Archaeology in Sudan and has entered an extremely active phase, one which hopefully will continue transforming the way archaeology is conducted in this part of Africa, as well as continuing to break methodological blindfolds strangely hanging over from the past. There are substantial growing pains and it is in this knowledge and against this backdrop that the idea for this special issue was born. With Jane Humphris — who works at Meroe — taking over as Director of the British Institute in Eastern Africa, it also seemed to us more generally a good moment to highlight new archaeological work in Sudan in the pages of Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa (Humphris et al. 2018). Fourteen years on from David Edwards (2005: x) stating that a ‘new “Sudanese” archaeology is struggling to emerge [as] it has traditionally tended to be quite introspective and isolated from archaeologies elsewhere, not least from other fields of African archaeology’, the situation has marginally improved, but serious deficiencies remain. As before, there has still been little engagement by archaeologists working in the Middle Nile Valley with broader African archaeology, with those few doing so the exception rather than the rule. The potential contribution of Sudan to African archaeology as a whole therefore remains largely ignored and unexplored. The generation of active archaeologists from the generation of the last High Dam campaign in the 1960s has retired and, while a new generation has emerged, familiar problems remain. Employment can be temporary or possible only on short-term contracts and funding is challenging, echoing a wider issue in modern social science academia, while Nubian archaeology remains an adjunct to Egyptology in most universities. However, much archaeological work has been undertaken in the past decade in Sudan and the areas surrounding it beyond the confines of the ‘protohistoric’ Nubian kingdoms (Kerma c. 2500–1500 BC, the Napatan state c. 800–300 BC and the Meroitic state c. 300 BC – AD 350). There has also been a shift in focus from major sites toward encompassing a broader range of themes such as the UCL Qatar metallurgy mission at Meroe (Humphries et al. 2018), the Czech mission at Sabaloka by Khartoum (Suková and Cilek 2012), the El Salha project at Al Khiday south of Khartoum (Salvatori 2012, Usai et al. 2014) and numerous other projects further north, together with Welsby’s (2001) pioneering earlier survey of the desert edge in the Nile’s northern Dongola Reach. Meaningful dialogues have been and are continuing to be established with other disciplines from the so-called hard and soft sciences. Most importantly, local communities are being actively involved in some — though unfortunately not always all — projects and are taking ownership of

中文翻译：

---

超越尼罗河：苏丹和南苏丹的新考古学研究

苏丹的考古学已经进入了一个极为活跃的阶段，希望这一阶段将继续改变非洲这一地区考古学的进行方式，并继续打破过去奇怪地笼罩的方法论眼罩。成长的烦恼是巨大的，正是在这种知识和背景下，这个特刊的想法诞生了。在梅罗（Meroe）工作的简·汉弗里斯（Jane Humphris）接任东非英国研究所的负责人之后，在我们看来，这在总体上似乎是一个很好的时机，可以在《阿扎尼亚：非洲考古研究》（Humphris等（2018）。距大卫·爱德华兹（David Edwards）十四年（2005：x）指出“新的“苏丹”考古学正在艰难地涌现，因为传统上它往往是内省的，并且与其他地方的考古学，尤其是与非洲考古学的其他领域相隔离”，这种情况已有所改善，但严重缺陷仍然存在。像以前一样，在尼罗河中部地区从事考古工作的考古学家很少参与更广泛的非洲考古工作，只有极少数的例外情况而不是规则。因此，苏丹对整个非洲考古学的潜在贡献仍在很大程度上被忽略和探索。自1960年代上一次高坝运动以来，活跃的考古学家已经退休，尽管新一代出现了，但熟悉的问题仍然存在。就业可能是暂时的，也可能只有短期合同才有可能，而且资金也很艰巨，这呼应了现代社会科学学术界的一个更广泛的问题，而努比亚考古学在大多数大学中仍然是埃及学的辅助。但是，在过去的十年中，苏丹及其周边地区进行了许多考古工作，超出了“原始历史的”努比亚王国的范围（柯尔马约在2500-1500年，纳帕坦州约在800-300年前和梅洛维奇约公元前300年-公元350年）。重点也从主要地点转移到涵盖更广泛的主题，例如Meroe的UCL卡塔尔冶金任务（Humphries等人，2018），喀土穆的捷克代表团在Sabaloka的任务（Suková和Cilek 2012），喀土穆以南Al Khiday的El Salha项目（Salvatori 2012，Usai等人，2014年）和其他更北的项目，以及Welsby（2001年）率先对尼罗河北部Dongola河段沙漠边缘进行的勘测。与来自所谓的硬科学和软科学的其他学科的对话已经并且正在继续进行有意义的对话。最重要的是，当地社区正在积极参与某些（尽管不幸的是并非总是如此）项目，并且正在取得项目的所有权