Amheida II: A Late Romano-Egyptian House in the Dakhla Oasis: Amheida House B2 9781479842230

Citation preview

AMHEIDA II A LATE ROMANO-EGYPTIAN HOUSE IN THE DAKHLA OASIS AMHEIDA HOUSE B2

This page intentionally left blank

AMHEIDA II A LATE ROMANO-EGYPTIAN HOUSE IN THE DAKHLA OASIS AMHEIDA HOUSE B2 by

Anna Lucille Boozer with contributions from

Douglas V. Campana, Angela Cervi, Pam J. Crabtree, Paola Davoli, Delphine Dixneuf, David M. Ratzan, Giovanni R. Ruffini, Ursula Thanheiser, and Johannes Walter

New York University Press and Institute for the Study of the Ancient World 2015

© 2015 Anna Lucille Boozer All rights reserved Gentium Plus font provided by SIL International under the terms of the Open Font License. At the time of publication, the full-text of this work was available at: http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/amheida-ii-house-b2/ . Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Boozer, Anna Lucille, 1977A late Romano-Egyptian house in the Dakhla Oasis : Amheida house B2 / by Anna Lucille Boozer ; with contributions from Douglas V. Campana, Angela Cervi, Pam J. Crabtree, Paola Davoli, Delphine Dixneuf, David Ratzan, Giovanni Ruffini, Ursula Thanheiser, and Johannes Walter. pages cm -- (Amheida ; II) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-4798-8034-8 (cloth : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-1-4798-4223-0 (ebook) -- ISBN 978-1-4798-8187-1 (ebook) 1. Dakhla Oasis (Egypt)--Antiquities. 2. Excavations (Archaeology)--Egypt--Dakhla Oasis. I. Title. DT73.D33B66 2014 932'.2--dc23 2014036022

ISBN 978-1479880348 (cloth) ISBN 978-1479842230 (ebook) ISBN 978-1479881871 (ebook)

For Dr. Allen Hayne Boozer and Dr. Carol Sue Neely Boozer

Published under the direction of Amheida Editorial Committee Roger S. Bagnall Paola Davoli Olaf E. Kaper

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................................9 List of Tables.................................................................................................................................................................14 Contributors.................................................................................................................................................................15 Preface...........................................................................................................................................................................16

Part I: Introduction, Settings, and Methodologies Chapter 1. Domestic Archaeology and the Romano-Egyptian House (Anna Lucille Boozer)..........................17 Chapter 2. Situating the Case Study: The Dakhla Oasis and Amheida (Anna Lucille Boozer).........................33 Chapter 3. Approaching the Romano-Egyptian House: Research Methodologies (Anna Lucille Boozer)........................................................................................................................................47

Part II: The Excavations Chapter 4. Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment: Stratigraphies of House B2 and its Surroundings (Anna Lucille Boozer).........................................................................................................................................55

Part III: Building Techniques and Architectural Interpretations Chapter 5. Building Domestic Space: The Construction Techniques for House B2 (Anna Lucille Boozer).......................................................................................................................................141 Chapter 6. Situating Domestic Space: An Architectural Analysis and Reconstruction of House B2 (Anna Lucille Boozer).......................................................................................................................................157

Part IV: The Material Culture of Everyday Life Chapter 7. Artifact and Activity: The Material Culture of Domestic Living (Anna Lucille Boozer).............183 Chapter 8. La Céramique de la Maison B2 (Delphine Dixneuf)...........................................................................201 Chapter 9. Unfired Clay Objects (Paola Davoli).....................................................................................................281 Chapter 10. Figurines (Anna Lucille Boozer).........................................................................................................291 Chapter 11. Adornment (Angela Cervi)..................................................................................................................309 Chapter 12. Glass Vessels (Angela Cervi)...............................................................................................................319 Chapter 13. Faience Vessels (Angela Cervi)...........................................................................................................341 Chapter 14. Coins (David M. Ratzan).......................................................................................................................349 Chapter 15. Transport and Trade in Trimithis: The Texts from Area 1 (Giovanni R. Ruffini).......................353 Chapter 16. Faunal Remains from Amheida, Area 1 (Pam J. Crabtree and Douglas V. Campana).................369 Chapter 17. Plant Use in a Romano-Egyptian Household in the Third Century CE (Ursula Thanheiser and Johannes Walter)...................................................................................................375 Chapter 18. Wood Objects (Angela Cervi)..............................................................................................................393 Chapter 19. Woven Material (Anna Lucille Boozer).............................................................................................397

Part V: Concluding Thoughts and Discussion Chapter 20. Towards an Integrative Interpretation of Life in a Romano-Egyptian House (Anna Lucille Boozer).......................................................................................................................................405 References...................................................................................................................................................................429 Index............................................................................................................................................................................457

LIST OF FIGURES AND PLATES Figure 1.1: Map of Egypt (M. Matthews)..................................................................................................................18 Figure 1.2: Map of the Great Oasis (M. Matthews)..................................................................................................19 Figure 1.3: Amheida site map.....................................................................................................................................20 Figure 1.4: Karanis, plan IV, section G 11 in Boak, A. E. R. and E. E. Peterson, (1931). Karanis: Topographical and Architectural Report of the Excavations during the Seasons 1924-28. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan..............................................................................................................21 Figure 1.5: Karanis, Plan 25, Floor plan of House C42 in Husselman, E. M. (1979). Karanis Excavations of the University of Michigan in Egypt, 1928-1935: Topography and Architecture: A Summary of the Reports of the Director, Enoch E. Peterson. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan...............................................................................................................................................................22 Figure 1.6: Soknopaiou Nesos, plan III, ground plan, late first level, east side in Boak A. E. R. et al (1935). Soknopaiou Nesos: The University of Michigan Excavations at Dimê in 1931-32. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan..............................................................................................................23 Figure 1.7: Plan of Amheida Area 1 showing B2 and surrounding structures....................................................30 Figure 1.8: Plan of House B2 (N. Warner).................................................................................................................31 Figure 2.1: Map of the Dakhla Oasis (B. Bazzani, based on ASTER GDEM data, a product of METI and NASA)............................................................................................................................................................39 Figure 2.2: View of Amheida (to north)....................................................................................................................40 Figure 2.3: Plan of House B1.......................................................................................................................................42 Figure 2.4: Aerial photo of House B2, facing west..................................................................................................43 Figure 2.5: Area 4, the temple mound.......................................................................................................................44 Figure 4.1: Plan of House B2, Courtyard C2, and Street S2 with excavated areas shaded................................56 Figure 4.2: Section drawing along east-west axis of B2.........................................................................................57 Figure 4.3: Section drawing along north-south axis of B2....................................................................................58 Figure 4.4: Harris Matrix, room 1..............................................................................................................................58 Figure 4.5: Wall and ceiling collapse (DSU 4) within room 1. The wind has had a strong impact on the taphonomy of this area of the site, evinced by the even wear of collapse and standing walls in House B2...........................................................................................................................................................................60 Figure 4.6: Multi-context plan of room 1 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols).....................................................................................61 Figure 4.7: Photo of F11, room 1................................................................................................................................62 Figure 4.8: Alternate channels construction method, with a channel of poured plaster located on one side or the other of the mud bricks.........................................................................................................................64 Figure 4.9: Harris Matrix, room 2..............................................................................................................................67 Figure 4.10: Photo of DSU 7, room 2..........................................................................................................................69 Figure 4.11: Multi-context plan of room 2 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols).....................................................................................70

10

Amheida II

Figure 4.12: Harris Matrix, room 3............................................................................................................................75 Figure 4.13: Photo of DSU 19, room 3........................................................................................................................76 Figure 4.14: Multi-context Plan of room 2 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols).....................................................................................78 Figure 4.15: Photo, view into room 4 from room 5.................................................................................................81 Figure 4.16: Harris Matrix, room 4............................................................................................................................82 Figure 4.17: Plan of room 4 floor (F15) showing FSUs (within rectangles) and elevations (with triangles).83 Figure 4.18: Harris Matrix, room 5............................................................................................................................86 Figure 4.19: Photo of hearth (F46), room 5..............................................................................................................88 Figure 4.20: Multi-context plan of room 5 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols).....................................................................................90 Figure 4.21: Harris Matrix, room 6............................................................................................................................93 Figure 4.22: Photo, Inv. 10383 and Inv. 10216 in situ in DSU 76, room 6.............................................................95 Figure 4.23: Multi-context plan of room 6 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols).....................................................................................96 Figure 4.24: Harris Matrix, room 7............................................................................................................................99 Figure 4.25: Photo, multiple floor levels exposed and visible in room 7..........................................................101 Figure 4.26: Multi-context plan of room 7 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols)...................................................................................103 Figure 4.27: Multi-context plan of room 8 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), and elevations (with triangles)..............................................................................................................................107 Figure 4.28: Harris Matrix, room 8..........................................................................................................................108 Figure 4.29: Photo of rooms 7 and 8........................................................................................................................109 Figure 4.30: Harris Matrix, room 9..........................................................................................................................112 Figure 4.31: Multi-context plan of room 9 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), and elevations (with triangles)..............................................................................................................................113 Figure 4.32: Photo of stairway and door F50 in room 9.......................................................................................116 Figure 4.33: Harris Matrix, room 10........................................................................................................................117 Figure 4.34: Multi-context plan of room 10 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), and elevations (with triangles)..............................................................................................................................118 Figure 4.35: Harris Matrix, room 11........................................................................................................................120 Figure 4.36: Multi-context plan of room 11 showing FSUs (within rectangles), and elevations (with triangles)............................................................................................................................................................121 Figure 4.37: Photo of room 11..................................................................................................................................122 Figure 4.38: Harris Matrix, S1..................................................................................................................................126 Figure 4.39: Multi-context plan of Street S1 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), and elevations (with triangles)..............................................................................................................................127 Figure 4.40: Street S1 section, showing trench cut, as well as the door (F50) into House B2........................129

Figures and Plates

11

Figure 4.41: Photo of Street S1.................................................................................................................................131 Figure 4.42: Harris Matrix, C2A................................................................................................................................134 Figure 4.43: C2, F3 (platform), and F4 (bread oven)..............................................................................................137 Figure 4.44: Multi-context plan of Courtyard C2 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols)................................................................138 Figure 5.1: Illustration of bonds corpus (A. Cervi), after the Museum of London Archaeology Service (now MoLA) Archaeological Site Manual (1994) figure 26...................................................................................142 Figure 5.2: Photo of timber tie beam holes in wall F3. The foundation bricks are visible as the bottom course of bricks.................................................................................................................................................146 Figure 5.3: Photo of a frogged brick from House B2.............................................................................................149 Figure 5.4: Photo of room 7 floor section (F17).....................................................................................................152 Figure 6.1: Cluster plan and linear plan diagrams (A. Cervi)..............................................................................159 Figure 6.2: Photo of burn spot detail on bread oven (F19), room 7...................................................................169 Figure 6.3: Photo of room 11 and bread oven (F19), room 7...............................................................................171 Figure 6.4: Reconstruction of House B2 (N. Warner)...........................................................................................179 Figure 6.5: Reconstruction of House B2 (N. Warner)...........................................................................................181 Figure 8.1 : Répartition des céramiques suivant les groupes de pâtes..............................................................203 Figure 8.3 : Répartition des céramiques suivant les principaux groupes fonctionnels..................................205 Planche 8.1: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).....................................................................................243 Planche 8.2: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).....................................................................................244 Planche 8.3: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).....................................................................................245 Planche 8.4: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).....................................................................................246 Planche 8.5: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).....................................................................................247 Planche 8.6: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).....................................................................................248 Planche 8.7: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).....................................................................................249 Planche 8.8: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).....................................................................................250 Planche 8.9: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).....................................................................................251 Planche 8.10: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf)...................................................................................252 Planche 8.11: La céramique de la maison B2, Lampes (D. Dixneuf)...................................................................253 Planche 8.12: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 1 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................254 Planche 8.13: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 1 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................255 Planche 8.14: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 1 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................256 Planche 8.15: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièces 1 et 2 (D. Dixneuf)...........................................................257 Planche 8.16: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 2 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................258 Planche 8.17: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 2 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................259 Planche 8.18: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièces 2 et 3 (D. Dixneuf)...........................................................260 Planche 8.19: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 3 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................261

12

Amheida II

Planche 8.20: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 3 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................262 Planche 8.21: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièces 3, 4, et 5 (D. Dixneuf)......................................................263 Planche 8.22: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 5 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................264 Planche 8.23: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 5 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................265 Planche 8.24: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 5 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................266 Planche 8.25: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièces 5 et 6 (D. Dixneuf)...........................................................267 Planche 8.26: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 6 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................268 Planche 8.27: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 6 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................269 Planche 8.28: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 6 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................270 Planche 8.29: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 7 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................271 Planche 8.30: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 7 (D. Dixneuf)....................................................................272 Planche 8.31: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièces 7, 8, 9, 10, et 11 (D. Dixneuf)..........................................273 Planche 8.32: La céramique du Secteur 1.4 (D. Dixneuf)......................................................................................274 Planche 8.33: La céramique du Secteur 1.4 (D. Dixneuf)......................................................................................275 Planche 8.34: La céramique du Secteur 1.4 (D. Dixneuf)......................................................................................276 Planche 8.35: La céramique du Secteur 1.2 (D. Dixneuf)......................................................................................277 Planche 8.36: La céramique de la Secteur 1.2 (D. Dixneuf)..................................................................................278 Planche 8.37: La céramique du Secteur 1.2 (D. Dixneuf)......................................................................................279 Planche 8.38: La céramique du Secteur 1.2 (D. Dixneuf)......................................................................................280 Figure 9.1: Stopper 3180............................................................................................................................................282 Figure 9.2: Stopper 3517............................................................................................................................................282 Figure 9.3: Stopper 9518............................................................................................................................................283 Figure 9.4: Stopper 3518 (M. Hense).......................................................................................................................283 Figure 9.5: Stopper 3520............................................................................................................................................284 Figure 9.6: Stopper 3521............................................................................................................................................285 Figure 9.7: Stopper 3532............................................................................................................................................286 Figure 9.8: Loom weight 11880................................................................................................................................286 Figure 9.9: Loom weight 11881................................................................................................................................287 Figure 9.10: Loom weight 11882..............................................................................................................................288 Figure 9.11: Miniature clay lamp 11917..................................................................................................................288 Figure 9.12: Miniature clay lamp 11917 (M. Hense).............................................................................................289 Figure 9.13: Unfired clay disk 11918.......................................................................................................................289 Figure 10.1: Head of a female figure (11627).........................................................................................................300 Figure 10.2: Complete head of a statuette roughly modeled (11920)................................................................303 Figure 10.3: Body of a naked male statuette (11509)............................................................................................304 Figure 10.4: Fragment of a hybrid animal sandstone figurine (3516)...............................................................305

Figures and Plates

13

Plate 10.1: Figurines 11628, 11920, 3519, 11627, and 11509 (M. Hense)............................................................306 Plate 10.2: Figurines 11915, SCA 2730, 3516, 11479, and 11914 (M. Hense).......................................................307 Figure 11.1: Sandwich gold-glass beads 3496, 3497, 3066 and 3498...................................................................312 Figure 11.2: Glass beads 11272 and 11453. Faience bead 3493............................................................................313 Figure 11.3: Bone hair pin 11320.............................................................................................................................314 Figure 11.4: Fragment of a glass bracelet 11606....................................................................................................315 Figure 11.5: Faience Bes amulet 3233......................................................................................................................315 Figure 11.6: Bronze finger ring 3484 (M. Hense)...................................................................................................316 Figure 11.7: Bronze finger ring 3452.......................................................................................................................316 Figure 11.8: Bronze finger ring 3452 (A. Cervi).....................................................................................................317 Plate 12.1: Glass beakers and goblets......................................................................................................................337 Plate 12.2: Glass deep bowls, shallow bowls, and plates......................................................................................338 Plate 12.3: Glass jars and flasks................................................................................................................................339 Plate 13.1: Faience......................................................................................................................................................347 Figure 14.1: Coin 3730................................................................................................................................................350 Figure 14.2: Coin 3485................................................................................................................................................351 Figure 14.3: Coin 11084.............................................................................................................................................351 Figure 15.1: O.Trim. 1.1...............................................................................................................................................359 Figure 15.2: O.Trim. 1.22.............................................................................................................................................360 Figure 15.3: O.Trim. 1.24.............................................................................................................................................361 Figure 15.4: O.Trim. 1.26.............................................................................................................................................362 Figure 15.5: O.Trim. 1.51.............................................................................................................................................362 Figure 15.6: O.Trim. 1.200..........................................................................................................................................364 Figure 17.1: Preservation of date stones: charred (top) and partly decomposed due to the damp conditions at the site (bar 1 cm) (photo J. Walter)..........................................................................................................376 Figure 17.2: Date stones gnawed by small rodents (photo J. Walter)................................................................377 Figure 17.3: Relative proportions of useful and wild plants...............................................................................378 Figure 17.4: Remains of cereal chaff.......................................................................................................................379 Figure 17.5: Remains of cereal grain.......................................................................................................................380 Figure 17.6: Calculated numbers of fruits and nuts based on seed remains....................................................383 Figure 18.1: Door lock-bolt (Inv. 3523) (M. Hense)................................................................................................394 Figure 18.2: Basket handle (Inv. 11519)..................................................................................................................394 Figure 18.3: Stick (Inv. 11521) (M. Hense)..............................................................................................................395 Figure 18.4: Stopper (Inv.11520) (M. Hense)..........................................................................................................395 Figure 19.1: Light blue cotton cloth fragment......................................................................................................402 Figure 19.2: Three fragments of sewn plaits basket 11554 (M. Hense)..............................................................403 Figure 19.3: Weave pattern of sewn plaits basket 11554 (M. Hense).................................................................404

14

Amheida II

Figure 20.1: Plan of B2 rooms with key to objects and quantities at occupational level (A. Cervi)..............409

LIST OF TABLES Table 5.1: Summary of colored plaster recovered from House B2.....................................................................148 Table 5.2: Brick dimensions in oven platform Courtyard C2 F3 (in cm)............................................................150 Table 5.3: Brick dimensions in oven platform Courtyard C2 F3 (in cm)............................................................150 Table 5.4: Brick dimensions in bread oven Courtyard C2 F4 (in cm).................................................................151 Table 5.5: Brick dimensions in floor F15 (in cm)...................................................................................................151 Table 5.6: Brick dimensions in floor F42 (in cm)...................................................................................................151 Table 7.1: Summary of personal appearance evidence from House B2............................................................185 Table 7.2: Summary of weaving equipment from House B2...............................................................................187 Table 7.3: Summary of transportation and management evidence from House B2.......................................188 Table 7.4: Summary of interior appearance evidence from House B2..............................................................190 Table 7.5: Summary of worship and religion evidence from House B2............................................................192 Table 7.6: Summary of ethnic affinity evidence from House B2........................................................................196 Table 7.7: Summary of gender and age evidence from House B2......................................................................198 Tableau 8.1 : Comptages des céramiques suivant les principaux groupes fonctionnels................................204 Table 16.1: Faunal remains identified from Area 1 at Amheida.........................................................................370 Table 16.2: Summary of the faunal remains recovered from Area 2 at Amheida............................................371 Table 16.3: Species ratios (based on NISP) for Areas 1 and 2 at Amheida.........................................................372 Table 17.1: Summary table of plant remains from rooms and courtyard.........................................................392 Table 20.1: Proposed B2 chronology........................................................................................................................407

14

Amheida II

Figure 20.1: Plan of B2 rooms with key to objects and quantities at occupational level (A. Cervi)..............409

LIST OF TABLES Table 5.1: Summary of colored plaster recovered from House B2.....................................................................148 Table 5.2: Brick dimensions in oven platform Courtyard C2 F3 (in cm)............................................................150 Table 5.3: Brick dimensions in oven platform Courtyard C2 F3 (in cm)............................................................150 Table 5.4: Brick dimensions in bread oven Courtyard C2 F4 (in cm).................................................................151 Table 5.5: Brick dimensions in floor F15 (in cm)...................................................................................................151 Table 5.6: Brick dimensions in floor F42 (in cm)...................................................................................................151 Table 7.1: Summary of personal appearance evidence from House B2............................................................185 Table 7.2: Summary of weaving equipment from House B2...............................................................................187 Table 7.3: Summary of transportation and management evidence from House B2.......................................188 Table 7.4: Summary of interior appearance evidence from House B2..............................................................190 Table 7.5: Summary of worship and religion evidence from House B2............................................................192 Table 7.6: Summary of ethnic affinity evidence from House B2........................................................................196 Table 7.7: Summary of gender and age evidence from House B2......................................................................198 Tableau 8.1 : Comptages des céramiques suivant les principaux groupes fonctionnels................................204 Table 16.1: Faunal remains identified from Area 1 at Amheida.........................................................................370 Table 16.2: Summary of the faunal remains recovered from Area 2 at Amheida............................................371 Table 16.3: Species ratios (based on NISP) for Areas 1 and 2 at Amheida.........................................................372 Table 17.1: Summary table of plant remains from rooms and courtyard.........................................................392 Table 20.1: Proposed B2 chronology........................................................................................................................407

CONTRIBUTORS Anna Lucille Boozer: Assistant Professor of Roman Mediterranean Archaeology, History Department, Baruch College, One Bernard Baruch Way, New York, NY 10010 USA. Douglas V. Campana: US Park Service (retired). Angela Cervi: Scuola di Specializzazione in Beni Archeologici, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano. Pam J. Crabtree: Associate Professor, Center for the Study of Human Origins, Anthropology Department, New York University USA. Paola Davoli: Associate Professor, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università del Salento, via M. Stampacchia, 45 73100 Lecce, Italy. Delphine Dixneuf: Ceramologist (Ingénieur de Recherche) CNRS, USR 3134 (Centre d’études alexandrines) Soliman Yousri Str. no. 50 – 21131 Alexandria, Arab Republic of Egypt. David M. Ratzan: Head Librarian, Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York, University, 15 East 84th St., New York, NY 10028 USA. Giovanni R. Ruffini: Associate Professor of Classical Studies, Fairfield University History Department, 1073 North Benson Road, Fairfield CT 06824 USA. Ursula Thanheiser: VIAS-Archaeobotany, Vienna University, Althanstrasse 14 - UZA II, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Johannes Walter: Staff scientist “Global Plants Initiative” project, Natural History Museum Vienna, Botany Department, Herbarium, Burgring 7, A-1010 Vienna, Austria and Lecturer at the University of Vienna, Austria.

PREFACE The ideas for the present book date back to my graduate years at Columbia University. I am profoundly indebted to Roger Bagnall, director of the Amheida Project and my PhD supervisor. His expert guidance helped me move through each stage of research and has resulted in the present book. Columbia University and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation provided financial support for the excavation of House B2 through a Distinguished Achievement Award to Roger Bagnall. From the start of my doctoral research, I have had the pleasure to work with members of the Dakhleh Oasis Project. Colin Hope’s expertise in local Romano-Egyptian housing traditions and ceramics significantly impacted interpretations in this volume. His critiques of a draft of this book were insightful and supportive. Gillian Bowen likewise contributed her expertise in woven goods to help me understand this category of material. Each and every member of the Amheida Project missions, including both past and present members, contributed enormously to this volume. Olaf Kaper, Associate Director for Egyptology at Amheida, was an inspirational guide to all things Dakhleh. The individuals who helped with the day-to-day excavations, recording, photographing, and data management for House B2 include Andrea Myers Achi, Eugene Ball, Bruno Bazzani, Roberta Casagrande-Kim, Angela Cervi, Karen Green, Francesco Meo, Susanna McFadden, Gillian Pyke, and Elizabeth Warkentin. Our Egyptian colleagues were an invaluable component of this project. Reis Sauleh helped me to organize the work in and around House B2. Ashraf Barakat, Assistant to the Director, kept the project running smoothly at all times. The house staff at the Ain el Gindi excavation house, under the management of Gaber Murad, made the difficulties of fieldwork feel like a luxurious experience. A portion of this volume was written while I was a Junior Research Fellow at the Topoi Excellence Cluster (Freie Universität Berlin and the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany). Marianne Bergmann provided inspiration and insightful discussions both in Berlin and during the course of writing this volume. It would be difficult to list all of the people in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Reading who provided assistance to me during the period in which I completed this volume. Michael Fulford, Roger Matthews, and Hella Eckardt read and commented upon section drafts, significantly improving my interpretations. Other staff members provided motivation and good humor during trying times. The final writing stage took place while I was an associate research fellow at the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy (ISERP) at Columbia University in New York City. William V. Harris served as a faculty advisor for my research while I was at ISERP. He was an irreplaceable resource for helping me to view Romano-Egyptian archeology from the broader perspective of Roman History. Conversations with Ari Bryen, Sabina Huebner, Gabor Thomas, and particularly Giovanni Ruffini, helped me to consider Roman Egypt from an exciting range of perspectives. Angela Cervi contributed numerous illustrations used throughout this work and carefully edited all of the existing photographs and plans used in this volume. Her friendship, support, and attention to detail are always appreciated. Sebastian Heath prepared the volume for publication. And, finally, I had the constant support of friends, family, librarians, and technologically gifted colleagues who helped me through various stages. My parents, to whom this volume is dedicated, helped me to navigate through the turbulence of publication and I am enormously grateful.

1

DOMESTIC ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ROMANO-EGYPTIAN HOUSE An Integrated Research Agenda Anna Lucille Boozer Introduction This archaeological report provides a comprehensive study of the excavations carried out at Amheida House B2 in Egypt’s Dakhla Oasis, between 2005 and 2007, followed by three study seasons between 2008 and 2010 (Figure 1.1, Figure 1.2).1 This report presents and discusses the architecture, artifacts, and ecofacts recovered from B2 in a holistic manner, which has never before been attempted in a full report on the excavation of a Romano-Egyptian house. The primary aim of this volume is to combine an architectural and material-based study with an explicitly contextual and theoretical analysis. In so doing, I hope to develop a methodology and present a case study of how the rich material remains of RomanoEgyptian houses may be used to investigate the relationship between domestic remains and social identity. Amheida is located in the northwestern part of the Dakhla Oasis, deep within Egypt’s Western Desert. Amheida has a long occupational history, and it reached its greatest size under Roman rule (approximately first through fourth centuries CE) (Figure 1.3). The occupants left behind a wealth of documentary, pictorial, architectural, and material data, and the favorable desert conditions have preserved these remains to a high degree. Amheida, known as Trimithis during the Roman Period, contains a diverse range of structure types within different sectors of the Roman city. The site is dominated by a large hill surmounted by a temple that was built and rebuilt over many centuries. From the surface, as well as limited excavations, it appears that elite houses lie to the south and east of the temple mound. A necropolis, with at least two pyramid tombs, extends to the southeast and south of the city. House B2 is located in the northeast sector of the city, which is composed of domestic and industrial structures. Extensive agricultural fields, predynastic lithic scatters, and Old Kingdom ceramics surround the built areas of the city. These remains of earlier periods attest to long-standing activity at Amheida before the Roman occupation of Egypt. Currently, it is neither clear what this pre-Roman settlement looked like nor how it developed over time.

Research Framework The present study contributes to the growing corpus of data on Romano-Egyptian daily life. In particular, this volume contributes a holistic analysis of a single house (B2) in order to reveal the material components of Romano-Egyptian daily life for a single household. Romano-Egyptian domestic archaeology is still in the early stages of development, despite a long history of domestic excavation in Egypt.

1

This report is the first excavation report of the Amheida Project and the second volume in the Amheida series.

18

Amheida II

Figure 1.1: Map of Egypt (M. Matthews). Most prior research on Romano-Egyptian domestic contexts has taken place in Egypt’s Fayum (Figure 1.1). This region became a nexus for domestic studies due to the papyrological rescue missions led by Grenfell and Hunt in the early 1900s. These missions exposed numerous, well-preserved houses in the area.2 Because the primary objective of these missions was to salvage papyri, the resultant publications lack contextual and architectural data. In addition to Grenfell and Hunt’s rescue missions, other excavations took place in the Fayum, although the robustness of the data concerning them varies considerably.

2

Grenfell, Hunt, Hogarth and Milne 1900.

Domestic Archaeology

19

Figure 1.2: Map of the Great Oasis (M. Matthews). The University of Michigan excavated two of the most famous Fayum sites in the early twentieth century: Karanis (Kom Aushim) (1924–1934) and Soknopaiou Nesos (Dime) (1931–1932). The material recovered from these sites is invaluable for the present study since both sites produced a wealth of material data on domestic architecture and artifacts. Karanis has become the type-site of RomanoEgyptian domestic architecture, due to its good state of preservation and the care with which it was excavated compared to previous work on Romano-Egyptian houses. Since the 1930s, Karanis has appeared in numerous publications as a representative Romano-Egyptian settlement. There are two major caveats that must be kept in mind when employing Karanis houses for comparanda.3 First, the Karanis houses have not been fully published. General reports on the stratigraphy, topography, and architecture were published in the 1930s, but these lacked full analyses of each structure and did not attempt to interpret the findings.4 A subsequent report attempted to fill in the gaps left by these prior publications, but it did not provide contextual explorations of the material, and the accompanying maps and illustrations are difficult to connect to particular structures and moments in time.5 Over the years, specialist publications on particular categories of material and of exhibitions have appeared.6 Unfortunately, we still do not have a full publication that provides the architectural layout of Davoli summarizes the work at Karanis as well as some of the issues with the University of Michigan methodologies and publication practices (1998:73-116). Wilfong 2012 discusses the significance of the unpublished Karanis archives, and Boozer (2015a) argues that Karanis houses have become overly-dominant as a typology in Romano-Egyptian archaeology. 4 Boak 1933, Boak and Peterson 1931. 5 Husselman 1979. 6 Many of the objects from the excavations went to the Kelsey Museum, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Some of the exhibition catalogues from the Kelsey museum include Gazda and Hessenbruch 1978, Thomas 2001. Specialist studies include, Haatveldt, Peterson and Husselman 1964, Harden 1936, Higashi 1990, Husselman 1952, Husselman 1953, Husselman 1971, Johnson 1981, Shier 1978, Yeivin 1934, Youtie and Pearl 1939, Youtie and Pearl 1944. 3

20

Amheida II

most of the Karanis houses. Moreover, only the largest and best-preserved houses were singled out for publication, making it difficult to discern the range of house types available at Karanis.7 This selectivity obscures the most common houses occupied by typical households at Karanis.

Figure 1.3: Amheida site map. Second, the publications that do exist for Karanis houses analyzed material categories rather than contexts (e.g. individual houses). Nearly twenty years ago, Peter van Minnen, a papyrologist, urged archaeologists to explore Karanis domestic material by context rather than by material category. 8 Unfortunately, this type of analysis has not been accomplished for more than a tiny portion of this site yet. To date, it is impossible to connect artifacts to the houses from which they came, except by consultation of the excavation records held in the Kelsey Museum. It is not possible to determine which

7 8

Husselman 1979:67-73. van Minnen 1994.

Domestic Archaeology

21

types of objects, texts, and architectural features co-occurred with one another and what the distribution of house types, objects, and texts looked like across the site.

Figure 1.4: Karanis, plan IV, section G 11 in Boak, A. E. R. and E. E. Peterson, (1931). Karanis: Topographical and Architectural Report of the Excavations during the Seasons 1924-28. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan. With these caveats in mind, it is possible to make some general statements about the houses excavated at Karanis. Generally, buildings at Karanis aligned into blocks of habitation (Figure 1.4).9 Although hundreds of buildings were excavated, only a few were described and drawn. The following description is reliant upon this published data, which may be revised with additional exploration of the site. These published houses were predominantly made of mud brick with only small amounts of wood 9

Husselman 1979:10, maps 4-5.

22

Amheida II

used.10 Flat roofs were common, except in cellars, which were vaulted. Most houses were elongated and had multiple stories, with cooking taking place in courtyards that were either private or shared (Figure 1.5). The walls were often plastered and covered with a thin lime wash. A black wash was most common with white accents painted horizontally across the mud brick courses. Decorations were minimal and were usually found in niches, often representing religious scenes, and typically painted in maroon and black.11

Figure 1.5: Karanis, Plan 25, Floor plan of House C42 in Husselman, E. M. (1979). Karanis Excavations of the University of Michigan in Egypt, 1928-1935: Topography and Architecture: A Summary of the Reports of the Director, Enoch E. Peterson. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan.

Ibid.:34. Ibid.:35-36, plates 18, 19a, 21b, 22a, 24a, 24b, 25, 102a. The unpublished archives may alter this understanding of Karanis decorative motifs (Wilfong 2012). 10 11

Domestic Archaeology

23

The University of Michigan also excavated houses at Soknopaiou Nesos, but the results of this mission were not fully published.12 Only the coins, papyri, and specific architectural elements received attention in the single published excavation report.13 The houses appear to have been built contiguously, and each had a courtyard to support domestic cooking needs (Figure 1.6). These structures were built directly onto bedrock. The largest house excavated had an internal courtyard (aithrion). All of the structures had a central-pillared stairway leading to upper floor(s) and often also to cellars. Poor quality wall paintings were found in some of the structures.14

Figure 1.6: Soknopaiou Nesos, plan III, ground plan, late first level, east side in Boak A. E. R. et al (1935). Soknopaiou Nesos: The University of Michigan Excavations at Dimê in 1931-32. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan. Other sites from Egypt’s Fayum region are even less well documented. Hawara, located at the entrance to the Fayum, is a particularly important site for Roman Egypt, although it perhaps is bestFor an overview of this excavation as well as other archaeological research at Soknopaiou Nesos, see Davoli 1998:39-71. 13 Boak, Peterson and Haatveldt 1935. 14 Ibid.:9-10, figs 4, 6, 7. 12

24

Amheida II

known for the pyramid of Amenemhat III (12th Dynasty). Uytterhoeven’s recent volume provides an excellent compendium of Hawara data.15 Sadly, little can be made of the ruinous Romano-Egyptian domestic remains, except that they seem to have a square or rectangular footprint averaging less than 100 m² in area and with an adjoining exterior courtyard. These houses seem to have been multistoried, with only two or three rooms on the ground floor.16 Another Fayum site, Tebtynis (modern Tell Umm el-Baragat), also had Greco-Roman occupation. Tebtynis provides domestic comparanda for the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, although there are significantly fewer published houses from Tebtynis than Karanis and Soknopaiou Nesos. Most Tebtynis houses date to late Ptolemaic and early Roman Periods, and the published plans show houses with a square plan. One house has a peristyle contained within the house. 17 These other Fayum houses also were analyzed typologically, so it is not possible to connect finds, architectural features, and the plans of houses in order to reconstruct what each individual house looked like.18 Moving to other regions in Egypt, we find a different range of fragmentary data on RomanoEgyptian houses. Oxyrhynchus (modern el-Bahnasa) is located approximately 160 km south of modern Cairo. Oxyrhynchus provides us with a wealth of papyri dating to the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, revealing remarkable detail about the community that once resided there. The urban layout, domestic structures, and material remains also are described, although the amount of archaeological publication is paltry.19 Other areas of Upper Egypt, such as Elephantine, have produced houses. Elephantine is an island in the middle of the Nile as part of modern-day Aswan in southern Egypt. Unfortunately the results of the urban excavations are difficult to interpret because only portions of the domestic structures have been exposed.20 Moving to the north coast of Egypt, we find several examples of Roman Mediterranean housing. Alexandria, the premier city in Roman Egypt—and one of the chief cities of the Roman Empire—is poorly visible to the archaeologist today. Even so, archaeologists have begun to recover the remains of villas and other elaborate housing structures that potentially contained workshops and apartments in a single structure.21 These structures have not been holistically explored, such that we could understand the architecture, artifacts, ecofacts, and textual data as a unit. This analytical problem entails that the way in which these individual structures were used in antiquity is ambiguous. Marina el-Alamein (ancient Leukaspis or Antiphrae), a smaller coastal Graeco-Roman port town west of Alexandria, produced several sumptuous dwellings. These houses contained a central court surrounded by two or three portico wings, while the smaller dwellings had just one wing of a single column. Typologically, these houses recall portico and peristyle houses. 22 To date, these houses have not been fully published, and the preliminary reports do not include a holistic analysis of the material. Egypt’s Western Desert contains a wealth of well-preserved domestic remains. The Kharga Oasis, east of Dakhla, has produced partial data on houses. Ancient Kysis (Douch), located at the extreme southern edge of the oasis, contains a large number of domestic structures. Architecturally, these houses reflect Roman Mediterranean influences, as can be seen particularly in the use of inner peristyles and Uytterhoeven 2010. Nowicka 1969:11, Uytterhoeven 2010:esp 322-324. 17 Davoli 1998: 179-210, Hadji-Minaglou 2007, Hadji-Minaglou 1995. The peristyle house dates to approximately the 1 C BCE through the 1 C CE (Hadji-Minaglou 2008:126-127, fig. 4, Grimal 1995:590-591, fig 14). 18 For more on Fayum houses from additional sites, see Davoli 1998. 19 For an overview of the documentary and archaeological research at Oxyrhynchus, see papers in Bowman, Coles, Gonis, Obbink and Parsons 2007. More research upon the material remains from Oxyrhynchus certainly is possible and desirable. 20 The archaeologists have produced numerous well-analyzed reports, however, including Arnold, Haeny and Schaten 2003. 21 Rodziewicz 1976, Rodziewicz 1984. 22 Medeksza and Czerner 2003:21. 15 16

Domestic Archaeology

25

interior courts.23 Unfortunately, the recovered domestic data is not always clear, and we do not have a full range of portable and architectural material to reconstruct life in the contextual manner that we seek. Kellis (Ismant el-Kharab) provides an abundance of data on local Dakhla domestic life.24 The site drew attention from early travelers in the nineteenth century and archaeologists in the twentieth century. Kellis has undergone modern excavation since 1986, under the direction of Colin Hope as part of the Dakhleh Oasis Project (DOP). The site appears to have been occupied from the first to fourth centuries CE and occupies an area of 1050 x 650 m. The project has produced numerous preliminary reports on the excavated houses, although a final excavation report has not been published yet; it is intended that this final report will be fully contextual. At this stage, it is possible to summarize the Kellis houses on the basis of the preliminary reports. Roman Kellis domestic architecture usually consisted of a single-story structure with barrel vaulted roofs. A staircase provided access to the roof, which was often used as additional work and storage space. Within the house, there was typically a central courtyard area surrounded by living and workspaces, although some houses had rear courtyards in addition to or instead of the central courtyard. Walls were mud-plastered and often contained strips of whitewash along rear walls and around doorways and wall niches.25 Presumably this whitewash illuminated these dark spaces, particularly when lamps were placed in the niches. A closer examination of the Kellis houses yields diachronic information on Dakhla house development.26 Area B, in northern-central Kellis, primarily consists of extensive complexes. Area B dates from the first through third centuries CE and shows a continuous development of buildings, some of which were more formal than others. A sub-area contained within this zone, Kellis Area B3, contained lavishly decorated houses with bright geometric motifs. The B3 sub-area contains a series of large residences that may be contemporaneous since they all share a north wall.27 Hope suggests that these Kellis residences contain architectural parallels to Roman atrium houses at Italian sites such as Pompeii, rather than drawing upon Egyptian architectural norms.28 House B/3/1, located in the eastern portion of Area B, has finds largely dating to the late first to early third centuries CE. House B/3/1 has a more Classical style layout than is commonly associated with Egypt. House B/3/1 has a clustered plan of access and a central open area (room 1b). 29 The organizing principle for this house was bifurcated around two rooms rather than around one room, which may have been an attribute of wealthier Dakhlan houses.30 Area C is located in the far eastern extremity of Kellis and contains blocks of structures as well as a visible furnace and kiln debris. The Area C structures date to the second and third centuries CE. These Area C buildings drew upon Classical models in their arrangement, as indicated by the placement of living and workspaces around a central open courtyard. Kellis House C/2/8 has a square plan, and the rooms were arranged around a central open courtyard. From the surface, Kellis House C/2/10 shares a similar square plan and central open courtyard, but it has not been fully excavated, and reconstructions must be tentative at this time.31 On recently excavated houses at Douch, see Reddé, Ballet, Barbet and Bonnet 2004:25-74. 25°32’ N, 29°04’ E. 25 Hope, Kaper, Bowen and Patten 1989, Knudstad and Frey 1999. 26 See Boozer 2015b for an overview of house comparisons between Amheida, Kellis, and the Fayum. 27 Hope et al. 2006. This situation suggests formal planning, as can be seen in various areas at Amheida. Kellis Area C is most similar to Amheida Area 1, where there is a shared wall running across the northern extent of the south structures on the main road and a shared wall running across the southern extent of the north structures on the main road. 28 Hope 2006. On comparable Pompeiian houses, see Zanker 1998:135-156, 192-203. 29 Hope and Whitehouse 2006:31, Hope et al. 2006:23-31, Hope 2007a:33. 30 Compare to Amheida House B1 (Boozer 2007:132-133). 23 24

26

Amheida II

Moving to the western portion of Kellis, known as Area A, we find churches, a bath house, and domestic structures. This area of the site is located just east of a cluster of temples, a church, and the western tombs. Hope’s team excavated a cluster of houses in Area A. The Kellis Area A houses are singlestory elongated structures dating to the late third to fourth century.32 Houses from this area contain wellpreserved barrel vaulted roofs over the rooms that surround a central open courtyard. House 3 has a central, open court (room 6) around which the unroofed stairs (room 7) and main barrel-vaulted living quarters (rooms 2–5, 8–10) clustered.33 Likewise, House 5 in Area A/9 dates to the fourth century, is somewhat elongated, has a central room through which other rooms were accessed, and all of the rooms were barrel vaulted.34 The final publication of the SE Kellis houses promises to be a groundbreaking publication. Interested readers should consult Hope’s forthcoming volume for the definitive results on these structures when it becomes available. In sum, we have a considerable amount of information about houses from the first to fourth centuries from various parts of Egypt. This information is largely architectural, however, and most previous publications of Romano-Egyptian house excavations segregated artifacts and architectural elements from their original contexts, with the result that only general statements can be made about domestic assemblages. In other words, the specificity of daily lives within individual households was lost in the drive to categorize the finds.35 As a result of these methodological and analytical practices, we can say very little about how individual households functioned over time, in different socio-economic groups, ethnic groups, regions, and so on. Moreover, we do not have a sufficient range of plans for excavated houses, which makes it difficult to determine the geographic spread, diachronic development, and prevalence of various house types. Moving from this fragmented picture to a detailed, nuanced, and contextual analysis will require the fuller publication of older excavations as well as fully published new excavations. The final publications of the Kellis domestic structures and of House B1 at Amheida will be of great value in this effort. The present work contributes to this agenda by engaging more deeply with the intersection of domestic architecture and material culture. This engagement will enable me to reconstruct in part the life of one Romano-Egyptian household, which will catalyze new research questions for domestic archaeology. Prior research on Romano-Egyptian houses facilitated the present study and offers background for increasingly refined perspectives in future work. Since archaeological research entails the creation and study of archives, a variety of perspectives on Romano-Egyptian domestic life is possible and even desirable.36 Rather than attempting to supplant previous work on Romano-Egyptian houses, the current project represents another layer of engagement with the data and makes use of previous archaeological scholarship in order to answer new questions about domestic life. Archaeological Approaches to Houses Households are the result of interactions between larger social forms and individuals. 37 In order to capture this relationship, it is necessary to retain the household as a distinct unit of analysis. Recent cross-cultural advances in domestic archaeology provide useful avenues for exploring Romano-Egyptian houses. Most of these developments rely on contextual approaches to domestic material.38 By gathering together images, objects, beings, settings, and activities, it is possible to gain a holistic understanding of Area C at Kellis was a vernacular and industrial zone comparable to Area 1 at Amheida. Structures from Area C tend to be uniform in plan (Hope et al. 2006:2). 32 Hope 1991:41. 33 Ibid.:41-42, Hope, Kaper, Bowen and Patten 1989:1, figure 1. 34 Hope 2003:238. 35 van Minnen 1994. 36 Lucas 2001:62-63, 213-214. 37 Cowgill 1993, Dobres and Robb 2000, Johnson 1989. For more on the relationship between houses and society, see Bourdieu 1966, Bachelard 1994, Donley-Reid 1990, Hillier and Hanson 1984. 31

Domestic Archaeology

27

daily life. Recent theorists argue that analyzing artifacts and architecture as isolated entities places too much emphasis on form and phasing to the detriment of social questions. 39 By contrast, if we recover detailed artifact assemblages from a small number of houses, we can determine activity patterns and test our interpretations of artifacts found in other contexts.40 In Roman Egypt, we do not have a detailed understanding of domestic artifact assemblages within their physical environments. This deficiency hinders our ability to reconstruct social life within houses. Hendon highlights four facets of social archaeology that should be explored within houses: (1) the materiality of the domestic structures; (2) the nature of day-to-day experiences and practices rather than function alone; (3) the variability of houses; and (4) the importance of understanding social processes at different social scales.41 These four proposals give us a useful roadmap for domestic archaeology and are worth exploring in more detail. First, the materiality of domestic space requires special attention in order to understand object meanings. Penelope Allison argued that contextualized analyses bring architecture, material culture, and texts to bear upon questions of social life, object meanings, and our understanding of antiquity.42 Allison’s contextual analyses of material culture from Pompeii showed that scholars have often mislabeled objects and misunderstood how they were used in their original spatio-temporal locus. 43 These erroneous attributions were replicated over more than a century of research upon these houses, creating multiple levels of misunderstanding. Allison’s work unmistakably illustrates that contextual analyses are essential for understanding domestic material culture. There are additional advantages to contextual archaeology. A contextual approach enables us to formulate logical conclusions about the types of objects or objects and architecture that tend to cooccur.44 A focus on materiality informs archaeologists about the life histories of objects—their creation, use, reuse, and eventual discard. Despite some excellent studies from other areas of the Roman Empire, there exists very little published work on the contextual usage of Romano-Egyptian domestic material. The present study addresses this lacuna through contextually exploring the material data as well as examining the material culture thematically and typologically. Second, a room-by-room analysis of houses, exploring the architecture and artifact assemblages in tandem, approximates how individuals experienced space within the house. This analytical approach avoids descriptive shorthand for rooms and recognizes that houses and the people who live in them are in a “mutually constituting” relationship.45 In other words, individuals shaped the space around them to The term “context” is a technical term within archaeology that traditionally refers to either the depositional or cultural environment of an artifact. Contextual archaeology extends the meaning of this term to include a vast network of relationships that endow an object with symbolic significance. Contextual archaeology is an epistemological approach originally defined and promoted by Ian Hodder during the 1980s (Hodder 1987, Hodder and Hutson 1991:121-155, Trigger 1989:348-357, Barrett 1987). This perspective underscores the belief that there is an interactive and profound relationship between material culture and society. In particular, material culture has a symbolic value that is important in itself. This symbolic value can disguise or reflect how we interpret the more obvious technical, economic, and social functions of the object. Symbolic values vary from situation to situation and archaeologists must interpret symbolic meaning within localized contexts. In other words, meaning is relational; the same object may evoke different meanings in different contexts (Hodder 1999:91). 39 Ault and Nevett 1999. 40 Reinders 1988. 41 On the four facets to explore the social archaeology of the house, see Hendon 2004. On domestic materiality, see Tringham 1994. On the variability of houses, see Hendon 1996. On the importance of understanding social processes on different social scales, see Tringham 1991. 42 Allison 1999a. 43 Allison 1999b. 44 Scholars have not conducted preliminary research to assemble corpora of material, and analyses of rich occupation debris are few and far between. We have no shortage of data for such studies, but scholars have not engaged in contextual analyses, even when excavating very rich sites, see Lavan, Swift and Putzeys 2007:3. 45 Hendon 2004:272. 38

28

Amheida II

represent their needs and social outlook. In turn, the architectural space influenced individual life perspectives by providing the arena for daily activities. It is well understood that most ancient houses had multi-use rooms. For example, numerous ancient sources indicate that Romans moved furniture around their houses with a high frequency. Pliny refers to rooms serving multiple functions depending on the arrangement of portable objects and furniture. 46 In palatial houses one may have been able to codify space to a higher degree than small properties, because large spaces did not require the high degree of flexibility and malleability that small houses necessitated. It is more challenging to interpret spatial usage in modest houses, such as Amheida House B2, than in more sprawling estates.47 One can imagine that the use of space in small structures would change throughout the course of the day or the season, depending on who used the space and other conditions such as light, heat, wind, and so on.48 In order to interpret household functions appropriately, we must remain flexible when assigning labels to different spaces. Rapoport suggests that we view spatial organization in terms of systems of activities that take place in systems of settings.49 A setting includes permanent frameworks (architecture), semi-permanent features (ovens, furniture), and also transient features (people, objects) and their associated activities. 50 Activities may take place at different times, follow different sequences, and involve different people. The “label” of a room may change depending upon who is involved, what they are doing, and when it occurs. Some of these activities may have been actively considered and performed, while others may have been routine and unanalyzed by those involved.51 An avoidance of descriptive shorthand terms, such as “kitchen,” refocuses our attention on activities, individuals, and patterns. Some scholars have argued that it is impossible to fully understand societies through artifact distributions, because the modern observer is unable to determine if an object was used or stored in a given area.52 Although rooms are often multi-use, artifact distributions are not meaningless. We may not be able to determine the full range of household activities that took place over time, but we can capture specific slices of time within this range. Moreover, at this time, we do not have enough contextual studies to validate the claim that object locations are not informative. As we accumulate more contextual studies from reliable contexts, we may be able to evaluate the security of a context for meaningful contextual analyses beyond the binary of sealed contexts and open/disturbed contexts. It is also worth considering the possibility that even disturbed contexts, though individually difficult to rely on, may collectively yield more reliable information. At this time, scholars of the Roman Empire suggest that contextual analyses are relevant for determining object meanings and spatial significance in a variety of structures, and it is worthwhile exploring this approach in Roman Egypt.53 Third, household variability can be recognized only when we analyze houses as distinct units. In order to understand social and functional domestic differences between houses we must gather Pliny:2, 7. On flexibility of domestic space usage, see Perring 2002:11, Ellis 2000:59. 48 On household modifications during the day, see Harlow and Laurence 2001:27. 49 Rapoport 1990. Rapoport’s emphasis upon activities touches upon an archaeology of performance, which Ian Hodder defines as “a dimension of action that bridges to meaning and communication. Performance is an interpretation acted out for someone (including oneself). It is always, consciously or not, staged, and it is thus always theatrical (2006:85).” In other words, Hodder examines performance as both a private, daily activity and a monumental, public spectacle. I follow this comprehensive view of performance to highlight the physical daily practices within this house, since it connects meaning, ideology and identity with the immediacy of materiality. 50 Rapoport 1969. 51 On the distinction between practical and discursive consciousness, see Giddens 1984:181-183, 200. 52 Schiffer takes issue with the correspondence that Hodder ascribes to disposal practices and belief systems (1987:73-74). For a full discussion of abandonment and pitfalls in interpretations, see Chapter 20. 53 On Pompeiian houses, see Allison 1992, Allison 1993. On Sagalassos houses, see Putzeys, Van Thune, Poblome, Uytterhoeven, Waelkens and Degeest 2004. On Romano-British forts, see Hoffman 1995. On Romano-British town sites, see Fulford, Clarke and Eckardt 2006, Fulford and Clarke 2011. See also Cool 2002. On Amarna houses, see the numerous Kemp and Stevens publications, listed at http://www.amarnaproject.com/pages/publications/. 46 47

Domestic Archaeology

29

information on which domestic elements co-occur. Contextual approaches to houses enable us to account for social variations rather than impose normative perspectives upon past lifestyles. It is likely that individuals made use of houses and material objects in diverse ways rather than following a codified practice.54 A contextual approach to archaeological material will help us to discern patterns within domestic diversity without smoothing over the disparities. Fourth, social processes look different depending upon the analytical scale. By examining a single house in detail, it is possible to explore the connection between the microscale of the house and the macroscale of Roman Empire. The household is the social institution most often invoked when considering social change and social difference at the microscale. Microscale analyses help to explain how change occurs, what form it takes, and what its consequences are in minute detail. 55 The way in which individuals understood imported imperial objects and ideas can change the meaning and use of these objects and concepts. Through examining the ways that individuals understood the Roman Empire, we can understand the extent to which a locality experienced change under broader social trends. In sum, this project employs a contextual approach to House B2 in order to retain the household unit. This approach will enable a better understanding of the material culture, architecture, occupants, and social niche than studies that isolate specific categories of material for analysis. The rigorous methodological processes involved in contextual archaeology ensure that the data can be re-analyzed and re-interpreted, allowing for malleability in interpretation after excavation is complete. 56 The method of excavation and documentation is essential to this kind of study. The lack of rigorous methodologies in many other excavations—old and recent—is the foundation of incomplete domestic publications. The accuracy of excavation and of its documentation enables us to study contexts and objects together and within different perspectives. The excavation proper contains a method and a theory, not only the interpretation of what has been found. The holistic concept is recent, and most Romano-Egyptian domestic excavations are outdated and were not excavated stratigraphically. By emphasizing careful practice, I recognize that archaeological research changes. Future researchers will ask different questions of our data.57 Naturally, a contextual approach does not mean setting aside the systematic publication of material finds; rather, it requires looking at those finds both as members of a class and as parts of a context. Choice of Amheida House B2 House B2 is situated in an area of the site (Area 1) that contains vernacular mud brick architecture alongside industrial structures and utilitarian ceramics on the surface (Figure 1.7). It is located across the street from a structure that the DOP had investigated previously. This other structure appears to have had a similar plan to B2 and may have been converted from a house into a ceramics workshop at some stage of its occupational history. The DOP team found large quantities of clinker as well as unbaked fragments of ceramics, high densities of sherds, and large numbers of unfired vessels around Kiln 1 within the house.58

On diversity in object usage, see Allison 1999b:63. Hendon 2004:279. 56 The strength of a contextual approach is that practitioners recognize that archaeology deals with the creation and examination of an archive, see Lucas 2001:62-63, 213-214. 57 On the iterative nature of archaeology, see Deleuze 1994. 58 Hope 1980:303, 307-311. 54 55

30

Amheida II

Figure 1.7: Plan of Amheida Area 1 showing B2 and surrounding structures. During the Roman period and in prior phases of Egyptian history, people considered the ceramics profession to be low on the social scale. Workshops and kilns were usually situated on the outskirts of settlements. This placement both gave potters privileged access to clay and also kept the production fumes away from domestic quarters.59 Based upon these considerations, I surmised that the dwellings in the vicinity of the ceramics workshop were not particularly desirable or high status and that houses would reflect a mid-low economic stratum of society. Since we wanted to understand this economic stratum as well as the richer social level responsible for House B1, a house excavated from 2004–2008, all signs suggested that House B2 would be suitable for our goals. Prior knowledge from Hope’s study of the ceramic production areas in the immediate vicinity of B2 also provided an important incentive for working on this structure. Moreover, I chose House B2 for this study because, from the surface, it appeared to be a mediumsized house in a square plan (11 x 11 m or 121 m²) (Figure 1.8). All of the walls were clearly visible and the structure appeared to be in a reasonable state of preservation. These preservation and size attributes were important, as we wanted to recover sufficient data to reconstruct daily life for a family of modest means.

59

Hope 2001b:6-8.

Domestic Archaeology

31

Figure 1.8: Plan of House B2 (N. Warner).

Specific Research Objectives This report has two primary goals for House B2. First, it will offer a comprehensive presentation and evaluation of the architectural and material evidence recovered from House B2 and its surroundings. This report pursues a material ethnography of the individuals who once occupied a single house in Roman Egypt, aiming to illuminate the settings in which their lives took place along with the objects that held meaning for them. The second goal of this report is to relate evidence recovered from B2 to the spectrum of domestic evidence previously recovered from Roman Egypt. In so doing, this report builds on previous archaeological scholarship and contributes a new vantage point on this material. The specific research objectives are as follows: 1. Establish the chronology of B2 2. Fit B2 within the Romano-Egyptian domestic spectrum 3. Determine socio-spatial contexts, activities, and practices 4. Determine the people who occupied B2 5. Determine relationships to the Roman Empire These specific objectives will help me achieve the broader research objectives for this volume.

32

Amheida II

Volume Structure My objective for this volume is to return the excavated materials to the contexts that they came from rather than considering them in isolation or only as part of specific material categories. The chapter divisions form the foundation for the ways in which I interpret the use of objects and the function of spaces in subsequent chapters. Chapter 2 introduces the Dakhla Oasis and Amheida, including the cultural history of these areas and the research history upon them. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the research methodologies employed in the project. Chapter 4 provides a room-by-room analysis of the house, discussing the architecture, artifact assemblages, and stratigraphy holistically. Chapter 5 examines the construction techniques used to build B2, the street, and exterior courtyard. Chapter 6 compares the architecture of B2 to that of other Romano-Egyptian houses and suggests a potential reconstruction. Chapter 7 provides a thematic overview of the small finds from House B2 in order to crosscut material divisions between objects, while chapters 8 through 19 examine individual categories of material. Chapter 20 of this volume returns to the specific research objectives enumerated above and considers some of the social questions raised by in this project in order to explore the family who once occupied this structure. A more thorough exploration of the theoretical questions explored here, as well as a broader comparison of domestic structures and what they can tell us about social change under imperialism, is reserved for a later volume.60 A comprehensive chart of the object distributions can be found in Chapter 20 (Figure 20.1). Additional information about the stratigraphic units (DSUs, FSUs) can be found by consulting the open-access database. Terminology and Abbreviations The specific archaeological terminology used throughout this volume is as follows: Deposition Stratigraphic Unit (DSU) is a 3-dimensional unit that defines the borders of a deposition from which finds are collected. The borders of a DSU can be determined by the presence of one or more architectural features, the borders of the deposition itself, or an arbitrary division of space on the basis of decisions made during excavation. Feature Stratigraphic Unit (FSU) denotes an architectural, man-made feature such as a wall, pit, oven, or floor. The borders are determined by the visible extent of the feature. Stratigraphic Unit Quantification (SUQ) refers to a form completed by the ceramicist and the registrar in order to quantify the number and weight of objects belonging to DSUs. Only the diagnostic objects are kept and recorded in more detail. 60

This forthcoming volume, by Boozer, will look broadly at Romano-Egyptian daily life.

2

SITUATING THE CASE STUDY The Dakhla Oasis and Amheida Anna Lucille Boozer The Dakhla Oasis and the Western Desert The Western Desert comprises two-thirds of the land within the current boundaries of Egypt. The only refuges from the hostile environment are the five major oases—Siwa, Bahariya, Farafra, Dakhla, and Kharga. In Arabic, Dakhla means the Inner Oasis and Kharga means the Outer Oasis (that is with respect to the desert, rather than the Nile). In Roman antiquity, these two oases were grouped together as the Oasis Major (“the Great(er) Oasis”). Dakhla itself is approximately 800 km southwest of Cairo and about 300 km west of Luxor (Figures 1.1, 1.2). Geology and Geomorphology The Dakhla Oasis is a depression that extends more than 80 km from east to west and approximately 30 km from north to south. It rests along the southern edge of a limestone and sandstone plateau and the steep escarpment of Paleocene limestone defines the northern boundary of Dakhla (Figure 1.2).1 This scarp is elevated 300–400 m above the oasis floor. 2 The floor of the Dakhla basin is approximately 100 m above sea level, though it varies in elevation across the depression. This oasis occurred as a result of geological changes occurring since the Early Cretaceous. 3 Wind was probably the primary agent for excavating the oasis depressions, although tectonic activity also may have contributed to their formation. All of the oasis depressions occur in areas where hard rocks overlay soft ones; once the hard overlying rock was eroded, the softer rock was hollowed out quickly.4 Underground water passes along permeable sandstone beds, confined between impermeable clays above and below.5 These beds are folded and faulted in places, while others have been uplifted or removed to other areas.6 Natural fissures or artificial borings allow water to reach the surface through artesian pressure. A conveying stratum of Nubian sandstone covered with impermeable materials confines the flow of water into the oases.7 Nubian sandstone covers vast areas of the desert in Dakhla’s vicinity.8 Hydrology The presence of oases in the Western Desert makes sedentary life possible in this arid region. The water that forms the oases derives from the Artesian-water sandstone underlying the oasis and the entire Western Desert. The basal stratigraphic unit in Dakhla is the Taref Sandstone Member of the Nubian Ball 1927a:26-27, Schild and Wendorf 1977:12. 400–500 m above sea level. 3 Kleindienst 1999:2. 4 Ball 1927a:33-34. 5 Ball 1927b:106. For more on the geology, see Murray 1952. On the Artesian-water sandstone, see Schild and Wendorf 1977. On the phreatic layers beneath the Western Desert, see Ball 1927, Ball 1927b. 6 Ball 1927b:107. 7 Hellström 1940:206. 8 Ball 1927b:105. 1 2

34

Amheida II

Formation, the same unit that forms the floor of the Western Desert to the south. This unit contains one of the largest ground water reservoirs of the world. The thickness of this water-bearing sandstone column seems to range from 200 m in the Kurayim area to 1030 m in the Dakhla Oasis.9 Water has always been a key concern in the oasis landscape, as can be detected by the emphasis placed upon wells throughout history. Writing in the late Roman Period, Olympiodorus noted that the inhabitants of the oases were renowned well diggers.10 As a mark of their significance, wells have always been the chief measure of wealth and importance in the oasis. 11 Even today, well ownership is a complex and important issue. It is possible to own collective shares and individual shares of wells. Equally possible are individuals who own water but no land or land but no water.12 There has been much debate in recent years about how long this water is expected to last and if it is renewable. There is general agreement that the Saharan aquifer rate of recharge is substantially lower than the rate of withdrawal at present. Even within the Great Oasis, there are significant differences between Dakhla and Kharga in their sources of water. Most notably, parts of Kharga’s ancient water supply came from qanats. Qanats are water management systems designed to bring water to human settlements and agricultural fields in hot, arid climates. Sloping tunnels bring water from water-bearing strata in the hills into plains. They are equipped with a series of vertical shafts, which provide access and ventilation. The advantage of qanats is that they enable water to be distributed in hot climates without losing too much water to evaporation and seepage.13 Extensive evidence of these systems has been found in the Kharga Oasis, but few traces have been found to date in the Dakhla Oasis.14 These differences signal a divergence in the geomorphology between these oases as well as distinct approaches to water management among inhabitants. Although water reservoirs continue to support a sizeable sedentary population in the Western Desert, uncontrolled usage and methods of irrigation, dating back to antiquity, that emphasize flooding small basins cause severe problems with salinization, a problem present already in ancient times. Salinization has been responsible for vast tracts of wasteland, once irrigated but now abandoned, as well as salt marshes created by unrestrained water spilling.15 Today, considerable salt deposits can be found in the vicinity of Mut.16 Salinization is not only an issue for cultivation but has come to be an issue for the preservation of antiquities in the region as well, particularly of sandstone temples, such as ‘Ain Birbiyeh.17 The salt deposits seem to be long-present inclusions within the depositions of the western desert. Water and evaporation create these salinization issues. Climate Climatic conditions in the Western Desert are severe. The extreme temperatures make daily life and fieldwork difficult. Winter temperatures range from as low as 0º–2ºC just before sunrise to 20º–25ºC by midday, and in the summer maximum temperatures reach 40ºC for extended periods and for stretches exceed this level.18 Heat provides a significant hindrance to many activities and even the human Schild and Wendorf 1977:10. Livrea 1978. 11 Giddy 1987, Mills 1998. 12 Beadnell 1909:10. 13 Wuttmann 2001. 14 On the qanats at Ayn Manawir in Kharga, see Grimal 1995:527-574, fig 11. Bagnall and Rathbone 2004 state that no qanats have been found in Dakhla. Recently, the SCA reported on evidence of possible qanats in Dakhla (Youssef 2012). This evidence is promising, but there are no publications on the Dakhla qanats to date. The examples found and reported on by the SCA are significantly shorter than those found in Khargeh and run in parallel to one another. These potential qanats require further study before more conclusions can be drawn. 15 Giddy 1987:4. 16 Schild and Wendorf 1977:16. 17 Zielinski 1989:53. 18 Giddy 1987:3. 9

10

Situating the Case Study

35

consciousness.19 Given the palpable influence of heat on the body and mind, it should be understood that it would have been a considerable issue in antiquity and most certainly influenced architectural choices and the organization of daily activities. The sand-laden northern winds were an obstacle in antiquity as well as today. The wind shaves down crops, fills in houses, and deposits dunes over paved roads. Herodotus tells the story of Cambyses’ army, which supposedly was engulfed by these winds during a campaign across the desert to attack the Oracle at Siwa.20 This account suggests that the fear of these winds was widespread across the Mediterranean basin. In antiquity, it was common to build wind and refuse barriers outside of houses to protect them from windblown sand.21 Today, the winds also serve as an obstacle to fieldwork, which is only possible in the winter months (October-March), and even then formidable sandstorms are not uncommon. From an archaeological standpoint, the strong oasis winds can be seen in the deflation of mud brick structures, with various consequences for the structure of depositional units, as well as oasis site topography. Agricultural History Dakhla contains a green area of c. 410 km², although there is not a continuum of fertile areas within this quantity. Cultivation areas occupy scattered spaces in the lower land surface, stretching from Teneida in the east approximately 100 km to the west.22 Structures occupy high ground that is not suitable for cultivation within this space. There is evidence of continuous human activity in Dakhla extending from the Lower Paleolithic (c. 400,000 BCE) to the present day.23 Despite the distance between Dakhla and the Nile Valley, Dakhla was known as a fertile land throughout Dynastic Egypt. In particular, Dakhla was known particularly for prestige agricultural goods, such as olives, dates, and wine, until the Roman Period.24 Currently, the Kellis Agricultural Account Book (KAB), taken together with archaeobotanical finds at Kellis, is our best source for understanding the agriculture of Roman Dakhla. 25 From this account we have a good sense of the field and fruit crops available in Dakhla during the Roman Period. The predominant wheat is triticum aestivum, a bread wheat common in the Roman Mediterranean and found in Egypt from Ptolemaic rule onward. Durum wheat (triticum durum) and emmer wheat (triticum dicoccum) are not mentioned frequently in documentary sources.26 Other common crops include hay (trifolium alexandrium), arakia, fenugreek (trigonella foenum-graecum), sesame (sesamum indicum), tiphagion (an unidentified product), turnips (brassica rapa ssp. rapa), vetch (vicia), dried figs (ficus carica), dates (phoenix dactylifera) in multiple forms, doum (hyphanae thebaica), and olives (olea europaea).27 Cotton (Gossypium sp.) was grown in Roman Dakhla as this region provided a particularly favorable locale for the crop. Cotton is a summer crop that requires irrigation and is not suitable for the inundation and basin cultivation found along the Nile Valley. The oases provided the possibility of year-round irrigation from wells, which was more

On heat disrupting the bodily consciousness, see Taussig 2004:31. On Herodotus, see Grene 1987:222, Book III.26. 21 On these windbreaks in Dakhla and the Fayum, see Boozer 2015. 22 Schild and Wendorf 1977:9-12. 23 Ibid. 24 Kaper and Wendrich 1998b, Giddy 1987. 25 Bagnall 1997. 26 On these wheat crops, see Thanheiser and Bagnall 1997:36. 27 On hay, see ibid.:38. On arakia, see ibid.:39. On fenugreek, see ibid.:39. On sesame, see ibid.:39. On tiphagion, see ibid.:40. On turnips, see ibid.:40. On vetch, see ibid.:41. On figs, see ibid.:41. On dates, see ibid.:42-43. On doum, see ibid.:43. On olives, see ibid.:43-44. 19 20

36

Amheida II

suitable for cotton cultivation.28 Wine is attested from the oases in KAB as well. 29 Crops that also appear in Roman Dakhla include barley (Hordeum vulgare) and safflower (Carthamus tinctorius).30 Due to the cost of transporting goods from Dakhla to the Nile Valley, it is likely that prestige agricultural goods, such as olives, dates, wine, and cotton, were the primary goods used for trade with that region.31 Bagnall has argued that bulk agricultural goods may have been traded more locally between the Nile Valley and the Small Oasis, suggesting that a more localized oasis economy focused on agricultural products was also possible.32 Access In antiquity there were two general means of access between Dakhla and the Nile Valley. First, one could travel via the Kharga Oasis and the routes offered between ancient Hibis and the Nile Valley. Second, it was possible to avoid Kharga by moving directly across the Libyan Plateau (Figure 1.2).33 Traveling via the Kharga Oasis to the east, individuals used two routes most frequently to access the Nile Valley from Dakhla in antiquity: the Darb el-Ghubari and the ‘Ayn Amur Road. Winlock made the trip from Kharga to Dakhla in 1908 by following the Darb el-Ghubari route on camel. 34 This route, fairly easy and level but somewhat longer than the ‘Ayn Amur road, departs from Hibis and follows along the southern extremity of the east–west oriented ridge that runs between the oases, ending at Teneida in the Dakhla Oasis. The route is clearly designated by cairns and ceramic scatters as well as signs of human activity in the form of petroglyphs, graffiti, and lithics. On his return to Kharga, Winlock followed the ‘Ayn Amur Road, which is located north of the Darb el-Ghubari.35 It departs from Teneida, traverses ‘Ayn Amur, and then connects up with the Darb elGhubari before the latter reaches Hibis. The ‘Ayn Amur route is 10 km shorter than the Darb el-Ghubari and runs across the plateau of the ridge between the two oases; it is a much more difficult route to follow than the Darb el-Ghubari because it is necessary to ascend and descend the escarpment. In his travel documents, Harding-King describes the descent into Dakhla in some detail: The sand had drifted up against the cliff we had to climb down, and once on the bank of sand the camels, by walking diagonally down the slope, were able to reach the bottom without difficulty. But at the top of the sandbank, the rocks…overhung to form a sort of cornice, so narrow that the baggage had to be lifted temporarily up from the camels’ backs to enable them to pass through the passage.36 This description provides but one example of the extreme difficulties that one had to endure on the ‘Ayn Amur Road when traveling by traditional methods. Second, naturally formed passes in Dakhla’s escarpment enable through-routes directly from Dakhla to the Nile Valley. The northern cliff barrier to the oasis is broken into a number of promontories by clear indentations. The most important of these passes are located to the north and east of el-Qasr, to the northeast of Balat and to the east of Teneida. The beds, which create a steep escarpment elsewhere,

Ibid.:39-40. On cotton in the Small Oasis, see Bagnall 2008b. Cotton was grown in Roman Egypt by at least the second century CE (Wild 1997:8, Wild and Wild 2007, Wild, Wild and Clapham 2008, Thomas 2007:156 and note 57). 29 Thanheiser and Bagnall 1997:45. 30 On barley, see ibid.:38. On safflower, see ibid.:39. 31 Gradel, Letellier-Willemin and Tallet 2012. 32 Bagnall 2008b. 33 Giddy 1987:10. 34 Winlock 1936:7-15. 35 Ibid.:44-52. 36 Harding-King 2003 [1925]:36. 28

Situating the Case Study

37

structure a gradual slope up to the plateau at these indentations. This slope allows the only practicable passes from the oasis floor up to the limestone plateau.37 The most significant pass, located some 15 km east of the town of al-Qasr, unites with the Darb elTawīl route that leads north out of the oasis further east. There are a number of alternate routes within the pass that merge together in the same general direction.38 North of the escarpment, the floor of the depression of Farafra descends almost imperceptibly for some 150 km until one can perceive the steep cliffs on the east, west, and north of the Farafra Oasis. The total length from the apex of the Farafra depression in the north to the escarpment of Dakhla to the south is about 200 km. 39 The old caravan route between Farafra and Dakhla covered these 200 km. By camel, it would have taken up to four days to reach Qasr al-Farafra from the town of al-Qasr in Dakhla, which is located just a few kilometers from Amheida. The ancient caravan route passes by Bir Dikkar and continues at the edge of the sand dunes until it descends the escarpment of Dakhla above al-Qasr. This route is still in use today as a 300 km paved road. It starts from Mut, passes by al-Qasr and Abu Munqar, and then goes on to Farafra.40 Cultural History of Roman Dakhla The archaeological evidence for human activity in Roman Dakhla is abundant and indicates that the oasis is an ideal location for studying daily life in Roman Egypt. The oasis has been known to the western world since Sir Archibald Edmonstone visited in 1819, but Dakhla was not intensively explored until the late twentieth century.41 The DOP discovered over 200 Roman Period sites during its survey, carried out from 1977 to 1987, basing its interpretation upon ceramic evidence. 42 This data allowed for preliminary dating and identifications of sites, eventually leading to excavation at several sites. I provide a brief overview of some of Dakhla’s excavated sites below to indicate the range in settlement, mortuary, and religious sites that can be found in this oasis.43 The site of Kellis (Ismant el-Kharab) provides significant archaeological evidence of domestic life in Roman Dakhla.44 The DOP survey of 1981–82 found substantial Roman ruins on this site. Excavation at Kellis began in 1986. Although they have not yet been fully published, the Kellis houses provide the best local comparanda to Amheida House B2. The Main Temple, located in the western part of the site, is the earliest structure known at Kellis and may have been constructed in the first century CE. It was dedicated to the protective deity, Tutu (in Greek, Tithoes), a local god in Dakhla. In addition to the temple and houses, three fourth century churches were excavated, along with a necropolis and a bath house. 45 These urban remains, in addition to substantial mortuary remains, provide us with the most complete and holistic exploration of a single Romano-Egyptian town in Dakhla to date. A more thorough discussion of the Kellis houses can be found in the previous chapter. Ain el-Gedida, which underwent excavation by the SCA and Nicola Aravecchia, offers a site with a dense concentration of structures as well as a church.46 This settlement is significantly smaller than Kellis Said 1962:67. Giddy 1987:12. 39 Fakhry 2003 [1974]:160. 40 Ibid.:162. 41 For a historiography of early archaeological research in Dakhla, see Boozer 2013a. 42 See papers in Churcher and Mills 1995. The dating of sites was based upon ceramic seriations that are now outdated. Now that the regional assemblage is better understood, more Ptolemaic material has been recognized among the initial survey assemblage than at the time of collection. Even so, the Roman Period is represented in greater numbers than any other until the present day. 43 The publications on Dakhla are too numerous to indicate here. Please consult the following bibliography for a comprehensive selection of sources on Dakhla http://www.amheida.org/inc/pdf/amheida_bibliography.pdf. 44 See above for coordinates and an introduction to the site. 45 Bowen 2000, Bowen 2002, Bowen 2003a, Bowen 2003b. On additional Christian remains in Dakhla, see Bowen 2008, Bowen 2009, Aravecchia forthcoming, Bayumi 1998. 46 For preliminary reports on these excavations, see http://www.amheida.org/index.php?content=reports. 37 38

38

Amheida II

and Amheida and offers a non-urban perspective on daily life in Roman Dakhla. Full publication of this site is expected in the near future. The site of Mut el-Kharab, the ancient and modern capital of the oasis, is in highly ruinous condition. It consists of isolated islands of preserved archaeology distributed within the sprawl of present-day Mut. Despite the challenges that this urban archaeology offers, the DOP has excavated a considerable portion of the temple at Mut. Temple relief blocks and ceramics reveal that occupation extended back to at least the Persian Period and also attest to the high levels of wealth and status in the oasis.47 Deir el Haggar, Dakhla’s signature tourist-accessible monument from the Roman Period, appears to have been the most important temple in the western portion of Dakhla, beyond Amheida.48 The temple of ‘Ain Birbiyeh, to the east of Kellis, has also been excavated and is undergoing conservation due to the destructive effects of salinization to the sandstone.49 The active temple building during the Roman Period attests to the continued significance of local cults during this time.50 Qârat El-Muzawwaqqa appears to have been the primary elite burial site in the vicinity of Amheida. Research here has yielded several important painted tombs, which attest to the complicated ethnic identity affiliations among oasites in the Roman Period. In particular, the tombs of Petosiris and Petubastis show a complicated intertwining of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman elements suggestive of a multicultural local environment.51 Documentary evidence also sheds light on the communities who inhabited Dakhla during the Roman period. I have mentioned already KAB as an important source for the agriculture of Roman Dakhla. We are fortunate also to have the Notitia Dignitatum for this area of the Empire, which gives us some clues about the distribution of forces in the Dakhla Oasis. 52 Moreover, Kellis has produced numerous documents in the forms of papyri, ostraka, and an early book.53 Despite recent advances in our understanding of Roman Dakhla, we still do not have a good sense of where the expanded population came from in the Roman Period or why they came. Immigration seems to be the most likely explanation of the population boom, although increased economic potential may have raised the health and longevity of individuals in the region. Although the origins of the Roman Period population are uncertain, it is clear from the visible increase of local wealth in the Roman Period that economic reasons were a primary cause of the population increase.54 Recent research at Amheida brings additional, significant evidence of daily life in Roman Dakhla to our current suite of data on this important oasis.

Amheida Amheida is a substantial ancient settlement located in the northwest part of the Dakhla Oasis (Figure 2.1).55 This multi-phase site reached its greatest extent under Roman rule (1st C CE–4th C CE). Its earliest known name was Set-wah (“resting place”) and it was known as Trimithis during the Roman Period. Amheida is the largest surviving ancient settlement within the Dakhla. Hope 2005, Hope 2001, Hope 2005b. Kaper 1997. 49 Ibid. 50 For an overview of the temples in Dakhla, see ibid. 51 Osing et al. 1982, Whitehouse 1998 52 For a comparison between the Notitia Dignitatum description of fortresses and the material correlates of these descriptions in the Oasis Magna, see Boozer 2013b. For the correlation between the Notitia Dignitatum and Egypt’s geography more broadly, see Worp 1994. 53 For example, see Worp and Hope 2006, Worp 1995, Worp and Rijksbaron 1987. On the Manichaean community at Kellis, see Gardner 1993, Gardner 1996, Gardner 1997a, Gardner 1997b. 54 On migration to and mobility in Dakhla and the Western Desert more generally, see Boozer 2011, Boozer 2015d. 55 The coordinates of Amheida are 25° 40’ 122’’ N, 28° 52’ 502’’ E. 47 48

Situating the Case Study

39

Amheida was one of the most important towns in the Dakhla Oasis during the Roman and Byzantine centuries. Documentary sources indicate that Trimithis gained the legal status of a city by the fourth century and was regarded on the same level as other significant cities in the Oasis Magna.56 The diversity and magnitude of archaeological remains at Amheida attest to this significance. The substantial aboveground remains and surface pottery scattered across the urban center and cemeteries extend at least 2.5 km north–south and 2 km east–west. These remains represent dates ranging from Pharaonic to Late Antique periods, and the surrounding landscape contains evidence of prehistoric lithic scatters, Old Kingdom ceramics, and several cemeteries. Despite a long occupational history, Roman and Late Antique ruins dominate the visible site surface today. Like the greater Dakhla Oasis, Amheida appears to have reached its apex during the Roman Period.

Figure 2.1: Map of the Dakhla Oasis (B. Bazzani, based on ASTER GDEM data, a product of METI and NASA). Location of Site The area of Amheida is bordered on the north by the stark limestone escarpment that dominates the entire oasis (Figure 2.2). To the west is the necropolis of Qârat el-Muzawwaqqa and the fi rst century Roman temple of Deir el-Haggar. These monuments are rimmed in by Gebel Edmonstone followed by a barren desert replete with massive dunes leading out to the Great Sand Sea. South of the town, the land drops gradually over a minor escarpment and there is a dense band of present-day agricultural villages. Cultivation surrounds Amheida today. A small Bedouin village lies north of the site and modern agricultural fi elds extend to the east.57 There are minor springs in these vicinities. Other landmarks in the vicinity of Amheida include el-Qasr, a medieval Islamic and Ottoman town. El-Qasr likely was occupied already during the last period of Amheida’s existence in the form of the Roman fort of the Ala I Quadorum, and it may be the location to which Amheida’s inhabitants moved after they abandoned the city.58 There are signs that structures at Wagner 1987:191. The villagers still herd their cattle across the site today, and many of them work with the current excavation team. 58 On the discovery of this fort, see Jobbins 2006. 56 57

40

Amheida II

Amheida, particularly the temple, were dismantled in early modern times to supply stone for construction at el-Qasr.59

Figure 2.2: View of Amheida (to north). History of the Amheida Project Outsiders have known about Amheida since European explorers first ventured to Egypt’s Western Desert in 1819.60 The critical watershed for archaeological exploration in Dakhla came with the work of Ahmed Fakhry from 1936 until his death in 1973. Fakhry was astonished to find so many antiquities in Dakhla since early explorers had found so little there, compared with Kharga.61 Fakhry carried out a number of important excavations in Dakhla between 1968 and 1973, including at Ain Aseel, Qila el-Dabba, Balat, Qârat el-Muzawwaqqa , and Deir el-Haggar.62 Descriptions of Fakhry’s research have been published both by Fakhry himself and others who summarized his work, following his untimely death in 1973.63 Many of the structures at Amheida show signs that the architectural features containing wood were removed at the time of abandonment (see Chapter 5). Olaf Kaper has identified matches between blocks found at el-Qasr and blocks recovered from the New York University excavations at Amheida (pers. com.). The Dakhleh Oasis Project conducts research at el-Qasr today. 60 On the history of archaeological research in Dakhla, see Boozer 2013a. 61 Fakhry 1973:217, 222. 62 Ibid.:220-221. For a description of Fakhry’s findings, see Osing et al. 1982. See also Mills 1985. 63 Fakhry 1973:218-221, n.5. Dieter Arnold and Jürgen Osing visited Dakhla in March 1978 in order to publish a volume on Fakhry’s research results in Dakhla as well as continue studies that Fakhry considered to be important, see Osing et al. 1982. During this time, Osing also took notes at several temples in the Southern Oasis and published a series of articles on them, see Osing 1985, Osing 1978, Osing 1985a, Osing 1985b, Osing 1986a, Osing 1986b, Osing 1986c, Osing 1990. 59

Situating the Case Study

41

Since its European discovery, both specialists and non-specialists visited Amheida. The site came into prominence in 1979 when the DOP discovered Classical wall paintings on the site during its survey of the entire Dakhla Oasis.64 Modern archaeological fieldwork began in 2000, directed by Roger Bagnall.65 It was first under sponsorship from Columbia University; primary sponsorship passed in 2008 to New York University, in continued partnership with Columbia University. In 2012, the University of Reading became a partner in the project; the City University of New York assumed this role when Boozer joined the faculty of that institution. The first systematic excavations, begun in 2004, focused primarily on the house containing wall paintings discovered in 1979 (B1). These excavations later expanded to include additional domestic structures (B2), the temple mound, a church (B7) and conservation of a pyramid and of a monumental mud brick tomb. Topography of Amheida Survey continues to define the extent and form of Amheida’s urban fabric, although preliminary conjectures regarding the layout can be made at this time (Figure 1.3).66 Amheida contains a diverse range of structures, as might be expected for a major regional center. The houses seem to be single—or, in some cases, possibly two—story mud brick structures with mainly barrel-vaulted roofs and some palm reed and mud flat roofs. Industrial areas are distributed among the domestic structures, but primarily along what we currently understand to be the edges of the city. A temple hill on the west side, around which the Roman settlement wraps, and mortuary structures along the southern side are also clearly evident among the surface remains. Agricultural fields occupied the low-lying surrounding landscape. Governmental, administrative, or so-called “public buildings” have not been identified securely yet, apart from the church (B7). Even so, it seems that the area just east of the temple mound may have been a focal point of the site, as surface remains indicate a number of large, elaborate structures that may have served civic functions. Moreover, the houses excavated closest to this area appear to be of particularly high status. There are two major streets currently identifiable at Amheida. First, a broad east–west oriented road (S1) provided access into the city from the east. It leads from the industrial and domestic area on the northeastern edge of the site towards an area north of the temple mound, but it turns sharply off axis and terminates before reaching the temple mound. Its width is 6.82 m, which corresponds generally with evidence of other Eastern Mediterranean cities.67 It appears that the road and the structures along its eastern end may have been built during a single phase of construction, as argued later in this report. The second major street (S2) is a north–south oriented road that extends from the mortuary area in the southeastern portion of the city to the north. This road appears to have had structures built into it over time, which made it less effective as a major conduit across the city. This phenomenon of narrowing streets fits a general pattern in the evolution from Classical to Byzantine cities seen at other sites in the Eastern Mediterranean. Scholars commonly interpret this encroachment of private structures upon street networks as reflecting the gradual decline of the central municipal authority.68 In addition to these major roads there are some clear streets and alleys. One runs roughly parallel to the major north–south road and is located between this road and the temple mound. Some additional east–west aligned streets also occur. The project has not yet identified any streets connecting the eastern settlement area with the temple mound, nor has any trace of the temple dromos been found. Leahy 1980, Mills 1980. See Chapter 3 for the Amheida Project staffing. 66 Congedo and De Santis 2006. See additional reports at www.Amheida.org. For conjectures on the late Roman urban development of Trimithis, see Boozer 2014. 67 Martens 2008:196. 68 Ibid.:197-198. 64 65

42

Amheida II

There are several areas that indicate localized planning. For example, the northeastern part of the site appears to have been laid out in a single phase, and the structures in this area share similar plans. An area located in what appears to be the center of the Late Antique site also contains houses that, from the surface, appear to share similar layouts. Likewise, in an area just south of the temple, a series of roads delineate the eastern boundary of a housing block where at least one significant, decorated house is identifiable on the basis of surface architecture. Domestic Structures Domestic structures have been a key focus of this project since its inception, and this project will contribute substantially to our understanding of Romano-Egyptian domestic life.

Figure 2.3: Plan of House B1. A fourth century house (B1) provides us with a wealthy dwelling that contained Greek mythological wall paintings in a central, domed room and wall paper motif wall paintings in a number of side rooms (Figure 2.3). These figural scenes are unique within Roman Egypt at this time and also inform us that occupants of the oasis were more comfortable with Roman Mediterranean cultural norms than might be expected for a peripheral Egyptian region. Measuring 225 m², this house was largely square in plan-view and had a clustered plan of access between rooms. Most of the rooms were covered in barrel vaults, although one room contained a dome, potentially with an oculus. There were flat roofs constructed out of palm reeds and beams with a mud plastering over at least two rooms.69 Minimal material culture was recovered from this structure. Damp conditions did not preserve soft organic materials at B1 as well as is found at other sites within the oasis, such as Kellis. The other materials that survived include a substantial corpus of ostraka, which provide information about the owners of this structure, dependency relationships within the region, and small-scale economic information. These ostraka also provided a glimpse into the political framework of Trimithis since they

69

Boozer 2007:134, 155-157.

Situating the Case Study

43

repeatedly mention a man named Serenos, who is presumed to have owned B1 at some stage of its occupational history, and who can be inferred to have been a city councilor.70 Ceramics are generally of high quality with respect to the local assemblage. Additional artifacts point towards higher status occupants. Preliminary analyses suggest that the occupants consumed foods common within the broader Roman Empire and sustained an existence looking more towards the Mediterranean than one might have expected, given the peripheral location of the site.71 The vicinity of the house has also been explored. Children and youths appear to have been educated in three rooms along the north end of the house. Red dipinti on the walls indicate that these pupils were educated in Classical Greek traditions and particularly rhetorical verse composition.72 South of the house lies another, unexcavated house with an identical overall footprint and a similar layout within. 73 Sondages beneath B1 indicate that it is located on top of parts of a Roman bathhouse that possibly dates to the third century CE and was constructed out of mud and baked brick. Only a fraction of this structure has been excavated thus far, due to the overlying structures. Excavations have recently begun on an additional structure (B6), located northwest of this house. This structure contains approximately ten rooms and a central, columned room. These preliminary results may suggest Roman Mediterranean influences on the architecture, but more excavation is required to justify any conjectures.

Figure 2.4: Aerial photo of House B2, facing west. House B2, the subject of this volume, was also excavated in its entirety (Figures 1.5, 2.4). This house is located in the northeastern part of the site in an industrial and domestic quarter (Area 1). The house measures 121 m². Like the larger house (B1), this structure is constructed out of mud brick, demonstrates a clustered plan of access over its square plan, and employed barrel-vaulted roofs. The vicinity around this house has been explored as well. We excavated a trench in an exterior courtyard (C2A) as well as a trench in the street (S1) adjacent to the house (B2). To these excavations we can add the preliminary survey by the DOP, during which they cleaned and mapped the surface of a structure across the street Bagnall and Ruffini 2004, Bagnall and Ruffini 2012. Boozer 2007, Boozer 2010. 72 Cribiore, Davoli and Ratzan 2008, Davoli and Cribiore 2010, Cribiore and Davoli 2013. 73 Boozer 2007:129. 70 71

44

Amheida II

from B2, revealing a structure that was provided with kilns for small-scale ceramics production. 74 More will be said about all of these components of B2 in the following chapters. Temple Amheida’s temple was dedicated to the Egyptian god Thoth, god of writing and wisdom (Figure 2.5). The temple itself, although completely dismantled by stone-robbing in antiquity (and again in more recent times) when looters and sebbakhin (diggers of decomposed organic matter) also dug deep pits, has provided significant information on the occupational history and religious life within the Dakhla Oasis. Excavations of the numerous looter and sebbakh (decomposed organic matter used for fertilizer) pits dating to the Ottoman and later periods that dot the temple mound have indicated that the site was occupied since at least the Old Kingdom. The material recovered from these excavations suggests that there may have been a settlement located on what became the temple mound in later years. New Kingdom remains include an ostrakon with a school exercise.75

Figure 2.5: Area 4, the temple mound. The epigraphic material from the temple has provided a particularly important collection of cartouches with Pharaonic and imperial names. The recovered cartouches provide us with some of the construction history of the temple and associated chapels, although interpretations may change as they are based on a highly fragmentary data set. Minor building took place under the Theban 23rd Dynasty (King Pedubast circa 800 BCE), and the early 26th Dynasty (Nekau II (610–595 BCE) and Psamtek II (595–589 BCE)). Major construction seems to have started under Amasis/Ahmose II (569–526 BCE), and the Persian ruler Darius I (522–486 BCE), both of whom contributed a new chapel with vaulted ceiling. The Roman 74 75

Hope 1980:307-311. Kaper 2010.

Situating the Case Study

45

Emperor Titus (79–81 CE) built a new Roman Period temple on the site. Domitian (81–96 CE) both demolished older structures and contributed a new larger sanctuary, which was extended (or at least further decorated) under later emperors, as yet anonymous.76 The epigraphic material also provides us with some intriguing clues about local oasite traditions. In the Third Intermediate Period, Dakhla was ruled by an Egyptianized Libyan tribe, called the Shamain.77 This epigraphic material suggests that these late dynasties incorporated the oasis regional structure much more thoroughly into their regional ruling than had been attested previously. Moreover, the Persian Period finds have provided some of the most substantial indications of a Persian presence in this distant oasis. The material culture recovered from the temple mound includes fragmentary glimpses into local cultic practices and the occupational history of Amheida. For example, ceramic coffins containing unmummified birds were recovered from the temple mound. Such deposits were common from the Late Period through the Roman Period and served as votive offerings. The remains included a range of birds (raptors, ibis) as well as other animal fragments.78 The ibis was long associated with Thoth, the principal deity at Amheida, while the raptors should be associated with other gods venerated in the oasis such as Horus or Re-Horakhte. Offerings to Osiris were also found in the form of forty-five bronze statuettes, fragments, and pendants of the god. In addition to these finds, ceramics dating back to the Second Intermediate Period have been recovered, including large quantities of bread molds. Chronology of Amheida The chronology of human activity at Amheida is poorly understood due to limited excavation thus far. The recovered temple reliefs and archaeological material from the temple area suggest that there was occupation extending back to at least the Old Kingdom in this area of the site. Predynastic lithic scatters in the vicinity of Amheida extend the chronology of anthropogenic activity back even further. At this time, surface remains suggest that the fourth century was the last major period of activity represented at Amheida. One must be wary working with surface remains, however, as they conceal a deeper history that has been exposed only in keyhole insights into deeper stratigraphy. It is entirely possible that Amheida was a large, wealthy settlement for a considerable period of time prior to the fourth century, as may be gleaned from the temple reliefs. The present work is concerned primarily with the mid-third to early fourth centuries CE. This compressed time span entails that the archaeological evidence itself varies little in terms of chronological markers for each stratum discussed—at least from what we currently understand for the material culture. Future studies may make a more refined material-based chronology possible, which would be most welcome. Kaper and Davoli, 2006, Kaper, 2009. Kaper and Davoli 2006, Davoli 2013. On the third intermediate period generally, see Kitchen 1986. 78 Currently under study by Salima Ikram. 76 77

This page intentionally left blank

3

APPROACHING THE ROMANO-EGYPTIAN HOUSE Research Methodologies Anna Lucille Boozer In this chapter I review the excavation strategy and methodology, as well as the post-excavation approach to analyzing finds from House B2. I begin with an overview of B2’s location. Then I discuss the excavation strategies employed in order to achieve the project objectives and our methodological approach to the excavations, including an overview of how excavation proceeded on a daily basis. Finally, I consider the post-excavation analysis of objects, contexts, and plans leading up to the publication of this volume.

The Excavated Area: Location From the surface, the northeastern portion of the site (Area 1) appears to be a distinct occupational area. The main road in Area 1 is off axis from alignment with the rest of Roman Amheida, and the surface ceramics are slightly earlier in date than in Area 2.1, reflecting a predominantly late third century date rather than a fourth century date. When we commenced the excavations for House B2 in 2005, we had already begun excavating House B1 in 2004. B1 is a large, lavishly decorated house close in proximity to what appears to be the urban core of Amheida. The excavations at B1 revealed a great deal about the identity of the inhabitants and their preference for Greek and Roman material and visual culture.1 The surface remains in Area 1 suggested to us that we could find less wealthy families in this area of the site and would be able to determine material differences between these people and those who lived in Area 2. Upon excavation, it became clear that there were very different states of preservation between B1 and B2. The walls of B1 were preserved to a greater height than those of B2, which makes it easier to reconstruct the architecture of B1. On the other hand, we found that soft organics were preserved better in B2 than in B1 and that there appeared to be a higher density of occupational debris in B2 than in B1.

Synopsis of the Excavations in Area 1 The DOP conducted the first archaeological work at Amheida in 1979 during a brief exploratory season, concentrating on two areas of the site, Area 1 and Area 2. 2 The Area 1 work focused on ceramics and kilns, as mentioned in the previous chapter. The Columbia University (now New York University) Amheida Project conducted brief exploratory work, consisting of test pits and survey in Area 1 in 2000 and 2001 as well as survey in 2002.3 In 20044 Boozer 2010. Mills 1980:22. These area designations derive from the New York University Project, but I project them backward for the sake of clarity. In Area 2, the DOP cleared the upper portion of two walls from a structure in an area of the site with a concentration of vaulted and painted structures. In so doing they found paintings with Greek mythological figures. The DOP did a preliminary study of these figures and then backfilled them until formal excavations could commence (Leahy 1980, Mills 1980). House B1, the structure mentioned here, will be the subject of a subsequent volume in the Amheida Series. 3 Under the archaeological direction of Lynn Meskell. 4 Under the archaeological direction of Eugene Ball. 1 2

48

Amheida II

some preliminary surface clearing took place in the eastern portion of the area in a building (Area 1.1) as well as a small portion of the street (S1) in order to assess the stratigraphy of Area 1. Area 1.1 had eroded to such a degree that only the foundations were visible. Survey continues to define this area of the site and all of the survey data is collected in CAD. As of 2013, the entire visible habitation area of Amheida had been mapped, mainly by Fabrizio Pavia. Systematic excavation of House B2 began in 2005, was expanded in 2006, and completed in 2007.5 This excavation involved the total excavation of a single house (2005–2006), a trench in Street S1 (Area 1.2) in front of the house (2007), and a trench (C2A) in Courtyard C2 (Area 1.4) behind the house (2007). We expanded our excavation to areas external to House B2 in 2007 in order to compare the stratigraphies of these areas with those inside the structure. We also wanted to determine activities that took place around the house in order to inform interpretations of interior activities. Our first exterior excavation took place in the street just north of the house. We laid out a 6.10 x 2 m east–west oriented trench in this area, aligning it against the north wall of B2. In this manner we also exposed the exterior face of the structure’s north wall. Likewise, we explored the exterior courtyard behind B2. This exterior courtyard initially appeared to be a large L-shaped open space (20 x 21 m) south and east of B2.6 We laid out a north–south oriented 10 x 2 meter trench against the south wall of House B2 and the west wall of Couryard C2. This trench was later expanded by an additional 1.5 x 1.5 meters to the east, against the south wall of Courtyard C2, in order to allow us to expose some features more fully. The trench covered the entire length of the wall that borders the courtyard to the west and its southwest corner.

Excavation Strategy and Theoretical Perspectives The objective for the excavation of structure B2 was to examine the daily life practices of a single household from Roman Egypt. I pursued this goal, as chapter 1 explains, because past approaches to domestic contexts in Roman Egypt have revealed very little about how individual households functioned in different socio-economic groups, ethnic groups, or regions. A contextual approach to material culture from domestic contexts will help fill this lacuna and will enable scholars of Roman Egypt to engage with other Romanists, Egyptologists, and other social theorists through new research questions that extend beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries. A contextual approach affected all stages of our research equally because attention to the context permeated the excavation process, not merely our study of the material in view of publication. Although this approach dominated my own research initiatives, I recognize that it is important to remain cognizant of the diverse range of methods that archaeologists have used in order to comprehend different categories of data. For example, archaeologists have typically analyzed categories of data on the basis of material types (e.g., ceramics, texts, or depositional information) and these close analyses are of great benefit to specialists as well as individuals who wish to delve deeper into specific research questions.7 This volume uses both thematic and material category modes of analyzing archaeological data in order to view objects from a variety of perspectives and to capture a broad range of relational Paola Davoli was the field director. Boozer, as part of her PhD research, conducted the research design, documentation, interpretation and publication of House B2 on her own. The views expressed in this volume are entirely the author’s own and do not reflect those of Davoli or any other Amheida Project member. 6 Excavations in C2 in 2013 reveal that this courtyard is rectangular rather than L-shaped. A house (B9) occupies the area east of House B2. This area east of B2 was covered entirely in windblown sand and ceramics prior to the 2013 clearances. 7 There are a number of archaeologists who use functional categories rather than material categories for presenting data (Crummy 1983). We have decided to follow Cool in providing an overview of the small finds (2002), rather than using functional categories, because regional specialists are more accustomed to material divisions and we hoped to ease their use of this volume. In the Amheida series there is also a volume focusing on the ostraka, see Bagnall and Ruffini 2012. 5

Approaching the Romano-Egyptian House

49

significance. In this sense, I attempt to analyze the material not only in terms of its social value but also its typological significance.

Excavation Methods With terminological modifications made by Paola Davoli, the archaeological director of the project, the excavations employed two standard means of capturing both the horizontal and vertical components of archaeological material: the Museum of London Archaeology (MoLA) system of excavation and the Harris Matrix. These methods were employed from 2004 at Amheida and also have been employed at the site of Ain el-Gedida.8 MoLA and the Harris Matrix offer valuable methods for understanding a complex archaeological site because they view the site as a palimpsest of discrete events that come about through either deposition or removal. These methods enable us to understand the sequential development of a site with maximum control over stratigraphy while simultaneously enabling us to view the archaeological record as a dynamic, creative process enacted by individuals.9 The MoLA system describes methods for recording single contexts (stratigraphic layers), which capture the horizontal component of archaeological sites in detail. In other words, the MoLA system helps us to understand activities and patterns that theoretically occurred within a single moment in time. Single context recording was developed as a means to avoid reliance on multiple-feature or composite plans (i.e., plans that record all or phased features respectively, on the same drawing). Single context recording recognizes that physical and stratigraphic relationships are not conflated but distinct.10 This method considers the stratigraphic sequence to be the primary consideration in the excavation and recording of sites. The basis of this approach is to divide up the site into discrete units or contexts that are excavated and recorded according to their stratigraphic position. In the words of Westman: “Any single action, whether it leaves a positive or negative record within the sequence, is known as a ‘context’.11” One of the crucial assumptions of single-context recording is that each unit represents a single action or event such that its spatial limits also define temporal limits.12 An action, in this sense, denotes activities such as repaving a floor, repairing a wall, or even more ephemeral practices such as baking bread in an oven. The Harris Matrix enables us to understand the vertical, or temporal, component of the excavation area as well as how disparate locations within the excavation area relate to one another. Following the Harris Matrix, we used deposition stratigraphic units (DSUs) to build up the stratigraphic history of the house through comparing the stratigraphy of rooms. We did the same for the street (S1) and the courtyard (C2) and then compared these stratigraphies with those in House B2 in order to understand phasing. The conceptual foundation of the Harris Matrix is that any stratigraphic unit can have only three possible kinds of direct relationship to another: none, earlier/later than, or equivalent to. 13 In practice, contexts may have indirect relationships with other contexts, as well as more direct relationships. The nature of this indirect relationship cannot be determined stratigraphically but must be discovered by other means, which involve grouping (or phasing) the matrix into broad divisions, which are approximately contemporary. Ideally, we can conduct grouping through major horizon breaks in the sequence and/or independent dating through finds association, such as datable objects (e.g. texts and

Eugene Ball employed the MOLA model in 2004 and the terminology changed in 2005 when Paola Davoli became the archaeological director. 9 Lucas 2001:58. 10 Ibid.:57. 11 Westman 1994:1.2, emphasis in original. 12 Lucas 2001:157. 13 Harris 1989 [1979]:36. 8

50

Amheida II

coins). Essentially, the notion of grouping relies on permutations in the matrix, which occur in all multilinear sequences.14 In terms of daily practice, we organized our excavations first by room and then by visible context matrixes. A supervisor controlled all work in the area, while an assistant supervisor and several local workmen were allotted a room. The area supervisor, with help from assistants, was in charge of the area documentation. Whenever it was advantageous to attain greater control over the vertical component of the excavation, we subdivided DSUs into arbitrary DSUs. For example, in situations in which we found windblown sand to a significant depth, we wanted to distinguish surface sand from the lower layers, although the matrix itself was identical. Whenever it was critical to attain greater control over the horizontal component of the excavation, we gridded the space and applied different DSU numbers to different portions of the grid. For example, some of the floor layers that we reached contained high densities of ceramics that were easier for the ceramicist to analyze if we gridded the floor levels, although from a depositional standpoint the units appeared to be identical. The recording techniques that we employed for this project included standardized forms, photography, and drawn plans. We made use of each of these recording techniques for each context. We took starting and ending elevations of each context and object with an automatic level, while we made use of an EDM theodolite (Total Station) for some of the small finds and all of the architectural features.15 We drew sections in situations that would clarify the depositional history of the structure along two different axes across the house (north–south and east–west).16 We drew plan views of all of the walls in structure B2 in order to capture details of brick laying patterns. These details and other exposed features were added to the digital CAD plan of the site. Each day we made 1:50 scale day drawings of the excavated area, along with the location of small finds and starting and ending elevations. We used 1:20 scale drawings for each context to show a greater level of detail than our day drawings. Likewise, all archaeologists completed day notes forms, which recorded in narrative form the events, finds and decisions of the day. We used pro-formas to describe each DSU and FSU, which we entered into the relational project database upon completion of these units. Almost every day of excavation at this structure yielded a high density of objects. We treated all objects that were discovered and recognized as objects during excavation in the same manner. When an object was found, we gave it a unique number to identify it along with a brief description, recorded the exact find spot with respect to the x, y, and z axes, photographed it, and included the object on a context plan. In other words, we precisely located and documented all of the small finds in three-dimensional space within each context. These data enable us to determine the immediate environment from which the objects derived. We took soil samples of each sealed floor context and other sealed remains rich in organic materials for archaeobotanical analysis. These samples were also located within threedimensional space and noted on plans. When we reached floor levels with particularly dense artifact densities we used a ¼ inch mesh screen for sifting 100% of the dirt from the DSUs. Some of our objects were found in the screens, and therefore these objects can be identified by context but not by precise location in three-dimensional space. It was not feasible or meaningful to screen windblown sand above these levels.

On-Site and Post-Excavation Architectural and Object Recording It is important to underscore that fieldwork does not simply entail the recovery of objects, designation of depositional units, or description of features. Fieldwork is an interpretive exercise during all phases of research, and we were mindful that it was important to connect theoretical perspectives with data Ibid.:129-133. The terms small find and object are used synonymously in this volume. 16 The term “section” is employed to denote the “profile” of depositions throughout this volume. 14 15

Approaching the Romano-Egyptian House

51

collection during excavation, rather than only as we reached the brink of this final publication. 17 In order to more fully unite our theoretical and methodological approaches we engaged—as much as possible—in reflexive archaeology. A reflexive approach to fieldwork methodology enables an interactive approach to the relationship between finds analysis and the determination of archaeological contexts. Reflexive archaeology encourages constant feedback, rather than a linear progression from excavation to finds processing to analysis and finally synthesis.18 In order to engage in constant feedback during excavation we encouraged close personal interaction between the excavators and the specialists so that finds analysis could inform excavation while it was still in progress.19 Second, we employed a relational computer database, which enabled us to enter most of our data during excavation so that we were able to compare many different classes of archaeological data during the course of our investigations.20 These data included digital forms, scanned paper forms, photographs, day notes, day drawings, and digital plans. The ‘real-time’ access to data, even when only roughly processed, encouraged a more informed excavation methodology than a linear progression of analysis. As is to be expected, it was not always possible to fully enter data or produce exhaustive analyses simultaneous with the excavation, but we found that even partial records helped us understand our excavation better as it took place, rather than only in retrospect.

Off-Site Processing and Analysis of Objects The objects from each day’s excavations were transported to the registrar’s workroom in the excavation house, at which point the registrar and registrar assistants recorded them in more detail and assigned them unique inventory numbers.21 Each object was cleaned as much as possible for recording purposes. Some objects were restored or cleaned by a professional restorer, while others required only minimal cleaning by the registrar. Once cleaned sufficiently, the object was fully described on an object form, which was then added to the project database. Staff analyzed the objects for form, phasing, dating, associations, and other attributes. The objects were also photographed and, in some cases, drawn. All of the ceramics were analyzed on-site in order to categorize the fabric types and sort the diagnostic sherds from the undiagnostic sherds. The diagnostic sherds were taken back to the excavation house for additional study. These sherds were then catalogued and a classification for Amheida was slowly built up over the years to interpret phasing and dating associations.22 At the end of each season the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) inspectors selected significant objects for registration in the SCA magazine. These objects were given an additional recording number by the SCA and are now kept in the magazine near Ismant el-Kharab, operated by the SCA. After the initial recording of the objects, specialists revisited them in subsequent field seasons (2008, 2009, 2010) for more thorough analyses, and many of the objects were then drawn.23 All original paperwork for the excavation and recording of B2 is stored at the project archive located at the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York University, New York City, New York, USA.

On the use of interpretation in fieldwork, see Lucas 2001, Tilly 1989:275-280. Lucas 2001:14. 19 Gillian Pyke (ceramicist) and Johannes Walter (archaeobotanist) were of great assistance during the 2005–2006 excavation seasons, contributing constant feedback during excavations. Delphine Dixeuf (ceramicist) and Ursula Thanheiser (archaeobotanist) joined us after excavations were completed. 20 Designed by Bruno Bazzani. 21 Angela Cervi was the supervising registrar. 22 See Dixneuf, this volume, for more detail. 23 All of the object drawings are by Martin Hense, except glass vessels and ceramics, which were drawn by Cervi and Dixneuf respectively. 17 18

52

Amheida II

Object Location, Storage, and Conservation All objects recovered from the Amheida excavations, with the exception of those registered by the SCA, are stored in the Ain el Gindi Excavation House magazine (but not individually registered). All objects were individually packed, according to material and fragility and are separated by the excavation season and the structure excavated. The objects are wrapped and placed in rigid plastic boxes of varying size, according to the object size. These boxes are labeled with the inventory numbers assigned to them by the registrar.

Object Description We analyzed the objects for form, phasing, dating, associations, and other attributes. The objects are given specialized treatments in subsequent chapters so that they can be easily accessed for in-depth study. Each of these object categories contains its own methodological perspectives for analyzing the material, and therefore these methods will be presented along with the material. Although we conducted specialized object studies, it was imperative that we fully examine and consider each object in context and as part of society in Roman archaeology.24 With this objective in mind, Chapter 7 introduces the small finds and various themes found between object categories, giving a general overview of the finds as well as how these finds relate to other houses. Likewise, I discuss the small finds within a more holistic exploration of B2 in the final chapter in order to explore the contextual significance in more detail. The general layout of the catalogue used by specialists is as follows: • Catalogue Number: the relevant number of the object for this publication. • Figure Number: the reference to the relevant illustration of the object. • Context: the find spot of the artifact. If the artifact was recognized as an object during excavations, a specific location has been isolated for this object. Otherwise, the context refers to a specific matrix in the building, the street, or external courtyard. • Material: the material or materials used for the objects are described, with details of variations and numbers. Some specialists relied on particular systems, which they explain within their catalogue. • Dimensions: the measurements of the object. The expressions for these measurements vary depending on the class of artifact (e.g., coins are given diameters and thicknesses rather than length, width, and depth). • Technology: the visible remains of methods of manufacture are noted, often in detail when the method applies to all objects in any one class. In other classes, where greater variety occurs, only general observations are made and details are reserved for the individual catalogue descriptions. • Condition: denotes the level of preservation of the object. • Description: a detailed description of each object is provided here, including visible details and comments on some of the more noteworthy parallels. • Date: a general date ascribed to the object based upon comparanda and/or its provenance. • Parallels: published parallels for the object class as a whole are presented here, while individual parallels are included after the object descriptions in the catalogue at the end of the section. General remarks concerning the significance of the presence, concentration or scarcity of any one object class are made, but again are only of a preliminary nature.

24

Reece 1993, Gardner 1993, Allison 2004, Crummy and Eckardt 2003, Eckardt 2005.

Approaching the Romano-Egyptian House

53

Object Illustrations and Indexes We have illustrated as many of the objects from House B2 as possible in both line drawings and photographs. For some classes of objects, notably the figurines and objects of adornment, nearly all objects have been illustrated by line drawings. For other artifact classes, however, we have avoided repetition by the illustration of types that recur with great frequency, as is notable in the case of the ceramics. In other instances, some of the artifacts were too poorly preserved to be identified properly or illustrated by line drawing, but we have made an attempt to describe and photograph each of these artifacts in our catalogue in hopes that they will be of use when compared to remains from other sites. The desire to include these objects reflects a need to publish artifacts that cannot be properly labeled, which have often been ignored in past studies.25 All records for objects in the online version of this book are linked to the Amheida project database, designed by Bruno Bazzani, where readers may find more extensive information and illustration. This database is open for public use. All of the original documentation of the excavation of B2 and adjoining areas is available fully to readers wishing to see any of the elements of the documentation described above. The project database, available to the public, provides a complete list of all of the objects included in this volume, listed by the Amheida inventory number. The SCA registration number is given when relevant. This index lists where the object is mentioned and illustrated in this volume, as well as the type of object, its material, the context in which it was found and the level to which that context has been attributed in the Harris Matrix.

Conclusion The excavation strategy and the methodologies designed for this project encompassed every phase of research and we hope that they have resulted in satisfying analyses and writings on the material produced from this excavation. Subsequent chapters reflect our attempt to explore archaeological material in an accessible and multifaceted manner. 25

Allison 1999b:71.

This page intentionally left blank

4

LAYERS OF BUILDING, LIVING, AND ABANDONMENT Stratigraphies of House B2 and its Surroundings Anna Lucille Boozer Overview and Duration of the Excavations We excavated the domestic remains of Amheida House B2 over the course of three seasons (2005–2007). We dedicated three additional seasons to finds processing (2008–2010). The majority of the material presented in this volume was excavated in February of 2005 and 2006, and we conducted additional research in the vicinity of B2 in February of 2007. Finds processing took place during excavations and continued as study seasons during January–February 2008, 2009, and 2010 (Figure 4.1). We began excavations with the three eastern rooms of B2 (rooms 1, 2, 3) in 2005, under the area supervision of Eugene Ball. Excavation proceeded by room since the walls of the rooms were visible from the surface. We employed the single context system, as outlined in the previous chapter, in our excavations. We excavated these rooms simultaneously, with one supervisor managing each room. The supervision of room 2 changed during the course of our excavations, leading to a re-evaluation of the contexts during excavation and during post-excavation. This re-evaluation is visible in the analysis of the stratigraphy in room 2. At the very end of the 2005 field season we began excavating room 4, removing only a small amount of windblown sand. We continued the room 4 excavations in 2006. The 2006 excavations focused on the western two-thirds of the house under the supervision of Anna Lucille Boozer. As with the easternmost rooms, the walls were visible from the surface so we proceeded by room and employed single context excavation. We began new excavations in rooms 5 and 6. One supervisor directed excavations in rooms 4 and 5, while another managed room 6. We continued with rooms 7 and 8 and 11 with one supervisor overseeing this work. Rooms 9 and 10 were excavated last, and were supervised by one individual. In 2007 we focused our excavations on areas external to B2, namely in the street (S1) and the courtyard (C2). In 2004, Eugene Ball conducted preliminary research in this area but did not excavate. Rather, his team conducted surface scraping on structure 1.1 and in Street S1 in front of structure 1.1 in order to gain a sense of the time horizon or sequence of occupations in this vicinity of the site. In 2007, we chose to excavate a trench in Street S1 immediately in front of B2 in order to determine the relationship between the structure and the street as well as to clarify phasing in B2. Likewise, we excavated a trench (C2A) in Courtyard C2 in order to clarify phasing in B2, the function of this external courtyard, and the relationship between B2 and the courtyard.1

This courtyard is currently undergoing complete excavation by the University of Reading (2012, 2013) and currently by the City University of New York, directed by Anna Lucille Boozer. For preliminary reports, see Boozer 2012b, Boozer 2013c. 1

56

Amheida II

Figure 4.1: Plan of House B2, Courtyard C2, and Street S2 with excavated areas shaded.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

57

This chapter presents the general stratigraphic analysis of B2 and its surroundings and also offers conjectures about the phasing of this structure. The following pages delineate the excavation of this structure in a manner that is intended to closely reflect the excavation process. I begin with a discussion of what was visible from the surface and then move through the excavation of each layer as we encountered it, followed by a description of the visible architectural elements. I summarize the excavation results for each room and then review the phasing for each area from earliest to latest phases: B2, the street north of B2 (S1), and the courtyard south of B2 (C2). SUQ quantities, single context plans, additional photographs and other information for each DSU can be found by consulting the open-access database.

B2 Description General View The house designated as B2 is a building of moderate size, 11 x 11 m (121 m²) (Figure 4.1). The structure was badly eroded by the wind. The greatest preserved wall height (from the top of foundations to the top of the wall) is in the northwest extremity of the house, where it is 1.32 m, while the lowest preserved wall height, in the southeast corner, is 0.65 m.2 In some parts of the structure fifteen courses of bricks are preserved above foundation level, while the more eroded parts retained only two or three courses (Figures 4.2, 4.3).

Figure 4.2: Section drawing along east-west axis of B2. We excavated all of the rooms to the uppermost floor level and reached additional floor levels in four rooms (rooms 5, 7, 9). In rooms 1, 2, 3, and 6 the clean foundation sand was reached, approximately 7–10 cm below the lowest preserved floors. A 1.75 m deep test trench was dug in room 2 in order to determine if there was any prior occupation in this area of the site. No evidence of older buildings was found here, and the matrixes were found to be largely sterile. This situation is similar to that found at Kellis, where Houses 1 and 2 in Area A were built directly upon the clay surface of the site or upon deliberately laid earth deposits with no traces of earlier occupation.3 Because the walls of the structure were clearly visible from the surface, we divided the structure into the visible rooms for excavation. The measurements for the dimensions of the rooms indicate the area enclosed by the walls and do not include wall width. I provide a total depth of excavation for each room as well as upper and lower elevations for each depositional stratigraphic unit (DSU). The fixed point from which the elevations were calculated has an elevation of 138.4859 m asl. Dimensions for each DSU are given if they are smaller than the room interiors.

2 3

Measured from the top of the foundations. Hope 1988.

58

Amheida II

Figure 4.3: Section drawing along north-south axis of B2. Room 1 (3.74 m east–west x 2.62 m north–south) Room 1 is located in the northeastern corner of B2 and is entered from room 7. Four walls,4 already visible from the surface, enclosed room 1, which was filled with stratigraphic units of varying types and reliability for a depth of 0.94 m. We thus proceeded with the single context method and used these walls to determine the parameters of the room (Figures 4.4, 4.6).

Figure 4.4: Harris Matrix, room 1. 4

Walls F1, F2, F3, and F4.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

59

DSU 15 filled the entire room. It consisted of clean windblown sand covered with a dense lens of pottery sherds. Within the sandy matrix there were moderate to high densities of ceramics, clinker (sometimes identified as slag on forms and in the database), and plaster in addition to low densities of wood, bone, and glass. As the artifact densities lessened we changed DSUs, because the lower levels of windblown sand were less contaminated than the upper levels of windblown sand. We also suspected that lower levels of windblown sand belonged to a phase of building collapse and deflation and wished to capture this phase in more detail. DSU 126 consisted of clean windblown sand below the surface sand (DSU 1). The DSU change was done because we wanted to distinguish objects that may have derived from roof and ceiling collapse, including objects that may have been stored originally on the roof. There were low densities of artifacts, including ceramics, glass, plaster, bone, and clinker. This DSU was mostly confined to the southeast corner of room 1, while ceiling and wall collapse (DSU 4) occupied the rest of the room. The erosion of this stratigraphic unit may represent a deflationary process, and therefore the objects are more likely than the surface objects to have belonged to B2 itself and may have derived from the roof. DSU 47 consisted of mud-brick collapse from both the ceiling and the walls of room 1. Both vault bricks and wall bricks were found in the collapse. The vault bricks were evinced by the presence of markings on their faces as well as the way in which they were mortared together.8 The wall bricks from this room had strongly sooted plaster facing that matched one of the standing walls (F4) and probably derived from its collapse. Two complete vessels, a storage pot (Inv. 7977) and a flagon (Inv. 7652), were found within this matrix. Both vessels had mud plaster adhering to their bases. It is uncertain if this plaster was used to plaster these vessels into anything, namely in the roof that once existed above this room, or a wall niche, or if this plaster was simply the adherence of melted adobe upon the vessel bases. Also found within this matrix were several 75%–90% reconstructable vessels as well as moderate numbers of sherds. The ceramics appear to date to both the third and, especially, the fourth centuries CE. It must be borne in mind that this assemblage may be quite mixed due to the collapse of the roof. In addition to ceramics, moderate to high levels of clinker were found, particularly in the eastern half of the room. This clinker may derive from the ceramic kilns north of House B2. Small fragments of plaster were recovered especially in the vicinities of the walls F3 and F4. Some of the plaster was burned, while other fragments are black and possibly even red. We did not find colored plaster adhering to any of the walls. We separated the articulated vault bricks that we found in order to understand how the vaults in this house were constructed. We found a concentric curved line pattern9 and also the use of a triangular mud-brick and two chinking sherds between the rectangular vault bricks. Both the wedge shaped bricks and the rectangular vault bricks were sampled (S17 & S19). The collapse appears to have eroded to the same elevation as the top of the walls (Figure 4.5). This situation was most evident in the southwest quadrant of room 1. This erosion pattern signifies that the strong north wind was responsible for much of the erosion of this house. This wind appears to have eroded the entire northeast section of Amheida quite significantly, and the pattern of the finds also informs us that the majority of the deflation process took place after the walls of the structure had already collapsed. DSU 1610 lay underneath the ceiling and wall collapse (DSU 4). DSU 16 was the first secure context we encountered in room 1. It consisted of yellow sand with high densities of mud-brick debris that probably Upper elevation 137.870; Lower elevation 137.720. Dimensions: x=375 cm, y=65 cm. Upper elevation 137.220; Lower elevation 136.920. Dimensions: x=100 cm, y=60 cm. 7 Upper elevation 137.870; Lower elevation 137.630. Dimensions: x=374 cm, y=262 cm. 8 The vault bricks and their use in construction are described in greater detail in Chapter 5. 9 This pattern is different from but analogous to the concentric semi-circular pattern in vault bricks from House B2. 10 Upper elevation 137.660; Lower elevation 137.060. Dimensions: x=350 cm, y=260 cm. 5 6

60

Amheida II

represented deterioration from the wall and ceiling as well as the erosion of collapse (DSU 4). Also included within this matrix were moderate to high densities of artifacts, particularly ceramics and clinker. Glass, wood, fauna, and plaster were also represented. We found a number of objects concentrated in the northeast corner of this context, including four Greek ostraka11, some of which are accounts of wine paid to various individuals. Some of these individuals were named while others were simply designated by their occupation. A beveled bronze ring (Inv. 3452) was also found, although it was heavily corroded and fragmented.

Figure 4.5: Wall and ceiling collapse (DSU 4) within room 1. The wind has had a strong impact on the taphonomy of this area of the site, evinced by the even wear of collapse and standing walls in House B2. DSU 2112 was found beneath the mud-brick rubble layer (DSU 16) and the sand layer (DSU 12). This context was secure only in the portion underneath the mud-brick rubble layer (DSU 16). It consisted of a brown sandy matrix containing a sandy loam as well as gray ash and yellow sand patches. There were fewer mud-brick inclusions in DSU 21 than the DSUs that covered it (DSU 12, DSU 16). Artifact densities were moderate in the categories of ceramic, clinker, faience, quartzite, and plaster. Organics, such as wood fragments, fauna, and charcoal, were represented in moderate to high densities. There were also two fragments of burned textile that were too poorly preserved to identify. It is possible that some of this material derives from post-occupational usage. DSU 2213 was also found underneath the mud-brick debris (DSU 16), primarily in the center of the room, and was therefore secure. It consisted of a compacted grayish-brown matrix immediately on top of floor surface F11. We identified both a high ash content as well as a high density of organics, including charred seeds and perhaps straw. Artifact densities were moderate and mostly consisted of poorly Inv. 3412, Inv. 3408, Inv. 3405, Inv. 3407. Upper elevation 137.220; Lower elevation 137.050. Dimensions: x=300 cm, y=140 cm. 13 Upper elevation 137.460; Lower elevation 137.370. Dimensions: x=150 cm, y=130 cm. 11 12

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

61

preserved potsherds and clinker. It yielded one complete vessel, a partially blackened lid (Inv. 8749) and two mud stoppers (Inv. 3521, Inv. 3532).

Figure 4.6: Multi-context plan of room 1 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols). F1114 was a floor represented by a compacted gray surface with numerous ashy pockets and inclusions covered by the occupational debris (DSU 22) (Figure 4.6, 4.7). The floor was only preserved in the middle of the room, under the ceiling and wall collapse (DSU 4) and is a secure context. The floor eroded away in the rest of the room in an erosion pattern commonly found in adobe structures; the floors do not survive as well at points of junction with the walls. Moderate artifact densities typified this matrix, although two jar stoppers (Inv. 3521, Inv. 3532; see DSU 22 above) and two coins (Inv. 3730 and Inv. 3485) were found directly on top of, and slightly embedded within, this surface. The pressure of the collapse probably pressed these artifacts into the floor surface, and therefore we can interpret these objects as potential intrusions from DSU 22 into the floor surface. Other finds included potsherds, bone, wood, and clinker. There was also a single gold glass bead (Inv. 3066). The top of the floor layer consisted 14

Upper elevation 137.390; Lower elevation 137.160. Dimensions: x=150 cm, y=130 cm.

62

Amheida II

of a smoothed surface, underneath which we found compacted debris. The division between surface and debris was difficult to distinguish with certainty after we excavated beneath the top 5 cm of F11. Therefore, the floor was given a great depth of 17 cm. The floor thickness was difficult to determine, because it was so poorly preserved and lay above compacted layers that could also have served as floor layers but that were less well prepared than the one that we identified initially. A comparison of this floor with the other floors from this house is presented in the next chapter. This comparison is particularly valuable in this instance because we were able to distinguish floors and floor preparation layers excavated in the 2006 field season, because these floors were better preserved than those discovered in the 2005 field season.

Figure 4.7: Photo of F11, room 1. DSU 3115 was an ashy matrix that was located centrally in the room as a large patch immediately below the floor (F11). DSU 31 is secure and may be interpreted as a dump of material used to level the site surface prior to floor construction. The sherd sizes from this matrix were quite large, suggesting that it was probably used as fill to stabilize the floor. These sherds may date to the second to third centuries CE, signifying re-use of material from an earlier occupation. DSU 31 contained high densities of organics, both charred and unburned, such as seeds, charcoal, ash, and wood fragments. Clinker and dross (waste matter) were also present. The high density of ceramics included a nearly complete vessel (Inv. 9201). Two burned mud bricks and several extremely dense pockets of light gray ash were also associated with DSU 31. This DSU was terminated when we encountered either a compacted sandy matrix (DSU 23) or a matrix of sand with yellow sand and ash patches (DSU 21).

15

Upper elevation 137.220; Lower elevation 137.150. Dimensions: x=150 cm, y=130 cm.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

63

DSU 2316 consisted of a compacted sandy matrix that was possibly the result of trampling and/or water on the area. There were low to moderate levels of artifacts, including ceramics, wood, fauna, clinker, and dross. There was one intact, lightly burned flagon (Inv. 9232). Some of the ceramics appeared to share characteristics with second to third century forms, which may be related to DSU 24, below. There were a few lenses of ash that contained burned olive and date pits, as well as wood and charcoal. The majority of the matrix consisted of compacted yellow sand in an uneven formation above the clean windblown sand (DSU 24) that was used as the surface upon which the walls of room 1 were built. DSU 23 had a weathered appearance and as such resembled DSU 20 in room 2 (see below). It was clear that the layer occurred beneath floor level (F11), as did DSU 20 in room 2. It seems likely that this sand and debris was used for packing and stabilizing beneath the floor level. This compacted weathered surface only occurred in the central part of the room, nearly never abutting the walls. This wear pattern is consistent with the floor and wall use wear found in other rooms within this house. DSU 2417 consisted of clean windblown sand that appeared to form the base upon which the foundations of the walls rested. The matrix was also directly underneath the compacted yellow sand (DSU 23), the brown sandy matrix (DSU 21), and windblown sand (DSU 12). This matrix was excavated for only a few centimeters to insure that it marked the last anthropic material encountered in excavation for room 1. Some small quantities of material occurred in the top of the layer, as was found in the counterparts to this context in rooms 2 and 3 (DSU 26, 30). These top centimeters contained ceramics, wood, fauna, clinker, and dross. The ceramics shared characteristics with second to third century forms. The layer was devoid of cultural material deeper into the matrix. In room 2 this layer was at least 1.35 m thick and contained almost no artifacts. F5118 is the 78 cm wide doorway from room 7 to room 1. The north side was preserved to a greater height than the south side. The lower parts of the doorway, including the threshold, were all quite poorly preserved, and the threshold appeared heavily damaged. The sides of the doorway were the unmodified north face of wall F3 and south face of wall F4, with no sign of any jambs. There were possible sockets for wood consisting of undercuts at the bases of the west side of both walls. Immediately east of this socket was a mud-brick threshold consisting of two visible courses of bricks lying so that the stretchers were oriented east–west. The plaster of walls coved onto the upper surface of this mud brick threshold. By coving, I mean that the plaster between the floor and the wall covers over the wall plaster and creates a curve rather than a 90˚ angle between the floor and the wall. The mud plaster was brown and had a high organic content. None of the bricks was sufficiently defined to measure. F119 is an east–west oriented mud-brick wall along the north part of the room. It was highly eroded, particularly in the east, and was preserved only 80 cm above the foundation bricks in the west and 48 cm above the foundation bricks in the east. The south face of F1 was covered in straw-tempered grayishbrown mud plaster, which concealed the bonding pattern for this wall. The top face of the wall exhibited the alternating channels construction method (Figure 4.8). This construction method involved laying bricks on one side of the channel lengthwise along their headers, while bricks on the other side of the channel were placed with their stretchers lengthwise. Plaster filled the space left between the bricks. One complete channel was filled with poured mud mortar and measured approximately 80 cm long and 9 cm wide.

Upper elevation 137.290; Lower elevation 136.930. Dimensions: x=170 cm, y=150 cm. Irregular plan-view and thickness. 17 Upper elevation 136.930; Lower elevation not excavated. Dimensions: x=378 cm, y=260 cm. 18 Upper elevation 137.426; Lower elevation 137.266. Dimensions: x=78 cm, y=68 cm. 19 Upper elevation 137.620; Lower elevation 136.780 (taken from bottom of foundations). Dimensions: x=381 cm, y=62 cm. 16

64

Amheida II

Figure 4.8: Alternate channels construction method, with a channel of poured plaster located on one side or the other of the mud bricks. There were three patches of white plaster still adhering to the wall face. The first was approximately 120 cm from the corner to F4, the second was 134 cm from F4 and was 35 cm in length, and the third was 180 cm from F4 and was 33 cm long. The height of the plaster was approximately 10 cm. The plaster was approximately 2 mm thick. This plaster may indicate the remains of a gypsum plaster strip painted on the walls, a common attribute of Dakhla houses.20 There is a 23 cm long gouge with a hole 87 cm east of F4. The diameter of the hole was 13 cm and it appeared to extend through the entirety of F1. This hole may be from a tie beam or a functional addition to the wall. The wall proper rested on a foundation that protruded approximately 18 cm from the face of the wall into the room. The foundation had five courses of mud brick, of which the bottom course consisted of stretchers placed vertically. The second course consisted of stretchers placed horizontally. The third consisted of headers, the fourth stretchers and the fifth headers. The bonding pattern is not regular. The top course was absent from the eastern portion of the wall for the last 65 cm. This portion was filled with rubble and compacted mud until the wall proper began. F221 is a north–south oriented wall forming the east wall of room 1. It was highly eroded with only approximately two or three courses preserved above the floor level (F11). The bonding pattern visible below the plaster was English bond. The top face of the wall exhibited the alternating channels construction method. The channels were 9 cm wide and 250 cm long. A brick that measured 16 x 6 cm was embedded within the northern channel. The western face of the wall is covered in mud plaster below approximately 20 cm from the top of the preserved wall. There was a portion of preserved white plaster 105 cm south of the corner with wall See Chapter 5 for construction details and Chapter 6 for architectural parallels. Upper elevation 137.620; Lower elevation 136.950 (not fully excavated; no foundations visible). Dimensions: x=269 cm, y=54 cm. 20 21

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

65

F1. This white plaster appeared to be partly covered with mud plaster. The white plaster was approximately 2 mm thick. The plaster was 10 cm high and was vertically located at approximately 10 cm above floor level and 10 cm from the top of the wall. The foundations of this wall were not exposed. F322 is an east–west oriented wall serving as the south wall of room 1. The top courses had mostly eroded away, particularly in the east. The wall is L-shaped in plan view, and the top of the wall showed the alternating channels method of construction. These channels were 7 to 8 cm wide. The brick-bonding pattern was English bond and the wall proper rested on top of vertically placed headers, which formed the foundation of F3. The foundation bricks were built at a higher elevation than the stretchers of wall F5. At, and just above, floor level, there was a shallow gouge visible, which was probably created through typical usage of the room. Approximately 5 cm above the foundation bricks there was a row of four roughly circular holes. Three of them were situated in the center of the wall. The fourth one was set to the east, approximately 80 cm from F5. The diameters varied between 10 and 15 cm. These holes may indicate the use of tie beams in the wall construction.23 There was mud plaster adhering to the north face of this wall, which was 1.5 to 1.7 cm thick. It was straw tempered and grayish-brown in color. A portion of the mud plaster was covered in soot approximately 136 cm from the west end of the wall. Just west of the doorway the sooted patch was 20 cm high and 2 cm wide. There was a large hole 191 cm from the west edge of the doorway. It was 20 cm wide and 14 cm high. The wall around this hole appeared to have been repaired with mud plaster and mudbrick fragments. The hole appeared to go through to the south face of the wall. A second hole 24 was visible 20 cm above the top of the foundation, began at the top of the preserved wall, and was visible 110 cm west of the corner with F2. The foundations were not fully excavated on the north face. F425 is a north–south oriented mud-brick wall that forms the west boundary of room 1. It was highly eroded, and it was preserved to greater height at the north end than south end, with a maximum of seven courses and a minimum of six courses preserved. The brick-bonding pattern was English bond. The top face of F4 showed the alternating channels method of construction. The channel was 10–12 cm wide and 125 cm long. Only 60 cm of wall were preserved above floor level, and there was mud plaster on this portion of the wall, which showed clear signs of replastering. The surface mud plaster was yellowish brown and straw tempered and covered a grayish plaster and possibly also a white plaster. There were patches of white gypsum plaster visible 36 cm south of F1. These white gypsum plaster patches measured approximately 9 cm x 11 cm and were 10 cm above floor level. These patches of plaster are the only remains of what probably would have been a strip of gypsum plaster painted along this wall. Such strips of white plaster are common in the oasis.26 The wall showed signs of burning 100 cm south of the corner with wall F1. This burned patch was 57 cm wide and 54 cm high. Both the mud-bricks and plaster were discolored to black, gray and purple hues and they were very sooted. This sooting may be attributed to post-occupational ephemeral usage. 103 cm from the corner with F1 there was a large hole 24 cm wide and 16 cm high. It appeared to extend through the extent of F4. The low point of the hole rested at floor level. There was coved plaster in this area right above the floor, perhaps indicating a floor layer that was later than F11 and that was not preserved. Alternatively, floor F11 could have coved up to meet the walls in this room, as was common in other rooms of this structure. There was another hole visible where F4 meets F1, resting on top of the foundation bricks of F1. The diameter was 10 cm and appeared to extend for the extent of F4. The tops of Upper elevation 137.880; Lower elevation 136.870. Dimensions: x=445 cm, y=80 cm. See Chapter 5 for construction techniques. 24 Diameter of 15 cm and approximately 16 cm deep. 25 Upper elevation 138.070; Lower elevation 137.060. Dimensions: x=185 cm, y=68 cm. 26 See Chapter 6 for architectural comparisons and Chapter 7 for construction details. 22 23

66

Amheida II

the foundation bricks were just visible and appeared to stand vertically on their stretchers. This foundation protruded 7 cm from the base of the wall into the room. Interpretation of Room 1 Room 1 is a room of moderate size in B2. It is located close to a functional area within room 7, namely a bread oven and food storage area, which may have influenced the ways in which the occupants used room 1, although it does not show clear signs of intense food preparation activities. The room was moderately well preserved to a height of approximately 48–80 cm above the floor level. The entrance to the room was located along its western side and was 78 cm wide. The remains of the fittings for hanging a door were evinced by the remains of the threshold (F51). It is unclear if this door had any locking mechanisms, as the upper portions of the walls were not preserved, but it is clear that the room could be closed off. The door probably swung into room 7 when opened. The room appears to have been covered with a barrel-vaulted roof, as was evident from the articulated vault collapse (DSU 4) and the distinguishing features of vault bricks. This vaulted roof was probably covered to support a flat roof space that was used for storage, since we found at least one storage jar (Inv. 7977) with mud plaster adhering to its base. It seems likely that this jar was plastered into the roof of the house. The walls of this room were both mud plastered and gypsum plastered. It is likely that the remains of white gypsum plaster would have once been a gypsum strip along the north end of this room, as can be found in many houses in Dakhla.27 Within DSU 4 we found indications that this room may have had decorative red plaster in some locations, which also finds parallels in the Dakhla Oasis. 28 There appear to be multiple episodes of replastering, indicating that the room was renovated somewhat over time. In addition to replastering there were minor repairs to the walls over the course of occupation. The periodicity of replastering for this region is unknown at this time. Some cultures replaster annually, as can be found in both present-day Egypt and the American Southwest, but other groups only replaster when it is deemed a necessity. The nearby settlement at Bashendi offers us regional ethnographic comparanda in which individuals re-plaster annually. The wall foundations were exposed in room 1 and appear to have been constructed on the site surface without substantial preparations.29 The floor for room 1 was of the standard mud type and was well preserved only in the middle of the room. There are signs that it was repaired and replastered during the occupational history of this structure. There were no distinguishing characteristics associated with the floor itself that indicate differential usage of space in this room. During its primary occupational period, this room appears to have served for multiple uses, although we must eliminate cooking as a primary activity, as we found no signs of in-situ burning within occupational levels. Following the abandonment of this structure, the room seems to have had ephemeral usage, since a burn mark was found above floor level, and there are some ashy depositions (e.g. DSU 22). This evidence also suggests something of the nature of the decay of this structure. Presumably windblown sand came into the room, raising the surface, and then a minor burning episode took place, perhaps by squatters or passers-by. The wind deflation process of the walls occurred subsequent to some minor sand accumulation and this episode. Room 2 (3.3 m east–west x 3.00 m north–south) Room 2 was located along the eastern side of B2, between rooms 1 and 3. It was entered from room 7 and provided access to room 3. Four walls30 enclosed room 2, which contained stratigraphic units of varying See Chapter 5 for construction details and comparanda. See Chapter 6 for architectural comparanda. 29 See Chapter 5 for construction details. 30 Walls F3, F5, F6, and F7. 27 28

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

67

types and reliability for a depth of 3.93 m, including a sondage. The stratigraphy of this room initially appeared to be more complex than the other rooms in this structure, but post-excavation analysis has not corroborated this complexity (Figures 4.9, 4.11).

Figure 4.9: Harris Matrix, room 2. DSU 231 consisted of windblown sand filling the entire room. 47.30 kg of iron-rich fabric A sherds were found, most of which were concentrated directly on the surface or in the upper 10 cm of the unit. These sherds present a heterogenous dating profile. Morphologically, the ceramics include storage jars, pots, and open forms such as plates and bowls. In addition to sherds, we also found moderate densities of glass, wood, clinker, faience, plaster, and glass slag. Some burned olive and date pits were also found. This deposition was quite shallow in the northwest corner, where the western door to room 7 (F52) was situated, and where it covered debris from wall and roof collapse below (DSU 6). On the other sides of the room, the unit was much thicker, as there was no collapse debris here. A complete bowl was found in the southwest corner of this room right next to the wall (Inv. 7978) at approximately 30 cm from the door to room 3. A faience amulet representing the Egyptian god Bes was also found (Inv. 3233). These objects cannot be connected directly to the B2 occupation, but may inform us about the vicinity around B2 in Area 1. An arbitrary division was made at a depth of approximately 50 cm in order to distinguish this surface sand from the windblown sand beneath the surface (DSU 5). DSU 5 (= DSU 9)32 consisted of windblown sand next to DSU 6. As in DSU 2, high densities of sherds, pieces of glass, bone, wood, and pits from olives and dates were found. Likewise, the ceramics present a heterogeous dating profile. Pieces of charcoal were found distributed unevenly across the matrix. It had 31 32

Upper elevation 137.730; Lower elevation 137.200. Dimensions: x=380 cm, y=300 cm. Upper elevation 137.200; Lower elevation 136.700. Dimensions: x=380 cm, y=300 cm.

68

Amheida II

the same characteristics as DSU 2, but towards the bottom of the unit, more brown sand was mixed with it. This DSU may equal DSU 9. DSU 9 (=DSU 5)33 consisted of yellow sand above DSU 15 in the southeast corner. This unit was given a different unit number because, in this corner, there were many large fabric group A sherds, although the ceramics do not present a different dating or morphological profile from those in DSU 2 or DSU 5. Moreover, it was somewhat browner than the yellow sand of DSU 5. Despite these minor differences, it is possible that DSU 5 resulted from the same depositional episode as DSU 9. DSU 634 was below windblown sand (DSU 2). It was composed of wall and roof collapse and consisted of many mud-brick fragments and only a few complete bricks. Some parts of vault bricks were amidst this rubble, although they were mostly incomplete. The small surviving collapse had eroded to a high degree and was found only in the northwest corner of the room. Within the collapse we found many fragments of iron-rich A group ceramics as well as A11, B, and P37, which may date to the late third century. We also found glass, wood, bones, clinker, and a few fragments of plaster. DSU 735 (Figure 4.10) was found below sand layers (DSU 5, 8, 9) and ash (DSU 10). It consisted of a brown loamy sand layer, which was somewhat harder than the windblown sand. It was quite shallow and was not found in the entire room. This context was found only in the western part of the room and two deposits were visible with diffuse edges, one in the central-west part of the room and one next to it. These deposits were located in and next to the threshold of the door to room 3 (F58), where it is the same type of deposit as DSU 18 in room 3. This unit may be interpreted as the remnants of a floor, perhaps mixed with occupational debris. That this deposit was situated just above or at the same height as the foundation bricks in the north and south walls may sustain the theory that this matrix was once a floor or occupational level. The deposit lacked the strength and hardness characteristic of true floors, but it was also found above the threshold and rested directly on the threshold bricks. Artifact densities were high and we found iron-rich A group and A4 ceramics in addition to bone, wood, charcoal, plaster, and olive and date pits. We also found a Greek ostrakon (Inv. 3414) that was awkwardly written and may have been a writing exercise. DSU 8 (=DSUs 11, 15, 17)36 was found below windblown sand (DSU 5). It consisted of a grayish brown sand layer in the northeast quadrant of the room and at a depth deeper than where the possible floor level (DSU 7) may be presumed to have been. Although there was a (slight) difference in color, it is very well possible that this DSU was of the same nature as DSUs 11, 15 and 17. DSU 8 and 15 may be the same deposit, in which case there may have been an arbitrary boundary between these two contexts or the contexts may have been mixed. For the larger part of the room, no sealing floor layers were found. There were large amounts of iron-rich fabric A group as well as smaller amounts of faience, bones, and clinker. The ceramics include a fairly large number of storage jars, a flanged bowl, cooking pot fragments, and a fire dog. DSU 11 (=DSU 8, 15, 17)37 was underneath the possible floor level (DSU 7), the wall/ceiling collapse (DSU 6), and the sand layer (DSU 8). It consisted of a gray brown layer of loamy sand with ash and organic material. It was probably the remains of occupational debris at floor level or a rubbish deposition to create a level surface for the floor. It was a quite small patch in the central-west part of the room. It was approximately at the same height as the top of the foundation bricks. It mainly consisted of sand patches mixed with loamy sand and clear ash pockets. Glass, clinker, and plaster were found here. The organics

Upper elevation 136.970; Lower elevation 136.910. Dimensions: x=86 cm, y=80 cm. Upper elevation 137.700; Lower elevation 137.240. Dimensions: x=210 cm, y=200 cm 35 Upper elevation 137.270; Lower elevation 137.200. Dimensions: x=240 cm, y=200 cm. 36 Upper elevation 136.690; Lower elevation 136.900. Dimensions: x=190 cm, y=170 cm. 37 Upper elevation 137.200; Lower elevation 137.010. Dimensions: x=230 cm, y=100 cm. 33 34

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

69

consisted of bone, seeds, and coprolites. The coprolites suggest a possible connection to Courtyard C2, which will be explored in more detail when the excavations of C2 are complete. DSU 15 (=DSU 8, 11, 17)38 consisted of yellow and gray sand in room two. The division between DSU 8 and DSU 15 was arbitrary. DSU 15 was probably a mixed layer. It is uncertain if this layer was contaminated or not. The layer occurred approximately at the level of foundation bricks. For the most part, no floor levels were found sealing it. DSU 15 covered a cleaner sand layer at the foundation level (DSU 26). As in the other layers in room 2, DSU 15 also contained organics. Among other materials it contained some bones, charred wood, and coprolites. Iron-rich fabric A group ceramics occurred in great densities, and A4 and P37 fabrics were also represented. Clinker was also represented. DSU 17 (=DSU 8, 11, 15)39 was a gray brown layer of loamy sand with ash and organic material. This matrix probably signified occupational debris at floor level or rubbish under floor level (DSU 7). It was located at approximately at the same depth as the top of the foundation bricks. DSU 17 was a quite small patch in the central west part of the room. It consisted mostly of sand mixed with patches of more loamy sand, and clear ash pockets could be defined. The organics consisted of bone, four date pits, an apricot pit, five olive pits, and a fragment of rope. Iron-rich fabric A and A4 ceramics were represented. The calcium-rich fabric B and P37 ceramics, glass, and clinker were represented in small quantities.

Figure 4.10: Photo of DSU 7, room 2. DSU 1040 consisted of an ash pocket. It was located very close to the debris (DSU 6) in the northwest corner. It is doubtful that this layer is reliable. Because the boundaries of this unit were not distinct, it is difficult to say whether this deposit cut windblown sand (DSU 5). We found large quantities of fabric

Upper elevation 136.950; Lower elevation 136.700. Dimensions: x=380 cm, y=300 cm. Upper elevation 137.200; Lower elevation 137.010. Dimensions: x=230 cm, y=100 cm. 40 Upper elevation 137.270; Lower elevation 137.210. Dimensions: x=80 cm, y=50 cm. 38 39

70

Amheida II

groups A and B as well as A4. Clinker was also represented in small quantities, and there was a single apricot pit.

Figure 4.11: Multi-context plan of room 2 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols). DSU 2041 was located below sand layers (DSU 8, DSU 9). It consisted of brown to brownish-yellow sand with pockets of more loamy sand. It was found only in the center of the room. It had a weathered surface, which was probably due to contact with water and wind. As such, the top of the layer had a rugged appearance. This context had the same appearance as DSU 23 in room 3, and it appeared to be a compacted surface. The layer was 20 cm thick at its maximum extent and contained a dense concentration of ceramics, all of which seem to be datable to the Roman Period and possibly the third century. One patch was particularly rich in artifacts; it contained two complete pots (Inv. 7983, Inv. 8743), iron-rich A group and A4 sherds, and three ostraka written in Demotic.42 Among organic remains, four olive pits, one apricot pit, wood, and bones were found. Clinker, glass slag, and plaster were also represented. DSU 20 seemed to be an undisturbed context that occurred at foundation level. We did not find clearly defined floor layers sealing this floor preparation context, but we found it partly under a 41 42

Upper elevation 137.120; Lower elevation 136.800. Dimensions: x=300 cm, y=210 cm. Inv. 3450, Inv. 3449, Inv. 3451.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

71

layer of compacted loamy sand (DSU 7) that occurred approximately at the level where one would expect a floor. DSU 20 covered the clean windblown sand (DSU 26), upon which the foundations of room 2 seem to have been set. DSU 2643 consisted of yellow to brown-yellow windblown sand. The sand was finely laminated and deposited in various orientations. The top of the layer was still contaminated with various materials in multiple categories, such as organics and some pottery. Although the difference is not easily quantifiable, one could discern that the top of this layer was somewhat disturbed. DSU 26 had a depth of approximately 1.35 m under foundation level and covers DSU 32, a more compacted yellowish brown to reddish sand with chalk particles. The house foundations were set on or in DSU 26, and therefore they rest on windblown sand. DSU 3244 was a 1 x 1 m sondage composed of strongly compacted sand that had to be broken by pick. In between the harder sand layers there were some medium hard lenses that did not have to be broken by a pick but which could be troweled. This DSU was excavated to a depth of approximately 1.75 m under the foundations wall courses of room 2 in an exploratory cut in the southeast corner of the room. The layer contained no diagnostic pottery fragments, but various over-fired dynastic sherds were found in these compacted sand layers. The pottery deriving from this DSU probably does not signify occupation at this particular location, but it may be interpreted as evidence for a much earlier occupation nearby. The pottery that was found was iron-rich fabric A4 and was characterized by a polished red slip. The body sherds were from a closed rounded/pointed based vessel. The over-fired technology suggests a dynastic occupation, athough the precise dating is not known.45 There was one unidentified ring/recessed base fragment that may derive from an open form. There was one body sherd of polished red ware with a slip that may be dynastic as well. F346 is an east–west oriented wall. It is the north wall of room 2 and the south wall of room 1. The top courses have mostly eroded away, particularly in the east. The south face of the wall showed traces of soot on top of mud plaster, which was largely eroded, but a few patches were visible. These patches showed reddish-brown plaster with straw tempering. The bricks were grayish-brown with straw inclusions and were highly eroded. F547 is a north–south oriented wall of which the top courses have mostly eroded away, and it was totally eroded to floor level in the south. The wall had a clear man-made gouge approximately 15 cm high at its thickest extent and 215 cm long. Two holes were visible in the gouge. They were set approximately in the center of the wall. Their diameters were approximately 12 cm and they extended to a depth of 29 cm (measured from the complete bricks at former floor level). The facing of mud plaster was highly eroded in the northeast corner of room 2. Elsewhere the organics in the plaster and bricks were well preserved. The brick-bonding pattern was visible above the clear foundation bricks and was English bond. Underneath the six courses of English bond, there was a row of foundation bricks that protruded from the wall by approximately 10 cm. Underneath this course, the stretchers were placed vertically and formed the bottom row of bricks. There were gaps of less than 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm between these bricks and no mortar was visible. The bricks were set on finely laminated windblown sand. The plan-view of the wall shows that the wall was built of both headers and stretchers using the alternating channels method of construction. The northern channel was towards the west and it measured 2 m long and approximately 9 cm wide. The southern channel was 8 cm wide and extended into F9. Upper elevation 136.950; Lower elevation 135.550. Dimensions: x=300 cm, y=300 cm. Upper elevation 135.550; Lower elevation NA but must have been 133.80 or some such/change room depths. Dimensions: x=100 cm, y=100 cm (sondage). 45 See Dixneuf, this volume. 46 Upper elevation 137.880; Lower elevation 136.870 (from foundation bricks). Dimensions: x=445 cm, y=80 cm. 47 Upper elevation 137.455; Lower elevation 137.136 (top of foundations). Dimensions: x=350 cm, y=54 cm. 43 44

72

Amheida II

F5248 is the doorway from room 7 to room 2, consisting of the lower part of the sides of the doorway and the threshold. The vertical elements were in fair condition aside from a gouge from the socket for a wooden threshold (now lost). The upper course of the brick threshold was highly eroded. The doorway consisted of a north face of seven courses (wall F7) and a south face of five courses (wall F3), both of which were coated in mud plaster with high organic content. As with doorway F51, the lowest two courses of the west sides of the walls were undercut; presumably this was a space for a socket for a wooden threshold that was removed or eroded. Traces of wood remained in the top of and inside the socket. The mud-brick threshold is bonded with the sidewalls and consisted of two visible courses of mud brick in an English bond. The upper course was laid with north–south headers, the lower with north– south stretchers. The only remaining traces on the north and south sides were of the upper course. The north side of the doorway was preserved to six courses and the south to five courses. On the north side of the doorway with room two were the remains of a feature filling in the corner between the doorway and the north wall. This feature consisted of parts of two courses of brick (x=30, y=20, z=14) bonded into uppermost preserved courses of north wall. The lack of a lower course was probably due to an accident of preservation, as a gouge is visible on the bond with the doorway. The south face of this doorway and this feature had continuous mud plaster. F649 is an east–west oriented wall forming the south boundary to room 2 and the north boundary to room 3. It had only three to four courses remaining. Right above floor level there was an extensive gouge and other wear, which was due to heavy usage of the room. The gouge was repaired in at least one episode, possibly several times. Several pieces of baked brick and stone were inserted into the gouge and the gouge also showed a clear repair face where mud mortar was used. The gouge was once greater than 20 cm wide, and it runs for at least 220 cm before it reaches the threshold of the doorway between room 2 and room 3 (F58). The bricks were straw tempered and followed an English bond pattern and were set on one course of stretchers protruding 14 cm. The wall rested on top of foundations that had their headers placed vertically. The foundation bricks were not mortared together, and they ran all the way to the west where they met and bonded with wall F7. Here, however, they lay under a threshold (F58) for the doorway between room 2 and room 3. An erosion gouge, as seen on the north face of wall F6, continued into the doorway (F58). The west face of F6 (east wall of doorway) was filled with clinker used for repair purposes. The top of the wall exhibited the alternating channel method of construction. The channels were approximately 7 cm wide. The south channel was clearly visible and was approximately 180 cm long. The south face was covered with reddish-brown mud plaster. The foundation bricks on the south side of F6 consisted of one course of stretchers protruding approximately 3 cm from the wall proper. Underneath those stretchers was one course of vertically placed headers. The stretchers running into F7 bonded with the foundation level. The foundation bricks appeared to be set on clean windblown sand continuing to the bricks of F9 and F5, which seem to have been set in a foundation trench. This feature abutted walls F9 and F5. F5850 This feature serves as a doorway between room 2 and room 3 and is approximately 60 cm wide. It is located at the west end of the south wall (F6). The threshold was made up of two courses of bricks laid on top of the foundations for the walls. The bonding pattern of these bricks was the same as wall F6. Indeed, this threshold was built as part of wall F6 in a single episode. The threshold itself was approximately 60 cm wide next to wall F7. The inside of the eastern portion of the doorway was covered with reddish-brown, straw-tempered mud plaster. In the middle of the wall there was a threshold hole. At the level of the threshold of the doorway between rooms 2 and 3, there was a large hole where the threshold beam once existed. Upper elevation 137.266; Lower elevation 137.211. Dimensions: x=80 cm, y=58 cm. Upper elevation 137.460; Lower elevation 136.750 (bottom of foundations). Dimensions: x=303 cm, y=61 cm. 50 Elevation 137.136. Dimensions: x=80 cm, y= 60 cm. 48 49

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

73

F751 is a wall that forms the west boundary of rooms 2 and 3. The wall has an English bond and the plan view of the wall shows that it was built using the alternating channels method. The channels varied in length from 90 cm to more than 180 cm and the width of channels was approximately 7 cm. The bottom of the wall in room 2 had a gouge approximately at floor level, probably due to erosion from heavy usage. The gouge was approximately 1 meter long, from the doorway inwards. The wall F7 bonded to wall F6 in the foundations. The east face of F7 was also the west face of the doorway between rooms 2 and 3. Above the foundation layer proper in room 2, a maximum of eight courses of brick were preserved. The foundation bricks consisted of one course of vertically placed headers without mortar. The foundation bricks were gray-brown in color and were set on windblown sand. This foundation pattern changed approximately 20 cm in before the doorway into room 3. There, two bricks were placed horizontally, a header above a stretcher. The wall, part of which forms the west wall of room 3, had the same construction and appearance as F7 in room 2, but the foundation bricks were placed differently and followed the pattern already started on the south side of room 2. These foundation bricks were formed by one course of stretchers protruding approximately 4–5 cm from the wall proper and underneath that, one course of headers placed vertically. The brick dimensions were the same as foundation bricks in the other part of the wall. The bottom course of the foundation bricks in wall F7 was set on a course of horizontally placed headers from the foundation of F8 in its most eastern extent. The foundations of F7 and F8 thus partly overlapped. F5252 is the doorway from room 7 to room 2, consisting of the lower part of the sides of the doorway and the threshold. This was a simple doorway consisting of the north face of F7 (5 courses) and the south face of F3 (6 courses), both coated in mud plaster with high organic content. The doorway was approximately 80 cm wide, and 50 cm of the vertical component remained. The vertical elements were in fair condition apart from a scar left from the removal or deterioration of wood that once fitted a socket in the threshold. The upper course of brick for the threshold was virtually lost. Both the north face that was in the doorway and the long east face of the wall were plastered with reddish brown straw and sherdtempered mud. As with doorway F51, the lowest 2 courses of the west sides of the walls were undercut, presumably for the placement of a socket for a wooden threshold, now lost. Traces of wood remained in the top of and side of the socket. The mud-brick threshold consisted of two visible courses of mud brick. The upper course was laid with headers running north–south, and the lower course with stretchers running north–south in a truncated English bond pattern. Only traces on the north and south sides remained of the upper course. The door probably opened into room 7. Interpretation of Room 2 Room 2 was the middle room within the eastern section of B2. It provided access to room 3 and thus was the only room in B2 aside from room 7 to serve as both a room and a hallway. This room was less well preserved than room 1, particularly in the poor preservation of the floor, and therefore the reconstruction of the architecture and the activities of this room are less secure. The entrance from room 7 into room 2 was located along the west side of room 2 and was 80 cm wide. The entrance between room 7 and room 2 contained a door, as evinced by the threshold (F52). The door probably opened into room 7. The entrance between room 2 and room 3 was in the southwestern portion of room 2. The entrance between room 2 and room 3 also contained a door, as evinced by the threshold (F58). This entrance from room 2 to room 3 measured 60 cm wide. It is unclear if these doors locked, as the walls were not preserved to a sufficient height to determine if there was a locking mechanism. 51 52

Upper elevation 137.770; Lower elevation 136.790 (bottom of foundations). Dimensions: x=303 cm, y=61 cm. Upper elevation 137.266; Lower elevation 136.826. Dimensions: x=80 cm, y=58 cm.

74

Amheida II

Room 2 was once covered with a barrel-vaulted roof, as evinced by the collapse found here (DSU 6). There is no clear evidence within the collapse to indicate ways in which the roof on top of this vault might have been used. The walls of this room were mud plastered and show signs of repair. There were no signs that either gypsum or painted plaster was used within this room. The wall foundations exposed suggest that they were built upon the site surface.53 The floor construction, although minimally preserved, appears to be consistent with what we found preserved in other rooms. The sand site surface appears to have been wetted with water and trampled to harden it, followed by fill consisting of debris, and then a smoothed plaster surface. Unfortunately, only the preparation layers, not the floors, were preserved. This room reveals that there were no structures underneath B2 but that there was probably a dynastic settlement nearby, since the few sherds found below occupational levels appear to be dynastic. Coprolites found below floor level may indicate animal husbandry or stabling in the vicinity of B2 prior to its construction. Little can be said about the occupational usage of room 2, although the lack of functional devices in this room makes it clear that dedicated activities such as cooking did not take place extensively in this location. Room 3 (3.80 m east–west x 2.67 m north–south) Room 3 is located in the southeast corner of B2. It was accessed by means of room 2 and was the only room in the structure that was not accessed by room 7, with the exception of storage areas. Four walls,54 already visible from the surface, enclosed room 3, which was filled with stratigraphic units of varying types and reliability for a depth of 1.36 m (Figures 4.12, 4.14). DSU 355 consisted of windblown sand on the entire surface within room 3. There was a dense layer of iron-rich fabric A pottery sherds in the top few centimeters. Other inclusions found were charcoal and plaster fragments, glass, wood, and animal bones as well as some organic remains such as olive and date pits. Collapse (DSU 13) quickly became visible within the windblown sand, which somewhat interpenetrated the collapse. DSU 1356 consisted of mud-brick collapse made of reddish brown wall and vaulted ceiling collapse. The ceiling collapse was discernible from the concentric pattern on the bricks consistent with vault brick construction.57 This context was very incomplete and had eroded to the level of surface sand and walls; it was also mixed with sand (DSU 3). It is significant that many of the bricks were very thin (approximately 4–5 cm thick), which was probably the result of wind erosion. The organics in the bricks were still extant, as were the many other organic inclusions in the collapse, such as olive and date pits. The inner surface of the vault was heavily sooted but not burned, suggesting that oil lamps may have been used in the room. Within the collapse were found iron-rich fabric A and A4 fragments as well as calcium-rich fabric B and P37. These ceramics, particularly as indicated by a lamp fragment, probably do not date to earlier than the beginning of the fourth century. In addition to ceramics we found glass, wood, bones, and plaster in low to moderate quantities. There was also one small 0.010 kg fragment of a textile,58 three beads,59 and an unfired clay stopper (Inv. 3517). Most of these objects derived from the lowest elevations in DSU 13 and therefore probably ought to belong to DSU 14. See Chapter 5 for construction details. Walls F6, F7, F8, and F9. 55 Upper elevation 137.570; Lower elevation 137.010. Dimensions: x=380 cm, y=267 cm. 56 Upper elevation 137.560; Lower elevation 136.990. Dimensions: x=380 cm, y=267 cm. 57 See Chapter 5 for construction techniques. 58 This textile could not be analyzed due to poor preservation. 59 Inv. 3496, Inv. 3497, Inv. 3498. 53 54

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

75

Figure 4.12: Harris Matrix, room 3. DSU 1460 was a brownish-yellow sand layer located directly beneath collapse DSU 13 in the eastern half of the room and above a yellow-brown sand layer (DSU 29) in the western half of the room. It contained a high density of organic material, both charred and un-charred, such as wood, bones, and pits from olives, dates, and apricots. There were significant quantities of iron-rich fabric A and A4 as well as moderate quantities of calcium-rich fabric B and P37. These ceramics may date to the third and, particularly, the fourth century. Low densities of clinker and an unfired clay loom weight (Inv. 3534) were also found. This deposition may have extended below floor level (F10), which was not found in the eastern half of the room. It was not found in the southwest quadrant where the floor (F10) was still extant. This brown sandy layer was mixed with ash and silty debris and may represent occupational debris mixed with destroyed floor (F10) and windblown sand (DSU 3). It was directly on top of sand (DSU 29) that lay underneath the floor (F10) as well as floor preparation layers (DSUs 25 and 28). DSU 14, as a mixed context, is probably the result of the roof and wall collapse (DSU 13), which caused all of these layers to interpenetrate one another. DSU 1961 was a brown loamy sand layer in the southwest corner of room 3 above occupational debris (DSU 18) (Figure 4.13). This matrix was similar to the occupational debris under it (DSU 18), but this context had much higher concentrations of organic material. It was filled with a large concentration of rodent coprolites and a dense concentration of other organics. We took many samples of this matrix in

60 61

Upper elevation 137.100; Lower elevation 136.990. Dimensions: x=380 cm, y=267 cm. Upper elevation 137.410; Lower elevation 137.160. Dimensions: x=140 cm, y=140 cm.

76

Amheida II

order to discern the nature of these organics. 62 Within this layer we also found three intact pots63 and a jar stopper (Inv. 3518). Calcium-rich fabric A group ceramics were represented in moderation, as were calcium-rich fabric B and P37. These ceramics share characteristics with third- and particularly fourthcentury forms. Glass and two polishing stones (Inv. 3741, Inv. 3733) were also found. Among the organic remains, high densities of olive, date, and apricot pits were found, as well as a piece of wood with two small holes from domestic furniture (Inv. 3523).

Figure 4.13: Photo of DSU 19, room 3. DSU 1864 consisted of brown loamy sand with high densities of organic remains. It may represent occupational debris above floor F10. It was similar to DSU 7 in room 2. The deposition was visible in two places with diffuse boundaries: in the threshold of the door between rooms 2 and 3 and in the southwest quadrant above a floor level and below the brown loamy sand layer (DSU 19). DSU 18 was probably not itself a floor, but it was a layer that occurred at floor level. In some areas it lacked the strength and hardness characteristic of true floors, as for instance F10 (which lies directly beneath DSU 18). Three small, burned pieces of a textile were found lying flat on top of DSU 18 in the section in and near the doorway threshold.65 There were large quantities of iron-rich fabric A group and A4 as well as calciumrich fabric A11, B, and P37. These ceramics share characteristics with third and particularly fourth century forms. Glass, wood, and bones were also represented. A bead (Inv. 3493), an apricot pit, and olive and date pits were also found. F1066 was a small patch of compacted gray brown mud floor along the west wall and in the southwest quadrant of room 3. This mud floor was thin and varied between 1 and 2 cm thick. The mud was Inv. 148, Inv. 171, Inv. 170, Inv. 172. Inv. 7979, Inv. 7980, Inv. 7981. 64 Upper elevation 137.160; Lower elevation 137.110. Dimensions: x=200 cm, y=160 cm. 65 These fragments were too disintegrated to analyze. 66 Upper elevation 137.190; Lower elevation 137.170. Dimensions: x=75 cm, y=45 cm. 62 63

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

77

tempered with straw and other organic material, such as twigs. Although this floor level was made of compacted mud it was not a very hard surface, but it was the best-preserved floor level found in room 3, and in some respects it was more distinct than the floor visible in room 1. Erosion may have played a large part in the clearing of anthropogenic levels in parts of the room. The part of the floor that was preserved best was covered by the largest part of the collapse and was therefore a secure context. The lack of collapse over other parts of the floor may have left it open to the elements and caused erosion. Another possibility is that the pressures of the vault may have destroyed the rest of the floor, as could be seen in DSU 14, which was quite mixed due to the vault collapse penetrating through multiple stratigraphic units. Clay stoppers (Inv. 3180, Inv. 3525) were found embedded into this context, likely due to pressure from the vault pushing DSU 18 into F10. DSU 2567 was a yellow-brown sand layer under occupational debris (DSU 18) in the southwest quadrant of the room and directly under the floor (F10). It may represent a preparation layer for floor F10. It contained numerous sherds and organic remains. The sherds derived from iron-rich fabric A group and calcium-rich fabric B and P37 ceramics. Faience, glass, and dross were also represented. Among the organics, wood, bones, and burned olive and date pits were found. DSU 2868 was a gray-brown weathered surface with some salt crystals and inclusions of pottery, charcoal and gypsum bits as well as organic remains. It was underneath the yellow brown sand layer (DSU 25) in the southwest quadrant of room 3 and on top of another yellow brown sand layer (DSU 29). Several patches of this weathered surface were found elsewhere in the room; these probably belong to DSU 28, but since they did not connect with the largest patch in the southwest corner, we could not be certain. The salt crystals and weathering resulted from water. The layer was at roughly the same level as foundation bricks along interior of south wall. DSU 28 likely represents a preliminary preparation layer for floors, as we found in rooms 1 and 2 (DSUs 23 and 20).69 Among the ceramics, iron-rich fabric A and A4 were represented in moderate to large quantities while calcium-rich fabric B and P37 were represented in low to moderate quantities. These ceramics appear to share characteristics of ceramics dating from the second to third centuries CE. We took samples of the matrix (Inv. 189 = S15). DSU 2970 was a yellow-brown sand layer under DSU 28 in the southwest quadrant of the room. It was under DSU 14 in the rest of the room. It was at the same elevation as the foundation bricks in the surrounding walls. A vault brick with concentric curved patterns was found molded into the surface (the same as those found in the collapse), which suggests that the collapse of the ceiling caused the mixing of layers found in DSU 14. Among the ceramics, the iron-rich fabric A and A4 groups were represented in large quantities, and the calcium-rich P37 was also represented. The ceramic material from this layer is characteristic of the second to third centuries, suggesting pre-occupational placement. Faience, glass, wood, bones, and clinker were found in low quantities. Two olive pits and one date pit were found. A bronze ring (Inv. 3484) was found in the northeast corner of the room and a small terracotta figurine fragment (Inv. 3519) was also found. DSU 3071 consisted of yellow sand mixed in with some ash, which was especially evident in the east corner of the room. There was mud brick debris in the top few centimeters, but the matrix became cleaner with depth. This context is similar to DSU 26 in room 2, which also contained a lens of debris that gave way to cleaner sand below. We excavated the layer to the bottom first course of the foundation bricks in the southeast corner of the room. A large pottery sherd, likely from a large cooking vessel, was found towards the bottom of the foundation layer. This sherd appears similar to fragments of a similar Upper elevation 137.030; Lower elevation 136.975. Dimensions: x=200 cm, y=140 cm. Upper elevation 137.030; Lower elevation 136.975. Dimensions: x=160 cm, y=100 cm. 69 See Chapter 5 for construction techniques. 70 Upper elevation 136.990; Lower elevation 136.700. Dimensions: x=380 cm, y=267 cm. 71 Upper elevation 136.840; Lower elevation 136.210. Dimensions: x=380 cm, y=267 cm. 67 68

78

Amheida II

vessel found in the layer above (DSU 29) and may suggest a mixing of the layers in the upper centimeters of DSU 30. This context therefore consisted of contaminated windblown sand in the upper centimeters as well as clean windblown sand below. The ceramics included iron-rich fabric A and A4 as well as calciumrich fabric P37. These ceramic materials indicate a second to third century date. Glass, wood and bones were also represented in low to moderate quantities, and organics, such as olive and date pits, were also found.

Figure 4.14: Multi-context Plan of room 2 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols). F672 is an east–west oriented wall with only 3–4 courses remaining. It forms the north boundary of room 3. The north face of the wall was described above as part of room 2. The top of the wall exhibited the alternating channels method of construction. There were alternating headers and stretchers with 7 cm wide channels in between. The south channel was complete and extended for 180 cm. The south face of the wall was covered with reddish-brown mud plaster, but the brick-laying pattern was still visible as English bond. Immediately above floor level there was an extensive gouge and other wear that indicates heavy usage of the room. The gouge was repaired once or 72

Upper elevation 137.460; Lower elevation 136.750 (bottom of foundations). Dimensions: x=303 cm, y=61 cm.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

79

several times, as indicated by several pieces of baked brick and stone that were inserted into the gouge during occupation. The wall showed a clear repair face where mud mortar was used to cover this stabilizing fill. Prior to its repair in antiquity, the gouge was once greater than 20 cm wide and extended at least 220 cm before it reached the threshold at an approximate depth of 137.20. The wall was set upon one course of stretchers protruding 14 cm from the wall proper. These foundation bricks were not mortared together. The foundation bricks ran all the way to the west, where they met, and were bonded with, wall F7. Here, however, they lay under a threshold for the doorway F58 between room 2 and room 3. The foundation bricks on the south side of F6 consisted of one course of stretchers protruding approximately 3 cm from the wall proper. Underneath those stretchers was one course of headers placed vertically. The foundation bricks appeared to be set on clean windblown sand continuing to the bricks of F9 and F5, which seem to have been set in a foundation trench. The stretchers of F6 extended into the wall F7 and bond F6 to F7. This feature abutted wall F9 and wall F5. F773 is a north–south oriented wall that forms the west side of rooms 2 and 3. Above the foundation level in room 2, there were a maximum of 8 courses of brick remaining. The bonding pattern was English bond and the alternating channels construction method was used. The channels varied in length from 90 cm to more than 180 cm. The width of channels was approximately 7 cm. The bottom of the wall had a 1 m long gouge located approximately at floor level extending from the doorway into the room. This gouge probably resulted from erosion. The wall had the same build up and appearance as the north face of the wall in room 2, but the foundation bricks were placed differently in order to follow a pattern already started in the south side of room 2. Here, the foundation bricks were formed by one course of stretchers protruding approximately 4–5 cm into the room and, underneath that, one course of headers placed vertically. The brick dimensions were the same as foundation bricks in other part of the wall. The bottom course of foundation bricks in wall F7 is set on a course of horizontally placed headers from the foundation of F8 in the most eastern end of the wall. The foundations of F7 and F8 thus partly overlapped. The foundation bricks consisted of one course of vertically placed headers without mortar. The foundation bricks were gray-brown in color and set on windblown sand. This foundation pattern changed approximately 20 cm before the doorway into room 3 (F58). There, two bricks were placed horizontally, a header above a stretcher. The east face of F7 was also the west face of the doorway between rooms 2 and 3 (F58). At the level of the threshold of the doorway between rooms 2 and 3, there was a large hole approximately 15 x 20 cm with a depth of 15 cm. This hole could have held a threshold beam. The threshold was approximately 60 cm wide next to F7. The wall F7 seems to be bonded to F6 at foundation level. F58 is the doorway between room 2 and room 3 and was described above as part of room 2. F874 is an east–west oriented wall running forming the south boundary to room 3 and the south wall of the house. It was badly eroded, particularly to the east, where only three courses of bricks remained, as opposed to the western side, where seven courses were visible above the foundations. The bonding pattern was English bond. The top of the wall was very badly eroded, but it was clear that the alternating channel method was used. The mud plaster facing was approximately 1 cm thick, but visible only in the top west corner of the north face. Starting approximately 75 cm from the west corner of the wall (moving east), there were three holes in the wall with diameters of approximately 7–10 cm and a depth of 10–25 cm (at least). The third hole terminated at 115 cm from the west end of the wall. The foundations were made up of seven courses of brick with a total height of 60 cm. The top course was built with headers placed horizontally and which protrude 30 cm from the wall. The entire foundation was an English bond, but its protrusion of 30 cm distinguished it from the rest of the wall. The tops of the foundation bricks 73 74

Upper elevation 137.770; Lower elevation 136.790 (bottom of foundation). Dimensions: x=61 cm, y=303 cm. Upper elevation 137.490; Lower elevation 136.210 (bottom of foundations). Dimensions: x=385 cm, y=55 cm.

80

Amheida II

were particularly weathered, appeared melted, and had accumulations of salt particles. The foundation bricks of wall F7 rested on the top of the foundation bricks of wall F8. F975 is a north–south oriented wall that forms the east side of room 3. It extended five courses above the foundation bricks. It eroded to a greater extent to the south than to the north and it eroded to, or even below, floor level in the southeast corner. No mud plaster was currently visible on the wall, although a mud plaster facing would have been likely. The brick-bonding pattern was visible as English bond and the alternating channel method was used. The stretchers of the foundation layer protruded 4 cm into the room. These foundation bricks consisted of one course of stretchers, followed by vertically placed headers, placed next to each other with no mortar used. Underneath this course was another course of headers laid horizontally. All of the bricks were straw-tempered and grayish-brown in color, the bottom course being marginally grayer than the rest of the bricks. Interpretation of Room 3 Room 3 was of slightly smaller dimensions than rooms 1 and 2. Room 3 was the most private room in the house, because it was entered from room 2 rather than from room 7, which provided access to all other rooms in this house. The walls were not well preserved, particularly in the southeast, but the floor and many of the objects retained a moderate to high level of preservation. The entrance to room 3 was located in on the west side of the north wall and was 60 cm wide. This entrance had a door as evinced by the preserved threshold (F58). It is not possible to determine if this door could be locked, as the walls were not preserved to a sufficient height to discern a locking mechanism. Originally, room 3 was covered with a barrel-vaulted roof, as indicated by the collapse (DSU 13) found in this room. We did not find any artifacts that definitively appeared to have once resided on a flat roof on top of the barrel vault, although some of the surface pottery fragments may belong to this category of material. There were signs of soot on the inner surfaces of collapsed vault bricks, suggesting the use of oil lamps or other sources of smoke (DSU 13). The walls were mud plastered. There were no signs of any gypsum or painted plaster in this room. There were some signs of re-plastering, although the walls were not preserved to a sufficient height to definitively determine the plastering of these walls. The foundations of the walls appear consistent with other rooms in that they rested upon the site surface. One floor layer was preserved, and the room shows the same floor construction pattern found in the previous two rooms: mud plaster over a matrix of mud brick rubble and trash, which was placed directly upon the windblown sand. This room showed the most signs of erosion within this structure. The wind was particularly strong along the southeast corner of the structure as this portion of B2 was not protected by the large kiln structure to the northwest. It is also clear that the roof collapse served as the greatest form of protection for floor and occupational layers. Despite the poor preservation of the walls it appears that some of the objects were in situ, namely an assemblage of jars76 from DSU 9 and DSU 10 above the floor (F10). The occupational usage of this room is not evident, although the presence of rodent coprolites within the aforementioned jars suggests that some food was stored within the vicinity. Other functional objects found here may indicate that it was used for minor functional activities.

75 76

Upper elevation 137.240; Lower elevation 136.460 (bottom of foundations). Dimensions: x=265 cm, y=60 cm. Inv. 7979, Inv. 7980, Inv. 7981.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

81

Room 4 (2.73 m north–south x 0.71 m east–west) Three walls,77 already visible from the surface, enclosed room 4, which was filled with stratigraphic units of varying types and reliability for a depth of 0.80 m (Figures 4.15, 4.16, 4.17).

Figure 4.15: Photo, view into room 4 from room 5. Room 4 is located along the middle of the western boundary wall of B2. The walls were clearly visible from the surface. The remains of a vault still in place were clear in the northern extent of the room. The visible wall features had the standard alternating channels construction, with some variation in the vicinity of the vault (F21) and the stairs (room 8). DSU 2778 was begun in 2005 but we did not complete the DSU. During the 2005 excavations a dense concentration of sherds was removed from the surface, which is standard for this area at Amheida as well as much of the rest of the site. In 2006 we continued to excavate windblown sand below where this dense 77 78

Walls F14, F37, and F38. Upper elevation 138.356; Lower elevation 138.036. Dimensions: x=273 cm, y=71 cm.

82

Amheida II

concentration of sherds once existed. The matrix filled the entire room and consisted of windblown sand, ceramic fragments, clinker, faience fragments, and a few mud-brick fragments. As we proceeded we found that windblown sand continued in the northern portion of the room (DSU 35), but further south we began to find mud-brick debris (DSU 44). DSU designations were changed on the basis of position (DSU 35) and composition (DSU 44).

Figure 4.16: Harris Matrix, room 4. DSU 3579 consisted of windblown sand below the surface (DSU 27) in the north. This DSU was designated on the basis of position in order to indicate that it was less contaminated than the surface windblown sand. The context was almost entirely devoid of artifacts with the exception of a few fragments of ceramic and bone. We terminated this context when we encountered either vault collapse (DSU 44) or mud-brick debris mixed with sand (DSU 36). DSU 4480 consisted of mud-brick vault collapse underneath DSU 27 and DSU 35. This collapse clearly derived from a vault because of the type of bricks used. The vault bricks from DSU 44 differed somewhat from our other vault bricks: they were slightly curved and elongated with curved impressions on one face. We took architectural samples of two bricks (S2). Amid this collapse were found low densities of sherds that were probably used as chinking sherds to hold the vault bricks in place. Aside from a few bones and charred pits, glass fragments, and a single potsherd, no other inclusions were found in this matrix. DSU 3681 was found below both mud brick collapse (DSU 44) and windblown sand (DSU 35). It could be distinguished from DSU 44 by the presence of small mud brick debris mixed with sand rather than the large vault bricks that characterized DSU 44. There was a moderate to high density of small mud-brick fragments mixed with possible wind-blown sand. These fragments are probably from the deterioration and subsequent collapse of the vault ceiling over room 4, which produced DSU 44. Artifact densities for DSU 36 were low, with very low densities of ceramics, glass, bone, clinker, and plaster. The DSU was terminated when silty, occupational debris, DSU 45, was reached. DSU 4582 consisted of a silty brown matrix with moderate densities of organic inclusions, such as charred seeds. Low densities of fauna were also represented. Artifact densities were low in all categories Upper elevation 138.036; Lower elevation 137.721. Dimensions: x=93 cm, y=71 cm. Upper elevation 138.056; Lower elevation 137.566. Dimensions: x=71 cm, y=43 cm. 81 Upper elevation 138.236; Lower elevation 136.541. Dimensions: x=171 cm, y=71 cm. 82 Upper elevation 137.606; Lower elevation 137.506. Dimensions: x=273 cm, y=71 cm. 79 80

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

83

except for charred fauna and seeds. There were very few diagnostic sherds from this context, which is singular given the high density of largely intact vessels associated with House B2. This DSU was directly on top of floor F15. F1583 is the floor of room 4. It consisted of a mud-brick pavement that was originally covered in mud plaster (Figure 4.17). F15 was in a good state of preservation. The northern 80 cm still had plaster adhering to the mud bricks, while only small patches of plaster remained in the southern extent. Both the bricks and the mud plaster were light grayish-brown in color and were tempered with straw. There was a 55 cm by 60 cm compressed portion of floor 20 cm north of wall F26. It is possible that this area represented wear from jumping onto the floor from a trap door. The northern portion of the floor is less worn, probably due to less traffic in this area.84

Figure 4.17: Plan of room 4 floor (F15) showing FSUs (within rectangles) and elevations (with triangles). F1485 is a wall forming the west boundary to room 4. The northern portion was preserved to a greater height and was in a better state of preservation overall than the southern portion. Because so little mud plaster remained on F14, the brick laying pattern and individual bricks were clearly visible. Upper elevation 137.556; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=70 cm, y=211 cm. For a more thorough description of this floor and comparanda, see chapter 5. 85 Upper elevation 138.416; Lower elevation 137.136 (top of foundations). Dimensions: x=766 cm, y=62 cm. 83 84

84

Amheida II

The bricks were yellowish-brown in color and laid in an English bond pattern. The bricks to the north were in a good state of preservation and better preserved than those to the south (see room 5 below). There was blackening 130–220 cm south of the corner of F14 with F30. It is likely that the blackening resulted from the use of oil lamps in room 4. The northernmost 40 cm of F14 had mud plaster overlapping from vault F21 on to the south face. This vault (F21) springs off F14 (and wall F37 to the east). The vault springing seemed to be at a higher elevation to the south than to the north on F14 (see vault F21). The foundations for F14 were not reached. F3786 is a north–south oriented wall that formed part of the east boundary of room 4. There were four courses of mud bricks in a good state of preservation where the wall met the vault. The level of preservation worsened closer to the floor level. There was no trace of any plaster facing adhering to the wall. The mud bricks were laid in an English bond pattern and the bricks had a high organic content. To the east, the vault spring and features obscured the thickness of the wall. F3887 is a north–south oriented wall that formed part of the east boundary of room 4, blocking the gap between the west ends of F26 and F37 and F28 that led to room 5. This wall abutted and was not bonded to any walls. There were eight courses of mud brick, the upper three of which corresponded to the lower part of the vault spring above F37. The preservation of the wall was fair, with some damage to the bricks and erosion of the mortar. The wall height was the same at both ends of the wall, with traces of mortar for the bedding of the course above at the north end of the wall. Only the upper three courses retained traces of gray-brown plaster. The wall was essentially only two brick-lengths long. The courses of the wall followed an English bond pattern. F2188 is the barrel-vaulted ceiling of room 4. It was in a good state of preservation for this structure. The springing of the vaults and the meeting of the vault springs were still intact. The vaults sprang from F14 to the west and F37 to the east. It seemed that the elevation of the springing increased to the south such that the distance between the ceiling F21 and the floor F15 increased to the south. The northern extremity of room 4 would therefore offer a shorter vertical space that the southern portion. The underside of the vault was completely covered in grayish-brown mud plaster. The cracks between the horizontal courses were clearly visible, and fourteen courses could be distinguished. The individual bricks within these courses were concealed. Some bricks from the vault collapse were found in DSU 44. They were curved rather than rectilinear vault bricks. This shape is so far not paralleled at Amheida, but it is likely that a different vaulting technique was used for narrower vaults than was used for vaults that would span a greater distance.89 No chinking sherds were visible in F21, but it is possible that they were obscured by plaster. In the northern 26 cm of F21 there were 16 cm wide cavities filled with small mud bricks and mud plaster that marked the termination of F21. This cavity was 14 cm wide for the southern 86 cm of the joining between F21 and the walls F14 and F37, showing how the gap caused by the vault springs was filled and anchored. Interpretation of Room 4 Room 4 was a small, narrow room of low height with a preserved maximum depth of 1.28m. It consisted of a mud brick floor, walls, and a vaulted ceiling. It was located immediately underneath the stairs (room 8). The vertical space of this room narrowed to the north, increasing the confined nature of this space. The entrance into the room is not clear because of the level of preservation of this room. Based upon comparanda in the Fayum, it may have been accessed by a trap door through the stairway above.90 There Upper elevation 138.391; Lower elevation 137.506. Dimensions: x=73 cm, y=63 cm. Upper elevation 138.236; Lower elevation 137.436. Dimensions: x=37 cm, y=72 cm. 88 Upper elevation 137.681; Lower elevation 137.301. Dimensions: x=106 cm, y=127 cm. 89 See Chapter 5 for construction techniques. 90 On Fayum staircases, see Hadji-Minaglou 2007:1987-194. 86 87

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

85

is a 55 cm by 60 cm compressed portion of floor 20 cm north of wall F26 that may be the area above which the trap door opened. The activity of jumping onto the floor in this area may have caused the compression and wear that is currently visible. Likewise, the northern portion of the floor is better preserved because of the lack of traffic in this area. No other distinguishing marks are visible. Despite the comparanda from the Fayum, however, it is possible that room 4 may have been accessed through room 5 rather than a trap door. The southern end of room 4 was not closed off with a wall and there were some wood fragments in this vicinity. The lack of a wall in this portion of the room might be explained by poor preservation, but given that all other walls in this house have been well preserved, albeit at a low height, it seems possible that a door could have connected these two rooms. If this was the case, the worn portion of F15 could be interpreted as wear from traveling through room 4 into room 10. A barrel vault, still partially in situ, covered this room (F21). The bricks used in the vault construction (F21) show the use of different vault bricks than those found in other rooms in House B2 and other parts of Amheida. The use of special bricks was not uncommon in Roman Egypt, as they were sometimes made for pitched vaults and other features.91 The walls were mud plastered, although it appears that much of the mud plaster was not preserved. There were some signs of blackening along the mud plaster and mud bricks of the wall (F14), suggesting the use of oil lamps in the room. The wall foundations were not exposed, as the mud brick floor was preserved. The floor of this room was constructed out of mud brick, as was common in storage areas. This floor was fairly well preserved and retained some mud plaster on its surface, although this was largely worn away, probably during antiquity, especially in the southern portion of the room, which would have experienced higher traffic than the northern portion. We did not excavate through the floor, so the details of its construction are not certain.92 Room 4 was a storage room. This room is singular for B2 since it lacked significant quantities of material culture and it is unclear precisely what was stored in the vicinity. It is likely that the occupants removed valuable objects from this room upon abandonment, as most other rooms in this structure contained high densities of objects. Room 5 (4.14 m north–south x 2.58 m east–west) Four walls,93 already visible from the surface, enclosed room 5, which was filled with stratigraphic units of varying types and reliability for a depth of 1.275 m (Figures 4.18, 4.20). DSU 3394 consisted of windblown sand on the surface of room 5. This surface layer had a high density of ceramics, a few pieces of clinker, wood, bones, dross, and a low density of glass and faience. It contained large quantities of iron-rich fabric A group and moderate quantities of calcium-rich fabric A11 and P37. These ceramics share forms with Late Antique ceramics. There were a few isolated mud brick fragments, most likely from wall collapse due to the lack of distinguishing marks. This DSU was considered unreliable both because of its position on the surface and because of the presence of modern rubbish in the top 10–15 cm. DSU 4095 consisted of windblown sand below the surface. The change between DSU 33 and DSU 40 was based upon position. We wanted to make a distinction between the more contaminated surface sand and the less contaminated sand below. This distinction is particularly important in this house because we had many apparently in situ objects very close to the surface. This context appeared to be right above More details on the construction of this vault can be found in Chapters 5 and 6. Construction details on mud brick floors can be found in Chapter 5. 93 Walls F14, F24, F55, and F26. 94 Upper elevation 138.306; Lower elevation 137.716. Dimensions: x=414 cm, y=258 cm. 95 Upper elevation 137.891; Lower elevation 137.306. Dimensions: x=414 cm, y=258 cm. 91 92

86

Amheida II

floor level and we found five objects in DSU 40, including 75%–100% reconstructable vessels96 as well as an ostrakon (Inv. 11049). We also found a moderate quantity of sherds. There were large quantities of ironrich fabric A group and moderate quantities of iron-rich fabric A4. There were low to moderate quantities of calcium-rich fabric B and P37. Most of these artifacts were found in close association with F14 in the southwest quadrant of room 5. In particular, many vessels were wedged into a gap in wall F14 and probably served to repair this gap. The vessels found within F14 are designated as deriving from that feature, but a few outside of the feature may be associated with DSU 40, as they may have fallen into the matrix. In general, artifact densities were moderate to high for ceramics. These ceramics are broadly datable to Late Antiquity. We had low densities of clinker, bone, wood, and glass. There were low to moderate densities of mud brick debris within this context. This debris was largely associated with F14 in the southwest quadrant of room 5 and to a lesser degree in the center and near the doorway to room 7. DSU 40 was terminated when we encountered ash (DSU 41).

Figure 4.18: Harris Matrix, room 5. DSU 4197 was covered by DSU 40 and was located next to DSU 42. DSU 41 was an ashy matrix associated with burned sherds and objects associated with fire. DSU 41 consisted of what appeared to be destroyed floor layers mixed with ashy fill. The ash itself varied in color and consistency but not in sufficiently definable parameters to designate different contexts. The reliability was uncertain because it was not clear with which floor level the finds should be associated, and the context was not sealed by substantial collapse. The small finds associated with this context could be tentatively associated with floors on the basis of elevation. Glass, wood, bones, and clinker occurred in low densities, and we 96 97

Inv. 10162, Inv. 10000, Inv. 10217, Inv. 10156. Upper elevation 137.466; Lower elevation 137.276. Dimensions: x=215 cm, y=108 cm.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

87

uncovered one date pit, five olive pits, eggshell fragments, and a textile fragment. The ceramics consisted of iron-rich fabric A group in high densities and calcium-rich fabric B group in low densities. We also found a complete lamp (Inv. 10155), a fire dog (Inv. 10165), a baggy jar base (Inv. 10163), a complete ceramic vessel (Inv. 10092) and a bowl used for cooking (Inv. 10094). These ceramics are datable to the third and fourth centuries. Sample S5 was taken of this matrix. The context was terminated in order to provide more control over provenancing finds, although it was quite similar to the underlying context DSU 67 (see below). DSU 4298 consisted of occupational debris: it was covered by DSU 40 and was next to DSU 41. DSU 42 consisted of a brown silty loam with moderate to high densities of organics. This context appeared to consist of occupational debris since it rested immediately on top of floor F40. Unlike DSU 41 to the south, DSU 42 was very thin and defined. It had a few scattered pockets of ash, but the isolation of ash concentrations to the southern half of room 5 suggests a differential use of space within the room. The ceramics consisted of iron-rich fabric A in moderate densities and low densities of calcium-rich fabric B and P37. These ceramics are datable to the third and fourth centuries. Clinker and plaster were found in low densities, as were organics such as wood, bones, and one burned olive pit. DSU 42 covered F40. F4099 was the first floor we encountered in room 5. The mud plaster was in a good state of preservation, although it was present only in the northeast quadrant. This visible portion of floor had a high density of organics. Unlike the floors beneath it (F41 and F47), F40 did not show signs of activities related to fire. This distinction might be the result of the position of the preserved portion of F40 rather than a change in the usage of room 1. For example, charred mud bricks associated with hearths were found in DSU 40 at an elevation that could be associated with either F40 or F41. The ashy matrix of DSU 40 and the charred bricks may indicate that the southwest quadrant of F40 was used for fire-related activities, while the heavily trafficked northeast quadrant of room 5 was free from such activities. F40 did not quite meet up with walls F55 and F16, being heavily worn in these areas. F41100 was a floor covered by DSU 41 (next to DSU 67). F41 was the second floor layer we encountered in room 5. Although F41 was highly compacted and had other signatures of being a floor (such as flatness, the presence of flat-lying sherds, etc), its close proximity to floor F40 above suggests that it might have been a preparation layer rather than a proper floor. Otherwise it is possible that F40 represents a minor repair to a heavily worn area of F41. F41 was in a moderately good state of preservation, although it was largely absent in the southern third of the room. The northeastern quadrant of F41 was obscured by the presence of floor F40. The visible portion of F41, running approximately east–west across room 5, appeared to have been associated with multiple activities related to fire. The intensity of these activities may have catalyzed the destruction of floor F41 in the south, where a high density of ash, DSU 41, was found. Likewise, two bricks stacked on top of each other in the manner of ephemeral hearths were found in this destroyed southwest portion. No other discernible marks were associated with F41. DSU 67101 consisted of ash with sand pockets. DSU 67 was similar to the DSU that covered it (DSU 41) in composition and inclusions, but it had a denser consistency. DSU 41 was terminated after we encountered F41, the second (middle) floor layer in room 5. We changed context designations so that we could have more control over determining the location of artifacts and with which floor layer they should be associated. The change in context was therefore based upon position and density of material. This matrix had a high density of ash, charcoal, and organic inclusions. The ceramics contained high densities of iron-rich fabric A group, low densities of calcium-rich fabric A11, B, and P37. The artifacts from this DSU are probably associated with the F41 floor occupation and included a carinated bowl (Inv. Upper elevation 137.496; Lower elevation 137.456. Dimensions: x=274 cm, y=100 cm. Upper elevation 137.516; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=186 cm, y=117 cm. 100 Upper elevation 137.476; not excavated. Dimensions: x=242 cm, y=53 cm. 101 Upper elevation 137.321; Lower elevation 137.041. Dimensions: x=413 cm, y=263 cm. 98 99

88

Amheida II

10392), a nearly complete bowl (Inv. 10137), and a bread plate or lid with handle in many fragments. These ceramics are datable to the third and fourth centuries. Organic densities were high and included pits, bone, wood, worked wood (Inv. 11520), and a textile in three fragments (Inv. 11526). We had low to moderate densities of glass and clinker. Many of the artifacts from this assemblage were charred, which correlates with the high presence of ash, suggesting in situ burning. The context was terminated when either floor F47 or DSU 71, the fill of hearth F46, was reached. DSU 71102 filled F46, a hearth feature. This fill consisted of compacted loam with a high degree of compacted ash. Below the surface crust of mud-brick melt the context seemed to be secure, so a soil sample (S7) was taken. A complete, charred bowl (Inv. 10090) was found embedded within this context. Artifact densities for ceramics were moderate, and many of the sherds were charred. These fragments were iron-rich fabric A. Other categories include clinker and bone in low densities. There were low to moderate densities of organics including wood, charcoal, and seeds. DSU 71 covered F46.

Figure 4.19: Photo of hearth (F46), room 5. F46103 was a circular hearth feature associated with floor F47 (Figure 4.19). It was composed of mud bricks with mud plaster coating. Its base was a prepared mud plaster surface. It was in a very good state of preservation, being complete. The mud plaster was pink except on the top of the exterior ring and on the base of the feature. The feature was filled with ash and burned artifacts (DSU 71), indicating its active use as a hearth or, less likely, a brazier. F47104 was the bottom of three floors within room 5. Ash (DSU 67) and a hearth (F46) covered this floor. It was in a poor to moderate state of preservation. There seemed to have been a large number of activities related to fire, such as cooking, at this floor level; for example, hearth F46 was associated with Upper elevation 137.351; Lower elevation 137.186. Dimensions: x=36 cm, y=37 cm. Upper elevation 137.336; Lower elevation 137.126. Dimensions: x=72 cm, y=21 cm (x=greatest extent on the exterior of the feature). 104 Upper elevation 137.156; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=240 cm, y=222 cm. 102 103

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

89

this floor. These activities made F47 quite friable and easily broken. There were large portions of the floor missing in the southeast, southwest, and northwest corners of room 5. Despite its fragility on the edges, the floor remained very solid. Floor F47 was probably the original floor level of room 5, as was suggested by the presence of foundation bricks for wall F44 directly underneath it. No other distinguishing features were visible, and this floor was not fully exposed in the northeast corner. DSU 77105 consisted of compacted sand with no visible inclusions. DSU 67 covered it. It appeared to be the natural surface upon which House B2 was built. We did not excavate DSU 77. F13106 was an east–west oriented wall forming the south boundary to room 5. It was moderately well preserved and was preserved to a greater height in its western than its eastern end. The north face of the wall had yellowish-brown mud plaster adhering to the eastern 135 cm of the wall and for the top 32 cm only. The western 12 cm of the plaster were blackened, probably due to fire-related activities in the southwest quadrant of room 5. To the west, the individual bricks and the bonding pattern were visible. The walls were laid in an English bond pattern. The bricks were moderately preserved and were yellowish-brown in color. A few patches of red mud plaster were visible; these seem to have been used for repair, since it was a different color than the mud plaster to the east. There was a gouge 0–77 cm east of the corner with F14. It was 32–55 cm from the top of the wall and 8 cm deep. For 28 cm west of this gouge and at the same elevation the wall was very ashy and had numerous charcoal parts adhering to the bricks. There was a depression 0–18 cm east of the corner with F14. It was 16–32 cm from the top of the wall and was 9 cm deep. It is quite rounded due to use wear of an uncertain nature. The foundations were not exposed. F14107 is a north–south oriented wall forming the west boundary to room 5. It was in a poor to moderate state of preservation. The northern portion was preserved to a greater height and in a better state of preservation overall than the southern portion. Because so little mud plaster remained on F14, the brick laying pattern and individual bricks were clearly visible. The bricks are yellowish-brown in color, and their bonding pattern was English bond. The southern 360 cm of F14 had bricks in a moderate state of preservation as opposed to the northern portion in room 4, which was better preserved. There was a substantial gouge 0–353 cm north of the corner of F14 with F13. Its height varied from 0–20 cm above floor F47 to covering the entire vertical extent of F14. The depth of the gouge also varied greatly from 8 cm to possibly the entire width of the wall (not visible). At 160–220 cm from the corner with F13 a part of the rubble and sand filling the cavity was removed. This rubble consisted of largely intact ceramics and sherds. Most of this rubble was charred and highly burned. Given the proximity of hearths in this vicinity, fire probably catalyzed the fragile state of the wall here. Further south, F14 was abutted by F13, and reddish mud plaster was used in a coved shape between the two walls. The entire southern half of F14 had mild signs of soot or blackening, again, probably associated with the hearth or cooking activities. Directly opposite from F26 and F24, F14 had 6 cm deep indentations 0–19 cm from the top of the wall. The cause of these indentations was unclear, but they might be related to a possible door located here for entry between rooms 4 and 5.108 We did not reach the foundations for F14 during excavation.

Upper elevation 137.031; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=72 cm, y=126 cm. Upper elevation 137.841; Lower elevation 137.011. Dimensions: x=59 cm, y=61 cm. 107 Upper elevation 138.416; Lower elevation 137.136 (top of foundations). Dimensions: x=766 cm, y=62 cm. 108 The architectural reconstruction is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6. 105 106

90

Amheida II

Figure 4.20: Multi-context plan of room 5 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols). F24109 is an east–west oriented wall stub forming part of the north boundary to room 5. It was in a moderately good state of preservation, although it showed clear signs of wear and burning in its immediate vicinity. For example, there was a prominent burn spot on the wall 12–54 cm from the top of the wall and 40–90 cm from the southwest corner of F24. The bricks were set in an English bond pattern. 109

Upper elevation 138.156; Lower elevation 137.326. Dimensions: x=109 cm, y=34 cm.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

91

The 7 lower courses were all set as stretchers, and the bricks of the upper course were all set as headers. The western corner was rounded by a combined action of occupational use and later weathering. The mortar between the bricks was dark yellow in color and made of a very high concentration of sand with almost no inclusions. The original mud plaster was, for the most part, missing, and only scanty traces of it were visible by some joints. It appeared to have been rich in fine lime inclusions, which created a light yellow color. The bricks themselves were beige in color. The wall was probably used to strengthen the corner of room 5 and room 4, if room 5 did indeed give access to the cellar. This hypothesis is substantiated by the way F24 abutted F26 running parallel to it. The wall appeared to be resting not on proper foundations but on the preparation layer of the floor in room 5 and thus represented a later addition to the room just after the initial occupation of B2. F55110 is a north–south oriented wall forming the east boundary of room 5. Wall F55 is in a low to moderate state of preservation. The wall retained a maximum of 7 courses above the foundations on in the northern portion of the wall, while the southern portion had barely 7 courses preserved. The remaining courses appeared to be stable. Most of the weathering was probably due to the wind. The bonding pattern for this wall was English bond, and the east face of the wall retained only very small patches of plaster. The southern portion of the wall face was better preserved than the northern portion. The northern portion had three gouges. The first gouge was 70–100 cm from the north boundary of F55 and was 0–13 cm above the bottom of the excavated area; it was 6 cm deep. The second gouge was 70–192 cm from the north boundary of F55, 5–12 cm above the bottom of the excavated area and 7 cm deep. The third gouge was 50–160 cm from the north boundary of F55, 28–39 cm above the bottom of the excavated area and 10 cm deep. It is likely that these gouges resulted from normal usage of room 5, which seems to have involved a lot of wear on the walls and floors. No other marks were visible on the wall. The tops of the foundation bricks were just barely visible in the southern 10 cm of the wall, standing vertically on their stretchers. Measurements of these foundations were not possible because they were not fully visible. The north face of the wall had a moderate quantity of plaster adhering to the face, and no marks were visible. F26111 is an east–west oriented wall forming part of the north boundary of room 5. F26 was in a moderately good state of preservation, with the western portion preserved to a greater height than the eastern portion. The western end of the wall was highly deteriorated, partly due to heavy usage during the occupation of B2. The south face was covered with mud plaster 83–160 cm west of the east corner with F26. At 160–264 cm west of the east corner of F26 the south face was obscured by wall stub F24, which may have been built to repair or buttress F26. The visible bricks in the south face were built in English bond. They were highly weathered from occupational use, wind, and perhaps some minor water damage. The plastered area had a thick, 2.5 cm application of plaster with a high density of organic inclusions. Behind this plaster there were signs of burning, which may have accelerated the wall deterioration and necessitated the addition of wall F24. Most of the visible bricks were yellowish-brown in color, but the bottom course had reddish bricks, which projected 10 cm into the room. These bricks were probably for repairing the wall base rather than being a true foundation course, which tends (in this area) to stand on its headers. Some wood was evident in the west face of F26 in the vicinity of the space between this wall and wall F14. This wood may indicate the remains of a doorway between these rooms, or it may have served as the remains of reinforcements placed in this wall. Interpretation of Room 5 Room 5 was accessed by means of room 7. The entrance into room 5 was somewhat narrow (60 cm) and elongated, removing it slightly from the central room of B2 (room 7). There was clearly no door located 110 111

Upper elevation 137.971; Lower elevation 137.086. Dimensions: x=347 cm, y=65 cm. Upper elevation 138.146; Lower elevation 137.536. Dimensions: x=264 cm, y=38 cm.

92

Amheida II

here, as there were no signs of a threshold or pivot for a door, and the flooring and walls were sufficiently preserved to evince these signatures had they been present. Room 5 was one of the larger rooms in B2, being smaller only than room 7. This room showed the most significant signs of burning, debris, and cooking activity among all of the rooms. There were no clear signs of roofing for this room, in contrast to the rooms covered by a barrel vault. It is possible that room 5 was once at least partially covered by a jarid roof. First, DSU 42 contained a high density of organic remains that may indicate the decayed remnants of a collapsed organic roof. Second, it was necessary to move from the stairway to the flat roofs over rooms 1, 2, 3, and 6. Room 5 provided the only clear means of access between the staircase (room 8) and these other rooms. There is no evidence for the appearance or extent of this possible roof. The walls of room 5 were mud plastered, although many of the walls show signs of wear and burning, which negatively impacted the preservation of the mud plaster. The walls appear to have been modified marginally during occupation. For example, wall stub F24 appears to have been added after the initial occupation of the structure. Other minor modifications included repairs to the walls, such as F14, which contained a large amount of debris used to shore up an area of heavy wear. These walls seem to have undergone more extreme usage than the walls in the other rooms of B2 and many of them, particularly F14, showed signs of fire in their vicinity. The signs of burning likely derived from active cooking in this vicinity, as the burn marks were quite large, particularly on F14. The foundations of the walls were partially visible on wall F55 and appear consistent with construction techniques elsewhere in B2.112 The floor construction appears similar to that found in all other rooms in this structure with the exception of the storage rooms (rooms 4 and 10). These floors were mud plaster laid on top of mud brick debris and windblown sand. We had three floor levels in this room, suggesting intensive use of the area. All of the floors showed signatures of fire, burning, and ash. A hearth feature (F46) was on top of floor F47, and floor F41 had an informal hearth consisting of stacked mud bricks. In summation, room 5 contained a large number of signatures that may be associated with uses of fire, including burn marks on walls, substantial deposits of ash, both formal and informal hearths, fire dogs, and cooking implements. This room appeared to have been modified marginally during its phases of occupational usage, and all of these modifications appeared to be necessitated for stabilizing the room because of its intensive use for fire. This preponderance of data suggests that cooking took place here. In most households of Late Antiquity, cooking probably took place on portable braziers of bronze or pottery in the courtyard of the house. Materials related to cooking activity such as cooking pots, mortaria, frying pans, and metal implements such as knives are frequently found in domestic contexts and indicate such activities.113 In a Romano-Egyptian context we can understand the presence of hearths, firedogs, and cooking vessels to be the most significant indices of food preparation outside of bread ovens. The close association between these signatures suggests that this room was a significant locale for the preparation of food within B2. Room 6 (2.82 m north–south x 2.73 m east–west) A south door in room 7 gave access to room 6. Room 6 is located along the southern end of B2, between rooms 3 and 5. Four walls,114 already visible from the surface, enclosed room 6, which was filled with stratigraphic units of varying types and reliability for a depth of 1.665 m (Figures 4.21, 4.23). We gridded room 6 below the surface to control ceramic analysis. Equalities are given between the DSUs for room 6, which resulted from the gridding, but were the result of the same deposition. See Chapter 5 for more detail on these construction techniques. Putzeys 2007:56. 114 Walls F12, F54, F55, and F7. 112 113

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

93

Figure 4.21: Harris Matrix, room 6. DSU 34115 consisted of windblown sand on the surface of room 6. The sand was mainly yellow in color with a conspicuous quantity of pottery sherds. The iron-rich fabric A is represented in high densities, with moderate densities of calcium-rich fabrics A11 and P37. We found one small fragment of faience, a few bones, glass, traces of decomposed wood, and rather large pieces of clinker. The DSU was terminated when the contaminated surface of sherds was complete. This change was largely based upon position to signify that the windblown sand below (DSU 37) was less exposed to surface contamination. DSU 37116 consisted of windblown sand below the surface. The sand in this layer corresponded, both in composition and texture, to that of DSU 34, the only difference being the absence of finds because DSU 34 had a high concentration of surface sherds. DSU 37 was distinguished from DSU 34, upon the basis of position and artifact density associated with the matrix. It was terminated when mud-brick collapse (DSU 38 = 43) was reached. DSU 38 (= 43)117 consisted of mud-brick collapse, most probably from parts of the room’s walls. Several bricks were still intact, while others were preserved in rather large (around 16 x 16 cm) pieces. Only a few vault bricks were visible in the collapse. The collapse was located mainly in the northeastern half of the room, with large voids filled with the sand from DSU 37 along wall F54 and in the Upper elevation 137.911; Lower elevation 137.606. Dimensions: x=273 cm, y=282 cm. Upper elevation 137.816; Lower elevation 137.736. Dimensions: x=191 cm; y=207 cm. 117 Upper elevation 137.926; Lower elevation 137.446. Dimensions: x=26 cm, y=190 cm. 115 116

94

Amheida II

northwestern corner. Among the bricks, roughly in the center of the room, five complete vessels were found.118 Three fragments of white, red, and colored plaster were visible, two still attached to the brick fragments and one detached. The iron-rich fabric A group occurred in moderate to high densities, while the calcium-rich fabric P37 was found in low–moderate densities. Glass, bones, and clinker occurred in low densities. The DSU was terminated when a silty, ash-laden context (DSU 47) was reached. We decided to grid room 6 at the termination of this DSU so that we could determine more precisely the location of objects that were not small finds. This strategy was employed since many of the sherds from room 6 could be meaningfully reconstructed.119 DSU 43 (= DSU 38)120 consisted of mud-brick collapse. The division of the collapse into two different units was done along a north–south axis in the room, dividing it into equal parts. The collapse in this DSU seemed to derive from wall collapse, since no clear vault bricks, noticeable from the typical half-circle marks on one face, were present. The DSU was terminated when a silty ash-laden context (DSU 46) was encountered. Finds included moderate–high densities of iron-rich fabric A as well as bones and plaster, none of which was colored. DSU 46 (= DSU 47)121 consisted of occupational debris in the eastern half of room 6; it corresponded to DSU 47 in the western half of the room 6 north–south section. It was a secure context, since it was sealed by the collapse above. This matrix consisted of an ashy loam with moderate densities of organics. Ceramic densities, in particular, were high and consisted of iron-rich fabric A group. Also represented in more moderate densities were calcium-rich fabrics A11, B, and P37. Other categories of material include wood in moderate densities, while glass, bone, and clinker occurred in low densities. We also recovered some variety of desiccated fruit, perhaps a doum fruit. This DSU covered floor F16 and DSU 69; it probably represented the latest phase of occupation for this room. DSU 47 (= DSU 46)122 is a layer below collapse (DSU 43) in the western half of room 6 and therefore represents a secure context. A sample (S3) was therefore taken. This context was composed of brown sand mixed with organic material (straw) and very fine mud-brick fragments. It rested on top of floor F16 and below where the floor was eroded. Portions of this context might be interpreted as a mixture of destroyed floor and occupational debris, while other portions only represented occupational debris. The iron-rich fabric A was found in high densities, while the calcium-rich fabric P37 was found in low densities. Glass, clinker, and dross were found in low densities. We also found fruit fragments, gypsum, and charcoal. A coin (Inv. 11084) and the remains of a sewn plaits basket (Inv. 11554) were also found in this layer. Some pockets of ash were visible as a result of organic materials’ decomposition. F16123 was the top floor layer for room 6. It was in a poor to moderate state of preservation, only occurring in patches in the middle of room 6. The surface was moderately to highly compact and it appeared to have been built on top of a layer of organic-rich sandy loam (DSU 69) that was used to stabilize it. A sewn plaits basket (Inv. 11554) was found lying flat on this floor in the southwest quadrant. Seeds and other organics were also associated with this floor. DSU 69 (= 70)124 consisted of a loose, organic-rich sandy loam below the level of the floor (F16) in the east section of room 6. This matrix had moderate densities of clinker, wood, and glass. The ceramics included iron-rich fabric A in high densities as well as calcium-rich fabric P37 in moderate densities, and These vessels included a bowl with white slip on the rim and red dots (Inv. 10010), a complete bowl (Inv. 10392) a complete footed bowl (Inv. 10166) a complete section of a bowl (Inv. 10010), and a complete lid (Inv. 10393). Inv. 10392, Inv. 10010, and Inv.10166 were located in the upper levels of DSU 38, while Inv. 10010 and Inv. 10393 were embedded in the collapse. 119 At the time, the ceramicist was Gillian Pyke. 120 Upper elevation 137.866; Lower elevation 137.436. Dimensions: x=2 cm, y=86 cm. 121 Upper elevation 137.466; Lower elevation 137.206. Dimensions: x=413 cm, y=263 cm. 122 Upper elevation 137.566; Lower elevation 137.231. Dimensions: x=256 cm, y=134 cm. 123 Upper elevation 137.326; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=210 cm, y=155 cm. 124 Upper elevation 137.151; Lower elevation 136.746. Dimensions: x=100 cm, y=273 cm. 118

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

95

a complete bowl (Inv. 10397). A wooden lid of many fragments (Inv. 11071) was also found, although it should be considered as part of the architecture of the room, since it served as a lid to cover an underfloor storage area. Organic levels were high as a result of the preservation of this lid and included 127 pits, with nine date pits, 105 olive pits, and one peach pit. A small test trench in the northeastern corner of the room revealed that this context rested on clean sand (DSU 76). The context was not fully excavated because the western portion of the context was not excavated to this depth. DSU 70 (= 69)125 consisted of loose sandy loam with low to moderate densities of ceramics in the western half of room 6. It was below floor F16 and presumably covered floor F18, if that floor level is present in the west half of room 6, since DSU 69 covered F18 in the eastern half of the room. DSU 70 was not excavated. F18126 was the first, original floor layer for room 6. It was in a poor to moderate state of preservation. Only a very small patch of F18 was exposed. It was clear that this was the original floor level, because foundation bricks were visible in wall F55 just below the elevation of F18. F18 itself consisted of highly compacted, very light gray mud plaster. It was pocked with a large number of small holes from occupational usage and weathering. It had a moderate number of ceramic inclusions.

Figure 4.22: Photo, Inv. 10383 and Inv. 10216 in situ in DSU 76, room 6. DSU 76127 consisted of compacted clean sand with no natural inclusions. It was below the foundation level of walls F7, F12, and represented the surface upon which these walls were built. The iron-rich fabric A group was found in low to moderate densities and the calcium-rich A11, B and P37 fabrics were found in moderate quantities. Glass, wood, and clinker were found in low quantities. There were a large number of pits including 52 olive pits. Two complete storage jars (Inv. 10383 and Inv. 10216) were found embedded Upper elevation 137.186; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=103 cm, y=161 cm. Upper elevation 137.196; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=55 cm, y=39 cm. 127 Upper elevation 136.821; Lower elevation 136.246. Dimensions: x=103 cm, y=94 cm. 125 126

96

Amheida II

in the natural sand at the base of this DSU (Figure 4.22). The excavation of the DSU was terminated at the bottom of these jars. All of the ceramics are datable to the Late Roman and early Late Antique.

Figure 4.23: Multi-context plan of room 6 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols). F53128 was the doorway from room 7 to room 6, consisting of the lowest portions of the eastern and western sides, threshold and sill. Three and a half courses of mud brick were preserved on the west side, and the remains of mud plaster coating obscured its construction. The socket for the door pivot was found at the north end of the west side of the doorway. The east side consisted of two courses of bricks, with the uppermost course quite worn. It was laid in English bond, as was the rest of wall F12, which served as the east part of this doorway. The threshold was well preserved apart from one missing brick at the center of the uppermost course on the south side. The threshold consisted of wall courses continuing below the doorway rather than a separate construction element. There was a distinct sill with a width of 128

Upper elevation 137.486; Lower elevation 137.291. Dimensions: x=86 cm, y=58 cm.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

97

the thickness of one brick (20 cm) that ran across the doorway at the far north end, and the mud floor (F17) of room 7 lipped over it. F12129 is an east–west oriented wall forming the north boundary of room 6. It was in a good state of preservation, with the western part preserved to a greater height than the eastern. The bricks were clearly visible and were grayish-brown in color. The bonding pattern was English bond, and the alternating channels construction method was used. The south face of the wall was weathered and seemed to have suffered from some minor water damage. There was no mud plaster visible. There was a light burn mark 60–75 cm east of wall F55 that was 8–14 cm above the foundation level. Some insignificant burning episode probably occurred in this vicinity, potentially after the structure was abandoned. Two courses of the foundation were visible here, and both had the bricks resting on their stretchers. The top course protruded into the room from the wall proper by 9 cm. The second course protruded by an additional 12 cm. F54130 is an east–west oriented wall forming the south boundary to room 6. It was in a poor state of preservation, with the western portion preserved to a greater height than the eastern portion. There was no mud plaster still adhering to the wall, so the bricks and the bonding pattern were fully visible as English bond. The bricks were yellowish-brown in color and were heavily weathered from occupational use. A large gouge was present on this north face. Its dimensions were: 55–203 cm east of west wall F55; 0–24 cm above the second course of bricks (from bottom); and 19 cm deep at the deepest point. The groove was probably the result of occupational use. A piece of wood was embedded in the wall 58–68 cm east of west wall F55 and 29–34 cm above the top of the second course of bricks (from bottom). It may have been used for attaching elements and furniture to the wall that could not be attached directly to the mud brick. The abutment between F54 and east wall F7 was separating, and a 6 cm wide gap between the walls was visible. The abutment between F54 and west wall F55 was still secure, and the plaster of F55 still coved over the joint between the two walls. The foundations of F54 were not reached. F55131 is a north–south oriented wall forming the west boundary of room 6 and the east boundary of room 5. Wall F55 was in a low to moderate state of preservation, with only 7 courses remaining above the foundations. The northern portion of the wall was preserved to a greater height than the southern portion. The remaining courses seemed fairly stable. Most of the weathering was probably due to the wind. The east face of the wall within room 6 had some mud plaster remaining, mostly in the southern portion, making it difficult to see the bricks in this vicinity, but it was clear that the bonding pattern for this wall was English bond. In the southern portion of the wall, the top course of the foundation bricks was visible. These foundations protruded from F55 into the room by approximately 10 cm. There was no visible bonding pattern to these foundations. A gouge was visible right above the foundations in the southern extremity. It was 130 cm long, 4.5–5 cm high and 2 cm deep. F7132 is a north–south oriented wall forming the east boundary to room 6. It was preserved to a visible height of four courses at its north end (see F52). The wall was laid in English bond. There were traces of pale brown mud plaster with high organic content visible along the entire length of the wall, except in the extreme north next to F52, where a plaster of similar consistency but pale red color extended in patches from the doorway to approximately 45 cm to the south along the wall. This plaster color change probably represents a separate plastering episode, which was also visible on wall F3. It may be interpreted as repair.

Upper elevation 137.946; Lower elevation 137.216 (at top of foundations). Dimensions: x=188 cm, y=61 cm. Upper elevation 137.806; Lower elevation 136.941 (top of foundations). Dimensions: x=333 cm, y=62 cm. 131 Upper elevation 137.971; Lower elevation 137.086 (top of foundations). Dimensions: x=347 cm, y=65 cm. 132 Upper elevation 137.436; Lower elevation 137.036 (top of foundations in room 7). Dimensions: x=61 cm, y=303 cm. 129 130

98

Amheida II

Interpretation of Room 6 Room 6 was located between room 5 and room 3. This room shows signs of moderate wear on the walls and floors. It contained a large number of objects, many of which may have fallen from the presumed flat roof above the barrel-vaulted ceiling. It contained a trap door leading to a storage area. Room 6 was entered through a doorway in the north wall at its easternmost corner. This doorway was 58 cm wide. The doorway certainly contained a door, as evinced by the remains of a threshold, sill, and pivot (F53). It is uncertain if there was a locking mechanism for this door, as the walls were not preserved to sufficient height to determine the presence of a lock. There was very little collapse from the roof, but it is likely that this room was barrel vaulted and that a flat roof covered this barrel vault. The extent of wall collapse along with the presence of so many complete ceramics close to the surface may suggest that these ceramics derived from the roof and that the roof had parapets. There were bits of colored plaster within the collapse (DSU 43 = 38), which suggest that the ceiling and/or the tops of the walls were painted red and white.133 The walls of this room were mud plastered, and there is also some evidence that it was painted. We found three fragments of red and white plaster.134 There were some fragments of blackened plaster, which was probably caused by smoke from oil lamps. The walls show moderately more damage than some of the other rooms of this structure. 135 This damage may indicate that this room was used more intensively than these other rooms. The wall foundations were clearly visible, particularly in (F7) and appear consistent with construction techniques used in walls found in other rooms of the structure.136 The floor construction was consistent with that found in all other rooms of this structure except for the storage rooms (rooms 4 and 10). It consisted of mud plaster overlying mud brick rubble and debris, which overlay windblown sand. There appear to have been multiple floors in this room. The floor contained an opening to an informal storage pit containing two jars that were embedded in clean sand. This opening was covered with a wooden lid (Inv. 11071). Room 6 was roofed with a barrel vault and had a flat roof above it that held ceramics. The room itself was used for storage, as evinced by a storage pit, as well as other activities. It appears to have been used extensively, given the amount of debris left behind as well as the wear upon the walls. There was lots of debris from fruit and other foods here as well (DSUs 69, 47, 46). Room 7 (6.20 m north–south x 2.65 m east–west) Room 7 was entered from room 9 and gave access to six rooms.137 It is the largest, most central room in House B2. Nine walls,138 already visible from the surface, enclosed room 7, which was filled with stratigraphic units of varying types and reliability for a depth of 1.650 m (Figures 4.24, 4.26). DSU 39139 consisted of windblown sand on the surface of room 7. This surface layer had a moderate density of ceramics with few other inclusions. It covered clean windblown sand (DSU 49) or collapse (DSU 48). Ceramics included iron-rich fabric A in very high densities and moderate quantities of calcium-rich fabric A11, B, and P37. Faience, glass, bones, clinker, and plaster were represented in low to moderate quantities. DSU 48140 consisted of highly deteriorated wall collapse with a few fragments of vaulted ceiling collapse. This context covers DSU 49, a layer of windblown sand below the surface sand, suggesting that See Chapter 6 for the reconstruction. DSU 38 SUQ. 135 E.g. rooms 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 11. 136 These construction techniques are described in greater detail in Chapter 5. 137 Rooms 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 11. 138 Features F12, F27, F3, F32, F35, F36, F4, F7, F30. 139 Upper elevation 139.056; Lower elevation 137.326. Dimensions: x=620 cm, y=265 cm. 140 Upper elevation 138.076; Lower elevation 137.749. Dimensions: x=450 cm, y=250 cm. 133 134

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

99

this sand blew in before substantial collapse took place. In the northern quadrant of the context there were small pockets of gray ash that were the early signs of an oven feature (F19) we were to find below. Additional signs of this oven included portions of a large vessel associated with the mud brick wall of F19.

Figure 4.24: Harris Matrix, room 7. This context had a large number of finds associated with the collapse, including two nearly complete vessels (Inv. 10347, Inv. 10384). There was also a clay tablet (Inv. 11048), which was found directly underneath the vessel Inv. 10347 in the collapse. This tablet was exceptionally well preserved and is one of only four found in Dakhla (and, indeed, in all of Roman Egypt). The context was secure because it was embedded in collapse and covered by Inv. 10347. There is some possibility that these objects derived from a niche that was once in the wall, because of the close contextual association, but such a conjecture is uncertain. The ceramics included iron-rich fabric A in very high quantities as well as low densities of calcium-rich fabric P37. Bones, clinker, and plaster were represented in moderate quantities, and one peach pit was found. This DSU covered windblown sand (DSU 49) and ashy debris in the vicinity of F19. DSU 49141 consisted of windblown sand below the surface. This context was found directly underneath windblown sand (DSU 39) in the northern 120 cm of the room as well as the southeast and southwest corners. DSU 49 was covered by wall collapse (DSU 48) in the approximate center of the room. Two objects from this context were found in close proximity to floor F17 and near walls and thus may represent occupational debris. These finds included a largely preserved lamp (Inv. 10011) and a 141

Upper elevation 137.916; Lower elevation 137.031. Dimensions: x=620 cm, y=263 cm.

100

Amheida II

weathered statue fragment of a naked male (Inv. 11509). We found iron-rich fabric A group in high densities as well as moderate densities of calcium-rich fabric A11, B, and P37. Glass, clinker, and plaster were found in low densities. Among organic remains, we found one olive pit, eight date pits, eggshell fragments, and extremely small quantities of charcoal. In the course of exposing this context, the oven feature (F19) became significantly more visible, and we ceased excavation when we found ash in its vicinity. Elsewhere the context was terminated at floor surface F17. DSU 61142 filled oven feature F19 and consisted of clean yellow sand mixed with ash and charcoal parts. Given its contents, this context may represent the interface between windblown sand (DSU 49) above and ash (DSU 63) below. Iron-rich fabric A was found in moderate densities, and calcium-rich fabric P37 was found in low densities. Clinker and plaster were also represented, and one burned date pit was recovered. These artifacts appeared to be quite mixed and not necessarily associated with the oven feature (F19), except for the sherds found that matched the ceramic body of F19. This context was terminated when a more singularly ashy matrix was encountered below. DSU 63143 filled oven feature F19 and consisted of ash and charcoal parts. It formed the bottom and most secure context within oven F19 in the northern extremity of room 7. Although DSU 63 represents the most secure context in F19, it appeared to have been contaminated, to some degree, by windblown sand, suggesting that it was either always exposed to the elements or was exposed to the elements for a considerable time span. There were very few finds within the ash. These finds included fragments of a bowl and fabric A group, a few pits, clinker, plaster, and small charcoal fragments. Very fine fragments of mud-brick were visible right on top of the base of the oven. F19144 is an oven feature constructed out of a large ceramic vessel and mud-brick exterior walls (Figure 6.3).145 It was in a good state of preservation, although the western portion lacked some elements. The entire interior of the feature was blackened from usage and had darkened circular marks running around the interior. At 0–13 cm above the base of the feature there were lines running laterally along the ceramic. There was a row of circular burn spots 10–20 cm above the bottom of the feature; each circle had a diameter of 10 cm. The second row was visible 21–33 cm above the bottom of the feature, and each of these circles had diameters of 12 cm. The circular marks were probably caused by the presence of the bread itself plastered up against the walls of the oven after heating it. There was an aperture from the interior of the feature to the exterior. It cut through both the ceramic and the mud-brick wall. It was 8–17 cm above the interior base of the feature and 46–80 cm west of the east wall of the feature and had a diameter of 10 cm. The circular aperture was the draft hole and the space for stoking the oven. It is located opposite to the prevailing wind from the north. Feature F19 seems to have been built after the original occupation of House B2, since the area where it abuts wall F4 to the east covered over white gypsum plaster. Because F19 was plastered into floor F19, it must have been added during the first floor level occupation. The floor space in front of the aperture was repaired over time, indicating intensive use of the oven feature. The relationship between this oven and the other floor layers146 was unclear because they were highly deteriorated in the vicinity of this oven, as can be seen in the description for DSU 64. DSU 64147 consisted of a brownish silty loam with numerous mud brick inclusions. It seemed to represent the interpenetration of floor layers, the rubble between layers, and occupational debris associated with floor layers. Artifact densities were moderate for this context, with categories of wood, Upper elevation 137.603; Lower elevation 137.386. Dimensions: x=85 cm, y=81 cm. Upper elevation 137.736; Lower elevation 137.326. Dimensions: x=85 cm, y=81 cm. 144 Upper elevation 137.986; Lower elevation 137.316. 145 The overall oven dimensions are x = 83 cm, y = 96 cm, z = 67 cm. 146 Floors F17, F45, F48. 147 Upper elevation 137.766; Lower elevation 137.341. Dimensions: x=278 cm, y=230 cm. 142 143

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

101

bone, ceramics, glass, seeds, and clinker represented. Iron-rich fabric A group was represented in high densities, and we found calcium-rich fabric B and P37 in low to moderate densities. These ceramics were broadly datable to the second and third centuries, suggesting reuse of dumped material for floor construction. The footed base of a glass bowl was found in fragmentary condition. The context was terminated in its horizontal axis somewhat arbitrarily. We sectioned DSU 64 in order to see the destroyed floor layers that composed this deposition. We terminated this context on its vertical axis when we reached floor F49, which was fully present underneath this context. F17 (= DSU 75)148 was the top (fourth from bottom) floor layer for room 7 (Figure 4.25). It consisted of highly compacted light gray mud plaster. It was in a very good state of preservation, although it was largely absent in the vicinity of three walls.149 There was also a large gap in the floor 0–58 cm west of wall F7 and 34–169 cm north of doorway F53. Several mud bricks were visible in this vicinity. These mud bricks were probably used in as preparation for floor F17 to create a stable and even surface. This matrix can be found described more thoroughly below (DSU 75). At 50–75 cm north of F12 and 110–130 cm west of F7 there was a gray ash concentration with charcoal inclusions. There were no other discernible features or marks associated with floor F17. The northern part of F17 was removed and termed as DSU 75.

Figure 4.25: Photo, multiple floor levels exposed and visible in room 7. DSU 75 (= F17)150 consisted of very hard compacted mud. It was the same deposition as floor F17 but was given a different DSU number to designate the portion of the floor that we excavated in section as a stratigraphic unit. This context was highly compacted and had few inclusions, either organic or inorganic, although a few pockets of silty, organic-rich debris were present within the matrix. This debris was probably occupational debris associated with floor F45 below DSU 75 = F17 as well as debris used as Upper elevation 137.586; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=400 cm, y=266 cm. Walls F7, F12, and F27. 150 Upper elevation 137.786; Lower elevation 137.411. Dimensions: x=276 cm, y=210 cm. 148 149

102

Amheida II

fill to prepare floor F17. The DSU was terminated when floor F45 was reached. A bone hairpin was found in this context (Inv. 11320) along with high densities of iron-rich fabric A and moderate densities of calcium-rich fabric B and P37. The ceramics are datable to the second and third centuries, suggesting possible re-use of material from the vicinity for floor construction. Glass and clinker were also represented. We had high densities of organic remains from this context including wood, bones, and 73 pits (two almond pits, 55 olive pits, and 26 date pits). A soil sample (S8) of ash seeds and organics was taken of this matrix. F45151 was the second floor level (from the top) of room 7 (Figure 4.25). It was in a very good state of preservation and consisted of highly compacted grayish mud plaster with whiter patches. It had a high degree of inclusions, such as charcoal parts, ash pockets, pits (mostly olive), lime spots, ceramic fragments, and organic fibers. It had two patches of ash concentrations. The first patch was a gray ashy concentration 25–45 cm from the west wall F30 and 150–130 cm from the north wall F35. The second patch was a dark black and gray ashy concentration 90–130 cm west from east wall F3 and 275–310 cm south of north wall F32. Not all of F45 was exposed; presumably more was present underneath F17 to the south. F45 was missing from the vicinity of doorways F51 and F52 and had patches missing from the vicinity of F27 and F30. It abutted wall F3. F48152 was the third (from the top) floor level for room 7 (Figure 4.25). Due to its close proximity to floors F49 below and F45 above, F48 may have been a preparatory level for F45 rather than a proper floor layer. Alternatively, it might have been a repair episode. Very little of F48 was exposed, since it was revealed only through the sectioning of room 7 in order to clarify floor levels. The small exposed area appeared to be in good condition. F48 rested on large cobbles and debris that were used to stabilize and prepare a foundation for the new floor construction. There were no significant features or marks associated with this floor level. F49153 was the bottom (presumably original) floor layer of room 7 (Figure 4.25). It consisted of a highly compacted grayish mud plaster. It was in a good state of preservation, although portions of it were missing in the vicinity of four walls.154 The floor was extremely flat and compacted. There was one raised area of the floor that seemed to represent a repair episode. Its dimensions were 73 x 65 cm, and it was located immediately south of the oven feature (F19). This repair was probably necessitated by the use of F19 in the vicinity, since the oven’s draft hole, which was also used for stocking fuel, was located here. The repair patch also had a gray ash concentration in the vicinity of the hole into F19. The ash measured approximately 28 x 40 cm. The oven (F19) was associated with F49 since the plaster of F19 coved, or curved, to meet floor F49. F12155 is an east–west oriented wall forming the north boundary of room 6 and the south boundary to room 7. It was in a good state of preservation. The western portion was preserved to a greater height than the eastern end. The bricks were clearly visible and were grayish-brown in color. The bonding pattern was English bond and the alternating channels construction method was used. There were no substantial gouges or holes visible. A repair, or patching, seemed to have occurred in the 13 cm west of doorway F53. It was 0–14 cm above floor F17 and it may have extended below F17. This spot was probably where the reinforcement wood of the doorway was located, as evidenced by the socket in the east face (see description for doorway F53).

Upper elevation 137.466; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=200 cm, y=277 cm. Upper elevation 137.441; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=190 cm, y=16 cm. 153 Upper elevation 137.406; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=269 cm, y=164 cm. 154 Walls F4, F32, F45, and F35. 155 Upper elevation 137.946; Lower elevation 137.216 (top of foundations). Dimensions: x=188 cm, y=61 cm. 151 152

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

103

Figure 4.26: Multi-context plan of room 7 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols).

104

Amheida II

F27156 is a north–south oriented wall forming part of the west boundary of room 7. It was in a good state of preservation, and the northern end was preserved to a greater height than the southern end. The bricks were highly visible and in a good state of preservation. They were grayish-brown. The bonding pattern was English bond, and the alternating channels method of construction was used. The wall face had almost no mud plaster adhering to it, and little of the mortar between the bricks remained. No other gouges or holes were visible. Both the southeast and northeast corners of F27 were slightly rounded from usage, most likely from frequent walking close to the wall in passage through room 7 between rooms 5 and 8. A socket was visible in the northeast corner. It was 14 cm south of the corner and 14 cm west. It is 0–13 cm above floor F45 and 11 cm deep. It was probably the socket for a door between room 7 and room 8. This doorway was not given a separate feature number because no threshold was visible. The foundations were not visible. F3157 is a short section of east–west oriented wall forming part of the west boundary to room 7. It was located between doorways to room 1 (F51) and room 2 (F52) and it also served as the boundary between rooms 1 and 2. The wall was L-shaped in plan view, and this western end represents the perpendicular short portion of the wall. The central part was well preserved, but the lower portions to the north and south ends were destroyed when the wooden thresholds of the doorways (F51, F52) were removed. A thick layer of mud plaster containing abundant organic material and some relatively large potsherds largely obscured this face of the wall. At the south end of the wall this plaster overlay a similar plaster that was pale red in color, traces of which could also be seen on the south side of doorway F52 (see F52 description). The brick-bonding pattern was English and the alternating channels method was used. These channels were 7 to 8 cm wide. F32158 is an east–west oriented wall forming the north boundary to room 7. It was in a good state of preservation with the western portion preserved to a greater height than the eastern portion. The south face of the wall was covered in a reddish-brown mud plaster that had organic, pebble, ceramic, and lime spot inclusions. This mud plaster obscured most of the individual mud bricks, but it was possible to determine that the bonding pattern was English bond. The bricks were, for the most part, yellowishbrown in color, although there were some reddish bricks as well. In the 144 cm of F32 that provided the north boundary to room 7 there was a gypsum plaster band over the mud plaster. It was 32–73 cm above floor F45 and thus extended to the top of the preserved height of F32. The gypsum plaster originally may have extended to floor level, because its bottom edge was rough from breakage and was not the original lower end of the plaster. This gypsum plaster, and the mud plaster below, cove at the corners between this wall and wall F4 and this wall with wall F36. This coving was approximately 4 cm thick, while the gypsum plaster was less than 0.5 cm thick. The gypsum plaster is somewhat blackened and grayed in the corners, likely due to the presence of the oven feature (F19) close by. In plan-view the wall clearly used the alternating channels method. The channel was 9 cm wide and varied greatly in length. The foundations of wall F32 were not visible in room 7, but the coving with floors F44 and F45 was evident. This coving protruded approximately 50 cm from the south face of F32. F35159 is an east–west oriented wall forming part of the north boundary to room 7. The wall was in a good state of preservation apart from the lowest course, which was undercut. Traces of mud plaster remained over the whole of the south face of the wall, with two areas of white plaster preserved, one on the upper west and one on the east side, which formed a rounded corner with wall F36. The brickbonding pattern was obscured by mud plaster. The join where this wall abutted the adjacent north–south wall to the west (F34) was filled with gray-brown mud that was quite different in color from the wall Upper elevation 137.986; Lower elevation 137.536. Dimensions: x=160 cm, y=68 cm. Upper elevation 137.841; Lower elevation 137.811. Dimensions: x=77 cm, y=65 cm. 158 Upper elevation 138.586; Lower elevation 137.301. Dimensions: x=63 cm, y=335 cm. 159 Upper elevation 138.276; Lower elevation 137.506. Dimensions: x=125 cm, y=32 cm. 156 157

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

105

plaster. The upper face of the wall was uneven and was apparently preserved to its original height. The wall was two brick-widths wide; the north row of bricks was covered in its east part by a channel lined with a thick layer of mud plaster (0.7–1.0 cm thick), with a layer of white gypsum plaster above (0.5–1.0 cm thick), forming an L-shaped channel, which turned northwards to the west of F36 and above F43. The channel ended one brick-length from the adjacent north–south wall to the west of F34 with the upper brick course offset slightly to the north to create a 7.5 cm lip that was coated in mud plaster. Both this plaster and that on the rest of the wall had high organic contents. F36160 is a north–south oriented wall forming a west boundary to room 7. It was in a good state of preservation. The entire east face of the wall was covered with mud plaster followed by a coat of white gypsum plaster that was less than 0.50 cm thick. This gypsum plaster was blackened in some areas, likely due to its close proximity to oven feature F19. The presence of plaster obscured both individual bricks and the bonding pattern for F36. There was an aperture in F36 that provided access into room 11, a storage feature. The aperture was 17–73 cm south of the corner with the north wall, F32 and extended 6– 54 cm above floor F49. The aperture was worn through usage and followed the course of the vault ceiling, F43, for its upper extent. The foundations of F36 were not visible as its bricks extend beneath floor F19. The base mud-bricks extended by 5 cm in the southeast corner for one brick length, while the rest of the bottom bricks were flush with the wall face. F4161 is a north–south oriented wall forming part of the east boundary of room 7 and the west boundary of room 1. The south end of the wall is described as part of the doorway to room 1 (F51), and the east face is described with room 1. It was preserved to a greater height to the north than to the south. In plan view the upper course was laid as stretchers. The bonding pattern was obscured by mud plaster faced with gypsum plaster, which was preserved around the oven (F19). The mud plaster had a high organic component and became thicker towards the floor (F49). The mud plaster was missing in small patches at the south end of the wall, just outside the oven (F19). This plaster seemed to have been placed over an earlier layer of mud plaster of a similar composition but a slightly more orange-brown color. F51162 is the doorway from room 7 to room 1. The north side was preserved to a greater height than the south side. The lower parts of the doorway including the threshold were all quite poorly preserved, and the threshold appeared to be heavily damaged. The sides of the doorway consisted of the unmodified north face of wall F3 and south face of wall F4, with no sign of any jambs. The faces were mud plastered. There were possible sockets for wood consisting of undercuts at the bases of the west side of both walls. Immediately east of this socket was a mud-brick threshold consisting of two visible courses of bricks, lying so that stretchers were oriented east–west. The plaster of walls lipped or coved onto the upper surface of this mud-brick threshold. The mud plaster had high organic content. None of the bricks was sufficiently defined to measure. F52163 is the doorway from room 7 to room 2, consisting of the lower part of the sides of the doorway and the threshold. The vertical elements (jambs) were in fair condition, apart from a scar left from the removal or deterioration or removal of wood that once fit a socket in the threshold. The upper course of bricks for the threshold was virtually lost. This was a simple doorway consisting of the north face of F7 (5 courses) and the south face of F3 (6 courses), both coated in mud plaster with high organic content. As with doorway F51, the lowest 2 courses of the west sides of the walls were undercut, presumably for the placement of a socket for a wooden threshold, now lost. Traces of wood remained in the top of and side of the socket. The mud-brick threshold consisted of two visible courses of mud brick. The upper course was Upper elevation 138.196; Lower elevation 137.376. Dimensions: x=134 cm, y=20 cm. Upper elevation 138.036; Lower elevation 137.341. Dimensions: x=185 cm, y=68 cm. 162 Upper elevation 137.426; Lower elevation 137.266. Dimensions: x=78 cm, y=68 cm. 163 Upper elevation 137.266; Lower elevation 137.211. Dimensions: x=80 cm, y=58 cm. 160 161

106

Amheida II

laid with headers running north–south, and the lower with stretchers running north–south in a truncated English bond pattern. Only traces on north and south sides remained of the upper course. F53164 is the doorway from room 7 to room 6, consisting of the lowest extent of the east and west sides, threshold and sill. Three and a half courses of mud brick were preserved on the west side, and the remains of mud plaster obscured the construction details. The socket cavity for the door pivot was visible at the north end of the west side of the doorway. The east side consisted of two courses of bricks, with the uppermost course being quite worn. The threshold was laid in an English bond pattern, as was the rest of wall F12. The threshold was well preserved apart from one missing brick at the center of the uppermost course on the south side. The threshold consisted of wall courses continuing below the doorway rather than a separate construction element. A distinct sill that was a brick thickness wide (20 cm) ran across the doorway at the far north end, and the mud floor (F17) of room 7 lipped over it. F7165 is a north–south oriented wall forming the east boundary to rooms 7 and 6, and the west boundary of room 3. It was preserved to a visible height of four courses at its north end (see doorway F52). The wall was laid in an English bond pattern, using the alternating channels construction method. There were traces of pale brown mud plaster with high organic content along the whole length of the wall, except in the extreme north next to doorway F52, where a plaster similar in consistency but pale red in color extended in patches from the doorway to approximately 45 cm to the south along the wall. This patch, which was also visible on F3, probably represented a separate plastering episode following use wear within and around the doorway. F30166 is an east–west oriented wall forming the west boundary of room 7. It was in a good state of preservation. The western portion of the wall was preserved to a greater height than the eastern portion. The bricks were in a poor–moderate state of preservation due to heavy use wear and were grayish-brown. The bonding pattern was English bond, and the alternating channels construction method was used. It has no substantial holes or gouges. The northeast and southeast corners were rounded from usage during frequent passage from room 9 into room 7 and from room 7 into room 8. There was likely a door between room 7 and room 8, as evinced by the remains of a socket in F30 (see room 8 below) Interpretation of Room 7 Room 7 was the largest room in this structure and served as a critical access point for the other rooms in the house. As such, it shows signs that it was used heavily but was also well maintained through multiple repair episodes. Some of this heavy usage consisted of food preparation, as shown by functional features in the north of the room (oven F19 and the storage room, room 11). Other activities included passage into other rooms as well as other ephemeral activities. Room 7 contained a total of six apertures leading to other rooms. 167 Some of these entrances contained doors,168 while others consisted only of an opening (rooms 5, 9). The width of these doors varied between 58 and 68 cm. It is unclear if the entrances that contained doors were lockable, as the walls were not preserved to sufficient height to discern the presence or absence of locking mechanisms. There is no surviving evidence of a roof. If there was a roof, a light jarid reed roof is the most likely option. If there was a jarid roof it must have been removed at the time of abandonment or not long after, whether by human action or by wind erosion, as there were no organic remains suggesting its presence left behind, and all other organic remains within this room and this house were fairly well preserved. The presence of a bread oven (F19), located in its northernmost extent of the room, strongly suggests that Upper elevation 137.486; Lower elevation 137.291. Dimensions: x=86 cm, y=58 cm. Upper elevation 137.436; Lower elevation 137.036. Dimensions: x=61 cm, y=303 cm. 166 Upper elevation 138.186; Lower elevation 137.461. Dimensions: x=317cm, y=61 cm. 167 Rooms 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9. 168 Rooms 1, 2, 6, and 8. 164 165

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

107

this room was left open. Moreover, this room had windblown sand evident at most stratigraphic levels, suggesting that it was exposed more than the other rooms in this structure. Given the lack of secure archaeological data, the architectural parallels are particularly important for reconstructing this room.169 The walls of this room were mud plastered, and the north wall of the room (F35) also contained a strip of gypsum plaster along it. The foundations of the walls of this room were not exposed, because their construction techniques were visible from other rooms (rooms, 1, 2, 3).170 The floors were made of mud plaster, as was common in all rooms in this structure with the exception of the storage rooms (rooms 4, 10). The construction pattern of the floors was particularly well preserved in this room.171 This room experienced more floor repair episodes than any other room, an experience consistent with its function as a central access node for the entire house. This room was modified over time, since the bread oven (F19) appears to have been added shortly after the initial occupation of B2. Room 7 was a central point of access for other rooms in B2 and was used intensively for a variety of activities, largely food preparation. This room was kept in a good state of repair by the inhabitants as can be seen in the careful repair of the floor and the lack of debris left behind in most of the room. Room 8 (0.86 m north–south x 1.85 m east–west)

Figure 4.27: Multi-context plan of room 8 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), and elevations (with triangles). Two walls (F28, F30), already visible from the surface, enclosed room 8, which was filled with stratigraphic units of varying types and reliability for a depth of 0.52 m. From the surface, room 8 appeared to be an elongated rectangular room opening up onto room 7. We defined the room on the basis of the visible walls and began our excavation with the top layer contained within these walls (Figures 4.27, 4.28, 4.29). A more thorough discussion of architectural parallels to this situation can be found in Chapter 6. See chapter 5 for details of construction. 171 See chapter 5 for details of construction. 169 170

108

Amheida II

Figure 4.28: Harris Matrix, room 8. DSU 51172 consisted of yellow windblown sand on the surface of room 8. There was a high density of ceramics on the surface. We also recovered low densities of clinker, bone, and glass fragments. There were no natural inclusions in this matrix, and most of the artifacts were clustered in the top 1–3 cm of the context. We terminated this context when we reached a matrix of dispersed mud-brick collapse (DSU 53). DSU 53173 consisted of loosely articulated mud-brick debris amid a general matrix of clean yellow windblown sand. These mud bricks were located in the approximate middle of room 8. There were no vault bricks clearly identifiable from characteristic markings, so this collapse probably derived from walls. Artifact densities were low and consisted of ceramics only, most of which were from the iron-rich fabric A group. DSU 55174 consisted of clean windblown sand below both the surface windblown sand (DSU 51) and the loosely articulated collapse (DSU 53). This context was largely devoid of artifacts, although low densities of ceramics, faience, glass, bones, and clinker were present. Among the ceramics recovered we found mostly iron-rich fabric A group with a lower density of calcium-rich P37 fabric sherds. A few isolated mud brick fragments were also included in this matrix. It covered a silty, brown matrix (DSU 60). DSU 60175 consisted of a silty, organic-rich, brown matrix, which we interpreted to be occupational debris above floor level. The matrix had moderate densities of ceramics and other classes of artifacts such as glass, clinker, bone, and two date pits. The ceramics included a large percentage of iron-rich fabric A group and a significantly lower percentage of calcium-rich fabric B group. We took a sample of this matrix (S6), since it seemed to have moderate densities of organic remains deriving from a secure context below collapse. This context was not found for approximately 5 cm against the north and south walls (F28 and F30). We interpreted the lack of context in these areas as the typical wear of floor and walls at their points of meeting. Furthermore, the lack of collapse (DSU 53) in these areas likely accelerated deterioration. DSU 60 covered floor F20.

Upper elevation 138.256; Lower elevation 138.016. Dimensions: x=185 cm, y=86 cm. Upper elevation 138.061; Lower elevation 138.031. Dimensions: x=50 cm, y=72 cm. 174 Upper elevation 138.011; Lower elevation 137.686. Dimensions: x=150 cm, y=84 cm. 175 Upper elevation 137.781; Lower elevation 137.636. Dimensions: x=105 cm, y=82 cm. 172 173

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

109

Figure 4.29: Photo of rooms 7 and 8. F20176 is the grayish-brown compacted mud floor of room 8, located beneath the occupational debris (DSU 60). The floor was located between the last step of the stairs (F29) and the floor (F17) in room 7. It was in a moderate state of preservation, being missing for 27 cm from wall F28 and 15 cm from wall F30. The straw tempering of the floor was still visible in the compacted mud plaster of the surface. There were also a large number of seeds and pits embedded in the surface of the floor. We did not excavate this floor. F29177 is the staircase of room 8.178 It was in a moderately good state of preservation, but only in its bottom part. Three full steps were preserved in the first flight and the mud plaster facing of the steps was Upper elevation 137.736; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=63 cm, y=93 cm. Upper elevation 138.341; Lower elevation 137.736. Dimensions: x=120 cm, y=76 cm. 178 The overall dimensions are x=120 cm, y=75 cm, z=60 cm. 176 177

110

Amheida II

still present.179 This plaster almost completely obscured the bricks below, but it seems probable that the steps were made of two consecutive headers and one stretcher. The plaster facing was reddish-brown in color and the bricks were reddish. Small fragments of pottery, seeds, pits, and straw originally mixed with the mud to strengthen it were visible in the mud plaster. The mud plaster clearly abutted walls F28 and F30, making it later than the two walls. The mud plaster also could be a re-facing of the steps in a later moment from the original construction of the stair. The first and second landings were on top of the vault (F21) that covered room 4. The third flight is not preserved, but it originally would have covered the small room 10. F28180 is an east–west oriented wall forming the south boundary to room 8. It was in a good state of preservation. The alternating channels construction method was used for this wall, but the bonding pattern was not visible. It was impossible to investigate the lower courses of the north face of this wall because the stairs (F29) abut this face, and the rest of the wall was visible only to floor level (F20). The bricks still visible were beige in color and the facing light beige. There were traces of straw temper still visible in the mud plaster facing. Since this plaster facing still covered the bricks, it was not possible to see the technique used in setting them. A brick protruded by 14 cm from the north face of F27, and 83 cm west of the east corner of the wall. The function of this protruding brick was unclear, as it was not a foundation brick. It may be related to stairs F29, but it is more likely that it reflects poor bricklaying techniques. The wall protruded 16 cm from the wall face 107 cm west of the east corner of F27 and then narrowed for the stairs (F29). F30181 is an east–west oriented wall forming the north boundary of room 8. It was in a good state of preservation, with the western portion of the wall preserved to a greater height than the eastern portion. The individual bricks and the construction method were clearly visible. The construction technique followed an English bonding pattern and the alternating channels construction method. The bricks themselves were grayish-brown and in a poor to moderate state of preservation due to heavy use wear. We did not excavate below floor level, and therefore the foundations were not visible. The south face of the wall was somewhat weathered and had many narrow and shallow grooves, likely due to heavy occupational usage of the hallway and staircase (F29). The stairs (F29) that abutted this wall partially obscured the visibility of this south face. There was a small hole 8–31 cm west of the southeast corner of the wall and flush with floor level (F20). This hole probably served as a socket for a door in the doorway between room 7 and room 8. A threshold was not visible, so we did not designate a separate feature for this doorway. Interpretation of Room 8 Room 8 served as the hallway and staircase that connected room 7 with the roof of the house (now missing). It is likely that the original stairway turned 90° to the south and had a short landing over room 4 and then may have turned 90° again towards the east, followed by another flight of stairs to give it sufficient height above floor level. Room 8 was entered through room 7, on the east side. This entrance probably contained a door, as suggested by the possible socket located in F30. The width of this entrance is 0.86 m. Based on comparative evidence rather than on archaeological data, it is possible that the landing over room 4 once contained a trap door to the storage area below. 182 Likewise, there may have been a trap door over the room 10 storage area. These possibilities will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 6. The dimensions of these three steps are: higher step: tread=26 cm, riser=10 cm; middle step: tread=25 cm, riser=10 cm; lower step: tread=25 cm, riser=14cm. 180 Upper elevation 138.336; Lower elevation 137.181. Dimensions: x=162 cm, y=62 cm. 181 Upper elevation 138.186; Lower elevation 137.461. Dimensions: x=317 cm, y=61 cm. 182 Husselman 1979:3, Davoli 2003:1, Hadji-Minaglou 2007:187-194. 179

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

111

The walls of this room were mud plastered. This plaster shows some signs of wear due to heavy usage as a passageway to the roof. The foundations of the walls were not exposed in this room. The floor consisted of mud plaster, and it was worn away at the junctions with the walls. Otherwise it was in good condition. A high density of organic remains was embedded in its surface. It was not excavated. The stairway consisted of mud brick surmounted by mud plaster, and only three steps remained. The central location of this staircase is a slight variation from comparanda, in which the stairway is located either in either the center or the corner of houses. 183 Houses from Karanis and elsewhere have wood reinforcements in areas of heavy wear, such as stair risers, door edges, etc. 184 Except for doorways, there is no evidence for such usage of wood in House B2, and the stairs are in a good state of preservation. The lack of wood on this staircase is probably due to a lack of wood in Dakhla. Indeed, visitors to the houses of Bashendi will note that there are no wood reinforcements on stairs, and these instead are replastered seasonally so as to maintain their form. The depositions, although largely lacking in artifacts, reveal a bit about the usage and history of this room. The presence of a large number of olive pits and other seeds embedded into the floor suggests that these goods may have been stored on the roof that once covered other rooms within the house. Indeed, some of the jars found embedded in roof collapse (rooms 1 and 6) may have derived from the roof and could have served as storage vessels for these items. The presence of windblown sand (DSU 55) immediately above the occupational debris (DSU 60) likely derives from sand blowing in from open areas surrounding the stairs. The collapse of surrounding walls then sealed this area before it was covered with yet more windblown sand. Room 9 (3.0 m north–south x 3.10 m east–west) Room 9 served as the sole entrance into house B2. It forms a general L-Shape or dodged entrance, which is a common attribute of Egyptian houses on the edge of the desert. Five walls, 185 already visible from the surface, enclosed room 9, which was filled with stratigraphic units of varying types and reliability for a depth of 0.755 m (Figures 4.30, 4.31). DSU 50186 consisted of windblown sand on the surface of room 9. It contained a few mud bricks related to wall and ceiling collapse (DSU 52) that were visible from the surface. The ceramics densities were high for DSU 50, as is typical of surface layers in this vicinity. Other artifact classes that were represented include fauna, glass, and clinker in low densities. The DSU was terminated when either the collapse (DSU 52) or clean, below-surface windblown sand (DSU 59) was reached. DSU 52187 consisted of mud-brick debris concentrated in a few areas within room 9. These mudbricks appear to be from both ceiling and wall collapse, as can be seen from the characteristic half-circle markings visible on vault bricks. Artifact densities were low to moderate, with only ceramics, fauna, and clinker represented. DSU 59188 consisted of clean windblown sand below the surface windblown sand (DSU 50) and a small deposit of collapse (DSU 52). It contained low to moderate densities of mud-brick fragments and debris. Low to moderate densities of artifacts were associated with this context, including ceramics, clinker, faience, glass, fauna, iron, and dross. The DSU was probably contaminated, as evidenced by the presence of a modern stick of wood. It covered a compacted mud surface (DSU 73). Davoli 1998:51. Husselman 1979:34, 38. 185 Walls F30, F31, F32, F33, and F34. 186 Upper elevation 138.186; Lower elevation 138.161. Dimensions: x=300 cm, y=310 cm. 187 Upper elevation 138.611; Lower elevation 137.736. Dimensions: x=308 cm, y=296 cm. 188 Upper elevation 138.326; Lower elevation 137.736. Dimensions: x=308 cm, y=296 cm. 183 184

112

Amheida II

Figure 4.30: Harris Matrix, room 9. F39 (= DSU 73)189 is the top floor layer that we encountered in room 9. It consisted of compacted grayish-brown mud plaster with a moderate to high density of organic inclusions. The floor was in a moderately good state of preservation, although there were areas where the floor was missing in the vicinity of wall F30. This area was 0–43 cm north of wall F30 and 8–60 cm west of the east corner of F30. Floor F39 may have extended an additional 180 cm east–west and 200 cm north–south to the west of where it was visible. The western portion was not as compacted and uniform as the eastern portion. We sectioned F39 in order to examine the floor construction and to determine if there were previous floors. This section was designated as DSU 73 and was located in the western 180 x 200 cm. We removed DSU 73 and found that it was consistently of a lower compaction than one would expect for a floor. The presence of a rubble layer (DSU 74) below, however, suggested that there was preparation for a floor level in this area. F39 likewise seemed to rest on top of the rubble layer used as a preparation to stabilize and support the floor (DSU 74). There was a small area of mud plaster melt 0–36 cm north of wall F30 and 63–88 cm west of the east corner of F30. Its proximity to the area where the floor was missing suggests that F39 was highly weathered in the vicinity of F30. DSU 73 (= F 39)190 is a compacted mud surface. This mud surface equals F39, the top floor layer for room 9. We gave a separate DSU number to the same surface because we wanted to section it in order to determine if it was definitely a floor and if there were additional floor layers. We excavated the western portion of the floor. The DSU itself consisted of moderately compacted loam with a low density of mudbrick debris and inclusions. It had a low to moderate density of ceramics and other classes of artifacts including clinker, glass, and bone. The DSU covered numerous mud brick fragments (DSU 74).

189 190

Upper elevation 137.706; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=118 cm, y=120 cm. Upper elevation 137.756; Lower elevation 137.546. Dimensions: x=250 cm, y=180 cm.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

113

Figure 4.31: Multi-context plan of room 9 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), and elevations (with triangles). DSU 74191 consisted of numerous small mud-brick fragments and a few isolated mud bricks. In addition to the brick inclusions there were moderate densities of artifacts, including ceramics, wood, fauna, glass, clinker, and seeds. The DSU was terminated when floor F44 was encountered. This matrix probably served as a preparation layer for floor F39 above it. F44192 is the bottom (and presumably original) floor level of room 9. It was in a good state of preservation. It consisted of highly compacted light gray mud plaster with moderate densities of ceramic inclusions. Some organics, lime spots, charcoal parts, and ash lenses were also visible. Although F44 was in a good state of preservation, portions of the floor were missing in the vicinity of south wall F30, west wall F31, and the northeast corner where F32 and F33 meet. At 50–59 cm north of south wall F30 and 80– 96 cm east of west wall F31, there was a small patch of dark grayish-brown compacted ash. Of note were a few reddish patches in the northern half of the floor. These red patches may be interpreted as repairs to the floor during occupation. The floor appears to have been built directly on top of sand, as sand was visible in some patches near the walls where the floor was missing. We did not excavate below floor level and therefore cannot verify this assumption, but it is consistent with our understanding of construction methods in B2.193 Upper elevation 137.596; Lower elevation 137.431. Dimensions: x=250 cm, y=180 cm. Upper elevation 137.496; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=180 cm, y=200 cm. 193 See chapter 5 for construction methods. 191 192

114

Amheida II

F31194 is a north–south oriented wall forming the west boundary of room 9. It was in a moderately good state of preservation, with the northern portion preserved to a greater height than the southern. The entire east face of F31 was covered with reddish-brown mud plaster with organic and ceramic inclusions. The individual bricks and the bonding pattern of F31 were not visible due to the presence of this plaster. The plan view of F31 reveals that the alternating channels construction method was used. The channels were approximately 54 x 10 cm in length and alternate from the east to the west third of the wall. There was a substantial gouge 0–148 cm north of the corner of this wall with wall F30. It was 0– 42 cm above floor F44. It was very deep and appeared to undercut most of F31. Measurements of its depth were not possible because it was necessary to stabilize the wall with mud-bricks. At 65 cm from the corner with F30 there was a crack running down the entire east face. There was an additional large gouge to the north associated with doorway F50. There was a thin depression 64–84 cm north of the corner with F30. It was 100–113 cm above floor F44 and 3 cm deep. The cause of this depression may also be related to doorway F50. Coving between the wall and the floor was evident towards the north. It extended approximately 6 cm beyond the extent of the rest of the wall face. The foundations of F31 were not visible. F32195 is an east–west oriented wall forming part of the north boundary to room 9, the north boundary to room 11 and part of the north boundary to room 7. It was in a good state of preservation, with the western portion preserved to a greater height than the eastern portion. The south face of the wall was covered in a reddish-brown mud plaster that had organic, pebble, ceramic, and lime spot inclusions. This mud plaster obscured most of the individual mud bricks, but an English bonding pattern was discernible. In plan-view the wall clearly used the alternating channels method. The channel was 9 cm wide and varied greatly in length. The bricks were, for the most part, yellowish-brown in color, although there were some reddish bricks as well. The western extent of the wall was abutted by doorway F50. Both F32 and F50 appeared worn from the frequent usage of this doorway. There was a hole or socket 12–28 cm east of the junction between F32 and F34. It was 31–45 cm above where wall F43 meets F32 and was 9 cm deep. It may be related to the use of the space above wall F43. The foundations of wall F32 were not reached during excavation, but the coving with floors F44 and F45 was evident and protruded approximately 50 cm from the south face of F32 into the room. F33196 is a wall stub in room 9 that formed both an east and a north boundary for the room. It was in a good state of preservation, although no mud plaster remained. The northern extent was preserved to a greater height than the southern extent. The west face and the south face of the wall were the only visible faces of the wall. The individual bricks and bonding pattern for the wall were clearly visible. The west face of the wall was built in English bond in three segments abutting one another that are approximately 35 cm wide each. They were joined by 3 cm thick mud plaster. F33 was associated with floor level F39 and not with floor level F44, because it was built on top of rubble, DSU 74, which, in turn, rested on top of F44. Wall F33 does not belong to the original construction of House B2 but rather served as a later addition. The south face of F33 shows the English bond construction pattern and does not show segmented construction because the segments run east–west and not north–south. There are also signs of coving between F33 and F39, which protruded by 5 cm from the south face of F33 into the room. F34197 is an east–west oriented wall stub forming part of the north boundary to room 9 and the west boundary to room 11. It was in a good state of preservation with the northern portion preserved to a slightly greater height than the southern portion. The south face of the wall was almost entirely covered in grayish-brown mud plaster, so the bonding pattern was not visible. In plan-view it was clear that a Upper elevation 138.726; Lower elevation 137.411. Dimensions: x=64 cm, y=320 cm. Upper elevation 138.586; Lower elevation 137.301. Dimensions: x=63 cm, y=335 cm. 196 Upper elevation 138.456; Lower elevation 137.721. Dimensions: x=110 cm, y=52 cm. 197 Upper elevation 138.436; Lower elevation 137.516. Dimensions: x=125 cm, y=66 cm. 194 195

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

115

variation on the alternating channels method of construction was used. The bricks visible in plan view were both yellowish-brown and red in color. The mortar was grayish-brown. The southwest corner of F34 was rounded, probably from the usage of room 9 prior to the addition of wall F33. Wall F34 seems to be associated with the initial occupation of B2, since it was associated with the first floor level, F44. Its foundations were not visible. F30198 is an east–west oriented wall forming the south boundary of room 9 and the north boundary of room 8. It was in a good state of preservation. The western portion of the wall was preserved to a greater height than the eastern portion. The individual bricks and the construction method were clearly visible, showing an English bond pattern and the alternating channels construction method. The bricks themselves were grayish brown and were in a poor to moderate state of preservation due to heavy use wear. The north face of the wall was highly worn from use. There were two holes in the wall that were probably due to use wear. The first hole was 3–15 cm east of wall F31, 13–20 cm from the top of the wall and 3 cm deep. The second hole was 40–53 cm from wall F31, 30–40 cm from the top of the wall, and 7 cm deep. The easternmost 155 cm of the wall was particularly weathered with many narrow, shallow, horizontal and vertical gouges, particularly 20–30 cm from the top of the wall. None of these is substantial, however, and they probably represent wear from frequent passage from room 9 into room 7. F50199 is a 1.47 m wide doorway in room 9 leading north to the street (Figure 4.32). It was in a moderately good state of preservation. It consisted of 2 steps formed by 5 limestone blocks used as steps up 12–15 cm to the street. The jambs on either side of the blocks were constructed out of mud brick. These jambs bonded to the walls on either side (F32 and F31). The blocks were of irregular dimensions and, although they were generally rectangular in shape, some of them were quite irregular. One of the blocks contained approximately 18 gouges. The dimensions of the clearest gouges were: (1) 7 x 1.5 cm; 1.5 cm deep; (2) 6 x 1 cm; less than 1 cm deep; (3) 4.5 x 0.5 cm; less than 1 cm deep. Most of the gouges ran north–south but a few were diagonal. The cause of these gouges is not certain, but it is possible that the block was used as an informal whetting stone. Abutting wall F32 was a mud-brick jamb that was so heavily weathered that it was not possible to see if there were sockets for the door. The northernmost 16 cm protruded west by 16 cm, creating a narrowing of the doorway aperture. The western portion of the doorway made use of F31, the west wall of room 9. Wall F31 was in a better state of preservation than the western portion of the doorway itself, potentially because of the removal of wood from the doorway in antiquity. Doorway F50 had a depressed area 9–292 cm above the lower western limestone block and 0– 280 cm north of the block’s south boundary. It was 3 cm deep. It was probably caused by weathering and use. Doorway F50 was plastered into floor F44 with mud plaster in its bottom course of blocks. Its relationship with floor F39 was unclear, since F39 was not clearly articulated in this vicinity. Interpretation of Room 9 Room 9 contained a doorway to the street and an entrance into room 7. The doorway to the street was significant and had an aperture of 1.47 meters. The street door could be locked from the inside by a sliding bolt; a square hole through the wall (F32) to the east of the door serves as clear indication of this attribute. Such locks were standard in domestic structures. The doorway to the street was modified over time to compensate for the rising street level. The stairs belonging to the doorway (F50) were added after the initial occupation of the structure. The aperture leading to room 7 did not contain a door, as there was no threshold or pivot evident, and the architecture was sufficiently preserved to indicate one had it been present.

198 199

Upper elevation 138.186; Lower elevation 137.461. Dimensions: x=317 cm, y=61 cm. Upper elevation 137.826; Lower elevation 137.506. Dimensions: x=90 cm, y=147 cm.

116

Amheida II

Figure 4.32: Photo of stairway and door F50 in room 9. The walls of room 9 were mud plastered and show signs of repair due to heavy usage. The walls were highly worn down at their bases, particularly the west wall (F31). The foundations were only partially exposed, and they appeared consistent with wall construction patterns found elsewhere in this structure.200 The multiple floors consisted of mud plaster, showing signs of repair and renovation or re-plastering over time. The construction pattern appears consistent with that found in other rooms of the structure, as was clear from excavation of these floors. These floors and the associated depositions contained fewer objects than many of the others in B2, probably because it was a transitional space rather than an activity space. This room served as the only entrance into the structure. It is clear that the strong north wind affected the architecture, as can be seen both in the dodged entrance and in the addition of stairs to compensate for the rising street level. Room 10 (0.74 m north–south x 1.47 m east–west) This room served as a storage room underneath the stairs (room 8) and therefore formed a counterpart to room 4. Little material culture remained with which to make determinations as to what was stored in this room. Four walls,201 already visible from the surface, enclosed room 10, which was filled with stratigraphic units of varying types and reliability for a depth of 0.790 m. We thus proceeded with the single context method and used these walls to determine the parameters of the room (Figures 4.33, 4.34).

200 201

See chapter 5 for more construction techniques. Walls F26, F27, F28, and F38.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

117

Figure 4.33: Harris Matrix, room 10. DSU 54202 consisted of windblown sand on the surface of room 10. A few mud bricks related to wall or ceiling collapse quickly became visible beneath this surface matrix of wind-blown sand. DSU 54 was terminated at this loosely articulated layer of collapse (DSU 56). DSU 54 had moderate to high densities of ceramics of iron-rich fabric A group and low densities of calcium-rich fabric P37, as is typical in B2. At the end of DSU 54 it became largely devoid of artifacts of all classes. DSU 56203 consisted of loosely articulated mud-brick debris. This debris was included within a general matrix of yellow windblown sand. Artifact densities were low, with only a few sherds of iron-rich fabric A deriving from this context. No other inclusions were visible. Following an examination of the bricks from this context it was unclear if these bricks derive from the ceiling or the wall, because they were highly eroded and melted together. DSU 56 covered DSU 57. DSU 57204 consisted of mud-brick collapse from an undetermined location in room 10, but none of the bricks clearly resembled a vault brick. There were few inclusions in DSU 57, only large pockets of windblown sand. Artifact densities were low, with only a few potsherds deriving from the unit. DSU 58205 consisted of sand below the collapse (DSU 57). This sand had low to moderate artifact densities for all classes of material. The material categories included low densities of fabric A ceramics, clinker, and glass. Among the organics, bone, charcoal parts, and ten olive pits were recovered. We found relatively few other inclusions, and these included only small fragments of disarticulated mud brick debris. The DSU covered compacted mud (DSU 66) and mud-brick floor (F42). F42206 was the floor of room 10, preserved only under the north wall of the room (F28) and as a single line of bricks in two rows towards the south wall (F26). The central part of the floor was missing and instead was filled with loose rubble and compacted adobe melt (DSU 66). Under the north wall the single course of floor that was visible consisted of mud bricks laid on their headers, with their faces oriented east–west. They were laid to form a lip with the wall 0.8 cm wide. The upper surface was coated with a thick mud plaster that was very poorly preserved. The other area of the floor was laid with the bricks on Upper elevation 138.096; Lower elevation 138.011. Dimensions: x=94 cm, y=72 cm. Upper elevation 137.931; Lower elevation 137.831. Dimensions: x=90 cm, y=34 cm. 204 Upper elevation 137.791; Lower elevation 137.611. Dimensions: x=72 cm, y=100 cm. 205 Upper elevation 137.576; Lower elevation 137.321. Dimensions: x=76 cm, y=76 cm. 206 Upper elevation 137.326; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=154 cm, y=18 cm. 202 203

118

Amheida II

their faces with the header east–west; the lower course was, as far we could determine from the small area visible, laid with headers oriented north–south, forming what would essentially be English bond if this floor had been a wall. DSU 66207 probably equals F42, but it was distinguished from it because DSU 66 represents the deteriorated portion of F42, which gave it a silty, sandy loam texture. This DSU was not excavated since we terminated the excavation of room 10 at the level of floor F42.

Figure 4.34: Multi-context plan of room 10 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), and elevations (with triangles). F27208 is a north–south oriented wall forming the east boundary to room 10. F27 is in a good state of preservation. The northern part is preserved to a greater height than the southern. The grayish-brown bricks were highly visible and in a good state of preservation. The bonding pattern is English bond, and the alternate channels method of construction was used. The west face has no mud plaster adhering to it, and little of the mortar between the bricks remained. No other gouges or holes are visible. F26209 is an east–west oriented wall forming the south boundary of room 10. F26 was in a moderately good state of preservation, with the western portion preserved to a greater height than the eastern portion. The north face of the wall was almost entirely covered with mud plaster that had blackened, probably from the use of oil lamps in this vicinity. The western 47 cm of the wall was highly deteriorated. This deterioration extended 39 cm above the floor (F42) and 8 cm deep. This western portion of F26 also contained some wood, the absence of which may have accelerated post-occupational deterioration, but use wear during occupation seems to have been a major cause as well. A gouge extended across the entire north face of the wall at floor level. It had a depth of 4 cm and a height of 8 cm. It probably occurred during the use of B2. The foundations of F26 were not reached during excavation. F28210 is an east–west oriented wall forming the north boundary to room 10. It was in a good state of preservation, with the mud plaster facing still present on the south face. The facing was light beige in Upper elevation 137.306; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=147 cm, y=74 cm. Upper elevation 137.986; Lower elevation 137.536. Dimensions: x=160 cm, y=68 cm. 209 Upper elevation 138.146; Lower elevation 137.536. Dimensions: x=264 cm, y=38 cm. 210 Upper elevation 138.336; Lower elevation 137.181. Dimensions: x=162 cm, y=62 cm. 207 208

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

119

color, and there were traces of the straw mixed in with the mud. Because the plaster still covered the bricks, it was not possible to see the technique used in setting them. However the topmost course was visible, indicating that the alternating channels construction method was employed. The south face of the wall met with floor F42 and lacked plaster in the bottom 20–30 cm above the top of the foundations. Here it was clear that two or more layers of mud plaster were applied. The foundation bricks of F28 were partially visible. They consisted of mud bricks resting on their headers rather than on their stretchers. No additional courses of foundation were reached during excavation. F38211 is a north–south oriented wall forming the west boundary of room 10. This wall served as a block between the west ends of walls F26 and F37 and F28 and was not bonded to them. The preservation of the wall was fair, with some damage to the bricks and erosion of the mortar. The wall height was the same at both ends of the wall, with traces of mortar for the bedding of the course above at the north end of the wall. There were only traces of gray-brown plaster on the upper three courses. The wall was two brick-lengths long, courses alternating header-stretcher-header, then a course of stretchers. The upper three of the eight remaining courses corresponded to the lower part of the vault spring above F37. Interpretation of Room 10 Room 10 served as a storage room underneath the stairs (room 8) and therefore may be seen as a counterpart to room 4. Little material culture remained with which to suggest what was stored in this room. Because of the poor preservation of the upper elevations of the walls, it is unclear how room 10 was accessed. It is possible that it was once reached by means of a trap door through the stairs (room 8), but it is also possible that it was reached through room 4 and that this access was later blocked by wall F38. This suggestion appears possible, as the space between room 4 and room 10 was only blocked by an abutting wall stub F38, rather than a bonded wall integral to the house construction. The walls of room 10 were covered in mud plaster, although this mud plaster was often not well preserved. The mud plaster on the south wall (F26) was blackened, probably from the use of oil lamps in the vicinity. The foundations of the wall were visible and were consistent with the construction patterns found in other rooms. Like room 4, room 10 appears to have had a mud-brick floor, although it was in a very poor state of preservation. It appears to have consisted of only one layer of brick on top of rubble. No significant objects were associated with this room; whatever was present seems to have been removed upon the abandonment of this structure. The room was probably used for storage, since areas under the stairs were commonly used for this purpose.212 Room 11 (0.71 m north–south x 0.79 m east–west) This storage room is a sub-area within room 7 (Figure 4.1). The upper portion of this storage area seems to have had a functional role, but it was not sufficiently preserved for its purpose to be clear. Four walls,213 already visible from the surface, enclosed room 11, which was filled with stratigraphic units of varying types and reliability for a depth of 0.870 m (Figures 4.35, 4.36, 4.37). DSU 62214 consisted of windblown sand on the surface of room 11. This matrix had a moderate to high density of surface sherds of iron-rich fabric A group, as was common for the surface layers of B2. There were low densities of clinker, the only other class of artifacts represented in this context. The DSU covered mud-brick debris (DSU 65). Upper elevation 138.236; Lower elevation 137.436. Dimensions: x=37 cm, y=72 cm. Husselman 1979:39. 213 Walls F32, F36, F35, and F34. 214 Upper elevation 138.311; Lower elevation 138.171. Dimensions: x=79 cm, y=71 cm. 211 212

120

Amheida II

DSU 65215 consisted of small fragments of mud-brick debris. This jumble of mud-brick, sand, and small quantities of artifacts appeared to have been a fill used to create a flat surface on top of the vault (F43) over a storage area. Artifact densities were low to moderate and contained low to moderate quantities of iron-rich fabric A group and calcium-rich fabric P37; a few small pieces of clinker were mixed into the mud-brick debris.

Figure 4.35: Harris Matrix, room 11. F43216 is the vaulted ceiling of room 11. It was in an excellent state of preservation and was complete. The entire top or plan-view of the vault was covered in grayish-brown mud plaster, which obscured the brick-laying pattern beneath. Cracks ran north–south along the feature, presumably marking the courses of brick. Mud brick and rubble in the south and the southeast corner cover the vault. This covering provided a stable space for a plastered channel that ran around the eastern and southern extremities above the vaulted ceiling. It was unclear how this channel was used or how this area should be reconstructed, given the poor state of preservation. The vault springing rests on top of the compacted surface inside room 11, rather than wall F32 or F35, which are used to support the vault spring laterally rather than vertically. The interior of the vaulted space was completely covered in mud plaster. Some organic material adhered to the bottom of the plaster here. It was probably used to help solidify the vault. The dimensions of the bricks in vault F43 were not visible. DSU 68217 consisted of sand under the vault (F43) in room 11. This windblown sand had moderate inclusions of mud-brick fragments. Artifact densities were low for all categories, including fabric A group and P37 ceramics, bone, glass, and clinker. There was one fragment of oasis red slipware. The matrix may be windblown sand and debris from outside of room 11 and therefore may not be reliable. The DSU was terminated when a compacted surface (DSU 72) was encountered. DSU 72218 consisted of compacted mud and served as an informal floor for room 11. The DSU itself was brown, but it has a moderate degree of ash pockets in its eastern quarter, most likely due to its close proximity to the oven feature (F19). DSU 72 was not excavated.

Upper elevation 138.256; Lower elevation 137.916. Dimensions: x=113 cm, y=97 cm. Upper elevation 138.096; Lower elevation 137.816. Dimensions: x=130 cm, y=100 cm. 217 Upper elevation 137.906; Lower elevation 137.441. Dimensions: x=137 cm, y=75 cm. 218 Upper elevation 137.441; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=131 cm, y=75 cm. 215 216

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

121

F32219 is an east–west oriented wall forming part of the north boundary to room 9, the north boundary to room 11 and part of the north boundary to room 7. It was in a good state of preservation with the western portion preserved to a greater height than the eastern portion. The bonding pattern is English bond and the laying pattern followed the alternating channels method. The channel was 9 cm wide and varied greatly in length. The south face of the wall was covered in a reddish-brown mud plaster that had organic, pebble, ceramic, and lime spot inclusions. This mud plaster obscured most of the individual mud bricks, which were, for the most part, yellowish-brown in color, although there are some reddish bricks as well. The foundations of wall F32 were not visible, but the coving with floors F44 and F45 nearby was evident. F36220 is a north–south oriented wall forming the east boundary to the interior of room 11. It was in a good state of preservation. The entire east face of the wall was covered with mud plaster followed by a coat of white gypsum plaster that was less than 0.50 cm thick. This gypsum plaster was blackened in some areas, probably as a result of its close proximity to oven feature F19. The presence of plaster obscured both individual bricks and the bonding pattern for F36. There was a 56 cm wide aperture in F36 that provided access into room 11. It was 17–73 cm south of the corner with the north wall, F32, and 6–54 cm above floor F49. The aperture was worn through usage and followed the course of the vault ceiling (F43) in its upper parts. The foundations of F36 were not visible; its bricks extend below floor F19 and extend by 5 cm in the southeast corner for one brick length. The rest of the bottom bricks were flush with the wall face.

Figure 4.36: Multi-context plan of room 11 showing FSUs (within rectangles), and elevations (with triangles). F34221 is a north–south oriented wall stub forming the west boundary to room 11. It was in a good state of preservation, with the northern portion preserved to a slightly greater height than the southern portion. The south face of the wall was almost entirely covered in grayish-brown mud plaster, so that the Upper elevation 138.586; Lower elevation 137.301. Dimensions: x=63 cm, y=335 cm. Upper elevation 138.196; Lower elevation 137.376. Dimensions: x=134 cm, y=20 cm. 221 Upper elevation 138.436; Lower elevation 137.516. Dimensions: x=125 cm, y=66 cm. 219 220

122

Amheida II

bonding pattern was not visible in section-view on the wall faces. In plan-view it was clear that a variation on the alternate channels method of construction was used. The bricks visible in plan view were yellowish-brown and red in color. The mortar was grayish-brown. Wall F34 can be linked to the initial occupation of B2, since it is associated with the first floor level, F44. Its foundations are not visible. F35222 is an east–west oriented wall forming the south boundary to room 11. The wall was in a good state of preservation apart from the lowest course, which was undercut. Traces of mud plaster remained over the whole of the south face of the wall, with two areas of white plaster preserved, one on the upper west side and one on the east side, which formed a rounded corner with wall F36. The brick-bonding pattern was obscured by mud plaster. The join where this wall abutted the adjacent wall to the west (F34) was filled with gray-brown mud that was different from the wall plaster. The upper face of the wall was uneven and seems to have been preserved to its original height. The wall was two brick-widths wide, and the north row of bricks was covered in its east part by a channel. This channel was lined with a thick layer of mud plaster (0.7–1.0 cm thick), with a 0.5–1.0 cm thick white plaster. These plaster layers formed an L-shaped channel, which turned northwards to the west of F36 and above F43. The channel ended one brick-length from the adjacent wall to the west (F34), with the upper brick course offset slightly to the north to create a 7.5 cm lip that was coated in mud plaster. Both this plaster and that on the rest of the wall had high organic content. Interpretation of Room 11 Room 11 was a small storage area in the north part of room 7. It consisted of a vaulted, enclosed space with the space above the vault used for an unknown function. The storage area was accessed through a 56 cm wide aperture in the east of the feature. A door could not have closed this aperture, as no signs of any pivots were found.

Figure 4.37: Photo of room 11. 222

Upper elevation 138.276; Lower elevation 137.506. Dimensions: x=125 cm, y=32 cm.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

123

The roof of this structure was found complete and consisted of a pitched vault over the open space. We did not excavate the vault itself so details of its construction are not known. The walls of the interior were mud plastered and contained large amounts of organic debris adhering to them. The walls of the exterior of the room were mud plastered and contained gypsum plaster in strips around the aperture as well as the top preserved courses of the feature. The foundations of the walls were not visible. The floor of this room consisted of compacted mud, consistent with that found in room 7, except that it was less compacted than the more formal floors of room 7.223 Storage rooms of this type are common near oven features and can be found at comparable sites, such as Kellis. For example, House 1 at Kellis had two ovens, which had replaced earlier hearths, in close proximity to a storage bin.224 The function of the upper portion of the feature is unclear. Rubble was placed above the barrel-vault to create a flat surface. A plastered channel rests on top of this rubble. This channel follows the south and east sides of this feature and probably would have continued along the north side. The rest of this feature is not preserved. I have not yet found a parallel that was sufficiently preserved so that its function was clear. A similar feature can be found at Ain Manawir in the Kharga Oasis. The greater context there was a temple precinct, but the feature is outside the sacred areas. The excavator did not know what its function was.225 It seems likely that this feature would have been used for the preparation of food or liquid. For example, the plastered area could have provided a surface upon which the bread loaves from the oven could cool. No significant artifacts were associated with this feature that could clarify its function. Remarks on the Phasing of B2 The textual and numismatic data from B2 were insufficient to support firm absolute datings for the phases of the house. Rather, at this time, most of the phases within the chronology of this house are relative within a more general absolute time. Phase 1: Construction and Original Use Interior and exterior walls of were laid out. House B2 was built upon a cemented sand dune with scatters of Dynastic artifacts. The foundation bricks were laid directly upon clean sand. Likewise, the deep sondages in room 2 and room 6 that revealed clean, compacted yellow sand below the house walls. The construction episode occurred during the early–mid third century, to judge from the ceramics found underneath floor depositions.226 This construction episode appears to have been part of a large-scale development in Area 1. The alternating channels method, for example, is often a sign of large-scale construction since it is more malleable than more rigid brick-laying patterns.227 It is also a cheaper method because it is possible to use fewer bricks in favor of mortar and rubble. This construction pattern can be found from at least the Middle Kingdom onward and is common in Fayum buildings.228 This construction method will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 5. The first phase of the preserved room floors also can be linked to the initial occupation phase. This supposition is based upon analyses of floors and occupational debris above floors. It is clear that room 5 was used as a food preparation area during the initial phase of occupation.

Floors F17, F45, F48, and F49. Hope 1988:167-168. 225 Michel Wuttmann (pers. comm. 2008). 226 See Dixneuf, this volume. 227 Kemp 2000:90, figure 3.4 (a). 228 Ibid.:8, Spencer 1979:64. 223 224

124

Amheida II

Phase 2: Structural Alterations Phase 2a: Probably quite early in the occupation of B2, a bread oven (F19) was added to room 7. Feature F19 seems to be built after the original occupation of B2, since the area where it abuts wall F4 to the east covers the white gypsum plaster on F4. It was added during the period of use of the first floor level, however, because it is plastered into floor F49, the original floor level for room 7. Phase 2b: Minor floor and wall repairs take place, particularly in rooms 5 and 7. Phase 2c: New floor levels are put into place over original floor levels. The stairs (F50) to the street (S1) are added. Phase 2c: A final floor layer (F17) is added to room 7. In room 5, repairs are made to the west wall (F14), a new floor layer is added (F41), and an informal hearth is put into place above the previous hearth (F46). A wall stub (F33) was added to room 9. This wall was associated with floor level F39 and not with floor F44 (the original floor), because it is built on top of rubble, DSU 74, which, in turn, rests on top of F44. Phase 3: Abandonment, Collapse, and Deflation Phase 3a: B2 is abandoned. It may have witnessed some casual use as indicated by some signs of burning on a wall (F4) in room 1 that are above the floor surface. During this phase some windblown sand blew into some of the rooms.229 Phase 3b: There was a phase of considerable collapse evinced by the presence of ceiling collapse in some rooms.230 Some wall collapse is also evident (room 7). Phase 3c: The structure is partially covered in windblown sand, but this sand cannot have been in substantial quantity, since this would have protected the structure from wind damage. Rather, a dramatic deflation process occurred that was caused by constant wind erosion, evinced by the smooth and consistent deterioration evident in the east–west section of the northernmost portion of B2 (Figure 4.2). This deflation clearly occurred after ceiling collapse, since the collapse in all of the rooms was flush with the preserved walls, having eroded at the same rate as the walls post-collapse. This erosion process was particularly evident in room 1, while room 3 was the room most damaged by erosion. Phase 4: Bedouin Use Present-day The Bedouin from the village north of Amheida herd their animals across the easternmost end of Area 1. They do not seem to have disturbed this house, and there are no signs of significant intrusions in the layers. The herding of animals may have accelerated the erosion process, but most of the animal herding appears to take place in a consistent path much further east of the present structure. Indeed, the hill created by the archaeological deposits represents something of a barrier to herding in this area.

Street S1 (Subarea 1.2) Street S1 is located north of B2 and functioned as a major east–west oriented street into Amheida. We laid out a 6.10 m east–west x 2 m north–south oriented trench in this area, aligning it against the north wall of B2. Three surfaces were exposed (DSUs 6, 10, 13), all composed of compacted mud. The DSUs start from 0 because subarea 1.2 is a changed area (Figures 4.38, 4.39, 4.40, 4.41). DSU 0231 was the surface of the street area that was cleaned in 2004. This area was located immediately south of Area 1.1 and is east of B2. The area was not excavated, but the upper levels were cleared of ceramics and other finds. These finds included a high density of iron-rich fabric A group, and low densities of calcium-rich fabric B group. There were also some very small bone fragments, high densities of glass, and moderate densities of faience. Rooms 1, 7, 8, and 9. Rooms 1,2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10. 231 Upper elevation N/A; Lower elevation N/A. 229 230

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

125

DSU 1232 consisted of soft yellow windblown sand on the surface of Street S1 and within our exploratory cut. The DSU sloped down dramatically to the east. It is unclear if this slope was the result of deflation, archaeological deposits, or the natural variations in the site surface. This surface context contained high densities of iron-rich fabric A and A4 as well as moderate densities of calcium-rich fabric A11 and B. There were high densities of clinker, glass, and bone, and low densities of wood, mud-brick fragments, and charcoal parts. A fragment of a glass bracelet (Inv. 11606) was also found. We terminated the DSU when collapse (DSU 3) became visible. We also wanted to distinguish surface sand (DSU 1) from below-surface windblown sand (DSU 2). This context was not secure. DSU 2233 consisted of soft yellow windblown sand with a small charcoal patch that included small fragments of wood and charcoal. DSU 2 contained a small amount of disarticulated mud-brick debris and a smaller number of sherds than found in the surface layer (DSU 1), as would be expected. These ceramics consisted of higher densities of iron-rich fabric A group and lower densities of calcium-rich fabric A11 and B group. A few of the sherds were quite large. There were some bone fragments and some clinker. The mud brick most likely derived from the collapse matrix of DSU 3. DSU 2 was terminated when we reached the denser collapse mass of DSU 3 and the more compact brown sand of DSU 4. This context was mostly found in the western portion of the trench, but there was also a small, disarticulated part at the eastern end of the trench. DSU 3234 consisted of mud-brick collapse from walls and a ceiling. Bricks with semicircular marks evinced the ceiling collapse, while plain bricks signified the wall collapse. The collapse likely derived from the north wall of B2 and the roof that once existed over room 9. It is also possible that the street itself was roofed, although it seems unlikely given the street width and lack of substantial collapse debris.235 Some mud bricks showed signs of burning, and there were also signs of ash in a small patch, which may have resulted from later ephemeral secondary usage. The collapse on the east side of the trench was more “melted” and less distinct than on the west side. Over a dozen vault bricks were eventually found among the wall bricks, mostly close to the north wall of B2. Mixed in with the bricks was a considerable amount of small, broken, gravelly, brick debris. Many levels of bricks were superimposed. There were high densities of iron-rich fabric A and A4 group, and moderate densities of calcium-rich fabric A11 and B. Of note is that seven sherds were covered in a resinous, tar-like black substance. Glass, bones, and dross occurred in moderate densities, while clinker occurred in great densities. Much of this refuse probably originated from the kilns north of B2. There was one apricot pit. Two terracotta figurine fragments were found (Inv. 11628 and Inv. 11633). The bone, some of which showed signs of burning, appeared to be from a single large animal, and it is possible that it derived from the modern village north of the site. At this stage, however, it is not possible to confirm or deny the contamination of this context. Small objects were found just beneath the collapse layer, in DSU 5. DSU 3 was terminated when no more dense associations of mud brick were found and when DSU 5, a sandy matrix with many inclusions of small sherds and clinker, was found. A soil sample of coprolites was taken (S2). DSU 4236 consisted of medium yellowish-brown sand with few or no inclusions. When first exposed, it appeared in small patches, primarily in the southwest corner of the trench. It remained in patches in DSU 3, ultimately giving way to DSU 5, which had more inclusions and spread across the entire trench. This context had moderate densities of iron-rich fabric A and A4 group and moderate densities of calcium-rich fabric B group. Bones were present in moderate densities, and clinker was in low to moderate densities. Upper elevation 138.801; Lower elevation 138.211. Dimensions: x=200 cm, y=610 cm. Upper elevation 138.676; Lower elevation 138.446. Dimensions: x=200 cm, y=302 cm. 234 Upper elevation 138.586; Lower elevation 137.956. Dimensions: x=200 cm, y=610 cm. 235 For architectural parallels see Chapter 6. 236 Upper elevation 138.446; Lower elevation 138.216. Dimensions: x=120 cm, y=110 cm. 232 233

126

Amheida II

Figure 4.38: Harris Matrix, S1. DSU 5237 consisted of a small patch of soft brownish-yellow sand with high numbers of inclusions, including small fragments of clinker, charcoal, and ceramics. The clinker was small and crumbly, a possible indication of high traffic across this matrix. The matrix to the east held fewer inclusions than that to the west. The matrix was also sandier in the southern half than in the northern half, and was visible first. The DSU was quite mixed in content and somewhat irregular in section, with the northern portion much thicker than the southern portion. DSU terminated when highly compacted matrices of 237

Upper elevation 138.416; Lower elevation 137.856. Dimensions: x=200 cm, y=610 cm.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

127

adobe (DSU 7 and DSU 9), a more compacted matrix with many inclusions (DSU 6), or ash (DSU 8), were encountered.

Figure 4.39: Multi-context plan of Street S1 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), and elevations (with triangles). The complete head of a terracotta figurine (Inv. 11627) was found at the very top of this layer, directly underneath the mud brick collapse. The presence of two fragments of a single figurine distributed between two contexts238 indicates a degree of interpenetration for these two contexts. Among the ceramics, we found a high density of iron-rich fabric A and A4 group and low to moderate densities of calcium-rich fabric A11 and B. There were two A-group over-fired body sherds that appeared to be melted; these probably derived from the kilns across the street. There was also one A36 Nile Valley imported body sherd, and a 75% complete bowl (Inv. 11734) was also preserved. Faience and glass occurred in low densities. Bone occurred in moderate densities and clinker occurred in high densities. A large number of ash pockets were found as well as a donkey hoof. A Greek ostrakon (Inv. 11626) mentioned donkey driving and wheat. Charcoal, mortar, eggshell, and olive pits were also found in low densities. DSU 6239 consisted of highly compacted adobe (either melted or in situ) with high densities of inclusions such as gravel, clinker, and ceramics. All of the inclusions were quite small, signifying heavy wear and traffic over this context. DSU 6 grew increasingly compact and more intensely yellow with depth. In the northeastern quadrant of the context there was a large ash pocket with a sherd scatter, consisting of large sherds. It was probably a secondary trash deposit. It may have been a built-up surface over a more pronounced street surface (DSU 14). Iron-rich fabric A group occurred in great densities and calcium-rich fabric B group in moderate densities. Glass and plaster occurred in low densities. Bone and clinker occurred in moderate densities. Mortar and one complete apricot pit were found. One poorly preserved ostrakon (Inv. 11712) was found here, which may be a tag from a jar, referring to a well. DSU 7240 consisted of highly compacted adobe with flat-lying sherds both on top and embedded in it. It appeared to be a surface of some kind that was probably intentionally built in order to keep refuse Inv. 2925 in DSU 5 and Inv. 11628 in DSU 3. Upper elevation 138.066; Lower elevation 137.796. Dimensions: x=127 cm, y=200 cm. 240 Upper elevation 138.126; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=97 cm, y=200 cm. 238 239

128

Amheida II

from Street S1 out of the house (B2), or it may have served as a bollard to protect the house walls. There is a parallel compacted adobe surface on the west side of the entrance to B2 (DSU 13). These contexts may have served as repairs to the wall surrounding the door to House B2 (F50), since both DSU 7 and 13 cove up over the north wall (F32) of the house. This context was not excavated. DSU 8241 consisted of a soft layer of fine gray ash with high densities of inclusions, ceramic scatters, and large sherds. The southeast corner maintained the yellow windblown sand characteristic of DSU 5. The presence of misshapen ceramic “wasters” (e.g., a handle collapsed onto a body) may indicate secondary waste deposits from the kilns north of Street S1. Similar wasters were found in DSU 5, which may indicate that the kilns were contemporaneous with the house during at least part of its occupation or, at the very least, with the street usage. These ceramics likely date to the third century. This context contained high inclusions of organic material, especially bone, and clinker. Plaster occurred in low densities, and one fragment was painted dark red and light green. Iron-rich fabric A and A4 group occurred in high densities. Calcium-rich fabric B group occurred in moderate densities. Wood and plaster occurred in low densities. Charcoal, several olive pits, and mortar were found. This context was terminated when either the compact surface (DSU 10) or another ashy DSU (11) was encountered. The change was made primarily on the basis of position in order to signify that deposits in DSU 8 are above DSU 10. DSU 9242 consisted of a silty brown matrix over highly compacted adobe. There were high densities of medium-sized potsherds, as well as moderate densities of clinker, glass, and bone, and low densities of organics such as seeds and charcoal. DSU 9 appears to be occupational debris from immediately above street surfaces (DSU 6, DSU 13). Iron-rich fabric A group occurred in high densities while calcium-rich fabric B group occurred in low densities. There were many salts adhering to the ceramics from this context, suggesting that there was some wetness in the area at some point. Bones occurred in high densities. A fragment of the body of a terracotta figurine was found here (Inv. 11915). DSU 10243 consisted of an extremely hard matrix of compacted trash. The surface broke apart in large chunks and had several plaster inclusions, especially in the northwest corner of the context. The context was extremely flat, except for the western portion, which slopes upwards slightly, and seems to have been a prepared street surface, perhaps the lowest (first) street level. As such, it is probably equal to DSU 14 to the west. The thickness of this context was difficult to ascertain, because it was present only in a small northeastern portion of the excavated area in the trench. The southernmost 50 cm appear to have been excavated earlier in a trench from a previous campaign that we have not been able to identify. 244 We drew a section of the east sidewall of the Area 1.2 trench with this prior trench visible in the baulk (Figure 4.40). The ceramics included iron-rich fabrics A and B in moderate densities. Glass and bones occurred in low densities. DSU 11245 consisted of a soft gray ashy matrix, with numerous inclusions, including many sherds from iron-rich fabric A and A4 group. Calcium-rich fabric B occurred in moderate densities. Glass and iron occurred in low densities, and there was a considerable amount of clinker and bone fragments. There was some glass and a handful of baked brick fragments. This context was very similar to the gray ash above (DSU 8), but a distinction between the layers was made on the basis of position; DSU 8 is above a “surface” (DSU 10), while DSU 11 was below DSU 8. DSU 10 was never present in the southeast quadrant Upper elevation 137.966; Lower elevation 137.681. Dimensions: x=240 cm, y=200 cm. Upper elevation 138.430; Lower elevation 138.076. Dimensions: x=130 cm, y=200 cm. 243 Upper elevation 137.771; Lower elevation 137.526. Dimensions: x=145 cm, y=231 cm. 244 The DOP did not excavate a trench in this area (Colin Hope pers.comm.). It is also unlikely that Lynn Meskell’s test pits were located in this area (James Conlon pers.comm.). It may be that the SCA did some preliminary test pits in this area about which we have no information. 245 Upper elevation 137.716; Lower elevation 137.506. Dimensions: x=50 cm, y=220 cm. 241 242

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

129

of the trench. We believed that this area of the trench was contaminated, and thus this context, unlike DSU 8, was probably contaminated.

Figure 4.40: Street S1 section, showing trench cut, as well as the door (F50) into House B2.

130

Amheida II

DSU 12246 consisted of soft, loose yellow sand. It was uncovered in 2 sections, an east–west section just north of the north wall of B2 and a north–south section just west of the eastern border of Street S1. This context contained a ceramic scatter in the eastern edge of the east–west section, which yielded a vessel with two spouts (Inv. 11933) and a bread plate (Inv. 12216). The western and northern areas of the context were much cleaner, with very few inclusions. Another possible kiln waster was found in the context, which extends the active period of the kilns back in time, as it was once conjectured that the kilns were only a very late addition on this street.247 Our other ceramic finds included iron-rich fabric A group in very high densities and calcium-rich fabric A11 and B in moderate to high densities. Wood occurred in low densities, while limestone, clinker, and dross occurred in moderate densities. DSU 13248 consisted of a hard brown compacted mud matrix with high densities of inclusions, especially plaster. There were some quite large sherds from this matrix, but the densities of iron-rich fabric A group and calcium-rich fabric B group were low. Other inclusions were bone and charcoal in low to moderate densities. This context probably represented the last proper road surface in Street S1 and may also have served as a sort of trash barrier for the doorway to B2. It thus seems that this context is a counterpart to another compacted matrix (DSU 7). The context was terminated when a highly compacted surface was found (DSU 6). The southernmost portion of DSU 13 adhered to the north wall of B2 (F34), and this portion was not removed. The northernmost 60 cm of the context were not excavated. DSU 14249 consisted of compacted adobe. It was a highly level surface, with flat-lying sherds on top, suggesting it was probably a prepared street surface. Artifact densities for DSU 14 were low in all categories, although many categories were represented. Iron-rich fabric A group occurred in high densities and calcium-rich fabric A11 and B in low densities. Faience and glass occurred in low densities, while clinker occurred in moderate densities. Many of these artifacts had salts adhering to them, suggesting that there was wetness in this area. This situation is similar to that found in DSU 10, and it is possible that they resulted from the same depositional episode. DSU 14 was terminated when we reached soft yellow sand and occasional pockets of ash. DSU 15250 consisted of clean yellow sand. It was almost entirely devoid of artifacts, especially after the first 5–10 cm. There were low densities of ceramics from A group and A11. There was also one piece of unbaked A group ceramics, again possibly indicating active use of the kiln across the street. The sand was finely laminated, showing thicker levels to the north than to the south. This context was terminated when we reached what appeared to be the lowest elevation of the north wall to B2 (F34). F1251 was the first (top) street layer for Street S1. It was highly variable in elevation and thickness and probably represented a means of holding back trash from B2, since it was thickest near the doorway into B2. The surface was quite uneven and was covered with a dense lens of small potsherds, much like F3. DSU 5, located between the two raised portions of F1, probably also served as part of the street. There were two patches of F1 on either side of the door to B2. Each was approximately 76 x 200 cm with thicknesses of 10–20 cm. DSU 5 may be street level F1 also, but it had a different composition than F1. F2252 was the second (from top) street layer for Street S1. It was light yellowish-brown in color and was composed of compacted mud. It also contained high densities of plaster fragments. The thickness and elevation of F2 was highly variable, varying between 0.5 cm and 15 cm or more. The thickness increased to the west and may reflect an attempt to even out a naturally hilly topography. In the southern portion of the trench, F2 was missing from the southernmost 1 meter of the trench. The lack of Upper elevation 137.536; Lower elevation 136.926. Dimensions: x=50 cm, y=220 cm. Hope 1980. 248 Upper elevation 138.176; Lower elevation 138.046. Dimensions: x=290 cm, y=130 cm. 249 Upper elevation 137.916; Lower elevation 137.596. Dimensions: x=127 cm, y=260 cm. 250 Upper elevation 137.726; Lower elevation 137.151. Dimensions: x=127 cm, y=260 cm. 251 Upper elevation 138.176; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=76 cm, y=200 cm. 252 Upper elevation 137.831; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=610 cm, y=100 cm. 246 247

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

131

F2 in this area may be due to a trench dug in this area by a prior expedition to this site (see the description for F3 below). We removed the northern portion of F2 in the part of the trench because it appeared to be a patchy lens in DSU 8. To the west, the feature was quite thick and was built directly on top of F1, with no rubble or sand in between. To the west, it was also greater in elevation. The white plaster fragments continued throughout F2.

Figure 4.41: Photo of Street S1. F3253 was the earliest street level for Street S1. Only a small portion was fully exposed in the easternmost part of the trench. It was dark gray in color and composed of compacted mud with no distinguishing features other than the high density of small potsherds adhering to its flat surface. A 253

Upper elevation 137.771; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=92 cm, y=155 cm.

132

Amheida II

trench of 0.50 m appears to have been cut through F3 in the south. We do not know who cut this trench. Because of this missing 0.50 m we cannot definitively state that F3 abutted wall F32 of B2, although marks of wear on F32 suggests that this abutment is likely. F57 from B2254 is an east–west oriented wall forming the south boundary to the street just west of the house. Only the north face and the easternmost 75 cm are described here. It was in a moderately good state of preservation, although it was not preserved to a great height. It was abutted by wall F31 to the east. A large gap filled with mud, 10–15 cm wide, joined the two walls. It seems that the wall was repaired over time in this vicinity, probably because of wear from heavy usage of the street. At 18–50 cm from the east end of the wall there was a gouge 17 cm high and 4 cm deep, which probably also signifies street wear. There was no mud plaster remaining on the facing of the wall, and the bonding pattern was clearly visible as English bond. The foundations and their bonding pattern were not exposed. F32 from B2255 is an east–west oriented wall forming the south boundary to Street S1 and the north boundary to the house. The north face is well preserved, but not to a great height. The western portion is better preserved than the eastern. At 150–320 cm from the west end of F31 there is a long gouge 50–78 cm above the foundations that is at approximately the same elevation as F3, the bottom street level. F3 probably once abutted F32, but an unknown excavator removed it recently. At 184 cm from the west end of F32 there was a large crack approximately 1 cm wide. Other small cracks were also visible. Only a small quantity of mud plaster remained on the wall, and it was present only in the westernmost 50 cm of the wall in small patterns. The bonding pattern was clearly visible as English bond. The foundations were exposed; they protruded north of the wall face by 5 cm. The top course consisted of headers facing out and the bottom with stretchers facing out. Only two courses were visible. A foundation trench was visible in section view. It showed that the wall was built into windblown sand and that it was built at the same time as Street S1 became active (visible in F3 of S1). Interpretations of the Street S1 Exploratory Trench Street S1 was the street outside B2. Multiple street surfaces were exposed, indicating intensive use and maintenance over time. Barriers were found around the entrance into B2. The last (top) surface (DSU 6) had elevated sections (DSU 7) on either side of the doorway into B2, indicating that they may have been used as barriers to hold back the refuse that filled the lower areas on top of this street surface. The entrance (F50) into B2 was visible to the south. The entrance was 1.47 m wide. It was not decorated in any manner. The walls were mud plastered, although this mud plaster was not well preserved. The foundations of the walls were clearly visible and were consistent with techniques commonly used in this structure. A foundation trench for the south wall of the street (F32) was found, indicating that this north wall of B2 was constructed contemporaneously with the Street S1. This evidence substantiates the hypothesis that Area 1 was laid out in a single phase of construction. The details of this construction are given in chapter 5. The street layers consisted of informally packed earth with high densities of refuse packed into the surface. There were multiple layers of these surfaces. It is possible that some minor works were conducted to even out the street surfaces but that these works were not nearly as formal as floor construction.256 The refuse found in the street contained several noteworthy objects: several terracotta figurine fragments,257 donkey hoofs, and an ostrakon in Greek that dates to ca. 240–275 (Inv. 11626, O.Trim. 1.36). Upper elevation 138.651; Lower elevation 138.031 (at visible lowest point). See above for full dimensions. Upper elevation 138.591; Lower elevation 137.071 (bottom of foundations). See above for full dimensions. 256 The construction details of floors and streets are compared in Chapter 5. 257 Inv. 11628, Inv. 11633, Inv. 2925. 254 255

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

133

This ostrakon was found embedded in DSU 5, a secure context representative of the last phase of frequent usage. Moderate densities of ceramics, clinker, bone, and glass were also represented. Ash and high densities of objects were found between the third street level and clean yellow sand, among them several reconstructable ceramic vessels, including the cover of a bread oven. The quantities of clinker and wasters suggest that the kilns north of B2 were in use throughout the occupation of B2 and the usage of Street S1. Remarks on the Phasing of Street S1 Phase 1: Construction and Original Use. The street appears to have been laid out in a single large-scale construction effort, as evinced by the foundation trench for F32. Likewise, the alternating channels construction method used for the walls tends to indicate large-scale construction. 258 The planning pattern of this area supports this suggestion, as the plan of this quarter is quite regular and the single buildings are very similar to each other in plan, dimensions, materials, and techniques. There were three different walking surfaces that raised the street level over time. Each of these surfaces abutted House B2. The fill between these surfaces consisted of waste and ash. Phase 2: Structural Alterations. DSU 7 added to keep street refuse out of B2; it can be associated with F1 and possibly F2. Phase 3: Abandonment, and Deflation The abandonment of the street is difficult to assess since it may have been in use beyond the occupation of B2, although this seems unlikely given that the stairs from B2 lead directly up to the top street level and all of the surface ceramics in this area of Amheida seem to belong to the late third and early fourth century CE. As with B2, the wind dramatically deflated the walls on either side of the street throughout Area 1, particularly towards the east. Phase 4: Bedouin Use Present-day The Bedouin from the village north of Amheida herd their animals across the easternmost end of Street S1, but they do not seem to disrupt the area.

Courtyard C2 (Subarea 1.4) Courtyard C2 was described initially as a large L-shaped open space south and east of B2. It was thought to be an exterior courtyard belonging to B2, since the entrance to it is located just east of B2, and B2 was the house in the closest proximity to C2. Alternatively, we thought that the courtyard could have been a communal or shared courtyard, since it is surrounded by houses on all sides and is the only obvious large open space within the immediate vicinity of Area 1. Subsequent excavations in C2, still in progress as this volume went to press, reveal that it was a rectangular shape. A house (B9), identical in size and similar in layout to B2, occupies the area east of B2.259 Courtyard C2 belongs to House B9 and not to B2. Even so, our test trench informs interpretations of B2. We chose to excavate a trench (C2A) in Courtyard C2 in order to determine the function of a space in the immediate vicinity of B2 as well as determine comparative phasing with the house and the street. The walls of Courtyard C2 were clearly delineated, with the exception of the southeast corner. We laid out a 6 m north–south x 2 m east–west oriented trench against the south wall of B2 and the west wall of Courtyard C2, since wind deflation has a lesser effect towards the west and north. This trench was later expanded by an additional 4.2 x 2.0 m to the south and 1.5 x 1.5 m to the east, against the south wall of Courtyard C2. We expanded the trench because additional features (F4 and F5) became visible in the course of excavating the 4.2 x 2.0 m trench (Figures 4.42, 4.43). DSU 1260 consisted of soft yellow windblown sand. The top centimeters contained high densities of ceramics in medium sherd sizes. The density of sherds decreased below the surface. The surface Kemp 2000:90-92. Boozer 2012, Boozer 2013c. 260 Upper elevation 137.776; Lower elevation 137.226. Dimensions: x=200 cm, y=600 cm. 258 259

134

Amheida II

topography of this context was uneven and sloped down to east and south, showing a similar preservation to B2. There were high densities of iron-rich fabric A group and A4 group and moderate to high densities of calcium-rich fabric B group. There were low densities of faience, glass, bones, and plaster and high densities of clinker. We also had a large number of small finds, including an ostrakon in Greek referring to year 30 (AD 335/6 or 353/4) (Inv. 11773), a terracotta animal figurine (Inv. 11914), another terracotta figurine (Inv. 11916) and a largely complete lamp (Inv. 11903). We terminated the context when a silty, grayish-brown matrix (DSU 2) became visible.

Figure 4.42: Harris Matrix, C2A.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

135

DSU 2261 consisted of a grayish-brown sandy loam with high organic content. It was covered by surface sand (DSU 1) and also wall and ceiling collapse (DSU 8). The southernmost 400 cm of this context was secure because it was covered by wall and ceiling collapse (DSU 8). We took two soil samples, S1 and S5, because there are high densities of organics in this matrix, such as straw, wood, seeds, pits, and also donkey and camel dung. As with DSU 1, the topography was uneven, with the elevations higher to the northwest than the northeast. We found the iron-rich fabric A and A4 group in moderate to high densities, as well as moderate densities of calcium-rich fabric B. Glass and wood were found in low to moderate densities, and there were moderate densities of bone. We also found an ostrakon in Greek that is too worn to read (Inv. 11774). The northwest and southeast corners have small quantities of windblown sand mixed in with DSU 2, but not in sufficient quantities so as to justify a separate DSU. DSU 3262 consisted of a silty loam with high organic content. It did not have as many coprolites or dung as DSU 2, but both inclusions were present. Artifact densities were low to moderate in the categories of glass, wood, clinker, and bone. There were moderate to high densities of iron-rich fabric A and A4 group and moderate densities of calcium-rich fabric B and A11. There were a number of small finds from this context, including two ostraka in Greek, one of which is an account of wheat and barley (Inv. 11723), mentioned above, and the other was a well tag (Inv. 11717) dated to a year 2 that is unlikely to be later than 285/6. The other small finds included a complete miniature lamp (Inv. 11917), an incomplete small jar (Inv. 11902), and an incomplete globular flask (Inv. 11738). In this area, the DSU was terminated when the yellower, sandier matrix, DSU 4, was encountered. A small feature (F2) was exposed in the northeast corner of the trench. F2263 is an east–west oriented wall in Courtyard C2. It does not seem to follow the same orientation as wall F56, but since only two courses are preserved it is difficult to tell if this orientation is accurate. The bricks of the bottom course rest with their headers facing out, and the top course of bricks rests with stretchers facing out. No mortar was used, and there was no plaster facing. It was built on sand with no foundation visible. Only 73 cm oriented east–west were visible. It is probable that it was a small dividing wall. It was not well constructed. DSU 4264 consisted of a brownish-yellow layer of sand with some organic content. Like DSU 3, it did not have as many coprolites as DSU 2, but a significant number were present. This DSU also contained low to moderate densities of glass, bones, seeds, clinker, and some pottery fragments from iron-rich fabric A and A4 group as well as calcium-rich fabric A11 and B. There were a number of small finds, including two loom weights (Inv. 11882, Inv. 11880) and a fragment of a handmade figurine head of a woman (Inv. 11920). We also found the desiccated remains of doum fruit, which correlates with a clay tablet (Inv. 11048) containing an account of these fruits, which we found in B2. We terminated the context when a compacted mud surface (DSU 6) and a deposit of clean yellow sand (DSU 7) became visible. Because the context had a mixture of organic material and clean sand, it is possible that the DSU 4 was a mixture of several contexts (DSU 3, DSU 4, and DSU 7). DSU 5265 was a circular ephemeral hearth. It is gray and has a rough surface, and the context cut DSU 4. It contained high quantities of gray ash, as well as charcoal fragments and burned wood. Due to its high organic content, we took a soil sample S3. This context was terminated when no more ash was visible and mostly clean yellow sand (DSU 7) became visible. It is presumed that DSU 6 was destroyed in this area due to the use of this ephemeral hearth. This context was probably associated with DSU 6 = F1, but once the ash was removed only DSU 7 was visible. There were no objects within this matrix. Upper elevation 137.736; Lower elevation 137.146. Dimensions: x=200 cm, y=600 cm. Upper elevation 137.376; Lower elevation 136.976. Dimensions: x=200 cm, y=600 cm. 263 Upper elevation 136.961; Lower elevation 136.791. Dimensions: x=35 cm, y=73 cm. 264 Upper elevation 137.306; Lower elevation 136.886. Dimensions: x=200 cm, y=560 cm. 265 Upper elevation 136.956; Lower elevation 136.926. Dimensions: x=45 cm, y=45 cm. 261 262

136

Amheida II

F1 = DSU 6266 was a highly irregular and poorly preserved floor or surface layer that only remained in patches across the trench. It was very thin in parts and uncertain in some patches, so it may be an informal surface in Courtyard C2, rather than a prepared floor surface. It was underneath room fill (DSU 4) and an ephemeral hearth (DSU 5). DSU 6 = F1267 was a compacted yellowish-brown surface with moderate organic content, defined as a floor surface (F1). It was well preserved only in the northernmost corner of the trench. This corner was the only area where trash and sherds were visible under the floor surface. Several concentrations of ash could be associated with the surface of DSU 6, most notably DSU 5. We removed the majority of this context in order to understand the stratigraphy of the trench better. The best-preserved part of the floor was the northernmost portion, which was left in situ. We found clean sand (DSU 7) underneath the context and therefore terminated it. DSU 7268 consisted of soft, largely clean yellow sand with few artifacts. Most of the artifacts were found within the top 10 cm of the context. These objects might have been placed under the floor surface (DSU 6 = F1) as a preparation layer for the floor. Hard areas were present towards the southwest corner of the trench, but these areas were probably related to the floor surface (DSU 6 = F1), and for this reason DSU 7 was cut by DSU 6. This context contained high densities of iron-rich fabric A and A4 group. There were low to moderate densities of calcium-rich fabric B and A11 group ceramics, as well as charcoal parts, seed pits, wood, and dross. There were moderate densities of bones and clinker. We also found a few objects, such as a complete carinated cooking pot (Inv. 11765) and an unfired loom weight (Inv. 11881). The ceramics appear to date to the third century. We terminated the context when we reached below the foundations of the west wall. DSU 8269 was a wall and ceiling collapse consisting of mud-brick debris. The ceiling collapse could be recognized by concentric circle designs on the bricks, and the plain bricks made it clear that there was also wall collapse. This collapse may derive from the unexcavated structure to the west of Courtyard C2. Because of the small amount of concentric circle design bricks, it is presumed that DSU 8 mostly consisted of wall collapse. The mud brick fragments of DSU 6 must have interpenetrated DSU 2. This is clear because the brown sand of DSU 2 mixed with the organic, softer soil of DSU 3 in patches throughout the area. DSU 8 contained low densities of glass and a high density of plaster. Iron-rich fabric A and A4 groups occurred in low to moderate densities, while there were low densities of calcium-rich fabric A11 and B groups. We terminated the context when the brown organic matrix of DSU 2 became visible. DSU 9270 consisted of gray compacted ash with charcoal parts. It was similar in appearance to DSU 5, but it was not the same DSU, since 5 represented a singular deposition: an ephemeral hearth. By contrast, this context appears to have been a diffuse deposit of ash and it had less-defined boundaries. In addition, this context mixed slightly with an organic brown matrix (DSU 3). The iron-rich fabric A and A4 occurred in moderate densities, while calcium-rich fabric B occurred in low to moderate densities. Wood, charcoal, and bones were found in low to moderate densities, and we had one apricot pit. This context was terminated when the browner organic matrix of DSU 3 became visible or more defined ash became visible (DSU 10 in F3, DSU 11 in F4). DSU 10271 was the ashy fill of an oven platform (F3). It was dark gray and contained many charcoal fragments. It had low densities of artifacts in all categories, although low densities of iron-rich fabric A and A4 ceramics and organics were present. There were some loose mud brick and sand inclusions mixed Upper elevation 137.327; Lower elevation 137.286. Dimensions: x=160 cm, y=110 cm. Upper elevation 137.327; Lower elevation 137.286. Dimensions: x=160 cm, y=110 cm. 268 Upper elevation 136.986; Lower elevation 136.476. Dimensions: x=600 cm, y=200 cm. 269 Upper elevation 137.751; Lower elevation 137.216. Dimensions: x=420 cm, y=200 cm. 270 Upper elevation 137.081; Lower elevation 136.894. Dimensions: x=200 cm, y=220 cm. 271 Upper elevation 137.091; Lower elevation 136.791. Dimensions: x=80 cm, y=93 cm. 266 267

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

137

in with this context. The bricks probably derived from F3 itself and collapsed into the ash. DSU 10 covered F3. DSU 11272 was the ashy fill of a bread oven (F4). It was dark and contained many charcoal fragments. It had low densities of artifacts but several large pieces of ceramics were recovered. Some of these ceramics appeared to derive from the circular ceramic interior of the bread oven. There were low densities of iron-rich fabric A and calcium-rich fabric B. Others were blackened and may have been used in the oven. DSU 11 covered F4. F3273 was a platform for the oven (F4) to the east (Figure 4.42). It was below room fill (DSU 9) and ash (DSU 10). It was poorly preserved, with only 1 course visible above clean sand below it. It was built into the corner of F56 and F5. It consisted of a small dividing wall, 99 cm long east–west, built to the north, and another 96 cm long north–south wall built to the west. Each wall was only 1 course high and 1 brick thick. The base of F3 consisted of blackened mud bricks in no clear bonding pattern. The northwest 20 x 32 cm was not preserved.

Figure 4.43: C2, F3 (platform), and F4 (bread oven). F4274 was a poorly preserved bread oven (Figure 4.43). Only one course was preserved for most of it, and only two courses were preserved on its east wall. Together with F3 to the west, F4 was built into the southwest corner of Courtyard C2. Including all of the walls, the feature itself consisted of a rectangle of mud-brick 138 x 102 cm. This feature was found below room fill (DSU 9) and was filled by oven fill (DSU 11). The diameter for the circular interior of the oven was approximately 85 cm, but it was very poorly preserved and present only in patches. The area between the circular interior and the rectangular mudbrick exterior was filled with ash and mud brick. The draft hole of the oven was visible in the east wall of the feature. It was 7.5 cm from the bottom of F4, as measured from the exterior. The top part of the draft hole was missing, so it was not possible to say how high up it extended. The north–south oriented draft Upper elevation 136.791; Lower elevation 136.621. Dimensions: x=80 cm, y=93 cm. Upper elevation 137.066; Lower elevation 136.921. Dimensions: x=99 cm, y=87 cm. 274 Upper elevation 137.041; Lower elevation 136.621. Dimensions: x=102 cm, y=120 cm. 272 273

138

Amheida II

hole was 38–63 cm north of F5 (the south boundary of the feature). The platform (F3) for oven F4 was preserved to the west. Together the two features measure 106 cm north–south and 225 cm east–west. F5275 is an east–west oriented wall forming the south boundary of Courtyard C2. It was in a poor state of preservation, with only three or possibly four courses preserved above the foundation level. It was better preserved in the west than in the east. Only 315 cm of the western portion of F5 was exposed. Only the north face of the wall was exposed during excavation, and it is this face of the wall that will be described at this time. F5 abuts wall F6 to the west. There is a slight gap between the two walls, from 3 to 5 cm, where the abutment occurs. The wall was built using the alternating channel construction method. No plaster remained adhering to the north face of the wall, so the bonding pattern was clearly visible as English bond, although it becomes irregular approximately 85 cm east of the abutment between walls F5 and F6. Much of F5 was obscured by the presence of an oven platform (F3) and oven (F4) that abut F5. The foundations of F5 were not reached. F13276 is an east–west oriented wall forming part of the north boundary for Courtyard C2. The south face was moderately well preserved and was preserved to a greater height to the west than to the east. No mud plaster facing was currently visible, so the bonding pattern is clearly visible as English bond. F13 abuts wall F56 and it was shaped in a step pattern around the foundations and an indention west of F56. This stepping pattern reflects the fact that F56 was built first and that F13 was constructed with the existing construction pattern of F56 in mind. The abutment between the two walls was fairly well constructed, and mud plaster was used to fill in any 2–3 cm gaps. The foundations of F13 were not visible.

Figure 4.44: Multi-context plan of Courtyard C2 showing DSUs (encircled), FSUs (within rectangles), elevations (with triangles), and small finds (without symbols).

275 276

Upper elevation 137.041; Lower elevation N/A. Dimensions: x=62 cm, y=220 cm. Upper elevation 137.841; Lower elevation 137.011. See above for full dimensions.

Layers of Building, Living, and Abandonment

139

F56277 is the west wall of Courtyard C2. It was in a moderate state of preservation, but very little of the height of F56 was preserved. Small quantities of gray-brown mud plaster adhered to F56 across its east face. The bonding pattern was English bond, and the wall followed the alternating channels construction method. F56 exhibited a foundation construction pattern so far not found elsewhere in Area 1. It was 4 courses high in most places, but near wall F13 it had 6 courses. From the bottom to the top of the foundations the pattern consisted of: (1) headers out; (2) headers out; (3) headers placed vertically; (4) stretchers out; (5) headers out from the wall face. Starting at 6 courses from the top of foundations, the wall protrudes by 10 cm into the courtyard. The 3rd–6th (from bottom) courses for the foundations protruded an additional 8 cm and the 1st and 2nd courses of foundations (from bottom) protruded an additional 21 cm into the courtyard. Interpretations of Courtyard C2A Exploratory Cut C2 was an open area exterior to B2 and entered from an unexcavated house east of B2 (B9). This area was only partially excavated in 2007. During excavation, we exposed a compacted surface. Debris associated with these surfaces indicates animal husbandry and food preparation. A bread oven (F4) and platform (F3) were found in the southernmost part of the trench (the southwestern corner of Area C2). The entrance to B2 was through the south wall of House B9. The courtyard and House B9 are currently being studied further to understand their relationship, as well as their relationships to House B2 The walls of this area were mud plastered, although much of this mud plaster was not well preserved. One of the walls (F56) shows a different technique of laying the foundations than the other walls excavated in B2 and may indicate different construction phasing or usage of the wall in this vicinity.278 There was not a proper floor in C2 but rather an informal compacted surface. It was very rough but also quite firm. It appeared much denser than the street surfaces but less so than the surfaces in B2.279 C2 was a courtyard area external to House B2, but belonging to House B9, east of B2. It appears that animal husbandry took place here, as evinced by the large amounts of coprolites excavated. It is also clear that food preparation took place here, as evinced by the bread oven and platform excavated (F3 and F4). The large quantities of rodent coprolites associated with these features also indicate in situ use of grain or other food of interest to the rodents. These findings are consistent with common usage of exterior courtyard areas. The C2 depositions consisted essentially of sand overlying occupational depositions and one poorly preserved compacted mud surface. The occupational debris consisted of significant deposits of dung and other organics. The coprolites of donkeys, camels, and cows were represented in addition to apricot, olive, and date pits. In addition to these organic remains, an oven and an oven platform were found built into the southwest corner of the courtyard. They were in a poor state of preservation, with only the bottom course of bricks remaining. The northern 6 x 2 m of the trench contained low to moderate densities of material remains and included a complete bowl, a loom weight, and first half of the third century CE ostrakon (Inv. 11723 = O.Trim. 1.51). Object densities were greater in the southern 4.2 x 2.0 m trench addendum and included a miniature lamp (Inv. 11917), a clay figurine head (Inv. 11920), loom weights, and several complete vessels.

Upper elevation 137.951; Lower elevation 136.511. See above for full dimensions. For more on these construction details see Chapter 5. 279 For more on these construction details see Chapter 5. 277 278

140

Amheida II

Remarks on the Phasing of Courtyard C2A Phase 1: Construction and Original Use. Courtyard C2 was laid out at the same time as B2 and S1, as indicated by the wall bonding patterns in the area. Phase 1a: Floor constructed. Phase 1b: Oven (F4) and platform (F3) added. Phase 1c: Wall (F2) added. Phase 2: Abandonment and Deflation. The abandonment of the courtyard is difficult to assess, since it may well have been in use beyond the occupation of B2. As with B2, the wind dramatically deflated the walls of the courtyard. Phase 3: Bedouin Use Present–Day The Bedouin do not seem to disturb this area of the site, as they herd their animals across an area just east of Courtyard C2.

Remarks on the Phasing of B2 and its Surroundings The results of the 2005–2007 excavations in Area 1 indicate that the street (S1) was laid out contemporaneously with the house (B2) and the exterior courtyard (C2). The foundation trench for the north wall of B2280 shows this simultaneous construction clearly. Likewise the lack of any clear evidence for activity in the excavated area prior to the building of B2 and Street S1 suggests a compressed phase of construction and occupation in this area of the site. The dating evidence points to the late third century CE as the primary phase of occupation, destruction, and abandonment in the early fourth century. The ostraka suggest dates between prior to 250 CE through the end of the third and perhaps beginning of the fourth century. A fragment of textile (Inv. 11527), of a type that was produced only in the third century, provides additional datable material. The ceramic assemblage suggests a third-century occupation, perhaps extending into the early fourth century. A more thorough examination of the chronology will be presented in chapter 8. 280

B2 F1=Street S1 F32.

5

BUILDING DOMESTIC SPACE The Construction Techniques for House B2 Anna Lucille Boozer From the Ptolemaic until the Byzantine period, most Egyptian houses were built in mud brick. Fired bricks and stone were used primarily to consolidate building corners, stairs, and foundations for mud brick structures.1 B2 conforms to the standard construction features of most Romano-Egyptian mudbrick houses, and this chapter will explore these construction techniques in detail. First, I examine the mud bricks, since they were the dominant building material used in B2. In the course of this discussion, a wide variety of architectural features from the structure will be discussed, including the walls, roofing, bread ovens, floors, and other features. Then I discuss the nature of the mud floor and street construction outside this structure. These construction methods reveal that Area 1 was probably the result of a large construction effort that made use of traditional Egyptian techniques. An analysis of the architecture as well as a reconstruction and relevant comparanda are considered in the following chapter.

Mud Bricks in B2 The majority of Egypt’s architecture was composed of mud brick until the modern era. As a result, mud bricks are a critical category for architectural analysis. When archaeologists gather sufficient quantities of data it may be possible to create mud-brick seriations. Even so, the great variability seen in even a single structure makes it unlikely that we can rely upon mud brick to the same degree as we do ceramics for a rough dating of a site or structure.2 Some scholars have made attempts to represent precise temporal horizons through mud brick, but these attempts have been met with varying degrees of success, and the sample sizes are too small to generate a consensus. 3 To date, it is possible only to differentiate between major periods, such as Roman, Medieval, and modern bricks. Because Spencer provides one of the most comprehensive studies of Egyptian mud brick, I followed his criteria for recording mud brick data.4 I have not attempted seriations or major phasing assumptions on the basis of this data, as the sample size is too small for meaningful conclusions. The data may, however, be of use for future studies of mud brick architecture in Egypt. Spencer’s set of criteria included the following attributes: 1. The composition of the bricks, and whether burnt or unburnt. 2. The dimensions of the bricks. 3. The bonding, preferably described by means of a corpus of bonds. We used the MoLA Archaeological Site Manual (Figure 5.1).5 4. The distribution of any reed matting or timber tie beams in the brickwork. 5. The nature of the mortar. Uytterhoeven 2010:32, Spencer 1979:133, Husselman 1979:35, 38, Davoli 1998:356. Kemp 2000:85. 3 Spencer creates a scatter point range in brick measurements over a long duration that merits consideration (1979:41). 4 Ibid.:1. 5 Westman 1994:fig. 26. 1 2

142

Amheida II

6. Details of any plaster. 7. Whether stamped bricks occur. 8. Any special usages, or bricks of special form. I follow the above outline in the discussion of bricks below, omitting the attributes that did not occur at all in B2, namely burnt bricks, reed matting, or stamped bricks.

Figure 5.1: Illustration of bonds corpus (A. Cervi), after the Museum of London Archaeology Service (now MoLA) Archaeological Site Manual (1994) figure 26. Composition It is necessary to study local methods of composing mud bricks, because mud brick studies are a relatively recent innovation in Egyptian archaeology, and significant comparative data is lacking.6 Local preferences and materials dictate which material builders prefer, and these distinctions create different appearances and compositions in the mud brick. The characteristics of these soils differ sufficiently that it is not possible to generalize on the basis of a regional study. Kemp suggests that the generally preferred material in modern Egypt is cultivated topsoil (khart), which was mixed by the farmer's activities and would have been enriched with organics. 7 The added temper redirects the stresses the brick undergoes as it dries and shrinks. The reduction in shrinkage, in turn, limits cracking because it reinforces the structural integrity of the brick.8 Straw seems to have been the preferred temper throughout Egyptian history, although other materials would have served as better 6 7 8

Spencer 1979, Kemp 2000:80. Kemp 2000:80. Ibid.:82.

Building Domestic Space

143

temper.9 In addition to straw, builders employed ash, sherds, small artifacts, and other rubbish. Reisner observed brick making in Egypt in the late 1920s and early 1930s and found a reasonable explanation for this blend of temper material. The only material which is now deliberately added to the mud is dust and broken straw, by preference the sweepings of the threshing-floor; but even street-sweepings, which usually contain a certain amount of wind blown straw, are used by poor people.10 Individuals typically used four elements to modify soil to make it suitable for mud-brick architecture, and these four elements can be found mentioned in Reisner’s ethnographic description. This practice of accumulating sweepings could easily have been done in Roman Egypt, although there is no means of verifying it archaeologically. The elements usually added to soil for making mud brick include: ...coarse sand or aggregate, fine sand, silt, and clay. Any one may be totally absent and the soil may still make satisfactory bricks...The aggregate (sand) provides strength, the fine sand is a filler to lock the grains of aggregate, and the silt and clay (generally identified by particle size rather than chemical analysis) acts as a binder and plastic medium to glue the other ingredients together. Soil structures with a high percentage of aggregate (sand) may be strong when dry, but are more vulnerable to erosion from rain. Soil structures high in clay may be much more resistant to water and erosion, but less strong.11 McHenry’s study of mud-brick structural integrity indicates that the variety of material individuals added to mud bricks aided their strength. The B2 mud brick compositions fall within the parameters of standard Egyptian mud bricks. The majority of the mud bricks in B2 are brown or yellowish-brown in color. The composition of Amheidan bricks more generally shows a moderate-to-high organic content in both the mud bricks and the mud plaster, although sometimes the organic content can be attested only by the cavities left from these materials. Termites and moisture seem to have destroyed much of the organic content in the bricks, although it is clear that straw, seeds, and charcoal parts were used frequently. Indeed, more arid areas of Amheida (e.g., Area 3) show a high organic content in bricks that is similar to that at Kellis, which has a much higher state of preservation for organic materials in general. These Amheidan bricks contained a high content of straw, similar to what was attested in the studies cited above. The B2 bricks also contained a wide variety of non-organic inclusions as well, the most common being small fragments of ceramics and clinker. Dimensions Mud-brick dimensions are typically irregular, since the size of each brick depends upon the complex structure and topography of each brick, even when bricks are made with a mold. 12 A variety of factors can influence the shape of a brick, including shrinkage, the proportions of the brick constituents, disturbance during removal from the mold, and disturbance while drying.13 I follow Hesse and Kemp in only attempting measurements to the nearest half-centimeter, since the irregularity and accessibility of bricks makes attempts at a higher level of precision illusory and unwieldy.14 Ibid.:82. Reisner 1931:72. 11 McHenry 1984:48. 12 Only a small number of ancient brick molds, all made of wood, are known (Petrie 1890:26, plate I, Petrie 1917:42, plate XLVII.5, David 1986:plate 1, Clarke and Engelback 1930:fig. 263e). These remains suggest that ancient brickmaking was identical to traditional brick-making in Egypt today (Spencer 1979:3). 13 Kemp 2000:84. 14 Hesse 1971:10, Kemp 2000:84. 9

10

144

Amheida II

The dimensions of bricks from B2 average approximately 16 x 34 x 8 cm and comply with the general standard in ancient Egypt, in which there was typically an approximate 2:1 ratio between length and breadth.15 This standard was deviated from during some periods of Egyptian history, and we will find similar deviations among special use bricks in B2 (see below). Bonding All of the B2 walls except for one (F33) show an “English” bond pattern (Figure 5.1). This pattern entailed alternating courses of headers and stretchers offset sideways. The brick-laying pattern for B2 is similar to that found at Karanis; the courses of headers and stretchers on the outer surface alternated with stretchers and headers on the inner surface.16 The main difference between the Karanis pattern and that found in B2 is that the “alternate channels” construction method was employed in almost all of the walls of B2 (except for F33 and F24), but this method of construction is not found frequently in published evidence from Karanis. The alternate channels construction method involved laying the bricks on one side of the channel along their stretchers, while on the other side of the channel they were laid on their headers. The location of the channel varied across the wall, guided by these courses (Figure 4.8). This technique was common throughout Dynastic Egypt and can be found particularly at large-scale construction sites, such as 18th Dynasty Giza.17 These construction projects used wide, unfilled or mortar-filled gaps between bricks in a course.18 Sometimes rubble was used rather than mud, although there are no instances of this practice in the B2 walls.19 These gaps or channels enabled wall thicknesses to be adjusted and irregular brick lengths in header courses to be hidden. This technique enabled workers to build a thick wall with very little trouble because the only important part of the bonding pattern was the exposed faces of the wall, and the wall interior was forgiving of mistakes. Although the alternate channels method permits irregularity, it was sometimes necessary to introduce a half-brick or irregular brick to return the course to the intended laying pattern. We find this irregularity introduced into the B2 wall construction as well. The flexibility of this construction method suggests that a large-scale building episode took place in Area 1. From the drawings of the walls in B2, we find that there are variations in the laying pattern (Figure 4.8). The plaster channels do not have a standardized length or width, and irregularly shaped or non-standard bricks were often used to complete a course. This degree of variability is indicative of a large building project.20 Wall feature F33 in room 9 had a singular brick-laying pattern within B2. A wall stub (F33) was added east of the doorway to the street following the construction of the second floor level. It is constructed in three segments, each exhibiting English bond, rather than having the typical English bond pattern that is found on all of the other walls in this structure. It is also the only wall in B2 that does not use the alternate channels construction method. The purpose of this wall is unclear: perhaps it was added to provide additional protection from street dirt and noise, or it may have been added as an additional buttress to one of the walls. It seems that because it was a later addition and did not need to bear enormous loads, it did not merit a sturdy construction pattern. We exposed the foundations of most B2 walls in order to see how they were constructed. The walls of the house follow the natural contours of the original site surface with the foundations of these walls, showing slightly different construction methods. None of the foundations used mortar. Instead, they Kemp 2000:88. Husselman 1979:33, pl. 11. 17 Spencer 1979:6, Kemp 2000:88. 18 Kemp 2000:90, fig. 3.1a. 19 On the use of rubble instead of mud, see Spencer 1979:64, 113. 20 Kemp 2000:90. This observation supports the hypothesis that Area 1 was laid out in a single, substantial construction phase. 15 16

Building Domestic Space

145

consisted of a bottom layer of mud bricks standing vertically on their stretchers followed by a course of mud bricks with their stretchers running horizontally. The pattern after this standard foundation layer varied from wall to wall and depended, in part, upon the variable site surface that the builders had to compensate for during construction. It was standard practice in ancient Egypt to use bricks as the foundation for walls. The bricks were sometimes laid as headers along their long edges for the first course of a wall of two bricks or more in width. This orientation was particularly useful to offset variable depths in the foundation trench. The depth of foundations could vary considerably, from effectively nothing to several meters. Foundations were commonly laid without doorways being marked.21 The foundation patterns for this house precisely follow the practice that Kemp describes for mudbrick buildings. The foundation depth varied considerably across the structure. We had evidence of a foundation trench along one wall (F1=F32), although it is clear that trenches were not used on most walls. The use of the foundation trench for wall F1=F32 may be due to its exposure to the street, which appears to have been laid out in a single episode. None of the doorways in this structure show signs that the builders marked them out differently from the walls, again suggesting the possibility that a general construction episode took place in Area 1. Distribution of Timber Tie Beams It was not uncommon for mud-brick houses to be consolidated with timber tie beams inserted into the brick masonry.22 Tie beams were used in large construction efforts in order to even out the load distributions23 and also may have served to dry up the humidity found in the mud bricks. These beams were placed horizontally among the courses (both laterally and longitudinally) at vertical intervals that could vary from five to fourteen courses. These tie beams were particularly necessary in very thick masses of brick where careful bonding of courses was normally abandoned for interior bricks and sometimes the use of mortar as well. Since timbers only started at the first interval above ground level, it is necessary for a wall to be preserved to a height of at least a half a meter in order to detect tie beams. Examples of timber insertions have sufficient chronological spread to suggest that this was a continuous tradition in larger constructions from the Early Dynastic period onwards.24 The longevity of this practice is of interest, as it indicates continuity in building techniques from the Early Dynastic period through to the Roman era. Evidence of tie beams can be found in several Romano-Egyptian sites. For example, Syene House 5 has horizontally laid wooden poles, which the excavators interpreted as an indication that this house had multiple stories. Syene House 5 may date to the early Roman Imperial Period, with a terminus ante quem during the fifth century.25 Although the excavators did not provide comparanda to justify this suggestion, they may be drawing on parallels from Karanis, which contains multiple examples of tie beam construction, particularly along exterior walls.26 As the Karanis houses are predominantly multi-story, it is possible that the excavator linked these two attributes. At this time we do not have sufficient quantities of data to determine if tie beams indicate the presence of a second story. Evidence for tie beams in B2 is uncertain. One wall (F3) has two large holes that extended through the entirety of the wall (Figure 5.2). It seems likely that these holes were for the placement of wood beams that were removed or decayed along with most of the soft organics from B2. There is a large hole for a beam located 191 cm from the west edge of the doorway (F52). This hole is 20 cm wide and 14 cm Ibid.:88. Ibid.:90-91, Nowicka 1969:36, 39. 23 Kemp 2000:84, 90. 24 Ibid.:90-91. 25 Jaritz and Rodziewicz 1996:234. 26 Husselman 1979:34. 21 22

146

Amheida II

high. The wall around this hole appears to have been repaired with mud plaster and mud-brick fragments. The hole appears to penetrate through to the south face of the wall. A second hole is visible 110 cm west of the corner of F3 with F2. The hole has a diameter of 15 cm and is approximately 16 cm deep. It is 20 cm above the top of the foundation, and it begins at the top of the preserved wall.

Figure 5.2: Photo of timber tie beam holes in wall F3. The foundation bricks are visible as the bottom course of bricks. The possible B2 tie beams support the conjecture that Area 1 was laid out in a single massive construction episode.27 It is also possible that these holes indicated a means of affixing furniture, but typically these sorts of holes are located quite high in the wall and are much thinner and more irregular.28 The Nature of the Mortar Mortar normally forms a bed beneath each new course of bricks and between each brick. Vertical joints tend to be narrower than horizontal joints. The mortar is often of a similar type to the mud bricks themselves, only more water is used in order to make the mixture easily spreadable, and it is often less rich in vegetal temper. The standard vertical joints in B2 measure 1–1.5 cm, while the standard horizontal joints measure 2– 3 cm. The mortar in B2 is similar to the mud bricks in that it is usually yellowish-brown in color and often See Chapter 8 for a more thorough discussion of this conjecture. On Tebtynis furniture holes in walls, see Gallazzi 1999, Hadji-Minaglou 2007, Hadji-Minaglou 2008, HadjiMinaglou 1995. 27 28

Building Domestic Space

147

has organic inclusions, such as seeds and charcoal parts. Non-organic inclusions, such as small pebbles and ceramics, can be detected as well. Details of Any Plaster Plaster is a significant structural and decorative attribute of buildings. The plastering process was fairly uniform across Roman Egypt and plaster application was a simple process. The greatest variability for simple domestic decoration, as found in B2, depended upon the number of layers employed. First, a base coat of mud plaster, a mixture of mud and straw, is applied to the mud bricks to provide an even surface. The next two stages were optional and, for B2, the exception to the dominant plastering technique. Following the mud plaster, a rough gypsum plaster, with small inclusions of yellow, brown, and black sand, could be applied onto the mud bricks. This preliminary layer is allowed to dry, and a finer coat of gypsum plaster may then be applied on top to give a finer, smoother finish. This second coat of gypsum typically would have smaller and fewer inclusions and be very thin (1–2 mm thick).29 Third, after the wall surface has been prepared with its base coat of gypsum plaster, it is ready to be painted with pigment. The painter used different painting techniques depending on the conditions in which he was working. The most common techniques across the Roman Empire were tempera or fresco.30 The tempera technique involves working on a dry surface, which requires pigments to be mixed with some form of liquid medium, such as egg white, animal glue, wax, or vegetable oil to form a paint, allowing the pigments to adhere to the wall. 31 The tempera technique works successfully in all dry conditions, and is the most successful method for painting quick drying clay rendered walls (for this reason it is also often referred to as painting a secco). Due to Egypt’s arid climate, most Egyptian wall paintings of all periods were composed using the tempera technique. 32 Tempera paintings, such as those from House B1, have survived at Amheida and provide in situ comparanda for this technique on a much more lavish scale than we find in House B2. House B2 contains three different types of plaster used in standard plastering processes: (1) mud plaster, (2) white gypsum plaster, and (3) painted plaster. First, the walls of the house were covered in mud plaster in various states of preservation. Mud plaster is a significant attribute of the mud brick walls because it aids the appearance of the wall, helps protect it against weathering, and adds mechanical strength.33 Plaster often differs from mortar in that it has a higher concentration of straw, which reduces cracking.34 Unfortunately, the cavities left after insect attacks on straw leave the plaster very friable and can deteriorate the base plaster and any decorative plaster that may have overlaid it. Inside B2, a yellowish-brown plaster was frequently found as the base plaster on walls while a reddish-brown plaster was used more frequently for repairs and the replastering of walls. There was a moderate-to-high organic content in the mud plaster, as evinced by a few remains of straw and other organics but more frequently by the impressions and cavities of these organics in the plaster. It is clear that insects removed these organics and accelerated the decay of the building, particularly the mud plaster and decorative plaster on the walls. Second, gypsum plaster served as both a stand-alone white plaster as well as the preparatory surface on which pigments could be applied. Gypsum plaster is frequently found in Romano-Egyptian structures and is composed of gypsum (hydrated calcium sulphate CaSO4.2H2O) and anhydrite (anhydrous calcium sulphate CaSO4), such as that found in Shrine 1 at Kellis.35 Blondaux 2002. Ling 2000:49. 31 Ibid.:49. 32 Lee and Quirke 2000. 33 Petrie 1938:6-7. 34 Kemp 2000:92. 35 Berry 2002. 29 30

148

Amheida II

White gypsum plaster was preserved in a few areas within House B2, such as the north boundary of room 7 (F35) and around the opening to room 11 (F32, F36). Room 1 retained a few scattered fragments of white plaster in its north wall (F2) suggesting that at least a strip of white gypsum plaster was present in that room. A few fragments were recovered from room 6, DSU 38=43. As can be seen in Amheida House B1, as well as in numerous houses at Kellis, white plaster was probably used to outline niches and doorways, and also as strips along the backs of walls in order to catch and reflect light provided by lamps.36 These upper courses of wall have now disappeared in most of B2 thanks to erosion, but there is sufficient evidence to suggest that they were once present, particularly given the gypsum fragments adhering to wall F2 in room 1. Third, in addition to white gypsum plaster, some of the B2 rooms appear to have been painted, at least selectively, in red (room 6) and black, red, and yellow (room 1). The black plaster from room 1 came in many fragments, totaling 0.170 kg of plaster, and was found amid ceiling and wall collapse (DSU 4). Some of this plaster only consisted of plaster painted black, while five fragments were found adhering to mud brick fragments. The red plaster from room 6 was of even smaller quantities. Two fragments were attached to mud brick fragments, and one was found detached within the roof collapse debris (DSU 38 = 43). Room

DSU

Color

Number of Fragments

Weight

1

1

Red and yellow

7

–

1

1

Black

2

–

1

1

Varied

9

0.23 kg37

1

4

Black

5

0.17 kg

1

21

Black

2

N/A

3

3

White

?

N/A

6

38

Red and white

3

N/A38

Table 5.1: Summary of colored plaster recovered from House B2. This plaster data suggests that the majority of the walls would have had a bare, yellowish-brown mud plaster with patches of reddish-brown plaster marking areas that had been repaired or re-plastered due to wear. In the Dakhla Oasis, white gypsum plaster is typically employed only around wall niches, windows, openings and as strips along the back walls of rooms. In addition to white gypsum plaster, some of the B2 rooms appear to have been painted, at least partially, in red (room 6) and black, red and yellow (room 1). These fragments were found amid roof and wall collapse, and some of the fragments were attached to collapse debris. The companion site of Kellis provides instructive parallels for understanding a potential pigmented painting scheme for House B2. For example, Kellis House 2 from Area A had walls covered in gray mud plaster, while the vaulted roofs had a red-colored plaster over which were painted gray bands along the junctions between the vaults and the walls.39 It is possible that rooms 1 and 6 displayed this variety of simple, colored decoration at roof level, which correlates with the depositions in which these fragments were found. Room 1 seems to have been particularly highlighted through the additional use of yellow pigment, which also would have contributed to the brightness of the room. As room 1 contained evidence Hope, Kaper, Bowen and Patten 1989, Knudstad and Frey 1999, Boozer 2010. Total weight of the recovered fragments from room 1 DSU 1 fragments. These were weighed together because of their small weight. 38 N/A signifies that the fragments were not weighed because they were attached to mud brick fragments and could not be detached safely. 39 Hope 1988:169. 36 37

Building Domestic Space

149

of higher status items, it is possible that this room was singled out for more decorative treatment than other rooms, but such suggestions can be only tentative at this time. Special Usages, or Bricks of Special Form Special bricks occurred in five contexts: the mud bricks from the collapse of a vault (DSU 4, DSU 6, DSU 13, DSU 44, DSU 52), a vaulted ceiling for an under-stairs storage area (F21), a small storage feature (F43 from room 11), a bread oven (F19), and the floors of two under-stairs storage areas (F15 from room 4 and F42 from room 10). All but two of the vaulted roofs had collapsed in B2. The collapse debris was typically highly eroded and was evinced by disarticulated vault bricks debris (e.g., DSU 6, DSU 13, DSU 44, DSU 52). Room 1 had a mass of articulated vault bricks (DSU 4), which we drew in situ. We pulled apart and examined part of this DSU 4 vault collapse in order to assess the construction techniques used. We found that standard vault construction was employed; the bricks were mortared together and small potsherds, known as chinking sherds, were employed to allow the creation of a curve in the shape of a vault out of rectangular-shaped bricks. The vault bricks themselves were similar to those found in B1. They had impressions of a concentric circle pattern made with the fingers across one brick face while they were still wet. It was a common long-term practice in Egypt to score one face (to be the underside) or even both faces, by dragging the fingers down its length while the bricks were still wet in order to create “frogging” (Figure 5.3). Frogging augments the suction of the wet mortar by allowing it to act on a greater surface area, which is particularly important for vaults.40

Figure 5.3: Photo of a frogged brick from House B2. Room 4 had a vaulted ceiling (F21) partially intact, and room 11 had a vaulted ceiling (F43) fully intact. These rooms were instructive for examining how the bricks were laid in situ. Each of these vaults employed a different technique, and both of them differed from the types of vaults typically used over 40

On frogging, see Martin 1989:51, figure 14, plates 46, 157, Kemp 2000:93-96.

150

Amheida II

rooms. Most ancient vaults were the pitched type of vault, in which each arc of bricks was laid at a slight angle to the vertical so that the weight of each new one was borne by those already in place. 41 Pitched vaults were used for corridors and small spaces and were built against a stable element that propped up the initial courses. These initial courses were laid at right angles to the wall, and the subsequent courses of mud brick rested against the first ones that had been laid. 42 It is clear from examining these vaults that a slight angle was employed so that the new course of bricks could be supported by the preceding course as found in pitched vaults. Special bricks were sometimes made for pitched vaults. We were able to examine the vault bricks from the vault (F21) in room 4, as some of the bricks were found in excavation (DSU 44). These vault bricks differed in dimensions from other vault bricks in B2 and those excavated from Amheida House B1. The dimensions of the vault bricks found complete in the vault are: x = 34 cm, y = 13 cm, z = 10 cm. The bricks were curved along their length, and the bottom of the curve was oriented along the bottom of the vault. The bricks used in F21 were much thinner than standard vault bricks and were sometimes slightly curved on the edges. The use of curved bricks in vault construction has a long history in Egypt and can be attested from Dynastic Egypt onwards, and they were typically used for underground rooms. Balat in the Dakhla Oasis is our closest local comparandum for this special type of brick used in Pharaonic times.43 Bread Ovens The bread ovens in B2 (F19) and in Courtyard C2 (F3, F4) were constructed out of mud brick and indicate how mud brick was adapted for special needs. The oven itself consisted of a ceramic body enclosed within a square of mud brick walls one brick thick. The bread oven (F19) from B2 has brick dimensions in the z-axis that are not consistent with the general size found in this structure. The mud brick wall is four courses high and did not have a clear bonding pattern. The mud plaster is less than 1 cm thick and is brown/reddish-brown in color.

Brick 1

X

Y

Z

17

34

13

Table 5.2: Brick dimensions in oven platform Courtyard C2 F3 (in cm). The bread oven (F4), and platform (F3) from Courtyard C2 have highly variable brick dimensions, particularly along the x and y axes, suggesting that some of the bricks were specially shaped or reshaped for these features. X

Y

Z

Brick 1

15.50

–

6.50

Brick 2

–

23.00

6.50

Brick 3

–

27.00

6.50

Table 5.3: Brick dimensions in oven platform Courtyard C2 F3 (in cm).

Brick 1

X

Y

Z

19.00

36.00

6.00

Van Beek 1987:81. Leick 1988:239. 43 Found in the SCA magazine near Ismant el-Kharab. The brick dimensions are 1.28 x 30 cm; 17 x 6.5 cm, and the color is beige (Minault-Gout and Deleuze 1992:72, Spencer 1979:141-142). 41 42

Building Domestic Space

151

X

Y

Z

Brick 2

17.00

20.00

7.50

Brick 3

17.00

22.00

9.00

Table 5.4: Brick dimensions in bread oven Courtyard C2 F4 (in cm). Floors in Rooms 4 and 10: Rooms 4 and 10 had mud-brick pavements rather than the standard mud plaster floor found in other rooms in B2. It was common to use mud-brick floors in storage rooms in Roman Egypt.44 The room 4 floor (F15) consists of a mud-brick pavement that originally was covered in mud plaster. The floor itself is in a good state of preservation. The plaster is less well preserved with only small patches of plaster remaining in the southern part, although the northern 80 cm still have plaster adhering to the mud bricks. Both the bricks and the mud plaster are light grayish-brown in color. The mortar is less than 1.5 cm thick and the plaster is less than 3 cm thick. The plaster has charcoal, pottery, and bone inclusions in it. The brick dimensions are somewhat irregular in the floor and may reflect the need to shape the bricks in order to lay them properly. The bricks were not laid in a regular pattern. –

X

Y

Z

Brick 1

17

35

–

Brick 2

16

–

7

Brick 3

13

17

–

Brick 4

13

18

–

Table 5.5: Brick dimensions in floor F15 (in cm). The floor of room 10 (F42) is preserved only under the north wall (F28) and also as a single line of bricks in two courses towards the south wall (F26) of the room. The central part of the floor is missing and was filled with loose rubble and compacted adobe melt (DSU 66). Under the north wall (F28) the single course of floor that is visible consists of mud bricks laid on their headers, with their faces running east–west. They are laid to form a slight overlap with the wall that was 0.8 cm wide. The upper surface of this overlap is coated with thick mud plaster that is now very poorly preserved, but probably once coved over the junction between the floor (F42) and the wall (F28). The upper course is laid with the bricks on their faces with the header east–west; the lower course is, as far as one can tell from the small area visible, laid with headers north–south, forming what would essentially be English bond if this floor was a wall. The mud mortar is 5 cm thick and has inclusions of pebbles and lime spots. X

Y

Z

Brick 1

17

30

8

Brick 2

17.5

24

8

Table 5.6: Brick dimensions in floor F42 (in cm). In comparing the bricks used in these floors it is clear that standard bricks were employed, although it was necessary to reshape a brick occasionally in order to adapt it to the laying pattern or the space available. 44

See Chapter 6 for architectural comparanda.

152

Amheida II

Floor Construction Floors typically receive much less attention than walls in discussions of architectural construction in Egypt.45 It is a grave concern that floor composition is not studied more thoroughly, since floors reveal not only how they were made but also the activities that individuals carried out on them.46 All of the rooms in B2 were excavated at least to the uppermost floor level. The floors consisted of compacted mud except in two storage rooms (rooms 4, 10) that had mud-brick floors. Three wellpreserved floor layers were exposed during the excavation of room 7, and this room serves as the best example for exploring how floors were constructed, repaired, and renovated in B2. The sequence of layers described here corresponds to what was preserved to a lesser extent in other rooms (e.g., rooms 9, 6), and the construction methods used appear to be consistent with what was found in other rooms (e.g., rooms 1, 2, 3, 5).

Figure 5.4: Photo of room 7 floor section (F17). We cut a section in the northern half of room 7 in order to assess the construction methods used for the floors of B2 (Figure 5.4). We found a total of three floor layers and minor replastering episodes. These floors were built up with rubble in between, showing how individuals maintained the floor construction throughout the occupation of the house. This practice involved collecting ash, potsherds, mud brick Kemp 2000:92. Hecker 1986, Matthews and Postgate 1994. It is difficult to process micro morphology samples from Egypt at this time because they cannot be exported for research and there are limited capabilities within Egypt. We have left floors intact in B2 for sampling by future archaeologists. 45 46

Building Domestic Space

153

debris, and other refuse to put in place as stabilizing material. This debris was compacted in some areas in a manner that suggests that water was thrown onto this matrix to make it harden. A mud layer was then smoothed on top of the debris matrix to form an even and firm floor surface.47 The floor surfaces themselves appeared to be quite similar, with the exception of the first floor (F49) in room 7, which was a fine plastered floor of a light gray color. Some minor repairs, such as patching, also took place on this floor. The floor is extremely flat and compacted. There is one raised area of the floor that seems to be a repair; this is located immediately south of the oven feature (F19). This repair was probably necessitated by the use of F19 in the vicinity, since the hole for fuel and drafts is located here. The repair patch also has a gray ash concentration in the vicinity of the hole into the oven (F19). The floor was tempered with some organics, ash, charcoal parts, and pottery. Deliberately made mud floor plaster appears to require a relatively high organic content, much like wall plaster. The organics usually derived from chopped straw, and the floor is laid out when the matrix of mud and straw is still in a fairly plastic state, without the addition of too much water.48 Floor F48 is probably a repair episode, as it was in close proximity to floor F49 below and F45 above. Alternatively, F48 may be a preparatory level for F45 rather than a proper floor layer. F48 rests on large cobbles and debris that were used to stabilize and prepare a foundation for the new floor construction. There are no significant features or marks associated with this floor level, although it was possible to discern ceramic inclusions. F45, the middle floor layer, was in a very good state of preservation. It consists of highly compacted grayish mud plaster with whiter patches. It has a high degree of inclusions, such as charcoal parts, ash pockets, seeds (mostly olive), lime spots, ceramic fragments, and organic fibers. It had several patches of ash concentration on its surface, likely from the use of the oven in the vicinity. The top floor layer (F17) consists of highly compacted light gray mud plaster. It is in a very good state of preservation, although it is largely absent in the vicinity of walls F7, F12, and F27. There is also a large gap in the floor 0–58 cm west of wall F7 and 34–169 cm north of doorway F53. At 50–75 cm north of F12 and 110–130 cm west of F7 there is a gray ash concentration with charcoal inclusions. It is standard that floors erode more quickly along the junctions with the walls and in doorways. There were inclusions of ceramics, organics, charcoal, and seeds in the floor. There are no other discernible features or marks associated with floor F17. We excavated below floor level in several rooms49 in order to understand how the initial laying of the floors took place. Rather than leveling the surface to gebel (“bedrock”), builders used the natural landscape with all of its fluctuations in elevation (see room 1). Instead of modifying the landscape substantially, they appear to have built directly upon the surface of the site with only minor preparations. This construction method appears common for this house and the surrounding structures. We found evidence that suggests individuals trampled and wet the ground before placing a layer of mud brick and other debris in preparation for the mud plaster of floors.50 Floors in open areas could be produced by the combined action of trampling and of wetting the ground. It is possible that this procedure was the first step before beginning the process of building up rubble underneath the first proper floor layer in interior rooms as well.51 Exterior Courtyard Floor F1 is a highly irregular and poorly preserved floor or surface layer, remaining only in patches across the trench excavated in Courtyard C2. It is very thin in parts and uncertain in other areas, so it may be an Kemp 2000:92. Ibid.:92. 49 Rooms 1, 2, 3, and 6. 50 E.g. DSU 23 in room 1, DSU 20 in room 2, and DSU 28 in room 3. 51 On trampling and wetting the ground as a preparatory practice, see Kemp 2000:92. 47 48

154

Amheida II

informal surface, rather than the more prepared surfaces that we find in the rooms within B2. This informal surface had inclusions of lime spots and pottery, but it did not seem to have been mixed with substantial amounts of temper, since organics were conspicuously absent from this matrix. An ephemeral hearth (DSU 5) was located on F1, which secures its identification as a surface. The combined action of trampling and of wetting the ground to produce informal surfaces resulted in a less firm and structured surface than we found in B2.52 Indeed, without the support of bricks and refuse, these informal floors are much more difficult to differentiate from compacted earth in the surrounding matrix.

Street Construction Soil street construction is even more neglected than floor construction in architectural analysis. Part of the difficulty with this study is that we do not yet understand to what extent individuals deliberately constructed street surfaces. There is some evidence of prepared road construction in Pharaonic Egypt for special construction projects and in the Roman Period for trade networks, but there is little discussion of road construction in standard settlements.53 It is possible that compacted muddy surfaces in courtyards and streets may have come into existence through the combined action of trampling and of wetting the ground, a puddling process in itself. These human activity by-products can recur over the same area to produce a laminated effect, however, so it is possible that this compaction occurred naturally through consistent heavy usage.54 The street (S1) north of B2 served as a main east–west oriented street into Amheida, and it would have experienced significant traffic. We employed test soundings to investigate the street system. These soundings have the advantage of providing very detailed information at relatively low cost and through a minimally invasive intervention. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that this small-scale trench offers only a localized perspective on the archaeological reality, which must be accounted for when extrapolating from the exposed situation to the rest of the city. A network of streets cannot remain in use without continuous upkeep. We exposed three distinct compacted mud and debris surfaces (Area 1.2, F1, F2, and F3) for Street S1. We distinguished these surfaces by deposit episodes (trash deposition; sand deposition), which may have necessitated at least a partially active preparation of a surface. Other ancient cities, such as Sagalassos, show frequent leveling operations.55 Most ancient towns evince street level alterations over time, which then required that the adjoining buildings had to be adapted to ensure that they were accessible from the street.56 The staircase (F50) shows how B2 was adapted to suit the changing street levels. Looking more closely at the street surfaces, we find that DSU 7 consists of highly compacted adobe with flat-lying sherds both on top and embedded in it. The only discernible inclusions were ceramics. It was highly compacted but difficult to define. Likewise, DSU 10 consisted of an extremely hard matrix of compacted trash. The surface broke apart in large chunks and had several plaster inclusions. DSU 10 was extremely flat and seems to have been a more formal street surface than DSU 7. DSU 10 may be the same surface as DSU 14, since it appeared to slope upwards slightly to the west. DSU 14 consisted of compacted adobe, with flat-lying sherds on a level surface, suggesting that it is more likely to be a prepared street Ibid.:92. Ibid.:93. A recent edited volume on roads (Ballet, Dieudonné-Glad and Saliou 2008) includes two contributions on Romano-Egyptian roads (Ballet 2008, Marouard 2008). On the construction of roads in the Western Desert, see Klemm, Klemm and Steclaci 1984:Tafel 11, Wagner 1987:140-154. For desert roads in Nubia, see Hester, Hobler and Russel 1970. On Egyptian Eastern Desert roads, see Sidebotham 2011:125-140. These desert roads were unpaved roads, which the Romans termed viae terrenae (Ulpian, Digesta 43.11.1.2). 54 Kemp 2000:92. 55 Martens 2008:194. 56 Liebeschuetz 2000:55. 52 53

Building Domestic Space

155

surface than the other ones that we exposed. Artifact densities for DSU 14 were low in all categories, though many categories are represented, such as organics, glass, ceramics, and faience. Many artifacts from DSU 14 had salts adhering to them, suggesting evaporated water. DSU 14 was terminated when we reached soft yellow sand and occasional pockets of ash, which indicated the site surface that was used for preparing the original street surface. This surface included a mix of small bits of refuse (e.g. clinker, ceramics, ash, bone, faience), but did not contain standard material used for temper.

Conclusion This analysis of construction materials and building techniques yields three important conclusions: First, the use of the alternate channels construction techniques points towards large-scale construction in this area of the site. Although the evidence for tie beams is uncertain, the potential use of this construction method also suggests a major construction episode. These data, along with other strands of evidence, indicate that Area 1 may have been created in a single large-scale construction episode.57 Second, comparison between the interior floors, courtyard surface, and street surfaces gives us a sense of how individuals considered spaces within and outside of B2. The surfaces exterior to B2 appear to have been created either through repetitive action or non-intensive methods, while the floors in B2 show typical construction patterns along with potential adaptation of techniques used in open spaces, perhaps to increase the stability of these floors and improve their appearance. On one hand, rooms 5 and 7 both contained implements for food preparation, but they both had formal floors due to their location within the house rather than exterior to the house. On the other hand, C2 had informal floor preparations since it was exterior to the house, although the function of this space had some overlap with these interior rooms. The street, S1, seems to have been formally laid out initially, but was subsequently informally maintained, perhaps by the neighborhood. Third, an examination of the building techniques used in B2 indicates that the builders employed traditional Egyptian construction materials and building methods in this structure. 57

See Chapter 8 for a discussion of this topic.

This page intentionally left blank

6

SITUATING DOMESTIC SPACE An Architectural Analysis and Reconstruction of House B2 Anna Lucille Boozer This chapter engages the archaeological evidence with regional and temporal domestic architectural comparanda. Although it is not possible to produce a definitive reconstruction for all of the B2 attributes, I consider likely scenarios and offer a potential reconstruction. I will review: (1) the size, (2) orientation, (3) overall layout, (4) specific attributes and features of this structure, (5) placement of this structure within its local, regional and Mediterranean perspectives, and (6) the reconstruction of House B2.

Size House B2 is a building of moderate size, measuring 11 x 11 m (121 m²). It is at the lower end of large houses in our current spectrum of Romano-Egyptian housing types (Figure 1.5). A much grander end of the local domestic spectrum can be found in Amheida house B1, which has a 295 m² footprint. The local Dakhlan range in house sizes extend well beyond these two structures, although the largest Kellis houses are at least a century earlier than B2. The later Kellis houses are more comparable to B2. Excavated domestic units from Kellis Area A are between 99.2 and 129.65 m², without their exterior courtyards. In Area B, the elite domestic complex B/3/1 is 626 m² and the others are 306.25 m² and 415.6 m²; in Area C the domestic units are 101.4, 110.25, 129.9 and 175.25 m². 1 These comparative dimensions indicate that Amheida House B2 falls well within the norms of excavated structures in the oasis. Looking to the broader Egyptian context, we find that B2 fits within the lower end of large houses in the housing spectrum. Four houses recently exposed at Douch, in Kharga, are approximately 300 to 350 m².2 Houses at Marina el-Alamein, on the coast of Egypt, range from 192 to 456 m². 3 Archaeological research from the Fayum suggests that the typical house from this region contained about 50 square meters of living space for the inhabitants, although there are certainly houses of comparable sizes to structure B2 there as well.4 We lack an informative range of house comparisons from all periods of Pharaonic Egypt. Most of our data derives from Middle and particularly New Kingdom structures. Shaw’s extensive study of Amarna workmen’s houses is perhaps the best comparison, although most scholars consider Amarna to be an atypical site. Shaw suggests that 65 per cent of the population lived in houses smaller than 100 m², whereas about 21 per cent lived in houses between 100 and 200 m², and as little as 8 per cent lived in houses larger than 200 m².5 Houses from Memphis and Thebes show that most individuals lived in very small houses, certainly under 100 m².6 The average house size in Deir el-Medina was 72 m² and the houses exhibited a range between 40 and 120 m².7 Hope et al. 2006:29. Reddé, Ballet, Barbet and Bonnet 2004:73. 3 Medeksza and Czerner 2003:20-23. 4 On the Fayum house sizes, see Hobson 1985. On Tebtynis houses, see Gallazzi and Hadji-Minaglou 2000, Gallazzi 1999. For an overview of Fayum houses by site, consult Davoli 1998. 5 Shaw 1992:156. 6 Meskell 2002:33-34, Kemp 1977:194-196. 1 2

158

Amheida II

It should be noted that it is likely that archaeologists have left the extreme lower end of the housing spectrum unexcavated in the above examples. Many people probably lived in very small one or two-room structures that are currently difficult for us to identify from the surface, or even upon excavation, as houses. Given this range of data it is fair to say that B2 is a modest but not a poor dwelling within the Dakhlan spectrum and a relatively large house within the Egyptian, Romano-Egyptian, and Roman Mediterranean spectrum.

Orientation The ancients were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of various architectural orientations and often built their houses and planned their cities accordingly. In Roman Egypt papyrological research indicates that there was a strong preference for entrances to be oriented towards the north. The west is the second most preferred direction. The tendency to orient houses towards the north agrees with a long-standing principle evident in the domestic architecture of the Pharaonic period. By designing north-facing houses, it was possible to provide houses with thermal comfort in Egypt’s long and hot summer season. A northern orientation reduced exposure to the light and heat of the sun and admitted cooling air movement from the prevailing north–northwesterly winds that are found across Egypt and in Dakhla in particular.8 Egyptologists, particularly of New Kingdom Egypt, regard the northern orientation of houses to have been a general rule.9 Houses from Dura Europos on the Euphrates, a warm climate not too dissimilar to Egypt, are also oriented towards the north.10 Moreover, most of these houses from Dura Europos have courtyards located immediately to the north of a principal room (known as the andronitis) and its flanking rooms.11 This room organization allows the principal living quarters to be exposed to the prevailing northwesterly winds. A similar arrangement can be found in Egypt, and most houses that opened to the east or to the west will have had a courtyard located to the north of the principal living areas rather than to their south. This arrangement would open up the living quarters to more cooling air.12 The northern orientation preferred for houses also can be found among workshops, as can be seen from papyrological evidence at Oxyrhynchus.13 The northern orientation of the Egyptian houses and those from Dura Europos contrasts with contemporary houses found from around the northern Mediterranean, where winter posed a greater hindrance to comfort than summer and houses were oriented to catch the warming sun rather than the cooling wind.14 House B2 is oriented with its entrance to the north, although it (with Area 1 generally) is slightly off-axis, potentially to reduce the amount of sand that might have come with the north winds. The central room of B2 (room 7) is oriented to catch the winds. It is also worthwhile noting that the ceramics production area north of House B2 is oriented such that it captures the strong north winds, which would have aided production.

Valbelle 1985:117. Within the Roman Mediterranean domestic spectrum, the average is roughly 75.2 m² and the average property area for a Pompeian house is 271 m². B2 is larger than the average for the greater ancient Mediterranean, although in some locales it would be on the lower end of the spectrum. On the Roman Mediterranean average, see Alston 1997:53. On Pompeiian houses, see Wallace-Hadrill 1994:81, table 4.2. New works on this average are constantly emerging, so we may expect these averages to shift dramatically over time. 8 Daniel 2010:95-97. 9 Petrie 1894:20-21, Ricke 1932:25, Tietze 1985:79, Roik 1988:2, Borchardt and Ricke 1980, Endruweit 1994:110. 10 Hoepfner and Schwandner 1986:209-212, 222-227. 11 Ibid.:chapter VII. 12 Daniel 2010:111. 13 Ibid.:105. 14 Ibid.:101. 7

Situating Domestic Space

Figure 6.1: Cluster plan and linear plan diagrams (A. Cervi).

159

160

Amheida II

Layout Footprint Davoli distinguishes three types of Fayum house footprints: (1) rectangular buildings, (2) square or quasisquare buildings, and (3) complicated buildings with irregular exterior walls. 15 The first and second types of houses are the most common in the Fayum, and the rooms within these general footprints could be arranged in a variety of ways.16 Some sites within the Fayum do not conform to this typology, such as the houses from Hawara, but these three types provide a good general understanding of the domestic footprint possibilities currently known to us during the Roman Period.17 B2 conforms to the second type of house footprint, since it is square in plan view, measuring 11 x 11 m. Amheida House B1 and several Kellis houses also conform to this footprint, indicating that B2 fits both local and more general housing footprint norms found in Roman Egypt. Access Analysis Interpreting room arrangement has been an important part of archaeological analysis for a long time.18 More recently, scholars have explored this method for analyzing Roman domestic architecture.19 These analyses show that a clustered patterning of rooms is not common for houses in Pharaonic Egypt, where linear plans dominate.20 A linear plan is one in which each room was entered through the previous room in a direct line (Figure 6.1); it was thus necessary to travel through all intervening rooms to get to a room at the end of the house. A clustered plan had one or more rooms that provided access to several rooms, so each room was more directly accessible than rooms in a linear plan (Figure 6.1). During the Roman Period, Fayum houses often have elongated footprints and do not have a single room through which most other rooms were accessed. Karanis and Soknopaiou Nesos both contain houses that demonstrate the linear access common to the Fayum. Despite the predominance of linear forms, there are also several houses from Karanis that had clustered plans, or combinations between clustered and linear plans.21 B2 is square in plan view, and the rooms are organized around a large central room (room 7). This central room provided access for all of the major rooms in this structure except for one (room 3). In this respect, B2 demonstrates a simple clustered plan of access rather than a linear plan of access (Figure 6.1). Karanis House C127 shows a similar type of simple cluster plan (Figure 6.1). Kellis Houses 1 and House 3 also have clustered access plans.22 At Amheida, House B1 shows a bifurcated clustered access plan, with two rooms providing access to most of the rooms in the structure (Figure 6.1). These comparisons suggest that B2 conforms to local housing types and that this form could be found in other areas of Egypt, although it may have been less common in the Fayum. Vertical Reconstruction Ptolemaic and Roman houses in Egypt typically had between one and four stories, although one sevenstory house has been attested in the papyri. 23 It seems that the average house found in cities and villages had two stories.24 Roman Period houses from Karanis and Soknopaiou Nesos had at least two stories, and The proportion from the short side to the long side is 1:3 or 1:4 for rectangular buildings. Davoli 1998:354, 358, fig. 164. 17 On the non-conformity of Hawara houses with Davoli’s typology, see Uytterhoeven 2010:322. 18 Hillier and Hanson 1984. Space syntax analysis evaluates room arrangements in order to map out access and the permeability of architectural spaces (Bowes 2010:20). 19 Laurence 1994, Laurence and Wallace-Hadrill 1997, Grahame 2000. 20 Alston 1997:53-57. 21 Alston 2002:57, fig. 3.2. 22 Ibid.:fig. 107. 23 Ibid.:59. On the seven-story house, see P.Oxy. XXXIV 2719. 24 Husson 1983:257-267. 15 16

Situating Domestic Space

161

vaulted ceilings were present only in the underground rooms. 25 Forty-seven per cent of village houses and forty per cent of urban housing for which the number of stories is attested (n=109) had two stories.26 Although the sample size was quite small, these data suggest that most Egyptian houses of the Roman Period emphasized a vertical component rather than spreading over the horizontal axis. The recovered evidence from B2 suggests that this structure had only one story, although a staircase provided access to the roof. This reconstruction is consistent with evidence recovered from other domestic structures in the Dakhla Oasis, such as Kellis Houses 1–3 and Amheida House B1. These results suggest that Dakhlan houses are somewhat different from the Romano-Egyptian norm, as far as our present information goes. The staircase placement is somewhat variable in multistory houses found across Roman Egypt. In the houses of Davoli’s first type, which had a rectangular footprint, the staircase was located at the center of the house. In the houses of the second category, which had a square or quasi-square footprint, it was located in one of the corners.27 B2 is at variance with Davoli’s typology in that the staircase (room 8) is located in the center of the structure rather than one of the corners. Even so, the staircase location off the central room (the aithrion, see below) conforms to the general association between stairs and aithria across Roman Egypt.28 In summation, the single-story reconstruction of B2 suggests that this house is consistent with known Dakhlan domestic architecture. The staircase placement in B2 does not conform to the typology Davoli established for the Fayum, but it does conform to the frequent juxtaposing of aithria and staircases. These results suggest that B2 shares more in common with local housing forms with respect to its vertical components than it does with houses located elsewhere in Roman Egypt. Even so, B2 falls within the generally understood Romano-Egyptian housing spectrum.

Architectural Components The specific architectural components of B2 can be compared with a range of excavated sites across Roman Egypt as well as more broadly within the empire. Moreover, papyrology provides us with descriptions of urban and rural houses from the first through seventh century, which can enhance our interpretations. Byzantine house descriptions tend to be more elaborate than those from the early and high Roman Period. Since most of these descriptions served to identify the house or the part of the house under discussion in legal cases, only major architectural features are mentioned.29 The most common domestic features mentioned in texts include the number of stories, the aule (yard), any purgoi (towers), wells, the aithrion (interior court), the pylon (gatehouse), the symposion (dining room) and sometimes outbuildings, such as dovecotes or stables.30 The first extensive attempt to integrate papyrological and archaeological data about housing in Roman Egypt was made by Luckhard.31 Unfortunately, van Minnen still had reason to complain about integration nearly a century later.32 Caution is always recommended when mapping papyrological terms onto archaeological evidence, since the possibility of misattribution is high and can lead to much confusion. 33 Even so, some named features are understood clearly from the texts and can be employed with some caution. The terms most relevant and least risky for exploring B2 are the aule (yard) and aithrion (interior court) so they will be Davoli 1998:53, 85. Alston 2002:59. 27 Davoli 1998:355. See also Ellis 2000:96. 28 Daniel 2010:133. 29 Alston 2002:58. 30 Ibid.:58. 31 Luckhard 1914. 32 van Minnen 1994. 33 Allison 1999b. 25 26

162

Amheida II

employed below. The other terms attested either are not relevant to B2 or could cause confusion, such that it seems prudent to avoid them in the present examination. At a later date, if these terms and domestic architecture become better understood, it may be become possible to accurately map them on to B2. One of the few features that Romano-Egyptian houses appear to share is access to an open courtyard.34 Courtyards could be private or could be used by a group of houses and could vary in size. It was more common for traditional Egyptian houses to relegate courtyards off to the rear or side of houses (aule), but they may have been included as a central courtyard (aithrion).35 Despite the variation between size, location, and privacy, the presence of this space and the ways in which the courtyard was used is consistent. Courtyard activities typically included cooking and food preparation, agricultural work, and animal husbandry. Kitchen chores comprised milling grain and cooking food, both on both open fires and in closed ovens. Feeding troughs and shelters for animals were often in the same courtyard, but they also could be located in a separate one.36 These activities left behind clear indications in the archaeological record. Archaeological examples of courtyards from Karanis houses preserve consistent traces of domestic animals as well as clay ovens for food preparation.37 Some of the features commonly found in Karanis courtyards included jars and bins for storing grain, ovens or stoves, bread ovens, or animal troughs. 38 Architecturally, these spaces could have either informal beaten earth floors or more formal pavement preparations. Aule: Exterior Courtyard The aule was a court or yard exterior to the covered house, and aulai are frequently attested in papyrological material in both urban and rural contexts.39 Many houses had this kind of open space, and the frequency of their attestation makes it likely that the term aule can be linked with the exterior work yards found at sites such as Karanis.40 From documentary sources it is clear that Romano-Egyptians considered the aule to be a separate entity from the house itself, as can be found in descriptions of houses by individuals from Karanis. For example, a woman, Tasoucharion, lists her property for the census and describes a “house with a courtyard”.41 Likewise, the courtyard of Hawara House E is described in the following terms; “the courtyard forms the western side of the house.”42 Documentary records also make it clear that aulai could be sold separately from the house and that individuals could own more than one aule.43 The peripheral location of aulai found at sites such as Karanis suggest that these spaces could be exchanged between neighboring parties quite easily.44 C2, the exterior courtyard adjacent to B2, seems to follow the general descriptions of an aule, while room 7, which may have been open, would be considered part of the house proper. If room 7 was partially or fully open it is likely it would have been considered an aithrion (see below). The exterior courtyard Alston 2002:53. On the traditional location of courtyards in Egyptian houses, see Davoli 1998:47. On the central courtyard (aithrion), see Alston 1997:53, Husselman 1979:49-54. 36 Davoli 1998:85. 37 Ibid.:81. 38 Husselman 1979:49. 39 Husson 1983:45-55. On papyrological mentions of the aule, see Alston 2002:59. 40 P.Mich. VI 370, discussed in Alston 2002:59. 41 Rowlandson 1998:141-142. 42 P.Ashm. I 7 (187/186 BCE), discussed in Uytterhoeven 2010:323. 43 On aule sold separately from the house, see P.Oxy. III 505; XIV 1696; 1697. On individuals owning more than one aule, see P.Mich. VI 428. It is also important to bear in mind that, due to inheritance practices, it was possible to buy and sell fractions of houses. These fractions could be dealt with practically through the use of “virtual” fractions rather than real fractions of houses. The archaeological record does not provide evidence for the physical division of houses (see Muhs 2008). On these inheritance practices and the impact of marriage on houses, see Pestman 1969, Pestman 1961. 44 Alston 2002:59. 34 35

Situating Domestic Space

163

space south of B2 conforms to a standard that appears to have been common in Roman Egypt. It was an exterior, multi-use space for food preparation, craft activities, and animal husbandry. As seen from the previous chapter, this space was much less formally constructed than its counterparts for food preparation within the structure (rooms 5 and 7). Courtyard C2 may have been considered part of the property of the household that lived in B9, east of B2, but it may have changed hands during the occupational history of the house. 45 One possibility might be that C2 was originally communal, but was sold to B9, which led to the construction of the bread oven in room 7 of B2 to replace the bread oven found in the exterior courtyard. It is impossible to verify such conjectures on the basis of the archaeology at this time. Aithrion: Central Courtyard The term aithrion is confined to the papyri from Egypt, and consideration may be given to a specifically Egyptian explanation of what this architectural unit might have been. Just as the Pharaonic and RomanoEgyptian house tended to be oriented towards the north in order to take advantage of the cooling effects of the prevailing winds, also the aithrion might have had a connection with the north winds.46 Documentary evidence of aithria is unevenly distributed between cities and villages. Most aithria houses come from urban contexts, while most of the village attestations of aithria houses come from Tebtynis in the Fayum.47 No documentary sources mention the sale of an aithrion separate from that of a house, which suggests that the aithrion was an integral feature of the house.48 Documentary sources make it clear that the aithrion could contain domestic equipment and that aithria were used in a similar manner as the aule.49 The aithrion (court) formed an integral, central part of the Romano-Egyptian house.50 Houses could have both an aule (exterior courtyard) and an aithrion, but sometimes aithria house descriptions do not mention an aule. This absence may indicate that the presence of an aithrion meant that an aule was unnecessary. The aithrion usually served rooms that opened on to it. The aithrion was thus usually centrally located, and more than a single room opened onto it. Houses usually had one aithrion, but sometimes they had two (or more?). The space occupied by the aithrion extended from the ground floor up to the roof. The aithrion was often located close to a stairway or stairwell.51 It is debatable if aithria were open or closed spaces. Daniel argues that the aithrion was not an inner courtyard or Lichthof that was open to the sky above, but was a covered hall that received only a small amount of daylight and was ventilated in such a way that it also cooled adjoining rooms.52 This hall might have been covered by a flat roof or by an air-trapping shed that took advantage of prevailing north winds.53 The archaeological and papyrological evidence for these suggestions is ambivalent.

C2 is undergoing full excavation at this time (Boozer 2012b, Boozer 2013c). Daniel 2010:133. 47 Alston 2002:59. 48 Ibid.:60. 49 P.Oxy. XII 1488. 50 Alston 2002:209, 59-6, Husson 1983:29-36, Uytterhoeven 2010:324. 51 Daniel 2010:131-133. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid.:133. Luckhard and Husson suggested that the aithrion was the central part of a Ptolemaic house excavated at Ghoran in the Fayum. They believe it was open to the sky above (Luckhard 1914:58, n. 1, Husson 1983:30-31, fig. 1). The excavator suspected that unit E (the central “aithrion”) might have been covered with a ceiling higher than the surrounding roofs (Jouguet 1901:392). Houses from Tel el-Amarna (ca. 1350 BCE) had houses with various rooms opening onto a central hall that had windows above the surrounding roofs (Spence 2004:135, fig. 5). These clerestory windows admitted light and promoted air circulation (Endruweit 1994:66-70). 45 46

164

Amheida II

Local examples of aithria houses can be found at Kellis. Kellis House 3 has an open room (room 6) that functioned in a similar way to the aithrion in B2 and was labeled as a “living room” by the excavators because it provides obvious gathering place and access point for inhabitants.54 The Fayum also contains archaeological examples of aithria houses. Karanis House C168 has a well preserved central courtyard and dates to sometime in the middle of the first century CE, through perhaps as late as the end of the second century CE.55 This area was used in a similar way as the exterior yards that were more commonly found at Karanis: Every house in Karanis had its courtyard or shared one with its neighbor. It was usually situated at one end or at the side of the house, where there was direct access to a street or passageway. Occasionally, as in C168, it was in the center of the house with the remaining rooms grouped around it, so that it had no communication with the outside. The courtyard was enclosed by walls but it was unroofed, although sometimes roofs were built over animal pens or bins.56 Grenfell and Hunt (1898–99) as well as Rubensohn (1902) excavated the houses of Theadelphia (Kharabet Ihrit) in the search for papyri. As a result, the archaeological data is poorly presented and little remains visible on the site surface today.57 Rubensohn only described and published adequately two houses from Theadelphia (Batn-Ihrit), and both of these houses contained aithria.58 The first house was preserved for four meters in height, and had an L-shaped plan divided into four rooms. The aithrion was located in the middle of the house and provided access to a stairway leading upstairs.59 Rubensohn’s second house was much larger and more complicated than the first house and appears to have been occupied from the second to the fourth century CE. An aithrion was also found in the middle of the building. It is notable that this house appears to have been modified so that this aithrion became more of a centralized access point than in its early occupation.60 The published evidence of houses from Theadelphia denotes a degree of wealth and indicates an architectural and decorative repertoire that was not entirely Egyptian in origin.61 As such, the houses from Theadelphia provide informative comparisons to B2. Additional houses can be found in the Fayum, although limited comparisons can be made since they have not been well published. For example, although the majority of houses in the Fayum only have an aule, Soknopaiou Nesos (Dîme) also has evidence of aithria houses.62 Philadelphia (Kom el-Kharaba elKebir) houses also provide evidence of internal courtyards.63 Central courtyards can be found elsewhere in Egypt, although they are not always used in the same way as the one from B2. Two out of the four Romano-Egyptian buildings recently uncovered at Kysis (Douch) provide evidence of potentially unroofed or partially-roofed courts.64 House III has a large interior court with columns as well a raised inner portion that does not find ready parallels in Egypt. It may be more closely linked to Late Antique luxury houses in Syria.65 House I also has an inner peristyle Hope 1991:41. Husselman 1979:9. House C168 does not have the same sort of squared-off plan and clustered plan of access that we find in B2. It was one-story in height and contained underground areas as well as stairs to the roof. 56 Ibid.:49. 57 Davoli 1998:279-293. 58 Rubensohn 1905. 59 Ibid.:5, fig.5. 60 Ibid., Davoli 1998:282. 61 Rubensohn 1905, Davoli 1998:287-288. 62 On these houses in general, see Davoli 1998:45-50. Davoli believes that it was impossible for Fayum and Dakhla houses to have internal courtyards (pers. comm. 2014). 63 On these houses, see ibid.:140-142. 64 Reddé, Ballet, Barbet and Bonnet 2004:25-74. 65 Ibid.:73-74. 54 55

Situating Domestic Space

165

that was probably lightly roofed between the columns and the walls, but may have been unroofed over the center or had a light framework placed there.66 The excavator suggests that it is possible that these structures were public buildings or served administrative purposes. The coastal, Graeco-Roman town at ancient Leukaspsis or Antiphrae (Marina el-Alamein) had houses with central courtyards. This feature, among others, is similar to the more lavish dwellings found in Dakhla. The more sumptuous dwellings contained a central court surrounded by two or three portico wings, while the smaller dwellings had just one wing of a single column. Rooms were built around these central courts and, typologically, the excavators identify these houses as portico and peristyle houses. 67 The excavators attributed this style to a Greek and Roman influence upon domestic architecture, which appeared to be the dominant spatial scheme in the town as it was replicated consistently. These peristyle houses had highly complex plans. Orthogonal and axial plans predominated, indicating a Roman tradition rooted in Hellenistic architecture of the eastern Mediterranean.68 Unfortunately, the excavators have not published comprehensive reports of their excavations yet, so we cannot at this time venture thorough comparisons between Amheidan domestic forms and those at Marina el-Alamein. Likewise, they have not yet published data on smaller structures similar in scale to B2. Even so, the houses at el-Alamein offer a more opulent and classically pronounced variety of architecture than we find at Amheida and particularly at B2. Moreover, Marina el-Alamein occupies a different ecological zone than Dakhla, which would lend itself to different architectural types. The central courtyard is a common feature in contemporaneous houses found throughout the Roman Mediterranean. In North Africa, these houses are not Roman style atria houses but rather peristyle houses that devote considerable space to open areas around which other rooms are organized.69 Like the Marina el-Alamein houses, these structures show much more influence from Classical housing norms than does B2.70 Courtyard houses are quite common in the Roman East as well. For example, the well-known Christian House from block M8 at Dura Europos looks quite similar to B2 in plan view and contains a central open space.71 A central open room was a feature signifying a Roman Mediterranean (or Classical) house plan rather than the traditional Egyptian plan, which typically had only external open areas off to one side or behind the house proper.72 Even so, it is clear that there is a range in how this influence was expressed in the architecture. B2 shows less classical influence than houses at Marina el-Alamein and some areas of North Africa. It fits more in line with houses found at Kellis, Theadelphia, and some from Karanis. There may be some significance attached to a general clustering of courtyard houses to the second century CE and later, but we do not have enough of these structures excavated at this time to make general conclusions about phased attributes. The presence of an aithrion would have a significant impact on the appearance of a domestic structure. This broad open space would provide light and fresh air to the rooms grouped around it, while houses lacking this space would be substantially darker and more closed. A negative attribute of such openness in Dakhla is that the oasis is subject to strong blowing sand and sandstorms as well as extreme

Ibid.:74. Medeksza and Czerner 2003:21. 68 Ibid.:21. 69 Thébert 1987:326. 70 Hope 2007b. 71 Kraeling 1967, Wharton 1995. 72 Alston 1997:5, Davoli 1998:47, although a central hall is evident in the domestic architecture of Pharaonic Egypt (Roik 1988:209-211). On the central hall in houses at Tell el-Amarna, see Badawy 1968: 93-94, 97-127, Endruweit 1994:57-78, Spence 2004:131-132, Tietze 2010:95-103. 66 67

166

Amheida II

highs and lows of temperature. Such environmental considerations would have impacted the appeal of this type of architecture in Egypt’s various regions.73 The ways in which individuals used the aithrion would have changed the ebb and flow of spatial usage in the house, since practical activities would occur in the center of the home rather than at the peripheries. Although the presence or absence of an aithrion would impact the appearance and spatial usage of houses profoundly, the distinction between these types of houses should not be exaggerated, since a small aithrion house may have little if any more space than a house without an aithrion and with an aule.74 The presence of an aithrion should not necessarily be understood as an economic advantage, but rather a social difference. Based upon the lack of archaeological data indicating the presence of a roof, room 7 may have been open. Likewise, bread ovens typically were placed in unroofed rooms with their draft hole opposite to the prevailing wind.75 This situation occurs in room 7 with the presence of bread oven (F19), further justifying the suggestion that this space was open. Moreover, as it has been proved that Courtyard C2 belonged to B9 and not to B2, the aithrion in B2 was essential for daily domestic needs. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so it is not possible to prove beyond a doubt that room 7 was unroofed. An additional possibility is that room 7 once had light roofing that was not load bearing but would have shielded this space from wind and sun. Such conjectures are impossible to verify without additional data from unexcavated houses. At this time, House B2 fits within the limited range of aithria houses known from Roman Egypt, and it is unclear if, and how frequently, this range of houses could have light screening frames. Entrance System House B2 has an L-shaped entrance, opening to the north (room 9). The shape helped to keep out sand and trash deriving from the busy street outside the house. An L-shape entrance system is not uncommon in Dakhla, and it is a housing feature with a long history in Egypt. Examples can be found from several houses at Kellis.76 The lack of a view from the entrance into the rest of the house makes it clear that such vistas were not considered to be an important aspect of the architecture for this structure; they may indeed have been negatives due to the strong wind. Because of the immediate sharp turn to the east, individuals who entered the structure would not have had a view inside the house until they had already turned from the entrance into room 7 to the east. Even once they entered that room, no orchestrated architectural vistas, as could often be found in Roman houses, were available to visitors. 77 The turns in this entrance would have concealed the interior of the house from the outside, enabling a greater sense of privacy, visually and audibly removing the house from the chaos, dirt, and noise that were likely present on this main street into Amheida. The north doorway to the street in room 9 was quite worn and shows signs of repair and modification. For example, it contains limestone steps leading up to the street, mirroring the rising street level found in excavations from Street S1.78 These stairs have deep gouges in them that may be signs that It is worthwhile noting that the Bedouin village to the north of Amheida has houses with central courtyards today. These interior courts are often used for functional domestic purposes as well as sleeping during hot months. 74 Alston 2002:61. 75 Depraetere 2002:123. 76 Rooms 5–6 in House 2 also formed an L-shape (Hope 1987:161), as did rooms 1 to 6 in House 3 (Hope, Kaper, Bowen and Patten 1989:fig.1). 77 For example, the houses from Pompeii are often arranged such that a dramatic vista was available to individuals when they first enter the house or courtyard (Hope, Kaper, Bowen and Patten 1989:107-122). 78 House 3 at Kellis had a flight of four mudbrick steps leading to the street level as well as a low, semicircular wall added in the street to help keep out windblown sand (ibid., Hope, Kaper and Bowen 1992:41-42). Houses from Karanis often show signs that mudbrick stairs were later replaced by stone steps (Husselman 1979:40). 73

Situating Domestic Space

167

individuals were sharpening knives or shaping other tools upon these stones. Stone was readily available for construction, but it was more expensive than mud brick: it is therefore common for houses from Roman Egypt to restrict stone to the use of thresholds and lintels of entrance doorways, as we find here.79 When entering the house from the street, the wall facing the street retained no visible signs of decoration, although it is likely that it was once covered in mud plaster. There were small adobe barriers constructed on either side of the doorway in the street, which may have protected the house from sand, refuse, and traffic.80 The importance of the dodged entrance likely is due to the environmental conditions surrounding B2. Because B2 is located on the edge of the desert and is facing into the sand-laden wind from the north, it required protection from these elements. The turns in the entrance to B2 would have concealed the interior of the house from the outside, enabling a greater sense of privacy as well. Fireplaces and Hearths Room 5 contained a simple fireplace (DSU 40) superimposed above a hearth (F46). The fireplace consisted of a pair of charred, small mud bricks and a mud plaster coating. The base was a prepared mud plaster surface. Husselman provides us with a succinct description of a simple fireplace similar to that found in room 5: Cooking was done on a simple fireplace constructed usually of two adobe bricks laid flat on the floor about 15–20 cm apart, set up against the courtyard wall. A small fire would be built between the bricks, on which a round bottomed cooking pot would rest.81 These food preparation features were standard in Roman Egypt. The use of multiple spaces for food preparation is not uncommon in Roman Egypt. Houses from Soknopaiou Nesos, for example, typically had one or two exterior courtyards with ovens, mortars, and millstones.82 The hearth (F46) (diameter c. 72 cm) was a rounded adobe construction also charred from use. Basic cooking chores could take place on this hearth. These cooking features were typical within Roman Egypt, and parallels can be found both locally and in the Fayum. Local parallels to the hearth (F46) found in room 5 can be found at neighboring sites, such as Ain el-Gedida and Kellis.83 Bread Oven The oven in room 7 (F19) represents the most common type of bread oven found in Roman Egypt and is attested locally at Kellis (Figure 4.2).84 Husselman provides a standard description of this type oven as found at Karanis: In addition to the fireplace there was usually an oven in the courtyard for the baking of bread. It was made of baked clay, circular in shape, and was .5 m to .75 m in height. The diameter of the base was approximately 1m and the walls curved at the top to an opening about 40–50 cm in diameter. It was generally placed in the corner of the courtyard and mud brick walls were built to enclose it, with the space between the walls and the circular oven filled with broken bricks and plaster. Each oven had a draft hole in its base. In use a fire On the restricted use of stone in Romano-Egyptian houses, see Lewis 1983:51. Even more elaborate structures, such as the elaborately painted Kellis House B/3/1, also share this trait (Hope and Whitehouse 2006:315). 81 Husselman 1979:49. 82 Davoli 1998:47, 53. 83 E.g., from Ain el-Gedida, Mound 1, room B1 had a hearth (diameter c. 90 cm), Mound 1, room B6 has a hearth (diameter not given), room B10 had a hearth (diameter c. 45 cm), and room B19 (diameter c. 58 cm) had a hearth (Aravecchia forthcoming). 84 Depraetere 2002:128-130. 79 80

168

Amheida II would be made in the oven to provide a bed of coals on which flat loaves of unleavened bread would be baked.85

This type of oven is what Yeivin calls a “later type” oven.86 Depraetere’s more recent comparative study contains a revised typology, which would make this oven a Type II oven.87 Type II ovens were typically situated in a corner or built up against a wall in the courtyard of domestic structures with the draft hole opposite to the direction of the prevailing wind.88 As mentioned above, the aule and aithrion were the primary areas used for cooking and other domestic tasks, so the bread oven would be in close proximity to other cooking facilities. In order to secure the oven in the courtyard, the space between the walls and the circular oven was filled with debris. The B2 oven (F19) consisted of a ceramic body enclosed within a square of mud-brick walls that are one brick thick. The oven itself has a 65 cm interior diameter and is preserved to a height of 60 cm. There is no clear bonding pattern to exterior walls. There is a 14 cm diameter hole at the bottom of the feature to the south. A draft-hole was located in the lower part of the oven, extending from the interior of the feature to the exterior, thereby cutting through both the ceramic and the mud brick wall.89 It is 8–17 cm above the interior base of the feature; 46–80 cm west of the east wall of the feature. The diameter of the draft hole is 10 cm. At 0–13 cm above the base of the feature there are lines running laterally along the ceramic. This oven description fits well within the norms of Type II ovens. The Courtyard C2 bread oven (F4) was poorly preserved. Only one course was preserved for most of it and only two courses on its east wall. Together with F3 to the west, F4 was built into the southwest corner of Courtyard C2. Including all of the walls, the feature itself consisted of a rectangle of mud-brick 138 x 102 cm. The diameter for the circular interior of the oven was approximately 85 cm, but it was very poorly preserved and present only in patches. The area between the circular interior and the rectangular mud brick exterior was filled with ash and mud brick. The draft hole of the oven was visible in the east wall of the feature. It was 7.5 cm from the bottom of F4, as measured from the exterior. The top part of the draft hole was missing, so it was not possible to say how high up it extended. The north–south orientation of the draft hole was 38–63 cm north of F5, the south boundary of the feature. The platform (F3) for F4 was preserved to the west. Together the two features measure 106 cm north–south and 225 cm east–west. The platform (F3) was poorly preserved, with only 1 course visible above clean sand below it. It consisted of a small dividing wall 99 cm east–west built to the north and another, 96 cm long north– south, built to the west. Each wall is only 1 course high and 1 brick thick. The base of F3 consisted of blackened mud bricks in no clear bonding pattern. The northwest 20 x 32 cm was not preserved. This oven appeared to be a more elaborate version of the Type II oven than the B2 bread oven. Unfortunately, it is not well preserved, so it has not been possible to say more about its construction details or how the inhabitants used it. The oven tops were covered to hold the heat longer. Yeivin describes two such oven covers that were recovered from Karanis. They consisted of an oblong dried-mud plate with a mud ridge along the middle that was notched to make it easier to grasp.90 A possible bread oven cover was found discarded in Street S1 just outside of B2, and a deteriorated one was found in room 5. Ovens were fueled with stalks and branches in order to build up a flame. Dung was added at a later stage in order to sustain the flames and conserve wood. Wood was sparse in Egypt, but dung was readily available and usually at close proximity, since animals were often kept within the same space as the Husselman 1979:49. Yeivin 1934a. 87 Depraetere 2002:123. 88 Ibid.:123. 89 On bread oven draft holes, see Husselman 1979:49, Depraetere 2002:123. 90 Yeivin 1934a. 85 86

Situating Domestic Space

169

cooking implements.91 Ovens fueled by dung never reached high temperatures, but they were sufficient for cooking bread and other basic requirements.92 When the oven was used, bread baking probably took place on the interior surface of the ceramic, where it was possible to plaster flat, disc-shaped loaves to the ceramic walls with water or milk.93 Depraetere’s interpretation of oven usage contrasts with Husselman’s opinion that flat loaves of unleavened bread would bake on top of a bed of coals fired in the oven.94 The oven from B2 had two rows of circular burn spots, possibly caused by baking bread loaves, which adds credence to Depraetere’s theory (Figure 6.2). There is a row of burn spots 10–20 cm above the bottom of the feature with diameters of 10 cm. The second row of burn spots is visible 21–33 cm above the bottom of the feature with diameters of 12 cm. Although I have found no mention of such marks on other ovens from Roman Egypt, the lack of such comparanda is not surprising, since ovens have been studied in detail only recently, and Depraetere himself cites the lack of specific information provided about excavated ovens.

Figure 6.2: Photo of burn spot detail on bread oven (F19), room 7. The primary advantage of the Type II oven over the Type I oven is that it was less fragile and provided a more even baking of bread.95 According to Depraetere, the Type II oven was probably bought or ordered from a potter’s workshop; he did not believe that they could be constructed without Amélineau 1888, Depraetere 2002:138. Robins 1993:95. 93 Depraetere 2002:135. 94 Husselman 1979:49. 91 92

170

Amheida II

specialized labor.96 However, ethnographic research suggests that it is possible that such ovens were domestic products. Ikram’s ethno-archaeological research in contemporary Middle Egypt demonstrates that the women in each family produced domestic pots in a large number of forms ranging from stoves (kanoon) and ovens (fourn), to large storage vessels (soma).97 Unfortunately for archaeological purposes, domestic potting leaves very little residue in the pot fabrication area. Once the mud dries, it turns to dust similar in appearance and compaction to the earth commonly found around mud brick houses. Likewise, the tempers used by domestic potters—straw, dung, ash, and reused brick—do not suggest any special activity.98 As Ikram suggests, it is difficult to verify archaeologically that domestic pots were produced within the home, but it is important not to lose sight of such possibilities. For example, this ethnographic research indicates that women may have had seasonal work demands for domestic potting that would have created constraints upon their time that were not present at other times of the year.99 In many ancient societies, such tasks became an enactment of specific identities that were defined, created, and emphasized through meaningful activities.100 Furthermore, the potential of constructing such ovens within the home demonstrates that such types of production can have a considerable effect upon the household itself and should be considered as part of our understanding of larger-scale social issues such as economic and social structures. In other words, ethnographic evidence for the household production of items such as this oven suggests that local households might have been self-sufficient for a modicum of daily practices and did not require as many large-scale dependency relationships as they might have if they had to rely upon workshops for required household items. In turn, the expertise of specific women potters may have been noticed among the community, and other families may have called upon their assistance, as Ikram describes in her ethnographic study. Such potential interconnections may have helped strengthen community relationships and the individual identities of women.101 Room 11 Feature Room 11 is a small sub-area located in the north of room 7 just west of the oven feature. Room 11 contains two different components; a storage area and an upper portion that is poorly preserved but probably also functional (Figure 6.3). The storage portion of room 11 is a barrel-vaulted, rectangular space, 1.25 m2. No significant artifacts were associated with this feature that could clarify its function, although the interior of the feature is quite low at only 28 cm high. This storage area was accessed through an aperture of 56 cm in the east of the feature. The function of the upper portion of the feature is unclear due to the poor preservation of the feature at this elevation. The preserved remains show that rubble was placed above the barrel-vault to create a flat surface and that a plastered channel rests on top of this rubble. This channel follows the south and east sides of this feature and probably would have continued along the north side. The rest of this feature was not preserved. It is possible that this feature would have been used for the preparation of food or liquid. For example, the plastered area could have provided a surface upon which the bread loaves from the oven could cool. It is also possible that the top of the feature may have been used as a variety of water pot stand, a feature not uncommon in domestic contexts, but these are usually made out of stone Depraetere 2002:131. Ibid.:128. 97 Ikram 2002:159. 98 Ibid.:164. 99 For example, in the prehistoric societies of the American Southwest, women experienced increased workloads and demands on their time when they developed pottery vessels that were used as the primary food processing and storing containers (Crown and Wills 1995). 100 Brumfiel 1991, Hendon 1999, Joyce 1993. 101 Such household potting was likely economically linked, rather than an independent characteristic. 95 96

Situating Domestic Space

171

and have hollowed out spaces on top.102 A similar feature can be found from a temple precinct at Ain Manawir in the Kharga Oasis. The immediate context of this feature was external to the sacred areas and therefore was located in an area of the site that was probably devoted to storage and production. The excavator did not know what its function was.103

Figure 6.3: Photo of room 11 and bread oven (F19), room 7. Storage areas are commonly found in aithria.104 Storage spaces are generally near oven features and can be found at comparable sites, such as Kellis. Kellis House 1 has two ovens, which had replaced earlier hearths, in close proximity to a storage bin.105 Likewise, courtyards in Karanis usually were equipped with areas used for grain storage.106 Room 11 likely served this function, although it is a bit different from standard varieties found in Karanis. Moreover, the oven next to room 11 was added after the initial construction of B2, suggesting that room 11 initially had an independent usage separate from the oven. This feature will be re-examined as a broader range of comparanda becomes available, which appears likely since the unexcavated house west of B2 appears to contain a better preserved version of this type of feature.

Schwartz and Wild 1950:52-54. This feature is currently unpublished. 104 Daniel 2010:133. 105 Hope 1988:167-168. 106 Husselman 1979:51. 102 103

172

Amheida II

Roofing This house appears to have had barrel vaults over six rooms.107 Barrel vaults are a type of roof that generates an outward thrust against the walls that support it. The supporting walls are often thick and strong in order to absorb this thrust. A more elegant method of compensating for the outward thrust is to build two or more vaults parallel to each other so that the outward thrusts from each vault negate each other. In this situation, only the outer wall must be quite thick or reinforced by buttressing.108 Although barrel vaults are mostly associated with the Romans, they are known from Dynastic Egypt. Examples of barrel vaults can be found at Dendera (ca. 3500 BCE), the Ramesseum of Rameses II (ruled 1279–1213 BCE), and numerous other funerary contexts. In Dynastic domestic contexts, vaulted rooms were rare and flat roofs were more common, except for underground cellars and perhaps a few very small rooms.109 In Roman Egypt, many sites conform to the Pharaonic roofing tradition. Karanis houses, unlike the ones from Amheida, seem to have been covered mostly with flat roofs constructed from palm logs and palm reed mats and mud, except in the case of underground rooms, which were generally covered by vaulted ceilings.110 The houses in Kellis that are contemporaneous with this structure appear to be largely flat-roofed structures, although it is only slightly later that we find that barrel vaults are the dominant roofing type there. The “kitchens” of houses from Kellis Area A often have flat roofs consisting of palm, despite the presence of barrel vaults elsewhere in the same structure. 111 There may be some preference for flat roofs over areas with hearths in Dakhla during the third century because smoke could exit through the roof more easily than through mud-brick barrel vaults, although there is not enough of a sample at this time to confirm such conjectures. Certainly the food preparation areas found in Amheida House B1 were located in barrel vaulted rooms 4 and 8, although neither of these rooms had a bread oven (Figure 2.5).112 Room 5 may have had a flat roof covering at least part of the room, as some organic debris was found to the north in that room and also as there must have been some point of connection between the stairs and the rooftops over the other rooms in this structure. At this point it is impossible to prove the presence or absence of a light jarid roof over any part of room 7. Certainly there was no evidence of any roofing materials from this room, but we will have to wait until we unearth additional structures in Area 1 before we can make statements with greater certainty. Rooms 4 and 11 had slightly different types of vaulting than the other vaulted rooms. These roofs have been discussed in the previous chapter. Stairways and Steps B2 contains a stairway as well as a series of steps leading from the house to the street. Both the stairway and the steps conform to standard building types in Roman Egypt, and comparanda can be found locally in Dakhla. The placements of stairway F29 and steps F50 have been discussed already but the construction methods employed will be discussed below. The steps in room 9, F50, were added at a later date in the building’s history to compensate for the rising ground in the street. This situation is common in Dakhla because of the strong sand-laden wind that raises the ground level. Moreover, the deposits of debris and other goods in the street also raised the surface level. Steps connecting an entrance door to the street were often made of stone in Karanis, much Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9. Roth 1993:29. 109 Spencer 1979:94-96. There is a strong association between vaults and funerary contexts in Dynastic Egypt (ElNaggar 1999). 110 Husselman 1979:37. 111 Hope 1988:166-169. 112 Boozer 2007:147-153. 107 108

Situating Domestic Space

173

as they were in B2 at Amheida.113 The stone was used preferentially in the entrance due to heavy wear during frequent usage. Kellis House 3 also had stairs added at a later date to its entrance (room 1) in order to compensate for the rising surface level of the street.114 The stairway (F29, in room 8) conforms to a standard type of stairway found in Romano-Egyptian houses, and its placement corresponds to that in other aithria houses in Roman Egypt.115 B-level Karanis houses, which were probably contemporaneous to our B2 structure, usually did not have underground rooms but had stairways to upper floors and roofs that were commonly used for functional tasks. 116 Husselman’s description of these stairways conforms to our own from B2: The method of constructing stairways remained the same throughout the existence of the town. The stairs consisted of several short flights built around a central core, each flight leading to a landing…The steps were built of adobe bricks as a general rule.117 The staircase and steps from B2 conform to standard types found throughout Roman Egypt and represent a neutral attribute in the architecture with respect to building traditions. Storage Spaces There were a number of informal and formal spaces within this structure created for the provisioning of storage. The formal spaces included spaces beneath the stairs (rooms 4 and 10) and a vaulted storage area within room 7 (room 11), which is discussed above. The informal storage space was a storage pit with two storage vessels located under a trap door (room 6). Due to the poor vertical preservation of this structure, we cannot reconstruct the access to room 4 with certainty. There was an opening between room 4 and room 5 that could easily allow for access between those rooms if that opening represented a doorway. This possibility can be corroborated by comparanda within the oasis. At Kellis, Houses 1 and 2 from Area A both have walk-in cupboards in close association with the stairs.118 Alternatively, a large amount of comparanda from Karanis suggest that room 4 and room 10 were both accessed by means of trap doors within the stairway above them. Regardless of the means of access, the spaces beneath flights of stairs were often used as small storage rooms. Under-stairs storage spaces usually had mud-brick floors, a height of approximately 1 m, and an entrance through a trap door.119 In the German excavations at Elephantine there are many houses with small storerooms located underneath the staircase. These rooms had pavements fitted for preserving goods from insects and rot.120 The storage spaces from Karanis share similar characteristics. The under-stairs area can be interpreted as an Egyptian feature, since Greek documents from Syene use an Egyptian loan-word for this feature.121 In addition to the formal storage spaces found in rooms 4, 10, and 11, we have simple storage spaces. In room 6 a wooden lid covered an unlined pit with two storage jars. Buried storage jars can be found throughout Roman Egypt, including at Berenike, Karanis, and Kellis.122 Simple methods of storage at Karanis included underground vaults reached by trap doors in floors, or bins constructed by walling off corners of rooms or courtyards. Large jars and even open and unlined pits also served for storing small amounts of grain for domestic use.123 Bins made by building a wall across the corner of a room are found On Karanis entrance steps, see Husselman 1979:38. 80 cm higher than it was originally (Hope, Kaper, Bowen and Patten 1989:3-4). 115 Daniel 2010:133. 116 Husselman 1979:38. 117 Ibid.:38. 118 Hope 1990:4, Hope 1988:166-169. 119 Husselman 1979:39. 120 Grossmann 1980:67, 74, Taf.5C and 18C. 121 Husson 1990:136. 113 114

174

Amheida II

in almost every house in Karanis, as well as in the courtyards.124 Trap doors at Karanis were usually set in corners of rooms so that people could use footholds cut in the walls of the lower rooms.125 The room 7 storage pit from B2 seems to be the simplest type of construction available, since it lacked evidence of pivots, ropes, or multiple doors and was completely unlined. The doors of such storage pits in Karanis consisted of planks of wood that were set into acacia frames. 126 Although the contents of the storage pit were invisible to visitors, the lid itself became a marker. The number and placement of lids indicated the presence of stores to anyone who entered the house. Windows The wall heights in structure B2 are not sufficiently preserved to determine if there were windows present and, if so, where they might be located. On the basis of comparanda, it seems unlikely that there were windows of any substantial size in this structure. Comparanda from Karanis suggest that windows only served to admit light and air, being set high in the walls immediately below the ceiling, rather than offering views.127 It is likely that B2 once contained similar windows, particularly in room 3, since it was not accessed directly through room 7 and there would have been no natural light source for that room. Wall Niches Niches were common attributes of walls in Roman Egypt, serving as storage spaces for small objects or to place lighted lamps. Alternatively, niches could serve as household shrines, similar to a Roman lararium, which can be found throughout the empire. The wall heights of B2 are not sufficiently preserved to determine the presence of niches, but given the breadth of parallels, it is certain that they would have been present. Niches were usually located below first floor windows at Karanis, but there are few noted commonalities in their location beyond correspondence with windows.128 It is possible to conjecture that room 7 contained one niche on wall F12 since it is the only wall of any substantial length in that room. Two objects (Inv. 11048 and Inv. 10347) were found on top of one another amid the wall collapse and may have fallen out of a niche together. The statue fragment (Inv. 11920) also probably once rested in a niche and may be most closely associated with wall F12. The other rooms may have had niches on their outer walls, although all of these suggestions are highly tentative.

Discussion An archaeologist must always bear in mind that only a small quantity of material remains for us to study out of the vast array that once existed. Developments that initially appear singular may be indicative of a type that has yet to be discovered or now may be lost to us. In an area of nascent study, such as RomanoEgyptian houses, we ought to remain mindful of the many comparative examples have been lost to us through neglect, destruction, and inaccessibility. The isolated ruins of houses in Roman Dakhla, therefore, may offer the possibility of shedding light on housing types that, rather than being a local specificity, may have been common in many now-inaccessible areas of Egypt or even further afield in the Roman Empire. Even in the case of Pompeii, which often is considered the site paradigm for Roman

On Berenike storage jars, see Sidebotham and Wendrich 2001/2. On Karanis trap doors and storage jars, see Husselman 1979:43, plates 7, 35a, 51a, 83a. 123 Husselman 1952:64. 124 Ibid.:68. 125 Husselman 1979:43. 126 Ibid.:43. 127 Ibid.:47. 128 On Karanis wall niches, see ibid.:47. 122

Situating Domestic Space

175

housing due to its high state of preservation, archaeologists are uncertain whether an innovation should be described as new to the Roman world or new to Vesuvian housing.129 New data from Amheida and Kellis suggest that we begin to revise our expectations for housing styles in Roman Egypt. Likewise, the new discoveries at Marina el-Alamein, Douch, and Tebtynis reveal that classical style housing existed in Roman Egypt and that we should not expect all houses in Egypt to reflect only the vernacular Egyptian (Pharaonic) style found in many of the published houses of Karanis and Soknopaiou Nesos.130 The papyrological record from Egypt corroborates this conjecture, as it preserves numerous references to houses that appear to have possessed a classical layout and they also document a rise in housing prices during the second and third centuries CE, perhaps due to a change in domestic structure choices.131 Egyptian Housing Spectrum: Diachronic Comparisons There are some Pharaonic houses that bear a slight resemblance to the B2 house, although they are significantly earlier in date and distant in location. The closest parallel is the Khentkawes houses that were built for the mortuary priests of Queen Khentkawes, a late 4th Dynasty king’s mother who has a major monument (sometimes called the fourth pyramid) at Giza. Like Area 1, these structures were planned identical houses along a road. The houses all had the same plan originally, and extend between a road that runs next to the causeway leading from the cultivation to her tomb (on the south) and one that runs parallel to it and which marks the outer wall of the complex (on the north). They are about 11 x 24 m, so they do not demonstrate the square plan we find in B2.132 There are also much larger Middle Kingdom houses at Kahun and Abydos that bear a slight resemblance to the B2 house. These are also planned houses of funerary functionaries. In the Kahun houses, attached to the pyramid of Senwosret II, there is a long and slightly convoluted path to the central main rooms. The path leads to a central open court (with a colonnade on the south to catch the northern breeze), south of which is a transverse hall and then three rooms, the “bedroom” to the west and a room of unknown function to the east, which leads to a passage into the “kitchen areas” (which have their own open court). There is also a smaller version of this sequence of rooms west of the main internal courtyard. The Abydos house is similar, and only a few generations later (Senwosret III). 133 These comparisons are considerably more distant in time than the New Kingdom houses at Amarna and Deir el Medina that most archaeologists of Roman Egypt use as comparisons to Roman housing traditions. Despite such a time disparity, such comparisons between Romano-Egyptian houses at Amheida and older Pharaonic models should be kept in mind for future research on diachronic change within housing traditions. Romano-Egyptian Housing Spectrum The layout of House B2 is typical of what appears to be a local Dakhlan domestic architectural tradition. This can be seen by comparison with recent excavations at Kellis by the DOP. Results from these excavations indicate that Roman Dakhla domestic architecture of the second, third, and fourth centuries CE typically consisted of a single-story structure with barrel vaulted roofs and a central room that was often partially or completely unroofed.134 In other words, these houses have a clustered plan of access, a central open room, and a preference for horizontality. We can discern some variations in this plan over Ellis 2000:6. This argument has also been put forward for houses at Kellis (Hope and Whitehouse 2006:318). 131 Alston 1997:29-32, Alston 2002:58-65, 102-104. 132 Kemp 2006 [1989]:44-48. 133 Joseph Wegner is currently excavating this house. 134 Hope et al. 2006:29. 129 130

176

Amheida II

time in the oasis, as can be seen by comparisons to houses from other periods at Kellis and another house from Amheida. Contemporaneous areas of Kellis, namely Areas A and C, show that the dominant domestic architectural form consists of a rectangular or square structure, with a central open room. Smaller rooms cluster around this central open area, and a staircase provides access to the roof.135 The earlier houses in Area C at Kellis tend to have flat roofs, while the later houses in Area A tend to have vaulted side rooms and two central rooms that may be vaulted or covered with flat roofs.136 Our own B2 may represent a transitional phase in which the open central courtyard is retained but vaulted rooms, which became more common during the fourth century in the Oasis, are also present. Indeed, Kellis Area A houses may bear more similarity to structure B1 at Amheida, which clusters around two central rooms and appears to be some decades later in date than structure B2.137 A closer examination of the Kellis houses yields additional points of commonality. 138 Area A structures drew upon Classical models in their arrangement, as indicated by the placement of living and work spaces around a central open courtyard. The Kellis Area A houses are single-story elongated structures dating to the late third to fourth century. 139 Houses from this area contain well-preserved barrel vaulted roofs over the rooms that surround a central open courtyard. The main core of House 3 from Area A bears a striking resemblance to Amheida’s B2. House 3 has a central, open court (room 6) around which the unroofed stairs (room 7) and main barrel-vaulted living quarters (rooms 2–5, 8–10) clustered.140 Likewise, House 5 in Area A/9 dates to the fourth century, is somewhat elongated, has a central room through which other rooms were accessed, and has barrel vaults over all of the rooms.141 Kellis House C/2/8 resembles Amheida’s B2 in its square plan and arrangement of rooms around a central open room. From the surface, Kellis House C/2/10 likewise bears a close overall plan to Amheida’s B2, but it has not been fully excavated, and thus comparisons between these two structures must be tentative at this time.142 Area B at Kellis indicates a different phase of construction from Areas A and C and consists largely of extensive complexes. House B/3/1, with finds largely dating to the late first to early third centuries CE, appears to take on a more Classical style layout than is commonly associated with Egypt, as it also has a clustered plan of access and appears to have a central open area (room 1b).143 As in Amheida House B1, the organizing principle seemed to have been around two rooms rather than around one room, which may have been an attribute of wealthier Dakhla houses. If this is the case, it would be a tradition with great longevity, as the occupation of Amheida House B1 falls in the fourth century CE. Food preparation areas in Dakhla show high variability; sometimes they are integrated into the house proper while at other times they have been added on to the house.144 B2 bifurcated domestic cooking needs between rooms 5 and 7, while the aule (exterior courtyard) (C2) contained signatures of food preparation, craft production and animal husbandry. Amheida House B1 shows a similar spread of food preparation areas within and outside of the house. Food preparation areas were almost never Hope and Whitehouse 2006:317. Ibid.:317, Hope 2003:238. 137 Hope 2003. 138 Area C at Kellis was a vernacular and industrial zone comparable to Area 1 at Amheida. Structures from Area C date to the second and third centuries CE and tend to be uniform in plan (Hope et al. 2006:29). 139 Hope 1991:41. 140 Ibid.:41-42, Hope, Kaper, Bowen and Patten 1989:1, figure 1. 141 Hope 2003:238. 142 Ibid.:238. 143 Hope and Whitehouse 2006:318, Hope et al.:23-31, Hope 2007a:33. 144 There is some reason to believe that the Manichees may have had a prohibition on cooking inside houses. It seems that Manicheans may have lived in the Kellis 1–3 houses, and this may explain, in part, the location of the food preparation areas outside of the house. On the Manichean community at Kellis, see Gardner 1993, Gardner and Lieu 1996, Gardner 1997a, Gardner 1997b. 135 136

Situating Domestic Space

177

located within Roman Period houses in the Fayum, a common practice since Pharaonic times.145 This evidence suggests that Dakhla houses were used somewhat differently from Fayum houses. Moving beyond the Dakhla Oasis to other regions of Egypt, we find some large differences in household forms. Comparisons between B2 and houses from the Kharga Oasis indicate that the two oases may have drawn on different sources for housing types. The unexcavated Roman houses of Umm elDabadib, located 38 kilometers north of el-Kharga in the Kharga Oasis, are laid out in regular blocks and consist of at least two stories of barrel-vaulted rooms.146 These houses resemble the houses of the Fayum more closely than the houses of Dakhla, as is particularly evident in the emphasis on vertical form. Likewise, the North Kharga Oasis Survey revealed that most domestic units were multistory (at least a ground and an additional story) with barrel-vaulted roofs. Wall niches were common. A central room appears to have been a particular characteristic of this architecture.147 These houses therefore show a preference for a vertical component that is more typical in the Fayum, but they tend towards a more clustered patterning of rooms, which may have been typical of Dakhla. The four Romano-Egyptian buildings recently uncovered at Douch provide uncertain data regarding the houses, as the boundaries between them were not always clear.148 The average size of these structures is significantly larger than that of B2, as they are approximately 300–350 m², depending on where one determines the boundaries might be located.149 Moreover, it is uncertain if all of them are domestic, although House IV and House II are most likely houses. House III has a large interior court with columns as well as a raised inner portion that does not find ready parallels in Egypt. It may be more closely linked to Late Antique luxury houses in Syria.150 In this respect, these houses from Douch resemble B1 and other luxury houses recently uncovered in Dakhla, although the excavator suggests that it is possible that they were public buildings or for administrative purposes. The evidence from Kharga suggests that there were regional variations on house plans and that sites within close proximity to one another probably influenced conceptions of house design. The Fayum remains the region with our most extensive evidence of Romano-Egyptian housing. Despite the apparent wealth of data, these houses have not been published properly (see Chapter 1). Even so, Davoli’s extensive review of Fayum settlements and houses is particularly instructive in drawing comparisons between Dakhla and the Fayum. She argues that the general plans of houses from the excavated areas reveal that there were no radical changes in private architecture between the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. She goes on to describe the houses as typically with a square or rectangular plan and a wide-ranging number of rooms. The size and location of the rooms varied, and they did not have a uniform shape. The ground floor could be composed of a single room and a central-pillared stairway leading to upper stories and, in some cases, a basement. Most houses were multi-story structures. 151 As mentioned earlier, food preparation typically took place in an exterior yard next to the house. From this description it is clear that the published Fayum houses differed considerably from Dakhlan houses. Fayum houses generally lacked a clustered plan of access, central open areas, a horizontal component, and food preparation areas incorporated within the house. Houses at Karanis and Soknopaiou Nesos have a strong vertical component, while B2—and, indeed, Dakhla houses in general— tend to favor a more horizontal component. Likewise, “kitchens” were almost never located within Roman Period houses in the Fayum, while B2 incorporated these areas into the house proper.152 Amheida Davoli 1998:53. Rossi 2000:335, 341-342, 344. 147 Ikram and Rossi 2004:80-81. 148 Reddé, Ballet, Barbet and Bonnet 2004:25-74. 149 Ibid.:73. 150 Ibid.:73-74. 151 Davoli 1998:85-86. 152 On Fayum “kitchens”, see ibid.:53. 145 146

178

Amheida II

House B1 also had food preparation areas integrated within the main household core (rooms 4 and 8), since these rooms had a hearth, instruments for grinding, and storage bins.153 The houses in Syene, in the south of Egypt, are likely contemporaneous to B2. These Syene houses look quite different from B2, however, as they do not appear to have a clustered plan of access to rooms.154 Furthermore, textual sources indicate that the Syene houses were likely three- or four-storied structures, although there is some archaeological evidence for one-story structures dating to an uncertain period.155 For example, Syene House 5 was a rectangular structure (9 x 10 m) with three rooms and a staircase in its northeastern corner and a courtyard to the north. 156 In the case of these features, many known Syene houses share similar features with houses from Karanis.157 Syene House 7, which may date to the ninth century, may have had an interior courtyard that one had to pass through to enter other rooms, although the plan for this house is certainly far from clear and it was much later in date than B2.158 Roman Housing Spectrum Roman houses are notoriously difficult to define because the empire spanned such diverse geographical, environmental, ethnic, and economic regions. House designs are contingent upon the environment as well as individual and local tastes, so the archaeologist must command substantial evidence in order to suggest a trend in Roman architecture as a whole. Scholars generally recognize a few key signatures as typical features for Roman housing, namely a central corridor or court, axial symmetry, and a more elaborate reception room.159 B2 conforms to this general description in some aspects of its layout, namely the central court (if it is that) and the proportional design. There are signs that some rooms were once painted (rooms 1, 3, and 6) and that room 7 was better cared for than other rooms. Outside of this information we cannot say much about the possibility of an elaborate reception room within B2, but it seems unlikely that there was a formal room dedicated to the reception of guests. Ellis has suggested that there are strong regional groupings in the Roman Empire, citing commonalities between Syrian styles and Karanis.160 Vernacular housing types in northern Syria tend to emphasize the vertical plane, while houses and apartments within the multi-story vernacular houses in Italy (e.g. Ostia and Rome) emphasize the horizontal plane.161 These significant differences suggest singular regional developments in Romano-Egyptian housing, although some overlap between Dakhla and the Fayum is evident. For example, Theadelphia had houses with courtyards in the middle of them, more centralized access to rooms and stairways leading from the courtyard area to the roof. There was also a room located underneath the stairs in one of these houses that was accessed directly from the ground floor.162 Unfortunately, these excavations were never completed, and it is not possible to verify this data today. Dakhlan houses do not seem to conform to the apparent Karanis norm of houses that place a strong emphasis on the vertical component and and a linear plan of access. Recent research by A bread oven, however, has not been found in or around B1 yet (Boozer 2007:122-190). Jaritz and Rodziewicz 1994:117-119. 155 On three- and four-story structures at Syene, see Husson 1990:127. On single-story structures at Syene, see Jaritz and Rodziewicz 1994:119. Syene House 5, founded in the first century CE, seems to have had two rectangular halls in the south and at least one large court north of it. A staircase connected the open area with the first floor and gave acess to the western compartments through a vaulted corridor (Von Pilgrim et al. 2004:129). Unfortunately, the entire house has not been excavated and published. On Syene House 5, see also Jaritz and Rodziewicz 1994:especially 121, Jaritz and Rodziewicz 1996:especially 233-234, 237-238. 156 Jaritz and Rodziewicz 1994:118. 157 Husselman 1979:69ff, C-Level Houses 50/51, 56, 57, 62. 158 Jaritz and Rodziewicz 1996:234-235, 237. 159 Ellis 2000:80-85. 160 Ibid.:96-97. 161 Ibid.:93. 162 Rubensohn 1905:5-6, Davoli 1998:281-282. 153 154

Situating Domestic Space

179

the DOP at Kellis and the current work at Amheida suggest that Dakhlan houses fit within a regional norm, but are closer to the horizontal house type found more commonly in other areas of the Roman Empire.

Figure 6.4: Reconstruction of House B2 (N. Warner).

180

Amheida II

Recent results from Dakhla suggest that Alston’s assertion that the lower classes were not able to adopt Romanized housing should be re-examined, since this expectation is not true for all regions in Roman Egypt.163 The occupants of B2 appear to have belonged to a lower level management and services class. Although they were not “lower class,” they certainly were not among the most wealthy within the local spectrum. This new data suggests that less wealthy individuals may have had a modified version of a Roman house type, which was also in line with local housing norms. Despite the strong resemblance of this house to Classical house models, there are some elements in common between this structure and traditional Egyptian domestic architecture. For example, the staggered entrance system, the mud brick building materials, storage areas, and the preference for rectilinear forms show continuity with past housing forms.164 The discovery of a particular housing type within the oasis can be taken as an indicator that a wide variety of houses may have existed in Roman Egypt and that there were probably regional housing types. Some of these housing types are currently lost to us due to issues of accessibility, destruction, or lack of scholarly attention. The Nile Valley, in particular, is largely archaeologically lost to us during this period and would have provided significant data on the dominant house types of that region. Even so, results from Dakhla have clearly indicated the need to move beyond the Fayum standard when discussing Romano-Egyptian housing norms.

Conclusions and Reconstruction I will review the relevant data for the reconstruction in the following paragraphs, giving particular emphasis to several features of B2’s overall plan (Figures 6.4, 6.5). Barrel-vaulted roofs are indicated over all of the rooms except for rooms 7 and 5. Room 5 likely had some form of light, flat roof over at least the northern portion of the room. No evidence of roofing could be found in room 7 and comparanda suggest that this room could be open. The possibility of a very light, non load-bearing roof should be kept in mind in future excavations, although it is not represented in this reconstruction. The house is shown as a single story structure. Local comparanda suggest that the majority of houses in Dakhla had a single story. Moreover, the lack of significant debris among the recovered collapse suggests that House B2 had a single story. The access to room 4 is uncertain, and this uncertainty is deliberately left ambiguous in the reconstruction. Windows were added to rooms in areas that seemed logical, but there was no surviving evidence to indicate where these may have been located. The staircase had two turnings, or landings to enable the ceiling height commonly found in the oasis. Of course, more than one landing could not be proved due to the poor preservation of upper levels of this structure, and the possibility of a single landing must be kept in mind, given the comparanda at Karanis. The reconstruction shows parapets and screening with palm. This feature is also a conjecture, as it would provide some light protection to activity areas on the roof. The overall reconstructed layout of B2 closely resembles local housing forms. This local style may be a particular regional style in Roman Egypt. It is possible to find comparanda to this form across the Roman Empire, although local specificities dictate that these comparisons are often partial.

163 164

Alston 1997:39. Hope and Whitehouse 2006:31, Tietze 1996, Shaw 1992.

Situating Domestic Space

Figure 6.5: Reconstruction of House B2 (N. Warner).

181

This page intentionally left blank

7

ARTIFACT AND ACTIVITY The Material Culture of Domestic Living Anna Lucille Boozer Introduction The excavation in and around B2 produced a wealth of small finds for a house of its size, although comparable houses from Kellis have produced even more finds. Over 300 objects are catalogued from this house and its immediate surroundings. This material culture reveals a good deal about the B2 inhabitants (or Area 1 inhabitants more generally) and their placement with respect to society in Roman Egypt. This chapter provides an overview and summary of the objects presented by material category in the following chapters. Recent thematic approaches to small finds have influenced this approach.1 Although we cannot conduct broad quantitative comparisons yet within Roman Egypt, it is important to lay the groundwork for these future analyses.2 Moreover, Roman Egypt can provide critical data that will enable other scholars to track and document changing preferences across the empire through time and space. 3 This chapter represents a crucial step towards the eventual goal of bringing Roman Egypt into our understanding of the Roman World more broadly. There are two aims for this chapter. First, I hope to draw attention to the different individuals and facets of identity that these objects reveal. It is important to start from the understanding that people do not use material culture in clear-cut ways. Moreover, individuals use material culture to manipulate their personas. Sometimes, this persona may be straightforward and reflect a person’s actual nationality or ethnicity, but that is not always the case. Often people make decisions about material culture without significant thought to “performance”. It is equally as important to explore these habitual decisions as it is to explore grand statements.4 Second, I anticipate that the themes from this chapter will help illuminate finds from contexts found elsewhere in Roman Egypt as well as more broadly across the empire. It is expected that there is no homogeneous pattern within Roman Egypt, but it will be some time before we can make such a statement with certainty. At its most basic level, this ultimate objective entails setting the items within the general assemblage of similar material circulating at the time and seeing if it differs in any way from what might be hypothesized. Any norms for people at particular ages and genders need to be established. Moreover, it remains to be seen if a selected household fits into these trends or cut across them, both within a given settlement and more widely across Roman Egypt. Because finds specialists typically focus on material types for which they have the necessary expertise, the finds from B2 are examined in the following chapters by material rather than by function or theme. This chapter serves as a complementary means of viewing the small finds from B2 by highlighting the functional and meaningful ways in which individuals used the B2 objects. In essence, For example, see Cool 2002. For example, see Cool and Baxter 2002. 3 Pascale Ballet has launched a major new project in this area (http://www.ifao.egnet.net/axes-2012/transitioncroisements-culturels/2012-contextes-mobiliers/). 4 Boozer 2015b. 1 2

184

Amheida II

this chapter aims to address how people consumed and potentially understood objects in the past. The in-depth reports provided in the following chapters will allow specialists to delve into specific categories of material more deeply. The types of objects within this chapter include portable objects and exclude architectural features and elements, as these elements were addressed in previous chapters. Despite this exclusion, the plaster from B2 is included in the section on furnishings and decoration. Moreover, I make links to built spaces across Amheida, where appropriate, to illuminate the use of material culture in the broader urban context. It is worthwhile noting the archaeological contexts from which these objects derived. Summaries of the object find spots are included in the tables. Chapter 20 presents a room-by-room walk-through of house B2 along with an illustration (Figure 20.1) of object densities within their find spots. Most of the objects derived from floor surfaces and dated to the late third and early fourth centuries CE. Therefore we are best able to understand life in the latest phase of occupation in B2, while earlier phases and postabandonment phases are less well understood through the material culture. Some of our objects derive from sub-floor layers and appear to have been used as packing materials to stabilize floors. These objects cannot be linked to the B2 inhabitants, but they inform interpretations of Area 1 more broadly. Likewise, as many of our contexts were not secure, some of the interpretations of identity might be most appropriately linked to Area 1 rather than to B2 directly. The following themes will be explored: personal appearance, activities, interior appearance, worship and religion, diet and entertainment, cultural affinities, gender, and age. Needless to say, we can explore these themes to varying degrees of plausibility, depending upon the contexts from which the objects derived. These contextual differences have been noted in the analyses below.

Personal Appearance Personal adornment and toilet equipment are the most revealing material goods for telling us about the appearance of people in B2 and Area 1 in the mid-third to early fourth century CE. Personal ornaments occur in moderate densities and include a hairpin, beads, and other jewelry items. Most of these objects were found in occupational levels, which suggest that they might be associated with the B2 inhabitants. Some objects (Inv. 11320, Inv. 3484, Inv. 11453) were used in floor construction. These objects may have originated from the house during an earlier phase of its occupational history or they could have been reused from dump material from outside of the house. Although we cannot connect these objects with the inhabitants, they can inform us about the Area 1 neighborhood more broadly. Category

Simple Name

Material

Inv. No.

Find spot

Adornment

Hair Pin

Bone

11320

R7, DSU 75, floor construction, reliable, possible dump material

Adornment

Finger Ring

Bronze

3484

R3, DSU 29, floor construction, reliable

Adornment

Finger Ring

Bronze

3452

R1, DSU 16, occupational, reliable

Adornment

Bead

Glass and Gold

3496

R3, DSU 13, occupational, reliable

Adornment

Bead

Glass and Gold

3498

R3, DSU 13, occupational, reliable

Adornment

Bead

Glass and Gold

3066

R1, F11, floor surface, reliable

Adornment

Bead

Glass and Silver

3497

R3, DSU 13, occupational, reliable

Adornment

Bead

Faience

3493

R3, DSU 18, occupational, reliable

Adornment

Bead

Glass

11272

R6, DSU 47, occupational, reliable

Adornment

Bead

Glass

11453

R9, DSU 74, floor construction, reliable, possible dumped material

Artifact and Activity

185

Category

Simple Name

Material

Inv. No.

Find spot

Bodily Care

Perfume, Oil or

Glass

11420

R5, DSU 33, windblown sand, unreliable

Glass

11415

R5, DSU 41, occupational, uncertain reliability

Glass

296

Street S1, DSU 0, surface, unreliable

Glass

3522

R2, DSU 8, occupational, unreliable

Medicine Holder Bodily Care

Perfume, Oil or Medicine Holder

Bodily Care

“Bath Flask” (aryballos)

Bodily Care

Stirring Rod

Table 7.1: Summary of personal appearance evidence from House B2. Hairpins (acus crinalis or acus comatoria) are common finds in Roman sites across the Empire. These fastenings enabled women to pull their hair away from their face for practical purposes. Hairpins also enabled the users to create complicated and extravagant hairstyles, as evinced by the so-called Fayum mummy portraits. The material used for hairpins could vary widely from bone to glass, and the designs could range from very plain to highly ornamental. The most functional hairpins were made of bone or ivory because they gripped the hair more easily than other materials.5 The hairpin recovered from B2 (Inv. 11320) is carved from bone with a wrapped hand-carved snake at the head, which has been broken off partially. This hairpin is of a functional variety, although it retains decoration of wrapped snakes, suggesting some level of attention to appearance, and potentially a link to pharaonic symbolism, which commonly employs snakes. This hairpin was found in the room 7 floor construction material placed there during the occupation of B2 and therefore may derive from dumped material outside of the house or from refuse produced within the house. It is clear from the seven beads recovered from B2 that the inhabitants wore necklaces or earrings. Three of these beads incorporate thin sheets of gold between colorless glass, and one has a thin sheet of silver between colorless glass. These beads were not as expensive as beads made of precious metals, but they were of a moderate economic cost. Two additional glass beads imitate the precious stones that more wealthy individuals wore. There is one faience bead, which is the most common bead type found in Roman Egypt, and would not denote any special status. These beads are of a type typically worn by women.6 Two bronze finger rings were found in B2. These rings imitate more costly gold rings. One of these rings (Inv. 3484) probably belonged to a woman. Another ring (Inv. 3452) probably served as both an ornament and a seal. It perhaps belonged to a man in the house and may indicate commercial activity or have connections to the military since the seal shows a male profile of a cavalryman.7 It would be difficult to over-estimate the importance of professions and status in the Roman Empire. The role of the military in influencing status and professional identity is particularly pronounced. The image of a cavalryman upon a ring seal may provide meaningful links beteween the cavalry troops stationed at Amheida (or Qasr, nearby) and this neighborhood.8

D’Ambrosio 2001:16. Cervi, this volume, chapter 11. 7 Cervi, this volume, chapter 11. 8 Vindolanda provides a well-studied Roman frontier settlement for such questions, albeit in a far-off province (Bowman 1994). Scheidel has suggested that high relocation rates and the resulting loss of contact may have strengthened the nuclear family or alternative communities such as guilds and military units (2004:24). 5 6

186

Amheida II

The habit of wearing bracelets was common in Roman Egypt from the third century through the Late Roman Period.9 This common practice can be found in the glass bracelet (Inv. 11606), which was of a typical type worn by women, and it shows one option for jewelry in Area 1.10 The assemblage of jewelry shows that the family who lived in and around B2 attempted to imitate the more expensive goods owned by wealthier classes. The material, the quality, and the consequent cost of garments and jewelery distinguished the dress of the affluent from that of the ordinary. 11 This assemblage generally reflects a family of moderate economic means, with women who were attentive to current fashions but could not afford the most expensive goods. It is also likely that people took with them the most expensive goods before leaving or that other Trimithitans came into B2 after its abandonment and removed valuable objects. Personal, bodily care can be seen in the toilet equipment recovered.12 Most of these objects could have been used for medicinal or grooming purposes, while a few items seem to be used preferentially for grooming. The vessels recovered are simple types without many decorative additions. Unfortunately, glassware from the third century is uncommon, and we cannot determine how typical this assemblage would be in contemporaneous domestic contexts. Even so, the presence of these goods indicates that the B2 family indulged in moderately valuable goods for body care. We have architectural correlates to the toilet equipment found in B2. A bathhouse has been exposed partially beneath House B1 and in other parts of Area 2.1 at Amheida. Our understanding of this bathhouse is still developing with respect to its design and dating. Even so, the presence of a bathhouse at Amheida makes it clear that the occupants of Area 1 would have had such activities available to them and would have had a locale with which to use the “bath flask” (Inv. 296) recovered from the surface of the street in front of the house. The practice of communal bathing carries strong associations with the Roman Empire, and we can suggest that at least some of the inhabitants in Area 1 took on this mode of bodily care.13

Activities The objects and features from B2 suggest that the inhabitants engaged in a wide range of activities. Documentary sources make it clear that Amheida was a significant and wealthy urban center while this house was occupied. Items recovered from B2 suggest that the occupants here were fairly well off and participated in both domestic and local economic activities. Most of the objects discussed here derived from secure or unreliable occupational levels, which suggests a potential, but uncertain relationship to the inhabitants. Two objects (Inv. 1181, Inv. 3406) derived from unreliable contexts and may only suggest interpretations of Area 1 at Amheida more broadly. Weaving The B2 occupants appear to have participated in weaving. The extent to which this family wove is uncertain, as the products could have been used for domestic consumption or they could have contributed to small-scale local networks of trade. There are several different categories of material that attest to the potential production of woven goods in B2, including ostraka, loom weights, polishing stones, cloth, and botanical remains. This range of material, some of which derives from reliable contexts and some of which does not, provides more certainty that weaving took place in B2 than single-category Arveiller-Dulong and Nenna 2011:250. Cervi, this volume, chapter 11. 11 Parami 2007:515. 12 Inv. 11420, Inv. 11415, Inv. 296, Inv. 3522. See also Dixneuf, this volume. 13 DeLaine 1999. 9

10

Artifact and Activity

187

assumptions would permit. The botanical evidence of flax in room 3, complemented by additional weaving objects in this same room, provides the most persuasive evidence of in situ weaving in B2. Category

Simple Name

Material

Inv. No.

Find spot

Weaving

Loom Weight

Unfired Clay

3534

R3, DSU 14, occupational, reliable

Loom Weight

Unfired Clay

11880

C2, DSU 4, occupational, uncertain reliability

Loom Weight

Unfired Clay

11881

C2, DSU 7, floor construction, uncertain

Loom Weight

Unfired Clay

11882

C2, DSU 4, occupational, uncertain reliability

Polishing Stone

Stone

3741

R3, DSU 19, occupational, reliable

Weaving

Polishing

Stone

3733

R3, DSU 19, occupational, reliable

Production

Stone/Hammer

Textile

Textile Fragment

Linen

11526

R5, DSU 67, occupational, uncertain reliability

Textile

Textile Fragment

Cotton

11527

R7, DSU 48, above floor, reliable

Ostrakon

Linen Weavers

Ceramic

3405+3408 R1, DSU 16, occupational, reliable

Production Weaving Production Weaving Production Weaving

reliability

Production Weaving Production

= O.Trim. 1.20 Ostrakon

Linen Weavers;

Ceramic

Tailor or Teamster

3406 =

R1, DSU 12, windblown sand below surface,

O.Trim.

unreliable

1.21 Botanicals

Flax

Botanical Sample

148

R3, DSU 19, floor surface, reliable

Table 7.2: Summary of weaving equipment from House B2. Two ostraka from B2 mention linen weavers (linouphoi).14 One of these ostraka derives from a reliable context, while the other does not. Four loom weights were found in and around B2. These loom weights were of a type used in the traditional Egyptian method of weaving cloth rather than the Greek style. 15 In addition to this equipment, two polishing stones were found in the same room as the B2 loom weights (room 3), suggesting that they were used to finish off the final cloth product. The botanical sample from room 3 indicates that substantial quantities of flax were used in this area of the house. This data strongly suggests that linen production took place in this room. The close association of various types of weaving goods suggests that room 3 may have been the principal location for this activity or that these goods were stored here when not in use. Domestic weaving was traditionally a female practice in both Pharaonic Egypt and the Roman Empire, while occupational linen weavers in Roman Egypt were often male.16 As neither the weaving evidence nor the space suggests the presence of a substantial weaving workshop, these goods may be linked to the female occupants of House B2. It is anticipated that all houses would have had textile products within them because people wore them and used them in domestic furnishings. Even so, it is of particular interest that both linen (Inv. 11526) and cotton (Inv. 11527) textile fragments were found in B2. The cotton fragment provides a clear Inv. 3405+3408 = O.Trim. 1.20 and Inv. 3406 = O.Trim. 1.21. Davoli, this volume. 16 Rowlandson 1998:112-113, Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000:279-281. 14 15

188

Amheida II

indication of cotton goods used in the oasis during the late third century, which others have argued might have been a significant trade good from Dakhla during the Roman Period.17 Transportation and Management It is clear that the people in Area 1 transported and shipped agricultural estate goods and participated in regional well management. These activities are represented in the ostraka recovered from the house as well as small finds and architecture. Category

Simple Name

Material

Inv. No.

Find spot

Storage

Basket

Palm Reed

11554

R6, DSU 47, occupational, reliable

Ostrakon

Jar Tag

Ceramic

3518 = O.Trim.

R3, DSU 19, occupational, reliable

1.200 Ostrakon Ostrakon

Jar Tag; Agricultural Ceramic

0176 = O.Trim.

Payment

1.101

Agricultural

1.1 surface find, unreliable

Ceramic

3411 = O.Trim. 1.22 R2, DSU 15 occupational, uncertain reliability

Ceramic

3405+3408 =

Payment and Account of Loads; Mention of Donkey Drivers Ostrakon

Account of Payment; Mention

R1, DSU 16, occupational, reliable

O.Trim. 1.20

of Camel Drivers Ostrakon

Mention of Camel

Ceramic

3406 = O.Trim. 1.21 R1, DSU 12, windblown sand below surface, not

Drivers; Teamster or

reliable

Tailor Ostrakon

Account of Payment Ceramic

0175 = O.Trim. 1.1

1.1 surface find, unreliable

Account of Payment Ceramic

11116 = O.Trim.

R9, DSU 73, floor, reliable

for Oil

1.26

for Wine Ostrakon Seal

Ring with Seal

Bronze

3452

R1, DSU 16, occupational, reliable

Trade Good

Doum Fruit

Botanical

06-0003

R6, DSU 46, occupational debris, uncertain reliability

Table 7.3: Summary of transportation and management evidence from House B2. Most of these objects derived from secure, occupational levels. Several objects derived from the surface or close to the surface and cannot be as securely connected to the inhabitants (Inv. 0176, Inv. 3406, Inv. 0175). Even so, they can inform us about the economic relationships within the surrounding area at Amheida. The ostraka recovered from Area 1 produced two examples of jar tags. One of these jar tags refers to Psais the donkey-driver and Magdola, indicating potential deliverers or recipients and a geographic location.18 Another jar tag designates an individual managing a well on behalf of the well’s owner.19 The

For example, see Bagnall 2008b. Inv. 3518 = O.Trim. 200. 19 Inv. 0176 = O.Trim. 1.101. 17 18

Artifact and Activity

189

ostraka from B2 also include several payments from agricultural sites named after regional water-wells. 20 The amounts of goods mentioned in the ostraka from B2 are large21 and the goods reflect estate products such as oil22 and wine.23 These documentary sources indicate low-level management of water, trade, and estates. Excavations at B1 provided us with a corpus of ostraka that indicate an individual at a higher level of estate management.24 The material disparities between these two houses provide a useful aperture into the lifestyles of households with different economic ranks within a similar trade. The small finds recovered from within and around B2 confirm the image indicated by the ostraka. A ring (Inv. 3452) suggests commercial activity within B2 because it probably served as both an ornament and a seal. The remains of a basket (Inv. 11554) were recovered from the house as well, suggesting that the household engaged in transporting goods. Doum fruit was found in B2 and its surroundings, which corroborates evidence from the ostraka that records the distribution of this fruit.25 The ceramics assemblage includes large numbers of storage and transportation containers.26 Architectural data adds further supportive evidence that people in Area 1 engaged in estate management and trade. The exterior Courtyard C2 is particularly large and located in close proximity to House B2, although it belonged to the unexcavated house east of B2 (B9). The substantial quantities of dung found here indicate that animals probably resided here. Moreover, the width of Street S1 is the greatest width of any street into or in Amheida, suggesting that this area of the site would be the easiest one for bringing in and taking out large quantities of goods.

Interior Appearance A range of objects from within B2 attests to how the house was once furnished, decorated, illuminated, and secured. This array of data gives us some indications as to how the occupants modified the interior of the house to suit their needs and preferences. Many of these objects originated from occupational levels, except for three lamps (Inv. 7974, Inv. 10011, Inv. 1056). The plaster derived predominantly from above, below and amid wall and ceiling collapse contexts and most certainly derived from the B2 walls and ceiling. Category

Simple Name

Material

Inv. No.

Find spot

Furniture

Bed Frame or Chair

Wood

11521

R5, DSU 67, occupational, uncertain reliability

Storage

Basket

Palm Reed

11554

R6, DSU47, occupational, reliable

Storage

Basket Handle

Wood

11519

R6, DSU 46, occupational, reliable

Security

Lock Bolt

Wood

3523

R3, DSU 19, occupational, reliable

Decoration

7 Fragments Red

Plaster

SUQ

R1, DSU 1, windblown sand, unreliable

and Yellow Decoration

2 Fragments Black

Plaster

SUQ

R1, DSU 1, windblown sand, unreliable

Decoration

5 Fragments Black

Plaster

SUQ

R1, DSU 4, collapse, uncertain reliability

Decoration

2 Fragments Black

Plaster

SUQ

R1, DSU 21, occupational, secure

Decoration

3 Fragments Red

Plaster

SUQ

R6, DSU 38, collapse, uncertain reliability

Ceramic

8743

R2, DSU 20, occupational and floor, unreliable

and White Lighting

Lamp

Inv. 3411 = O.Trim. 1.22 and Inv. 0176 = O.Trim. 1.101. Inv. 3411 = O.Trim. 1.22 and Inv. 0175 = O.Trim. 1.11. 22 Inv. 11116 = O.Trim. 1.26. 23 Inv. 0175 = O.Trim. 1.1. 24 Bagnall and Ruffini 2004, Bagnall and Ruffini 2012. 25 Thanheiser, this volume; Ruffini, this volume. 26 Dixneuf, this volume. 20 21

190

Amheida II

Category

Simple Name

Material

Inv. No.

Find spot

Lighting

Lamp

Ceramic

7974

R3, DSU13, collapse, uncertain reliability

Lighting

Lamp

Ceramic

10011

R7, DSU 49, windblown sand below surface, uncertain reliability

Lighting

Lamp

Ceramic

10071

R5, DSU 41, occupational, uncertain reliability

Lighting

Lamp

Ceramic

10155

R5, DSU 41, occupational, uncertain reliability

Lighting

Lamp

Ceramic

10156

R5, DSU 40, windblown sand below surface, unreliable

Table 7.4: Summary of interior appearance evidence from House B2. Furnishings We know very little about the types of furnishings that would have been present in B2, due to the poor preservation of soft organic remains in this house and at Amheida in general. There is one fragment of wood that could have been part of a bed frame or chair (Inv. 11521). Furnishings such as these were expensive, and therefore there were probably minimal items of wood furniture originally in B2; moreover, they are among the goods most likely to have been removed upon departure. Typically, individuals kept clothing and other woven goods in baskets. Baskets also served as containers for transporting goods. We have evidence of baskets in the form of a sewn plaits basket fragment (Inv. 11554) and the fragments of a wooden handle for what was most likely a basket (Inv. 11519). Unfortunately, these are the only remnants of past furnishings for B2. Decoration Nineteen fragments of colored plaster were recovered within the B2 collapse debris. The majority of these colored fragments derived from room 1. These fragments indicate that this room was once decorated with red, yellow, black, and white plaster. We also recovered fragments of red, white, and black plaster from room 6. This colored plaster indicates that the occupants modified the interior of their house to reflect their own preferences, since occupants usually chose their own house decorations. Houses from Kellis provide local comparanda that allow us to tentatively reconstruct how this plaster may have been employed. For example, Kellis House 2 from Area A had walls covered in gray mud plaster, while the vault roofs had a red colored plaster over which were painted gray bands along the junction between the vaults and the walls.27 This local painting scheme bears little resemblance to decorative painting styles in the Fayum. Many of the houses from Karanis, such as House C71F, were painted with a black wash with white paint to outline square panels in the imitation of masonry.28 Based on our current understanding, decorative painting at Karanis typically employed maroon and black as their primary colors.29 Although more lavishly decorated houses, such as Amheida House B1, draw more attention as indicators of particular styles, it is clear that even more modest structures sustained local decorative preferences. Looking elsewhere in the Roman Empire we find examples of red being a prominent choice for colored plaster, particularly the shade that we have come to call “Pompeian red.” In the western half of the Empire, preservation of wall decoration is very rare but, of the remaining preserved sites, plain colored plaster (most often red) is found most abundantly.30 Although these sites are far removed from Amheida, it is significant that red appears to have been the preferred color for a long time within the Hope 1988:169. Husselman 1979:35. 29 Ibid.:36. 30 Ellis 2000:21, Jarrett and Wrathmell 1981:231. 27 28

Artifact and Activity

191

Roman Empire. The popularity of red is likely due to the local availability and economic nature of materials used for making this color.31 It is worthwhile noting that red was also a popular color in pharaonic Egypt and is pervasive in modern-day Egypt since red ochre is ubiquitous in Egypt. The color cannot be linked purely to Roman influences. Lighting Lighting is closely linked to ways of structuring domestic space, activities, and time. Lighting can also be correlated to economic factors, due to the fuel supply required. Olive oil was probably the typical fuel used for lamps, although tallow or wax also could have been employed as fuel. 32 Moreover, it is likely that lighting held symbolic meanings, which may have changed over time and depending upon context. 33 For example, lighting could be used in wall niches not only to illuminate dark spaces but also with reference to household gods who also often resided in niches. Lighting was practical and utilitarian, but it also held a vital role in high prestige scenarios, such as dining. The apparatus used for illumination often had status associations as a result.34 A number of lamps were found within B2. These lamps are particularly concentrated in occupational levels in rooms 2 and 5. Lamps were also recovered from unreliable contexts in rooms 7 and 3. None of the lamps were of particularly high quality. White gypsum plaster may have served as an additional signature of lighting in House B2. Strips of whitewash around niches and along back walls of rooms would have helped lamps illuminate the dark spaces within houses. These strips of whitewash were found only in room 7 and room 1 but it is likely that they were located in most of the rooms, as indicated by fragments of white plaster found in room 6 amid the collapse, but the walls were not sufficiently preserved to indicate where they were located. Security The primary evidence for security in B2 exists in the form of bolts. The entrance into B2 retained signs of a socket for a door bolt in wall F32, indicating that the house was secured from the outside world. This type of security measure could be expected in houses, as papyri often contain descriptions of domestic robberies and other crimes.35 Two joining fragments of a lock bolt were recovered from within room 3 occupational debris (Inv. 3523), attesting to the need for security within the house. This need for security may relate to the estate management that the occupants seem to have participated in and for which there are several strands of evidence. The lock bolt within the house suggests the need for additional security within the house in addition to the entrance bolt.

Worship and Religion Rituals have their place in the domestic sphere in addition to official temple contexts. Coroplastic figurines, amulets, and names bear material witness to religious practices in House B2. Most of the evidence points towards traditional Egyptian belief systems and practices rather than Christianity, although there is indication that Christianity existed in the vicinity during the occupational history of this house.

Allison 2002. Eckardt 2002:15, 36. 33 Ibid.:27. 34 Wallace-Hadrill 2008:371. 35 Bagnall 2007:191-192. See also P.Oxy. LVIII 3916. 31 32

192

Amheida II

Category

Simple Name

Material

Inv. No.

Find spot

Amulet

Bes

Faience

3233

R2, DSU 2, windblown sand, unreliable

Amulet or

Hybrid Animal

Sandstone

3516

R2, DSU 17, occupational, reliable

Mention of a Bêkis

Ceramic

11116 =

R9, DSU 73, floor, reliable

Figurine (?) Ostrakon

διάκων, or Deacon

O.Trim. 1.26

Figurine

Male Body

Limestone

11509

R7, DSU 49, occupational, uncertain reliability

Figurine

Female Head

Ceramic

11627

S1, DSU 5, uncertain reliability

Figurine

Seated Female

Ceramic

11628

S1, DSU 3, uncertain reliability

Figurine

Animal?

Ceramic

11633

S1, DSU 3, uncertain reliability

Figurine

Unknown

Ceramic

11915

S1, DSU 9, occupational, uncertain reliability

Figurine

Horse and Rider?

Ceramic

11916

C2, DSU 1, windblown sand, uncertain reliability

Figurine

Horse?

Ceramic

11914

C2, DSU 1, windblown sand, uncertain reliability

Figurine

Female Head

Hand-made

11920

C2, DSU 4, occupational, uncertain reliability

Figurine

Human Appendage

3519

R3, DSU 29, unreliable

Ceramic Ceramic

Table 7.5: Summary of worship and religion evidence from House B2. The third century in Egypt began with traditional religious practices continuing strongly and closed with Christianity becoming increasingly publicly visible, but it was not yet a dominant social component. Onomastic analysis, although imprecise, suggests that in the last decades of the third century little more than ten per cent of the Egyptian population may have been Christian. 36 In the third century, a decline in temples had begun, and the most recent surviving Egyptian manuscripts come from sanctuaries that were abandoned together with their associated settlements in the third century.37 Moving into the fourth century the religious landscape became increasingly Christian. As B2 seems to have been occupied in the late third and early fourth centuries, the proportional evidence of Christian and traditional religious indices seems to complement the general trends. Most of these religious objects derived from contexts with uncertain reliability as well as from the street and exterior courtyard. Rooms 2, 3 and 7 are the only rooms in the house with occupational level evidence of religion. There was a fluid boundary with magic in the case of domestic cults. The differentiation between religion and magic, or cult and magic practices is a difficult one in Egypt. The power of incantation (ḥk3) was an integral component of the official temple cult as well as an instrument of cult activity and religious practice.38 Small sculptural artifacts, terracottas, were made primarily for home worship. These terracottas were stored in niches in walls or on wooden shelves that served as house shrines.39 Many of these terracottas were apotropaic in character. We recovered two potential amulets from room 2. Amulets are commonly defined as powerful or protective objects worn or carried by a person. In Egypt, this definition might be extended to include larger objects that operated through physical contact, such as headrests and statuettes. Some amulets were used on a temporary basis in liminal or critical situations; others were worn on a regular basis for Bagnall 2003:119-120, 249. On the third century decline of temples, see Grossmann 2008. 38 Baines 1987. 39 Dunand 1979:8 with nn. 18-19, Frankfurter 1998:134-136. 36 37

Artifact and Activity

193

permanent protection or to promote success.40 Magical papyri from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt attest to the fears that plagued individuals regarding the supernatural threats against which amulets provided protection.41 According to Pinch, most Egyptian jewelry had amuletic value, though it is hard to say how conscious individuals were of the symbolism of their jewelry when they wore it. On the other hand, many amulets probably required spoken or performative magic to reinforce their potency.42 A faience amulet (Inv. 3233) in the shape of the god Bes was recovered from windblown sand in room 2.43 Bes was a dwarf represented frontally faced, naked with a lion tail, widespread legs, human face with leonine hair, and a protruding tongue. He often wore a feathered crown. Bes was a very popular household/cultic deity throughout Egyptian history, and his popularity extended into the Roman period. Women and children, in particular, often wore Bes amulets to protect them against perils in childbirth and infancy. These amulets were often strung onto a necklace with different types of beads. Bes was very popular as a source for names at Kellis but appears less often in names found at Amheida so far.44 During the Roman Period, Bes became important as a phallic deity, perhaps because he was reminiscent of Greek gods such as Priapus and Silenus, and took part in phallic rituals relating to Osiris. 45 During this period, Bes could be found in the form of tattoos, which could signify sexual status, cultic affiliation, or apotropaism on the part of the wearer.46 Another amulet or figurine (Inv. 3516), made of limestone, was found associated with the top floor level in the eastern portion of room 2. It almost certainly represents an animal, given the presence of two eyeholes drilled in front with a possible beak between these eyeholes. It also has two front legs/paws. It is unclear how to interpret the protective attributes of this object. Amulets were extremely popular during the Roman period, and many foreign motifs and materials were imported into the Egyptian system of apotropaic practices.47 It is difficult to determine if jewelry that was not traditionally Egyptian, such as the finger-rings found in B2 (see above), were imported into traditional Egyptian meaning systems of protection. The protective role of Bes is more clearly understood. It has been argued that women and children wore permanent amulets more often than did men, since children are typically at a greater risk of disease and suffered from high mortality rates, and women experienced considerable risk during pregnancy and childbirth.48 Figurines are a highly debated category of material, although recent scholarship suggests that households viewed figurines as cult objects for service in popular worship.49 It is clear that terracotta figurines stood in homes, since the primary contexts of extant figurines derive from houses, and most figurines relate to the house and public festivals.50 Within houses, inhabitants placed figurines in niches. They often performed ceremonies that merged domestic with “official” religious practices.51 Seventy percent of the figurines in Area 1 were found on the peripheries of the house—in the street and the exterior courtyard—with the exception of the limestone statuette (Inv. 11509) and a fragment (Inv. 3519). It was common to find these figures deposited in streets at Karanis,52 which may indicate a need to Pinch 1994:105. Montserrat 1996:200. 42 On the spoken and performative aspect of amulets, see Pinch 1994:105. 43 Faience is not pottery but a glazed quartz frit formed by grinding quartz and mixing it with an alkali salt and a colorant such as copper salt. Faience cannot be thrown, so it was usually molded and therefore well suited for the creation of beads, figurines, and amulets. During the Roman period faience was also used for bowls and plates. 44 Ruffini, this volume. 45 Montserrat 1996:173. 46 Ibid.:76. 47 Pinch 1994:118. 48 Ibid.:106. Of course, men wore amulets as well. 49 Dorman 2002:19. 50 Nachtergael 1985:223. 51 Frankfurter 1998:135, 139. 52 Gazda and Hessenbruch 1978a:12-13. 40 41

194

Amheida II

remove these cultic objects from houses upon abandonment.53 The more identifiable fragments of figurines from the vicinity of B2 indicate women,54 a man,55 and several animals that could have been used for transportation.56 An unfired miniature clay lamp (Inv. 11917) also may be linked to household shrines, since miniature lamps were often joined with terracotta figurines.57 The ostraka provide additional glimpses of religious beliefs within B2 and its surroundings. These ostraka generally indicate traditional Egyptian naming practices focused upon Egyptian deities and their Greek equivalents. None of the ostraka contains Christian names. 58 The presence of Christian names within Amheida House B1, by contrast, may indicate the rapidity with which Christianity spread when Constantine came to power. Most of the attested names from Area 1 ostraka are based on Amoun, Horus, and Shai, who were popular oasite gods in the Roman period. At least 18 of the names from Area 1 are of this type. Ostraka found elsewhere on site indicate that other individuals at Trimithis followed this same naming pattern. Other deities that appear in the ostraka include variants for other Egyptian deities, most notably Sarapis and Sarapion. The demotic texts include a proper name with the element Wsir, for Osiris.59 One ostrakon, which derives from a secure floor construction context in room 9, mentions a deacon, which suggests the presence of a church or church hierarchy towards the end of the B2 occupation.60 A Christian structure (B7) was discovered at Amheida, which definitively indicates the practice of Christianity at Amheida; this structure is currently undergoing excavation.61 Traditional Egyptian religion is easier to link to excavated structures, although Amheida’s temple was largely pillaged for portable objects in antiquity, and again in the Ottoman Period and later. The remains of this temple indicate that it was one of the most important temples in the oasis and that Thoth, the Egyptian god of writing, was the principal deity. Other local deities, such as Seth, also feature prominently in the recovered reliefs from the temple. It is possible that Amheida’s temple was still a conspicuous city monument at the time that B2 was occupied, although we know little about the temple mound during this period.

Diet and Entertainment Food preferences and preparation procedures are cultural indicators.62 Cross-cultural research has indicated that foodways tend to be more conservative than many other features of society. Individuals will continue to prepare ancestral foods in traditional ways long after they have modified other types of behavior in response to broader social changes.63 Likewise, table luxury offered an exclusive language for self-expression and status-expression in the Roman Empire.64 The foods and wares used in entertainment can reveal much about the identities and status of B2’s inhabitants. Boozer, this volume, chapter 10. Inv. 11627, Inv. 11628, Inv. 11920. 55 Inv. 11509. 56 Inv. 11914, Inv. 11916, Inv. 11915. 57 On the miniature lamps from Mons Claudianus, see Bailey 1998:25, fig. 1.8. See also Bailey 1988:Q 197, BayerNiemeier 1985, No. 129 (Harpocrates), Nos 363 and 369 (Eros) and No. 379 (bust of Athena, Fjeldhagen 1995: no. 59 [Bes]), Ewigleben and von Grumbkow 1991:no. 75. 58 Ruffini, this volume. 59 Ruffini, this volume. 60 Inv. 11116 = O.Trim. 1.26. 61 See reports on www.Amheida.org. 62 Crabtree 1990, Emberling 1997, Lightfoot and Martinez 1995, McGuire 1982, Smith 2003:189-193, Kamp and Yoffee 1980. 63 Goody 1982:151-152. On the conservative nature of food consumption in the Roman world, see Wilkins 1995a, Wilkins 1995b, Butcher 2003:171, Morley 2007:47, Sidebotham 2011:228. 64 Wallace-Hadrill 2008:337. 53 54

Artifact and Activity

195

Ceramics Local Oasis cook pots dominate the cooking assemblage. There is also homogeneity in the forms that center upon local forms and fabrics. Unlike with House B1, there is no meaningful quantity of imported ceramics or ceramics that imitated goods found elsewhere in the Roman Empire or even from the Nile Valley. Moreover, the goods are predominately functional wares rather than decorative. The majority of the ceramics were containers for transport and storage, cookwares, and containers for preparation and serving food. These highly basic wares suggest little investment in the presentation of foods. Instead, the assemblage appears to be primarily functional. Glass Tablewares dominate the glass assemblage from B2. There are significantly more open forms than closed forms, and the most common categories are goblets and beakers used as drinking vessels. The second most common forms are shallow bowls and plates used for serving food.65 Little is known about common glass tableware from third century Egypt, although the shallow bowls and plates from B2 seem to be ubiquitous in Roman Period contexts. This glassware assemblage suggests that group eating and entertainment took place in B2. Faunal and Botanical Remains Both faunal and botanical remains indicate that the family consumed a diet that was broadly comparable to other sites in Roman Dakhla, such as Ain-al-Gedida and Kellis. Chicken (in the form of faunal and shell remains), traditional wheat sources (emmer wheat), and local plants dominate the assemblage. The extensive use of chicken is typical of Roman sites, throughout the Empire, while the rest of the faunal assemblage bears a closer resemblance to traditional Egyptian subsistence patterns from the Neolithic period onwards. Pig, which is common at Roman sites, was absent from Area 1. Pig was certainly consumed during the Pharaonic era as well, but it is notable that Area 1 lacked pig, while Area 2 at Amheida, as well as other local sites, had pig faunal remains in abundant quantities.66 Emmer wheat was found in large quantities in Area 1, and particularly in room 1, where it may have been processed. This traditional Pharaonic grain occurred in singular quantities in B2, and the most comparable known site for this density is Kellis Area C1.67 The reliance upon this traditional crop during a period where hard wheat had become dominant since the Ptolemaic period is worth future exploration. Barley occurs frequently as well, and could have been used both for porridge and for beer; donkeys also ate barley. Grapes and dates occur with great frequency within B2. Vegetables and herbs common to Egyptian cuisine, such as onion and garlic, are missing from the B2 botanical assemblage, although an argument based upon absence of evidence cannot be substantiated given the conditions of preservation in B2.68 The lack of many spices and more exotic additions to foods suggests that the occupants had a basic diet without much elaboration. These data indicate that women continued to prepare foods in methods common since the Dynastic era. Intriguingly, women did alter their cooking behavior in one significant way: they cooked within the house rather than in an exterior courtyard. This shift in food preparation practices would have had a significant impact on the rhythms of daily life, both for the women who cooked as well as the rest of the family, since women spent a significant percentage of their time preparing food. Women would have spent more time in the house than outside it. The primary evidence of feasting or eating to impress comes in the form of ceramic and glass vessels. The glass serving vessels reflect the Roman Period glass norms, while the ceramic serving vessels Cervi, this volume, chapter 12. Crabtree and Campana, this volume. 67 Thanheiser and Walter, this volume. 68 Thanheiser and Walter, this volume. 65 66

196

Amheida II

reflect a low economic bracket of product. These results, along with the botanical and faunal data, indicate basic food consumption practices without significant attention to display. These results also confirm the hypothesis that food consumption patterns shifted more slowly than other cultural habits. The contrast between consumption and preparation habits is notable and noteworthy of future examination.

Cultural Affinities It is challenging and of contested value to try to disentangle the many strands of ethnicity in Egypt in the third and fourth centuries CE. Immigrants had been coming to Egypt for hundreds of years, and Mediterranean influences penetrated into society slowly but surely. Amheida was an important city that seems to have drawn in a range of immigrants due to the economic activities there. It is still unclear where these immigrants came from as well as what their ethnic backgrounds may have been. 69 Despite these uncertainties, it may be possible to hazard some suggestions about the cultural affinities the occupants of B2 expressed through their material remains.70 Category

Simple Name

Material

Egyptian

Amulets

Faience

Greek

Figurine

Limestone

Egyptian

Figurines

Ceramic

Egyptian

Loom Weights

Clay

Egyptian

Emmer Wheat

Spikelet forks and glumes

Egyptian

Faunal Data

Fauna

Greek

Greek Language Ostraka

Ceramic

Egyptian

Demotic Language Ostraka

Ceramic

Egyptian

Adornment (Hair Pin) and Other

Various

Roman

Finger Ring (3452)

Bronze

Table 7.6: Summary of ethnic affinity evidence from House B2. In every society, names and name systems identify several aspects of identity: gender, family, social class, ethnicity, religion, and cultural identity.71 The choice of a Greek or Egyptian name may reflect cultural preferences.72 After the reform of 202 CE, wealthy metropolites often gave their children a Greek name, indicating their change in status.73 Meanwhile, women more often continued to bear Egyptian names.74 The naming practices in B2 relied primarily upon traditional Egyptian gods and names, suggesting cultural ties to Pharaonic deities and, particularly the central deity of Amheida (Thoth).75 Other material signatures bear witness to cultural ties with Pharaonic traditions. The amulets, which are described in more detail above, rely upon traditional Egyptian magico-religious beliefs. Likewise, the figurines recovered from the house complement this picture, although Romano-Egyptian figurines involve a complicated intertwining of traditionally Greek and traditionally Egyptian practices. Although the practice of terracotta figurine making was imported to Egypt, the way in which households Boozer 2011, Boozer 2015d. The final chapter of this volume embeds this discussion of cultural affinity and ethnicity into the late Roman Mediterranean more thoroughly. 71 Luijendijk 2008:41. 72 Colin 2001. 73 van Minnen 1986. Some reservations about van Minnen’s argument appear in Broux 2013. 74 Bingen 1991. 75 Ruffini, this volume. 69 70

Artifact and Activity

197

made use of terracottas signified an Egyptian practice.76 Foodways, as discussed above, contribute to a multicultural, yet predominantly traditional assemblage of cuisines. Some of the objects of adornment carry yet more ambiguous ethnic affinities. The bone hairpin (Inv. 11320) and the finger ring with a seal (Inv. 3452) bear iconography linking them, respectively, to Pharaonic Egyptian and Roman traditions. Hairpins are common across the empire, and they could have been used to reproduce au courant Roman hairstyles.77 During the third and fourth centuries CE, Roman Mediterranean material culture reflected both Roman and Greek traditions.78 We can see these reflections in the texts, adornment, figurines, and architecture recovered from B2. All of ostraka recovered from B2 occupational levels were written in Greek, indicating the transition to the use of Greek in Romano-Egyptian transactions by this period. The use of Greek is to be expected in this late phase. 79 Likewise the bracelet and beads recovered are typical of the Roman Mediterranean at this time. A single, limestone figurine (Inv. 11509) draws on Mediterranean, and particularly Hellenistic traditions, as it represents a corpulent, unclothed male figure. It may be telling that the most durable, work-intensive figurine follows Greek Mediterranean traditions, rather than Egyptian. Little can be argued about the implications of these cultural affinities without quantitative assurances. As a complement to these data, the architecture of B2 shows ambiguous affinities. The building methods and materials are typically Egyptian, but the architecture was strongly influenced by Roman Mediterranean uses of space, particularly in the clustered patterns of rooms and the incorporation of cooking spaces into the house.

Gender and Age It is often risky to ascribe a particular gender, age, and affiliation to individuals through using material culture. Often the link is weak or based upon documentary sources, so archaeological conjectures replicate previous biases found in texts. Archaeologists often assume that adult men used the majority of material culture. Alternatively, women, children, and the aged must be “found.”80 This default practice leaves our understanding of all of these groups, including men, poorly understood.81 With these concerns in mind, I consider the material recovered from B2 from the vantage of divergent age groups and genders. Naturally, all of the individuals within B2 (or the general neighborhood) probably had access to and made use of many of the objects found within the structure. Category

Simple Name

Material

Number

Male

Statuette

Limestone

1

Male

Finger Ring

Bronze

1

Male

Ostraka

Ceramic and Clay

22

Female

Finger Ring

Bronze

1

Female

Loom Weights

Unfired Clay

4

Female

Hair Pin

Bone

1

Boozer, chapter 10. Cervi, chapter 11. Note also the representation of fashionable, Roman-style hairstyles in Fayum mummy portraits. 78 The complexity of the Greek and Roman cultural relationship is discussed thoroughly in Wallace-Hadrill 2008. 79 Demotic was only found on sherds deriving from floor construction material. This material presumably derived from dumps. 80 On a gendered critique of archaeology, see Conkey and Gero 1991, Wylie 1991. On “finding” children, see Baker 1997, Baxter 2005:especially 18-20, Sofaer Derevenski 2000b. On old age and aging, see Parkin 1998, Boozer 2012c. 81 On masculinity, see Foxhall and Salmon 1998, Foxhall and Salmon 1998, Knapp 1998, Hearn and Morgan 1990, Boozer 2012d. 76 77

198

Amheida II

Category

Simple Name

Material

Number

Female

Bracelet

Glass

1

Female

Beads

Various

7

Female/Children

Amulets

Various

2

Children

Figurine

Clay

1

Children

Miniature Lamp

Clay

1

Children

Disc

Ceramic

1

Table 7.7: Summary of gender and age evidence from House B2. Women The majority of the female goods to be found in B2 were the ceramic cook pots, which concentrated in room 5, and the bread oven in room 7. The concentration of loom weights in and around B2 may also be linked to the female production of cloth. In addition to these functional goods are several objects of adornment; the finger ring (Inv. 3484), a hairpin (Inv. 11320) and seven beads. Moreover, it is likely that the two amulets recovered (Inv. 3233 and Inv. 3516) can be linked with women and children. Children The archaeology of children is always a difficult affair, particularly when dealing only with material culture.82 It is important to be mindful of children, particularly in situations of cultural change, since children are “socialized” to behave in certain ways by their parents. 83 In situations with multiple ethnic affinities in play, considering how families pass down social ethnic knowledge is an important means of considering cultural change. For example, the schoolroom found in Area 2 indicates that children in that area of the site were educated in a traditional Greek manner, which may have been an important component of identities in that area of the site.84 Children in B2 may be indicated by the presence of amulets (Inv. 3233 and Inv. 3516), which often were used to protect children from danger during fraught moments of childhood. Although the Bes amulet (Inv. 3233) was found in an unreliable context, it does indicate the persistence of traditional practices in Area 1. The other possible amulet (Inv. 3516) was found in a secure context in the same room, which helps to justify this suggestion. This apotropaic Egyptian custom socialized the children in B2 with respect to domestic Egyptian beliefs and magic. Children also may be indicated by the presence of a miniature clay lamp (Inv. 11917), a possible gaming piece (Inv. 11918), and a hand-made figurine head (Inv. 11920), which were all found in Courtyard C2. The category of “toy” is always hazardous in archaeology, but these miniature items seem to be likely possibilities for this suggestion.85 It is equally possible that adults made use of these objects. Men When avoiding the tendency in archaeology to link material goods with adult men, we find few material goods that specifically link to male occupants within B2. The texts found within B2 most likely signify a male presence, because literate persons were more likely to be male than female. Also, men are indicated Baxter 2005:2, 7-10. On the archaeology of children more broadly, see Dasen and Späth 2010, Sofaer Derevenski 2000, Johnson 2007, Laes 2011, Sofaer Derevenski 2000, Kemp 2001. 83 On the socialization of children, see Handel 1988, Baxter 2005:especially 28-37 and also Grundman 2006. On the socialization of children into religious knowledge in Roman Italy, see Prescendi 2010. 84 Boozer 2010. 85 On the link between minitaturization and children, see Gräslund 1973, Hodson 1977, Sofaer Derevenski 2000b, Baxter 2005:46-49. 82

Artifact and Activity

199

by the presence of a finger ring seal (Inv. 3452) and the other goods linked with trade and transportation (see above). A naked male figurine (Inv. 11509) also indicates perceptions of masculinity. The Aged We cannot directly link any material goods in B2 to an older demographic. Even so, it is likely that older men would have taken on cultic roles linked with the recovered figurines from B2 and its surroundings since older men often served important cultic roles.86

Discussion This chapter presented the range, social links, and value of the small finds from B2 and its surroundings. In summation, it appears that the people who occupied House B2 were a mid-level economic group, occupying neither the extreme high nor the extreme low end of society at Amheida. There are indications that men, women, and (less clearly) children once occupied House B2. The possibility of aged occupants must also be considered. The ethnic affinities of this household are complicated, as both Roman Mediterranean and Egyptian signatures can be found in the assemblage. Even so, it is of interest that the Egyptian material culture appears to align more with the women and children who once lived in Area 1 than the men, as can be seen in the evidence of food preparation, amulets, adornment, and weaving. The few male-linked objects seem to have been more Romano-Egyptian in character. This survey of the themes to be found within the B2 house strongly suggests the nuances to be found within single domestic structures. It is these nuances that are lost when we do not explore individual structures holistically. The final chapter will draw these themes together with the built space of B2 in order to more fully interpret the lived space of this house. 86

Parkin 2003, Boozer 2011.

This page intentionally left blank

8

LA CÉRAMIQUE DE LA MAISON B2 Delphine Dixneuf

Les recherches archéologiques conduites sur la maison B2 ont livré un matériel céramique abondant et diversifié, daté principalement du Bas-Empire, voire du début de l’Antiquité tardive. En 2007, nous avons été chargée de l’étude de ce matériel1 ; toutefois, il convient de préciser qu’une analyse préliminaire de la céramique avait été commencée par Gillian Pyke2. Ces travaux céramologiques, publiés ici pour la première fois, posent les bases d’une classification des principales productions régionales et des importations observées sur le site d’Amheida pour l’époque romaine et l’Antiquité tardive. Dans le cadre de la publication de la maison B2, la première partie est consacrée aux méthodes employées pour l’étude de la céramique : comptages et caractérisation macroscopique des pâtes. Cette introduction méthodologique sera suivie d’une présentation des principaux groupes de pâtes, du catalogue typo-chronologique des céramiques, puis des principaux assemblages suivant les trois secteurs et par pièce. En raison de la difficulté de dater certains assemblages, nous verrons que l’étude des ostraca, réalisée par Giovanni Ruffini, nous fournit un premier indice chronologique ; en effet, l’occupation de ce secteur semble s’échelonner entre le IIIe et le début du IVe siècle3.

Approche méthodologique En raison de la nature du matériel auquel nous avons été confrontée, il a été choisi de mettre en pratique une méthode d’étude relativement simple mais efficace permettant de traiter des quantités assez considérables de tessons. Un premier tri est effectué afin d’éliminer les fragments de panses – sauf quand une restauration est envisageable – qui ont été comptés et pesés par contexte (unités stratigraphiques) et suivant les principaux groupes de pâtes. Après les habituelles étapes de lavage et de recollage, un second tri est réalisé. L’ensemble des tessons est évalué selon les critères de la forme, de la fonction et de la pâte, afin de déterminer le NMI – Nombre Minimum d’Individus – par contexte puis pour l’ensemble du secteur. Sont ainsi comptés les éléments les plus significatifs, à savoir les fragments de lèvres, les anses et les fonds. Le NMI global ou minimum, évalué pour l’ensemble du secteur, correspond au nombre le plus élevé parmi ces différents éléments morphologiques4. Une étude macroscopique des pâtes de tous les fragments de céramiques dessinés a également été réalisée; cette description s’appuie essentiellement sur des critères qualificatifs et quantitatifs : • la nature de l’argile ; Qu’il me soit permis de remercier le Professeur Roger Bagnall pour m’avoir confié l’étude de la céramique recueillie sur le site d’Amheida (maison B2), ainsi que Paola Davoli, directeur archéologique et Anna Boozer, responsable de la fouille de la maison B2. Je tiens également à remercier le Professeur Colin Hope (Université de Monash, Melbourne, Australie) pour l’ensemble de ses conseils relatifs notamment aux groupes de pâtes en usage dans la région à l’époque romaine. Enfin, j’ai pu bénéficier de l’aide de Bruno Bazzani (informaticien), de deux étudiantes australiennes, Emmeline Healey et Amy Vela (Université de Monash), d’une étudiante américaine, Andrea Myers (New York University), d’une étudiante italienne, Clementina Caputo (Université de Salento à Lecce, Italie) et du dessinateur égyptien, Ashraf Senussi (CSA) sans qui ce travail n’aurait pu aboutir. 2 On renverra à ce sujet aux différents rapports élaborés par Gillian Pyke (Pyke 2005, Pyke 2006). 3 Voir la présentation des ostraca dans ce même volume. 4 Pour les méthodes de comptages des céramiques, on renverra à l’ouvrage suivant (Arcelin and Tuffreau-Libre 1998). 1

202

Amheida II

• la couleur des surfaces et de la cassure ; • la texture et l’aspect général de la pâte ; • les inclusions : la couleur, l’aspect, la taille, la forme, la fréquence et parfois la mention hypothétique de leur nature ; • le façonnage final (lissage, peignage, raclage…) et le traitement de surface (présence d’un engobe et/ou d’un décor peint). L’ensemble des données relatives à la fonction, à la forme et à la pâte, nous a permis d’établir un classement typologique de la céramique découverte sur la maison B2 du site d’Amheida pour la période romaine et le début de l’Antiquité tardive. Avant de présenter le répertoire morphologique, nous décrirons brièvement les principales catégories de pâtes rencontrées sur le site.

Présentation des groupes de pâtes L’identification et la numérotation des pâtes des céramiques se fondent sur le Dakhla Oasis Fabric System, classification établie par Colin Hope qui a beaucoup travaillé sur la caractérisation des céramiques produites dans l’oasis de Dakhla, toutes périodes confondues5. Les productions supposées, sinon d’origine locale, du moins de la région englobant les oasis de Dakhla et de Kharga, se répartissent suivant deux grandes familles de pâtes (figure 8.1). La première de ces familles, numériquement la plus importante, rassemble les argiles riches en oxydes ferrugineux (iron-rich clays) dont la couleur varie généralement du rouge-orangé (A1a/A2a) au gris-noir (A1b/A2b). La distinction entre les groupes A1 et A2 repose principalement sur la texture, plus fine et dure en ce qui concerne les pâtes du groupe A2. Les inclusions consistent essentiellement en grains de quartz sableux assez nombreux, en plusieurs nodules blancs et quelques particules rouges. Ce groupe caractérise une grande majorité du matériel et concerne la quasitotalité des formes rencontrées sur le site : conteneurs de stockage et de transport, récipients culinaires, céramiques communes, vaisselles de service et de table. L’existence d’ateliers de potiers durant l’époque romaine, sur le site même d’Amheida et non loin de la maison B2, renforce l’hypothèse d’une production régionale, voire locale, des céramiques des groupes A1 et A26. Une variante de ces groupes est représentée par la fabrique A5 qui comprend des pâtes de nature similaire mais de texture plus grossière, poreuse et refermant une quantité plus importante de particules de calcites. Cette pâte caractérise notamment des vases à liquide et, en particulier, des gargoulettes, ainsi que des sigas et jarres de stockage. De datation antérieure au IVe siècle7, le groupe A28 concerne un ensemble assez important de céramiques ; il regroupe des pâtes tendres, sableuses, de texture fine à moyennement fine et de cassure homogène marron. Ces pâtes renferment plusieurs grains de quartz sableux, des nodules blancs et quelques particules rouges de taille diverse. Cette fabrique a également été employée pour la fabrication de la majorité des formes rencontrées à Amheida : conteneurs de stockage et vases à liquide, céramiques communes, vaisselles de table et récipients culinaires. Les céramiques destinées à un usage purement domestique, tels les pithoi, les bassines, les moules et les plaques à pain, ainsi que certains supports dénommés fire-dogs possèdent une pâte de texture assez grossière (A4) dont la caractéristique principale est l’addition de particules végétales en quantité importante. Assez courante dans l’oasis de Dakhla, cette fabrique est attestée dès l’Ancien Empire8. La famille des pâtes calcaires est illustrée par le groupe B10 qui rassemble des pâtes poreuses, légères, de texture moyennement grossière et aérées. Grise à verdâtre en cassure, elles renferment Hope 1999b. Qu’il me soit permis de le remercier ici pour m’avoir initiée aux productions céramiques de l’oasis de Dakhla. 6 Hope 1993:126-127, fig. 131-133. 7 Dunsmore 2002:135. 8 Hope 2004b:103. 5

La Céramique de la Maison B2

203

plusieurs grains de quartz, des nodules rouges et noirs de taille diverse. Ce type d’argile a été employé presque exclusivement pour la confection de formes fermées et, plus précisément, de vases à eau de type gargoulette (groupe typologique 21) datables bien souvent, mais pas exclusivement, de l’Antiquité tardive9. Le groupe B16 se rattache à la grande famille des pâtes renfermant des plaquettes d’argile silicifiée et plusieurs grains de quartz. Les pâtes, d’aspect grumeleux, possèdent une texture moyennement fine à moyennement grossière, généralement rouge à orangée en cassure. Caractéristiques de l’époque romaine, on les trouve cependant dès la Basse Époque10. Le groupe A27, également connu sous l’appellation Oasis Red Slip Ware, rassemble une céramique fine et une lampe dont les parois sont recouvertes d’un engobe rouge-orangé poli. Il s’agit d’une pâte de couleur similaire à la surface et de texture relativement fine. Les inclusions consistent en plusieurs grains de quartz sableux, plaquettes d’argile silicifiée et nodules blancs de petite taille. Les occurrences de céramiques fines rouges sont assez rares, voire quasi-inexistantes, parmi le matériel de la maison B2 ; ce phénomène s’explique notamment par la datation tardive de cette catégorie de céramiques11.

Figure 8.1 : Répartition des céramiques suivant les groupes de pâtes. La famille suivante (A11) rassemble des pâtes aisément reconnaissables, dures et sonores, de texture fine (Christian Brittle Wares). La cassure est généralement zonée : rose à cœur bleu, parfois de couleur uniforme rose. Les inclusions consistent en plusieurs nodules rouges et noirs de taille diverse (plaquettes d’argile silicifiée), en grains de quartz et en quelques petites particules blanches de calcite. Il est assez fréquent d’observer la présence sur la surface externe d’un engobe rouge qui vire au gris après la cuisson de la céramique. Ce type de pâte est caractéristique du IVe siècle et n’illustre qu’un nombre très restreint de céramiques provenant majoritairement des niveaux de surface, principalement des marmites. Plusieurs céramiques appartenant à ce groupe de pâte ont été observées sur le site d’Ain el-Gedida, dans des niveaux du iv siècle. 10 Hope 2000:195. 11 Voir Rodziewicz 1987:123-13, Ballet 2004:211, note 8. Selon P. Ballet, il semble peu probable que les ateliers de potiers ayant produits cette catégorie de céramiques fines se trouvent dans l’oasis de Kharga ; elle partage ainsi l’hypothèse de C. Hope qui les situerait plutôt dans l’oasis de Dakhla. 9

204

Amheida II

Cependant, il convient de préciser que le groupe A11 a été employé dès la Troisième Période intermédiaire pour la confection de gourdes12 (groupe typologique 2) dont un unique exemplaire a été identifié. Enfin, il convient de signaler la présence de quelques céramiques, souvent des fragments de panses, provenant des ateliers localisés le long des rives du Nil. Ces céramiques se rattachent aux productions égyptiennes à pâte calcaire, de texture fine et de cassure généralement beige à rosée ; les inclusions consistent principalement en grains de quartz et nodules blancs. Les céramiques importées de Méditerranée ne sont représentées que par un fragment de mortier dont la pâte indique une origine italique ou chypriote.

Présentation des comptages et des principaux groupes fonctionnels Présentation des comptages La fouille de la maison B2 a livré un matériel céramique abondant mais peu diversifié parmi lequel les importations de la vallée du Nil et de Méditerranée ne représentent qu’un très faible pourcentage (figure 8.1). L’étude de la céramique à permis de comptabiliser 1 512 individus qui se répartissent en quatre grandes familles : les conteneurs de transport et de stockage, les céramiques culinaires, les récipients destinés à la préparation et à la présentation des aliments, les céramiques liées à leur consommation et enfin une famille qui regroupe plusieurs groupes typologiques numériquement marginaux (tableau 8.1). Groupes fonctionnel

Forme

NMI

Conteneurs de transport et de stockage

Sigas

9

Gourde

1

Pithoi

6

Jarres de stockage

479

Vases à liquide

24

Flacons

6

Marmites

160

Plats de cuisson

6

Fire-dogs

3

Moules et plaques à pain

8

Bassines

80

Mortier

1

Passoires

2

Entonnoirs

2

ORSW

1

Bols et coupelles

664

Gobelets

3

Couvercles

48

Pot à pigeon

1

Lampes

6

Meidum-bowls

2

Total

1512

Céramiques culinaires

Préparation et présentation des aliments

Consommation des aliments

Divers

Tableau 8.1 : Comptages des céramiques suivant les principaux groupes fonctionnels. 12

Hope 2000:194.

La Céramique de la Maison B2

205

L’histogramme de répartition des céramiques suivant les principaux groupes (figure 8.3) permet d’entrevoir une large prédominance de deux groupes, à savoir les bols et coupelles devant les jarres de stockage. Viennent ensuite les récipients culinaires. À ce sujet, il conviendra de préciser que plusieurs bols et autres coupelles ont été largement employés pour la cuisson des aliments, ce dont témoignent les traces noires couramment observées sur les parois de ces récipients. Enfin, le groupe des sigas se résume à quelques individus ; on peut supposer que les jarres, généralement destinées au stockage, ont pu être également employées pour le transport des denrées alimentaires de base, vin, huile et autres.

Figure 8.3 : Répartition des céramiques suivant les principaux groupes fonctionnels. Présentation des principaux groupes fonctionnels Le classement des céramiques découvertes sur le secteur 1 repose principalement sur des critères fonctionnels. La première partie concerne les céramiques attribuables, selon toute probabilité, aux périodes antérieures à l’époque hellénistique. Il s’agit notamment d’une siga pourvue d’un filtre et d’une anse13, d’une gourde et de deux coupes caractéristiques de la famille des meidum-bowls. La présence de ces fragments résiduels n’est pas incongrue sur un site comme Amheida où une occupation humaine est attestée dès l’Ancien Empire. La grande famille des conteneurs de transport et de stockage comprend deux groupes fonctionnels principaux : les sigas, généralement employés pour le transport de denrées liquides, mais pas seulement, et les récipients de stockage destinés à un usage domestique qui se déclinent en deux familles, les pithoi et les jarres ; signalons toutefois, que les jarres ont également pu être destinées au transport et à la vente de marchandises. De plus, on signalera la présence d’un col d’une amphore rhodienne, conteneur largement diffusé sur les sites du nord de l’Égypte, en particulier à Alexandrie, et de manière plus anecdotique sur les sites oasiens14. Une des productions majeures des oasis du désert Libyque est la siga. La fabrication de ce type de conteneur commence à partir de la fin de la Troisième Période intermédiaire (XXVe dynastie) dans l’oasis de Bahariya15 (site de Qasr Allam) et à la Basse Époque, au Ve siècle av. J.-C., dans les oasis de Kharga Patten 2000:235 et pl. 80 (n° SS1i, forme 159, phase 3). Hope and Ross 2007:465, 477, fig. 1 (n° c-f). 15 Rougeulle and Marchand 2011:443, note 13. 13 14

206

Amheida II

(XXVIIe dynastie sur le site de ‘Ayn Manâwîr) et de Dakhla16. De nos jours, cette forme est encore en usage, notamment dans l’oasis de Dakhla où un atelier de production a été étudié par Nessim Henein dans le village d’al-Qasr ; les sigas sont destinées au barattage du lait, à la préparation du beurre, la conservation des fromages et sont utilisées pour puiser l’eau dans les canaux peu profonds17. Durant l’époque romaine et l’Antiquité tardive, la siga possède une large panse de forme ovale, proche du ballon de rugby, un col court, cylindrique ou légèrement tronconique, et une lèvre arrondie ou de section triangulaire18. La totalité de ces conteneurs se rattache aux groupes A1, A2 et A5, indiquant une production locale, voire régionale. Ces récipients étaient destinés, selon toute vraisemblance, au stockage de l’eau et au conditionnement des vins produits dans l’oasis, mais aussi pour la confection du lait, du beurre et du fromage. Outre les pithoi, la famille des conteneurs de stockage est illustrée par de nombreux fragments de jarres dont plusieurs séries ont été identifiées suivant la forme des bords, seule une forme complète a été recensée. Il s’agit notamment de récipients à col court, voire inexistant, et lèvre de section quadrangulaire, peu épaisse, à face supérieure rainurée, triangulaire ou à face externe arrondie. Les jarres d’époque romaine se caractérisent par un ressaut saillant à la jonction entre le col et l’épaule, un col court et un bord de section quadrangulaire19 ou à face supérieure rainurée20. Les récipients à bord arrondi sont plutôt caractéristiques du Bas-Empire et de l’Antiquité tardive21. La grande famille des vases à liquide regroupe plusieurs céramiques liées en particulier au service des boissons, à la conservation des parfums et des onguents : pichets, gargoulettes et flacons. Toutefois, cette famille est assez peu représentée parmi le matériel céramique de la maison B2 et sa chronologie s’étend de l’époque hellénistique à l’Antiquité tardive. Les vases à parfums et à onguents se résument à quelques individus dont les plus caractéristiques sont les pots miniatures à panse globulaire, fond plat et col cylindrique et les flacons à large panse ovoïde, col court et petite lèvre dont l’extrémité est arrondie. La forme des premiers se rencontre dès l’époque romaine et continue à marquer les faciès d’époque romaine tardive alors que les seconds semblent typiques de l’Antiquité tardive, voire un peu avant 22. Plusieurs exemplaires de forme similaire proviennent du site d’Ain el-Gedida où ils sont datés principalement du IVe siècle. Les céramiques de forme ouverte, destinées à des usages spécifiques, de nature domestique ou de service, sont représentées par un nombre important d’individus. Parmi les céramiques liées à la préparation des aliments, on soulignera la présence de deux types de récipients employés pour la cuisson du pain : les moules (forme à fond plat et parois de hauteur moyenne, légèrement inclinées ou droites) et les plaques (forme ronde et plate à rebord arrondi et non saillant) ; les moules étant réservés, selon toute vraisemblance, aux pains épais et les plaques aux galettes fines. On note également une série de bassins ou de pétrins, larges formes aux parois hautes, droites ou légèrement évasées, dont plusieurs variantes de lèvres ont été observées. Ces céramiques ont été confectionnées exclusivement à partir d’une argile riche en particules végétales (A4). Marchand, “Appendix 3. Les sigas des Oasis datées de la XXVIIe–XXVIIIe dynastie et de l’époque ptolémaïque ancienne trouvées à ‘Ayn Manâwîr (oasis de Kharga) et à Tebtynis (Fayoum)”, dans Hope 2000:221. 17 Henein 1997:161-166. 18 Patten 2000:233 et pl. 79 (SS160k et SS91e, forme 157, phase 4+); Hope et al. 2006:189. 19 Hope 1999b:23, Hope 1987:171, fig. 5 (o : ii–iii siècles), Patten 2000:pl. 68 (forme 123/1, H7-1/82/18a), Bowen, Dolling, Hope and Kucera 2007:26, 42, fig. 5 (c, fin i–ii siècles). 20 Hope 2007c:171, fig. 5 (p, iie-iiie siècles), Patten 2000:228 et pl. 77 (forme 138, phase 4), Hope et al. 2006: 27 et p. 48, fig. 3 (d.69, fin ier–début iiie siècles). N° 18: Patten 2000:228 et pl. 77 (SS11 1j, forme 138, phase 4). N° 19: Hope et al. 2006:48, fig. 3 (d.69, fin ier–début iiie siècles). 21 N° 12: Patten 2000:227 et pl. 75 (SS18ab : apparentée à la forme 136, phase 4). 22 N° 32: ibid.:214, pl. 65 (ts3 1g, forme 110, phase 4 ou avant phase 3, Hope 2004a:25 et p. 41, fig. 9 (a, ii ou iii siècle), Bowen, Dolling, Hope and Kucera 2007:44, fig. 7 (c118, milieu i–période sévérienne). 16

La Céramique de la Maison B2

207

Fait remarquable, un fragment de mortier importé de Méditerranée, éventuellement d’Italie, voire de Chypre, provient de la pièce 7 DSU 39). Ce récipient aux parois évasées et large lèvre tombante, possède une pâte de texture moyennement grossière et une cassure beige. Les inclusions consistent principalement en particules rouges et noires de grande taille. La présence de mortiers importés, notamment de la péninsule italique, n’est pas rare en Égypte. Quelques exemplaires ont ainsi été recensés à Péluse23 et dans le désert oriental sur le site du Mons Claudianus 24. La présence de cet objet, importé pour lui-même et non pour un contenu, pose toutefois la question de son acheminement jusqu’à Trimithis et de la nature de son propriétaire. Outre ce mortier, le répertoire morphologique des céramiques communes destinées à la préparation des aliments comprend principalement des bassines, larges et profondes coupes, généralement pourvues d’un fond annulaire et de parois convexes ou droites. On distingue plusieurs variantes suivant la forme de la lèvre : section triangulaire haute ou aplatie, section quadrangulaire ou en bourrelet. On note également des jattes à bord en biseau et une large et profonde forme ouverte dotée d’un bec verseur25. Les céramiques de forme ouverte destinées au service et à la consommation des aliments se déclinent en de nombreuses variantes parfois difficilement classables dont l’évolution morphologique entre la période romaine et l’Antiquité tardive est souvent peu perceptible. Les grandes familles sont les suivantes : • les céramiques fines connues sous l’appellation Oasis Red Slip Wares. Ces céramiques, relativement rares parmi les assemblages du bâtiment 2 – seules une coupe et une lampe ont été reconnues – livrent un indice chronologique important puisqu’elles ne semblent pas apparaître avant le début du IVe siècle, en tout cas pour la Kharga Red Slip Ware26. Si aucun centre de production n’a été repéré dans l’oasis de Kharga, il apparaît fort probable que l’oasis de Dakhla ait pu en accueillir un 27; • les cratères, généralement employés dans le monde grec pour le mélange de l’eau et du vin, mais dont l’usage s’est largement diversifié ; • les coupes liées au service et à la présentation des aliments ; • les assiettes à lèvre interne arrondie qui se situent dans la tradition des céramiques hellénistiques inspirées du monde grec, mais dont la production en Égypte se poursuit au moins jusqu’à l’époque romaine ; • les assiettes ou coupelles à parois évasées et lèvre formant un marli peu saillant. On note assez fréquemment la présence d’un rehaut blanc et de points rouges sur le marli, décoration assez courante des céramiques oasiennes de l’époque romaine tardive28; • les bols convexes à fond plat découpé à la ficelle employés dans le vaisselier pour la consommation ou la présentation des aliments, mais le plus souvent comme couvercle de jarres de stockage ; cet usage est attesté par la présence de résidus de plâtre ou de chaux sur les parois de certains d’entre eux. Ces bols sont attestés dès le début de la période hellénistique, voire avant, et sont présents tant sur les sites oasiens que dans la vallée du Nil29. Toutefois, après comparaison avec le matériel de Kellis, quelques exemplaires pourraient se rattacher aux IIe et IIIe siècles apr. J.-C.30; Inédit. Tomber 2006b:132-133, fig. 1.51, n° 761-762. 25 Hope 1999b:232. 26 Ballet 2000:94. 27 Ballet 2004:211, note 8 où elle cite Hope 1987. Voir également Rodziewicz 1987:123-136, Hope 1986:87, fig. 8-9. 28 Patten 1999:83. 29 Hope 1987: pl. 171, fig. 5 (n–d), pl. 171, fig. 5 (l, Patten 1999:85, fig. 2.1, Patten 2000: forme 10/1 et p. 4, pl. 46 (forme 36), Hope 2003: fig. 18 (f), 269, fig. 20 (b–c), Hope 2004a:40, fig. 7 (a, c, f) et p. 41, fig. 9 (d, e, h). 30 Hope 2003:213, fig. 5 (a), 269, fig. 20 (b-c) et 272. 23 24

208

Amheida II

• les bols convexes à lèvre rentrante et fond légèrement surélevé ; • les bols ou écuelles à fond légèrement surélevé et parois obliques ; la lèvre consiste en un simple prolongement des parois, parfois en crochet, arrondie ou à face externe convexe. On note sur plusieurs exemplaires un ressaut interne destiné à recevoir un couvercle ; ces récipients ont été bien souvent employés pour la cuisson des aliments ; en effet, nombre d’entre eux présente des surfaces fortement noircies31; • les bols à carène haute (carène droite ou concave et lèvre arrondie)32; • les bols à carène haute pourvue d’une petite lèvre amincie et évasée ou épaisse en crochet. On note également assez fréquemment la présence d’un rehaut blanc et de points rouges sur la lèvre33. Outre la catégorie des bols à fonds légèrement surélevés, parois obliques et lèvre pourvue d’un ressaut interne destiné à recevoir un couvercle, la grande famille des céramiques culinaires comprend principalement des marmites globulaires dont plusieurs formes de bords ont été identifiées : col court, légèrement évasé, parfois mouluré, col très court et lèvre épaissie évasée et marmites sans col et lèvre évasée dont la partie supérieure est plane ou moulurée. On note également des pots de cuisson de petit volume à col court évasé. On mentionnera ici les supports coniques pourvus de deux pieds, confectionnés en terre cuite et dénommés fire-dogs en raison de leur forme curieuse. Ces supports, employés par groupe de trois, étaient disposés au-dessus d’un foyer et supportaient une marmite à fond rond et de forme globulaire ou ovoïde. Cette forme, typiquement égyptienne, est couramment attestée en Égypte, principalement en contexte domestique34.

Catalogue des céramiques d’Amheida La classification des céramiques découvertes lors de la fouille du secteur 1 sur le site d’Amheida se répartit suivant plusieurs groupes fonctionnels, à l’exception de la première série qui contient les céramiques résiduelles attribuables aux époques antérieures à la période hellénistique. Les principaux groupes fonctionnels, eux-mêmes subdivisés suivant les formes, sont les suivants : les conteneurs de transport et de stockage, les vases à liquide, les céramiques communes de forme ouverte destinées à la préparation des aliments, la vaisselle de table et de service, les récipients liés à la cuisson des aliments, les couvercles, les godets de saqia, les pots à pigeon et les lampes. La composition du catalogue suit les principes de l’éditeur ; sont mentionnés le numéro du catalogue, le numéro de la planche, le numéro d’inventaire, le contexte, la nature de la pâte (fabrique), les dimensions de l’objet, la technique de fabrication, seulement pour les céramiques façonnées à la main – à l’exception de quelques objets, la quasi-totalité des céramiques est montée au tour rapide dont témoignent les marques concentriques à l’intérieur des vases – la datation lorsque cela est possible, la description et les éventuels parallèles. En ce qui concerne les dimensions, les céramiques étant fragmentaires, la notion de poids n’est pas nécessaire ; de plus, la largeur s’entend ici par diamètre. La majorité des objets est conservée dans les réserves de la maison de la mission archéologique américaine localisée dans la ville de Mout (oasis de Dakhla) ; seules quelques céramiques ont été entreposées dans les réserves du Conseil suprême des antiquités égyptiennes à Ismant el-Kharab (Kellis). Les céramiques résiduelles Groupe 1 : les sigas N° 1 Hope 1987:171, fig. 5 (c), Patten 1999: 85, fig. 2 (18), Patten 2000: pl. 41 (forme 7 R-F), pl. 41 (forme 6/1). Patten 1999:85, fig. 2 (16), 85, fig. 2 (15), Patten 2000:pl. 45 (forme 34 ou 35), Hope et al. 2006:49, fig. 4 (h/132). 33 Patten 1999:85, fig. 2 (25), Patten 2000: pl. 62, forme 9, Hope 2003: fig. 26, n° b, 28, Hope 2004a:37, fig. 4 (d/28). 34 Aston 1989. 31 32

La Céramique de la Maison B2

209

N° inv. A06/1.3/75/10016 Fabrique : A2a Ø emb. 6,3 cm Description : siga à col cylindrique de hauteur moyenne, lèvre arrondie et légèrement évasée. Une anse est fixée sur la lèvre et la partie supérieure de la panse ; le col est pourvu d’un filtre. Datation supposée de la Basse Époque. Groupe 2: les gourdes N° 2 N° inv. A05/1.3/30/8730 Fabrique : A11 Description : gourde de petite taille, à col cylindrique étroit, pourvue de deux anses fixées sur le col et la partie supérieure de la panse. Parallèles : de nombreux exemplaires de ces gourdes ont été découverts à Karnak-Nord et sur la route Louxor-Farshout (Hope 1999b:230 ; Hope 2000:204, fig. 1.e). Leur usage semble être lié au stockage de l’eau et au transport de commodités (Hope 1999b:230 ; Hope 2000:204, fig. 1.e). Groupe 3 : les meidum-bowls N° 3 N° inv. A05/1.3/3/7772 Fabrique : A28 ? ; engobe rouge poli sur la paroi interne et lissé sur la paroi externe. Ø emb. (ext.). 24 cm Description : large coupe à carène arrondie et lèvre fortement évasée formant un marli. Les conteneurs de transport et de stockage Groupe 4 : Les amphores importées N° 4 N° inv. A07/1.2/3/12153 Fabrique : Rhodes, pâte de texture fine et de couleur marron-chamois en cassure. Ø emb. 6 cm Description : amphore à col cylindrique étroit et lèvre en bandeau court dont l’extrémité supérieure est arrondie. Groupe 5 : les sigas Groupe 5a N° 5 N° inv. A05/1.3/20/8174 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 3,5 cm Description : siga à col cylindrique court, lèvre arrondie et déversée. Groupe 5b N° 6 N° inv. A06/1.3/36/10031 Fabrique : A2b Ø emb. 3,6 cm Description : siga à col court et lèvre arrondie.

210

Amheida II

N° 7 N° inv. A07/1.4/4/12239 Fabrique : A5 ; engobe blanc sur la paroi externe. Ø emb. 6,5 cm Description : il s’agit ici d’une variante de la forme précédente qui se distingue par ses dimensions plus importantes et la hauteur du col supérieure. Groupe 5c N° 8 N° inv. A05/1.3/12/8509 + 31/9200 + 31/8824 Fabrique : A1b avec traces ténues d’un engobe blanc. Ø emb. 3,25 cm Description : siga à col très court, petite lèvre épaisse de section triangulaire et panse en forme de tonnelet. Parallèles : Kellis, datation IIe–IIIe siècles (Hope 2007c:15, fig. 11p ) et fin Ier–IIe siècles (Bowen, et al. 2007:42, fig. 5 n° p). Groupe 6 : les pithoi Groupe 6a N° 9 N° inv. A06/1.3/76/10383 – SCA 2885 Lieu de conservation : Magasin archéologique du CSA (Kellis) Fabrique : A4 avec décor végétal composé d’une palme ou d’une branche incisée ; on note de profondes traces de raclage sur la partie inférieure du récipient. Ø emb. 21,8 cm – ht 50,2 cm – Ø fond 33,5 cm Description : pithos à parois épaisses et verticales, fond plat et épaule à carène arrondie ; lèvre en bourrelet dépourvue de col. Il semble fort probable que cette céramique ait été montée au moyen de la technique du colombin. Ce pithos a été découvert encore en place dans la pièce 6 de la maison (DSU 76) en connexion avec une jarre de stockage et un bol. Groupe 6b N° 10 N° inv. A05/1.3/41/179/24 Fabrique : A4 Façonnage à la main. Ø emb. 41,10 cm Description : pithos à parois épaisses, lèvre de section triangulaire inclinée vers l’intérieur du récipient et pourvue d’une rainure à sa base. Parallèle : Mons Claudianus (désert oriental), règne d’Antonin, voire au-delà (Tomber 2006b:97-98, fig. 1.37 n° 495). Groupe 6c N° 11 N° inv. A05/1.3/12/8510 Fabrique : A4 ; traces ténues d’un engobe blanc sur la lèvre et la surface interne. Façonnage à la main. Ø emb. 42,5 cm

La Céramique de la Maison B2

211

Description : variante du n° 10, pithos à parois épaisses, lèvre de section triangulaire épaisse à face supérieure légèrement concave. Parallèle : Mons Claudianus, forme apparentée datée du règne d’Antonin le Pieux, voire au-delà (Tomber 2006b: 98-99, fig. 1.37 n° 98-495). Groupes 7 à 14 : Les jarres de stockage Groupe 7 N° 12 N° inv. A05/1.3/29/8828 Fabrique : A2b avec engobe blanc. Ø emb. 11 cm Description : jarre de stockage à col court et droit, lèvre en crochet. Parallèles : Kellis, IIe–IIIe siècles (Hope 1987:171, fig. 5 n° o ; Hope 2007c:12, fig. 8 n° j ; Patten 1996:55, fig. 11) et fin Ier–IIe siècles (Bowen, et al. 2007:41, fig. 4 n° o et p. 42, fig. 5 n° c). Groupe 8a N° 13 N° inv. A05/1.3/29/8132 Fabrique : A1b avec engobe blanc. Ø emb. 11 cm Description : jarre de stockage à col court et droit, lèvre épaisse de section triangulaire et partie supérieure concave. Parallèle : Kellis, IIe–IIIe siècles (Hope 1987:171, fig. 5 n° q). Groupe 8b N° 14 N° inv. A06/1.3/65/10131 Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 9 cm Description : jarre de stockage à col court et droit pourvu d’un ressaut à la base, lèvre épaisse à face supérieure oblique et moulurée. Parallèle : Kellis, forme apparentée (Hope, et al. 2006:48, fig. 3 n° d). Groupe 8c N° 15 N° inv. A05/1.3/23/9097 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 11,5 cm Description : jarre de stockage à col très court, quasi inexistant et pourvu d’un ressaut à la base ; lèvre épaisse, de section « quadrangulaire » à face supérieure moulurée. Groupe 9 N° 16 N° inv. A05/1.3/4/7988 Fabrique : A1a ; surface externe noircie (employée comme large pot de cuisson). Ø emb. 12,25 cm Description : jarre à col très court et lèvre en bandeau évasé. Groupe 10 N° 17

212

Amheida II

N° inv. A07/1.2/5/12114 Fabrique : B10 ; engobe blanc sur la paroi externe. Ø emb. 14 cm Description : jarre à col très court et lèvre évasée. Groupe 11a N° 18 N° inv. A05/1.3/25/8465 Fabrique : A1b ; badigeon blanc sur la lèvre et la surface externe. Ø emb. 13 cm Description : jarre de stockage à col inexistant et lèvre de section triangulaire. Parallèle : Kellis, IIe–IIIe siècles (Hope 1987:171, fig. 5 n° p). Groupe 11b N° 19 N° inv. A05/1.3/29/8837 Fabrique : A2a Ø emb. 10 cm Description : jarre à col tronconique et lèvre plate mais moulurée dans sa partie supérieure ; un ressaut souligne la jonction entre le col et la panse. Parallèle : Kellis, IIe–IIIe siècles (Hope 1987:171, fig. 5 n° p). Groupe 11c N° 20 N° inv. A05/1.3/4/8002 Fabrique : A2b Ø emb. 8,25 cm Description : jarre à col tronconique et petite lèvre de section triangulaire ; un ressaut souligne la jonction entre le col et la panse. Groupe 11d N° 21 N° inv. A05/1.3/16/8750 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 14 cm Description : jarre de stockage à col court, tronconique et pourvu d’un ressaut à la base, lèvre de section « quadrangulaire ». Groupe 12a N° 22 N° inv. A05/1.3/16/7947 Fabrique : A28 avec résidus noirs sur la paroi interne du récipient. Ø emb. 11,5 cm Description : jarre de stockage à col tronconique court et lèvre en bourrelet ; un ressaut souligne la jonction entre le col et la panse. Parallèle : Ain el-Gedida, Antiquité tardive (Dixneuf 2013). Groupe 12b N° 23 N° inv. A06/1.3/41/10105

La Céramique de la Maison B2

213

Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 12,7 cm Description : jarre de stockage à col tronconique court et lèvre en amande ; un ressaut souligne la jonction entre le col et la panse. Groupe 12c N° 24 N° inv. A07/1.4/9/12154 Fabrique : A2a Ø emb. 5,2 cm Description : jarre de stockage à col tronconique étroit et lèvre en bourrelet ; un ressaut souligne la jonction entre le col et l’épaule. Parallèles : Kellis, fin IIIe– IVe siècles (Bowen, et al. 2007:44, fig. 7 n° h ). Ain el-Gedida, fin de l’époque romaine–Antiquité tardive (Dixneuf 2013). Groupe 13 N° 25 N° inv. A05/1.3/17/8019 Fabrique : A1b ; engobe blanc sur la lèvre et la surface externe. Ø emb. 20 cm Description : jarre de stockage dépourvue de col à lèvre en amande inclinée vers l’intérieur du récipient. Groupe 14 N° 26 N° inv. A06/1.3/40/10216 Fabrique : A5 ; engobe externe blanc. Ø emb. 13,3 cm ; ht totale 39 cm ; Ø max. 25,5 cm ; Ø fond 11,1 cm Description : jarre de stockage à panse ovoïde, fond annulaire, col court cylindrique et lèvre épaisse moulurée ; un ressaut souligne la jonction entre le col et la panse. Parallèle : Kellis, forme apparentée mais avec un décor sur la paroi externe et de datation, selon toute vraisemblance, postérieure au n° 26 ; il pourrait s’agir ici du prototype des jarres à décor peint (Patten 1999:84, fig. 1 n° 10). Les céramiques de forme fermée Groupes 15 à 22 Groupe 15 N° 27 N° inv. A05/1.3/37/9149 Fabrique : A1a ; traces ténues d’un engobe blanc et résidus noirs, probablement de résine, à l’intérieur du récipient. Ø emb. 8 cm Description : pot de stockage à col très court et lèvre épaissie en bandeau. Groupe 16 N° 28 N° inv. A05/1.3/13/8245 Fabrique : pâte calcaire, de texture moyennement fine et de cassure blanche à rosée. Importation supposée de la vallée du Nil. Ø emb. 5 cm

214

Amheida II

Description : pot de stockage à col court cylindrique, lèvre arrondie et légèrement évasée. Parallèle : Mons Claudianus, forme similaire en pâte alluviale, datée aux environs du milieu du Ier siècle (Tomber 2006b:72-73, fig. 1.27 n° 323). Groupe 17 N° 29 N° inv. A06/1.3/68/10027 Fabrique : A28 avec décor peint en rouge et blanc sur un engobe rouge soigneusement lissé. Ø emb. 7 cm Description : pot de stockage à panse globulaire, col court et fin, légèrement évasé et pourvu d’un ressaut interne. Parallèles : Douch, forme apparentée (Dunand, et al. 1992: pl. 77 n°3). Mons Claudianus, forme apparentée en pâte alluviale et décor peint en noir (lignes quadrillées et points), datée du règne d’Antonin, voire jusqu’au règne de Sévère (Tomber 2006b:74-76, fig. 1.28 n° 337). Groupe 18a N° 30 N° inv. A05/1.4/7/12195 + 12196 Fabrique : A2a ; épais engobe blanc sur la paroi externe. Ø emb. 7,4 cm Description : pichet à col cylindrique large, de hauteur moyenne, lèvre évasée à face interne concave ; l’anse est fixée sur le bord qu’elle dépasse et sur la partie supérieure de la panse. Ce vase, destiné au service des boissons, serait plutôt caractéristique des productions de la période hellénistique (Hope, et al. 2006:59, fig. 6, n° a). Groupe 18b N° 31 N° inv. A05/1.3/F11/8884 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 7 cm Description : pichet, vraisemblablement de forme ovoïde, épaule tombante et lèvre épaisse en bourrelet ; l’anse est fixée sur la lèvre et la partie supérieure de la panse. Parallèles : forme attestée durant l’Antiquité tardive à Dakhla (Patten 2000:221, pl. 64, forme 105, n° SS1 1c) et notamment à Ain el-Gedida (inédit). Groupe 19 N° 32 N° inv. A06/1.3/48/10384 – SCA 2874 Lieu de conservation : Magasin archéologique du CSA (Kellis) Fabrique : B10 Ø emb. 3 cm ; Ø max. 13 cm ; ht. 14,2 cm Description : gargoulette à large panse marquée d’une carène à mi-hauteur, fond plat, col cylindrique étroit pourvu d’un filtre et lèvre pincée ; l’anse est fixée sur la lèvre et la partie supérieure de la panse. Parallèles : il s’agit ici d’une famille de gargoulettes caractéristiques des contextes de la fin de l’époque romaine et de l’Antiquité tardive. Généralement façonnées à partir d’une argile calcaire grossière propice à la conservation de l’eau qui garde ainsi sa fraîcheur (B10), elles peuvent également être produites dans une pâte ferrugineuse riche en particules de calcites (A5) ; la surface externe est alors recouverte d’un engobe blanc. De nombreux exemplaires à panse globulaire proviennent du site d’Ain el-Gedida (inédit) ;

La Céramique de la Maison B2

215

les récipients dont l’épaule est soulignée par une carène pourraient constituer le prototype romain des formes que l’on trouvera durant l’Antiquité tardive. Groupe 20 N° 33 N° inv. A05/1.3/30/8070 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 5,1 cm Description : pichet à lèvre simple, légèrement évasée. Groupe 21a N° 34 N° inv. A07/1.4/3/12165 Fabrique : A2a ; engobe blanc sur la paroi externe. Ø emb. 8 cm Description : amphore de table à col mouluré. Parallèle : Mons Claudianus, forme apparentée dont la datation est comprise entre les règnes de Trajan et d’Antonin (Tomber 2006b:54-55, fig. 1.20 n° 210-211). Groupe 21b N° 35 N° inv. A05/1.3/17/8030 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 10,5 cm Description : amphore de table ou pichet à lèvre en bandeau mince, légèrement évasée et pourvue d’un ressaut interne. Groupe 21c N° 36 N° inv. A06/1.3/63/10039 Fabrique : A28 ; décor de points rouges à l’intérieur de la lèvre et à la base du col. Ø emb. 10 cm Description : amphore de table ou pichet à col court légèrement renflé, petite lèvre de section triangulaire évasée. Parallèle : Kellis, forme apparentée, IIe–IIIe siècles (Hope 1987:fig. 5.i). Groupe 22a N° 37 N° inv. A07/1.4/3/11902 Fabrique : A28 (variante de texture fine). Ø fond 3.25 cm ; Ø max. 5,4 cm Description : flacon à fond plat et panse globulaire. Parallèles : Kellis, IIe–IIIe siècles (Bowen, et al. 2007:29 et p. 44, fig. 7 n° C ; Hope 2004b:25 et p. 41, fig. 9a). Mons Claudianus, règne de Trajan (Tomber 2006b:138 et p. 140, fig. 1.53 n° 799). Groupe 22b N° 38 N° inv. A05/1.3/23/9232 Fabrique : A28 ; traces blanches pouvant résulter d’un engobe. La surface est partiellement noircie. Ø max. 8,3 cm ; Ø emb. 2 cm ; ht 6,8 cm

216

Amheida II

Description : flacon à large panse ovoïde, col très court et lèvre épaisse de section triangulaire. Parallèles : Ain el-Gedida, Antiquité tardive (inédit). Douch, forme apparentée (Dunand, et al. 1992: pl. 85 n°1 et forme similaire mais avec un col different, pl. 84 n° 1 et 5). Groupe 22c N° 39 N° inv. A05/1.3/19/7976 Fabrique : A1a ; engobe rose et décor peint en rouge sur le col. Ø emb. 2,7 cm Description : flacon ou pot de stockage de petites dimensions, vraisemblablement à panse globulaire, à col fin et court. Les céramiques de forme ouverte Groupes 23 à 30 : Moules à pain, pétrins, bassines et mortiers Groupe 23 N° 40 N° inv. A05/1.3/13/8240 Fabrique : A4 Ø emb. 30 cm ; ht 8 cm Façonnage à la main Description : moule à fond plat, variante aux parois légèrement évasées. N° 41 N° inv. A05/1.3/13/8239 Fabrique : A4 (surface externe légèrement noircie). Ø emb. 31 cm ; ht 12 cm Façonnage à la main Description : moule à fond plat, variante aux parois droites. Groupe 24 N° 42 N° inv. A05/1.3/30/9235 Fabrique : A4 Ø emb. 37 cm ; ht 2,8 cm Façonnage à la main Description : plaque à pain plate, bord arrondi. Groupe 25a N° 43 N° inv. A05/1.3/37/9169 Fabrique : A4 Ø emb. 64 cm Façonnage à la main Description : pétrin ou bassine à parois verticales très légèrement inclinées vers l’extérieur, lèvre plate et saillante soulignée de trois bourrelets à la base. Groupe 25b N° 44 N° inv. A05/1.3/38/3531

La Céramique de la Maison B2

217

Fabrique : A4 Ø emb. 54 cm Description : bassine à lèvre en bandeau formant un crochet. Groupe 25c N° 45 N° inv. A06/1.3/39/10128 Fabrique : Indéterminée, pâte sableuse, de texture moyennement fine et de cassure rouge-orangé ; nombreux grains de quartz de petite et moyenne tailles et plusieurs nodules blancs de taille diverse. Présence d’un engobe blanc sur la paroi externe. Importation supposée de la vallée du Nil. Ø emb. 35,8 cm Description : bassine à parois convexes, lèvre légèrement débordante dont la partie supérieure est arrondie. Groupe 26 N° 46 N° inv. A06/1.3/39/10037 Fabrique : Importée, pâte de texture moyennement grossière et de cassure beige ; les inclusions consistent en plusieurs nodules rouges et noirs de grande taille. Ø emb. 27 cm Description : mortier à parois évasées, lèvre épaisse et débordante. Parallèle : Mons Claudianus, forme apparentée d’origine italienne et datée principalement du règne de Trajan (Tomber 2006b:80-81, fig. 1.30 n° 37-378). Groupe 27a N° 47 N° inv. A06/1.3/47/10006 Fabrique : A2a Ø emb. 14 cm Description : bassine à bord plat saillant. Groupe 27b N° 48 N° inv. A05/1.3/F11/8914 Fabrique : A1b (surface externe noircie). Ø emb. 22 cm Description : bassine à parois convexes et bord plat dont la partie supérieure est moulurée. Groupe 27c N° 49 N° inv. A05/1.3/29/8948 Fabrique : A28 ; surface externe noircie. Ø emb. 17,4 cm Description : bassine à parois convexes, bord saillant de section triangulaire. Groupe 27d N° 50 N° inv. A05/1.3/29/8941 Fabrique : A5 ; engobe blanc sur la paroi externe.

218

Amheida II

Ø emb. (ext.) 20,5 cm Description : bassine à parois convexes, à bord plat et concave (partie supérieure). Groupe 27e N° 51 N° inv. A07/1.4/4/12182 Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 18,3 cm Description : bassine à parois convexes et lèvre épaisse dont la partie supérieure est moulurée ; la lèvre est soulignée par plusieurs lignes incisées. Groupe 27f N° 52 N° inv. A05/1.3/23/9102 Fabrique : A28 ? Ø emb. 30 cm Description : bassine à parois convexes, bord arrondi légèrement rentrant. Groupe 28a N° 53 N° inv. A06/1.3/40/10135 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 19 cm Description : bassine à parois convexes, légèrement carénée et lèvre en bourrelet rentrant. Groupe 28b N° 54 N° inv. A05/1.3/20/8135 Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 28 cm Description : bassine à parois convexes, légèrement carénée et lèvre en bourrelet rentrant dont la partie supérieure est moulurée. Groupe 29a N° 55 N° inv. A05/1.3/23/9128 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 19,2 cm Description : bassine à parois droites et lèvre épaisse. Groupe 29b N° 56 N° inv. A06/1.3/39/10158 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 39,3 cm Description : bassine à parois droites, lèvre épaisse et rentrante formant un crochet. Groupe 30a N° 57 N° inv. A05/1.3/4/7991 Fabrique : A1b ; rehaut blanc sur la lèvre.

La Céramique de la Maison B2

219

Ø emb. 44 cm Description : bassine à lèvre de section triangulaire légèrement aplatie. Groupe 30b N° 58 N° inv. A05/1.3/31/9203 Fabrique : A1a/b Ø emb. 25,5 cm Description : bassine à parois verticales s’amincissant progressivement vers le fond et bord de section triangulaire légèrement aplati. Parallèles : Kellis, formes apparentées, fin Ier–IIe siècles (Bowen, et al. 2007:41, fig. 4 n°d-h). Groupe 30b N° 59 N° inv. A05/1.3/16/8496 Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 13,5 cm Description : bassine, vraisemblablement à parois convexes, lèvre de section triangulaire épaisse. Groupe 30c N° 60 N° inv. A05/1.3/6/7912 Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 2,5 cm Description : bassine, vraisemblablement à parois convexes, lèvre de section triangulaire épaisse et rentrante. Parallèle : Eléphantine, forme apparentée, milieu Ier–IIe siècles (Rodziewicz 2005:230 et pl. 99 n° 1594). Groupe 31 : Les coupes à bec verseur N° 61 N° inv. A07/1.2/12/11933 Fabrique : A1a/A28 Ø emb. 19 cm ; Ø max. 20 cm ; Ø fond 9,4 cm Description : coupe profonde à panse globulaire, fond annulaire, lèvre de section triangulaire à face supérieure moulurée; un large bec verseur rond est fixé sur la partie supérieure du récipient au contact de la lèvre. Parallèle : Kellis, Ier–IIe siècles (Patten 1999:85, fig. 2.25) ; toutefois, la forme semble plus courante aux époques plus anciennes (Patten 1999:87). Groupe 32 : Les cratères Groupe 32a N° 62 N° inv. A06/1.3/46/10012 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 15 cm Description : cratère à panse convexe et lèvre évasée. Forme caractéristique du répertoire céramique d’époque hellénistique mais que l’on retrouve également durant l’époque romaine. Groupe 32b N° 63

220

Amheida II

N° inv. A05/1.3/30/8702 Fabrique : A1a/A28 ? Ø emb. 28,6 cm Description : cratère à parois obliques et lèvre fortement évasée dont la partie supérieure est moulurée. Parallèle : Mons Claudianus, forme apparentée datée entre les règnes de Trajan et d’Antonin le Pieux (Tomber 2006b:95-96, fig. 1.36 n° 91-482/483). Groupe 32c N° 64 N° inv. A07/1.4/4/12180 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 19 cm Description : cratère à parois obliques et lèvre évasée pourvue d’un léger ressaut interne. Groupe 32d N° 65 N° inv. A07/1.4/2/12177 Fabrique : A28 ; engobe blanc peu épais. Ø emb. 25 cm Description : cratère à lèvre évasée et légèrement déversée. Groupe 32e N° 66 N° inv. A07/1.2/3/12136 Fabrique : A5 ; engobe blanchâtre sur la surface externe. Ø emb. 32,6 cm Description : cratère dont la lèvre évasée est soulignée à sa base par un double ressaut. Groupes 33 à 35 : Les coupes, jattes et assiettes Groupe 33a N° 67 N° inv. A05/1.3/29/8133 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 41 cm Description : large coupe à lèvre épaisse et moulurée sur sa face interne. Groupe 33b N° 68 N° inv. A07/1.2/15/12151 Fabrique : A1a ; la surface externe est recouverte d’un engobe blanc noirci. Ø emb. 21,5 cm Description : coupe profonde, vraisemblablement à parois obliques, et lèvre formant un marli mouluré dont le rebord arrondi porte un décor « digité ». Groupe 33c N° 69 N° inv. A06/1.3/37/9168 Fabrique : A2b Ø emb. 25 cm

La Céramique de la Maison B2

221

Description : large coupe profonde à parois obliques et lèvre formant un marli dont l’extrémité est amincie. Parallèle : Kellis, Ier–IIe siècles (Patten 1999:85, fig. 2 n° 20). Groupe 33d N° 70 N° inv. A05/1.3/19/8051 Fabrique : A1a ; rehaut blanc sur la lèvre. Ø emb. 26 cm Description : large coupe profonde, à parois convexes et lèvre évasée formant un marli. Groupe 34a N° 71 N° inv. A05/1.3/6/7803 Fabrique : A28 ; surface externe noircie. Présence d’un décor de lignes peintes en rouge sur le marli. Ø emb. 20,1 cm ; ht totale 5,8 cm Description : coupe à parois obliques, fond annulaire bas et lèvre évasée formant un marli dont la face supérieure est moulurée. Parallèle : Kellis, datation IIer–IIIe siècles (Hope and Ross 2007:13, fig. 9 n° r). Groupe 34b N° 72 N° inv. A06/1.3/67/10112 Fabrique : A1a ; engobe blanc sur la paroi interne. Description : coupe à parois obliques et lèvre saillante. Parallèles : Kellis, Ier–IIIe siècles (Hope 1987:171, fig. 5.l ; Patten 1999:85, fig. 2.19). Groupe 35 N° 73 N° inv. A05/1.3/9/7856 Fabrique : A1b avec engobe blanc. Ø emb. 28 cm Description : assiette à parois fortement inclinées et lèvre interne arrondie. Forme caractéristique du répertoire céramique d’époque hellénistique mais que l’on retrouve également durant l’époque romaine. Groupe 36 N° 74 N° inv. A05/1.3/1/7642 Fabrique : A28 ; engobe blanc sur la paroi interne et la lèvre. Ø emb. 20 cm Description : assiette à parois inclinées, fond annulaire et lèvre formant un marli déversé. Groupe 37 N° 75 N° inv. A05/1.3/9/7982 Fabrique : A28 ; rehaut blanc sur la lèvre. Ø emb. 27,5 cm Description : assiette à parois convexes et lèvre en biseau inclinée vers l’intérieur du récipient et parfois moulurée.

222

Amheida II

Groupes 38 à 48 : Les coupelles, bols et jattes Groupe 38 N° 76 N° inv. A05/1.3/15/8409 Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 13,5 cm Description : jatte à parois verticales et lèvre formant un marli dont la partie supérieure est parcourue de plusieurs fines incisions. Groupe 39 N° 77 N° inv. A06/1.3/67/10015 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 10 cm Description : coupelle convexe à marli déversé. Groupe 40a N° 78 N° inv. A06/1.3/46/10014 Fabrique : A1a ; partie supérieure interne légèrement noircie (cette coupelle a sans doute été employée comme lampe. Ø emb. 8,6 cm ; Ø max 9,2 cm ; Ø fond 4,5 cm Description : coupelle convexe, peu haute à fond concave. Groupe 40b N° 79 N° inv. A07/1.2/3/12134 Fabrique : A28 ; surface externe soigneusement lissée. Ø emb. 8 cm ; ht 4,8 cm Description : bol convexe à fond plat détaché à la ficelle et bord simple, épais. Parallèles : forme de bol convexe fréquemment employée pour fermer les grandes jarres de stockage avant leur scellage avec de l’argile crue. Type de bouchon caractéristique des IIe et IIIe siècles à Kellis (Hope 1987:171, fig. 5.j ; Hope 2004a:24 et p. 40, fig. 7). Groupe 40b N° 80 N° inv. A05/1.3/4/7946 Fabrique : A28 ; badigeon rose appliqué sur la surface interne et sur la lèvre. Ø emb. 11,2 cm ; ht 5 cm Description : bol convexe à fond plat détaché à la ficelle et bord mouluré sur sa face externe. Groupe 40c N° 81 N° inv. A05/1.3/20/79830 – SCA 2838 Lieu de conservation : Magasin archéologique du CSA (Kellis) Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 9 cm ; ht. 5,7 cm Description : bol convexe profond à fond plat découpé à la ficelle et bord simple, légèrement rentrant. Parallèles : Kellis, IIe–IIIe siècles (Hope 2004a:24 et p. 40, fig. 7.f ).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

223

Douch (Dunand, et al. 1992: pl. 3 n°6). Mons Claudianus, forme apparentée datée du milieu du Ier siècle au règne de Trajan (Tomber 2006b:99101, fig. 1.38 n° 4-502). Groupe 40d N° 82 N° inv. A05/1.3/31/9201 – SCA 2838 Lieu de conservation : Magasin archéologique du CSA (Kellis) Fabrique : pâte de texture moyennement fine à cassure rose. Les inclusions consistent en de nombreux grains de quartz de taille diverse, en quelques nodules blancs, noirs et gris. Importation supposée de la vallée du Nil. Ø emb. 10 cm ; ht. 6,8 cm Description : bol convexe à fond légèrement surélevé et lèvre amincie. Groupe 41a N° 83 N° inv. A07/1.4/7/12242 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 12,5 cm ; ht. 5,4 cm Description : bol convexe assez large, à fond plat et lèvre simple, soulignée d’une incision à sa base. Parallèle : Douch (Dunand, et al. 1992: pl. 79 n°3). Groupe 41b N° 84 N° inv. A05/1.3/2/7978 Fabrique : A1/A28 ; rehaut blanc et décor de points rouges sur la lèvre. Ø emb. 15 cm ; ht 6,6 cm Description : bol à parois obliques, fond légèrement surélevé et lèvre rentrante. Groupe 42a N° 85 N° inv. A06/1.3/71/10090 Fabrique : A1a ? (pâte totalement noircie, écuelle employée comme plat de cuisson). Ø emb. 16 cm ; ht 5,6 cm Description : écuelle à parois obliques, fond légèrement surélevé et lèvre arrondie. Parallèle : Douch, forme apparentée (Dunand, et al. 1992: pl. 3 n°4). Groupe 42b N° 86 N° inv. A05/1.3/13/8227 Fabrique : A28 ; rehaut blanc sur la lèvre, surface extérieure noircie (écuelle employée comme plat de cuisson). Ø emb. 15 cm Description : écuelle à parois légèrement inclinées et petite lèvre saillante dont l’extrémité supérieure est arrondie. Groupe 42c N° 87 N° inv. A05/1.3/21/9197 Fabrique : A28 ; traces ténues d’un engobe rouge sur la paroi externe.

224

Amheida II

Ø emb. 13,2 cm ; ht. 5 cm Description : écuelle à parois obliques, fond légèrement surélevé, lèvre amincie et évasée. Groupe 42d N° 88 N° inv. A05/1.3/2/7582 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 15 cm ; ht 5,8 cm Description : écuelle à parois obliques, de forme légèrement convexe, et lèvre pincée. Parallèles : Ayn al-Labakha (avec stries sur la face interne) ; P. Ballet rapproche cette écuelle du groupe des « céramiques à engobe jaune » produites dans les ateliers du nord de l’oasis de Kharga ; la datation de cette écuelle s’étendrait de la fin du IIIe siècle au début du Ve siècle (Ballet 2000:96 et p. 103, fig. 17 n° 4). Groupe 42e N° 89 N° inv. A05/1.3/2/7639 Fabrique : A2a ; engobe rose partiel. Ø emb. 20 cm ; ht 6,3 cm Description : écuelle à fond annulaire bas, parois obliques et lèvre simple. Parallèle : Douch, forme apparentée (Dunand, et al. 1992: pl. 78 n°4). Groupe 42f N° 90 N° inv. A05/1.3/1/7642 Fabrique : A28 ; badigeon rose sur la lèvre et la surface interne. Ø emb. 20,5 cm ; 7,5 cm Description : écuelle à parois obliques et lèvre pourvue d’un ressaut interne. On note fréquemment la présence de deux tenons de préhension fixés sur le bord. Ces écuelles ont souvent été employées pour la cuisson des aliments d’après les traces de feu observées sur leurs parois. Parallèles : Kellis Ier–IIe siècles (Patten 1999:85, fig. 2 n° 18 ; Dunsmore les date entre le milieu et la fin du IIIe siècle). Douch (oasis de Kharga), forme datée du IIIe siècle (Ballet 1990:299-300, fig. 5 ; Ballet 2004:220). Douch, forme similaire (Dunand, et al. 2005: fig. 114–115 et p. 203, fig. 116–117). N° 91 N° inv. A05/1.3/1/7506 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 14 cm Description : écuelle à fond convexe, parois obliques et lèvre pourvue d’un ressaut interne. Parallèles : similaire au n°90 ; Douch, forme apparentée (Dunand, et al. 1992: pl. 78 n°3). Groupe 42g N° 92 N° inv. A06/1.3/37/10017 Fabrique : A1a ; rehaut blanc sur la lèvre. Ø emb. 25,6 cm Description : écuelle à parois évasées, légèrement concaves et simple bord plat. Groupe 42h N° 93

La Céramique de la Maison B2

225

N° inv. A07/1.4/T7/12183 Fabrique : A2a ; engobe blanc. Ø emb. 15,3 cm Description : écuelle à fond convexe, parois obliques et lèvre en crochet. Groupe 43a N° 94 N° inv. A06/1.3/40/10022 Fabrique : A1a ; engobe blanc et décor de points rouges sur la lèvre. Ø emb. 17 cm Description : jatte à parois obliques et lèvre plate. Parallèles : Kellis, IIe–IIIe siècles (Hope 1987:171, fig. 5 n° d). Douch, forme apparentée (Dunand, et al. 1992: pl. 79 n° 6). Groupe 43b N° 95 N° inv. A06/1.3/40/10024 Fabrique : A28 ; rehaut blanc et décor de points rouges sur la lèvre. Ø emb. 15 cm Description : jatte à parois obliques, fond annulaire bas et petite lèvre de section triangulaire. Groupe 43c N° 96 N° inv. A05/1.3/29/8932 Fabrique : Pâte noire, difficile à identifier. Description : jatte à parois obliques et lèvre saillante aplatie. Parallèle : Ayn al-Labakha, forme apparentée et datée hypothétiquement de la fin du IIIe au début du IVe siècle (Ballet 2000:96, 103, fig. 17 n° 3). Groupe 44 N° 97 N° inv. A06/1.3/38/10142 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 9,8 cm Description : bol caréné à bord droit et rebord arrondi. Groupe 45 N° 98 N° inv. A07/1.4/4/12241 Fabrique : Pâte calcaire provenant, selon toute vraisemblance, de la vallée du Nil. Texture moyennement fine, pâte tendre et de cassure rose à cœur chamois clair. Les inclusions consistent en plusieurs particules blanches et grises de moyenne et grande tailles ; on note également plusieurs petits grains de quartz et quelques petits nodules rouges. Ø emb. 13 cm Description : coupelle à lèvre évasée arrondie et parois légèrement carénées. Groupe 46a N° 99 N° inv. A07/1.2/.3/12159 Fabrique : A28 ; surface externe noircie.

226

Amheida II

Ø emb. 11 cm Description : bol caréné dont la partie inférieure est convexe et la partie supérieure concave ; lèvre mince évasée. Groupe 46b N° 100 N° inv. A05/1.3/15/8410 Fabrique : A1a ? Ø emb. 10,8 cm Description : bol « à collerette », à carène haute et bord concave. Il s’agit d’une forme relativement commune durant l’époque romaine, qui imite des céramiques sigillées orientales du groupe A, en particulier la forme 45 d’après la classification de J. Hayes (Hayes 1985:34). Ces coupelles sont généralement produites en pâte alluviale et la surface est recouverte d’un engobe rouge dont le lissage est souvent soigné. Parallèles : Kellis, Ier–IIe siècles (Patten 1999:85, fig. 2 n° 16 ). Douch, forme apparentée (Dunand, et al. 2005:210, fig. 146). Mons Claudianus, forme commune du milieu du Ier au milieu du IIe siècle (Tomber 2006b:106-107, fig. 1.40 n° 31-575). Groupe 46c N° 101 N° inv. A07/1.4/2/12174 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 12,6 cm Description : bol caréné dont la partie inférieure est convexe et la partie supérieure concave ; lèvre épaisse, légèrement évasée. Parallèle : Eléphantine, forme apparentée, milieu Ier–IIe siècles (Rodziewicz 2005:190 et pl. 71 n° 1186). Groupe 46d N° 102 N° inv. A06/1.3/47/10002 Fabrique : B16 Ø emb. 10 cm Description : bol à carène haute, panse convexe et lèvre épaisse, évasée. Parallèle : Kellis, Ier–IIe siècles (Patten 1999:85, fig. 2 n° 15). Groupe 46e N° 103 N° inv. A06/1.3/33/10087 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 17,6 cm ; ht 5,8 cm Description : bol à carène haute, fond plat, bord concave et lèvre évasée en biseau. Groupe 46f N° 104 N° inv. A05/1.3/2/7641 Fabrique : A28 ; rehaut blanc et décor de points rouges sur la lèvre. Ø emb. 12,8 cm Description : bol à carène haute, fond convexe, petit col mouluré et lèvre inclinée vers l’intérieur.

La Céramique de la Maison B2

227

Parallèles : Groupe de bols à carène haute et décor peint plutôt caractéristique de la fin du IIIe et du IVe siècle (Hope 2004a:24 et p. 37, fig. 4d ). Ain el-Gedida, Antiquité tardive (inédit). Groupe 46f N° 105 N° inv. A05/1.3/19/7980 – SCA 2834 Lieu de conservation : Magasin archéologique du CSA (Kellis) Fabrique : selon toute vraisemblance A1a ; rehaut blanc et points rouges sur la lèvre. Bol remployé comme plat de cuisson (surface noircie). Ø emb. 11,7 cm ; ht. 6,3 cm Description : bol à carène haute, fond convexe, lèvre évasée mais inclinée vers l’intérieur. Parallèle : Kellis (Hope 1986:fig. 6.c). Groupe 46g N° 106 N° inv. A05/1.3/16/8349 Fabrique : selon toute vraisemblance A28 ; points rouges sur la lèvre et surface externe noircie (bol employé comme plat de cuisson). Ø emb. 14,4 cm ; ht. 4,3 cm Description : bol à carène haute, fond légèrement surélevé et bord droit dont l’extrémité est arrondie. Groupe 46h N° 107 N° inv. A05/1.3/6/7907 Fabrique : A1a ; rehaut blanc et décor de points rouges sur la lèvre. Ø emb. 17 cm Description : bol à carène haute, parois convexes, col et lèvre moulurés Groupe 46i N° 108 N° inv. A05/1.3/2/7581 Fabrique : A1a ; rehaut blanc et décor de points rouges sur la lèvre. Ø emb. 24,8 cm Description : bol à carène haute arrondie, parois convexes, bord en bandeau court à face interne en crochet. Groupe 47a N° 109 N° inv. A05/1.3/12/7863 Fabrique : A1b ; décor de points rouges sur la lèvre. Ø emb. 9 cm ; ht 4 cm Description : gobelet à fond concave, parois obliques et lèvre légèrement pincée. Groupe 47b N° 110 N° inv. A06/1.3/43/10009 Fabrique : B10 Ø emb. 6,3 cm ; Ø fond 3 cm ; ht totale 3,6 cm Description : gobelet caréné à fond plat et lèvre droite, légèrement épaissie.

228

Amheida II

Parallèle : Douch (Dunand, et al. 1992: pl. 80 n° 4). Groupe 47c N° 111 N° inv. A07/1.2/3/12143 Fabrique : A2a Ø emb. 7 cm ; Ø fond 3,5 cm ; ht totale 3,6 cm Description : gobelet caréné à fond plat et lèvre évasée. Parallèle : Douch (Dunand, et al. 1992: pl. 80 n° 2). Groupe 48 N° 112 N° inv. A05/1.3/5/7825 Fabrique : A28 ; surface externe recouverte d’un engobe rosé sur lequel ont été peints en rouge des points à l’intérieur de la lèvre et des « gouttes » sur l’épaule. Ø emb. 11,5 cm Description : coupe ou petit pot, caréné, à lèvre droite et mince. Cette céramique pourrait dériver de modèles datés du début de l’époque romaine et que l’on retrouve notamment à Alexandrie (Rodziewicz 2005:228 et pl. 96 n° 1570). Groupe 49 N° 113 N° inv. A07/1.2/5/12129a Fabrique : A1b ; surface externe recouverte d’un engobe beige-verdâtre. Ø emb. 13,3 cm Description : bol à parois légèrement inclinées, droites et lèvre simple pourvue d’un ressaut interne peu marqué ; une anse, de section ovale, est fixée sur la lèvre et, vraisemblablement, à mi-hauteur du bol. Groupe 50 : Oasis red slip wares Groupe 50 N° 114 N° inv. A06/1.3/13/8243 Fabrique : A27 ; engobe rouge-orangé poli. Façonnage à la main et moulage. Ø emb. 10,5 cm Description : coupelle à fond plat et parois évasées. Les céramiques culinaires Groupes 51 à 65 : les marmites et pots de cuisson Groupe 51 N° 115 N° inv. A06/1.3/16/8752 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 20 cm Description : marmite globulaire à col droit, de hauteur moyenne et pourvu d’un ressaut interne, et lèvre arrondie. Ces marmites à col haut et droit sont fréquemment pourvues d’un ressaut interne destiné à recevoir un couvercle ; la forme générale s’inscrit dans le répertoire de la céramique hellénistique directement

La Céramique de la Maison B2

229

influencé du monde grec et, plus précisément, du caccabe que l’on retrouve également durant l’époque romaine. Groupe 52a N° 116 N° inv. A05/1.3/5/7823 Fabrique : A28 ? Ø emb. 12 cm Description : marmite à col court et droit. Forme courante sur les sites de la vallée du Nil et du désert oriental. Deux anses sont généralement fixées verticalement sur le bord et la partie supérieure de la panse (Hope 1999b:232, n° 7823 ; Patten 2000: pl. 58, forme 14 RF ou pl. 57, forme 72, L-FS). Parallèles Kellis, IIe–début IIIe siècles (Hope 2007c:20, fig. 15i). Mons Claudianus, règne de Trajan (Tomber 2006b:81-82, fig. 1.30 n° 394). Groupe 52b N° 117 N° inv. A07/1.4/7/11765 Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 11,4 cm Description : marmite globulaire à col court mouluré ; la panse est marquée d’une zone plate à mi-hauteur du récipient et se prolonge vers un fond ombiliqué plat. Groupe 52c N° 118 N° inv. A05/1.3/5/7822 Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 112 cm Description : marmite à col court renflé et petite lèvre saillante. Groupe 52d N° 119 N° inv. A06/1.3/39/10125 Fabrique : A2b Ø emb. 14,5 cm Description : marmite à col court renflé, petite lèvre aplatie et saillante. Parallèles : Mons Claudianus, forme apparentée, règne d’Antonin le Pieux (Tomber 2006b:80-81, fig. 1.30 n° 37-378). Eléphantine, forme apparentée, milieu Ier–IIe siècles (Rodziewicz 2005:206 et pl. 80 n° 1353-1354). Groupe 52e N° 120 N° inv. A05/1.3/3/7762 Fabrique : A1a (surface externe noircie). Ø emb. 11 cm Description : marmite à col court légèrement évasé et petite lèvre de section triangulaire. Groupe 52f N° 121 N° inv. A06/1.3/39/10127

230

Amheida II

Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 9 cm Description : marmite à col très court et petite lèvre arrondie. Groupe 53 N° 122 N° inv. A06/1.3/38/10084 Fabrique : A1a ; la surface externe était peut-être recouverte d’un engobe blanc. Ø emb. 10,7 cm ; Ø max. 19 cm ; ht totale 14,5 cm Description : marmite globulaire à fond ombiliqué plat, col court et lèvre évasée. Groupe 54a N° 123 N° inv. A05/1.3/4/7977 Fabrique : A1b ? ; engobe blanc sur la paroi externe. Ø emb. 12 cm ; Ø max. 22 cm ; ht. 17,6 cm Description : marmite globulaire à lèvre arrondie et évasée; la panse est marquée d’une zone plate à mihauteur du récipient et se prolonge vers un fond ombiliqué convexe. N° 124 N° inv. A05/1.3/38/10007 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 10 cm ; Ø max. 14 cm ; ht 12 cm Description : marmite globulaire à lèvre arrondie et évasée ; la panse est marquée d’une zone droite et concave à mi-hauteur du récipient et se prolonge vers un fond ombiliqué convexe. Parallèles : forme couramment attestée à Dakhla (Patten 2000: pl. 66, forme 113). Douch, plusieurs exemplaire dont la forme générale est similaire (Dunand, et al. 1992: pl. 77 n°4-7 ; Dunand, et al. 2005:197, fig. 96-98). Groupe 54b N° 125 N° inv. A06/1.3/48/10168 Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 10 cm ; Ø max. 19 cm Description : marmite globulaire à lèvre évasée et moulurée. Groupe 55 N° 126 N° inv. A06/1.3/6/10217 Fabrique : A1b ; partie inférieure noircie. Ø emb. 12,5 cm ; Ø max. 26 cm Description : marmite ovoïde, à col très court et lèvre formant un petit marli concave. Parallèle : Kellis, IVe siècle (Patten 1999:84, fig. 1 n° 2). Groupe 56a N° 127 N° inv. A06/1.3/40/10058 Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 11 cm

La Céramique de la Maison B2

231

Description : marmite à panse globulaire présentant quelques stries peu prononcées ; col court, quasi inexistant et lèvre évasée, formant un marli plat. Parallèle : Ayn al-Labakha, forme apparentée. Selon P. Ballet, cette forme de marmite est fréquente à Douch et les premiers exemplaires apparaissent durant le Haut-Empire mais leur production s’intensifie largement durant les IIIe et IVe siècles (Ballet 2000:98 et p. 104, fig. 18 n° 11). Groupe 56b N° 128 N° inv. A05/1.3/37/9152 Fabrique: A1a ; engobe blanc sur la paroi externe (surface noircie). Ø emb. 10,5 cm Description : marmite, vraisemblablement à panse globulaire, à lèvre évasée dont la partie interne est marquée de plusieurs fines incisions. Parallèles : Kellis, IIe–IIIe siècles (Hope 1987:171, fig. 5.h). Mons Claudianus, formes apparentées datées du milieu du Ier siècle (Tomber 2006b:84, 86, fig. 1.31 n° 56-416/417). Groupe 56c N° 129 N° inv. A07/1.4/-/12201 Fabrique : A1b ; surface externe noircie. Ø emb. 13,2 cm Description : marmite à lèvre évasée dont la face interne est moulurée et dont l’extrémité est de section triangulaire. Groupe 56d N° 130 N° inv. A05/1.3/6/7905 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 16 cm Description : marmite à lèvre évasée et face interne plate. Parallèle : Kellis, IIe–IIIe siècles (Hope 1987:171, fig. 5.g ). Groupe 56e N° 131 N° inv. A05/1.3/2/7583 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 16 cm Description : marmite ou casserole à panse carénée, lèvre évasée et moulurée. Groupe 57 N° 132 N° Inv. A05/1.3/30/8713 Fabrique : A1b ; éventuellement un engobe blanc sur la surface externe. Ø emb. 16 cm Description : marmite à lèvre évasée et courte dont la face interne est concave ; un tenon de préhension est fixé sur la lèvre. Groupe 58a N° 133 N° Inv. A06/1.3/45/10102

232

Amheida II

Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 11,5 cm Description : marmite à col très court cylindrique et petite lèvre évasée. La panse est parcourue de quelques stries espacées. Groupe 58b N° 134 N° Inv. A07/1.2/5/12123 Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 10,5 cm Description : marmite à lèvre évasée, fine. Parallèle : Ain el-Gedida, forme apparentée, Antiquité tardive (Dixneuf 2013). Groupe 59 N° 135 N° Inv. A06/1.3/36/10050 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 12,6 cm Description : marmite à lèvre en bourrelet moulurée (face interne concave) ; la panse est parcourue de plusieurs stries régulières. Groupe 60 N° 136 N° inv. A05/1.3/23/9106 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 11 cm Description : marmite à lèvre évasée, épaisse et moulurée. Parallèles : Kellis, forme apparentée, Ier–IIe siècles (Patten 1999:85, fig. 2.22) et IIe–IIIe siècles (Hope 1987:171, fig. 5 n° f et h ). Groupe 61a N° 137 N° inv. A05/1.3/4/7993 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 12,5 cm Description : large pot à col tronconique court et lèvre épaisse évasée (partie supérieure plate) ; un ressaut marque la jonction entre le col et la panse. Parallèle : Kellis, fin Ier–IIe siècles (Bowen, et al. 2007:41, fig. 4 n° i). Groupe 61b N° 138 N° inv. A05/1.3/15/8408 Fabrique : A2b Ø emb. 6,3 cm Description : large pot dépourvu de col à panse vraisemblablement de forme ovoïde et lèvre épaisse de section triangulaire. Groupe 62a N° 139 N° inv. A05/1.3/16/8775

La Céramique de la Maison B2

233

Fabrique : A1b Ø emb. 9,5 cm Description : pot globulaire à bord court évasé. Groupe 62b N° 140 N° inv. A05/1.3/4/7992 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 9 cm Description : pot globulaire à bord court évasé et mouluré. Parallèle : Kellis (Hope, et al. 2006:50, fig. 5.e). Groupe 62c N° 141 N° inv. A05/1.3/25/8471 Fabrique : A1a/b ; surface externe recouverte d’un engobe blanc. Ø emb. 12 cm Description : pot caréné à bord court évasé et mouluré. Groupe 63 N° 142 N° inv. A06/1.3/40/10074 Fabrique : A1b Ø max. 7,5 cm Description : pot, vraisemblablement à panse ovoïde, col concave et lèvre biseautée, légèrement évasée. Groupe 64 N° 143 N° inv. A07/1.4/6/12163 Fabrique : B16 ; rehaut rouge sur la lèvre. Ø max. 10,5 cm Description : pot à carène haute, col très court, marqué d’un bourrelet et lèvre évasée pourvue d’un ressaut interne. Un tenon est fixé au contact de la lèvre. Parallèles : Kellis, forme apparentée, fin Ier–IIe siècles (Bowen, et al. 2007:42, fig. 5.e). Douch, selon toute vraisemblance forme similaire ou apparentée (Dunand, et al. 1992: pl. 76 n° 3). Groupe 65 (jarre de stockage ou pot de cuisson ?) N° 144 N° inv. A07/1.4/4/12240 Fabrique : A1a Ø emb. 15 cm Description : marmite dépourvue de col, à lèvre épaisse et marquée d’une rainure sur sa face supérieure. Groupe 66 : Les supports de type Fire-dog Groupe 66 N° 145 N° inv. A05/1.3/15/8406 Fabrique : Pâte calcaire, de texture moyennement grossière et de cassure rouge à cœur beige. Les inclusions consistent en nombreux grains de quartz, quelques nodules rouges, noirs et blancs de taille diverse.

234

Amheida II

Groupes 67 et 68 : Les couvercles Groupe 67 N° 146 N° inv. A07/1.4/7/12190 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 17,3 cm ; ht 5,3 cm Description : couvercle à fond plat, parois obliques et lèvre arrondie. N° 147 N° inv. A06/1.3/67/10137 Fabrique : A28 Ø emb. 11 cm ; ht 3,5 cm Description : couvercle à fond plat, parois obliques et lèvre rentrante. N° 148 N° inv. A06/1.3/40/10023 Fabrique : A28 ; surface noircie. Ø emb. 12,6 cm ; ht 3,5 cm Description : couvercle à fond plat, parois obliques, légèrement concaves, et lèvre évasée. Groupe 68 N° 149 N° inv. A06/1.3/61/10049 Fabrique : pâte noircie. Description : tenon de couvercle, percé, dont l’extrémité est moulurée ; un ressaut souligne la jonction entre le tenon et la panse. Groupe 69 : Les godets de saqia N° 150 N° inv. A07/1.4/121/72 Ø max. 3,3 cm Description : fond creux en bouton. Groupe 70: Les pigeon-pots N° 151 N° inv. A06/1.3/41/10065 Fabrique : B10 Ø emb. 4,3 cm Description : partie inférieure d’un pot à pigeon comprenant une ouverture étroite et une petite lèvre de section triangulaire aplatie. Les lampes Groupe 71 : Les lampes Groupe 71a N° 152 N° inv. A07/1.2/3/11632 – SCA 2926 Fabrique : supposée A2a. Dimensions conservées : 10,3 x 6,3 cm

La Céramique de la Maison B2

235

Description : seul le médaillon central est conservé ; outre deux trous de remplissage, il porte le décor qui consiste en une représentation des « trois Grâces ». On observe un départ de volute sur le bandeau. Parallèle : Karanis, milieu Ier–milieu IIe siècles (Shier 1978:117, pl. 36 n° 315). Groupe 71b N° 153 N° inv. A07/1.4/3/11917 – SCA 2927 Fabrique : argile non cuite, de couleur marron clair renfermant plusieurs petits grains de quartz et particules végétales. Dimensions : L. 2,8 cm ; lg. 2,05 cm ; ht. 1,35 cm Description : lampe miniature de forme ovale à fond concave ; le décor consiste en plusieurs points creux et lignes rayonnantes organisés autour du trou de remplissage central et en quelques points creux sur une partie du bandeau. Groupe 71c N° 154 N° inv. A05/1.3/21/9778 Fabrique : A5 ; éventuellement un engobe blanc sur la partie supérieure de la lampe. Dimensions : L. 10,4 cm ; lg. 6,6 cm ; ht. 4 cm Description : lampe de forme piriforme comprenant un canal latéral reliant le trou de remplissage au trou de la mèche. Parallèle : Karanis, IVe siècle (Shier 1978:135, pl. 6 et pl. 42 n° 390). Groupe 71d N° 155 N° inv. A05/1.3/13/7974 Fabrique : ORSW ; la surface externe est recouverte d’un engobe rouge soigneusement lissé. Dimensions : L. 6,5 cm ; lg. 4,6 cm ; ht. 2,5 cm Description : lampe de forme ovale à épaulement caréné ; un canal allongé relie le trou de remplissage au trou de la mèche. Un tenon est fixé du côté opposé au trou de la mèche. Groupe 71e N° 156 N° inv. A06/1.3/40/10156 Fabrique : A1 Dimensions : L. 7,2 cm ; lg. 9,1 cm ; ht. 4,9 cm Description : lampe de forme globulaire dont le médaillon central comprend le trou de remplissage. Anse pleine. Parallèles : Karanis, formes apparentées dont une datée aux environs de la fin du IIIe et du début du IVe siècle (Shier 1978:161, pl. 51 n° 496-497). N° 157 N° inv. A06/1.3/41/10155 Fabrique : A28 Dimensions : L. 7,4 cm ; lg. 8 cm ; ht. 3,9 cm Description : lampe de forme globulaire dont le médaillon central comprend le trou de remplissage. Anse pleine. Parallèles : similaire au n° 135.

236

Amheida II

Présentation des contextes La maison : B2 La pièce 1 Phase 1 Le matériel provenant des niveaux liés à la construction des structures (DSU 24 : fondation des murs ; DSU 23 et 31 : couches de préparation du sol F11) comprend plusieurs céramiques caractéristiques des IIe– e III siècles : bassines et larges coupes (groupes 27b, 27d, 27f, 29a, 33c), marmites (groupes 60 et 62b), ainsi que des coupelles, en particulier un bol convexe (groupe 40d) et une petite coupelle carénée (groupe 46b). Toutefois, il convient de souligner la présence dans ces niveaux de quelques céramiques attribuables à l’Antiquité tardive, peut-être à la fin de l’époque romaine ; il s’agit notamment d’un flacon globulaire (groupe 16c) et d’un pichet (groupe 18b). Phase 2 Le matériel issu des niveaux liés à la dernière occupation (DSU 22 : niveau d’occupation riche en matières organiques avec des cendres ; DSU 21 : couche de terre brune avec des poches de sable correspondant vraisemblablement à l’abandon de la pièce), avant l’effondrement des structures, comprenait principalement des récipients liés à la cuisson des aliments également attribuables à la période IIe–IIIe siècles : plats de cuisson à lèvre pourvue d’un léger ressaut interne (groupes 42c et 42f), marmites à col court évasé et mouluré (groupes 56b et 56d) ainsi qu’un pot de cuisson (groupe 62b). Phase 3 La troisième phase correspond au niveau d’effondrement des murs et de la voûte (DSU 4). La DSU 16 semble correspondre à un niveau mélangé entre l’effondrement de la voûte (fragments de briques crues) et le sable lié à l’abandon de la pièce. Le comblement de la DSU 16 se caractérise par la présence de nombreux fragments de jarres de stockage (groupes 11d et 12a), d’un pithos (groupe 6c) et d’un certain nombre de formes ouvertes, notamment des bols à parois obliques, certains utilisés comme plats de cuisson et des marmites. On note, en outre, un élément de support de type fire-dog et une lampe romaine oblongue (groupe 71c). La DSU 16 renfermait également deux ostraca datés du IIIe siècle ; toutefois, l’étude de la céramique atteste la présence d’éléments plutôt caractéristiques du IVe siècle, en particulier la lampe (n° 9778), quelques jarres et bassines. Le matériel provenant de l’effondrement de la voûte renfermait une marmite intacte (groupe 54a) ainsi qu’un flacon globulaire à bord court (groupe 22c). Ces deux éléments possédaient des traces d’argile cru vraisemblablement en raison de leur emploi dans la construction de la voûte ou étaient entreposés sur le toit (fait que l’on observe encore de nos jours dans toutes habitations rurales en Égypte). Il faut bien garder à l’esprit que le matériel provenant de l’effondrement de la voûte se rapproche plutôt de la première phase car il entre dans la construction de cette dernière ; toutefois, il n’est pas impossible que lors de l’effondrement, le matériel ait été mélangé avec des éléments liés à l’abandon de la structure. Phase 4 Les deux niveaux suivants correspondent au recouvrement de la pièce par le sable sous l’action des vents (DSU 12 et DSU 1). Dans le comblement de la DSU 12, on signalera la découverte d’un ostracon dont la datation remonte, sans plus de précision, au IIIe siècle. La pièce 2 Phase 0 La phase 0 correspond aux constructions antérieures au bâtiment B2 ; il s’agit ici de la DSU 32, épaisse couche dure et compacte de sable argileux dont le matériel consiste en fragments de céramiques

La Céramique de la Maison B2

237

(fabrique A4), notamment 1 bord d’une coupe, un fond de jarre et un tesson caractérisé par un engobe rouge poli, attestant ainsi d’une occupation plus ancienne de ce secteur de la ville. Phase 1 La première phase est représentée par la DSU 26 (niveau de sable ayant servi de fondation aux murs de la pièce) et la DSU 20 (couche de préparation du sol matérialisé par la DSU 7). Le mobilier céramique provenant de la DSU 20 comprenait 47 individus dont outre une siga (groupe 5a), vraisemblablement résiduelle, 7 jarres de stockage, 6 marmites, (dont une forme apparentée au groupe 62b), quelques bassines, de nombreux bols et coupelles dont des bols convexes (groupe 40c) et plusieurs écuelles à parois obliques et lèvre interne pourvue d’un ressaut (groupe 42f). On note également la présence dans ce niveau de trois ostraca rédigés en démotique. Quant à la DSU 7, supposée appartenir au sol de la pièce, elle se caractérise principalement par la découverte de 21 bols (principalement du groupe 42), d’un couvercle et de 2 marmites (groupe 56e). L’ensemble de ce matériel semble plutôt caractéristique de l’époque romaine, éventuellement du IIIe siècle. Phase 2 La phase 2 comprend un ensemble de couches équivalentes : DSU 8, DSU 10, DSU 11, DSU 15 et DSU 17 ; elles correspondent aux dernières occupations et aux divers réaménagements avant l’abandon de la pièce. On signalera la présence dans la DSU 15 d’un ostracon démotique, daté entre la fin de l’époque ptolémaïque et le début de l’époque romaine, et d’un ostracon grec attribuable au IIIe siècle, datation que semble confirmer l’étude de la céramique. Le répertoire morphologique recouvre une série assez importante de jarres de stockage (formes apparentées aux groupes 11b et 13), de nombreux bols et coupelles (groupes 38, 42d–e) dont un bol à collerette (groupe 46b), plusieurs marmites dont un large pot de cuisson (groupe 61b) et un support de cuisson de type fire-dog ce qui nous incite à envisager la présence d’installations liées à la cuisson des aliments dans cette pièce. Phase 3 Outre un ostracon daté du IIIe siècle, le niveau lié à la destruction puis à l’effondrement de la voûte (DSU 6) a livré un matériel de composition légèrement différente de la phase précédente, éventuellement de datation plus récente. On trouve ainsi un col de siga (groupe 5b), 14 jarres de stockage (dont 1 bord du groupe 12a), 5 marmites et plusieurs formes ouvertes dont une dizaine de bols. Phase 4 La céramique découverte dans le sable éolien déposé à la surface de la pièce (DSU 2, DSU 5 et DSU 9) présente un faciès hétérogène en terme de datation ; le répertoire morphologique comprend des jarres de stockage (groupes 11d et 11c), des marmites (formes apparentées aux groupes 52a, 52c et 56e) et plusieurs formes ouvertes, assiettes et bols (groupes 35a, 37, 41b, 46d–f et 46i) ainsi qu’une forme carénée à col court évasé et portant un décor peint (groupe 48). On signalera la présence dans la DSU 5 d’un ostracon dont la date est antérieure à 275 de notre ère. La pièce 3 Phase 1 La première phase, correspondant à la construction du bâtiment, est représentée par quatre couches antérieures au niveau de sol F10 : les DSU 30 et 29 (sable brun-jaune) servant à la fondation des murs alors que les DSU 28 et 25 sont plutôt des niveaux de préparation pour le sol F10. Le matériel céramique provenant de ces couches est surtout caractéristique des IIe–IIIe siècles ; il comprend, outre une gourde résiduelle (groupe 2), de nombreux fragments de jarres de stockage (NMI = 92 ; groupes 7, 8a, 11a–d), trois vases à liquide dont deux gargoulettes et un col de pichet, seize marmites (groupes 54b, 56a, 56b, 56e, 57, 60 et 62c), plusieurs formes ouvertes, larges coupes, bols convexes et coupelles (NMI = 65 ; groupes 27c–d,

238

Amheida II

32b, 33a, 40b–c, 42e–f, 43c) ; on signalera également la présence d’une plaque à pain (groupe 24) et de six couvercles, ainsi que de deux bouchons de jarres pris dans le sol F10. Phase 2 La phase 2 comprend plusieurs couches d’occupation, riches en matières organiques et postérieures au sol F10 et pour lesquelles on suppose une interpénétration entre elles, en raison de la pression engendrée par l’effondrement de la voûte : DSU 18, DSU 19 et DSU 14. Le répertoire morphologique de ces niveaux rassemble une siga (groupe 5c), 21 jarres de stockage, un flacon (groupe 22c), de nombreux bols (NMI = 34; groupes 41b, 46f), une marmite (groupe 56b) et deux couvercles. Si la phase 1 semble plutôt caractéristique des IIe–IIIe siècles, la phase 2 comporte quelques éléments pouvant être attribués au ive siècle. Phase 3 La phase 3 n’est représentée que par une seule couche (DSU 13) correspondant à l’effondrement de la voûte et des murs ; la partie inférieure de cette DSU semble s’être mélangée avec le niveau antérieur (DSU 14) et la partie supérieure avec la couche de surface (DSU 3). 50 individus ont été identifiés ; il s’agit principalement de formes ouvertes : 5 moules à pain (groupes 23 et 24), 13 larges coupes, 19 bols, et 1 coupelle à fond plat et parois inclinées se rattachant à la grande famille des Oasis Red Slip Wares (groupe 50). On note également quelques jarres de stockage et formes fermées (groupes 11d et 16), 1 gargoulette et 4 marmites (groupes 56b et 58a). La présence d’une céramique et d’une lampe du groupe ORSW remonte fortement la date de construction de la pièce, puisque leur datation n’est pas antérieure au début du IVe siècle. Il pourrait également s’agir de deux céramiques provenant de la DSU 3 ce qui daterait plutôt la période d’abandon. Phase 4 La dernière phase correspond à l’abandon définitif de la pièce et à son recouvrement progressif par du sable éolien (DSU 3). Outre la céramique, qui comprenait notamment 2 marmites, 14 bols, 1 couvercle et 1 coupe du type meidum-bowl (groupe 3), ce niveau renfermait deux ostraca, un daté avant 244 et le second attribué au milieu du IIIe siècle. La pièce 4 La pièce 4 correspond à un espace étroit et de petites dimensions, localisé sous les escaliers (pièce 8) ; cette pièce devait, selon toute probabilité, être utilisée à des fins de stockage. La fouille s’étant arrêtée sur le premier niveau de sol rencontré (F15), toutes les phases ne sont pas représentées. De plus, il faut signaler que le matériel céramique n’est pas très abondant. DSU 45 correspond au dernier niveau d’occupation (phase 2b) dont le matériel comprend 3 marmites (groupe 58a) et 3 bols. La DSU 36, principalement composée de sable éolien et de petits fragments de briques, caractérise l’abandon de la pièce avant l’effondrement de la voûte (DSU 44, phase 3a). Le matériel provenant de cette DSU comprenait une siga (groupe 5b), deux marmites, un pot de cuisson, deux bols convexes et une coupe à marli. Le niveau d’effondrement de la voûte renfermait plusieurs tessons mais un seul individu remarquable d’une jarre de stockage. Enfin, le niveau de sable éolien (DSU 27) couvrant la surface contenait deux individus : une jarre de stockage et une large jatte. La pièce 5 Phase 2 L’étude archéologique de la pièce 5 et l’analyse du matériel découvert tendent à prouver que cet espace, non couvert, éventuellement protégé par une couverture en matériaux légers de type jarid, était dévolu à des activités de nature domestique et, selon toute vraisemblance, à la préparation et à la cuisson des aliments. La première phase, qui correspondait aux niveaux liés à la construction du sol et des murs,

La Céramique de la Maison B2

239

n’est représentée par aucun élément caractéristique. En effet, le niveau de sol original (F47) n’a pas livré de matériel. C’est à la deuxième phase qu’il faut attribuer les objets les plus discriminants. En effet, rentrent dans cette phase la DSU 71 (remplissage du foyer F46 creusé dans le sol F47), la DSU 67 et la DSU 41 (niveaux de cendres avec des poches de sable pour la DSU 67) et la DSU 42, riche en matières organiques et qui comprenait également des poches de cendres. Les fragments de sols F40 et F41 pourraient, quant à eux, correspondre à des réparations du sol initial (F47) endommagé par les nombreuses activités domestiques ayant eu lieu dans cette pièce. Toutefois, selon l’archéologue, la DSU 42 pourrait aussi être liée à une couverture du toit en matériaux légers et ainsi constituer la phase 3. Le répertoire morphologique de la céramique comprenait un matériel assez abondant dont plusieurs éléments datables de la fin du IIIe et du IVe siècles : 1 pithos (groupe 6b), 31 jarres de stockage (groupes 12a–b), 6 marmites (groupes 58a, 56b, 59, 60), 2 larges coupes (groupes 34a et 34b), 40 bols et coupelles (groupes 39, 40, 41a, 42a, 42d–e, 42g, 46e–g) dont plusieurs bols convexes, 8 couvercles, 1 pigeon-pot (groupe 70) et 1 lampe (groupe 71e). Phase 4 La dernière phase ou phase d’abandon comprend deux niveaux de sable éolien riches en céramiques dont certaines caractéristiques de l’Antiquité tardive (DSU 40 et 33) ; 132 individus ont été dénombrés. Cet assemblage comprend des jarres de stockage (groupe 12a), 1 pot de stockage, 1 flacon à panse ovoïde (groupe 22b), plusieurs marmites (groupes 55, 56a, 58a et 63) et de nombreuses formes ouvertes (groupes 28a, 41, 42f, 43a–b, 46e et 46g–h) dont des bols convexes (groupe 40c), ainsi que 5 couvercles et 1 lampe (groupe 71e). La pièce 6 Phase 1 La première phase, liée à la construction des structures, comprend plusieurs niveaux. La DSU 76 correspond à une couche de sable, à priori le sol naturel, dans laquelle était enchâssé un énorme pithos (groupe 6a) dont la caractéristique majeure est la présence d’un décor incisé (une palmette) sur la paroi. L’ouverture de cette céramique de stockage donnait sur le sol F16. Les DSU 69 et 76 sont également liées à la préparation du sol F16 ; riches en matières organiques, elles renfermaient 34 individus dont plusieurs céramiques destinées à la préparation des aliments (écuelles et marmites) ainsi qu’une seconde jarre de stockage intacte (groupe 14) dans la DSU 76. L’ensemble pourrait être daté de la fin de l’époque romaine et du début de l’Antiquité tardive. Phase 2 La deuxième phase correspond à la dernière occupation de la pièce ; elle se matérialise sous la forme des DSU 46 et DSU 47. 42 individus ont été comptabilisés ; parmi eux se trouvaient 32 bols et coupelles (groupes 40a, 42d–f, 46d), un cratère (groupe 32a), une bassine (groupe 27a), une marmite (groupe 60) et 7 jarres de stockage. Phase 3 L’effondrement des murs et du toit a entraîné la chute d’un certain nombre d’objets, certains complets, qui étaient soit pris dans la construction, c’est le cas notamment du bol Inv. 10010 (groupe 41b), soit étaient entreposés sur le toit en terrasse. Le répertoire morphologique comprend principalement des formes ouvertes, bols convexes ou légèrement carénées, coupelles à fond plat et carène haute, ainsi qu’une marmite intacte (groupe 53) et un bord d’une large bassine (groupe 25b). Là encore, le matériel semble plutôt caractéristique du début de l’Antiquité tardive.

240

Amheida II

Phase 4 La dernière phase correspond à l’abandon total de la pièce et à son recouvrement par du sable sous l’action des vents. À l’instar de ce que l’on observe généralement pour les autres pièces, les niveaux de surface sont plus riches en matériel. 68 individus ont ainsi été comptabilisés (DSU 37 et DSU 34) ; la majorité d’entre eux caractérise des jarres de stockage (formes apparentées au groupe 12b), des bols et coupelles (groupes 42g et 46). Quelques céramiques culinaires (groupe 56b) dont une forme fermée, vraisemblablement un pichet utilisé comme bouilloire (groupe 18b), et deux plats de cuisson proviennent de ces niveaux ; on note également quelques formes ouvertes larges et profondes (groupes 29b, 30b et 33c–d) et une bassine ou pétrin (groupe 25a). La pièce 7 À l’instar de la pièce 4, la pièce 7 constitue un espace singulier au cœur de la maison, par sa superficie et sa fonction ; il s’agit d’un espace de passage permettant de relier certaines pièces entre elles et d’un espace domestique attesté par diverses activités liées à la préparation et à la cuisson des aliments, notamment du pain. La stratigraphie est donc légèrement plus complexe que pour les autres pièces ; il faut ainsi tenir compte de l’aménagement d’un four de cuisson et des diverses réparations du sol en raison de l’usage intensif et des passages répétés dans cette pièce. Phase 2 Le premier niveau de sol correspond à la structure dénommée F49 ; la fouille n’ayant pas été poursuivie au-delà de ce niveau, la première phase ne peut être illustrée. La deuxième phase se subdivise en deux sous-phases ; la première correspond aux réparations de sol et aux divers réaménagements telle la construction du four F19 (F48, F45, DSU 75, F17, DSU 64 et F19). Le matériel provenant de ces niveaux est plutôt caractéristique des IIe–IIIe siècles ; il se compose notamment d’une siga mono-ansée résiduelle (groupe 1), d’une siga à bord en bourrelet épais (groupe 5b), de deux marmites (groupe 60 et forme apparentée au groupe 57), d’un large pot de cuisson (forme apparentée au groupe 61), d’une assiette ayant pu servir de caquelon ou de couvercle (groupe 37) et d’un plat à marli mouluré proche du groupe 34a et pourvu d’un décor de petites lignes rouges sur un rehaut blanc. La seconde sous-phase représente l’abandon et le comblement du four F19 (DSU 63 et DSU 61). Seuls 7 individus ont été comptabilisés ; il s’agit de 2 jarres de stockage, d’un vase à liquide (groupe 21c), de trois bols (groupe 46) dont un plutôt caractéristique de l’Antiquité tardive (n° 10035) et d’un tenon de préhension d’un couvercle (groupe 68). Phase 3 La troisième phase est également représentée par deux moments successifs ; le comblement partiel de la pièce par du sable sous l’action des vents, peu après son abandon (DSU 49) et l’effondrement des murs (DSU 48). Le matériel provenant de la DSU 49 comprend notamment une lampe dont seule la partie inférieure est conservée, quelques formes ouvertes et jarres de stockage. Dans le remplissage de la DSU 48 ont été comptabilisés une gargoulette (groupe 19), une large marmite (groupe 54b), plusieurs bols et coupelles. On signalera la présence dans la DSU 48 d’un ostracon daté du IIIe siècle. Phase 4 La dernière phase (DSU 39) comprend 55 individus dont un mortier importé (groupe 26), un fragment de flacon, 21 jarres de stockage, quelques marmites (formes apparentées aux groupes 53 ou 54, groupes 52d et 52f) et plusieurs formes ouvertes dont deux larges bassines (groupes 25c et 29b), plusieurs bols et coupelles (groupes 42e et 46) et enfin un couvercle.

La Céramique de la Maison B2

241

La pièce 8 La pièce 8 accueille les escaliers qui permettaient d’accéder aux toits en terrasse, comme on peut encore le voir de nos jours. Le matériel, peu abondant (NMI = 16 individus) provient de deux couches caractérisant deux phases différentes. La DSU 60 correspond au dernier niveau d’occupation sur le sol F20 (phase 2) ; riche en matières organiques, elle renfermait une dizaine de bols. Quant à la DSU 55, il s’agit d’un niveau de sable éolien antérieur à l’effondrement des structures (phase 3a) qui contenait 3 jarres de stockage, 2 bols et 1 couvercle. La pièce 9 La pièce 9 correspond à l’entrée permettant d’accéder à la maison ; en forme de L, elle donne directement sur la cour centrale (pièce 7). La fouille a permis de mettre au jour un premier sol d’occupation F44 (phase 1) et un second sol F39/DSU73 qui a livré, ainsi que son niveau de préparation (DSU 74) une quantité modeste de matériel (phase 2a), soit 14 individus se répartissant en 2 jarres de stockage, 2 marmites et une dizaine de bols. On signalera la présence dans DSU 73 d’un ostracon mentionnant un diacre dénommé Bekis et daté du début du IVe siècle35. La phase 3 correspond au niveau d’effondrement des murs (DSU 52) ; le matériel comprenait 4 jarres de stockage, une marmite et 7 bols. La pièce 10 À l’instar de la pièce 4, la pièce 10 correspond à un petit espace de stockage localisé sous les escaliers (pièce 8) ; le matériel céramique examiné provient uniquement de la DSU 58 qui correspond au comblement de sable éolien de l’espace après son abandon. Il s’agit de 6 individus dont 3 jarres de stockage, 1 marmite et 2 bols. La pièce 11 La pièce 11 correspond à un espace de stockage de petites dimensions localisé dans la cour (pièce 7). Au-dessus du niveau de sol (DSU 72), on note un premier niveau de sable éolien (DSU 68) lié à l’abandon de la pièce et à son comblement progressif sous l’action des vents. Le matériel comprenait 5 individus, dont 1 jarre de stockage, 1 petit pot de stockage (groupe 17) et 1 bol plutôt caractéristique de l’Antiquité tardive. La seconde DSU ayant livré du matériel est la couche 65 qui semble correspondre à un niveau d’aplanissement de la surface du toit au-dessus de la voûte de l’espace de stockage. 9 individus ont été comptabilisés dont 3 jarres de stockage (groupe 8b), 1 marmite (groupe 35a) et 5 bols dont une jatte (apparentée au groupe 42). La cour: C2A Le secteur C2A est un espace à ciel ouvert localisé au sud de la maison B2 ; la présence importante de matières organiques et de coprolithes d’animaux, ainsi que de deux fours, incite à identifier cet espace comme une cour abritant des animaux et diverses activités domestiques. Le niveau antérieur au sol F1 se compose exclusivement de sable jaune (DSU 7) relativement riche en céramiques, certaines complètes telle la marmite Inv. 11765 et le couvercle Inv. 12190. La présence de marmites à bord évasé et mouluré et d’écuelles à parois obliques pourvues d’un ressaut interne tendrait à remonter la date de cet ensemble au e III siècle. Le remplissage des deux fours (DSU 10 et DSU 11) ne renfermait qu’une seule céramique, à savoir un bol à carène haute et petit bord. Les niveaux supérieurs contenaient un matériel plus abondant qui semble livrer une date de la fin d u IIIe, voire du IVe siècle. On soulignera notamment une jarre à col cylindrique et bord en bourrelet (groupe 12c), une marmite à bord mouluré (Inv. 12155), un flacon à panse globulaire (groupe 29b). Ce matériel était également associé à des céramiques plus anciennes dont une amphore de table (Inv. 12165),

35

Voir la communication de G. Ruffini dans ce même ouvrage.

242

Amheida II

un flacon du groupe 22a, une coupelle importée de la vallée du Nil (Inv. 12241) et deux cratères (groupes 32c–d). Une lampe non cuite a également été inventoriée dans la DSU 3 (Inv. 11917). La rue : S1 Le secteur S1 correspond à la rue, orientée est–ouest, qui longe la maison B2 sur son côté nord. Un sondage archéologique conduit sur ce secteur a permis de mettre en évidence la stratigraphie et la présence de trois niveaux de circulation. Le premier niveau (F3) est associé à un niveau de sable jaune (DSU 15 et DSU 12) et à un niveau de préparation du sol (DSU 14 et DSU 10). Le matériel provenant de ces DSU se caractérise notamment par la présence d’une large et profonde bassine pourvue d’un bec verseur (Inv. 11933), de quelques marmites et d’écuelles à parois obliques dont la lèvre présente un ressaut interne. Le niveau de sol F2 est associé à une couche de fines cendres grises (DSU 8) qui a livré 152 individus dont quelques marmites, plusieurs jarres de stockage, de nombreux bols et coupelles ; on note également la présence de 9 tessons surcuits issus, selon toute vraisemblance, des rejets d’ateliers de potiers localisés dans ce quartier. L’étude de la céramique incite à dater ces niveaux plutôt du IIIe siècle. Le niveau de sol F1 repose sur plusieurs niveaux dont les DSU 6 et 13 ; cette dernière n’a livré qu’un seul individu, à savoir une coupelle à carène haute et lèvre évasée (groupe 46e) datable de l’Antiquité tardive. Il est intéressant de signaler la présence du niveau d’effondrement du mur nord de la maison B2 (DSU 3), niveau riche en céramiques dont le répertoire comprend notamment 1 amphore rhodienne résiduelle, 1 gobelet, plusieurs bols convexes, des écuelles (groupe 42), plusieurs marmites ainsi qu’un médaillon de lampe avec la représentation des « trois Grâces ».

Conclusion L’étude de la céramique découverte au cours de la fouille du bâtiment B2 et de ses environs, associée à l’analyse archéologique de la stratigraphie et architecturale ainsi qu’à l’étude des sources écrites, nous a permis d’esquisser et de proposer une chronologie des céramiques de la maison B2. La première phase (phase 1) correspond à la construction du bâtiment – érection des murs, aménagements des premiers sols et construction des voûtes avec leur toit en terrasse. C’est probablement dans le courant du IIIe siècle, voire vers le milieu de ce siècle, qu’il faut situer cette première phase. Durant, la seconde moitié du IIIe siècle, la maison est habitée et plusieurs activités domestiques sont attestées, notamment dans la cour où sont préparés et cuits les aliments ce dont témoigne la découverte de céramiques liées à la préparation des aliments et à leur cuisson, ainsi que des récipients destinés au stockage de denrées. Il semble probable que la cour extérieure (secteur C2A) ainsi que la rue (secteur S1) aient fonctionnées à la même époque. Des réaménagements sont réalisés, on note, plus particulièrement des réfections ou la construction de nouveaux sols (phase 2a). La dernière occupation, que la céramique et les ostraca semblent situer aux environs du début du IVe siècle, est matérialisée par la phase 2b. La troisième phase correspond, après leur abandon, au comblement des structures par du sable sous l’action des vents répétés (phase 3a) puis à l’effondrement des murs et des voûtes (phase 3b). Toutefois, il faut bien garder à l’esprit que le matériel provenant de la voûte et du toit en terrasse est lié à la première ou à la seconde phase. En effet, l’utilisation de céramiques dans la construction des murs et des voûtes, en particulier des tessons de panses, notamment pour combler le rein de ces dernières et pour le calage des briques, est un fait bien connu en Égypte36. De plus, les céramiques entreposées sur le toit en terrasse, jarres de stockage et autres récipients, sont caractéristiques de la dernière phase d’occupation de la maison. La dernière phase voit le recouvrement de la zone par du sable éolien (phase 4).

36

On renverra notamment aux études réalisées sur le site des Kellia et, en particulier, à Wuttmann 2001:76.

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.1: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).

243

244

Amheida II

Planche 8.2: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.3: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).

245

246

Amheida II

Planche 8.4: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.5: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).

247

248

Amheida II

Planche 8.6: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.7: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).

249

250

Amheida II

Planche 8.8: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.9: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).

251

252

Amheida II

Planche 8.10: La céramique de la maison B2 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.11: La céramique de la maison B2, Lampes (D. Dixneuf).

253

254

Amheida II

Planche 8.12: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 1 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.13: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 1 (D. Dixneuf).

255

256

Amheida II

Planche 8.14: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 1 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.15: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièces 1 et 2 (D. Dixneuf).

257

258

Amheida II

Planche 8.16: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 2 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.17: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 2 (D. Dixneuf).

259

260

Amheida II

Planche 8.18: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièces 2 et 3 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.19: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 3 (D. Dixneuf).

261

262

Amheida II

Planche 8.20: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 3 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.21: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièces 3, 4, et 5 (D. Dixneuf).

263

264

Amheida II

Planche 8.22: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 5 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.23: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 5 (D. Dixneuf).

265

266

Amheida II

Planche 8.24: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 5 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.25: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièces 5 et 6 (D. Dixneuf).

267

268

Amheida II

Planche 8.26: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 6 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.27: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 6 (D. Dixneuf).

269

270

Amheida II

Planche 8.28: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 6 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.29: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 7 (D. Dixneuf).

271

272

Amheida II

Planche 8.30: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièce 7 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.31: La céramique de la maison B2, Pièces 7, 8, 9, 10, et 11 (D. Dixneuf).

273

274

Amheida II

Planche 8.32: La céramique du Secteur 1.4 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.33: La céramique du Secteur 1.4 (D. Dixneuf).

275

276

Amheida II

Planche 8.34: La céramique du Secteur 1.4 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.35: La céramique du Secteur 1.2 (D. Dixneuf).

277

278

Amheida II

Planche 8.36: La céramique de la Secteur 1.2 (D. Dixneuf).

La Céramique de la Maison B2

Planche 8.37: La céramique du Secteur 1.2 (D. Dixneuf).

279

280

Amheida II

Planche 8.38: La céramique du Secteur 1.2 (D. Dixneuf).

9

UNFIRED CLAY OBJECTS Paola Davoli Stoppers This kind of object has been found only inside the house and particularly in room 3. Their number is not as great as one would expect from a domestic context, because the context of B2 is very shallow and may not have preserved everything that was in it at the time of its abandonment. None of them bear the impression of seals. They were used on medium size vessels, with rim diameters between 7.6 and 9.2 cm. This one is also the biggest of the series, and it sealed a jar on the rim of which a green vine leaf was laid. These stoppers testify to different shapes and methods of sealing vessels, with different kinds of lids, as a sort of small dish (cat. no. 9.2), a disc-shaped potsherd (cat. no. 9.4), and a vine leaf (cat. no. 9.3). Their shape can be ascribed mainly to the type “Convesso-Cavo” (CC) (cat. nos. 9.1, 9.2, 9.3) and probably “Fungo” (F) (cat. nos. 9.5, 9.7).1 They were used to seal vessels for liquids hermetically. It was very easy to make this kind of stopper, and thus they could be prepared domestically to close a container, but very often they were made to seal a container with its content in the production place or in a laboratory where the content was packed to be sold. In these last two cases a seal was impressed on the mud to guarantee the contents. Most of our stoppers were shaped on pottery lids. This means that there was no way to pierce the stopper and allow gases coming out from inside the vessel. Pierced stoppers were used to seal wine amphoras, especially when the wine was closed but still in fermentation. Thus we can assume that our stoppers were not used to close fermenting liquids. These items are very common in Graeco-Roman settlements, with regional variations in the kind of lids used and of the mud locally available. In Amheida mud stoppers were also found in Area 2.1 (house B1), together with gypsum stoppers, which were used for smaller rims (as for example for kegs or bottles). Many mud stoppers found in Amheida Area 2 and at Kellis bear a small ostrakon embedded at the center of the upper convex surface. These texts typically bear some indication of the deliverer or intended recipient of the goods in the jars (e.g., O.Trim. 1.200: “Psais the donkey-driver”). The study of these ostraka with their contexts, that means the mud stoppers and the vessels they closed, will give us a better understanding of the products and of the commerce in the oasis and possibly between the oasis and other places.

Loom Weights The loom weights have been found mainly in the trench cut in the courtyard outside the house. Their shape and material are common in Egypt, and they were used in vertical looms.

Miscellaneous Unfired Clay Objects2 The clay miniature lamp found in the courtyard could not have been used as a proper lamp. It may be interpreted as an object to be fired in the pottery kilns set on the other side of the street in front of the For these typologies, see Davoli 2005:101. A clay tablet with a Greek inscription comes also from room 7 in the house. For its description see Ruffini, this volume. 1 2

282

Amheida II

house to the north.3 In this case the lamp should be considered as an intrusion. The same considerations can involve the small disk, possibly a token or a gaming piece.4

Catalogue of Stoppers

Figure 9.1: Stopper 3180.

Catalogue Number: 9.1 fig. 9.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 3180 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 30 Material: gray-brown clay with very many quartz and few medium vegetal inclusions. Diameter: 9.2 cm Thickness: 2.7 cm Technology: hand made Condition: good, largely intact; part of the lateral surface is missing. Weathered bottom surface with salt incrustations. Description: Circular stopper for a jar or amphora of the type CC. The upper surface is slightly convex, flattened, and roughly smoothed. The bottom surface is concave and weathered.

Figure 9.2: Stopper 3517. Catalogue Number: 9.2 fig. 9.2 Amheida Inventory Number: 3517 The surface in Area 1 is littered with unfired vessels and other items used in laboratories and kilns. Five pottery kilns of the Roman period were set in a mud-brick building just in front of the house (Hope 1980:307-311, Pl. XXVII). 4 About the use and classification of discs, frequently found in archaeological sites of different periods cf. D’Onofrio 2007. 3

Unfired Clay Objects

283

Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 13 Material: brown clay with very many quartz inclusions and rare big vegetal. Lid: fabric A1a Diameter: stopper 13 cm; impressed rim 9.2 cm Thickness: 8 cm Technology: hand made Condition: good, largely intact Description: Circular stopper almost intact of the type CC. Upper surface convex, complete and irregular, roughly smoothed. On the bottom surface there are the impression of the vessel rim (diameter 9.2 cm) and a complete pottery lid with circular lug, only partially preserved. Parallels: Bos 2000:278.

Figure 9.3: Stopper 9518.

Figure 9.4: Stopper 3518 (M. Hense). Catalogue Number: 9.3 figs. 9.3 & 9.4 Amheida Inventory Number: 3518 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 19

284

Amheida II

Material: gray clay with very many quartz inclusions, rare very big vegetal, rare medium ceramic inclusions. Height: 8.5 cm Width: 16.3 cm Length: 18 cm Diameter: impressed rim ca. 8.6 cm Thickness: 4.9 cm Technology: hand made Dating: possibly third cent. CE. Condition: good, largely intact Description: Circular stopper for a jar in two joining pieces and of the type CC. Embedded Greek ostrakon (O.Trim. 1.200) on the apex of the convex surface. The upper surface is roughly smoothed. On the bottom surface are the impressions of the vessel rim and of a vine leaf with stalk. The ostrakon (4.1 x 3.1 cm) mentions the place-name Magdôla (“watch-tower”) and Psais the donkey-driver. Parallels: For the use of vine leaves, see Davoli 2005:103. The ostrakon is published in Bagnall and Ruffini 2012.

Figure 9.5: Stopper 3520. Catalogue Number: 9.4 fig. 9.5 Amheida Inventory Number: 3520 Context: House B2, Room 2, DSU 2 Material: brown clay with very many quartz inclusions, rare medium vegetal and rare big and few medium ceramic inclusions. Width: 7.8 cm Length: 8.2 cm Diameter: rim of the vessel ca. 8 cm Thickness: 1.2 cm Technology: hand made Condition: poor, fragmentary Description: rounded stopper with flat border. The upper surface is slightly convex and flattened, roughly smoothed; on the bottom surface there are impressions of a flat disc-shaped lid made from a potsherd and of part of a rim. This one cannot be measured, but the diameter of the rim of the vessel must have been around 8 cm. Parallels: For the use of a flat disc-shaped lid, see Bos 2000:278; Cashman 1999:290.

Unfired Clay Objects

285

Figure 9.6: Stopper 3521. Catalogue Number: 9.5 fig. 9.6 Amheida Inventory Number: 3521 Context: House B2, Room 1, DSU 22 Material: light brown clay with many quartz and vegetal inclusions. Width: 9 cm Length: 9.5 cm Diameter: rim of the vessel 7.6 cm Thickness: 5.8 cm Technology: hand made Condition: poor Description: circular stopper probably of the type F. The upper surface is convex and irregular; the bottom surface is also convex with the impression of a vessel rim. Catalogue Number: 9.6 Amheida Inventory Number: 3525 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 30 Material: gray clay with numerous quartz inclusions, many medium vegetal and rare medium ceramic inclusions. Width: 5.6 cm Length: 5.2 cm Thickness: 2.8 cm Technology: hand made Condition: very poor, fragmentary Description: fragment of a circular stopper with convex upper surface. The bottom surface is very damaged and still preserves part of the rim impression, but not measurable.

286

Amheida II

Figure 9.7: Stopper 3532.

Catalogue Number: 9.7 fig. 9.7 Amheida Inventory Number: 3532 Context: House B2, Room 1, DSU 22 Material: gray clay with many quartz inclusions, rare very big vegetal, fine white limestone inclusions. Diameter: ca. 10 cm; vessel rim 8.1 cm Thickness: 6.7 cm Technology: hand made Condition: lower part largely intact; upper part fragmentary Description: circular stopper for a jar or an amphora, of which only the lower part is preserved. It can probably be ascribed to type F. This one is convex and with the impression of the vessel rim. The upper surface was probably convex.

Catalogue of Loom Weights Catalogue Number: 9.8 Amheida Inventory Number: 3534 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 14 Material: gray clay with many fine quartz inclusions, few medium ochre and few fine limestone inclusions. Height: 3.4 cm Width: 4.2 cm Length: 8 cm Diameter: central hole 1.8 cm Technology: hand made Condition: fragmentary Description: sub-biconical loom weight in two joining fragments, with a central circular hole. The base is flat and not smoothed. Upper surface only partially smoothed.

Figure 9.8: Loom weight 11880.

Unfired Clay Objects

287

Catalogue Number: 9.9 fig. 9.8 Amheida Inventory Number: 11880 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 4 Material: light gray clay with fine texture; very many fine quartz, few fine and medium vegetal, rare medium limestone inclusions. Height: 5.4 cm Width: 6.7 cm Length: 7.3 cm Other dimensions: central hole 2 x 1.8 cm Technology: hand made Condition: good, complete Description: complete sub-globular loom weight with circular section. Oval hole not in center. The surface is smooth. Parallels: About 80 loom weights were found in house VIII at Bakchias. Most of them have this shape (Davoli 1995:47-49 nos. 48-63, p. 79). Notes: Stored in SCA general storehouse at Ismant el-Kharab, No. 2929.

Figure 9.9: Loom weight 11881.

Catalogue Number: 9.10 fig. 9.9 Amheida Inventory Number: 11881 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 7 Material: light brown clay with fine-medium texture; very many fine quartz inclusions, few fine and medium vegetal and limestone inclusions. Height: 5.2 cm Width: 7.7 cm Length: 7.10 cm Other dimensions: central hole 1.6 x 1.1 cm Technology: hand made Condition: complete, weathered Description: complete uneven sub-globular loom weight, with oval section. Oval hole in center. Parallels: Cf. 9.9. Notes: Stored in SCA general storehouse at Ismant el-Kharab, No. 2929.

288

Amheida II

Figure 9.10: Loom weight 11882.

Catalogue Number: 9.11 fig. 9.10 Amheida Inventory Number: 11882 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 4 Material: light brown clay with fine-medium texture; very many quartz inclusions, many fine and medium vegetal and few fine and medium limestone inclusions. Height: 5.3 cm Width: 7.5 cm Length: 7 cm Other dimensions: central hole 1.6 x 1.3 cm Technology: hand made Condition: chipped, weathered Description: complete, but chipped sub-globular loom weight with circular section. Oval hole in center. Parallels: Cf. 9.9. Notes: Stored in SCA general storehouse at Ismant el-Kharab, No. 2929.

Catalogue of Miscellaneous Unfired Clay Objects

Figure 9.11: Miniature clay lamp 11917. Catalogue Number: 9.12 figs. 9.11 & 9.12 Amheida Inventory Number: 11917 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 3 Material: light brown clay with fine texture; many fine quartz and vegetal inclusions. Height: 1.35 cm Width: 2.05 cm Length: 2.8 cm Other dimensions: filling hole 3 x 4 mm; hole on beak 3 x 4 mm Technology: hand made Condition: complete, weathered

Unfired Clay Objects

289

Description: complete miniature lamp of oval shape with footed base. The upper face is decorated with light incisions: dots and dashes around the filling hole and simple dots all around the shoulder. It can be considered as a variant of the extreme evolution of the so-called frog lamp. Parallels: Michelucci 1975:69, Tav. XVII nos. 291-293. Notes: Stored in SCA general storehouse at Ismant el-Kharab, No. 2927.

Figure 9.12: Miniature clay lamp 11917 (M. Hense). Catalogue Number: 9.13 fig. 9.13 Amheida Inventory Number: 11918 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 3 Material: Calcium rich clay of pale gray-green color (fabric B10); very many and fine inclusions of quartz. Diameter: 4.2 cm Thickness: 1.4 cm Technology: hand made Condition: chipped and weathered Description: disc with the upper surface slightly convex, originally smoothed and decorated with incised double lines forming a central square. The bottom surface is flat. Parallels: Discs of similar shape, but slightly smaller, with an incised cross on the top are in Davoli 2005:149-151, Nos. O15, O17, O18-O20.

Figure 9.13: Unfired clay disk 11918.

This page intentionally left blank

10

FIGURINES

Anna Lucille Boozer Introduction Figurines may be defined as anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, or geometric objects that are typically (although not always) made of clay or stone. These objects had the capacity to provoke the men, women, and children who lived in the houses of Amheida to think about negotiable issues of identity, sexuality, status, and human representation. Figurines are not simply realistic models or portraits, but provide mutable, flexible perspectives on what it means to be human. Figurines are a highly evocative but poorly understood artifact category. In part, the evocative nature of figurines makes it difficult for scholars to confront these objects in their own terms. Our presumed familiarity with such objects and the history of scholarly approaches to the material also may hinder our investigations. Although our understanding of the figurines from B2 is dependent upon their Romano-Egyptian context, it is instructive for us to look at other cultures as well. Divergent cultural venues may help us to refine methodologies and categories of analysis and open up new interpretations. The author examined all of the figurines from Street S1, House B2, and Courtyard C2 on site during the 2008 field season. Figurines from other contexts and other visual media from Amheida were also examined during this and previous field seasons for purposes of comparison. It is difficult to determine the precise number of figurines from B2 and its surroundings since it is sometimes uncertain whether fragments originate from the same figurine. Joins have been made whenever it was possible. Data for this study derive primarily from three torso and leg fragments, two complete heads and five additional fragments. The most common type of figurine depicted was the female form, as evinced by either a clothed body or a coiffed head. There was a single unclothed male figure (Inv. 11509), also distinguished as the only limestone figure in this assemblage. A poorly preserved hybrid animal figurine (Inv. 3516) was made of sandstone. One of the ceramic figurines, a female head (Inv. 11920), was handmade, while the others were mold-made. One figurine represents a quadruped (horse or donkey?) (Inv. 11914). In order to maximize the potential of the Amheida figurines, the present study takes the following approach: (1) document all figurine fragments; (2) include all depositional contexts; (3) consider the materiality of the figurine; (4) explore the life cycle of figurines. This approach structures the following four sections.

Figurine Documentation The current study documents all of the figurines and figurine fragments that we have found in and around B2 in order to understand the range in figurine types, their life cycle, and also how these figurines fit into the occupants’ lives. This practice is more inclusive than most studies of figurines, which typically include only the best-preserved and most spectacular finds. Many past excavations overlooked or simply discarded mundane and incomplete figurine fragments.1 Moreover, most published For example, figurines are largely ignored in the University of Michigan’s original excavation reports at Karanis and Soknopaiou Nesos (Boak and Peterson 1931, Boak 1933, Husselman 1979, Boak, Peterson and Haatveldt 1935). Allen’s subsequent PhD on the Karanis terracottas provides a preliminary catalogue of this material, but does not 1

292

Amheida II

studies of figurines rely upon museum collections, which entails that we see a highly biased and decontextualized selection of these artifacts.2 These past practices have distorted our abilities to establish a full and representative understanding of figurines as they were found in archaeological contexts. Moreover, these prior practices have distorted our sample size towards the better-preserved and more elaborate examples of figurines.3 In order for us to reconstruct the quotidian role of these figurines, it is essential that we document and publish all fragments by context, regardless of their condition. This approach acknowledges that everyday objects hold agency in domestic lives because individuals have constant and consistent interaction with them. It is possible that the quotidian component of everyday objects endows them with more efficacious agency than objects that individuals encounter on only rare occasions. Recently, the unconscious actions and influences of people’s lives have received much attention in social theory.4 Archaeologists have also begun to consider all types of performances ranging from private daily activities as well as monumental, public spectacles as important dimensions of meaningful activities.5 The repetition of specific acts, gestures, and performances lead individuals towards identities that may become community-wide norms.6 Since identities result from multifarious bodily acts and performances that solidify aspects of identity, we must thoroughly examine the material components of these repetitious acts. Recording, analyzing, and publishing all recovered figurine fragments moves us closer to understanding mundane domestic performances and how figurines participated in these activities.

Contextual Usage of Figurines Most Romano-Egyptian figurines, regardless of spatial or temporal locus, have been found in trash pits in a broken state. At Karanis, most figurines were found in the fill of streets, houses, and granaries (in storage bins) and areas adjacent to or in temples. 7 Although it is likely that individuals primarily used figurines in other areas of the site, these contexts can tell us a great deal about the social consideration of figurines. For example, we can discern social values of figurines depending upon what other objects accompanied the figurines, what objects never accompanied the figurines, the state of the figurines, the intentions behind these secondary depositions (accidental or deliberate), and where these depositions were located. At Amheida, only one of our figurines was found on a floor level within the house. The small statuette (Inv. 11509) was found in room 7 (the aithrion) of the house along with some ceramic vessels and a clay tablet. The street, which contained forty per cent of our figurines, was our most prolific context. These figurines were found just below wall and roof collapse on the surface of the top street level along with ceramics, a small metal object, an ostrakon, slag, bone, and a donkey hoof. Thirty per cent of our figurines were found in the exterior courtyard along with loom weights, ceramic vessels, an ostrakon and a lamp in a somewhat mixed context. A hand-made figurine (Inv. 11920) was found just above the surface of the courtyard with an ephemeral hearth along with organic material, slag, ceramics, and animal coprolites. Thirty per cent of the figurines were found inside House B2. attempt to interpret the finds more fully (1985). 2 Gill and Chippindale 1993. 3 Hornbostel and Laubscher 1986:427-428. 4 Giddens makes a distinction between practical and discursive consciousness, that is, between practices that are routine and involve unanalyzed activity and practices that are actively considered and performed (1984:181-183, 200). 5 Hodder 2006:85. 6 Butler 1990. 7 Gazda and Hessenbruch 1978a:12. Recent re-examinations of figurines at the Neolithic site, Çatalhöyük, also found the majority of figurines in secondary depositions (Meskell, Nakamura, King and Farid 2008).

Figurines

293

Removing, disposing, caching, and secluding are all symbolic acts that eliminate objects from circulation while simultaneously conferring reverence upon their materiality.8 It is common in numerous archaeological scenarios to find caches of objects that individuals still considered to be sacred so they removed them from circulation. The deposition of these figurines outside of the house may mark recognition that they have been removed from active participation among the living to fulfill their role within Romano-Egyptian daily life. Yet none of these figurines appears to have been placed in a cache. Rather, these figurines seem to have been placed outside of the Area 1 houses (B2 or other) without thought of protecting them from the elements or otherwise recognizing them as significant material culture. It therefore seems likely that individuals no longer viewed these objects as potent participants within their life worlds. As others have argued, figurines deposited in such a way may have been highly disposable in nature and had very brief use-lives.9

Figurine Materiality Materiality studies explore objects and architecture as agents for constructing meaning, articulating identity, and reflecting social experiences.10 An important component of the new materiality that defines Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt was the production, use, and deposition of terracottas. Changes in the technology and material media that individuals used for crafting figurines can have profound consequences for how people projected their own or other peoples’ identities. Terracottas offer an ideal category of material for understanding the assimilation process between Egyptians and Greeks in terms of iconography, religion and history.11 As such, terracottas were one of the most significant categories of things through which people expressed, maintained, negotiated and contested identities and realities. Terracottas are ceramic objects that can take myriad shapes including vessels, water, and waste pipes as well as decorative embellishment on architecture, but they are best known in the form of figurines. It is equally important that terracottas (and indeed most figurines) were used and consumed in houses within the confines of the city, although they are found in mortuary contexts as well. Perhaps most importantly, terracottas belong to a category of objects that made their appearance during a time when individuals belonged to a multi-cultural society with influences from Egyptian, Greek, and Roman traditions. We must situate these figurines from Area 1 within this social matrix in order to understand how they functioned in daily life. In the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods the production of molded terracotta figurines spread from Alexandria to the chora, although in practice the placement of these figurines within social life varied considerably from their native context. The Alexandrian terracottas appear to have been secular and imitated Greek Tanagra and Myrina models. The early “Tanagrine” type of terracotta figurines found at Alexandria may derive from Boeotian precursors, since Boeotians were renowned for this art since at least the third century BCE.12 On the other hand, the chora terracottas were more traditionally Egyptian, representing deities or persons performing cultic activities, thereby taking on a more religious and sacred role than initially found for such figurines. It is not clear when terracotta figurines were introduced to the Dakhla Oasis, although we can say that their presence is evident at other Roman Period settlements in the oasis, such as Mut el-Kharab and Ismant el-Kharab.13 On the basis of this evidence, it is clear that terracottas came to the oasis either prior to or along with the developments that occurred here during the Roman Period. Bataille 1988:76. On the short use-life of figurines at Çatalhöyük, see Meskell, Nakamura, King and Farid 2008. 10 Miller 1987, Shanks and Tilley 1987. 11 Hornbostel and Laubscher 1986:428. 12 Fraser 1972:6, Hornbostel and Laubscher 1986:426. 13 Stevens 2002. 8 9

294

Amheida II

Miniaturization of the human body is a particularly poignant facet of materiality, since miniature human bodies provide an Other against whom individuals construct identity. 14 Representations of the human form provoke us to contemplate what it means to be human, or even a specific type of human. Looking, especially looking at the human body, is a potent political behavior.15 For example, Alexandrian craftsmen codified ethnic stereotypes, performers, and deformed individuals materially in terracottas that could be mass-produced and distributed.16 This form of stereotyping recognizes the politics of differentiation and similarity within identity constructions during the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods. Miniaturism demands selection, since not all components of the original can be included in the miniature. When individuals regard a figurine they note both what features are present and what features are absent, often without realizing it.17 For example, Alexandrine artisans reduced and removed details that did not accentuate stereotypical features on ethnic terracottas, thereby amplifying the impact of the stereotypic features that they chose to represent. Miniaturism not only reduces elements and properties, it also multiplies the weight of the abstracted remainder. 18 In other words, the features that remain become much more potent when isolated from other features that act as background noise. The fixed features that are represented are not open to negotiation while those that are left undefined invite consideration and imagination.19 Because figurines are so diminutive, individuals can pick them up and turn them in their hands, feeling their texture as well as seeing all of their different components. The difference between looking and touching is important. Unlike other visual media, such as wall paintings, statuary or architecture, the small stature and three-dimensionality of figurines provokes us to hold them and move them around in order to understand the entire object. Our own human body and its relationship to the figurine is significant since individuals probably animated figurines through physical engagements such as dressing, posing, moving, and offering to the figurines. Such activities would draw individuals into another world, or a shared world, between the figurines and their normal daily life. It is intriguing that the other visual media recovered from Amheida reveal considerably different treatments of the human form. Wall paintings uncovered in a higher status domestic context (Amheida House B1) show more detailed and “lively” examples of the human form rendered in a predominantly Greek style.20 Bronze objects from the temple mound (Area 4.1) are significantly more detailed and draw upon traditional Egyptian modes of representation in depicting Osiris. As more visual media become available at Amheida, meaningful patterns between these types of representation may become visible.

Life-Cycle of Figurines I follow a life cycle approach to the Area 1 figurines, which views figurines as objects with fluid and flexible meanings. Most figurine scholarship proposes specific meanings or anecdotal functions for figurines (i.e., dolls, toys, ritual figures, magical items, and so on). Often these anecdotal interpretations do not offer substantive arguments or evidentiary links to support their interpretations. 21 Such categorical and anecdotally functional descriptions do not help us to understand figurines in their own terms. Rather, it is more appropriate to view figurines as mobile (rather than static) objects within the everyday experiences of individuals. The size and portability of figurines alone should suggest that they could move from and around a number of contexts. In other words, we should be attentive to the Bailey 2005:73. Ibid.:144. 16 Petrie 1923:13, Hornbostel and Laubscher 1986:426, 442. 17 Bailey 2005:32. 18 Ibid.:33, 72. 19 Ibid.:72. 20 Leahy 1980, Mills 1980a, Whitehouse 2005. 21 Bailey 2005:12, Lesure 2002. 14 15

Figurines

295

possibility that figurines may have life cycles of their own, since a single figurine may traverse many different phases of meaning from its creation, decoration, use, reuse, and eventual discard. This viewpoint indicates that analytical categories of analysis such as “toy” or “ritual object” are not useful for understanding these objects. We should focus on the meaning and engagement of these figures with people. With which family members did the figurines interact most frequently? Where did these interactions take place? When did these interactions occur? Rather than categorize, we ought to ask why certain types of representational imagery are integral to this particular household and this particular family. In other words, we should ask what a figurine is an image for rather than an image of.22 With these caveats in mind, I follow the life cycle of the figurines from Area 1 at Amheida. The life cycle of figurines begins with the gathering of materials for making the object. The choices that individuals make when constructing figures have meaningful implications for how individuals understood and interacted with these objects. This process, in the case of our figurines, involves collecting local stone and clays as well as paints for decoration. The fashioning of the clay figurines involved the preparation and cleaning of clays. In the Roman period, ceramic figurines from Kysis exhibit two primary fabric types, a coarse gray fabric sometimes slipped with beige, typical of the output of local pottery ateliers of Kysis itself, and a finer red-orange fabric exemplary of the Kharga Red Slip Ware, which Ballet thinks must represent imports into Dakhla from the outside.23 The ceramic figurines from House B2 are largely composed of A1a, a ubiquitous fabric on the site used for a variety of vessel types. 24 Furthermore, the close proximity of kilns to House B2 leads us to think that these figurines were produced locally and within close proximity to their final resting place. Although the figurines display a Hellenistic sensibility in their form, it is the reliance upon molds that distinguish post-Pharaonic terracottas from other ancient Egyptian representation in fired clay. During the Pharaonic period craftsmen largely confined molding techniques to faience technology and preferred to model ordinary ceramic figurines by hand.25 It was not until the Late Period that terracottas became typical, as a result of the increasing influence of the Greek and later Hellenistic world upon the daily life of Egypt.26 The great age of ceramic figures begins with the modeled heads of foreigners from the foreign quarter of Memphis, which was certainly due to the strong Greek presence there.27 The use of molds for terracottas bears a significant role in their materiality. Molds can be duplicated, which allowed craftsmen to disseminate virtually identical figurines across a large geographical area in a type of mass production.28 In many cases, a sculptor probably produced a small three-dimensional figurine that formed the basis of the original molds. Following the creation of molds, a single trained ceramics craftsman could form figurines.29 After firing, craftsmen applied an undercoat of gypsum before painting the exterior of the figurine in bright colors as a finishing touch that often

Haaland and Haaland 1995. Ballet 1996:119. 24 A1a is an iron-rich clay with considerable amounts of sand, scatter of small calcareous inclusions, occasional black particles and dark red particles. Forms typically include small bowls/lids, cooking and storage jars, and jars. This fabric occurs throughout the Roman Period in the Dakhla Oasis. Jars and bowls may be decorated with cream bands on the rim as well as a red rim tick. 25 Petrie 1923:132, Dunand 1990:6. 26 James 1979:212. 27 Petrie 1923:132. 28 Fjeldhagen 1995:14, Dorman 2002:20. 29 Molding figures typically involved at least two molds made out of gypsum plaster (unlike faience molds, which were clay): an obverse and a reverse for each figurine, although the use of two molds was not essential (Dorman 2002:18). While the two molded halves were still damp, the craftsman would press them together and then smooth over the crack between them. For more elaborate figures, craftsmen applied additional elements (arms, legs, etc) that they molded separately and then attached to the figurine’s body by smearing the clay together or even through using tenons (ibid.:19). 22 23

296

Amheida II

appears hurried or cursory to our modern eyes.30 This gypsum undercoat is visible on many of our figurines. The manufacture of terracottas may have been a special skill separate from that of making ceramics used for food consumption and storage, although the makers of these figurines did not hold a high social status.31 This manufacturing practice links Ptolemaic and Roman terracottas more to the everyday products of the potter’s workshop than to the Hellenistic sculptural forms that they externally mimic. 32 Indeed, archaeological evidence shows that terracotta figurines and Ptolemaic pottery have been found in abundance alongside a large number of pottery kilns.33 Within the Dakhla Oasis, Ballet believes that ordinary potters fashioned these figurines as part of their regular ceramic production duties. 34 The proximity of terracotta figurines to ceramic vessels may have affected the social perceptions of these figures. Figurines (anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, miniature vessels) comprise a small portion of the enormous number of clay objects that we recovered from House B2 and greater Amheida. These terracottas underwent a mundane, technical manufacturing process alongside other ceramics, and yet it is the terracotta that later transformed into a resonant being or embodied object that transcended its initial material category of ceramic. Frankfurter believes that local priests may have recommended specific deities to families with particular needs, fears, or desires, consecrating the appropriate terracotta within the temple itself before the family took it home. 35 Frankfurter provides no evidence to back these claims, yet it is possible that individuals indoctrinated their new figurine into its role within the family through magico-religious means. Writing on the curing figurines of the Cuna Indians of Colombia, Taussig observes that it is the spirit within the wood, not the exterior form, which determines efficacy. 36 In order to capture the spirit one has to replicate the image in some form, no matter how schematic. This situation of spiritually endowing an object provides a salient example of objects merging with people or spirits by virtue of the interwoven relationships between persons and things and persons and spirits via things.37 Indeed, representation of the body's corporeal specificity was required for Egyptian magical intercession; one had to materialize or at least vocalize the name of the enemy or the one desired, if one hoped to manifestly control them. Mimesis, doubling, and representation are all crucial elements of efficacious magical practice and these elements are clearly discernable within our Romano-Egyptian context.38 The terracotta may have formed an appropriate vessel for containing the spirit, much like many of its ceramic counterparts served as storage containers for foods. The rough clay head (Inv. 11920) within our catalogue presents a particularly intriguing example of this issue of form and efficacy. It was not mold-made, nor does it exhibit any degree of specialized skill. It may have been manufactured within the home, and individuals may have relied upon clays prepared across the street in the area of the ceramic kilns. This figurine draws us to question how the method of manufacture affects a figurine’s meaning. Were mold-made figurines more prestigious than hand-made

Ibid.:19, Hornbostel and Laubscher 1986:429. Valbelle 1997:46. There are some specializations among potters depending upon type of clay that they worked with and so on (Bourriau, Nicholson and Rose 2000:122). 32 Dorman 2002:20. 33 Myśliwiec 1994:40-46. 34 Ballet 1996:120. 35 Frankfurter 1998:140. 36 Taussig 1993:51-52. 37 Gell 1994:12. 38 On mimesis in magical practice, see Mauss 2001:127 30 31

Figurines

297

figurines? Did they have different functions? Its form recalls figurines that individuals used for magic, which were not uncommon during the Roman Period.39 Practitioners of magic often relied upon figurines for carrying out their wishes, either fashioning the figurine themselves or purchasing one from potters.40 These wishes could range from spells intended to arouse love, pain, or even death. Practitioners often inscribed these desires on tablets or the figurine itself.41 The differentiation between religious and magical spheres is at times a knotty thread to unwind, and the margins between the two are notoriously malleable. Ostensibly the division is one between official religion versus local practice, between community distance and the possibilities for individual communication. It is thus not surprising that the individuality of magic is often reflected in the media chosen for magical practices. These handcrafted magical objects can be seen as devices that secure the acquiescence of individuals and entities in a network of enmeshed intentionalities.42 The desire to create a double of the original rests in the notion that the copy extracts power from the original.43 Yet, as Taussig explains, the magically important thing is the spirit of the material, not its carved outer form.44 There are only a few clues in the surrounding courtyard context that help us identify our figurine as having participated in magic. Clay figurines used for magic were often broken, burned in fires and deposited among broken pots, just as this figurine was. 45 There was also a miniature lamp (Inv. 11917) found within close proximity to this figurine and lamps are often associated with magical activity. Unfortunately, many of these signatures are common at archaeological sites, so we cannot say definitively that our figurine contributed to magical practices. Furthermore, we have insufficient data on domestic magical practices to provide a convincing range of comparanda. At this point, it is important to suggest this possibility since asking these sorts of questions provokes new approaches to subsequent archaeological material, even when we are unable to answer them definitively with the material at hand. If we turn to the limestone figurine (Inv. 11509), the stone could easily have derived from Dakhla itself, since the cliff which bounds the oasis to the north (among other locations) is composed of limestone.46 The manufacture of this figurine out of stone would have required some degree of skill and different craftsmen from those who produced the terracottas. The craftsmen who made the stone figurine differed from those who made the clay figurines. Craftsmen who worked through architectural, sculptural, and painted media tended to hold higher status than did those working in ceramics. 47 The workmanship on this statuette mimics, but does not replicate, Hellenistic canonical models, suggesting a local manufacture. Comparable statuettes have been found at Karanis, and Gazda suggests that they, along with terracottas, were produced for less-affluent patrons.48 It is entirely possible that Amheida’s inhabitants viewed stone figures as a different category of object from clay figures, rather than the overarching “figurine” category that we use in this volume. Indeed, looking towards aesthetic parallels between figural categories such as figurines, paintings, ceramic decoration, weaving, and so on may help us understand which categories people viewed as overlapping. Is it significant that the only male figure we found was of stone? It could denote the social contexts in which the figures were used. Maleness, in this household, may have been represented in a different type of medium and have involved different practices than femaleness. It is also possible that Pinch 1994:90, 94. Mold-made ceramics could also be used for magic, as a gruesome figurine (Louvre Inv. E. 27145) in the Louvre Museum, Paris, indicates (du Bourguet 1975). 40 Pinch 1994:90-10, Ritner 1993:136-62. 41 Pinch 1994:90-93. 42 Gell 1992:43. 43 Taussig 1993:59. 44 Ibid.:136. 45 On breaking clay figurines in magic, see Ritner 1993:148. 46 Said 1962:67. 47 Valbelle 1997:49. 48 Gazda and Hessenbruch 1978a:13. 39

298

Amheida II

the greater cost of working in stone could be excused for male but not female figures. It is, of course, important to remember that the figurines we recovered represent only a portion of the assemblage that once existed in this house and that various practices with the figurines likely involved a number of additional objects no longer available to us. The role of these figurines once they entered the home has been debated for a long time, although recent scholarship has coalesced around the idea that families viewed these figures as cult objects for service in popular worship.49 It is quite certain that terracotta figurines stood in homes since most extant figurines from “primary” contexts derive from houses and the subject matter of the terracottas overwhelmingly related to the house and public festivals.50 Likewise, data from Karanis suggests that smaller than half life-size statuettes, such as ours, rested in houses and granaries, although they were also found in streets and in or near temples while larger statuettes stood in temples alone. 51 Indeed, such contexts indicate that we should not divide figurines between religious and profane uses.52 Within the house, families either hung figurines on the wall or put them in an altar, such as an interior or exterior niche.53 It is important to recognize that these figurines are not the static objects that they appear to be when we find them. During phases of daily usage, individuals may have added or subtracted secondary materials from these figurines, such as cloth, food, and oils and perhaps ritually clothing them on certain days.54 In House B2 we found that soft organics were poorly preserved and recovered very little from any context in and around this structure so we cannot say what these materials might be. The positioning of the figurines among other objects, such as lamps, would have added important significance to them and changes in these assemblages may have accompanied various seasons, ceremonies, rituals, or narratives. All of these modifications would have involved individual participation in the handling of figurines: dressing, undressing, positioning, and offering. Some families may have set up figurines in the context of a domestic altar with room for offerings, vessels, incense, and decoration. Frankfurter argues that the religious dimension of the home functions variously as an outpost, extension, and miniaturization of the local temple. Domestic cults may have involved many varieties of paraphernalia, often miniature or cheaper versions of objects found in temples. 55 Domestic altars thereby function as a bricolage of familiar and familial with the Other in transitional cultures, such as Roman Egypt. “Official” religion merged with local and common, everyday objects endowing the domestic altar with new and amplified meaning through “cruder” everyday material objects.56 Again, we do not find much in common between the domestic material culture in Area 1 and temple objects, but it is not possible to rule out such comparisons at this time. Indeed, material from Karanis indicates that larger versions of household sculptures originally stood in temples.57 At some point in the life cycle of these figurines, families removed them from active circulation. As mentioned earlier, the deposition of these objects in the contexts in which we found them can shed much Dorman 2002:19. Nachtergael 1995:223. Terracottas have been excavated in tomb and settlement sites but not from temple sites, and so it seems likely that these figurines related to everyday use rather than as ex-votos for ritual temple purpose. It is likely that individuals deposited them in burials as items of personal property. Some terracottas with religious themes may have been objects of personal piety that individuals used in the service of a private cult (Dorman 2002:19). 51 Gazda and Hessenbruch 1978a:12-13. 52 Nachtergael 1995:263-268. 53 Many Egyptian terracottas have a small hole in the back, which may have been used to hold the figurine in position (Hornbostel and Laubscher 1986:42, Nachtergael 1995:25, Szymańska 2005:50 n.24). 54 Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2004:30, Frankfurter 1998:132-134. 55 Frankfurter 1998:135. 56 Ibid.:139. 57 Gazda and Hessenbruch 1978a:12. 49 50

Figurines

299

light on their place within domestic life. In general, most of the figurines in our catalogue were found in “secondary” contexts such as rubbish areas, street fill, and external courtyard fill. Only one of these figurines was found on a floor level within the house (Inv. 11509). The placement of these figurines within secondary deposits indicates that, at this stage of their life cycle, they were not associated with special cultic areas such as shrines or niches. Indeed, the loose fill that surrounded the majority of our figurines removes them from the notion that individuals created special caches for the ritual objects that they retired from active duty. It is the general absence of figurines within the house that is most meaningful. This absence seems to be a result of an intentional deposition of figurines outside of the area of the house, perhaps removing them upon abandonment or placing them in the street next to the house walls. Although we do not have a statistically meaningful data set, it is of interest that one of the figurines found in the house (Inv. 11509) was entirely different from all of the others in terms of gender, material, manufacture, style, and so on. Did the occupants identify this figure more strongly with domestic space and thus leave it behind? Or was its meaning considered more fluid, such that it did not require dismantling and discarding if the occupants shifted their belief systems? Following a number of anthropological studies that draw attention to the symbolic significance of “garbage” disposal, it seems likely that the occurrence of figurines in “garbage” pits in the street and exterior courtyard is an intentional social act that ought to be queried.58 Not all trash has the same social meaning – they do not have the same shape, contents, or process of filling. For example, the street shows successive layering of street levels superimposed by trash, while the exterior courtyard manifests a more general accumulation of animal coprolites and debris along with an ephemeral hearth. It is unclear at what point these figurines were considered unusable, if they underwent some sort of damage, or if the family changed religious practices and decided to remove them from the house. The contexts in which we found the figurines suggest that they were removed upon abandonment, perhaps in order to embed them within the immediate domestic context to keep them in close proximity to the family’s home. Indeed, many of the figurines were located on the top surface of the street, suggesting that they were deposited there at the same time as this house and Area 1 in general were abandoned. It is also possible that other individuals removed these figurines from an already-abandoned house, viewing them as symbols of a past pagan religion.59 Alternatively, the inherent cultural meaning that archaeologists impose upon “figurines” may not be appropriate. These figurines may have had short uselives within everyday practice rather than a purely ritualized function.60 For example, the roughly molded figurine (Inv. 11920) was found in the courtyard near an ephemeral hearth, perhaps signifying its discard after it was employed for magical practices. The ancient life cycle of these figurines, much as the house itself, had come to an end within the Roman Period.

Conclusion Figurines shift meanings throughout their life cycle. Their role in daily life, households, identity, and memory seem likely, yet archaeologists have rarely explored the myriad roles that they take on. The preceding argument contends that we can gain a greater sense of these roles if we document all fragments, include all depositional contexts, consider the materiality of the figurine, and also explore its life cycle. The present study suggests that figurines performed a significant role within local craft production and domestic life. During later phases of usage, any sense of the “sacred” evaporated with the end of their active Romano-Egyptian life cycle. At that stage, individuals removed these objects, no longer considering them valuable performers in daily life. At this stage of research at Amheida it is Hayden and Cannon 1983, Hodder 1987, Martin et al. 2000. Bell 1983:125-126. 60 Meskell, Nakamura, King and Farid 2008. 58 59

300

Amheida II

difficult to say much about meanings for the specific forms that figurines take on. As a result, the present study merely asks questions to extend our horizons for viewing this enigmatic category of material culture.

Catalogue of Figurines

Figure 10.1: Head of a female figure (11627). Catalogue Number: 10.1 (Head of a Female Figure) pl. 10.1, 11627; fig. 10.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 11627 SCA Inventory Number: 2925 Context: Street S1, DSU 5 Fabric: A1a Height: 4.80 cm Width: 3.70 cm Depth: 4.70 cm Technology: molded Description: Complete head of a terracotta figurine, nose chipped. The head is hollow inside and was probably made in two-piece mold. Head oriented slightly to the right. The hair is painted black and pulled back from the face. It seems to have been formed into a knot at the back of the head. No traces of black paint remain on the knot of hair at the back of the head or the neck below. Lack of pigment may have extended over the shoulders (now missing). Perhaps this represents a white hair covering (polos) as found in Stevens 2002:cat no.1, plate 1, although it seems more likely that this lack of pigment is due to erosion. The face shows a thin white gypsum layer that covers the surface followed by a thin beige slip. The details of the eyes, eyebrows, and mouth are outlined in black paint. The paint appears quite thick around her left eye. Found with Inv. 11633. Parallels: Fischer 1994:nos 69-195, especially 193; Fjeldhagen 1995:nos 146-55; Stevens 2002:cat no. 6, plate 6. Catalogue Number: 10.2 (Legs and Feet of a Seated Figure) Amheida Inventory Number: 11628 SCA Inventory Number: n/a Context: Street S1, DSU 3 Fabric: A1a Height: 3.0 cm Width: 4.6 cm

pl. 10.1, 11628

Figurines

301

Depth: 5.1 cm Technology: molded Description: Two joining fragments of a terracotta figurine that is hollow inside. A thin layer of white gypsum covers the surface. Probably made in two-piece mold. It represents the lower part of the legs and feet of a seated woman who appears to be wearing a long, beige dress with a black fringe. The legs and feet are placed wide apart from one another and the feet appear disproportionately large in comparison to the legs. The legs and feet are painted white. It probably once had additional surface details painted in but these are now lost. The figurine may be linked to Isis or fertility (see parallels). Parallels: The feet and legs are similar to Metropolitan Museum of Art Accession Number 25.10.20.51, from the Kharga Oasis (4th–7th century), although the MMA figure is standing. Priestesses were clothed in the so-called Isis robe with the typical fringed hem and a knot between the breasts (Török 1995:nos 148-149). Women in a seated position with wide spread legs often indicates fertility (cf. Bayer-Niemeier 1988:nos 3131-3133; Dunand 1990:no. 569). See also Ewigleben and von Grumbkow 1991:nos 112, 114-115, for seated clothed women. Catalogue Number: 10.3 (Fragment of a Terracotta Figure) Amheida Inventory Number: 11633 SCA Inventory Number: n/a Context: Street S1, DSU 3 Fabric: A1a Height: 5.4 cm Width: 5.9 cm Technology: molded Description: Fragment of a terracotta figurine. The inner surface is concave, while the external surface is convex and covered by a thin layer of white gypsum painted black and some possible traces of beige. One facet is flatter and may represent the underside of a body of an animal (?) or the base of a cockerel (?). Parallels: For the “flattened end,” see Stevens 2002:cat no. 37. Catalogue Number: 10.4 (Fragmentary Body of a Terracotta Figure) pl. 10.2, 11915 Amheida Inventory Number: 11915 SCA Inventory Number: n/a Context: Street S1, DSU 9 Fabric: A1a Height: 4.00 cm Width: 7.00 cm Technology: molded in a two-piece mold Description: Fragment of the body of a terracotta figurine, hollow inside. The external surface is covered by a thin gypsum layer decorated with dots and lines painted in red and black. The black and red lines form a box crossed through with some of the black paint overlays the red. There is some black ”fringe” similar to Inv. 11628. The orientation of “fringe” suggests that it is a garment (dress?) or edge of a saddle (?) from a horse and rider figurine. Fringed hems can be linked to the so-called Isis robe (Török 1995:nos 148-149). Catalogue Number: 10.5 (Fragment of a Terracotta Figure) Amheida Inventory Number: 11916 SCA Inventory Number: n/a

302

Amheida II

Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 1 Fabric: A1a Height: 3.15 cm Width: 3.30 cm Technology: molded in a two-piece mold. Description: Fragment of a terracotta figurine, hollow inside. The decorated exterior surface is convex. The base color is thin white gypsum and there are traces of yellow painting. On top of this base layer are three parallel black lines and one red line perpendicular to the black lines; one red dot next to the perpendicular red line. There are traces of yellow around the red coloring. It may represent a saddle from the back of a horse and rider figurine or the body of an anthropomorphic figurine. The fragmentary nature of the piece makes it impossible to identify it more securely. This fragment was found with Inv. 11914. Catalogue Number: 10.6 (Fragment of the Body of a Terracotta Figure) pl. 10.2, 11914 Amheida Inventory Number: 11914 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 1 Fabric: A; light gray slip on surface Height: 4.30 cm Width: 6.50 cm Technology: molded in two-piece mold Description: Fragment of the body of an animal figurine, probably a horse but possibly a donkey or even a camel. It is broken at the neck, legs, and tail. The remains of a rectangular protrusion (with a rounded protrusion inside of it) are located inside the span of the animal’s back. These protrusions appear to represent a saddle. Various deities can be represented riding horses, donkeys, and even roosters, including Harpocrates, Harpocrates-Heron, Horus, and Bes. Figures of mortals on horseback also occur (Bayer-Niemeier 1985). Usually the join between the rider and the horse is clear, but in some cases the figurine is seated further back upon the animal’s back and therefore no join is visible (Stevens 2002). It is possible that this figure once carried a rider. The fragment is weathered and no traces of surface treatment remain. Horse figurines can be found in many regions (Greece, Persia, Israel, Egypt). Naukratis, primarily a foundation of the Ionian cities, has provided a class of crudely worked limestone figurines of riders that were found in houses dated by Petrie to the 6th through 4th centuries BCE (Eaverly 1995:13). If this terracotta is a horse and rider figure, it may reference Harpocrates since he is often represented as a rider of various animals (horse, duck, donkey) (Török 1995:cat no. 84-91). Harpocrates was the most popular domestic image in Roman Egypt. In Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, the traditional Egyptian god Horus was transformed into Harpocrates, the child form of Horus who personifies the newborn sun each day and also strength of early vegetation. Harpocrates is represented at Amheida through the presence of a figurine that was found when the DOP conducted their survey at the site (Stevens 2002:cat no. 2). Unfortunately, this figure has no contextual information and was found on the site surface. Allen suggests that figurines of domestic animals carry contemporaneous currency because they relate to the domestic component of families and may even carry apotropaic functions (Allen 1978). Parallels: Amheida Inv. 11479, which also derives from Area 1, and is better preserved; Kellis Dunand 1990:cat nos. 843; Fischer 1994:cat nos. 1101-1014; Stevens 2002:cat nos. 20-29, 33. For additional parallels, see Stevens 2002:cat nos. 20, 30.

Figurines

303

Figure 10.2: Complete head of a statuette roughly modeled (11920). Catalogue Number: 10.7 (Complete Head of a Statuette Roughly Modeled) pl. 10.1, 11920; fig. 10.2 Amheida Inventory Number: 11920 SCA Inventory Number: 2925 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 4 Fabric: A1b Height: 3.70 cm Width: 4.6 cm Depth: 3.30 cm Technology: Hand-made Description: Fragment of head, handmade. The features are roughly executed and therefore somewhat indistinct, but the figure can be identified as female. The eyes appear to have been pushed in and the slender nose pulled out in modeling the figure. The eyes are quite large for the face. The mouth is slightly pushed in. The hair appears to have been pulled back from the face with a knot at the back of the head (at about eye-level). The hair above the eyes forms a slight ridge or frame around the face. On top of the head, slightly over the left eye, rather than at the center, there is a small circular indentation. This indentation may have been intended for the placement of an ornament, candle, or oil. It may be incidental. No obvious traces of decoration remain. Parallels: Handmade figurines such as this one occur at many sites and during many time periods so parallels are not necessarily meaningful. Karanis, one of our closest site parallels, has several handmade figurines, but they are not at all like our handmade since ours is significantly more schematic than the ones found there. For example, compare to Gazda and Hessenbruch 1978b:66, Orant no. 67, figure no. 6970.

304

Amheida II

Figure 10.3: Body of a naked male statuette (11509). Catalogue Number: 10.8 (Body of a Naked Male Statuette) pl. 10.1, 11509; fig. 10.3 Amheida Inventory Number: 11509 SCA Inventory Number: n/a Context: House B2, Room 7, DSU 49 Fabric: limestone Height: 11.90 cm Width: 6.9 cm Depth: 16.50 cm Technology: worked Description: Fragment of a statuette in the shape of a naked male body. The head, part of the arms, and part of the legs are missing. The surface is smoothed and polished. The piece came from a finely carved, smaller-than-life statuette. The anatomy of the torso and buttocks are subtly rendered, if somewhat bulky in proportion. The torso appears too wide for the figure’s stature. No external detail is preserved to indicate its nature. The fragment is too worn for certain identification and dating, although the more naturalistic rendering of the body suggests a Greek influence. No evidence of reuse is visible. It is a possible Priapus Herm, which had been popular during the Hellenistic era, but it is missing all attributes of Priapus (cornucopia, oil jug, leafy staff, phallus), which would render this comparison viable. Parallels: Compare to possible Priapus Herm from Karanis in terms of nudity and rough surfaces (Gazda and Hessenbruch 1978b:36, cat no. 27). The Karanis Priapus is H: 17.5 cm, W: 10.5 cm, D 6.5 cm.

Figurines

305

Figure 10.4: Fragment of a hybrid animal sandstone figurine (3516). Catalogue Number: 10.9 (Fragment of a Hybrid Animal Sandstone Figurine) pl. 10.2, 3516; fig. 10.4 Amheida Inventory Number: 3516 SCA Inventory Number: n/a Context: House B2, Room 2, DSU 17 Fabric: Sandstone Height: 1.5 cm Length: 3.2 cm Width: 1.8 cm Technology: worked Description: This figurine almost certainly represents an animal, given the presence of two eyeholes drilled in front with a possible beak between these eyeholes. It also has two front legs or paws and a possible tail on the back. It seems to represent an unknown hybrid creature. Parallels: Little published comparative material for this figurine is available. Kom Rabi’a had twenty-seven such figures distributed among its New Kingdom and post-New Kingdom layers, but none is similar to this one, see Giddy 1999:307. The eyes in the face share some similarities with a marl clay figurine, identified as a possible baboon, but the other features are entirely different (Giddy 1999:inv. 1808, pl. 70). Catalogue Number: 10.10 (Fragment of a molded limb) pl. 10.1, 3519 Amheida Inventory Number: 3519 SCA Inventory Number: N/A Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 29 Fabric: A4a Height: 1.25 cm Width: 3.6 cm Depth: 1.45 cm Technology: molded in a two-piece mold Description: possibly a molded limb, such as a hand and arm raised in an orans gesture. This gesture is common on contemporary Romano-Egyptian figurines (see the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum of Anthropology, Berkeley, Inv. 6-20323). It is fragmentary on all but two sides. The condition impedes further identification.

306

Amheida II

Plate 10.1: Figurines 11628, 11920, 3519, 11627, and 11509 (M. Hense).

Figurines

Plate 10.2: Figurines 11915, SCA 2730, 3516, 11479, and 11914 (M. Hense).

307

This page intentionally left blank

11

ADORNMENT Angela Cervi1

The objects of adornment found comprise seven beads made of glass and faience, one glass bracelet, one faience amulet, one bone pin, and two bronze finger rings. The analysis of these objects can provide useful information about the inhabitants of the house and connections between this site and the outside world. What people used to wear can tell us what they looked like, their social status, and often their private relationship with religion. Moreover, jewellery reflects the fashion of the time, even if should be considered that, as happens today, jewels can be kept over time and passed on from generation to generation.2 The adornment recovered in the house, both by type and material, are quite widespread in Egypt in Roman times, and most of them are likely locally made; only some beads, because of their particular manufacturing technique, were probably imported from outside. These imports are four beads composed of a thin sheet of metal sandwiched between two layers of high quality colorless glass: three specimens incorporating gold and one incorporating silver or a similar metal alloy.3 This precious kind of glass, termed “sandwich gold-glass” or “gold-in-glass,” 4 commonly is thought to have been produced in Alexandria.5 Despite this assumption, a manufacturing center for such beads, dating to the early Roman period, has been recently attested on Elephantine island by the finding of work-shop wasters and half products.6 It is still not possible to reconstruct with certainty all of the bead manufacturing stages, but probably the glass layers were made by drawing.7 Scholars think these beads were made by sections of two tubes, a smaller one covered with gold slipped inside a larger one, which are then reheated together and constricted along their length, forming bulges.8 Different methods to form bulges could be used, but the only one archaeologically attested involved rolling the tubes along grooved stone blocks, as documented by the finds in a Late Roman workshop found at Kôm el-Dikka. 9 The achieved bulges can I would like to thank Professor Roger Bagnall, director of the Amheida project, and Professor Anna L. Boozer, director of the excavations in Area 1, for giving me the opportunity to study the objects presented in this chapter and in chapters 12, 13, and 18. I would also like to thank Dr. Marie-Dominique Nenna for reading the text and for her helpful comments. Finally, I wish to thank Marina Nuovo for assisting with the registation of finds on the site. 2 Single elements such as beads or amulets can have very long lives, being reused in new different jewels. 3 They can be considered less expensive imitations of gold beads and silver beads or pearls. 4 Silver-glass is also termed “false gold-glass.” 5 Davidson-Weinberg 1987, Barag 1990. Gold-glass beads are attested in Egypt from Ptolemaic times (cf. Brunton 1930:27: pl. 45, nos. 64, 68, pl. 46, nos. 146–148, 194–200); nevertheless, the earliest known production center is Rhodes (Davidson-Weinberg 1969:146, pl. 79d). In Roman times these beads are found in many sites also in Europe and Asia; parallels from well-dated excavated context of the Antonine-Severan period are attested in Britain (Bonn 1977:197-199, pl. XV). For the presence of the beads in Asia, see Alekseeva 1978:27-32 (Black Sea), Francis 2002:91-93 (eastern Asia). 6 Rodziewicz 2005:25, 27, 35. According to the author this sophisticated manufacturing technique was introduced in Elephantine by migrant advanced glassmakers, possibly from Alexandria, during the early Roman period. 7 Spaer 2001:131. 8 The tubes are formed by pulling or drawing glass from a hollow gather of glass (ibid.:46-7, Francis 2002:11). The half products and the broken pieces found in Elephantine have made it possible to identify the morphology of the golden insertion, which has a powdery structure (Rodziewicz 2005:27, 35). 9 Rodziewicz 1984:146-159, 241-243, figs. 265-266, pl. 72. Grooved stone molds used for shaping drawn collared beads, along with beads individually finished by hot-working, were also found in house FB, in a context dated to 1

310

Amheida II

finally be cut individually to create ball beads (Cat. Nos. 11.1 and 11.2). Alternatively, they can be cut in multiple to create segmented beads (Cat. No. 11.3), leaving the ends rough or finished by reheating or grinding. Ball beads also can be shaped with tools forming lobes and grooves to obtain ribbed beads (Cat. No. 11.4). Three of these sandwich-beads come from room 3 and were recovered in a layer (DSU 13) consisting in vault and wall collapse, related by ceramic findings to the third phase of activity of the house.10 One sandwich-bead comes instead from a feature of compacted debris (FSU 11) underlying the floor of Room 1, related to the first phase of activity of the house. Two more glass beads have been recovered, one in room 9 (DSU 74) and one in room 6 (DSU 47), both from layers consisting of occupational debris related to the second phase of the house. They imitate precious stones and show different manufacturing techniques. One (Cat. No. 11.5) is a ribbon barrel bead, which probably imitates agate. It is made of dull blue glass decorated by concentric weaves of dull dark-blue, white and transparent light green glass. Its conical perforation, with the glass encircling the two holes, indicates that the bead has been rod-formed by winding; the fold at one end could suggest the use of premanufactured drawn canes, heated on a lamp.11 The other glass bead that imitates precious stone (Cat. No. 11.6) is a faceted bead. It is made of dull blue glass imitating lapis lazuli, in the shape of a cornerless cube. This kind of bead can be formed with different methods: wound and shaped with a paddle; worked by lapidary technique drilling the bead, grinding and polishing the facets; wound and finished by lapidary technique. Our specimen shows a clear and cylindrical perforation, which suggests that it has been made by lapidary technique; however, it is difficult to recognize the initial manufacturing technique when the bead is finished mechanically.12 Only one of the beads is made of faience (Cat. No. 11.7): it is a rod-formed ring bead, the simplest and most widespread kind of bead.13 It comes from room 3, DSU 18, an occupational debris layer above the floor level, related to the second phase of the house. All of these beads were probably mounted in necklaces or earrings worn by women. Very close parallels can be found in the jewelry recovered in the necropolis of Aïn el-Labakha (Kharga oasis), some of which were found intact on the mummies showing the way they were worn and which way the beads could alternate.14 These findings testify that “middle class” women followed the fashion of the time, wearing jewels made of non-precious or semi-precious material, imitating in every aspects the precious jewels worn by the women of the “upper class.” Beads made of gold and precious stones, in the same shape of our imitations, indeed can be seen in the necklaces worn by the women represented by the Fayum Portraits.15 Another adornment that definitely belonged to a woman is a bone pin (Cat. No. 11.8). It was found on the floor level (DSU 75) of room 7, the central court, another room used frequently by women. The unit is related to the second phase of the house. Pins were generally used for ornamental purposes in the second to third century AD (Kucharczyk 2011: 64, 65, fig. 8). 10 Dixneuf, this volume. 11 This fold may have been caused by pulling off the bead from the mandrel (furnace-wound beads detach easily from the mandrel). For the description of the different winding techniques used to build glass beads, see Spaer 2001:45, Francis 2002:11, Francis 2007:252. 12 Spaer 2001:48, 54, 64. 13 Unlike gold-glass beads (only one other specimen has been recovered in the street running north–south along the west side of House B1) the other kinds of beads presented are more common finds in Amheida, and they are attested also in the other investigated structures of the site. 14 Dunand et al. 2008:129-137. The jewels are dated to a period between the first and fourth century. Most of the jewels found on children’s mummies were adult women’s adornments. 15 See for example Walker and Bierbrier 1997: n. cat 56, 67, 77, 92, 93. The last portrait (190–210 CE) shows a necklace made of blue stone and segmented gold beads.

Adornment

311

female dress or hair. It is not always possible to distinguish dress pins from hairpins, but in Roman times pins were worn mainly in the hair, as the women used to put up their hair in a bun. Moreover, hairpins were mostly carved in bone and ivory, while dress pins were usually made of metal. 16 The specimen found preserves only the shaft, carved at the top with a wrapped snake, suggesting that the missing head was carved in the shape of a hand.17 A glass bracelet and a faience amulet could be worn both by women and children. The glass bracelet (Cat. No. 11.9), in the shape of a bangle, is the most common and longest enduring form of bracelet. The fragment found likely belongs to a seamless bracelet, built by furnace winding like beads.18 It is made of dull black glass with uneven vertical ribbing on the external surface, a very common tooled decoration. This kind of bracelet appears in Egypt after the middle of the third century, then is well documented on every site occupied during the Late Roman Period.19 It was found in a surface layer of the Street S1. The faience amulet (Cat. No. 11.10) is roughly formed but shows the typical iconography of the god Bes: a dwarf represented naked with the lion’s tail and bandy legs, human face with a protruding tongue, usually surrounded by a lion’s mane and wearing a feathered crown. Bes was a popular household deity, and women and children wore Bes amulets for protection against the perils of childbirth and infancy. This specimen, made of turquoise glazed faience with details in yellow-green glaze, is double-sided and perforated laterally through the neck for suspension. Small amulets like this one were often worn in necklaces together with various kinds of beads.20 It has been found in the northern part of room 2, immediately above the floor, in a surface layer (DSU 2) related to the fourth phase of the house. The two bronze rings, possibly both imitations of gold rings, show two different uses of the same type of object. One (Cat. No. 11.11), which derived from a foundation layer in room 3 (DSU 29), was probably a female ornament, maybe once set with a glass bezel. It is a thin ring to which is fixed the collet of a missing bezel. The other one (Cat. No. 11.12) belonged to a man. It had a larger diameter and is made with a wider band, on top of which is an image incised in sunk relief. This ring had a specific function in addition to being an ornament: it was used to seal documents, as a sign of authenticity and identifying the owner. The image shows a male profile wearing a helmet and a shoulder protection, identifying the owner as a cavalryman. The features of the helmet are indeed characteristic of the helmets worn by the Roman Auxiliary Cavalry, in particular of the helmet Heddernheim type I, which is dated to the third century.21 The ring has been found among occupational debris (DSU 16) that covered the floor level in room 1, a secure context, since it was sealed by the roof collapse above. The ostraka found in the same unit give us a range of dating of ca. 240–340. The amounts of goods and the kind of transactions appearing in the accounts suggest we are dealing with a contractor, someone who acted like fiscal agent for the ruling elite, someone who collected taxes and tribute from locals, someone involved in the shipping and transportation business.

Catalogue of Adornment Catalogue Number: 11.1 fig. 11.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 3496 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 13 For the use of pins in Roman times, see Rodziewicz 2007:28-30. For pins carved with hands decorated by uraeus bracelets on the wrist see Petrie 1927:24, pl. XIX, 26 [UC7878]; Medeksza 2005:116, fig. 8. 18 The glass is twisted around the mandrel then is expanded centrifugally by rotation (Spaer 2001:193-194). 19 Arveiller-Dulong and Nenna 2011:250. 20 Dunand et al. 2008:Inv. 3406, p. 132. 21 Robinson 1975:104, nos. 124-126. 16 17

312

Amheida II

Material: gold insertion between two layers of colorless glass22 Diameter: 0.75 cm Width: 0.7 cm Hole diameter: 0.1 cm Technology: drawing;23 shaped in segmented mold (?) Condition: good, almost complete, small chip missing. Milky weathering and iridescence in places.24 Description: ball (oblate) bead. Only one end is well finished by reheating. Parallels: Francis 2000:217; Petrie 1906:60, pl. XLVI (143); Dunand, et al. 2008: Inv. 3675 (p. 129), 3465 (p.133), 3676 (p. 135); Peacock and Maxfield 2007: n. 13, p. 301, fig. 12.3; Rodziewicz 2005: cat. Nos. 447449, p. 116, pl. 27 and pl. 107, photo no 5 a-c; Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London, UC 51270, UC 51274 (from Saft el-Henna). Notes: Stored in SCA magazine at Ismant el-Kharab, No. 2824

Figure 11.1: Sandwich gold-glass beads 3496, 3497, 3066 and 3498. Catalogue Number: 11.2 fig. 11.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 3497 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 13 Material: silver insertion or similar metal alloy between two layers of colorless glass Diameter: 0.5 cm Width: 0.5 cm Hole diameter: 0.05 cm Technology: drawing; shaped in segmented mold (?) Condition: complete, chipped at one end. Milky pitting and iridescence in places; some cracks. Description: ball (oblate) bead. The ends have been left rough. Parallels: Francis 2000:216; Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London, UC 51276 (from Gheyta), UC 6789, UC 6791 (from Lahun). Notes: Stored in SCA magazine at Ismant el-Kharab, No. 2824 Catalogue Number: 11.3 fig. 11.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 3498 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 13 It is not possible to identify the morphology of the gold insertion. The striations in the glass are horizontal to the perforation axis. 24 The term “weathering” referes to any change on the surface of glass caused by chemical reaction with the environment (Whitehouse 2006: 88). The terminology used in the description of these varieties of changes mainly follows that employed in Harden's publication of the material found at Karanis by the University of Michigan (Harden 1936: 9-11). 22 23

Adornment

313

Material: gold insertion between two layers of colorless glass Diameter: 0.3 cm (max); 0.2 cm (min) Width: 0.8 cm Hole diameter: 0.05 cm Technology: drawing; shaped in segmented mold Condition: complete, chipped at one end. Milky pitting and iridescence in places; some cracks. Description: segmented bead composed of three bulges. Only one end seems to be finished. Parallels: Francis, 2000:217; Dunand et al. 2008:132, Inv. 3406, 134, Inv. 3468; Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London, UC 26330, UC 26347, UC 74018 (from Qau). Notes: Stored in SCA magazine at Ismant el-Kharab, No. 2824 Catalogue Number: 11.4 fig. 11.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 3066 Context: House B2, Room 1, FSU 11 Material: gold insertion between two layers of colorless glass Diameter: 0.65 cm Width: 0.6 cm Hole diameter: 0.1 cm Technology: drawing; shaped in segmented mold (?); tooled decoration Condition: complete, chipped at both ends. Milky pitting and iridescence in places. Description: globular ribbed bead (“melon” bead). Both the ends have been left rough. Parallels: Francis 2000:217; Petrie 1906:60, pl. XLVI (142); Spaer 2001:133, fig. 59 (from Meroe).

Figure 11.2: Glass beads 11272 and 11453. Faience bead 3493. Catalogue Number: 11.5 fig. 11.2 Amheida Inventory Number: 11453 Context: House B2, Room 9, DSU 74 Material: dull blue glass decorated by concentric weaves of dull white, dark blue glass and transparent light green glass. Diameter: 0.75 cm (max); 0.5 cm (min) Width: 2.7 cm Hole diameter: 0.2 cm (max); 0.1 cm (min) Technology: rod-formed by winding Condition: complete (glued together from pieces), chipped at one end. Milky pitted surface.

314

Amheida II

Description: two joining fragments of a ribbon barrel bead with conical perforation. Parallels: Dunand, et al. 2008:131, Inv. 3404; 133, Inv. 3465; 134, Inv. 3468; Francis 2000:214. Catalogue Number: 11.6 fig. 11.2 Amheida Inventory Number: 11272 Context: Room 6 House B2, Room 6, DSU 47 Material: dull blue glass Diameter: 0.6 cm Width: 0.75 cm Hole diameter: 0.2 cm Technology: worked by lapidary technique (?) Condition: good, complete. Milky weathering and iridescence in places. Description: faceted bead (cornerless cube) Parallels: Dunand, et al. 2008:131, Inv. 3405; Francis 2000:224; Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London, UC 6781 (from Lahun), UC 26330, 26347 (from Qau: set with segmented gold-glass beads). Notes: Stored in SCA magazine at Ismant el-Kharab, No. 2868 Catalogue Number: 11.7 fig. 11.2 Amheida Inventory Number: 3493 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 18 Material: yellow glazed faience Diameter: 0.35 cm Width: 0.2 cm Hole diameter: 0.15 cm Technology: rod-formed Condition: complete, worn out Description: ring bead Parallels: Francis 2000:213. Notes: Stored in SCA magazine at Ismant el-Kharab, No. 2824

Figure 11.3: Bone hair pin 11320.

Catalogue Number: 11.8 fig. 11.3 Amheida Inventory Number: 11320 Context: House B2, Room 7, DSU 75 Material: bone creamy in color Diameter: 0.7 x 0.8 cm (oval) Length: 14.9 cm Technology: shaft hand-carved and polished25 Condition: incomplete, head missing Description: shaft of a pin, oval in section and tapering to the point. The narrow neck is carved with a wrapped snake. Parallels: Medeksza 2005:116, fig. 8; Petrie 1927:24, pl. XIX, 26 (UC7878). Notes: Stored in SCA magazine at Ismant el-Kharab, No. 2882 25

Traces of knife cutting are visible.

Adornment

315

Figure 11.4: Fragment of a glass bracelet 11606. Catalogue Number: 11.9 fig. 11.4 Amheida Inventory Number: 11606 Context: Street S1, DSU 1 Material: dull black glass with few small elongated bubbles Diameter: 7 cm (int.) Length: 2.2 cm Width: 0.8 cm Thick: 0.4 cm Technology: furnace winding;26 tooled decoration Condition: fragmentary; iridescence in places. Description: small fragment of a bracelet with semicircular cross section. The outside surface is decorated by uneven vertical ribbing. Parallels: Francis 2000:220, pl. 9-7; Harden 1936:283, pl. XXI; Petrie 1927:8, pl. VII, 100-101; Kucharczyk 2010:65, fig. 6, 3.

Figure 11.5: Faience Bes amulet 3233. fig. 11.5

Catalogue Number: 11.10 Amheida Inventory Number: 3233 Context: House B2, Room 2, DSU 2 Material: turquoise glazed faience Height: 1.2 cm Width: 0.7 cm Thickness: 0.3 cm Hole diameter: 0.1 cm Technology: molded; probably glazed with the efflorescence technique27 Condition: complete but very worn; glaze iridescent in places.

The inner surface is flat with longitudinal streaks. For the description of the process and the features shown by the pieces glazed by efflorescence, see Nicholson and Peltenburg 2000:189. 26 27

316

Amheida II

Description: double-sided amulet of Bes, formed identically front and back, perforated laterally through the neck for suspension. The amulet is roughly formed, the crown is only sketched and very short; the details, in yellow-green glaze, are outlined in an approximate way. On one side the glaze is damaged, probably by the stand marks where the piece was set down to dry. Parallels: Meyer 1982:226, pl. 59g (glass); Peacock and Maxfield 2007:301, n. 11, fig. 12.3; Petrie 1914:40, pl XXXIII, 188 n, o (UC52808, UC52809); Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam (APM 12771–12774). Notes: Stored in SCA magazine at Ismant el-Kharab, No. 2824

Figure 11.6: Bronze finger ring 3484 (M. Hense). Catalogue Number: 11.11 fig. 11.6 Amheida Inventory Number: 3484 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 29 Material: bronze Diameter: 1.9 cm (ext); 1.7 cm (int) Width: 0.3 cm Thickness: 0.25 cm Technology: hand wrought Condition: very fragmentary, incomplete; oxidized and corroded. Glued together from pieces and consolidated with paraloid (5%). Description: seven joining fragments of a finger ring. A thin band (0.2 wide and 0.05 thick) with the collet of a bezel is fixed on the ring. The collet (0.5 x 0.7) is incomplete and deformed, and the bezel is missing.

Figure 11.7: Bronze finger ring 3452.

Adornment

317

Catalogue Number: 11.12 fig. 11.7, 8 Amheida Inventory Number: 3452 Context: House B2, Room 1, DSU 16 Material: bronze Diameter: 2.3 cm (ext); 1.9 cm (int) Width: 1 cm (max); 0.3 cm (min) Thickness: 0.3 cm (max); 0.1 cm(min) Technology: hand wrought Condition: incomplete (?), oxidized. Mechanically cleaned. Description: band finger ring, seal. The band has a semicircular cross section and tapers to the extremities, which are probably incomplete. On the top is an image incised in sunk relief showing a helmeted head facing left. The features of the helmet recall very closely the helmets worn by the Roman Auxiliary Cavalry, in particular the helmet Heddernheim type I, dated to the third century. 28 The skull is made in one piece with an integral neck guard and a rounded knob on top. The rim of the bowl, in which are apertures for ears, is stressed; it is not clear if the helmet has a frontal protection. The eyebrows are underlined but they seem to be an anatomical detail of the face, not part of the helmet.29 The broad collar with vertical strips worn by the cavalryman is most likely a shoulder protection (lorica segmentata ?) probably with the scarf to protect the neck (focale). Parallels: Dunand, et al. 2008:136, Inv. 3461-3462; Petrie 1927: 17, pl. XIII.159 (UC 2457). Notes: Stored in SCA magazine at Ismant el-Kharab, No. 2826.

Figure 11.8: Bronze finger ring 3452 (A. Cervi). Robinson 1975:104, nos 124–126. An iron helmet found in Deir-el-Medina and now in the Cairo Museum (Dittmann 1940) has applied brow-plates and nasal, but it belongs to a different typology of helmet, in which the skull is made of several vertical strips. For another helmet found in Egypt, now in Leiden, see Ebert 1909. For an interesting essay about the origins and relationships of these different kinds of helmet, see James 1986. 28 29

This page intentionally left blank

12

GLASS VESSELS Angela Cervi

Inside the house, and in the adjoining areas, we found a significant assemblage of glass vessel fragments that form a homogeneous group of domestic finds of everyday use. This assemblage is quite different from the glass vessels recovered to date from the other investigated structures of Amheida. The diagnostic pieces attest the presence of at least twenty-nine different vessels. They mainly belong to common fine tableware forms of blown glass attested across the Roman Empire from the second half of the first century to the end of the third century. Open forms largely prevail over closed forms. The most attested categories are goblets and beakers used as drinking vessels, followed by deep bowls, shallow bowls and plates for serving food. Jars, flasks for pouring and for oils and perfumes are also documented.1 All of the glass recovered was colorless, usually showing a greenish tinge and in a few cases a yellowish tinge. An exception to this trend was a small toilet flask in a common poor quality bluish-green color. Most of the recorded fragments are plain, with only a few showing applied trail decorations of the same color as the vases or simple cut decorations. Mosaic glass and a violet color, which seem to be more common in Dakhla than in other parts of Egypt, are absent. 2 Likewise, luxury glass, such as painted and elaborate engraved vessels, are not attested. Common glass tableware used during the third century in Egypt is not well known due to the lack of well-dated excavation contexts of this period, and the recent publications of glass vessels found in the Western oases mainly concern fourth-century vessels or decorated and luxury items. 3 Many shapes used during the first and the second century continued to be used during the third century, as documented by finds in some well-dated excavated contexts of eastern desert sites,4 and parallels in Syria5 and in the West.6 The forty-three diagnostic sherds discussed in this paper, recorded and illustrated on Plates 12.1–3, were found inside the house (B2), in the exterior courtyard (C2A), in the street in front of the building (S1), and during the cleaning of a nearby structure (1.1). The non-diagnostic sherds were counted, weighed and discarded; the data have been collected and analyzed.7 Most of the glass fragments found inside B2 derive from occupational layers, often associated with floor levels and related to the second phase of activity of the house. The sherds have mainly been recovered in rooms 7, 5 and 6, rooms intended for domestic activity, where pottery for food preparation and food cooking were also found. 8 Many of the vessels served a variety of purposes. The functional classification is simply a reasonable assumption. 2 Many of the fragments recovered in House B1 (Area 2), a fourth-century dwelling which has returned a great quantity of glass vessel, show a variety of shades of violet color. Base rings decorated with incised criss-cross designs, mainly belonging to the deep bowls typical of the fourth century, are quite frequent. Likewise conical lamps and vases with blue drops applied, or trailed decorations such as spiral and zigzag in turquoise and blue glass, recur. 3 Marchini 1999, Hill and Nenna 2003a, Nenna 2003b, Nenna 2003, Hope and Whitehouse 2004. 4 Brun 2001, Brun 2003. 5 Clairmont 1963. The finds from Dura Europos give a picture of the forms in use during the middle of the third century and the destruction of the site in 256 CE fixes a terminus ante quem. 6 For some parallels in the west see Foy and Nenna 2003 with quoted bibliography. 7 The quantitative data can be found in the project database. 8 See Dixneuf, this volume. 1

320

Amheida II

Other sherds come from rooms 2, 3, and 9. The fragments found in C2A, in the street (S1) and in the structure 1.1 belong to the same shape of vessels attested inside B2, suggesting that all these areas were active during the same period. The very fragmentary nature of the material found has sometimes made it impossible to determine precisely the forms; only rims, with small portions of walls, and bottoms are preserved. Furthermore, the lack of decorations on the walls makes it difficult to identify types. The terminology used mainly follows that employed in Harden’s publication of the material found at Karanis by the University of Michigan.9 The typology employed to briefly identify the shapes of the vases follows the types established by Clasina Isings (I)10 and Beat Rütti (AR)11 because of the lack of reliable fixed typology for Egyptian and Middle Eastern glass vessels. It should be emphasized, however, that most of the vessels recovered were produced locally, and Egyptian glass vessels have their own specificity. In the catalogue of objects the description of fragments proceeds from the top of the vessel to the bottom. The term “bottom” refers to the lowest part of the vessel, interior and exterior, while the term “base” refers only to the underside of the vessel. “Material” describes the outward appearance of the fragments, where weathering and iridescence12 did not prevent observation, including the color and the presence of bubbles and impurities. 13 The colors were observed on a white background with natural light and were brought to Harden’s terminology. The colors of glass vessels can change according to the direction of the light and thickness of glass, so rims and bases appear darker than the walls. The glass fabrics are not mentioned, as the chemical composition of the glass has not been determined. There is capacity for further testing in this area in the future. The thickness, where not specified, is measured on the preserved wall of the fragments, and the diameter refers to maximum diameter of rim or base measured at the point of support of the vessel. Drawings are shown on 1:2 scale and all the dimensions are in centimeters.

Beakers and Goblets (Pl. 12.1) Drinking vessels are predominant in the assemblage. They include open vases of cylindrical-conical shape, the heights of which exceed the diameters. In addition to functioning as drinking vessels, these kinds of vases could also have had different uses, such as playing dice or containers for toiletries, such as pins,14 containers for food and ointments, their mouths closed by bits of cloth, leather, basketry, or leaves. Five fragments of bottoms (Pl. 1: 6–10), easily recognizable by their thickness and mostly squared bases, belong to indented beakers (form AR 54 / I 32), a popular form with wide distribution in the Mediterranean area and usually considered to be of Eastern origin.15 The form is dated from the second half of the first century to the fourth century. In Egypt, this form is well attested, always present in early Empire contexts, characterized by a very thick bottom. Parallels to the specimens found in Area 1 occur in Marina el-Alamein, Tebtynis, Bakchias, Harden 1936:6-20. Isings 1957. 11 Rütti 1991. 12 Iridescence is the rainbowlike effect that changes according to the angle from which it is viewed or the angle of incidence of the source of light. On ancient glass iridescence is caused by interference effects of light reflected from several layers of weathering products. Cf. Whitehouse 2006:46. 13 Small means the pin-prick size. 14 A piriform beaker recovered in Karanis (n. 365), when found, contained two bone pins. Cf. Harden 1936:143. 15 Meyer 1992:28. 9

10

Glass Vessels

321

Karanis, Quseir al-Qadim and in the sites on the route to Myos Hormos, Mons Porphyrites, and Elephantine island. 16 Some of the preserved rims probably belong to these indented beakers, but the thin sides are not sufficiently preserved to show indentations and to determine the form securely. All of the rims are thickened and fire-rounded, and the preserved walls are plain. The ones with almost vertical sides (Pl. 12.1:1–2) can be compared to cylindrical beakers (form I 30), while the ones with more or less concave sides (Pl. 12.1:3–5) may be compared to conical beakers (form I 34 or I 106, in the shape of a truncated cone). It is interesting to note the complete absence of cut-rims, which are predominant in contexts dated to the first and second centuries. Likewise, none of the preserved walls show wheel-cut horizontal grooves. The specimens with rounded, curving-in rims and slightly concave sides (Pl. 12.1:11–13) are probably from carinated beakers (form I 36b) or chalices (form AR 96 / I 36a), the so-called “carchesium”; the large mouth of others (Pl. 12.1:14–15), with slightly flaring sides, near to the form AR 77, could also be referred to shallow bowls.17 The piriform beakers (Pl. 12.1:16–21), near to the forms AR 98 and 99, another recurrent shape in the Roman Empire, is dated from the second quarter of the second century to the end of the third century.18 Specimens with tubular or coil base, and coils of the same color as the vessels applied trailed on neck and shoulder have been found in Karanis,19 Elephantine island,20 Quseir al-Qadim,21 and in well dated contexts of the eastern desert sites.22

Deep Bowls, Shallow Bowls and Plates (Pl. 12.2) The second most attested category of vessels is the shallow bowl, which together with the plate, is a very common household item in Roman times. It was used for containing and serving food. The fragments recovered attest specimens with fire-rounded rims, thickened on the external surface (Pl. 12.2: 8–10), close to the form AR 88.1, which is dated from the second half of the first century to the end of the second. The preserved sides are rounded and plain. The bottoms (Pl. 12.2: 13–15) are quite short with true ring-base and a more-or-less pronounced bulge above the ring. These bases were often attached later to the vessel by post technique.23 Comparable bowls and plates are attested at

In Marina el-Alamein the specimens occur among glass vessels dated from the first century to the third century, with a concentration in the first and second century (Kucharczyk 2005:94-95); in Tebtynis they are dated from the end of the first century to the end of the second century (Nenna 2000:23); in Karanis the vessels have been found in houses mainly dated from the second to the third century (Harden 1936:145-148; for the dating of the vessels from Karanis, see also Whitehouse 1999 with quoted bibliography); in Krokodilô, Bi’r al-Hammâmat and Maximianon the form is well documented in the middle of the second century (Brun 2003:516, 523); in Mons Porphyrites bases and body fragments are very common in contexts dates from the middle of the first century to the early third century (Bailey 2007:234-235, 249); in Elephantine island the contexts of recovery are dated to the first two centuries CE (Rodziewicz 2005:25-28). 17 See the small plain cups and bowls with thickened fire-rounded rims found at Mons Porphyrites (Bailey 2007:252-253). 18 All of these fragments come from C2A and S1. 19 Harden 1936:143-145. 20 Rodziewicz 2005:84, pl. 3.38, 3.41. 21 Meyer 1992: 24-25. 22 Brun 2001:385, Brun 2003:516-517, 523. In these sites the form is much more attested from the end of the second century. 23 Harden 1936:18. 16

322

Amheida II

Karanis,24 Mons Porphyrites,25 Elephantine island;26 similar bottoms occur in Marina el-Alamein,27 Quseir al-Qadim28 and Dura Europos, dated to the Early Imperial Period.29 Two rims (Pl. 12.2: 11–12) belong to molded ware. The small fragments preserved made it difficult to state the correct inclination and the diameter of the vessels, which could also be more sloped. The broad everted rim with ridges on the inner surface and cut lines on the exterior surface can be referred to both shallow bowls and plates. It is close to form AR 25.1, dated from the second half of the first century to the middle of the third century.30 The rim bent out with thickened and rounded end is instead attributable to the form AR 16, which was widespread from the end of the first to the middle of the third century. 31 In Egypt these forms are probably attested earlier than in the rest of the ancient world. The form AR 98.1/ I 85 (Pl. 12.2: 6), to which the specimen with rounded rim and almost vertical sides probably belongs, is mostly widespread in the western provinces from the middle of the second to the end of the third century;32 while the hemispherical bowl (form I 96b) with geometric cut decorations, characteristic of the third century (Pl. 12.2 : 7), was common throughout the Empire. Specimens with ovals and circles from shallow or deep bowls, with round or concave base, are well attested in Egypt.33 Finally the small deep bowls on base ring or pad base (Pl. 12.2: 1–5), near to form AR 79 / I 87, dated from the end of the first to the middle of the third century, have parallels in Marina el-Alamein, 34 Karanis,35 and in the Eastern Desert sites.36 Two complete bowls have been found in the necropolis of Douch.37

Jars and Flasks (Pl. 12.3) Glass jars seem to be uncommon in Egypt.38 This kind of shape is often referred to as beakers or bowls, because it could also have been employed for drinking, or, more frequently, as a container for food or toilet preparations. The two specimens found in room 5 of B2 (Pl. 12.3: 1–2) have large mouths with thickened firerounded rims, probably globular bodies, and coils applied trailed on neck and shoulder. This shape is near form AR 104, which is dated from the end of the first century to the end of the second. A few fragments of small jars, with fire-rounded rims, have been recovered at Mons Porphyrites;39 comparable fragments, Ibid.:77-79, 82-84. Bailey 2007:253-254. 26 Rodziewicz 2005:26, 82. 27 Kucharczyk 2005:96. 28 Meyer 1992:25. 29 Clairmont 1963: 18-22. 30 The rim has parallels in Karanis (Harden 1936:61), Quseir al-Qadim (Meyer 1992:20), Dura Europos (Clairmont 1963:19-24). 31 The rim finds parallels in Karanis (a shallow bowl with ring base very close to the bases found in B2, cf. Harden 1936:83, n. 166); in Quseir al-Qadim (Roth 1979:146); in Krokodilô and Maximianon (Brun 2003:518). 32 Compare with small plain cups and bowls with thickened fire-rounded rims recovered at Mons Porphyrites (Bailey 2007:252-253). 33 Karanis (Harden 1936:90-92, 119-121); Medinet Madi (Silvano 2009:224-225); Didymoi (Brun 2001:385); Maximianon (Brun 2003:517); Mons Porphyrites (Bailey 2007: 239-241). Many wall fragments with cut ovals and circles have been found at Quseir al-Qadim (Meyer 1992:38). Parallels occur also in Syria (Clairmont 1963:60-64, Arveiller-Dulong and Nenna 2005:370) and in Carthage (Sternini 1999:88-89). 34 Kucharczyk 2005:96. 35 Harden 1936:117-118. 36 Krokodilô and Maximianon (Brun 2003:518) and third century contexts in Didymoi (Brun 2001:385), Elephantine island (Rodziewicz 2005:90, 96). Comparable specimens occur also in Syria (Hayes 1975:144, 158, Clairmont 1963:25). 37 Dunand, Castel, Wagner and Barakat 1992:47-48, 241-242 and pl. 68.1-2. See also Nenna 2003a:96. 38 Meyer 1992:31, Harden 1936:174-178. 39 Bailey 2007:251. 24 25

Glass Vessels

323

with coil applied, have been found in Elephantine and Quseir al-Qadim. 40 One plain fragment of small jar was found in Dura Europos.41 Flasks, on the other hand, and especially toilet flasks, are very widespread items throughout the Empire. The smaller ones were used as containers for perfumes, oils, and perhaps for medical substances; the larger ones mainly as tableware, containing wine or other liquid. The two specimens recovered inside the house (Pl. 12.3: 3, 5), with “collar-like” rims, folded outward, downward and upward, can be referred to Harden’s Class IX AIc. This kind of flask, which generally has a cylindrical neck, constriction at the base, and a piriform body, is a typical Egyptian product. It appears near the end of the first century and seems to be no longer produced in the Late Empire, replaced by the version with folded-in rim.42 The fragment of bottom in clear colorless glass from C2A (Pl. 12.3: 4) possibly belongs to the bigger flask or the same kind of flask, but not enough is preserved to be cataloged with certainty. The small ball in bluish-green glass (Pl. 12.3: 6) found in room 2 preserves a small portion of the surface that is slightly protruding and fragmentary, suggesting that it has broken away from some larger object. It could be the head of a hairpain, but it is more likely that it could be the top of a rod used for dipping perfume or cosmetics from the flask, since it has the same color and the same diameter as the mouth opening of the smaller flask.43 This kind of rod, termed “stirring rod” (I 79), was found across the Roman Empire; examples from datable contexts seems to be mainly of the first and second century. Most scholars assume that they were used for mixing cosmetics or medicinal preparations, but many other hypotheses have been proposed.44 The majority are twisted, the top terminating in a ring, a loop, or an object, the bottom in a disk or pointed; but there are also plain specimens with rounded tops. 45 A plain greenish rod with globular top, very close in dimensions to the one found in B2, has been recovered in the temple area of Soknopaiou Nesos.46 Comparable balls are attested in Houses 1 and 2 in Marina elAlamein, along with fragments of toilet bottles and a segment of stirring rod.47 Finally, the small looped delphiniform handle, found in the street in front of B2, is doubtless from a small globular flask, an aryballos (AR151 / I 61). These flasks, widespread throughout the Roman Empire from the middle of the first century to the middle of the third century, are also termed “bath flasks” for their associations with bathing oils.48 As they were carried around from place to place, they were commonly hung with ropes or thongs passing through the handles, or through metal rings anchored to the handles. Suspension chains through the handles may also carry stoppers. Several handles in clear colorless glass comparable to our specimen have been recovered in Berenike.49 Many other examples are attested at at Mons Porphyrites and at Elephantine;50 parallels occur in Karanis, and in the sites on the route to Myos Hormos.51

Rodziewicz 2005:90, Meyer 1992:31, n. 224. Clairmont 1963:106, n. 480. 42 Arveiller-Dulong and Nenna 2005:251. 43 The ball fits perfectly inside the rim closing the flask’s opening. 44 Whitehouse 2003:52 with quoted bibliography. 45 Beretta and Di Pasquale 2004:332, n. 4.63 from Pompeii. 46 Inv. ST08/500/5323, unpublished. Recovered during the 2008 season excavation of Lecce University. 47 Kucharczyk 2010:126-127. 48 Price and Cottam 1998:188-190. 49 Nicholson 2000:203-204. One handle still preserves a metal ring. 50 Bailey 2007:255-256, Rodziewicz 2005:85, pl. 4. 51 Karanis (Harden 1936:259- 260); Krokodilô and Maximianon (Brun 2003:521). 40 41

324

Amheida II

Catalogue of Glass Beakers and Goblets Catalogue Catalogue Number: 12.1 pl. 12.1.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 11363 Context: House B2, Room 7, DSU 39 Material: greenish colorless glass; rare small globular and elongated bubbles; rare small dark inclusions on the rim. Height: 2.1 cm Diameter: 5 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky-pitting weathering in places. Description: fragment of rim with small portion of wall. The rim is slightly flaring, thickened and rounded; the preserved side seems to go downward almost vertically. Parallels: form I 30 Catalogue Number: 12.2 pl. 12.1.2 Amheida Inventory Number: 11273 Context: House B2, Room 6, DSU 47 Material: colorless glass; only rare small globular bubbles are visible, a white patina covers most of the surfaces. Height: 1.6 cm Diameter: 5.2 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; frosting and milky-pitted weathering on the surfaces and on the breaks. Description: fragment of rim with small portion of wall. The rim is thickened and rounded; the preserved side is vertical. Parallels: form I 30 Catalogue Number: 12.3 pl. 12.1.3 Amheida Inventory Number: 11335 Context: House B2, Room 6, DSU 46 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; rare small globular bubbles. Height: 1.6 cm Diameter: 7 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; iridescence in places. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is slightly curving out, thickened and rounded; the side flares gently toward top. Parallels: form I 34/ I 106. Compare with Hayes 1975:57, n. 140, 168, fig. 3, 57, n. 149, 172, fig. 7. Catalogue Number: 12.4 pl. 12.1.4 Amheida Inventory Number: 3527 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 29 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; few small globular bubbles. Height: 2.3 cm

Glass Vessels

325

Diameter: 8 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky-pitted weathering, iridescence in places. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is rounded and thickened on the external surface; the side is slightly concave. Parallels: form I 34/ I 106 Catalogue Number: 12.5 pl. 12.1.5 Amheida Inventory Number: 3554 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 18 Material: greenish colorless glass; few small globular bubbles; many medium and big dark inclusions on the rim. Height: 2 cm Diameter: 8 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering in places. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is thickened and rounded, slightly curving in; the side flares toward top. Parallels: form I 34 / I 106 Catalogue Number: 12.6 pl. 12.1.6 Amheida Inventory Number: 335 Context: Street S1, DSU 0 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; few small globular bubbles. Height: 1.5 cm Diameter: 4 cm Thickness: 0.15 cm (wall); 0.35 (bottom) Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering and iridescence in places. Description: fragment of wall and bottom. The preserved side shows part of an indentation; the bottom is thickened, the inner side seems to be slightly convex and the base slightly concave. Parallels: form AR 54 / I 32. Brun 2003:516, n. 11, 531, fig. 239. Catalogue Number: 12.7 pl. 12.1.7 Amheida Inventory Number: 333 Context: Building 1.1, DSU 4 Material: colorless glass; no bubbles are visible, a white patina covers the surfaces and the breaks. Height: 1.6 cm Diameter: 5 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm (wall); 0.45 cm (bottom) Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; frosting and milky-pitted weathering all over the surfaces. Description: two joining fragments of wall and almost complete bottom. The preserved side shows three indentations; the bottom is quite thick and slightly squared, the inner side is almost flat, the base slightly concave without kick. Parallels: form AR 54 / I 32. Harden 1936:147, n. 396 and pl. XV; Morini 2007:149-150, n. 90; Nenna 2000:22, fig. 5, 23.

326

Amheida II

Catalogue Number: 12.8 pl. 12.1.8 Amheida Inventory Number: 3528 Context: House B2, Room 2, DSU 17 Material: greenish colorless glass; many small, few medium, rare big globular bubbles; rare fine and medium dark impurities. Height: 1.7 cm Diameter: 5 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm (wall); 0.3 cm (bottom) Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering and iridescence on the surfaces and on the breaks. Description: two joining fragments of wall and complete bottom. The preserved side shows four indentations; the bottom is slightly thickened and squared, the inner side is convex and the base concave without kick. Parallels: form AR 54/ I 32. Compare with Brun 2003:516, n. 10, 531 fig. 239; Harden 1936:145, n. 376, pl. XV, 147, n. 393, pl. XV; Meyer 1992:27–28, n. 161, pl. 8; Rodziewicz 2005:84, n. 44, pl. 3.44. Catalogue Number: 12.9 pl. 12.1.9 Amheida Inventory Number: 334 Context: Street S1, DSU 0 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; few small globular bubbles. Height: 2 cm Diameter: 5 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm (wall); 0.4 cm (bottom) Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary with cracks; frosting, milky-pitted weathering and iridescence in places. Description: fragment of wall and bottom. The preserved side shows an indentation; the bottom is quite thick, the inner side is almost flat, the base slightly concave without kick. Parallels: form AR 54/ I 32. Compare with Bailey 2007:250, n. 86, fig. 8.10; Meyer 1992:27-28, n. 163, pl. 8. Catalogue Number: 12.10 pl. 12.1.10 Amheida Inventory Number: 336 Context: Street S1, DSU 0 Material: colorless glass; no bubbles are visible, a white patina covers much of the surfaces. Height: 2.1 cm Diameter: 6.8 cm Thickness: 0.3 cm (wall); 0.8 cm (bottom) Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; frosting and milky-pitted weathering all over the surfaces. Description: fragment of wall and bottom. The preserved side shows two indentations; the bottom is thick, the inside is almost flat, the base concave. Parallels: form AR 54/ I 32. Compare with Meyer 1992:27-28, n. 157, pl. 8; Rodziewicz 2005:84, n. 47, pl. 3.47. Catalogue Number:12.11 pl. 12.1.11 Amheida Inventory Number: 11421 Context: House B2, Room 7, DSU 64 Material: colorless glass; no bubbles are visible, a white patina covers the surfaces Height: 1 cm Diameter: 7 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm

Glass Vessels

327

Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; frosting and milky-pitted weathering all over the surfaces. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is rounded and curving in; the preserved side seems to go downward slightly concave. Parallels: form AR 96 / I 36 a–b. Compare with Hayes 1975:57, n. 137, 168, fig 3. Catalogue Number: 12.12 pl. 12.1.12 Amheida Inventory Number: 11267 Context: House B2, Room 9, DSU 50 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; rare small globular and elongated bubbles. Height: 1.5 cm Diameter: 9 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering, iridescent in places on the inner surface. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is rounded and curving in; the side is slightly concave. Parallels: form AR 96 / I 36 a–b. Compare with Hayes 1975:154, n. 640, 186, fig. 21. Catalogue Number: 12.13 pl. 12.1.13 Amheida Inventory Number: 11271 Context: House B2, Room 5, DSU 40 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; rare small globular and elongated bubbles. Height: 2.2 cm Diameter: 10 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering in places. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is rounded and curving in; the side is slightly concave. Parallels: form AR 96 / I 36 a–b. Catalogue Number: 12.14 pl. 12.1.14 Amheida Inventory Number: 11652 Context: Street S1, DSU 5 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; few very small globular bubbles. Height: 1.8 cm Diameter: 9 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering and iridescence in places. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is gently curving out, rounded and slightly thickened; the side flares gently toward the top. Parallels: near form AR 77. Compare with Bailey 2007:253, n. 103, fig. 8.13; Meyer 1992:27, n. 128, pl. 7. Catalogue Number: 12.15 pl. 12.1.15 Amheida Inventory Number: 3526 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 13 Material: greenish colorless glass; few very small, rare small globular and elongated bubbles; few medium dark inclusions on the rim. Height: 1.7 cm

328

Amheida II

Diameter: 11 cm Thickness: 0.15 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering in places. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is rounded and thickened on the external surface; the preserved side flares slightly. Parallels: near form AR 77. Compare with Meyer 1992:33, n. 249, pl. 11. Catalogue Number: 12.16 pl. 12.1.16 Amheida Inventory Number: 11956 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 1 Material: colorless glass with yellowish tinge; few small and medium globular bubbles. Height: 2 cm Diameter: 5 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm Technology: blown glass (?) Condition: fragmentary with small cracks on the rim; no weathering Description: fragment of rim, neck and shoulder. The rim is rounded and curving in, slightly flaring from a constriction at neck; the sides widen out gradually to greatest diameter. The neck is marked by a horizontal coil of the same color as the vase. Parallels: Harden 1936:143, n. 365, pls. IV, XV. Compare with Brun 2003:516–517, n. 15, 532, fig. 240; Meyer 1992:24–25, n. 93, pl. 5; Nenna 2000:22, fig. 5, 23. Catalogue Number: 12.17 pl. 12.1.17 Amheida Inventory Number: 11621 Context: Street S1, DSU 2 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; few very small globular bubbles; few medium, rare big elongated bubbles on the rim; few very small globular dark impurities. Height: 2.6 cm Diameter: 7 cm Thickness: 0.15 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering on the surfaces and on the breaks. Description: fragment of rim, neck and shoulder. The rim is rounded and thickened, slightly curving in, bent out from a constriction at neck; the sides widen out gradually to greatest diameter. Three horizontal coils of thin spiral, of the same color as the vessel, are applied thread on the shoulder. Parallels: Compare with Brun 2003:516–517, n. 13–15, 531–532; figs. 239–240; Meyer 1992:24–25, n. 93, pl. 5. Catalogue Number: 12.18 pl. 12.1.18 Amheida Inventory Number: 11940 Context: Street S1, DSU 11 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; few small globular bubbles. Height: 1.7 cm Diameter: 3.6 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm (wall); 0.2 cm (bottom) Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering and iridescence in places. Description: fragment of wall and complete bottom with tubular base ring. The preserved side is rounded; the inside of the bottom is convex, the base concave with kick.

Glass Vessels

329

Parallels: Brun 2003:516–517, n. 22, 532, fig. 240; Harden 1936:143, n. 365, pls. IV, XV; Rodziewicz 2005:84, n. 41, pl. 3.41. Catalogue Number: 12.19 pl. 12.1.19 Amheida Inventory Number: 11943 Context: Street S1, DSU 5 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; few small globular bubbles, rare medium. Height: 1.6 cm Diameter: 4.2 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm (wall); 0.2 cm (base) Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering on the surfaces and on the breaks. Description: fragment of wall and complete bottom with coil base. The preserved side is rounded; the inside of the bottom is slightly convex, the base slightly concave without kick. Parallels: Brun 2003:516–517, n. 20, 532, fig. 240; Rodziewicz 2005:84, n. 38, pl. 3.38. Catalogue Number: 12.20 Figure Number: pl. 12.1.20 Amheida Inventory Number: 11952 Context: Courtyard C2, DSU 2 Material: colorless glass with yellowish tinge; no bubbles are visible, the surfaces are frosted. Height: 3.9 cm Diameter: 6.5 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm Technology: blown glass (?) Condition: fragmentary; milky-pitted weathering and frosting on the surfaces and on the breaks. Description: fragment of rim, neck and shoulder. The rim is flaring, rounded and thickened on the external surface, slightly curving in; the sides widen out gradually to greatest diameter. The neck is decorated by a coil of the same color as the vessel. Parallels: (form AR 99). Compare with Brun 2003:516–517, n.19, 532, fig. 240. Catalogue Number: 12.21 pl. 12.1.21 Amheida Inventory Number: 12016 Context: Courtyard C2, DSU 1 Material: colorless glass with yellowish tinge; rare small globular bubbles; few small dark impurities on the rim, one elongated. Height: 1.6 cm Diameter: 7 cm Thickness: 0.25 cm Technology: blown glass (?) Condition: fragmentary; milky-pitting weathering and frosting on the surfaces and on the breaks. Description: fragment of rim and neck with the same shape of Inv. 11952. Parallels: form AR 99. Deep bowls, shallow bowls and plates Catalogue Number: 12.22 pl. 12.2.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 11343 Context: House B2, Room 9, DSU 59 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; rare very small globular bubbles; rare small dark impurities on the rim.

330

Amheida II

Height: 1.4 cm Diameter: 8 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering and iridescence in places. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is outsplayed, rounded and slightly thickened; the preserved side is rounded. Parallels: form AR 79 / I 87. Compare with Dunand, et al. 1992:47–48, 241–242, pl. 68.1 (T 19, Inv. 962); Hayes 1975:158, n. 652, 21, fig. 21; Nenna 2003a:96, fig. 4.1. Catalogue Number: 12.23 pl. 12.2.2 Amheida Inventory Number: 11806 Context: Street S1, DSU 5 Material: colorless glass; few very small globular bubbles. Height: 1.9 cm Diameter: 9 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering on the surface and on the breaks. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is slightly curving out, rounded and slightly thickened; the side slopes downward slightly convex. Parallels: form AR 79/I 87. Brun 2001:385, 386, fig. 9.2; Dunand, et al. 1992:47–48, 241–242 and pl. 68.2 (T 19, Inv. 961); Harden 1936:117, n. 304, pls. III, XIV; Rodziewicz 2005:90, n. 117, pl. 6. Catalogue Number: 12.24 pl.12. 2.3 Amheida Inventory Number: 11268 Context: House B2, Room 9, DSU 50 Material: colorless glass with yellowish tinge; rare very small globular and elongated bubbles. Height: 1.2 cm Diameter: 9 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary, no weathering. Description: fragment of rim and little portion of wall. The rim is outsplayed and slightly curving in, rounded and slightly thickened. Parallels: near AR 79/ I 87. Compare with Rodziewicz 2005:96, n. 200, pl. 9. Catalogue Number: 12.25 pl. 12.2.4 Amheida Inventory Number: 331 Context: Building 1.1, DSU 4 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; rare small globular bubbles. Height: 1.4 cm Diameter: 3.8 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm (wall); 0.3 cm (bottom); 0.4 cm (ring) Technology: blown glass; post technique. Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering and iridescence in places. Description: two joining fragments of wall and bottom with pad base. The preserved side is rounded; the bottom is slightly concave on the inner side with a pronounced bulge above the ring; the base is slightly convex and the foot is outsplayed.

Glass Vessels

331

Parallels: Hayes 1975:144 n. 609, 183, fig. 18; Kucharczyk 2005:96, 97, fig 2:4–5; Compare with Dunand, et al. 1992:47-48, 241-242 and pl. 68.1 (T 19, Inv. 962). Catalogue Number: 12.26 pl. 12.2.5 Amheida Inventory Number: 12028 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 3 Material: colorless glass; few very small globular bubbles. Height: 1.2 cm Diameter: 6 cm Thickness: 3.5 cm (foot) Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary with cracks; surfaces frosted, milky-pitted weathering, iridescence in places. Description: fragment of base with true ring slightly outsplayed. Parallels: compare with Brun 2001:385, 386, fig. 9.2; Harden 1936:117, n. 304, pls. III, XIV. Catalogue Number: 12.27 pl. 12.2.6 Amheida Inventory Number: 11955 Context: Courtyard C2, DSU 1 Material: colorless glass with yellowish tinge; rare small globular bubbles. Height: 1.9 cm Diameter: 11 cm Thickness: 0.15 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; no weathering Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is slightly flaring, thickened and rounded; the side goes downward almost vertically. Parallels: form AR 98.1/ I 85. Bailey 2007:253, n. 104, fig. 8.13. Compare with Clairmont 1963:103, n. 474, pl. XI; Prikhodkine 2005:60, fig. 4.i, 61. Catalogue Number: 12.28 pl. 12.2.7 Amheida Inventory Number: 332 Context: Building 1.1, DSU 4 Material: colorless glass; few small globular bubbles. Height: 2.6 cm Diameter: 11 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; frosting and milky-pitting weathering on the surface and on the breaks. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is cut off and polished; the side constricts below the rim and from there bulges with hemispherical form. Near the rim and just below the constriction are two pairs of parallel wheel cut lines; below these two incomplete oval cut facets are preserved. Parallels: form I 96b. Compare with Arveiller-Dulong and Nenna 2005:370, n. 977, pl. 78; Brun 2003:517, n. 38, 533, fig. 241; Clairmont 1963:62, n. 241, pl. VII; Harden 1936:90, n. 205, pl. XIII (shallow bowl), 120, n. 316, pl. XIV (deep bowl); Sternini 1999:88–89, 90, fig. 2.6–8. Catalogue Number: 12.29 pl. 12.2.8 Amheida Inventory Number: 294 Context: Building 1.1, DSU 6 Material: colorless glass with yellowish tinge; only few small globular bubbles are visible.

332

Amheida II

Height: 1.8 cm Diameter: 14 cm Thickness: 0.1 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; frosting and milky pitting on the surfaces and on the breaks. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is thickened and rounded; the preserved side slopes downward. Parallels: near form AR 88.1. Bailey 2007:254, n. 108, fig. 8.14. Catalogue Number: 12.30 pl. 12.2.9 Amheida Inventory Number: 11805 Context: Street S1, DSU 3 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; few small, rare medium elongated bubbles; rare medium dark impurities. Height: 2.3 cm Diameter: 16 cm Thickness: 0.15 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; no weathering. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is rounded and thickened on the external surface; the side is rounded. Parallels: near form AR 88.1. Bailey 2007:254, n. 111, fig. 8.14. Compare with Arveiller-Dulong and Nenna 2005:370, n.976, pl. 78 (with incised decorations); Harden 1936:77, n. 123, pl. XII; Rodziewicz 2005:82, n. 18, pl. 2. Catalogue Number: 12.31 pl. 12.2.10 Amheida Inventory Number: 295 Context: Street S1, DSU 0 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; few small globular and elongated bubbles; few fine and medium elongated dark impurities on the rim. Height: 3.5 cm Diameter: 20 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering on the surfaces and on the breaks, iridescence in places on the inner surface. Description: fragment of rim and wall. The rim is rounded and slightly thickened on the external surface; the side goes downward rounded. Parallels: near form AR 88.1. Catalogue Number: 12.32 pl. 12.2.11 Amheida Inventory Number: 337 Context: Street S2, DSU 0 Material: colorless glass; no bubbles are visible, a white patina covers the surfaces and the breaks. Height: 1.2 cm Diameter: 21 cm (?) Thickness: 0.4 Technology: molded glass Condition: fragmentary with cracks; milky-pitted weathering on all the surfaces, iridescence in places.

Glass Vessels

333

Description: fragment of rim and little portion of wall. The broad rim is everted and squared at the end: on the inner surface are two parallel ridges, one of which is near the junction with the side; on the external surface two parallel horizontal cut lines. Parallels: form AR 25.1. Compare with Clairmont 1963:21, n. 72, pl. II; Harden 1936:61, n. 74, pl. XI; Meyer 1992:20, n. 57, pl. 3. Catalogue Number: 12.33 pl. 12.2.12 Amheida Inventory Number: 11417 Context: House B2, Room 9, DSU 74 Material: colorless glass; no bubbles are visible, a white patina covers the surfaces and the breaks. Height: 1.5 cm Diameter: 24 cm (?) Thickness: 0.25 cm Technology: molded glass Condition: fragmentary; enamel like weathering , iridescence in places. Description: fragment of rim. The rim is outsplayed with a sharp change of inclination, thickened and rounded at the end on the external surface. Parallels: near form AR 16. Compare with Brun 2003:518, n. 50, 534, fig. 242; Harden 1936:83, n. 166, pl. XII; Roth 1979:146, pl. 53:a. Catalogue Number: 12.34 Figure Number: pl. 12.2.13 Amheida Inventory Number: 11274 Context: House B2, Room 6, DSU 37 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; few very small globular bubbles, rare medium. Height: 1 cm Diameter: 6.8 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm (base); 0.4 cm (ring) Technology: blown glass; post technique (?) Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering in places on the surfaces and on the breaks, iridescence especially on the inner surface. Description: fragment of bottom with true footing. The bottom seems to be flat on the inner side with a pronounced bulge above the base ring; the base is slightly concave. The ring is quite thick, short and gently flaring. Parallels: Compare with Clairmont 1963:22, n. 75, pl. II; Meyer 1992:25 n. 115, pl. 6. Catalogue Number: 12.35 pl. 12.2.14 Amheida Inventory Number: 11340 Context: House B2, Room 7, DSU 64 Material: colorless glass; no bubbles are visible, the surfaces are covered by a white patina. Height: 1.3 cm Diameter: 8 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm (base); 0.3 cm (ring) Technology: blown glass; post technique (?) Condition: fragmentary; milky-pitted weathering on all the surfaces. Description: two joining fragments of wall and bottom with true ring base. The side is rounded; the bottom seems to be flat with a light bulge above the base ring; the ring is almost vertical. Parallels: compare with Clairmont 1963:20, n. 59, pl. I; Harden 1936:77, n. 123, pl. XII; Kucharczyk 2005:96, 97, fig. 2.3.

334

Amheida II

Catalogue Number: 12.36 pl. 12.2.15 Amheida Inventory Number: 11651 Context: Street S1, DSU 5 Material: colorless glass; few small globular bubbles. Height: 1.5 cm Diameter: 13 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm (base); 0.5 cm (ring) Technology: blown glass; post technique (?) Condition: fragmentary, milky weathering and iridescence in places. Description: fragment of bottom with true ring base. The bottom has a light bulge above the base ring; the ring is short, thickened and gently flaring. Parallels: Clairmont 1963:22, n. 75, pl. II; Harden 1936:83, n. 166, pl. XII. Jars and flasks Catalogue Number: 12.37 pl. 12.3.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 11420 Context: House B2, Room 5, DSU 33 Material: colorless glass with greenish tinge; few small globular bubbles. Height: 1.7 cm Diameter: 9.2 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky-pitting weathering on the surfaces and on the breaks, iridescence in places. Description: fragment of rim and shoulder. The rim is thickened and rounded, slightly flaring from a constriction at neck; the preserved side is rounded. One horizontal coil of thin spiral, of the same color as the vessel, is applied thread just below the constriction. Parallels: near form AR 104. Clairmont 1963:106, n. 480, pl. XI; Meyer 1992:31, n. 224, pl. 10; Rodziewicz 2005:90, n. 119, pl. 6. Catalogue Number: 12.38 pl. 12.3.2 Amheida Inventory Number: 11415 Context: House B2, Room 5, DSU 41 Material: greenish colorless glass; few small globular and elongated bubbles; rare fine and medium globular dark impurities. Height: 2.2 cm Diameter: 10 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; no weathering Description: fragment of rim and shoulder. The rim is thickened and rounded, slightly flaring from a constriction at neck; the preserved side seems to bulge with globular form. Three coils of thin spiral, of the same color as the vessel, are applied thread on body, one oblique on the constriction, two horizontal and parallel on the shoulder. Parallels: near form AR 104. Rodziewicz 2005:90, n. 119, pl. 6. Catalogue Number: 12.39 pl. 12.3.3 Amheida Inventory Number: 11337 Context: House B2, Room 7, DSU 39

Glass Vessels

335

Material: colorless glass with yellowish tinge; rare very small, elongated bubbles. Height: 1.7 cm Diameter: 6 cm Thickness: 0.4 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; surfaces frosted, milky-pitting on the surfaces and on the breaks. Description: fragment of rim and neck. The thick rim is folded outward, downward and upward; the neck seems to be cylindrical. Parallels: Bailey 2007:266, n. 186, fig. 8.22; Brun 2003:519, n. 70, 535, fig. 243; Harden 1936:203–204, n. 562– 572, pl. XVII–XVIII; Kucharczyk 2005:96, 98, fig. 3.4–6. Catalogue Number: 12.40 pl. 12.3.4 Amheida Inventory Number: 11768 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 3 Material: colorless glass; no bubbles are visible, a white patina covers the surfaces and the breaks. Height: 1.7 cm Diameter: 7 cm Thickness: 0.25 (wall); 0.3 (bottom) Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; frosting and milky-pitted weathering all over the surfaces. Description: two joining fragments of bottom, the inside is slightly convex, the base slightly concave. Parallels: Compare with Bailey 2007:257, n. 125, fig. 8.16. Catalogue Number: 12.41 pl. 12.3.5 Amheida Inventory Number: 11269 Context: House B2, Room 6, DSU 34 Material: bluish-green glass; many small globular and elongated bubbles on the rim. Height: 0.9 cm Diameter: 3 cm Thickness: 0.2 cm Technology: blown glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering and iridescence in places. Description: fragment of rim and neck. The thick rim is folded outward, downward and upward; the preserved neck has the shape of a funnel. Parallels: Arveiller-Dulong and Nenna 2005:264, n. 793–794; Harden 1936:203–204, n. 562–569, XVII–XVIII; Kucharczyk 2005:96, 98, fig. 3.5; Nenna 2000:22, fig. 3. Catalogue Number: 12.42 pl. 12.3.6 Amheida Inventory Number: 3522 Context: House B2, Room 2, DSU 8 Material: bluish-green glass; rare small globular bubbles. Height: 0.8 cm Diameter: 0.95 cm (0.85 x 0.95) Thickness: 0.8 cm Technology: drawn glass Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering in places. Description: Plain ball. A small portion of the surface is slightly protruding and fragmentary. It could be the head of a hairpin or the top of a stirring rod. Parallels: Compare to Beretta and Di Pasquale 2004:332, n. 4.63. Kucharczyk 2010: 126, fig. 8.5, 127, fig. 9.2.

336

Amheida II

Catalogue Number: 12.43 pl. 12.3.7 Amheida Inventory Number: 296 Context: Street S1, DSU 0 Material: colorless glass with yellowish tinge; many small globular and elongated bubbles, rare medium. Length: 2.2 cm Width: 1.5 cm Thickness: 1.3 cm Technology: drawn Condition: fragmentary; milky weathering in places. Description: fragment of neck and shoulder of a small globular flask with looped delphiniform handle. The handle has been attached to the vessel, pulled up and then turned on itself to leave a circular opening. Parallels: Arveiller-Dulong and Nenna 2005:446, n. 1252; Harden 1936:259–260, n. 767, n. 773, pl. XX; Nicholson 2000:203, 204, fig. 8-2.

Glass Vessels

Plate 12.1: Glass beakers and goblets.

337

338

Amheida II

Plate 12.2: Glass deep bowls, shallow bowls, and plates.

Glass Vessels

Plate 12.3: Glass jars and flasks.

339

This page intentionally left blank

13

FAIENCE VESSELS Angela Cervi

The number of faience vessel fragments recovered in the area is not significant. The diagnostic pieces can be referred to ten vessels in total. The presentation of these few fragments, found in a context dated to the advanced third century, could however provide a contribution to the study of Roman faience vessel typologies and their dating. These pieces are comparable to common tableware forms widespread throughout Egypt in the early Roman period, confirming their use into the third century. Egyptian faience has been the object of many scientific analyses,1 but few scholars focused on the typologies and dating of common Roman faience or simply glazed vessels. Moreover, attestations in contexts dated to the third century are so far rare. Faience is a non-clay ceramic material included in the category of fine wares, like slip ware, thin walled wares, and glass. During the first and second centuries CE simply glazed faience vessels were common household items in Egypt, and many of the table-ware forms imitated contemporary Terra Sigillata. Nevertheless, the role of faience compared to the other ceramic categories is not yet clear. The analysis of quantitative data from recent excavations shows that faience vessels and glass vessels had different functions and were the products of different craft skills. Faience seems to have been used primarily in the production of tableware (bowls and dishes), and trays and containers for serving food, with glass mainly used for drinking vessels and small containers.2 The fragments recovered in B2 show that this subdivision of roles remained during the third century, even if the use of faience vessels clearly diminished and the glass vessels started to cover all functions.3 The faience fragments found mainly belong to collared bowls (T12.4), 4 a bowl characterized by a molded rim and a collar just below it.5 This type of bowl, produced in two different sizes, is the most common form attested in Egypt from the first to the middle of the second century CE.6 In Area 1 as well, the form is documented in the two typical sizes: small (8 to 12 cm diam.) with a concave base, thickened and worked in a foot ring; large (16 cm diam.) with the foot ring made separately and then attached to the base. The small size is predominant; it has more or less rounded walls, rims both squared and rounded.7 The body of the vessels is granular in texture, hard and compact, and some of them are quite coarse with big grains. The color of the material is white, and the monochrome glaze, quite thick and hard-wearing, probably applied, is bright turquoise; 8 only two fragments (Pl. 13.1-5) show See among others, for a scientific description of the materials and techniques, Kaczamrcyz and Hedges 1983, Nicholson and Peltenburg 2000, Shortland 2005. 2 Nenna and Seif el-Din 2000:150. 3 Compare with Cervi, this volume, chapter 12. 4 These typologies were established by Nenna and Seif El-Din in their study of Greek and Roman faience vessels. The type (T) refers to both shape and fabric of the object, and provides a dating on the basis of numerous comparisons throughout Egypt (Nenna and Seif el-Din 1993, Nenna and Seif el-Din 2000). 5 The form imitates a type of Terra Sigillata produced in North Italy from the end of the first century BCE to the middle of the first century CE. 6 Nenna and Seif el-Din 2000:151, 311, Fig. 12. 7 In some instances the rounding of the rim is due to the abrasion of the piece. All the fragments found were in a poor state of preservation. 8 See for comparison Nenna and Seif el-Din 2000:n. 452, PL. B. 1

342

Amheida II

traces of blue glaze, preserved in the concave areas of the surface less exposed to weathering. 9 The inner surfaces of the walls show clear wheel marks, and the bases show the oval marks left by the small support used to stack the vessels in the kiln. These fragments find very close parallels in the faience assemblage recovered on Elephantine island, dated to the first two centuries CE, but comparisons can also be made with the faience vessels found at Mons Claudianus, which go up to the early third century. Other parallels recur in Quseir al-Qadim, Douch, Bakchias, and Al-Zarqa (Maximianon). The carinated dish T13.3, another form widespread throughout Egypt in the first and second centuries CE,10 is here attested only by one fragment of rim (Pl. 13.11). The molding is not very pronounced, and the wheel marks are clearly visible. The body of the vessel is quite coarse with big grains; the glaze is very faded, but was probably originally bright turquoise. The piece finds comparisons in Douch. One fragment of rim (Pl. 13.9), and probably one fragment of bottom with foot ring (Pl. 13.10), belong to a rounded bowl with flaring rim. The body of the vessel appears to be a little less coarse than the one of T12.4; the glaze is blue. No wheel marks on the wall and oval marks on the base are visible. These fragments also find close parallels in some bowls from Elephantine, a form that emerged from Ptolemaic pottery of black and red slip ware.11 The shape is comparable to type 7-162 from Mons Claudianus, where it is a recurrent form during the Severan period.12 The only piece that shows a decoration belongs to a closed form (Pl. 13.12). It is a fragment of everted rim and neck, too small to determine the shape of the vessel, but it could be compared with T20.2. The texture of the material is thin compared to those of other fragments introduced; the glaze is blue-green. On the rim a raised dot painted yellow within two concentric lines is visible.13 Only three diagnostic pieces, belonging to three different bowls, were found inside the house (B2). 14 Nevertheless, like glass vessel fragments, they form with the fragments found in C2A (exterior courtyard), S1 (the street in front of the building), and 1.1 (nearby structure) 15, a homogeneous group which confirms the correlation between these adjacent areas. In the catalogue the description of objects follows the rules established in the preceding chapter on glass vessels.

Catalogue of Faience Catalogue Number: 13.1 pl. 13.1.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 11429 Context: House B2, Room 7, DSU 31 Material: faience with white body, medium granular texture; turquoise glaze. Height: 2.3 cm Diameter: 8 cm Thickness: 0.35 cm Technology: wheel made See for comparison Wuttmann et al. 1998:458, fig. 69c. The form imitates contemporary Italic Terra Sigillata, the diameter is included between 15 and 17 cm, the height between 3 and 4 cm. Nenna and Seif el-Din 2000:151, 323, Fig. 13. 11 Rodziewicz 2005:30. 12 Tomber 2006a:47, 48, fig. 1.16. 13 For this kind of decoration see Nenna and Seif el-Din 2000:67, Fig. 16a. 14 They come from occupational debris layers related to the second phase of activity of the house; the fragment found in Room 6, particularly, derives from DSU 47, an occupational debris layer above floor F16, sealed by the collapse of the upper courses of the room's walls. 15 All these fragments also derive from layers related to the second phase of B2. 9

10

Faience Vessels

343

Condition: fragmentary; worn out glaze, milky-pitting weathering on both surfaces. Description: fragment of rim and wall of a collared bowl. The rim is rounded. On the inner surface wheel marks are visible. Parallels: T12.4. Rodziewicz 2005:102, cat. No. 267, pl. 16; compare with Tomber 2006a:48, Type 12-167, fig. 1.16. Catalogue Number: 13.2 pl. 13.1.2 Amheida Inventory Number: 3531 Context: House B2, Room 2, DSU 8 Material: faience with white body, medium-fine granular texture; turquoise glaze. Height: 1.35 cm Diameter: 10 cm Thickness: 0.6 cm Technology: wheel made Condition: fragmentary; worn out glaze, iridescent in places. Description: fragment of rim and small portion of wall of a collared bowl. The rim is squared. On the inner surface wheel marks are visible. Parallels: T12.4. Compare with Rodziewicz 2005:102, cat. No. 262, pl. 16. Catalogue Number: 13.3 pl. 13.1.3 Amheida Inventory Number: 11959 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 4 Material: faience with white body, medium-fine granular texture; turquoise glaze. Height: 4.3 cm Diameter: 11 cm (rim); 7 cm (foot) Thickness: 0.7 cm Technology: wheel made Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze, iridescent in places. Description: six joining fragments of a collared bowl; nearly half of the bowl is preserved. On the inner surface wheel marks are visible. The base is concave, worked in a foot ring. One oval mark left by the small support used to stack the vessels in the kiln is visible on the underside of the foot. Parallels: T12.4. Reddé, et al. 2004: fig. 215 n. 21. Catalogue Number: 13.4 pl. 13.1.4 Amheida Inventory Number: 355 Context: Building 1.1, DSU 1 Material: faience with white body, medium-fine granular texture; turquoise glaze. Height: 2.6 cm Diameter: 11 cm Thickness: 0.5 cm Technology: wheel made Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze. Description: fragment of rim and wall of a collared bowl. The rim is slightly squared. On the inner surface wheel marks are visible. Parallels: T12.4. Compare with Rodziewicz 2005:102, cat. No. 262, pl. 16. Catalogue Number: 13.5 pl. 13.1.5 Amheida Inventory Number: 348 Context: Street S1, DSU 1

344

Amheida II

Material: faience with white body, medium-fine granular texture; blue glaze. Height: 3.1 cm Diameter: 12 cm Thickness: 0.5 cm Technology: wheel made Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze, faded, iridescent in places. Description: two joining fragments of rim and wall of a collared bowl. The rim is slightly squared. On the inner surface wheel marks are visible. The original color of the glaze is preserved only on the concave areas of the surface (wheel impressions, above and below the collar); the glaze on the rest of the surface is faded. Parallels: T12.4. Compare with Rodziewicz 2005:102, cat. No. 267, pl. 16. Catalogue Number: 13.6 pl. 13.1.6 Amheida Inventory Number: 345 Context: Building 1.1, DSU 6 Material: faience with white body, medium granular texture; light turquoise glaze. Height: 2.7 cm Diameter: 16 cm Thickness: 0.35 cm Technology: wheel made Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze, very faded; on the rim and on the collar the glaze has turned greenish. Description: fragment of rim and wall of a collared bowl. The rim is slightly squared. On the inner surface wheel marks are visible. Parallels: T12.4. Rodziewicz 2005:102, cat. No. 266, pl. 16; compare with Johnson 1982:327, pl. 68.d. Catalogue Number: 13.7 pl. 13.1.7 Amheida Inventory Number: 11425 Context: House B2, Room 6, DSU 47 Material: faience with white body, medium granular texture; turquoise glaze. Height: 3 cm Diameter: 10.5 cm Thickness: 1.1 cm Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze, iridescent in places. Description: fragment of wall and bottom with incomplete footring of a collared (?) bowl. The ring is made separately and then attached to the base. One mark left by the small support used to stack the vessels in the kiln is visible on the underside of the foot. The fragment is possibly part of the same vessel with catalogue 13.6. Parallels: T12.4. Compare with Morini 2007:144 n. 78. Catalogue Number: 13.8 pl. 13.1.8 Amheida Inventory Number: 350 Context: Street 1, DSU 1 Material: faience with white body, medium granular texture; turquoise glaze. Height: 2.25 cm Diameter: 9 cm Thickness: 0.7 cm (base) Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze, faded.

Faience Vessels

345

Description: fragment of base with wide (2 cm) footring. The base is almost flat; the footring, made separately and then attached, is squared. One oval mark (1.6 x 1.4 cm) left by the small support used to stack the vessels in the kiln is clearly visible on the underside of the foot. Parallels: T12.4 (?). Rodziewicz 2005:106, cat. No. 311, pl. 19. Catalogue Number: 13.9 pl. 13.1.9 Amheida Inventory Number: 351 Context: Building 1.1, DSU 4 Material: faience with white body, medium-fine granular texture; blue glaze. Height: 3.25 cm Diameter: 15 cm Thickness: 0.65 cm Technology: wheel made (?) Condition: fragmentary; very worn out glaze, frosting on the surfaces. Description: fragment of rim and wall of a rounded bowl. The rim is everted, rounded and slightly thickened. Parallels: Rodziewicz 2005:30 cat. Nos. 240-245, pl. 14; compare with Tomber 2006a:47, type 7-162, fig. 1.16. Catalogue Number: 13.10 pl. 13.1.10 Amheida Inventory Number: 1961 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 4 Material: faience with white body, medium-fine granular texture; blue glaze. Height: 1.8 cm Diameter: 9 cm Thickness: 0.55 cm Technology: wheel made Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze, very faded, iridescent in places. Description: fragment of wall and bottom of a bowl. The base is slightly concave, worked in a foot ring. The original color of the glaze is preserved only in places on the inner surface. The fragment is possibly part of the same vessel with catalogue 13.9. Parallels: Compare with Rodziewicz 2005:103, cat. No. 278, pl. 17. Catalogue Number: 13.11 pl. 13.1.11 Amheida Inventory Number: 344 Context: Building 1.1, DSU 6 Material: faience with white body, medium-fine granular texture; light turquoise glaze. Height: 2.5 cm Diameter: 16.5 cm Thickness: 0.8 cm Technology: wheel made Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze, very faded, turned greenish in places. Description: fragment of rim and wall of a carinated dish. The rim is thickened end squared. On the inner surface wheel marks are visible. Parallels: T13.3. Rodziewicz 2005:101 cat. No. 253, pl. 15; Dunand 1992:55, pl. 69.6 (T.20, Inv. 1003). Catalogue Number:13.12 pl. 13.1.12 Amheida Inventory Number: 349 Context: Street S1, DSU 1 Material: faience with white body, fine granular texture; blue-green glaze.

346

Amheida II

Height: 2 cm Diameter: 10 cm Thickness: 0.5 cm Condition: fragmentary, worn out glaze, iridescent in places. Description: fragment of rim and neck of a closed form (?). The rim is everted and thickened; on it there remains a raised dot painted yellow within two concentric lines. Parallels: compare with T20.2 (?).

Faience Vessels

Plate 13.1: Faience

347

This page intentionally left blank

14

COINS

David M. Ratzan Three worn coins were recovered from Area 1, all associated with late occupational layers of House B2. Each was likely minted in the first or second century CE. The documentary evidence recovered from B2 suggests that the house was built sometime in the third century, a dating supported by the ceramic evidence (see Chapters 15 and 8, respectively). The meager numismatic evidence does nothing to contradict this conclusion, since coins of this basic module were minted until the third century and are known to have circulated for decades, even centuries. Indeed, each of the coins shows significant wear, which we should attribute to prolonged circulation. Of the three coins, only 14.1 is legible, a worn diobol of Vespasian minted between September of 69 and August of 75.1 This was one of two coins discovered during the 2005 season and associated with a floor in room 1 (F11). Floor F11 was preserved only in a small patch (approximately 150 by 130 cm) in the middle of the room underneath an area of collapse (DSUs 16 and 4). F11 is a deep feature, 17 cm at its greatest depth, and comprised largely of compacted debris. Since the second coin (14.2) lay directly on the floor surface in a layer of occupational debris (DSU 22), it has been suggested that 14.1 was embedded in F11 by the pressure of the layers above it and therefore represents an intrusion of DSU 22 into F11. A full interpretation of the stratigraphy of room 1 is available in Chapter 4. A second coin (14.2) was discovered in this same context, but lay directly on the floor surface, just below a context that has been identified as a layer of occupational debris (DSU 22). Like much of the coinage from the Oasis and other parts of Egypt, 14.2 is extremely worn and corroded and thus now illegible with the exception of a notable center “punch” on what would appear to be the reverse. Given the surviving module and weight, and the fact that the “diobol” (size III) appears to have been one of the most frequently minted coins throughout the first century CE, it is reasonable to suppose that it too is a Roman diobol of the first or second century. Suggestive of an earlier date, however, is the “punch,” a mark characteristic of Ptolemaic bronzes. In fact, several hoards from first-century Roman Egypt contain a mix of late Ptolemaic bronze issues and contemporary Roman bronzes,2 indicating that “the small Ptolemaic bronze coins had a long afterlife in the Roman period,”3 of which we might have yet more testimony in this find. That said, Ptolemaic center punches are typically found on both sides of the coin, while in this case there is clearly only a sole punch on one side. A quick survey of the first-century bronzes from Egypt in the American Numismatic Society The denominations of bronze coins from Roman Egypt are subject to an ongoing debate, see Rathbone 1997:187-189, Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès Alegre 1992:688-689, Christiansen 1988:vol. II, 7-10; cf. Christiansen 2006:14. A diobol, or a two-obol coin, in the first and second centuries would have bought two loaves of bread according to prices we have recorded in papyri from the Nile Valley: see Drexhage 1991:29; cf. Harl 1996:278-279. Put another way, a daily wage for unskilled labor in the Valley from the same period seems to have been somewhere between 1 drachma (= 6 obols) and 1 drachma and 3 obols, i.e., between 6 and 9 obols per diem. This 2-obol coin could therefore have possibly represented 20–30% of such a worker’s daily pay, when he was paid in cash, if the prices in the Great Oasis at this time were on a par with those in the Valley: see Scheidel 2008:esp. 1– 10; Rathbone 1996:331-132, cf. Rathbone 1991:155-166; cf. Bagnall 1997:52-56, Bagnall 2008a on oasite price levels. For general information on living standards and price levels for the period in which House B2 was likely to have been inhabited, see Scheidel 2008; Rathbone 1997, Harl 1996:270-289. For a quick discussion of coinage in Egypt, see ibid.:117-124 and now Bagnall 2009:189-191. 2 Christiansen 2004:48-52, cf. 76 [A60], 79 [A54], 80 [A69 and A104], and 81 [A109]. 3 Ibid.:49. 1

350

Amheida II

collection revealed several examples from the Flavian era with a center punch similar to that of 14.2.4 While the coins of this period betray a seemingly indifferent attitude on the part of the mint with respect to the side of the flan on which the obverse was struck (these flans usually present a convex or bevelled side and a flat side), the punches (if that is what they are) uniformly appear on the side with the reverse design.5 In other words, if this phenomenon is substantiated by further study, then we may reasonably assume that we have a Flavian bronze diobol. In the meantime, the dating of 14.2 to the Roman period must remain tentative, as we cannot exclude the possibility that it is in fact Ptolemaic. The third coin (14.3) was recovered in the western half of Room 6 in the 2006 season. It was discovered in DSU 47, a layer that has been interpreted as consisting of occupational debris overlaying the last floor (F16), sealed by the collapse of the upper courses of the room’s walls (DSU 38) sometime after the abandonment of the house. This coin is completely illegible, and the module and weight are of no help beyond suggesting a date between the late first century BCE and the beginning of the third century CE for the reasons above. Finally, the condition of all three coins argues for their being in circulation for an extended period before being lost. There is nothing exceptional in this: bronze coins are known to have circulated in some cases for more than a century not only in Egypt but also other parts of the Roman world, 6 and indeed there is some evidence for the survival of Vespasianic diobols into the second and third centuries.7

Catalogue of Coins

Figure 14.1: Coin 3730.

Catalogue Number: 14.1 fig. 14.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 3730 Context: House B2, Room 1, FSU 11 Material: AE Diameter: 24.5 mm Weight: 7.9 g Condition: Very worn on both sides, some corrosion still adhering to reverse. Description: Diobol of Vespasian. OBV. Bust, laureate, r. Legend: [ΑΥΤΟΚ(ΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ) ΚΑΙ]Σ(ΑΡΟΣ) ΣΕΒΑ[(ΣΤΟΥ) ΟΥΕΣΠΑΣΙΑΝΟΥ]. REV. Bust of Sarapis, r. Traces of date mark remain, but illegible. The surviving portion of the obverse legend is compatible only with obverse types of Vespasian bearing a There was, regrettably, insufficient time during the preparation of this short catalogue to conduct a systematic study of this “punching” in Alexandrian bronzes. However, my preliminary results suggest that this phenomenon may be worth further study. I found no such punches in the coins of Nero in the collection of the American Numismatic Society, but 11 examples in 97 specimens of Flavian bronzes. Another possible example is Geissen 307 (though on the obverse). As far as I know, this phenomenon is undescribed. Care must be taken to distinguish between the possible traces of a punch and the deep indentations integral to certain designs, particularly those with drapery folds in the middle or those with the eyes or ears of portraits near the center. (Geissen = Geissen, A. (1974-1983). Katalog Alexandrinischer Kaisermünzen der Sammlung des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln. Papyrologica Coloniensia, vol. 5. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.) 5 Milne 1933:xli. Milne noted the flan variation in Flavian bronzes, but not the punching. 6 See, e.g., Augé 1987, Reece 1987:13-25, Metcalf 1980:115-120. 7 E.g., A84; see Christiansen 2004:50-51, 129; cf. the condition of museum pieces, like Geissen 289. 4

Coins

351

version of legend B in Milne’s classification. This legend was minted on coins showing busts of Sarapis on the reverse continuously between years 2 through 7 of his reign, which corresponds to the years 69/70 through 74/75. Not enough remains of the reverse to allow a more precise identification. With respect to the denomination, there is still some debate as to the values that should be assigned to Egyptian bronze coins of this era, though this module (size III, ca. 25 mm, 8.5 g) is most often seen as corresponding to the diobol (see introductory discussion above). Date: 69–75 CE

Figure 14.2: Coin 3485.

Catalogue Number: 14.2 fig. 14.2 Amheida Inventory Number: 3485 Context: House B2, Room 1, FSU11, DSU 22 (see introduction) Material: AE Diameter: 23.5 mm Weight: 7.3 g Condition: Very worn, corroded Description: Illegible. Center “punch” on what is likely the reverse (see introductory discussion above). Date: first–third centuries CE

Figure 14.3: Coin 11084.

Catalogue Number: 14.3 fig. 14.3 Amheida Inventory Number: 11084 Context: House B2, Room 6, DSU 47 Material: AE Diameter: 23.0 mm Weight: 5.9 g Condition: Very worn, corroded Description: Illegible Date: late first century BCE—early third century CE

This page intentionally left blank

15

TRANSPORT AND TRADE IN TRIMITHIS The Texts from Area 1 Giovanni R. Ruffini The texts from Area 1 of Trimithis generally share a connection to estate management, with a particular focus on transportation and disbursement.1 The archaeological remains are from a noticeably different social register than those of the large elite structure House B1. In keeping with this trend, the twenty-two texts from Area 1 seem chiefly to concern Trimithites of a lower social register. The Greek texts from Area 1’s House B2 introduce us to donkey-drivers, linenweavers, and the like. The majority of these texts are accounts. These texts are usually rather terse, listing payments of wine, wheat, doum palm fruits, and other items now lost or unclear from the context. Further discussion of these accounts follows below. One of them is a curious exception to the hundreds of ostraka so far found at Trimithis: text number 6 below, a Greek account of doum fruits dated Hathyr 9 of an unknown year, is incised on an unbaked clay tablet (text 6 = O.Trim. 1.24). The remaining 21 texts from Area 1 are ostraka, five in demotic and the rest in Greek. Of these ostraka, all of the demotic texts and eight of the Greek texts are from House B2 itself. The archaeological remains in House B2 indicate a third-century CE occupation, extending into the early fourth century. The texts described below support this picture, and may provide a few clues to a more specific range. Regnal year 1 appears in text 13 (O.Trim. 1.200); this does little to narrow the options, but it is unlikely that it is to be attributed to any regnal year later than that of Diocletian (284/5). The reference appears in an ostrakon set in a mud jar-stopper found in a level of occupational debris. (Text 11, also from Area 1, O.Trim. 1.101, mentions a year 4, but comes from surface cleaning and can be no help in this regard.) Text 8 below (O.Trim. 1.36), excavated from just outside the house, has a ratio (i.e., price) of 20 drachmas per artaba, which indicates a date prior to 275 CE. Text 9 below (O.Trim. 1.51), an account from the exterior courtyard (C2A), includes a number of references to the honorific month-name Hadrianos, which does not appear in the corpus of published papyri much after c. 244 CE.2 However, several of the texts from House B2 date to periods extending into the fourth century. The fourth-century material from House B1, elsewhere in Trimithis, produces a number of Christian names, including Ionas, Mouses, and Makarios, and attests to several deacons and priests. The apparent lack of biblical names from House B2 strongly suggests that its material predates that of House B1, reinforcing a sense that its fourth-century habitation did not extend too far into the century. Text 7 below (O.Trim. 1.26), an account from House B2, presents a complicating factor. Its reference to a Bêkis διάκων, or deacon, implies an ecclesiastical hierarchy at Trimithis while this house was still occupied. Such casual use of Christian titles is not found in documentary papyri before the early fourth century. 3 The text in question comes from a secure context near the house floor, giving our most secure indication of the period of the house’s final occupation phase. Area 1 produced two examples of the jar tags so common from elsewhere at Trimithis, giving a personal name, a date, and a place. The first of these tags, text 13 (O.Trim. 1.200), was found intact in a This discussion is based in large part on material written for the introduction to the first volume of O.Trim. and appears there in similar form. 2 The demotic ostraka, generally much earlier in date than the Greek texts, all come from occupational debris prior to the construction of House B2. 3 See Choat 2006:57-73. 1

354

Amheida II

mud jar-stopper in House B2’s room 3, presumably serving as a label for the goods contained in the jar itself. Thus, its reference to Psais the donkey-driver and Magdola may indicate the jar’s geographic origin (perhaps a nearby or well-known watch-tower) and the person responsible for its delivery, or its ultimately intended recipient. This practice is by no means specific to Trimithis: ostraka serving a similar purpose have been found in abundance from third and fourth century Kellis, and outside of the oasis, in substantial number from first century CE Berenike. The jar stopper from room 3 was found underneath roof collapse on a floor layer, which indicates that it derives from a secure context. The other tag, text 11 (O.Trim. 1.101), is from elsewhere in Area 1. If correctly restored, it is similar to the well tags found in abundance in House B1 in pre-construction dumped debris. Those texts, published in O.Trim. 1, indicated the origin of goods, probably as a payment from a tenant farmer at a well or agricultural area near that well to someone in Trimithis, presumably the owner of the well or property. This second tag, which comes only from surface clearing of Area 1, is somewhat different: it records the name of a misthotês or contractor, perhaps in this case someone handling the well on behalf of a large-scale landowner. The places named in the House B2 texts overlap with those from texts elsewhere at Trimithis. The ostraka from House B2 include several payments to and perhaps from outlying agricultural sites named after regional water-wells, indicated by the formula “pmoun (well) + place-name.” Two wells named in House B2 ostraka appear in other Trimithis texts. Pmoun Harau appears both in texts from the House B1 villa and the Area 4 temple site. Pmoun Osire appears as Pmoun Osirios in an ostrakon found under windblown sand at House B1. Ostraka 1.22 and 1.101 from Area 1 also name the well Εμβ(ωο), which is not attested so far in other Trimithite material, but may be the same as the well Enbo[ attested from House B1. Pmoun Osire/Osirios, which appears with Pmoun Emb( ) in 1.22, also appears in House B1 ostrakon 1.155 with Pmoun Pso, one of the most frequently attested well names in Trimithite texts. This may suggest that these two Pmouns were near Pso, itself in turn perhaps a major well close to Trimithis. In short, the texts from Area 1 not only add to our knowledge of Oasis toponyms, but also confirm that the inhabitants of this house had ties to sites appearing elsewhere in the city’s economic networks. All evidence indicates that House B2 and the people of Area 1 more generally were connected to these sites through the transport and shipping of agricultural estate goods. The complete lack of any personal documents from the area, aside from the doodles in text 21, narrows our perspective considerably. We lack, for instance, any personal letters shedding light on the non-business affairs of the house inhabitants. What remains is loaded with accounting terminology, particularly units of measure, familiar from the Kellis Agricultural Account Book (KAB) and elsewhere. An account of loads (text 4 = O.Trim. 1.22) delivered from (?) the well of Pmoun Emb( ) and from Pmoun Osire lists loads of 4, 15 and 22 gomoi. Another house account (text 2 = O.Trim. 1.20) mention payments in maria, a unit attested in the ostraka from House B1 and from texts elsewhere in the Oasis, but hardly ever found in the Nile Valley. A surface find account from Area 1 (text 1 = O.Trim. 1.1) mentions payments in maria as well. Another account (text 6 = O.Trim. 1.26), the largest from the house itself, records payments from seven different people, six of whom pay more than once. The payments are varied, from a single keramion to 18 keramia and from 1 to 22 choes of oil.4 These figures are not inconsiderable. If the loads in account 1.22 were turnips, as the measure is used the Kellis account book, we do not know how large they may have been. If the loads were hay or chaff, they would have weighed 80, 300 and 440 kilograms respectively. No ostraka from House B1 use gomoi as a unit of measurement, but 440 kilograms of hay or chaff is a heavy load. The amounts recorded in the account from House B2 would have been one donkey-load, four donkey-loads and six donkey-loads respectively.5 The payments in maria in the surface find account 1 amount to a range from 10.8 to 540 liters of wine. These amounts are presumably business-related. The assumption must be that the 4 5

With a standard rate of 3 choes to a keramion. KAB 49–50.

Transport and Trade

355

transport of 440 kilograms of wheat was part of the business of the house, not for domestic consumption. House B2 was likely to have been in a neighborhood of people working in related fields; the 540 liters of wine referenced in the surface find are likewise not likely to have been intended for the private use of a house in this neighborhood. Indeed, the wide street layout complements this suggestion. The physical remains of House B2 suggest inhabitants of lower-middle social strata, particularly compared to those of the large House B1. The occupations attested in the House B2 ostraka confirm that impression. Two texts in very similar hands from House B2 have linen-weavers in them (texts 2 and 3 = O.Trim. 1.20 and 1.21); those from House B1 have none. House B2 has two camel-drivers (texts 2 and 3); House B1 has only one, Syros, on an ostrakon found in backfill. House B2 appears to have two donkeydrivers (texts 4 and 13 = O.Trim. 1.22 and 1.200); House B1 has none. Whether the figure (Pse( )?) in House B2 is a tailor or a teamster (text 3), House B1 has neither. The prominence of what may be termed service-industry occupations in House B2 is all the more striking when we consider that excavations found an order of magnitude more ostraka in House B1 than in House B2. The appearance of these texts in an essentially domestic context has interesting implications for use of space in late antique Egypt. It seems clear that to some degree, the residents of House B2 took their work home with them. The account of doum on an unbaked clay tablet (text 6 = O.Trim. 1.24) found in room 7 supports this interpretation: this unusual find was either meant to be too bulky — and thus too important — to misplace, or meant to provide an easy way to erase and restart work in progress. We also see a convergence between the textual and material remains. The presence in the house’s room 3 of archaeological material related to textile/clothing manufacture may be related to the textual evidence for linen-weavers. These finds include a loom-weight, a textile fragment, a hammerstone, a piece of wood with two holes that was probably used for linen-production, and a polishing stone. The top floor level of room 6 produced a palm-reed object proposed to be part of a basket for carrying loads of goods on a donkey.6 Room 1, which produced the plurality of the house’s Greek ostraka, contained several complete pots and jar stoppers. Its texts record payments in maria. This presumably indicated wine. But the jar stoppers themselves, belonging to the so-called Type F (see Davoli, this volume), were not pierced, and thus sealed liquids which were no longer fermenting. Taking all of this evidence together, we can see that both the written material documenting this house’s involvement in the transport business and physical remains potentially related to that business itself are attested in the archaeological record. The presence of this written material implies that a certain level of literacy was needed for the business affairs of some of the residents. The ostraka from Area 1 attest to perhaps as many as 46 different people.7 Because the texts from the house itself generally record either payments going out to a range of different people or coming in from other areas, e.g., nearby wells, there is no way to associate any personal names with the residents of the house itself. Perhaps they are to be found in one of the anonymous camel- or donkey-drivers in the texts. (Camels, uncommon in earlier Egyptian history, are a standard part of Roman Egypt. Bagnall’s study of the introduction of the camel noted that “we find the camel already well-established in Egypt in the middle of the third century B.C.” Throughout this period, donkeys had “a more important role” in the Nile Valley, while the camel “was dominant in the crossdesert trade,” relevant to the business at stake in Trimithis.8) With the exception of texts 2 and 3, which come from similar hands, there is no obvious reason to identify any of the texts as being the work of the same scribe. If none of the residents of House B2 were themselves the authors of the texts, they must have either had reason to store these texts for future use or had several scribes in their home on a See Boozer, chapter 19, this volume. This count includes patronyms. The Bekis listed without a patronymic may be one of the others appearing herein. Likewise for the Psais and Horos appearing without patronymics. Pse[ may be a Psenamounis from elsewhere in these texts. Psenamounis son of Pa[ may be Psenamounis son of Pathotes. 8 Bagnall 1985:1-6, with quotes from page 3, 4 and 6. See Kuhrt 1999 for an argument in favor of a much earlier introduction of the camel into Egypt, perhaps even before the seventh century BCE. 6 7

356

Amheida II

regular basis. Assuming the former more likely, we may picture the residents of this house as middlemen; written documentation accompanies the grain, wine, and other products they transport or handle. Strikingly, there is not a single woman recorded in the Greek-language material from Area 1. This is a sharp contrast to the House B1 ostraka, which mention a wife (O.Trim. 1.89), a lady (1.304) and a lady of the house five times (1.249, 1.250, 1.273, 1.314 and 1.324). This suggests that in the lower social register of House B2, women were less exposed to and less involved in the production of literate remains. Most of the names found in these texts are based on Amoun, Horus, and Shai, popular gods in the Oasis in the Roman period. At least 18 of the names from Area 1 are of this variety. 9 This pattern holds for the Trimithites in ostraka found elsewhere on site as well. Names based on Thoth, the central Trimithite deity, are more popular here than in House B1, appearing at least three times in the form of Pathotes and twice as Hermes or a related form. The rest of the onomastic corpus includes variants for other Egyptian deities (Sarapas and Sarapion) and more standard Greek names (Korax,10 Syros). The demotic texts include a proper name with the element Ws|i, for Osiris, and a daughter of Tephnachthis (DNB 1232). Akula, for the Latin Aquila (“eagle”), is the most unusual name in the ostraka from Area 1, appearing at the end of text 1, an account found during surface clearing. As a Roman proper name, Aquila would seem to more at home with Valerius or Claudia, names attested in House B1. Here, the name appears in an account of wine payments, the longest text from Area 1, which ends with the phrase ἔσχον ἀπὸ Ἀκύλα, “I got from Aquila.” The entry is followed immediately by a single line with a date different from the other entries in the account, which may mean that Aquila is unrelated to the rest of the text. Alternatively, we may propose that the author is an estate manager making payments of wine on behalf of a large estate owner, and Aquila himself is the ultimate source of the wine he pays out. The sums in this account suggest a large-estate context. 50 maria of wine, the largest amount listed here, is an outlier by Oasis standards. No amount of maria higher than 19 appears in the Trimithis ostraka from House B1 and none higher than 33 appears in the KAB.11 This entry shows that someone associated with Aquila was paying 540 liters of wine to Geron son of Pamoun, and listing the payment as only one, albeit the largest by far, among three others that day. An Aquila also appears as the father of the estate owner in the KAB. The KAB dates to the third quarter of the fourth century (at which time Aquila is only a patronymic and may not have been alive) and our text from an undatable surface find. On this basis alone we cannot hazard an identification between the two men named Aquila or connect the Kellis account book directly to House B2. However, the other large account from Area 1 (text 7 = O.Trim. 1.26) was found just inside the entrance to that house, and clearly suggests connections between the house and a large estate of some kind. This text is the account argued above to be from the house’s final layer of occupation, perhaps in the early fourth century CE. Its seven payments – all presumably of oil, although specified as such in only one entry – in keramia and choes include six people who make additional payments. These payments appear in entries typically recorded as “for extra” (ὑπ(ὲρ) προσθήκ(ης)), a formula particularly rare in the documentary records of Greco-Roman Egypt. The first two entries are typical:

4

Σαμως Πατχωτ( ) κε(ράμια) ιη καὶ ὑπ(ὲρ) προσθήκ(ης) κε(ράμιον) α, κ̣α̣ὶ ̣ ὑπ(ὲρ) προσθ(ήκης) κερ(άμιον) α Βῆκ̣ι ̣ς Ψάιτ(ος) ἐλ(αίου) χό(ες) λβ καὶ ὑπ(ὲρ) προσθήκ(ης) χό(ες) λβ.

See discussion in O.Trim. 1 introd. This may be a translation of the Egyptian name Ἀβωκ (DNB 96), but this name has not to date appeared in any documents from the Great Oasis. 11 Most of the entries in the Kellis account book are for a single marion. The two largest, for 33 maria and 20 maria, appear in lines 916 and 1700 respectively. 9

10

Transport and Trade

357

In the first entry, Samos makes two payments hyper prosthêkês amounting to 1/9th the size of his original payment (two payments of one keramion each versus an original payment of 18 keramia). In the second entry, Bekis makes one payment hyper prosthêkês the same size as his original payment, 32 choes. From entries this sparse, it is not easy to tell what the “extra” payment is for. Prosthêkê generally refers to an addition or increase, but parallels to its usage in this ostrakon are elusive. A fourth century Hermopolite tax receipt records a tenant of Aurelia Charite in arrears for the kanonika commuting the amount in cash with an extra 25% described as prosthêkê.12 Johnson and West took this to refer to a tax supercharge, “probably a superindiction,” and provided further parallels in sixth century Hermopolis and Aphrodito.13 The closest parallel to our text seems to be P.Prag. II 139 (V), a Hermopolite tax document in which the phrase records what the editor took to be a series of rent increases.14 Lines 4 and 5 of that text may refer to the same farmer. In that case, the prosthêkê would be 75 artabas of grain, one-third an initial payment of 225 artaba of grain. The precision of those figures would seem to support the interpretation of the term as a rent increase. Nonetheless, the context is not entirely clear, and the editor’s commentary on prosthêkê notes the unusual presence of a term better suited for a tax account. In our Trimithis account, there is no reason to think that either a rent increase or taxes of any kind are at stake. The primary payments may well be for rent, but the supplemental payments are less likely to be for rent increases than rent arrears or future payments. The most suggestive example in this regard is the payment noted above by Bêkis son of Psais, in which the extra payment (ὑπ(ὲρ) προσθήκ(ης)) is the same size as the original payment itself, 32 choes. The possibility that a rent increase is at stake would seem to be eliminated by the inconsistency in the size of the prosthêkê from one entry to the next. No apparent pattern in the ratio between payments and supplements can be seen to clarify the matter; the prosthêkê payments are 1/9th, one whole, 1/5th, 1/10th and 2/15ths the size of the initial payments respectively. We can only conclude that the house served as a collection point for payments from locals who were being charged some sort of additional levy, perhaps at varying rates depending on circumstance. As already noted, neither this account nor any of the other texts can help with the exact identity of the owner of the house. No names repeat or receive specific address in any of the ostraka. Nonetheless, two hypotheses emerge regarding the identity of the house owner. Given the nature of the texts, property management is clearly at stake. Perhaps we are dealing with an estate manager. The likelihood that someone in this house could read and/or write supports this possibility. But the KAB alone suggests that an estate manager would produce more written material than we find here. Perhaps we are dealing with some sort of sub-manager or assistant (boêthos) instead. Alternatively, and more probably, given the archaeological context, we may be dealing with someone in the transportation industry. We might then suppose that the house served as a social intersection of sorts, with an estate manager or assistant in contact with or perhaps even visiting the house residents to ensure continued delivery and correct accounting of the items listed in these accounts. The house’s location on the widest street that has been identified in Trimithis, and apparently the only street in the city wide enough for the easy use of transportation carts, reinforces the impression of its role as a collection point and transportation destination. The reference in one text to delivered shipments (the items παραδοθ(έντα) in text 4) and reference to oil, the classic estate product, in the text mentioning additional charges (text 7), again suggests that property management is at stake. If these texts are contemporary – and stratigraphy suggests they are – then the presence of multiple toponyms P.Charite 14. Johnson and West 241–242, discussing SPP 20.94 = P.Charite 14 (326–327 CE?). Worp’s commentary to the reedition in P.Charite follows Johnson and West on prosthêkê. 14 The phrase also appears a series of eighth-century tax receipt ostraka, O.Petr. 464, 465, and 467. 12 13

358

Amheida II

suggests that we are dealing with an estate of some size, or at least one divided into multiple parcels. For agriculture in the Oasis to have been profitable, levels of production must have been high. A large percentage of the population of Trimithis was likely given over to producing goods and transporting them, from the pmouns to the city and then from the city on to the Nile Valley. House B2 may thus represent what we can expect to find throughout the city in structures of comparable social register. To summarize, the texts from Area 1 highlight one segment of Trimithite society in the third and early fourth centuries CE. The names of the people attested in Area 1 are similar in etymology and frequency to those of people attested in House B1 and throughout the Oasis. We have little reason to imagine that the residents of our house were atypical or different from other Trimithites. Their economic trademarks are texts summarizing payments and deliveries related to manual labor, transportation, and the manufacture of clothing. This presumably indicates that the inhabitants of House B2 were among the lower social strata of Trimithis, active in one or more of these industries. At the very least, their day-to-day business put them in frequent contact with the donkey-drivers and camel-drivers of Trimithis. But the amount of goods appearing in Area 1 accounts suggests that the house inhabitants and others in their neighborhood were involved in rather large transactions, perhaps receiving shipments and making payments from those shipments on behalf of local large estates. Indeed, the house’s uniformity with respect to nearby structures – all built of a piece at roughly the same time – suggests that this house was typical for its neighborhood. As almost always with texts of this kind, Area 1’s ostraka raise more questions than they answer. It is striking that the house’s activities seem to cease in the fourth century, while the house excavated at Area 2 was built only well into that century. The number of well-tags found in fill in Area 2 implies a considerable need for the sorts of shipping activities we image taking place in House B2. We can only assume that many people in the city must have been engaged in these activities. Further excavations in Area 1 will undoubtedly uncover more texts similar to those presented here. If the entire neighborhood proves to have fallen empty early in the fourth century, as surface survey suggests, we would have to suppose that other neighborhoods in Trimithis were full of households active in the fields of transport and crafts. The fact that the house at Area 1 shows signs of quick abandonment suggests that the factors depressing the neighborhood took rather sudden effect. Why one such neighborhood should fail while another should survive is for now only a matter for sheer speculation. Textual finds from future excavations may give us hints. Toponyms may prove a fruitful harvest, particularly if a larger sample size of well-names from Area 1 produces toponyms substantially different from those mentioned in Area 2. With so much of the local economy dependent on well-driven agricultural produce, the failure of one or two major wells in the outlying areas of Trimithis could well affect the fortunes of neighborhoods in the city itself. The apparent abandonment of one such neighborhood is at the least a reminder that cities are constantly in the process of change. On the one hand, in the case of House B2 this change came in roughly the same period when Trimithis was being elevated from the legal status of a village to a full-fledged city.15 On the other hand, the time was not too far distant when the entire city would fall abandoned and its population would relocate elsewhere in the Oasis. Locations All ostraka are currently stored in the Supreme Council of Antiquities magazine at Kellis.

15

Bagnall and Ruffini 2004:143-152.

Transport and Trade

359

Catalogue of Ostraka16

Figure 15.1: O.Trim. 1.1.

Catalogue Number: 15.1 fig. 15.1 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 0175 = O.Trim. 1.1 Context: Building 1.1, DSU 0 (From surface cleaning) Fabric: A1 Height: 8 cm Width: 10.7 cm Dating: Roman; ed.pr. dates the text to IV. A 4th century date is supported by the appearance in this text of Aquila, a rare name attested in the Kellis Agricultural Account Book as a patronymic in the 360s. However, the ceramics from this locus are all 3rd century. Condition: Broken at top. Description: 11 line Greek wine account on concave side. Names include Sarapion son of Horos (twice), Horos son of Pathotes, Geron son of Pamoun, Horos son of Akysis, Horos the donkey-driver, Herak( ), Ammonios son of Philiskos, Psenamounis son of Pathotes, and Aquila. Catalogue Number: 15.2 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 3405+3408 = O.Trim. 1.20 Context: House B2, Room 1, DSU 16 Fabric: A1a Height: 6.3 cm Width: 13.6 cm Dating: The ed.pr. assigns a date of ca. 300–350. Since this text comes from the same room and is in a similar hand as text no. 3 below, perhaps the more generous range of Ca. 240–340 indicated there should be preferred here as well. The archaeological context of the text is secure. Condition: Complete. Description: Two lines of Greek on the convex side recording payments to a camel-driver and Hermesias the linenweaver. The latter appears in O.Trim. 1.388, no. 15 below. Parallels: The hand is very similar to that of inv. 3406 (=O.Trim. 1.21, no. 3 below), but they do not belong to the same sherd. Catalogue Number: 15.3 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 3406 = O.Trim. 1.21 Context: House B2, Room 1, DSU 12 Fabric: A1a Height: 9.5 cm Width: 7.3 cm 16

Descriptions of demotic ostraka by Günter Vittmann from O.Trim. 1.

360

Amheida II

Dating: The ed.pr. assigns a date of ca. 240–340. This adopts termini from what appear to be the latest and earliest texts from the area, nos. 7 and 9 respectively (although at text no. 7, 350 is given as the outer range rather than 340). The archaeological context of this text is windblown sand, and therefore not secure. Condition: Broken at right and top. Description: 8 lines of Greek on convex side. An account of disbursements records, under the heading of Pmoun (Well) Harau, payments to three men, including a camel-driver, and one place. Cf. no. 15.2 above. Parallels: Cf. no. 15.2 above, a similar type of account.

Figure 15.2: O.Trim. 1.22.

Catalogue Number: 15.4 fig. 15.2 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 3411 = O.Trim. 1.22 Context: House B2, Room 2, DSU 15 Fabric: A1a Height: 3.7 cm Width: 5.7 cm Dating: The ed.pr. assigns a date of ca. 300–350. This text employs the redundant hydreuma pmoun formula found frequently in ostraka from Area 2 and typically dating to the fourth century rather than the third. However, the more generous range of ca. 240–350 given in, e.g., no. 15.3 above may be appropriate here as well. The ceramic fragments from this text’s context tend to be third century; the deposition is occupational debris, and of variable security. Condition: Broken at right. Description: 4 line Greek account on convex side. Mentions loads to or from the well of Pmoun Emb(ôou) and of Pmoun Osire, and perhaps mentions a donkey-driver. Parallels: Contrast no. 15.3 above, where the account explicitly states that payments are heading to the Pmoun in question. Catalogue Number: 15.5 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 3412 = O.Trim. 1.23 Context: House B2, Room 1, DSU 16 Fabric: A1a Height: 8.2 cm Width: 12.1 cm Dating: Ca. 240–340; for these termini, see the note on dating for text no. 3 above. Condition: Broken at left with large surface chip lost at lower right before use. Too fragmentary to provide continuous sense. Description: 7 line Greek account on convex side.

Transport and Trade

361

Parallels: Were an undamaged text available, this piece would likely resemble nos. 15.2, 15.3, and 15.4 above to a considerable degree.

Figure 15.3: O.Trim. 1.24.

Catalogue Number: 15.6 fig. 15.3 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 11048 = O.Trim. 1.24 Context: House B2, Room 7, DSU 48 Fabric: Unbaked clay tablet. Height: 8.4 cm Width: 6.6 cm Dating: The ed.pr. assigns a date of ca. 300–350; for this range, see the notes on dating for text no. 15.4 above. Since DSU 48 is wall and ceiling collapse, and the object itself is an unfired tablet, the text likely belongs later in the datable range. Condition: Complete. Description: Five incised lines of a Greek account of doum. Names include Syros son of Herma(mmon?), Psenamounis son of Nilos and Psenamounis son of Ammonios. Parallels: As a text written on unbaked clay, this object has very few parallels. One, O.Trim. 1.62, comes from elsewhere in Trimithis. Two others come from nearby Kellis, including P.Bingen 116, the only text on unbaked clay from Greco-Roman Egypt published before this find. No examples of this phenomenon are known from the Roman period in the Nile Valley, yet parallels closer to home, in the Dakhla Oasis itself, go back as far as the Old Kingdom finds at Balat. This text thus seems to represent some sort of local phenomenon of writing on unbaked clay. Why one would choose to do this is not obvious, given the sheer number of ostraka ready to use throughout the site. Perhaps clay tablets were attractive for their reusability once smoothed out and the previous text erased. Alternatively, given their bulkiness, maybe they were reserved for texts somehow seen as more important, not to be misplaced. All four known examples are accounts. O.Trim. 1.62, the other example from Trimithis, records expenses “to the god… to the president… [and] for the festival,” which may suggest that the text was important enough to avoid misplacing.

362

Amheida II

Figure 15.4: O.Trim. 1.26 Catalogue Number: 15.7 fig. 15.4 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 11116 = O.Trim. 1.26 Context: House B2, Room 9, DSU 73 Fabric: Not visible Height: 6.4 cm Width: 8.5 cm Dating: Ca. 315–350; see commentary to ed.pr., where it is stated, “the appearance of the term [diakôn] here provides an indication for the date of the texts from House B2.” Condition: Complete. Description: A Greek account of oil written on both sides. Seven names given, including Bekis the deacon. Catalogue Number: 15.8 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 11626 = O.Trim. 1.36 Context: Street S2, DSU 5 Fabric: Probably B10. Height: 3.7 cm Width: 7.1 cm Dating: Ca. 240–275. A wheat price of 20 dr. per art. indicates a date before 275 CE but later than the price rises of the later second century. For a proposed terminus post quem of ca. 240 for these texts, see the note on dating for the text no. 9 below. Condition: Incomplete. Broken at upper left and bottom (convex surface), but uncertain if elsewhere. Convex surface turning to powder; concave surface cracking. Description: A Greek account written with three lines on both sides. Account names Serenos, Myron, and a donkey-driver.

Figure 15.5: O.Trim. 1.51

Transport and Trade

363

Catalogue Number: 15.9 fig. 15.5 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 11723 = O.Trim. 1.51 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 3 Fabric: A2a. Height: 8.2 cm Width: 8.7 cm Dating: Ed.pr. dates the text to ca. 200–250; the text employs the honorific month name “Hadrianos,” which has not been attested with certainty after 244 CE. This date supplies the terminus (ca. 240) used as the earliest likely point for the bulk of the texts catalogued herein for Area 1. Condition: Broken at right. Description: A Greek account of wheat and barley written on convex (12 lines) and concave (6 lines) sides. Convex “... Philom( ): Hathyr 29, 2 art. of wheat, 2 mat. of barley. Hadrianos 6, 5 art. of wheat... 4 mat. of barley. (Hadrianos) 15, 3 art. of wheat, 8 mat. (Hadrianos) 20, 5 art. of wheat, ... of barley... (margin: Philom( )): (Hadrianos) 29, 2 art. of wheat. Tybi 5, 2 art. of wheat... likewise, 3 matia. Petosiris gn( ? ): Hathyr 25, 2 art. of barley, likewise 1 art. Hadrianos 3 . . . [Hadrianos?] 9, 5 art. of wheat. (Hadrianos) 18, 6 art. of wheat, 2 mat. Tybi 3, 5 art. of wheat... “Psenamounis son of Harpaesis: Hadrianos 10, 4 art. of wheat, 1 mat. (Hadrianos) 16, ... art. of wheat... 4 art. of wheat. Tybi 11, 4 ½ art. of barley. “Petosiris son of Pe( ). Hadrianos 12, 7 art. of wheat, 2 mat., 3 mat. of barley... (Hadrianos?) 23, 4 art. of wheat, 3 mat. of barley. (Month?) 16, 10 art. of wheat, 4 mat., 4 ½ art. of barley... Pt( ): 13 ½ art. of wheat.” Concave “Hathyr 26, 6 art. of wheat. Hadrianos 12, 6 art. of wheat. (Hadrianos?) 26, 2 art. of wheat, 4 ½ art. of barley. [Month] 15, 3 art. of wheat. Horos son of Petech( ), 4 art. of wheat, 2 ½ art. of barley... 2 ½ art. of barley... likewise 4 mat. of barley... 1 mat.” Catalogue Number: 15.10 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 11717 = O.Trim. 1.99 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 3. Fabric: A1b Height: 2.8 cm Width: 1.8 cm Dating: Ed.pr. assigns the text’s date as 285/286 (?), taking the “year 2” mentioned in the text to be Diocletian’s second regnal year. Since the text comes from the same SU as O.Trim. 1.51, no. 9 above, which probably dates no later than the 240s, it is possible that this text could date to the mid-third century. However, no well tags from Trimithis have to date been conclusively shown to predate Diocletian. Condition: Broken at left and right. Description: A three-line Greek well tag on the convex side. Reads: “Pmoun of A[, Psenamounis son of Psen[ , year 2.” Catalogue Number: 15.11 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 0176 = O.Trim. 1.101 Context: Building 1.1, DSU 4 (find from surface cleaning) Fabric: A1 Height: 3.1 cm Width: 3.4 cm

364

Amheida II

Dating: Ed.pr. assigns a date of 287/288 (?), taking the “year 4” mentioned in the text to be Diocletian’s fourth regnal year. As a surface find, this text has no archaeological context to support such precision. The date is assigned by (a) the argument adduced in Text 10 above, that no well tags from Trimithis demonstrably predate Diocletian, and (b) the absence of any palaeographical signs of an earlier date. Condition: Broken at upper left corner. Description: A four-line Greek well tag written on the concave side. Reads: “Pmoun of Emboo( ), Ammonios son of Pathotes, misthotês, 4th year.” The misthotês is probably a large-scale contractor, perhaps of the well in question, rather than a retail-level lessee. Catalogue Number: 15.12 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 11712 = O.Trim. 1.141 Context: Street S1, DSU 6 Fabric: A1b Height: 2.4 cm Width: 5.1 cm Dating: Ed.pr. gives a date of ca. 240–350. This is based on the upper and lower dates of the texts found in Area 1 more generally; see the dating notes to text no. 15.7 and no. 15.9 above. The only other text from Area 1.2 more specifically can be dated to ca. 240–275; see text no. 15.8 above. Condition: Complete? Description: A Greek well-tag. Nothing can be read with confidence. At the start, Πμο(υν) for “well” is possible.

Figure 15.6: O.Trim. 1.200

Catalogue Number: 15.13 fig. 15.6 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 3518 = O.Trim. 1.200 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 19 Fabric: Not visible Height: 3.2 cm Width: 4 cm Dating: Ed.pr. assigns a date of “284/5? Or 357/8?” The former possibility takes the “year 1” mentioned in the text to be Diocletian’s first regnal year; the latter possibility is one option were an indictional year meant instead of a regnal year. While the text could predate Diocletian, there is no emperor between Diocletian and the 350s whose regnal “year 1” came when he was senior emperor. Condition: Complete. Description: A two-line Greek tag set in a mud jar-stopper, reading “1st year, Magdola, Psais the donkeydriver.” Magdola is presumably a watch-tower.

Transport and Trade

365

Catalogue Number: 15.14 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 11773 = O.Trim. 1.230 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 1 Fabric: A1b Height: 1.9 cm Width: 3.5 cm Dating: 335/336 or 353/354; the “30th year” mentioned in the text is the regnal year of either Constantine I or Constantius II. Condition: No apparent breakage, but loss at left is possible. Description: A two-line Greek tag reading “30th year. Ion.” Catalogue Number: 15.15 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 3407 = O.Trim. 1.388 Context: House B2, Room 1, DSU 16 Fabric: Probably early Roman Nile silt amphora. Height: 5.8 cm Width: 7.6 cm Dating: Ed.pr. assigns a date of ca. 300–350; but see the note on dating to text no. 15.2 above. Condition: Broken at upper left. Description: Traces of 8 lines of Greek. Includes the personal names Sarapas and Hermes. Catalogue Number: 15.16 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 3413 = O.Trim. 1.389 Context: House B2, Room 2, DSU 15 Fabric: A1a Height: 2.1 cm Width: 1.3 cm Dating: Late Ptolemaic or Early Roman Condition: Broken at left, right and bottom. Description: 2 lines Demotic and part of a third, contents unidentifiable; line 2 is crossed out. On the concave side, a couple of letters, perhaps Greek. On the convex side, the remains of the upper line read Wsir, “Osiris”, probably preceded by r or perhaps s3 (“son of ”). In the latter case, “Osiris” must be the beginning of a proper name. Catalogue Number: 15.17 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 3414 = O.Trim. 1.390 Context: House B2, Room 2, DSU 7 Fabric: A1a Height: 3.7 cm Width: 6.5 cm Dating: Late Ptolemaic or Early Roman Condition: Broken at top and left, perhaps at right. Description: On concave side, one line of Demotic. On convex side, apparently Greek letters scattered over the surface in no evident lines or continuous text; perhaps a writing exercise. Catalogue Number: 15.18 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 3449 = O.Trim. 1.391 Context: House B2, Room 2, DSU 20 Fabric: A1a

366

Amheida II

Height: 6 cm Width: 7.3 cm Dating: Late Ptolemaic or Early Roman Condition: Broken at right and bottom. Description: 4 lines of Demotic. The second line reads ] Sr.t(?) v#j=f-nXt.ß.t which means “daughter of Tephnachthis” or else it forms part of a compound name such as *P#-Sr-t#-Sr.t- t#j=f-nXt.ß.t *Psensentephnachthis. The second half of the first line can hardly be anything else but p3j=f, “his”, but if so it is strange that the scribe left the rest of the line blank and continued in the second line (now lost). The last line is still completely mysterious. Catalogue Number: 15.19 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 3450 = O.Trim. 1.392 Context: House B2, Room 2, DSU 20 Fabric: A1a. Height: 2.3 cm Width: 2.4 cm Dating: Late Ptolemaic or Early Roman Condition: A fragmentary sherd broken on all sides. Description: 2 lines of Demotic with traces of a third above, on convex side of a fragment. Contents unidentifiable. Catalogue Number: 15.20 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 3451 = O.Trim. 1.393 Context: House B2, Room 2, DSU 20 Fabric: A1a Height: 3 cm Width: 2.7 cm Dating: Late Ptolemaic or Early Roman Condition: Fragment. Description: Convex side: parts of 3 lines of Demotic. Concave side: 2 unidentified lines (Greek ?). Convex: In the second line, read perhaps … |w=f xr-Dr.t … “he is (or circumstantial: he being) under the supervision of ”. Although this is a reasonable reading and translation, the lacunae do not permit any certainty about this. Catalogue Number: 15.21 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 11049 = O.Trim. 1.395 Context: House B2, Room 5, DSU 40 Fabric: Not visible Height: 5.1 cm Width: 3.7 cm Dating: Unknown. Condition: Complete. Description: Doodles or drawings rather than letters; the central figure is evidently male. Complete? On concave side. Catalogue Number: 15.22 Amheida Inventory Number: Inv. 11774 = O.Trim. 1.445 Context: Courtyard C2A, DSU 2 Fabric: A1a

Transport and Trade

367

Height: 1.5 cm Width: 2.2 cm Dating: Unknown; given the apparent dates from other texts found in Area 1.4, a general range of third/fourth is likely. Condition: Breakage uncertain. Description: Muddy traces of 2 lines (of Greek?) on convex side.

This page intentionally left blank

16

FAUNAL REMAINS FROM AMHEIDA, AREA 1 Pam J. Crabtree and Douglas V. Campana Introduction This chapter describes the analysis of the faunal remains from Area 1 in Amheida that were excavated over three seasons between 2005 and 2007. While archaeologically recovered faunal remains have traditionally been used to study economic questions, such as the reconstruction of animal husbandry, hunting, and diet, animal bone remains can also be used to address a broader range of social, political, and other questions including status, trade, ethnicity, and colonialism.1 In addition to addressing the role of wild and domestic animals in the diet of the inhabitants of Area 1, we will compare the faunal data from Area 1 to the large sample of animal bone remains that was recovered from House B1 at Amheida (Area 2). We will also compare our data to other Roman Period assemblages from Egypt.

Materials and Methods The faunal assemblage from Area 1 includes 534 animal bones and fragments that were identified during January of 2010. The archaeological context, bone identifications, ageing, measurement, and taphonomic data were recorded using FAUNA, a specialized database manager for archaeozoology.2 Animal bones were identified to species where possible. Sheep bones were distinguished from goat remains following Boessneck and Halstead.3 Higher order categories, such as sheep/goat, were used for fragmentary bones that could not be identified to species. These include small artiodactlyl (sheep-, goat-, pig-, or gazellesized remains), large ungulate (cattle- or equid-sized remains), rodent, and equid (donkey or horse), and domestic fowl-sized birds (probable chicken). We faced problems that were similar to those encountered by Hamilton-Dyer.4 Since we had to carry out the work in Egypt without access to a full comparative collection, we had to rely on our own experiences, identification guides 5 and illustrations to identify the faunal material. We tried to err on the side of caution in identifying these materials. In addition to identifying the animal bone remains to species or higher order taxon, the following additional information was recorded for each specimen: body part, side, portion, degree of fragmentation, and evidence for bone modification (burning, staining, gnawing, etc.). Although the faunal assemblage from Area 1 is too small for detailed analysis of the ages at death for the mammals, ageing data for all the Amheida faunal remains were recorded using both dental eruption and wear 6 and epiphyseal fusion of the long bones.7 Measurements were recorded following the recommendations of von den Driesch.8 Species ratios were calculated using fragment counts.9 Crabtree 1990, Campana et al. 2010, deFrance 200, Landon 2009, MacKinnon 2010. Campana and Crabtree 1987, Campana 2010. 3 Halstead, Collins and Isaakidou 2002, Boessneck, Müller and Teichert 1964. 4 Hamilton-Dyer 2001:251-252. 5 See, for example, Schmid 1972. 6 Grant 1982, Payne 1973. 7 Silver 1969. 8 Driesch 1976. 9 NISP or number of identified specimens per taxon, see Lyman 2008 for a full discussion of the methods of zooarchaeological quantification. 1 2

370

Species

Amheida II

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5

R6

R7

R8

R9

R10

R11

1.2 trench

1.4

1.8 N/M 38 FU N/M

trench

Domestic Cattle; Bos taurus

2

Sheep or Goat; Small caprine

2

Gazelle; Gazella dorcas

2

Donkey; Equus asinus

1

1

1

1

16

Camel; Camelus dromedarius Small rodent—mouse sized

1

1

1

9

38

2

20

1

3

2

22

4 3

5

1

1

1

1 2

5

1

1

Probable rat (cf. Rattus rattus)

2

Small artiodactyl

2

6

10

1

1

3

Large ungulate

3

7

12

4

4

3

Rodent

7

3

7

2

Equid; species indeterminate

1

3 1 1

3

1

1

1

1 9

3

1

1

31

2

50

2

21

1

8

Undetermined mammal

22

30

99

Domestic chicken; Gallus gallus

1

3

3

Domestic fowl-sized bird

3

2

13

1

Unidentified bird

5

26

39

2

Unidentified reptile

1

7

14

4

10

1

6

1

3

3 4

1

1

45

7

1

1

250

2

13

1

1

26

2

1

1 48

76 1

Undetermined species Total

3

Total

84

203

1 23

30

14

13

2

23

2

4

68

12

1

7

535

Table 16.1: Faunal remains identified from Area 1 at Amheida.

Results The animal bones identified from the Area 1 features are shown in Table 16.1. About half of the 534 animal bone remains are indeterminate fragments of mammal, bird, and reptile bone. The animal bones were exceptionally well preserved, and the recovery of the bones was excellent, as can be seen by the presence of sizable numbers of bird and rodent bones. The domestic mammals identified include cattle (Bos taurus), donkeys (Equus asinus), camels (Camelus dromedarius), and small numbers of indeterminate caprines (sheep [Ovis aries] or goats [Capra hircus]). Particularly striking is the total absence of any pig (Sus scrofa) bones. The presence of both camel and donkey in the faunal assemblage is particularly interesting, since donkey and camel drivers appear in the documentary evidence from Area 1, and a possible transportation basket10 for a donkey was recovered from room 6. Domestic mammals were augmented by the hunting of gazelles (Gazella dorcas). By the late Roman period, most of the other large wild mammals in the region had probably been extirpated. The mammals were supplemented by substantial numbers of chickens (Gallus gallus) which were kept for their eggs as well as their flesh. Egg shells were recovered from several contexts in room 4. Nearly all the rodent bones are rat-sized, and the material is cautiously identified as possible black rat. The spatial distribution of the faunal remains can also contribute to our understanding of the activities that were carried out in Area 1 (Table 16.1). Over 200 faunal remains were recovered from room 3. This room appears to have been associated with craft activities and food storage. It was the least well lit room in the house and was probably not terribly clean. Room 7 was centrally located and appears to 10

See Boozer, this volume, Chapter 19.

Faunal Remains

371

have been kept much cleaner. Only 13 bones were recovered from room 7, and most of these were small fragments of mammal bone that could not be identified to species. The ageing data for the mammal remains from Area 1 are quite limited. A single worn lower cheek tooth from a donkey came from a mature animal. Four cattle bones could be aged on the basis of epiphyseal fusion. These include unfused epiphyses of the proximal tibia, proximal humerus, and the tuber of the calcaneus. The proximal humerus and tibia fuse between 3.5 and 4 years of age, while the calcaneus fuses between 3 and 3.5 years. A second calcaneus was fused and would have come from an animal that was more than 3–3.5 years old when it died.11 While the number of ageable specimens is far too small to draw any detailed conclusions, it is reasonable to suggest that the inhabitants of Area 1 consumed market aged and adult cattle. The small sample yields no evidence for very young calves, and the Area 1 residents were probably not raising their own cattle.

Comparisons with Amheida Area 2 A far larger faunal assemblage (10,556 fragments) was recovered from Area 2 (Table 16.2). In addition to the species identified from Area 1, the fourth-century house also yielded the remains of domestic pig (Sus scrofa), identifiable sheep (Ovis aries) and goat (Capra hircus), pigeon (Columba sp.), and a small number of fish bones that are still under study. Species

Count

Domestic Cattle; Bos taurus

240

Sheep; Ovis aries

5

Goat; Capra hircus

23

Sheep or Goat; Small caprine Pig; Sus scrofa

62 1037

Donkey; Equus asinus Camel; Camelus dromedarius Gazelle; Gazella dorcas Small rodent—mouse sized Probable rat (cf. Rattus rattus) Equid; species indeterminate

21 8 21 1 27 2

Small artiodactyl

617

Large ungulate

141

Rodent

137

Small Mammal

6

Undetermined mammal Domestic chicken; Gallus gallus pigeon or dove; Columba sp.

3072 593 1

Domestic fowl-sized bird

282

Unidentified bird

717

Unidentified fish

25

Undetermined species

3518 10556

Total

Table 16.2: Summary of the faunal remains recovered from Area 2 at Amheida. Species ratios for the identified bird and mammal species from Areas 1 and 2 are compared in Table 16.3. The most obvious difference is that pigs make up of 40% of the identified bird and mammal bones from House B1 while they are totally absent from Area 1. The Area 1 assemblage, on the other hand, includes higher proportions of cattle, gazelles, donkeys, and camels. The higher proportions of camels and donkeys are perhaps not surprising in light of the documentary evidence for donkey and camel driving. The higher proportions of cattle and gazelles, on the other hand, might indicate that the 11

Silver 1969.

372

Amheida II

inhabitants had a more traditionally Egyptian diet, since these species have formed part of the Egyptian diet in the western oases since Neolithic times. The Area 1 and Area 2 assemblages produced roughly equal proportions of caprines and chickens. Species

Area 1 NISP

Cattle

Area 1 % NISP

Area 2 NISP

Area 2 % NISP

20

16.95

240

Sheep / Goat

3

2.54

90

3.66

Pig

0

0.00

1037

42.19

Donkey

22

18.64

21

0.85

Camel

5

4.24

8

0.33

Gazelle

4

3.39

21

0.85

Commensal Rodent

25

21.19

165

6.71

Chicken

39

33.05

875

35.60

0

0.00

1

0.04

Columba sp.

118

Total

9.76

2458

Table 16.3: Species ratios (based on NISP) for Areas 1 and 2 at Amheida.

Comparisons with Other Sites The Area 1 fauna from Amheida can also be compared to the broadly contemporary assemblage from Ain el-Gedida in the Dakleh Oasis. Ain el-Gedida is a more rural site, and excavations there yielded 1942 animal bones and fragments. The identified species included pigs, sheep, goats, cattle, donkeys, chickens, and gazelles. The remains of dogs and cats, commensal species that were not part of the diet, were also recovered. Pigs were by far the most common species, followed by caprines, donkeys, and cattle. Pigs (240 fragments) are almost four times more common than caprines (66 fragments). In this respect, the Ain elGedida assemblage is more comparable to the faunal assemblage from Amheida Area 2. Other Roman period sites from Egypt also present important contrasts to the Area 1 assemblage. The site of Mons Claudianus was a fort in the Eastern Desert, and it is likely that all the provisions were supplied by pack animals.12 The assemblage is far larger than the Area 1 faunal collection from Amheida, and it yielded a broader range of species, especially fish. The most common mammals recovered from Mons Claudianus were equids, followed by pigs, caprines, and camels. 13 Small numbers of gazelles were also identified. The vast majority of the bird remains recovered from Mons Claudianus was domestic chicken, but small numbers of geese, pigeons, and ravens were also recovered. The striking feature of the Mons Claudianus assemblage is the large number of fish remains. At least 18 families and 30 species of fish were identified.14 Most are marine species, but some freshwater fish were also included. There is nothing comparable from Area 1 at Amheida. A large assemblage of approximately 14,000 vertebrate remains was recovered from the Roman coastal site of Berenike.15 The mammal species identified include sheep, goats, cattle, dromedary camels, and pigs. In addition, a variety of marine fish taxa, as well as Nilotic fish, were recovered from the Berenike excavations; marine fish species make up the majority of the vertebrate remains recovered from the site. Domestic fowl are the most common bird species, but they are more common in early Roman than in late Roman contexts.16 The importance of pigs also declines in late Roman times at Berenike.17 Hamilton-Dyer 2001:251. Ibid.:Table 9.3. 14 Ibid.:284. 15 Van Neer and Ervynck 1999:327. 16 Ibid.:330. 17 Ibid.:338. 12 13

Faunal Remains

373

The small fifth to sixth century Roman site of Shenshef18 near Berenike yielded a very different faunal assemblage. The assemblage was dominated by the remains of caprines, and bones of cattle, domestic fowl, and small numbers of dorcas gazelle were also identified. Fish remains were limited to a single bone of a parrotfish. This assemblage is broadly similar to the assemblage from Amheida Area 1, but it lacks the camel and donkey remains that are present in Area 1.

Discussion and Conclusions While the extensive use of chicken is typical of Roman sites throughout the Empire, the remainder of the faunal assemblage from Area 1 at Amheida has a more traditionally Egyptian character. Cattle and caprines formed a major part of Egyptian subsistence from the Neolithic period onward. The donkey was initially domesticated in Africa, and early domesticated donkeys have been identified from the First Dynasty site of Abydos. 19 While camels were domesticated on the Arabian Peninsula, they were present in the Nile Valley in the early part of the first millennium BCE.20 Pigs, which are often seen as indicators of Romanization,21 are totally absent from the Area 1 faunal collection. 22 When compared to the faunal assemblage from Area 2, the Area 1 faunal remains suggest a diet that is far less Romanized and more traditionally Egyptian in character. The absence of marine and freshwater fish distinguishes the Area 1 assemblage from contemporary faunal assemblages from the Egyptian Eastern Desert. The Area 1 faunal assemblage is quite small, and it is difficult to draw broad conclusions from a sample of this size. Van Neer ibid. For an up-to-date review, see Rossel 2008. 20 Rowley-Conwy 1988. 21 MacKinnon 2010:172. 22 It should be noted that pig was consumed during and after the Pharaonic era in Egypt. 18 19

This page intentionally left blank

17

PLANT USE IN A ROMANO-EGYPTIAN HOUSEHOLD IN THE THIRD CENTURY CE Ursula Thanheiser and Johannes Walter Introduction The Dakhla Oasis is a remote place in the Western Desert of Egypt. It owes its existence to phreatic water feeding to the surface along natural vents. Precipitation is practically non-existent and if it rains at all, this rain occurs as localized torrential downpour. In combination with the high average temperature, this lack of regular precipitation has an adverse effect on any plant growth, and rain-fed agriculture is impossible. The desert surrounding the oasis is almost bare of vegetation, and specialized plants only grow in wadis where their deeply-penetrating roots can reach groundwater. To the best of our knowledge, these hyper-arid conditions already prevailed in Roman times. Agriculture therefore entirely depended on irrigation and the necessary water was extracted via wells. Since the Ptolemaic Period, effective water-lifting devices, such as the water wheel and the Archimedean Screw, have been known in Egypt and facilitated the extraction of sufficient amounts of water. 1 The inhabitants of the oasis coped very well with this difficult situation and cultivated almost all of the crop plants known in Egypt at the time, and it is assumed that they even produced a surplus which was traded with the Nile Valley. The affluence of the populace is visible in material goods such as the decoration of houses and the import of luxury items. Amheida is located in the western part of the oasis, some 20 km northwest of Kellis, a Roman farming settlement situated in central Dakhla on a low sandstone ridge. 2 Western Dakhla seems to be wetter than the rest of the oasis, indicated by plants such as Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) which today only grow here. The damp soils, however, have an adverse effect on the preservation of organic archaeological remains and therefore certain categories of finds which abound at Kellis, most notably papyri, are missing here.

Material and Methods Sampling Matrix samples were taken from deposits rich in organic material. Since contamination with younger material is always an issue on shallow sites, it would have been ideal to concentrate on sealed deposits such as floors or fill below them. However, the floors of B2 are not well preserved and are often present as eroded patches only. Therefore, occupational debris above floors was sampled as well. Hence the results represent a gradient of reliability with the most reliable ones from sealed deposits and the least reliable ones from the open courtyard. The sample composition with its dominance of tree crops, however, is more or less the same everywhere in the house (see below).

Bowman 1986:19. The site is being excavated by Colin A. Hope, Monash University, on behalf of the Dakhleh Oasis Project. For more information see http://arts.monash.edu.au/archaeology/excavations/dakhleh/ismant-elkharab/index.php. 1 2

376

Amheida II

In addition to the recovery of matrix samples, large items such as olive stones were hand-picked during excavation. These plant remains do not appear in the tables but are mentioned in the text. Extraction of Plant Remains Organic material was separated from the soil by two methods, electrostatic extraction3 and flotation. Which method was used depended on the properties of the matrix. Electrostatic extraction was applied to loose, sandy matrices such as occupational debris above floors. From the lumpy soil from floors, plant remains were separated by water flotation. Both methods split the matrix into two fractions: a (predominantly) organic and a mineral one; the smallest mesh diameter was 0.5mm. From the organic fraction, the plant remains were then isolated manually using a dissecting microscope and identified with the authors´ personal reference collections. Scientific nomenclature for wild plants follows the Flora of Egypt.4 For cultivated plants, the terms known in archaeology are used. Very rich organic fractions were divided with a riffle box, and only a part of the sample (usually half or a quarter) was analyzed. The respective figures given in the tables thus represent calculated, not counted, numbers. Each item was counted as one piece irrespective of its actual completeness. The mineral fraction was screened for possible escapes of the extraction process.

Figure 17.1: Preservation of date stones: charred (top) and partly decomposed due to the damp conditions at the site (bar 1 cm) (photo J. Walter).

3 4

Thanheiser 1995. Boulos 1999-2005.

Plant Use

377

Preservation Plant remains are present in B2 in two states of preservation, charred and desiccated. Charred plant remains are the result of incomplete combustion by which the organic material is reduced to almost pure carbon. In a domestic context, these charred plant remains usually can be attributed to food preparation, the use of plants or dung cakes as fuel, or the accidental burning of structures. Charred plant remains are therefore frequently found throughout the world in domestic contexts. However, since charring works like a filter, only a fraction of the plants previously present at a site would preserve in charred form, and the assemblage is usually biased towards more robust items such as cereal rachis segments. Desiccated plant remains only occur on sites where a lack of humidity curtails the growth of microorganisms responsible for the decomposition of organic matter; this mode of preservation is well-known in arid regions. In B2 the desiccated plant remains may reflect activities of its residents such as food preparation, spinning, and weaving; especially in the fill above floors desiccated plant remains also could have derived from the organic temper of eroding mud-bricks; and finally, they could have been blown inside after the house was abandoned. Desiccated plant assemblages are often characterized by excellent preservation, species richness, and the presence of delicate plant parts such as leaves and even flowers, which would not survive combustion. However, in Amheida a high groundwater table and the presence of irrigated fields in the vicinity result in permanently damp soil, and uncharred plant remains suffered from (partial) decomposition (Fig. 17.1). Therefore, delicate plant parts, such as onion skins, which are usually present on Roman sites, are very rare or missing.

Figure 17.2: Date stones gnawed by small rodents (photo J. Walter). The ratio of charred to desiccated plant remains in B2 is approximately 1:6 and in this respect, B2 differs from B1 where the ratio is reversed (9:1). In contemporaneous houses at Kellis analyzed so far, charred plant remains are rare and mainly derive from ovens. Vermin were very active in the house, and rodent droppings as well as items partly consumed by mice or rats occur (Fig. 17.2). The standing walls of the house are perforated by the activity of termites which were after the organic temper of the mud-bricks. This visible presence of vermin in combination

378

Amheida II

with damp soil supporting the decomposition of organic material may have contributed to a bias towards large, durable items in the plant assemblage from B2 (see below).

Figure 17.3: Relative proportions of useful and wild plants. The Archaeobotanical Evidence A calculated total of 17,009 items was recovered from the rooms (14,460 desiccated and 2,549 charred ones), and 1,143 items from courtyard C2A (1,006 desiccated and 137 charred ones) (Tab. 17.1); in addition, 4.1 % of the plant remains are unidentifiable and do not appear in the lists. The plant remains present in B2 can be grouped into six categories: cereals (chaff and grain), pulses, oil and fiber plants, vegetables, herbs and spices, fruits and nuts, and wild plants (Fig. 17.3). Cereals Cereals have been staple foods since the beginning of agriculture, and they are the main source of carbohydrates in human nutrition. The remains of cereals from B2 comprise chaff, i.e. parts of the ear such as rachis segments, glumes, and grain (Fig. 17.4, Fig. 17.5). The two main cereals are hard wheat (Triticum durum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare). In addition, emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum), bread wheat (Triticum aestivum s.l.), and pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum ssp. glaucum) are present. The presence of hard wheat has been reported from Egyptian sites dating back to the Predynastic Period.5 However, until the Ptolemaic period archaeobotanical finds are scarce and it was of no economic importance. With the shift to a more market-oriented agricultural production in Ptolemaic times hard wheat replaced the traditional Pharaonic emmer wheat. In Dakhla, as everywhere else in Egypt at the time, hard wheat was the principal wheat crop, the wheat par excellence. This is also highlighted by the fact that the Kellis Agricultural Account Book (KAB), a record compiled by the overseer of an estate in the late fourth century CE, does not distinguish between different types of wheat.6 Hard wheat is well adapted to warmer climates and gives a larger yield than emmer wheat. It is free-threshing, meaning that its grains are only loosely invested in the glumes, and are released upon threshing. Grain ready for 5 6

de Vartavan, Arakelyan and Asensi Amorós 2010:241. Bagnall 1997:36.

Plant Use

379

milling can therefore be obtained with comparatively little effort. Furthermore, this also results in a reduction of bulk for storage and transport.7

Figure 17.4: Remains of cereal chaff. A few rachis segments of another free-threshing wheat, bread wheat, occur throughout the building. This is in accordance with other contemporaneous sites in Egypt, where bread wheat is present in minor quantities.8 The only exception to date is Kellis, where in Area C1 bread wheat is dominant, 9 an unusual result requiring further investigations. Emmer wheat is present in minute quantities in three rooms and in the court. The same situation is reflected in B1 and at Kellis. It has also been reported from other Egyptian sites such as Berenike10 where these remains are interpreted as contaminants. However, one patch of a floor (F11) in room 1 yielded 334 desiccated spikelet forks and 1,829 glume bases11 representing 2,498 grains. It can therefore be assumed that emmer wheat was still a minor crop in Amheida. A similar find in one Islamic context at Quseir alQadim is interpreted as import either from Egyptian Nubia or Yemen.12 The second important cereal in B2, as well as generally in the oasis, is hulled barley. Although there is no convincing archaeobotanical evidence, it is assumed that six-row barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare) is present,13 as this barley has been grown in Egypt since the beginning of agriculture.14 Barley is Cappers and Neef 2012:fig. 13. E.g., see Cappers 2006:13, Van der Veen 2011:141. 9 Thanheiser and König 2008:143. 10 Cappers 2006:131. 11 Under the term glume base broken spikelet forks where less than half of the spikelet is preserved as well as actual (rare) glume bases are summarized. 12 Van der Veen 2011:144. 13 In six-row barley each of the three single-flowered spikelets per rachis segment is fertile and produces a grain. While the central grain is usually straight, the two lateral ones are twisted. Theoretically the ratio of straight to twisted grains should therefore be 1:2. However, a total of only two twisted grains was recovered. Identification of the rachis fragments was not attempted. 14 Murray 2000a:512. 7 8

380

Amheida II

a less demanding crop than wheat. It is much more drought resistant and less vulnerable to high soil salinity, and therefore would have been well-adapted to be grown in marginal areas of the oasis. Some of the barley crop was most likely used for human consumption, to prepare soup and porridge and to brew beer, while the remainder may have served as animal feed.

Figure 17.5: Remains of cereal grain. Pearl millet, a summer crop of African origin, is rare in Amheida, and only 15 grains and some chaff were found in B2. This stands in strong contrast to Kellis where it occurs regularly throughout the site, and where a bin containing 39 kg of cobs, chaff, and grain was recovered. 15 There it was an important component of the diet as is demonstrated by the stable isotope composition of human bone and hair.16 Pearl millet is a dual crop. Traditional varieties tend to be tall, leafy plants that perform best when spaced apart, producing massive amounts of greenery which can be used as animal feed. The nutritional properties of the grain depend on the cultivar and, especially concerning trace elements, of the environment. Besides carbohydrates, pearl millet also provides fat and all essential amino acids, and is a richer source of protein, calcium, phosphorus and iron than most of the other cereals of world importance. Pulses Pulses are mainly grown for their seeds rich in protein. In addition, they are attractive for the farmer because, in contrast to most other flowering plants, they are able to fix atmospheric nitrogen through symbiosis with the root bacterium Rhizobium. Therefore, pulses add nitrogen to the soil rather than depleting it. By field rotation or by growing mixed crops of pulses and cereals, the farmer is able to 15 16

Thanheiser, Kahlheber and Dupras Forthcoming. Dupras and Tocheri 2007, Dupras 2008.

Plant Use

381

maintain a higher level of soil fertility, which might be of particular importance in the oasis, where it is necessary to compensate for the lack of the fertilizing Nile floods. The seeds were either eaten fresh or could have been dried and stored for later use. Most prominent among the pulses was the fava bean, consumed roasted, whole, crushed, or ground into flour called lomentum, which was used for baking bread, but usually fava beans were eaten as a mash or as a stew with spices and bacon.17 A wide variety of pulses was available in Egypt in Roman times. 18 These include lentil (Lens culinaris), pea (Pisum sativum), fava bean (Vicia faba), chickpea (Cicer arietinum), white lupin or termis bean (Lupinus albus), mung bean (Vigna radiata), and vetch (Lathyrus sativus/cicera). In B2, however, pulses are only scarcely represented, both in numbers and in variety. Only four charred lentils and 19 remains of fava bean, mainly seed coats with hilum, have been recovered. Compared to other Egyptian sites, and considering their important nutritional role in traditional agricultural societies, this is very unusual but appears to be characteristic for the Dakhla Oasis, where so far only lentil and fava bean have been recovered.19 Oil and fiber plants Remains of four oil and fiber plants, flax or linseed (Linum usitatissimum), cotton (Gossypium sp.), sesame (Sesamum indicum), and safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) were recovered. Flax has been grown in Egypt since the Predynastic Period, and the fibers of its stems are made into linen used for garments and household textiles.20 In a first step, the bast fibers have to be separated from the stem by retting, bacterial decomposition of the softer tissue of the stem. This is achieved by soaking the stems in stagnant water for about ten days. Although water was in much shorter supply in Dakhla than in the Nile Valley, flax was grown and processed there. This is satisfactorily shown by the recovery of flowers and capsules in B2, which would not be present if the yarn was imported. Flax seeds are the source of a vegetable oil rich in protein and were usually eaten either roasted or in mixed dishes. The oil was also used for cooking, in medicine, and for cosmetics.21 Cotton is a summer crop, and the warm climate of the oasis in combination with irrigation offers ideal conditions for its cultivation. The botanical remains of cotton from B2 consist of 56 desiccated and 45 charred seeds; no capsules are present. Nevertheless it can be assumed that cotton was grown in the oasis, since the KAB mentions payment of dues in cotton and ostraka from Amheida refer to significant amounts of cotton.22 The long, twisted seed hair, lint, is used for the manufacture of textiles. The cotton fiber is softer and more elastic than flax, but less strong. The seeds are rich in oil and protein but also contain the toxic component gossypol,23 and oil therefore has to be refined before consumption. Sesame, another summer crop, was grown for its edible seed in the Mediterranean Basin in GrecoRoman times. It was domesticated on the Indian subcontinent and spread both east- and westwards. 24 It seems to have been known in Egypt at least since the mid-second millennium BC, since a medical papyrus from Thebes, dated to c. 1500 BC, lists herbal remedies including sesame seed and oil.25 However, early finds in Egypt, such as the one from Tutankhamon´s tomb, may represent imports.26 From the Ptolemaic André 1998:31. Compare finds from Mons Claudianus (Van der Veen 2001:180), Berenike (Cappers 2006:157, 161), and Quseir alQadim (Van der Veen 2011:146). 19 Thanheiser, Walter and Hope 2002:30, Thanheiser Forthcoming. 20 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000:286-291, Livingstone 2009. 21 Germer 1985:100-102, Germer 2002. 22 Bagnall 1997:115; Bagnall 2008. 23 Roth and Kormann 2000:68. 24 Zohary and Hopf 2000:140. 25 Weiss 2000:131. 26 de Vartavan, Arakelyan and Asensi Amorós 2010:217. 17 18

382

Amheida II

Period onwards it seems to have been an important crop, as is suggested by textual evidence 27 as well as archaeological finds. In Roman cuisine it was alternately classified as belonging to frumenta or to legumina.28 The extraction of oil from the seeds was probably restricted to Egypt.29 In Dakhla the seeds are very rare and it is a matter of speculation whether they were grown locally or imported. The seeds of safflower are rich in oil with a high content of unsaturated fatty acids and can be used in cooking; in addition, red and yellow dyes can be extracted from the flowers, which also serve as a cheap substitute for saffron.30 Finds of flowers in a garland from the mummy of Amenhotep I suggest that safflower has been cultivated in Egypt at least since the New Kingdom.31 In Hellenistic Egypt it was an important crop.32 It is one of the finds with a high frequency in Kellis, but is rather rare in Amheida. Vegetables, Herbs, Spices, and Ornamentals Roman cuisine knew two types of vegetables, holera, leaf and root vegetables, and legumina, seeds such as the above-mentioned pulses and sesame. They were an important part of the diet and a variety of seeds, leaf and root crops, salad plants, and pot herbs are mentioned in contemporaneous texts and recipes. 33 Among these, pulses, onions and garlic, as well as salads have a long tradition in Egypt. Spices have always played an important role in Roman cuisine. They were used to flavor food and render it more palatable. In addition, spices and herbs were used for medical purposes in a variety of preparations and were mixed with ointments and oil for hygienic and cosmetic purposes. 34 Accordingly, the list of spices and herbs mentioned in various texts is quite long. However, in B2 respective finds are rare, and only twelve species are assigned to this group. The underrepresentation of garden plants may be a result of the damp conditions on site, which prevented fragile vegetative parts such as salad leaves or onion skins from being preserved. Present are mainly the robust fruits of coriander (Coriandrum sativum), dill (Anethum graveolens), celery (Apium graveolens), and basil (Ocimum basilicum), as well as hard, needle-like rosemary leaves (Rosmarinus officinalis). Rare occurrences are purple amaranth (Amaranthus c f . lividus), black cumin (Nigella sativa), black mustard (Brassica nigra), salad rocket (Eruca sativa), cumin (Cuminum cyminum), ajowan (Trachyspermum ammi, syn. T. copticum) and, as an ornamental, fruits and leaves of myrtle (Myrtus communis). Purple amaranth, black mustard, and salad rocket are native in the oasis and grow there as weeds of cultivation; amaranth also grows on neglected land and on canal banks. Salad rocket, and black mustard even more so, are found plentifully on irrigated land. Today they are used together with other weeds such as canary grasses (Phalaris spp.), melilot (Melilotus spp.), cultivated alfalfa (Medicago sativa), and clovers (Trifolium spp.) as fodder for donkeys. They also may have served as animal feed in the past. Whether they were used as vegetables, salads, or spices in the household´s cuisine as well is a matter of speculation. Most of the other spices and herbs recovered in B2 are not native in Egypt but originate in the Near East. Archaeobotanical evidence suggests that black cumin,35 coriander, dill, celery, and cumin have been known in Egypt since the 18th Dynasty and were initially mainly recovered from royal funerary contexts.36 Later they found their way into the daily life of people and at least since Roman times they Schnebel 1925:197-200. André 1998:34. 29 Pliny, Nat.Hist.15,30; 23,94. 30 Roth and Kormann 2000:50, 148-149. 31 Germer 1985:174. 32 Schnebel 1925:202. 33 For a compilation, see Thüry and Walter 1997, André 1998. 34 See Dioscurides, De Mat.Med. 35 For a comprehensive review see Heiss, Stika, De Zorz and Jursa 2012/2013. 36 de Vartavan, Arakelyan and Asensi Amorós 2010. 27 28

Plant Use

383

seem to have been widely used.37 Basil and ajowan are late-comers and appear in Egyptian sites from the Third Intermediate Period and Roman times onwards respectively.38 Rosemary and myrtle are typical plants of the eastern Mediterranean maquis and are not native in Egypt. So far they have been mainly recovered from funerary contexts: myrtle from Tutankhamon’s tomb,39 rosemary in the Greco-Roman cemeteries at Douch40 and Antinoë,41 as well as at Kellis C2.42 There the most common floral offerings are bouquets of myrtle twigs, while rosemary leaves are lavishly spread on the mummies. With its fragrant white flowers myrtle was a symbol of love beyond death. Fruits and Nuts Fruits and nuts were an important element of Egyptian food production throughout history. In B2 there are ten different species classified in this category. Most common are grape (Vitis vinifera ssp. vinifera), olive (Olea europaea), and date (Phoenix dactylifera) (Fig. 17.6). Fig pips (Ficus carica) occur throughout the site both in desiccated as well as in a charred state, and they are sometimes present in considerable numbers. However, since one modern fig contains several hundred pips, these may represent a few fruits only. Rare occurrences are pine (Pinus pinea), peach (Prunus persica), sebesten (Cordia myxa), pomegranate (Punica granatum), watermelon (Citrullus lanatus), and melon (Cucumis melo). The two cucurbits, however, are uncertain identifications.

Figure 17.6: Calculated numbers of fruits and nuts based on seed remains.

Van der Veen 2001:18, Cappers 2006:8, Van der Veen 2011:165. de Vartavan, Arakelyan and Asensi Amorós 2010. 39 de Vartavan 2012:44. 40 Barakat and Baum 1992:63-64. 41 Bonnet 1905:2. 42 Thanheiser, Walter and Hope 2002:305. 37 38

384

Amheida II

Grape and common fig are important sources of sugar. Both ripen in summer or early autumn, and the fruits can be eaten fresh or can be dried for future consumption. The grapes would also have been pressed for the well-known wine of the oasis. Together with grape, fig, and date, the olive tree was among the earliest cultivated fruit trees in the Old World.43 Olive oil and perhaps also olives have been imported into Egypt since the Old Kingdom, 44 and at least from the New Kingdom onwards, olives were grown locally. By the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods the olive tree was grown extensively, and particularly so in the oases. Several documents report an oil called l´Oasitique,45 and the production of olive oil for export to the Nile Valley may have been a source of local wealth.46 Archaeological evidence of olive stones is abundant in both Roman settlements of the oasis, but so far finds of installations pertaining to olive oil production are rare. A part of an olive press has been found in Kellis, House 3, and a quarry near Mut yielded another piece of a press probably dating to the Roman Period.47 Since the recovered olive stones are mostly whole and not crushed as would be expected after processing the fruit for oil,48 the magnitude of olive oil production in the oasis in Roman times is a matter of conjecture. During the New Kingdom, pomegranate reached Egypt and soon became a valued fruit tree, attested by numerous representations in tombs. As today, it would have been grown in the oasis. Nevertheless it is rare in Amheida, and only six fragments of the hard fruit skin were recovered in B2. Sebesten is a small tree carrying cherry-like fruit. Presumably it is native to the Indian subcontinent49 but seems to have reached Egypt early. Archaeobotanical finds of sebesten are widespread in Roman times.50 The fruit pulp is edible and was also used for making wine. Besides, it also served in medicine.51 Since the fruit flesh is sticky, the tree may also have been grown for the production of bird lime.52 The cultivation of watermelon and melon has a long tradition in Egypt. Both fruits are appreciated for their juicy fruit flesh, and their seeds are eaten roasted.53 For optimal fruit production, the date palm requires a sustained water supply and moderately hot temperatures of c. 35ºC.54 The Egyptian oases therefore offer optimal conditions for their cultivation. Today, date palms are never planted alone in the oasis, but always grow in combination with other fruit trees such as fig, apricot, and pomegranate, a practice also followed in Roman times. 55 The date palm not only offers fruit rich in sugar which can be easily dried for storage, but virtually every part of the tree has been utilised until today in joinery, carpentry, and for cordage; the young shoots can be eaten as a vegetable. Another palm tree with edible fruit, the doum palm (Hyphaene thebaica), only occurs in Egypt and the Sudan and is a typical plant of the Western Desert. Large populations still exist in Kharga, but it is very rare in Dakhla today. Archaeobotanical evidence suggests that it was widely used in the oasis in Roman times. The fibrous fruit-pulp is rich in sugar, iron, and niacin, and children relish it as a substitute for candies. The pulp can be eaten raw or ground into flour for cakes, and it also can be used to make Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975. Attested by the find of an olive stone in the workmen's village at Giza (Malleson 2013, pers.com.). 45 Wagner 1987:297. 46 Bagnall 1997:80. 47 Davoli 2013, pers. com. 48 Margaritis and Jones 2008:385. 49 Kiple and Ornelas 2000:1762. 50 de Vartavan, Arakelyan and Asensi Amorós 2010:85-86. 51 Manniche 1989:93. 52 Kislev 1988. 53 Murray 2000b:633-635. 54 Wrigley 1995:400. 55 Wagner 1987:293. 43 44

Plant Use

385

syrup. Young seeds are edible, but when ripe, they become very hard and serve as a “vegetable ivory”. Other parts of the tree can be eaten as well. With the onset of the Hellenistic Period, a variety of exotic fruits were introduced to Egypt, among them citron (Citrus medica), peach (Prunus persica), and apricot (P. armeniaca). In addition, walnut (Juglans regia), hazelnut (Corylus avellana), and pine kernels and cones (Pinus pinea) were imported. Of these, only one peach stone and one pine cone scale were recovered from soil samples in B2; two more peach stones were hand-picked during excavation, one from room 6 and one from the street. In addition to the culinary use of pine nuts, pine cones seem to have had some religious connotation in Roman times, and therefore they are present throughout the Empire far beyond their natural range.56 Wild Growing Plants Today in the oasis the occurrence of wild growing plants is dependent on human activity. They are present as weeds of cultivation and grow along irrigation canals and on neglected land near settlements. Only a few specialist taxa, mainly tamarisks (Tamarix spp.) grow beyond the inhabited area in wadis, where their deeply-penetrating roots can reach water not available to other plants. The wild growing herbaceous plants in the assemblage from B2 are dominated by five plant families, Chenopodiaceae (mainly Suaeda aegyptiaca), Brassicaceae, Fabaceae (most notably Trifolieae and other small seeded legumes), Asphodelaceae (exclusively Asphodelus tenuifolius), and Poaceae (mainly Lolium cf. perenne and Phalaris minor). Since they grow as weeds of cultivation, on neglected land and around water installations (on canal banks, around wells, next to sewers) they could have reached the house together with the harvest or could have been incorporated in animal dung. Especially the tribe Trifolieae comprises several genera that are widely distributed in northeast Africa: Medicago, Melilotus, Ononis, Trifolium, Trigonella. Among others, Medicago lupulina, M. polymorpha, Melilotus indicus, M. serratifolius and Trifolium alexandrinum are valued fodder crops and could have been planted to feed the domestic stock. The cultivation of fodder crops was practiced in Egypt at least since Hellenistic times, and contemporaneous texts list Lathyrus, Vicia, Trigonella and Trifolium as fodder plants.57 Of the wild growing woody plants extant in the oasis today, only acacia (Acacia nilotica, Acacia sp.) and tamarisk were recovered. Today, tamarisk is mainly used as fuel, while young acacia twigs are cut for fodder, and the trees are frequently browsed by goats.

The Archaeobotanical Inventory of Rooms, the Courtyard, and the Street Table 17.1 at the end of this chapter summarizes the archaeobotanical remains from House B2. Discussion of the remains from individual areas of the house follows. The detailed data supporting this discussion are available via the online version of this text, which at the time of this writing is published at the URL . Room 1 Twelve samples for archaeobotanical analysis were taken; four from feature 11 (a remnant floor), and eight samples from debris below the floor, F11, which was probably deposited there to create a level surface for floor construction. All of the samples contained both desiccated and charred plant remains in varying proportions with a density of 9.9 to 920.8 items per liter. The remains of fruits and nuts are dominant in all samples while pulses are missing. Sample 05-023 from Feature 11 is exceptional. Besides the usual assemblage of fruits, nuts, vegetables, spices, oil and fiber plants, Sample 05-023 also contains desiccated chaff of emmer wheat, which constitutes c. 90 % of the plant remains in this sample. Finds of other cereals are very rare here. It seems likely that emmer wheat was processed in situ in room 1. Emmer 56 57

Kislev 2008. Schnebel 1925:esp. 182-183, 211-212.

386

Amheida II

wheat is hulled, which means that the grains are tightly invested in their glumes and are not released upon threshing. Instead, threshing only breaks the ear into segments (spikelets). Since emmer glumes are not fit for human consumption, these have to be removed by pounding and subsequent winnowing. In contrast to naked wheat, the processing of hulled wheat requires an increased labor input before the grains are ready for consumption. This disadvantage is compensated by a better protection of the grain from mold, and emmer wheat is therefore often stored as spikelets. The necessary additional processing can be carried out on a day-to-day basis, and the concentration of spikelet forks and glume bases in one spot on the floor seems to be the result of such activity. The location of a bread oven in room 7 immediately to the west of room 1 may be the reason why the processing of emmer spikelets was carried out here. In the eight samples from DSU 31, desiccated and charred plant remains occur in almost equal proportions. The assemblages again represent a mixture of plants cultivated in the oasis. Fruits and nuts are dominant. Charred cereal remains occur in higher numbers than desiccated ones. Since refuse from cereal processing is often fed to livestock, it may have entered the assemblage via the utilisation of animal dung as fuel. The comparatively high proportion of wild-growing plants corroborates this assumption. Alternatively, cereal processing waste may have been disposed of in a fire. Room 2 Five samples for archaeobotanical analysis were taken from three deposits in room 2. DSU 7 is a somewhat compacted layer of loamy sand, which occurs at floor level and probably represents occupational debris left on top of the eroded floor. The density of plant remains in the two samples from the northern (05-003) and the southern part (05-004) of the deposit is comparatively low. The assemblage is dominated by desiccated plant remains, and in the southern part the charred remains contain only a single olive stone. Apart from that, the samples contain the usual mixture of domestic plant refuse. A rich variety of cereals, fiber plants, spices and fruits, both in desiccated and in charred form, is present in the sample from DSU 17, a patch of occupational debris. The only remains of bishop´s weed (Trachyspermum ammi) on site were recovered here. Two samples were taken from DSU 20, a pocket of loamy sand containing pottery in the center of the room. One sample (05-006) is particularly rich and contains almost the complete spectrum of cultivated plants found in Building B2. Tree crops are dominant, followed by cereals (¾ naked wheat, ¼ barley), oil/fiber and garden plants. Two of the few (charred) lentils were recovered here. None of the samples contained desiccated cereal grains. Room 3 In room 3, two samples were taken from occupational debris at floor level (DSU 18), and one from a stratum between the collapsed roof and the floor (DSU 19). While DSU 18 presents the already wellknown picture, DSU 19 displays a much higher concentration of plant remains with a pronounced prevalence of desiccated fruit, mainly of grape and olive, but also contains the only fragment of a pine cone recovered on the site, and a high concentration of fiber plants: 200 flax capsules. These flax capsules corroborate the assumption based on the recovery of objects associated with linen weaving, that flax was handled in this room. However, since the deposit is sandwiched between the floor and the roof collapse, it may have accumulated at any point of time after the house was abandoned and before the roof collapsed.

Plant Use

387

Room 4 One sample was taken from occupational debris above floor F15. Most of the botanical remains (c. 87 %) survived in desiccated form. The charred remains consist almost exclusively of grape stalks. The sampled deposit is poor in cereals, but rich in fruits, with grape being dominant among these fruits. Other finds include fig seeds, some olive stones and leaves, as well as three seeds that probably belong to melon. Room 5 One sample each was taken from three different deposits. The fill of hearth F46 (DSU 71) yielded almost exclusively desiccated plant remains, with a strong emphasis on fruit. Most noteworthy are the dominance of grape (788 pips) and the absence of date. The charred plant remains constitute less than 1% of the assemblage and therefore the fill of the hearth must have accumulated when the structure was no longer used for cooking. An indication of previous food preparation is the presence of charred durum wheat and barley grains. In DSU 41, a possible burnt layer associated with objects used for cooking, the density of plant remains is rather low. In contrast to the fill of hearth F46, here the majority of plant remains (c. 78 %) are charred. Wild plants, fruits, and cereals are dominant, while linseed constitutes a comparatively high proportion (6.4 %) of the charred plant remains. The combination of the remains of wild plants and cereals suggests that waste from cereal processing, and possibly dung, was used to make a fire. The sample from DSU 42, which consists of occupational debris above a possible floor, displays a diversified plant assemblage and features many of the useful plants recovered at Amheida. Cereals, represented by chaff and grain, are dominant. The emphasis is on barley, and DSU 42 is one of the few spots where a twisted lateral grain of six-row barley was recovered. The samples from DSU 41 and DSU 42 are exceptional since the assemblages do not display the usual very strong emphasis on fruits and nuts, but contain fair amounts of cereals and wild plants; vegetables and spices are rather rare. This result may point to a cereal processing or cooking area. However, the deposits DSU 41 and DSU 42 were not sealed, and therefore later contamination cannot be excluded. Room 6 One sample was taken from DSU 47, the occupational debris above floor F16 located in the western half of room 6. It almost exclusively contains desiccated plant remains with an emphasis on fruits, mainly grape and fig. The spectrum is biased towards fig, and 713 pips were extracted from the deposit. However, since one mature fig can contain several hundred pips, these may represent two fruits only. In addition, eight doum fruits were manually picked out from DSU 46, which consists of occupational debris immediately on top of floor F16 in the eastern half of room 6. From DSU 69, situated below the level of the floor F16, 98 olive stones, three date pits, and one peach stone were extracted during excavation. Room 7 One sample of occupational debris above floor level (DSU 75) was recovered. It contains only desiccated plant remains, with the usual dominance of garden plants and tree crops, as well as cereals, pulses, oil and fiber plants, and wild growing plants. The diversity of plants is higher here than in other deposits, and otherwise very rare domesticates such as pearl millet and fava bean are present. Most noteworthy is the occurrence of 220 rosemary leaves, which are usually rare in domestic contexts. Room 8 One sample was analyzed from DSU 60; this features mainly desiccated cereals, oil and fiber plants, and tree crops, as well as weeds and wild-growing plants in almost equal proportions.

388

Amheida II

Room 11 One sample of material adhering to the roof of F11, F43, was collected. Almost all of the plant remains (97.8%) were preserved by desiccation. As is typical within this structure, the assemblage contains mainly tree crops (fig and grape) as well as one of the very rare sesame seeds and a few wild-growing plants; the two charred items are a rachis fragment of durum wheat and a barley grain. Courtyard C2A Five matrix samples were taken for archaeobotanical analysis. The contents of these samples vary considerably concerning the density of plant remains, as well as the ratio of desiccated to charred remains. Garden plants and fruits are once again dominant. A single peach stone was grab-sampled during excavation. It is notable that there are many tiny little leaves of camel thorn (Alhagi graecorum) and other wild plants, which may represent the remnants of animal fodder. However, since this area was an open courtyard and the deposits are very close to the surface, contamination with modern material is likely. Street S1 The street (S1) outside House B2 was not sampled systematically for archaeobotanical remains. Only single larger items, two olive stones and one peach stone, were recovered manually during excavation.

Summary In the archaeobotanical inventory of B2 almost all plants typical for a household of the third century CE in the Dakhla Oasis are present. It comprises a variety of staple crops, oil and fiber plants, vegetables, herbs and spices, as well as fruit. Of these, often not only the cleaned product but also processing waste such as cereal chaff and flax capsules is present. It can therefore be assumed that the plants were grown by and processed in the household. The range of edible plants met the nutritional needs of the inhabitants of B2, and presumably the household was self-sufficient. However, pearl millet, an important component of the diet at Kellis, is present in minute quantities only. Whether this conspicuous absence is caused by adverse conditions for its preservation or whether it is caused by culinary preference of other cereals, is a matter of conjecture. But then emmer wheat, otherwise rare in the oasis, seems to have been a minor crop in B2. The dominance of fruit in almost all contexts is unusual. However, the question whether this bias indicates cultivation for commercial purposes or whether it is a result of taphonomical processes, remains unresolved. Conspicuously absent or very rare in the assemblage are imported luxury commodities such as black pepper and nuts (walnut, hazelnut, and pine nut) as well as citron, apple and apricot. This may be taken as an indication that the primary concern was feeding the inhabitants and not bothering with luxuries. Room

1

Number of Samples Volume (Litre)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

11

Crtyrd

12

5

3

1

3

1

1

1

1

5

49.5

23.0

17.7

4.8

12.9

3.5

5.9

5.0

1.1

16.1

334

1

Desiccated Plant Remains Cereal Chaff

Triticum dicoccum

spikelet fork

Triticum dicoccum

glume base

Triticum durum

rachis

Triticum aestivum s.l.

rachis

Triticum sp.

rachis

3

Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare

rachis

20

1

1830 21

4 102

46

2

6

60

15

27

43

6

8

2

7

4

6

140

13

9

59

16 27

27

1

Plant Use Room

1

2

389 3

4

5

6

7

8

11

Crtyrd

Cerealia

rachis

6

3

Pennisetum glaucum ssp. glaucum

involucrum

6

8

Triticum durum

grain

4

9

2

Triticum sp.

grain

23

4

Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare

grain

2

3

11

6

26

Cerealia

grain

4

49

6

Pennisetum glaucum ssp. glaucum

grain

Cereal Grain

4

4

Pulses

Vicia faba

seed

Vicia faba

testa

2 16

Oil and Fibre Plants

Linum usitatissimum

flower

23

26

13

Linum usitatissimum

capsule

48

25

215

6

5 7

Linum usitatissimum

seed

17

47

18

5

63

Gossypium sp.

seed

7

11

29

7

Sesamum indicum

seed

3

3

Carthamus tinctorius

seed

15

10

Amaranthus cf. lividus

seed

10

Nigella sativa

seed

2

12

Brassica nigra

seed

1

1

Eruca sativa

seed

1

7

Coriandrum sativum

seed

12

15

7

Anethum graveolens

seed

2

27

40

Apium graveolens

seed

3

Cuminum cyminum

seed

6

3

Trachyspermum ammi

seed

9

Ocimum basilicum

seed

15

6

18

Rosmarinus officinalis

leaf

10

64

9

Myrtus communis

leaf

2

1

5

Myrtus communis

seed

8

1034

2135

3 1

8

17

9

67

48

45

4

2

1

2 53

1 1

5

6

2

1

6

3

4

1

3

1

Vegetables, Herbs, Spices

2

1

1 220

Fruits and Nuts

Pinus pinea

cone

Ficus carica

seed

1

Prunus persica

seed

Vitis vinifera ssp. vinifera

vegetative

Vitis vinifera ssp. vinifera

stalk

Vitis vinifera ssp. vinifera

fruit

Vitis vinifera ssp. vinifera

seed

442

260

539

Citrullus cf. lanatus

seed

2

1

1

Cucumis cf. melo

seed

1

Cordia myxa

seed

3

Olea europaea

leaf

1

Olea europaea

fruit

Olea europaea

seed

135

Punica granatum

fruit

5

Phoenix dactylifera

leaf

Phoenix dactylifera

flower

Phoenix dactylifera

stalk

Phoenix dactylifera

seed

Arecaceae

vegetative

7

Polygonum sp.

seed

1

2

Portulaca oleracea

seed

Silene sp.

seed

3

8

Chenopodium murale

seed

Suaeda aegyptiaca

seed

8

Chenopodium murale

seed

Chenopodiaceae

seed

582

329

339

713

12

23

54

15

32

1 6 142

63

1

2

104

28

2

14

854

98

24

1 499

98

3 1 4

16

6

323

43

10

1 118

28

8

5

17

8

1

1

3

2

1 3 14

1

8

5

11

4

3

45

19

2

3

1

Wild Growing Plants

1

2

1

2

9

1

16

3

5

5

1

1

2

24

57

2 2

2 4

4

1

2

390

Amheida II

Room

1

2

2

3

10

4

Fumaria cf. densiflora

seed

Brassica sp.

seed

Brassicaceae

seed

Medicago sativa

seed

Medicago sp.

pod

Trifolium alexandrinum

seed

Trifolieae

seed

Vicia sp.

seed

Alhagi graecorum

leaf

Alhagi graecorum

pod

Alhagi graecorum

seed

Fabaceae

seed

Acacia nilotica

fruit

Acacia sp.

leaf

Acacia sp.

flower

Acacia sp.

seed

Euphorbia peplus

seed

Malva parviflora

seed

Malvaceae

seed

Tamarix sp.

vegetative

Tamarix sp.

flower

Tamarix sp.

seed

Cucurbitaceae

seed

6

1

Apiaceae

seed

4

2

Anagallis arvensis

seed

Boraginaceae

seed

cf. Mentha pulegium

seed

1

Lamiaceae

vegetative

4

Lamiaceae

seed

Withania somnifera

seed

Calendula arvensis

seed

1

Sonchus oleraceus

seed

3

1

Asphodelus tenuifolius

seed

37

21

Lolium cf. perenne

spikelet

4

2

Lolium cf. perenne

seed

Lolium sp.

seed

3

Avena cf. fatua

spikelet

2

Avena cf. fatua

seed

Phalaris minor

seed

Phalaris paradoxa

spikelet

Phalaris paradoxa

glume

cf. Brachypodium distachyum

seed

cf. Panicum repens

flower

Panicoideae

spikelet

Panicoideae

seed

Sorghum virgatum

seed

Poaceae

node

Poaceae

spikelet

Poaceae

6

7

17 5

2

1

8

4

11

Crtyrd

4

90

2

1

1 6 3

6

16

14

2

1

128

11 4

340 87 4 1

13

1 42

32

1

10

5

2

64

2 1 1

1

8

1

59

6

2

2 38

4

24

13 1 4 1 8 8

4 2

22

8

1

2

2

11

2

6

4

7

11

2 1

47

8

8

8

4 8

3

6

18

7

2

5

8 1 1 3 2 4

3

6

2

rachis

2

6

12

Poaceae

glume

1

Poaceae

seed

4

1

1

Bolboschoenus glaucus

seed

6

Cyperaceae

seed

3

2 2

2

1798

936

1

28

89

1006

1

5

1 3921

Sum Desiccated Plant Remains

5

2

2210

3833

936

521

216

Charred Plant Remains Cereal Chaff

Triticum dicoccum

glume base

1

1

Triticum durum

rachis

135

38

Triticum aestivum s.l.

rachis

5

7

7

13 8

Plant Use Room

1

2

Triticum sp.

rachis

2

Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare

rachis

45

Cerealia

rachis

11

Cerealia

glume

1

Pennisetum glaucum ssp. glaucum

involucrum

391 3

25

4

5

3

6

7

8

11

Crtyrd

16

4

3 8

Cereal Grain

Triticum durum

grain

14

8

36

1

Triticum sp.

grain

6

1

1

2

1

Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare

grain

13

2

5

10

Cerealia

grain

3

1

Panicum miliaceum

grain

Pennisetum glaucum ssp. glaucum

grain

1 1

3

8 4

2

1

4

Pulses

Lens culinaris

seed

2

Vicia faba

seed

1

Fabaceae (cult.)

seed

1

2

Oil and Fibre Plants

Linum usitatissimum

flower

Linum usitatissimum

capsule

7

9

1

Linum usitatissimum

seed

2

2

Gossypium sp.

seed

36

5

Carthamus tinctorius

seed

1

6 22 5

1

Vegetables, Herbs, Spices

Brassica nigra

seed

15

Coriandrum sativum

seed

2

Cuminum cyminum

seed

Ocimum basilicum

seed

Rosmarinus officinalis

leaf

Sesamum indicum

seed

Myrtus communis

seed

2

8

4

Ficus carica

seed

93

38

21

Vitis vinifera ssp. vinifera

stalk

9

1

Vitis vinifera ssp. vinifera

seed

232

13

Cordia myxa

seed

1

Olea europaea

leaf

101

4

Olea europaea

seed

68

88

Phoenix dactylifera

leaf

11

Phoenix dactylifera

stalk

6

Phoenix dactylifera

fruit

Phoenix dactylifera

seed

Arecaceae

vegetative

3 1

1 4 3

Fruits and Nuts

10 136

15

6

2 17

1

12 4

50

1

43

7

2

1

49 1

102

56

14

16

14

13

Wild Growing Plants

Polygonum sp.

seed

Portulaca oleracea

seed

7

2

Silene sp.

seed

3

Chenopodium murale

seed

Suaeda aegyptiaca

seed

Brassicaceae

seed

Medicago cf. sativa

seed

1

Medicago g

seed

4

Melilotus sp.

seed

Trifolium cf. alexandrinum

seed

Trifolium cf. resupinatum

seed

1

Trifolieae

seed

8

Alhagi graecorum

seed

cf. Alhagi graecorum

leaf

Vicia sp.

seed

Fabaceae

seed

20

Acacia nilotica

fruit

15

4 2

13

2 77 2

2 1

10

2 4

21

10

28 1

5

1 2 6

1

8

392

Amheida II

Room

1

2

3

Acacia sp.

leaf

10

1

Acacia sp.

flower

22

9

Acacia sp.

seed

99

2

Malva cf. parviflora

seed

Malvaceae

seed

Tamarix sp.

vegetative

Lamiaceae

seed

Calendula arvensis

seed

Asteraceae

seed

2

Asphodelus tenuifolius

seed

13

Lolium cf. perenne

seed

Lolium sp.

seed

Phalaris minor

seed

cf. Brachypodium distachyum

seed

1

cf. Setaria sp.

seed

2

Panicoideae

spikelet

Panicoideae

seed

Sorghum virgatum

spikelet

1

Sorghum virgatum

seed

4

Poaceae

node

Poaceae

spikelet

Poaceae

rachis

4

Poaceae

seed

6

Bolboschoenus glaucus

seed

8

Cyperaceae

seed

4

5

87

7

8

11

Crtyrd

4 1

2 2

6

3 1

112

12

3

16

1 1 5

6 4

10

6

3 4 1

1

1 4

31

13 1

1

1 1 6

1

3

17

2

1

Sum Charred Plant Remains

1293

531

188

138

376

7

0

14

2

137

Total

5214

2741

4021

1074

2174

943

521

230

91

1143

Table 17.1: Summary table of plant remains from rooms and courtyard.

18

WOOD OBJECTS Angela Cervi

Only four wooden objects were found in House B2: a door lock-bolt (18.1), a handle, probably from a basket (18.2), a stopper (18.4), and a fragment from a bed or chair frame (18.3). None of them shows singular working techniques, jointing or decorations. Additionally, no wood species identifications have been made. Wooden objects that are preserved by desiccation in an arid climate usually retain the object’s original volume and shape, but they become very fragile and friable.1 The objects recovered in this dwelling are indeed very fragmentary and incomplete, only representing a small part of the furnishing and household equipment commonly documented in domestic contexts. Wooden items such as combs, spindles, and other instruments of daily use that one would expect to find, are completely missing. These few recovered objects cannot provide enough information for a comprehensive study of the wooden furnishings of the house. It is, however, interesting to note a door lock-bolt found in room 3, derived from an occupational debris layer (DSU 19) that can be related to the second phase of activity of the house. The presence of this bolt suggests an intent to protect valuable goods, food, and manufactured items stored in this room, which is, notably, the most private space in the house. The type of bolt used was a pin-tumbler lock, a mechanism operated by a key that opened a barred door from outside. A device affixed to the inner side of the door contained wooden pegs that would drop into the holes of the bolt and secure it. The door could be unlocked by inserting a long shaft key into an opening located on the exterior side of the door. This shaft key had corresponding pins that lifted the pegs, allowing the bolt to slide out. Comparisons to this lock type can be found in Douch, Karanis, and Kellis. Two pin-tumbler locks were found in the Necropolis of Douch.2 From Karanis there was evidence of a door with a rectangular keyhole on the exterior side, and a security device attached to the inner side. 3 A firm locking device, in the form of a sliding bolt, is attested in House 1 in Kellis. Kellis House 1 is the same house with evidence of a shaft key with pins.4

Catalogue of Wood Objects Catalogue Number: 18.1 fig. 18.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 3523 Context: House B2, Room 3, DSU 19 Material: wood Length: 17.2 cm Width: 1.9 cm Thickness: 1.65 cm Holes diameter: 0.6 cm; 0.6 cm; 0.75 cm Gale, Gasson, Hepper and Killen 2000:334. Henein 1984. 3 Husselman 1979: 43, pl. 53. 4 Hope 1986: 82, 83, fig. 4.a, pl. IV.d; Hope 1985: 115, fig 4.e, 118, fig. 5.d. For more wooden keys of this type see Peacock and Maxfield 2007: 332, fig. 13.2.12-13; Whitcomb 1979: 209, pl. 72 a, b. 1 2

394

Amheida II

Technology: carved Condition: incomplete, friable. Glued together from pieces. Description: Two joining fragments of a door lock-bolt with squared cross-section. A 8.65 cm long notch is carved on one of the faces. Three holes of slightly different dimensions pass through the thickness of one end. The movable pegs that fell into the holes locked the door, preventing the bolt from moving.5 Parallels: Petrie 1889:11, pl. XIII, 16; Petrie 1917:59-60, pl. LXXV.

Figure 18.1: Door lock-bolt (Inv. 3523) (M. Hense).

Figure 18.2: Basket handle (Inv. 11519). Catalogue Number:18.2 fig. 18.2 Amheida Inventory Number: 11519 Context: House B2, Room 6, DSU 46 Material: wood Length: 6.8 cm Width: 1.4 cm (knob: 1.7 x 1.35 cm) Technology: carved Condition: incomplete, very fragile; burn traces. Glued together from pieces. Description: two joining fragments of a wooden handle from a basket or shaduf. Only one end is preserved, and it terminates in a knob-like extremity to which the rope was fixed. Three fragments of sewn-plaits basket are from the same context. See Boozer, chapter 9 in this volume. Parallels: Petrie 1889:11, pl. XIII, 18. Catalogue Number: 18.3 fig. 18.3 Amheida Inventory Number: 11521 5

Henein 1984.

Wood Objects

395

Context: House B2, Room 5, DSU 67 Material: wood Length: 29 cm Diameter: 2.9 cm Technology: turned Condition: incomplete, weathered. Description: Two joining fragments of an incomplete stick. The preserved end is rounded, a squared mortise (1.4 x 1.2 cm) passes through the cross section and a groove runs across the circumference. It is probably part of a bed frame, chair, or couch. Parallels: Compare with Petrie 1927:62, pl. LIV, 555; Petrie, et al. 1913:24, pl. VIII, 6.

Figure 18.3: Stick (Inv. 11521) (M. Hense). Catalogue Number: 18.4 fig. 18.4 Amheida Inventory Number: 11520 Context: House B2, Room 5, DSU 67 Material: wood Length: 8 cm Diameter: 5 cm (max); 2.8 cm (min) Technology: carved Condition: complete with many cracks, very friable and fragile. Description: object in the shape of a truncated cone, traces of plaster. Probably a stopper. Parallels: Bos 2000:298, pl. 12-21.

Figure 18.4: Stopper (Inv.11520) (M. Hense).

This page intentionally left blank

19

WOVEN MATERIAL Anna Lucille Boozer Introduction Woven materials may be defined as objects that have been formed by interlacing or intertwining material. Both textiles and basketry fall under the general rubric of woven materials, and both of these forms are represented in House B2 at Amheida. Woven material was a much-neglected artifact category in the earliest days of Egyptology. In the past one hundred years, and particularly since the 1940s, a number of scholars have greatly furthered research on these topics.1 The preservation of organic material is exceptional in Egyptian desert sites, and it is not uncommon to find well preserved textiles and baskets in Egypt. Unfortunately, soft organics from Amheida do not derive from sufficiently dry contexts to have the survival level we have come to expect from oasis sites such as Kellis. The author examined all of the woven material from House B2 on site during the 2008 field season. 2 Data for this study derive primarily from three fragments. There is one fragment from a sewn plaits basket (Inv. 11554), one fragment of tabby-weave reddish-brown linen (Inv. 11526), and one fragment of light blue cotton (Inv. 11527). All of these fragments derive from rooms inside House B2.

Textiles A textile is a woven fabric or any sort of cloth. We have two textile fragments from House B2, one fragment of tabby-weave reddish-brown linen (Inv. 11526) and one fragment of light blue cotton (Inv. 11527). The low density of textiles in House B2 compared to Kellis can be expected due to both the damper conditions at Amheida as well as the type of context that we have for House B2. Most textiles excavated at Kellis, as well as other Egyptian sites, were found in cemeteries.3 Ancient Egypt is known for linen cloth, but the Egyptians used other textile fibers as well, including sheep’s wool, goat hair, and palm fiber.4 The majority of ancient Egyptian textiles are made of linen, which is made from the bast fiber, flax.5 Linen fabric in Egypt was made from cultivated flax plant fibers (linum usitatissimum) and produces a light fabric that is appropriate for hot climates.6 Linen, usually in its unbleached form, was the most common yarn used at Kellis. It ranges in color from off-white to light brown. Such plants were probably grown locally, as flax capsules have been found at Kellis as well as at Amheida, such as in room 3 of House B2.7 Barber 1991, Wendrich 1999, Wendrich 2000, Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, Wild 1997, Wild 1969. 2 There were no woven materials from Street S2 or Courtyard C2 recovered during the 2007 field season. The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Gillian Bowen and Colin Hope in her examination of these objects during the 2008 field season. Their expertise and willingness to provide unpublished comparanda and suggestions was greatly appreciated. 3 Bowen 1999, Bowen 2001. 4 Pharaonic Egyptians considered wool to be impure, and priests were not allowed to wear it. 5 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000:269. 6 La Baume 1961:36. 7 Thanheiser 1999. See also Thanheiser, this volume. 1

398

Amheida II

In the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods (from 323 BCE onward), production of linen was strictly controlled by the state, both for the quality and quantity produced.8 The Kellis Agricultural Account Book lists a weaving workshop among its tenants but there is no evidence for large-scale, controlled linen production in Dakhla itself.9 Even so, fine linen appears to have been produced in the Dakhla Oasis and transported to the Nile Valley.10 It seems that Tarsian linens were the only linen goods that were exported from Egypt in the late third and early fourth centuries CE.11 The local linens, such as those found at Amheida, were probably of inferior quality.12 This evidence suggests that linen could have been among the luxury agricultural goods Dakhla inhabitants produced for sale to other oases or to the Nile Valley, but that linen from Dakhla would not travel further in trade. Egyptians did not generally use cotton until the first century CE.13 By at least the second century CE, cotton was grown in Egypt.14 Local cotton cultivation is suggested because it has been recorded in the Kellis Agricultural Account Book and material evidence for cotton has been found at Kellis in the presence of numerous cotton bolls and seeds.15 Evidence of cotton has also emerged from the Kharga Oasis, in the form of both documentary sources and botanicals.16 Cotton was certainly an established crop in both oases by the fourth century.17 As many scholars have observed, the Oases provided a favorable agricultural venue for cotton production over the Nile Valley.18 It is probable that this product contributed significantly to the Roman investment in the region. Our fragment of light blue cotton (Inv. 11527) is one of a few finds of cotton cloth in both oases.19 There is a general lack of cotton fabric found in metropolitan Egypt, despite documentary evidence that cotton cloth was neither expensive nor rare in Roman Egypt.20 The House B2 cotton fragment adds to this growing corpus of finds from the oases, justifying previous arguments that the concentration of finds in this locus is significant.21 Weaving The loom weights found in and around House B2 suggest that the type of loom used was the warpweighted loom.22 The warp-weighted loom had a single major beam to which the warp was attached. The warp could be prepared by weaving a narrow strip leaving a long fringe of weft loops at one edge; the woven strip was then attached to the horizontal beam. The evidence for a warp-weighted loom at Papyrus Tebtunis 703 (Austin 1981:255–256). On the KAB evidence, see Bagnall 1997:line 1266. 10 (P. Kell I. Gr. 51.3–6). On this evidence of weaving, see Bowen 2001. 11 The term tarsikarios seems to have been introduced to describe immigrant Roman weavers in Egypt, who differed in some way from Egyptian weavers: Wild 1969:811. 12 Ibid.:818-819. See also Edictum Diocletiani, XXVI, P.Cair. Masp., I 67006.66–67. 13 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000:268. 14 Wild 1997:8, Wild and Wild 2007, Wild, Wild and Clapham 2008:145-149, Thomas 2007:156 and note 57. 15 On the KAB mention of cotton, see Bagnall 1997:lines 547, 556, 558-59, 720 and 1484. On the material evidence of cotton at Kellis, see Thanheiser 1999. See also P. Kell. I, Gr. 61 (Worp 1995). 16 On the documentary sources, see P.Iand. VII, 142, II, 8 (Kalbfleisch 1912-1938), O.Douch IV, 381, 489; V, 596, 600, 634 (Wagner 2001). 17 Bowen 2002b:87. 18 On the production of cotton in the Small Oasis, see Bagnall 2008b. Excavations in the Eastern Desert at Berenike and Myos Hormos recovered a substantial number of fragments of cotton textiles from all Roman Period phases, although these were most likely imported: Wild 2006:179, 180 (fig. 4), 181, 183, 183 (fig. 7), 184, Wild and Wild 1996, Wild and Wild 1998, Wild and Wild 2000, Wild and Wild 2005, Wild and Wild 2008, Thomas 2007:155-156. On Myos Hormos (Quseir al-Qadim), see Vogelsang-Eastwood 1989. 19 On Kellis, see Coombs, Woodnead and Church 2002, Bowen 2002b. 20 Wild 1997:289. 21 Wild, Wild and Clapham 2008:see especially figure 3. 22 On the loom weights from B2, see Davoli, this volume. On the two-beam loom, see Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000:268, 278. 8 9

Woven Material

399

Amheida is consistent with the numerous mud loom weights found in the domestic structures of Kellis.23 The use of a warp-weighted loom for producing linen in House B2 is of particular interest, as Wild previously suggested that this method of linen weaving may have been what distinguished Tarsian linen from local linen.24 Evidence from B2 suggests that local linen may also have been woven using a warpweighted loom, although a larger corpus of evidence would be required to promote this idea more securely. There is strong archaeological evidence for domestic weaving in Roman Egypt. Spindle whorls and loom weights were found in every domestic structure excavated at Kellis, which suggests that spinning and weaving was carried out within the household, probably to meet needs within the family.25 The Kellis corpus also attests to a small textile and tailoring business organized by one of the female occupants of an excavated house, which provides evidence that such goods could be sold locally.26 Weaving in Roman Egypt was not necessarily confined to women, as an archive spanning three generations of male weavers from Oxyrhynchus attests.27 Goods found in Kellis houses include private letters, deeds of sale, contracts, accounts, fragments from implements used in the weaving trade, as well as scraps of decorated fabrics and unwoven warp threads.28 Unfortunately these finds have not been published fully yet so it is not possible to test the assemblage of a business-oriented house against a house that contains an assemblage of weaving implements for domestic usage. Such comparanda would prove useful for future inquiries into textile production. The identifiable weaving patterns used for Amheidan textiles are in the basic plain or tabby weave that is ubiquitous in Egypt and pre-Meroitic Lower Nubia. The quality of this weave can vary between fine gauze and heavy canvas. Our scraps are of a medium density and unremarkable in quality, suggesting that they were produced for local consumption. Dying Both of our textile fragments were dyed during the course of their fabrication, although the poor quality of the fragments renders it difficult to determine the stage at which these fragments were dyed. 29 The linen fragment (Inv. 11526) was reddish-brown and the cotton fragment (Inv. 11527) was light blue. One of the most common sources of the blue color in Egyptian textiles is indigitin, a substance found in both indigo and woad.30 These plants are not native to Egypt and were probably first imported from the Levant at some point during the Eighteenth Dynasty.31 Dying was accomplished by dipping fibers into a colorless vat of indigotin. The blue color came with exposure of the fibers to the air, which catalyzes the necessary oxidization. Dipping the fibers more times into the woad or indigo dye vat created deeper blues. The rust-colored red fabric (Inv. 11526) is potentially the result of the degeneration of red or purple hued fabric. Purple was the most common fabric color at Kellis, and several texts, in both Greek and Coptic, suggest that purple dye was once manufactured at Kellis.32

On evidence of weaving in Kellis, see Bowen 2001. Wild 1969. 25 Bowen 2001. 26 Ibid. 27 Rowlandson 1998:112-113. 28 Bowen 2001. 29 On dyeing, see Cardon 2007, Cardon 2009, Melo 2009, Verhecken 2008. On dyeing and textile production, see Wilson 2004, Alberti 2007. 30 Germer 1992:65-66. 31 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000:279. 32 Bowen 1999. See P. Kell. I G. 74 8–14. 23 24

400

Amheida II

Care of Textiles Textiles were carefully cared for during their life history of usage. Individuals frequently mended textiles in antiquity—sometimes as many as three or four times—before they decided to use them for a different purpose. We do not have direct evidence for textile menders, but it is likely that women took charge of repairing worn clothing and cloth goods. Sewing and repairing textiles may have been a social activity, like spinning, that involved groups of women together.33 Most repairs consisted of darning, mending, and patching, which only became common during Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt.34 Once an item of clothing became too worn, it was sometimes made into a smaller garment, cutting away the most worn portions and refashioning the stronger portion into a new item of clothing. Wooden storage chests were expensive and rare, and household cupboards unknown. The few possessions an ancient Egyptian family had were kept mostly in baskets. Cloth was frequently stored in lidded baskets, or, in more elaborate circumstances, in boxes.35 Petrie found various goods stored in baskets at Kahun, which attests to this practice of storing cloth goods. 36 Within House B2, it seems likely that individuals stored extra clothing and cloth in baskets. Uses of Textiles Throughout Egyptian history, textiles were widely used in households for cushions, towels, bags, lamp wicks, curtains, bedding, and wall-hangings. Outside of the home, cloth could be used as sacks for transportation, as strainers for the production of oils, and equipping animals and boats. Cloth even takes on a significant role in medical, religious, and funerary uses. For example, cloth was used on a daily basis in the washing, feeding and clothing of divine statues in temples. When we have only small fragments of textiles it is difficult to tell whether scraps are from items of clothing, tablecloths, cushions, blankets, or wall hangings. All of these types of cloth objects are attested at Kellis in documentary sources and suggest that all of these options should be considered viable for the fragments recovered from House B2.37

Basketry Scholars often describe basketry and matting as “textile techniques.” A basket and a textile are clearly distinguishable, but a gray area can exist between these two categories. The object described here (Inv. 11554) falls unambiguously into the category of basket, as is clear by the tools and raw materials that individuals used to create it.38 Wendrich has defined basketry as “objects made of plant parts of limited length often with a shape to that specific plant part.”39 The ways in which a basket maker must compensate for the raw material’s irregular shape makes basketry techniques fundamentally different from textile techniques. With textile manufacture, the maker controls the long yarns used for their craft. Our basket fragment (Inv. 11554) is a sewn plaits basket and, as a result, unambiguously dates to the Greco-Roman period. There was clear continuity in basket forms and techniques from the Neolithic through Pharaonic cultures in Egypt. During the Greco-Roman period there is a shift towards sewn plates and stake-and-strand baskets, which rely on techniques that rarely occurred in Pharaonic Egypt. Although these innovations took place during the Greco-Roman Period, traditional Egyptian techniques

Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000:281. Ibid.:283. 35 Ibid.:286. 36 Petrie 1890. 37 Bowen 2001. 38 Wendrich 2000:254. 39 Ibid.:254. 33 34

Woven Material

401

remained alongside these innovations.40 Today sewn-plaits basketry is still the most common type of basketry that one can find throughout Egypt.41 Sewn-plaits techniques involve two stages of manufacture: first the basket maker plaits long strips. Then the craftsman sews them into an ongoing fabric and they sew baskets from one spiraling strip.42 Although the sewn-plaits technique does not occur until the Greco-Roman Period, it is ubiquitous during that time, so further nuance for the dating of our fragment is not possible. Craftsmen used this technique to fashion floor mats and flexible baskets.43 From the Ptolemaic Period onward sewn-plaits basketry were used mainly outside the house for carrying seeds, grain, and other commodities or for moving pots, harvested plants, earth, or dung on donkey-back.44 In order to create plaited basketry, craftsmen required no tools other than a pot with water to soak the palm leaf and a large needle. The needles used for these baskets range from 10-30 cm in modern Egypt and Nubia. They can be flat or round. 45 Unfortunately basket production areas and tools are often difficult to locate archaeologically since the materials used for production do not leave a distinctive residue, if there is a residue at all.46 It is not possible to determine where our fragment was produced in B2 or if it was produced outside of the house. Plaiting is a technique in which both systems (a strand or a number of parallel strands of the same material, orientation, and function) are active. In the first stage, long strips are plaited out of strands of palm leaf or bundles of grass. In the second stage the plaited strip becomes the passive system, which is sewn with a string (the active system) into an ongoing fabric.47 Size, shape, flexibility and the space between the strands are the most important properties involved in the crafting of baskets and mats.48 There is no simple correlation between function and size, shape, flexibility, and spacing attributes. Ethnoarchaeological research shows that the function of baskets can be highly specific and that tradition plays an important role in determining the function of specific forms. Moreover, a basket might be used for something other than its original function, and there are many examples of baskets and mats being reused for purposes other than their original function.49 The production of basketry involved several stages, and the individual who made the basket probably executed all of these stages. For most baskets made from grass and palm leaf this task can be accomplished year-round. Other basket types, such as those made from rushes and sedges, are seasonal products. The harvesting and storing of all of these raw materials required some level of specialized knowledge. The producers of sewn-plaits basketry—the type found in House B2—were probably part- or fulltime professional males and there is evidence of this specialization among the early Christian hermits. 50 Indeed, we have a number of ancient texts about Christian monks throughout Egypt who made sewnplaits basketry.51 That there were (semi)-professional basket- and mat-makers suggests that basketry was bought and sold. It seems likely that the prices of the baskets were sometimes included in the price of the

Ibid.:260-261, Wendrich and Veldmeijer 1996, Wendrich 1995. Wendrich 2000:261. 42 Ibid.:256. 43 Petrie 1896:167, 168 pl. XLI. 44 Wendrich 2000:265. 45 Ibid.:261. 46 Ibid.:262. 47 Ibid.:59-64. 48 Ibid.:265. 49 Ibid.:265. 50 Ibid.:265. 51 Wipszycka 1965:117-44. 40 41

402

Amheida II

materials that they contained.52 Individuals naturally reused the baskets after the original goods that they contained were used. Baskets were useful in a variety of contexts, including trade, domestic, transportation, and storage. Less wealthy individuals, in particular, had fewer options for storage or matting, and baskets must have played an important role in household furnishings. Among more wealthy individuals, baskets may not have been used as ubiquitously, although they were certainly part of the household assemblage. The trajectory of basket reuse depended, in part, upon the type of basket, but most baskets were reused in some manner, since they were labor-intensive goods. Evidence suggests that old baskets were used to line storage pits. Families passed down decorated and particularly prized basketry as heirlooms. The baskets from Kharga, for example, were thought of as fine works, at least during the New Kingdom.53 Once the baskets had transcended all practical use, they were often employed as fuel for ovens, kilns, and other fires, thereby ceasing their life-cycle of usage.

Catalogue of Woven Materials

Figure 19.1: Light blue cotton cloth fragment. Catalogue Number: 19.1 fig. 19.1 Amheida Inventory Number: 11527 Context: House B2, Room 7, DSU 48 Material: light blue cotton Height: 6.90 cm Width: 4.00 cm Weave: 10 warp x 12 weft; 120/cm² Technology: Simple tabby-weave, loom made Dating: Mid-third Century Condition: Fragmentary; Poor; frayed Description: Fragment of textile. The string is twisted in S-direction. This textile is not found after the very early fourth century and is a signature of the third century in Dakhla. This color of textile is found only in House B2 thus far in Dakhla. Another cotton textile fragment was found at Amheida (Inv. 47) from windblown sand in House B1 (DSU 2) and is probably modern. Parallels: Two blue, tabby weave cotton curtains were found in fragments from a mud brick temple found at Qasr Ibrim, see Adams 1987: Qasr Ibrim Numbers 86T/025 and 86T/023. On blue yarn hank-dyed of spun cotton yarn from Qasr Ibrim, see Wild and Wild 2009:4. Plain cotton tabby weaves have been described but not published with inventory numbers for Berenike, although many of these may be considered to be imports (Wild and Wild 1996; Wild and Wild 1998; Wild and Wild 2000). Kellis has Wendrich 2000:266. Baskets and woven goods are represented as emblematic oasis goods in a New Kingdom mortuary context (Rekhmira TT100). 52 53

Woven Material

403

produced several fragments of simple open weave and tight-weave textiles.54 All of them are cotton and brown. Catalogue Number: 19.2 Amheida Inventory Number: 11526 Context: House B2, Room 5, DSU 67 Material: reddish-brown linen Height: 2.70 cm Width: 2.00 cm Weave: 13 warp x 12 weft; 130/cm² Technology: Tabby-weave, loom made Dating: Ubiquitous in Kellis contexts and therefore not datable. Condition: Fragmentary; Poor Description: Dimensions refer to the biggest fragment. Four fragments of tight weave textile. The string is twisted in S-direction. Tabby weave. Parallels: The closest parallels are from Kellis. The plain Kellis fragments are described rather than inventoried and photographed in preliminary reports, although each fragment was catalogued and analyzed (Bowen 1999:9; Bowen 2001:18, 20; Bowen 2002b:91).

Figure 19.2: Three fragments of sewn plaits basket 11554 (M. Hense). Catalogue Number: 19.3 figs. 19.2, 19.3 Amheida Inventory Number: 11554 Context: House B2, Room 6, DSU 47 Material: Palm fibers 54

Gillian Bowen, pers.comm. These fragments are unpublished.

404

Amheida II

Height: 31 cm Width: 22 cm Depth: not visible Technology: Weaving Dating: Greco-Roman Condition: Poor Description: Three fragments probably of a sewn-plaits basket. The sewn-plaits technique does not occur until the Greco-Roman Period, and it is ubiquitous during that time, so further nuance for the dating is not possible. Weaving pattern: twills. The bigger fragment is made of six plaits, fiber width: 1 cm. The weft is passed over more than one warp strand. This sort of weave based construction was typically used for matting and flexible, bag-like baskets, which generally had handles for carrying. See Inv. 11519, a basket handle, from the wooden objects catalogue. Parallels: Kellis has well preserved examples of plaited baskets from domestic contexts (e.g. A/6/73 from House 4), see Bowen 2002b:91, 101, pl. 11. For the wooden basket handle, see Petrie 1889:11, pl. XIII, 18.

Figure 19.3: Weave pattern of sewn plaits basket 11554 (M. Hense).

20

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF LIFE IN A ROMANO-EGYPTIAN HOUSE Anna Lucille Boozer This chapter returns to the specific research objectives set out in chapter 1: 1. Establish the chronology of B2 2. Fit B2 within the Romano-Egyptian domestic spectrum 3. Determine socio-spatial contexts, activities, and practices 4. Determine the people who occupied B2 5. Determine relationships to the Roman Empire The preceeding chapters provide the grounding for this summative approach to daily life within B2. This holistic presentation of the material contributes to the overarching goal: to investigate the relationship between domestic life and social identity in Roman Egypt.

Living: The Chronology of House B2 We had limited textual and no usable numismatic data from B2 in order to establish absolute chronologies. Rather, most of the phases within the chronology of this house are relative within a more general absolute time (Table 20.1). Phase 0: Site preparation Phase 0 is used in this volume primarily to denote the pre-construction material, particularly with reference to refuse dumped on the site in order to prepare it for construction. Phase 1: Construction The ceramics found underneath floor depositions suggest that the interior and exterior walls of B2 were laid out sometime during the early- to mid-third century CE.1 This construction episode appears to have been part of a large-scale development in Area 1.2 An analysis of the constructed floors and the occupational debris above floors indicates that the first occupational phase can be dated to a mid-third century temporal bracket. Phase 2: Structural Alterations and Occupation Probably quite early in the occupation of B2, a bread oven (F19) was added to room 7 (Phase 2a). Floor and wall repairs took place (Phase 2b). Phase 2c: New floor levels (e.g., F16, F39, F40, F41, F45, F48) were put into place over the original floors. The stairs (F50) to the Street S1 were added. Phase 2d: A final floor layer (F17) was added to room 7. In room 5, repairs were made to the west wall (F14), a new floor layer was added (F41), and an informal hearth was put into place above the previous hearth (F46). A wall stub (F33) was added to room 9. This wall was associated with floor level F39 and not See Dixneuf, this volume. The alternating channels method, for example, was often used in large-scale construction since it was more malleable than other rigid brick-laying patterns (Kemp 2000:90, fig. 3.4 (1)). 1 2

406

Amheida II

with the original floor level (F44), because it was built on top of rubble (DSU 74), which, in turn, rested on top of the original floor level (F44). Phase 3: Abandonment, Collapse, and Deflation Abandonment is a complex social process rather than a discrete event. The B2 abandonment process raises a plethora of unanswerable questions. Why did people leave? How did they organize their departure? To where did they migrate? Did they plan to return? Even when occupants abandon a structure, this building may experience ephemeral usage, and an abandoned building often influences conceptions and spatial usage in its immediate vicinity.3 It seems that it was quite common in ancient cities to find that certain building plots or parts of urban quarters went into disuse, while elsewhere in town urban life continued as before.4 B2 was located on a major road into Amheida, and it is likely that people passed by this house long after its abandonment. It is unclear to what extent individuals reused or disturbed B2, although some evidence of postabandonment reuse is clear. In particular, room 1 has signs of an ephemeral burning episode on one of its walls (F4), which may suggest that squatters used this room for a short period of time. Furthermore, it is possible that individuals from this house relocated elsewhere at Amheida itself. The family may have revisited their earlier habitation over time, and their abandonment of B2 could have been gradual and long-term in scope rather than rapid and final. Although the vagaries of the abandonment process preclude definitive interpretations, we can say a good deal about Area 1 and hazard provisional suggestions for the usage of B2 during the latest occupational phase. Phase 3a: B2 was abandoned sometime in the early fourth century CE. B2 may have witnessed some casual use, as indicated by the previously mentioned signs of burning on a wall (F4) above the floor surface in room 1. During this phase some windblown sand blew into rooms 1, 7, 8, and 9. Phase 3b: There was a phase of considerable collapse evinced by the presence of ceiling collapse in some rooms.5 Some wall collapse also occurred (room 7). Phase 3c: The structure was partially covered in windblown sand, but this sand cannot have been in substantial quantity, since this would have protected the structure from wind damage. Rather, a dramatic deflation process occurred that was caused by constant wind erosion, evinced by the smooth and consistent deterioration evident in the east–west section of the northernmost portion of B2. This deflation clearly occurred after ceiling collapse, since the collapse in all of the rooms was flush with the preserved walls, having eroded at the same rate as the walls post-collapse. This erosion process was particularly evident in room 1, while room 3 was the most damaged by erosion. Phase 4: Bedouin Use Present-day The Bedouin from the village north of Amheida herd their animals across the easternmost end of Area 1. Trash from the modern village filters into the area, but we have not seen damage to the archaeological material within the excavated areas in Area 1. Date

Phase

Activity

Evidence

Prior to 250

0

Habitation in Area 1 or Amheida More Generally Ceramics found in sondages below floor level

3 4 5

Ca. 250

1

Construction

Ceramics beneath floor deposits in B2

Ca. 250–275

2a

Structural Alterations and Construction

Addition of bread oven (F19)

Ca. 260–275

2b

Structural Alterations and Occupation

Floor and wall repairs

Schiffer 1985, Schiffer 1987:89-98. Martens 2008:197. Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10.

Towards an Integrative Interpretation

407

Date

Phase

Activity

Evidence

Ca. 260–300

2c

Structural Alterations and Occupation

New floor levels are put into place over original floor levels. The stairs (F50) to Street S1 are added.

Ca. 275–315

2d

Structural Alterations and Occupation

A final floor layer (F17) is added to room 7. In room 5, repairs are made to the west wall (F14) a new floor layer is added (F41), and an informal hearth is put into place above the previous hearth (F46). A wall stub (F33) was added to room 9. This wall was associated with floor level F39 and not with floor level F44 (the original floor level) because it is built on top of rubble, DSU 74, which, in turn, rests on top of F44.

Ca. 315–350

3a

Abandonment, Collapse, and Deflation

B2 is abandoned. Ephemeral use as indicated signs of burning on wall (F4) in room 1 that is above the floor surface. Windblown sand in some of the rooms (Room 1, 7, 8, 9).

Ca. 350 to

3b

Abandonment, Collapse, and Deflation

Present Day

There was a phase of considerable collapse evinced by the presence of ceiling collapse in some rooms (rooms 1,2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10). Some wall collapse is also evident (room 7). The structure is partially covered in windblown sand and eroded by constant wind (see especially rooms 1 and 3).

20 –21 C th

st

4

Bedouin Use to Present Day

Animal herding in vicinity, but no substantial disturbance to B2 or Area 1 more generally.

Table 20.1: Proposed B2 chronology.

House B2 and the Romano-Egyptian Domestic Spectrum B2 is a representative house within the contemporaneous Dakhlan housing spectrum, indicating what may be a strong regional house type. There are two other regions in Egypt worth exploring more deeply for comparisons across the Romano-Egyptian domestic spectrum: the Kharga Oasis and the Fayum. The architectural analysis showed that B2 differed from the (apparently) standard architecture found in Fayum houses, although some points of similarity are evident. Fayum houses generally lacked a clustered plan of access, central open areas, a pronounced horizontal component, and food preparation areas incorporated within the house. Houses at Karanis and Soknopaiou Nesos have a strong vertical component, while B2—and Dakhlan houses in general—tend to favor the horizontal component. Likewise, “kitchens” were almost never located within Roman Period houses in the Fayum, while B2 incorporated cooking areas into the house proper.6 Amheida House B1 also had some food preparation areas integrated 6

On Fayum “kitchens” see Davoli 1998:53.

408

Amheida II

within the main household core (rooms 4 and 8), as indicated by the presence of a hearth, instruments for grinding, and storage bins in these rooms.7 Comparisons between B2 and houses from the Kharga Oasis indicate that the two oases may be more closely related within the Romano-Egyptian housing spectrum. Khargan houses show a preference for a vertical component, which can be found commonly in the Fayum. Khargan houses also tend to have a more clustered room arrangement, which seems to have been typical of Dakhla. There are also close links between Amheida House B1 and the recently excavated houses at Douch. 8 This Khargan evidence suggests that there were subtle regional variations on house plans. It seems reasonable to suggest that regions within close proximity to one another, or with strong social ties, influenced conceptions of house design.9 These results suggest that there were regional housing developments within Egypt. Some houses followed a more traditionally Egyptian layout, while others appear to have been more influenced by Roman Mediterranean traditions. Dakhla seems to have been shaped more by Roman Mediterranean norms than most housing regions currently known from Roman Egypt. The Fayum gives the impression a more traditionally Egyptian character, although a recent publication by Wilfong indicates that this interpretation could change if unpublished archives are consulted.10 Meanwhile, Kharga may be situated in between Dakhlan norms and the Fayum norms. These results suggest that houses should be examined within their regional spectrum and that it is important to build up comparisons between regions. They also indicate that we should no longer consider Karanis to be a standard Romano-Egyptian town, but rather a regional type of town.

The Materiality of Everyday Life in House B2: Socio-Spatial Contexts, Activities, and Practices The artifacts and ecofacts from B2 provide evidence for a wide range of daily activities within the house. The individuals who occupied B2 may have thought through some of these activities carefully, while other activities probably involved subconscious movements. Elements such as light, sound, temperature, framing, and accessibility inform the multi-sensory and embodied aspects of these activities.11 An embodied exploration of the contrasts found in domestic space draws attention to the texture and variability of social relations and meanings. Clear contrast can be found in the activities that took place inside or outside the house, in the light or in the dark, or in public or private space.12 In order to bridge between structure and agency, it is necessary to explore how individuals define identity, reproduce social relations, and catalyze change. Exploring mundane concerns, such as which labor was done in the house and where certain individuals worked and under what conditions, can inform us about particular aspects of individual agency.

A bread oven, however, has not been found yet in or around B1: Boozer 2007:122-190. It is possible that this type of food production was done outside the house. 8 For example, see Reddé, Ballet, Barbet and Bonnet 2004:25-74. 9 Compare to strong regionalization among temples, which Kaper has argued for Dakhlan temples: Kaper 1997. For a discussion of this regionalization of temples and houses in Dakhla, see Boozer 2011. 10 Wilfong 2012. 11 Barrett and Fewster 2000. 12 On these contrasts see Hodder 1990. 7

Towards an Integrative Interpretation

Figure 20.1: Plan of B2 rooms with key to objects and quantities at occupational level (A. Cervi).

409

410

Amheida II

The production, exchange, and use of “ordinary goods” can be just as significant as prestige goods in the creation and maintenance of multiple group identities and affiliations, since these quotidian remains form the foundation of daily life experiences.13 Commonplace objects have been employed infrequently in pursuit of identity questions, and the present work hopes to draw attention to the experiences and identities of ordinary individuals in Roman Egypt. The following pages reassemble House B2 in order to recreate a walk through this late Romano-Egyptian house. Street S1 Street S1 would have been a busy thoroughfare into Amheida, due to its considerable breadth and optimal locale on the edge of the city. We have excavated only a small aperture into this street, but we can make some conjectures on the basis of the evidence at this time. The S1 trench showed an area that was kept clean from most debris, but sand and other refuse would have built up over time, particularly on the south side of the street, opposite to the prevailing wind. The street was notably clean of rubbish disposal, suggesting that most refuse disposal may not have occured here but was placed in dumps not yet located at Amheida. The lack of waste (e.g., faunal remains) in the street may indicate that it was a civic mandate to keep this major conduit clear of such refuse. Moreover, it is the only major street so far identified at Amheida without significant intrusive constructions added.14 Room 9 Moving west into Amheida, a left turn along S1 placed the visitor at the entrance to B2. The front door was large and originally had a door bolt. Presumably, the door would have been kept shut against the wind and noise. The German sociologist Georg Simmel was highly critical of urban life and wrote extensively about how individuals negotiated its complexities. In his writing, doors and entrances represent a liminal space, since they transcend the separation between the inner “personal” world and outer “urban” world.15 Many authors have echoed this sentiment and found that the fundamental difference between Greek and Roman houses lies in the different entrance systems and visibility within the house. The Greek house created a private world by excluding passers-by, while the Roman house invited him in and put the occupants and their material life on display.16 Likewise, in many Roman cities the exteriors of the doorways into houses were lavished with decoration in recognition of the vital connection between the interior space of the house and the exterior space of the city.17 Houses from Roman Egypt often show greater attention to the design and construction of doorways.18 Alston argues that the Egyptian house is more similar to the Greek house because it was closed off to visitors.19 It was certainly common to have dodged entrances in Egypt. These dodged entrances may reflect different social perceptions of houses, but Egypt’s environment must be considered an important factor in design preferences, since the strong sand-laden winds necessitated a Smith 1999. Rubbish deposits refer to deliberate or accidental accumulations of waste, normally coming from domestic occupation or industrial production. Rubbish preservation is typically achieved through burial in “fill” layers, from building construction, or the digging of waste pits. In very late urban contexts, waste sometimes accumulated in a haphazard way, in public and private spaces, comparable to trash accumulation in prehistoric and medieval settlements. Because of the inadvertent way it accumulates, rubbish often reflects everyday life better than abandonment levels. Sometimes these deposits can be linked to specific activity areas, which can provide substantial information about spatial organization within a community, such as consumption patterns. These deposits were probably heavily sorted for re-usable items, making functional identification complex (Lavan, Swift and Putzeys 2007:7). 15 Simmel 1997:67. 16 Jameson 1990:9, Wallace-Hadrill 1988. 17 Hales 2003:97-106. 18 Husselman 1979:40. 19 Alston 2002:82. 13 14

Towards an Integrative Interpretation

411

less-porous entrance. Numerous locations in Egypt had small adobe barriers constructed on either side of doorways to block sand, and the dodged entrance system indicates a similar pragmatic approach to the environment.20 Because of these environmental conditions, the entrance cannot reveal the openness of domestic spaces in Roman Egypt. Rather the entire house plan must be taken into account. The entrance room, room 9, provided the only access into House B2. When entering the house, one would face into a wall and make an immediate left turn before entering the central room (room 7). Room 9 initially opened directly onto the street but later was provided with stairs so the occupants could access the rising street surface. There are no signs that the walls of this room were ever decorated, although it is certainly possible. It appears that little effort was made to make this space impressive. Rather, it served as a transitional space from the chaos, dirt, and noise of the street into the house itself. Room 7 Moving into the central room, an open and highly variable space would become visible. Room 7 is located east of room 9, and functioned as a multi-use area. The central position of this room suggests a Roman influence on the layout of the structure, and it may be interpreted as an aithrion. Aithria provided open and light spaces that would have contrasted sharply with the dark, closed confines of roofed rooms. Aithria were multi-functional and would have changed character throughout the day and the time of year, depending on shifting conditions such as light, temperature, and ephemeral activities. Individuals had to pass through room 7 repeatedly throughout the day in order to access the other rooms in B2, and women probably spent considerable time there for cooking activities. Because of its central location, size, and openness, it was probably the dominant gathering place in the house for social activities and interaction. The principal feature of room 7 is a bread oven in the northeast corner. Courtyards and aithria often contained hearths or ovens, because such areas offered an open space through which the smoke could rise. These ovens would have drawn individuals to them for both the utility of preparing food and the warmth they would have provided during cold seasons. The floor space in front of the oven was patched and repaired, indicating intensive use of the oven feature. Given the amount of ash and residue found in room 5, it is notable that there was not more oven debris spread into the rest of the aithrion. Any ash produced by using the oven must have been cleaned and masked by the use of floor repairs. This cleanliness may have been motivated by the exposed and central location of room 7. Any visitor would have seen this room, and the ash would have been tracked easily throughout the house. Walls play an integral role in the staging of inner space, through dividing up areas and also offering a medium for decoration, such as painted designs and niches. Light and sound would have traveled less well in the roofed side-rooms than in the courtyard, and they would have felt more private and isolated, even when open to public usage and viewing. Each of these side rooms, except for room 5, had a doorway closing it off from room 7. Individuals could create a sense of privacy by closing the doors to these rooms, which would have removed them from the activity and noise of the aithrion. Room 1 Room 1 was the first room encountered from room 7. Objects used for adornment and trade dominate the reliable occupational deposits found in room 1. The room itself did not have any fixed or portable signatures, such as ovens or querns, that would suggest that it had a singular function. Some remains of emmer wheat were found in the room, likely due to its close proximity to room 7 and the bread oven. Probably, room 1 was used for a variety of functions and it is possible that emmer wheat was processed here.21 Given that several objects linked to management and trade were in room 1, it is possible that individuals working in estate management and trade affairs may have used this room frequently. In 20 21

On adobe barriers, see Hope, Kaper, Bowen and Patten 1989, Davoli 1998:4, Boozer 2015. Thanheiser, this volume.

412

Amheida II

particular, adult males may have frequented this room, but it is likely that most family members assisted in management and trade activities. Room 1 preserves no evidence that it was decorated with figural or geometric motifs, but there is evidence that it was painted with monochrome embellishments. Room 2 Room 2 was located along the east side of room 7. The objects from room 2 can be linked to adornment, trade, and potentially apotropaic practices. Like room 1 above, room 2 could have been used for a variety of functions, although most likely it was used less often for craft and food production. Also like room 1, room 2 had remains of emmer wheat associated with the floor level.22 Both Greek and Demotic ostraka were found in the room, the Demotic all in pre-construction debris. The Greek ostraka referred to accounts of loads transported to or from various wells, suggesting that the inhabitants of this house received or used products of trade or transportation. 23 Such evidence complements objects found in room 6 (see below), other ostraka, and the width of Street S1. The ostraka from B1 also mention wells, although these tags derive primarily from dumped pre-occupational material. They indicate a high level of well-management.24 These findings underscore the importance of water management in Dakhla, as well as the lower socio-economic bracket of B2 occupants in comparison to the B1 occupants. Room 3 The south door in room 2 leads to room 3. Room 3 was the most private room in House B2. It was the only room not accessible directly from room 7. Many objects in room 3 indicate linen-weaving, including a loom-weight, a linen textile fragment, hammerstone, a polishing stone, and substantial remnants of flax found in botanical samples.25 Greek ostraka recovered as surface finds in Area 1 mention linen-weavers, which may refer to the B2 occupants.26 The term linouphos (occupational linen weaver) appears in two of the ostraka we recovered, although it is not possible to place the linen weavers from these texts securely within B2 itself. Given the dominating presence of weaving materials, room 3 may have been devoted (in part) to weaving or the storage of weaving implements. The concentration of weaving items in specific rooms of houses was common throughout Egyptian history, which suggests that such practices were performed consistently in the same codified space, likely because looms could be quite heavy and were presumably stationary.27 Women typically did the domestic weaving in Egypt, and the concentration of weaving implements in this room may reflect their use of this room more frequently than other family members. If there was a professional linen weaver in the house (unlikely), the room may have been used more frequently by a man, although comparanda suggest that other family members probably participated in this enterprise. It may have been desirable to remove weaving activities from the commotion and noise of the courtyard, or this room may have been used to store these materials. Of note is that the external courtyard, C2A, also contained a number of loom weights, spindle whorls, and botanical remains linked to weaving.28 Although room 3 had a concentration of objects associated with craft production, it was not used exclusively for this purpose. Complete food storage containers were found clustered and upright in the southwest corner of the room. These jars may have been in-situ, as they were surrounded by rodent coprolites, which is indicative of an area used for food storage. Additional refuse was found in this room, Thanheiser, this volume. Ruffini, this volume. 24 Bagnall and Ruffini 2012, Ast and Davoli 2013. 25 Inv. 3534, Inv. 3741, Inv. 3733. 26 Inv. 3405+3408 = O.Trim. 1.20 and Inv. 3406 = O.Trim. 1.21 (Ruffini, this volume). 27 Robins 1993:95, Bowen, 2001:24. 28 See www.Amheida.org for reports on the ongoing excavations in C2. 22 23

Towards an Integrative Interpretation

413

suggesting that cleaniless in this locale was not important. The beads recovered from room 3 also appear to be for female adornment, furthering the suggestion that women used this room frequently. Room 6 The south door in room 7 provided access to room 6. The objects deriving from room 6 are associated primarily with storage and craft production. The room may have served different purposes throughout the day or seasons, since there are no fixed implements or signatures of debris in this room that would have necessitated that it retained a singular function. The floor was poorly preserved but sustained a basket fragment (Inv. 11554). A simple storage pit, covered with a wooden lid, was located just inside the doorway to this room. Two large storage jars were recovered, but their contents were missing, either because they were soft organics that decayed or because they were removed at or after abandonment. There are some signs that this room may have been painted selectively with red, white, and black paint, although there is insufficient evidence to argue for figurative or geometric motifs. The paucity of data recovered makes it impossible to suggest more specific uses of this room. Room 5 A short hallway led west from room 7 into room 5. This room had the most occupational residue of any room in the house. Three floor levels were excavated in room 5, and each showed signs of fire damage and ash debris. By contrast with the general cleanliness of room 7, which was also used for food preparation, the inhabitants had less concern about masking the food preparation debris in room 5. Large quantities of ash suggest that that room 5 was used primarily for food preparation. Although many of the other rooms in B2 were multifunctional, the ash in room 5 would have been an impediment to craft production and other activities. The top floor layer had a simple fireplace construction created by stacking two bricks on top of one another, a common practice found throughout Roman Egypt.29 The first (bottom) floor layer was exposed in the southwestern quadrant of the room, and a more formal hearth feature30 was identified below the location of the mud brick fireplace. This iterative practice shows reminiscence of the location of the previous fireplace and the reuse of “material scraps” from the past successively over time.31 It seems that this same place housed the fireplace throughout the occupation of this structure. The intensity with which individuals repeatedly used this same locale for cooking damaged the western wall of the room. Individuals poorly repaired this wall by packing broken ceramics into its base. The ceramics assemblage from within room 5 includes at least one large storage jar, which was probably used for grain. An unfired “bread plate,” used for allowing bread to rise, was also found with the room 5 ceramics assemblage. Several so-called fire-dogs were found at all floor levels. Fire-dogs are elongated ceramic objects with “legs” that enable them to stand vertically and support objects on top of them. These fire-dogs were blackened and were probably used to support cooking pots. This cohesive ceramic assemblage combined with the architectural and depositional data suggest that room 5 functioned as the primary cooking area for the house. Courtyards and cooking areas are typically the core of domestic activity, a pattern intensified for this house because the cooking area was incorporated into the house proper, rather than being located behind or to the side of the house.32 This type of hearth was also found in House B1 at Amheida. This type of hearth is common; for example see Bayoumi and Aravecchia’s excavations at Ain el Gedida. They uncovered several in the following locations: Mound 1, room B1 had a hearth (diameter c. 90 cm), Mound 1, room B6 has a hearth (diameter not given), room B10 had a hearth (diameter c. 45 cm), and room B19 (diameter c. 58 cm) had a hearth (Aravecchia forthcoming). For the range of fireplaces and ovens found at Karanis, see Husselman 1979:49-51. 31 On this type of iteration in archaeology, see Borić 2002:54. 32 Alston 1997:53, Davoli 1998:47. 29 30

414

Amheida II

Room 8 The west wall of room 7 also gave access to a short hallway and staircase (room 8). We found no significant portable objects on the staircase, but there were botanical remains on the hallway floor of room 8. It is possible that foods were stored in the vicinity or upon the roof, which was accessed from this staircase. Indeed, it is likely that the roof was used for cereal drying and grain cleaning, since it was an open, bright space, ideal for such tasks. Rooftops have been used throughout Egyptian history as an additional work, storage, and sleeping area. A portion of the ceramics assemblage from room 6 was found within roof collapse and may have originated from this roof, which corroborates conjectures that the roof was used for storage and work. Rooms 4, 10, and 11 Rooms 4 and 10 served as the primary storage areas for this house. Storage activities involve placing useful material resources in specific physical locations so that they can be easily retrieved in the future, although they are not available currently.33 The material signatures of storage include portable containers and fixed features, such as pits and rooms. We have found both signatures in B2: the jars found in room 6 were portable containers and rooms 11, 4, and 10 were fixed features. Both rooms 4 and 10 were situated under the stairs, which is a common place for storage areas.34 Rooms 4 and 10 had low artifact densities in all categories except for botanical remains, such as seeds and olive pits, and there were no largely complete vessels in either room. Such lack of material is singular for B2 and suggests that objects may have been removed from these rooms at the time of abandonment. What objects would have been stored here that the inhabitants would want to take with them? In order to gain some perspective on what such storerooms often contained, I draw upon a papyrus from c. 200 CE, slightly earlier than the proposed occupation of this structure. This papyrus contains the following inventory of household goods: In the cellar: basin, bronze, 1; tankard, tin, 1; cup, tin 1; wooden measure, ironclad, 1; small washtub, 1; lampstand, bronze, with shade, 1. In the storerooms: small dish, tin, 1; cups and saucers, tin, 3; small lamp, bronze, 1; cloak, gold-colored, 1; counterpane, ditto, 1.35 The inventory consists of extra household objects placed in storage rather than items that would have been in active use, such as perishable provisions. Although rooms 4 and 10 contained some organic remains, these rooms were largely cleared before the house was abandoned, much like the storage jars in room 6. This clearance indicates that the majority of the items stored in those rooms were of some economic or emotional value to the inhabitants, or that other people removed them post-abandonment because of their economic value. Such objects would correspond with the range of objects listed in the above inventory. It is plausible that most food items in B2 would have been kept in room 11 and the storage jars located in room 6 because these ground floor storage areas were more easily accessible for daily needs than the under stairs storage areas. Even static activities, such as storage, are part of the biography of lived space and, in turn, of the people living in houses.36 Two of the storage areas in B2 are concealed under the stairs and one under a Halperin 1994:167. Husselman 1979:39. An arrangement similar to B2 was found at House 2 at Kellis, which has a corridor leading to stairs and an under-stairs cupboard. The later addition of a kitchen was added in close proximity to the understairs cupboard and stairs (Hope 1988:169). Understairs areas were commonly associated with women, especially when menstruating (Wilfong 2002:51, 77), but this understairs area from B2 is too small to enable women to use it in that fashion. 35 Stud Pal. XX 67 recto, discussed in Lewis 1983:52. 36 Hendon 2000, Wesson 1999. 33 34

Towards an Integrative Interpretation

415

trap door. The people living in the house or using these goods had knowledge of the contents, whereas visitors to B2 would not have a clear conception of the types and quantities of goods that the inhabitants had in their possession. Room 11 was in a more visible area of the house. There were probably differentiations between the types of goods stored in these discrete locales of rooms 11, 4, 10, and under the floor of room 6. The patterns of repeated usage and differentiated nature of storage spaces must have been even more obvious to their users than to us, their excavators, in the daily practices of individuals.37 Knowledge about the presence of storage spaces represents knowledge of the hidden dimension of social and physical space in houses. People would have divergent levels of knowledge about what was stored, especially because the type of storage that individuals used created differences in visibility. 38 This knowledge can be hierarchical, with distinct levels of understanding both within the house and exterior to the house. These storage areas also carry associations with gender and age.39 Many storage areas located under stairs were simply too small for adults to enter comfortably. Children could access these storage areas through trap doors and could maneuver about the confined spaces more effortlessly than adults. The fully-grown adults in B2 may not have been able to explore the under stairs storage areas thoroughly. On the other hand, the below floor (room 6) and room 11 storage areas were readily accessible to all ages and genders. Outside of the house, visitors to the residence may have known about some of these spaces, as well as their number and location. For example, storage areas are common below stairs, so visitors could assume their existence. People may have wondered if their neighbors had a large supply of goods stored up or if their storage facilities were empty. Knowledge about stored goods probably entered into social interactions, either overtly or as background knowledge. Courtyard C2 The large open space south and southeast of B2 is thought to be an exterior courtyard (C2) belonging to the mostly unexcavated house east of B2 (B9) during at least one phase of its occupation. Early on during our excavations we presumed that B2 might have had a strong connection to C2, due to the proximity of the two and the lack of division walls found east of B2. Subsequent excavations revealed that Courtyard C2 belonged to House B9. In either case, the presence of this external courtyard enabled activities such as off-loading and on-loading goods, provisioning animals, and other domestic activities that the ostraka from Area 1 mention. A bread oven, exposed in the southwest corner, underscores the multi-use nature of this space. The test excavations in the courtyard yielded low to moderate densities of material culture. These material remains included an ostrakon dating to the third century CE, a miniature lamp, a clay figurine head, loom weights, and several complete vessels. The miniature ceramics and clay figurine head may have been toys, which would suggest the presence of children in the vicinity. 40 Alternatively, these objects Hendon 2000:44. Ibid.:45. 39 Xenophon provides us with an indication of gendered roles for storage in a Greek context: “It would surprise me” answered my wife, “if the leader’s activities did not concern you more than me. For my care of the goods indoors and my management would look rather ridiculous…if you did not see that something is gathered in from outside.” “And my ingathering would look ridiculous,” I countered, “if there were not someone to keep what is gathered in.” (Xenophon Oikonomikos VII.37-41). In this Greek context, men were viewed as suppliers and women as users of storage spaces. It is unclear if this concept was current in Roman Egypt. 40 The category of “toy” is problematic. The functional classification of an object as a purpose-built toy is a complicated undertaking (Lillehammer 1989, Egan 1996). Moreover, children often play with the everyday objects that surround them (Sofaer Derevenski 1994). Even so, it is worthwhile suggesting the possibility since we know that children used these miniatures in similar contexts. For example Karanis had several examples of probable toys, including a wooden horse on wheels (Accession Number 0000.00.3312), a rag doll (Accession number 0000.01.0113), and a miniature comb (Accession Number 0000.00.3162). More examples can be located using the Kelsey Museum Artifacts Database, available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kelsey?page=index. 37 38

416

Amheida II

could be associated with magic or cultic activities. The overall image of the courtyard acquires a multifaceted dimension, since it seems to have been used as a locale for stabling animals, producing food, and possibly even child-play. It would have been a vibrant place with so many activities possible and probably overlapping. Overview The confluence of our data sets suggests that there was differential use of space within B2. Food preparation (rooms 5, 7) and storage areas (rooms 4, 6, 10, 11) are particularly evident within this structure. There are also more subtle spatial distinctions, such as the strong clustering of ostraka, amulets, statues, and objects of adornment in the eastern rooms of the structure (rooms 1–3, 7), and areas focused upon craft production (rooms 3, 6). Based upon these data, I suggest that rooms 1–3 and room 6 could have been used for sleeping in addition to other activities. This usage was dependent upon how these rooms were being used, the weather, who occupied the house at that time, and how many people were present. During certain times of the year, the roof space and room 7 might have offered an attractive escape from the heat. Conversely, rooms close to ovens (rooms 1 and 6) may have been preferred during cold winter months. It is important to remember that furniture, such as beds, was expensive, and most households probably did not have a bed for each individual who lived and slept in the house. Practical activities, such as cleaning, inform our understanding of the spatial distinctions between rooms and between houses. Excavations in the two primary rooms used for food production in B2 (rooms 5 and 7) revealed very different states of cleanliness. The practical activity of cleaning a room reveals that room 7 merited greater social consideration than room 5. This result might be expected because room 7 was a central room that would have been visible to all guests and household members. This cleanliness disparity also may reveal attitudes towards the gendered importance of cleanliness; spaces used almost exclusively by women did not warrant the additional time it would take to clean them thoroughly. If this is true, then it could be imagined that women chose to prioritize their time over the cleanliness of rooms accessed infrequently by others, such as room 5 and (to a lesser degree) room 3. The condition of the house upon its abandonment also reveals attitudes towards cleanliness.41 It is notable that the inhabitants of B2 did not clean the house rigorously upon abandonment. They appear to have left many intact vessels as well as jewelry and tools behind.42 It is possible that the abandonment of B2 was quick or that they moved to too great a distance to call for transporting basic items with them. Also, it is likely that the house was reused post-abandonment for ephemeral activities that resulted in moving objects in or out of the house. Recreating the B2 Household: The People Who Occupied B2 Daily life and individual experience focused upon domestic space in Roman Egypt. The holistic B2 excavations and analysis enable us to explore social life and identity among an ordinary household from later Roman Egypt. At the present moment, we hold a wealth of cross-cultural comparative data on houses and households across the Roman Empire.43 The material remains recovered from House B2 inform our understanding of identity from a particular province and moment in time while adding to comparanda in the Roman Empire. Identity is an inherently nebulous concept and difficult to evaluate, but that does not negate its importance. By probing our data for clues as to the possible occupants of B2, we can move beyond the The term “abandonment” is used when we are focused on “the leaving,” such as the disoccupation of a structure or site, and the term “migration” is used when we focus on “the resettlement” of groups (Nelson 2000:53). 42 This abandonment practice contrasts sharply with Amheida House B1. 43 The literature on this topic is enormous at this point. Influential works include Hendon 2004, Blanton 1994. 41

Towards an Integrative Interpretation

417

normative assumptions that once dominated archaeological thought. Particular themes worth exploring include the population size, economic stratum, gender, age, and ethnicity of the B2 inhabitants.44 These themes structure the following pages. Population Size The compositions of households varied considerably from house-to-house in Roman Egypt. Papyrological data suggests that 25.3 per cent of households were multiple family households consisting of two brothers or sisters and their spouses, or a married couple with married children who remained in the parental home. These multiple family households had a mean of 10.36 people in them within towns. 45 Van Minnen has argued that 4.5 people would share a dwelling with four to five rooms, which entails that the B2 household, which has a slightly larger number of rooms, might be somewhere in the order of 9 people.46 Papyrological data for Philadelphia indicate that 9 people per house might be likely.47 These comparative data suggest that B2 may have housed up to nine people at any one time, although it is likely that the numbers of individuals who occupied these spaces varied considerably during the occupational history of this structure. Mortality rates and birthrates were higher than in the present era and there would be fluctuations in household size over time. Moreover, recent research suggests that pre-modern households had lifecycles of their own and were not static compositions.48 Economic Stratum Within the Dakhlan domestic spectrum, House B2 appears to be a modest dwelling. From a general Roman perspective, however, B2 appears to be quite well-off. Research on Amheida House B1, and elsewhere in Dakhla, indicates that elite Dakhlan houses displayed a predominantly classical identity. During the course of excavating B2, it was hypothesized that these cultural signatures may be linked to status.49 The ambiguous cultural signatures found in B2 indicate a clear distinction between B1 and B2, which may be linked to economic stratum. Additional recovered materials provide more detail for the disparities between B2 and B1. The Greek ostraka from B2 suggest that the occupants may have had something to do with trade or management, as they mention donkey-driving, camel-driving, and various goods that may have been delivered. The C2A excavations reveal that this courtyard was used for stabling animals, and at least one item mentioned as a transport good in the texts (doum fruit) was found there. The ostraka also mention linen-weavers, and a tailor or a teamster, which suggests laborers, regardless of their degree of specialization.50 Although there is mention of donkey and camel driving, it is unclear if this driver was a member of this household or this reference is to someone external to this household, with whom its members had contact. Even so, B2 (or B9 to the east) provides a likely location for these activities given the width of the street and the close proximity of a sizeable courtyard. These data justify a link between laborers and B2’s occupants. It is notable that the B2 ceramics are of a consistently lower quality than those from Amheida House B1, and there are many utilitarian artifacts that point towards manual labor.51 Regardless of occupation, the B2 occupants must have been of a moderate social status since they owned gold-glass beads and other modest jewelry items. The qualities of personal adornment indicate On materiality studies that view objects as significant agents in human lives that serve to construct as well as reflect individual identities, see Miller 1987, Shanks and Tilley 1987a, Miller 2005, Thomas 1991, Buchli 2002. 45 Bagnall and Frier 1994:57-64, 68. 46 van Minnen 1994:235-236. 47 Bagnall and Frier 1994:68-69. 48 Manfredini 2012. 49 On elite identity displays in Dakhla, see Boozer 2007:251-253, 257-261, Boozer 2010. 50 Ruffini, this volume. 51 On the ceramic differences between B1 and B2, see Boozer 2007:253. 44

418

Amheida II

that the inhabitants were able to amplify their physical appearance with goods that imitated more elite au courant jewelry. In conjunction with particular forms of clothing or hairstyles, personal adornment attests to different identities within communities, regardless of whether these differences were formed on the basis of gender, status, or age. Material identity signatures, such as jewelry, generated assumptions about the social group(s) in which an individual would fit. Possessing adornment bestowed prestige upon the possessor because of the economic, historical, and social value of the object. 52 Moreover, these objects may have served as embodiments of family and domestic history, setting the family apart from others or drawing individuals or the family into an understood group.53 In summation, the architecture, texts, and objects from B2 suggest that the inhabitants may have been engaged in trade and/or lower-level management. They were of a moderate economic status, given the presence of moderately expensive goods within the house, the size of the house, and the texts surrounding the type of occupations conducted in and around this house. Gender There are some indications of gender and that there may have been a gendered use of space within House B2. In traditional, Pharaonic society as well as Roman Egypt, married women were termed the “mistress of the house,”54 and they were expected to control household affairs, while men held various public offices and participated in agricultural activities.55 Likewise, in the Roman period, the female domain focused upon the household nexus.56 Typically, women were responsible for producing food, weaving, storing grain, animal husbandry, craft production, and assisting their husband’s business.57 As mentioned earlier, women’s letters found elsewhere in Roman Egypt frequently mention food and clothing, which delineates the importance of these gendered responsibilities for household maintenance.58 Throughout Egyptian history, women were responsible for producing food.59 During the Roman Period, this gendered responsibility continued to be the case, and women’s letters frequently mention concerns about food and clothing.60 It is not uncommon for functional spaces, such as food production areas, to be less formal than other areas of the house. Functional spaces typically contained few to no ritual objects and evince little concern for constructing appearances, as can be found in the lack of decorative elements and motifs. Within this house, it is likely that women primarily used room 5. These individuals used room 5 in a routine manner rather than actively considering and constructing how others might view it. This perspective on room 5 contrasts with room 7, the aithrion, which was also used for cooking and shows evidence of “positioning” for social reasons.61 The cleaning and arrangement of objects in room 7 were designed to influence social perspectives on the space. There is a definite female presence in this house, given the evidence of adornment artifacts associated with women and amulets that were mostly likely used to protect women and children. There is Weiner 1992:7, 56-60. A papyrus document dating much later than the occupation of this house (566–73 CE) discusses the necessity of clothing a wife so that she will physically resemble the husband’s family in terms of status. (P.Cair.Masp. III 67310 + P.Lond. V 1711). On this papyrus, see Pomeroy 1994:210. 54 Also found in the Dakhla Oasis, in which the Greek word oikodespoina is used: Bagnall 1997:102-103. This term also appears in ostraka from Amheida House B1 (Bagnall and Ruffini 2012). 55 Robins 1993:93, 99. Women, however, could own property, although it was much more common for men to own property and objects than women (ibid.:93, 99). 56 Bagnall 1993:92-99, Pomeroy 1994:210. 57 On women’s domestic activities, see Robins 1993:100-101. On wives assisting husbands in business affairs, see Rowlandson 1998:317. Women continued to possess property and participate in trade relationships during the Roman Period (Bagnall 1993:92-99). 58 Rowlandson 1998:316. 59 Robins 1993:100-101. 60 Bagnall and Cribiore 2006:224-225, 320, 341, 352-357, Rowlandson 1998:316. 61 Giddens 1984:83-86. 52 53

Towards an Integrative Interpretation

419

no formal evidence that men and women controlled different areas of the house and no real evidence that one gender controlled the house. Nevertheless, on the basis of comparanda and excavated evidence, I suggest that women preferentially used room 5. It is likely that women frequented the north end of room 7 in order to use the bread oven. Also, it is probable that women commonly used room 3, since the artifact assemblage contains evidence of cloth production. This room shows a less singular function than room 5, and men also may have used room 3 for various activities, including linen weaving. The B2 women spent more time inside the house than was customary in houses that placed cooking facilities outside of the covered house. This spatial difference would have shaped family dynamics considerably. There is an explicit male presence in B2, suggested by the finger ring with a seal (Inv. 3452), as well as a number of texts indicating trade and estate management. Most of this material was found in room 1, which may indicate that men used this room preferentially. The easternmost rooms of the structure show the highest concentration of texts and male-associated artifacts, indicating that men probably frequented this portion of the house. Age In the absence of physical remains of bodies, it is very difficult to determine the age of the people who once lived in houses.62 Even so, recent advances in ancient demographic studies allow some conjectures about the occupants at different stages of the household life course.63 It is conceivable to postulate the presence of children in House B2 at some stage of the occupational history of this structure.64 Children here are defined as being younger than the age of fifteen, as this age has been employed as the common cutoff in recent studies of childhood in the Roman Empire. 65 Children are a significant demographic component (approximately 40–65 per cent) of most documented social groups, and they can be expected to have created portions of the archaeological record. 66 It is important to consider that children were involved in many of the practical and economic activities within B2, as childhood in Roman Egypt was not a privileged time when children were entirely removed from household production.67 Children may have used material objects that do not directly indicate links with them. The material and physical remains of B2 suggest some possibilities for linking material culture and physical space with children. In particular, amulets recovered in excavation from room 2 may attest to the fears of child mortality, which was a genuine threat at this period in history.68 Women probably wore such amulets while pregnant, and children most likely wore them throughout their childhood. With Skeletal remains can also be problematic for studying children. Biologically accurate analyses of skeletal development form rather artifical boundaries with regard to social and mental development (Sofaer Derevenski 1994:8). Moreover, it is challenging to recover a relative sample size due to the small size of bones, their relative fragility, and the widespread practice of burying children through different methods or in different locations from adults (Baxter 2005:99, Kamp 2001). 63 On life expectancies in the Roman world, see Laes 2011, Bagnall and Frier 1994. On general issues of demography in the Roman world, see Scheidel 2001. Geographic conditions were highly variable in Roman Egypt, with some regions more or less healthy than others, which would have impacted life expectancies (ibid.). 64 On children and childhood in archaeology generally, see Baxter 2005, Dasen and Späth 2010, Sofaer Derevenski 2000, Johnson 2007, Kemp 2001. Key texts on children and childhood in the Roman Empire include: Wiedemann 1989, Rawson 2003, Golden 1990, Dasen and Späth 2010, Laes 2011. On considering the geography and environment as an influence on the Roman childhood, see Revell 2010. 65 Laes 2011:1-2. Boys and girls probably reached puberty later than in present society (Laurence 2005). 66 Baxter 2005, Hiner and Hawes 1985:xi, Chamberlain 1997. A more conservative estimate is given as approximately 33% in Rome (Laes 2011:28, table 2.2). 67 On child labor in Roman Egypt, see Mirkovic 2005. On child labor in the Roman Empire, see Bradley 1991:103125, Petermandl 1997, Laes 2011:148-221. Capasso examined human skeletal remains from the Vesuvian eruption in 79 CE at Herculaneum and found that 24 per cent of individuals under the age of 20 showed signs of injuries from participating in heavy labor (Capasso 2001:esp. 1028-1031). 68 Between 30 and 35 per cent of newborns did not reach beyond the first month of life, and approximately 50 per cent survived to the age of 10 (Laes 2011:26). 62

420

Amheida II

respect to physical space within B2, children probably accessed the storage rooms (rooms 4 and 10) frequently, since these rooms were too small to comfortably admit adults into their confines. The small stature of children would enable them to maneuver within these spaces more easily and they doubtless contributed to household tasks by accessing these spaces. Outside of the house, we find evidence that women and men used the exterior courtyard, as evinced by the presence of a bread oven, a figurine, miniature clay lamp, and coprolites from animals used for transportation. Children almost certainly assisted in these tasks, which would have served an important role for training them in future obligations and expectations as well as assisting with the economic functioning of the household.69 Beyond children, it becomes even more challenging to address the ages of the occupants. RomanoEgyptian census data indicates that the average age of a woman’s first marriage was at about 19 years of age.70 In the Roman Empire it seems that women married in their mid–late teens or early twenties and men between the ages of 25 and 30.71 In Roman Egypt, the mean life expectancy at birth for women was 22.5 years and 25 years for men.72 It is not possible to link specific categories of material to aged occupants of House B2. Even so, most Romano-Egyptian households were multi-generational, and families usually cared for the elderly.73 Elderly men, in particular, held important roles for religious practices and probably served a useful role in household management.74 Ethnicity The inhabitants of B2 do not present a clear or cohesive preference for either a Roman Mediterranean heritage or an Egyptian heritage, suggesting that the individuals in this house may have had an ambivalent view towards heritage or perhaps a mixed heritage. There are no ceramics in B2 that imitate the high-status ceramics used within the greater Roman Empire, and instead they reflect local ceramic traditions. The jewelry from this house indicates that individuals occupied a modest social status, and most of these objects draw from Egyptian traditions. In particular, the two amulets recovered reflect Egyptian apotropaic practices. The terracottas suggest that traditional Romano-Egyptian belief systems were in place and there are no signs that the inhabitants converted to Christianity. Even seemingly simple and utilitarian actions, such as food choices and refuse disposal, contribute to identity construction.75 Of particular interest is the presence of emmer wheat in this house. This agricultural product was ubiquitous in Pharaonic Egypt, but it disappeared as a major cereal by the Roman Period. The ample quantities of emmer wheat remains in room 1 suggest that the individuals who occupied this house continued to practice at least some traditional Egyptian consumption habits through making porridge. Doum fruit (mentioned in the room 7 tablet and found in Courtyard C2) is another traditional Egyptian food. Moreover, the meats consumed by the inhabitants suggest a traditional Egyptian diet. Likewise, the flax remains found in room 3 indicate a conventional Egyptian crop used for textile production. Comparanda from Kellis indicate that cotton was cultivated and cotton cloth produced in the It is notable that the children in or possibly around House B1 seem to have been educated in the classical tradition (Cribiore, Davoli and Ratzan 2008), while there is an absence of this type of data in and around B2. 70 Frier 1999:91. 71 Scheidel 2007:401-403, Laes 2011:30. 72 Bagnall and Frier 1994:87, 101-104. 73 For example, 25.3 per cent of households had married couples with married children who did not leave the parental home (Bagnall and Frier 1994:57-64). 74 On old age in the Roman Family, see Parkin 2003:203-23, Boozer 2011. On old age in the Roman Empire more broadly, see also Parkin 1997, Parkin 1998. 75 Lightfoot, Martinez and Schiff 1998, Martin et al. 2000. 69

Towards an Integrative Interpretation

421

oasis during the period that B2 was occupied.76 Despite this option, the B2 occupants adhered to the traditional product. It should be kept in mind that fine linen production was strictly controlled by the State, both for quality and quantity produced, during the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods (i.e. from ca. 323 BCE).77 We have no evidence of large-scale, controlled linen production in Dakhla as yet, but the KAB does list a weaving workshop among its tenants, suggesting that textile production in Kellis was not restricted to small businesses.78 The adaptation of new plant species and technologies signifies the social and political consequences of their implementation and often leads to the eradication of older species. Equally, adherence to traditional plant species and technologies during phases of innovation and change can create a strong impact. The consequences of innovations and conservativism varied with the scales of cultivation and the scheduling of activities in the agricultural cycle. Food production changed in later Egyptian history with the introduction of durum and bread wheat, so much so that emmer wheat was nearly eradicated from the diet. Cotton, which was introduced to the oases in the Roman period, probably had a strong economic impact on the region. The introduction of new products changed labor requirements, the agricultural cycle, food and cloth preparation, dress, and social feasting practices. The adherence to conventional food and textile practices within this house is notable and suggests that the women resisted changing from traditional foodways and textile production. Naming practices can also reveal ethnic undercurrents within families. The names of individuals in the ostraka attest to perhaps as many as forty-six people with names typical for Roman Dakhla. The ostraka also include individuals named after the god Thoth, the central deity at Amheida, which is a much more common naming element in B2 than in Amheida House B1. 79 Individuals who recall the central deity of their city may have had stronger feelings of ethnicity and locality than individuals who moved on to other sources for naming. Material culture, employed with caution, can reveal ethnic affinities among individuals. A Roman Mediterranean heritage by the third and fourth centuries CE became intertwined with many Greek signatures.80 Among the material that we can link with Roman Mediterranean influences is a limestone statuette and the transition to the Greek language. The most overwhelming signature of a Roman Mediterranean influence can be seen in the architecture of B2, which reflects a pronounced Roman influence on the way that individuals used domestic space, particularly with the clustered plan and the incorporation of cooking areas inside the house. In summation, B2 manifests a confluence of ambivalent heritage displays in a modest house (among the local assemblage) with a more Romanized plan than houses in other regions of Egypt. These findings suggest future lines of inquiry into the associations between specific ethnic heritages, economic level, architectural style, and perhaps even neighborhood. Overt public expressions of status and ethnicity probably advertised the individuals who were in control of decisions and resources. The absence of overtly visually expressive objects suggests that this family was not among the most significant politically and socially at Amheida. Even so, it is notable that the men, more than the women and children, appear to have taken on the changes that came with incorporation into the greater Roman Empire.

Bowen 2001:22, Hope 1999a:64, Bagnall 1997:lines 547, 556, 558-59, 720 and 1484, Thanheiser and Bagnall 1997:39-40. 77 Bowen 2001:26. 78 On this workshop, see Bagnall 1997:line 1266. For a receipt of fine linen that was produced in Dakhla and transported to Hermopolis Magna, in the Nile Valley, see P.Kell. 1 Gr.51.3–6. 79 Ruffini, this volume. 80 This complicated intertwining is discussed extensively in Bowersock 1990 and Wallace-Hadrill 2008. 76

422

Amheida II

Embedding House B2 within the Roman Mediterranean We can begin to explore the impact that Roman rule had upon Romano-Egyptian daily life through the lens of Amheida House B2. House B2 enables us to explore micro-level relationships within this household, which was positioned in a distinct region within Rome’s Egyptian province. This focused study of one household promotes a specified understanding of Rome’s impact upon a particular local area. Such microhistories do not necessarily correlate with the broad picture achieved through macroscale explorations. Although B2 may or may not be representative of a local “norm,” an exploration of the results helps us to avoid descriptive interpretive models, such as Romanization. In particular, these results contribute to new ways of viewing identity, social change, cultural interplay and daily life in Egypt under Roman rule. Identity The concept “identity” encapsulates the components that distinguish individuals and groups from other individuals and groups in social relationships.81 The greater social milieu shapes identity definitions because an individual’s identity does not occur in isolation. We can explore identity from two different perspectives: the macroscale and the microscale. On the macroscale level of the Roman Empire, formal associations and categories define identities. On the microscale of the household or the individual, the single subjective agent experiences many fluctuating facets of identity throughout the life span.82 Macroscale identities are generally stable and long-lasting, while microscale identities are more fluid and dependent upon immediate social contexts. The Roman world is a rewarding space in which to explore the complexities of cultural identity and textures of individual experience. In particular, the Roman world enables us to explore the subtle layering of identities in the wake of conquest and consolidation. Recent studies of provincial identities suggest that different cultural markers cannot be assumed to be orchestrated and harmonious expressions of a single absolute of “cultural identity.”83 Material culture has its own grammar that does not always shadow political and linguistic changes. Cultural goods can be transported and appropriated with extraordinary ease and frequency into different contexts. In the course of this transport, the cultural attributes of material goods often become separated from their original milieu and imported objects become endowed with local meaning. Moreover we find that Roman imperial categories and preconceptions about various provincial peoples under its rule do not necessarily correspond with the microscale realities in these same provinces.84 Current globalization scenarios provide us with present-day examples of the cultural transmission and appropriation process. In essense, globalization spreads a similar material culture across the world, but research has shown that local areas use these goods in divergent ways. 85 These contemporary studies suggest that shared goods do not necessarily entail that a given group that uses these same goods is similar to any other group(s) that also appropriated them. Local areas may use equivalent goods in different ways and attribute different meanings to the same type of object. The present study of House B2 indicates the ways in which one household made use of material culture in a manner that would have influenced their conceptions of self and their placement within the Roman world.86

Jenkins 1996:6. Meskell 2001:189. 83 For example, see Hingley 2005:especially 71, 105-116, Mattingly 2010: especially 203-245. 84 For an exploration of the Oasis Magna from this perspective, see Boozer 2013b. 85 Cowen 2002, Kearney 1995, Appadurai 1997, Featherstone 1990, Sasaki 2006, Friedman 1994, Friedman 1990. 86 Bourdieu would call this habitus. See, for example, Bourdieu 1977. See also Boozer 2012a. 81 82

Towards an Integrative Interpretation

423

Stratified Cultures The complexity of cultural interactions over time is a particularly thorny issue in the study of ancient Mediterranean identities. Ancient Mediterranean cultures are highly stratified, and the traces of each episode of conquest and colonization often influenced subsequent interactions for many centuries. Egypt, in particular, had a complicated layering of foreign rule, including Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and finally Roman rule. These progressive waves of conquest did not erode with each new conquest, but compounded, shifted, and recombined over time. Roman rule had disparate results among Egypt’s diverse population. As a consequence of Egypt’s history as a locale for rebellion, Rome tried to stave off immigration to Egypt from elsewhere within the Roman Empire.87 This policy affected Egyptian demographics. Relatively few Romans migrated to Egypt during Roman rule, unlike the many thousands of Greeks who were encouraged to immigrate to Egypt under Ptolemaic rule.88 This demographic impact was differentiated between cities and rural areas, particularly in the early phases of Roman rule. Despite the prohibitions against immigration, migrations and other demographic changes took place, which complicated the already multi-faceted identities that built up during post-Pharaonic Egypt. Although these Roman legal categories of “Greek” and “Egyptian” came to an end prior to the occupation of B2, we cannot expect that individuals experienced these licit changes instantaneously. Scholars often presume that ethnic affinities dispersed by the late Roman Period in Egypt, but few have employed a material-based approach to justify this assumption. Because the Roman conquest was the critical watershed for shaping Romano-Egyptian daily life, it is easy to lose sight of the interactions that took place beyond a bilateral exchange between these two polities. Migration can be multidirectional.89 Demographic movements, trade, and the exchange of ideas took place throughout the empire as well as within Egypt itself. Objects deriving from Egyptian, Greek, or Roman traditions, as well as any combination between these and other influences, became available on a much broader scale than they were prior to the Roman conquest. In addition to these far-reaching exchanges were small-scale movements within Egypt itself. Locals appear to have migrated from one region of Egypt to another with great frequency, as evinced by changing population densities in Egypt’s Western Desert.90 The various components of Romano-Egyptian social expression served as essential mechanisms of social change. Individuals reconfigured their relationship to their own past, their conquerors and the particularities of their local situation through new material goods. These multiple layers of migration and exchange (local, national, international) can be found in the material residues of the households that once lived through these wide-ranging developments. Such residues present formidable categories to disentangle, because simplistic ethnic categories (such as Egyptian, Greek, and Roman) merged and overlapped in unexpected ways, rendering ethnic terms ineffectual for describing the daily realities of individuals. During the Roman Period it is difficult to unwind the complexities of these ethnic designations, since political, bureaucratic, economic, and social issues defy simplistic categorization. The terms “Egyptian” and “Greek” are particularly challenging categories in Roman Egypt. The Ptolemaic bureaucratic and political system disadvantaged the Egyptian ethnic category. This bias encouraged Egyptians to manipulate their ethnic identity and many Egyptian individuals acquired the Greek language and mores in order to be classified as “Greek.” Although the term “Greek” might denote someone totally or partially of immigrant Greek descent, there also existed “Greek” individuals who achieved this ethnic designation on the basis of their occupation and tax status. This maneuvering Lewis 1983:16. Bagnall and Frier 1994:48. 89 Papastergiadis 2000:7. 90 Mills 1993:194. 87 88

424

Amheida II

worked well under Ptolemaic rule, but the system imposed under Roman rule severely restricted membership in the “Greek” group. Romans and citizens of the few Greek cities (such as Alexandria) held the highest status under Roman rule, while the rest of the population were categorized as “Egyptians.” These Egyptians, in turn, were subdivided into villagers and metropolitans, with the metropolitans representing the higher status.91 Likewise the concept of what it meant to be “Roman” was complicated during the Late Roman Period. Rome had been a multi-cultural environment with a variety of influences since its earliest days. 92 In reality, at the time of Egypt’s occupation, the term “Roman” was more of a political than an ethnic category.93 Prior research on Romano-Egyptian material culture and architecture indicates that individuals intricately interwove Egyptian, Greek, and Roman cultural traditions. 94 The fusion found in mortuary contexts has received the most attention from Romano-Egyptian scholars. This fusion, often called “double-style” in the literature, involves motifs drawn from Egyptian, Greek, and Roman traditions. 95 Recent studies have employed more sophisticated theoretical models to explain how individuals deployed specific motifs in order to promote their identity for the afterlife and that these signatures varied by gender and geographic location.96 Moreover, it seems that Egyptian motifs were associated with death and may have been employed more frequently in mortuary contexts, regardless of the tomb owner’s heritage.97 Multilingualism provides another means of viewing the interweaving of Mediterranean cultures.98 Coptic, a late form of Egyptian written in the Greek alphabet with seven additional characters, appeared in the second half of the third century CE. During the later Roman Period, individuals frequently operated between Greek and Coptic. Individuals, such as Dioscorus of Aphrodite, created Greek-Coptic literary glossaries and conducted activities in both languages.99 It is unclear to what extent this written evidence reflected the spoken word, but these glossaries suggest that these two cultures became increasingly connected. Moreover, because individuals had to Hellenize in order to infiltrate the higher strata of society, it was not uncommon to carry both Greek and Egyptian names. These double names may serve as an index of an individual’s negotiation between these different heritages.100 This prior research indicates that Greek elements could be included in Egyptian contexts and also that Egyptian elements could serve as part of a Roman atmosphere. Moreover, being Egyptian, Greek, or Roman did not necessarily entail discrete identities by the time of Roman rule. 101 Under Roman rule, concepts of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman offered modes of expressing identity, and the meanings of these categories depended upon the context as well as other factors, such as gender, status and locality. Houses allow us to explore the lived experiences of how these cultural identities combined in Roman Egypt. The nature of the domestic material left behind allows us to tease apart how households may have perceived these different cultural strands as well as how individuals performed everyday activities within the Romano-Egyptian multicultural landscape. Given the significance of context for identity formation, it is essential that we add the lived experiences of individuals to the existing Alston 2002:2. Coarelli 1996 [1972]:15-84, Wallace-Hadrill 2007, Wallace-Hadrill 2008:25. 93 Wallace-Hadrill 2008:41 94 Naerebout 2007, Riggs 2008 [2005]:2. 95 Castiglione 1961, Empereur, Gout and Clement 1995, Gabra, Drioton, Perdrizet and Waddell 1941, Osing et al. 1982, Venit 1997, Venit 1999, Whitehouse 1998 96 Riggs 2002, Riggs 2008 [2005]. 97 Whitehouse 1998. 98 Adams, Janse and Swain 2002. 99 Bowman 1986:122. 100 Ibid.:123, figure 80. 101 Woolf 1994:130. 91 92

Towards an Integrative Interpretation

425

mortuary studies in order to shape a fuller representation of these identity negotiations under Roman rule. The superimposition of cultures forged a complicated amalgamation of what had come before with the current regime. This amalgamation goes beyond what some scholars have termed cultural hybridity —the phenomenon of two cultural strands coexisting. Instead, cultural amalgamation represents a more complex process that some scholars have referred to as creolization.102 The creolization cultural metaphor can be employed to describe material that employs two (or more) cultural traditions in an informed manner and which draws upon these traditions to differing degrees depending upon context. The outcome of this duality is a highly ambiguous material culture, because material goods become imbued with different meanings in different contexts.103 This creolization of material culture describes one of the most remarkable features of the Roman Mediterranean, which is that local peoples triangulated their local identity between Greek culture, Roman political inclusion, and their local identity.104 It was entirely possible to adopt Greek and Roman culture without ceasing to be a local from the Dakhla Oasis in Egypt. Romanization Scholars have often described the process of adopting Roman culture using the term “Romanization.” This descriptive terminology has had a profound effect on the ways that scholars have analyzed and understood the impact of Roman rule on local areas. Unfortunately, the term Romanization often serves as descriptive shorthand for complicated processes, because it glosses over the multifaceted ways in which ordinary people experienced the Roman Empire. For example, individuals could unintentionally or indirectly take on Roman signatures.105 Moreover, the term does not explore the mechanisms or agents involved in cultural change. As a result, the concept does little to explain the complicated processes that took place on the ground, enacted by ordinary people. Romanization also has experienced a long history of study, which resulted in numerous contrasting interpretations.106 Recently, scholars have questioned the value of the concept out of concerns that the term itself is unclear and because it encourages simplified analyses of multifaceted social processes.107 Roman conquest also catalyzed other cultural changes in local arenas that were not necessarily Roman. For example, it is completely impossible to separate the process of Romanization from Hellenization (the adoption of Greek culture). These two cultures are interdependent in Imperial Rome, and in some cases Romanization and Hellenization are synonymous. At its most basic level, Hellenization can be described as a stylistic and cultural influence, while Romanization served as a political overlay. 108 In other words, the term “Roman” was a juridical category that was defined by citizenship, by membership of the populus Romanus, or by other types of relationships to Roman imperium. By contrast, the term “Hellenic” served as a cultural category for describing people with a shared language and culture in a way that peoples of the Roman Empire never experienced.109 Bowersock’s discussion of Hellenism as a cultural expression that in no way threatened other cultures and religions gives us fertile ground for thinking through the multiplex social influences we have identified in the Roman Empire.110

On the creole cultural metaphor, see Webster 2001, Webster 2003, Wilkie 2000. Webster 2001:218. 104 For example, see Madsen 2009. Wallace-Hadrill calls this phenomenon “cultural triangulation” (2008:5-6). 105 On indirect and direct Romanization, see Wallace-Hadrill 2008:78. 106 For example, see overview in Woolf 2003 [1998]:4-7. 107 Mattingly 2010, Webster 2001. 108 Wallace-Hadrill 2008:26. 109 Ibid.:41. 110 Bowersock 1990. 102 103

426

Amheida II

We ought to set aside the assumption that Roman rule eradicated local differences and identities by spreading a common cultural language or koine.111 This assumption does not allow for the possibility that local areas appropriated Roman Mediterranean cultural goods in distinctive ways. Moreover, comparanda from contemporary globalization studies suggest that new, global influences can serve to heighten the sense of locality rather than eroding it.112 Together, these concepts suggest that Roman imperial goods changed meanings when they moved into local areas and that it is necessary to track these changes closely rather than equate Roman-style goods with the appropriation of Roman culture. With these concerns in mind, I suggest that the concept of Romanization does not sufficiently explain the multicultural conditions found in the Roman Mediterranean, and particularly in Roman Egypt and Roman Dakhla. Households in the Late Roman Empire An exploration of household identity provides significant insights into how we might interpret the local impact of Roman rule. The House B2 excavations revealed multiple strands of individual identities and these results reveal the ways in which one Romano-Egyptian household experienced the Roman Empire during the late third to early fourth centuries CE. Exploring domestic contexts in detail helps us to understand the mechanisms for how specific social groups experienced and changed as a result of Roman rule. Domestic scenarios account for how everyday life conveys cultural memory through commonplace actions and behaviors. Investigations into Roman social memory point to the household as the pivotal point of tradition transmision through the generations. Families pass along memories through names, genealogy, religious rites, and quotidian activities, such as preparing food and learning the family trade.113 Memory is central to the construction of familial identity, because parents often required their children to step into the roles of their ancestors in everyday activities. Children served as key actors in the process of infusing ancestral commemoration with memories and conveying this infusion on an everyday basis. An investigation into children and familial traditions reveals that Roman family identities were oriented both towards the past and their ancestors as well as shaped by children and turned towards the future.114 The emergence of new, intentionally expressive material culture and the more general increase in the number and varieties of things that people made and used had real consequences. These goods shaped the ways in which people acted out who they were and what they intended as their relationships with others, even unconsciously expressing and recognizing affinities to groups. Importantly, the new materiality of the Roman Period provided, if not the finished product, then at least the tools required for fashioning new expressions of individual, household, and village identities. A significant component of these changes was the widening variety of new objects in daily life that could be employed for many different purposes. Moreover, the physical shape of houses changed palpably, particularly through bringing female activities more closely within the ebb and flow of daily domestic activities. House B2 provides clear indications that this house was immersed in the material culture and social influence of the Roman Empire. The B2 inhabitants co-opted and adapted Roman Mediterranean goods and ideas into their own web of significations. This complicated interplay means that House B2 is a difficult house to unwind, because cultural signatures point to Egyptian, Roman, and Greek traditions. What is enormously difficult to assess is whether this result entails that the inhabitants had multiple identities (whether in conflict or in harmony), or that the household absorbed new practices into a single cohesive identity. In other words, did taking on Roman material culture make this family feel specifically On problems with this concept with respect to language, see Wallace-Hadrill 2008:128-129. Cowen 2002, Kildea and Leach 1976, Redmon 2005, Condry 2006. On weak globalization, which denotes that individuals deploy local meanings upon global objects, see Friedman 1995:78. See also Boozer 2012a. 113 Dasen and Späth 2010b:8-9. 114 Ibid.:15. 111 112

Towards an Integrative Interpretation

427

Roman, or associated with a broader Mediterranean cultural koine? Alternatively, this household may not have considered these goods to be cultural interlopers. It is impossible to resolve such questions at this time, but future research on similar households may enable us to reexamine these questions more satisfactorily in the future.

Future Directions It is hoped that we can begin to compare House B2 with more houses that have been examined holistically. These comparisons will help us to determine where the B2 household was positioned within the Romano-Egyptian domestic spectrum. The immediate social nexus of the neighborhood surrounding House B2 will provide an additional, significant area of future research. Houses, neighborhoods, and settlements created tangible, physical, and relatively permanent boundaries around groups, their activities, and possessions. In the Roman Empire, neighborhood was seen as the key element in the articulation of the city and the control of its population.115As we continue to excavate in Amheida Area 1, we will gain a better sense of how B2 fit within the meso-level of the neighborhood. For example, we can explore the extent to which this neighborhood was a bounded group and later the extent to which Amheida differed from other cities in Roman Egypt. The area around B2 is currently under excavation as it will enable us to explore the immediate social network surrounding this household.

Conclusion This volume argues that we require more detailed studies of stratigraphically excavated and fully recorded individual houses and neighborhoods in order to build up our understanding of the impact of Roman rule upon daily life across the empire. As we grow to understand the small-scale impact of Roman imperial rule we can begin to explore the mechanisms and actors involved in the social changes evident on the grand scale. Hopefully this holistic exploration of Amheida House B2 contributes a beneficial step towards this eventual goal. 115

Wallace-Hadrill 2008:293.

This page intentionally left blank

References Adams, J. N., M. Janse, and S. Swain, eds. (2002) Bilingualism in ancient society: language contact and the written text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adams, N. K. (1987) “Textile remains from a late temple in Egyptian Nubia.” Ars Textrina 8: 85-124. Alberti, M. E. (2007) “Washing and dyeing installations of the ancient Mediterranean: towards a definition from Roman times back to Minoan Crete.” In Ancient textiles. Production, craft and society: proceedings of the first international conference on ancient textiles, held at Lund, Sweden, and Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 19-23, 2003, C. Gillis and M.-L. Nosch, eds.: 59-63. Oxford: Oxbow. Alekseeva, E. M. (1978) Anchtichnye busy Severnogo Prichernomor’ia (Ancient beads of the northern Black Sea littoral), v. 2. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Nauka. Allen, M. L. (1978) “Terracottas.” In Guardians of the Nile: sculptures from Karanis in the Fayoum (c. 250 BC-AD 450): Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, October 14-December 17, 1978, E. K. Gazda, ed.: 58-61. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum. — (1985) The terracotta figures from Karanis: a study of technique, style, and chronology in Fayoumic choroplastics. PhD diss., University of Michigan. Allison, P. M. (1992) “The relationship between wall-decoration and room-type in Pompeian houses: a case study of the Casa della Caccia Antica.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 5: 235-249. — (1993) “How do we identify the use of space in Roman housing?” In Functional and spatial analysis of wall painting: proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Ancient Wall Painting, Amsterdam, 8-12 September 1992. E. M. Moorman, ed.: 1-8. Leiden: Stichting BABESCH. — (1999a) “Introduction.” In The archaeology of household activities, P. M. Allison, ed.: 1-18. London: Routledge. — (1999b) “Labels for ladles: interpreting the material culture of Roman households.” In The archaeology of household activities, P. M. Allison, ed.: 57-77. London: Routledge. — (2002) “Colour and light in a Pompeian house: modern impressions or ancient perceptions.” In Colouring the past: the significance of colour in archaeological research, A. Jones and G. MacGregor, eds.: 195-207, plates 9-10. Oxford and New York: Berg. — (2004) Pompeian households: analysis of the material culture. Los Angeles: Costen Institute for Archaeology Press. Alston, R. (1997) “Houses and households in Roman Egypt.” In Domestic space in the Roman world: Pompeii and beyond. R. Laurence and A. Wallace-Hadrill, eds.: 25-39. Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 22. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. — (2002) The city in Roman and Byzantine Egypt. London and New York: Routledge. Amélineau, É. (1888) Monuments pour servir à l’histoire de l’Egypte chrétienne aux IVe et Ve siècles. Paris: Ministère de l’instruction publique et des beaux-arts. André, J. (1998) Essen und Trinken im alten Rom. Stuttgart: Reclam. Appadurai, A. (1997) Modernity at large: cultural dimensions of globalization, vol. 1. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Aravecchia, N. (forthcoming) Ain el-Gedida: 2006-2008 excavations of a late antique site in Egypt’s Western Desert. New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World and New York University Press. Arcelin, P., and M. Tuffreau-Libre (1998) La quantification des céramiques, conditions et protocole, actes de la table ronde du Centre archéologique européen du Mont-Beuvray, Glux-en-Glenne, 7-9 avril 1998. Glux-en-Glenne: Centre archéologique européen du Mont Beuvray. Arnold, F., G. Haeny, and S. Schaten (2003) Die Nachnutzung des Chnumtempelbezirks: Wohnbebauung der Spätantike und des Frühmittelalters. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Arveiller-Dulong, V., and M.-D. Nenna (2005) Les verres antiques du Musée du Louvre, vol. 2. Vaisselle et contenants du Ier siècle au début du VIIe siècle après J.-C. Paris: Éditions Somogy.

430

Amheida II

— (2011) Les verres antiques du Musée du Louvre III. Parures instruments et éléments d’incrustation. Paris: Éditions Somogy. Ast, R., and P. Davoli (2013) “Ostraka and stratigraphy at Amheida (Dakhla Oasis, Egypt): a methodological issue” (oral presentation). In 27th International Congress of Papyrology, Warsaw, Poland. Aston, D. A. (1989) “Ancient Egyptian ‘fire-dogs’: a new interpretation.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 45: 27–32. Augé, C. (1987) “La réutilisation des monnaies de bronze à l’époque impériale: quelques exemples procheorientaux.” In Rythmes de la production monétaire, de l’antiquité à nos jours: actes du colloque international organisé à Paris du 10 au 12 janvier 1986, G. Depeyrot, T. Hackens, and G. Moucharte, eds.: 227-235. Louvain-laNeuve: Musée de la monnaie (France), Centre national de la recherche scientifique (France), Séminaire de numismatique. Ault, B. A., and L. C. Nevett (1999) “Digging houses: archaeologies of classical and Hellenistic Greek domestic assemblages.” In The archaeology of household activities, P. M. Allison, ed.: 43-56. London: Routledge. Bachelard, G. (1994) The poetics of space: the classic look at how we experience intimate places. M. Jolas, Boston: Beacon Press. Badawy, A. (1968) A history of Egyptian architecture. The empire (the New Kingdom): from the eighteenth to the end of the twentieth dynasty, 1580-1085 BC. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bagnall, R. S. (1985) “The camel, the wagon and the donkey.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 22: 1-6. — (1993) Egypt in late antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. —, ed. (1997) The Kellis agricultural account book (P.Kell. IV Gr. 96). Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 7. Oxford: Oxbow. — (2003) Later Roman Egypt: society, religion, economy, and administration. Aldershot: Ashgate. — (2007) “Family and society in Roman Oxyrhynchus.” In Oxyrhynchus: a city and its texts, A. K. Bowman, R. A. Coles, N. Gonis, D. Obbink, and P. J. Parsons, eds.: 182-193. London: Egypt Exploration Society. — (2008a) “Economy and ecology in the Kellis Agricultural Account Book.” In The Oasis Papers 2: proceedings of the second international conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, M. F. Wiseman, ed.: 115-118. Oxford: Oxbow. — (2008b) “SB 6.9025, cotton, and the economy of the small oasis.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 45: 21-30. — (2009) “Practical help: chronology, geography, measures, currency, names, prosopography, and technical vocabulary.” In The Oxford handbook of papyrology, R. S. Bagnall, ed.: 179-96. New York: Oxford University Press. Bagnall, R. S., and R. Cribiore (2006) Women’s letters from ancient Egypt 300 BC - AD 800. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Bagnall, R. S., and B. W. Frier (1994) The demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Bagnall, R. S., and D. W. Rathbone (2004) Egypt from Alexander to the Copts: an archaeological and historical guide. London: The British Museum Press. Bagnall, R. S., and G. R. Ruffini (2004) “Civic life in fourth-century Trimithis: two ostraka from the 2004 excavations.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 149: 143-152. — (2012) Ostraka from Trimithis volume 1: texts from the 2004-2007 seasons. New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World and New York University Press. Bailey, D. M. (1988) A catalogue of the lamps in the British Museum III, Roman provincial lamps. London: Trustees of the British Museum. — (1998) “Terracotta figures from Mons Claudianus.” In Life on the fringe: living in the southern Egyptian deserts during the Roman and early-Byzantine periods: proceedings of a colloquium held on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo, 9–12 December 1996, O. E. Kaper, ed.: 21–30. Leiden: Research School CNWS, School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies.

Bibliography

431

— (2007) “The glass vessels.” In The Roman imperial quarries: survey and excavation at Mons Porphyrites, 1994–1998. Vol. 2: the excavations, D. P. S. Peacock and V. A. Maxfield, eds. Excavation Memoir 82. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Bailey, D. W. (2005) Prehistoric figurines: representation and corporeality in the Neolithic. London and New York: Routledge. Baines, J. (1987) “Practical religion and piety.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 73: 79–98. Baker, M. (1997) “Invisibility as a symptom of gender categories in archaeology.” In Invisible people and processes: writing gender and childhood into European archaeology, J. Moore and E. Scott, eds.: 183–191. London: Leicester University Press. Ball, J. (1927a) “Problems of the Libyan desert.” The Geographical Journal 70(1): 21–38. — (1927b) “Problems of the Libyan desert (continued).” The Geographical Journal 70(2): 105–28. Ballet, P. (1990) “Annexe II. La céramique du site urbain de Douch/Kysis.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 90: 298–301. — (1996) “Potiers et fabricants de figurines dans l’Égypte ancienne.” Cahiers de la Céramique égyptienne 4: 113–126. — (2000) “La céramique. Notes et remarques.” In Le sanctuaire rupestre de Piyris à Ayn al-Labakha, A. Hussein, ed.: 91–105. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. — (2004) “Jalons pour une histoire de la céramique romaine au sud de Kharga, Douch 1985–1990.” In Kysis: fouilles de l’Ifao à Douch, Oasis de Kharga, 1985–1990, M. Reddé, ed.: 209–240. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. — (2008) “D’Alexandria à Antinoopolis: fondations égyptiennes et réseau variaire.” In La rue dans l’antiquité: définition, aménagement et devenir de l’Orient méditerranéen à la Gaule: actes du colloque de Poitiers, 7–9 septembre 2006, P. Ballet, N. Dieudonné-Glad, and C. Saliou, eds.: 151–160. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Ballet, P., N. Dieudonné-Glad, and C. Saliou, eds. (2008) La rue dans l’antiquité: définition, aménagement et devenir de l’Orient méditerranéen à la Gaule: actes du colloque de Poitiers, 7–9 septembre 2006. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Barag, D. P. (1990) “The prelude to Hellenistic gold-glass.” In Annales du 11e Congrès de l’Association internationale pour l’histoire du verre, Bâle, 29 août–3 septembre 1988, A. von Saldern, ed.: 19–25. Amsterdam: Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre. Barakat, H. N., and N. Baum (1992) La végétation antique. Une approche macrobotanique. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Barber, E. J. W. (1991) Prehistoric textiles: the development of cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with special reference to the Aegean. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Barrett, J. C. (1987) “Contextual archaeology.” Antiquity 61: 468–473. Barrett, J. C., and K. J. Fewster (2000) “Intimacy and structural transformation: Giddens and archaeology.” In Philosophy and archaeological practice: perspectives for the 21st century, C. Holtorf and H. Karlsson, eds.: 25–38. Göteburg: Bricoleur Press. Bataille, G. (1988) The accursed share: consumption. R. Hurley, trans. New York: Zone Books. Baxter, J. E. (2005) The archaeology of childhood: children, gender, and material culture. Walnut Creek and Oxford: AltaMira Press. Bayer-Niemeier, E. (1985) “Harpokrates zu Pferde und andere Reiterdarstellungen des hellenistisch-römischen Ägyptens.” Städel-Jahrbuch 10: 27–44. — (1988) Griechisch-römische Terrakotten. Liebighaus Museum Alter Plastik, Frankfurt am Main. Bildwerke der Sammlung Kaufmann. Melsungen: Verl. Gutenberg. Bayumi, K. (1998) “The excavations at Ain al-Gedida in the Dakhleh Oasis.” In Life on the fringe: living in the southern Egyptian deserts during the Roman and early-Byzantine periods: proceedings of a colloquium held on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo, 9–12

432

Amheida II

December 1996, O. E. Kaper, ed.: 55–62. Leiden: Research School CNWS, School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. Beadnell, H. J. L. (1909) An Egyptian oasis: an account of the oasis of Kharga in the Libyan desert, with special reference to its history, physical geography, and water-supply. London: John Murray. Bell, D. N. (1983) Besa: life of Shenoute. Collegeville, MN: Cistercian Publications. Beretta, P., and G. Di Pasquale, eds. (2004) Vitrum: Il vetro fra arte e scienza nel mondo romano. Florence: Firenze Musei. Berry, M. (2002) “The study of pigments from Shrine I at Ismant el-Kharab.” In Dakhleh Oasis Project: preliminary reports on the 1994–1995 to 1998–1999 field seasons, C. A. Hope and G. E. Bowen, eds.: 53–60. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 11. Oxford: Oxbow. Bingen, J. (1991) “Notables hermopolitains et onomastique féminine.” Chronique d’Egypte 66: 324–329. Blanton, R. E. (1994) Houses and households: a comparative study. New York: Plenum Press. Blondaux, L. (2002) “Conservation of archaeological wall paintings in the temple of Tutu.” In Dakhleh Oasis Project: preliminary reports on the 1994–1995 to 1998–1999 field seasons, C. A. Hope and G. E. Bowen, eds.: 61–63. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 11. Oxford: Oxbow. Boak, A. E. R. (1933) Karanis: the temples, coin hoards, botanical and zoölogical reports. Seasons 1924–31. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Boak, A. E. R., and E. E. Peterson (1931) Karanis: topographical and architectural report of excavations during the seasons 1924–28. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Boak, A. E. R., E. E. Peterson, and R. A. Haatveldt (1935) Soknopaiou Nesos: the University of Michigan excavations at Dimê in 1931–32. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Boessneck, J. A., H.-H. Müller, and M. Teichert (1964) “Osteologische Unterschneidsmerkmale zwischen Schaf (Ovis aries Linné) und Ziege (Capra hircus Linné).” Kühn-Archiv 78: 1–129. Bonn, G. C. (1977) “Gold-in-glass beads from the ancient world.” Britannia 8: 193–207, pls. XV–XVI. Bonnet, E. (1905) “Plantes antiques des nécropoles d´Antinoé.” Journal de Botanique 19: 1–8. Boozer, A. L. (2007) Housing empire: the archaeology of daily life in Roman Amheida, Egypt. PhD diss., Columbia University. — (2010) “Memory and microhistory of an empire: domestic contexts in Roman Amheida, Egypt.” In Archaeology and memory, D. Borić, ed.: 138–157. Oxford: Oxbow. — (2011) “Forgetting to remember in the Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt.” In Cultural memory and identity in ancient societies, M. Bommas, ed.: 109–126. London and New York: Continuum. — (2012a) “Globalizing Mediterranean identities: the overlapping spheres of Egyptian, Greek and Roman worlds at Trimithis.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 25(2): 93–116. — (2012b) “A preliminary report on Courtyard C2.” . — (2012c) “Old age and aging.” In Encyclopedia of Ancient History, R. S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C. Champlin, A. Erskine, and S. R. Huebner, eds. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. — (2012d) “Masculinity.” In Encyclopedia of Ancient History, R. S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C. Champlin, A. Erskine, and S. R. Huebner, eds. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. — (2013a) “Archaeology on Egypt’s edge: archaeological research in the Dakhleh Oasis, 1819–1977.” Ancient West & East 12: 117–156. — (2013b) “Frontiers and borderlands in imperial perspectives: exploring Rome’s Egyptian frontier.” American Journal of Archaeology 117(2): 275–292. — (2013c) “A preliminary report on Courtyard C2C.” . — (2014) “Adapting urban space in late Roman Trimithis (Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt).” In Egypt in the first millennium AD: perspectives from new fieldwork, E. O’Connell, ed.: 23–42, plates 1–3. Leuven: Peeters. — (2015a) “The tyranny of typologies in Romano-Egyptian domestic archaeology.” In Material evidence: learning from archaeological practice, A. Wylie and R. Chapman, eds. Malden, Blackwell: 92-109.

Bibliography

433

— (2015b) “Inside and Out: Romano-Egyptian Housing from the Fayyum and Dakhleh” In Housing and Habitat in the Ancient Mediterranean: Cultural and Environmental Responses, B.E. Parr, Andrea Di Castro, and Colin Hope (eds.) Leuven: Peeters: 187-200. — (2015c) “Tracing ordinary life at Trimithis (Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt).” In The materiality of everyday life, C. Robin and L. Overholtzer, eds. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association: 122-138. — (2015d) “The social impact of trade and migration in Egypt’s Western Desert.” In Oxford handbooks in archaeology online, C. Riggs, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borchardt, L., and H. Ricke (1980) Die Wohnhäuser in Tell el-Amarna. Berlin: Mann Verlag. Borić, D. (2002) “‘Deep time’ metaphor: mnemonic and apotropaic practices at Lepenski Vir.” Journal of Social Archaeology 3(1): 46–74. Bos, J. E. M. F. (2000) “Jar stoppers and seals.” In Report of the 1998 excavations at Berenike and the survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, including the excavations in Wadi Kalalat, W. Z. Wendrich and S. E. Sidebotham, eds.: 275–303. CNWS publications, Special series, no. 4. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS). Boulos, L. (1999–2005) Flora of Egypt I – IV. Cairo: Al Hadara Publishing. Bourdieu, P. (1966) “The sentiment of honour in Kabyle society.” In Honour and shame: the values of Mediterranean society, J. G. Peristiany, ed.: 191–241. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. — (1977) “Structures, habitus, power: basis for a theory of symbolic power.” In Outline of a theory of practice, P. Bourdieu, ed.: 159–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. du Bourguet, P. (1975) “Ensemble magique de la période romaine en Egypte.” Revue du Louvre 25: 255–257. Bourriau, J., P. T. Nicholson, and P. J. Rose (2000) “Pottery.” In Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.: 121–147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowen, G. E. (1999) “Textiles from Ismant el-Kharab.” Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 10: 7–12. — (2000) “The small church at Ismant el-Kharab.” Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 11: 29–34. — (2001) “Texts and textiles: a study of the textile industry at ancient Kellis.” The Artifact 24: 18–28. — (2002a) “The fourth century churches at Ismant el-Kharab.” In Dakhleh Oasis Project: preliminary reports on the 1992–1993 and 1993–1994 field seasons, C. A. Hope and G. E. Bowen, eds.: 65–85. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 8. Oxford: Oxbow. — (2002b) “Textiles, basketry and leathergoods.” In Dakhleh Oasis Project: preliminary reports on the 1994–1995 to 1998– 1999 field seasons, C. A. Hope and G. E. Bowen, eds.: 87–104. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 11. Oxford: Oxbow. — (2003a) “The small east church at Ismant el-Kharab.” In The Oasis Papers 3: proceedings of the third international conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, G. E. Bowen and C. A. Hope, eds.: 153–165. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 14. Oxford: Oxbow. — (2003b) “Some observations on Christian burial practices at Kellis.” In The Oasis Papers 3: proceedings of the third international conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, G. E. Bowen and C. A. Hope, eds.: 167–182. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 14. Oxford: Oxbow. — (2008) “The church of Deir Abu Metta and a Christian cemetary in Dakhleh Oasis: a brief report.” The Bulletin of Australian Centre for Egyptology 19: 7–16. — (2009) “The Church of Deir Abu Metta, Dakhleh Oasis: a report on the 2009 excavations.” The Bulletin of Australian Centre for Egyptology 20: 7–36. Bowen, G. E., et al. (2007) “Brief report on the 2007 excavations at Ismant el-Kharab.” Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 18: 21–52. Bowersock, G. W. (1990) Hellenism in late antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowes, K. (2010) Houses and society in the later Roman empire. London: Duckworth. Bowman, A. K. (1986) Egypt after the pharaohs 332 BC–AD 642: from Alexander to the Arab conquest. Berkeley: University of California Press.

434

Amheida II

— (1994) Life and letters on the Roman Frontier: Vindolanda and its people. London: British Museum Press. Bowman, A. K., et al., eds. (2007) Oxyrhynchus: a city and its texts. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Bradley, K. R. (1991) Discovering the Roman family: studies in Roman social history. New York: Oxford University Press. Broux, Y. (2013) “Explicit name change in Roman Egypt.” Chronique d’Egypte 88: 313–336. Brumfiel, E. M. (1991) “Weaving and cooking: women’s production in Aztec Mexico.” In Engendering archaeology: women in prehistory, J. M. Gero and C. M. Wright, eds.: 224–251. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Brun, J.-P. (2001) “Le verre dans le désert oriental d’Egypte: contextes datés.” In Échanges et commerce du verre dans le monde antique, Actes du colloque de l’Association française pour l’archéologie du verre Aix-en-Provence et Marseille, 7–9 juin 2001, D. Foy and M.-D. Nenna, eds.: 377–387. Monographies Instrumentum 24. Montagnac: Editions Monique Mergoil — (2003) “Les objets en verre.” In La Route de Myos Hormos: L’armée romaine dans le désert oriental d’Egypte, H. Cuvigny, ed.: 516–537. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Brunton, G. (1930) Qau and Badari III. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 50. Buchli, V., ed. (2002) The material culture reader. Oxford: Berg. Burnett, A. M., M. Amandry, and P. P. Ripollès Alegre (1992) Roman provincial coinage. Volume I: from the death of Caesar to the death of Vitellius (44 BC–AD 69). London and Paris: British Museum Press and Bibliothèque Nationale. Butcher, K. (2003) Roman Syria and the Near East. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. Butler, J. (1990) Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge. Campana, D. V. (2010) “FAUNA: database and analysis software for faunal analysis” (poster presentation). In International Council for Archaeozoology, Paris, August 23–26th, 2010. Paris. Campana, D. V., and P. J. Crabtree (1987) “ANIMALS--A C language computer program for the analysis of faunal remains and its use in the analysis of the early iron age fauna from Dun Ailinne.” Archaeozoologia 1(1): 58–69. Campana, D. V., et al., eds. (2010) Anthropological approaches to zooarchaeology: colonialism, complexity and animal transformations. Oxford: Oxbow. Capasso, L. (2001) I fuggiaschi di Ercolano: Paleobiologia delle vittime dell’eruzione vesuviana del 79 d.C. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Cappers, R. T. J. (2006) Roman footprints at Berenike: archaeobotanical evidence of subsistence and trade in the eastern desert of Egypt. Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Cappers, R. T. J., and R. Neef (2012) Handbook of plant palaeoecology. Eelde: Barkhuis & Groningen University Library. Cardon, D. (2007) Natural dyes: sources, tradition, technology, science. London: Archetype Publications. — (2009) “Colours in civilizations of the world and natural colorants: history under tension.” In Handbook of natural colorants, T. Bechtold and R. Mussak, eds.: 21–26. Chichester: Wiley. Cashman, V. L. (1999) “Jar stoppers.” In Berenike 1997: report of the 1997 excavations at Berenike and the survey of the Egyptian eastern desert, including excavations at Shenshef, S. E. Sidebotham and W. Z. Wendrich, eds.: 285–297. CNWS publications, Special series, no. 4. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS). Castiglione, L. (1961) “Dualité du style dans l’art sépulcral égyptien à l’époque romaine.” Acta antiqua academiae scientiarum hungaricae 9: 209–230. Chamberlain, A. T. (1997) “Commentary: missing stages of life: towards the perception of children in archaeology.” In Invisible people and processes: writing gender and childhood into European archaeology, J. Moore and E. Scott, eds.: 248–250. Leicester: University of Leicester Press. Choat, M. (2006) Belief and cult in fourth-century papyri. Turnhout: Brepols. Christiansen, E. (1988) The Roman coins of Alexandria: quantitative studies: Nero, Trajan, Septimius Severus. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. — (2004) Coinage in Roman Egypt: the hoard evidence. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Bibliography

435

— (2006) “Single finds. The case of Roman Egypt.” Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift/Scandinavian Numismatic Journal 2000–2002: 9–24. Churcher, C. S., and A. J. Mills (1995) Reports from the survey of the Dakhleh Oasis: 1977–1987. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 2. Oxford: Oxbow. Clairmont, C. W. (1963) The excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of inscriptions and letters: the glass vessels. New Haven: Dura-Europos Publications. Clarke, S., and R. Engelback (1930) Ancient Egyptian masonry: the building craft. London: Oxford University Press. Coarelli, F. (1996 [1972]) Revixit Ars: Arte e ideologica a Roma, dai modelli ellenistici alla tradizione repubblicana. Rome: Quasar. Colin, F. (2001) “Onomastique et société: Problèmes et méthodes à la lumière des documents de l’Egypte hellénistique et romaine (Paris); Séminaire d’histoire romaine et d’épigraphie latine (Bruxelles).” In Noms, identités culturelles et romanisation sous le Haut-Empire, M. Dondin-Payre and M.-T. Raepsaet-Charlier, eds.: 3– 15. Brussels: Le livre Timperman. Condry, I. (2006) Hip-hop Japan: rap and the paths of cultural globalization. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Congedo, F., and V. De Santis (2006) “Topographic work.” . Conkey, M. W., and J. M. Gero (1991) “Tensions, pluralities, and engendering archaeology: an introduction to women in prehistory.” In Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory, J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, eds.: 3– 30. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Cooke, W. D., M. El-Gamal, and A. Brennan (1991) “The hand-spinning of ultrafine yarns, part 2: the spinning of flax.” Bulletin du Centre International d’Étude des Textiles Anciens 69: 17–23. Cool, H. E. M. (2002) “An overview of the small finds from Catterick.” In Cataractonium. Roman Catterick and its hinterland: excavations and research, 1958–1997. Part II., P. Wilson, ed.: 24–43. CBA Research Report 129. York: Council for British Archaeology. Cool, H. E. M., and M. J. Baxter (2002) “Exploring Romano-British finds assemblages.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21(4): 365–380. Coombs, C. E., A. L. Woodnead, and J. S. Church (2002) “Report of the characterization of three fabric samples from Ismant el-Kharab.” In Dakhleh Oasis Project: preliminary reports on the 1994/5 to 1998/9 field seasons, C. A. Hope and G. E. Bowen, eds.: 115–119. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 11. Oxford: Oxbow. Cowen, T. (2002) Creative destruction: how globalization is changing the world’s cultures. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Cowgill, G. L. (1993) “Distinguished lecture in archaeology: beyond criticising new archaeology.” American Anthropologist 95(3): 551–573. Crabtree, P. J. (1990) “Zooarchaeology and complex societies: some use of faunal analysis for the study of trade, social status, and ethnicity.” Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 155–205. Cribiore, R., and P. Davoli (2013) “New literary texts from Amheida, ancient Trimithis (Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt).” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 187: 1–14. Cribiore, R., P. Davoli, and D. M. Ratzan (2008) “A teacher’s dipinto from Trimithis (Dakhleh Oasis).” Journal of Roman Archaeology 21: 170–191. Crown, P. L., and W. H. Wills (1995) “The origins of southwestern ceramic containers: women’s time allocation and economic intensification.” Journal of Anthropological Research 51(2): 173–186. Crummy, N. (1983) The Roman small finds from excavations in Colchester 1971–9. Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Trust. Crummy, N., and H. Eckardt (2003) “Regional identities and technologies of the self: nail-cleaners in Roman Britain.” Archaeological Journal 160: 44–69. D’Ambrosio, A. (2001) Women and beauty in Pompeii. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum.

436

Amheida II

D’Onofrio, A. M., ed. (2007) Tallies, tokens & counters from the Mediterranean to India: proceedings of the meeting held at the Università degli studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”, Naples 31st May 2004. Naples: Università degli studi di Napoli L’Orientale. Daniel, R. W. (2010) Architectural orientation in the papyri. Paderborn: Schöningh. Dasen, V., and T. Späth (2010a) Children, memory and family identity in Roman culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dasen, V., and T. Späth (2010b) “Introduction.” In Children, memory and family identity in Roman culture, V. Dasen and T. Späth, eds.: 1–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press. David, A. R. (1986) The pyramid builders of ancient Egypt: a modern investigation of pharaoh’s workforce. London: Guild Publications. Davidson-Weinberg, G. (1969) “Glass manufacture in Hellenistic Rhodes.” Archaiologikon Deltion 24: 143–151, pls. 75–88. — (1987) “Gilded glass from Alexandria.” Journal of Glass Studies 29: 133–136. Davoli, P. (1995) “Catalogo dei rinvenimenti della Seconda Campagna di scavo.” In Bakchias II: rapporto preliminare della campagna di scavo del 1994, S. Pernigotti and M. Capasso, eds.: 7–82. Monografie di SEAP, series maior 2. Pisa: Giardini. — (1998) L’archeologia urbana nel Fayyum di età ellenistica e romana. Bologna: Generoso Procaccini. — (2003) “New results from the archaeological excavation in Bakchias: 1993–2002.” In The Bologna and Lecce Universities joint archaeological mission in Egypt: ten years of excavations at Bakchias (1993–2002), G. Bitelli, M. Capasso, P. Davoli, S. Pernigotti, and L. Vittuari, eds.: 10–18. Naples: Graus Editore. — (2005) Oggetti in argilla dall’area templare di Bakchias (El-Fayyum, Egitto). Catalogo dei rinvenimenti delle campagne di scavo 1996–2002. Pisa–Roma: Giardini. — (2013) “Amheida 2007–2009: new results from the excavations.” In The Oasis Papers 6: proceedings of the sixth international conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, R. S. Bagnall, P. Davoli, and C. A. Hope, eds.: 263–278. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 15. Oxford: Oxbow. Davoli, P., and R. Cribiore (2010) “Una scuola di greco del IV secolo d.C. a Trimithis (oasi di Dakhla, Egitto).” In Leggere greco e latino fuori dai confini nel mondo antico: atti del I Congresso nazionale dell’Associazione italiana di cultura classica, Lecce, 10–11 maggio 2008, M. Capasso, ed. Quaderni di Atene e Roma, 1. Lecce: Pense multimedia. de Vartavan, C. (2012) Hidden fields of Tutankhamun. From identification to interpretation of newly discovered plant material from the pharaoh´s grave. London: Triade Exploration. de Vartavan, C., A. Arakelyan, and V. Asensi Amorós (2010) Codex of ancient Egyptian plant remains = Codex des restes végétaux de l’Égypte ancienne. London: Triade Exploration. deFrance, S. D. (2009) “Zooarchaeology in complex societies: political economy, status, and ideology.” Journal of Archaeological Research 17: 105–168. DeLaine, J. (1999) “Introduction: bathing and society.” In Roman baths and bathing: proceedings of the first international conference on Roman baths held at Bath, England 30 March–4 April 1992 Part 1: bathing and society, J. DeLaine and D. E. Johnston, eds.: 7–16. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Deleuze, G. (1994) Difference and repetition, P. Patton trans. New York: Columbia University Press. Depraetere, D. D. E. (2002) “A comparative study on the construction and the use of the domestic bread oven in Egypt during the Graeco-Roman and Late Antique/Early Byzantine Period.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 58: 119–156, Plates 15–16. Dittmann, K. H. (1940) “Ein Eiserne Spangenhelm in Kairo.” Germania 24: 54–58. Dixneuf, D. (2013) “Ceramics from Ain al-Gedida (Dakhleh Oasis): preliminary results.” In The Oasis Papers 6: proceedings of the sixth international conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, R. S. Bagnall, P. Davoli, and C. A. Hope, eds.: 459–470. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monographs 15. Oxford: Oxbow.

Bibliography

437

Dobres, M.-A., and J. E. Robb (2000) “Agency in archaeology: paradigm or platitude?” In Agency in archaeology, M.A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, eds.: 3–17. London and New York: Routledge. Donley-Reid, L. W. (1990) “A structuring structure: the Swahili house.” In Domestic architecture and the use of space: an interdisciplinary cross-cultural study, S. Kent, ed.: 114–126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dorman, P. F. (2002) Faces in clay: technique, imagery, and allusion in a corpus of ceramic sculpture from ancient Egypt. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Drexhage, H.-J. (1991) Preise, Mieten/Pachten, Kosten und Löhne im römischen Ägypten. St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae. Driesch, A. v. d. (1976) A guide to the measurement of animal bones from archaeological sites: as developed by the Institut für Palaeoanatomie, Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Tiermedizin of the University of Munich. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Harvard University. du Bourguet, P. (1975) “Ensemble magique de la période romaine en Egypte.” Revue du Louvre 25: 255–257. Dunand, F. (1979) Religion populaire en Égypte romaine: les terres cuites isiaques du Musée du Caire. Leiden: Brill. — (1990) Catalogue des terres cuites gréco-romaines d’Égypte. Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux. Dunand, F., et al. (1992) Douch I: La nécropole. Exploration archéologique, Monographie des tombes 1 à 72: structures sociales, économiques, religieuses de l’Égypte romaine. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Dunand, F., et al. (2005) Douch V. La nécropole de Douch. Exploration archéologique vol. 2. Monographie des tombes 73 à 92. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Dunand, F., et al. (2008) Le matériel archéologique et les restes humains de la nécropole d’Aïn el-Labakha (oasis de Kharga). Paris: Editions Cybèle. Dunand, F., and C. Zivie-Coche (2004) Gods and men in Egypt: 3000 BCE to 395 CE. D. Lorton, trans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Dunsmore, A. (2002) “Ceramics from Ismant el-Kharab.” In Dakhleh Oasis Project: preliminary reports on the 1994–1995 to 1998–1999 field seasons, C. A. Hope and G. E. Bowen, eds.: 129–142. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 11. Oxford: Oxbow. Dupras, T. L. (2008) “Dining in the Dakhleh Oasis: determining diet from stable isotopes.” In The Oasis Papers 2: proceedings of the second international conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, M. F. Wiseman, ed.: 119–127. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 12. Oxford: Oxbow. Dupras, T. L., and M. W. Tocheri (2007) “An investigation of infant weaning and feeding patterns at Roman Period Kellis, Egypt using stable isotope analysis of dental enamel and dentin.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 134(1): 63–74. Eaverly, M. A. (1995) Archaic Greek equestrian scupture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ebert, M. (1909) “Ein Spangenhelm aus Ägypten.” Praehistorische Zeitschrift I(2): 163–170. Eckardt, H. (2002) Illuminating Roman Britain. Éditions Monique Mergoil. — (2005) “The social distribution of Roman artefacts: the case of nail-cleaners and brooches in Britain.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 18: 139–160. Egan, G. (1996) Playthings from the past: toys from the A. G. Pilson collection c.1300–1800 supplemented from other sources. London: Jonathan Horne. El-Naggar, S. (1999) Les voûtes dans l’architecture de l’Egypte ancienne, 2 vols. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Ellis, S. P. (2000) Roman housing. London: Duckworth. Emberling, G. (1997) “Ethnicity in complex societies: archaeological perspectives.” Journal of Archaeological Research 5(4): 295–344. Empereur, J.-Y., J.-Y. Gout, and C. Clement (1995) A short guide to the catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa Alexandria. Alexandria: Sarapis. Endruweit, A. (1994) Städtischer Wohnbau in Ägypten: Klimatgerechte Lehmarchitektur in Amarna. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.

438

Amheida II

Ewigleben, C., and J. von Grumbkow, eds. (1991) Götter, Gräber & Grotesken: Tonfiguren aus dem Alltagsleben im römischen Ägypten. Hamburg: Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe. Fakhry, A. (1973) “The search for texts in the Western Desert.” Textes et langages de l’Égypte pharaonique. Cent cinquante années de recherches 1822–1972. Hommages à Jean-François Champollion, Sauneron, S., ed.: 207–222. Bibliothèque d’étude 64. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. — (2003 [1974]) Baḥriyah and Farafra. Cairo and New York: American University in Cairo Press. Featherstone, M., ed. (1990) Global culture: nationalism, globalization and modernity. London: Sage. Fischer, J. (1994) Griechisch-römische Terrakotten aus Ägypten: Die Sammlungen Sieglin und Schreiber: Dresden, Leipzig, Stuttgart, Tübingen. Tübinger Studien zur Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 14. Berlin: Wasmuth. Fjeldhagen, M. (1995) Graeco-Roman terracottas from Egypt: catalogue Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Foxhall, L., and J. B. Salmon, eds. (1998a) Thinking men: masculinity and its self-representation in the classical tradition. London: Routledge. — eds. (1998b) When men were men: masculinity, power and identity in classical antiquity. London: Routledge. Foy, D., and M.-D. Nenna (2003) “Productions et importations de verre antique dans la vallée du Rhône et le Midi méditerranéen de la France (Ier–IIIe siècles.” In Échanges et commerce du verre dans le monde antique, Actes du colloque de l’Association française pour l’archéologie du verre Aix-en-Provence et Marseille, 7–9 juin 2001, D. Foy and M.-D. Nenna, eds.: 227–290. Monographies Instrumentum 24. Montagnac: Editions Monique Mergoil. Francis Jr., P. (2000) “Human ornaments.” In Berenike 1998. Report of the 1998 excavations at Berenike and the survey of the Egyptian eastern desert, including the excavations in Wadi Kalalat, S. E. Sidebotham and W. Z. Wendrich, eds.: 211–225. CNWS publications. Special series, no. 4. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS). — (2002) Asia’s maritime bead trade: 300 B.C. to the present. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. — (2007) “Personal adornments.” In Berenike 1999/2000. Report on the excavations at Berenike, including excavations in Wadi Kalalat and Siket, and the survey of the Mons Smaragdus region, S. E. Sidebotham and W. Z. Wendrich, eds.: 251–257. Berenike Report, 6. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Frankfurter, D. (1998) Religion in Roman Egypt: assimilation and resistance. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fraser, P. M. (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria Vol. 1: text. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Friedman, J. (1990) “Being in the world: globalization and localization.” In Global culture: nationalism, globalization and modernity, M. Featherstone, ed.: 311–328. London: Sage. — (1994) “Globalization and location.” In Cultural identity and global process, J. Friedman, ed.: 102–116. London and Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. — (1995) “Global system, globalization and the parameters of modernity.” In Global modernities, M. Featherstone, S. Lash, and R. Robertson, eds.: 69–90. London and Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Frier, B. W. (1999) “Roman demography.” In Life, death and entertainment in the Roman empire, D. J. Mattingly and D. S. Potter, eds.: 5–109. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Fulford, M. G., and A. Clarke (2011) Silchester: city in transition. The mid-Roman occupation of Insula IX c. A.D. 125– 250/300. A report on excavations undertaken since 1997. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Fulford, M. G., A. Clarke, and H. Eckardt (2006) Life and labour in Late Roman Silchester: excavations in Insula IX from 1997. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Gabra, S., et al. (1941) Rapport sur les fouilles d’Hermoupolis Ouest (Touna el-Gebel). Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Gale, R., et al. (2000) “Wood.” In Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.: 334– 371. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gallazzi, C. (1999) “Further surprises from Tebtunis.” Egyptian Archaeology 14: 16–17.

Bibliography

439

Gallazzi, C., and G. Hadji-Minaglou (2000) Tebtynis I: La reprise des fouilles et le quartier de la Chapelle d’IsisThermouthis. Fouilles franco-italiennes I. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale and Université de Milan. Gardner, I. (1993) “A Manichean liturgical codex found at Kellis.” Orientalia 62(2): 30–59. — ed. (1996) Kellis literary texts. Volume I. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 4. Oxford: Oxbow. — (1997a) “The Manichaean community at Kellis: a progress report.” In Emerging from darkness: studies in the recovery of Manichaean sources, P. A. Mirecki and J. BeDuhn, eds.: 161–176. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean studies, 43. Leiden, New York, Cologne: Brill. — (1997b) “Personal letters from the Manichaean community at Kellis.” In Atti del terzo Congresso Internazionale di Studi “Manicheismo e Oriente Cristiano Antico”: Arcavacata di Rende, Amantea, 31 agosto–5 settembre 1993, L. Cirillo and A. van Tongerloo, eds.: 77–94. Turnhout: Brepols. Gardner, I. M. F., and S. N. C. Lieu (1996) “From Narmouthis (Medinet Madi) to Kellis (Ismant El-Kharab): Manichaean documents from Roman Egypt.” Journal of Roman Studies 86: 146–169. Gazda, E. K., and C. Hessenbruch (1978a) “The sculptures.” In Guardians of the Nile: sculptures from Karanis in the Fayoum (c. 250 BC–AD 450): Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, October 14– December 17, 1978, E. K. Gazda, ed.: 12–15. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum. — (1978b) “Sculptures in stone.” In Guardians of the Nile: sculptures from Karanis in the Fayoum (c. 250 BC–AD 450): Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, October 14–December 17, 1978, E. K. Gazda, ed.: 18–21. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum. Gell, A. (1992) “The enchantment of technology and the technology of enchantment.” In Anthropology, art, and aesthetics, J. Coote and A. Shelton, eds.: 40–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press. — (1994) Art and agency: an anthropological theory. New York: Berg Publishers. Germer, R. (1985) Flora des pharaonischen Ägypten. Mainz: Zabern. — (1992) Die Textilfärberei und die Verwendung gefärbter Textilien im alten Ägypten. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. — (2002) Die Heilpflanzen der Ägypter. Düsseldorf-Zürich: Artemis & Winkler. Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society: outline of a theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddy, L. L. (1987) Egyptian oases: Baḥariya, Dakhla, Farafra, and Kharga during pharaonic times. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd. — (1999) The survey of Memphis II - Kom Rabi’a: The New Kingdom and post-New Kingdom objects. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Gill, D. W. J., and C. Chippindale (1993) “Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic figures.” American Journal of Archaeology 97: 601–659. Golden, M. (1990) “Chasing change in Roman children (review of Wiedemann 1989).” Ancient History Bulletin 40(4): 90–94. Goody, J. (1982) Cooking, cuisine and class: a study in comparative sociology. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Gradel, C., F. Letellier-Willemin, and G. Tallet (2012) “‘Une laine bien plus douce que celle des moutons’ à El-Deir (oasis de Kharga): le coton au cœur de l’économie oasienne à l’époque romaine.” In Entre Afrique et Egypte: relations et échanges entre les espaces au sud de la Méditerranée à l’époque romaine, S. Guédon, ed.: 119–141. Scripta Antiqua 49. Bordeaux: Ausonius. Grahame, M. (2000) Reading space: social interaction and identity in the houses of Roman Pompeii. A syntactical approach to the analysis and interpretation of built space. Oxford: Archaeopress. Grant, A. (1982) “The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates.” In Ageing and sexing animal bones from archaeological sites, B. Wilson, C. Grigson, and S. Payne, eds.: 91–108. BAR British Series 109. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Gräslund, A.-S. (1973) “Barn i Birka.” Tor 15: 161–179. Grenfell, B. P., et al. (1900) Fayûm towns and their papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

440

Amheida II

Grimal, N. (1995) “Travaux de l’IFAO en 1994–95.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 95: 541–645. Grossmann, P. (1980) Elephantine II: Kirche und spätzeitliche Hausanlagen im Chnumtempelhof. Cairo: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo. — (2008) “Modalitäten der Zerstörung und Christianisierung pharaonischer Tempelanlagen.” In From temple to church: destruction and renewal of local cultic topography in late antiquity, J. Hahn, S. Emmel, and U. Gotter, eds.: 299–334. Leiden: Brill. Grundman, M. (2006) Sozialisation: Skizze einer allgemeinen Theorie. Konstanz: UTB. Haaland, G., and R. Haaland (1995) “Who speaks the goddess’s language? Imagination and method in archaeological research.” Norwegian Archaeological Review 28(2): 105–122. Haatveldt, R. A., E. E. Peterson, and E. M. Husselman (1964) Coins from Karanis: the University of Michigan excavations 1924–1935. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology. Hadji-Minaglou, G. (1995) “Tebtynis et l’urbanisme gréco-romaine dans le Fayoum.” Topoi 5: 111–118. — (2007) Tebtynis IV: les habitations à l’est du temple de Soknebtynis. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale et Université de Milan. — (2008) “L’habitat à Tebtynis à la lumière des fouilles récentes: Ier s. av – Ier s. apr. J.-C.” In Graeco-Roman Fayum - texts and archaeology: proceedings of the third international Fayum symposion, Freudenstadt, May 29–June 1, 2007, S. Lippert and M. Schentuleit, eds. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hales, S. (2003) The Roman house and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halperin, R. H. (1994) Cultural economies past and present. Austin: University of Texas Press. Halstead, P., P. Collins, and V. Isaakidou (2002) “Sorting the sheep from the goats: morphological distinctions between mandibles and mandibular teeth of adult ovis and capra.” Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 545– 553. Hamilton-Dyer, S. (2001) “The faunal remains.” In Mons Claudianus: Survey and excavation 1987–1993, Volume 2. Excavations: Part I, V. A. Maxfield and D. P. S. Peacock, eds.: 251–301. Fouilles de l’IFAO 43. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Handel, G. (1988) “Socialization and the social self.” In Childhood socialization, G. Handel, ed.: 11–19. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Harden, D. B. (1936) Roman glass from Karanis found by the University of Michigan archaeological expedition in Egypt, 1924–29. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Harding-King, W. J. (2003 [1925]) Mysteries of the Libyan Desert: a record of three years of exploration in the heart of that vast and waterless region. London: Darf Publishers. Harl, K. W. (1996) Coinage in the Roman economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Harlow, M., and R. Laurence (2001) Growing up and growing old in ancient Rome: a life course approach. London: Routledge. Harris, E. C. (1989 [1979]) Principles of archaeological stratigraphy (2nd edition). London: Academic Press. Hayden, B., and A. Cannon (1983) “Where the garbage goes: refuse disposal in the Maya highlands.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2(2): 117–163. Hayes, J. W. (1975) Roman and pre-Roman glass in the Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto: The Royal Ontario Museum. — (1985) “Sigillate Orientali.” In Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica. Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche 2. Ceramica fine Romana nel Bacino Mediterraneo (Tardo Ellenismo e Primo Impero):1–96. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. Hearn, J., and D. H. J. Morgan, eds. (1990) Men, masculinities and social theory. London: Unwin Hyman. Hecker, H. M. (1986) “Report on the excavation of floor [873] of the outer hall of Chapel 561/450.” In Amarna Reports III, B. J. Kemp, ed.: 80–89. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Heiss, A. G., et al. (2012/2013) “Nigella in the mirror of time: a brief attempt to draw a genus´ ethnohistorical portrait.” In Von Sylt bis Kastanas. Festschrift für Helmut Johannes Kroll zum 65. Geburtstag, C. von CarnapBornheim, W. Dörfler, W. Kirleis, J. Müller, and U. Müller, eds.: 147–169. Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag.

Bibliography

441

Hellström, B. (1940) “The subterranean water in the Libyan Desert.” Geografiska Annaler 22: 206–239. Hendon, J. A. (1996) “Archaeological approaches to the organization of domestic labor: household practice and domestic relations.” Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 45–61. — (1999) “Multiple sources of prestige and the social evaluation of women in prehispanic Mesoamerica.” In Material symbols: culture and economy in prehistory, J. E. Robb, ed.: 257–276. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper 26. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. — (2000) “Having and holding: storage, memory, knowledge, and social relations.” American Anthropologist 102(1): 42–53. — (2004) “Living and working at home: the social archaeology of household production and social relations.” In A companion to social archaeology, L. M. Meskell and R. W. Preucel, eds.: 272–286. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Henein, N. H. (1997) Poterie et potiers d’Al-Qasr: oasis de Dakhla. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Herodotus. (1987) The History, D. Grene, trans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hesse, A. (1971) “The measurement of ancient bricks and its archaeological interest.” In Mathematics in the archaeological and historical sciences: proceedings of the Anglo-Romanian Conference, Mamaia, 1970, F. R. Hodson, D. G. Kendall, and P. Tăutu, eds.: 432–435. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hester, J. J., P. M. Hobler, and J. Russel (1970) “New evidence of early roads in Nubia.” American Journal of Archaeology 74(4): 385–389, plates 99–100. Higashi, E. L. (1990) Conical glass vessels from Karanis: function and meaning in a Pagan/Christian context in rural Egypt. PhD diss., University of Michigan. Hill, M., and M.-D. Nenna (2003) “Glass from Ain et-Turba and Bagawat necropolis in the Kharga Oasis (Egypt).” In Annales du 15e Congrès de de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre, New York-Corning, 15–20 October 2001: 88–92. Nottingham: Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre. Hillier, B., and J. Hanson (1984) The social logic of space. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Hiner, N. R., and J. M. Hawes (1985) Growing up in America: children in historical perspectives. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Hingley, R. (2005) Globalizing Roman culture: unity, diversity and empire. London and New York: Routledge. Hobson, D. W. (1985) “House and household in Roman Egypt.” Yale Classical Studies 28: 211–229. Hodder, I. (1987a) The archaeology of contextual meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — (1987b) “The meaning of discard: ash and domestic space in Baringo.” In Method and theory for activity area research: an ethnoarchaeological approach, S. Kent, ed.: 424–448. New York: Columbia University Press. — (1990) The domestication of Europe: structure and contingency in Neolithic societies. Oxford: Blackwell. — (1999) The archaeological process: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. — (2006) “The spectacle of daily performance at Çatalhöyük.” In Archaeology of performance: theaters of power, community, and politics, T. Inomata and L. S. Coben, eds.: 81–102. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Hodder, I., and S. Hutson (1991) Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodson, F. R. (1977) “Quantifying Hallstatt: some initial results.” American Antiquity 42(3): 394–412. Hoepfner, W., and E.-L. Schwandner (1986) Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag. Hoffman, B. (1995) “The quarters of the legionary centurions of the Principate.” Britannia 26: 107–151. Hope, C. A. (1980) “The Dakhleh Oasis Project: report on the study of the pottery and kilns.” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 10: 283–313, Plates XVII–XXIX. — (1986) “Dakhleh Oasis Project: report on the 1987 excavations at Ismant el-Gharab.” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 16: 74–91. — (1987) “The Dakhleh Oasis Project: Ismant el-Kharab 1988–1990.” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 17(4): 157–176.

442

Amheida II

— (1988) “Three seasons of excavation at Ismant el-Gharab in the Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt.” Mediterranean Archaeology 1: 160–178. — (1990) “Excavations at Ismant el-Kharab in the Dakhleh Oasis.” Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 1: 42–53. — (1991) “The 1991 excavations at Ismant el-Kharab in the Dakhleh Oasis.” Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 2: 41–50, Plates 7–13. — (1993) “Pottery kilns from the oasis of el-Dakhla.” In An introduction to ancient Egypt, D. Arnold and J. Bourriau, eds.: 121–127. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. — (1999a) “Excavations at Ismant el-Kharab in 1998/9: a brief report.” Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 10: 59–66. — (1999b) “Pottery manufacture in the Dakhleh Oasis with a contribution by D. M. Tangri.” In Reports from the survey of the Dakhleh Oasis, Western Desert of Egypt 1977–1987, C. S. Churcher and A. J. Mills, eds.: 215–250. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 2. Oxford: Oxbow. — (2000) “Kegs and flasks from the Dakhleh Oasis with appendices by M.A.J. Eccleston, O. E. Kaper, S. Marchand and D. Darnell.” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 6: 189–234. — (2001a) “Egypt and Libya: the excavations at Mut el-Kharab in Egypt’s Dakhleh Oasis.” The Artefact 24: 29–46. — (2001b) Egyptian pottery. Aylesbury: Shire Publications. — (2003) “The excavations at Ismant el-Kharab from 2000–2002.” In The Oasis Papers 3: proceedings of the third international conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, G. E. Bowen and C. A. Hope, eds.: 207–89. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 14. Oxford: Oxbow. — (2004a) “The excavations at Ismant el-Kharab and Mut el-Kharab in 2004.” Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 15: 19–49. — (2004b) “A note of some ceramics from Mut, Dakhleh Oasis.” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 7: 99–121. — (2005a) “Mut el-Kharab: Seth’s city in Dakhleh Oasis.” Egyptian Archaeology (27): 3–6. — (2005b) “Report on the excavations at Ismant el-Kharab and Mut el-Kharab in 2005, with appendixes.” Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 16: 35–83. — (2006) “Domestic architecture from Kellis and the romanization of the Egyptian countryside” (oral presentation). 5th International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, Cairo, Egypt, 2006. — (2007a) “Brief report on the 2007 excavations at Ismant el-Kharab.” Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 18: 21–52. — (2007b) “Egypt and ‘Libya’ to the end of the Old Kingdom: a view from Dakhleh Oasis.” In The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, Z. Hawass and J. E. Richards, eds.: 349–415. Supplément aux Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Egypte. Cairo: Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Eǵ ypte. Hope, C. A., et al. (2006) “Report on the excavations at Ismant El-Kharab and Mut el-Kharab in 2006.” Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 17: 23–67. Hope, C. A., O. E. Kaper, and G. E. Bowen (1992) “Excavations at Ismant el-Kharab - 1992.” The Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 3: 41–49. Hope, C. A., et al. (1989) “Dakhleh Oasis Project: Ismant el-Kharab 1991–92.” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 19: 1–26. Hope, C. A., and A. Ross (2007) “Imported amphorae from Dakhleh Oasis.” In Amphores d’Egypte de la Basse Epoque à l’époque arabe, S. Marchand and A. Marangou, eds. Cahiers de la Céramique Egyptienne 9(2): 463–480. Hope, C. A., and H. Whitehouse (2004) “The gladiator jug from Ismant el-Kharab.” In The Oasis Papers 3, proceedings of the third international conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, G. E. Bowen and C. A. Hope, eds.: 291–310. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 14. Oxford: Oxbow. — (2006) “A painted residence at Ismant el-Kharab (Kellis) in the Dakhleh Oasis.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 19: 312–328, color plates 1–10.

Bibliography

443

Hornbostel, W., and H.-P. Laubscher (1986) “Terrakotten.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, W. Helck and W. Westendorf, eds.: 425–456. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Husselman, E. M. (1952) “The granaries of Karanis.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 83: 56–73. — (1953) “The dovecotes of Karanis.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 84: 81–91. — ed. (1971) Papyri from Karanis: third Series. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press. — (1979) Karanis excavations of the University of Michigan in Egypt, 1928–1935: topography and architecture: a summary of the reports of the director, Enoch E. Peterson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Husson, G. (1983) OIKIA: le vocabulaire de la maison privée en Égypte d’après les papyrus grecs. Paris: Publications de la Soronne. — (1990) “Houses in Syene in the Patermouthis archive.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 27: 123– 137. Ikram, S. (2002) “Mud matters: domestic silt technology in Upper Egypt.” In Moving matters: ethnoarchaeology in the Near East, W. Wendrich and G. van der Kooij, eds.: 159–170. CNWS publications, no. 111; Contributions by the Netherlands-Vlaams Instituut in Cairo, vol. 5. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies, Universiteit Leiden. Ikram, S., and C. Rossi (2004) “North Kharga Oasis Survey 2001–2002 preliminary report: Ain Gib and Qasr elSumayra.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 60: 69–92, Tafel 8–9. Isings, C. (1957) Roman glass from dated finds. Groningen-Djakarta: J.B. Wolters. James, S. (1986) “Evidence from Dura Europos for the origins of late Roman helmets.” Syria 63(1–2): 107–134. James, T. G. H. (1979) An introduction to ancient Egypt. London: British Museum. Jameson, M. H. (1990) “Domestic space in the Greek city-state.” In Domestic architecture and the use of space: an interdisciplinary cross-cultural study, S. Kent, ed.: 92–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jaritz, H., and M. Rodziewicz (1994) “Syene—review of the urban remains and its pottery.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 50: 115–141. — (1996) “Syene—Investigation of the urban remains in the vicinity of the temple of Isis (II).” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 52: 233–249. Jarrett, M. G., and S. Wrathmell (1981) Whitton: an Iron Age and Roman farmstead in South Galmorgan. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Jenkins, R. (1996) Social identity. London: Routledge. Jobbins, J. (2006) “Surface evidence.” In al-Ahram 787: . Johnson, B. (1981) Pottery from Karanis: excavations of the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Johnson, J. H. (1982) “Small objects.” In Quseir Al-Qadim 1980: preliminary report, D. S. Whitcomb and J. H. Johnson, eds.: 327–346. American Research Center in Egypt reports, v. 7. Malibu: Undena Publications. Johnson, K. J. (2007) Materializing childhood: an historical archaeology of children in Roman Egypt. PhD diss., University of Michigan. Johnson, M. H. (1989) “Conceptions of agency in archaeological interpretation.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8(2): 189–211. Jouguet, P. (1901) “Rapport sur les fouilles de Médinet-Mâ’di et Médinet-Ghôran.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 25(1): 380–411. Joyce, R. A. (1993) “Women’s work: images of production and reproduction in pre-Hispanic southern central America.” Current Anthropology 34(3): 255–274. Kaczamrcyz, A., and R. E. M. Hedges (1983) Ancient Egyptian faience: an analytical survey of Egyptian faience from predynastic to Roman times. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Kalbfleisch, K. (1912–1938) Papyri Iandanae. Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner. Kamp, K. A. (2001) “Where have all the children gone? The archaeology of childhood.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8(1): 1–34.

444

Amheida II

Kamp, K. A., and N. Yoffee (1980) “Ethnicity in ancient Western Asia during the early second millennium B.C.: archaeological assessments and ethnoarchaeological perspectives.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237: 85–104. Kaper, O. E. (1997) Temples and gods in Roman Dakhleh: studies in the indigenous cults of an Egyptian oasis. PhD diss., Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen. — (2009) “Epigraphic evidence from the Dakhleh Oasis in the Libyan Period.” In The Libyan period in Egypt: historical and cultural studies into the 21st – 24th dynasties: proceedings of a conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007, G. P. F. Broekman, R. J. Demarée, and O. E. Kaper, eds.: 149–159. Leiden: Netherlands Institute for the Near East. — (2010) “A Kemyt ostracon from Amheida, Dakhleh Oasis.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 110: 115–126. Kaper, O. E., and P. Davoli (2006) “A new temple for Thoth in the Dakhleh Oasis.” Egyptian Archaeology 28: 12–14. Kaper, O. E., and W. Z. Wendrich (1998) “East and west in Roman Egypt: an introduction to Life on the fringe.” In Life on the fringe: living in the southern Egyptian deserts during the Roman and Early-Byzantine periods: proceedings of a colloquium held on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Netherlands Institute for Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo, 9–12 December 1996, O. E. Kaper, ed.: 1–4. Leiden: Research School CNWS, School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. Kearney, M. (1995) “The local and the global: the anthropology of globalization and transnationalism.” Annual Review of Anthropolgy 24: 547–565. Kemp, B. J. (1977) “The early development of towns in Egypt.” Antiquity 51(203): 185–200. — (2000) “Soil (including mud-brick architecture).” In Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.: 78–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — (2006 [1989]) Ancient Egypt: anatomy of a civilization. London: Routledge. Kemp, K. A. (2001) “Where have all the children gone? The archaeology of childhood.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8(1): 1–34. Kildea, G., and J. Leach, dirs. (1976) Trobriand cricket: an ingenious response to colonialism. 54 min. Berkeley Media LLC. Kiple, K. F., and K. C. Ornelas, eds. (2000) The Cambridge world history of food. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kislev, M. E. (1988) “Pinus pinea in agriculture, culture and cult.” In Der prähistorische Mensch und seine Umwelt. Festschrift für U. Körber-Grohne zum 65. Geburtstag, H. Küster, ed.: 73–79. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vorund Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 31. Stuttgart: Theiss. — (2008) “Archaeobotanical evidence of birdliming at Ashkelon.” In Ashkelon I: the Leon Levy expedition to Ashkelon. Introduction and overview (1985–2006), L. E. Stager, D. Schloen, and D. M. Master, eds.: 131–140. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Kitchen, K. A. (1986) The third intermediate period in Egypt (1100–650 BC). Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd. Kleindienst, M. R. (1999) “Geography, geology, geochronology and geoarchaeology of the Dakhleh Oasis Region: an interim report.” In Reports from the survey of the Dakhleh oasis: 1977–1987, C. S. Churcher and A. J. Mills, eds.: 1–54. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 2. Oxford: Oxbow. Klemm, D. D., R. Klemm, and L. Steclaci (1984) “Die pharaonischen Steinbrüche des silifizierten Sandsteins in Ägypten und die Herkunft der Memnon-Kolosse.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 40: 207–220. Knapp, A. B. (1998) “Who’s come a long way, baby? Masculinist approaches to a gendered archaeology.” Archaeological Dialogues 5(2): 91–106. Knudstad, J. E., and R. A. Frey (1999) “Kellis: the architectural survey of the Romano-Byzantine town at Ismant elKharab.” In Reports from the survey of the Dakhleh Oasis, Western Desert of Egypt, 1977–1987, C. S. Churcher and A. J. Mills, eds.: 189–214. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 2. Oxford: Oxbow.

Bibliography

445

Kraeling, C. H. (1967) The excavations at Dura-Europos. Final report VIII. Part II, the Christian building. New Haven: Dura Europos Publications. Kucharczyk, R. (2005) “Early Roman glass from Marina El-Alamein.” Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 16: 93– 99. Kucharczyk, R. (2010) “Glass from area F on Kom el-Dikka (Alexandria) excavations 2007.” Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 19, Research 2007: 114-130. Kucharczyk, R. (2011) “Glass from area F on Kom el-Dikka (Alexandria) excavations 2008.” Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 20, Research 2008: 56-69. Kuhrt, A. (1999) “The exploitation of the camel in the Neo-Assyrian Empire.” In Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honour of H. S. Smith, A. Leahy and J. Tait, eds.: 179–184. London: Egypt Exploration Society. La Baume, W. (1961) Frühgeschichte der europäischen Kulturpflanzen. Gießen: Schmitz. Laes, C. (2011) Children in the Roman empire: outsiders within. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Landon, D. B. (2005) “Zooarchaeology and historical archaeology: progress and prospects.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(1): 1–36. Laurence, R. (1994) Roman Pompeii: space and society. London and New York: Routledge. — (2005) “Health and the life course at Herculaneum and Pompeii.” In Health in antiquity, H. King, ed.: 83–96. London and New York: Routledge. Laurence, R., and A. Wallace-Hadrill, eds. (1997) Domestic space in the Roman world: Pompeii and beyond. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Lavan, L., E. Swift, and T. Putzeys (2007) “Material spatiality in late antiquity: sources, approaches and field methods.” In Objects in context, objects in use: material spatiality in late antiquity, L. Lavan, E. Swift, and T. Putzeys, eds.: 1–42. Late antique archaeology, v. 5. Leiden: Brill. Leahy, L. M. (1980) “Dakhleh Oasis Project: the Roman wall-paintings from Amheida.” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 10: 331–78, plates XXI–XXXVI. Lee, L., and S. Quirke (2000) “Painting materials.” In Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.: 104–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leick, G. (1988) A dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern architecture. London and New York: Routledge. Lesure, R. G. (2002) “The goddess diffracted.” Current Anthropology 43(4): 587–610. Lewis, N. (1983) Life in Egypt under Roman rule. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (2000) The decline and fall of the Roman city. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Lightfoot, K. G., and A. Martinez (1995) “Frontiers and boundaries in archaeological perspective.” Annual Review of Anthroppology 24: 471–492. Lightfoot, K. G., A. Martinez, and A. M. Schiff (1998) “Daily practice and material culture in pluralist social settings: an archaeological study of culture change and persistence from Fort Ross, California.” American Antiquity 63(2): 199–222. Lillehammer, G. (1989) “A child is born. The child’s world in an archaeological perspective.” Norwegian Archaeological Review 22(2): 89–105. Ling, R., ed. (2000) Making classical art: process & practice. Stroud: Tempus Publishing Ltd. Livingstone, R. (2009) “Late antique household textiles from the village of Kellis in the Dakhleh Oasis.” In Clothing the house: furnishing textiles of the 1st millennium AD from Egypt and neighbouring countries, A. de Moor and C. Fluck, eds.: 73–85. Tielt: Lannoo. Livrea, H. E. (1978) Anonymi fortasse Olympiodori Thebani Blemyomachia: (P. Berol. 5003). Meisenheim am Glan: A. Hain. Lucas, G. (2001) Critical approaches to fieldwork: contemporary and historical archaeological practice. London: Routledge. Luckhard, F. (1914) Das Privathaus im ptolemäischen und römischen Ägypten. PhD diss. University of Bonn. Luijendijk, A. (2008) Greetings in the Lord: early Christians and the Oxyrhynchus papyri. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

446

Amheida II

Lyman, R. L. (2008) Quantitative paleozoology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacKinnon, M. (2010) “’Romanizing’ ancient Carthage: evidence from zooarchaeological remains.” In Anthropological approaches to zooarchaeology: colonialism, complexity, and animal transformations, D. Campana, P. Crabtree, S. DeFrance, J. Lev-Tov, and A. Choyke, eds.: 168–177. Oxford: Oxbow. Madsen, J. M. (2009) Eager to be Roman: Greek responses to Roman rule in Pontus and Bithynia. London: Duckworth. Manfredini, M. (2012) “Family forms in early modern Italy” (oral presentation). In The ‘Mediterranean family’ from antiquity to the early modern period international conference, Max-Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, June 14–15, 2012. Manniche, L. (1989) An ancient Egyptian herbal. London: British Museum Publications. Marchini, C. (1999) “Glass from the 1993 excavations at Ismant el-Kharab.” In Dakhleh Oasis Project: preliminary reports on the 1992–1993 and 1993–1994 field seasons, C. A. Hope and A. J. Mills, eds.: 75–82. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 8. Oxford: Oxbow. Margaritis, E., and M. Jones (2008) “Crop processing of Olea europaea L.: an experimental approach for the interpretation of archaeobotanical olive remains.” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17(4): 381–392. Marouard, G. (2008) “Rues et habitats dans les villages de la chôra égyptienne à la période gréco-romaine (IIIe s. av.–IVe s. apr. J.-C.): Quelques exemples du Fayoum (Nome Arsinoite).” In La rue dans l’antiquité: définition, aménagement et devenir de l’orient méditerranéen à la Gaule: Actes du colloque de Poitiers, 7–9 septembre 2006, P. Ballet, N. Dieudonné-Glad, and C. Saliou, eds.: 117–128. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Martens, F. (2008) “Urban traffic in the hills of the eastern Mediterranean: the development, maintenance, and usage of the street system at Sagalassos in south-western Turkey.” In La rue dans l’antiquité: définition, aménagement et devenir de l’orient méditerranéen à la Gaule: Actes du colloque de Poitiers, 7–9 septembre 2006, P. Ballet, N. Dieudonné-Glad, and C. Saliou, eds.: 191–200. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Martin, G. T. (1989) The Memphite tomb of Horemheb, commander-in-chief of Tutankhamun: the reliefs, inscriptions and commentary v. 1. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Martin, L., et al. (2000) “Trashing rubbish.” In Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük, I. Hodder, ed.: 57–69. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. Matthews, W., and J. N. Postgate (1994) “The imprint of living in an early Mesopotamian city: questions and answers.” In Whither environmental archaeology?, R. Luff and P. Rowley-Conwy, eds.: 171–212. Oxford: Oxbow. Mattingly, D. J. (2010) Imperialism, power, and identity: experiencing the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mauss, M. (2001) A general theory of magic. London: Routledge. McGuire, R. H. (1982) “The study of ethnicity in historial archaeology.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1(2): 159–178. McHenry Jr., P. G. (1984) Adobe and rammed earth buildings: design and construction. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Medeksza, S. (2005) “Marina el-Alamein. Conservation work in 2004.” Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 16: 107–118. Medeksza, S., and R. Czerner (2003) “Rescuing Marina el-Alamein: a Graeco-Roman town in Egypt.” Minerva 13(3): 20–23. Melo, M. J. (2009) “History of natural dyes in the ancient Mediterranean world.” In Handbook of natural colorants, T. Bechtold and R. Mussak, eds.: 3–20. Chichester: Wiley. Meskell, L. M. (2001) “Archaeologies of identity.” In Archaeological theory: breaking the boundaries, I. Hodder, ed.: 186–213. Cambridge: Polity. — (2002) Private life in New Kingdom Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Meskell, L. M., et al. (2008) “Figured lifeworlds and depositional practices at Çatalhöyük.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18(2): 139–161. Metcalf, W. E. (1980) The cistophori of Hadrian. New York: American Numismatic Society.

Bibliography

447

Meyer, C. (1982) “Roman glass.” In Quseir al-Qadim 1980: preliminary report, D. S. Whitcomb and J. H. Johnson, eds.: 215–232. American Research Center in Egypt Reports, v. 7. Malibu: Undena Publications. — (1992) Glass from Quseir al-Qadim and the Indian Ocean trade. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Michelucci, M. (1975) La collezione di Lucerne del Museo Egizio di Firenze. Florence: L.S. Olschki. Miller, D. (1987) Material culture and mass consumption. Oxford: Blackwell. —, ed. (2005) Materiality. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Mills, A. J. (1980) “Lively paintings: Roman frescoes in the Dakhleh Oasis.” Rotunda 13: 19–25. — (1985) “The Dakhleh Oasis Project.” In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, P. Posener-Kriéger and M. Jamāl al-Dīn Mukhtār, eds.: 125–134. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. — (1993) “The Dakhleh oasis columbarium farmhouse.” Bulletin de la Société archéologique d’Alexandrie 45: 192–198. — (1998) “Recent work of the Dakhleh Oasis Project.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 73: 84–91. Milne, J. G. (1933) Catalogue of Alexandrian coins. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Minault-Gout, A., and P. Deleuze (1992) Balat II. Le mastaba d’Ima-Pépi. Tombeau d’un Gouverneur de l’Oasis à la fin de l’Ancien Empire. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Mirkovic, M. (2005) “Child labour and taxes in the agriculture of Roman Egypt: pais and aphelix.” Scripta Classica Israelica 24: 139–149. Montserrat, D. (1996) Sex and society in Graeco-Roman Egypt. London: Kegan Paul International. Morini, A. (2007) “Bakchias XVI— I materiali della campagna di scavo 2007.” Ricerche di Egittologia e di Antichità Copte 9: 105–166. Morley, N. (2007) Trade in classical antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muhs, B. (2008) “Fractions of houses in Ptolemaic Hawara.” In Graeco-Roman Fayum: texts and archaeology: proceedings of the third International Fayum Symposion Freudenstadt, May 29–June 1, 2007, S. L. Lippert and M. Schentuleit, eds.: 187–197. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Murray, G. W. (1952) “The water beneath the Egyptian Western Desert.” The Geographical Journal 118(4): 443–452. Murray, M. A. (2000a) “Cereal production and processing.” In Ancient Egyptian materials and industries, P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.: 505–536. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — (2000b) “Fruits, vegetables, pulses and condiments.” In Ancient Egyptian materials and industries, P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.: 609–655. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myśliwiec, K. (1994) “Athribis—eine hellenistische Stadt im Nildelta.” Antike Welt 25(1): 35–46. Nachtergael, G. (1985) “Les terres cuites ‘du Fayoum’ dans les maisons de l’Égypte romaine.” Chronique d’Égypte 60: 223–239. — (1995) “Terre cuites de l’Égypte gréco-romaine, à propos de quatre catalogues récents.” Chronique d’Égypte 70: 254–294. Naerebout, F. G. (2007) “The temple at Ras el-Soda. Is it an Isis temple? Is it Greek, Roman, Egyptian, or neither? And so what?” In Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman world: proceedings of the IIIrd international conference of Isis studies, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, May 11–14, 2005, L. Bricault, P. G. P. Meyboom, and M. J. Versluys, eds.: 506–554. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, no. 159. Leiden: Brill. Nelson, M. (2000) “Abandonment: conceptualization, representation, and social change.” In Social theory in archaeology, M. B. Schiffer, ed.: 52–62. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Nenna, M.-D. (2000) “Ateliers de production et sites de consommation en Égypte (Ve siècle av. J.-C. –VIIe s. apr. J.C.), premier bilan.” In Annales du 14e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre, Italia/Venezia-Milano, 1998, J. Price, ed.: 20–24. Lochem: Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre. — (2003a) “Verreries de luxe de l’Antiquité tardive découvertes à Douch (oasis de Kharga, Égypte).” In Annales du 15e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre, New York-Corning 2001: 93–97. Nottingham: Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre.

448

Amheida II

— (2003b) “Verres gravés d’Égypte du Ier siècle au Ve siècle apr. J.C.” In Échanges et commerce du verre dans le monde antique: actes du colloque de l’Association française pour l’archéologie du verre, Aix-en-Provence et Marseille, 79 juin 2001, D. Foy and M.-D. Nenna, eds.: 359–375. Monographies Instrumentum 24. Montagnac: Editions Monique Mergoil. Nenna, M.-D., and M. Seif el-Din (1993) “La vaisselle en faïence du Musée gréco-romain d’Alexandrie.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 117(2): 565–602. — (2000) La vaisselle en faience d’époque gréco-romaine: Catalogue du Musée gréco-romain d’Alexandrie. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Nicholson, P. T. (2000) “The glass.” In Berenike 1998. Report of the 1998 excavations at Berenike and the survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, including the excavations in Wadi Kalalat, S. E. Sidebotham and W. Z. Wendrich, eds.: 203–209. CNWS publications, Special series, no. 4. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS). Nicholson, P. T., and E. Peltenburg (2000) “Egyptian faience.” In Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, P. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.: 177–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nowicka, M. (1969) La maison privée dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy. Osing, J. (1978) “Zum Namen des Tempels von Deir el-Hagar.” Göttinger Miszellen 30: 57–59. — (1985a) “Die ägyptischen Namen für Charga und Dachla.” In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, P. Posener-Kriéger and M. Jamāl al-Dīn Mukhtār, eds.: 179–193. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. — (1985b) “Die ägyptischen Namen für der Oase Charga in arabischer Überlieferung.” Göttinger Miszellen 87: 55– 62. — (1985c) “Seth in Dachla und Charga.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 41: 229– 233, plates 36–37. — (1986a) “Einige Notizen zu den Oasen.” Göttinger Miszellen 89: 67–75. — (1986b) “Notizen zu den Oasen Charga und Dachla.” Göttinger Miszellen 92: 79–85. — (1986c) “Zu den Osiris-Räumen im Tempel von Hibis.” In Hommages à François Daumas: 511–516. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry. — (1990) “Zur Anglage und Dekoration des Tempels von Hibis.” In Studies in Egyptology presented to Miriam Lichtheim II, S. Israelit-Groll, ed.: 751–767. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Osing, J., et al., eds. (1982) Denkmäler der Oase Dachla: aus dem Nachlass von Ahmed Fakhry. Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern. Papastergiadis, N. (2000) The turbulence of migration: globalization, deterritorialization, and hybridity. Cambridge and Malden: Blackwell. Parami, M. G. (2007) “Defining personal space: dress and accessories in late antiquity.” In Objects in context, objects in use: material spatiality in late antiquity: 497–529. Leiden: Brill. Parkin, T. G. (1997) “Out of sight, out of mind: elderly members of the Roman family.” In The Roman family in Italy: status, sentiment, space, B. Rawson and P. R. C. Weaver, eds.: 123–148. Oxford: Clarendon Press. — (1998) “Ageing in antiquity: status and participation.” In Old age from antiquity to post-modernity, P. Johnson and P. Thane, eds.: 19–42. London: Routledge. — (2003) Old age in the Roman world: a cultural and social history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Patten, S. F. (1996) “Dakhleh Oasis Project 1994 season.” Bulletin de liaison du Groupe international d’étude de la céramique égyptienne 19: 51–55. — (1999) “Report on the study of the ceramics: 1993–1994 seasons.” In Dakhleh Oasis Project: preliminary reports on the 1992–1993 and 1993–1994 field seasons, C. A. Hope and A. J. Mills, eds.: 82–88. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 8. Oxford: Oxbow. — (2000) Pottery from the late period to the early Roman Period from Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt. PhD diss., Macquarie University.

Bibliography

449

Payne, S. (1973) “Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: the mandibles from Aşvan Kale.” Anatolian Studies 23: 281– 303. Peacock, D. P. S., and V. Maxfield (2007) The Roman imperial quarries: survey and excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994– 1998. Vol. 2: the excavations. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Perring, D. (2002) The Roman house in Britain. London: Routledge. Pestman, P. W. (1961) Marriage and matrimonial property in ancient Egypt: a contribution to establishing the legal position of the women. Leiden: E. J. Brill. — (1969) “The laws of succession in Ancient Egypt.” In Essays on Oriental laws of succession, J. Brugman, M. David, F. R. Kraus, P. W. Pestman, and M. H. Van der Valk, eds.: 58–77. Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis antiqui pertinentia, v. 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Petermandl, W. (1997) “Kinderarbeit im Italien der Prinzipatszeit: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Kindes.” Laverna 8: 113–136. Petrie, W. M. F. (1889) Hawara, Biahmu, and Arsinoe. London: Field & Tuer. — (1890) Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara. London: British School of Archaeology. — (1894) Tell el-Amarna. London: Methuen & Co. — (1896) Koptos. London: B. Quaritch. — (1906) Hyksos and Israelite cities. London: British School of Archaeology. — (1914) Amulets. London: Constable & Co. Ltd. — (1917) Tools and weapons illustrated by the Egyptian collection in University College, London and 2,000 outlines from other sources. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. — (1923) The arts and crafts of ancient Egypt. Edinburgh and London: T.N. Foulis. — (1927) Objects of daily use. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. — (1938) Egyptian architecture. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Petrie, W. M. F., G. A. Wainwright, and A. H. Gardiner (1913) Tarkhan I and Memphis V. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Pyke, G. (2005) “Ceramics from Amheida.” . — (2006) “Ceramics from Amheida.” . Pinch, G. (1994) Magic in ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press. Pomeroy, S. B. (1994) Xenophon, Oeconomicus: a social and historical commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prescendi, F. (2010) “Children and the transmission of religious knowledge.” In Children, memory, and family identity in Roman culture, V. Dasen and T. Späth, eds.: 73–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Price, J., and S. Cottam (1998) Romano-British glass vessels: a handbook. Walmgate, York: Council for British Archaeology. Prikhodkine, B. D. (2005) “Le verre d’époque romaine en Grèce: l’exemple d’Erétrie en Eubée.” Journal of Glass Studies 47: 55–68. Putzeys, T. (2007) “Domestic space in late antiquity.” In Objects in context, objects in use: material spatiality in late antiquity, L. Lavan, E. Swift, and T. Putzeys, eds.: 49–62. Leiden: Brill. Putzeys, T., et al. (2004) “Analyzing domestic contexts at Sagalassos: developing a methodology using ceramics and macro-botanical remains.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 17(I): 31–57. Rapoport, A. (1969) House form and culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. — (1990) “Systems of activities and systems of settings.” In Domestic architecture and the use of space: an interdisciplinary cross-cultural study, S. Kent, ed.: 9–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rathbone, D. (1991) Economic rationalism and rural society in third-century A.D. Egypt: the Heroninos archive and the Appianus estate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — (1996) “Monetization, not price-inflation, in third-century A.D. Egypt.” In Coin finds and coin use in the Roman world. The thirteenth Oxford symposium on coinage and monetary history 25.—27.3.1993, a NATO advanced research

450

Amheida II

workshop, C. E. King and D. G. Wigg, eds.: 321–340. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike, Bd. 10. Berlin: G. Mann. — (1997) “Prices and price formation in Roman Egypt.” In Économie antique. Prix et formation des prix dans les économies antiques, J. Andreau, P. Briant, and R. Descat, eds.: 183–244. Entretiens d’archéologie et d’histoire, 3. St-Bertrand-de-Comminges: Musée archéologique départemental. Rawson, B. (2003) Children and childhood in Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reddé, M., et al. (2004) Kysis: fouilles de l’Ifao à Douch, Oasis de Kharga, 1985–1990. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Redmon, D., dir. (2005) Mardi Gras: made in China. 74 min. Carnivalesque Films. USA. Reece, R. (1987) Coinage in Roman Britain. London: B.T. Batsford. — (1993) “Theory and Roman archaeology.” In Theoretical Roman archaeology. First conference proceedings, E. Scott, ed.: 29–38. Aldershot: Avebury. Reinders, H. R. (1988) New Halos: a Hellenistic town in Thessalia, Greece. Utrecht: Hes Publishers. Reisner, G. A. (1931) Mycerinus: the temples of the third pyramid at Giza. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Revell, L. (2010) “Geography and the environment.” In A cultural history of childhood and family in antiquity, M. Harlow and R. Laurence, eds.: 61–78. A Cultural History of Childhood and Family, 1. Oxford and New York: Berg Publishers. Ricke, H. (1932) Der Grundriss des Amarna-Wohnhauses. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Riggs, C. (2002) “Facing the dead: recent research on the funerary art of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt.” American Journal of Archaeology 106(1): 85–101. — (2008 [2005]) The beautiful burial in Roman Egypt: art, identity, and funerary religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ritner, R. K. (1993) The mechanics of ancient Egyptian magical practice. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Robins, G. (1993) Women in ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press. Robinson, H. R. (1975) The armour of imperial Rome. London: Scribner. Rodziewicz, E. (2007) Bone and ivory carvings from Alexandria: French excavations 1992–2004. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Rodziewicz, M. (1976) “Un quartier d’habitation gréco-romain à Kôm el-Dikka.” Etudes et travaux 9: 169–210. — (1984) Les habitations romaines tardives d’Alexandrie à la lumière des fouilles polonaises à Kom el-Dikka. Warsaw: Editions scientifiques de Pologne. — (1987) “Introduction à la céramique à engobe rouge de Kharga (Kharga Red Slip Ware).” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 1: 123–136, pl. 38–45. — (2005) Elephantine XXVII: early Roman industries on Elephantine. Mainz am Rhein: Zabern. Roik, E. (1988) Das altägyptische Wohnhaus und seine Darstellung im Flachbild 1. Text. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Rossel, S., Marshall, F., Peters, J., Pilgram, T., Adams, M. D., and O’Connor, D. (2008) “Domestication of the donkey: timing, processes, and indicators.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(10): 3715–3720. Rossi, C. (2000) “Umm el-Dabadib, Roman settlement in the Kharga Oasis: description of the visible remains with a note on ’Ain Amur.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 56: 335–352, Tafel 35–39. Roth, A. (1979) “Glass.” In Quseir al-Qadim 1978: preliminary report, D. S. Whitcomb and J. H. Johnson, eds.: 144–181. Cairo: American Research Center in Egypt. Roth, L., and K. Kormann (2000) Ölpflanzen, Pflanzenöle. Fette, Wachse, Fettsäuren. Botanik, Inhaltsstoffe, Analytik. Landsberg: Ecomed. Roth, L. M. (1993) Understanding architecture: its elements, history and meaning. Oxford: Westview Press. Rougeulle, A., and S. Marchand (2011) “Des siga sur la côte du Hadramawt (Yémen), témoins d’une attaque navale.” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 9: 437–460.

Bibliography

451

Rowlandson, J., ed. (1998) Women and society in Greek and Roman Egypt: a sourcebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rowley-Conwy, P. (1988) “The camel in the Nile Valley: new radiocarbon accelerator (AMS) dates from Qaṣr Ibrîm.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 74: 245–248. Rubensohn, O. (1905) “Aus griechisch-römischen Häusern des Fayum.” Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 20: 1–25. Rütti, B. (1991) Die römischen Gläser aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. Augst: Römermuseum. Said, R. (1962) The ecology of Egypt. New York and Amsterdam: Elsevier. Sasaki, M. (2006) “Globalization and national identity in contemporary society.” In Social change in the age of globalization, M. Sasaki and L. Peilin, eds.: 271–283. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Scheidel, W. (2001) Death on the Nile: disease and the demography of Roman Egypt. Leiden and Boston: Brill. — (2004) “Human mobility in Roman Italy, I: the free population.” Journal of Roman Studies 94: 1–26. — (2007) “Roman funerary commemoration and the age of first marriage.” Classical Philology 102: 389–402. Schiffer, M. B. (1985) “Is there a ‘Pompeii premise’ in archaeology?” Journal of Anthropological Research 41(1): 18–41. — (1987) Formation process of the archaeological record. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Schild, R., and F. Wendorf (1977) The prehistory of the Dakhleh Oasis and adjacent desert. Warsaw: Zaklad Narodowy imienia Ossolinskich Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Schmid, E. (1972) Atlas of animal bones. For prehistorians, archaeologists and Quaternary geologists. Knochenatlas. Für Prähistoriker, Archäologen und Quartärgeologen. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Schnebel, M. (1925) Die Landwirtschaft im hellenistischen Ägypten. Munich: Beck. Schwartz, J., and H. Wild (1950) Fouilles franco-suisses. Rapports I. Qasr Qarun/ Dionysias, 1948. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Shanks, M., and C. Tilley (1987) Social theory and archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Shaw, I. (1992) “Ideal homes in ancient Egypt: the archaeology of social aspiration.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(2): 147–166. Shier, L. A. (1978) Terracotta lamps from Karanis, Egypt: excavations of the University of Michigan. PhD diss., University of Michigan. Sidebotham, S. E. (2011) Berenike and the ancient maritime spice route. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sidebotham, S. E., and W. Z. Wendrich (2001/2) “Berenike: archaeological fieldwork at a Ptolemaic-Roman port on the Red Sea coast of Egypt 1999–2001.” Sahara 13: 23–50. Silvano, F. (2009) “Roman glass from the Fayoum oasis, Egypt.” In Annales du 17e Congrès—Annales of the 17th Congress de Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre, Anvers-Antwerp 2006, K. Janssens, ed.: 222–226. Antwerp: Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre. Silver, I. A. (1969) “The ageing of domestic animals.” In Science in archaeology: a survey of progress and research, D. R. Brothwell and E. S. Higgs, eds.: 283–302. New York: Thames and Hudson. Simmel, G. (1997) “Bridge and door.” In Rethinking architecture: a reader in cultural theory, N. Leach, ed.: 66–69. London and New York: Routledge. Smith, M. L. (1999) “The role of ordinary goods in premodern exchange.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(2): 109–135. Smith, S. T. (2003) Wretched Kush: ethnic identities and boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian empire. London and New York: Routledge. Sofaer Derevenski, J. (1994) “Where are the children? Accessing children in the past.” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 13(2): 7–20. —, ed. (2000a) Children and material culture. London: Routledge. — (2000b) “Material culture shock: confronting expectations in the material culture of children.” In Children and material culture, J. S. Derevenski, ed.: 3–16. London and New York: Routledge. Spaer, M. (2001) Ancient glass in the Israel Museum: beads and other small objects. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.

452

Amheida II

Spence, K. (2004) “The three-dimensional form of the Amarna house.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 90: 123–152. Spencer, A. J. (1979) Brick architecture in ancient Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd. Sternini, M. (1999) “I vetri provenienti dagli scavi della Missione Italiana a Cartagine (1973–1977).” Journal of Glass Studies 41: 83–103. Stevens, A. (2002) “Terracottas from Ismant el-Kharab.” In Dakhleh Oasis Project: preliminary reports on the 1994–1995 to 1998–1999 field seasons, C. A. Hope and G. E. Bowen, eds.: 277–295. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 11. Oxford: Oxbow. Szymańska, H. (2005) Terres cuites d’Athribis. Turnhout: Brepols. Taussig, M. (1993) Mimesis and alterity: a particular history of the senses. New York: Routledge. — (2004) My cocaine museum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Thanheiser, U. (1995) “Electrostatic extraction of archaeological plant remains from soil: a new method.” In Archaeobotany of North Africa, K. Wasylikowa, ed.: 117–119. Krakow: Polish Academy of Sciences, W. Szafer Institute of Botany. — (1999) “Plant remains from Ismant el-Kharab: first results.” In Dakhleh Oasis Project preliminary reports on the 1992–1993 and 1993–1994 field seasons, C. A. Hope and A. J. Mills, eds.: 89–93. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 8. Oxford: Oxbow. — (Forthcoming) “Agriculture.” In Ancient Kellis: life and death in a Roman-period village in Egypt’s Dakhleh Oasis, C. A. Hope and G. E. Bowen, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thanheiser, U., and R. S. Bagnall (1997) “Crops.” In The Kellis agricultural account book (P Kell. IV Gr. 96), R. S. Bagnall, ed.: 35–46. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 7. Oxford: Oxbow. Thanheiser, U., S. Kahlheber, and T. L. Dupras (Forthcoming) “Pearl millet in the Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt.” Thanheiser, U., and C. König (2008) “Plant remains from habitation areas in Kellis: some considerations concerning their accumulation.” In The Oasis papers 2: proceedings of the second international conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, M. F. Wiseman, ed.: 141–150. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 12. Oxford: Oxbow. Thanheiser, U., J. Walter, and C. A. Hope (2002) “Roman agriculture and gardening in Egypt as seen from Kellis.” In Dakhleh Oasis Project: preliminary reports on the 1994–5 to 1998–9 field-seasons, C. A. Hope and G. E. Bowen, eds.: 299–310. Oxford: Oxbow. Thébert, Y. (1987) “Private life and domestic architecture in Roman Africa.” In A history of private life: from pagan Rome to Byzantium, P. Veyne, ed.: 313–410. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thomas, N. (1991) Entangled objects: exchange, material culture, and colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thomas, T. K. (2001) Artifacts of everyday life: textiles from Karanis, Egypt in the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan. — (2007) “Coptic and Byzantine textiles found in Egypt: corpora, collections, and scholarly perspectives.” In Egypt in the Byzantine world, 300–700, R. S. Bagnall, ed.: 137–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thüry, G. E., and J. Walter (1997) Condimenta: Gewürzpflanzen in Koch- und Backrezepten aus der römischen Antike. Begleitbuch zur Pflanzenschau “Altrömische Gewürze”. Vienna: Institut für Botanik und Botanischer Garten der Universität Wien. Tietze, C. (1985) “Amarna. Analyse der Wohnhäuser und soziale Struktur der Stadtbewohner.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 112: 48–84. — (1996) “Amarna, Wohn und Lebensverhältnisse in einer ägyptischen Stadt.” In Haus und Palast im alten Ägypten, M. Bietak, ed.: 231–237. Vienna: Verlag der Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. —, ed. (2010) Amarna: Lebensräume – Lebensbilder – Weltbilder. Weimar: Arcus-Verlag. Tilly, C. (1989) “Excavation as theatre.” Antiquity 63: 275–280. Tomber, R. (2006a) “Egyptian faience.” In Mons Claudianus: survey and excavation 1987–1993. Vol. 3: Ceramic vessels and related objects, V. A. Maxfield and D. P. S. Peacock, eds.: 44–51. Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.

Bibliography

453

— (2006b) “The pottery.” In Mons Claudianus: survey and excavation 1987–1993. Vol. 3: Ceramic vessels and related objects, V. A. Maxfield and D. P. S. Peacock, eds.: 3–236. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Török, L. (1995) Hellenistic and Roman terracottas from Egypt. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Trigger, B. G. (1989) A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Tringham, R. (1991) “Households with faces: the challenge of gender in prehistoric architectural remains.” In Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory, J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, eds.: 93–131. Oxford: Blackwell. — (1994) “Engendered places in prehistory.” Gender, place, and culture 1(2): 169–203. Uytterhoeven, I. (2010) Hawara in the Graeco-Roman period: life and death in a Fayum village. Leuven, Paris, Walpole, MA: Peeters. Valbelle, D. (1985) “Les Ouvriers de la Tombe”: Deir el Médineh à l’époque ramesside. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. — (1997) “Craftsmen.” In The Egyptians, S. Donadoni, ed.: 31–59. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Van Beek, G. W. (1987) “Arches and vaults in the ancient Near East.” Scientific American 257(1): 78–85. Van der Veen, M. (2001) “The botanical evidence.” In Mons Claudianus 1987–1993, volume 2, part 1: excavation and survey, V. A. Maxfield and D. P. S. Peacock, eds.: 175–222. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. — (2011) Consumption, trade and innovation. Exploring the botanical remains from Roman and Islamic ports at Quseir alQadim. Frankfurt am Main: Africa Magna Verlag. van Minnen, P. (1986) “A change of names in Roman Egypt after A.D. 202? A note on P. Amst. I 72.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 62: 87–92. — (1994) “House-to-house enquiries: an interdisciplinary approach to Roman Karanis.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100: 227–251. Van Neer, W., and A. Ervynck (1999) “The faunal remains.” In Berenike 1997: report of the 1997 excavations at Berenike and the survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, including excavations at Shenshef, S. E. Sidebotham and W. Z. Wendrich, eds.: 325–348. CNWS publications, Special series, no. 4. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS), Universiteit Leiden. — (1999) “Faunal remains from Shenshef and Kalalat.” In Berenike 1997: report of the 1997 excavations at Berenike and the survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, including excavations at Shenshef, S. E. Sidebotham and W. Z. Wendrich, eds.: 341–344. CNWS publications, Special series, no. 4. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS), Universiteit Leiden. Venit, M. S. (1997) “The tomb from Tigrane Pasha Street and the iconography of death in Roman Alexandria.” American Journal of Archaeology 101(4): 701–729. — (1999) “The Stagni painted tomb: cultural interchange and gender differentiation in Roman Alexandria.” American Journal of Archaeology 103(4): 641–669. Verhecken, A. (2008) “Natural dyes.” In 3500 years of textile art: the collection in HeadquARTers, A. D. Moor, ed.: 87–95. Tielt: ACC Distribution. Vogelsang-Eastwood, G. M. (1989) Resist dyed textiles from Quseir al-Qadim. Paris: AE DTA. — (1993) Pharaonic Egyptian clothing. Leiden: E. J. Brill. — (2000) “Textiles.” In Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.: 268–298. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Von Pilgrim, C., et al. (2004) “The town of Syene: preliminary report on the Ist and 2nd season in Aswan.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 60: 119–148, Tafeln 14–19. Wagner, G. (1987) Les oasis d’Égypte à l’époque grecque, romaine et byzantine d´après les documents grecs. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. — (2001) Les ostraca grecs de Douch, fascicule V (356–505). Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Walker, S., and M. L. Bierbrier, eds. (1997) Ancient faces: mummy portraits from Roman Egypt. London: British Museum Press. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1988) “The social structure of the Roman house.” Papers of the British School at Rome 56: 43–97.

454

Amheida II

— (1994) Houses and society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton: Princeton University Press. — (2007) “The creation and expression of identity: the Roman world.” In Classical archaeology, S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne, eds.: 355–380. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology 10. Malden: Blackwell. — (2008) Rome’s cultural revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Webster, J. (2001) “Creolizing the Roman provinces.” American Journal of Archaeology 105(2): 209–225. — (2003) “Art as resistance and negotiation.” In Roman imperialism and provincial art, S. Scott and J. Webster, eds.: 24–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weiner, A. B. (1992) Inalienable possessions: the paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press. Weiss, E. A. (2000) Oilseed crops. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Wendrich, W. Z. (1999) The world according to basketry: an ethno-archaeological interpretation of basketry production in Egypt. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies (CNWS), Universiteit Leiden. — (1995) “Basketry and cordage.” In Berenike 1994. Preliminary report of the excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea coast) and the survey of the eastern desert, S. E. Sidebotham and W. Z. Wendrich, eds.: 68–84. CNWS Publications, special series no. 1. Leiden: Centre of Non-Western Studies. — (2000) “Basketry.” In Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds.: 254–267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wendrich, W. Z., and A. J. Veldmeijer (1996) “Cordage and basketry.” In Berenike 1995. Preliminary report of the excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea coast) and the survey of the eastern desert, S. E. Sidebotham and W. Z. Wendrich, eds.: 269–296. CNWS Publications, special series no. 2. Leiden: Centre of Non-Western Studies. Wesson, C. B. (1999) “Chiefly power and food storage in southeastern North America.” World Archaeology 31(1): 145–164. Westman, A. (1994) Site manual. London: MoLAS. Wharton, A. J. (1995) Refiguring the post classical city: Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem and Ravenna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitcomb, D. S. (1979) “Small objects.” In Quseir al-Qadim 1978: preliminary report, D. S. Whitcomb and J. H. Johnson, eds.: 196–210. Cairo: American Research Center in Egypt. Whitehouse, D. B. (1999) “The date of the glass from Karanis.” Journal of Glass Studies 41: 168–170. — (2003) Roman glass in the Corning Museum of Glass, vol. III. Corning and New York: Corning Museum of Glass. — (2006) “Glass from the port city of Aquileia.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 19(2): 538–539. Whitehouse, H. (1998) “Roman in life, Egyptian in death: the painted tomb of Petosiris in the Dakhleh Oasis.” In Life on the fringe: living in the southern Egyptian deserts during the Roman and early-Byzantine periods: proceedings of a colloquium held on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Netherlands Institute for Archaeology and Arabic studies in Cairo, 9–12 December 1996, O. E. Kaper, ed.: 253–270. Leiden: Research School CNWS, School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies. — (2005) “Wall-paintings of Area 2.1, room 1.” In Amheida Project Field Reports, R. S. Bagnall, ed., . Wiedemann, T. E. J. (1989) Adults and children in the Roman empire. New Haven: Yale University Press. Wild, J. P. (1969) “The tasikarios, a Roman linen-weaver in Egypt.” In Hommages à Marcel Renard, J. Bibauw, ed.: 810– 819. Brussels. — (1997) “Cotton in Roman Egypt: some problems of origin.” Al-Rafidan XVIII (Special volume: Festschrift for Professor Hideo Fujii, Kokushikan University): 287–298. — (2006) “Berenike: archaeological textiles in context.” In Textiles in situ: their find spots in Egypt and neighbouring countries in the first millennium C.E., S. Schrenk, ed.: 175–255. Riggisberg: Abegg-Stiftung. Wild, J. P., and F. C. Wild (1996) “The textiles.” In Berenike 1995. Preliminary report of the 1995 excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea coast) and the survey of the eastern Desert, S. E. Sidebotham and W. Z. Wendrich, eds.: 245–256.

Bibliography

455

CNWS publications, Special series, no. 2. Leiden: Research School CNWS, School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies. — (1998) “The textiles.” In Berenike 1996. Report of the 1996 excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea coast) and the survey of the eastern desert, S. E. Sidebotham and W. Z. Wendrich, eds.: 221–236. CNWS publications, Special series, no. 3. Leiden: Research School CNWS. — (2000) “Textiles.” In Berenike 1998. Report of the 1998 excavations at Berenike and the survey of the Egyptian eastern desert, including excavations in Wadi Kalalat, S. E. Sidebotham and W. Z. Wendrich, eds.: 251–274. CNWS publications, Special series, no. 4. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS). — (2005) “Rome and India: early Roman cotton textiles from Berenike, Red Sea Coast of Egypt.” In Textiles in Indian Ocean societies, R. Barnes, ed.: 11–16. London and New York: Routledge. — (2007) “Irrigation and the spread of cotton growing in Roman times.” Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 44: 16– 18. — (2008) “Early cotton textiles from Berenike.” In South Asian archaeology 1999. Proceedings of the fifteenth international conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, held at the Universiteit Leiden, 5–9 July, 1999, E. M. Raven, ed.: 229–233. Gonda Indological Studies 15. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. — (2009) “Cotton: the new wool, Qasr Ibrim study season 2008.” Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 46: 3–6. Wild, J. P., F. C. Wild, and A. J. Clapham (2008) “Roman cotton revisited.” In Purpureae Vestes II, Vestidos, Textiles y Tintes: Estudios sober la produccion de bienes de consumo en la antiguidad, C. Alfaro and L. Karali, eds.: 143–147. Valencia: Universitat de València. Wilfong, T. G. (2002) Women of Jême: lives in a Coptic town in late antique Egypt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. — (2012) “The University of Michigan excavation of Karanis (1924–1935): images from the Kelsey Museum photographic archive.” In The Oxford handbook of Roman Egypt, C. Riggs, ed.: 223–243. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkie, L. A. (2000) “Culture bought: evidence of creolization in the consumer goods of an enslaved Bahamian family.” Historical Archaeology 34(3): 10–26. Wilkins, J. (1995a) “General introduction.” In Food in antiquity, J. Wilkins, D. Harvey, and M. Dobson, eds.: 2–5. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. — (1995b) “Introduction (to part four: beyond the Greco-Roman World).” In Food in antiquity, J. Wilkins, D. Harvey, and M. Dobson, eds.: 242–247. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Wilson, A. (2004) “Archaeological evidence for textile production and dyeing in Roman North Africa.” In Purpureae vestes: actas del I Symposium Internacional sobre Textiles y Tintes del Mediterráneo en Época Romana (Ibiza, 8 al 10 de noviembre, 2002), C. Alfaro, J. P. Wild, and B. Costa, eds.: 155–164. València: Universitat de València. Winlock, H. E. (1936) Ed Dākhleh oasis: journal of a camel trip made in 1908. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Wipszycka, E. (1965) L’industrie textile dans l’Egypte romaine. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Woolf, G. (1994) “Becoming Roman, staying Greek: cultural identity and the civilizing process in the Roman East.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40: 116–143. — (2003 [1998]) Becoming Roman: the origins of provincial civilization in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Worp, K. A. (1994) “The Notitia Dignitatum and the geography of Egypt. Observations on some military camps and place names in Upper Egypt.” In Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists. Copenhagen 23–29 August 1992, A. Bülow-Jacobsen, ed.: 463–469. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. — (1995) Greek papyri from Kellis I. (P. Kell. G.) Nos. 1–90. Oxford: Oxbow. Worp, K. A., and C. A. Hope (2006) “Miniature codices from Kellis.” Mnemosyne 59(2): 226–258. Worp, K. A., and A. Rijksbaron, eds. (1987) The Isocrates codex from Kellis: (P. Kell. III Gr. 95). Oxford: Oxbow.

456

Amheida II

Wrigley, G. (1995) “Date palm.” In Evolution of crop plants, J. Smartt and N. W. Simmonds, eds.: 399–403. Harlow: Longman. Wuttmann, M. (2001) “L’Occupation Humaine de la région de Douch-Ayn Manawir.” In Irrigation et drainage dans l’Antiquité: qanāts et canalisations souterraines en Iran, en Égypte et en Grèce: séminaire tenu au Collège de France, P. Briant, ed.: 111–135. Persika 2. Paris: Thotm éd. Wuttmann, M., et al. (1998) “’Ayn Manawir (oasis de Kharga). Deuxième rapport préliminaire.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archeologie Orientale 98: 367–462. Wylie, A. (1991) “Gender theory and the archaeological record: why is there no archaeology of gender?” In Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory, J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, eds.: 31–54. Oxford: Blackwell. Xenophon (1923) Oeconomicus, E. C. Marchant, ed. and trans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Yeivin, S. (1934a) “Miscellanea archaeologica. I. Ovens and baking in Roman Egypt.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 34: 114–121. — (1934b) “Notes on the northern temple at Karanis.” Aegyptus 14: 41–79. Youssef, S. (2012) “Qanats in the Dakhleh Oasis” (oral presentation). In 7th International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project: New Developments in the Archaeology of the Egyptian Western Desert and its Oases, 20–24 June 2012, Leiden University, Netherlands. Youtie, H. C., and O. M. Pearl (1939) Tax rolls from Karanis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. — (1944) Papyri and ostraka from Karanis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Zanker, P. (1998) Pompeii: public and private life, D. L. Schneider, trans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zielinski, A. K. (1989) “In-situ conservation of the temple of Amun Nakht, Ayn Birbiyeh, Dakhleh Oasis in Egypt.” Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin 21(1): 49–60. Zohary, D., and M. Hopf (2000) Domestication of plants in the old world. The origin and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zohary, D., and P. Spiegel-Roy (1975) “Beginnings of fruit growing in the old world.” Science 187: 319–327.

Index abandonment 66, 85, 106, 119, 124, 133, 140, 184, 186, 194, 236-242, 281, 299, 350, 358, 406, 407, 413, 414, 416. Abydos 175. access analysis 160. age 183, 184, 197-199, 412, 415, 417, 418, 419-420. aithrion 23, 161-166, 168, 173, 292, 411, 418. Al-Zarqa 342. Alexandria 293, 309, 350 n. 4, 424. altar 298. Amarna 157, 175. amount 194. Amoun 194, 356. apotropaic 192-193, 198, 302, 412, 420. aule 161-166, 168, 176. ‘Ayn Amur Road 36. ‘Ayn Birbiyeh 38. ‘Ayn el-Gedida 49, 167, 195, 203 n. 9, 206. ‘Ayn el-Labakha 310. ‘Ayn Manawir 34 n. 14, 123, 171, 206. Baharia 33, 205. Bakchias 320, 342. Balat 36, 40, 150, 361. bathhouse 26, 43, 186. Bedouin 39, 124, 133, 140, 166 n. 73, 406, 407. Berenike 173, 323, 354, 372, 379, 398. Bes 67, 193, 198, 302, 311, 315. Bir Dikkar 37. bolt 115, 189, 191, 393-394, 410. bread oven 66, 92, 106-107, 124, 133, 137-139, 149, 150-151, 162-163, 166, 167-170, 172, 178 n. 153, 198, 386, 405, 406, 411, 415, 419. camel 36, 135, 139, 188, 302, 355, 358, 359, 360, 369-371, 417. children 43, 193, 196, 197-199, 291, 311, 415, 417, 418, 419-420, 421, 426. Christianity 191-192, 194, 353, 401, 420. church 26, 37-38. church (Amheida) 41, 194. city and urban 24, 160, 186. city layout 41. city status 39. cloth 186-187, 198, 355, 400. clothing 190, 291, 298, 355, 358, 400, 418. Constantine 194, 365. contextual archaeology 27-29. cooking 167. coprolite and dung 75, 80, 125, 135, 139, 168, 170, 189, 292, 299, 377, 386, 387, 401, 412, 420. Creolization 425.

458

Amheida II

crops in Dakhla 35, 380-382. Syene 173. Dakhleh Oasis Project (DOP) 15, 25, 29, 37-38, 41, 47, 128 n. 244, 175, 178, 302. Deir el-Haggar 38. Dier el-Medina 157, 175. Demotic 70, 194, 196, 353, 356, 365-366, 412. Diocletian 353, 363, 364. domestic archaeology 17, 26-27. donkey 127, 132, 135, 139, 188-189, 195, 281, 291, 292, 302, 353, 354, 358, 359, 360, 362, 369-371, 382, 401, 417. donkey-driver 284. Douch 24, 157, 164, 175, 177, 322, 342, 383, 408. Dura Europos 158, 165, 319 n. 5, 322-323. economic 30, 38, 166, 170, 178, 185, 186, 189, 190, 196, 199, 354, 358, 369, 378, 417-418, 419, 420, 421. Elephantine 24, 173, 309 and n. 8, 321, 322, 323, 342. el-Muzawwaqqa 38. el-Qasr 36-37, 40, 206. empire 29, 32, 178, 183, 186, 190, 423. estate 188-189, 191, 353, 354, 356-357, 378, 411. ethnicity 183, 196-197, 198-199, 369, 417, 420-421. Fakhry, Ahmed 40. family 30, 170, 186, 195, 196, 199, 295, 296, 299, 399, 406, 412, 417, 418, 419, 421, 426. Farafra 33, 37. Fayum 18-24, 84, 123, 157, 160-165, 177-178, 180, 185, 190, 197 n. 77, 206 n. 16, 310, 407-408. female (see also women (gender)) 187, 291, 297, 300, 303, 399, 412, 418, 426. fireplace 167-168, 413. gender 183, 184, 196, 197-199, 299, 415, 418, 419, 424. Giza 175. globalization 422, 426. gypsum 65-66, 77, 100, 104-105, 107, 121, 123, 124, 147-149, 191, 281, 295. Harpocrates 194, 302. Hawara 160. hearth 87-92, 123, 124, 135, 136, 154, 167-168, 171, 172, 177, 292, 299, 387, 405, 407, 408, 411, 413. Hermopolis Magna 421 n. 78. Hibis 36. Horus 194, 302, 356. household(s) 26-29, 48, 92, 170, 177, 183, 189, 191, 193, 196, 295, 297, 298, 311, 341, 358, 382, 388, 393, 399, 402, 408, 414, 416, 417, 418, 422, 424, 426-427; ifecourse 419. identity 28 n. 49, 38, 47, 183, 184, 185, 196, 198, 291, 292, 293-294, 299, 408, 416-417, 418, 420, 422-427. industrial 17, 26 n. 31, 29, 41, 44, 176 n. 38, 410 n. 14. Isis 301. Kahun 175. Karanis 19-21, 111, 144, 145, 160, 162, 164-174, 177-178, 190, 193, 292 and n. 1, 297, 298, 320, 321, 322, 323, 407-408, 413 n. 30, 415 n. 40. Kellis 25-26, 35, 37, 57, 123, 143, 147-149, 157, 160-161, 164-178, 183, 190, 193, 195, 207, 208, 281, 293, 354, 356, 375, 377-380, 383, 384, 388, 397-400, 414 n. 34, 420.

Index

459

Kellis Agricultural Account Book (KAB) 35, 41, 354, 356, 357, 359, 378, 381, 398, 421. Kharga 24, 33-36, 123, 157, 170, 177, 202, 203 n. 11, 207, 295, 310, 384, 402, 407-408. kiln 25, 29-30, 44, 47, 59, 80, 125-130, 133, 281, 295, 296, 342, 343, 344, 402. lighting 189, 191. loom 281, 457-458, 412. looting (sebbakhin) 44. magic 192-193, 196, 198, 294, 296-297, 299, 416. male (see also men (gender)) 100, 185, 187, 197, 291, 297, 304, 311, 366, 399, 412, 416, 417, 419. Marina el-Alamein 24, 157, 165, 175, 320, 322, 323. masculinity 197 n. 81, 198. materiality 27-28, 291, 293-295, 299, 408, 417 n. 44, 426. memory 299, 426. men (gender) 193, 197-199, 419, 420. migration 38, 423. mimesis 296. Mons Claudianus 194, 207, 342, 372, 381 n. 18. Mons Porphyrites 321, 322, 323. Museum of London (MOLA) 49, 141. Mut el-Kharab 34, 37, 38, 208, 293, 382. Myos Hormos 321, 323, 398. neighborhood 155, 184, 185, 354-355, 358, 421, 427. niche 21, 99, 148, 174, 177, 191, 192, 193, 298, 299, 411. Notitia Dignitatum 38. old age 199. Osiris 193, 194, 294, 356. Ottoman 39, 44, 194. Oxyrhynchus 24, 158, 399. papyrology 20, 24, 158, 160-162, 175, 191, 349 n. 1, 353, 417, 418 n. 53. performance 28 n. 49, 183, 292. Philadelphia 164, 417. pig 195, 369-371. Priapus 304. priest 175, 296, 353, 397 n. 4. Qasr al-Farafra 37. Quseir al-Qadim 321, 322, 323, 379, 381 n. 18. religion 184, 191-194, 196, 293, 297, 298, 299, 309, 425. ritual 191, 193, 294, 298 and n. 50, 299, 418. Roman Empire 24, 27-29, 43, 147, 174, 178-179, 194, 425-426. Romanization 373, 422, 425-426. roof 21, 41 (both), 42, 43, 59, 92, 106, 110-111, 123 (pitched), 125, 148, 161, 164, 166, 175-176, 178-180, 388, 411. roof (barrel vault) 25, 2, 66, 74, 80, 85, 98, 149-150, 163, 172, 190. roof (palm reed) 172. salinization 34. sandstone (geomorphology) 33-34. Sarapis 194, 350. Seth 194.

460

Amheida II

Shai 194, 356. shrine (household) 174, 192, 194, 299, 381. Siwa 33, 35. social archaeology 27-29. Soknopaiou Nesos (Dime) 19-23, 160, 164, 167, 175, 177, 292 n. 1, 323, 407. stairway 23, 85, 92, 110-111, 164, 172-173, 177, 178. status 30, 185, 191, 193, 194, 196, 291, 294, 296, 297, 309, 369, 417-418, 420, 421. storage 25, 66, 95, 98, 105-107, 110-111, 116, 119-120, 122-123, 149, 151-152, 170-171, 174, 177, 180, 188-189, 189, 236-242, 292, 295 n. 24, 296, 370, 378, 384, 399, 402, 412, 413-415, 416. storage of finds and conservation 52, 358. street 41, 115-116, 154-155, 173-174, 195. Syene 145, 178. tax 311, 357; status 423. Tebtynis 24, 146 n. 28, 157 n. 4, 163, 175, 206 n. 16, 320. temple 26, 37-38, 123, 171, 191, 292, 296, 298, 400, 409 n. 9. temple (Amheida) 17, 41-42, 44-45, 85, 194, 294, 354. textile 355, 381, 397-400, 412, 421. Theadelphia 164-165, 178. Thoth 44, 45, 194, 196, 356, 421. trade 36, 186, 187-189, 199, 353 ff., 369, 375, 398, 399, 402, 411, 412, 417, 419, 423. transportation 188-189, 194, 199, 311, 353 ff., 400, 402, 412, 420. trap door 83, 85, 98, 110, 119, 173, 415. trash 80, 127-130, 136, 154, 166, 292, 299, 410 n. 14. Vespasian 349-351. water management and qanat 34, 412. weaving 186-187, 199, 297, 377, 386, 398, 412, 418, 419. Western Desert 17, 24, 33-37, 40, 154 n. 53. window 148, 163 n. 53, 174, 180. wine 35, 188, 281, 353, 355, 356, 359, 384. women (gender) 170, 185-186, 193, 195, 196, 197-199, 291, 301, 310-311, 355, 399, 400, 411, 412, 414 n. 34, 416, 418, 419, 420, 421.