has a lot of advice on how to manage your social media, and particularly you Twitter presence.

Facebook also offers opportunities, primarily in the form of groups to join. If you’re a woman, trans or non-binary person, groups like Cathy Mazak’s I Should Be Writing and the Women in Academia Support Network offer a supportive community for academics. BAJR Archaeology is open to everyone with archaeological leanings and its offshoot Mentoring Womxn in Archaelogy and Heritage is suitable for women, trans and non-binary archaeologists. On the Egyptology side there are a plethora of Egyptology groups on Facebook. The best ones are strictly supervised, with ruthlessly enforced rules about advertising, trolling, politics, pseudo-science and rudeness. Here you can find information on new discoveries, queries about objects, links to interesting pages and resources, information about exhibitions, lectures, study days and meetings. Try Em Hotep, Petrie Museum Friends, Sussex Egyptology, Essex Egyptology and various other local group pages you will find frequently link to these. For those with a specific interest there are also more targeted pages PrEgypt, Old Kingdom Egyptology, The Coffin Club, Hatshepsut Project, Not Just Another Akhenaten and Amarna Group, New Kingdom Egyptology Group, Egyptian Third Intermediate Period, Egypt in the First Millennium BC.

How you make use of social media during your PhD and throughout your research career is likely to be highly personal to you. There is no one single method because this technology is so new, so as with everything else here it’s worth experimenting to see what works and what you like. The first year of your PhD is the ideal time for such experimentation.


Mark Carrington 2019 Social Media for Academics. 2nd Edition. Sage.

Cal Newport 2016, Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World. Piatkus.

Maggie Berg and Barbara Seeber 2016 Slow Professor: Challenging the Culture of Speed in the Academy. University of Toronto Press.

Jon Acuff 2019. Finish: Give Yourself the Gift of Done. Portfolio.

Posted in Academic life, Traditional and Social Media | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Should I do a PhD?

It’s that time of year again, summer has come and gone, COVID-19 is hopefully clearing up, people are putting their lives back together and some will be wondering if the time has come to do a much-desired PhD in archaeology or Egyptology. This post is inspired by a friend asking her post-PhD Egyptologist buddies if she should do a PhD and what, if anything, she should consider before she begins. We dutifully answered her, but I thought the subject could do with a longer treatment.


Before you decide to do a PhD its worth considering whether a PhD is really right for you and that means exposing several misconceptions:

A PhD does not guarantee a job

A PhD is the basic entry requirement you need for a research career, typically in academia. But it is only a foundation. To land a full-time, permanent academic job you typically need a PhD, a post-doc or two, teaching experience and a big helping of luck. There are some fields where academics do not routinely have PhDs, but academic archaeologists without a terminal degree are the exception. The normal post-doctoral route for archaeologists and Egyptologists is to undertake one or two post-doctoral projects (applying for appropriate grants, undertaking original research and publishing it), before landing an entry level academic position, often of a temporary nature. Full-time, permanent academic jobs in Egyptology are rare, and although archaeology is slightly better, there are many applicants for each job. You will often have to move location and sometimes country for every new job. It is entirely possible that you will complete an outstanding PhD but find your career stalled at the post-doc or adjunct stage. Now that is absolutely not your fault and its not the end of the world, but its worth considering carefully before you begin.

Before you decide to start a PhD please have a good look at the various authors and writers who are honest about success in academia and alternatives. Keep an eye on people like The Professsor Is In (US-centric but honest about the problems with the academic job market) and Tweeps like @FromPhDtoLife @ProfessorIsIn @AcademicChatter and #PostAc #AltAc #WithAPhD #PhDChat. From PhD To Life has just published a list of books about the many fulfilling alternatives to academia depending on what really interests you about research. Many of the jobs undertaken by Historians are also appropriate to archaeologists, such as those collated by the Employed Historian. You can also look at the National Coalition of Independent Scholars (@NCISorg on twitter) and their British partner group FIRE-UK for more information about researchers outside the academy. Having a PhD has great value in many fields and you absolutely don’t have to be an academic to find it worthwhile, but it’s not a guarantee of a career in academia or elsewhere.

A PhD is not an ego-boosting experience

A common public misconception about PhDs is that they are ego-boosting experiences, which innately clever people undertake almost without effort as an exercise in recognition. This misconception is common in TV and film where examples of the ‘omnidisciplinary scientist’ trope often have multiple PhDs. In fact, a PhD is quite the opposite of an ego-boost. No matter your competency, original research is hard work, involving multiple failures and dead-ends, problems with data, and confusion over new techniques. Academic writing necessitates regular peer review with considerable constructive, and sometimes less-than-constructive, criticism. Even the most competent and capable student is likely to experience competence-related anxiety at some point during their PhD. A PhD is absolutely not an ego-boost and may well leave you feeling like you know less at the end than at the beginning. (You don’t actually know less, you’ve just discovered how little you – and probably anyone – really knows about your chosen subject).

A PhD is ‘a real job’ and a hard one

Another public misconception is that people do PhDs because they don’t know what else to do. I’m sure there are some people who’ve done so, but I doubt they enjoyed it. PhDs are really hard and personally stressful. You’d have to be very relaxed indeed to undertake all that out of boredom. To get finished most PhDs require the passion of an interesting subject and/or the motivation of a future career.

Image of the author sitting on a balcony overlooking an Egyptian field with a differential GPS.
Programming the differential GPS on the terrace of the Marsam Hotel, Luxor. What this photo does not show is that this GPS was of an unfamiliar design and I only had a few hours of training with it. I spent two stressful days figuring out how it worked before I could begin our research.

Do you need a PhD for the next stage of your career?

PhDs are hard, stressful, challenging, expensive, confidence-sapping and there are no guarantees of either academic or career success. So why do one? If you can achieve your desired outcome without one then that is perfectly reasonable and you have saved yourself a whole lot of expense, stress, and frustration. On the other hand, there are a number of very good reasons to do a PhD. There are career options where a PhD is likely to be either essential or highly desirable. As Chris Naunton discusses in this blog post, exactly how we define ‘Egyptologist’ depends very much on our perspective, but it is much easier to be recognised as such with a PhD in the subject. Archaeology is a much broader church, but a PhD is still useful for demonstrating your mastery of higher research methods to future employers. Fundamentally there several good reasons to do a PhD:

It’s an essential requirement for your preferred career

As an apprenticeship in original research a PhD is the basic requirement necessary for various research careers. There are still some fields where academics do not generally have PhDs, but for archaeology and Egyptology if you want to have a chance of teaching and/or researching in a University or equivalent setting a PhD is the basic requirement. Various academia-adjacent careers may also expect or prefer post-holders to have PhDs. If you want to go into any sort of higher research in academia or elsewhere it is likely that a PhD is highly desirable, if not essential.

That said, archaeology offers a variety of opportunities to undertake research without a PhD. It may be worth getting experience in archaeological research before you decide a PhD is the right choice. If you can do the type of research that interests you without a PhD, you will have saved yourself considerable time, energy, and money.

It’s fun

If you don’t have career concerns or worries about paying the bills, it’s perfectly reasonable to decide to do a PhD for fun. The advantage is that you won’t be anxious about always ensuring you are in the best position for your future career, but you also won’t have ambition driving you through the harder parts. Even the best job has its boring bits and PhDs are much the same. Be prepared for those times when you wonder why you thought this would be ‘fun’. It’s also worth doing some serious self-reflection about why you want to do a PhD and what it might do to you. A PhD is an intellectual marathon. At some point, much like a marathon runner, you will hit ‘the wall’. A colleague looked at my face towards the end of my PhD and said ‘you’ve reached the point where you not only want to throw your thesis out the window, you want to throw yourself out after it’. I knew exactly what he meant. I was totally and absolutely fed up with my thesis and I wanted it to be finished. (Don’t worry, the feeling passes). You will inevitably face criticism and it may not be constructive. A PhD will expose exactly what you do and do not know and any insecurities you have. If you are going into this ‘for fun’ be prepared for it to be tough at times. To counter the inevitable bad days be sure to pick a subject that really interests you.

Author and tripods set up against an ancient inscription on a rock face.
Sometimes it’s just fun! Reflectance Transformation Imaging at Hatnub

Someone is paying you to do a PhD.

It may sound like a dream but sometimes the stars align and someone will literally pay you to do a PhD: your current employer; a research institution; or a grant-funding body. It sounds like an offer too good to miss, but depending on your benefactor they may not be as generous as they seem. If your employer is offering to fund your PhD then please make sure you are absolutely clear (and get it in writing) exactly what they are offering. They will usually pay your University fees, but you will also need funding for conferences and research expenses and time to undertake the work. Original research is intellectually taxing and unless your job is extremely easy for you, undertaking your PhD research in the evenings and at weekends will be extremely tiring. Try to negotiate time for your PhD research during your working day. You should also negotiate whether PhD-related conferences will be included in your work-time or not and who will pay for them. If your employer is funding your PhD, your research will probably relate to data they hold, but the chances are that at some point you will need to go elsewhere to collect data or relevant sources. It is worth negotiating with your employer for such trips to be paid for and included in your work time. If your employer is paying for your PhD, treat it like part of the job. Don’t let gratitude obscure the need to negotiate the details with them.

Funding from research institutions or funding bodies varies. At best funding will include your fees, a stipend, and research funds. A fully-funded PhD will allow you to work full-time on your academic achievements and provide necessary funding for attending conferences and doing research fieldwork, visits etc. Some funded PhDs form part of larger projects and are advertised on jobs boards like other academic posts. In other cases, you will need to apply for funding from the relevant body in cooperation with your University after you have decided upon a suitable project. Funded PhDs are obviously highly sort after and competition is fierce.

Can you cope with self-funding?

If a PhD is what you want to do, but you cannot obtain external funding you will need to self-fund; paying your fees to the University and finding your own living costs. You can to apply to smaller funding pots or grants for conference and research expenses, but these may not cover all your expenses.

Unless you are independently wealthy or retired, you will probably need to work while doing your self-funded PhD. Most self-funders work part-time and study part-time, but exactly how much time you can devote to working and studying is very personal. You will need to determine what you can afford, both financially and in terms of personal energy. It requires a lot of mental energy to undertake the deep thinking, creating, and analysing you will need to complete a PhD – it is ‘deep work’ as Cal Newport describes it in his book of the same name. How much of the pre-PhD, full-time work you can afford to give up is a very personal decision and depends on both what you need financially and how much mental energy your bill-paying work requires. Only you can know what you are capable of after a long day at work and how much actual work you need to do to pay the bills. Ironically, while living costs may be easier if you are living with others, that may also make it harder to move for research or future academic posts.

Focussing your PhD research to maximise your career-options

You really do need a PhD and you’ve worked out how you can afford to do one. But the post-doctoral career market is fierce and a PhD doesn’t guarantee you a future in research. How can you give yourself the best opportunity to get the career you want or the most transferable skills to shift into other sectors? It might seem strange to discuss this before you’ve even decided to do a PhD, but focussing your PhD research on the right things can provide a better foundation for the next phase of your career. There are a number of ways to maximise your chances of getting important post-doc and lecturing positions, and those skills can also help if you decide upon a career outside academia. Ideally, your PhD should include a practical inter-disciplinary skill, teaching of relevant subjects, and, if you’re an Egyptologist, ancient language:

Learn a practical skill

Being able to teach or provide a practical inter-disciplinary skill can make you more attractive as a post-doc or lecturer, and can also provide a useful practical skill you can offer to the world outside academia. Can you incorporate archaeological drawing, photography, GIS, coding, etc into your PhD? Can you get experience in a museum? How can you develop a practical aspect of your PhD that will appeal to a future employer?

Author standing on a mudbrick pyramid with a differential GPS de
Using GPS to survey a mudbrick pyramid at Dra Abu el-Naga, Luxor.

Now you can do, please teach.

Getting teaching experience can be hugely advantageous in obtaining your post-doc or first lecturing post. It doesn’t really matter what you teach, although it would be better if it was related to your PhD research. Many Universities allow PhD candidates to teach classes or cover for lecturers. Grasp those opportunities with both hands if you possibly can.

Acquire language skills

Most Egyptology lecturing positions expect you to be able to teach some form of ancient Egyptian language, often as well as various historical or archaeological subjects. Acquiring language skills and learning to teach ancient languages will be very appealing if you want to be an academic Egyptologist. As with most of the other aspects of this list, integrating these skills into your PhD research will make the process easier overall.

An offering scene showing a man and woman in front of an offering table
TT35, Dra Abu l’Naga. Being able to read and teach basic Hieroglyphs is a useful skill for anyone hoping for a career in Egyptology.

Always have a plan B!

What’s your plan B? Academic posts are rare and competition is fierce. You can write the most amazing PhD, teach, learn all the skills, get grants and publish regularly but still miss out on a post-doc or lecturing post. If you don’t get into academia or want an alternative research career, how can you set yourself up to succeed in the world of work? This is a very personal question and it depends on your pre-doctoral experience and the nature of your doctoral research. For the most part, the skills learnt during a PhD are very transferable, but you can improve your chances by learning practical skills that are valued in industry. My career has been advanced much further by my GIS skills than by my Egyptology. Coding, programming, and other ICT skills are much in demand and various industries will always appreciate skilled grant writers and researchers. Before you begin your PhD consider how you can turn your PhD and your past experience into a career both in and outside of academia.

Where should you study?

Where you study and who supervises you is an intensely personal decision. If you are funded as part of a larger project you may have little choice. Personal constraints in terms of family and employment may also play a part. It’s worth considering the requirements of the institution and the individual supervisors before you decide. It goes without saying that you will need an institution and supervisors with appropriate skills for your field of study. As a rule, it is probably wiser to pick a supervisor or supervisors who specialise in the aspects of your PhD where you are personally weakest. But there are other considerations too. How often will you need to meet your supervisors? Can you work remotely? What opportunities for teaching are there? Does their style mesh with your needs? Do you need greater independence or greater involvement from your supervisor? These are all very personal considerations that you should take into account when deciding on your preferred institution and supervisor.


Cal Newport 2016, Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World

Posted in Academic life | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Foreshadowing is not just for movies: A Turin papyrus and the shrines of Tutankhamun

Foreshadowing is a common trope in movies, where a seemingly irrelevant clue or allusion becomes highly relevant later in the narrative. When done tactlessly it can be annoying, for example when too obvious foreshadowing gives away the plot or hints at its resolution. Even when effective, it can seem over-coincidental. But real life is sometimes stranger than fiction, as when an article he wrote in 1917 foreshadowed Carter’s discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun.

In 1917 Carter and Gardiner published a paper in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology on the Turin papyrus plan of the tomb of Ramesses IV (Turin Cat. 1885). This papyrus was first studied in 1867 by Lepsius, who correctly identified it as a plan of the tomb of Ramesses IV (KV2) in the Valley of the Kings, but as the tomb had yet to be fully excavated and recorded Lepsius had to work without recent measurements or records.

The main part of the ancient Egyptian plan of the tomb of Ramesses IV from Turin Papyrus Cat, 1885.
The ancient Egyptian plan of the tomb of Ramesses IV, Turin Museum Papyrus Cat. 1885. (Image from the Museo Egizio Turin, CC BY 2.0 IT)

Following Carter’s excavation and recording of KV2, Carter and Gardiner published a new treatment of the Turin papyrus, comparing its plan and notations to the excavated tomb and finding the plan of KV2 to be more accurate than expected.

Plan, section and axonometric view of KV2, the same tomb shown in Turin papyrus cat. 1885
Plan and section of KV2, the tomb of Ramesses IV, from the Theban Mapping Project website (

During the course of the article Carter and Gardiner discuss the details of the plan, including the burial chamber, which is shown with six yellow rectangles around the sarcophagus.

Detail of the burial chamber of the tomb of Ramesses IV from the Turin Papyrus (Cat. 1885) showing six yellow rectangles around the sarcophagus.
The burial chamber of the tomb of Ramesses IV from Turin papyrus cat. 1885, showing the yellow rectangles around the sarcophagus in the centre bottom of the image. (Image from the Museo Egizio Turin, CC BY 2.0 IT).

These rectangles clearly confused Carter and Gardiner (1917, 133), who concluded that all but one of the rectangles were temporary steps put in to allow the mummy to be inserted into the sarcophagus. The second to outermost rectangle, which is shown as ‘yellow corner blocks, interconnected by read lines’ they suggest was a funeral canopy.

Five years’ later one of the authors of the article would finally resolve the question of the yellow rectangles, when Carter discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV62). Inside the burial chamber, Tutankhamun’s sarcophagus was surrounded four gilded wooden shrines, with a funerary canopy between the outermost and the second shrine, exactly as the Turin plan shows. The layout of these shrines was recently displayed to the public during the successful Tutankhamun: Treasures of the Golden Pharaoh, where the position of the shrines was shown as four gold rectangles on the floor and ceiling of the exhibition room surrounding a representation of the Pharaoh’s mummy, adorned with some of his jewellery.

Image shows a dummy adorned with Tutankhamun's jewellery in a sarcophagus-like case. On the floor and ceiling four nested gold lines show the positions of the four nested golden shrines set around the sarcophagus in the burial chamber of Tutankhamun.
Image from the 2019-20 Exhibition Tutankhamun: Treasures of the Golden Pharaoh, showing the layout of the shrines around the sarcophagus in the burial chamber. (Author photograph, taken in the Saatchi Gallery in 2019).

These golden shrines, recently in the Egyptian Museum in Tahrir Square and shortly to go on display in the Grand Egyptian Museum, are truly impressive. Forming literal walls of gold, they also offered an additional surface for funerary imagery and underworld books, including the first examples of the Book of the Heavenly Cow.

Image of a golden shrine with a per-wer roof and cavetto cornice. The doors and walls of the shrine are decorated with funerary inscriptions.
The second shrine of Tutankhamun (Author photograph, taken in the Cairo Museum)
Image shows the rear interior wall of a golden shrine, with a large cow held up by various gods, with hieroglyphs above, seen past the vertical uprights of the shrine doors. The
The Book of the Heavenly Cow, from the rear, inside wall of the first (outermost) shrine of Tutankhamun (Author Photograph, taken in the Cairo Museum).

When Carter and Gardiner co-authored their article on Turin Papyrus 1885 they cannot have imagined that one of them would resolve the question of the yellow-rectangles in such a spectacular fashion within just a few years of publication. Sometimes foreshadowing in real life is stranger than fiction.


Carter, H. and A. H. Gardiner 1917, The Tomb of Ramesses IV and the Turin Plan of a Royal Tomb, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 4: 130–158.

Lepsius, R. 1867. Grundplan des Grabes König Ramses IV in einem Turiner Papyrus K. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Theban Mapping Project, Theban Mapping Project Website, <; accessed 15 April 2021.

Museo Egizio, Turin, Papyrus with the plan of the tomb of Ramesses IV on the front and some administrative texts on the reverse, Museo Egizio Collection <; accessed 15 April 2021.

Posted in Archaeology and Egyptology, Mapping and cartography | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Free high-resolution satellite imagery and how to find it.

The resolution of satellite imagery is crucially important to its usefulness to the archaeologist because it directly impacts the features you can see and the precision with which you can georeference other data. For some purposes (such as overviews or larger maps) we might only need low or medium resolution imagery, but in many cases high resolution imagery is essential to our research objectives. During my recent georeferencing project, it was necessary to use the highest resolution imagery I could obtain to locate the historic maps as precisely as possible.

Unfortunately, although you can purchase high resolution satellite imagery from various providers, it is often expensive and the contract comes with quite strict restrictions regarding what you can do with it and with whom you can share it. This makes free high resolution imagery a very valuable resource for the archaeologist, although it does have limitations. There are various ways to obtain free high resolution satellite imagery, but here I compare the imagery provided by three of the most common providers Google Earth, ESRI ArcGIS World Imagery and Bing Maps. Imagery from all these providers can be accessed online in their applications, where you can also access archived imagery through Google Earth historical imagery or the ESRI Wayback app. But if you want to do much more than look at the imagery it is advisable to access it through a GIS. If you are using ESRI ArcGIS World Imagery you can access it through the basemapping layers of ArcGIS, but all three providers can also be accessed through the Contributed Services of the QuickMapServices plugin of QGIS.

Comparing imagery of Dra Abu el-Naga

Dra Abu el-Naga, at the north-eastern end of the Theban Necropolis, is a an important area where 17th Dynasty royals and Ramesside nobles were buried. It continues to be excavated by various teams, including the Djehuty Project, the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) and the University of Pisa and is the subject of several recent publications, concerning its geomorphology and landscape archaeology.

The following images compare three different open-source high resolution satellite images of Dra Abu el-Naga at the same scale. You can also see a more dynamic comparison in this video on my YouTube channel. first satellite image comes from Bing maps. It is reasonably clear at a scale of 1:2000, revealing the structures of the excavated tombs and the open shafts in front of them, but when you zoom in it becomes blurry and the features are difficult to distinguish (from 1:59 minutes in the video).

Image showing a satellite image of the northern part of Dra Abu el-Naga. Tomb structures and open shafts are relatively clear.
The northern part of Dra Abu el-Naga in the Theban necropolis, as rendered by Bing maps on 2 March 2021 in QGIS using the QuickMapServices plugin ©2021 Maxar, ©2021Microsoft.

The Google Earth satellite image is much brighter and somewhat clearer than the the Bing maps image (from 2.45 in the video). It’s worth noting that the Bing maps image appears to be older than the Google Earth imagery. The Google Earth imagery shows tombs in the bottom left corner, which are covered with debris in the Bing maps image (above).

A satellite image showing the same northern part of Dra Abu el-Naga as it appears in Google Earth imagery. The image is brighter and tomb structures and shafts are visible. More tombs are visible in the bottom left of the image where debris has been removed.
The northern part of Dra Abu el-Naga, as shown in Google Earth satellite imagery on 2 March 2021, displayed in QGIS using the QuickMapServices plugin ©2021 ORION-ME, ©2021 Maxar Technologies, ©2021Google.

In my opinion the ESRI ArcGIS World Imagery is the best of the three, although it is not as bright as the Google Earth imagery. The tomb structures and shafts are still visible, but the imagery is sharper and easier to understand (from 4:10 in the video). It also stands up to zooming better than either the Bing maps or the Google Earth imagery. It’s worth noting that you may need to use ArcGIS to export ESRI World Imagery. Although its possible to view it in QGIS, it failed to export as an image.

Image of the northern part of Dra Abu el-Naga showing tomb structures and shafts. The image is of a good contrast, recent and shows the features well.
The northern part of Dra Abu el-Naga as shown by ESRI ArcGIS World Imagery on 2 March 2021, displayed in ArcGIS 10.

Limitations of free imagery

Bing, Google and ESRI do not own their own satellites, instead they provide imagery from commercial and government sources. These free high resolution images will not be as good as if you purchased them for yourself, but provided we’re aware of the limitations they can still be incredibly helpful.

The first problem with these images is that they are often provided without metadata, so we don’t know which satellite took them or when. Nor do we know the precise resolution, whether the image is pan-sharpened or which electromagnetic bands are included. Based on how clear they appear I would guess that all the images in this blog post have a resolution of 30-60cm, with the Bing maps image being the lowest resolution and the ESRI image the highest. But it is just a guess. Similarly I believe the Bing image is older than the Google Earth and ESRI images, based on the greater exposure of archaeology in the latter, but I cannot say precisely from the imagery.

Another difficulty with free imagery is that it is updated by the provider intermittently. An image that covered your site last year might have been replaced by now with a less useful version, perhaps with cloud cover, dust or an error in georeferencing. Even if there isn’t an obvious error or kink in the georeferencing, you may find that the new image doesn’t match the rest of your data as well. Global imagery providers use a global coordinate system to display satellite imagery, which may be different from the local coordinate system and projection you are using. As a result you may find a feature does not appear in exactly the same location in the new satellite image as in the old one. The difference is not likely to be large and may not be significant for your project, but if you are using free high resolution imagery for survey or other precision tasks, a shift of a few metres could represent a serious problem.

A lot of the value of high resolution satellite imagery is in the multiple multi-spectral bands provided and the opportunities for raster analysis and pan-sharpening. Free high resolution imagery does not provide access to the individual bands, permit bands to be recombined or allow for raster analysis. While such imagery can form a useful basemap for display or georeferencing, it isn’t suitable for various remote sensing applications or analyses.

Don’t forget to reference

Referencing your satellite imagery is just as important as citing written sources, and perhaps more so, because the ‘fair use’ carve outs are much less clear and tested with this relatively new type of data. ArcGIS provides relatively clear instructions on citing their products. ArcGIS, Bing and Google Earth programmes watermark downloads, but these watermarks may not be included when using 3rd party software, such as QGIS. You may therefore need to check relevant information for how to cite Bing and Google Earth maps in your captions. You may also need to include acknowledgements or further references depending on the terms of service.

Acknowledgements and References

The first two images in this blogpost were created in QGIS using Bing and Google Earth satellite imagery respectively. The third image was created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri® software, please visit

Posted in Remote sensing | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Finishing the map, georeferencing the pyramid of Djedefre

In a previous post I described how I georeferenced a difficult map of Abu Rawash. During that process I had to ignore the pyramid of Djedefre because it was drawn at a different scale to the rest of the map. Here and in this video I discuss how I subsequently georeferenced the pyramid of Djedefre at the correct scale.

The map of the pyramid of Djedefre was cropped from map I in Porter and Moss’ (1932) Topographical Bibliography volume IIIi, which is featured in my previous post.

Comparison of the angle of the causeway after accurately georeferencing the pyramid (left) and the angle of the causeway in the satellite imagery (right). Map cut from Porter and Moss 1932, volumne IIIi, map I.

First, I identified the archaeological features in the map and the satellite image. Although the pyramid is very clear in the satellite imagery, this process was complicated by the long ramp or causeway heading north from the pyramid. Initially I assumed this was the pyramid’s causeway to the Valley Temple, but the angle of this feature in the map, and the angle in the satellite imagery were different. This made me wonder if the feature I could see in the satellite imagery was some kind of recent Decauville track for removing spoil from the pyramid, and the actual causeway ran at a different angle and had been removed. Having georeferenced the map I think the feature is probably the pyramid causeway in both cases, the angle in the map being incorrect due to the differences in scale between the drawing of the pyramid and the rest of the map. If you review the image of the georeferenced map in my previous post you will see that the end of the causeway as drawn in the map lines up with the end of the feature in the satellite image, even though the pyramid is incorrectly drawn. This suggests that the angle of the causeway became misaligned when the pyramid and the rest of the map were joined together. Nevertheless I chose to ignore the causeway when georeferencing the pyramid, because its questionable accuracy would make georeferencing more difficult and it was readily visible in the satellite image anyway.

I then scaled the image to the correct scale to align it to the satellite imagery (from 1.20 minutes in the video). As I note at 4.59 in the video, one thing to be aware of when georeferencing maps is that the lines of the map occupy space within the GIS – so the line of the enclosure wall of the pyramid complex represents 3m on the ground after georeferencing. This can make it difficult to align the map with satellite imagery, particularly if the map only covers a small area and/or is cropped from a much larger map.

Once I determined approximately the correct scale (1:2250) I began linking the ground control points in the map and satellite imagery (from 4.15 minutes in the video). This revealed further inaccuracies and forced me to make decisions about which points in the map I believed were more accurate than others. In this previous post I discussed the importance and limitations of RMSE. The georeferencing of the map of the pyramid of Djedefre really emphasises how RMSE and residuals can be used to improve georeferencing, and also the limitations of the process. I used the RMSE and residuals, combined with the visual position of the map on the satellite image, to test the ground control points (from 10.08 in the video). They rapidly revealed that parts of the pyramid complex had been drawn inaccurately in relation to each other. After noting that the satellite pyramid and south-west corner of the enclosure were in dashed lines, I opted to set the ground control points elsewhere as it seemed likely that the satellite pyramid was more speculatively drawn. Testing various ground control points also revealed that the enclosure wall around the complex was drawn closer to the pyramid than it really is, forcing me to chose whether to include the complex enclosure wall in the ground control points or concentrate on the pyramid. I chose to focus upon the pyramid and mortuary temple, and rectified the map with an RMSE of 3.59, which was an improvement on a previous attempt, but still far from the 0.75m RMSE which would represent the 1:3000 ideal (Conolly and Lake 2006, 82-83). The inaccuracy in the map, its scale and the resolution of the satellite imagery are all contributors to this high RMSE. Depending on what I need to do with the map, I may seek out a more recent map or re-georeference it. Georeferencing a map this small, with this many inaccuracies, to satellite imagery, is always going to be difficult and likely to produce a high RMSE.

A satellite image of Djedefre's pyramid complex overlaid with the plan from Porter and Moss 1932, map I.

Acknowledgements and References

Conolly, J. and Lake, M. 2006. Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge.

Porter, B, and Moss, R. 1932, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Texts, Reliefs and Paintings III: Memphis 1. Abu Rawash to Abusir. Oxford.

Maps and images throughout this blog post were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri® software, please visit

All the satellite imagery used is ArcGIS World Imagery. Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community.

Posted in GIS | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Errors, inaccuracies, resolution and RMSE: Georeferencing a difficult map of Abu Rawash’s pyramid and cemeteries

In a previous post I introduced the georeferencing work I was doing, with a video of me georeferencing Porter and Moss’ map of the Cemetery F mastaba field at Abu Rawash. Here I delve into the process a little more, with help from a further video, which shows me georeferencing a more difficult map of Abu Rawash using ArcGIS basemap World Imagery.

The map I am georeferencing in those videos is map I in Porter and Moss’ (1932) Topographical Bibliography volume IIIi. It shows the entire area of Abu Rawash from the pyramid of Dejedefre, to the north-west cemetery in Wadi Qaren and the village of Abu Rawash on the edge of the cultivation.

Map of Abu Rawash showing the pyramid to the south-west, and various cemeteries in the desert around.
Map I from Porter and Moss’ 1932, Volume IIIi, of the Abu Rawash area.

Accuracy and precision.

When working through the georeferencing process, its important to carefully consider the precision and accuracy you are aiming for, taking into account likely distortions in the image to be georeferenced; the resolution and accuracy of the data (the satellite imagery) you are georeferencing with; and the ultimate function of the georeferenced image.

All data, even GCP collected on site with differential GPS, have some level of error in them. What matters is that they are sufficiently accurate and precise for the task you have in mind. Accuracy and precision are also different. Accuracy refers to whether something is correct. In other words, is the map you are georeferencing in the right place? Precision is easiest to think of as resolution or the level of detail. Something can be very precise but very inaccurate, or something can be very accurate and very imprecise. It is accurate to say I live in the United Kingdom, but it is not very precise. It is precise to say I live in N7 6RY (A postcode in Finsbury Park, London) but that is not accurate – I do not live there any more.

The accuracy of the georeferenced image can be affected by drafting or composing errors in the original map, or by distortions introduced during printing or digitising. Such inaccuracies and distortions affect how well the map can be overlaid on the satellite imagery. The satellite imagery can also contain distortions. Gross and obvious distortions, like the kinks in the Deir el-Bahri temples I published in a previous post and distortions due to the angle of the satellite to the ground affect the georeferencing process.

As with accuracy, the precision of the georeferenced image is affected by the precision of the map we are georeferencing, and the resolution of the satellite imagery. If the map is sketchily drawn or details are missing this may make it more difficult to locate precisely. The resolution of the satellite imagery (or any other ground control data) also affects the precision of the georeferenced image. Georeferencing requires that we line up the map with the same features in the satellite image. The more precisely a feature appears in the satellite image, the more precisely we can locate the map we are georeferencing. The pixel size (resolution) of the satellite imagery therefore places considerable limits upon the precision of the georeferenced image.

Locating the archaeological features at Abu Rawash

It feels like it ought to be easy to identify the pyramid of Abu Rawash and associated cemeteries. After all, pyramids are not known for their discretion, particularly once they’ve been excavated. While the pyramid of Abu Rawash is pretty clear in the satellite imagery, the huge amount of quarrying and agricultural and housing development in the Abu Rawash area made it difficult to identify the geographical and archaeological features in Porter and Moss’ 1932 map. The Survey of Egypt 1:25,000 scale map of 1942 shows how little development had taken place 80 years ago.

Map of the Abu Rawash area from 1942 showing minimal modern development in the desert.
Abu Rawash in 1942 (Survey of Egypt 1:25,000 scale map of Kirdasa).

In contrast the modern satellite image shows the pyramid and cemeteries as islands of archaeological landscape in a highly developed area.

Image of the Abu Rawash area showing considerable quarrying and development around the pyramid and cemeteries.
The area of Abu Rawash today, note the considerable development and quarrying in the area.

This made it more difficult to relate Porter and Moss’ map to the satellite image, although the preservation of the pyramid and the cemeteries did help (see from 0.35 minutes in the video).

Scaling the map for georeferencing

Once we identify the area, we need to scale the map to fit that area in the satellite imagery. You can see me undertaking this task from 1.10 minutes in the video. During the process, I discovered an inaccuracy in Porter and Moss’ map – the pyramid of Djedefre had clearly been drawn at a different scale to the rest of the image. Drafting and composing inaccuracies of this type are frustrating but do occur with historic imagery. Other sources of inaccuracies include distortions introduced during the scaling of maps for publication and when publications are scanned or photographed to generate digital images. Photography is particularly problematic as the camera lens needs to be parallel to the image to avoid distortion, but even scanning can produce minor inaccuracies. Dealing with these inaccuracies often means adjusting the georeferencing, splitting an image or ignoring part of the map during the georeferencing process. In this case I chose to georeference the map, while ignoring the pyramid and subsequently cropped out the pyramid and georeferenced it separately.

Adding control points (GCP)

Once Porter and Moss’ map had been scaled to approximately the right scale, it was aligned more precisely to the satellite imagery using ground control points (GCP). These appear in ArcGIS as ‘Links’, and operate essentially as pins. You select a point in the map and then select the same point in the satellite image and ‘pin’ them together. You can see me undertake this process from 7.20 minutes in the video. Ideally, it would be possible to locate these links very precisely in each set of data, but in this example, we are constrained by the contents of Porter and Moss’ map, which does not include many clear points that can be related precisely to points in the satellite imagery. The resolution of the satellite imagery is also a factor. The ArcGIS Basemap World Imagery uses a variety of satellite imagery sources, but the highest resolution of any commercial satellite imagery is currently c. 30cm and much of the imagery is likely to have a resolution of c. 40-50cm or more. This means that the pixels of the satellite image represent 40-50cm on the ground. Any feature smaller than that is invisible, and features that are only slightly larger are difficult to identify. Another effect of the satellite imagery resolution is that when we zoom in close the satellite imagery appears blurry, and a point becomes more difficult to locate than when zoomed out (you can see the effect of this from 8.45 in the video).

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)

Once we have added four links in ArcGIS, we can open the link table and see a RMSE for the entire map in the top box and the residuals for each point in the right column of the table. Turning off links or adding new links will alter the position of the map and the RMSE accordingly (from 10.30 in the video). The RMSE represents ArcGIS’ calculation of the fit between the actual and desired link positions (Conolly and Lake 2006, 82-83). In simple terms ArcGIS uses the first three links to estimate where it thinks any further links should be. It then calculates the residual for each point as the difference between where you placed a link and where the map ended up based on the other links that have already been placed. The RMSE is the product of all the residuals. Although RMSE is useful, it’s important to recognise that it is reliant upon the accuracy and precision of the map and the satellite imagery. If there are inaccuracies in either, they will increase the RMSE. It is also reliant upon the locations and positioning of the points you choose. The old adage of ‘junk in, junk out’ definitely applies and it is entirely possible to have a low RMSE and a very inaccurate and imprecisely positioned map. So while you can reduce your RMSE by removing links with high residuals and adding new links, it is sometimes better to accept a higher RMSE and keep an important link, recognising that the higher RMSE is due to inaccuracies in the map. Alternatively, it may be necessary to chose which ground control points you believe are more accurate and only link to them.

We aim for an error of less than 1:3000 so for an original image at a scale of 1:15000 an RMSE of under 5 (i.e. 15000/3000) is ideal (Conolly and Lake 2006, 82-83). Ideally we would use the scale given in the original image, but Porter and Moss do not include scale information so we have to work with the scale we established during georeferencing. When I scaled this map I settled on a scale of 1:9000, so any RMSE under 3m would be very acceptable. Here our RMSE is slightly above 3m, which is not unreasonable given the inaccuracies in the map and the difficulty of locating very precise control points due to the resolution of the satellite imagery and changes to the landscape. I subsequently repeated the georeferencing and obtained an RMSE of 2.88, but reducing the RMSE by a large amount is not always possible depending on the scale and accuracy of the map, and the resolution of the satellite imagery. The map of Cemetery F, for example was at a scale of just over 1:500, meaning its RMSE should be 0.16m or under, but I was only able to get it to 0.3m. Nevertheless, under the circumstances that is acceptable because of the resolution of the satellite imagery, which makes it impossible to place a point more precisely than within 0.3m. This is compounded by the imprecise edges of certain archaeological features in the satellite imagery, such as the mastabas of Cemetery F or the satellite pyramid of Djedefre, and any inaccuracies or distortions in the maps. In such cases it is important to be aware of known inaccuracies and distortions in the map and satellite imagery or you can be driven to distraction trying to get inaccurately positioned features to line up.

Ideally, if the RMSE is too high and cannot be reduced, we would seek an alternative source of data, but such data does not exist for some of these sites. In those cases it is much better to have a slightly less than ideally georeferenced map, than none at all. It is also important to be aware of the purpose of your georeferenced map. In this case the relatively modest aim was to locate archaeological features to within 10m, which is achievable with the accuracy of the maps and the resolution of the satellite imagery.

Overall I was satisfied with the georeferencing of the Abu Rawash map. It was a very difficult map to georeference; hard to locate due to the changes to the landscape; difficult to scale due to the inaccuracy in the pyramid; and difficult to find enough precise features to use as GCP links . Nevertheless, the final georeferenced version gives useful insight into the archaeological landscape. With careful thought and reference to the underlying satellite image, it will be possible to locate any relevant archaeological features during the rest of the project.

A map of the Abu Rawash area, overlying a satellite image. The pyramid is clearly at the wrong scale and angle compared to the rest of the image.
Final georeferenced version of Porter and Moss’ 1932 Volume, IIIi, map I of Abu Rawash.

Acknowledgements and References

Conolly, J. and Lake, M. 2006. Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge.

Porter, B, and Moss, R. 1932, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Texts, Reliefs and Paintings III: Memphis 1. Abu Rawash to Abusir. Oxford.

Maps and images throughout this blog post were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri® software, please visit

All the satellite imagery used is ArcGIS World Imagery. Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community.

Posted in Archaeology and Egyptology, GIS | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Wonky Giza pyramids: Oblique satellite imagery and georeferencing

I’m currently working on a project georeferencing (or georectifying) a lot of historic maps published in Porter and Moss’ Topographical Bibliography. I’m georeferencing these maps with ArcGIS basemap World Imagery and as a result have spent many days looking at satellite images of Egypt.

Satellite imagery is a hugely valuable resource, but it can be misleadingly precise. One feature of satellite imagery that isn’t immediately obvious is the problem of parallax. Parallax is the displacement of an object when seen from different positions. It’s incredibly useful in astronomy, but more of a problem in geodesy. Maps provide a vertical view of surface of the earth, flattened onto a flat plane below the imaginary godlike viewer. Satellites (and aeroplanes) fly across the curving surface of the globe taking images as they move. This means that some or all of the each satellite image is taken from an oblique angle and that can produce parallax.

The parallax is really clear in a georeferenced map of the Giza pyramids. In the satellite image below the points of the three Giza pyramids are to the north-west of the points in the overlaying georeferenced map. This is because the satellite was at a slightly oblique angle to the ground of the Giza plateau when the image was taken. As a result, when I georeferenced this map I had to be careful to line up the map with the corners of the pyramids to ensure the best accuracy. If I had used the tops of the pyramids my map would have been misaligned.

Map of the Giza pyramids overlying a satellite image of the area.
Georeferenced map of the pyramids of Giza, overlaid on the ArcGIS basemap satellite imagery. Note how the tops of the pyramids in the satellite image are offset to the north-west compared to the map. (Map III of Porter and Moss 1932, Volume IIIi)

Acknowledgements and References

Porter, B, and Moss, R. 1932, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Texts, Reliefs and Paintings III: Memphis 1. Abu Rawash to Abusir. Oxford.

Maps and images throughout this blog post were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri® software, please visit

All the satellite imagery used is ArcGIS World Imagery. Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community.

Posted in GIS | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Shifting mastabas: Georeferencing a plan of a Fourth Dynasty Egyptian mastaba cemetery, at Abu Rawash.

I am currently working on a project to georeference (or georectify) maps of various Egyptian sites from Porter and Moss’ Topographical Bibliography (which can be found online at this Griffith Institute website). Georeferencing is something of a Cinderella job in geographic information systems (GIS) work – its important, but is often ignored in favour of more exciting methods and results. So for those who haven’t had the (sometimes dubious) pleasure of georeferencing a map for themselves, I’m making some videos of the process and uploading them to my own YouTube channel. The first video is available now and features me georeferencing a cemetery at Abu Rawash, north-west of Cairo.

Abu Rawash

Abu Rawash is the site of the pyramid of Fourth Dynasty Pharaoh Djedefre with cemeteries dating from the Early Dynastic period onwards. Cemetery F, like the pyramid, dates from the Fourth Dynasty and contains the high status mastaba tombs of a number of important royal courtiers. The outlines of these mastabas remain visible in the satellite imagery, with their burial shafts appearing as black marks in the centre of the structure.

Cemetery F, as it appears now in satellite imagery. The outlines of the rectangular mastaba tombs are clearly visible, most with two burial shafts in the centre.

Cemetery F was excavated by Bisson de la Rocque, and it is his plan that Porter and Moss include as Map II[1] of volume IIIi of the Topographical Bibliography:

Plan of Abu Rawash Cemetery F aligned and scaled to the mastaba field in the satellite image. (Published in Porter and Moss, 1932, MapII).


Georeferencing is the process of taking an image and providing it with coordinates that allow the image to be correctly positioned in relation to other geographic data. Most of the historic sketches, excavation and survey plans made by generations of past archaeologists exist as published images. Georeferencing those images is often the first task in collating archaeological data and relating it to modern maps, survey data and satellite imagery.

My task was to use the GIS to locate Porter and Moss’ plan on the satellite image of the mastaba field, allowing, me to obtain geographic coordinates for any of the tombs within it. The georeferencing process I used divided into 3 parts: locating the archaeological features from the Porter and Moss map in the satellite imagery from 2:07 in the Cemetery F video); scaling the Porter and Moss map to the approximately the correct scale (from 2.55 in the Cemetery F video); and then using ground control points (GCP) to link locations on the Porter and Moss map to the same points in the satellite imagery (from 4.30 in the Cemetery F video). This task was complicated by the lack of scale in Porter and Moss’ (1932, Map II) published image (the scale in the image above has been added by me after georeferencing) and the resolution of the satellite imagery, which makes precise location of ground control points difficult at these scales. Nevertheless, the mastabas were relatively obvious in the satellite imagery and georeferencing was therefore easier than it might have been.

The video of me georeferencing mastaba Cemetery F at Abu Rawash, is now available on my YouTube channel and the next image shows the finished project, with the map from Porter and Moss overlaid on the satellite image from the ArcGIS basemap World Imagery layer.

Porter and Moss’ 1932 Map (II[1]) of Cemetery F at Abu Rawash, georeferenced and overlaid upon the mastabas as they appear today in the satellite imagery.

Acknowledgements and References

Porter, B, and Moss, R. 1932, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Texts, Reliefs and Paintings III: Memphis 1. Abu Rawash to Abusir. Oxford.

Maps and images throughout this blog post were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri® software, please visit

All the satellite imagery used is ArcGIS World Imagery. Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community.

Posted in Archaeology and Egyptology, GIS | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Kinky Temples: Satellite imagery ‘fails’!

High-resolution Google Earth imagery is a great resource and one widely used by archaeologists the world over. But with tens of thousands of individual satellite images of most of the planet there is bound to be the odd error. During a recent project I was looking in detail at satellite images of the Theban Necropolis, only to discover that Deir el-Bahri appeared to be suffering from some form of spatial anomaly. In the satellite image, the north-west end of the temples of Hatshepsut and Montuhotep display a distinctive kink, like melted caramel.

Screenshot taken on 18 December 2020 of ESRI ArcGIS® basemap satellite imagery, showing the temples of Deir el-Bahri . The north-west end of the temples and the cliff behind have been warped into an improbable kink.

I can’t determine the precise cause of this kink in the satellite image without more information. It may be something in the projection of the image in Google Earth. Accurately projecting images of a 3d, ellipsoidal earth onto the flat plane of a computer screen using a coordinate system that covers the entire planet is mathematically complex and inevitably leads to compromises and errors. But given that this kink is within a single satellite image, it is more likely to be the product of a georeferencing or georectification error. A satellite image that is projected in ArcGIS, Google Earth or any other GIS, contains information about the global coordinates of the image that allow it to be precisely located in the correct position within whatever coordinate system the GIS is using. These global coordinates allow the image to be ‘warped’ such that it more accurately presents the surface of the earth as it appears. This is sometimes called ‘rubber-sheeting’, which conveys the process very picturesquely. The global coordinates for georectification are calculated from the satellite ephemeris (the information about where the satellite was and how it was positioned when the imagery was recorded) together with other relevant information, including a digital elevation model. If there is an error in the data, the image can be twisted and warped in an improbable and inaccurate way. And so we have kinky temples – Hathor would surely approve!

Detail of the previous image showing the warping of the north-west end of the temples of Deir el-Bahri

Joking aside, this is an important reminder that although incredibly useful and typically highly accurate, satellite imagery can and does contain errors. In this case the inaccuracy is large and obvious, affecting an incredibly famous and well-surveyed site. The most novice researcher would be unlikely to miss such an error or believe that the temples truly bend in this improbable fashion. But even in this case, the warp is much more difficult to discern in the cliffs behind than in the rectilinear temples. Smaller-scale errors, in less well known areas, with fewer structures can be much harder to spot. In satellite imagery, as in everything else, it pays to be vigilant. Never assume that the ‘data’ is infallible.


The imagery presented in this blog post was created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri® software, please visit

Posted in Archaeology and Egyptology, Remote sensing | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Artefacts from the Anglo-Saxon burial at Prittlewell exhibited in Southend Museum.

It’s not every day that an intact royal burial is discovered less than a mile from your childhood home, but in 2003 that’s exactly what happened to me. Even more amazing, this royal burial was found in Prittlewell in Southend-on-sea in Essex, which is often assumed (rather unfairly) to be a cultural backwater. I was living at home at the time and looking for archaeological work when I noticed a large white tent had gone up over excavations taking place along Priory Crescent. Knowing that commercial British archaeologists only get the privilege of working in a nice dry tent when they have found something truly significant, I eagerly awaited the publication of whatever had been discovered.

The results of the excavation did not disappoint! A well-preserved, intact and richly furnished Anglo-Saxon burial had been discovered in a c. 4x4x1.5m wood-lined burial chamber (Hirst and Scull 2019, 30-31). The quality of the grave goods suggested the highest stratum of Anglo-Saxon society, inviting comparisons with Sutton-Hoo and even Tutankhamun!

The exhibition

After excavation, the artefacts were conserved by Museum of London and are now on permanent display in the Southend Museum. I went along in early June 2019 with my daughter. Being only one at the time she wasn’t very impressed, but if you have older children they will probably enjoy looking at the artefacts and exploring the digital displays. Eight-year-old me would certainly have loved it.

Overview of the exhibition of the Prittlewell Princely Burial at Southend Museum

The exhibition of the Prittlewell Princely Burial at Southend Museum. The artefacts are displayed in a central case, while the interative wall displays detail the excavation and post-excavation process. (Hannah Pethen June 2019)

The permanent display occupies a relatively small room at the rear of the museum, which made it slightly challenging to visit with a large pram. Crowding might be a problem if you visited during a very busy time or coincided with a school party, but it wasn’t crowded when I attended. The displayed artefacts are all located together in a single large case, which the visitor can walk around. Artefact numbers and further information are provided in labels in the case, but the hard work of contextualising the objects, and explaining the process of excavation and interpretation is done with digital displays on the walls. This makes for an efficient and effective exhibition space. The visitor can read descriptions of the excavation and watch videos about the conservation and research into the artefacts, before turning around to examine them in the case. This approach places the excavation and conservation of the artefacts front and centre. The story of the exhibition is literally the story of the excavation and post-excavation process, and the artefacts are contextualised as pieces of evidence that provide information about the burial, the owner and his culture.

Star finds

Hanging bowl

The northern or western British hanging bowl. The first object to be found, it was still hanging on its hook on what had been the wall of the burial chamber. Now in the Southend Museum (Author Photograph).

The gold belt buckle has become the star of the exhibition and a potent symbol of the site, but (like many objects in Egyptian tombs) it was probably made especially for the burial and was not used by the deceased during life (Hirst and Scull 2019, 46). The beautiful, highly-decorative hanging bowl originating in northern or western Britain shows clear links with the late Roman traditions (Blackmore et al. 2019, 175), while the Eastern Meditteranean flagon and basin reflect trading links beyond Europe (Hirst and Scull 2019, 49-50; 52-54).

Fans of glass will find the glass beakers interesting (see the featured image above the title). Two highly decorative blue glass examples with trailed decoration are typical of elite Anglo-Saxon burials, while the simpler green pair are more common (Hirst and Scull 2019, 58). To my eyes, they also owe a lot to Roman glass traditions, but others may disagree.


The Eastern Mediterranean flagon from the Prittlewell Princely Burial reflects trading links across Europe (Author photograph).

I found it slightly disappointing that the exhibition does not include all of the surviving artefacts from the burial chamber, but this is probably either because the missing artefacts are too fragile for permanent display or because further conservation and interpretative work is necessary before they can be exhibited. Space in the exhibition case may also be a factor.

Some artefacts are represented by scant traces identifiable only by scientific analysis; fragments of gold braid, which told of a luxurious piece of cloth laid over the face; a painted wooden box; and remains of over 19 different types of textile preserved through association with metal (Hirst and Scull 2019, 44-45; 72-73; 76-77). The metal fittings of the decomposed wooden lyre are exhibited on a stand cut to the shape of the wooden lyre body, which was only visible as a shadow in the sandy soil of the grave. It is in the identification and reconstruction of these badly-decayed artefacts, that scientific excavation demonstrates its great value.

The tomb owner

The body interred in the Prittlewell tomb completely disintegrated in the acidic soil, leaving only a stain to show where the coffin was located. The excavators suggest the owner was male based on the absence of female dress items and the presence of weaponry, although clothing and weaponry are not always conclusive in sexing burials. A possible owner has been proposed in the person of Seaxa, brother of King Saebert of the East Saxons, but Hirst and Scull (2019, 97) are careful to point out that although Seaxa died at roughly the correct time, there may be other candidates of whom we are not aware.

Additional material

In addition to the information available in the exhibition, Southend Museum publicised the exhibition on their News page and also run a blog, which recently featured a post about brooches found in other graves in the same cemetery as the Princely burial. The burial has also been featured on the Museum Crush website and parts of the excavation can also be seen on the MOLA Youtube channel. There is also information on the MOLA website, including an interactive model of the burial chamber where you can explore the stories behind the artefacts.


Reconstruction of the burial chamber from the digital displays in the exhibition. Hirst and Scull (2019, 88-89) contains the same reconstruction. (Author Photograph, June 2019 at Southend Museum).

In terms of guidebooks or catalogues, there are two choices: The full excavation monograph, published by MOLA and costing £35 (Blackmore et al. 2019) and a smaller volume at £15 (Hirst and Scull 2019). Unless you plan to do academic or archaeological research into the Southend area, the Hirst and Scull (2019) volume will be quite sufficient. Reconstructions of both the entire burial chamber (image above) and of individual artefacts are provided as appropriate throughout and the book is really well illustrated. It contains a detailed description of the discovery and excavation of the burial, a thorough review and discussion of the artefacts, and analysis of who was buried and their cultural and political context.  I really liked this approach as it mirrors what archaeologists do when we excavate. We work from the known to the unknown. The exhibition and its accompanying books begin with the story of the discovery and excavation of the site, move to the conservation and investigation of the artefacts and finally put it all together to propose the identity of the deceased and his position, historically and geographically.


Overall the exhibition of the artefacts from the Prittlewell Princely burial was thoroughly enjoyable. It was a great pleasure to see the objects after conservation and read the full story of the excavation and post-excavation process as part of the exhibition. I hope that in future we may see more of those artefacts that have not yet been displayed, and perhaps even some reconstructions of those that are missing due to decay and disintegration. The accompanying books were also very well done, with the smaller Hirst and Scull (2019) volume containing just the right amount of information to inform without overwhelming the reader.


Hirst, Sue and Scull, Christopher. 2019 The Anglo-Saxon Princely Burial at Prittlewell, Southend-on-sea. Museum of London Archaeology: London.

Blackmore, Lyn. Blair, Ian. Hirst, Sue and Scull, Christopher. 2019. The Prittlewell princely burial: excavations at Priory Crescent, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003. MOLA Monograph Series 73. Museum of London Archaeology: London.

Posted in Exhibition review | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments