The Fayoum Survey Project: The Themistou Meris: Volume A: The Archaeological and Papyrological Survey (Collectanea Hellenistica) 9789042936270, 9789042938830, 9042936274

Citation preview

THE FAYOUM SURVEY PROJECT THE THEMISTOU MERIS Volume A The Archaeological and Papyrological Survey

Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten

by C.E. Römer with contributions by F. Hamouda, I. Klose and P. Kopp

Collectanea Hellenistica - KVAB VIII

PEETERS

COLLECTANEA HELLENISTICA - KVAB VIII

COLLECTANEA HELLENISTICA - KVAB EDITORIAL BOARD Willy Clarysse, Katelijn Vandorpe, Marc Boone, Alain Martin, Peter Van Nuffelen

PUBLIKATIE VAN DE KONINKLIJKE VLAAMSE ACADEMIE VAN BELGIË VOOR WETENSCHAPPEN EN KUNSTEN

Collectanea Hellenistica - KVAB

VIII

THE FAYOUM SURVEY PROJECT THE THEMISTOU MERIS Volume A The Archaeological and Papyrological Survey BY

Cornelia E. RÖMER WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY

Fatma Hamouda, Ilka Klose and Peter Kopp

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2019

© 2019, Peeters Publishers D/2019/0602/38 ISBN 978-90-429-3627-0 eISBN 978-90-429-3883-0

Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd en/of openbaar gemaakt worden door middel van druk, fotokopie, microfilm of op welke andere wijze ook zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE CHAPTER 1

VII The Themistou Meris. Its Borders, Landscape and Villages Introduction The Borders of the Themistou Meris The Landscape of the Themistou Meris and its Villages The Western Part of the Themistou Meris The Eastern Part of the Themistou Meris Excursus: The Canals in the Themistou Meris according to An-Nabulsi

1 5 8 8 12 13

SURVEYED PLACES IN THE THEMISTOU MERIS THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3

THE

MERIS AT

THE

DAM

THE

CHAPTER 13

SOUTH TO NORTH

EASTERN BANK OF THE WADI NAZLAH,

FROM

35 37 41 47

SOUTH TO NORTH

Kom el-Arka = ? Tell el-Kinissa = ?

DOWNSTREAM THE BAHR QASR EL-BANÂT: CHAPTER 10 CHAPTER 11 CHAPTER 12

FROM

27 31

Minyet el-Heita = Trikomia? Abou Gandir = Lagis? Nazlah = ? The “Wilkinson Wall” in the Wadi Nazlah, below the Cemetery of Qasr el-Gabali ON

CHAPTER 8 CHAPTER 9

ABOU EL-NOUR

Itsa = Lysimachis? Appendix: Abgig = ? Abou el-Nour = Arsinoe on the Dyke/on the Lock DOWNSTREAM THE WADI NAZLAH,

CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7

BETWEEN ITSA AND

51 59

FROM

SOUTH TO NORTH,

UP TO

THEADELPHEIA

Kom Alioun = Hermopolis or Theoxenis? Kom Hamouli, site of the Monastery of the Archangel Michael Kharâbat Sha’lân = Haráb-t-el-Yahood (“The Ruins of the Jews”) = Polydeukeia (or Sentrempais)? Batn Harit = Theadelpheia

69 83 95 105

VI

CONTENTS

FURTHER DOWNSTREAM THE BAHR QASR EL-BANÂT: FROM EAST TO WEST, FROM EUHEMERIA TO MEDINET QOUTA CHAPTER 14 CHAPTER 15 CHAPTER 16 CHAPTER 17 CHAPTER 18 CHAPTER 19

Qasr el-Banât = Euhemeria The “Ruins” North-East of Philoteris = Kanopias (?) Medinet Watfa = Philoteris Τὰ Xαλκωρύχια, the Copper Mines, in the Area of Dionysias Qasr Qaroun = Dionysias Medinet Qouta = Ha, Lord of the West = ?

VILLAGES ON THE PLATEAU CHAPTER 20 CHAPTER 21

BETWEEN

173 211 215 259 261 283

MEDINET EL-FAYOUM AND ITS FRINGES

Fedemin = Psentymis Villages Having Disappeared under Fields or Cemeteries

306 309

VILLAGES ON THE NORTHERN FRINGE OF THE CENTRAL FAYOUM PLATEAU; FROM WEST TO EAST CHAPTER 22 CHAPTER 23 CHAPTER 24

Ibshaway = Pisais Abou Ksa = Herakleia (?) Sanhour = Apias? and Tersa

314 315 317

ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN IN THE THEMISTOU MERIS, FROM EAST TO WEST CHAPTER 25 CHAPTER 26 CHAPTER 27 CHAPTER 28 CHAPTER 29 CHAPTER 30

Khashm az-Zinah and El Hammâm = Berenikis Aigialou and Alexandrou Nesos Sanhour el-Baharia(“North Sanhour”) Ἁλμυρᾶϲ The “Ruins of an Ancient Village” = Minyet Aqnā? Ezbet Abd el-Qâdir Ibrahim = Ezbet el-Kharaba = Ezbet Quwayda = ? The Monastery of St. Macarius of Alexandria in the Wadi Rayan

321 326 327 328 333 337

APPENDIX I

The Geomorphology and Geo-Archaeology of Philoteris/Watfa (I. Klose)

339

APPENDIX II

Canals, Wells and Basins: Excavations in Philoteris/Watfa in 2012 and 2014 (P. Kopp)

343

BIBLIOGRAPHY

357 INDICES

INDICES OF SOURCES GEOGRAPHICAL INDEX GODS, EGYPTIAN AND GREEK KINGS, QUEENS, EMPERORS AND THEIR FAMILIES INDEX OF MODERN SCHOLARS GENERAL INDEX

369 374 377 378 378 379

MAPS

383

PREFACE When Dominic Rathbone, who had initiated the Fayoum Survey Project in 1995, asked me whether I would be interested in continuing the survey that he had carried out in the Polemonos Meris, I happily agreed for mostly two reasons. First, I liked Egypt, having spent 9 months in the country 1980/81, even though circumstances were difficult then, and second, I was looking for an opportunity to take students of Papyrology to Egypt. From 1999 to 2006, quite a number of students have been with me surveying in the Fayoum, first from the University of Cologne (Germany), then from University College London (UK), and finally from the University of Vienna (Austria). They did not only get to know the country where most of the papyri we are dealing with are found, but they were also introduced to archaeological work. Donald M. Bailey (1931 – 2014) was a wonderful teacher of ceramics, making pottery interesting to the students (and to me),1 Christopher Kirby taught them how to measure sites and buildings, and to create plans and maps, Sa’ad Bedie made them understand and love the country. My role was to keep them together, to cheer them up, to plan the campaigns and to finally write the results.2 In those years, we went nearly every year for 3 – 4 weeks,3 staying in modest hotels in Medinet el-Fayoum, or later on the lake, trying every morning to be on the site to be surveyed not later than 7 o’clock; we did not succeed very often due to the circumstances of administration and security in the country. Nevertheless, usually, spirits were high, and if not, running gags as our tireless, but unsuccessful search for the “Ruins” close to Philoteris (see finally now Chapt. 15), and my repeated promise that I would lift and carry in my arms a small donkey (that happened on one of the last days) helped. In the evenings, we would gather for a beer and discuss plans for the next day. That it took so long time to finish this book has to do with my moving from Cologne to London, from London to Vienna, and finally to Cairo. In Vienna, I was allowed to spend time working for the survey only in my strictly measured holidays, and therefore I had to interrupt that activity for some time in 2006. Living in Egypt since 2010 has enabled me to deepen the survey in an unexpected way, and to excavate one of the sites which we had surveyed, Philoteris, modern Watfa. Since 2011, the German Archaeological Institute Cairo has supported excavations at Philoteris which led to the discovery of the first Hellenistic Gymnasium ever found in Egypt in 2017.4 During the survey till 2006, we could not dream of such finds, on the contrary, for us, Philoteris was the most difficult site, because it was too large for our modest equipment. In the beginning, we did not even have a total station, but had to calculate in the afternoons measures taken on the site and written into our notebooks. It was in those early days of our survey that Patrick Brosch, student of Ancient History in Cologne, learned the skills of a surveyer from Christopher Kirby so thoroughly that he was able to take over in later years. All maps presented in this book are based on the work of those two colleagues, who did not have Google Earth at their disposal! It was a great achievement in the beginning that we obtained aerial photos taken by the Royal Airforce in the 50s of the last century, offered to me by Paola Davoli.

1 2 3 4

Specific results of his ceramological work are collected in Volume B. See the six articles under my name in the bibliography. Precise dates are found in the Introduction of Volume B by D. M. Bailey. A preliminary report on that find is included in Chapt. 16; the final publication is forthcoming.

VIII

PREFACE

When in 2010 I looked for a place to carry out a geomagnetic survey, Philoteris featured as the most promising place. From the map created by Tomasz Herbich and his team we learned many more details about the ancient village and its water supply, but we did not have to be ashamed for our previous archaeological survey that had already produced many details. Unfortunately, the attempt to create a similarly revealing geomagnetic map of Kom el-Arka was in vain because of the low magnetic value of mud bricks used in that village (Chapt. 8). This book is not aimed exclusively at papyrologists. In writing it, I wanted to make it interesting enough also for classical archaeologists to propagate the chances offered by putting the textual and the archaeological evidence together. Some papyrologists may therefore be bored with information they know too well, while archaeologists will complain about too much papyrological information. This is the nature of interdisciplinary work, to which I feel deeply committed. I have tried to make locations of villages, whether ancient or modern, to be best understood by offering a number of maps, which are products of different times and different authors. In particular in maps produced in the 20th century, denominations of villages underwent a change that may be typical of societies, in which reading and writing, let alone the reading of maps is far from common. That a few maps have only Arabic writing is due to the scarce availability of maps in the country, in particular to be obtained by foreigners. Egypt is not a country in which it is always easy to work. If photos are not satisfying either in number or in quality, reasons may be behind which are difficult to explain and to phrase. I am indebted to a number of institutions, but even more to a multitude of people for having made possible the survey and the later excavation. First I would like to thank the Ministry of Antiquities in Egypt for constant interest in my work und manyfold support during both the survey and the excavation. In particular my thanks go to Mohamed Abdel-Aal and Sayed Ashoura, heads of the Antiquity Service in the Fayoum, without whose help we could not have achieved anything. Over the years the Fayoum Survey Project under my directorship has been financially supported by the following institutions, to which go my sincere thanks: The British Academy (UK), The Gerda-Henkel-Stiftung (Germany), the University of Cologne (Germany), and the German Archaeological Institute Cairo. Technical and logistic support for the survey was provided by the Egypt Exploration Society, Cairo, and the German Archaeological Institute Cairo. I thank both institutions, in particular the German Archaeological Institute and its director, Stephan Seidlmayer, for his enthusiastic willingness to engage in the excavation of Philoteris, a project that deals with a period of time that is more than late for egyptologists. In recent years time and again, the friendship of Magdi Sidhom and his wife Nahed has made our work in the Fayoum a joy, when they provided housing in their splendid garden in Tunis. In the German Archaeological Institute, Amani Ghanem (1948–2016) and Hussein El-Zeneiny smoothed the often difficult procedures in preparing the work, and to help me to be better understood in debates carried out in Arabic. Thanks are also due to the institutions which provided photos so far unpublished: the EES in London, the Archivio Breccia - Collezioni Egittologiche dell‘Università di Pisa, and the Kelsey Museum in Ann Arbor, Michigan. My gratitude for wonderful friendship and collaboration on the sites goes to all members of the team over the years, from the archaeological survey 1999–2006 to the geomagnetic survey and the excavations in Philoteris from 2011 onwards: Eman Aly, Giuseppina Azzarello, Donald M. Bailey, Sa’ad Mohamed Bedie, Patrick Brosch, Fatma Hamouda, Tomasz Herbich, Catherine Johns, Kristopher T. Kiersnowski, Christopher Kirby,

PREFACE

IX

Sophie Kovarik, David Leith, Francesca Maltomini, Anastasia Maravela, Rasha el-Mofatch, Andrew Monson, Margaret Mountford, Katja Müller, Dirk Obbink, Jacub Ordotowski, Noha Salem, Suzanne Soliman, Dawid Swiech. Many of the names of those who were students then, will now be very familiar to papyrologists. For the excavations a great new team was formed of Mohamed Gaber el-Maghrabi, Rita Hartmann (Ceramics), Ilka Klose (Excavation and maps), Peter Kopp (Excavation and maps), and students of Ain Shams University, whom I am teaching in the framework of the German Academic Exchange Service in Cairo (DAAD Kairo); in particular I would like to thank Suzanne Soliman and Haytham Qandeel for help with the index of this book. Young inspectors of the Ministry of Antiquities in the Fayoum joined our work throughout and helped, wherever they could: Ghada Abdalla, Samir Abdel Raouf, Mayada Ahmed, Saber Atia, Mohamed Bedie, Asmaa Mahmoud, Mahmoud Mostafa, Adel Mundi, Ayman Ramadan, Rasha Ramadan, Ashraf Rizkalla, Noura Sabet, Sheima Said. Special thanks go to Mostafa Faisal, head of the storage in Kom Aushim. Last, but not least, I would like to thank Willy Clarysse, Katelijn Vandorpe, and Herbert Verreth for having read the manuscript carefully and for saving me from many mistakes. To see this book appear in their series “Collectanea Hellenistica” is a great honour. For the best care of the manuscript I would like to thank Bert Verrept. I dedicate this book to the memory of Donald M. Bailey, wonderful colleague and friend, who continued to cooperate in the team till 2006; it grieves me that he did not live to see his own book, Volume B, and this book published; his input also in this Volme A is enormous.

CHAPTER 1 THE THEMISTOU MERIS. ITS BORDERS, LANDSCAPE AND VILLAGES Maps I and XV

Introduction The task of the team and myself was to survey1 the whole of the ancient Themistou Meris, one of the three districts which had been created in the Fayoum in the early Ptolemaic period.2 The Themistou Meris covers the western part of the Fayoum roughly between Qouta in the west (see Chapt. 19), the lake in the north [Photo 1.1], the Bahr Sanhour in the east, and the dam between Itsa and Abou el-Nour in the south (for the discussion of the exact borders see below). The area of this Meris was (and is) split in two parts by the Wadi Drain, also called the Wadi Nazlah, a canyon which, at places, reaches far below the surrounding countryside [Photo 1.2]; this Wadi runs in a south-northern direction parallel to the desert in the west, towards the lake, rooting in the south beyond the Itsa – Abou el-Nour Dam. The natural division line of the Wadi marked a border between the eastern part of the Meris, which covered the central plateau of the Fayoum and the area around it, both always sufficiently irrigated, and the western part of the Meris, for the irrigation of which extensive hauling had to be carried out, and many km of canals had to be dug along the desert edge. It was this western part of the Meris which was nearly completely abandoned in the 4th century AD for reasons of irrigation failure [see Map XV]. As it appears from the names of the villages in this part of the Fayoum, the Themistou Meris was the last of the three Meridesto be settled, at least its western part.3 This has certainly to do with the enormous work that had to be carried out, before that area could be reached by a regulated canal system.4 The shrinkage of the lake that had stood at +17-20 m in the time of the Middle Kingdom must have been the prominent aim of the Greek engineers, initiated certainly by regulation works at the entrance of the Bahr Yusuf into the Fayoum; with the shrinking of the lake the central plateau around today’s Medinet El-Fayoum (c. 21 m a. s. l.) rose step by step further above the surrounding landscape.5 The two main drains of the oasis, the Wadi Nazlah in the west (starting at the 1 2

3 4

5

For the Fayoum Survey Project, founded by D. Rathbone see Preface, p. V. For the creation of the three Merides in general see Derda 2006 ΑΡΣΙΝΟΙΤΗΣΝΟΜΟΣ 62 and 70-83. The other two Merides are the Polemonos Meris to the south of the Themistou Meris, and the Herakleidou Meris in the north-east. See Clarysse 2005 ‘Toponymy of Fayyum Villages’ 67-81. It is difficult to measure the work force necessary for such a task in a prescribed time; for enormous groups of labourers possibly employed – 15,000 men – see Thompson 1999 ‘Irrigation and Drainage’ 107-122 with Appendix B. For the beginnings of the land reclamation in the Fayoum see Thompson 1999, (foregoing note); however, our written evidence for this phase of the development is very scarse. The important archive of Kleon and Theodoros, engineers in the Fayoum, comes only from the middle of the 3rd century BC, when the basic work had been finished (P. Petrie Kleon; for this archive see also Trismegistos Archives, ArchID 122 and Graeco-RomanArchivespp. 206209); this is the time of the Zenon-Archive.

2

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

Itsa – Abou El-Nour Dam at c. 14 m a.s.l.), and the Bats Drain in the north-east (in the Herakleidou Meris and therefore not on the maps in this book) became visible6 and revealed their impact on the landscape and the level of the lake: Water coming in with the Bahr Yusuf uncontrolled in respect to both of those drains continued right away into the lake and made it rise. Water, necessary for the fields flowed unused into the lake. The task of blocking those two drains from their beginnings, and to divert that water onto the now emerging fields along the desert became the master plan of the Greek engineers. Two huge dykes were thrown up at the roots of those drains, and two canals were dug as far into the desert as it was possible.7 The task in the west was to block the Wadi Nazlah Drain [Photo 1.3 + 1.4]. To block that drain at its roots, a dam 9 km in length was erected between the modern villages of Itsa and Abou el-Nour.8 In the beginning, that dam will have been an earthen dam; it was fortified with limestone blocks at the latest in the early Roman period; a wall made of fired bricks replaced that limestone wall here and there, perhaps in late antiquity, but possibly also much later. Today, the road between Itsa and Abou el-Nour runs on that dam, of which parts of the limestone and fired brick walls are still insitu.9 Only after that dam stood firm, the water flowing in a canal south of it through a depression which is called today the “Basin of the Birds” could be controlled and diverted towards the western end of the Themistou Meris, because the risk of loosing that water into the drain and farther down to the lake was now banned. At the south-western end of the dam, at modern Abou el-Nour, a lock was built by which the inflow into the western Themistou Meris could be regulated. At this point, still today the canal proceeds westwards. To the south of the canal, a small mound of 150 × 180 m rises here unexpectedly to a height of c. 7 m above the little village and the fields around it; this mound developed into the cemetery of the village in connection with some sheik’s tombs [Photo 1.5]. There is ancient pottery here, not very much, but H. Jaritz and G. Garbrecht have found pottery also in the adjacent fields, mostly to the east of that mound.10 It seems natural to assume an ancient settlement here, at the point where the live-giving canal started into the western Themistou Meris. This was a prominent place; I propose that Arsinoe on the Lock, which was also called Arsinoe on the Dam, was situated exactly here (for the question of the identification see Chapt. 3).11 The dynastic name underlined the importance of the location. The village Arsinoe on the Dam alias Arsinoe on the Lock belongs to the earliest and largest villages attested in the Themistou Meris.12 The dam from here to modern Itsa would have been a natural border between the Themistou and Polemonos Merides (see below). 6

7

8

9

10

11 12

Lippert 2013 ‘Das Fayyûm als Abbild Ägyptens’, sees the spread arms of the goddess Mehet-weret in the Book of the Fayoum as the image of the two drains; in particular 102. For the canal system and the blockage erected by the Ptolemies at the north-eastern Bats Drain, see Kraemer 2010 ‘The Meandering Identity of a Fayoum Canal’ 365-376. The main publication on this dam is Garbrecht und Jaritz 1990 Untersuchungen antiker Anlagen zur Wasserspeicherung; cf. Butzer 2012, Map. For the blockage of the Wadi Nazlah see Römer 2013 ‘Why did the Villages in the Themistou Meris die?’ 169-179; accepted by H. Barnard et al. 2015 ‘The Fourth Century AD Expansion’ 66-67. Garbrecht und Jaritz 1990 Untersuchungen28: “Nach Vorkommen von Scherben, größeren Kalksteinquadern und Mühlsteinen in den Feldern lag der antike Ort vor allem östlich des noch vorhandenen Komrestes und der Straßengabelung …, in einem 250 × 300 und etwa 100 m langen Gebiet südlich des Bahr Nazlah”. The spreading of these ancient remains to the east, and to the south of the Bahr Nazlah (not verified by us) does not necessarily mean that the ancient village belonged to the Polemonos Meris; its centre may have have been located on what is now the modern village of Abou el-Nour. First proposed in Römer 2013 ‘Why did the Villages in the Themistou Meris die?’ 174. Mentioned first in 251 BC in P. Col. Zenon I 51; in 230 BC it had more than 1000 adult inhabitants P. Count. 3, 1ff.

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

3

As in the case of Arsinoe on the Lock/Dam, our knowledge about the villages in the Themistou Meris and their names mostly derives from the written evidence as found in, or referring to, villages in that district. However, only four villages, Dionysias, Philoteris, Euhemeria, and Theadelpheia (from west to east) have been securely identified by excavations. They all lie along the main feeder canal [Photo 1.6] in the north-western part of the district and have yielded large numbers of papyri which testify to their ancient names. This survival was due to the fact that the whole area up here had been abandoned in the 4th century because of the failure of water supply,13 leaving those villages under the sand and mostly untouched until Grenfell and Hunt started their excavation programme here in 1898.14 In Philoteris, Grenfell and Hunt only worked till they had identified the village’s name, which they found on the papyri unearthed.15 While thus the north-western part of the district offered the splendid opportunity to bring together archaeological results and written evidence which derives from securely named villages due to their undisturbed situation since the 4th century AD – a situation unfortunately not appreciated by Grenfell and Hunt, who were not interested in the archaeological side of the work, to say the least -, the rest of the district has been under cultivation since the Ptolemaic period; villages were built over, or disappeared under the fields. This is in particular true for the nearly entire part of the district east of the Wadi Nazlah. The database of Trismegistos has 354 geographical names registered for the Themistou Meris, including not only κῶμαι, but also ἐποίκια, κλῆροι, κτήματα, οὐϲίαι, and τόποι; only by chance, we will ever be able to locate any of these small settlements. Our chances are better with regard to the villages (κῶμαι), c. 50 of which are known by name in the district,16 because bureaucratic procedures in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods requested the indication of the Meristo which the village belonged together with the village name. For many settlements attempts were made to locate them within the district – often with controversial results. Those attempts were mostly based on evidence from texts containing lists of villages, possible common borders of their fields, administrative units or common institutions of different villages as grapheiaor thesauroi. K. Wessely was the first to deal with the question of identifications and locations of villages mentioned in the papyri from the Fayoum. His research was based entirely on texts, and often on the new material in the Vienna collection.17 Grenfell and Hunt dedicated much of the volume of P. Tebt. II to the Topography of the Arsinoite Nome, 18 criticising Wessely at length for misreadings and misinterpretations. Indeed, they knew better, for they had been on the sites and knew the landscape quite well, so that they also included geographical deliberations. Appendix II of P. Tebt. II, pp. 343-424 is still a good introduction to the problematic topic, despite the many new texts that have come to light in the meantime. In 2001 J. Benaji undertook investigations to the location of villages in the Fayoum during the Byzantine and early Arab periods, focussing on the Greek and then Arabic place names.19 More recently, K. Müller assembled all the written evidence available for the settlements in the Themistou Meris and used it for “Multidimensional Scaling”.20 Her computerized method has been critizied by P. Hoffman and B. Klin in 2006,21 but even so, some of her suggestions are worth considering. The results of 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

For the exceptional geological situation of that area see below pp. 337-339. An exception is Dionysias which obviously still had people living there in the 6th century; see Chapt. 18. P. Fay. pp. 62-63. Grenfell and Hunt counted 47 “villages” in the Themistou Meris in P. Tebt. II pp. 357-358, including some ἐποίκια. Wessely 1904 Topographie. Pp. 343-424, and map in Plate III. Benaji 2001 AgrarianChange 241-250, for the Themistou Meris in particular 246-248. Müller 2003 ‘Places and Spaces in the Themistou Meris’ 103-125. ‘Careful with that Computer’ 67-90.

4

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

all those studies have been collected and interpreted in Trismegistos by W. Clarysse and his team; the on-line database provides also a map, in which possible or secure locations of some of the villages are highlighted. Finally, the BarringtonAtlas of the Ancient World gives a detailed map of the Fayoum.22 A glance at this Atlas together with W. Clarysse’s map in Trismegistos shows how many uncertainties there still are, and how few villages we can locate with any confidence. In this Chapter and the following ones, I try to wrap up what has been proposed by other scholars, but then follow a somewhat different method to establish the borders of the Themistou Meris, and to locate settlements therein. My approach seeks to combine the evidence from the papyri, the geographical, and the archaeological situation, which I had the chance to study insitu. Both the papyrological evidence and in particular the geographical and archaeological situations have to be checked against one another to yield valuable information. For the understanding of the landscape and the location of villages several maps have been useful, which had been rarely taken into consideration until now; they are (in chronological order): A B C D E F G H I J

22 23

24 25 26

27 28 29 30

Map after Nabulsi from AD 1245, accessible in the Internet at “Rural Society in Medieval Islam: History of the Fayyum”, Queen Mary, University of London.23 The Map of the Description d’Égypte, Vol. 6, Atlas Géographique, 2nd ed. 1826, Pl. 19 (1:100 000).24 Maps II and III; Map of the Feioom constructed in 1824 by J. G. Wilkinson Esq.25 Map IV; Map of Linant de Bellefonds, Le Lac Moeris, Alexandria 1843, hand drawn map at end of volume; the principal map is Carte hydrographique de la Moyenne Égypte, 1854. Map V; Carte de la Basse-Égypte et de la Province du Fayoum par MM. Audebeau, Souter & Colani, Caire 1897 (1:200 000).26 Maps VI – X; The Survey of Egypt Map from 1901-02, revised in 1905-6, and 1913; 2nd ed. 1914 (1:50 000).27 Maps XI; The Survey of Egypt Map from 1926, Reprint with Corrections 1935 (1:100 000).28 G. Caton-Thompson – E. W. Gardner, The Desert Fayoum, London 1934, Pl. CVIII (here Figure 2 in Chapt. 16, p. 219). Map XII – XIII; The Survey of Egypt Map from 1945 (1:25 000).29 Map XIV; The Survey of Egypt Map from 1992-1993 (1:50 000).30

Talbert 2000 BarringtonAtlas, Map 75. This map by Y. Rapoport and I. Shahar, is reproduced from Ali Shafei Bey 1940 ‘Fayoum Towns as Described by Nabolsi’; in the Internet under Rural Society in Medieval Islam, Queen Mary College, London. Shafei Bey’s map is highly unreliable; cf. the map after an-Nabulsi in Salmon 1901, ‘Répertoire géographique’ 29-77, with map after p. 72. Here, the Wadi and the Bahr Nazlah are clearly differentiated at least; cf. now Rapoport-Shahar 2018 (non vidi). On-line at World Digital Library, p. 30. Purchased from the Bodleian Library in Oxford; MS. Wilkinson dep.a.15, fol. 37. Purchased from the Bibliothèque nationale de France on-line; the same map is reproduced in J. Benaji’s Agrarian Change on pp. 242-243 as a map of the “Commission des Domaines de l’État Égyptien“, reproduced by permission of the Bodleian Library. Sheets S. W. II/II – IV; III/II – IV. Sheet 72/54. Sheets 71-73/570; 71-73/585. Sheets NH36-E1d and b, and Sheets E2a and c.

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

5

1. The borders of the Themistou Meris To the west, the District of Themistos bordered the desert, to the East the District of Herakleides, and to the South the District of Polemon; in the north, there was the lake. How far the border of the Meris reached to the east towards Soknopaiou Nesos on the northern shore of the lake, is not certain, nor whether there were any other (perhaps small) settlements, or even sanctuaries, on the northern shore west of Soknopaiou Nesos.

Figure 1: R. Pococke’s map of the Fayoum Lake, indicating Soknopaiou Nesos to the east of the Qourn Island, and two further settlements on the northern shore west of Soknopaiou Nesos.31

While the western and northern borders of the Themistou Meris are natural, the installation of the other two borders must have followed some practical or/and political calculation in the time, when large areas of new land emerged from the swamps and waters of the lake. This process must have begun in the first decades of the 3rd century BC. The north-western border of the District of Themistos is clearly marked by the mountain range of the Gebel Qatrani which surrounds the Birket Qaroun to the north and west; in the west, the distance from the western end of the lake to that mountain range is c. 7 km, the lake standing at – 45 m in the Graeco-Roman period as it does today. The ancient village we find here on the slope of the mountain and high above the lake (at above 20 m a.s.l.) is Medinet Qouta (see Chapt. 19); no ancient name is known of that settlement, since Grenfell and Hunt did not stay long enough here to find any papyri in which the village name featured.32 In that place located on the border to the desert, we may expect a toll station, because from here one of the desert roads to the small oaseis went off, but the village seems to have had also a religious function for the people of the Fayoum [Photo 1.7]. The location of Medinet Qouta was probably not as far away from canals at the foot of the mountain range as it is today. Here, the modern canal peters out, because not enough water reaches so far. This may have been different at certain times in the history of this part of the Fayoum. Baking forms of the Middle Kingdom show that the terrace below the Graeco-Roman site (at c. 20m a.s.l.) had carried some settlement of whatever kind in that period.

31

32

The map is from Pococke 1743 ADescriptionoftheEast, Pl. XXII p. 57. Letters A – H on this map refer to buildings on the site of Qasr Qaroun. The map is, of course, naive, but the only source for eventuelly more sites on the northern shore (of which the locals talk anyway).It seems that the Book of the Fayoum knew about more sanctuaries on that northern shore; see Lippert 2013 ‘Das Fayyûm als Abbild Ägyptens’ 103-105. Archaeological Report 1900-1901, 6-7. Most of the material, housed in the Sackler Library, is unpublished and unrestored; nothing will be gained ever from this material, unless it is properly cleaned.

6

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

To the south-west, the desert provides a clear demarcation line. Parallel to that line ran (and stills runs) the main feeder canal of the north-western Themistou Meris, the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, which finally reaches Theadelpheia, Euhemeria, Philoteris, Dionysias and beyond. For those villages see here below, and Chapters 13-18; for other villages on the southern part of that canal see Chapters 10-12. The green land extended farther into the desert than now south of Dionysias, and west of Philoteris, but probably not farther to the west than it does today at Kom Hamouli and Alioun Village (Kom Hamouli was taken over by the green land only 5 years ago) [Photo 1.8]. The eastern border of the Themistou Meris, where it met with the Herakleidou Meris, must have been running northwards from the nome capital Arsinoe/Krokodilopolis. The capital itself belonged to the Herakleidou Meris, while the village of Psentymis (modern Fedemin) was located in the Themistou Meris. The demarcation line is to be expected between those two reference points. Accordingly, on their Plate III in P. Tebt. II, Grenfell and Hunt drew a nearly straight line from the west of Arsinoe to Sanhour, leaving Psentymis/Fedemin on the left side of that line. However, since such a demarcation line largely depended on administrative and fiscal matters, and therefore boundaries of fields, we should expect a natural borderline, which would have made those matters less complicated. In their text to the map, Grenfell and Hunt therefore propose rightly, in my view, that the modern Sanhour Canal was that demarcation line.33 It leaves the site of ancient Arsinoe on its eastern bank, and that of Psentymis/Fedemin on its western bank (for a different suggestion see below). That canal existed probably already in the Graeco-Roman period, since it runs in a well defined canyon; an ancient settlement of some extention was located at modern Sanhour, where the navigable (?) canal would have come to an end at the fringe of the central plateau of the Fayoum. In Chapter 24, I argue that Sanhour was Apias/Philopator Apiados, an important village with a dynastic name on the direct (water?)-way from the capital Arsinoe to the north and to the main crocodile sanctuary of the nome in Soknopaiou Nesos. Further on to the north from Sanhour and towards the lake a somewhat smaller canal will have continued in the plain below to form the border of the two districts. The Bahr Sanhour is also the natural extension of the Bahr Yusuf towards the lake, when we follow its direction from where it enters the Fayoum. In a revealing article of 2004, K. Vandorpe has made clear that the division line between the southern and northern parts of the Fayoum in pre-Ptolemaic times was the “Henet of Moeris”, a canal.34 This canal continued to be the division line between, in the south, the Themistou and Polemonos Merides, and the Herakleidou Meris in the North. As other scholars before her, she concludes that that canal was the Bahr Yusuf which in pre-Ptolemaic times reached the middle of the central plateau of the Fayoum, at that time bordering the lake [Photo 1.9]. It was only in the time when the lake receded to the low level where it is today that a demarcation line between the southern and northern parts had to be found in continuation of the run of the Bahr Yusuf. Vandorpe follows here what had been argued by O. Pearl in 1954,35 and proposes the Bahr Tersa to have been that demarcation line. Pearl’s argument is based on the one hand on P. Tebt. I 86, where fields are located between the περίϲταϲιϲ τῆϲ πόλεωϲ (= Arsinoe) in the west, and the Ἀργαίτιδοϲ 33 34

35

P. Tebt. II pp. 354-355. 2004 ‘The Henet of Moeris’ 61-78. The distinction of a northern and a southern part of the Fayoum continues to be employed into the early Roman period, admittedly late as that only in documents translated from the Demotic (for the problem of the somewhat disturbing southern/northen denominations, which refer to south-west or north-east rather than to north and south, see Vandorpe 69-70). For the “Northern and Southern Lake” see also Chapt. 19 on Qouta and its hieroglyphic inscription. For the division line in the Book of the Fayoum see Lippert 2013 ‘Das Fayyûm als Abbild Ägyptens’ 96. 1954 ‘ΑΡΓΑΙΤΙΣ and ΜΟΗΡΙΣ’, 27-34.

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

7

διῶρυξ in the east, and on the other hand on P. Tebt. I 164, 16-18, where the demarcation line between the southern and the northern Fayoum seems to be clearly referred to as the Ἀργαίτιδοϲ διῶρυξ. From the two texts Pearl concluded that the demarcation line was to the east of Arsinoe, where the Bahr Tersa runs, not taking into consideration the fact that Arsinoe belonged to the Herakleidou Meris, and not to the western Themistou Meris. The interpretation of P. Tebt. I 86 does not seem to be without problems though, since the term περίϲταϲιϲ τῆϲ πόλεωϲ may very well denominate an area outside the city and to the west of it. Looking at the map of the Fayoum, the Bahr Tersa and the village of Tersa seem to be too far to the east for being on the demarcation line between the Themistou and Herakleidou Merides, while the Bahr Sanhour points towards the location of Soknopaiou Nesos on the northern shore of the lake.36 So, it may have been the modern Sanhour Canal which was called the Ἀργαίτιδοϲ διῶρυξ. The southern border of the Themistou Meris As mentioned above, I suggest that the dam running from modern Itsa to Abou el-Nour was the demarcation line between the Themistou and Polemonos Merides. From Arsinoe to Itsa, the border may have followed the Arous Canal, along which the main road from Medinet el-Fayoum to Itsa runs today. Alternatively, the Bahr Nazlah, running south of the dam in the depression called “Basin of the Birds”, could be considered as a possible demarcation line. However, the Bahr Nazlah starts from the Bahr Yusuf before it reaches Arsinoe, and we would have to assume that the three Merideswere not bound together in the middle of the nome and at its capital.37 Furthermore, because the depression was obviously filled during flooding times, the run of the canal would have been fluctuating, and unpractical as a demarcation line. The tentative identification of Tebetnou (Τεβέτνυ) with modern Definnou38 would also contradict the Bahr Nazlah being the demarcation line of the Merides in this area, because Τεβέτνυ / Difinnu lies north to the Bahr Nazlah, but is clearly located in the Polemonos Meris. Grenfell and Hunt assumed the demarcation line to the north of the dam, around today’s “Minyet el-Heita” = “Place of the Wall”, located west of the Wadi Nazlah Drain. They consider the vicinity between Tebetnu and Bousiris (modern Diffinu and Abou Sir) in combination with quarries mentioned for the neighbourhood of Bousiris in P. Petrie II 13 (18a) = P. Petrie III 42 G (7)a = P. Petrie Kleon 86 (from the Kleon – Theodoros Archive). Since a quarry cannot be expected in the “Basin of the Birds” (Grenfell and Hunt did not know about that basin, but they knew that this was a flat and fertile area), they proposed Minyet el-Heita to be Bousiris, since they observed stone quarrying going on close to that village in their own days. I consider this a very weak argument, because stone quarrying is going on in all sorts of places in the Fayoum, in particular out in the desert, not too far from the green land. It is in the vicinity of the desert, where we should expect the location of Bousiris and its quarries, and most likely follow H. Melaerts39 und D. Bonneau40 who suggested identifying the quarries at Bousiris with quarries in the area of modern Abousir el-Meleq, c. 12 kms north of Il Lahoun = Ptolemais Hormou. Still, the place which is called today Minyet el-Heita = “Place of the Wall”, is an important place. At 2 km south of the modern town Garbrecht and Jaritz observed an ancient wall made of fired bricks in the same manner as the Itsa – Abou el-Nour wall, with an outlet in its middle part 36

37 38 39 40

For Soknopaiou Nesos as a reference point for the demarcation line see also Lippert 2013 ‘Das Fayyûm als Abbild Ägyptens’ 103. This has been reasonbly assumed by Grenfell and Hunt, P. Tebt. II p. 354. Wessely 1904 Topographie 145-146. In An-Nabulsi’s time the place was called Dafadnou (see Figure 3). 1997 ‘Une liste de villages de la méris de Polémon’ 171-182, in particular 173-174. 1979 ‘Ptolemais Hormou dans la documentation papyrologique’ 310-326; in particular 319.

8

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

which obviously once blocked the Wadi Nazlah.41 This may have been a construction similar to the Wilkinson Wall at Qasr el-Gabali (see Chapt. 7). “Minyet el-Heita” = “Place of the Wall” was once connected by a railway line with Medinet el-Fayoum, the track running from the capital down to Itsa, from there for a few kms on the ancient dam, and branching off to the north towards Minyet el-Heita, from where it continued to Shawashna. At Minyet el-Heita it crossed the Wadi Nazlah Drain, as does today the road following that dam [Photo 1.10]. Perhaps that railway dam was actually an ancient dam, necessary here to protect the water balance on the fields to the east of the Wadi Nazlah Drain. The Themistou Meris, defined by the borders proposed here, would have covered an area of c. 500 km2, of which one third lies west of the Wadi Drain, and the rest to the east of it.

2. The Landscape of the Themistou Meris Landscape is defined by its geological42 and geographical situation, thus by natural features, and by features created by man. After the land of the Fayoum rose out of the swamps and waters, the natural formation of the bottom of the swamp revealed its opportunities, and limitations. It was the work of the Greek engineers in the time of Ptolemy I and II to make this landscape work to the best benefit for the new rulers and settlers. The decisive elements in the formation of this newly created landscape were on the one hand the canals that brought fresh water onto the fields, even into the farthest corner of the Fayoum, and on the other hand the drains, that made the fields serve the farmers in the best possible way. The landscape of the Themistou Meris is neither homogeneous in respect of shape, nor in respect of fertility of the soil. The best places to settle within that district were certainly the areas on the central plateau of the Fayoum to the east of the Wadi Drain; here the canals coming from the Bahr Yusuf reached first and brought fresh water. Around today’s Ibshaway, Abou Ksa, and Sanhour, only c. 15 km to the north from the capital, the best conditions were to be expected. Here the priests of Soknopaiou Nesos mostly owned land – I think not by chance.43 In the areas to the west of the Drain, the irrigation posed more problems, even though here too wide areas were attractive enough for new settlers [Photo 1.11].44

3. The Western Part of the Themistou Meris The problem of irrigation posed by the Wadi Drain/the Wadi Nazlah and its successful solution already in the beginning of the 3rd century BC (see above) made the western part of the Themistou Meris constantly subject to the danger of water failure, more so in the north and north-west than

41

42

43 44

Garbrecht and Jaritz do not give any further information about the exact location of that wall, nor do they attempt any interpretation of its purpose (p. 16). For the geology of the Fayoum see Caton-Thompson and Gardner 1934 TheDesertFayoum; Hassan 1986 ‘Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements’ 483-501. See also Appendix I to Chapt. 16 pp. 339-341. See Chapters 22-24. About different zones of fertility, and the consequences of the irrigation on the plateau which led to an increase of salinization in the other areas, see Monson 2013 ‘Salinization and agricultural productivity’; looking at the modern condition of the Fayoum Monson’s statistical research on yields of the fields in the different zones corroborates the view of the fertile central plateau, and the more problematic surroundings, in particular on the fringes of the Fayoum.

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

9

in the southern areas which lie close to the Itsa – Abou el-Nour dam. The part of the Meris west of the Wadi Nazlah can therefore be divided into – Zone A in the south – once called “the plain” by the locals; the main villages here along the canal (the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, see below) were Hermopolis, ἡ εὐποτμοῦϲα “The fortunate” (P. Sakaon 42, +, and 18, where [τοῦ πεδί]ου “of the plain” is most resonably supplemented), and Theoxenis (P. Sakaon 35, 8); see Chapt. 10. – Zone B in the north, located on a long limestone range that reaches from Qasr el-Gabali at the Wadi Drain in the east, to Dionysias in the west. Most of this Zone B was entirely abandoned in the 4th century AD, obviously because here on the limestone range, the storage and distribution of water was more complicated than in the southern plain, and not enough water arrived up here anymore. The expression “ἐν ὑψηλοῖϲ τόποιϲ” “on high grounds” used by the people from Theadelpheia to emphasize their difficult situation compared with the situation of those “in the plain”, is most likely due to the “Lebensgefühl” of those sitting on the limestone range (P. Sakaon 35, 5-6). The geological situation of the modern village of Tunis that lies 3 km east of Philoteris is shown vividly in houses sitting immediately on the limestone range [Photo 1.12]. – Zone C, a third zone with a different condition along the shore of the lake to the north of the limestone range. This zone along the lake was also nearly entirely abandoned in the 4th century. The following description of the canal system in the Western Themistou Meris is based on the understanding that the main modern canals follow more or less the old canals as dug in the 3rd century BC. This procedure is methodologically sound because the canals then dug followed a certain ideal line that allowed for gravity irrigation throughout, as they do today.45 Only towards the end of the canal system, around Philoteris, the old canals were abandoned, and irrigation reduced to a lower level (see below).46 The area west of the Wadi Drain is watered by two canals which flow parallel in a north-western direction, before diverting from each other west of the modern village of Nazlah: the Bahr Nazlah (not to be confused with the Wadi Nazlah!) follows a lower line from 15 to 4 m a.s.l., while the Bahr Qasr el-Banât runs at c. 5 m higher to the west and close to the desert. The Bahr Nazlah irrigates the fields to the east down to the fringe of the Wadi Drain (at c. 0 m), the Bahr Qasr el-Banât waters the area between the two canals, and to the west towards the desert. At some places, the distance between the two canals is less than 2 km; see Map XV. Both canals are extremely slow so that it is sometimes impossible to be certain about their direction. Already Herodotus had observed that the water in the canals of the Fayoum was running extremely slowly, even to the extent that he assumed that water flew back to the Nile valley, when the flood was receeding (II 149).47 Of course, he only saw the canals around Medinet el-Fayoum. Nowadays, the water flow all around the Fayoum is ensured by weirs, often connected to bridges, where the water falls by about half a metre [Photo 1.13]. In the Graeco-Roman period such weirs must have made navigation on the canals impossible, at least for bigger boats (smaller ones could 45

46

47

For gravity irrigation, used throughout in the medieval Fayoum, except for some small areas in the north-east of the Oasis, see Rapoport and Shahar 2012 ‘Irrigation’ 1-31, in particular 15ff. This scenario makes sense also for the Graeco-Roman period. It is the particular achievement of N. Michel to have made clear that basin irrigation was not used in the Fayoum neither in the Ottoman period nor before in the Graeco-Roman period (pace Bonneau et al. 2005 ‘Travaux aux digues’ 253-276); see also Alleaume 1992 ‘Les systèmes hydrauliques’ 301-322. The new installation for the drainage into the Wadi Rayan, a new construction to build up two large lakes in the area south-west of the Fayoum, will be mentioned only briefly. It certainly did not exist before the 80s of the last century. The high lake would have allowed that, so Ball 1939 Contributions to the Geography of Egypt 204. Today it is sometimes difficult to understand the direction of the water flow; for the minimal speed of the canals see also Shafei Bey 1940 ‘Fayoum Irrigation as described by Nabulsi’ 290; he observed a water level drop of only 5 cm over 21 km in the Bahr Wardan.

10

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

have been portaged) and upstream. But boats of some sort are attested on these canals; I therefore think that such weirs did not exist in antiquity, but were introduced after the canals had been reactivated, and the Old Assuan Dam (erected between 1899 and 1902) regulated the water flow in the entire Nile Valley, perhaps to the disadvantage of the Fayoum. The Bahr Nazlah: Flowing out from the lock at Abou el-Nour, the Bahr Nazlah runs in a smooth curve for c. 5 km; in the village of el-Qâsma, the Bahr Qasr el-Banât branches off to the west, being nowadays regulated by a lasher [Photo 1.14].48 The Bahr Nazlah then continues to the northwest, leaving Minyet el-Heita and Abou Gandir in short distances to the east at the fringe of the Wadi Drain. Both those villages, now grown into towns, certainly always depended on the waters of the Bahr Nazlah. This canal then runs through the middle of the village of Hamouli = Philagris (? see Chapt. 11) (not to be confused with Kom Hamouli (!), which lies out in the desert to the west from here). The Bahr Nazlah then circles around the roots of the Khor Sabra Drain north of Nazlah, and finally bends to the east at an angle of 90°, as it is prevented from flowing further on into the northern direction by the limestone range (see above). It flows around the eastern end of that range, where todays village of Qasr el-Gabali is situated, and bends again to the west, leaving the limestone range now to its south. From here it continues through the plain towards the lake, passing by the village of Shawashna, from where it begins to peter out. On the map produced according to the description of the Fayoum by An-Nabulsi the flow of the Bahr Nazlah is marked correctly; clearly visible is the loop of the canal around the limestone range in the north (see Figure 3). The following villages depend now on the waters of the Bahr Nazlah, some of them with certainty built over ancient settlements. Others may have existed here, but are gone now without any trace. Modern villages at or north of the Itsa – Abou el-Nour Dam, in the Wadi Nazlah, or on the Bahr Nazlah, and their possible ancient anchestors (from the south): – Abou el-Nour = Arsinoe on the Dam/Lock (proposed in Chapt. 3); ancient remains. – el-Qâsma =?; no traces of an ancient village (at the point where the other main canal, the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, departs, we would expect an ancient settlement). – Minyet el-Heita; both Minya and Abou Gandir in the Wadi Nazlah may have had close connections with the Polemonos Meris; = Trikomia proposed in Chapt. 4. – Abou Gandir; an ancient tell is mentioned at Abou Gandir in the “Liste des tells et koms à sebakh”, Le Caire 1915, 15; = Lagis proposed in Chapt. 5. – Hamouli which lies on the Bahr el-Nazlah (and is different from Kom Hamouli) = Philagris (see Chapt. 11). – Nazlah =?; Nazlah has provided an inscription of the 7th century AD, but no further ancient remains till now.49 For Nazlah see Chapt. 6. – Qasr el-Gabali, on the Bahr Nazlah, formerly proposed identification with Polydeukeia questioned in Chapt. 12 (no ancient remains detected). – Shawashna =?; 7 km north-west of Ibshaway, situated between the Bahr Nazlah and the Wadi Nazlah; on –2.90 m, just before the land drops by 8 m to – 10; perhaps a good location for a settlement also in the Graeco-Roman period.

48

49

A short visit to the village here did not reveal any remains of an ancient settlement (May 2012; conditions for further investigation were not good). Timm 1988 Daschristlich-koptischeÄgypten,Teil4, 1758-59; Grenfell and Hunt did not propose to identify Nazlah with Polydeukeia, as indicated by Timm, but Qasr el-Gabali (P. Fay. p. 14).

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

11

– Knâ (Κνᾶ), on the lower run of the Wadi Nazlah =?; identification with medieval Aqnā proposed by Wessely 1904 Topographie95; attested from the 6th – 8th centuries; near Pisais (see Chapt. 27). All these villages were never covered by the desert. The Bahr Qasr el-Banât: As mentioned above, this canal branches off the Bahr Nazlah at the little village of el-Qâsma at c. 14 m a.s.l. From there it gains ground to the west and towards the fringe of the desert, and finally diverts into a north-western direction along the desert. It seems that not much land was covered by fields to the west of this canal, since the ground steadily rises from its banks to the west. Flowing at a level between 12 and 9 m, the canal reaches up to the very top of the limestone range in the north, so that this canal – different from the Bahr Nazlah – did not have to avoid that elevation, but could be led further to the east and west following the top of the range. Where the Bahr Qasr el-Banât meets the limestone elevation, the important village of Theadelpheia was founded. In T-shape, the canal is split here into an eastern and a western branch, the eastern much smaller one running on the range nearly up to Qasr el-Gabali, while the western one passes by Theadelpheia, Euhemeria, Philoteris, and proceeds up to Dionysias and beyond. For the problems posed by such a sharp bend in the flow of the canal during flooding seasons see Chapt. 13 [Photo 1.15]. An alteration in the flow of the canals is seen nowadays in the area of Philoteris. Briefly before that village, the canals we found today out in the desert at the ancient site must have branched off the main canal (see Chapt. 16). These additional canals allowed for an impressive extention of the cultivable land to the west of Philoteris, and the south of Dionysias. They are completely out of use nowadays, and were not reactivated in the beginning of the 20th century, perhaps because one did not want to touch the archaeological sites [Photo 1.16]; however, land reclamation is intensively going on in this area now. While 5 years ago it was still possible to follow the ancient main canal from Philoteris to Dionysias through the desert, this line has been interrupted now by newly dug deep canals and huge fields. The following ancient villages were dependent on the waters of the Bahr Qasr el-Banât; others must have existed here, but are now gone without any visible traces. Identified Graeco-Roman villages, or proposed identifications are underlined. Villages on the Bahr Qasr el-Banât (from the south); – The military camp of Medinet Madi = Narmouthis,50 but only the military camp, not the village of Narmouthis, which depended on the main canal from the Polemonos Meris. – El Kom el-Asfar =? Locality between the Bahr Qasr el-Banât in the west, and the Bahr Nazlah in the East, c. 2.5 km west of Abou Gandir, see Maps VIII and XV.51 – Kom Alioun =?; Hermopolis or Theoxenis proposed in Chapt. 10; Ptol. – 7th/8th century AD. – Kom Hamouli, out in the desert = The Monastery of the Archangel Michael; 5th – 12th century AD; (see Chapt. 11) – Batn Harit = Theadelpheia; Ptol. – 4th century AD; (Chapt.13) To the west of Theadelpheia: – Qasr el-Banât = Euhemeria; Ptol. – 4th century AD; (Chapt. 14) – “Ruins” = Kanopias proposed; Ptol. – 4th century AD; (Chapt. 15) 50

51

See Brienza 2007 ‘Impianti idraulici antichi rinvenuti’ 9-21; p. 9 “Si tratta essenzialmente di un lungo canale che attraversa tutta la zona periurbana nord-orientale della città antica e che, partendo dalle attuali zone verdi site intorno al villaggio moderno di Abou Gandir si dirige verso l’antico centro abitato”. Locals were not willing to confirm the existance of a kom in the area (perhaps due to the presence of policemen accompanying us).

12

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

– Medinet Watfa = Philoteris; Ptol. – 4th century AD; (Chapt. 16) – Qasr Qaroun = Dionysias; Ptol. – 6th century AD; (Chapt. 18) – Medinet Qouta =?; Ptol. – 7th century AD; (Chapt. 19) To the east of Theadelpheia: – Kharâbat Sha’lân = Polydeukeia (?) proposed in Chapt. 12; Ptol. – 4th century AD; – Qasr el-Gabali = identified with Polydeukeia by Grenfell and Hunt, P.Fay. p. 14, but see Chapt. 12. Considering the distribution of ancient villages along those two canals, we may be sceptical about the identification of Hamouli with ancient Philagris, because in P. Sakaon 32 people from Theadelpheia (on the Bahr Qasr el-Banât) accuse men from Philagris (on the Bahr Nazlah) for having removed a stone from the ϲτόμιον τὸ πρῶτον (l. 33), so that not enough water reaches Theadelpheia. Of course, this seems to show that Philagris and Theadelpheia were located on one and the same canal. However, as today, there may have been a connecting canal between the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, and the Bahr Nazlah, and the expression ϲτόμιον τὸ πρῶτον may refer to the lock at the place where such a connecting canal first branched off from the higher Bahr Qasr el-Banât and issued water to the lower running Bahr el-Nazlah (see Maps XI and XIV).

4. The Eastern Part of the Themistou Meris The eastern part of the district covers the western half of the central plateau of the Fayoum, the plains to the south and west of it, and the plains towards the lake in the north. Except of the later one, all these areas enjoy regular and extensive irrigation, depending on the waters of the Bahr Yusuf which feathers out into several large canals to the west of Medinet el-Fayoum. This part of the Meris poses more problems in identifying possible ancient settlements, because in this area of the Fayoum habitation was continuous over the centuries at least from the Graeco-Roman period onwards. The only known settlement which existed already in the Middle Kingdom is Abgig, c. 2.5 km south-west of Medinet el-Fayoum, at 18 m a.s.l., from where the famous monument of Sesostris I comes.52 It is not known, whether there was a Ptolemaic or Roman village at this site, but such a settlement is certainly to be expected. Main canals in the eastern part of the Themistou Meris, deriving from Medinet el-Fayoum (from south-west to north-west; underlined are ancient sites attested); see Map XV; Photo 2.1 Canal

villages on the canal, from source to end (in the west the Wadi Nazlah, in the north, the fringe of the plateau). Arous Canal, parallel to Difinnou Canal, starting from the south-west of Medinet el-Fayoum Itsa = Lysimachis proposed in Chapt. 2. The following canals all start from the west of Medinet el-Fayoum: [Photo 1.17 + 1.18] Motoul Canal, then Arin Canal Abgig (MK), Motoul, Kom el-Arka (Chapt. 8) Dessiah Canal, Tubhar Canal Dessiah, Tubhar; Garadou; Abou Dinqash (Chapt. 8) Gharbiah Canal Sonbat, Talath splitting up into: Ajamiyyin Canal Ajamiyyin 52

Zecchi 2012 HierglyphicInscriptionsIII, 37-39; see Appendix to Chapt. 2, p. 30. The monument stands today at the first roundabout, when one enters Medinet el-Fayoum from the north.

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

Abou Ganshou Canal Abou Ksa Canal Sanhour Canal

13

Kom el-Attar; Abou Ganshou, Ibshaway = Pisais (Chapt. 22); Tell el-Kinissa (Chapt. 9) Sinarou; El Kom el-Ahmar, Tell el-Kharaba, Kafr el-Kharaba (Chapt. 21); Abou Ksa (Herakleia proposed in Chapt. 23) Beni Magnun; El Selyiin; Fedemin = Psentymis (Chapt. 20); Sanhour (Philopator Apiados proposed in Chapt. 24)

The plain to the north of the plateau (from west to east): [Photo 1.19] Κνᾶ =?; (see above in the list of settlements along the Bahr Nazlah). In the bay west of Shakshouk = Halmyras proposed in Chapt. 26 El Hammam Ruins = Berenikis Aigialou proposed in Chapt. 25 Khashm el-Zinah = Alexandrou Nesos proposed in Chapt. 25 An ancient railway track dating from the first half of the 19th century starts from Medinet el-Fayoum and runs into a straight north-western direction; it first reaches Sinarou, and then continues in a smooth bend to Ibshaway, from were it turns to the north-east to Abou Ksa and Sanhour; see Figure 2. This track was installed under Mohamed Aly, who fostered extensive plantations of sugarcane in the area on the fringe of the plateau and below. The enterprise was not successful and therefore did not survive long, but the railway functioned into the 90s of the 20th century. Today, the main road between the north-western Fayoum and its capital runs on that railway track. It is possible that this track followed an ancient dam which the Ptolemies had already thrown up around the central plateau of the Fayoum to protect the highly fertile soils up here from being flushed away during flooding times. In the smooth bend between Ibshaway and Sinaru, we find three ancient koms, once watered by the Abou Ksa Canal (see Chapt. 21).

5. Excursus The Canals in the Themistou Meris according to An-Nabulsi Dealing with the writings of An-Nabulsi, the 13th century Ayyubid official, who spent nearly 3 months in the Fayoum in 1244/45, and compiled a report on the irrigation and inhabitants of the Fayoum at his time, is extremely difficult, in particular, of course, for anyone who does not know enough Arabic to actively understand what An-Nabulsi has to tell us. The task is furthermore complicated by the fact that the translations and literature so far available on these writings are partially not reliable. G. Salmon’s Répertoire Géographique de la province de Fayyoûm d’après le Kitâb Târîkh Al-Fayyoûm d’An-Nâboulsi is a misleading mixture of translations, paraphrases and his own comments, which are not kept apart properly.53 The report of the Irrigation Inspector of 1940, Ali Shafei Bey, is full of misunderstandings.54 I am very grateful to Y. Rapoport of Queen Mary College, London, who made his unpublished English translation accessible to me, which is now the most reliable source (now available in print, Rapoport-Shahar 2018, non vidi). J. Keenan encouraged papyrologists already in 2005 to look closer at An-Nabulsi; it is not an easy task.55 Concerning the Themistou Meris, the main problem posed by An-Nabulsi’s report on this part of the Fayoum is his description of the Tanabtawiyya Canal and its identification with any ancient 53 54 55

1901, 29-72, with map on p. 73. This map is the most interesting part of the publication. 1942 ‘Fayoum Irrigation as Described by Nabulsi’ 283-327 with map, in particular pp. 300-302 “The Main Canals”. 2005 ‘Landscape and Memory’ 203-212.

14

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

Figure 2: Map from Petrie 1890 Kahun,GurobandHawarawhich shows a partially good understanding of the canals in the central and western Fayoum at that time; the ancient railway track to the north from Medinet el-Fayoum is clearly indicated.

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

15

or modern canal. Salmon’s “translation” of An-Nabulsi’s report on this canal runs as follows (p. 17 An-Nabulsi; 30-31 Salmon): “Du Bahr Yussouf se détachaient à l’origine deux canaux qui allaient se jeter, l’un au sud du Birka Kâroun, l’autre au nord. Le canal du sud partait de la rive droite (sic) du Bahr, au-dessus du Bahr Azab, et se dirigeait tout droit vers la montagne, ou il décrivait une courbe pour aller vers l’Ouest se déverser dans le lac. Il portait le nom de Bahr Tanabtawiyya. Sur son course se trouvaient les villages suivants, abandonnés à l’époque d’ An-Nabulsi.”

Figure 3: Map of Nabulsi according to Salmon 1901, after p. 72.

Of the following 21 villages, only 5 can be identified in their location with certainty: 1. Ihrit l’abandonnée; Salmon translates in the footnote “celle qui a subi une révolution, une revirement”; most likely, he means Ihrit = Harit = Theadelpheia, located on the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, and therefore connected to the canal system of the Bahr Nazlah. 2. Senhoures; Sinnures, far away in the north-east of Medinet el-Fayoum; cannot be relevant to the canal or canal system described here.

16

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

3. Barajtaut; Perkethaut, probably = Philagris = modern Hamouli, on the Bahr Nazlah. 4. Qasr Qaroun; irrigated in the past by the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, which was connected to the canal-system of the Bahr Nazlah. 5. Er-Rayan; if located at the nearest possible point to the Wadi Rayan, where today the tube to the lakes in the Wadi Rayan leaves the cultivated land, the village called Ezbet Wadi Rayan, can be perhaps identified. It is watered by the Bahr Qasr el-Banât. Salmon then goes on with his interpretation: “Cette liste comprend non seulement les villages situés sur le parcours du Bahr Tanabtawiyya, mais aussi tous les villages, bourgs et hameaux ruinés ou seulement abandonnés dans la région.” Salmon is aware that not all the villages mentioned are on the Tanabtawiyya Canal! He therefore rightly concludes that the Bahr Tanabtawiyya has something to do with the Bahr Nazlah; he distinguishes the Bahr Nazlah from the Wadi Nazlah, which he calls the “thalweg”56 in his text on p. 31, but then gets the two confused by stating: “la Wadi Nazlah, qui se sépare près d’Abou-Djandir du thalweg qui se derige vers le Qasr Qaroun. La première partie du cours de la Wadi Nazla, c’est-à-dire du Bahr Yousuf à Abou Djandir, peut donc être identifiée avec le Bahr Tanabtawiyya.” If he had written “La première partie du cours de la Bahr Nazlah …” things would be right, for only the Bahr Nazlah “se sépare près d’Abou-Djandir du thalweg”. On his map, Salmon consequently identifies the Wadi Nazlah, his thalweg, with the Tanabtawiyya Canal. J. Keenan, instead, identifies the Bahr Tanabtawiyya with the desert canal of the Polemonos Meris. He states (p. 208):” Its (of the village Talit) water was derived from the Bahr Tanabtawiyya, the medieval equivalent of the ancient Polemon Desert Canal.” The problem is posed by the description of the canals which depart from the Bahr Yusuf before it reaches Medinet el-Fayoum. The English translation of the relevant paragraph runs as follows (Rapoport p. 16): “He [Joseph, or whoever created the Fayoum] then dug two canals issuing from the canal that enters al-Fayyum [i.e. the Grand Canal]. One is a southern canal called Tanabṭawiyya, which flows in a southernly direction, under the mountain towards the west, along the semicircle of the Fayyum, and above lands that are at the foot of the mountain and from which the water had withdrawn (makshūfatan). [The second is] a northern canal, opposite to the first canal, called Wardān. This second canal passes in a northern direction, under the mountain and towards the west as well, along the other semicircle of the Fayyum, so that its two ends almost meet each other. Both terminate at the fishery lake (birkatal-samak), so that any surplus of water in one of them is cast into the fishery lake. The Wardān canal terminates in the lake, at a point opposite Minyat Aqnā, and the Tanabṭawiyya [canal] terminates in the lake near Qaṣr Qārūn. However, as years passed by, and epochs succeeded one another, and years and months came and went, the neglect of them [of the canals] continued, and alluvial deposits built up in them so that they were covered with soil, and the elevation at the end of each canal came to be level with the alluvial land in its middle. Moreover, wind scattered sand when it passed through sandy areas. As a result, the flow of water in both was cut off, and the villages on them were deserted. As for canal Tanabṭawiyya, which was mentioned first, its villages that had been deserted in the southern area are Tanabṭawiyya; Ṭabā; Shalā; Iṭfīḥ; Ihrīt al-Munqalaba; Ḥaddāda; Juzāza, or, as some say, Zujāja; Sanhūris; Burjtūt; Sudū; Sidrā; Badrīs; Sanhāba; Aqnā; Tanhamā; Kharāb Qāsim; Banī Barī; Tanhamat al-Sidr; Qaṣr Qārūn; Zarzura; al-Rayyān. These villages were deserted so that there is no dweller or resident in them.”57

56 57

“Thalweg” is a geographical term for a line of lowest elevation within a valley or watercourse. Underlined villages as mentioned above on preceding page.

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

17

It becomes clear that An-Nabulsi did not have a good understanding of the system of canals and drains in the Fayoum. What reaches the lake are mostly the drains, not the canals. It seems that Nabulsi sees the Tanabṭawiyya Canal as one big canal system deriving from the Bahr Yusuf, circling around the Gharag Basin in the south (where Tebtynis was), turning then to the north, and finally reaching the lake. Such a big canal system does not exist today, and I believe never did. There are two independent systems of irrigation here: 1. the Bahr Nazlah which derives from the Bahr Yusuf before it reaches Medinet el-Fayoum and flows first in a western, then a into a northern direction up to the lake (see above p. 7 and 9-11). This is a closed system, installed for the irrigation of the western Themistou Meris. 2. The ancient Polemon Desert Canal, on the other hand, which branches off the Bahr Yusuf somewhat before the Bahr Nazlah, and then circles around the southern edge of the Fayoum. Shortly before Talit, it splits and continues in a western, and then in a northern direction.58 This northern branch of the Polemon Desert Canal (today the Bashawat Canal) watered the region of Medinet Madi, and continued then to the west towards the western edge of the Fayoum and the Gharaq Basin. In the area between that northern branch of the Polemon Desert Canal and the Bahr Nazlah just east of Medinet Madi, there is a depression, which would have been difficult to cross for any substantial canal, of which the water would have been to be lifted again. The division line between the two water systems is running exactly here, and therefore, Narmouthis belonged to the Polemonos, and not to the Themistou Meris, of which the main water system depended on the Bahr Nazlah. Only in the late period, so it seems, when the military camp was built in Narmouthis,59 water supply was taken also from the Bahr Nazlah – Bahr Qasr el-Banât system; the military camp is in the east of Narmouthis, and far below the main village, therefore most probably easier to connect to the water system of the Themistou Meris. It seems that An-Nabulsi’s report is less reliable than we would wish. For the identification of villages and canals, he should be consulted with caution.

58 59

See also Arnold 1966 ‘Bericht über Fahrten in das Gharaq-Becken’ 101-109. For the military camp at Narmouthis see Brecciani 2009 ‘Il castrum Narmoutheos’ 221-232; for the connection to the canal of the Themistou Meris see Brienza 2007 ‘Impianti idraulici antichi’ 9-21; p. 9; see above, foornot 50.

18

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

Photo 1.1: Lake Qaroun, view from below of Soknopaiou Nesos to the north towards the Themistou Meris; the central plateau of the Fayoum is clearly visible in the background.

Photo 1.2: Wadi Nazlah, view from north to south; in the background on the right bank, the town of Nazlah.

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

Photo 1.3: The Dam between Itsa and Abou el-Nour; (late) hellenistic limestone wall.

Photo 1.4: The Dam between Itsa and Abou el-Nour; the Roman – Late Roman wall.

Photo 1.5: The elevation of the cemetery at Abou el-Nour; view from bridge over the Bahr Nazlah towards the south.

19

20

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

Photo 1.6: The Bahr Qasr el-Banât west of Theadelpheia; view from the east.

Photo 1.7: View from the upper end of the wadi above of Medinet Qouta; in the far background the lake (Photo A. Paasch).

Photo 1.8: View from Philoteris to the west into the area that was pervaded by canals in the Graeco-Roman period (Photo 2003); there is much more green land nowadays.

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

21

Photo 1.9: The extention of the lake at the time of the MK; montage from Hassan and Tassie 2006 ‘Modelling environmental and settlement change in the Fayoum’ 39.

Photo 1.10: The Wadi Drain (= The Wadi Nazlah) at Minyet el-Heita; view to the north.

Photo 1.11: Gardenland in the Themistou Meris with a vineyard in the background; area of Hamouli.

22

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

Photo 1.12: The shop of the Pottery School of Evelyne Porret at Tunis, sitting on the limestone range, 5 km east of Philoteris.

Photo 1.13: The Bahr Qasr el-Banât at a weir, west of Theadelpheia; view from west (Photo P. Kopp).

Photo 1.14: Where the Bahr Qasr el-Banât branches off the Bahr el-Nazlah at el-Qâsma.

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

23

Photo 1.15: The Bahr Qasr el-Banât at Theadelpheia, splitting up into the western and eastern branches. View from west, showing the canal arriving from the south at right; straight ahead are the lashers for the eastern branch (at least 2 lashers).

Photo 1.16: Ancient Canal I west of Philoteris in 2003.

Photo 1.17: The departure points of the canals in the north and west of the city of Medinet el-Fayoum (Google Earth image 2015).

24

CHAPTER 1: THE THEMISTOU MERIS

Photo 1.18: Where the canals start in the west of the city of Medinet el-Fayoum (Photo P. Kopp).

Photo 1.19: The far west of the lake at sun set, the Gebel el-Qatrani on the northern shore still in the sun.

SURVEYED PLACES IN THE THEMISTOU MERIS

CHAPTER 2 ITSA = LYSIMACHIS? Photo 1 in this Chapter; Map XV

The modern village of Itsa extends over 1.6 km south of where two parallel canals, the Bahr Arous and the Bahr Difinnou split up. The northern canal of these two, the Bahr Arous, still today winds its way through the middle of the village and leaves it towards the north, while the southern one bends to the south before reaching Itsa and runs into the direction of Difinnou (perhaps ancient Tebetnou). Of course, we do not know in how far the situation of 1946 in the map of Photo 2.1, and today corresponds to that of the Graeco-Roman period. It is certain, though, that this place was a special place, as it was located at the north-eastern end of the dam which blocked the “Basin of the Birds” from the Wadi Nazlah (see Chapt. 1). The dam, of which nothing now remains in this area, must have started to the south of the village of Itsa,1 if not farther to the north, where the two canals split up. If the assumption is right that the dam was the line of demarcation between the Themistou and the Polemonos Merides (see Chapt.1), a village that developed at the beginning of the dam could easily have been divided into two parts, one of which belonged to the Themistou, the other to the Polemonos Meris, perhaps separated by a canal. This peculiar situation seems to exist in the village of Lysimachis, Λυϲιμαχίϲ.2 The location of Lysimachis at this very point would also explain that in the London papyrus 256 of AD 11-15, we hear of “two villages of Lysimachis” (P. Lond. II p. 95-97, 256r (e) 1 = W. Chr. 344; P. Lond II p. 99, 256r (a) 4 = W. Chr. 443 [in lacuna!]).3 From AD 11 onwards, Lysimachis belonged to the Polemonos Meris alone (Van Beek and Clarysse 2003). Trismegistos gives 70 references for Lysimachis in 51 texts, 9 papyri were written in that village. The Demotic name is T-set-n-Panetbeus (“The place of Panetbeus”) as seen in the bilingual P. LilleDem. II 74 (224 BC). The earliest text is dated to 245 BC (P. Petrie Kleon 91 l. 104), the latest to after AD 245 (BGU III 753). The attestation in a Coptic text of the 7th century is problematic (CPR XII 37). Perhaps, P. Berl. Frisk 1, col. 33, l. 10, a documentation of the transport of grain from the granaries of the Polemonos Meris “to the harbours” may be of interest here. The gateway between the Polemonos Meris in the south-west, and the nome capital, where these “harbours” were certainly located, can indeed be expected somewhere here, whether the grain was to be transported by boat (on the Bahr Arous), or by donkey on a road, which would reach the south-western part

1 2 3

See Garbrecht und Jaritz 1990 UntersuchungenantikerAnlagenzurWasserspeicherung38 and Beilage 5. See B. Van Beek and W. Clarysse in Trismegistos – Fayum; GEO-ID 1275. See B. Kramer in CPR XVIII pp. 111-114. Kramer entertained the possibility (p. 111) that “es sich um ein Dorf handeln könne, das durch einen die Merisgrenze bildenden Kanal geteilt war”. On the other hand, I do not share her assumption that Lysimachis was obviously located in the neighbourhood of Magdola, based on P. Iand. VII 135 (not P. Berl. Frisk 135, 16f as in CPR XVIII). It is impossible that the border between the Polemonos and the Themistou Merides ran along a line near Magdola, which is firmly identified and located in the far west of the Polemonos Meris.

28

CHAPTER 2: ITSA = LYSIMACHIS?

of Arsinoe after only 7-8 km. In other words, and the other way round: whoever wanted to reach the Polemonos Meris from the direction of the nome capital, would have passed here. The name of the village Lysimachis is not an ordinary name either. There existed a deme in Alexandria that took its name from one of the long-time friends of Ptolemy I Soter, Lysimachos, to whom Arsinoe II had been married from 290-281 BC, until Lysimachos was killed in battle.4 Lying on the 16m line a.s.l., the place where Itsa is today must have emerged quite early from the swamps.5 Since it seems more likely that the deme in Alexandria was named after Lysimachos when Ptolemy Soter was still alive (before 283 BC)6, or when at least Lysimachos himself was still alive and married to Arsinoe (before 281 BC), the Fayoum village may have been given the honorary name of Soter’s friend at the same time. In the 80s of the century, the work on the dam must have been in full swing already, to make the foundation of the villages in the northern part of the Themistou Meris possible in the 70s. If we accept the identification of Itsa with Lysimachis, attractive possibilities open to identify the villages Trikomia and Lagis with modern villages near Itsa (see Chapt. 4 and 5). The identification of Abou el-Nour at the other end of the dam with Arsinoe on the Dyke / on the Lock is nearly inevitable (see Chapt. 3).

4

5

6

For Lysimachos and his role in the conflicts of the Diadochoi see Huß 2001 ÄgypteninhellenistischerZeit 195-201; 254-260. In the Middle Kingdom and in the time of Herodotus, the level of the swamp and lake was between 17 and 20 metres a.s.l.; see above Chapt. 1 pp. 1-2. See Fraser 1972 PtolemaicAlexandria I 46 with footnotes 78 and 79 on II 126.

CHAPTER 2: ITSA = LYSIMACHIS?

29

Photo 2.1: Detail of Map XIII (The Survey of Egypt Map from 1945 (1: 25 000) with Itsa (in the circle) at the crossing of two roads; the road (in red) arriving from the north being followed from the north by the Arous Canal. That road continues through the village of Itsa and further on to Abou el-Nour in the south-west (out of map).

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 2 ABGIG = ? Abgig is famous as the place, near to which the the so-called Abgig Monument was found, an obelisk-like stela with all four sides adorned with hieroglyphs.7 The monument was erected by Sesostris I (ruled c. 1975-1930 BC). Since 1972, it has been standing on the first roundabaout one encounters, when reaching Medinet el-Fayoum coming from Cairo. The village of Abgig is located to the west of the road that leads from Itsa to Medinet el-Fayoum; c. 5 km, after Itsa one reaches Abgig and turns left into the village to reach the area where the monument was found.8 According to my argument that the south-eastern border of the Themistou Meris ran on the Itsa-Abou el-Nour Dam, and from there straight ahead to the capital Arsinoe,9 Abgig would have been in the Themistou Meris.10 The place lies at 18 m a.s.l., and was therefore on the shore of the lake in the time of the Middle Kingdom and Sesostris I. After Vansleb had first mentioned the monument in his Nouvellerelation 262-263, the place at Abgig became a prominent destination of the early travellers.11 R. Lepsius went to the site in May/ June 1843 and described the area: he saw „Ruinen eines kleinen Dorfes“ to the west of where the monument was then still lying, and behind that little village a dam, which he connected to a „Wadi“; he gives a small drawing of the environment.12 Today the whole area is covered by fields. No architecture related to the monument had ever been seen by any of the visitors, while it was still insitu.

By its hieroglyphic inscriptions the monument seems to connect Sesostris I and the place in which the monument was erected, to the most important religious centres of Egypt at the time, Heliopolis and Thebes, and of course to Memphis. The local crocodile god Sobek plays only a minor role. If the findspot near the modern village of Abgig is the place, where the monument was originally erected, it may have been a marker for the boundaries of the Fayoum inhabited at the time, when the level of the lake reached the 17-20 m a.s.l. The ruined village observed by Lepsius was perhaps of the Graeco-Roman period. 7 8 9 10 11 12

M. Zecchi, ‘The Monument’ 373-386. On Maps F (see above p. 4), the findspot is roughly indicated. See above Chapt. 1, pp. 7-8. P. Davoli puts it into the Polemonos Meris; p. 167, note 266. Zecchi, ‘The Monument’ 373-374. Denkmäler II 31; Lepsius Projekt Sachsen-Anhalt.

CHAPTER 3 ABOU EL-NOUR = ARSINOE ON THE DYKE / ON THE LOCK1 Photo 1 in this Chapter; Map XIII

The modern village of Abou el-Nour takes an important place at the southern border of what was the Themistou Meris.2 Its position marks on the one hand the western end of the dam (and road) between the village of Itsa and this village, and on the other hand it marks the point at which the main feeder canal coming from the Bahr Yusuf is released through a gap into a western direction and towards Nazlah and by its sidebranch up to Dionysias (Qasr Qaroun). In the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, the village was situated at a junction for those coming by road from the nome capital into the Themistou Meris, and others coming by boat.3 Here was the gate to the western part of the Arsinoite Nome.4 Beside its location on an important dam and a lock, further considerations support the identification of Abou el-Nour with the ancient village of Arsinoe on the Dyke / on the Lock.5 The dynastic name of the village underlines its importance; named after the elder daughter of Ptolemy I who was to become the wife of her brother Ptolemy II, the “Place of Arsinoe”, the Demotic name of the village,6 at the end of the dam nicely corresponds with the name of the village at the beginning of that dyke: Lysimachis!7 That village was named after Arsinoe’s husband, Lysimachos, to whom she was married from 290 BC till his death in battle in 281. The huge enterprise of throwing up the dyke to make the irrigation of the Themistou Meris possible may have been crowned in the 80s by naming the two ends of the dyke after the princess and her husband, the end of the dyke with the lock being highlighted by the Ptolemaic royal name. Arsinoe on the Dyke (ἐπὶ τοῦ χώματος), also called Arsinoe on the Lock (ἐπὶ τοῦ ζεύγματος), was the largest settlement of the Themistou Meris from its early beginnings; it is first attested in 251 or 250 BC,8 one of the earliest attestations of a village of the Themistou Meris altogether. The village had already 1387 adult tax paying inhabitants in 230/229 BC, in 229/228 there were 915.9 In comparison: Lysimachis had only 80 in a year between 254 and 231 BC. It seems that Arsinoe developed, while the dam, without which the Themistou Meris could not function (see Chapt. 1 pp. 7-8), was thrown up. From here, all further operations to install the irrigation work could be organized. In 235/234 BC, Arsinoe was the banking centre for the Themistou Meris, as can be seen 1

2 3

4

5 6

7 8 9

GEO-ID 325; Wessely 1904 Topographie 41-42; P. Tebt. II p. 369-370; Calderini, Suppl. 1, 60-61; Suppl. 2, 27; Suppl. 3, 20; Suppl. 4, 20; Suppl. 5, 18. Cf. B. Van Beek in Trismegistos – Fayum. For the borders of the Meris see Chapt. 1, Introduction, pp. 5-8. Müller 2003 ‘Places and Spaces in the Themistou Meris (Fayum/Graeco-Roman Egypt)’ 118, says about that village “It was clearly an important, if not to say, the dominant place of the region”. The dyke does not end in Shedmou, as sometimes stated, but in Abou el-Nour. It is striking though that the name of the village Shedmou, only 1 km before Abou el-Nour, means “The Dam of Water” in ancient Egyptian. I first proposed the identification in 2013 in ‘Why did the Villages in the Themistou Meris die?’ 174. See Müller 2006 Settlements 25; the first attestation is from 247 BC (P. Lille dém. I 4.4). Cf. the bilingual text P. LilleDem. II 96 = SB XVI 12414. Proposed in Chapt. 2. P. Col. Zen. I 51. On the importance of the village see also P. Count. 2 pp. 112 with note 95, and 115 with note 108. P. Count 2, Tables 4:4 (p. 104) and 4:5 (p. 107). Evidence in P. Count. 3, 45, 49, 85, 130.

32

CHAPTER 3: ABOU EL-NOUR = ARSINOE ON THE DYKE / ON THE LOCK

in the list of tax payments in cash regarding the three Merides of the nome (P. Poethke 8, with corrections by W. Clarysse, D. Thompson and L. Capron in APF 57, 2011, 35-54).10 Whether the χωρίον Ἀρϲινόηϲ still mentioned in papyri of the 7th/8th century is the same village cannot be verified beyond doubt.11 However, the village must have still existed at that time, since the Bahr Nazlah continued to exist here well into the time of An-Nabulsi (see Chapt. 1). The geographical indication in P. Bürgsch. 23 (243 BC) fits the identification of Abou el-Nour. There we read (Sethe p. 479): “Arsinoe, in dem Teile des Themistes, im südlichen Uferland des Gaues der Arsinoe”. The “südliche Uferland” does not mean that the village was to be found on the shore of the lake, but only indicates its location in the southern region of the Lake. As we have seen, the complete Themistou Meris belonged to the “Southern Lake” in the Fayum.12 K. Müller locates Arsinoe on the Dyke/Lock somewhere on the Wadi Nazlah north of Kom el-Arka. In such a location, however, there would be neither a reason to call the village “On the Dyke” nor “On the Lock”. Interestingly, Müller groups Arsinoe on the Dyke/Lock in cluster III, together with Ptolemais Kaine (a harbour near the nome capital, perhaps where the Bahr Nazlah first leaves the Bahr Yusuf), Trikomia (see Chapt. 4 for its proposed location close to the Dyke), Lysimachis (see above, and Chapt. 2 for its identification with Itsa), Lagis (see Chapt. 5 for its identification with Abou Gandir, not far from the Dyke), Pyrrheia and Anoubias (no proposals offered so far). A prison is attested in Arsinoe on the Dyke/Lock in the 3rd (243 BC; P. Bürgsch. 23) and in the 2nd centuries BC (178 BC?; P. Köln X 441 A 4); cf. also SB III 7202, 17 (227 BC). The existence of this institution may underline the importance of the village.13 The archaeological evidence for an ancient settlement at Abou el-Nour To the south of the canal that passes by in a western direction, a small mound of 150 × 180 m rises unexpectedly to a height of c. 7 m above the little village and the fields around; this mound developed into the cemetery of the village in connection with some sheiks’ tombs [Photos 3.2 + 3.3]. There is ancient pottery here, not very much, but H. Jaritz and G. Garbrecht have found pottery also in the adjacent fields, mostly to the east of that mound.14 It seems natural to assume an ancient settlement at the point, where the life-giving canal into the western Themistou Meris began. The papyrological evidence15 Trismegistos lists 14 texts coming from Arsinoe on the Dyke / on the Lock, and 118 mentioning the village.16 There is nothing, as far as I can see, that makes that village special, except for its early existence attested by the papyri, and its size (see above). The name Arsinoe on the Dyke is

10

11

12

13 14 15 16

Arsinoe as the place where payments were made for the Themistou Meris is mentioned in ll. 20, 32, 122, 150, 166, 172, 178 and 199 (old numbering system). For the attestations see Timm 1984 Das christlich-koptische Ägypten 1 184-185; BKU 3, 2, 481 (AD 640-799); Morelli 2004 ‘I χωρία in α dell’ Arsinoite’ 125-137 makes no attempt to locate any of the villages of which he compiles a list (villages in alpha) for the early Arabic period; a χωρίον Ἀρϲινόηϲ features as no. 17 in that list. Trismegistos has the translation of P. Bürgsch. 23 as: “(The) village of Souchos P-awi-n-Arsinoe in the meris of Themistos on (the) southern side (sc. of the canal of Moiris) (in) the nomos (of) Arsinoe”; for the “southern part” of the Arsinoite nome see above, Chapt. 1 pp. 6-7. For prisons as indicators of larger and more important settlements see Müller 2006 Settlements91-105. Garbrecht und Jaritz 1990 Untersuchungen 28; cf. above p. 2 with note 10. See B. Van Beek in Trismegistos – Fayum; cf. Müller 2006 Settlements202, No. 17. Many of the papyri written at Arsinoe on the Dyke/Lock were found in cartonnages excavated at Ghoran; many of the attestations (16) come from the list BGU III 802 (AD 42).

CHAPTER 3: ABOU EL-NOUR = ARSINOE ON THE DYKE / ON THE LOCK

33

attested in P. Petrie III 66b, col. 2, 12 (between 260 and 224 BC) and others; Arsinoe on the Lock is attested in P. Petrie III 78, 5-6 (between 247 and 231 BC) and others. There were palm groves, vineyards and other garden land at Arsinoe on the Dyke/Lock (BGU I 141, 8; AD 242/243). A list of incoming taxes found at Theadelpheia shows impressive amounts of revenue from Arsinoe in the month of Pauni: 21 artabai, in comparison to just 15 1/3 from Herakleia, and 1 1/3, 1/8 from Apias (BGU IX 1895, 63; c. AD 157). Interesting is the large amount of beer consumed at Arsinoe on the Dyke/Lock in 227/226 or 185/184 BC: in the list of SB XX 14955 Arsinoe pays 3 talents (compare Theadelpheia 2 talents, 2400 drachmas; Lysimachis 5000 drachmas; Dionysias 2 talents, 2400 drachmas). Rosebeds at Arsinoe belonging to someone living in Krokodilon Polis are mentioned in P. Duk. Inv. 676 (ZPE 152, 2005, 189-193; 196/5 BC?). Κνῆκοϲ (safflower) is grown in Arsinoe (SB I 4369, 43 and 53-54; 3rd century BC). In 220 BC Alexippos, son of Sisines, draws up his testament in Arsinoe on the Dyke (SB XII 10859; cartonnage from Ghoran). A bank seems to be attested for Arsinoe in 235 BC (SB XX 14527).

34

CHAPTER 3: ABOU EL-NOUR = ARSINOE ON THE DYKE / ON THE LOCK

Photo 3.1: Plan of Abou el-Nour (by I. Klose).

Photo 3.2: On the bridge over the Bahr el-Nazlah, looking south towards the cemetery.

Photo 3.3: Approaching Abou el-Nour from the south on the road from Tutoun; the cemetery of the village is on both sides of the road (Photo Th. Löffler).

CHAPTERS 4-5 VILLAGES ON THE UPPER COURSE OF THE WADI NAZLAH Maps V, XIII and XV

Since the border between the Themistou and the Polemonos Merides was probably running on the dam between Itsa and Abou el-Nour, the area on the upper course of the Wadi Drain, north of the dam, belonged to the Themistou Meris. Two large modern villages on the upper course of the Wadi Drain (= Wadi Nazlah) have been connected by archaeological remains to ancient sites, albeit in different ways. They are both located on the course of the Wadi Drain not far north of the dam between Itsa and Abou el-Nour.1

4. Minyet el-Heita = Trikomia?2 Minyet el-Heita, “The Place of the Wall” lies 5 km north-west of Itsa. It is the place where the first bridge over the Wadi Drain connects the eastern and western parts of the Themistou Meris (to speak in Ptolemaic-Roman terms) in an area where the Wadi Drain does not yet form the deep valley, as it does in its course further north, where it cuts through the limestone range. Who did (and does) not want to follow the dam from Itsa to Abou el-Nour, and further from there to the north, could (?) (and can) use the short cut by Minyet el-Heita and Abou Gandir to Nazlah, Qasr el-Gabali etc. On this bridge in Minyet el-Heita, the tracks for the Light Railway up to Shawashna were running in the earlier part of the 20th century, following not a direct way through the village, but obviously finding the ideal line by making a large curve first to the south, then to the west within the village (Map XIII 1:25 000). Today, this narrow bridge is the only entrance to the western part of the village, and to the road further to Abou Gandir and the western bank of the Wadi Drain up to Nazlah. The Wadi Drain is a torrential river here now, about 12 meters wide. Looking at this torrent, one may think that the location of the bridge for the Light Railway and the modern road were well chosen, and actually following an old pattern of the ideal (and perhaps the only possible) place where to build it [Photo 4.-5.1]. Minyet el-Heita (“The Place of the Wall”) is today a lively village of c. 75 000 inhabitants. Locals have no knowledge of any ancient buildings or objects in their neighbourhoud; they think that the name of their village derives from the dam between Itsa and Abou el-Nour. However, in 1990, G. Garbrecht and H. Jaritz reported on a wall in the south of the village built from fired bricks which they thought formed part of a basin that once belonged to an ancient village at Minyet el-Heita, without giving any further hint as to its exact location (p. 16). I have not been

1

2

For the dam as the border between the Themistou and Polemonos Merides see Chapt. 1, pp. 7-8. The modern village of Minyet el-Heita would therefore have been located in the Themistou Meris (pace P. Tebt. II 355). GEO-ID 2470; P. Tebt. II p. 358 and 405; Wessely 1904 Topographie 149; Calderini V 29; Suppl. 1, 245; Suppl. 2, 221; B. Van Beek in Trismegistos – Fayum.

36

CHAPTER 4-5: VILLAGES ON THE UPPER COURSE OF THE WADI NAZLAH

able to find that wall. The village has grown since then, and the ancient wall may, indeed, not be there anymore. The evidence of the wall that was still standing in the last century, and the strategic location in an area, where it was possible to build a bridge may suggest that Minyet el-Heita sits on an ancient site. Further considerations support the identification of Minyet el-Heita with ancient Trikomia. These considerations refer on the one hand to the neighbourhood of modern Minyet el-Heita to Itsa (= Lysimachis), and to the distance between the village and Medinet el-Fayoum (= Arsinoe); on the other hand they refer to the changing orientation of the ancient village of Trikomia, first towards Lysimachis (= Itsa) in the 3rd to 2nd century BC, and then to Lagis (see below). Trikomia is one of the earliest dated villages in the Themistou Meris: P. Col. Zen. I 51, 6 dates to October 2 of 251 or 250 BC. “The Three Villages” may have existed in the beginning on both sides of the Wadi Drain (and of the bridge), the “Quarter of Maron” perhaps being one of them.3 Van Beek has given a thorough account of what we know about Trikomia from the papyrological evidence in Trismegistos. Tax registers from the period between 254-231 BC4 name Trikomia, Lysimachis, and Lagis together (P. Count 23; cf. P. Count 26). The connection between Trikomia and Lysimachis is further highlighted by common payments of grain (P. Petrie III 78; P. Petrie III 79, and P. Petrie III 80 from 250-200 BC), and joint payments of the pastophoroi of both villages to the Sarapieion in Krokodilon Polis (P. Lille Gr. I 11 from between 250 and 200 BC); in 217 BC the fuller Peteuris worked in both villages (SB XX 14999), and in 197 BC a letter was sent jointly to the policemen and an official of Lysimachis and Trikomia (P. Mich. XVIII 770). All this speaks for a close neighbourhood between Lysimachis and Trikomia. As Van Beek has stated, it looks that from the moment when Lysimachis was no longer part of the Themistou, but of the Polemonos Meris, Trikomia became closely connected to Lagis, another village in its neighbourhood. In SB XII 11048 of AD 150-250, an inventory of sheep, Trikomia and Lagis have a common entry; they share a komogrammateus (BGU XIII 2250; AD 161-162) and a sitologos (P. Mich. XV 701; AD 194). P. Hamb. I 17 of AD 210 suggests a common granary. If we accept that Lysimachis was located on the place of present day Itsa the identification of Minyet el-Heita with Trikomia is indeed attractive, also for a further reason. In P. Hamb. I 17 (AD 210), donkeys transported wheat from the granary in Lagis and Trikomia to the harbour of Alsos in Krokodilon Polis in one day. From this Van Beek concluded, on the basis of observations made by Habermann and Adams, that the two villages were not much farther away from the nome capital than c. 15 km.5 As it happens, the road from Minyet el-Heita to the place where the canals depart from the Bahr Yusuf in the west of Medinet el-Fayoum is c. 15 km. In the early tax lists of Trikomia, the overall number of inhabitants of the village was about 530 sometime just before 231 BC (P. Count 2 p. 321, based on P. Count 22, 23, 26, and 34). This number is considerably lower, nearly half that of Dionysias and Philoteris at the same time (see Chapt. 16 p. 236). To these numbers correspond the amounts of the beer tax to be paid on the one hand in Trikomia, and on the other hand in Theadelpheia and Dionysias. While the brewer Pnepheros offers 3000 drachmae as surety for the beer tax to be paid in Trikomia in 185-184 BC,

3 4 5

P. Count 23 and 26. The Quarter of Maron appears together with the name Trikomia in P. Col. Zen. I 51, 6-8. Rather towards the end of this period; see P. Count 1 p. 318. For the regular distance of 15 km trotten by donkeys per day see Habermann 1990 ‘Statistische Datenanalyse’ 50-94; Adams 2007 LandTransport 79.

CHAPTER 4-5: VILLAGES ON THE UPPER COURSE OF THE WADI NAZLAH

37

14400 are due for Theadelpheia and Dionysias respectively, and 5000 for Lysimachis (SB XX, 14955, Col. 1, 12 ff.).6 W. Clarysse has drawn attention to the high number of Jews living in the quarter of Maron in the third century BC.7 Unfortunately, in the papyrological evidence there is no hint whatsoever to the bridge over the Wadi Drain, or to any other features special to Trikomia. The last attestations for Trikomia are O. Fay. 35 (3rd century), PSI XV 1544 = SB XII 11048 (AD 175-225), and O. Deiss. 52 from AD 261; if Trikomia was located here on the upper course of the Wadi Drain, a later attestation would be surprising, because in this area north of the dam the uncontrolled rush of water down the drain would have caused great disruption, after problems had occurred at the dam. While the villages in the north-west did no longer receive enough water, the Wadi Drain must have overflowed.

5. Abou Gandir = Lagis?8 Abou Gandir lies c. 6.5 km north-west-west of Minyet el-Heita. It is nowadays squeezed in between the regulated Wadi Drain in the north, and the Bahr Nazlah in the south. In the “Liste des Tells et Koms à sebakh”, issued by the IFAO in 1915, Abou Gandir is to be found on p. 15 (“Abou Gandir”). At least at that time, there was an ancient tell around here. The changing orientation of the village of Trikomia (Minyet el-Heita) first towards Lysimachis (Itsa), and then to Lagis, after Lysimachis had become part of the Polemonos Meris, seems to make Abou Gandir a hot candidate for ancient Lagis. Only 6.5 km down the Wadi Drain it would have been a perfect neighbour for Trikomia (Minyet el-Heita); the two villages shared the village scribe Isidoros in AD 161 and 164 (Archive of Isidoros);9 in AD 194, they had a common sitologus, Ammonios (P. Mich. XV 701). A list of sheep groups Trikomia and Lagis in a single lemma (SB XII 11048; AD 175-225). Of course, the identification of Abou Gandir with Lagis largely depends on the identification of Itsa as Lysimachis, and following that, Minyet el-Heita as Trikomia. If we accept those two identifications, the identification of Abou Gandir with Lagis is confirmed by the common history of this village and Trikomia. Both appear in the early tax lists P. Count 23, 24, 26 and 31, and both are no longer attested after the 3rd century AD. As stated above for Trikomia, at that time or shortly after, the Wadi Drain may have become uncontrollable, since the dam just 5-10 km above the two villages got problems, and perhaps broke. In the 3rd century BC, the three villages of Lysimachis, Trikomia, and Lagis seem to have formed one tax district.10 The name of the village, Lagis, refers to Lagos, the father of Ptolemy I. This seems to underline the importance of the village, when it was first founded. The particular location of Lagis between the two water streams (the Wadi Drain and the Bahr Nazlah) may have suggested the dynastic name. Abou Gandir is located at c. 7-8 m a.s.l. above the Wadi Drain that flows at c. 4 m in this area. The Bahr Nazlah to the south of the village flows at c. 11 m a.s.l.. The Light Railway running 6 7 8

9 10

The edition is Scaife 1988 ‘Accounts for Taxes on Beer and Natron’ 105-109 and Tafel V. 1994 ‘Jews in Trikomia’ 193-203. GEO-ID 1216; P. Tebt. II 358 and 386; Wessely 1904 Topographie 98; Calderini III 176; Suppl. 1, 183; 2, 106; 4, 81; 5, 55; B. Van Beek in Trismegistos – Fayum. ArchID 112 Graeco-RomanArchives; p. 183. P. Count 2 pp. 79 and 115.

38

CHAPTER 4-5: VILLAGES ON THE UPPER COURSE OF THE WADI NAZLAH

from Minyet el-Heita to Shawashna may have been constructed on a dam that hindered the waterflow into the Wadi Drain from the Bahr Nazlah. The 24 papyri mentioning Lagis date from the 3rd century BC to the 3rd century AD. According to P. Count 23 (254-232 BC) Lagis had 322 tax-paying inhabitants, which amounts to c. 500 people living here. More or less the same number of people is attested in the same papyrus for Trikomia (see above). This may indicate that those two villages were founded around the same time and with the same layout. Both villages were considerably smaller than the villages in the north-west Dionysias and Philoteris (both founded around the same time with more than 1000 inhabitants in the early period).

CHAPTER 4-5: VILLAGES ON THE UPPER COURSE OF THE WADI NAZLAH

39

Photo 4-5.1: Looking towards the north over the Nazlah Drain in Minyet el-Heita (Photo Th. Löffler).

CHAPTER 6 NAZLAH1 = ? On all Maps from II to VII, and from XI toXII; XIV and XV

Modern Nazlah is a village of considerable size2 situated on the west bank and high above the Wadi of the same name (= the Wadi Drain); parts of the village reach the edge of the Wadi Nazlah, of which the steep banks recede here and allow for a road winding down to the bottom of the valley, and up again: here is nowadays one of the connections between the western and the eastern parts of what was the Themistou Meris [Photos 6.1 + 6.2].3 Probably a ford existed here also in antiquity, because it does not seem by chance that we find settlements on both sides of the Wadi at this very point: on the eastern bank Tell el-Kinissa, on the western bank Nazlah. But while Tell el-Kinissa was clearly a settlement founded in the Ptolemaic period (see Chapt. 9), nothing remains of an ancient settlement in Nazlah, at least as far as we could see.4 It is possible that no village existed here in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, since the main water resource, the Bahr Nazlah is 4 km away to the west of the village; in this vast area that is all watered by the Bahr Nazlah,5 a village would have taken up space, precious for agriculture. Perhaps only a little hamlet was installed at this point, where a road may have connected the two parts of the Themistou Meris. However, in the early Arab period, there existed a village here with a church for which decoration marble was employed (see below). In the early 19th century, at any rate, there was a ford around here, as we hear from Jomard in the Descriptiond’Égypte[Photo 6.3].6 In the time of Nabulsi, Nazlah was called El-Ḥanbūshiya.7 Here we read:8 “And from the letter alif: al-Ḥanbūshiya. It is a waqf (foundation) of al-Malik al-Nāṣir for the Malikites in Miṣr. This is a large village, at the western edge of the district of the Fayyum. There is nothing beyond it [in the western direction] except the mountain (= the desert). North of it is Minyat Aqnā, and the passage to the Wāḥ[āt] (= oases). It has date palms and many trees: figs, apples and pears. Its distance [from the city] is four hours ride. It has an unregistered congregational mosque in it, in which the Friday prayers are held. It gets its water from 1

2 3 4 5 6

7

8

GEO-ID 2777; P. Fay. p. 14; P. Tebt. II Pl. 3; I. Fay. II, Pl. 1 (Nazleh on the map). Timm1988 Das christlich- koptischeÄgyptenIV 1758-1759. More than 25,000 inhabitants in 2006. See Chapt. 1 pp. 8-13. A survey in that village, which is actually a town was nearly impossible. Nazlah is at c. –1 m, the Bahr Nazlah runs at c. +5 m in this area to the west of Nazlah. Description d’Égypte IV Antiquités, 1821, 457-458 footnote, about the difficulties of his party to cross the Wadi Nazlah; they finally arrived “au nord du Nazleh” after having found the passage (“un point guéable”). That must have been close to the point where the road from Ibshaway to Nazlah now crosses. See also Chapt. 9 with note 4. Ramzi 1968 IndexzumGeographischenWörterbuchII 3, 72-73 about the different names of the village; Halm 1979 ÄgyptennachdenmamlukischenLehensregisternI 258. Translation by Y. Rapoport; [ ] brackets are Rapoport’s, ( ) are mine.

42

CHAPTER 6: NAZLAH = ?

the Minyat Aqnā canal (= Bahr Nazlah? Wadi Nazlah?), and shares it with Babīj Anqāsh. [The water] is distributed by a log of wood. The water quota allotted for this village through the distribution weir known as al-῾Arīn is 14 qabḍas.”

Nabulsi’s description first gives a picture of the outpost situation of Nazlah at his time, when “nothing” existed further to the west (if Rapoport’s interpretation of “beyond” is right; see below); this would mean that neither the Bahr Qasr el-Banât nor the Bahr Nazlah carried any water at his time, and that the only water resource for the area was the Wadi Drain. This may correspond to Nabulsi’s surprising understanding that Nazlah shared its water with Abou Dinqash on the other, eastern side of the Wadi Drain. But even if the Wadi was not as deep in Nabulsi’s time as it is today, it would be astonishing to find “date palms and many trees: figs, apples and pears” around Nazlah, while the water had to be carried up from the Wadi below. Abou Dinqash, on the other hand, did not need the Wadi water, for it must still have depended on the well working system of water supply on the plateau of the Fayoum. If Nazlah was surrounded by gardens and orchards, we would expect the irrigation to be supplied by the Bahr Nazlah that had reached the village of Philagris = Perkethaut = Hamouli just west of Nazlah until the 12th century, not too long before Nabulsi came to the Fayoum.9 Nabulsi’s assumption that the Wadi Drain was the main water resource for Nazlah becomes clear as being wrong also in his statement: “The water quota allotted for this village through the distribution weir known as al-῾Arīn is 14 qabḍas”. The area called El-Arin is situated around Kom el-Arka on the eastern side of the Wadi Nazlah (see Chapt. 8). If water was distributed for Nazlah here, it can only have been the water of the Wadi. I am afraid that both statements of Nabulsi’s show, again, how unreliable his description of the canal system in the Fayoum is. Any water-course that could have been used in common by Nazlah and Abou Dinqash can only be the Wadi Nazlah! Nabulsi calls it a “canal”.10 Both maps, that of the Descriptiond’Égypte and Wilkinson’s, show that when those travellers came to the Fayoum in the early 19th century, the Bahr Nazlah was still functioning. It is unlikely that the Bahr Nazlah went out of use just before Nabulsi came to the Fayoum (see above), and was regenerated again before the beginning of the 19th century. When would that have happened? As mentioned above, it is only in late antiquity that we have evidence of a village located on the site of modern Nazlah. The column placed at a wall on the square above the pottery factory is no doubt a modern fake; it has been removed in the meantime, nobody can tell to where [Photo 6.4]. The sole piece of evidence is an inscription that was found here as part of a mosaic.11 The inscription commemorates the “marble decoration of the Holy Church of St. Menas that took place under Bishop Apa Petrus”, a bishop of Medinet el-Fayoum. That inscription does not give the name of the village to which the Church of St. Menas belonged. Unfortunately, the dating of the inscription is not sure either. G. Lefebvre, who first published the mosaic, dated it to the 5th/6th century, E. Wipszycka to the beginning of the Arab period.12 Bishop Petrus is perhaps the bishop named in P. Berl. Zill 8 dated to AD 663 and several other papyri (see Worp 1994, ‘A Checklist of Bishops’ 291 with note 46); this seems to confirm E. Wipszyska’s dating.

9

10 11

12

The village still existed in the 12th century, for we find the name of that place in the colophons of the codices from Kom Hamouli (see Chapt. 11). See Chapt. 1 pp. 13-17. Lefebvre, 1911 ‘Égypte chrétienne IV’ 245, no. 831 with photo = SB I 1449; DACL IV 2. 2546-2549; I. Fay. II 131, p. 86-88; SEG XLIX, 2205. 1972 Lesressourcesetlesactivitéséconomiques108-109.

CHAPTER 6: NAZLAH = ?

43

According to Ramzi,13 the name of the village was changed from El-Ḥanbūshiya to Nazlah in the 13th century; Nazlah may derive from an old Egyptian name that existed somewhere (but certainly not in this place) before; at any rate, such an etymology is proposed for the village Nesla14 in the upper toparchy of the Oxyrhynchite nome, attested between AD 44/45 and 334; the name nꜣ-ḏr῾.w means “The cultivated plots”.15 To visit Nazlah, take the same road as the one indicated for Tell el-Kinissa (Chapt. 9, p. 60), and continue down into the Wadi and up again. Climbing up the western side of the Wadi, you will see an extended area full of kilns and piles of pottery. This is one of the old ceramic factories of the Fayoum, where pots are still turned on wheels driven by human feet. It is impossible to find out for how long this factory has been functioning here, because of the lack of historical understanding of the local people. In 2017, some of the old kilns have been removed, and the old huts have been replaced by small modern houses. The almost medieval outlook of the factory is lost now [Photo 6.5].

13 14 15

1968 IndexzumGeographischenWörterbuchII 3, 72-73. GEO-ID 5936. See Benaissa 2010 TOP 4, 210-211; Vandorpe 1988 EgyptischegeografischeelementeninGriekse transkriptie 199.

44

CHAPTER 6: NAZLAH = ?

Photo 6.1: View from the road descending from Tell el-Kinissa, towards the south with Nazlah on top of the fringe; below the pottery factory (2014).

Photo 6.2: View from the south of Nazlah (El-Rub) towards the north with Tell el-Kinissa and the new school buildings in the far background (Photo DAI/P. Kopp; 2017).

CHAPTER 6: NAZLAH = ?

45

Photo 6.3: The bridge on the road between Ibshaway and Nazlah, to the north of Nazlah, where the Wadi becomes less deep, but broader.

Photo 6.4: The enigmatic column in Nazlah, on a square above the pottery factory (most likely a modern fake, but why?).

46

CHAPTER 6: NAZLAH = ?

Photo 6.5: Looking down into the Wadi towards the south from Nazlah; the half destroyed pottery factory is underneath (Photo DAI/P. Kopp; 2017).

CHAPTER 7 THE “WILKINSON WALL” IN THE WADI NAZLAH, BELOW THE CEMETERY OF QASR EL-GABALI Maps II and III; XII; XIV; XV

When Sir Gardner Wilkinson travelled to Egypt in the 20s of the 19th century, he left a large travelogue.1 His main observations were taken into Mr.Murray’sHandbookforTravellersinthe East, and appeared under Wilkinson’s name as ModernEgyptandThebes:ADescriptionofEgypt, London 1843, in Mr. Murray’s publishing house at Albemarle Street. Vol. II contains a description of a monument in the Wadi Nazlah that may have been less decayed when Wilkinson saw it than it is now. On p. 350 we read2: “About 1 ½ mile below Nézleh are other mounds, called Watféëh, and the tomb of Shekh Abd el Bári.3 In the ravine itself are the remains of a wall, partly brick, partly stone, which is said to have once been used to keep up the water, like that of Toméëh, where there is a similar deep broad channel, and where a large reservoir of water, probably in imitation of the old artificial lake Moeris, is maintained by a strong dyke, thrown across it”. In Mr. Wilkinson’s map from 1824 (Maps II and III), the green line indicating the borders of the cultivated land crosses the Wadi Nazlah around this point, which is the location of Qasr el-Gabali on the left bank of the Wadi. Today, the remains of that wall are scattered a little uphill from the bottom of the Wadi just below the cemetery of Qasr el-Gabali [Photo 7.1]. Only some of the fragments are larger than 3 × 2 × 1 metres, and only some seem to be in situ, but the layout of the whole construction is visible from an elevation on the surface down in the Wadi. On the western side of the Wadi, a band of rubble intermingled with larger remains of the wall runs parallel to the steep bank for about 20 m from north to south, and then bends over towards the centre of the Wadi in eastern direction [Photo 7.2]. This could be the western part of the wall, which would have been constructed in horseshoe-shape opening towards the north. This was the ideal point to build the wall: at Qasr el-Gabali the Wadi Nazlah narrows into its bottle neck; the distance from one bank of the Wadi to the other is just 60-80 metres, and may have been even less in the Graeco-Roman period [Photo 7.3].4 At this very point the limestone

1

2 3

4

Kept in the Bodleian Library at Oxford; unpublished. For other places mentioned by Wilkinson see Chapters 13, 14, 16, and 18. Very similar in HandbookforTravellersinEgypt 1847, 255. For the misplacement of Medinet Watfa (Philoteris) in this place see Chapt. 12, but it seems certain from this description that there existed an ancient site in the location of modern Qasr el-Gabali, even there is no evidence for it thus far. See the fringes of the Wadi broken off at Abou Dinqash, Chapt. 8. The measures given by Wilkinson for the Wadi at Nazlah (2, 5 km to the south from the wall) are the following: “from bank to bank, 637 feet (195 m), and 100 feet in depth from the top of the bank to the level of the water in the channel at the centre (30, 5 m), which is 120 feet broad (36, 5m)” (HandbookforTravellers 1847, 255).

48

CHAPTER 7: THE "WILKINSON WALL" IN THE WADI NAZLAH

range that runs from Dionysias in the west to Karanis in the east was to be crossed by the stream in the Wadi Nazlah. The wall was constructed from fired bricks and stone, the outer parts being built up by the fired bricks [Photo 7.4], sometimes also by well-cut stones [Photo 7.5], while the middle was filled with broken limestones. Since this construction method seems to be the same as that of the large wall between Itsa and Abou el-Nour in its later development (see Introduction p. 2), we assume that this wall at Qasr el-Gabali was also built in the Roman, perhaps later Roman, period. Wilkinson draws a line between the wall at Tamieh and this wall in the Wadi Nazlah, commenting that they were built “probably in imitation of the old artificial lake Moeris”. He obviously refers here to the “Basin of the Birds” south of the great wall between Itsa and Abou el-Nour (see Chapt. 1). Nowadays, the dam at Tamieh blocks the Bats Drain in the eastern half of the Fayoum; within the town of Tamieh only a small part of the water is diverted from the main flow of the drain and forms a cascade of at least 10 metres. At this point the Bats Drain can be regulated in order to control the level of the lake to which also the Bats Drain goes. As far as I can see, there is no regulator of the water flow in the Wadi Nazlah nowadays. The wall at Qasr el-Gabali may have played this part in antiquity. Nabulsi does not mention this construction. But the purpose of the wall at Qasr el-Gabali is best understood in connecting it to the wall upstream between Itsa and Abou el-Nour. In the moment, when that wall cracked, more and more water would rush down uncontrolled into the Wadi, and worse, into the lake. Preventing the waters of the lake from rising may have been the main purpose of “Wilkinson’s Wall”. Besides that, the lake forming here in the Wadi may have supported agricultural activities on both sides of it. However, both the western side around Nazlah, and the eastern side around Abou Dinqash, were well irrigated at all times by the respective canal systems around them: Nazlah by the Bahr el-Nazlah, and Abou Dinqash by the canal system on the plateau of the Fayoum. A lake formed in the Wadi would have have been difficult to reach from either side, even if the Wadimay not have been as deep as it is now.

CHAPTER 7: THE "WILKINSON WALL" IN THE WADI NAZLAH

Photo 7.1: Large part of the wall just below the cemetery of Qasr el-Gabali.

Photo 7.2: Looking south in the Wadi Nazlah with remains of wall partially in situ.

49

50

CHAPTER 7: THE "WILKINSON WALL" IN THE WADI NAZLAH

Photo 7.3: The Wadi Nazlah seen from the north at its narrowest point at Qasr el-Gabali.

Photo 7.4: Major block of the wall with fired bricks on the outside.

Photo 7.5: Major block of the wall with a mix of stone and fired brick layers.

CHAPTER 8 KOM EL-ARKA = ?1 Plan is Photo 1 in this Chapter

Kom el-Arka, of which we do not know the ancient name, is situated on the eastern side of the modern Masraf el-Wadi (= Wadi Drain = Wadi Nazlah), where the Wadi starts to descend under the 0-line. At this point Kom el-Arka emerges to a hight of 6 to 8 metres above sea level, thus rising from the swamp at about the same time as the villages around Theadelpheia (+ 7 to 9 m), and before the villages on the fringe of the plateau (– 5 to + 5 m). Geologically the site belongs to the Central Plateau of the Fayum (see Chapt. 1). To the north of the site, a drain discharges into the Wadi, the Abou Dinqash Drain [Photo 8.2]; to the south, the Bahr el-Arin2 approaches from the east and peters out in the area, not reaching the Wadi Drain. The location of Kom el-Arka on the eastern side of the Wadi Nazlah corresponds to that of Tell el-Kinissa (see Chapt. 9), which marks the eastern edge of the modern Wadi about 7 km to the north-west of Kom el-Arka. In between the two villages, probably yet another ancient settlement was situated here under the modern village of Abou Dinqash, c. 3 km north of Kom el-Arka; in that village, we found two bases of columns in front of the schoolmaster’s house; but nothing more seems to remain of the ancient settlement [Photo 8.3]. It can be supposed that also in antiquity the Wadi Nazlah was a drain; the three villages on the eastern edge of the Wadi would have been situated at different distances from the edge of it; at some points the breaking away of the edge of the Wadi is clearly shown, so that it cannot be assumed that the width of the ancient Wadi corresponded exactly to the modern one; it was probably rather narrower than it is today. This breaking away of the Wadi’s edge is particularly striking near Abou Dinqash, where parts of the modern cemetery have broken away, opening a view into vaulted tombs in which the dead lay on benches and are now exposed to the sunlight [Photo 8.4].3 We could not get a clear information about when that cemetery was once put on the edge of the Wadi Nazlah. Kom el-Arka is not easily found and very small roads have to be used; the best way is to follow the road from Nazlah through the depression of the Wadi Nazlah towards Tubhar; after c. 4 km turn right at the crossing and follow that road down to Abou Dinqash; there is also a road which leads directly along the Wadi towards the south to Abou Dinqash branching of the road towards Tubhar as soon as you have gained the height leaving the Wadi at Nazlah. From Abou Dinqash continue to the south till you reach the village of Ezbet Khalaf; in the middle of that village a small

1

2 3

The exact location is 29o 15’ 52.44’’ N, 30o 40’ 48.50’’ E; the altitude is between 6 and 8 metres, pace Davoli 1998 L’archeologiaurbana 330, who indicates 9 m. For the name see further on in this Chapter. Unfortunately, it was not possible to take photos from the other side of the Wadi, because access to the fields there was denied.

52

CHAPTER 8: KOM EL-ARKA = ?

road branches off to the right between the houses; follow that road to Ezbet Ali Id; the site is directly to the north of the village called Tell el-Arka or Telaia. The site presents itself today as a sandy plain of 400 × 170 metres; there is a depression, about 70 metres wide, between the eastern (B) and the somewhat smaller western part (A)4 of the site, which is covered in part by bushes and trees [Photo 8.5]. An electricity line follows that depression from south to north; a small house which is empty has been built in the middle of the site. Pottery is scattered all over the site in fair quantities, in particular in area A, and at the centre of area B. In a Google Earth photo, one seems to recognize more walls and building than what is visible on the surface [Photos 8.6, 8.7 and 8.8]. Some remains of mud brick walls are visible at the southern edge of Kom B, where digging has been going on in modern times. Layers of sebakh can also be detected here at the edge of the clandestine excavations. More illicit digging seems to have disturbed the site heavily, in particular in mound B. In some places the dust of mudbricks appears on the surface. In more than one place, human bones lay on the surface; locals from the nearby village claim that never anything else than bones had been found on the site (which is obviously not true). On mound A many pieces of a huge storage pot were found between the track and the trees. This kind of heavy pottery could also be part of a sarcophagus, but no bones were laying nearby. Similar pottery is to be seen on the southern edge of mound B. The attempt to find out more about this site and its history by carrying out a geomagnetic survey in 2011 was in vain.5 The magnetic quality of the bricks here is too poor to produce any significant images; only two kilns could be located securely. Despite the human bones found on the site, these kilns seem to indicate an ancient village on this site rather than an ancient cemetery. Neither the modern cemetery to the north beyond the small drain, nor the one to the south besides the modern village seem to contain any traces of an ancient settlement. They are both located at least 4 m below the level of the Kom. The pottery found on both mounds A and B, which can be treated as one, dates between the Ptolemaic and the early medieval periods; whether the occupation was continuous cannot be shown due to the usual gap caused by the unrecognized character of pottery of the third and fourth centuries AD (see Bailey, Vol. B, pp. 7-8). One of the locals (Rashad Sayd) who claims to have been studying history in Marocco years ago informed us that the site is called Tell Arin by the locals, because a king of this name had been living here many centuries ago. After this Arin the canal reaching from Medinet el-Fayoum is named, and the whole area to the south of the Kom is called El-Arin on Map VI. The Arabic word means “The Den of the Lion”. Wilkinson has a Sh. El Areen to the west of the Wadi, obviously misplaced. Another legend tells that the most important pottery factory of ancient Fayoum was located in this place. Kom el-Arka = ? The modern name of Kom el-Arka means “The Kom of the Fighting”, probably referring to an event in the more recent past. To identify Kom el-Arka with a known Graeco-Roman village is difficult, since there are no ancient villages with recognized names in its neighbourhood; we can only collect some basic data: Kom el-Arka was one of the settlements founded in Ptolemaic times; 4 5

A measures 100 × 120 metres, B 220 × 170 metres. Carried out by T. Herbich and his team on April 18, 2011.

CHAPTER 8: KOM EL-ARKA = ?

53

it lasted well into the Arabic period. Like Tell el-Kinissa, Kom el-Arka did not have any Hinterland to the west, since the canal which watered its fields did not reach further to the west, being hindered by the Wadi Drain. We would expect the village to have enjoyed close connections to Krokodilopolis, which lies ca. 15 km to the east. With the capital of the nome Kom el-Arka must have been connected by a canal; half way in the area of that canal was the Middle Kingdom settlement with the modern name of Abgig, where the famous monument of Sesostris I was found.6 With the villages in the north along the Wadi Drain, Tell el-Kinissa and Abou Dinqash, no connection by canals may have existed (there is no such canal nowadays; the canal of Abou Dinqash arrives in a large bend from Tubhar to the east of Abou Dinqash, Tell el-Kinissa’s land was watered by a canal arriving from Krokodilopolis, and petering out in the area). The other locality with which Kom el-Arka could have been connected more closely was the ancient village which obviously existed under the modern village of Abou Gandir at a distance of ca. 2 km (as the crow flies) to the south (but on the other side of the Wadi); that village is named as containing a Tell in the “Liste des tells et koms à sebakh”, p. 15. For this ancient site (perhaps Lagis) see Chapter 5. As in Tell el-Kinissa, we would not expect a harbour at Kom el-Arka. The fields of the village, will have been all situated to the south of the village, where the canal arrived from Arsinoe. Nowadays, the land here, where the El-Arin Canal peters out, is not particularly fertile (see on Google Earth, how many of the fields here are not in use), and that may have been the case in the Graeco-Roman period.

6

The monument is nowadays erected on the roundabout at the north-eastern entrance to Medinet el-Fayoum; see also Appendix to Chapt. 2, p. 30.

Mosque

Wadi Nazlah

5.90

7.11 m

5.49

Sand dunes

A

D.P. 1

8.00 m

4.91 m

7.10 m

5.34 m

6.51 m

Trees

E

r lec t

5.39 m

ine

7.91 m

8.58 m

B

7.68 m

7.45 m

9.16 m

Sand dunes

8.14 m

Clean sand

Modern digging

7.50 m

Kom el-Arka Village

Modern digging

7.65 m

8.66 m

D.P. 2

6.24 m

6.64 m

50

100 Meter

Modern infrastructure Built areas Modern cemetery Agricultural zone Dirt road/vehicle track Drain

Archaeological features Ancient settlement

Legend

0

D.P.1 assumed to be 8.00 m.a.s.l.

Coordinate System : WGS84 DMS and/or UTM Zone 36R

Map based on: Field Survey (1999 and 2006) Topographic Maps (Survey of Egypt) Satellite images (Corona 1960s and Google Earth)

KOM EL-ARKA

Photo 8.1: Plan of Kom el-Arka (I. Klose after Ch. Kirby and P. Brosch).

Modern cemetery

yL ic ti

4.32 m

Abou Dinqash-Drain

Modern cemetery

54 CHAPTER 8: KOM EL-ARKA = ?

CHAPTER 8: KOM EL-ARKA = ?

55

Photo 8.2: View from above on the Abou Dinqash Drain, north of Kom el-Arka.

Photo 8.3: Base of a column in front of the village schoolmaster’s house at Abou Dinqash.

Photo 8.4: Modern cemetery of Abou Dinqash, on the edge of the Wadi Nazlah.

56

CHAPTER 8: KOM EL-ARKA = ?

Photo 8.5: Looking west over the site of Kom el-Arka, from B to A.

Photo 8.6: Google Earth Photo from 2010.

CHAPTER 8: KOM EL-ARKA = ?

57

Photo 8.7: Looking over the site to the east, from A to B.

Photo 8.8: Walking on the eastern part of the site in 2005; in the background the small house built on the site.

CHAPTER 9 TELL EL-KINISSA = ? Plan is Photo 1 in this Chapter; Map VII (without name of the site); XII (Kom el-Kharâba = Tell el-Kinissa)

This large site, whose ancient name remains unknown (but see below), is situated on the eastern embankment of the Wadi Nazlah, the main drain of the western Fayoum (cf. Chapt. 1). Tell elKinissa lies high above the bottom of the Wadi which reaches here down to c. –23 m; opposite, to the south, on the other bank of the Wadi, is the modern town of Nazlah on a level somewhat below that of Tell el-Kinissa.1 The exact location of the site is 29° 19’14 N, 30° 39’11 E, the altitude c. 7 m a.s.l. Tell el-Kinissa (the “Tell of the Church”) takes its modern name from the nearby church and former monastery of St. Taddros of Shattab at the modern village of Ezbet el-Ghani el-Buhayri.2 Geologically, the site belongs to the central Plateau of the Fayoum (see Chapt. 1). Besides its enchanting location high above the Wadi (see Photo 2 in Chapt. 6), the Tell does not offer anything spectacular; when we worked there in 1999, it was a wide plain scattered with pottery, in some parts also scattered with bones [Photo 9.2]. No ancient walls were visible on the surface; however, holes dug by the Egyptian Antiquities Service in the 1980s, exposed some walls and storage facilities (see below); these have now been filled in again. From all sides, modern buildings and fields are creeping into the area, which must once have held a substantial Graeco-Roman village. In 1999, the area had already been handed over by the authorities to farmers for agricultural use, and a school had been built in the north-eastern part of the site in 1992 [Photo 9.3]. In the meantime, another school has been built, but the outline of the former site as a whole is still more or less preserved [Photo 9.4]; over the north-western part an enclosure has been laid out for uncertain purpose more recently, in addition to the schools (not on our map). Green land borders the site to the north and west; to the south-west, there is the steep decline towards the Wadi Nazlah forming a terrace which is now being built over [Photo 9.5], while from the east the modern village around the church encroaches further into the site. The church is still functioning, but no monks have been living here for quite some time, as we are told. On the Survey of Egypt Map from 1900-1902 (Map VII) the place is still called a “Monastery”. On 14 August 2013, the church was heavily damaged during the uprisings in the Fayoum after the clearing of Rabaaal-Adawiya Square in Cairo. A new sanctuary has been built since, adorned with colourfull paintings inside [Photo 9.6]. The tell extends over roughly 500 × 450 metres between its western border to the green land and the newly built school yard, and between the green land in the north and the decline towards the Wadi in the south. It looks as if the ancient village once also covered the area beyond the school yard. On the 1:50.000 map surveyed in 1900-1002, the site is indicated as one big area of ca. 700 × 400 metres [Map VII]. 1 2

Nazlah lies ca. at –1 m. The church and monastery provided a pleasant garden; at the outer wall of the church parts of an old church of the 12th century (we are told) are visible; there is a relief with acanthus leaves and a Flechtband(last seen in 2000).

60

CHAPTER 9: TELL EL-KINISSA = ?

Tell el-Kinissa is best reached from the direction of Ibshaway; take the road at the southern end of Ibshaway towards the south-west to Nazlah. After ca. 5 km you will find a church and the former monastery on your right-hand side, after which the road descends dramatically into the Wadi Nazlah. Park the car at the entrance of the church yard and proceed on foot towards the Wadi; take a turn to the right at the angle of the outer wall of the church yard and leave the modern cemetery to your left. Reaching a dirt road follow that road to the right, leaving the village to your left. At the end of the modern village, turn left and continue straight on; the modern school yard is now on your right. The ancient site extends parallel to the Wadi in front of you.

1. The Location of the Ancient Village In antiquity, this location must have been remarkable. At this point the Wadi Nazlah descends to c. –23 m below sea level, whereas the site lies at 7 m above sea level. The decline is extremely steep after a terrace just below the site (see Photo 2 in Chapt. 6). The Wadi widens here, and even though it may have been less deep in Graeco-Roman times than it is now, it certainly existed;3 just over 1 km to the north, at modern Qasr el-Gabali, the stream in the Wadi was blocked by a wall, the so-called “Wilkinson Wall” (see Chapt. 7). How high this dam was, and up to what height the Wadi could be filled with water blocked by this wall, we do not know, but it is possible that for at least some weeks of the year, during and after the flooding, the village at Tell el-Kinissa was not overlooking a Wadi with a stream at its bottom, but a lake. Probably at the point where today the road from Ibshaway descends into the widened Wadi from the church at Tell el-Kinissa and then rises again to Nazlah, there also existed in ancient times a way to cross the Wadi, whenever it was not filled with too much water. There is no indication of any road crossing the Wadi at this point on the map of the Déscription d’Égypte. However, there was a kind of a ford somewhere here, when Jomard was visiting in 1799.4 The other less likely possibility is that there was a road over the wall which blocked the Wadi below Qasr el-Gabali, the Wilkinson Wall, but here, the eastern bank of the wadi is extremely steep. In any case, the village at Tell el-Kinissa would have been located close to an important passage between the north-eastern and the north-western part of the Themistou Meris. The village probably received its water resources from the canal that is called nowadays “Bahr of Abou Ganshou”, as is the area nowadays; that canal arrives in this area coming from Medinet el-Fayoum (the distance here is c. 16 km as the crow flies), and borders the northern fringe of the site, where the Ptolemaic settlement was first built.

2. Dating the Ancient Settlement According to the pottery (and glass) finds on the spot, this settlement was inhabited from the early Ptolemaic well into the Islamic period. There is, however, a large gap of about 400 years which is scarcely covered by any finds from the early Roman imperial period into late antiquity (see Bailey, Vol. B, pp. 8-9). The distribution of the pottery finds on the site seems to indicate that the first Ptolemaic village was in the northern part of the tell, while the late Roman village also covered the southern part. In the 3

4

For the two Wadis in the Fayoum and their existence before the Graeco-Roman period, see Caton-Thompson 1934 TheDesert 17-18. Description d’Égypte IV Antiquités, 1821, 457-458 footnote, about the difficulties of his party to cross the Wadi Nazlah; they finally arrived “au nord du Nazleh” after having found the passage (“un point guéable”). That must have been close to the point where the road from Ibshaway to Nazlah now crosses; see Chapter 6 with footnote 6.

CHAPTER 9: TELL EL-KINISSA = ?

61

8th century the village was then reduced again to its size in the Ptolemaic period (see Bailey, Vol. B, p. 9). A late Roman cemetery was probably situated in the southern part of the site, where lots of bones were found. This cemetery may have later attracted the monastery to be built in this place.

3. Earlier Visitors to and Earlier Work at the Site Tell el-Kinissa does not seem to feature in the reports of any early traveller. In the 1980s scholars of the Egyptian Antiquity Service tested the site for excavations by digging holes over the complete site, before the modern school was to be built. In 1999, when we worked here, many of these holes were still visible; they exposed: 1. places in which the former sediments of the lake seemed to be visible about one metre under the modern surface and above the ruins of the Graeco-Roman period. This sediment could have settled here, when the lake would have risen to over 2-3 m above sea level, but this is very unlikely. In that case, also Dionysias would have gone under water (it lies on the 0-line), and there is no sign for such a flooding at that site. It is more plausible that what we see here is the result of an irregular flooding of the canal, which run in the north of the village, or, indeed, the result of the intensive work of the excavators in the 1980s. 2. some walls in mud and fired bricks at about 1.50 metres under the surface. The alignment of the ancient village seems to have followed the small canal to the north. One fragmentary wall made of fired bricks (not in situ) showed large layers of plaster and may have belonged to a bath or a wine press [Photo 9.7]. 3. quite a number of round pits scattered over the site (“wells” on the map), some of them built from fired bricks, others from mud bricks (and once plastered over?), or clay. Their distribution does not seem to follow any pattern. The diameter of these pits was 1 metre and a little more. It seems unlikely that they were ovens like those found for example in Tebtynis, because the latter were usually made of ceramics, and sometimes plastered over from the outside with clay.5 Furthermore, the pits in Tell el-Kinissa showed no signs of firing; they may rather have functioned as storage facilities or as wells [Photos 9.8, 9.9 and 9.10]. D. Bailey discovered some of these pits “built up in sections from rings of fired clay placed one above the other, sometimes overlapping, sometimes edge to edge. One was about 1.5 m. across, another about 1 m. These rings were no doubt assembled in a pit. Whether the bottom one had its own bottom band or was placed on a separate tiled floor was not determinable” [Photos 9.11]. Today, all the holes exposing these features have been filled up again.

4. Small Finds One stamped amphora handle dating roughly to the middle of the 2nd century BC: ΕΠΙ ΕΥΔΑΜΟΥ ΠΑΝΑΜΟΥ

Pottery Catalogue no. 1081

Under Eudamos, in the month of Panamos 5

See Hadji-Minaglu 2007 TebtynisIV; good example in House 5200 II (Roman period), Fig. 26, photo 47; cf. p. 56 and 132.

62

CHAPTER 9: TELL EL-KINISSA = ?

Between ca. 151 and 147 BC; Rhodian; Eudamos is no. 79 in V. Grace’s list of eponymous priests: Hesperia 22, 1953, 116-128; for the dating see now Cankardeş – Şenol 2015-2017 Lexicon ofEponymDies,Vol. 2, 123 No. 003, which is perhaps from the same matrix[Photos 9.12 and 9.13].

5. The Ancient Name of Tell el-Kinissa and the Landscape around Tell el-Kinissa in Antiquity There is no doubt that – at least for some time – this was an important settlement. The seize of ca. 700 × 400 metres (see above, and Map VII), makes this village comparable in seize to Karanis, Dionysias and the only somewhat smaller Philoteris, even though we have to keep in mind that the pottery points to a Ptolemaic settlement of a smaller seize in the north-west of the site. Theadelpheia and Euhemeria had both a nearly square layout on a smaller scale, but we do not know, when that developed (ca. 400 × 400 m). Furthermore, the location high above the Wadi Nazlah and in connection to a waterway coming directly from Krokodilopolis would have guaranteed a relatively secure existence of the village. Different from the villages in the north-western part of the Fayoum like Dionysias, Theadelpheia etc., old Tell el-Kinissa was not depending on the fragile canal system west of the Bahr Nazlah (see Chapt. 1). It is therefore enigmatic, that the site exhibits only few examples of pottery from the Roman imperial period.6 Of course, the feeder canal in this area may have failed in the Roman period, and later, in the 5th century, the place was resettled. However this sounds rather unlikely, for we know that the Romans tried to mend some of the run-down system of water supply in the Fayoum, though we do not know where.7 Another explanation for the scarcity of pottery from the Roman imperial period may be possible. When we surveyed the site in 1999, the whole area of the school and its school yard was already unaccessible. Since the occupation of the place had started in the north in the Ptolemaic period, while the Late Roman cemetery was located in the south, the Roman village may have covered the middle, where now that school and its yard cover the surface. The condition of the site which had been extremely disturbed by the excavations in the 80s may have added to a possibly distorted picture of the pottery situation here. Therefore, I consider it possible that this site was inhabited from the Ptolemaic into the Arabic period without interruption. What was the name then of that settlement? In the north, old Tell el-Kinissa would have had closest links to Ibshaway which has been identified with Pisais already by Wessely;8 this identification is discussed in Chapt. 22. If Ibshaway was Pisais, the place which enjoyed so many connections with Soknopaiou Nesos, old Tell elKinissa could have been Herakleia.9 However, it seems more likely that Herakleia, like Pisais, lay on the northern edge of the plateau of the central Fayoum as did Pisais (see Chapt. 23). Old Tell el-Kinissa could have been closely connected with the western part of the Themistou Meris, if there had been a wall and bridge or at least a ford over the Wadi Nazlah at this point (as it exists now, and perhaps existed in the early 19th century; see above with footnote 4). If there was a ford here, Tell el-Kinissa would have been like a twin city to Nazlah, the Wadi Nazlah being situated between the two parts of the twin city. However, we do not know the ancient name of Nazlah either (see Chapt. 6). 6 7 8 9

See Bailey, Vol. B, pp. 8-9. Strabo XVII 1. Wessely 1904 Topographie 125-126. For Herakleia see Hobson 1985 ‘The Village of Herakleia’101-115; for people attested in that village see Hobson 1986 ‘The Inhabitants’ 80-123.

-7.35 m

-4.37 m

1.57 m

6.00 m 2.24 m

D.P. 1

"Well"

7.53 m

D.P. 2

5.52 m

"Well" "Well"

iN az lah

Ezbet Nazlah

Proposed alignment of ancient town

W ad

2.47 m

"Well"

D.P. 3 5.83 m

"Well"

School (since 1992)

unsurveyed

-0.14 m

5.13 m

-22.19 m

3.18 m

D.P. 4

Modern cemetery

Modern coptic cemetery

Monastery of St. Taddros of Shattab

5.77 m

Ezbet El-Ghani El-Buhayri

unsurveyed

5.14 m

Ezbet Is-Sanjaq

50

100 Meter

Modern infrastructure Built areas
Agricultural zone
Modern Cemetery 3oad/vehicle track
Wadi, Drain or Canal

Ancient settlement "Well" Historic building/ruin

Archaeological features

Legend

0

D.P.1 assumed to be 6.00 m.a.s.l.

Coordinate System : WGS84 DMS and/or UTM Zone 36R

Map based on: Field Survey (1999 and 2006 ) Topographic Maps (Survey of Egypt) Satellite images (Corona 1960s and Google Earth)

TELL EL-KINISSA

Photo 9.1: Plan of Tell el-Kinissa (I. Klose after Ch. Kirby and P. Brosch).

2.84 m

6.58 m

Mud brick building

Part of wall

"Well" "Well"

"Well"

Rubbish Pit

5.74 m

6.00 m

CHAPTER 9: TELL EL-KINISSA = ?

63

64

CHAPTER 9: TELL EL-KINISSA = ?

Photo 9.2: The site of Tell el-Kinissa in 1999 with traces of the excavations of the SCA; view over the site from the south-east.

Photo 9.3: The site of Tell el-Kinissa in 2007 (Google Earth Pro).

CHAPTER 9: TELL EL-KINISSA = ?

Photo 9.4: The site of Tell el-Kinissa in 2017 (Google Earth Pro).

Photo 9.5: Tell el-Kinissa as seen from the Wadi Nazlah below (Photo DAI/P. Kopp 2017).

65

66

CHAPTER 9: TELL EL-KINISSA = ?

Photo 9.6: The newly built church of St. Taddros of Shattab (Photo DAI/P. Kopp 2017).

Photo 9.7: Fragment of a wall made of fired bricks covered by plaster (Photo 2003).

Photo 9.8: Storage pit 1.

67

CHAPTER 9: TELL EL-KINISSA = ?

Photo 9.9: Storage pit 2.

Photo 9.10: Storage pit 4.

Photo 9.11: Storage pit 5.

68

CHAPTER 9: TELL EL-KINISSA = ?

Photo 9.12 and 9.13: Stamped Amphora Handle; Vol. B, Catalogue No. 1081.

CHAPTER 10 KOM ALIOUN1 = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS? Plans are Photos 10.1 and 10.2; Maps VIII, XI and XV

Kom Alioun is one of the largest sites in the Themistou Meris; it consists of four parts that were interrelated with each other, at least during some of the periods of the settlement’s long existence. South-east of the remains of the ancient village (a; 3rd BC – 7th AD), there is a cemetery with tombs cut into the bed rock (b; date uncertain); at a distance of c. 1.3 km to the south a second cemetery is located on a ridge in the desert to the south (c; Ptolemaic to late Roman period); behind this cemetery, further out into the desert by c.600 metres to the west, there are the remains of some small settlements dating to the late antique period and, probably a church (d; 4th-7th AD); see Photo 10.1. Thus, the site provides interesting views into the development of a settlement over all periods from Ptolemaic into early Islamic times. Kom Alioun is located about 3.5 km to the south-east of Kom Hamouli; it lies west to the fringe of the cultivated area, which at this point has been built over by the modern village of Ezbet Qalioun, from which the kom takes its name.2 Today, most of the site has disappeared under the fields; only the northern part of the main kom (a) with its fragmentary houses is spared out, and bordered by a modern canal in the south-east, beyond which nothing of the ancient cemetery (b) remains visible. Even the other cemetery on the ridge to the south (c) is now surrounded by fields. How to get there Kom Alioun (or what is left of it) is best reached from Theadelpheia and Hamouli (see directions in Chapt. 13 and 11); leaving Kom Hamouli go back to the canal, from where you came and cross the canal; turn right and follow the canal for 3.6 km up to the next bridge at the village of Ezbet Qalioun. Cross the bridge, go straight ahead, enter the village and continue into the same direction for about 500 metres; keep to the right till you see the wall of the school yard; leaving the school yard at your right hand continue along the wall till you reach the desert. At this point turn left and continue along the field to your left hand side; where the field ends, the ancient site is in front and to the right of you.

1. The Ancient Name of Kom Alioun Kom Alioun is situated in the southern part of the Themistou Meris, close to the canal that has its origin from the Bahr Nazlah and finally ends behind Dionysias, the Bahr Qasr el-Banât (cf. Chapt. 1) [Map XV].

1

2

GEO-ID 50406; the exact location is 29° 14´50 N and 30° 37´50 E. The main site of the ancient village lies at a level of c. 14 m a.s.l. On Maps VIII and XI, the name is Ezbet Léon Papasian (1914) (1945); Ezbet Qalioun appears only on Map XIV (1992-93). The site is clearly visible in Google Earth, in particular in the 2002 image.

70

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS?

The main source for our understanding of the location of villages in this southern area of the Meris is P. Sakaon 35 dated to c. AD 332. It is a complaint by the people at Theadelpheia about their desperate situation, because inhabitants of villages upstream on the canal are taking away the necessary water resources (see also Chapt. 13). In l. 4-15 the text runs as follows: “The year before last, as well as last year, as the fields of our village are situated on higher grounds and the nearest villages, namely Narmouthis, Hermopolis and Theoxenis, steal our water and prevent our land from being irrigated, since they are at the front of the pagi and we are at the far end of the pagus, we have become the inhabitants of a deserted village, the tax levied on our village encompassing five hundred arourae which are permanently unindated, …”. The villages mentioned here are: Narmouthis, Hermopolis and Theoxenis; of these, we only know the exact location of Narmouthis, to the south-west of Alioun und belonging to the Polemonos Meris. Narmouthis was, – at least for the military camp in its north-east, and probably only for that institution – connected to the water system of the Bahr Qasr el-Banât.3 The complaint mentioned villages at “the beginning of the waterway”; the drain off to the camp at Narmouthis certainly was close to “the beginning of that waterway” (see Chapt. 1 and Map XV). Therefore, P. Sakaon speaks of the villages at the front of the pagi (!).4 In P. Sakaon 42, 17-18 Hermopolis is called “the flourishing village in the plain”, most likely the “plain” refers to the fields between the two canals in the southern part of the Themistou Meris (today Bahr Nazlah and Bahr Qasr el-Banât), south of the bottleneck at Kom Hamouli (see Chapt. 1, pp. 8-12). The discharge to the camp at Narmouthis came first in the list, because it was farthest to the south, so Hermopolis and Theoxenis were downstream between that discharge and Theadelpheia. But both, Hermopolis and Theoxenis, should not be too far away downstream from that discharge. This consideration is corroborated by the fact that both villages, Hermopolis and Theoxenis continued to exist until the 8th century, long after the village of Theadelpheia and those farther downstream had all died in the 4th century AD. The question is, how far the Bahr Qasr el-Banât still reached in the 4th century and later; it is possible that when the monastery at Kom Hamouli was founded, it was already then “out in the desert” (= in the outer desert, see below), or north of up to where the canal reached (see Chapt. 11). All these considerations speak against the assumption that either Theoxenis or Hermopolis were in intimate neighbourhood of Theadelpheia;5 we rather expect them both closer to Narmouthis, at the southern end of the Meris. Even if a closer connection between Theoxenis and Theadelpheia seems to be suggested by the large number of occurrences of Theoxenis in papyri from Theadelpheia, we have to keep in mind that the evidence here comes from the Heroninus Archive; as both villages housed branches (phrontides) of the Appianus Estate, they had a lot of common business, which does not necessarily indicate a close geographical relation. Not even the fact that tools and machinery of the two phrontides were shared does necessarily point to an intimate geographical connection.6

3

4

5

6

For the military camp at Narmouthis see Bresciani 2009 ‘Il castrum Narmoutheos ritrovato a Medinet Madi nel Fayum’ 221-232; Brienza 2007 ‘Impianti idraulici antichi rinvenuti a Medinet Madi’ 9-21. This phrasing does not allow for the interpretation of putting the three villages in the same pagus as Theadelpheia (so Trismegistos, wrongly, I think). Derda 2006 ΑΡΣΙΝΟΙΤΗΣ ΝΟΜΟΣ 270-271, is still inclined to see the villages close together, and refers to a Leuven MA dissertation by K. Heylen which is not printed; at the end he admits that “the location of the villages remains unclear”. The question, what is “close” at this time is still to be answered. Kom Alioun and Theadelpheiaare 13.5 km away from each other, when you follow the road along the canal, a distance a donkey driver would certainly manage in 2 hours; unfortunately, Adams 2007 LandTransport 43-46 is not helpful on the subject. Furthermore, transportation by boat on the canal must have been possible in this area.

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS?

71

From P. Sakaon 35 it can be taken for sure that Theoxenis (GEO-ID 2386) and Hermopolis (GEO-ID 813) were located on the same water stream as the camp of Narmouthis in the south and Theadelpheia in the north. If the sequence of villages mentioned in the papyrus corresponds to their geographical sequence along the canal, then this sequence of villages would have been (from south to north): Narmouthis (its discharge to the camp), Hermopolis, Theoxenis, then Theadelpheia, where the complaining party is stationed. Thus, both Theoxenis and Hermopolis are possible candidates for Kom Alioun, which lies c. 5 km north of the discharge of Narmouthis, and 13.5 km south of Theadelpheia. Three ancient settlements are located on the canal between Theadelpheia in the north, and Narmouthis-discharge in the south. One is Kom Alioun, c. 5 km north to where the canal must have branched off to Narmouthis. One other is Kom Hamouli, about 3, 5 km farther downstream from Kom Alioun towards Theadelpheia. Since Kom Hamouli was most likely not inhabited before the 5th century AD, that settlement is ruled out as a candidate for Hermopolis or Theoxenis. But of course, there can have been other settlements, perhaps further into the green land of which no traces remain, for instance close to Kom Hamouli.7 The third possible candidate is an ancient village indicated on Map VIII as “Kom el-Asfar” about 3.5 km east of Kom Alioun, located east of the Bahr Qasr el-Banât. This village – we do not know how large it was – was certainly also watered by the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, and in close neighbourhood with Alioun. One of the two could be Hermopolis, or Theoxenis. During the 2003 season, we walked along the green land from Theadelpheia down to Alioun, but did not come across any other ancient settlement than those already known. To identify the ancient name of Kom Alioun the characteristics of Theoxenis and Hermopolis in their historical and administrative settings have to be taken into consideration; there is no doubt that Hermopolis and Theoxenis had close relations with each other and with Narmouthis: In the 3rd century BC Theoxenis and Hermopolis belonged to one tax district together with Arsinoe on the Dyke (= Abou el-Nour; Chapt. 3), Krotou Ibion, Magais and Philagris (= Hamouli), all located in the southern part of the Themistou Meris.8 In P. Petrie III 58e, 20-21 (230-220 BCE) Hermopolis and Theoxenis are mentioned as one unit in a list of payments.9 In the 2nd century AD Theoxenis belonged to the 4th toparchy, as did Andromachis, Hermopolis and Philagris, then the centre of that toparchy (PSI XII 1236). In the 4th century AD the land owner Uranos from Theoxenis is attacked at the outskirts of Hermopolis, while walking around his fields (P. Abinn. 57). Specifics of Theoxenis alone are: – Theoxenis existed from the 3rd BC to the 8th AD according to the written evidence (see Van Beek, Trismegistos); all known texts are written in Greek. There is an eclipse in the 5th AD, after which the village reappears from the late 6th century.10 _ Theoxenis was located in the Themistou Meris: PSI VIII 921Ro (AD 143/144) and P. Flor. I 9 (AD 255). In AD 162/163 Theoxenis and Andromachis share their village scribe (komogrammateus;P. Fayum 40). By 644 Theoxenis belonged to the Theodosiopolite nome (BGU I 320). – Sheep from Theoxenis are driven off, and the evildoers are caught in Narmouthis (P. Abinn. 49).11 7 8 9 10 11

See the discussion on Hamouli and Perkethaut in Chapt. 11. P. Count 2 p. 115. P. Count 2 p. 120. Evidence to be neglected in the relatively small total of all texts from the village, and texts mentioning the village. P. Med. I 6, 8 does not seem to add any information needed here; it is not the extention of the drymos between Philoteris to Theoxenis which is mentioned in the papyrus, but the extention of the area in which a certain Harthotes is allowed to trade papyrus; different Bonneau 1982 ‘Le drymos, marais du Fayoum’ 181-190 with plate on page 189; cf. Chapt. 13, p. 108-109.

72

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS?

Specifics for Hermopolis alone are: – The papyrological documentation for Hermopolis ranges from 251 BC to the 8th century (see Van Beek, W. Clarysse, Trismegistos); all known 79 attestations are written in Greek;12 there are eclipses of evidence in the 1st BC and 5th AD. Despite of the similarity of the names, Hermopolis was not identical with Perkethaut (see Chapt. 11), as SPP X 106 and 162, of the 8th and 7th-8th centuries respectively clearly show.13 – Hermopolis was located in the Themistou Meris. In the 3rd century BC it belonged to the nomarchy of Diogenes, which extended over to the Polemonos Meris;14 the location of Hermopolis in the southern part of the Themistou Meris is therefore certain.15 In the 2nd century, it belonged to the 4th toparchy, as did Theoxenis (PSI XII 1236; see above). Altogether, it is not possible to decide with certainty whether Kom Alioun was Hermopolis or Theoxenis. Two arguments may be considered: 1. The number of inhabitants provided in the tax lists of the 3rd century BC: according to the tax lists assembled in P. Count, Theoxenis had a larger population in the 3rd century BC than Hermopolis. Theoxenis counted 271 adults in 230/229, and 217 adults in 229/228 BC, whereas Hermopolis had only 107 adults in 230/299, and 62 in 229/228 BC.16 In comparison with Philoteris of which we know the population and the extension in the Ptolemaic period, the kom at Alioun rather looks like a settlement of ca. 250 inhabitants than of just 80, but of course, the village may have grown in the Roman period, and we do not have the original Ptolemaic extention of the site.17 2. P. Mil. I 6 seems to describe the extention of a marshy area along the Bahr Qasr el-Banât from Philoteris in the north to a place in the south. This place in the south is Theoxenis, which thus may be Alioun, but it could be also a place closer to Theadelpheia, perhaps at the point where the Bahr Hafiz branches off the Bahr Qasr el-Banât. The drymos cannot have extended as far down as to here (see Chapt. 13, p. 108-109). Thus neither the question whether Alioun was Hermopolis or Theoxenis, nor whether it was really one of the two can be answered with certainty, but both identifications offer themselves taking into consideration the scenario of P. Sakaon 35.

2. The Main Settlement (a) Part a of the site expands over roughly 140 × 200 m; [Photo 10.2]. An area of a somewhat larger extension to the south-east, between a and b, exhibits the plain bed rock, but was part of the settlement before sebakhin and bull dozers removed most of the building materials. Pottery and slags are very scarce here. On the Google Earth map of 2002 [Photo 10.3], the shades of many houses 12 13

14

15 16 17

SPP III 310 should be added to the evidence; cf. Mitthof 1999 ‘Review of P. Sorb. II 69’ 138. In both papyri, Perkethaut is named besides Hermopolis in a list of payments; the respective parties, who make the payments, are also different. Cf. Héral 1992 ‘Archives bilingues’ 149-157 with map on p. 155; this map gives a somewhat confused idea about the canals; cf. the map in P. Sorb. III p. 54. To that area between the canals see Chapt. 1, pp. 8-12. See P. Count 2 p. 104. We should keep in mind that the Houses A – E rather belong to the Roman period.

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS?

73

seem to pop up from the surface around here, so that the ancient village probably covered nearly double as much ground as we could map. The site is bordered by fields to the north, east, and partly to the south, and by the desert to the west. Close to the fields in the north, two smaller areas of accumulated slags are visible, most likely places of pottery production (see Bailey, Vol. B, pp. 10-11). This can have been the fringe of the village in antiquity.18 The rest of the site is covered by heaps of sand and rubble between remains of walls in stone and mud bricks, but no wall seems to be preserved higher than 30 cm. In the western part of the site, they all sit directly on the bedrock. There was a remarkable number of houses built from stone in this village, at least at the low level, but these may have been only the foundations for mud brick buildings now gone (Houses A, B, C and D); these houses follow the usual pattern of buildings from the Roman period. They are comparable in seize and structure with houses recently excavated in Tebtynis. Where it is visible (see House A), the entrances to the houses were oriented versus the west, thus following a common pattern.19 A substantial building on the western fringe of the settlement was probably a granary (E). House A: Measuring roughly 15 × 15 metres (225 m2) the house is nearly square and of a substantial, not very common size [Photo 10.4]. The walls are ca. 75 cm thick; eventually, the courtyard is a later attachment to the nucleus of the four rooms. Walls, c. 30 cm high, are made of stone and joined with mud; the base of the stair is made from stones with plenty of mud filled in; most of the eastern walls are missing; no other building is directly attached to this house, it was free standing, so it seems, but the site has been too much disturbed to come to any further conclusions. The walls preserved sit directly on the bedrock. On the outer side of the western wall a squarish annex of solid stones is attached, measuring c. 1.5 × 1.5 m; it projected into the street, narrowing it down to 6 m at this point. This was possibly the base to the entrance of the house, even though it seems to have led towards a wall inside; here it becomes clear that what is preserved belongs to the foundation of the building. The house contained four rooms, a staircase and a courtyard; it was at least two storeys high. The entrance leads into the largest of the four rooms that must have been the vestibule; the staircase with its narrow corridor lies in the middle, surrounded by the rooms and the courtyard. At one point, between the courtyard and the corridor of the staircase, the stone wall is interrupted by layers of mud bricks; this was obviously a passage. The courtyard covers the complete southern length of the house, measuring 3 m in width in the east and widening to ca. 4 m towards the west, altogether c. 40 m2. It was probably uncovered and accommodated the kitchen and eventually the animals of the house.20 The layout of this house resembles the one of House 3200-III in Tebtynis, a building from the Roman period, probably constructed towards the end of the 2nd century AD.21 Also this house provided a courtyard extending over the complete southern length of the building, and the staircase in the middle of four rooms; the vestibule is located in one corner of the house. The courtyard here had been used as a kitchen from the beginning, as a stove in one of the corners shows.22 The house in Tebtynis (c. 12 × 12 m; 144 m2) is somewhat smaller than that in Alioun, but it is also nearly square, although trapezoidish. With its four rooms it is unique among the houses of 18 19 20 21 22

The scarce pottery in the adjacent field should be neglected; so also Bailey, Vol. B, p. 10. See Daniel 2010 ArchitecturalOrientation Chapt. 7. Husselman 1979 Karanis 49-54. Hadji-Minaglu 2007 TebtynisIV Fig. 56 and 88. Hadji-Minaglu 2007 TebtynisIV 124 and Photo 106.

74

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS?

all periods in Tebtynis, the standard for the ground floor being 3 rooms, a staircase and a courtyard.23 Most houses in Karanis seem to have been smaller; they usually had the staircase in one corner of the building, but House C62 provides a ground floor plan similar to that of House A in Alioun; it is dated to the 2nd – 3rd centuries AD.24 With these similarities, there is a good possibility to date House A to the Roman period. House B: Measuring roughly 18 × 17 m, this house is even larger than A, but of the same make. The south-eastern corner is missing. Even though there is no other building directly attached to House B, the construction of House C is very close; its western wall seems to continue the eastern wall of House B. House B contained 5-6 rooms, a staircase and a courtyard; it was at least two storeys high. The entrance is marked by a clear gap in the western wall that leads into the largest of the rooms, the vestibule; the staircase with its corridor lies in the middle, surrounded by the rooms and the courtyard. Unlike the layout of House A, a small room is here located between the vestibule and the corridor at the staircase. Passages between rooms and staircase are not recognizable. The courtyard covers two thirds of the southern length of the house measuring 5 × 11 m, altogether c. 55 m2. In the north-western corner of the vestibule, there is a limestone bench (1 × 3 m), covering three quarters of the space between the angle of the room and the entrance. House C: Much less is visible of this house than of A and B, but enough remains to recognize the same layout as in the other houses. The western wall of House C seems to continue the eastern wall of House B (see above). The alignment is perfect; the inner layout of House C is not recognizable. House D: To the east of House A, there are remains of one or more substantial buildings in strict alignment to A. The only recognizable features here are three rooms of equal size (3 × 3 m) in one row; they may belong to some storage facility. More buildings covered the area north to Houses A and D, but were not planned because of the scarcity of remains. To the west of House A, and separated from it by a street of c. 7.5 metres width, there was a huge building (E) made of stone and mud bricks in strict alignment to the stone built House A and the other houses [Photo 10.5]. Building E: the main body of this building was made of stone, whereas the constructions attached to the west and east of the great inner courtyard are made of mud brick; stone walls are c. 80 cm thick, and present obviously only the base of the actual walls, since there are no openings into most of the rooms detectable. This building was certainly not used mainly for habitation, but most likely a granary characterized by its storage facilities lined up around the courtyard. The courtyard measures c. 12 × 13 m; alongside to the south-east, a room of roughly 7.5 × 3.8 m can be distinguished; to the south, a large walled space covers the southern end of the courtyard, while both the western and the eastern side of the courtyard are lined by compartments made of mud bricks sitting right on the bed rock. 23 24

Hadji-Minaglu 2007 TebtynisIV 184. Husselman 1979 Karanis Plans 40-41 and p. 72, compare also the plans of houses in Soknopaiou Nesos: Boak 1935 SoknopaiouNesos; Maehler 1983 ‘Häuser und ihre Bewohner’ 119-137. Maehler sees a tendency to smaller houses in the cities in comparison to houses in villages, but we may not have enough material to come to this judgement.

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS?

75

The 7 rooms to the west of the courtyard, and the 5 ones to the east [Photo 10.6] are lined up in one row towards the north; the well preserved ones all have the same size of 4.50 × 3.20 m and certainly served some storage function. Yellow and dark brown mud bricks alternate in the walls in this area. The room to the south-east of the courtyard exhibits a hollow of 3.75 × 0.75 m that is cut into the bedrock to a depth of 90 cm [Photo 10.7]; in the middle of the southern long side of the deepening, there is a semicircular extension of a diametre of 70 cm pointing towards the south.25 Next to this extension a worked round piece of limestone was found, whether in situ, is not clear; this could have been a millstone, now heavily damaged. The purpose of the hollow with its remarkable form is not clear.

3. The Cemetery of the Tombs Cut into Bedrock (b) To the south-east of site (a) and at a distance of roughly 200 metres, a huge area, blown over by sand, is covered with tombs cut directly into the bed rock [see Photo 10.2]. On the border to this area, a rectangular stone building of c. 3 × 6 m was detected; whether this was part of the village which once extended up to here, or belonged to the cemetery is not clear; its alignment seems to connect it to the remains of the main village. In one part of the cemetery, which compromises 200 (E – W direction) × 40 (N – S) metres, we recorded more than 80 tombs, all of them aligned strictly into east-western direction. Tombs are clustered side by side, or in rows [Photo 10.8]. The standard measure is 180-200 × 50-60 cm, some graves measure roughly 200 × 90 cm. It was not possible to measure the depth of these graves. After about 60 metres to the south of the western part of this burial area, there is a further large cluster of c. 20 tombs similar in seize. Also these tombs are strictly aligned in east-western direction. The bedrock between the two parts of this cemetery was not used for burials, but the area to the south of the eastern part may have exhibited more graves (today the complete area is covered by fields). Pottery was very scarce here and did not allow for any dating, but the comparable burials at Theadelpheia, also cut into the bed rock, point to a date in the Roman period (see Chapt. 13). This cemetery is considerably closer to the village than the cemetery on the ridge (c), which was used from the Ptolemaic into the late Roman period; whether it was only by convenience that people at some point buried their dead closer to the village, instead of carrying them out into the desert, and what change in the development of the settlement is behind this decision has to be explored; the area had dried up in any case. Is it possible that this cemetery was used after the village (a) had been abandoned, and when a different settlement further into the green land was still functioning which now used the place close to the abandoned village as burial ground.

4. The Cemetery on the Ridge (c) At a distance of roughly 1.3 km from the Kom a to the south, a ridge rises about 5 metres above the surrounding area (absolute c. 19 metres) [Photo 10.1; the overview map]. This ridge is the southern end of the Gisr el-Hadid (see Chapters 1 and 18). The area which once housed a cemetery of considerable size covers some 400 metres in length and variable width; at the broadest point

25

We called that hole “The Submarine Hole” because of its shape.

76

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS?

the area is c. 80 metres wide; five different mounds can be distinguished (A – E). The surface is scattered with pottery, stone rubble and bones [Photo 10.9]. According to the dating of the pot sherds found there (see Bailey, Vol. B, pp. 11-12), mounds A – C seem to have been used as a cemetery from late Ptolemaic times onwards, the earlier Ptolemaic period not to be ruled out, but there is less evidence for it. These mounds A – C continued to serve for burials together with mound E in the early Roman period. As usual, nothing characteristic of the mid-third to the 4th century AD is found; frequent users (or visitors, inhabitants?) of the cemetery are attested by late Roman material found at the western extremity of mound C and on mound D. There is no evidence for any occupation in the Arab period. On mound C, the highest point of the ridge, the large number of clay wick holders was remarkable [Photo 10.10]. It is possible that this cemetery was inhabited by monks related to the church and the other settlements farther out in the desert (see (d)). This may have been the post of the “Outer Desert”, closer to the green land and its people (for the expression “outer”, “inner” desert see Life of Anthony 49).

5. The Church behind the Ridge and the Buildings out in the Desert (d) Starting from mound E into a strict western direction into the desert, one finds the remains of a stone construction built on the next upcoming ridge at a distance of ca. 450 metres [see Photo 10.1, as above; Photo 10.11] the building lies at a level c. 3 metres above the cemetery (c). It consists of one room that is c. 4 metres wide and 3 m long, an apse being attached at one of the long sides covering the whole side of the building. The orientation of the building is more than roughly to the east! Walls are plastered [Photo 10.12]. It is difficult to imagine any other building out here in the desert than a church; it seems to be excluded that irrigation ever reached here, and for a rest house out in the desert, the place is too fancy in its layout. Obviously related to this church are several small areas of scattered sherds and fragmentary walls farther out to the south in the desert by c. 250 metres. In these spots and in the church, D. M. Bailey has found pottery material dating from the 4th to the 7th century AD. One may be surprised to find a coin from the reign of Probus in this area; it is the only small find we can present of this site (d). The coin was minted in the 3rd year of Probus, 277/278 AD; it shows the head of the emperor on the Vs., and Eirene in chiton and peplos holding an olive branch in her right hand, and a sceptre in her left hand, on the Rs.26 The time gap between the date of the coin and the dated pottery here (4th century) is not too large. Also without the coin, this is one of the earliest monastic settlements clearly identified in the Fayoum. It was founded, when the village (a) was still functioning, and seems to have died around the same time as the village in the 7th century. This dating excludes the identification of this monastic settlement with the Mone n-Alli mentioned in the Hamouli colophons (see Chapt. 11).

26

See Geissen and Weiser 1983 KatalogAlexandrinischerKaisermünzenBd. 4, 3132 and 3133.

Kom 2

d

27 m a.s.l.

Church

E D

19 m a.s.l.

A

C

24 m a.s.l.

Ridge

B

a

b

Ancient cemetery

Ancient village

D.P. 15 m a.s.l.

250

Modern infrastructure Built areas Agricultural zone

Archaeological features Ancient settlement Ancient cemetery

Legend

0

500 Meter

Heights according to Survey of Egypt

Coordinate System: WGS84 GCS and/or UTM Zone 36R

Topographic Maps (Survey of Egypt)

Satellite images (Corona 1960s and Google Earth)

Field Survey (1999, 2000, 2001 and 2006)

Map based on:

KOM ALIOUN

Photo 10.1: Plan I; overview of all parts of the ancient site (I. Klose after Ch. Kirby and P. Brosch).

c

Ezbet Qalioun

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS?

77

78

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS? Map based on: Field Survey (1999-2006) Topographic Maps (Survey of Egypt) Satellite images (Corona 1960s and Google Earth)

KOM ALIOUN

Coordinate System : WGS84 DMS and/or UTM Zone 36R

Ancient Village (a) and Cemetery (b)

Heights according to Survey of Egypt

0

50

100 Meter

14.17 m

14.04 m

slag

15.53 m

15.14 m

slag 14.67 m

14.94 m 15.51 m 13.81m

stone rubble

main kom

14.39 m

single wall

D.P. 14.41 m

14.93 m

A

E

stone rubble 14.39 m

B

14.54 m

14.43 m

slag

bedrock

C

14.47 m

15.88 m

bedrock covered by thin layer of silt and few sherds

14.55 m

14.64 m 14.79 m

a

area with scarce pottery probably destroyed by bulldozers 14.32 m 15.12 m

rectangular building

le isib lls v a w wall s of ain 15.09 m rem o n bedrock

Legend Archaeological features Ancient settlement Ancient cemetery Historic building/ruin Slag heap Elevation

14.04 m

e her ond bey

14.65 m

15.13 m

bedrock

14.38 m

14.95 m

possibly more graves

15.04 m

no graves here

large kom with pottery but not part of ancient kom probably

14.43 m

bedrock 14.96 m

Modern infrastructure Agricultural zone Dirt road/vehicle track Canal

15.20 m

b

15.37 m

15.55 m

15.66 m

Photo 10.2: Plan II; parts a and b of the ancient village.

no graves visible

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS?

79

Photo 10.3: Kom Alioun on Google Earth from 2002.

Photo 10.4: House A; view from north.

Photo 10.5: Building E, the Granary, and House A; view from north.

80

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS?

Photo 10.6: Building E, the Granary; view from north.

Photo 10.7: The hollow in the courtyard of Building E, the Granary.

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS?

81

Photo 10.8: Two graves side by side in cemetery (b).

Photo 10.9: On the ridge; cemetery (c), part C.

Photo 10.10: Pottery and small finds on the ridge.

82

CHAPTER 10: KOM ALIOUN = HERMOPOLIS OR THEOXENIS?

Photo 10.11: The “Church” (d); view from the south.

Photo 10.12: The apse of the church, view from west to east.

CHAPTER 11 KOM HAMOULI = KOM KUFRI, SITE OF THE MONASTERY OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL1 A SITE NOW LOST Plan is Photo 11.1; Maps VI, VIII and XIV

This small kom has been known since 1910 as the place where a large number of precious Coptic manuscripts were allegedly excavated by farmers, and soon incorporated into the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York and other collections.2 Colophons in the manuscripts refer to the site as the “Monastery of the Archangel Michael”; the monastery is attested by the colophons roughly between AD 820 and 920,3 but papyrological attestations may be earlier (see below). The kom’s name, “Kom Hamouli” derives from the modern village of Hamouli, a settlement to the north-east of the kom, which lies on the Bahr Nazlah. Today the archaeological site is nearly completely covered by fields; our survey, finished in 2006, has been the last archaeological research carried out here [Photos 11.2, 11.3 and 11.4]. The site consisted of the small, main mound of c. 150 × 110 m2 [Photo 11.5] and the cemetery, in an elongated area of roughly 80 × 380 m2 to the east [Photo 11.6]. Kom Hamouli was located c. 9 km south of Theadelpheia, in 2010 still out in the desert at a distance of about 300 metres south-west of the now cultivated land and the Bahr Qasr el-Banât. The next modern village, Ezbet Ahmed Dhou al-Faqqar, is situated between the site and the modern village of Hamouli. Since 2010, a lot has changed in this area: in early 2013 already half of the Kom was covered by fields, the cemetery still being spared, while in 2015, both kom and cemetery have vanished completely under the green land. The northern fringe of the cemetery is marked by an irregular path winding through the very regularly shaped fields. Recently (2017), the inspectorate in Medinet el-Fayoum has reclaimed the archaeological site. Till 2010, the kom was best reached from Theadelpheia (see Chapt. 13). Leaving the site of Theadelpheia, one turned right along the large canal (Bahr Qaroun = Bahr Qasr el-Banât) towards the village of El-Khawajat; inside the village, one took a right turn where the canal bends, and followed the canal (from here on called the Bahr Qasr el-Banât), on which one passed four bridges; after a drive along the canal for c. 8.5 km one took the 5th bridge, and went straight ahead for c. 500 m, where the kom lied just in front. The main mound rised about 3 m above the surrounding desert, its elevation being c. 9 m a.s.l., that of the cemetery in its northern part a little bit lower. During our survey, there was little to be seen except potsherds, unbaked and fired bricks on the main mound, and some bones on the cemetery. In the northern part of the main mound, the surface was scattered with fragments of painted and unpainted gypsum plaster [Photos 11.7 + 11.8]. 1 2 3

GEO-ID 50403; the exact location is 29° 16´ 12 N, 30° 35´ 56 E. On Maps VI and VIII, the kom is called Kom Kufri. For these manuscripts and their find-spot see Depuydt 1993 CatalogueofCopticManuscriptsVol. I and II. Depuydt 1993 CatalogueofCopticManuscriptstentatively connects the death of the monastic community with the invasion of the Fatimids after 969 (p. CXV).

84

CHAPTER 11: KOM HAMOULI, SITE OF THE MONASTERY OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL

1. The location of Kom Hamouli in respect of the fertile zone in Antiquity As stated above, in 2010 the edge of the cultivated area was c. 300 metres north-east of the kom. That it reached the location of Kom Hamouli in Graeco-Roman times is not very likely, though not impossible. Two facts speak against it: 1. On the surface, the kom shows only pottery which can be dated to the 5th century AD or later (see Bailey, Vol. B, pp. 12-13); it seems to have been neither inhabited nor used as a cemetery in the Graeco-Roman period. No dark silt appears under the sandy surface around the site when the surface is disturbed. It seems that no agricultural activity was going on in this area at any time. 2. The cemetery which is associated with the kom, or at least most of it, lies about two metres lower than the mound, and towards the canal. If the kom had been inhabitated at the time when the canal carried water, the cemetery would have been given a safer location towards the ridge of the Gisr el-Hadid in the south-west. It follows, then, that Kom Hamouli was probably not inhabited before the 5th century AD. The monastery seems to have been founded when the larger part of the Themistou Meris was already abandoned, and the environment of the kom at large was void of fields and settlements. The location of Kom Hamouli is peculiar: in this part of the Fayoum the land available for waterways is very narrow; canals can be dug only in a small stretch of land 2-3 km wide between the 0 line in the north-east, where the Masraf el-Wadi Drain (=Wadi Nazlah) starts to descend, and the 10 m line in the south-west, after which the land rises fast, though not dramatically so, towards the Gisr el-Hadid. Here is the bottleneck for the irrigation of the Themistou Meris (see Chapt. 1). This narrow stretch of land surprisingly contains three modern canals.4 Kom Hamouli lies south of the southernmost canal, in the desert towards the Gisr el-Hadid. This modern canal, the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, continues to the north up to Theadelpheia, Euhemeria and Dionysias. If it had followed the line of the ancient canal in this area, it could have irrigated the land also around Kom Hamouli. But obviously, it did not [see Map VI].

2. The Ancient Name of Kom Hamouli The ancient name of Kom Hamouli can be identified from evidence provided in the colophons of the manuscripts found on the site.5 They declare the manuscripts to be in the possession of, or to have been written at, a Monastery of St. Michael. If these manuscripts were indeed detected and unearthed here in 1910, and the farmers did not mislead the public which was keen to know the find-spot of the rich library, we may conclude that the ancient name of the kom was “Monastery of the Archangel Michael at Phantoou”, or more specifically “Phantoou n-Perkethaut” or “Phantoou n-Sopehes” (or similar). There appears also “tmone n-Alli” (“The Monastery of Alli”) as a related place in the colophons. The name Phantoou illustrates the location of the monastery as being “in the mountainside” or “in the desert,” which are not distinguished in Coptic.6 The monastery itself was neither named 4

5 6

The one furthest to the north is the only recently built waterway to carry the water to the Wadi Rayan. It disappears under the surface at the edge of the cultivated land north of Kom Hamouli, after having crossed the Bahr Nazlah and the Bahr Qasr el-Banât. The Bahr Qasr el-Banât runs on the edge of the desert on the 9-10 m line above sea level; the Bahr Nazlah runs on the 6-5 m line to the north of the Bahr Qasr el-Banât. For detailed information on this subject see Depuydt 1993CatalogueofCopticManuscripts I, Introduction. Westendorf, HWB 253; cf. Depuydt 1993 CatalogueofCopticManuscripts CVII.

CHAPTER 11: KOM HAMOULI, SITE OF THE MONASTERY OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL

85

Monastery of Alli, nor Perkethaut or Sopehes. Rather, its name was associated with another monastery and the two villages which must have been located not too far away, probably within the cultivated area of the time, however distant it was. They may actually be one and the same village, given that Perkethaut does not appear in the colophons after AD 861, whereas Sopehes is never mentioned before 894. But it is also possible, and in my view more likely, that Perkethaut died out during the 9th century, and that Sopehes was then associated with the Monastery of St. Michael, being the nearest inhabited place, though possibly farther away from it (for Sopehes see below). The Monastery of Alli may have been out in the desert, but we do not know anything about the place. It is not mentioned in the colophons after 861, and may have been more closely associated with Perkethaut, which vanished around the same time. In Greek and Coptic papyri, Phantoou is attested twice: 1) SPP X 144 = P. Eirene III 35, a land register with payments in kind, in which parcels at Phantoou are mentioned three times (ll. 2, 8 and vo 2); two gentlemen from Tebetnou in the Herakleopolite nome own these parcels. The papyrus is dated by the handwriting to the 5th century AD. This is a surprisingly early date for the monastery, though it is not impossible that it was founded so early, and the pottery tells the same story (see above); 2) a Coptic book list of another monastery in the Fayoum (Deir el-Hammam) mentions an Antiphonary of Phantoou.7 This book list is dated to the 7th-8th century and fits the other attestations better. However, the place name Phantoou seems to be too general to assume that the place at the Monastery of the Archangel Michael was meant in those two attestations with certainty. There is no other evidence for Sopehes besides the colophons of the Hamouli codices. L. Depuydt has suggested that Sopehes could be Umm el-Sibā’, a village located by Nabulsi on the “Tanabtawiyya Canal” before his time, and now abandoned.8 Both place names have to do with prey: the Coptic ⲡⲁⳉⲥ in Sopehes is “prey”, whereas the Arabic sibā’ means “predatory animal”.9 There is more evidence for Perkethaut in the Greek papyri:10 the village is mentioned in 12 papyri dating from the 6th to the 8th centuries, one more precisely from 694-698 AD.11 It is listed by Nabulsi in the 13th century among the abandoned places along the “Tanabtawiyya Canal”.12 W. Clarysse and B. Van Beek have placed Perkethaut on the map of the Fayoum exactly on the spot where modern Hamouli is located,13 and recent publications have followed them, obviously not distinguishing between modern Hamouli and Kom Hamouli which lies apart by c. 2 km.14 Clarysse’s and Van Beek’s rationale for the identification of Perkethaut and Hamouli has two parts. They take it, a) that Kom Hamouli (which for them is modern Hamouli) is Perkethaut, and b) that Perkethaut is to be identified with Philagris, a Graeco-Roman settlement first attested in 237 BC (P. Tebt. III 866, 11) and last on 11 February AD 351 (P. Abinn. 55, 7). a) can be ruled out, because according to the colophons, the kom (= the monastery) is not in the village of Perkethaut, but only somehow related to it, however distant it may be (see above). As we now know, the kom was not inhabited before the 5th century. Remains the possibility of 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14

Crum 1893 CopticManuscriptsbroughtfromtheFayoum 61, Nr. 44, 14-15; Otranto 2000 Antichelistedilibri125. Salmon 1901 ‘Répertoire géographique de la province du Fayyoûm’ 67. Depuydt 1993 Catalogue CVII. GEO-ID 1766; Clarysse and Van Beek 2002. P. Vindob. G 15148, on which see Worp 1998 Tyche 13, 1998, 253, later republished in SB XXIV 16219 and by F. Morelli in Tyche 29, 2014, 95-98, with the date of AD 694-725. Salmon 31; for the Tanabtawiyya Canal Chapt. 1, pp. 13-17. Map of Trismegistos; cf. 2002, ‘Philagris, Perkethaut and Hermopolis’ 195-200, where Perkethaut is Kom Hamouli. See Talbert 2000 TheBarringtonAtlas Map 75; last Derda 2006 ΑΡΣΙΝΟΙΤΗΣΝΟΜΟΣ 20 and map on p. 21.

86

CHAPTER 11: KOM HAMOULI, SITE OF THE MONASTERY OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL

identifying the modern village of Hamouli with Perkethaut; however, in modern Hamouli no evidence of an ancient settlement has been found so far (we checked on the cemetery which – characteristically – lies in an elevated position). Since the area of modern Hamouli has always been irrigated, the loss of any traces of an ancient site is of course plausible. However, the position of modern Hamouli on the Bahr Nazlah makes it rather unlikely that an ancient village in this location would have been abandoned in the 4th century (as our evidence for Philagris shows). For the location of Philagris see also below. b) is based on the Demotic contracts with Greek verso in P. LilleDem. II, where Φιλαγρίϲ in the Greek abstract corresponds to “Pr-grg-n-Ḏḥwty (*Pꜣ-grg-n-Ḏḥwty) Foundation of Thoth” in Demotic.15 In this village, obviously located not far (but how far we do not know) from Theadelpheia in the Themistou Meris, the cult of Thoth was very popular. This popularity is visible not only in the village name of Perkethaut (“Foundation of Thoth”), but also in village onomastics and the appearance of “servants of Thoth” in some documents at Philagris (P. LilleDem. II 68, 70, 85, 89). Clarysse and Van Beek assumed an early Egyptian settlement with the name of Perkethaut which was renamed Philagris (most probably after an Alexandrian deme) in the 3rd century BC, then abandoned and finally named Perkethaut again in late antiquity.16 But one has to be cautious with these arguments: 1. There did not exist any Egyptian settlement in the Themistou Meris, at any rate west of the Wadi Nazlah, before the Ptolemies started their impressive land reclamation programme here in the 3rd century BC. So a pre-Ptolemaic Egyptian village “Foundation of Thoth” in this area, as implied (perhaps not intended by the authors), can be excluded, but a double Greek-Egyptian name in the beginning of the village’s existance is of course possible. 2. It is true that Perkethaut alias Philagris, must have existed somewhere around this area and was connected to Theadelpheia. The people of Philagris are accused by the Theadelpheians between AD 254 and 268 of having disturbed their water supply by taking away a stone from “the mouth of a canal” (P. Sakaon 32, 27ff.).17 So Philagris was obviously on the same canal as Theadelpheia, or on a canal connected to the canal of Theadelpheia (see below), somewhere up-stream. Perkethaut is mentioned by Nabulsi as having been situated on the Tanabtawiyya Canal, which must have been one of the canals in this area, most likely the Bahr Qasr el-Banât.18 But Perkethaut should be looked for to the east or north-east of Kom Hamouli, and along the Bahr Nazlah, since it must have been located at a point to which water still reached in the 7th century. Where the border of the desert was at that time, we do not know, but probably not to the west or north-west of Kom Hamouli which was itself located already in the desert. Philagris, or better, the village with that name at the time, on the other hand, had died out around the middle of the 4th century, like all the other settlements in the north-western Themistou Meris around Theadelpheia: as with all the other villages, there is no evidence of Philagris in the papyri after the 4th century. Therefore, we would expect Philagris to be located to the north-west of Kom Hamouli, and before Theadelpheia on the Bahr Qasr el-Banât. That location would make our understanding of P. Sakaon 32 easier. 15 16

17 18

See ChicagoDemoticDictionary P 114-115 (on-line). 2002 ‘Philagris, Perkethaut and Hermopolis’ 195-200; in Trismegistos they state more cautiously: “The village apparently had a double name in the 3rd century BC”. It is not clear whence exactly the stone had been taken away, or whether this happened on the main canal. Salmon calls the Wadi Nazlah the Wadi Tanabtawiyya, though meaning a canal; this identification is highly implausible given that the Wadi Nazlah was always a drain, and not a canal (see his map here on p. 15). The confusion between the Wadi Nazlah (the drain) and the Bahr el-Nazlah (the canal) is found in many publications. The Tanabtawiyya Canal should be the Bahr Qasr el-Banât (see Chapt. 1, pp. 13-17).

CHAPTER 11: KOM HAMOULI, SITE OF THE MONASTERY OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL

87

3. It is still possible that people from Philagris moved farther south-east in the 4th century and settled in a village to which they gave the old Egyptian name which had existed alongside the Greek name in the Ptolemaic period. That new location would have been on the Bahr Nazlah, and where modern Hamouli is now. To come back to P. Sakaon 32, it is also possible that the water supply of Philagris was connected to the Bahr Qasr el-Banât by a side branch of that canal, as is the case nowadays with Hamouli (see Map XI from 1926; Figure 1). On Map XI that side branch is called Bahr Sha’lân (cf. Chapt. 12).

Figure 1: Detail of Map XI.

In that case the pople from Philagris would have taken away a barrage from the mouth of that side branch on the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, when they did not have enough water (for whatever reason) in the Bahr Nazlah in the 4th century AD. There is no other evidence for a Monastery of Alli; the name Alli is attested 5 times in the Fayoum during the 7th century.

88

CHAPTER 11: KOM HAMOULI, SITE OF THE MONASTERY OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL

3. Earlier Visitors to the Site Grenfell, Hunt and Hogarth briefly describe the site after their visit in 1901: “Kharabt Hamûli represents what was once a fair-sized Graeco-Roman village, but like several other places in the Fayûm, it has been almost entirely destroyed by sebakhîn, and to expect papyri there would be in vain”.19 There is little doubt that Grenfell, Hunt and Hogarth’s description refers to what is called now Kom Hamouli, since they state: “south of Harît there are no remains of any town or village on the edge of the desert until the ruins called Kharabt Hamûli are reached.” They attempt to identify the site with one mentioned in Murray’s GuideBook (sic!) (5th ed., p. 340) called Kharabt el-Yehûdî, but see Chapt 12 on Sha’lân. As we know now, Kom Hamouli was not a “Graeco-Roman village”, but founded only in late antiquity; it is astonishing that Grenfell and Hunt, who knew about and were interested in pottery, misunderstood the dating of this site; obviously they did not have any interest in what they saw. F. Zucker abandoned his plans to excavate in Kom Hamouli and ceded his permit to G. Lefebvre after having visited the site on January 29 in 1910. In his diary he wrote: “Der Fundplatz (der Codices) ist außerhalb eines größeren, unzweifelhaft als Kloster anzusehenden Gebäudes, dessen Ziegelumfassungsmauer Lefebvre auf eine größere Strecke obenhin freigelegt hat. Alles macht einen recht dürftigen Eindruck”. “Wir besichtigten die Stelle im Kôm, wo die Manuskripte gefunden sind: nach den Aussagen eines vertrauenswürdigen Mannes befanden sie sich alle in einem Gewölbe- also eine richtige cachette”.20 F. W. Kelsey came here on April 29 in 1920 during his extended travels to Armenia and the Near East accompanied by a small party of friends.21 G. R. Swain took photos, some of which are printed in L. Depuydt’s book on the Pierpont Morgan manuscripts.22 The group recognized the adjacent cemetery.23 Later O. Meinardus gave a brief description in his “Christian Egypt, Ancient and Modern”,24 and P. Grossmann expressed his disappointment about the site.25 P. Davoli gives a short overview.26

4. The Library of the Monastery of the Archangel Michael27 56 parchment codices were found in Kom Hamouli in 1910, dated between 822/23 and 913/14. Most of them are very well preserved, some still bound in their original covers. Ten of the codices contain the books of the Old and New Testaments, the remainder being works used in the liturgy. No book of the Psalms was found here, clearly indicating that the find does not represent the complete library,28 which would have contained at least one copy of the Psalms. Most codices are of

19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27

28

P. Fay. p. 64. Müller 1971 ‘Die Berliner Papyrusgrabungen’ 48. Depuydt I 1993 Catalogue, Introduction XXXV. Pl. 3: View of mound; Pl. 4: View from North edge of mound looking East towards the fertile zone (which seems to be much closer than it is nowadays!); Pl. 6: View of the mound, looking East; Pl. 8b: Approaching the site of the Monastery of St. Michael; Pl. 9: View from the mound towards the desert and the fertile zone. Inset in Pl. 3 of Depuydt I 1993 (see foregoing note). 1st ed. 1965, 335-336; 2nd ed. 1977, 462-463. Personally in 2011 concerning his visit in 1988. Davoli, 1998 L’archeologiaurbana 330. For an overview see Emmel 2005 ‘The Library of the Monastery of the Archangel Michael’ 63-70; Krause 1991 ‘Libraries’ CE V 1449. Emmel 2005 ‘The Library of the Monastery of the Archangel Michael’ 64.

CHAPTER 11: KOM HAMOULI, SITE OF THE MONASTERY OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL

89

miscellaneous content, and unsurprisingly there are eight works in honour of the Archangel Michael. The volume of the Antiphonarium is the earliest version of this liturgical book known up till now.29 The language of nearly all these codices is the Sahidic, rather than the Fayoumic dialect, and because of the exact dating of these manuscripts, they give important evidence for the historical development of the languages in the Fayoum. The only text in Fayoumic is that on the “Investiture of Saint Michael Archangel”, supposedly an important text for the monastic community which remained in the local dialect.30 Furthermore, these codices show the scribes of one of the most important scriptoria of that time at work; some of the manuscripts were written and illuminated by scribes from the Tutoun scriptorium at Tebtynis which delivered manuscripts as far as the White Monastery at Sohag.

29 30

Krause 2003 ‘Das koptische Antiphonar’ 167-185. See Boud’hors 2005 ‘Manuscripts and Literature’ 21-31, in particular 22-23.

7.54 m

8.90 m

MAIN KOM

Slag

e

0m

ston s of s Lineipping ch

7.63 m

25 m

8.16 m

50 m

7.42 m

7.51 m

Area of shallow depression with sand and small chippings

Fired bricks

7.31 m

Area potted with sand depressions

7.66 m

MAIN KOM

6.96 m

7.22 m

50 m

e Pil

f so

Mu

25

ri db

0

50

7.53 m

CEMETERY

cks

100 m

Photo 11.1: Plan of Kom Hamouli (I. Klose after Ch. Kirby and P. Brosch).

8.60 m

Area of painted plaster

Collection of stone blocks

8.47 m

Area of large stone rubble

8.70 m

9.16 m

Fired bricks

Mud bricks

Thick pieces of gypsum plaster

7.75 m

10.00 m

D.P.1

8.74 m

D.P.3

6.37 m

Archaeological features Ancient settlement Ancient cemetery

Legend

D.P. 1 assumed to be 10.00 m a.s.l.

Heights according to:

Coordinate System : WGS84 DMS and/or UTM Zone 36R

Map based on: Field Survey (1999) Topographic Maps (Survey of Egypt) Satellite images (Corona 1960s and Google Earth)

KOM HAMOULI

90 CHAPTER 11: KOM HAMOULI, SITE OF THE MONASTERY OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL

CHAPTER 11: KOM HAMOULI, SITE OF THE MONASTERY OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL

Photo 11.2: The area of Kom Hamouli in the Google Earth Photo of 2002.

Photo 11.3: The area of Kom Hamouli in the Google Earth Photo of 2013.

91

92

CHAPTER 11: KOM HAMOULI, SITE OF THE MONASTERY OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL

Photo 11.4: The area of Kom Hamouli in the Google Earth Photo of 2015.

Photo 11.5: The main kom from the north-west in 1999.

CHAPTER 11: KOM HAMOULI, SITE OF THE MONASTERY OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL

93

Photo 11.6: The cemetery from the north-west in 1999.

Photo 11.7: Pieces of painted plaster I; photo taken in 1999.

Photo 11.8: Pieces of painted plaster II; photo taken in 1999.

CHAPTER 12 KHARÂBAT SHA’LÂN1 = HARÁB-T-EL YAHOOD (“THE RUINS OF THE JEWS”) = POLYDEUKEIA (OR SENTREMPAIS)? Figure 12.1; Photo 12.1; Maps VII; XI; XII

In 1909 G. Lefebvre discovered an inscription in the Fayoum,2 of which the text had been known for some time from a transcript taken by an antiquities merchant, who had copied the text on the belly of an amphora.3 Lefebvre came across the original of this inscription in Abd el-Al, a small settlement next to what was then called Kharabat Châlal (sic), some 6 km south-east of Theadelpheia. The location of Ezbet Abd el-Al is indicated on the 1:25 000 map (Map XII; Photo 12.1), some 400 metres to the north-north-west of a village called Sha’lân, which obviously gave its name to the Kharâbat (“place of ruins”) in the past. The village of Abd el-Al is about 6 km as the crow flies away from Theadelpheia, and c. 6 km west of modern Nazlah. It is located on the ridge that departs from the limestone plateau on which also Theadelpheia sits, into a southern direction (see Chapt. 1 pp. 9-12). Lefebvre reports that in his time the ancient site had already disappeared under the modern village of Ezbet Abd el-Al and the fields around it. The inscription served as a doorstep to the mosque of the village. Ezbet Sha’lân (to the south-east of Abd el-Al) is today (and has apparently been for a long time: see below) situated on the Bahr el-Nazlah, which flows between this village and Ezbet Abd el-Al; the so called Sha’lân Drain seems to be of more recent date. Canal and drain intersect at a bridge immediately to the north of the modern village of Sha’lân. The Sha’lân Drain is indicated already on the 1:100 000 map of 1926 (Map XI; Figure 1)4 beside a Bahr Sha’lân. Thus, the area which may once have contained the ancient site between Ezbet Abd el-Al and Ezbet Sha’lân is cut through by a drain and a canal; it had probably been in agricultural use for some time already, when Lefebvre came upon the inscription in its secondary use as a doorstep in 1909, for Grenfell and Hunt did not find the place (see below). Nevertheless, on the Survey map of 1900-1902 in the 2nd edition of 1915 (Map VII), there is a village called Ezbet el-Kharâba (“Village of the Ruins”) c. 2 km north of where Ezbet Abd el-Al is located on the later maps; neither Ezbet Abd el-Al nor Sha’lân are mentioned on that early map, but a Sha’lân Drain is indicated in the area (without name). On the old map (Map VII), the village Ezbet el-Kharâba is situ-

1 2 3

4

GEO-ID 50412; exact location difficult to assertain (see below). BSAA 11 (1909) ‘Un original retrouvé’ 294-297 with pl. in text; I. Fay. II 124 p. 74-78 with pll. 29 and 30. This modern transcript was first published by de Ricci 1903 ‘Une inscription grecque’ 276-278; reprinted in APF2, 1903, 442 no. 60. It seems worth mentioning that on this map, the word Sha’lân is written around the Sha’lân Drain to the north-west of the area in question, as if giving the whole area around there the name of Sha’lân, extending at least two more kms to the west of Ezbet Abd el-Al. It will therefore not be easy to find any traces of the ancient settlement, as the area to be searched extends over several square kms.

96

CHAPTER 12: KHARÂBAT SHA’LÂN = POLYDEUKEIA OR SENTREMPAIS?

Figure 1: Detail of Map XI; the whole area around the Sha’lân Drain is called Sha’lân.

ated 4 km south-east of Theadelpheia, and 6 km west of Nazlah. It is possible that this is the real location of the ancient site. Today, that area is completely covered by fields. Kharâbat Sha’lân = Ezbet el-Kharâba must have been situated at c. 8 metres a. s. l., to the east of a depression which descends to 2 m a.s.l. in this area west of the modern village of Tawfiq, indicated on Map XII, Photo 12.1 (for that depression, probably the ancient “Drymos of Theadelpheia and Polydeukeia”, see below). To visit the place where the inscription was supposedly found, follow the road from Theadelpheia to Qasr el-Gabali, and turn right in the village Al-Khawajat (which is the village immediately

CHAPTER 12: KHARÂBAT SHA’LÂN = POLYDEUKEIA OR SENTREMPAIS?

97

east of Theadelpheia) crossing a bridge opposite the mosque. After c. 250 metres take the dirt road to the left, which leads to Ezbet Abd el-Al, passing through the area where Ezbet el-Kharâba was situated at the beginning of the 20th century, just after the village which is today called Ezbet Tawfiq. All these villages are located on the extension of the limestone ridge that departs towards the south from the large limestone ridge on which Theadelpheia sits. Visiting the area around Ezbet Abd el-Al, we could not find any traces of an ancient settlement here. Locals, as usual, when asked, do not volunteer any information of an ancient site in their neighbourhood. But some whisper that they know … [Photo 12.2]. Kharâbat Sha’lân may be the place for which Grenfell and Hunt searched in vain under the name of Haráb-t-el Yahood (“the ruins of the Jews”) at the end of the 19th century after the indication of Murray 1847 HandbookforTravellersinEgypt 304.5 The Handbook, which draws from Wilkinson’s description of his travels, says: “To the west of Nezleh are the sites of two ancient towns called Haráb-t-el Yahood (“the ruins of the Jews”), and El Hammâm (“the Baths”). Neither of them presents any but crude brick remains, and the former has evidently been inhabited by Moslems, whose mud-houses still remain”. Wilkinson’s map (Map III) locates the Haráb-t-el Yahood (“the ruins of the Jews”) not exactly west of Nazlah, but rather south-south-west. Nevertheless, if we take the wavy line which finally meets the main drain (the Masraf el-Wadi = Wadi Nazlah) at Qasr el-Gabali (misnamed by Wilkinson as “Watfeeh”), as the Bahr el-Nazlah – and nothing speaks against that identification – , then Ezbet el-Kharâba may well have been the Haráb-t-el Yahood (“the ruins of the Jews”). El-Hammâm could then be an ancient site which may have existed in the neighbourhood here. On Linant’s map (Map IV) a “Rarhab el Yeoudi” is located south-south-west of Nazlah, but also west of a canal, which could be the Bahr el-Nazlah. This location would correspond to the area where the inscription was found, if we assume that “Rarhab el Yeoudi” was placed too far to the south (as it is indeed also on the Wilkinson map).

1. The Inscription The inscription found by Lefebvre6 is a dedication to Ammon by the Roman veteran Gaius Valerius Cottus, who had been a soldier in the Legio III Cyrenaica, and was now settling in this place in the Fayoum. Valerius Cottus makes the dedication in his name, the name of his wife, Gaia Valeria, and those of his children. According to the inscription, he rebuilt the sanctuary under the prefect Sempronius Liberalis on 24 Pachon in the 18th year of Antoninus Pius, i. e. on 19 May AD 156. In the absence of any additional evidence, we can ascertain from this inscription only that the village was home to a Roman veteran in the 2nd century AD, and that there existed a temple of Ammon. The inscription has been brought to the Graeco-Roman Museum in Alexandria, where it was registered under the inv. no. 17507, cat. 70.

2. Kharâbat Sha’lân = Polydeukeia (or Sentrempais)? There is no doubt that the village in which the inscription of the Roman veteran was located until the 20th century (Kharâbat Sha’lân) was in the neighbourhood of Theadelpheia and modern Qasr el-Gabali. 5 6

This identification is also entertained by Davoli 1998 L’Archeologiaurbana 330. See note 2.

98

CHAPTER 12: KHARÂBAT SHA’LÂN = POLYDEUKEIA OR SENTREMPAIS?

According to the maps, the village may have been closely connected to Theadelpheia by the road on the ridge. The distance between Theadelpheia and the area of Kharâbat Sha’lân is c. 6 km by road, that between Qasr el-Gabali and Kharâbat Sha’lân c. 5 km. We expect that the village here was abandoned in the 4th century AD like the other settlements in this part of the Themistou Meris (see Chapt. 1), because its main water resource would have been the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, but see below. The most plausible candidate for the identification of Kharâbat Sha’lân with an ancient village mentioned in the papyri is Polydeukeia. Grenfell and Hunt had identified Polydeukeia with modern Qasr el-Gabali,7 the village that marks the bend of the Bahr Nazlah around the limestone plateau that extends from Theadelpheia to the east (see Map VII). Qasr el-Gabali is located high above the Wadi Nazlah, where it reaches its narrowest point. At this bottle neck of the Wadi, the Wilkinson Wall once blocked the water (see Chapt. 7). Both sides of the Wadi are too steep to allow for a ford through the Wadi at this point (the ford was probably situated between Nazlah and Tell el-Kinissa – as it is today, or further to the north; see Chapt. 9). The identification of Polydeukeia with Qasr el-Gabali remains doubtful; instead, I see Polydeukeia further to the west, and on the ridge between Theadelpheia and Qasr el-Gabali, exactly at Kharâbat Sha’lân, for the following reasons: 1. The identification of Polydeukeia with Qasr el-Gabali by Grenfell and Hunt rested mostly on P. Fay. 108 of AD 169/170, which was found in Euhemeria. The text is a complaint about an ambush and robbery on the road from Theadelpheia to Polydeukeia: “To Megalonymus, strategus of the divisions of Themistos and Polemon in the Arsinoite nome, from Pasion, son of Heraclides, from the Hellenion quarter, and Onesimus, son of Ammonius, from the Gymnasium quarter, both pig-merchants of the metropolis. Yesterday, which was the 19th of the present month Thoth, as we were returning from the village of Theadelpheia in the division of Themistos, about dawn we were attacked halfway between Polydeukeia and Theadelpheia by thieves, who bound us and the guard of the watch-tower, and assaulted us with many blows, and wounded Pasion, and robbed a pig, and carried off Pasion’s tunic … “

Grenfell and Hunt argued that for the two pig-merchands, the natural place to pass on their way from Theadelpheia to the nome capital would have been Qasr el-Gabali; this is true if the two walked with their animals as the crow flies. However, there is no way further on to the east and towards the nome capital from Qasr el-Gabali, because of the steep Wadi Nazlah. The only way to travel from here would have been by boat on the Bahr Nazlah, or on foot along the Wadi Nazlah to the south. That the pig-merchands took a boat home is to be expected, since pigs do not like to walk long distances. But they could have caught a boat on the Bahr Nazlah more comfortably by passing over the southern ridge, on which Kharâbat Sha’lân is located; the road down here would have brought them to a harbour on the Bahr el-Nazlah, or even to the one of Philagris (= Hamouli) a short way upstream (see Map XII). A close relationship between Polydeukeia and Philagris seems to be indicated by P. Fay. 34 of AD 161.8 2. While it cannot be excluded that the pig-merchands would have caught the boat at where Qasr el-Gabali is now, there are in my view more arguments against the identification of Polydeukeia with Qasr el-Gabali. In P. Oslo III 89-91 and P. Leit. 14 we hear of the “Drymos of Theadelpheia 7

8

P. Fay. p. 14. That identification has never been doubted afterwards; all maps of the Fayoum give Polydeukeia at the location of Qasr el-Gabali; Talbert 2000 BarringtonAtlas Map 75. See also P. Strasb. VII 606, where the relationship between Polydeukeia and Philagris is unfortunately not clear.

CHAPTER 12: KHARÂBAT SHA’LÂN = POLYDEUKEIA OR SENTREMPAIS?

99

and Polydeukeia”.9 Both P. Oslo III 90 (October AD 138) and 91 (March AD 149) are receipts for taxes paid for fishing rights in the “Drymos of Theadelpheia and Polydeukeia” (the drymos/ drymoi mentioned in ll. 8-9; ll. 7-8). P. Leit. 14 from September AD 148 is a report on fishing in the “Drymos of Theadelpheia and Polydeukeia (ll. 6-7). Clearly Theadelpheia and Polydeukeia shared a drymos in their respective neighbourhoods. This drymos may well have been in the depression between the Bahr Qasr el-Banât where it runs in the east of Theadelpheia, and the limestone ridge, on which Kharâbat Sha’lân is situated. Perhaps the regulations in the lease P. Strasb. V 465, 24-28 (AD 230) show the particular wet environment of at least some of the fields around Polydeukeia: καὶ μετὰ τὸν χρονον πα[ραδ]ώ(σω) τὰς (ἀρούρας) ἥμισυ μὲν μέρος ἀπὸ ἀναπ[α]ύμ[α]τος τὸ δὲ λοιπ(ὸν) ἀπὸ καλάμης καὶ καθαρὸν ἀπὸ [θ]ρύου καλάμου ἀγρώστεως δείσης πάσης …. “and after the time I will return the arourae, half of them being fallow land, the other half being reed, clean of reed rushes, dog‘s tooth grass and any filth.” 3. The assumption that Theadelpheia and Polydeukeia were close together and had the drymos between them is corroborated by the land declaration of P. Sakaon 76 of AD 298. Here a certain Aurelius [ ], son of Nilammon, from Theadelpheia declares to “possess two arouras of private land near the village of Theadelpheia in the eighth toparchy. In the … division, in the allotment called the Double Aroura, two arourae of private seed, total 2 ar., adjacent to which are: [ἀπὸ μὲ]ν ἀνατολῶν διῶρυξ μεθʼ ἣν συνορία Πολυδευκείαϲ, [ἀπὸ δὲ δυσμῶν κλ]ηρονόμων Ῥούφου κτῆσ(ις), “in the east a canal (διῶρυξ), after which is the contiguous boundary of Polydeukeia; in the west the estate of Rufus’ heirs.” The canal to the east of Theadelpheia can only be the Bahr Qasr el-Banât (before it bends to the west); the land further to the east belongs to Polydeukeia, with the drymos apparently in the middle between them. For close links of the two villages see also SB XVIII 13995 of AD 140/141; in this text, fields are not cultivated by force of epimerismos,but in circumstances of re-allocation of arable land in close neighbourhood to each other.10 4. In BGU XIII 2262, 5 the Ψιναλειτὶϲ διῶρυξ is specified as being in the area of Polydeukeia (Ψιναλειτὶϲ διῶρυξ Πολυδευκίαϲ; AD 138-161); cf. also BGU IV 1077, 6 (AD 163)11, and SB XVI 12320 (AD 153). That same canal is attested several times in connection with Theadelpheia and Euhemeria.12 That canal therefore must be the Bahr Qasr el-Banât; on the other hand, the place, where Qasr el-Gabali is now, does not have anything to do with the Bahr Qasr el-Banât. Qasr el-Gabali is on the Bahr el-Nazlah (see Map XII). Polydeukeia had a “contiguous boundary” on the canal with Theadelpheia (see above, P. Sakaon 76). 5. Polydeukeia died out in the 4th century. This is a strong indicator that the village was not located on the Bahr Nazlah, the canal on which villages survived well into the time of Nabulsi and beyond, but that it depended on the irrigation system of the Bahr Qasr el-Banât. Situated on the ridge south of the limestone ledger between Theadelpheia in the west and modern Qasr el-Gabali, it was certainly dependent on the canal to the west of it (the Bahr Qasr el-Banât), even though the Bahr Nazlah was not far away, but running below the level of the village. Whether there ever was a village at the point where Qasr el-Gabali is now, must remain unclear. We did not find any evidence for an ancient settlement on the prominent modern cemetery high above the Wadi Nazlah. There were no traces of ancient pottery here at all. 9 10 11

12

Cf. also P. Giss. Bibl. I 12; PSI III 160; PSI VII 735; P. Wisc. I 37. See Hagedorn, 1986 ‘Flurbereinigung in Theadelpheia?’ 93-100. Unless the village indication in those certificates does not have anything to do with the provenance of the certificates, but rather with the places in which the work had been carried out. Theadelpheia: BGU IV 1076; P. Fay. 77; P. Fay. 78; P. Mich. X 595; P. Münch. III 1; P. Strasb. IV 249d; SB XVI 12597. Euhemeria: P. Hamb. I 75.

100

CHAPTER 12: KHARÂBAT SHA’LÂN = POLYDEUKEIA OR SENTREMPAIS?

3. Polydeukeia13 in the papyrological evidence The village was named after the mythological figure of Polydeuces, the twin brother of Castor; both were worshipped in several Fayoum villages.14 Whether we have here a direct reference to the mythological figure in the name of the village, or a reference to the Alexandrian deme that had been named after the mythological figure before, is not clear.15 The earliest attestation for the village are P. Petrie III 78 and 79dupl. of between 247 and 231 BC, while P. Enteux. 11, where a farmer complains of having been thrown out of his house in Poludeukeia by a clerouch, is securely dated to 221 BC. The latest evidence is in P. Sakaon 76 of AD 295 (see above). The death of Polydeukeia sometime after the end of the 3rd century AD is a strong indicator that the village was not located on the Bahr Nazlah. Between 243 and 217 BC, Polydeukeia had 89 tax-paying inhabitants, therefore being far smaller than Philoteris (719) and Dionysias (732) which are listed in the same document (P. Count. 11, dated between 243 and 217 BC). This is not surprising, because the Hinterland of Polydeukeia on the ridge and surrounded by the drymos in the west, and a fairly steep decline around the Bahr Nazlah in the east, did not allow for agricultural activities as the areas around the two other villages did. The location of Polydeukeia in a swampy area is well visible in a number of papyrus attestations (see above, nos. 2-4). We know more about the financial situation of Polydeukeia between AD 210 and 233 by the archive of the village elders. 47 papyri (all in Strasbourg) contain receipts of taxes paid by the village through its elders to the head of the nome, accounts, a land register, and contracts of lease of land.16 In the 3rd century, Polydeukeia housed a branch (phrontis)of the Appianus Estate, as most villages in the area did.17 In the late first century AD, a wealthy woman Maronis and her son Didymus owned a granary in the village.18 4. Kharâbat Sha’lân = Sentrempais? Grenfell and Hunt were informed about two villages in this area: Haráb-t-el Yahood (“the ruins of the Jews”), and a place called El-Hammam.19 Which of these two was Polydeukeia, and which was Sentrempais, we will never know, unless new evidence turns up. In any case, Polydeukeia and Sentrempais were geographically close. In the papyri, Sentrempais20 is connected to both Theadelpheia and Polydeukeia; with the latter it had a very close relationship, sharing its record-office (γραφεῖον) in the late 1st century AD (P. Fay. 344); their joint grapheion was located at Polydeukeia, which indicates that Polydeukeia was the larger and more important settlement.21 13

14 15 16 17 18 19

20

21

GEO-ID 1887; Wessely 1904 Topographie 127; P. Tebt. II 358 and 397; Calderini IV p. 177-178; Suppl. 1, 229; Suppl. 2, 172; Suppl. 3, 130; Suppl. 4, 112; Suppl. 5, 83. See Chapters 19 on Qouta, and 13 on Theadelpheia. See Clarysse 2005 ‘Toponymy of Fayyum Villages’ 75-78. ArchiveID 253; Graeco-RomanArchives p. 435. Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism 27. Claytor 2013 ‘A Schedule of Contracts’ 77-121, in part. 86. After Murray’s Handbook “To the west of Nezleh are the sites of two ancient towns called Haráb-t-el Yahood (“the ruins of the Jews”), and El Hammâm (“the Baths”); see above p. 97. GEO-ID 2122; Wessely 1904 Topographie137-138; P. Tebt. II 358, 401, 402, 404; Calderini IV 268 (392); Suppl. 1, 235; Suppl. 2, 189; Suppl. 3, 137; Suppl. 4, 118; Suppl. 5, 88; W. Clarysse in Trismegistos – Fayum. Cf. Claytor 2013 ‘A Schedule of Contracts’ 79 with note 9. Claytor observes that no other village has such a high percentage of loans just before the harvest as Polydeukeia (p. 84). This may have to do with a particular difficult location of the settlement.

CHAPTER 12: KHARÂBAT SHA’LÂN = POLYDEUKEIA OR SENTREMPAIS?

101

Sentrempais is attested 64 times in 50 texts between 226 BC (P. LilleDem. II 83) and, probably, AD 300-325 (SB XVI 13001).22 There is no sign of the village after that.23 In the 3rd century AD, Sentrempais kept an office of the Appianus Estate. Its lively connection with Theadelpheia in our evidence may stem from this situation.24 As early as 20 BC, a centurion with the Egyptian name of Anchoriphis was at least related to the village, if not resident. He received a declaration of surety for an indebted villager (P. Oslo II 30). On the map provided by Trismegistos, Sentrempais is already located in the area which once included Kharâbat Sha’lân, but no identification with the place in which the inscription was found is suggested. The name of Sentrempais seems to mean “The sleeping place of Pais”. The Egyptian name may surprise in this location, where we are dealing exclusively with settlements founded by the first Ptolemies, but it is not the only place in this area which has an Egyptian name.25

22 23 24 25

See W. Clarysse on the village in Trismegistos – Fayoum. The last securely dated text mentioning Sentrempais is P. Strasb. I 8 of April 13 AD 272. See Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism 27. See Clarysse 2005 ‘Toponymy of Fayyum Villages’ 69-81, in particular 71.

102

CHAPTER 12: KHARÂBAT SHA’LÂN = POLYDEUKEIA OR SENTREMPAIS?

Photo 12.1: Detail from Map XII, showing the ridge leading to the south from the limestone ledger on which Theadelpheia sits in the west. Sha’lân is located in the far lower right end of the map.

CHAPTER 12: KHARÂBAT SHA’LÂN = POLYDEUKEIA OR SENTREMPAIS?

103

Photo 12.2: The swampy area between the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, and the ridge; view from south-west to north-east.

CHAPTER 13 BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA1 Plan is Photo 13.1; Maps II-III; VI-VII; XI-XII; XIV-XV

Among the sites in the former Themistou Meris, Theadelpheia sadly exhibits best the dramatic changes which have occurred in the ancient settlements in this part of the Fayoum since the beginning of the 20th century [Photo 13.2]. When Francis Kelsey visited here in spring 1920, he walked along avenues which were lined by houses still standing up to their second floors.2

Figure 1: Francis Kelsey visiting Theadelpheia in 1920 (Courtesy Kelsey Museum, Ann Arbor). 1

2

GEO-ID 2349; the exact location is 29°20’48.81’’ N 30°33’47.88’’; besides Trismegistos, the main information about the papyrological evidence for the village is in Calderini II 240-248; Suppl. 1, 135-136; Suppl. 2, 47; Suppl. 3, 47; Suppl. 4, 65; Suppl. 5, 41. For the archaeological site see Davoli 1998L’archeologiaurbana 279-293; Bagnall and Rathbone 2004 EgyptfromAlexandertotheCopts 141-142. The photo is also published in Pedley 2012 TheLifeandWorkofF.W. Kelsey 272; the gentleman beside Kelsey is supposedly B. Grenfell; for the situation of Theadelpheia before the 40s of the 20th century see also Figure 13 in this Chapter.

106

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Today, next to nothing remains of the mud brick structures of the ancient village. On the bleak ground of the huge site some remains of the usual fired brick buildings are left, namely baths, wine production facilities, and parts of other factories. Only two high raised pillars of mostly yellowish mud brick mark the location of the Temple of Pnepheros that was excavated by Breccia in 1912-13 when it was still nearly complete [Photo 13.3].3 Nevertheless, Theadelpheia does deserve a visit; it still shows where the fired brick structures of baths and production facilities were conveniently located in the villages, and how this village was linked to its cemeteries and canals. Description of the Site (see Plan in Photo 13.1) The site consists of two parts: the main site that was once covered by the ancient village, and, to the west of it, the cemeteries of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. The main site measures c. 500 × 650 metres (E-W). It is now surrounded by green land on all sides; very close to the north, the modern canal, the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, passes by [Photo 13.4]. At the north-western corner of the site, a stretch of sandy, now humid surface extends farther to the west by 200 metres; it contains numerous graves cut into the bed rock; this is in all likelihood the Roman cemetery [Photo 13.5]. This stretch of a sandy surface then widens to the west and south, covering an area of c. 270 × 500 metres (E-W), on which a number of larger graves were cut into the bed rock, some of them built over by mud brick structures; this was probably the Ptolemaic cemetery. Further to the north the pottery indicates the remains of more Roman tombs (for the difficulty of dating these tombs see below p. 141). The main site presents itself today as a large plain scattered here and there with holes dug by the sebakhin and with piles of pottery that seem to be insitu only in some places.4 Only the two pillars of yellowish mudbrick stand out just straight ahead from where the entrance now reaches the site; there are remains of a tholos-bath in the west of the pillars (Bath 1), a two storey high building with three vaults to the south-east of the pillars with a second bath in front of it (Bath 2), and four vats that were used for the fermentation of wine in the far south. Further on to the southeast of Bath 2, a dark hill of very hard ashes overlooks the site. From here, the best view is taken over the whole extent of the former village and its adjoining cemeteries to the west [Photo 13.6]. Walking around on the site, one finds some well preserved millstones, parts of what once were small bath houses (pebbled floors with single hip-baths), single small vats the use of which is not clear, and possible fragments of columns and statues (indicated on map with letters A-U). Of the former distinct decoration of houses in this village, still seen by O. Rubensohn in 1902, or of the numerous temples that are attested in the papyri, hardly anything remains. Completely gone is the temple recorded by Grenfell and Hunt in 1899, as well as the Temple of Pnepheros excavated by Breccia in 1912/13, except for the two high pillars in the middle of the site. When the old canals were reactivated at the end of the 19th century, Theadelpheia was the western outpost of the newly created fields, and perhaps therefore suffered more from the sebakhin than Philoteris and Dionysias, which are situated downstream. Theadelpheia’s poor condition is shared by that of Euhemeria, only 3.5 km down the canal (see Chapt. 14).

3

4

Breccia 1918 ‘Teadelfia’ 91-118; id. 1926 LerovineeimonumentidiCanopo. In November 2014, D. Swiech from the team of T. Herbich undertook a last attempt to securely identify the two pillars as part of the temple of Pnepheros by geomagnetic devices. Unfortunately, even the bases around the two pillars have been removed completely. For the identification of the two pillars as part of the Temple of Pnepheros, see below p. 118. For the removal and return of pottery from and to the sites see Bailey 1999 ‘Sebakh, Sherds and Survey’ 211-218.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

107

The Exceptional Geographical Location of Theadelpheia As is evident from some holes dug by the farmers on the western edge of the main site and in the cemeteries, Theadelpheia sits on the limestone range that extends from Qasr el-Gabali in the east to Philoteris and Dionysias in the west (see Chapt. 1 p. 9). At the western fringe of the settlement, the soil now covers the bedrock by only c. 20 cm maximum. The village was set into the angle of the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, where it bends by 90° to the west, after reaching the limestone range.5 Positioned in that angle, Theadelpheia seems to have been the ideal place for measuring the fluctuations of the flood levels (see below for the Temple of Pnepheros); this may have contributed to make this village the centre of administration and tax collection through the centuries. The dynastic name underlines the importance of the settlement. The site lies between 7 and 9 metres above sea level, the elevation of 9 metres being reached nowadays only on a small mound west of Bath 1. Deep depressions over the whole site are sometimes filled with ground water, which raises and falls according to the level of the modern (and old) canal to the south-east and north-east of the site.6 That canal runs at 9.02 m at its bend north-east of Theadelpheia. The ground on which the ancient village rests must have reached a hight above 9 m to be clear from floodings, but most places we see today on the site are somewhat below that level; they have been excavated by the sebakhin nearly down to the bedrock. In any case, the canals around here must have been heavily regulated during flooding times to protect the village from being flooded. Single buildings, like the two mud brick pillars in the centre of the site, and the fermentation vats in the south emerge from the ground now, but had been sunk into the ground by c. 1 m in antiquity. On the other hand, the treading floor at location G in the west, just looking out of the sand, is accompanied by the fermentation vat well below the actual ground by 45 cm (lower rim of vat). Bath J, just south of here sits on the actual surface, as do Bath 1 and 2. The lower ground in the west and east, then under the sand, will have made Grenfell and Hunt calculate much smaller dimensions of the site than what we see today (cf. below p. 114). The dark hill on the eastern fringe of the former settlement (c. 8 m high above the surrounding surface) is not natural; it consists of layers of coagulated shining ashes that are mingled with clotted particles [Photo 13.7]; all material is very light and breaks easily. On a lower level of that hill, clandestine diggers have brought to light piles of fired bricks, partially covered with plaster [Photo 13.8]. Whether these belong to an ancient building underneath here, or had been thrown away, is not clear. Behind the hill to the north, there are several ponds filled with water, one of them showing a particular orange colouring, as in modern industrial salt pans. The hill may have been formed as a product of the salt ebullition taking place here already in antiquity.7 To the south-west of the site, a fertile plain now extends, watered by a side canal of the Bahr Qasr el-Banât. This canal, the Bahr Hafiz, branches off the Bahr Qasr el-Banât at c. 3 km south of Theadelpheia (between km 21 and 22 of the canal, at + 9.69), and rejoins the Bahr Qasr el-Banât at c. 3.5 km west of Euhemeria at the village of Ahmed Bey Nagib (no km-indication here on the map, at + 6.81) (Map XI).8 It passes by Theadelpheia at a distance of c. 1 km to the south-west

5

6

7 8

To reach the limestone range at this angle, the canal has bent slighly before into a north-eastern direction. It must have been the intention of the Greek engineers to have the canal reach the range at this very point north-east of the village of Theadelpheia, so that it could continue from the top of the range further to the west. In January, when the canal is nearly emptied to undergo the annual cleaning process, the water level in those wholes is considerably lower than at other times of the year. For salt in this area see also Chapt. 27, pp. 327-328. A side branch of the Bahr Hafiz divided the ancient village of Theadelpheia from its cemetery; there existed a connection between this side branch and location G on the site, which ascertains the existence of that small canal between village and cemetery in antiquity, and therefore also of the Bahr Hafiz. In the photo of the RAF and on Map XII it looks as if that side branch between village and cemetery departed directly from the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, though.

108

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

(and even closer to the cemetery), whereas it is far more distant from the site of Euhemeria; here the distance is 2 km to the south. The location of this canal is clearly visible on the RAF-Photograph of 1955 (Fig. 2) up to the height of Theadelpheia. It continues through the desert as a well visible feature in north-west direction. On Map VI, this canal is accompanied by one larger lake to the south of it, exactly west of Theadelpheia, and of two smaller lakes, which lie on either side of the Bahr south-south-west of Euhemeria. It seems reasonable to assume that this depression of the fertile plain was used in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods as an overflow during the flooding period to protect the critical point in the flow of the canal at the 90° bend. The alternative scenario of the Bahr Hafiz being the ancient main canal, and the canal on the limestone range being only a modern addition to the scene, seems unlikely, for in that case, the area to the north of Theadelpheia reaching far over to the west of Euhemeria would have been without water supply in the gravity irrigation system. The Bahr el-Misharrak, branching off the Bahr Nazlah north-east of Theadelpheia runs on a much lower level (roughly on the 0 line), while the Bahr Hafiz crosses a depression to the south of Theadelpheia (6-8 m), from where it would have been difficult to lift the water to the level on which the village rested and beyond (c. 9 m). It was probably in this depression that the large drymos formed itself, providing fishing grounds and papyrus marches, of which we hear in the papyri of the Roman period.9 The maintenance of that drymos was a concern for those who enjoyed hunting and fishing rights here throughout the year.

Figure 2: Photo taken by the Royal Air Force in 1955 (Courtesy RAF). 9

See P. Athen 35 (31 March AD 154); P. Lond. III 1170 (AD 259); P. Mich. XI 617 (145/146) this text shows the awareness of the influence of the “most sacred Nile” on the situation of the water supply for the fields and the marshes; cf. P. Mil. I 6 (18 June 26); P. Oslo III 89 (23 October 138); P. Oslo III 90 (23-27 October 138); P. Oslo III 91 = PSI III 160 (26 March 149); P. Ryl. II 98a (154/155); P. Wisc. I 31 (September 147 / May 149); P. Wisc. I 34 and 35 (3 November 144); PSI V 458 (26 April-25 May 155); PSI VII 735 (22 November 138). For the drymos between Polydeukeia and Theadelpheia see Chapt. 12.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

109

D. Bonneau has thoroughly studied the drymoi in the Fayoum, including the Drymos of Theadelpheia.10 I do not share her assumption, though, that the Drymos of Theadelpheia extended from Theoxenis up to west of Philoteris (see her map on p. 189). P. Mil. I 6 (18 June AD 26), on which her argument rests, runs as follows: ἐπιχωρηθέντος μοι βίβλον | φέρειν ἀπὸ συνορίας Θεοξενίδ(ος) | μέχρι ὁρίων Φιλωτερίδος καὶ | φλοῦν ἐκ τοῦ δρυμοῦ καὶ βί|βλον καὶ πλέκειν ψιάθους | καὶ πωλεῖν ἐν αἷς ἐὰν αἱρῶ|μαι τοῦ νομοῦ κώμαις | εἰς τὸ ιβ (ἔτος) | Τιβερίου Καίσαρος | Σεβαστοῦ, ὑφίσταμαι τε|λέσειν … “While I am allowed to carry papyrus from the borderland of Theoxenis up to the landmark of Philoteris, and bark (? of what plant?) from the drymos, and papyrus, and to braid rush-mats, and to sell these in whichever village I want of the nome for the 12th year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, I promise to pay …”. The text implies the extension of the right to carry papyrus from the border of Theoxenis up to where Philoteris starts, rather than the extension of the drymos from one village to the other. The drymos of Theadelpheia did certainly not reach Philoteris, where the respective area to the south of the village is taken up by the Ptolemaic and Roman cemeteries (see Chapt.16). Already at the point where the Bahr Hafiz rejoins the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, the 10 m line comes close to the canal. In the area between the two, Philoteris was founded, its cemetery covering ground above 10 m. There was no room here for the drymos; most likely, the drymos of Theadelpheia extended only over the length of the overflow to the south of Theadelpheia, and – perhaps with interruptions –, farther down to the south to Theoxenis.11 This drymos seems to have been the Drymos of Theadelpheia, while the Drymos of Theadelpheia and Polydeukeia was located to the east of the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, east of Theadelpheia (see Chapt. 12), and the “small and large drymoi” were situated to the north of the village. Thus Theadelpheia was surrounded by water at least in the Roman period, to the north and east by canals, to the south by the marsh, and beyond the canals to the east and north also by marshes. It is difficult to imagine that the overflow in the south (and the other marshes) did not exist in the Ptolemaic period, even though we do not hear of them in the papyri of that time. Only the immediate west provided dry grounds for the cemetery of the village. Drymoi were not only overflows, but also reservoirs which were filled at flooding times, used around the year when needed, and for fishing and hunting. The requests for more water in the drymos, as found in P. Wisc. 31, 34, and 35 (AD 144, 147 and 149) may therefore show that already then the reservoirs could not be filled as expected and as had been the custom before. The last attestation of the Drymos Theadelpheias is from the middle of the 3rd century AD (P. Lond. III 1170 v; AD 259). It must be in connection with or at the Bahr Hafiz, that O. Rubensohn found enigmatic piles of potsherds “some thirty minutes walking west of the site of Theadelpheia” (France p. 93 and 180). Rubensohn then commented: “Die schon mehrfach erwähnte rätselhafte Scherbenhügelstätte wird noch einmal gründlich untersucht und nun stellt sich heraus, dass wir es wirklich nicht mit einer Nekropole zu tun haben, sondern mit einer weitverzweigten Wasseranlage. Es sind hier draußen in die jetzt etwa 1 ½ Stunden vom Fruchtland abliegenden Wüste eine ganze Anzahl antiker Schöpfbrunnen angelegt, die ihr Wasser alle einer großen Röhrenleitung zuführten. Die Röhrenleitung wurde an mehreren Stellen noch intakt aufgedeckt…. Durchmesser der Röhren c. 25 cm.” Unfortunately, Rubensohn does not say in which direction the water was led by those tubes. It is possible that at this point in the Bahr Hafiz, perhaps the lowest in the area, wheels were installed to lift up water necessary for adjoining fields or vineyards on the shore of the drymos. There is evidence for the close neighbourhood of vineyards and reed plantations in the Heroninus Archive (see below Archive 7, and therein c). 10

11

Bonneau 1982 ‘Le drymos, marais du Fayoum’ 181-190, for Theadelpheia in particular 188-190; cf. her ‘Loi et costume en Égypte’ 1983, 1-13. The wording of P. Mil. I 6 can be a further reason to identify Alioun with Theoxenis (see Chapt. 10).

110

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

How to get there Theadelpheia is easiest to reach by following the road along the lake towards Qouta and Qasr Qaroun. Before reaching Qasr Qaroun one turns to the left into the road to the Wadi Rayan, and turns left again at the second crossing, leaving the canal (the Bahr Qasr el-Banât = Bahr Qaroun) on the right-hand side. This road follows the canal for c. 6 km to the village of Ezbet Afifi and to Euhemeria (see Chapt. 14); continue on that road for another 3.5 km and you will see the site of Theadelpheia on your right-hand side. Cross the bridge over the canal at the two standing pillars on the site and park the car there. The site now lies at your feet, showing the remains of Bath 2 to the left (the building behind it standing up to c. 3 metres) and the cemeteries behind the bushes to your right. Pay a visit to the ghafir whose splendid little house directly to the left of the entrance provides a most wonderful vineyard (and a toilet, if needed) [Photo 13.9].

1. The History of the Village, according to the Papyrological Evidence12 Like the other villages around here, Theadelpheia was founded in the first half of the 3rd century BC; it received the name Θεαδέλφεια, from the Divine Sister, by which name Ptolemy II’s wife Arsinoe was venerated from 272/271 onwards.13 The founding or at least the naming of the village should be dated more precisely to the years after that date; compare the bilingual cautionnement P. LilleDem. II 46, where the Demotic says “village of the divine sister” in singular; in that case, perhaps the village was named only after Arsinoe’s divination in 270 BC (W. Clarysse in the forthcoming reedition). The earliest securely dated papyrus mentioning this village stems from 230/229 BC (P. Köln VIII 345); close in time is the bilingual Demotic/Greek text of February/ March 223 or 224 BC (SB XX 14524). The latest securely dated texts are from AD 343 (SB VI 9622 = P. Sakaon 48) and AD 381/382 (P. Col. VIII 237). In many documents, Theadelpheia is named Thraso or Sathro, obviously an Egyptian name of the locality meaning “enclosed area” or “watch tower”. In the Heroninus Archive, both names of the village are in use. In P. Flor. II 129, 131 and 178 the name Theadelpheia was used for the phrontis in letters written to Heroninus, but Thraso in the address on the outside of these letters.14 Since that Egyptian name cannot originate from the time before the Ptolemies – at + 9 m, the area would have been under water – it may have been formed in the period when the land was rising step by step from the swamp, and the canals were dug to the east and north of the location. An outpost may have been installed at this significant place during the early Ptolemaic period, the name of which remained popular later on with the Egyptian population, even though it never occurs in Demotic texts (as W. Clarysse confirms). It is not possible to gain any precise information about the number of inhabitants of Theadelpheia in its early years, since the village does not turn up in the tax registers of P. Count of the 3rd century BC. From P. Count 11, a Greek salt-tax record of between 243 and 217 BC, we only learn that 12

13

14

According to Trismegistos 1613 texts have been found in Theadelpheia, 1090 mention the village. It is impossible to present all these texts and their peculiarities in the framework of this book; after J. France has put his unpublished dissertation on-line in Trismegistos, the repetition of all that has been done already by him seems unnecessary. I will refer to more recent articles on particular topics, and will deal with the archives and the literary papyri found here in more detail further below, where I shall also refer to France’s useful dissertation. See Huß 2001 ÄgypteninhellenistischerZeit 325, or possibly after her death in 270; Caneva 2016 FromAlexander 135-141. See Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism 30; the postman knew the Egyptian name better than the Greek one; see most recently Soldati 2015 ‘Θραϲώ/Σαθρώ’ 143-148.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

111

Theadelpheians had to pay nearly twice as much as guard-tax for the ergasteria as people of Euhemeria, and more than double of the people of Philoteris. Even though the totals of guard-tax do not seem to relate to the numbers of tax-payers of the villages, these numbers show an impressive concentration of ergasteria, workshops under police protection, at Theadelpheia, underlining its vitality at that time. A further indication of the extension of the settlement and of the number of people living here may be gained from the space covered between the two baths that certainly go back to the earlier Ptolemaic period, and were probably located on the fringes of the village at that time, as is the case in Euhemeria and Dionysias. The two high pillars that probably belong to the main temple of Theadelpheia, the Temple of Pnepheros, mark the middle in a square between Bath 1 and Bath 2. The distance between the two lines marked by the two baths is only c. 150 m. Thus, the width of the settlement was far smaller than that of Euhemeria, where baths 1 and 2 lie c. 240 m apart, but, of course, we do not know the extension of Theadelpheia in the north-southern direction from its beginning. The dromos running from the Temple of Pnepheros in a south-south-western direction would have divided a settlement of the early period covering only half of what we see nowadays within the perimetre of the site. Thus, the village may have grown over the centuries from the east towards the cemetery in the west, and to the south, to where the fermentation vats stand. For the middle of the 2nd century AD, the number of inhabitants of Theadelpheia has been calculated as c. 2300, slightly less than Philadelpheia at that time, and slightly more than Karanis.15 The maximum number of inhabitants seems to have been reached in the second half of the 2nd century, when c. 2500 people were calculated to live in Theadelpheia,16 before the plague at the end of that century probably reduced their numbers. According to the Archive of Sakaon, in AD 312 and 336 the population had dropped dramatically to less than 100 persons.17 The decline did not occur within a few years, but the village lingered over the years before it was completely abandoned. All excavators of the site have noticed that the village had been left by its inhabitants in a well organized fashion, step by step, and not in flight, so that the houses coming to light from the sand were stripped of nearly all their equipment. It seems that in the final period of its existence, the village was not called a κώμη anymore, but ἐποίκιον (P. Sakaon 22, II 9; 5 September AD 324).18 The evidence from the pottery finds (see Bailey, Vol. B, p. 13) corroborates that Theadelpheia was abandoned and left to the desert in the course of the second part of the 4th century AD. At that time, the flood would no longer have filled the marshes around Theadelpheia (due to the major breach in the wall between Itsa and Abou el-Nour); without that storage, the village could not survive. As long as the irrigation system worked, there were nearly 2000 ha of land in agricultural use at Theadelpheia, and, as stated above, around the middle of the 2nd century AD, c. 2500 people were living here.19 By that time, the village will have expanded further to the west, beyond Bath 1, so that the main Temple of Pnepheros and its dromos no longer formed the central axe of the settlement. Of the nearly 2000 ha, 7-8 % were vineyards and garden land, often owned by

15

16 17 18 19

Alston 2002 TheCity 332; the figure is based on Rathbone 1990 ‘Villages, land and population’ 103-142, and modified by using Bagnall and Frier 1994 TheDemography103, note 35. For the 30s of the century J. France (1999, p. 223-225), reaches a similar number on the basis of the tax-lists from Theadelpheia. France 1999 225; see footnote 19 below. Cf. Bagnall 1982 ‘The Population of Theadelpheia’ 35-57. Derda 2006 ΑΡΣΙΝΟΙΤΗΣΝΟΜΟΣ 192. Sharp 1999 ‘The Village of Theadelpheia’ 159-192. According to calculations based on papyri, more than half of the land of Theadelpheia was classified as royal land in the mid 2nd century AD (57%), and 41% was private land; only 2% were registered as temple land; see Monson 2012 FromthePtolemiestotheRomans 104.

112

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

women.20 The wine presses surveyed in the south and west, and excavated in the north-east of the site confirm the importance of wine production in Theadelpheia, a special line of production for this village attested also in the Heroninus Archive (see Archive 7). On 40% of the fields wheat was grown at that time, on 22 % lentils (plants relatively resistant to drought), and on 16% fodder crops, the rest being covered by barley and more legumes (P. Berl. Leihg. II 32 from AD 164/165). In comparison with Tebtynis, there was more cattle breeding going on in Theadelpheia, much more oil, and overwhelmingly much more grain was produced here.21 The production of wool on the other hand was a specialty of Tebtynis. Sheep grazed the meadows around Theadelpheia as well, but this village had – different from Tebtynis – no direct borders to the desert, where the frugal sheep would still have found their meal. The area of Theadelpheia with its surrounding marshes was more lucrative for agricultural activities, and even for fishing. It is perhaps significant that the archive concerned with sheep-breeding at Theadelpheia is the latest of the archives known so far, dating between AD 260 and 305. At that time, the situation around the village may already have been subject to serious changes (see below, Archive 10). Again in the 2nd century AD, the time for which we have the best information, M. Sharp has observed a high number of services offered in Theadelpheia along with a high activity in the commercial sector. Millers, sellers of oil, wine and vegetables, butchers, seamsters, goldsmiths, sellers of pickled meat, wool-carders, doctors, and flute-players, were all registered here in some way or another, whether practicing in the village or not.22 All this shows that in the Roman period Theadelpheia had developed into an important centre of activities for agriculture and commerce. A record-office (grapheion) existed here (as in Euhemeria), first attested in 5 BC by P. Gen. 2, 89. Theadelpheia became the centre of administration of the toparchy named after the village (P. Fay. 81; AD 115).23 When the pagi were introduced in the first decade of the 4th century AD, Theadelpheia found itself in the 8th pagus, administered, like the other pagi, by a praepositus, a member of the curial class of the provincial capital. The success of this village until its sad end in the 4th century AD is certainly due to the particular geographical location: between the bends of a canal it was most likely the place for measuring the flood (see below for the Temple of Pnepheros); there may have been a harbour on the canal south-east of the village, from where small boats could leave to, and arrive from, the south.24 The plain to the south offered splendid opportunities for water storage, at the same time providing hunting and fishing grounds. In the 70s of the 3rd century BC, when the Greek engineers named that place Theadelpheia, they may well have recognized its valuable location.

2. Earlier Visitors to the Site, Excavators and Observers: The only witnesses to a Village which is now nearly completely lost The map which Ali Shafei drew after the information taken from An-Nabulsi25 locates “Ihriet el-Maqluba” into the bend of a “sand-blocked canal” which flows past the “ruins” in the east and 20 21 22

23 24

25

Sharp 1999 ‘The Village of Theadelpheia’ 161 and 180-184; for the 3rd century 25% have been calculated. France 1999 462. Sharp 1999 ‘The Village of Theadelpheia’ 165 with note 29; see also Casanova 1975 ‘Theadelpheia e l’archivio di Harthotes’ 70-118. Dionysias was also an administrative centre (P. Lond. II 295), as well as Herakleia (BGU III 755). The industrial zone on the eastern fringe of the village with the hill of dark ashes probably piled up in salt production makes such an arrangement for transportation likely. The map is accessible in the Internet at “Rural Society in Medieval Islam: History of the Fayyum”, Queen Mary, University of London.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

113

north, exactly as the modern canal does. This may reflect the situation of Shafei’s time (1940); at any rate, that canal must have been in use or at least visible at his time, but it is strange that he calls that canal “sand-blocked”. Wilkinson put “Hareet” on his map (Maps II and III) to the south-east of “Qasr el Benat” (= Euhemeria), an surprisingly precise location; at his time, both sites were far away from any irrigation system. In addition to indicating the exact location, Wilkinson also commented on the mounds of “Hereet” as “presenting remains of brickwork, but no ruins”.26 They were all covered by the sand then. As usual in this area, Grenfell and Hunt were the first to take any interest in the excavation of the site. They moved to Harît, called after the nearest hamlet,27 towards the end of January 1899, having finished with Euhemeria (see Chapt. 14), and started excavating at the cemetery to the west of the site; to them this cemetery seemed much more extensive than the one at Euhemeria, and they worked here for three weeks (see below for the cemetery and the classification of tombs).28 At this time, the main village was only a sandy hill surrounded by desert, 1.5 miles away from the green land, and with its highest point in its northern part (probably the site of the temple of Pnepheros that was later excavated by Breccia).

Figure 3: Theadelpheia as seen by Grenfell and Hunt in 1899 (Courtesy EES).

26 27 28

Wilkinson 1847 Murray’sHandbook 255. ArchaeologicalReport 1898-1899, 10; the village to the north still exists under that name. ArchaeologicalReport 1898-1899, 10; P. Fay. pp. 54-55.

114

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Grenfell and Hunt observed that the size of the site they visited in the late 19th century was smaller than Euhemeria (400 × 400 m), whereas the size now visible of Theadelpheia and defined by scattered pottery is larger in both directions (500 × 650 m). It is therefore doubtful that the temple they recognized “outside the village by c. 30 yards to the west” was in fact “outside the village” or even outside the site. Of that temple nothing seems to remain.29 Grenfell and Hunt lamented the scarcity of papyri they found in the houses (P. Fay. p. 51-52). The main areas, where they finally found impressive numbers of papyri were: 1. “near the local temple”30 in the west; papyri from the late Ptolemaic and early Roman periods; here also the famous plough was found (Archaeological Reports 7 p.12; P. Fay. Plate IX b), later kept in the Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria. 2. a rubbish heap in the north-east corner of the site; papyri nearly all dating to the 2nd century AD. “Possibly this was where the local archives were kept” commented Grenfell and Hunt (P. Fay. p. 52). In 1902 Otto Rubensohn took interest in the ancient village. He came here to dig for papyri for the “Generalverwaltung der Berliner Königlichen Museen”.31 Like Grenfell and Hunt he calls the kom “Batn-Harît”.32 Houses still stood up to 5 metres, but were absolutely empty, as if abandoned by their owners on their own will and over time (p. 1). Rubensohn’s description of the houses of Theadelpheiaon pp. 1-15 belongs to the most thorough studies of dwelling places of the Graeco/ Roman period in Egypt. The walls of the houses were built from mud bricks of a light brown colour (that is rather from clay bricks), with heavy additions of straw, and of an impressive size. The bricks measured 40 in length, and 10 cm in width, the walls being 50-80 cm thick and 1-1 ½ bricks wide.33 Wooden beams, and palm trunks, were inserted into the walls to give them greater firmness.34 Stone houses were rare; Rubensohn mentions only one structure, in which the doorposts in the form of Ionian columns and the lintel were made of limestone;35 above the capitals, a frieze was running showing the head of a man between acanthus leaves, a work similar to “koptische gleichartige Arbeiten”. On the other hand, Rubensohn calls the stone capitals and beams “saubere Arbeiten” of the Roman period. What he describes seems to be a rather elaborate style of decoration of particular parts of houses (see in particular p. 2). Rubensohn drew plans of two houses; House 1 (his Fig. 2; plan not complete; exact location on the site not given) consists of three rooms and a staircase; the niches and windows in the square room next to the staircase, are paralleled in other houses; some of the niches were framed by slim pilasters with bases and capitals; it is not clear what purpose those niches served. Rubensohn leaves it open whether they divided the walls into harmonious sections, or contained images or sculptures 29

30

31 32 33

34

35

P. Fay. p. 52. There is an area of remarkably many fragments of limestone, c. 50 m west of Bath 1. These could be the remains of the temple that Grenfell and Hunt saw “outside the village”, if they did not recognize the real extension of the site as seems to be the case. Since Grenfell and Hunt describe that temple as “smaller” than that of Euhemeria (Archaeological Report 1898-1899 12), they cannot mean here the temple of Pnepheros found later by Breccia. Report in Rubensohn 1905 ‘Aus Griechisch-römischen Häusern’ 1-25. See above, footnote 27. The mud bricks visible in the two standing pillars in the middle of the site are partially of the same colour and make, but bricks from dark mud and the described yellow ones alternate here. In Philoteris, we observed the same kind of mixed black and yellowish bricks in the south east corner of the site near the Hellenistic bath and in some other houses (Chapt. 16, Photo 25 p. 250), as well as in Alioun in the construction of what was probably a granary (Chapt. 10, pp. 74-75). Such enforcement of walls can be seen in many of recently excavated houses in Tebtynis and Narmouthis; for wooden enforcements of walls in the Graeco-Roman period, see Husselman 1979 TheTopography34-35. Cf. the “villa” excavated by Lefebvre; see below p. 115-116.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

115

(p. 4). Due to the fragmentary condition of the plan of House 1 given, it is not possible to compare the layout of this house with the layout of houses in Alioun (see Chapt. 10) or Tebtynis. The staircase shows that it had more than only the groundfloor. House 2 was larger (see his Fig. 6; plan not complete; exact location on the site not given) and consisted of six rooms and the staircase; the special interest of this house lies in the frescoes found in its largest room (c. 6 × 5 m). This room showed three niches on every wall, the middle niche being taller than those to the right and left. The oldest layer of plaster was decorated as if showing the wall made of bricks and white joints;36 a second layer showed decorated ribbons on a dark blue and green background with little flying figures in their mids, similar to decorations of the IV Pompeian Style (p. 7).37 In the niches of this room frescoes represented Isis with a rudder (= Isis-Fortuna), Persephone and Demeter, and other divinities not securely identified, and warriors.38 Though not of high quality, these frescoes show an interest in creating a fashionable dwelling in the countryside of the Fayoum. Rubensohn’s assumption that we are dealing here with a house run by the government (p. 15) is not supported by any firm evidence. The extravagant decoration of the house may have signalled to the beholders the same social aspiration of a private owner as would bookrolls of Homer and other poets on the bookshelves of his house. The person living here wanted to be recognized as dedicated to Greek culture.39 P. Jouguet visited here in 1902 and gave a description of the environment of the site.40 From here, the scarce vegetation of the land towards the lake in the north, and the green land of the central plateau were visible at some distance in the east, while the site itself was still completely surrounded by desert. G. Lefebvre, the Inspecteur en chef du Service des Antiquités at the time, gave an expanded report on the newly found Greek decrees of asylia from Theadelpheia in 1910.41 Searching for the temple of Pnepheros, to which the stelae belonged, he came to the conclusion that a certain building, partially made from mud bricks, and partially from fired bricks42 once was the temple of the crocodile god, and that the “temple” was transformed into a winepress at a later stage. Apart from the fact that this would be the only example of a transformation of a temple into a factory of whatever kind well before Christianity became predominant in the Fayoum, the excavations of E. Breccia in the following years brought the real Temple of Pnepheros to light. Most likely, Lefebvre’s “temple” was a wine factory from the beginning; its location remains unclear, but it seems that Lefebvre found that building in the northern part of the village,43 describing the “temple’s” location as “à quelque distance aux champs cultivés”. The photograph given by Lefebvre (his Pl. IV) does not help, but we see that we are close to the fringe of the ancient site, while the green line in the background probably marks the bank of the newly activated canal in the north. Lefebvre’s building (here Fig. 4) contained three fermentation vats (in rooms L and M respectively; “room” B) and the connected treading floors (between rooms L and M; “room” E) in a 36 37 38

39

40 41 42 43

Cf. the wall decoration in the Hellenistic bath at Philoteris, dated most likely to the 2nd century BC; Chapt. 16, pp. 224-225. Second half of 1st century AD. See also Rubensohn 1902 ‘Griechisch-römische Funde’ 47-48 with Abb. 1 and 2; Filges 1997 StandbilderjugendlicherGöttinnen 130 und 286 with Pl. 211; Rondot 2013 Derniersvisages64. For such individuals see P. Cair. Mich. II Introduction. For a recent find of wall decorations of the Roman period at Amheida see Mcfadden (forthcoming) ArtontheEdge:TheLateRomanWallpaintingofAmheida, (on-line on the webpage of the Amheida Project). P. Thead. 9-11. ‘Égypte gréco-romaine II’ in particular 162-167. The two inscriptions are referred to below under Inscriptions 15-17. Lefebvre’s map (PL. IV) indicates only “brique” and “pierre”, the latter obviously meaning “fired bricks”. Lefebvre gives no precise location, although he seems to have known where the two asylia decrees had been found (1910 ‘Égypte gréco-romaine II’ 167).

116

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Figure 4: G. Lefebvre’s “Temple” refurbished into a wine press (from 1910, Pl. III).

space of 26 × 18 m; room A is remarkable for its four columns of limestone, but Lefebvre also found here “des claies (“grates”) en palmier, couvertes encore de raisins” (p. 170). With the identification of the fermentation vats at the southern fringe of the site (see below), and our discovery of yet another wine press in the west of the village (see below G), we have now three areas that were dedicated to the production of wine in Theadelpheia at a certain time, a scenario which fits well the situation illustrated by the Heroninus Archive in the 3rd century AD. Unfortunately, none of the three installations found insitu can be securely dated. E. Breccia worked in Theadelpheia in 1912/13;44 his main aim was to find and excavate the Temple of Pnepheros which featured so prominently in the then newly found asylia stelae (see Inscriptions 15-17). His excavation was the only enterprise after O. Rubensohn’s work on the site, yielding impressive information on structures, finds of small und large sculptures, and frescoes. Thanks to Breccia’s discoveries in the temple, the real importance of the settlement became clear. 44

Report first published in Lefebvre 1918 in BSAA 16, 1918, 91-118; in nearly the same wording again in 1926 Le rovineeimonumentidiCanopo 87-129.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Figure 5: The Temple of Pnepheros according to Breccia’s plan (from 1926, Tav. LI).

117

118

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

The temple which Breccia excavated was oriented towards the south,45 not perfectly, as Breccia says, but “il nord formava, coll’ asse mediano dell’ edificio, un piccolo angolo a sinistra”. I understand that the temple was aligned in a south-south-western direction, which corresponds to the alignment of Bath 1, and of one of the buildings excavated by Lefebvre. The well-preserved part of the eastern high raised pillar (see below) has an alignment of 5-6° to the south-south-west; if it really belongs to the former temple, we would therefore have the general alignment of the temple, and of the village as a whole. Unfortunately, Breccia does not give any general map of the site, but only a plan of the temple of obviously somewhat reduced scale (Tav. LI; here Fig. 5).46 On this plan, he indicates a wide road leading from the main gate of the temple towards the village; that must have been the dromos, dividing the settlement in two halves, as in Soknopaiu Nesos, Dionysias, Narmouthis, Tebtynis, and probably in Euhemeria. Except for the two pillars on the site, and the limestone gates and the sanctuary made of limestone, now in the Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria, the Temple of Pnepheros is nearly completely gone, and we have to follow Breccia’s description, plan and photographs; from these emerges the image of an impressive building with large courtyards following each other and narrowing down in size the closer one advanced towards the sanctuary; several of its inner walls were adorned by coloured frescoes.

Figure 6: The Temple of Pnepheros as seen from the entrance gate by Breccia (in the second gate) in 1912/1913 (from 1926 Tav. LIV). 45

46

There is no doubt that the temple had its entrance in the south; describing the third courtyard, Breccia talks about “three openings in its northern wall”! Cf. also his description of the second courtyard of which the “southern wall” had two openings to plant trees. This is the wall of the second courtyard which points towards the first large courtyard (p. 109); Tavv. LIV and LV. The measures indicated by him do not correspond exactly to the scale measures given on the plan on his Tav. LI cf. note 3 on p. 87. According to the Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche del Mondo Antico dell’ Università di Pisa, there is no plan of whatever nature of the site of Theadelpheia preserved in Breccia’s papers. I visited the Archive in March 2017.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

119

The temple consisted of a propylon, a large courtyard, a second and a third smaller courtyard, a vestibule, and the sanctuary proper. It was largely built from mud bricks of a yellowish colour and stretched over 50 m in a south-northern direction. The walls did not exceed 5.25 m. This fits the observation that the two remaining pillars (the higher one of c. 6 m height from the surface) were once sunk in the ground by at least 0.80 m (cf. Photo 13.10). Splendid features of this temple were (walking from the entrance in the south towards the north): 1. two lions in front of the main gate with demotic inscriptions (his Tav. LII 1 and 2; Inscription 30);

Figure 7: View from the south into the Temple of Pnepheros with the two lions to the right and left of the entrance gate (Courtesy Archivio Breccia – Collezioni Egittologiche dell‘Università di Pisa; Ms 117-006).

2. the main gate made of limestone with an inscription (Tav. LIII 1; Inscription 6), and its wooden door (Tav. LIII 2 and 3), once kept in the Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria (Inv. GRM 19682);47 3. frescoes in the room west of the main entrance, one depicting a procession with the crocodile god (Tav. LXIV 3); 4. the “well” in the main courtyard equipped with stairs leading down to the water and a wooden door at the upper end of the stairs (Tav. LIV); the walls were made of limestone; the perimeter of the round water basin was c. 2 m, the stairs measured about 1 m in width. The little door at the entrance of that installation was adorned by a wooden lintel with “rozze figure di 47

A colour picture of the limestone parts of the temple (gates and inner sanctuary) in the former garden of the Graeco-Roman Museum, now completely dismantled, is given in Hassan 2002 Alexandria,Graeco-RomanMuseum65.

120

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Figure 8: The gate to the sanctuary of the Temple of Pnepheros, as shown in the garden of the Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria (Courtesy Archivio Breccia – Collezioni Egittologiche dell‘Università di Pisa; Ms 117-005).

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Figure 9: Drawings by E. Breccia of the gates in the Temple of Pnepheros (Courtesy Archivio Breccia – Collezioni Egittologiche dell‘Università di Pisa; Ms 115-001).

121

122

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

divinità egiziane” “primitive figures of Egyptian deities”.48 Breccia’s guess that this was a nilometre,49 is corroborated by the decoration of the inner sanctuary of the temple;50

Figure 10: The main gate seen from the inside of the temple; to the right, the entrance to the well (Courtesy Archivio Breccia – Collezioni Egittologiche dell‘Università di Pisa; Ms 117-002).

5. a votive pillar in the main courtyard marking the assembly point of the goose-breeders of Theadelpheia from 7 March 102 BC (Inscription 8); 6. two sphinxes in front of the entrance to the 2nd courtyard (Tav. LV 1 and 2), formerly in the Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria; 7. the wooden stretcher of the crocodile god used in processions (as presented in the Praeneste Mosaic), left in the third courtyard (Tavv. LV 1 and LVI 1 and 2); 8. numerous fragments of wooden sculptures, in part preserving stucco and gildings, in the same third courtyard (pp. 109-110), e.g. a young Harpocrates (Tav. LXXIV 3; GRM Inv. 19689), 48 49

50

Breccia 1926 LerovineeimonumentidiCanopo 106. P. 106 “forse aveva pure la funzione di misurare il grado di crescita delle acque d’inondazione”. This “well” may have been connected to the canal in the east of the village, while the waterflow would have been redirected to the same canal in the north of the village. The decoration of the sanctuary of the crocodile god supports this interpretation of the “well”. Unfortunately, our attempt to find any traces of an ancient water-course in the presumed area of the old temple by geomagnetic devices in November/December 2014 was not successful. See now Römer 2018 ‘A Nilometer at Theadelpheia?’.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

123

a Hecate (LXXIV 1; 32 cm high; GRM Inv. 19690);51 a crocodile’s head (LXXIV 6);52 a head of a ruler with the crowns of upper and lower Egypt (Tav. LXXIV 10); fragments of uraeus friezes (Tav. LXXIV 4), et al.; all these objects went to the Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria. proceeding further to the sanctuary Breccia found some frescoes on the walls, covering older frescoes underneath; on the right side: a god in military uniform, not the god Heron!,53 standing in front of his horse and offering a libation over an altar; with him is a black servant, a victory descends from above, below appears a small mummified crocodile (LVII and LVIII; Inscriptions 25 and 26; GRM Inv. 20223). On the left wall (as it seems), a second fresco showed a god on horseback, in his uniform and spilling a libation; above, there was a second figure also dressed as a soldier, but much smaller than the god on his horse (Tav. LIX; GRM Inv. 20225);54 below a mummified crocodile with Atef-crown rests on a wooden bier. Cf. the frescoes found at Magdola by Lefebvre of which we only have the watercolours by Madame Jouguet and the descriptions by Jouguet.55 two inscriptions (Inscriptions 25 and 26); in one of the lateral rooms, Inscription 27; in the vestibule the walls were decorated with frescoes in at least two layers; the lower layer showed pictures of divinities, interpreted by Breccia as Sarapis and Chnum (p. 116; Tav. LXI 2); the sanctuary proper with a limestone altar shows three openings for three mummies of crocodiles (Tavv. LX; LXII 2); two of the three vaulted openings have colourful decorations painted on the stucco behind the crocodile mummy: the one to the left shows a crocodile with the head of a ram = Chnum (Tav. LXIV 2; here Figure 11); the middle niche gives the wellknown scene of the two Hapis (the god of the Nile flood) uniting upper and lower Egypt, and between the two figures, the crocodile god with a human body and the crocodile’s head (Tav. LXV 3; here Figure 12). This scene in the central and left parts of the sanctuary underlines the importance of the temple and its god for the arrival of the flood in the Fayoum, and corroborates the interpretation of the “well” in the first courtyard as a nilometre. around the altar: a limestone statue of Serapis (Tav. LXV 4; Kater-Sibbes, No. 74; Alexandria, National Museum), and a bust of Serapis, made of gypsum and vividly coloured (Tav. LXVI); in the rooms to the right and left of the sanctuary: some small crocodile mummies, of which only one measured more than 1 m.56

According to the inscription on the lintel of the main entrance gate between the two lions, at least that part of the temple dated to the second century BC, but the temple itself probably belonged 51 52 53

54 55 56

Also shown in: Lagloired’Alexandrie 1998, 28. Cf. Frankfurter 1998 ReligioninRomanEgypt 154, note 39. I have shown that the two gods on the facing walls in this temple are not two presentations of the god Heron, but of the Dioscuri, as in Magdola, and on other objects; see 2016 ‘The Gods of Karanis’. For the former interpretation as the god Heron see Moormann 2012 DivineInteriors 113-114; Rondot 2013 Derniersvisages Tav. 19 and 20; for the god Heron and his presentation in Egypt in general see LIMC V 392, No. 1 (E. Will), and Rondot Derniers visages 311-340. Similar presentations of the god are found on wooden tablets that may also come from Theadelpheia, see Nachtergael 1996 ‘Trois dédicaces’ 129-142, with an addition on p. 310; Rondot 152-156. LIMC V 392, No. 2; Rondot 2013 Derniersvisages Tav. 21. 1902, 113 and note 1; Rondot 2013 Derniersvisages 49-52 and Tav. 18. About the breeding and offering of small crocodiles we now know more by the find of the crocodile nursery in Narmouthis (Temple C; 2nd century BC), where numerous eggs and newly-born crocodile babies were found in a basin in a room next to the sanctuary of the temple; cf. Bresciani 1999-2000 ‘L’Università di Pisa in Egitto’ 105-112; with a somewhat different description of the location, ead. 2005 ‘Sobek, Lord of the Land of the Lake’ 199-206, Pl. 8.1.

124

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Figure 11: The crocodile god with the head of a ram (from Breccia 1926, Tav. LXIV 2).

Figure 12: The god of the Nile Flood, Hapi, uniting Upper and Lower Egypt (Courtesy Archivio Breccia – Collezioni Egittologiche dell‘Università di Pisa; Ms 116-006).

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

125

already to the layout of the village from the beginning. This is probably the temple mentioned in P. Sakaon 93, the guards of which are the only dwellers in the village at the latest stage of its existence. Dedicated to the crocodile god, as shown by the altar and its decoration, we would expect it to be the main temple of Theadelpheia. The nilometre in the large courtyard and the presentation of the crocodile god with the head of a ram representing Chnum, the god of Elephantine and ruler of the inundation, must have made this temple, and therefore Theadelpheia, a centre to express people’s hopes for the right measures of the flood.57 Breccia did find neither the Boubasteion in the south of the temple, nor the cemetery of the sacred animals in the north that were to be expected in those locations according to the asylia inscriptions (p. 123).58 He located instead what he called a bath in the north of the temple, a building measuring c. 16 × 20 m and made of mud bricks (pp. 123-124; Tav. LXIX). One entered that building from the north and reached a hall of which the roof was supported by four columns with Corinthian capitals (Tav. LXVIII 2). Opposite the door, a corridor led towards some rooms in the southern part of the building. To the right and left of that corridor, two basins opened after a step of c. 30 cm, one rectangular, the other with an apse (both measuring c. 2.30 × 2.40 m); from the step both basins descended down by 1.80 m; one could enter those basins by three steps inside the basins made of limestone. Breccia continues to describe the means by which those basins were connected to a well: “Per mezzo di due condutture di piombo il fondo della vasca communicava con un canaletto lungo nove metri, scavato in direzione parallela della parete della sala e communicante con un pozzetto quadrato.” This little square well is obviously not drawn on the map provided on Tav. LXIX, and it is not clear where those two tubes were running exactly, nor can we understand whether by those tubes water was brought into the basins, or was led out (according to the decline of the tubes from above or to below). The walls between the two basins were plastered and painted, in the lower, 2 m high register, with imitations of wood (“rather than marble”); on the walls to the immediate right and left of the two basins trelliswork was painted like that found in gardens. Whereas the plastered and painted walls of the square basin were nearly completely ruined, the other one still preserved large parts of its inner decoration of columns, imitations of wood or marble, a shell, and a water bird. Altogether, the function of this building as a bath, as Breccia thought, is not obvious. The building material of mud bricks and the rooms in front of, and behind the basins are alien to the usual bath architecture. To me, this building looks like a nymphaeum rather than a bath. To the east of that “nymphaeum”, Breccia found the remains of a large fresco in a house showing the Dioscuri and Helena as Selene between them, all figures being c. 50 cm high (pp. 124-126; Tav. LXI 1);59 the artistic level is rather poor. Around the three main figures were smaller representations of Harpocrates, Hermouthis (?), and a warrior who could not be identified. Breccia also found (pp. 128-131) some sculptored friezes, some of them from the area of the “nymphaeum”, and from the houses, the usual terracottas presenting Harpocrates, Isis, animals, and even an elephant (Tav. LXX – LXXIII); furthermore, some wooden objects were recovered somewhere in the village (Tav. LXXV), and a large number of coins, in particular a hoard of more than 2300 pieces from the time of Constantine and Constantius (p. 131).

57

58

59

It is surprising though that the name Neilos is not well represented in the onomastic statistics of the village, where Heron, the crocodile god and Herakles have an overwhelming majority; see France 1999 287-289 and conclusion on p. 297. The “cemetery of the sacred animals” may have been a house behind the temple, where mummified crocodiles were laid to rest, as in Philoteris, where a stone building behind the temple contained a lot of crocodile bones (see Chapt. 16). Rondot 2013 Derniersvisages64, Tav. 31, and pp. 252 and 271.

126

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

S. Yeivin, the Director of the Israel Department of Antiquities from 1948 to 1961, who visited the Fayoum at unknown dates (before 1930), described several facilities for water management on the site.60 He saw “fountain houses” in the middle of the streets, made of limestone and featuring front and rear wooden doors, and stone floors, buildings much more elaborate than similar ones at Bacchias, as he said. Yeivin dated those installations to the Ptolemaic period. Since nothing of these buildings remains, we can only guess what those elaborate “fountain houses in the middle of streets” were. Can they have been kiosks on the dromos? Yeivin identified the three-vault building in the east of the site as part of a bath house (we now know that this building is of a later date than the tholos bath in front of it; see below pp. 129-130). Yeivin’s visits cannot have taken place long after Breccia had left the site. On the photograph of the three-vaulted building, ruins of houses are still standing high in the background (his Pl. after p. 104, 4; here Figure 13).

Figure 13: The three-vaulted building seen from the east by Yeivin 1930; in the far background to the right perhaps the Temple of Pnepheros.

In 1932, a wooden (sycomore) statue of a seated Sarapis was “found” at Theadelpheia by the Service des Antiquités.61 The inventory book of the Graeco Roman Museum in Alexandria (Inv. 23352), to where the statue was brought, does not indicate where on the site the statue was unearthed. It was probably found by clandestine diggers and confiscated by the authorities. Despite its uncomplete condition this is one of the most impressive representations of the god, measuring nearly 2 metres in hight, and preserving dark green and red paint on the chiton and chimation respectively. The statue is dated to the 2nd century BC. 60

61

1930 ‘The Ptolemaic System of Water Supply’ 27-30, with Pl. after p. 104, 4. The photo shows the three-vault building, in this Chapter Fig. 13. Thus indicated by Bakhoum 1971 ‘Une statue en bois’ 65; the statue features in Kater-Sibbes, 1973 Preliminary CatalogueNo. 75, p. 15; most recently a splendid colour photo was given in Goddio and Fabre 2017, Osiris 201.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

127

3. Architectural Remains still Standing on the Site (from North to South) a) The two high mud brick pillars, belonging to the Temple of Pnepheros Approaching the site from Euhemeria, one observes the two high pillars first. They stand between Baths 1 and 2 (see above for the size of the original settlement). Today, the eastern pillar still reaches a hight of c. 6 m, while the western one has been reduced recently to mere 3 metres. Both pillars are made of mud bricks of a yellowish colour with much straw mixed in.62 In the lower registers, dark and yellow mud bricks alternate. No line of bricks that reaches out into any direction from these high buildings is found anymore on the ground. It seems rather that all the foundations have been removed and that the pillars we see now were at least 1 m in the ground, before the base was removed by the sebakhin. At c. 80 cm above the modern surface one can observe a change of colour of the mud bricks to lighter tones in some places. That may be the line which was reached once by the surrounding ground [Photo 13.10]. The eastern pillar exhibits an outer (eastern) side, which is aligned to the north-east by 5-6° against north. This outer side is the only part of the pillar that still shows its original surface (see Photo 13.3); all the other sides are broken off or damaged by animals (there is a vivid occupation of hornets in deep holes of this pillar). The two parts of the pillar, one stretching to the west, the other to the south from the corner are not equally broad; they measure 1.10 m and 70 cm respectively. It seems that there was also a wall stretching out to the north. Taking into consideration not only the alignment of the pillar at its well preserved side, its material and hight (see above on E. Breccia’s excavation), but also the location in the middle between the two baths on the site, it is highly probable that these are remains of the Temple of Pnepheros, which together with its dromos once formed the main middle axe of the village. The two pillars may fit into the inner sanctuary of Breccia’s plan of the temple, east of the “vestibolo”. b) The Two Tholos-Baths at Theadelpheia63 The two baths are located at the western (Bath 1) and eastern (Bath 2) original fringes respectively in the northern part of the village. The fringe location is a returning pattern in the Graeco-Roman villages in the Fayoum and elsewhere.64 Bath165 This bath was located at what was the western edge of the ancient village in its beginning and is clearly visible when one enters the site from the main northern entrance at the canal. The layout of this bathing facility closely resembles that of Bath 2 in Euhemeria (see Chapt. 14), though it is even less well preserved. In Theadelpheia we have the substructures of two tholoi, A and B, but remains of altogether only four hip-baths survive. The floor of the corridor west of 62 63

64

65

Mud bricks measure 31 × 16 × 10 cm. The following paragraph about the baths in Theadelpheia closely follows the description of the baths in Römer 2013 ‘The Greek Baths in the Fayoum’ 223-231; the building with the three vaults at Bath 2 has been identified as not belonging to the original bath by Th. Fournet. The plans given here in this volume are revised versions of my plans as provided by Redon and Fournet 2017 CollectiveBaths (see below). In this volume see Euhemeria (Chapt. 14, pp. 179-184), and Dionysias (Chapt. 18); the reason for the location of baths on the fringes seems obvious: it was here that water could most easily be brought to, and taken away from the baths in connection with the canals. Fournet and Redon 2017 CollectiveBaths 429, No. 31 (B 292, F 66).

128

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

the tholoi extends nearly the complete length of their north-south extent. The two tholoi are connected by their entrances to the corridor, and may also have been connected to a corridor on the east side, which is not preserved. The floors of the tholoi and the corridor are constructed of mortar, the floors of the tholoi sloping towards the corridor by 10-15 cm, while the corridor itself slopes by more than 30 cm from south to north.66 As in Bath 2 at Euhemeria, there is a horseshoe-shaped small water reservoir between the two tholoi and the corridor, and a second larger reservoir below the level of the corridor close to the entrance to tholos B. These reservoirs were obviously connected by a water channel as in Bath 2 in Euhemeria, but we were unable to clear the reservoirs in order to understand the openings for tubes between the two.

Figure 14: Bath 1 (Plan of the archaeological survey by C. Kirby and P. Brosch) [Photos 13.11 + 13.12].

The lay-out of this bath closely resembles that in Karnak67, leading us to date also this building to the earlier Ptolemaic period. The bath in Karnak seems to have a secure terminus ante quem of 140-114 BC. 66 67

This certainly indicates that the surplus of water and the dirty water were led towards the north from the bath. Boraik 2009 ‘Ptolemaic Baths’ 73-86.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

129

Bath268 The most prominent building in Theadelpheia is a construction of fired bricks with three vaults and still standing to a height of more than three metres [Photos 13.13]; it is situated on the eastern edge of the site, about 180 m to the south-east of Bath 1. S. Yeivin considered this building to be part of a bathing facility, without giving any further interpretation regarding in what way it might have been used.69 The building consists of a row of three vaults, under each of which a reservoir is dug to a depth of about one metre into the ground. On top of the building, three flat reservoirs are connected to each other by small openings in the dividing walls. Two of the ground floor reservoirs are square and located side by side, while the third one is larger and projects beyond the western outline of the building; the vault covers only two thirds of this third container, thus leaving the eastern corner uncovered. About 10 m to the west of this building we discovered a tholos with hip-baths, of which we were then allowed to clear a small area [Photo 13.14]. About 10 m to the south of this tholos, there are remains of four single immersion bathtubs. There is no doubt that this once was an extensive bathing facility, probably larger than Bath 1 on the western edge of the village. In my article about the baths in the Fayoum (see footnote 63), I argued that the building with the three vaults belonged to the bath in front of it. It has now been established by Th. Fournet that the three vault building is certainly of a later date, when the whole building was reused for a different purpose; see [Photo 13.15], and plan by Th. Fournet [Photo 13.16]. As for the purpose of the reservoirs on top of the building, I proposed that the water was lifted from the lower large reservoir at the north end of the building, where the upper wall is set back in the east, up to the top of the building and was then poured into the upper reservoirs; the open northeastern corner of the building above the lower northern reservoir provided space for some attendant to let down and pull up a bucket which had been filled in the lower reservoir. On the walls in this corner, there are remains of ledges, which might have held a balcony-like wooden construction on which the attendant stood while lifting the water [Photo 13.17]. Since the open reservoirs on top of the building are so shallow, it cannot have taken long to warm or even heat the water, at least in summer [Photo 13.18]. Was this an easy way to secure the supply of hot water without the need of any fuel? Two of the shallow reservoirs on top reveal openings in the west wall facing the tholos; if warm water was wanted or needed, it could probably have been let down here in tubes or skin bags. What kind of a factory could this have been, where hot, or at least warm water was needed, if it was not a bath? For the purpose of the lower containers, it may be of interest that all three of them show broad vertical stripes in black colour on their right and left inner walls respectively [Photo 13.19]. The building with three vaults in Theadelpheia is made of solid fired bricks and entirely plastered with opus signinum and therefore clearly dates to the Roman period. The tholos with hipbathtubs was certainly earlier. As for Euhemeria, we do not have any hint for the exact dating of any of the bathing facilities in the village, except for a terminuspostquem given by the date of the foundation of the settlement, around 270 BC.70 Here again, papyri and ostraca excavated in large numbers do not help to date the baths, but provide insights into the local bathing culture. In Theadelpheia at least one of the baths was owned and apparently leased out by the estate of Appianus in the 3rd century AD; nevertheless, during vintage times, and when the main manager

68 69 70

Fournet and Redon 2017 CollectiveBaths430-43, No. 32 (B 293, F 67). Yeivin 1930 ‘The Ptolemaic System of Water Supply’. For the dating of this type of baths to the earlier Ptolemaic period, see Fournet and Redon 2017 Collective Baths 108-114.

130

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

of the estate, Alypius, would come and visit the village with its important branch of the estate, the bathman would receive a special payment for letting the bath to be used by the estate and its workers.71 Here the twofold function of the baths becomes clear: it was sometimes used for a special group of people, at other times it could be used by everybody in the village. c) The Fermentation Vats [Photos 13.20 + 13.21] The fermentation vats are situated at the south-eastern fringe of the village. The four vats are grouped in pairs: each two vats stand side by side at a distance of c. 80 cm from each other, one being set back against the other by 80 cm. The distance between the two groups is c. 25 m. All four are of the same make and seem to have formed one large facility at the time of their use (this does not necessarily mean that the two groups were physically connected with each other at that time).

Vats

Vat 2

Vat 1

Figure 15: The fermentation vats (Plan by I. Klose after P. Brosch and Ch. Kirby).

The vats all have one side raised higher than their other three sides. Within the groups two vats are aligned along their higher sides, whereas the two groups face each other with their higher sides respectively. The best preserved vat is that in the eastern corner of the group (Vat 1). Even though the state of preservation differs from vat to vat, their purpose and design was obviously more or less the same. Vat 2 had a slightly larger capacity than Vat 1 [Photo 13.22]. 71

See Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism 199.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

131

Vat 1 (and Vats 2-4): The vat appears from the outside as a cube with three equally high sides (a-c), whereas the back (d) is raised by 95 cm over the upper rim of the cube, and extends to the right and left of the cube. The whole object is built from fired bricks; inside the cube, there opens a square container with smooth corners, below which is a circular container with a diameter of 140 cm (in Vat 2 c. 160 cm) [Photo 13.23].72 The circular container is 75 cm deep, whereas the square container above is 68 cm deep. From the rim to the bottom this container in the two shapes is 143 cm deep. In the middle of the bottom, a round recess facilitated the cleaning of the whole container.73 For the possible capacity of the vats see below. The outer sides (a – c) and the raised back (d) are covered with thick plaster, as is the vat inside. After a first layer of plaster intermingled with pebbles, a second very smooth layer was brought onto the surface. Only in some places the accurate and extremely carefully executed plasterings can still be seen. In many places, in particular to the right and the left of the cube (at a and c), the plaster has broken away, but possibly steps were attached to the cube on both sides leading up to the upper rim of sides a and c. In Vat 1, a round recess appears in the middle of the outer front rim of the cube, obviously to receive a vessel with the fermentation stuff to guarantee an even quality of the added fermenter [Photo 13.24].74 In vats 1 and 2, a pair of oblong notches on the upper front and back rims of the container can be seen [Photo 13.25]. These deepenings correspond exactly to each other in their respective directions and positions, and may have received the transversal wooden beams which were nailed under the wooden lids to hold these lids together. The wooden lids would have been c. 3 cm thick; once brought over the opening of the containers, they were obviously kept in place by another pair of wooden beams, which were pushed through from the front to the back of the containers. The corresponding holes are still visible, while in the hole to the right the remains of the wooden beam are still stuck [Photo 13.26]. The facilities for securing the wooden lids were needed to cover the fermenting wine, and to leave the covering no escape. In Geoponica VI 1.3, advice is given to cover the fermentation vats against mice that might fall into the containers and drown.75 The raised backs of the two best preserved vats (1 and 2) show considerable gaps in the middle. On either side of this gap, the smoothly plastered surface which looks towards the container shows some decorative lines which divide it into large sections [Photo 13.27]; these may have been adorned with more (coloured?) decorations. Probably on these points in the high backs of the containers, a connection was installed between the vats and the (wooden?) treading floor in their respective backs, possibly stone lion-heads, used as spouts, as is the case with similar implements. These artistic spouts would have appeared c. 40 cm above the upper rim of the containers. The gaps now visible may have been broken when these lion-heads were removed by clandestine diggers. The four vats closely resemble the one fermentation vat which G. Lefebvre excavated in Theadelpheia in 1908, in a very different location on the site76. In the photograph of that structure (see his Pl. IV B; here Fig. 16),77 we see a cube with a low front, two equally high ascending sides and 72

73 74

75

76 77

In both vats of the northern group (Vat 3 and 4) the plaster of the inner containers has nearly completely been removed. They therefore appear larger in diametre, but probably never were. That deepening would have collected the very last remains of any liquid in the vat. This feature is common in many of the examples described and shown by Dzierzbicka 2005 ‘Wineries in GraecoRoman Egypt’ 34 and 62-64. Larger vats had two of those deepenings; see e.g. the winery at Marea, in Dzierzbicka 2005, Fig. 4. The Geoponica are a 10th century collection of agricultural lore, going back in some parts to Pliny the Elder; on this special passage of Geoponica see Dzierzbicka 2005 ‘Wineries’ 34 and 62-64. See above p. 115-116. See also the reconstruction in Bagnall – Rathbone 2004 EgyptfromAlexandertotheCopts 142, where the single wooden press is misplaced in the middle of the treading floor.

132

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

a higher side at the back. To the left and right of the cube, steps lead up to the rim of the back side. This higher side at the back shows a spout in form of a lion’s head, through which the wine dripped out from the treading floor behind. An excellent example of such a treading floor, and of the vat below into which the wine flows, can be studied on the western wall of the pronaos in the tomb of Petosiris in Tuna el-Gebel [Photo 13.28].78

Fig 16: Lefebre’s fermentation vat, 1910, Pl. IV B. cf. Figure 4 in this volume.

Fig 17: Photo of Lefebre’s vat (?) taken by A.E.R. Boak; unknown date (Courtesy Kelsey Museum).

78

Scene 56 a and b, in: Cherpion, Corteggiani, and Gout 2007 LetombeaudePétosiris 56-63.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

133

The fermentation vat excavated by Levebvre in the northern part of the site, the function of which was only partially understood by him,79 was 1.85 m deep; it had a diameter of 2.30 m (“rayon 1.15 m”) and was sunk into the ground by more than a metre.80 It seems that also the new four vats at the south-eastern fringe of Theadelpheia are now exposed much further above ground than in antiquity. The consistency of the plaster in front of Vat 1 shows that the cube may have emerged from the ground by only 83 cm; (see Photos 21 and 22) such an arrangement would have facilitated not only the control of the fermentation, but also the scooping out of the finished wine. The dating of these impressive structures rests on the finish used in all four of them, which – with its pinkish shine – seems to be of the kind used in the Roman period. Whether the shell of the building might be older is impossible to say; similar examples of wine production are equally difficult to date, but there is no doubt that wine consumption in the diet of people living in Egypt increased in the Roman period and later, when most of the preserved examples were presumably built. An impressive overview on such installations is given by D. Dzierzbicka, Wineries in GraecoRoman Egypt, JJP 35, 2005, 9-91, where the problematic meaning of the word ληνόϲ which we find in many papyri, is also addressed (p. 27-42). Since in some documents, ληνόϲ indicates not only one vat and treading floor, but a building (obviously with several vats and treading floors), the group in Theadelpheia may well be called a ληνόϲ (similarly “press” in English and in German may indicate either one single installation, or an ensemble of such installations). Also the building excavated by Lefebvre may be called a ληνόϲ. In the four vats at Theadelpheia, a considerable amount of wine could be produced. Whether the vats were filled only in the lower, round parts, or filled up to the rim, also in the upper square part, must remain open. The following lists gives both figures for vats 1 and 2: Vat Vat Vat Vat

1, 1, 2, 2,

filled filled filled filled

only in the lower round container (140 cm diameter): up to the rim: only in the lower round container (160 cm diameter) up to the rim:

1155 l = 11, 55 hl c. 2400 l = 24 hl 1508 l = 15, 08 hl c. 3200 l = 32 hl

In comparison, Lefebvre’s vat would have had a capacity of c. 38 hl; it was deeper (but from where did Lefebvre measure?), and had a larger diameter (1.85 m deep, diameter of 2.30 m).81 Even though the capacity figures of the four vats at the southern fringe of Theadelpheia are only approximative, there is no doubt that here wine production on a high and intensive level was carried out here. The four vats combined may have held 100 hl wine and more in one fermentation process. Considering the amounts of wine distributed by the Appianus Estate, these vats may have been well involved in that process. In AD 253 the pressing of c. 112 hl of wine is reported in SB XIV 12054; this papyrus belongs to the Heroninus Archive (Archive No. 7 below, with c), and refers to 14 of the altogether 20 vineyards owned by the Appianus Estate in Theadelpheia. Perhaps those large amounts of that year were dealt with in the four vats still standing at the southern edge 79

80

81

Lefebvre’s description of the place, where the treading would have taken place, is unclear. He seems to understand that some “grosses pierres” were used to crash the grapes; where exactly he found these “big stones” does not surface from his description. But the treading should have taken place behind the lion’s head; on the map in his Pl. III (here Figure 4) there is a square space between rooms M (the one with the vat) and room L. That should have been the treading floor. Lefebvre says indeed that there may have been a very similar vat as in M also in room L, but he does not conclude that the space between the two rooms was the treading floor. The reconstruction of Bagnall and Rathbone follows Lefebvre’s misleading description of the facility. The scale attached to the plan does not coincide with the measures given by Lefebvre! For this wine making facility see also Dzierzbicka 2005 ‘Wineries’ 9-91, in particular 23. For capacities of vats in other localities see Dzierzbicka 2005 ‘Wineries’ 40-42.

134

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

of the former village, while the harvest of the remaining vineyards might have been processed in the other wineries that are partly preserved on the site. For a third centre of wine production in the village of Theadelpheia (after this one and the one excavated by Lefebvre), see “G” below.

4. Other Ruins and Objects on the Site The other ruins and objects are numbered by capital letters of the alphabet on the map (Photo 13.1), starting at the northern end of the village. They are: remains of small baths (I, J, L), remains of buildings in which liquids were handled (A, C, D, G, Q, R, S, U, supposedly baths or wineries.), millstones (B, M, T), remains of columns and sculptures (?) (N, P), and a fragment of a further fermentation vat (F). On this site, there are no remains of any mud brick buildings, except of the two high pillars east of Bath1; all other mud-brick buildings were dismantled and carried to the fields as soil. This situation resembles that at Euhemeria, where some mud brick walls in the west of the site may belong to the former main temple. A

B C

D

E

To the north-west of Bath 1, but too far away (c. 80 m) to belong to the same building: container for liquid, measuring 1.60 × 0.62 m on the inside, 0.50 m deep; built from fired bricks and plastered over; several layers of plaster. The bottom shows a mixture of pebbles and plaster. There is a spout in the middle of the long side pointing to the south [Photo 13.29]. South of A (c. 35 m): Millstone in good condition; diameter 1.10 m, hight 28 cm;; square hole in the middle 18 × 18 cm [Photo 13.30]. West of A (c. 40 m): at a distance of 100 m; container in form of a bathtub of the same kind as A, but in much worse condition, sitting on plastered area; the lost spout of the container pointing to the south [Photo 13.31]. West of B (c. 65 m): Small area with pieces of plaster and pebbled floor, measuring 2 × 1 and 80 × 60 cm; there are traces of red colour on the plaster, which seem to have been plastered over again; pieces of former wall decoration with black and red colours [Photo 13.32]. South of A and B (c. 45 m from B): area covered by pebbled plaster and plaster, with a container in the middle; the plaster shows red colouring in some places.

If A – E are in situ (as they seem to be, except of B?), they might have belonged to one large bathing facility, not far from Tholos Bath 1. But except of the bathtub-like containers A and C, there is no hint that the liquid handled here was water for bathing. If the millstone B is in situ here, we could also think of a large brewing facility, but the distance between A and E is too large (80 m). These containers seem rather to belong to small bathing facilities as we found them also farther to the south on the site (I, J, L) F

G

South-south-west of C and D, at a distance of c. 100 m, a circular flat object built of fired bricks with concrete on top, was firmly set in the ground; diameter 1.65 m; standing up from the ground by 0.26 m. The object has a deepening in its middle of 0.13 m in depth and 0.43 m diameter. This looks like the bottom of the four fermentation vats in the south of the site (see above). The measurements also fit the identification of this circular piece of concrete with the bottom of a fermentation vat. This object was no longer found in December 2014 [Photo 13.33]. West of F by c.100 m: Remains of a building, as far as visible made from fired bricks; there is one solid rectangular construction of 2.15 × 1.90 m, sticking out from the ground by 1.10 m, but at least 20 cm reaching further into the ground [Photo 13.34]; very close to it at

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

135

40 cm to the north-east, a fragmentary bath-shaped vat (sides only a few cm high), is put onto a mortar floor [Photo 13.35]. Many pieces of broken fired bricks are scattered around here. In December 2014 I studied more closely the solid rectangular construction and the adjoining bathshape vat. It turned out that the rectangular construction stood besides and to the south of a fermentation container for wine with the treading floor above and to its east [Photos 13.36 + 13.37]. On this treading floor, the bath-shaped vat sat on the rim towards the fermentation container. Though the whole facility is damaged, several characteristics confirm its purpose. The container,82 of which only the front wall has preserved its original hight at the right corner [Photo 13.38], had two ascending side-walls, which almost reached the level of the treading floor [Photo 13.39].83 The facility resembles that found by Lefebvre,84 and the four fermentation vats in the southern part of the site, even though there were more steps to the sides of those (see above). Obviously, this newly found container was sunk into the ground. Interestingly, the layers of construction material under the treading floor show a sequence of fired bricks, sandy cement, again fired bricks, then soft plaster mixed with many pebbles, and then the mortar [Photo 13.40]. Three different levels of finishing plaster could be detected on the treading floor. The bath-shaped vat on the treading floor85 apparently stands in way of the flowing wine [Photo 13.41]. A spout must have opened from here towards the container below. In any case, the bottom of the little vat lies a few centimetres above the level of the treading floor, and the join at its right side shows that the treading floor was constructed around that vat. The small container may have been the place where a wooden screw was placed to give the separated pulp an extra pressing. However, as far as the little vat is preserved, no sign of any further installation within its space is visible.86 The purpose of the solid rectangular construction to the south of the fermentation container is not clear; is this the base of a staircase, or of a tower? It seems to be certain that the whole building was a winery, but F is too far away to be part of it. However, the whole area here at the western edge of the village of Theadelpheia may have been a centre for wine production, encompassing G and F. A very conspicuous line of reeds growing in a little depression that reaches from G over to the canal in the west may reveal an ancient sewage canal, or a canal providing water for those facilities grouped around here (see the geomagnetic map, Figure 18). Thus, on three fringes of the village, in the south, west, and north-east, Theadelpheians were busy preparing wine, a product obviously important for the economic wealth of the village, as revealed by the Heroninus Archive (Archive 7). H I

82

83

84 85 86

South-south-west of G by c. 30 m is an area of slag, indicating a further production area around here (ceramics? glass?). Exactly south of F by c. 120 metres, remains of a small bath measure 2.70 × 3.76 m. The floor is pebbled, and there are two fragmentary hip-baths. One recognizes the space on which the feet rested (pebbled), and the deepenings for the pots are preserved. The standing parts of the tubs measures 55 × 73 cm, while the diameter of the deepening for the pot is 30 cm [Photo 13.42; Figure 19]. 2.40 × 140 m inner sides; front wall 32 cm wide, side walls 42 cm wide. Hight from the top of well preserved lower corner of rim of container to the lower level of plaster of treading floor: 45 cm; the size of some of the well preserved fired bricks is 25 × 12 × 7 cm. The measure of the three steps (c. 15 cm each) can be read from the preserved joining plaster on the northern wall of the solid rectangular construction. See Pl. IV B in Lefebvre 1910 ‘Égypte gréco-romaine II’; here Figures 4, 16 and 17. Width 51 cm, length (as far as preserved) 1.34 m; width of rims c. 20 cm. For the extra spaces to contain the screw-presses in wineries see Dzierzbicka 2005 ‘Wineries’ 55-61.

136

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Figure 18: The area around Bath J (at 20/10); the fermentation vat G is at 10/50.

J

K L

M

South-south-east from G by c. 40 m: remains of a small bath with one fragmentary hip-bath, and the bottom of a water container. Of the tub only the place on which the feet rested, and the deepening in front of that place is well preserved; the space in front of both tubs is plastered over, neither pebbled nor coloured. Because I and J are close to the production area north one wonders whether these small baths belonged to the production area, or whether they were part of adjacent housing complexes with higher living standards, here at the western end of the village [Photo 13.43; Figure 20]. North-north-west of K by c. 45 m a small piece of plastered floor was found, measuring 1.60 × 0.90 m. South of I by c. 120 m, the remains of a further small bath preserve two hip-baths side by side; the whole structure, of which only the floor and the two hip-baths remain, measures 4.75 × 5 m and is broken on all sides; the space in front of the two tubs is covered with pebbled plaster. The two hip-baths still show the area on which the feet rested (pebbled plaster) and the deepenings for the pots in front of that area. Both tubs are 52 cm wide, the area on which the feet rested measure 34 cm in length. The diameter of the deepenings for the pots was 27 cm. The wall between the two tubs was made from fired bricks and measured 16 cm in width. This small bath is similar to the one in J [Photo 13.44]. South-south-west of L: Millstone in excellent condition, with a diameter of 92 cm; the square hole in the middle is 18 × 18 cm, the hight is 29 cm [Photo 13.45].

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

137

Bath I

Figure 19: Bath I (Plan by P. Brosch).

N O P Q R S T

North-north-east of L: Column base of limestone; diameter 63 cm; nearby pieces of a mud brick wall (apparently notin situ) [Photo 13.46]. North of N, c. 20 m: Remains of a building with concrete floor over stone base; several pieces, many not insitu. North-north-west of O: substantial piece of limestone (55 × 55 x42 cm) of very good quality; too small to recognize any intended form, but may have been part of a statue [Photo 13.47]. West-west-north of P by c. 40m: Piece of pebbled floor, measuring c. 5 × 5 m. West of Q by c. 20 m: piece of a wall made of fired bricks with plastering, now measuring 1.46 × 0.95 × 0.40 m [Photo 13.48]. North-north-west of R by c. 30 m: Piece of plastered floor measuring 3 × 5 m. East of O and N by 140 m, and west of the large rubbish mound by 40 m, a well-preserved millstone was found, whether insitu or not is not clear. The diameter is 82 cm, the square hole in the middle measures 17 × 17 cm; the height is 24 cm [Photo 13.49].

138

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Bath J

Figure 20: Bath J (Plan by P. Brosch).

U

East of the two mud brick pillars by 80 m c., there is a large area (9 × 3 m) of a floor with several layers of mortar; next to it numerous fragments of fired bricks show that a bath or a wine-press was situated here. It is not impossible that Lefebvre’s “temple” stood in this place, and that the plastered area, and another one right to the north of it, were part of his wine factory. It is also possible that this mortar floor was once part of Breccia’s bath (what I call the nymphaeum, see above, p. 125); [Figure 21].

The only features of which we can be certain that they are insitu, and that they served as bathing facilities, are the remains of the small baths I, J, and L; perhaps the well-to-do people at Theadelpheia, who could afford bathing facilities attached to their houses, lived in the south-western part of that village. Less certain is the localization and the purpose of the other pieces of mortar floors prepared to be parts of buildings, in which liquids were handled (Q, R, S, and U).

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

139

Building U

Figure 21: Building U (Plan by P. Brosch).

5. The Cemeteries [Photo 13.50] The classification given by Grenfell, Hunt and Hogarth of the tombs and their description of the mummies found therein are the most detailed information we have of any Graeco-Roman cemetery in the Fayoum. Even so, this information is scanty and disappointing; the lack of any drawings or photographs (there are a few of the coffin lids, though) makes it impossible to know how the tombs were constructed; there is no information about the orientation of the bodies; we are not informed what kind of images the cartonnages bore, and how these cartonnages could be classified other than being “the usual painted papyrus cartonnage consisting of headpiece, pectoral, leg pieces and shoes” (P. Fay. p. 55). This is information lost for ever. During our survey we tried to map as many tombs as possible to find out more about the their construction and orientation. The few graves that stuck out of the ground were entered on the plan and have to be compared with the examples Grenfell, Hunt and Hogarth described in P. Fay. Those graves were rectangular, cut into the bedrock, some of them had entrances from the east, which were much narrower than the graves themselves (see the list below pp. 141-142). We could identify classes of tombs only by the scarce pottery spread on the site. D. M. Bailey has been very cautious in drawing conclusions on the dates of the various parts of the cemetery. It seems to be clear though, that the tombs to the east of the centre of the cemetery (Nos. 1-14) belong to the Ptolemaic period, while the graves cut into the bedrock on the “corridor” between the village and the older cemetery, i. e. in the north-eastern part of the cemetery and close to the little side canal, are more recent; D. M. Bailey even entertained the possibility that these were used still (or for the first time) in the early Christian era.87 87

It is possible that the site continued to be in use as a graveyard for the inhabitants for villages in the east along the Bahr Nazlah that functioned throughout the medieval period.

140

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Grenfell, Hunt and Hogarth distinguished at least three classes of tombs, closely corresponding to the classes found at Euhemeria; here is their report: Class (1), the earlier Ptolemaic tombs (from about 250-150 BC) discovered in the north-west of the cemetery.88 Here, “the bodies were generally mummified and buried in plain wooden sarcophagi, roughly shaped as a mummy, and with rude heads similar to those found by Prof. Petrie at Gurob” (P. Fay. p. 55). Some of these sarcophagi were painted; also pottery coffins were found in great numbers, sometimes with a face engraved on the lid,89 sometimes plain with lids of stone slabs. There existed also poorer tombs without any coffins. All tombs were shallow and not deeper than 4 to 6 feet. In these graves, “the sarcophagi were uniformly placed either at the bottom, with or without a covering of bricks, or in a narrow recess bricked up, or in some cases in a vault of which the brick roof was only a few inches under the surface of the ground. A single tomb frequently served for several burials – in one case as many as seven mummies in plain wooden sarcophagi, and one on a bier, were found together”. Most of these mummies were decorated by the usual painted papyrus cartonnage consisting of headpiece, pectoral, leg pieces and shoes, only in some cases the cartonnage was made from cloth. Grenfell and Hunt observed also a more unusual kind of cartonnage: it consisted of only one layer of papyrus between the coatings of plaster, and not more than the headpiece and pectoral protected the mummy, while “a scarab and disks of gilded plaster were placed on the head” (p. 55). In the view of the excavators, these cartonnages were of poor quality, and only one mummy (how many did they excavate?) had a nicely painted pectoral and was “somewhat elaborately gilded”. Grenfell and Hunt dated most of the writing on the papyri to the 3rd, some to the 2nd century BC. Obviously, none of these papyri were brought to England, the excavators assuring that “in every case the cartonnage had been completely ruined by damp, assisted perhaps by imperfect methods of mummification, and had already crumbled to powder, or did so at the touch.” (p. 55). These earlier Ptolemaic tombs did not provide any small antiquities such as beads, amulets etc., but one contained a painted cinerary urn (Pl. XIa, fig. 17, Gizeh Journal 33, 394) and a lamp (Pl. Xb, fig. 7, Gizeh Journal 33, 393). Some pottery was also found in this part of the cemetery; it belongs to the same class as in group (2), and is chiefly of the shapes illustrated on Pl. XIa figs. 2, 6-10. Class (2), the intermediate class (later Ptolemaic and Roman); these tombs were found to the south-east of class (1), and therefore closer to the village.90 In some respects, these tombs resembled those of class (1): they provided the same shapes of pottery coffins, “gilded plaster scarabs” (p. 56) and occasional lamps of the same forms (Pl. Xb, figs. 1, 7). The variety of pottery is greater than in class (1). But there are also striking innovations to be found in this second, later class of tombs: in class (1) great attention was paid to the preparation of the body (mummification, cartonnages), while the tombs themselves were very simple and only a few objects were placed with the bodies. “In the later tombs the tendency was quite the reverse” (p. 56): only a few bodies were mummified, and there was no cartonnage at all to be found in this area of the cemetery. But the tombs were far more elaborate, and more objects were buried with the dead. Most common were wooden sarcophagi, box-shaped with arched lids, some of them painted with a rude design, generally festoons of flowers. Other, but fewer sarcophagi were made of limestone. “Over the bodies, whether placed in coffins or not, was built a solid arch or flat pavement of bricks, of which large quantities were used

88 89 90

We did not see any clearly defined tombs in that area, only here and there corners of the slots cut into the ground. P. Fay. Pl. XI, figs. 9 and 19. This must be the area in which we found the best visible remains of graves (1-14).

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

141

in order to fill up the tomb” (p. 56). Some of these tombs were large, e. g. 4 × 2.5 metres,91 and had a mausoleum built over them, but their height never exceeded 2.5 to 3 metres. Of special interest is what Grenfell and Hunt found within these tombs: “The largest tombs were often divided by a brick wall in the middle into two compartments, with a communicating door bricked up. Usually a flight of steps led down to this door, and sometimes there was a burial at the bottom of the steps, as well as behind the door” (p. 56). “Another feature of many later Ptolemaic burials was the occurrence of a stake or branch, sometimes of a bunch of reeds tied together, which had, no doubt, formed part of the bier, placed vertically at the head or foot just under the surface. Neither at Harît nor at Ûmm el Baragât were these evidences of a tomb found in the early Ptolemaic burials, while by the Roman period they had at both places become practically universal.” The excavators guess that most of these branches were meant to be hidden under the surface “to indicate to any one digging a fresh pit the existence of those previously dug”, they consider it less likely that they marked the place of burials as palm branches do in modern Moslem graves. Besides the common pottery, some objects received Grenfell’s and Hunt’s greater attention: one tomb with a plain wooden sarcophagus contained “seven small flasks of thin black ware, with narrow red and white concentric stripes, one of similar shape, but red, and a couple of small alabaster vases” (no. 1 in inventory, p. 59; Pl. Xb, figs. 6, 11, 12, 18, 24). In another large tomb with two limestone sarcophagi a small blue glaze vase with lid, a bronze tray at the head of one of the sarcophagi, and a calcite tray at the foot of another were found. “In a third tomb, in which was no coffin, but the body was buried under bricks, there was an alabaster pot at the head, and at the feet a round two-eared pot covered by a plate, with two lamps inside, and a small black flask and bronze tray” (no. 5). Such alabaster and calcite vases were also found in other tombs, blue glaze was rare (but see Pl. Xb, fig. 3). Grenfell and Hunt found many lamps, of which the usual form was the one shown in Pl.Xb, figs. 10, 13, 15, whereas the form shown in Pl. Xb, figs. 1 and 7, is rare. Here the small handles are pierced, but more frequently they are not, and in other cases the handle was omitted altogether. One lamp had three Cupids on it; it may be worth mentioning that Grenfell and Hunt did not find any Frog Lamps here.92 For the pots and further ceramics found in these tombs see G. Pyke, Appendix I in Vol. B, pp. 305-324. Beads (“generally carnelian” or “glazed pottery”) and amulets (“usually blue glazed figures, Bes or rosettes”) were found frequently (p. 58). Still in the same area (class (2), coins from the reigns of Claudius and Nero appeared with a mummy or in the filling of a tomb. This induced Grenfell and Hunt to consider that “the late Ptolemaic style of burial continued with little change well into the first century A.D.” The purpose of some buildings in this area was not clear to Grenfell and Hunt; the ruins were very shallow and had already been dug. But one was clearly a tomb; here, the famous shield was found (Pl. IXa, formerly in the Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria). In other buildings of this area no tombs were discovered, but some papyri from the late 2nd century BC. Since no information is given about the size of these buildings, we can only guess that they may have served for the mummification process (?). Class (3), the Roman class (second and third century AD). Grenfell, Hunt and Hogarth locate the Roman tombs “partly to the south-east of the late Ptolemaic cemetery, between them and the temple, partly to the south side of the Ptolemaic cemetery” (p. 58). Since we do not know where that temple was located (see above p. 114), we can only guess that they were describing an area 91

92

Compare the sizes of tombs measured by us, below pp. 141-142. They were all smaller, except of Tomb No. 9 which measures 5.55 m in length. This type of lamp was very common in Egypt, and is now considered to date from the 2nd to 4th centuries AD; cf. Bailey 1998 ExcavationsatEl-AshmuneinV Q 2178 to Q 2181. In our survey, D. M. Bailey did not register any lamps at all at Theadelpheia. This indicates that the material had been sieved before being brought back onto the site.

142

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

closer to the village partly to the north-east, partly to the south of the Ptolemaic tombs. They may well have meant the tombs cut into the bedrock in the “corridor” between the cemetery and the village, since they describe them as being “small (average 2 × 1 × 2 m), and they can be described as located to the south-east of the Ptolemaic tombs in the north-western corner of the cemetery. During our survey in the Ptolemaic part of the cemetery, 14 tombs were discovered and as far as possible measured. They are all cut in the rock (Tombs 1-6); some still show remains of mud brick walls built above the rock (7-14); most show a straight rectangular form; some (Tombs 9 and 12) have an entrance leading into the tomb from the east. The orientation of the tombs here was predominantly west-east.93 Tomb1 Tomb 2 Tomb 3 Tomb 4 Tomb 5 Tomb 6 Tomb 7 Tomb 8 Tomb 9

Cut into bed rock; ” ” ” ” ” Cut into bed rock, with visible remains of mud brick walls

Tomb 10 Tomb 11 Tomb 12

” ” ”

Tomb 13 Tomb 14

” ”

3.05 m long, 1.95 wide; 3.80 long, 1.30 wide; 2.70 long, 1.35 wide; 3.45 long, 1.60 wide; 2.60 long, 1.60 wide; 2.20 long, 1.10 wide [Photo 13.51] 3.44 long, 2.50 wide; 2.50 long, 1.50 wide; overall length 5.55; width of chamber at entrance 2.35 m, then 1.85 m; width of entrance 1.00 m; the lower part of the tomb is clearly cut into the bedrock, on which the mud-brick walls were built [Photo 13.52]. 2.30 long, 1.10 wide; ? long (under the sand); 2.60 wide; 3.10 long, 3.80 wide, width of entrance of 2.20 [Photos 13.53 + 13.54]; 2.90 long, 2.80 wide; Scarce remains.

Tomb 12 is wider than long; it may have served for double (or even triple) burials. There were hundreds of graves in the “corridor” between the village and the cemetery. We could only measure about 80; most of them were c. 2 m long, and less than a metre wide; one tomb in the east of the area was nearly three metres wide. The orientation of all these graves is west-east.

6. The Canals mentioned in the Papyri The best evidence for canals named are the so called penthemeros-certificates issued under the Roman Empire for individuals who carried out cleaning work on the canals on behalf of their home villages.94 Unfortunately, in most cases it is not clear whether the canal cleaned was running at the village where the certificate was issued, in its neighbourhood, or even far away (cf. Chapt. 14 93

94

This seems to be the preferred orientation in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods; cf. e.g. the newly excavated cemetery at Quesna, where most tombs are oriented in this direction, and only few in a north-southern direction. Rowland, Inskip, and Zakrzewski 2010 ‘The Ptolemaic-Roman Cemetery’ 31-48. For these penthemeros-certificates see Sijpesteijn 1964 Penthemeros-Certificates.

143

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

p. 192 with note 70). What is unclear to us, was perhaps not so for the people then involved in the work; the names of the canals were probably not standardized, but followed the common usage of names that could vary from year to year and from scribe to scribe. In texts from Theadelpheia the following canals are mentioned: 1) ἡ Ψιναλείτιδοϲ διῶρυξ P. Münch. III 108 = Chrest. Wilck. 388 SB XVI 12597 P. Fay. 77 P. Fay. 78 BGU IV 1076 P. Strasb. IV 249d P. Mich. X 595 SB XII 10964

15. 6. 145 15. 6. 145 14. 7. 147 1. 8. 147 10. 7. 148 9. 6. 157 4. 8. 161 21. 6. 209

This canal is also mentioned in a penthemeros-certificate from Euhemeria and Polydeukeia; see Chapt. 14, p. 193. 2) ἡ παλαιὰ ἑξάθυροϲ (διῶρυξ) SB XVI 12316 SB XVI 12317 SB XVI 12597 SB XVI 12598 BGU IV 1075 Sorb. I 59

22. 6. 123 5. 6. 134 15. 6. 145 14. 6. 146 23. 6. 148 10. 6. 148

Possibly, this working area was the point where the Bahr Qasr el-Banât turns by 90° north-east of Theadelpheia; from here, four gates open from the main canal today: two towards the north and Batn Harit, and two more towards the east to Qasr el-Gabali. Or was the distribution area west of Krokodilopolis meant? 3) ἡ Φολήμεωϲ διῶρυξ P. Mich. XII 654 SB XXII 15759 SB XVI 12315 SB XII 11032

AD 57/58 AD 60/61 1. 8. 119 31. 5. 197

This canal is also mentioned in four penthemeros-certificates issued for Euhemeria; see Chapt. 14, pp. 192-193; 4) ἡ πλωτὴ διῶρυξ ” “

PSI I 51 (Συρίωνοϲ πλωτή!) SB XVI 12318 P. Bagnall 30

AD 63/64 6. 9. 146 26. 6. 158

The denomination of a canal as “navigable” is so wide that it is rather unlikely that this was a canal far away from the village in which the certificate was issued.

144

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

There was also a κωμικὴ διῶρυξ “the Village Canal” (letter of Alypios to Heroninus; P. Rein. II 115; 31. 8. 257), the Canal of Aphrodisios (list of fields at Theadelpheia; P. Berl. Leihg. II 33; AD 150-199), the Canal of Onnophrios (pittakion register; P. Col. V 1 v 4; AD 161-180), these three probably flowing in the village or close by, because they seem to be named after individuals, who once owned the fields around, or still did at the time of the certificate; cf. also PSI I 51, ἡ Συρίωνοϲ πλωτή “the navigable Canal of Syrion”; the αὐθεντικὴ διῶρυξ “the principal canal” was in all likelyhood the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, which may have been called by several other names in other certificates, depending in which section the work was carried out (letter of Horion to Heroninus; P. Flor. II 223; 26. 7. 257). In another letter of the archive, Heroninus mentions τὴν ἡμῶν διώρυγα and τὴν καινὴν διώρυγα (P. Flor. II 273v; 7. 7. 260), as if there were a canal belonging to their estate in Theadelpheia. Men from Theadelpheia worked also on the Desert Canal of Archelais (SB XVI 13056; 19. 5. 157); this can be a further indication that the two villages were neighbours. Other work was carried out at the πύλη, the gate, without any further indication about where that gate was situated (BGU XIII 2261; 29. 7. 154).

7. The Inscriptions and Their Value for our Understanding of the Layout of the Settlement Twenty-nine Greek and three Demotic inscriptions were found in Theadelpheia, compared to only five inscriptions found at Euhemeria. Most Theadelpheian inscriptions stem from the Ptolemaic period (Nos. 1-20), and most are dedications. A special feature are the three identical texts set up around the Temple of Pnepheros announcing the right of asylia(Nos. 15-17); they once attracted particular interest in the site of Theadelpheia, and led to Lefebvre’s and Breccia’s excavations. All inscriptions were reedited by E. Bernand in 1981 (I. Fay. II 102-130). In the following list, + marks inscriptions in or for secular buildings, * those for sacred buildings; ° indicates that the identification of the building is not possible due to the fragmentary condition of the inscription; the inscriptions are ordered by date. Most are written on stone, but texts written in ink in frescoes or wood (see at the end of the list below) are also included; those written in ink all come from the Temple of Pnepheros (Nos. 25-27). °1.

I. Fay. II 102

+2.

I. Fay. II 103

+3.

I. Fay. II 104

Dedication on a lintel (of what building?), found in a street or a public square (Breccia) to the east of the Temple of Pnepheros; incomplete; the character of the building to which the lintel belonged is not clear. During the survey, we did not find any sign of a building here (east of the two pillars). Between 176 and 169 BC; still on the site? Dedication of the doorway, the door (with two leaves), and the pylon of the gymnasium of Theadelpheia; written on the lintel; the dedicant is a Thracian cavalryman from the unit of Hexakon; he owns 80 arouras, and is a gymnasiarch; the exact findspot of the inscription is not known. Cf. No. +3. 150/149 BC; Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria; Inv. 20977 Nearly identical to 2.; the pylon is not mentioned. The two inscriptions show intensive building activity around the gymnasium at Theadelpheia in the middle of the 2nd century BC. We would expect the gymnasium somewhere on the edges of the village, since a water supply and wide spaces were essential for this institution. The only connection from a canal directly into the village was

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

*4.

I. Fay. II 10595

+*5.

I. Fay. II 10697

*6.

I. Fay. II 10799

95 96 97 98 99 100

145

discovered in the west, where the small canal between village and cemetery had a side branch to some factory installation on the fringe of the village. Looking at the location of the gymnasium at Philoteris outside the village and surrounded by generous free spaces (see Chapt. 16), we rather expect the gymnasium of Theadelpheia in the south or east, between the marsh or the canal respectively, and the main settlement. The space between the Temple of Pnepheros and the canal in the north was certainly too limited for the gymnasium. 150/149 BC; Egyptian Museum, Cairo; JE 46088 Dedication of a propylon and a peribole to the god Heron, written on the lintel of a lost sanctuary. The dedicant and his wife have Egyptian names; Heron is called “three times great”. Heron was one of the main gods in Theadelpheia, besides the crocodile god.96 This is confirmed by the onomastics of the village, where Heron and names deriving from that name are extremely popular; see J. Bingen 1994 ‘Le dieu Hèrôn’, 46-47; the exact findspot is not known. Cf. +*5. Between 145 and 116 BC; Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 21016 Dedication of a banquet hall to the god Heron. Interesting first hand evidence for a banquet hall in connection to a sanctuary; the second object dedicated may be an altar. The function of the ἑϲτιατήριον had perhaps a function comparable to that of the δειπνητήρια on the dromos of the main sanctuary at Tebtynis.98 This dedication may refer to the same sanctuary as No. *+5. 31 May 140 BC; Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria; Inv. 21792 Dedication of the propylon of the Temple of Pnepheros and of the dromos; on a single block in front of the door. This is the earliest inscription belonging to the Temple of Pnepheros; it is not likely that the temple as a whole was erected at that date; perhaps this dedication refers to a refurbishment of the entrance to the temple and the dromos. The dromos is explicitly called the “stone dromos”. As we now know where that temple was located (see above pp. 111), and that the dromos here, as elsewhere in the Fayoum, divided the village into two parts, it seems unlikely that the dromos was built only in the middle of the 2nd century BC; it may have existed earlier, but was then perhaps not a “stone dromos”. The dedicant was an Alexandrian and a member of the second hipparchy.100 4 October 137 BC; Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria; in the courtyard (now?)

Thiers 2006 ‘Égyptiens et Grecs’ 275-301, No. 32. See notes by Bingen 1994 ‘Le dieu Hèrôn’ 41-50. Thiers 2006 ‘Égyptiens et Grecs’ 275-301, No. 31. See Rondot 2004 LetempledeSoknebtynis (Tebtynis II). Thiers 2006 ‘Égyptiens et Grecs’ No. 29. For military members and their dedications in Theadelpheia see Fischer-Bovet 2014 ArmyandSociety 350-351.

146

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

*7.

I. Fay. II 108101

+*8.

I. Fay. II 109

*9.

I. Fay. II 110

*10.

I. Fay. II 111

*11.

I. Fay. II 112102

*12.

I. Fay. II 113 = No. 112

*13.

I. Fay. II 114103

101 102 103

Dedication of the wooden door and its lock at the propylon of the Temple of Pnepheros; written on the outside of the door; the door and this inscription may belong to the same building phase, for which the same dedicant invested. Between 137 and 116 BC; Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria; Inv. 19678 Dedication of the goose-breeders of Theadelpheia marking their meeting place (τόποϲ ϲυνόδου χηνοβοϲκῶν); written on a column in the large courtyard of the Temple of Pnepheros (see Fig. 6 in this Chapter). For such meeting places of associations in sanctuaries or connected to them see A. Lajtar, Deir el-Bahari in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, JJP Suppl. IV, Warsaw 2006, 68-69; C. Roberts, Th. C. Skeat, A. D. Nock, HarvardTheologicalReview 29, 1936, 39-88, in particular 75-78. For τόποϲ see also A. Lajtar, Catalogue des inscriptionsgrecquesduMuséeNationaldeVarsovie, 184. 7 March 102 BC (?); current location not known Dedication to the crocodile god; incomplete stela with two crocodiles bearing sun discs; no text after the reference to Ptolemy X Alexander I; found by Lefebvre in 1908. At that time the Temple of Pnepheros was covered by sand (or the stone had been dislocated). Between 101 and 88 BC; Egyptian Museum Cairo; JE 40721 Dedication of an enclosure of the sacred space (ϲηκόϲ) of the god Premarres; no further findspot is given. Premarres was the divine name of Amenemhet III in the Fayoum, who was divinised and enjoyed veneration in several Fayoum villages; see E. Bresciani, Iconografia e culto di Premarres nel Fayoum, EVO 11, 1986, 49-58 = Scritti scelti, EVO, no. speciale 2002, 141-150; Uytterhoeven 2009, ‚Hawara‘, 424-448. He is also mentioned in the hymns of Isidoros at Narmouthis. At that place his cult was certainly connected to the temple that existed already since the Middle Kingdom, whereas Theadelpheia did not have such a background. 25 October 95 BC; Egyptian Museum at Cairo; JP 6/6/(19)18/3 = I. Prose 33. Decree of Ptolemy X Alexander I granting the right of asylia to the temple of Isis Sachypsis, for which the priests of that temple made an application. There is no indication of the findspot. 19 February 93 BC; Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 20858 I. Prose 34. 2nd copy of the decree of Ptolemy X Alexander I (No. *11). Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 21747 = I. Prose 37 = C. Ord. Ptol. 68. Decree of Ptolemy Auletes and Cleopatra Tryphaina granting the right of asylia to the temples of Isis Eseremphis and Herakles (two different temples; see ll. 16-19); application was made by a Corinthian, who complained of harassment

Thiers 2006 ‘Égyptiens et Grecs’ No. 30. Bernand 1992 Laprose no. 34. Rigsby 1996 Asyliano. 221 Rigsby 1996 Asylia no. 222.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

*14.

I. Fay. II 115104

*15.

I. Fay. II 116105

*16. *17.

I. Fay. II 117 I. Fay. II 118

*19.

I. Fay. II 119

*20.

I. Fay. II 120

+*21. I. Fay. II 121

+22.

I. Fay. II 122

*23.

I. Fay. II 123

104

105

147

of the temple and the worship therein; found in the sebakh, c. 100 m to the south-west of the Temple of Pnepheros. Nothing on the ground in that area fits a temple, except the fragment of a statue (P, above), but that may not be insitu. 29 July 70 BC; Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 21746 Dedication of a propylon to the god Heron; the god is called “twice great”; cf. Inscriptions 4 and 5, also dedicated to Heron and his temple. Above the inscription, the god on horseback offering a libation; in the lunette above, winged sun disk. 27 September 67 BC; Egyptian Museum, Cairo; JE 46790 Decree of Berenike IV granting the Temple of Pnepheros the right of asylia, for which the priests of the temple made an application. The area protected by the asylia reaches from the Boubasteion in the south (not located) to the burials of the sacred animals (apparently crocodiles) the north of the temple; in east-western direction an area of 117 paces = c. 50 m is covered (in two of the copies that indication is left out, as if there was a problem about the extension of the covered ground). In the lunette above the text, two crocodiles face each other; between them is a small shrine, from which a bearded face looks out to the beholder (Pharaoh speaking to the people). 22 October 57 BC; Egyptian Museum, Cairo; JE 40727 Second copy of the decree. Cairo; JE 40748 Third copy of the decree. Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 20857 = I. Varsovie No. A6 descr. (p. 335) = SEG XX 656 descr. Dedication by a club of young men from the Osireion; representations of Osiris and Harpocrates above the text. Late Hellenistic; location uncertain (formerly in the collection of the Lyceum Hosianum at Braunsberg/Branievo). Dedication in honour of the god Souchos; found in the third courtyard of the Temple of Pnepheros. Late Hellenistic; Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 19916 Dedication for the reconstruction of the meeting place of the devotees of the goddess Isis Sachypsis; limestone stela; no exact findspot. 7 April AD 93; Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 19592 Dedication of a banquet hall for the administrators of the weaver’s guild; no exact findspot. 1 April AD 109; British Museum, London; Inv. 1069 Dedication to the Dioscuri; no exact findspot, no purpose of dedication in connection to a temple given. AD 127/128; Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 19593

Thiers 2006 ‘Égyptiens et Grecs’, No. 48; photo in Grimm 1975 KunstderPtolemäer-undRömerzeit, No. 37, Taf. 72; LIMC V 392-393 No. 7. Rigsby 1996 Asylia no. 223.

148

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

*24.106 I. Fay. II 125

*25.

I. Fay. II 126

*26.

I. Fay. II 127

*27.

I. Fay. II 128

*28.

I. Fay. II 129

*29.

I. Fay. II 130

30.

Breccia p. 99; Vleeming, Nos. 115 and 116.108

106 107

108

Dedication to Isis Sasopsis; found in the 3rd courtyard of the Temple of Pnepheros. 5 February AD 162; Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 19918 Dedication to one of the Dioscuri by Heron son of Soubattus;107 painted beneath the god’s image in the fresco on the right-hand wall at the entrance to the vestibule in the Temple of Pnepheros (see above pp. 116-125). Roman period; Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 20223 Dedication to one of the Dioscuri by Heron son of Soubattus; painted next to the head of the god, in the same fresco as no. 25 in the Temple of Pnepheros. Roman period; Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 20224 Dedication to the god Souchos; in the Temple of Pnepheros; written in ink on the left-hand side at the door between the third courtyard and the vestibule, corresponding to Nos. 25 and 26; the fresco represents one of the Dioscuri, not the god Heron; on Breccia’s Tav. LIX, the inscription is not visible below the mummified crocodile beneath the god. Roman period (after nos. 26 and 27); Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 20225 Epitaph of a prophet; found in a “small side room” in the Temple of Pnepheros; relief around the inscription, showing (from above left) the god Chnum, Isis seated with Harpocrates on her lap, (below) the crocodile god on an altar, and a person worshipping the god. Isis and the crocodile god are identified by their names respectively written below and above them. Again, the prominent role of Chnum is remarkable here. Roman period; Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; Inv. 19917 Dedication to Isis Sasypsis; square piece of wood, found in the sebakh of the village; Sasypsis may be a variant of the name Sachypsis (Nos. 11 and 12; 21; W. Clarysse). Roman period (?); Egyptian Museum, Cairo; JE 44049 Three demotic inscriptions on the bases of the two lions in front of the main gate of the Temple of Pnepheros, one below the right lion, the other two below the one on the left hand side. The three inscriptions are nearly identical: “Shedite Pshem-Pnepheros (Pnepheros in the third inscription) gives life to Komoapis, son of Horos, with his children, for ever!” (after transliteration of Vleeming). Griffith considered these inscriptions “of early Ptolemaic age, unless you have reason to date them later” (Breccia 1926, 99); Breccia argues that the lions should date from the same time (or a little later) as the dedication of the main gate and the dromos, i. e. 137 BC (see nos. 6 and 7).

I. Fay. II 124 was not found at Theadelpheia, but in the surroundings of Sha’lân; see Chapt. 12, pp. 97-98. Soubattus should not be seen as the name of the god, but of the dedicant’s father Satabous; cf. Römer 2017 ‘The Gods of Karanis’; different in I. Fay. II pp. 80-81; Bingen 1994 ‘Le dieu Hèrôn’ 46-47; cf. the next no. 26. Vleeming 2001 SomeCoinsofArtaxerxes (= Studia Demotica V).

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

149

Early Ptolemaic (?); Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria; courtyard (now?) Only two temples in Theadelpheia were identified by archaeological finds: 1. The Temple of Pnepheros, excavated by Breccia in 1912/13; inside, or relating to it 9 Greek inscriptions were found: Nos. 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 20, 25, 26; three Demotic inscriptions were found outside the temple on the bases of the lions in front of the main gate: No. 30. 2. A temple “to the west of the site by c. 40 yards” (Grenfell and Hunt p. 52); its cult cannot be identified. The inscriptions attest 7 further temples, or shrines: Temple Temple Temple Temple Temple Temple Temple

of of of of of of of

Heron Premarres Isis Sachypsis Isis Eseremphis Heracles Boubastis Osiris

Nos. 4 and 5, both later half of 2nd century BC; No. 14; 67 BC No. 10; 95 BC No. 11, 12 and 21; perhaps also 29 (Isis Sasypsis) No. 13 No. 13 No. 15, 16, 17 No. 19

It is, of course, uncertain whether all nine temples functioned at the same time, for the number of shrines seems to be high for a village of between 1500 and 2500 inhabitants who lived on an area of 500 × 650 m, when the village had its largest extension, most likely in the 2nd century AD. The Temple of Pnepheros alone covered an area of 50 × 25 m. In the papyri, further temples are mentioned: Temple of Isis

Cult (Temple?) of the Dioscuri

Temple of Thoeris Temple of Ἡρώων ἀγυ(ιέων) (?) Temple of Zeus

P. Petrie III 82, 6; P. Med. I 8, 14 and 29; an ἰϲιονόμοϲ (warden of the Isis sanctuary) appears in P. Petrie III 82, 5; probably this sanctuary is identical with one mentioned in the inscriptions. SB VI 9409 (3), Heroninus Archive (Archive 7), accounts, AD 260; in l. 104, donkey drivers on behalf of the Dioscuri are mentioned. Cf. Inscription No. 23, 25 and 26. BGU IX 1894, 82 (AD 157) BGU IX 1894, 79 (AD 157) P. Graux IV 31 III 1 and 3.

For a possible shrine of Tothoes in the village see Archive No.1. Inscriptions on wooden boards In 2001, G. Nachtergael published (or republished) 21 wooden objects with carved inscriptions coming from Theadelpheia. These boards measure roughly 8 × 5 × 4 cm, and were used to stamp the taps of vine amphorae.Most of them date to the 3rd century AD, and some were in use at the estate of Appianus (see below Archive 7); two date to the 1st and late 3rd centuries AD respectively. After the year of the emperor, the name of the vineyard κτῆμα (mostly named after their owners) follows. Of special interest are the boards that name Appianus himself, or his wife Aurelia Demetria.

150

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

8. Papyrological Archives Found in Theadelpheia109 The archives are listed according to their date; only no. 1. reaches back into the early Roman period, the others following. All the archives were bought on the antiquities market and their findspots are unknown, except for the archives of Heroninus and Sakaon presumably found in a rubbish dump on the site, and are therefore also without a secure context. Grenfell and Hunt considered the north-east of the site for being the area where the local archives were kept, because they had found here two substantial buildings, one of them with a “stone door” (P. Fay. p. 52). In general, we are unable to locate any quarter of the village, where particular activities may have taken place, or where particular strata of society were living; for such questions, the archaeological remains are the only source, and as mentioned above, also very scarce. It seems though that the areas north and north-east of the Temple of Pnepheros yielded some impressive buildings which must have belonged to the upper stratum of society (see above for the excavations). Texts and archaeological objects overlap for the importance of wine production in Theadelpheia; intensive wine production is mentioned in the archives of Soterichus and Heroninus, and confirmed by wine production facilities still standing on the site, or registered by former excavations (see above pp. 115-116; 130-133 and 134). Another piece of information provided by the archives nos. 3 and 5 highlights the geographical situation of Theadelpheia as being surrounded by marshes; in both archives, superintendents of marshes feature prominently (see also No. 7, the Archive of Heroninus). The archive of Sakaon illustrates the decline of the village in the middle of the fourth century. 1. Archive of Harthotes and his brother Marsisouchos, public farmers.110 The private archive spanning the time between 5 BC and AD 61, consists of 25 texts. They were bought on the antiquities market between 1922 and c. 1928, and are spread over 8 different papyrus collections. Incoming and outgoing documents reveal a traditional Egyptian family’s economical activities, mostly connected to agriculture. Harthotes was a priest of Tothoes in AD 12, and lived within the precincts of the temple, together with his mother and his son (census declaration of AD 12; SB XX 14440, 4). An independent temple of Tothoes is not otherwise attested in Theadelpheia, but perhaps the function ἱερεὺϲ Τοθοήουϲ refers to an activity in a sanctuary within a larger temple complex; this larger temple complex may be meant by the ἱερόν in the precinct of which Harthotes lived, possibly the main temple of the village. ArchID 99; K. Geens in Trismegistos; Graeco-Roman Archives pp. 158-161; France 1999 139-140; 2. The Archive of Soterichos and Didymos.111 Family archive covering the period AD 65-135; 42 papyri certainly belong to the archive, more texts, in part unpublished, may belong to it. Soterichos was a farmer in Theadelpheia, who did not himself own land, but leased vineyards, arable land, land for fruit trees and fodder crops, around the village. Beside the leases of land, there are also contracts about the sale of a part of a donkey, and 109

110 111

For the definition of what an archive is, see Clarysse 2003 ‘Tomoi synkollesimoi’ 339-344. For archives nos. 2 and 9 collectively see Bagnall 1980 ‘Theadelpheian Archives’ 97-104. Other groups of papyri from Theadelpheia also deserve the denomination “archives”, e. g. the Archive of Hermas, son of Heron, grandson of Hermas from between AD 129-151; for this and the most likely related archive of the “Theadelpheian Herdsman Heron”, see now Claytor and Mirończuk 2015 ‘The Archive of the Theadelpheian herdsman Heron’ 193-200. For an overview see Casanova 1975 ‘Theadelpheia e l’archivio di Harthotes’ 70-156; id. 1979 Addenda 112-118. Main publication of texts is: Omar 1979 DasArchivdesSoterichos (P. Soterichos) (= Pap. Col. VIII).

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

3.

4.

5.

6.

112 113 114 115

151

receipts for payments. Didymos was the youngest son of Soterichos, who took over the family archive. How prosperous that family was, is difficult to say. On the one hand, the family was registered in the nome capital Arsinoe and paid the tax-rate reserved for metropolitans, on the other after Soterichos’ death, the family struggled to pay off the debts left by him (P. Soterichos 22-25). The importance of wine production in Theadelpheia, also visible in the archaeological survey, is underlined by this archive, alrready a century before the Heroninus Archive. ArchID 226; R. Smolders in Trismegistos; Graeco-RomanArchives pp. 379-382; France 1999 141-142. The Archive of Aphrodisios, son of Philippos and descendants.112 At least 14 texts covering a time span between AD 108 (?) and 161, and four generations, form this archive, which is partly private and partly public. Papyri were bought on the antiquities market between 1912 and 1923 and went into 8 different collections. Philippos II was a superintendent of pastures and marshes in the area of Theadelpheia twice within 9 years in AD 148/149 and in 155 (see also archive No. 5). A high social level is certain for Aphrodisios II and Philippos II, since they belonged to the class of the 6475 katoikoi, the privileged hellenized class of the nome, while they seem to have resided in Theadelpheia. ArchID 294; R. Smolders in Trismegistos; Graeco-RomanArchives pp. 60-64. The Administrative Archive of Theadelpheia. This archive consists of 35 papyri that belong to it with certainty; 58 more are tentatively attributed to it. The time span covers the period between AD 125 and 180. The most famous text is the Gnomon of theIdios Logos (BGU V 1210), other texts are tax lists or lists related to tax collection, and accounts and drafts of official documents. Many of the texts were obviously written in the office of the toparch residing in Theadelpheia (between AD 155 and 180), for which older drafts of documents were recycled. The papyri were bought on the antiquities market between 1912 and 1932 by 11 different collections. ArchID 247; K. Geens in Trismegistos; Graeco-RomanArchives pp. 34-39; France 1999 143-153. Archive of Ptolemaios, son of Diodoros.113 This archive spans the period between AD 138 and 162 and consists of at least 19 texts, which are kept in several collections. 11 texts of the archive are petitions by Ptolemaios to various officials, a further 7 belong to his correspondence while he was the superintendent of pastures and marshes at Theadelpheia twice within 11 years. The marshes “drymoi” are referred to as the “Marshes of Theadelpheia and Polydeukeia” (Chapt. 12). The mentioning of the activity around the marshes in this archive and in Archive no. 3 underline the importance of the marshes for the area of Theadelpheia. Perhaps we have Ptolemaios’ own handwriting in the draft P. Mich. XI 617, SB XX 14401, and P. Mich. III 174.114 ArchID 325; R. Smolders in Trismegistos; Graeco-RomanArchives pp. 330-333. The Tomos Synkollesimos of census returns from Theadelpheia.115 5 documents pasted together, dating between 27 May and 4 August AD 161. Declarants are all from Theadelpheia, but two of them live in Apias and Pelusium respectively. P. Berl. Leihg. 16 a –e. ArchID 549; W. Clarysse in Trismegistos; Graeco-RomanArchives p. 422.

P. Meyer, pp. 28-31. P. Wisc. 1, pp. 119-122. See Whitehorn 1991 ‘P. Mich. Inv. 255: A Petition to the Epistrategus’ 251. For this archive see Clarysse 2003 ‘Tomoi synkollesimoi’ 339-344.

152

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

7. The Archive of Heroninus, administrator of the Theadelpheian branch (φροντίϲ) of the Appianus Estate.116 This is the largest archive from the Roman period in Egypt, consisting of 446 texts known so far. The time span covered runs from AD 199 to 275. Heroninus was the manager in Theadelpheia of a private estate owned by Appianus, from September AD 249 to summer 268. Over this period, the documents show the intensive activity of the estate in the north-western area of the Fayoum (with other branches in Philoteris and Euhemeria). Connections between the villages are close through the exchange of goods and services, which Heroninus and his colleagues had to manage. Considering the geographical situation of Theadelpheia, as outlined above (pp. 107-109), and the archaeological evidence, several new proposals can be made for the understanding of details mentioned in the archive. a) Fishing rights held by the Appianus Estate in Theadelpheia: In several documents of this archive fishermen are ordered to provide fish on special occasions, or are mentioned in relation to the estate; D. Rathbone proposed therefore that the Appianus estate “owned or controlled stretches of the shore of Lake Moeris and granted the rights of fishing from them to groups of men who came from the villages where it had phrontides.”117 Theadelpheia and Sentrempais are mentioned in those documents. Rathbone finds this rather puzzling, because the territories of those villages “almost certainly did not extend to the lake”. Taking into consideration the marshy environment of Theadelpheia (see above pp. 107-109), there is no need to locate those fishing grounds on the shore of the lake; they lay in the neighbourhood of Theadelpheia itself, and Sentrempais may have shared a marsh with Theadelpheia. We hear of fishing rights in those marshes also in papyri which do not belong to the Appianus Estate (see above Archive 5). The term αἰγιαλόϲ “shore” does not necessarily refer to the shore of a lake.118 b) The wine production in Theadelpheia: Wine was one of the most important cash crops of the Appianus Estate, besides wheat.119 Around the village, 20 vineyards (κτήματα) belonging to the estate are known by name, about a quarter of the total acreage of the estate at Theadelpheia, amounting to 20 ha (p. 247). Rathbone has calculated the annual production of wine at Theadelpheia as c. 500 hl. As seen above, the four impressive fermentation vats in the south of the village could have taken c. 100 hl together and more, at the most a fifth of what was produced annually in the village. Besides the two other installations for the fermentation of wine (see above pp. 130-134), there must have been further installations to provide the necessary facilities, alone for the yield of the Appianus Estate, if not for others, for instance the Herakleides Estate (p. 213). The vats show that the fermentation process was at least in part not carried out in bottles, as proposed by Rathbone (p. 253). For wooden stamps of amphora taps once used in the estate see above p. 149. c) Reed beds attached to vineyards: The geographical situation of Theadelpheia allowed for reed beds which were attached to the vineyards,120 because the edges of the marshes to the south of the village, and to the east and north beyond the canals were ideal for reeds to grow. We would therefore expect those vineyards with reed beds attached to them to 116

117

118 119

120

See the monograph on the archive by Rathbone 1991 Economic Rationalism; id. 2013 in: The Encyclopedia of AncientHistory 3190-3191. Economic Rationalism 200-201 with footnotes 30 and 31. See P. Flor. II 119v; 127; 201; 275r; SB VI 6, 9362; 9415; P. Rein. 54v = P. Horak 24, all from the Heroninus Archive. Bonneau 1985 ‘Aigialos’ 131-143. EconomicRationalism 188 and 212-213; 247-264. See also Nachtergael 2000 ‘Sceaux et timbres I’ for the names of single vineyards belonging to the estate. See EconomicRationalism 216 and 249.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

153

have been located close to those marshes, perhaps between the marshes and the canals, from where the irrigation of the vineyards came. ArchID 103; H. Verreth and K. Vandorpe in Trismegistos; Graeco-Roman Archives pp. 170-175; France 1999 154. For further research consult the Guide to the Heroninus Archive at http://www.accademiafiorentina.it/?pg=cr_hero. 8. The Archive of the Decian Libelli of AD 250.121 33 such texts come from Theadelpheia; they will have been kept there with the relevant authorities. When the emperor Decius had issued his decree towards the end of AD 249 that all inhabitants of the Roman Empire had to sacrifice to the gods who were seen as the guarantors for the integrity of the Empire, everybody had to follow that order. The so-called libellitestify that individuals in the villages of the Arsinoite had “made a food sacrifice and poured a libation, and had tasted from the sacrifice”. Sacrifices had to be made in front of a committee; in Theadelpheia, this consisted of Serenus and Hermas, who signed the libelli, and kept them. Not all those who sacrificed, were from Theadelpheia, though. ArchID 331; W. Clarysse in Trismegistos; Graeco-RomanArchives pp. 120-121; France 1999 152-153. 9. The Archive of Aurelius Sakaon, son of Satabous and Thermoutarion, one of the last inhabitants of Theadelpheia.122 The archive covers the time between AD 254 and 343 and consists of 76 documents, of which seven are bilingual (Greek-Latin). Documents refer to both private and public affairs. Most of the texts deal with agriculture, land leases, and leases of livestock. Sakaon belonged to the upper stratum of society in Theadelpheia and performed several village liturgies. He was komarches(village head) in AD 303/304, 311/312, 323/324, and in 324/325; in 308/9, 314/15, and in 317/18 he was sitologus (director of the granary). For the history of Theadelpheia, the texts in the later part of the archive are of special momentum, for they show the radical decline of the population in the village. ArchID 206; K. Geens in Trismegistos; Graeco-RomanArchives pp. 99-104; France 1999 157-158. 10. The Archive of Neilammon and Kalamos, – Sheep Lessees of Theadelpheia.123 19 texts belong to this archive which covers the period between AD 260 and 305. The two brothers, and their sons, were specialized in leasing sheep from large estates owned by metropolitan and Alexandrian citizens around Theadelpheia. Sheep-breeding seems to have been the main economic activity in Theadelpheia in this late period of its existence, as it was in Tebtynis. Villages on the fringe of the Fayoum may well have been ideal places for sheep-breeding, because areas of lower agricultural value were appropriate for the animals, while villages in the centre of the oasis could use their land for the cultivation of grain etc. ArchID 217; K. Geens in Trismegistos; Graeco-Roman Archives pp. 366-369; France 1999 155-156 [Photo 13.55].

121 122 123

P. Lips. II 152 and pp. 218-241. P. Sakaon, pp. IX-X (G. M. Parassoglou). Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism 202-206, and 209-211.

Photo 13.1: The plan of Theadelpheia (I. Klose after Ch. Kirby and P. Brosch).

154 CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

155

Photo 13.2: The site of Theadelpheia; view from the hill of ashes towards the north west; in the background the Bahr Qasr el-Banat with the road to Euhemeria.

Photo 13.3: The remains of the Temple of Pnepheros; view towards the north-west.

Photo 13.4: The Bahr Qasr el-Banât at Theadelpheia; view to the east from the bridge at the site.

156

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Photo 13.5: Graves of the Roman period between the village and the Ptolemaic cemetery, seen from east.

Photo 13.6: The hill of dark ashes in the east of the site, behind the three vaults building.

Photo 13.7: Closeup of the hill of dark ashes.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

157

Photo 13.8: Remains of a building (?) of fired bricks in the hill of dark ashes.

Photo 13.9: The vineyard at the ghafir’s house at Theadelpheia.

Photo 13.10: Lower part of the eastern pillar (remains of the Temple of Pnepheros).

158

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Photo 13.11: Bath 1; view from the west.

Photo 13.12: Plan of Bath 1 (from Redon and Fournet 2017).

Photo 13.13: The three vault building with remains of three individual tubs to its south.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

159

Photo 13.14: The three vault building; view from the west with remains of the northern tholos in foreground.

Photo 13.15: Bath 2 after partial excavation by Th. Fournet in December 2014.

Photo 13.16: Plan of Bath 2 (from Redon and Fournet 2017).

160

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Photo 13.17: North-eastern corner of the three vault building.

Photo 13.18: Water containers on top of the three vault building.

Photo 13.19: Inside the northern container of the three vault building; black mark on the northern wall.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

161

Photo 13.20: View from hill of dark ashes towards the south, with fermentation vats on the left hand side.

Photo 13.21: The two southern vats (Vats 1 and 2, from right to left), and Vat 3 in the background.

Photo 13.22: Vats 2 and 1 from south-west.

162

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Photo 13.23: Inside Vat 1.

Photo 13.24: The southern rim of Vat 1.

Photo 13.25: The southern rim of Vat 1; view from inside.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

163

Photo 13.26: Remains of a wooden beam in the eastern hole at the back of Vat 1.

Photo 13.27: Back of Vat 1; view from inside.

Photo 13.28: Treading floor and fermentation vat as shown in the Tomb of Petosiris in Tuna el-Gebel (from Cherpion, Corteggiani, Gout, Le tombeau de Pétosiris 2007, 56-63).

164

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Photo 13.29: A Container of liquid.

Photo 13.30: B Millstone.

Photo 13.31: C Container in form of a tub.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

165

Photo 13.32: D Plaster with painting.

Photo 13.33: F Bottom of fermentation vat (?).

Photo 13.34: G Remains of building made from fired bricks.

166

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Photo 13.35: Fired brick building after cleaning; to the right, the treading floor and the small vat.

Photo 13.36: The fermentation vat with the treading floor to the left and the fired brick building to the right.

Photo 13.37: View from the east over the treading floor and the fired bricks building.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

167

Photo 13.38: Front wall of fermentation vat.

Photo 13.39: Traces of the steps leading up to the upper rim of the fermentation vat.

Photo 13.40: The layers of construction under the treading floor at G.

168

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Photo 13.41: The small vat on the treading floor at G.

Photo 13.42: I Small bath.

Photo 13.43: J Another small bath with the larger container at the far end.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

169

Photo 13.44: L Another small bath.

Photo 13.45: M Millstone.

Photo 13.46: N Column base of limestone.

170

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Photo 13.47: P Part of a statue (?).

Photo 13.48: R Remains of a wall of fired bricks.

Photo 13.49: T Millstone.

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

171

Photo 13.50: The cemetery of Theadelpheia; view from south-east to north-west; in the foreground Tomb 12.

Photo 13.51: Tomb 6.

Photo 13.52: Tomb 9.

172

CHAPTER 13: BATN HARIT = THEADELPHEIA

Photo 13.53: Tomb 12, from east.

Photo 13.54: Tomb 12, entrance, from west.

Photo 13.55: The team at Theadelpheia in 2005; Nabil, the Ghafir; Saʾad Mohamed Bedie; Margaret Mountford; David Leith; Cornelia Römer; Patrick Brosch.

CHAPTER 14 QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA1 Plan is Photo 14.1; Maps II and III; V-VI; XI; XIV; XV

The village of Euhemeria was situated between Philoteris and Theadelpheia, of which the exact locations are also known (see Chapters 16 and 13).2 Euhemeria is about 7,5 km to the east of Philoteris, and about 3,5 km north-west of Theadelpheia. The location sequence of these villages probably follows the course of the ancient main feeder canal in the north-western part of the Fayoum, which reached out to Dionysias and beyond. This course of the ancient canal probably corresponded to the modern Bahr Qaroun = Bahr Qasr el-Banât.3 Besides the known neighbouring villages, other villages must have been situated in close vicinity (see “Ruins” in Chapt. 15, and Chapt. 29). Like most of the κῶμαι in this part of the Fayoum, Euhemeria was founded in the reign of Ptolemy II (if not Ptolemy I) and was abandoned in the 4th century AD. The earliest securely dated papyrus mentioning Euhemeria is P.Petr. III 82 from 243/242 BC; the latest papyri date to the 4th century AD, among them exactly dated only SB XXII 15728 from AD 347. Ceramic evidence corroborates these dates. The ancients called the settlement Εὐημέρεια,4 a name of good omen, meaning “fine weather”, also “prosperity”, “health and wealth”, and “happiness”. In Frg. 161 of the comedy author Alexis (3rd century BC) Εὐημερία is personified (Kassel-AustinII p. 114); in Tanagra, Boiotia, Εὐημερία 1

2

3

4

GEO-ID 675; Calderini II 184-188; Suppl. 1, 116-117; Suppl. 2, 57; Suppl. 3, 38-39; Suppl. 4, 59; Suppl. 5, 34. Wessely 1904 Topographie 63-65; P. Tebt. II 377; for the archaeological site, see Davoli 1998 L’archaeologia urbana 329-330. The site and village of Euhemeria have been dealt with by France in his dissertation (TheadelpheiaandEuhemeria. VillageHistoryinGraeco-RomanEgypt, Trismegistos on-line publication, Leuven 1999), who gives an exhaustive list of the papyri found on the site or mentioning the village. The main value of France’s work is the description and partly reproduction of Rubensohn’s diary, which he discovered and used first for his studies. I focus here on the main buildings still visible on the site (the two baths), and offer some new interpretation of finds. The exact location (middle of site) is 29o 22’ 22.32’’ N, 30o 32’ 15.51’’; the altitude is around 5 metres (pace the 1:50,000 Egyptian Map of the area, which indicates an altitude of 10 metres of the site). The location of the cemetery of Euhemeria beyond the canal which now runs by here, seems to speak against the assumption that the modern canal follows the ancient course of water in this region; Rubensohn (p. 104 of his diary) was also puzzled by the fact that “der neue Kanal führt zwischen der Stadtruine und der Nekropole her” (France 1999 93)! However, after the description of Grenfell and Hunt, the cemetery was located in the south and south-west of the ancient village, after “a sandy depression” (see below with note 21). Since the level of ground rises continuously southwards from the canal, the cemetery was on this higher level in respect to the canal also in antiquity (see Chapt. 1, Canals in the Themistou Meris). The “sandy depression” may well have covered the ancient canal at the time when Grenfell and Hunt came here. Finally the damp, which had destroyed most objects found by Grenfell and Hunt (see later, p. 177), may have been – if a result of the condition in ancient times – caused by the vicinity of the canal. The cemetery of the modern village of Al-Jundi ca. 1 km down the canal is nowadays also situated south of, and directly on the canal. The full denomination in the Roman period is Εὐημέρεια κώμη τοῦ Ἀρϲινοίτου νομοῦ τῆϲ Θεμίϲτου μερίδοϲ (69 AD, SB III 6154, 7), or more frequently Εὐημέρεια τῆϲ Θεμίϲτου μερίδοϲ τοῦ Ἀρϲινοίτου νομοῦ, also Εὐημέρεια τῆϲ Θεμίϲτου μερίδοϲ; in the 4th century AD the name is once spelled Εὐημερίϲ (P. Abinn. 27, 3 = P. Gen. I 59).

174

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

was deified; could this be the background of the village name? W. Clarysse thinks that the village was named after a (not attested) Alexandrian deme; in the background may be the philosopher and mythographer Euhemeros, who lived at the Macedonian court at the end of the 4th century. Today some locals still call the ancient site of Euhemeria “Qasr el-Banât”, “Castle of the Girls”;5 or “Qasr el-Inglisi”, “Castle of the Englishmen”, obviously a reminiscence of the presence of Grenfell and Hunt here around 1898; better known to the locals today is the name of the modern village nearby, Ezbet Afifi. How to get there Euhemeria is best reached by following the road along the lake towards Qouta and Qasr Qaroun. Before reaching Qasr Qaroun one turns to the left into the road to the Wadi Rayan, and turns left again at the second crossing, leaving the canal (the Bahr Qaroun = Bahr Qasr el-Banât) on the right-hand side. This road follows the canal for ca. 6 km to the village of Ezbet Afifi; at the end of the village, leave the car, or turn left into an untarred road which leads along a small canal into the village; after c. 250 metres park the car where a road branches off to the right at a tree. The ancient site is now at your right and can easily be reached on foot. For who comes from Theadelpheia (see Chapt.13), the ancient site is clearly visible from the road on the right-hand side before entering the modern village of Ezbet Afifi (3,5 km north-west of Theadelpheia). Here its lower location – in respect to the modern road and the canal – is evident.6

1. General Description of the Site The site presents itself today as an overall trapezoid undulating plain surrounded by green land on all sides; it measures ca. 400 × 400 metres [Photo 14.2].7 The only buildings still standing (in ruins) are two tholos baths in the western and eastern parts of the site, and fragments of one or several buildings of fired brick in the northern part. On the north-western edge, very poor remains of possibly ancient walls were detected (see below, 5. The Temple). All other buildings have disappeared during the huge land reclamation activities in the first 30 years of the 20th century, when farmers needed the mud bricks to build up the soil on their newly reclaimed fields. What in the eastern part of the site seems to be a winding wall of ca. 1 m height, considered as such by P. Davoli,8 is a mass of very hard coagulated ancient material which carries pottery, stones, straw etc. [Photo 14.3].9 5 6 7

8

9

Grenfell and Hunt translate the site’s name as “The Maiden’s Palace”; the background of that name is not known. The road and the canal are located on ca. 7.5 metres, the village at about 5 metres (see note 2). These measures are nearly the same as those which Grenfell and Hunt found when they came here to excavate in late 1898; even though they report that “cultivation had crept up to the site since 1896”, when they had first visited the site (P. Fay. p. 21), it seems that at least the outline of the ancient site has been well protected (pace Davoli 1998 295); still, the advance of the cultivation between 1896 and 1898 had brought clandestine diggers to work here. Grenfell and Hunt described the site as follows: “the low, undulating mounds are intersected by sandy hollows, and cover an area of about a quarter of a square mile” (p. 43). L’archeologiaurbana 295 and 297-298; France 1999 118; it is possible that this undulating line of hard afsh was created by a water stream, which led from Bath House 2 in this area; this “wall” starts, indeed, at the point, where a tube was channelling out water from the bath (see below, Bath 2). But Grenfell and Hunt’s observation about this kind of hard afsh in quite a number of koms on the site (see the following note) could also speak against this assumption. A second “wall” like this one, observed by P. Davoli in the west of the site, did not catch our eyes. That these are certainly not the “enclosure walls”, which Grenfell and Hunt had found in the “centre of the site” (P. Fay. p. 44) is obvious. Obviously the kind of material which Grenfell and Hunt found in some mounds at Euhemeria; P. Fay. p. 44: “The afsh in these mounds had a tendency to coagulate into a hard mass which a tûrya could hardly penetrate”.

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

175

Another feature is now clearly visible in Google Earth: a straight line runs from the north-western edge through the lower middle of the site for altogether ca. 200 m into south-eastern direction; it runs close to and parallel with the outlines of Bath 1. On the site, this feature reveals itself as a trench of between 1 and several metres width of which the southern borders are more regular than the northern ones. At these borders no building material is visible, but only the sandy clayish soil which is found also at the others places, where mud bricks etc. have been dug up. The trench is more than one metre deep in some places, but at other places heaps of sand reach from one border to the other. This trench may have to do with the temple and may outline the ancient dromos (see below). The whole site is scattered with thick layers of pottery, which can be dated between the 3rd century BC and the 4th century AD (see Bailey, Vol. B, p. 14); it may have been distributed at random on the site after having been sifted out by the sebakhîn.10 The cemetery is completely gone (see below, Earlier Visitors to the Site, Grenfell and Hunt, Rubensohn).11 In the eastern part of the site, some depressions were filled with ground water when we worked there in April and September.

2. Earlier Visitors and Excavators at Euhemeria When R. Pococke came to the Near East between 1738 and 41, he also travelled to the north-western Fayoum, mainly to visit the temple of Qasr Qaroun believed to be the Labyrinth; he then observed several ancient sites in the area.12 Also E. Jomard came here between 24 and 31 January 1799 for the same reason as Pococke, observing several ancient sites without giving closer descriptions.13 G. B. Belzoni visited Dionysias and the area south of the lake in early May 1819, but did not indicate any names of ruins which he obviously saw, except for an El-Hamam. Where exactly he saw the “many stumps of palms and other trees, nearly petrified, and vine in great plenty”14 in a completely deserted land is not clear, but after his description it must have been the area on the lake between the Wadi Nazlah and Qasr Qaroun. J. G. Wilkinson’s map – he visited here in 1824 – (see Maps II and III) is again astonishingly precise in locating “Qasr el Benat” to the north-west of “Hareet” (Theadelpheia) and to the east of the “Old canals” at Philoteris. The addition “crude brick ruins” seems a further description to “Qasr el Benat”. On M. Linant de Bellefonds’ map (published in 1854; not on Map IV) the remains of “Casr el Binte” are not well located in respect to Hereet (Theadelpheia), the ancient canals, and to Philoteris (“Décombres”, “Tombeaux”); here, Casr el Binte and Hereet were moved too far to the north, and Casr el Binte is misplaced strictly to the west of Hereet.

10 11

12 13 14

The phenomenon is described by Bailey 1999 ‘Sebakh, Sherds and Survey’ 211-218. The drawing in Rubensohn’s diary shows where the ancient cemetery was once located; see the drawing in his diary, France 1999 Fig. 25 and here below. It was exactly where now a large parcel of land is partly under water (as now on the map of Google Earth, and as seen by the team on several occasions). Pococke 1743 ADescriptionoftheEast, Vol. I, Chapt. VII, 55-66. 1821 Section II 457-477. Belzoni 2001 NarrativesoftheOperations 267.

176

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

The first scholars to excavate on the site were P. B. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt who, accompanied by D. G. Hogarth, put up their tent at Euhemeria on 9 December 1898 and excavated there for four weeks, then turned to the cemetery of the place for a further two weeks.15 At that time, the site was “on the edge of the desert”.16 The British scholars found low mounds and ruined houses which were “very shallow”; they observed that there were no underground cellars, “which were so common a feature in Umm el Atl” (Archaeological Report p. 9). Moreover, the large number of “store–rooms, very small and not more than 1-1 ½ m long and generally arranged in rows” caught their eyes (p. 9). These must have been granaries in the typical form, as in many other sites (see Chapt. 16, Philoteris, pp. 225-226). Altogether, Grenfell and Hunt found the houses here “much inferior in point of solidity to those of Harît” (P. Fay. p. 43), since nearly all were built from mud bricks and only very few with stone. Of the “large walled enclosures filled up with sand in the centre of the site” nothing remains. Large parts of the site had been explored by locals at that time; in particular, the brick temple to the west of the site by “a few yards” (P. Fay. p. 45) had been dug out already for the most part: “its corners point almost exactly to the four quarters of the compass, the entrance being in the middle of the south-east side, facing the village. In its general arrangement it resembled the somewhat smaller temple of Bacchias”. See below 5. The Temple. The papyri found in the temple seem to indicate that it had been dedicated to Isis;17 the objects belonging to the temple were of the late Ptolemaic period, while most papyri found on the site by Grenfell and Hunt dated to the 1st – 3rd centuries AD (papyri from the Ptolemaic period were found later by clandestine diggers, who obviously dug into deeper layers in the site; see below 8. Papyri and Ostraca). An area of special interest was the extreme south-east of the site (thus south-east of the dromos), where several papyri from the Augustan period, among them two of the Iliad and the Odyssey, were unearthed (P. Fay. p. 44; P. Fay. 6, Iliad 21: LDAB 1348; P. Fay. 7, Odyssey 6: LDAB 1383). The plaster on the wall in one of the houses in that area showed the lower part of a painted decoration in the form of a series of feet, and some demotic defaced graffiti. Documentary papyri were found in good quantity in the southern part of the site; of special interest is the archive of Epagathos, who managed the estate of the veteran Lucius Bellienus Gemellus, a prosperous veteran and landowner during the reigns of Domitian and Trajan.18 In the same house, which had four rooms, the lower part of the asylum inscription of 69/68 BC had been turned over and used as a door step.19 Grenfell and Hunt rescued about 400 papyri at this site, among them 10 in demotic script (P. Fay. p. 45), and over 100 ostraca in Greek (most of them in a stove of one house).20 For the texts and the artefacts found here, see below.

15

16

17 18 19 20

A first report is to be found in the ArchaeologicalReport 1898-1899, 8-15, repeated with some alterations and more details in P. Fay. p. 43-50; Grenfell and Hunt had paid a first visit to the site in 1896; for the extension of the site at their time see footnote 7. A photo of the site is on pl. VIIa of P. Fay. In a letter from 14. 3. 1896, Hogarth had written to the EEF: “I advise you most strongly to let Grenfell work next season at Medinet Mahdi or Qasr el Banât or both….. There are not even guards on these mounds & they are more remote from man than even Kûm el Qatl (Bacchias)”; see Montserrat 1996 ‘No Papyrus and No Portraits’ 133-176, in particular 169. See below for 12. Cults in Euhemeria. See further below, 8. Papyri. The upper part was found by farmers in 1913; I. Fay. II 136; see below, Inscriptions No. 5. Trismegistos now counts 362 published texts from Euhemeria (papyri, ostraca, inscriptions), including the descripta of P. Fay. But the village is mentioned in far more texts; Trismegistos counts 336 such attestations.

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

177

The cemetery located by Grenfell and Hunt to the south-west of the site (ArchaeologicalReport p. 10)21 “proved to be very poor”, and they moved on to Theadelpheia after two weeks. At least, they opened 400 to 500 tombs (!), finding “all objects of wood and cloth utterly ruined by damp” (P. Fay. p. 61).22 Only after excavating the cemetery of Theadelpheia, they attempted a typological and chronological classification of the tombs at Euhemeria. They found (p. 62): 1. Narrow slits, 60-150 cm deep, “corresponding to the poorest Roman graves at Harît”; 2. Larger tombs, in which the body was placed under a covering of bricks, “corresponding to the late Ptolemaic tombs at Harît, and to the better class of Roman ones at Harît”; 3. Burials in pottery coffins,23 “either under a thick covering of bricks or in recesses at the side. These must have been Ptolemaic”. 4. Burials in vaulted tombs, 30-120 cm under the surface, “these must have been of the same date as no. 3”; 5. Burials in limestone sarcophagi, “Ptolemaic, probably late rather than early”. As Grenfell and Hunt reported, burials were shallow, never more than 2 ½ metres deep; most of them were laid out north-west to south-east with the head to the north-western end, thus being laid parallel to the orientation of the temple.24 Mummification was rarely employed. Interestingly, the ruins of a house were also found on the cemetery, which contained “a number of more or less broken up mummies” (P. Fay. p. 62). Two of them had pieces of papyrus wrapped in, on which a few letters could be read (1st to 2nd century AD). The house may have been a burial chamber similar to those in Hawara and Tuna el-Gebel, and may have served for an elite family living in the village. But altogether, the cemetery of Euhemeria was much poorer than that at Theadelpheia, where more pottery and miscellaneous antiquities were found (p. 62). For exact find spots of some small objects on the cemetery see France, p. 54. The observation of a less refined population in Euhemeria – in respect to the population of Theadelpheia is corroborated by the new pottery finds on the site during the survey (see Bailey, Vol. B, p. 14), and of the pottery shown in the pictures of P. Fay. see G. Pyke, Vol. B, Appendix I pp. 305-324. Otto Rubensohn and his team worked at the site of Euhemeria for a brief period in 1902, during their excavations at Theadelpheia between February 9 and March 9.25 Their only interest was the cemetery, where they opened 12 graves of the same form as in Theadelpheia (France 93), an uncertain number of graves of a second type, in which the bodies were covered with bricks, and of a third type, which contained sarcophagi. Rubensohn was disappointed with his work in Euhemeria, which he considered “erschreckend ergebnislos” (Diary 105, France 93). The main interest of his statements in the diary lies in the sketch, on which the the ancient cemetery is clearly located; Grenfell and Hunt’s indication is thus verified (see also Chapt. 1 on the canals in the Themistou Meris); today nothing remains of that cemetery. In Rubensohn’s sketch (Figure 1) to the right, there is the oval site of “Qasr el Banât”, in the middle, the vertical of the modern “Canal”, and to left of it, the “Nekropôle” with the indication of some tombs in the north-west, and the stroke towards north; the “canal”, which branched off

21

22 23 24 25

In P. Fay., Grenfell and Hunt locate the cemetery “in a plain to the south and south-west of the town, from which it was separated by a sandy depression” (p. 61). For the location of that cemetery in relationship to the modern canal see above with footnote 3. For the dampness and its possible connection to the nearby canal, see above footnote 3. See pl. XIIb, figs. 8, 10 and 12. Observation of France 1999 54. See Rubensohn’s diary, now online in part at the Trismegistos site (about its history see France 1999 71).

178

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

Figure 1: From the diary of O. Rubensohn, 1902, p. 105; France 1999 93.

from the main canal to the west of the “Nekropôle” is still functioning today, as well as some buildings to the west of it (see Figure 2); on the image of Google Earth from 2002, nearly the complete area of what was Rubensohn’s “Nekropôle” is under water, to regenerate the soil for new crops, as I was told by locals at that time. Only a small part of that area in the north and adjacent to the modern canal reached out of the water in that year.

Figure 2: RAF Photo from 1955 (Courtesy of The Royal Airforce); most of the cemetery is already covered by fields.

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

179

Here, too, the small part adjacent to the canal is not yet covered by green land; further to the east, a large stretch of land, laying exactly south of the main site is still unworked. Caton-Thompson and Gardner 1934 The Desert Fayoum did not put Euhemeria on their map (Pl. CVIII). Davoli 1998 L’archeologia urbana, dedicates 3 pages and 2 photos to Euhemeria, focussing on Grenfell and Hunt’s excavation report (295-299 with Fig. 140-141).

3. Single Buildings on the Site The only remaining buildings of some substance are those made of fired bricks; in Euhemeria we find the ruins of two tholos baths, and fragments of a further building (or buildings), which may have belonged to a bath.26 Remains of very few mud brick walls in the north – west of the site may have belonged to the temple. Bath1 Entering the site from the modern village, one finds the first bath after c. 80 metres on the left-hand side of the path which leads across the site (Photos 14.4, 14.5 and 14.6). Like Bath 2, this bathing establishment was located close to the edge of the site, a feature which we also encounter in Theadelpheia. In 1978, el-Khachab gave a short description and a photograph of Bath 1 in the Annales du ServicedesAntiquités, but no plan had ever been published.27 What remains of Bath 1 are the substructures of the two tholoiA and B, which rise about 1 m from the ground, and the circles of hip-baths preserved up to the arm rests on both sub structures [Photo14.7]. To the south, i. e. in front of the two tholoi(or was this the back, in respect to the dromos(?) a large part of the corridor still extends over the length of the two, whereas in the rear of Tholos B and to the left of Tholos A only a small part of such corridors is preserved insitu, while other parts lie on the ground without any genuine linkage to the former building. Only from Tholos B connections can be traced to the front and rear corridors respectively (they do not connect the circle of tubs, but the much larger substructure). The most interesting feature of this bath is a substantial alteration in Tholos B which the building obviously underwent between all the other reconstructions at a certain date, which unfortunately cannot be defined more precisely. The substructures consist of several layers of vertically and horizontally placed mud bricks, between which layers of fired bricks and heavy layers of mortar become visible (Photo 14.8 and 14.9). The outside of the structure was also plastered with several layers of mortar; here, the marks of further layers of mud bricks, which have been removed, are visible. The substructures of both tholoi indicate the vivid construction and reconstruction activities around this bath, perhaps from 26

27

Both baths were published in a preliminary form in Römer 2013 as ‘The Greek Baths in the Fayoum’ 223-231; the plans given in Photos 6 and 12 are the more elaborated plans from the publication of Fournet and Redon 2017, Cat. No. 12 (B295, F 47) and 13 (B296, F48), p. 403-405, in which more details and new interpretations are given. Abd el-Mohsen el-Khachab 1978 ΤΑΣΑΡΑΠΕΙΑ pl. 66 and 67 (L. Koenen sitting in the hip bath to the right); in the far background, one of the containers at the northern part of the site is visible.

180

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

EUHEMERIA

Bathhouse 1 B

QASR EL BANAT

B

A

A

Mortar floor

5

0

10 Meter

Section of Bathhouse 1 seat wall 0

7.24m

7.22m

A

A

B 5

10 Meter

Figure 3: Bath 1 (plan by Ch. Kirby and P. Brosch).

B

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

181

the early Ptolemaic period. It seems that two thirds of the nowadays visible substructure in both tholoi had been put on top of the earliest layer, of which we see the pebbled floor at some place (Photo 14.10); at the south-eastern end of the southern corridor, at least 5 layers of plaster of different thickness can be distinguished. Tholos A (diameter of 6.60 m; the inner circle measures 4 m) shows a circle of 25 hip-baths (100 × 50 cm) and a vat (110 × 70 × 36 cm); the only entrance to the circle is next to the vat and oriented towards Tholos B, but no connection between the two tholoi remains. The hip-tubs are constructed with fired bricks and are well plastered. The places where the feet rested in front of the pots are covered with mortar, as is the floor in the middle of the circle. This floor slopes towards the entrance by 20 cm, a feature which facilitated the evacuation of water from the room; in addition, a hole in the centre of the circle allowed for the drainage of the water. The substructure of Tholos B has the same diameter as Tholos A (6.60 m), but the circle of the hip-baths has been reduced to a much smaller construction (see Photo 6), now covering not even half of the substructure (diameter now ca. 4 m; the inner circle measures 2.2 m). The area outside the circle is covered by several layers of mortar, as is the inner part. This small circle contains 13 hip-baths and one vat; groups of three tubs are situated to the left and right hand of the exit, which leads into the direction of Tholos A; beyond the three tubs to the left of the entrance, the circle does not provide further tubs, but is plastered over for about 2½ m, before the next row of seven tubs continues the circle; then follows the vat and three further tubs. What led to this alteration can only be a matter of guess. Maybe, at some point in time the substructure of Tholos B was no longer sufficently water-proof in its full extension, and was therefore partially abandoned; but the fact that even within the small circle the number of seats was unnecessarily reduced, may rather point to a reduced interest in this part of the building. Since our survey, the building has been further damaged by unprofessional digging around the area, and in the bath itself. Bath2 This bathing facility was located on the opposite edge, in the eastern part of the village (Photos 14.11 + 14.12). The tholoi of this bath are less well preserved, but here we find more of the infrastructure of the facility. Again, this bath was provided with two tholoi, of which the substructures and part of the tubs are still visible. To the front and the back of the tholoi, floors of extensive corridors remain, both of which were connected to both tholoi. Different from Bath 1, in the substructures of Bath 2 no older layers of the building are visible. Apparently what we see today rests immediately on the ground [Photo 14.13]. Whether this is an indication of a younger date of the bath is uncertain. Tholos A (diameter of inner circle 3,8 metres) once provided 22 hip-baths, which were arranged in semicircles to the left and right of two entrances leading to the corridors in the front (?) and at the rear respectively. The entrance to the front corridor facing east seems to have been somewhat larger than the entrance to the rear corridor. No vats in the row of tubs can be detected. Tholos B has the same layout. The inner circles of both tholoi are covered with thick layers of mortar. Floors are sloping towards the entrance at the east corridor by c. 10 cm. At the far end of that corridor a well-preserved tube seems to have channelled the used water out of the building (Photo 14.14); at this point, the corridor slopes down by c. 30 cm from where it started at Tholos B. This bath was, apparently, more elegant than Bath 1: the places on which the feet of the bathers rested, were covered here with pebbled floors [Photot 14.15]. In Bath 1, we only find the usual mortar between the benches and the pots in the hip-baths. Some of the pots (diameter 32 cm at top; 22 cm deep) were cut from lime-stone and not formed from the usual mortar [Photo 14.16]; Bailey, Vol. B,

182

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

Figure 4: Bath 2 (plan by Ch. Kirby and P. Brosch).

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

183

No. 1488. But many of these pots in circle B had been removed and replaced by the common plastering, losing several cm in depth. Some of the pots had been filled with plaster nearly up to the rim. Whether this was an attempt to reduce the water consumption in the bath, or what else may have led to this alteration, is not clear. The rather small and shallow pots may also have belonged to the original setting; visiting the newly excavated bath in Karnak28, I observed that there all pots are very shallow and provide a rose-quartz bottom only a few centimetres below the rim of the pots. In this Bath 2 in Euhemeria, we can study how the water entered the building, was distributed therein, and then disposed of. In the area between the two tholoi and the front corridor, a horseshoe-shaped watercontainer opens, of which the upper rim now reaches up to the hight of the best-preserved arm-rests of the tubs in Tholos B, though originally it was certainly higher [Photo 14.17]. The container is 80 cm deep; an exit towards the corridor reaches that corridor just above its floor, and a second exit below, close to its own bottom, leads into the direction of a second container; it was obviously connected to that second water container, which is situated beyond and below the front corridor opposite the entrance to Tholos A. The drainpipe between the two containers, consisting of clay tubes fitted into one another, is still insitu for the complete distance between the vats, and visible for some part where it starts at the lower container [Photo 14.18]. From here it first bends down by 10 cm, but must have gone up by about altogether 15 cm towards the upper vat. This lower container, of which not all sides remain, certainly had a much larger capacity than the upper one; the drainpipe started about 25 cm above the bottom of this vat. We do not know to which height the rim of this vat rose, but it may have been considerably higher than the bottom of the upper vat. If so, the water may have been pressed through the drainpipe from the lower to the upper vat, from where the bathers obtained the water for their baths. The layout of this bath is very similar to the one in Karnak. There too, the two containers are connected by a clay tube. It seems to me that there too, the larger container which was situated at the perimeter of the bathhouse, received large amounts of water from the outside by some water lifting device. The water was then channelled into the smaller container within the building through the pipe. Because – and this is true in both cases –, the outer container was so deep, the water there remained fresh. None of the bath houses in Euhemeria show any installations for, nor any individual immersion bath tubs, but those may be lost in the area around the ruined tholoi. For dating these baths in Euhemeria we have no other indication than the first date of the settlement as a whole, that is around 270 BC (as Theadelpheia). Did the early settlers come to a village which was well equipped with the facilities they knew from their home villages and towns in Greece (Boietia?), Asia Minor or Sicily? If so, they may have happily greeted these bath houses at the edges of their newly designed homesteads now in Egypt. Note that the tholos bath in Dionysias was also located on the edge of the site. Such locations at the edges of the villages facilitated of course the water supply in large quantities to be transported from a canal running by the settlement. But it may also be that the baths were added later, and are therefore to be found at the edges of the village, or that they succeded one another over the 3rd century BC. In Euhemeria not only the standard of the installations in the two baths was different, as we have seen, but also the layout in general. Were two entrances into the tholoi a novelty against the old fashioned style of just one entrance, which provided more intimacy in the bath, or was it the other way around? The evidence from the papyri does not help to date these baths. That people in Euhemeria had to pay the bath tax is proved only in the 1st century BC by two ostraca (O. Fay. 2; 23 May 13 BC; O. Fay. 3; 23 July 3 BC). 28

See Boraik 2009 ‘Ptolemaic Baths’ 73-86. The terminusantequem of this bath is 140-114 BC (dating by the coins found therein).

184

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

The close similarity between Bath 2 in Euhemeria and the bath found in Karnak, which has at least a secure terminus ante quem – 140-114 BC –, may lead us to assume that at least Bath 2 in Euhemeria also belongs to the earlier Ptolemaic period, and therefore possibly even to the first layout of the village. In the 3rd century AD, one of the baths in Euhemeria was owned by the Appianus Estate and leased out (P. Flor. III 322; cf. Rathbone 1991, 196); whether it was one of those still standing is not clear.

4. The Building Fragments in the North-Eastern Part of the Site [Photo 14.19] Parts of fired brick constructions are scattered over an area of about 100 square meters, which may or may not have belonged to one building. Whether these items are original to the place is not clear; none of them has any original connection to the ground underneath. The surface around is covered with fragments of fired bricks. In this area also a millstone lies on the ground. To the north of the area and close to it, there are traces of two kilns. BuildingfragmentsA-D A

B

C

D

A large block of fired bricks (189 × 170 × 160 cm), plastered on all sides and exhibiting an extensive rectangular container inside. The block is turned over; bricks and plaster on the outside continue for some cm on one of the smaller sides, at one point stretching out to a second container, which is nearly completely lost. The plaster on the outside of the container shows marks of further layers of bricks on all sides. This arrangement of containers in a row resembles the building in Theadelpheia, which was perhaps part of an industrial facility of the Roman period (see Chapt. 13 pp. 129-130). The well-plastered vat (135 × 113 cm; 107 cm deep) inside has rounded corners and shows a round depression in one corner; the upper rim is lost [Photo 14.20]. To the north of A lies a block (108 × 65 × 77 cm) containing a small vat (73 × 30 cm; 59 cm deep); the upper rim is not preserved; at the bottom of the block and along its smaller sides, the plaster stretches out as to a further container; from the vat a spout opens on one of the longer sides, not completely centered on that side. This vat is certainly too small for an immersion tub, but rather belonged to an industrial facility [Photo 14.21]. Between A and B, there are several smaller fragments of fired brick walls. To the east of B, a large block of fired bricks in form of a semicircle stands upright (diameter of the semicircle: 220 cm; from the diameter to the summit: 70 cm; hight of the semicircle 130 cm) [Photo 14.22]. The semicircle is completely filled with fired bricks; on its lower end, a construction of fired bricks stretches out from the diameter for 150 cm (29 cm high). All sides of this construction are plastered over and show marks of the next layers of bricks. Only a horizontal band of plaster along the diameter seems to have been smoothed and exposed to the beholder at some time [Photo 14.23]. Davoli interprets this as part of a “struttura termale” (p. 295); is this the inner part of a winding staircase? (P. Grossmann) In the same area lies a block of fired bricks (115 × 110 × 75 cm), which exhibits remains of pebbled plaster on its top [Photo 14.24], and further fragments of fired brick walls.

A-D may have been parts of a further bath in the north of the site, but seem not to have been carried here from Baths 1 or 2. All these construction fragments are certainly to be dated to the Roman period. Altogether they seem to mark the site of industrial activities in the north of the village in the Roman period, rather than indicating another bath.

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

185

5. Remains of the Temple and its Sacred Space The trench which has been dug through the middle of the site (see here introduction), is perhaps connected with the location of the temple as indicated by Grenfell and Hunt. This trench was probably dug when the whole site was stripped of all its resources useful for the local people.29 Since it runs parallel to the building of Bath 1, it is possibly part of a genuine layout of the village. I do not consider it impossible that this trench follows the line of the ancient dromos, which was possibly built in stone. The removal of those stones could have left a trench like the one still visible. Following the trench into north-western direction and beyond Bath 1, one reaches an area which is nowadays used as a dump, also for dead animals. Some poor and heavily washed remains of some mud brick walls in this area follow the direction of the trench. This location would correspond well to what Grenfell and Hunt described as the location of the temple (P. Fay. p. 45): “the temple stood a few yards away from the town on the north-west and was constructed mainly of brick. Its corners point almost exactly to the four quarters of the compass, the entrance being in the middle of the south-east side, facing the town. In its arrangement it resembled the somewhat smaller temple of Bacchias”.30 The walls and the trench run nearly exactly on the 45° line between north and west, thus corresponding to Grenfell and Hunt’s description of the orientation of the temple. If this interpretation of the trench and the very poor remains of walls at its western end is correct, we would see here in Euhemeria the typical layout of a Ptolemaic village with the main temple at one edge of the village and its sacred space reaching out into the village by a dromos which split the village into two parts. Such a layout is certainly found in Dionysias, Tebtynis, Narmouthis and Soknopaiou Nesos, and probably also in Theadelpheia.31

6. Small Finds Grenfell and Hunt reported a large number of small finds on the site, which they found together with the papyri (see P. Fay. pp. 46-47). A

B

29 30

31 32

Coins A list of the coins from Euhemeria is printed in P. Fay. pp. 69-70; the earliest coin comes from the reign of Ptolemy V Epiphanes (205-180 BC), the latest from the reign of Julian (360-363 AD). This is the latest securely dated object from the site so far. The hoard misleadingly mentioned in the list of Faucher et al. I EgyptianHoards, p. 14, no. 247, dating to the 16th year of Augustus, was never found on the site, but is among the objects reported to the chief of police as robbed in c. AD 28 (P. Ryl. II 125; Sel. Pap. II 278). Stamps Four wooden stamps are listed on p. 46 as having been found at Euhemeria; they have been republished, numbered and interpreted by G. Nachtergael;32 these large format stamps seem to have been employed for the sealing of the storage rooms in granaries, and usually give the

The trench is not visible on the RAF photo taken in 1955. The temple of Bacchias (in P. Fay. pl. III) is the now called “Tempio A”; it measures roughly 25 × 40 m; see now Franceschelli and Tassinari 2006 ‘Bakchias X’ 95-115. Note that such a layout is by no means visible at Philoteris till now. 2001 ‘Sceaux et timbres de bois’ 231-257; Vandorpe 2005 ‘Sealing Containers’.

186

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

names of those who owned the content of the storage (but see Nr. 23); the stamp was probably imprinted on a layer of clay or plaster attached to the door and the frame of the storage room. Nachtergael Nr. 23 = SB XXVI 1638(2) Nr. 30 = SB XXVI 16638 (6) Nr. 36 = SB XXVI 16638 (10) Nr. 46 = SB I 1446

C

D E

F

Ἑρμούθεω; Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum 1157133; Roman Καίϲαροϲ; housed in?; time of Augustus (?) Ἥρων Πτολεμαίου; London, BM 32200; Roman ΑΒΓ Μαρρῆϲ; Cairo, Egyptian Museum Inv. 33426; from a house of the 2nd to 3rd century AD.

These wooden stamps, if interpreted rightly by Nachtergael, corroborate the existence of an official granary, a thesauros, at Euhemeria in the Roman period.34 Other wooden objects Grenfell and Hunt list (p. 46) combs,35 mallets,36 a rattle, several spindles,37 the head of a rake,38 numerous little boxes, two of them with lids, another enamelled; furthermore a lock,39 a knife-handle, pegs,40 funnels,41 two spinning-tops,42 a draughtsman and door handles. Three writing tablets are mentioned, but their whereabouts are unknown (p.47).43 Terracotta figurines “were generally very rudely executed and in many cases probably intended for toys”; a different case may be the figure of “man holding a lantern” (p. 46). Blue glazed ware: Grenfell and Hunt list a large two-handled vase,44 a Venus Anadyomene figurine, a lion, numerous beads etc. (p. 46-47); they also considered worth mentioning five dark blue glaze cylinders intended to be joined together.45 For a small blue glazed crocodile, found by our team, see Bailey, Vol. B, No. 1467. Iron implements found by Grenfell and Hunt were a sickle,46 two swords, two knives with handles47 and the head of a hoe (p. 47).

For more small finds such as baskets, shoes etc. I refer to P.Fay. pp. 46-47 and plates XV-XVII. In general, the items mentioned above and here seem to be rather modest; people at Euhemeria were not extravagant. The objects show the life of people, whose occupation was split between agricultural and domestic work.

33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

44 45 46 47

With this indication in Trismegistos, Text 107179; Grenfell and Hunt report this item and no. 46 to be kept at Gizeh; there are 6 wooden stamps with the name of Hermouthis, two of them from Tebtynis; see Nachtergael 2002/2003 ‘Documents de fouilles’ 292-293; in this case we may have the name of the harvest goddess written on the stamp rather than a personal name. See Daris 1997, ‘Urbanistica Pubblica’ 173-196. Pl. XV, fig. 7 and 8, 15 and 16. Pl. XV, fig. 10, 11 and 12. Pl. XV, fig. 14 and 18. Pl. XV, fig. 5. Pl. XVI, fig. 6. Pl. XVI, fig. 8. Pl. XVI, fig. 9. Pl. XVI, fig. 16. Brashear and Hoogendijk 1990 do not mention them in their CorpusTabularum 1-54; Worp 2012 ANewSurvey, TOP 6, does not include the items either. Pl. XII b, fig. 11. Pl. XVI, fig. 18. Pl. XV, fig. 2. Pl. XV, fig. 3.

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

187

7. Inscriptions from Euhemeria Grenfell and Hunt found only one inscription, namely the lower part of a stela in which the right to grant asylia is transferred to the temple of Ammon at Euhemeria by Ptolemy XII Auletes in 69/68 BC (I. Fay. II 136, No. 5). The first 11 lines were later unearthed by farmers in 1913 (see above with note 19). In the meantime, altogether five inscriptions have been collected on the site (I. Fay. II pp. 132-136). 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

48

49 50 51

I. Fay. II 132 (Pl. 16) Dedication to Ptolemy V Epiphanes and Cleopatra I (between 194/193 and 176 BC), limestone lintel with beautiful lettering. We do not know anything about the sanctuary to which this inscription belonged, but it seems to be another witness to the building activity of Ptolemy V, also in the Fayoum.48 I. Fay. II 133 (Pl. 29) Dedication of a propylon to the god Premarres for Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II (between 175 and 163 BC); limestone lintel with large, not very carefully executed letters. The dedication shows the importance of the cult of Amenemhet III also in this part of the Fayoum. I. Fay. II 134 Dedication of a meeting place of private farmers49 under Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos (15 April, 79 BC). I. Fay. II 135 (Pl. 23) Order of Ptolemy XII Auletes and Cleopatra Tryphaine granting the temple of the crocodile gods Psosnaus, Pnepheros, and Soxis at Euhemeria the right of asylia (5 May, 69 BC); = I. Prose 3850; the temple itself and its enclosure wall were in such a bad condition at that time that a petition had been sent by a chiliarch from Antiochia, now settled in Euhemeria, to King and Queen to grant permission to restore the building, reinstall the cult of the crocodile gods and the former rulers of the country, and to set up new statues of the present ruler and his queen, and finally to grant the right of asylia (ll. 22 ff. “to grant … that the temple be inviolable, with no one to force entry or harass the priests in the temple and the pastophoroi and the others”).51 For this kind of grant, which is typical of the Hellenistic period all over the Greek-speaking world, but which we know from Egypt only in the 1st century BC in a special form, and predominantly from the Fayoum, see Rigsby 1996, Asylia, on Egypt pp. 540573. This text has no. 224 in Rigsby, p. 564-566. I. Fay. II 136 Partially found at the house of L. Bellinus Gemelus (see above with (Pl. 24-25) note 19). The right of asylum is granted to the temple of Ammon by Ptolemy XII Auletes in 69/68 BC = I. Prose 39; the temple is described as being completely in ruins and deserted at that time (ll. 5-7 ἱερὸν Ἄμμωνοϲ καὶ τῶν ϲυννάων θεῶν ϲυμπεπτωκὸϲ καὶ τοῖϲ ὅλοιϲ ἐξηρημωμένον); the applicant for the restauration is the Athenian Dionysodoros, son of Athenodoros. Rigsby, Asylia no. 225, p. 566-568. Another example being I. Fay. II 4; for the building activities of Ptolemy V see Lanciers 1986 ‘Die ägyptischen Tempelbauten zur Zeit des Ptolemaios V’ 81-98, in particular 89. For the difficult expression γεωργοὶ ἴδιοι see Bernand, I. Fay. II p. 98. Bernand 1992 Laprose1.2.Commentaires. See the interpretation by Heinen 1994 ‘ÄgyptischeTierkulte’ 157-168.

188

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

It may be accidental that all inscriptions found at Euhemeria date to the Ptolemaic period. The asylum decrees for temples at Euhemeria are contemporaneous with those for temples in Theadelpheia (see Chapt. 13). In both cases these inscriptions are phrased in Greek only, whereas bilinguality usually seems to mark texts exposed in public, which are dealing with sacred issues.52 The language together with the provenance of those who initiated these special grants for temples in the Fayoum seems to indicate a growing influence on the priesthood and sacred matters by the Greek ruling class from the beginning of the 1st century BC.53 At the time of Lucius Bellienus Gemellus (around AD 100), the significance of the text no. 136 was no longer known, and the stone sawn up and reused, but we do not know whether the stone had been replaced by a different one at the temple, or the right of asylia had been cancelled in Roman times.54 Eight stamped amphora handles and one rim of a mortarium were found by our team on the piles of pottery which are spread over the site and obviously not insitu(early excavators, surprisingly, do not mention any such finds); all the handles date to the Ptolemaic period, the rim of the mortarium to the Roman. Most of the stamps come from the late 3rd century BC, all but the Roman one are probably or certainly Rhodian; they thus corroborate the picture seen at Alexandria, Crocodilon Polis and Naucratis of a flourishing export from Rhodes to Egypt.55 At that time, the Rhodian export reached as far as Euhemeria, unless those amphorae arrived in this village, perhaps from the metropolis, in second use (see Bailey, Vol. B, p. 3). 1.

ΚΡΕΟΝΤΟC Bailey, Pottery catalogue in Vol. B no. 1089 ΔΑΛΙΟΥ From the factory of Kreon, in the month of Dalios [Photo 14.25]. Before 220 BC; Rhodian; rectangular; for the dating see Z. Sztetullo, Pottery Stamps, in: K. Mysliwiec 2000, TellAtrib1985-1995, 109 with footnote 435. Obviously rarely found in Egypt, but there were at least 7 found in Delos (see V. Grace, Timbresamphoriquestrouvés aDélos, BCH 77, 1952, 527).

2.

ΘΕΥΔΩΡΟ(Υ) no. 1088 ΣΜΙΝΘΙΟΥ From the factory of Theudoros, in the month of Sminthios [Photo 14.26]. 2nd half of 3rd century BC; Rhodian; Sztetullo Nr. 79, p. 101 with note 369; Cat. Gen., GreekInscriptions, ed. J. G. Milne, Oxford 1905, 26029, p. 115; the handles from the factory of Theudoros are rather rare. According to Cankardeş – Şenol I p. 552 Theudoros was active under Archocrates (here No. 3).

3.

ΕΠΙ ΑΡΧOΚΡΑΤ(EΥΣ) no. 1083 ΔΑ[ΛΙΟΥ] Under Archocrates, in the month of Dalios [Photo 14.27]. Late 3rd century BC; Rhodian; rectangular; such handles were found in many different regions of the Mediterranean; see Cat.Gen.,GreekInscriptions, No. 26041, p. 111; 26047 p. 111 (with head of Helios); Z. Sztetullo, Nr. 19, p. 76; J. L. Empereur, Timbresamphoriques de Crocodilopolis-Arsinoé, BIFAO 77, 1977, Nr. 24, p. 209-210; L. Criscuolo, Bolli d’anfora,no. 29; Cankardeş – Şenol I 552-559 (c. 209-205 BC).

52 53 54 55

Römer, TextsinPublicSpaceinthePtolemaicPeriod, forthcoming. See Bingen 1989 ‘Normalité et spécificité’ 15-35; English, Chapt. 19, 250-278, in particular 269ff. See also Rigsby 1996 Asylia 566. See Rehard 1996 StampedAmphoraHandles I 5, p. 147.

189

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

4.

Rhodian Rose, “Knopfstempel” ΕΠΙ ΙΕΡ[ΕΩ]Σ ΑΡΧΟΚΡΑ[ΤΕΥΣ] no. 1087 Under the priest Archocrates Late 3rd century BC; Rhodian; circular; Cat. Gen., Greek Inscriptions 26055 p. 112; G. Nachtergael,LacollectionM. Hombert,Timbresamphoriques, Bruxelles 1978 (Pap.Brux. 15), Nr. 13 (220-180 BC); Sztetullo, Nr. 19 (but rectangular); see Nr. 1; Cankardeş – Şenol I 556-557 (c. 209-205 BC).

5.

ΕΠΙ ΘΕ[ΣΤΟΡΟΣ] no. 1086 ΔΙΟΣΘΥ[ΟΥ] Under Thestor, in the month of Diosthuos [Photo 14.28]. End of 3rd century BC; Rhodian; Sztetullo, p. 94 with notes 294-295; Criscuolo Nr. 41; according to Cankardeş – Şenol II 223-229 c. 192 BC.

6.

ΕΠΙ ΔΑ[ΜΟ]no. 1084 ΚΡΑΤΕΥΣ ΔΑ[ΛΙ]ΟΥ Under Damokrates, in the month of Dalios [Photo 14.29]. Between 108 and 88 BC; Rhodian; H. Kawanishi – Y. Suto, ExcavationsatAkorisinMiddle EgyptI,AkorisArchaeologicalProject2005, Nr. 38-39, p. 47 (but there with lunar sigma); Sztetullo Nr. 63, but circular stamp with rose (found extremely often), dated by Sztetullo to 188-183 BC; cf. Cat.Gen.,GreekInscriptions No. 26063 p. 113; Cankardeş – Şenol II 57-60 (c. 107-88/86 BC).

7.

Rhodian Rose, “Knopfstempel”

8.

Rectangular stamp with distiguished decorative line around three letters in two lines: DΕ no. 1093 F [Photo 14.30] Roman; DEF written in one line is found on handles from Corbridge, Silchester, Rome and Hoyos de San Sebastian; cf. M. H. Callender, RomanAmphoraewithIndexofStamps, London 1965, No. 525, Fig. 7, 1-2. “Probably 2nd century”. D. M. Bailey considers this to be Rhodian, he reads DE and a double line below.

9.

Rectangular stamp reading MEV or MFV on a rim of a mortarium Roman; neither reading in M. H. Callender, RomanAmphorae.

very worn, only Α or Λ can be distinguished.

no. 1085

no. 932 [Photo 14.31]

8. Papyri and Ostraca56 Grenfell and Hunt rescued about 400 papyri on this site, among them 10 in demotic script (P. Fay. p. 45),57 and over 100 ostraca in Greek (most of them found in a stove of one house). A large 56 57

For the few exact finding spots on the site as reported by Grenfell and Hunt, see France 1999 49. Nearly all demotic papyri from the site are only described by Spiegelberg in the CatalogueGénéral 1908 (= P. Cairo II 31257 (131 BC) – 31262; 31267-31268; 50004 (the latter obviously very small fragments), all these are dated to the “Ptolemaic period” and very fragmentary; Spiegelberg defines them as “letters” or “contracts”. Two more have been fully published as P. Götterbriefe 4 and in BIFAO 102 by A. Megahid, more in Ryholt 2018; see below in “The cults at Euhemeria”. One surety contract was found in Ghoran but deals with Euhemeria, P. LilleDem. II 56 + 59 from 224 BC.

190

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

number of papyri was obviously unearthed in 1913 by locals (the same year when also the upper part of the inscription from 69/68 BC was found; above No. 5) and arrived on the antiquities market in the same year; from here parts of the find went to Jena and Giessen through the Deutsche Papyruskartell58, as well as to Manchester. Trismegistos now counts 377 published texts from Euhemeria, papyri, ostraca, inscriptions that were found or written in that village, including the descripta of P. Fay. The village is mentioned in 241 texts. Only the most important texts are mentioned in the following section; for a complete list see France 1999. For the literary papyri see below. Outstanding among the texts for our understanding of the social and economic structures in the village are the archives, large groups of papyri which once belonged to one individual or one institution. The archives are given in the order of their size and interest. 1.

2.

58

59 60

61

62 63 64

Epagathos Archive = Lucius Bellienus Gemellus Archive The archive of Epagathos, slave and manager of the estate of Lucius Bellienus Gemellus, a veteran of the Roman army; Gemellus lived in Aphrodites Berenikes Polis in the Herakleidou Meris, but held extensive lands at Euhemeria and surrounding villages, mostly olive groves. The letters addressed by Gemellus and his son Sabinus to Epagathos, who lived in Euhemeria, give a lively picture of the agricultural activities of a well-to-do gentleman in the Fayoum at around AD 100. They also provide a glimpse into the family affairs of Gemellus, who for the preparations of birthday parties etc. needed deliveries from his holdings by Epagathos. It was surely Epagathos’ house in which Grenfell and Hunt found so many papyri (see above, 2. Early Visitors, Grenfell and Hunt). This house was located south of the possible dromos. The archive contains 88 texts, of which 22 are fully edited, 29 described,59 and 33 still unpublished.60 They cover the time span from AD 94-110. ArchID 134; R. Smolders in Trismegistos; Graeco-RomanArchives pp. 132-136.61 Petition Archive The archive of the police station at Euhemeria, containing petitions to the strategos or the ἐπιϲτάτηϲ φυλακιτῶν, chief of police of the nome, in one case to a priest, in one other to a centurio. Such petitions were obviously collected by the chief of police in Euhemeria, the ἀρχέφοδοϲ. People complain about the injustice they have suffered from robbers, marauding animals etc., asking that the evildoers or their owners be called to account for the damage suffered. All the texts were written by 4-5 different scribes, who were obviously employed at the police station. We learn about a robbery in a bath house where two women were attacked and beaten (P. Ryl. II 124), and about a handyman who took away a box full of gold and silver ornaments and returned it empty, claiming that he had never seen anything in it (P. Ryl. II 125 = Sel.Pap. 278; AD 28). 29 of these texts are housed in the John Rylands Library at Manchester,62 4 in London;63 the archive covers a time span AD 28-42. ArchID 187; B. Feucht in Trismegistos; Graeco-RomanArchives pp. 295-299.64 Described and partly published by Uebel 1962 ‘Griechische Papyri der Zeit Euergetes II’ 115-146; id. 1963 ‘Leipziger Fragmente’ 39-43. In P. Fay., nos. 248-277. In the Sackler Library at Oxford and other collections, see Leuven Homepage of Papyrus Collections. The complete archive will be published by R. Ast, G. Azzarello and M. Coutier; see Ast and Azzarello 2013 ‘New perspectives’ 19-28. See also Hohlwein 1957 ‘Le vétéran Lucius Bellienus Gemellus’ 69-91; Lindsay 1963 DailyLifeinRomanEgypt 1963, 258-265. P. Ryl. II 124-152. P. Lond. III p. 129-130, no. 895; 130-131, no. 1218; SB XX 15032 and 15182. The content of the archive is summarised by Lewis 1983 LifeinEgypt, 77-78; see also France 1999 136-137.

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

3.

4.

191

Aniketos Archive or Village Heads Archive Archive of the epistatai of the village of Euhemeria containing official letters and petitions addressed to Aniketos and to Apollonios, who served as ἐπιϲτάτηϲ and ἀρχιφυλακίτηϲ (head of police in the village), and as ἐπιϲτάτηϲ and λογευτήϲ (head of the tax office in the village) respectively in the middle of the 2nd century BC. This archive contains witness complaints of the villagers about robbery etc., but the texts are less well preserved than those in Archive 2. All of the 26 texts (18 of which are certain to belong to the archive) are housed in Jena, Giessen and Florence (see above about their entry into these collections)65; the archive covers a time span from 144-131 BC. ArchID 12; B. Van Beek in Trismegistos; Graeco-RomanArchives pp. 436-437.66 Heroninus Archive + Sakaon Archive Euhemeria features prominently in the archives of Heroninus from the 3rd century AD and Sakaon from the 4th century AD (see Theadelpheia, Chapt. 13, Archives 7 and 9). The archives and other papyri allow a glimpse into a lively and partially wealthy village over 600 years; the other texts (on stone or clay) corroborate this impression.

9. Layout of the Village, and its Connection to the Irrigation System The exact layout of the village will never be retraceable. Besides the fact that two baths seem to have been located at the western and eastern fringes respectively, and that at least one temple lay at the perimeter of the village, hardly anything remains that could establish a more precise picture. Only the dromos, which supposedly run through the middle of the village gives some colour to the picture (see Plan = Photo 14.1); there is no papyrological evidence for that dromos. From the papyri we have some information about names of quarters etc. First in the late 1st century BC we hear of the quarter Λαύρα Ποιμένων (P. Tebt. II 554 v), then again in a contract of AD 211 (P. Strasb. V 314, 11-12 = P. Münch. III 84, 8). The importance of sheep raising and herding for the economy of the village is thus underlined.67 In the 4th century, there were two watchtowers from where the village could be observed to make sure that no foreigners were coming in to hide from tax collectors (P. Ross. Georg. III 8).68 The village probably received its main water supply from a canal which flew to the south of the village in the same bed in which today the Bahr Qaroun = Bahr Qasr el-Banât runs.69 If that assumption is right, then this canal was situated quite high above the village (as was the same canal in Theadelpheia). The hight of the modern canal is between +7.65 and 7.34 in this area (see map XI), while the site itself lies on the +5 m level. The next larger modern canal to the north of the site, the Bahr el-Misharrak, flows at –6.33, exactly to the north of Euhemeria. A third, but much smaller canal between Euhemeria and the Bahr el-Misharrak, runs on the 0 level. The landscape descends continously from the Bahr Qaroun over the site of Euhemeria and to the next canal, while it is rising slightly to the south of the Bahr Qaroun in this area. The cemetery of Euhemeria (see 65

66 67 68 69

P. Giss. Bibl. 1, 1-10; SB VI 8964; SB VIII 9674-75; 79-80; SB X 10252-254; SB XIV 11608, 11610, 11883, 11966, 13611. An overview of the archive was given also by Uebel 1962 (see footnote 58); see also France 1999 134-135. Cf. Kruse 1998 ‘P. Hamb. I 34 und die προβατοκτηνοτρόφοι’ 145-156; France, below. Cf. the new edition of the text by Rathbone 2008 ‘Villages and Patronages’ 189-207. See above with footnote 3 and Chapt. 13, Irrigation. What Grenfell and Hunt secribed as “a sandy depression” was most likely the bed of the canal. For the situation of irrigation in this area see France 1999 177ff. I have come to different conclusions in a number of arguments.

192

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

above with footnotes 3 and 11) was therefore situated to the south of the village, beyond the canal, and not in the “ideal” west, which lay also below the level of the canal. For further considerations about the water supply of this village see Chapt. 13, Theadelpheia. Five canals are named in connection with Euhemeria in the so-called penthemeros-certificates. In these, the annual liturgic work is attested, which was carried out on the canals on behalf of villages, usually shortly before the arrival of the flood, and usually by villagers residing not too far away.70 The names of canals mentioned in such certificates which were found at or issued on behalf of Euhemeria were: 1.

2.

70

71 72 73

ἡ πλωτὴ (διῶρυξ) χάλικοϲ P. Fay. 290 descr. 15. 5. 195 AD71 The first thought is that this navigable canal must be the main canal which passed between the village and its cemetery in the south (see above Figures 1 and 2). It should be therefore identical with 2. ἡ Φολήμεωϲ διῶρυξ (below); however, χάλικοϲ seems to indicate that there was “gravel, rubble” on the shores of that canal; χάλιξ is building material in P. Cair. Zenon 670, 671, 771 etc. So, this may be a smaller canal leading to a rubble deposit which was navigable only in part; it is rather unlikely that the main canal would have been called the “Rubbel Canal”; cf. BASP 54, 2017, 81-82 with a different conclusion. In this case, the neighbourhood of canal and village is probable, because, who would have known the “Rubbel Canal”, if it was not close by. ἡ Φολήμεωϲ διῶρυξ P. Fay. 287 descr. 4. 3. 15372 This certificate was issued on behalf of the village of Athenas Kome, which cannot be located thus far. In the three other certificates mentioning that canal, Euhemeria is given as the place on behalf of which the work had been carried out: P. Fay. 288 descr. 28. 5. 14773 P. Ryl. II 212 3. 6. 162 P. Ryl. II 211 23. 6. 162 A canal with that name features in connection with Theadelpheia in penthemeros-certificates already in the mid of the 1st century AD: P. Mich. XII 654 from 57/58; SB XXII 15759 from 60/61; SB XVI 12315 = P. Fay. 366 descr.; SB XII 11032 from May 197 (see Chapt. 13 p. 143). Apparently the canal between Theadelpheia und downstream Euhemeria had born that name, most likely after an individual, Pholemis, who had an estate in that area perhaps centuries before the certificates of the 2nd century were issued. In P. Fay. 288 descr. the canal is called “Desert Canal”, which may confirm that this is the great canal first dug along the desert, the Bahr Qasr el-Banât. The name Pholemis is well attested in the Arsinoite nome. However, we have to keep in mind that a canal with that name is also mentioned in penthemeros-certificates issued at Tebtynis (SB XVIII 13877 from 158; SB X 10544 from 164; P. Lips. II 150 from 201), in the Charta Borgiana (SB I 5124), found at Tebtynis, and in P. Sijpesteijn 42-43 from Narmouthis. Since the name Φολῆμιϲ is attested in Euhemeria and Tebtynis, it is possible that certain sections For these penthemeros-certificates see Sijpesteijn 1964 Penthemeros-Certificates; about the canals in this area see France 1999 184-186, with partly different conclusions; for the assumption that the location of the canals had perhaps no connection at all with the villages mentioned in the certificates, see Pearl 1951 ‘ΕΞΑΘΥΡΟΣ’ 223-230. Edition now in BASP54, 2017, 79-82. Edition now in BASP 54, 2017, 70-73. Edition forthcoming.

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

193

of close to both villages were named after an individual bearing that name. It seems to be excluded that the same canal is meant, since the two water systems are not at all interrelated, if we do not consider that workers were moved from one village to another to do the work on the dykes, even far away from their home village to which the work was credited (for that assumption see Pearl 1951 ΕΞΑΘΥΡΟΣ, 223-230). ἡ Ψιναλείτιδοϲ διῶρυξ P. Hamb. I 75 28. 6. 149 This canal is also mentioned in penthemeros-certificates as Ψεναλ(είτιδοϲ) διῶ(ρυξ) on behalf of Polydeukeia: BGU XIII 2262 from 138-161; BGU IV 1077 from 163, and in SB XVI 12320 = P. Fay. 364 descr. from 18. 6. 153; these references are perhaps of some importance for the location of Polydeukeia (see Chapt. 12). People from Theadelpheia also worked in this canal; see Chapt. 13, p. 143. ἡ [Δρ]υμεῖ(τιϲ) on behalf of Euhemeria P. Strasb. IV 249e 27. 6. 158 A “Woodland Canal” (if the supplement is right) is otherwise attested only on behalf of Soknopaiou Nesos. τὸ χῶμα Δρυμοῦ P. Fay. 289 3. 5. 192 “The dyke of the “Woodland”; for the discussion of where the δρυμόϲ would have been see Chapt. 13, pp. 108-109. τὸ ἔμβλημα Ταορβελλείουϲ λεγόμενον is obviously an inlet from a major canal onto the fields, attested in P. Ryl. II 133, 12 from AD 33. The complaint shows that the inlet had been built by a private person at his own expenses; the partial destruction of the inlet by an evildoer threatened to dry up the fields of the accuser. The feminine name Ταορβελλήϲ or similar is not found in other papyri. Was she the former owner of the fields? A recently published penthemeros-certificate seems to mention the ὀρ(εινὴ) (διῶρυξ) Ἡρακ(λείδου) and was issued on behalf of the village of Euhemeria: P. Fay. 286 descr., now BASP 54, 2017, 63-70; the reading is very difficult. There is no doubt that this canal could not have anything to do with the Herakleidou Meris, if it were not in the southern and eastern parts of that Meris and running along the fringe of the desert. It seems rather likely that it was another section of the great “Desert Canal” in the Themistou Meris, which was the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, called after the owner of fields around in this section, a certain Herakleides.

Some hamlets around the village are known by the name74: ἐποίκιον Ἄμμινον “The Hamlet on the Sands”, belonging to Thermoutharion (P. Ryl. II 146; see below for the large estates); the hamlet’s location is given as περὶ τὴν κώμην (P. Ryl. II 152), Hohlwein puts it in the north-west of the village (it is not clear why; a location to the south towards the desert seems to be more reasonable); other hamlets were named after their (former) owners: the ἐποίκιον Δάμα (P. Fay. 24; AD 158), ἐποίκιον Δρομέωϲ “the Hamlet of Dromeus” (P. Ryl. II 126); there was also the ἐποίκιον Ληνοῦ “Hamlet of the Wine Press” (?) (P. Ryl. II 139). 10. Inhabitants We do not know for how many years the village existed, when between 243 and 217 BC a list of inhabitants of villages in the Themistou Meris was compiled containing figures of males and females liable to pay the salt-tax (P. Count 11 = P. Gurob 27). Unfortunately, Euhemeria features only in the list of villages where the “guard-tax for the ergasteria” is levied (col. iii), a tax for workshops which needed police protection. In the list Euhemeria comes next to Theadelpheia 74

More about these hamlets in France 1999 212-213.

194

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

regarding the amount to be paid, but the editors stress that “the tax bears no obvious relationship to the number of tax payers in a village” (p. 260). We may try to establish some figure for the number of inhabitants of Euhemeria in the 3rd century BC from P. Count 11 anyway: Dionysias and Philoteris had ca. 720 tax paying adult inhabitants each at that time; both villages occupied somewhat larger areas than Euhemeria (400 × 400 m), but they were not very much larger (Dionysias 600 × 400 m; Philoteris 500 × 350 m). If these measures correspond to the layout of the villages in the 3rd century BC, we could deduct that Euhemeria had ca. 600 adults tax-payers at that time. This figure responds to what W. Clarysse and D. Thompson have calculated as an “average total population size for Fayoum villages”.75 The public functions and institutions attested for Euhemeria corroborate the picture of a fairly large village: there were village administrators, police officers, and tax collectors; among the public buildings, there are two baths (see above), a granary, and a prison. However, banks are attested so far only for the Roman period. Public functions in the village were held by comarchs(attested since the 2nd cent. BC, P. Yale 53, 2), hegoumenoi(since AD 28/29, P.Ryl. II, 125, 3), the komogrammateus(AD 36; P. Fay. 25, 2), the epistates and the archiphylakites (head of police, 132/131 BC; P. Bibl. Univ. Giss. 8, 1), the archephodos (head of police mostly responsable for streets and roads, 29 BC; P. Ryl. II 127, 20) and the praktores and sitologoi(1st cent. AD; P. Lond. III 900, 24), who collected taxes. A public granary is attested for the Roman period by one of the wooden stamps (Nr. 30 Nachtergael), see above pp. 185-186. Tax for the maintenance of the prison is levied in 117/118 (P. Fay. 54). In the Roman period, a public bank functioned in Euhemeria for the collection of taxes; private banks offered their services for private affairs; no bank is attested for the Ptolemaic period so far.76

11. Professions Most people in Euhemeria worked, as is to be expected, in agriculture; in the Ptolemaic period, the cleruchs were the first to settle there; we hear of Macedonians owning 100 arouras (P. Iand. 3; 2nd cent. BC), and 80 arouras (P. Iand. 7; 2nd cent. BC). In P. Petrie II 2, 1 a Macedonian cavalryman of 100 arouras from the 4th hipparchy is mentioned; P. Giss. Bibl. I 6 has a cavalryman from the unit of Agesidas (2nd cent. BC). A foot-soldier also found his living here (P. Fay. 11; 115 BC). In the Roman period, the inhabitants of Euhemeria continued to farm land, whether the fields were their own, or leased, or whether they laboured for the large estates which were owned around Euhemeria by members of the imperial family and other persons of importance in the early Roman period, before they passed on to the domains of the emperor under Domitian.77 At some time Maecenas, patron of Horace, owned land near Euhemeria (P. Hamb. 34, 10-11);78 further owners include C. Julius Alexander, son of Herodes and his first wife Mariamne (P. Ryl. II 126, 6-9 + 14); the children of Claudius (the Emperor) and of his sister Livia, wife of Drusus, son of Tiberius in AD 34 (P. Ryl. II 138,4-5); Germanicus, who owns land together with Livia, which later goes to Tiberius (P. Ryl. II 134, 7-9); Antonia, wife of Drusus (P. Ryl. II 140 and 141, 7-8); Caius Caesar, owning land together with the future Emperor Claudius (P. Ryl. II 148, 5-9). Besides these, also 75 76

77

78

P. Count, Vol. II 106; for the calculation of numbers of inhabitants see also France 1999 223-235. See Bogaert 1995 ‘Liste géographique des banques et des banquiers’ 133-173, in particular 147; id. 1998 ‘Liste géographique des banques et des banquiers de l’Égypte Ptolemaique’ 165-202. For these domains see Hohlwein 1957 ‘Le vétéran Lucius Bellienus Gemellus’ 80-88; Parássoglou 1978 ImperialEstates 13; lists on pages 69-83 show how many of these estates were to be found around Euhemeria; France 1999 317-319. See new edition by Kruse 1998 ‘P. Hamb. I 34 und die προβατοκτηνοτρόφοι’ 145-156.

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

195

rich Alexandrians exploited the fields in this area: Euander, son of Ptolemy, priest of the emperor Tiberius (P. Ryl. II 132 and 133, AD 32 + 33; P. Ryl. II 166; P. Ryl. II 131); C. and P. Petronius, from the family of the prefect Petronius (P. Ryl. II 127); their land goes to Thermoutharion, daughter of Lykarion, a rich Alexandrian in AD 39 (P. Ryl. II 146 + 152); Marcus Julius Asclepiades, a well-known Alexandrian “philosopher” whose land belonged to the city of Alexandria in AD 155 (P. Fay. 87). Probably none of these owners ever saw the village of Euhemeria; but the landscape around there must have had a particular attraction for the rich and powerful because of its fertility. Cattle breeding seems to have been an important branch of farming activities. The statistics offered by France, based on the papyrological evidence, give some impression of the activities exercised in the villages of Euhemeria and Theadelpheia; however, these statistics heavily depend on the fortuitous published material. France himself warns of the stresses produced by the “archival masses of the 3rd century”. He also admits that “the image of the professional system is somehow deformed by the large group of petitions in the Petition Archive (Archive 2.), dealing with the trespass of sheep, and by a declaration of 819 sheep and 28 goats on the Μαικηνατιανὴ οὐϲία in AD 160” (P. Hamb. I 34, and above footnote 67). I give the following numbers of France’s statistics as an indication of a possible, but in respect of some details not very likely scenario. According to his statistics, in Euhemeria and the surrounding estates (p. 459) a) 41 % of all activities was dedicated to cattle breeding; b) 31 % to processing of products, of which 37 % dealt with the production of wool, followed by 14 % of wood production, and 11 % of oil, grain, and stone production respectively. c) 5% of all activities were dedicated to the sale of products; d) 24% consisted of activities in the liberal professions.79 The 14 % of wood production (in b) is unlikely in an area, where wood was certainly a luxury good; both the percentage and the low cipher for the people involved in the sale of products are based on the evidence in the Heroninus Archive. See Chapt. 13, Theadelpheia. Besides sheep, pigs seem to have had a major role in the life of the village; in the archive of Lucius Bellienus Gemellus pigs feature several times (P. Fay. 111, 4-7; 115, 3-8). The main crops produced in Euhemeria were grain and olives; wine was to a large extent distributed from Theadelpheia to Euhemeria,80 and evidence for the production of wine has been scanty so far for the village itself.81 In P. Fay. 242 descr. the harvest of roses in this area plays a role.82 Besides the farmers, weavers seem to have been an important group, both for economic as well as for social reasons; in P. Ryl. II 94 (reign of Tiberius), the president and the secretary of the guild of weavers of Euhemeria give bail for five weavers against the claim of a certain Paninoutis, a wool-worker;83 The γερδιακόν is attested in P. Fay. 48, 1 (AD 98) and in PSI IX 1060, 7 (AD 201). Jewellers worked in Euhemeria; a χρυϲοχόοϲ is mentioned in BGU IX 1896, 192 (AD 166); cf. P. Lond. III 906, 7 (AD 128). 79 80 81

82 83

Compare these numbers to those recorded under the same circumstances for Theadelpheia, Chapt. 13. Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism 278ff. The lease of a vineyard has a farmer from Euhemeria renting a vineyard “near Theadelpheia” (Dry 1999 ‘Lease of a Vineyard’ 99-104, now SB XXVI 16569). Ed. Paganini 2014 ‘Receipt of Hay’ 226-230. A guild of weavers also in PSI IX 1060, 7 (AD 201).

196

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

Brewers are attested by O. Fay. 10, 4 (AD 54-68); P. Fay. 47 (AD 61); 215 (AD 173), and a doctor was on duty: BGU IX 1897a 11 (AD 166). 12. Cults84 About the cults in Euhemeria we are informed by the inscriptions and by some papyri. As is to be expected in a Fayoum village, the crocodile gods were important, but also apparently Isis, Serapis and Thot. The cult of Premarres, the Middle Kingdom Pharaoh Amenemhet III, is rather surprising in this Greek settlement,85 as is, on the other hand, the lack of evidence for the cult of the Thracian god Heron, who played an important role in the cult of nearby Theadelpheia and had an enormous impact on the naming of individuals there, but also in Euhemeria. Temples in Euhemeria were dedicated to see P. Petr. II 2, 1, 18 = Wilcken, Chrest. 337 (222-221 BC) ἐν τῷ ἐν Εὐημερίᾳ Σουχιείῳ; in the self-dedication published in BIFAO 102 (80-58 BC) Souchos seems to be a good supplement in the lacuna; also in P. Fay. 241 (2nd cent. AD), found in the temple outside the village by Grenfell and Hunt, the name of Souchos has been supplemented; cf. F. Uebel in APF 17, 1962, 121 note 3, who read θεαγῶι Σούχου in P. Giss. Bibl. 10 col. II 4. The crocodile gods Psosnaus, Pnepheros and Soxis see inscription I. Fay. II 135, here No. 4 (5 May 69 BC); the oracular question addressed to Soxis in SB XXVI 16506 comes from Karanis, not from Euhemeria; see P. Cairo Mich. III 35 (paceFrance 1999, 259, note 18). Isis Nepherses, Harpsenesis und Theoi Synnaoi see P. Dem. Cairo II 31255 (145 BC) and 50018 (Ptol.), both republished, see footnote 57; these are both self-dedications to the gods; see now Rykolt 2018. In an ostracon from the 3rd century AD (O. Fay. 38) Isis is called θεὰ τῆϲ κώμηϲ. Harpsenesis is Egyptian for “Horus, son of Isis”. Ammon see I. Fay. II 136, here No. 5 (69/68 BC) Premarres see I. Fay. II 133, here No. 2 (between 175 and 163 BC) Serapis In SB VIII 9674, 4 (131 BC) a priest of Serapis and Isis is mentioned (F. Uebel in APF 17, 1962, 127 considers a reading in line 7, which would put this temple in the east of the village; cf. France 1999 259-260). Harpokrates (?) In P. Fay. 117 (108 CE), the strategos Erasos prepares τὰ Ἁρποκράτια, but the festival did not necessarily take place in Euhemeria. Thot (?) see P. Giss. Bibl. Inv. 226 (2nd cent. BC), a letter which mentions ἰβιοβόϲκοι, “Ibis breeders”; cf. F. Uebel, APF17, 1962, 119, fn. 4. An ἰβιοϲτολ(ιϲτήϲ), a priest on duty to clothe the statue of the ibis-shaped god, is possibly mentioned in P. Fay. 246 descr. (around AD 100, from the archive of Gemellus). Imperial cult Whether the priest of Tiberius in P. Ryl. II 133 (AD 33) is at home in Euhemeria is not completely certain, but most likely. Souchos

Evidence for Christians living at Euhemeria is not certain. Libelli, the certificates acknowledging the participation in the sacrifices of the imperial cult, had to be filed for everybody, not only for 84 85

See also France 1999 257-261. At Narmouthis it had obviously existed for a long time before the Ptolemaic settlement.

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

197

those who were admittedly Christians or suspected to be. Thus, the two libelli issued in Euhemeria86 do not prove that there was a Christian community there. In the letter P. Fay. 136 (4th century) the phrase θεοῦ βοηθοῦντοϲ is not necessarily Christian,87 but contact between people of Euhemeria and Christian dignitaries is attested in a contract from December 31, 347, in which two Euhemerians sell wheat and vegetable seed in advance to a deacon “of the catholic church of the Arsinoite” (SB XXII 15728, first published by P. J. Sijpesteijn, ZPE 100, 1994, 275-277).

13. Names The statistics about names in villages in Graeco-Roman Fayoum depends again on the fortuitous evidence of papyrological finds. According to France the most popular names in the village were 1. Heron, 2. Herakleides, Herakles, Heraklas, 3. Horos. The popularity of the name Heron does not have a counterpart in an important temple of that god, as far as our evidence goes. Heron, the Thracian god, may have been venerated together with the crocodile gods, as had been the case in the Temple of Pnepheros in Theadelpheia, where perhaps the cult shifted from Heron to the Dioscuri as it did in Magdola (see Chapt. 13). France notes that the names starting with Psen-, Pa-, and Pete-, as well as the female counterparts of these Egyptian names are rather rare in Euhemeria and Theadelpheia. This is different from Tebtynis, where such names occur in great numbers (France 291). It seems that people here did not like to give Egyptian names to their children. On the other hand, dynastic names were not particularly popular in this area of the Fayoum, where the village names showed such a high percentage of such names.88

14. The Gymnasium As most major villages in the Ptolemaic period with a certain percentage of Greek inhabitants, Euhemeria had a gymnasium in the Ptolemaic period. In SB VI 8964 (between 170 and 116 BC) a certain Demetrios appears in a law-suit with the title of gymnasiarchos of Euhemeria. Two dedications to the god Souchos by alumni-ephebi, SB V 8885 (26. 3. 98 BC) and 8887 (14. 2. 95 BC), may also attest a gymnasium here, but the provenance of these inscriptions is uncertain.89

15. Books For some of the literary texts from Euhemeria the provenance seems certain, as Grenfell and Hunt reported their discovery in the far south-eastern part of the village, prominently two Homeric pieces.90 There are five papyri from the Homeric epics altogether, four of the Iliad,91 one of the

86 87 88 89 90 91

P. Meyer 15 and P. Lips. II 152 (both from AD 250). M. Choat shares this view on that text (by letter). See Clarysse 2005 ‘Toponymy’ 69-81. I. Fay. III 200 and 201; cf. Launey 1949 RecherchessurlesarméeshellénistiquesII 842 (pace France 1999 262). P. Fay. p. 44. Iliad 3 (P. Fay. 209; LDAB 1349) 1st century AD; Iliad 8 (210; LDAB 1547) 2nd century AD; Iliad 21 (6; LDAB 1348) early 1st century AD; Iliad 22 (211; LDAB 1491) 1st – early 2nd century AD.

198

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

Odyssey.92 These fragments cover a wide range of the books of the Iliad which were not part of the core selection that was usually read. Of particular interest are the fragments from Euclid, Book 1 (P. Fay. 9), which show remarkable differences from the readings of medieval manuscripts; nevertheless, the handwriting does not suggest an imperfectly remembered exercise, but a regular book. The fragments were found together with documents from the reign of Antoninus, Marcus and Commodus and thus should date to the later 2nd century AD. One astrological text from Euhemeria found its way into the Papyrus Collection in Giessen (P. Iand. I 3). All texts date between the 1st and the 3rd centuries AD. Taking into consideration the uncertainties naturally inherent in statistics, we see that in a list of Fayoum villages and the “bookishness” of their inhabitants, Euhemeria features at the lower end of that list, in the range of Bakchias and Hawara, far away from Theadelpheia where four times as many Greek literary papyri were found (see Chapt. 13).93 Note that there is not a single literary papyrus coming from Dionysias!

16. Decline and death of a village Like the other sites in the north-western Fayoum, Euhemeria was abandoned in the later half of the 4th century CE.94 The papyrological evidence for that decline, which must have started in the 30s of the century, all belongs to Theadelpheia, but since that village was located a little bit further up on the main feeder canal, the situation in Euhemeria must have been even more dramatic (see Chapt. 13, Theadelpheia). The latest evidence for live in Euhemeria is the coin from the reign of Julian found by Grenfell and Hunt, P. Fay. p. 70 (AD 360-363). Only 11 texts from Euhemeria or mentioning it are dated to the 4th century AD; only one, is dated to a certain year. 1. SB XXII 15728 2. P. Abinn. 27 = P. Gen. I 59 3. P. Fay. 134 4. P. Fay. 135 r

5. P. Fay. 136 = Ghedini 37

92

93 94

95

Sale in advance dated to 31 December 347 by two Euhemerians Complaint addressed to Abinnaeus about tax collectors (?); between 342 and 351. Letter of Eudaimon to Longinus; Eudaimon asks to bring the glass, “so that they can close the account”.95 Letter of Agathos urging his father to pay the debt of one and a half artaba of vegetable seed. On the verso is a list of Roman months’ names with the corresponding Egyptian ones (LDAB 7680). This papyrus was found in a rubbish dump on top of the temple (p. 45). Probably not a Christian letter. Final part of a letter from someone who promises support and urges the addressees to return

Odyssey 4 (P. Fay. 7; LDAB 1383); early 1st century AD. This text and one piece of the Iliad come from the far south-east of the site (see above p. 176). For these statistics see van Minnen 1998 ‘Bookish or Boorish?’ 99-184, in particular 120-121. J. Keenan 2003 has warned against seeing the Fayoum only declining in the 4th century AD; he adduces evidence from a number of villages which were abandoned and then refounded (‘Deserted Villages’ 119-39 = http://hdl.handle. net). But this is not the case for the villages in the north-western part of the Fayoum (but see Dionysias, Chapt. 18). Translation after BL 3, 54 (pace ed. pr.).

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

199

to their homes before they are fetched. L. 3 θεοῦ βοηθοῦντοϲ (see above with footnote 87). P. Fay. 242 descr. Receipt of 144 λίτραι Ἰταλικαί (of hay?)96 P. Fay. 243 descr. = SB XVI 13000 and 13001. List of names and payments; on the verso is a list of names and villages: Ptolemais Δρυμοῦ, Argias, Alexandrou Nesos, Archelais, Theadelpheia, Euhemeria and Dionysias (ed. L. Youtie 1983, 51-55); see Chapt. 25. P. Thead. 14 = P. Sakaon 32 Very fragmentary report of court proceedings; Euhemeria is mentioned (context lost); people of Theadelpheia complain that people of Philagris have removed stones from the dyke (?); see Chapt. 11. P. Thead. 53 = P. Sakaon 53 List of dykes at the διῶρυξ Ψεναλίτιϲ, which is reported to flow through the following villages: κώμη Πυρρίαϲ Ναρμούθεωϲ, Πεδίον Ἀνουβιάδοϲ, Θεαδελφεία, Εὐημέρεια. P. Ross. Georg. III 8 Letter to Nechos the “Patron”, assuring him that there are no foreigners in the village;97 two watchtowers at the village are mentioned. O. Fay. 41 = SB VI 9036 Receipt for grain brought to a granary (as O. Fay. 42 and 43).

None of these texts seem to show the immediate danger of a major catastrophy, which then led to the abandonment of the village.

96 97

Ed. Paganini 2014 ‘Receipt of Hay’ 226-230. See Rathbone 2008 ‘Villages and Patronages’ 189-207.

Photo 14.1: Plan of Euhemeria (I. Klose after Ch. Kirby and P. Brosch).

200 CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

Photo 14.2: View over the bleak site from south-east to north-west.

Photo 14.3: The sebakh wall in the east of the site; view from south to north.

201

202

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

Photo 14.4: Bath 1; overview taken from south.

Photo 14.5: Tholos A from south.

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

203

Photo 14.6: Plan of Bath 1 from Redon and Fournet 2017, 403-404, Cat. No. 12 (B295, F 47).

Photo 14.7: Tholos B from south.

Photo 14.8: Substructure of Tholos A.

204

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

Photo 14.9: Layers of construction materials in Tholos A; the lowest level shows the former pebbled floor.

Photo 14.10: End of south-western corridor with at least 5 layers of mortar.

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

205

Photo 14.11: Bath 2 from the south.

Photo 14.12: Plan of Bath 2 from Redon and Fournet 2017, 405 (B296, F48).

Photo 14.13: Bath 2, in the foreground the lower water container.

206

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

Photo 14.14: Tube at the northern end of the corridor.

Photo 14.15: Pebbled floors in hib baths in Tholos A.

Photo 14.16: Single tubs in Tholos A.

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

207

Photo 14.17: The container between the two tholoi.

Photo 14.18: The tube connecting the outer and the inner containers.

Photo 14.19: Area with large blocks of fired bricks in the north of the site.

208

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

Photo 14.20: Large block of fired bricks (Building fragment A).

Photo 14.21: Small vat (Building fragment B).

Photo 14.22: Extensive block of fired bricks (Building fragment C).

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

209

Photo 14.23: Detail of the extensive block of fired bricks.

Photo 14.24: Block of fired bricks with remains of pebbled floor (Building fragment D).

Photo 14.25: Rhodian amphora handle (No. 1; Vol. B no. 1089).

210

CHAPTER 14: QASR EL-BANÂT = EUHEMERIA

Photo 14.26: Rhodian amphora handle (No. 2; Vol. B no. 1088).

Photo 14.27: Rhodian (No. 3; Vol. B no. 1083).

Photo 14.28: Rhodian (No. 5; Vol. B no. 1086).

Photo 14.29: Rhodian (No. 6; Vol. B no. 1084).

Photo 14.30: Roman amphora inscription (No. 8; Vol. B no. 1093).

Photo 14.31: Latin stamp on the rim of a pot (No. 9; Vol. B no. 932).

CHAPTER 15 THE “RUINS” NORTH-EAST OF PHILOTERIS = KANOPIAS (?) Maps X and XI

On several of the old maps one finds a clear indication of an ancient site to the north-east of Philoteris.1 Combining the images of Google Earth with these maps I have been finally able to locate the ancient site in what is now fertile fields and olive grooves [Photo 15.1].2 The most informative map (1:50 000, Mudîrîyet el-Faiyûm, surveyed in 1901/2, revised in 1904-5 and 13, printed in 1914, sheet IV–III S.W., = Map X) gives the indication of “Ruins” and “Medinet Athareia” (“Archaeological City”) at a distance of 2, 5 km north-east of Philoteris; there are canals flowing by in the south, east, and further on in the west, the latter one being called Bahr Tunis. Even if this canal has changed name since then, the very existence of the same set of canals in this area, which still take the same directions as more than 100 years ago, offers a clue to where to find the ancient site. A comparison with the 1:100 000 scale map of the Fayoum (reprinted with corrections in 1935 = Map XI) corroborates this location: 29° 23’ 14’’ N, 30° 29’ 29’’ E, on the 0-level line. Nothing of an ancient village is visible here anymore on the surface, except for a larger quantity of pot sherds mixed into the earth. There is no way to tell anything about the size of the old village; the outline of the site on Map X is round and seems to be about one sixth of the size of Philoteris. The ancient village would have been, so it seems, the closest neighbour to Philoteris. It received its water resources from the same canal as Philoteris and Dionysias, and would have died around the same time (in the second half of the 4th century CE; see in Chapt. 16 and 18). The main feeder canal flew by in the south of the village (in Philoteris it flew by in the north); possibly, the cemetery lies to the west on a small ridge, which is still now not used for agriculture, but does not show any sign of an ancient site. One possible candidate for this village is Kanopias,3 also known as Kanopos, being named together with Philoteris and Dionysias in an inscription from the 2nd – 1st century BC (I. Fay. II 19). In P. Ups. Frid. 1 from 24 July AD 48 the conveyance of sheaves, and the transport of sacks from the villages of Philoteris and Kanopias are closely connected, and in P. Petrie III 130 (3rd BC) deliveries of ricinus from the Copper Mines and Kanopos are mentioned in one list (for the Copper Mines as being located in this area as well see Chapt. 17). Again, in P. Vind. Sal. 16 from 1 2

3

Cf. Davoli 1998 L’archeologiaurbana 330. It has been an ongoing joke in the team of my surveys between 2000 and 2006 to go one afternoon each year for the search of the “Ruins”, but without Google Earth, we did not have a chance. To reach the site, which is an idyllic place in the countryside, take the road to the Wadi Rayan from the costal road, turn left at the first crossing and proceed into the village of Tunis along its main road. Watch out for the school on your right side, pass two further buildings and drive (better walk) down the path till its end (more or less it is here, where the cemetery was supposedly located). Take the path to the left and follow it to where the intensive fields and olive grooves start. This is a wonderful afternoon’s walk, when you have your holiday in Tunis village. GEO-ID 1000; Wessely 1904 Topographie 81; P. Tebt. II p. 358 and 382; Calderini III 66-67; Suppl. 1, 165; Suppl. 2, 88; Suppl. 3, 58; Suppl. 4, 74; Suppl. 5, 50.

212

CHAPTER 15: THE "RUINS" NORTH-EAST OF PHILOTERIS = KANOPIAS (?)

the 2nd century AD Philoteris, Dionysias and Kanopos occur together. Even though other villages might possibly be identified with the “Ruins”, the case of the strongest candidate, Kanopias, should be elaborated somewhat more. Trismegistos lists 29 papyri written in or mentioning the village of Kanopias. The earliest securely attested dates to 258/257 BC (if the 28th year is of Ptolemy II in P. Gur. 28); very close in time are P. Cair. Zenon 59138 and 59139 from May 256 BC. This is an impressively early date for a village so far down the canal, and in the neighbourhood of Dionysias which was still called the “new village” in 229/228 BC (P. LilleDem. 110 Livre du centenaire, 1980, 193-203). The latest securely dated text from this settlement comes from the first quarter of the 4th century, a list of villages in the Themistou Meris (SB XVI 13001). In P. Pintaudi 45 the name of a chorion Κάνωποϲ seems to occur and to attest the village still functioning in the 5th/6th century, even to be involved in the production of wine. The reading of the village name is not unproblematic; furthermore, the other village mentioned in this text is in the Herakleidou Meris (Letous), so that we may have to deal with a different place altogether. However, it is to keep in mind that there must have been some kind of, perhaps a monastic settlement in Dionysias even in the 6th century (see Chapt. 18). In the Ptolemaic period, a granary existed in Kanopias (P. Heid. VI 372; 2nd half of 2nd century BC). There is no reason to suppose that a village like this would not have had a temple (see P. Köln VII 315, commentary to a6-7; 2nd half of 3rd century BC).

CHAPTER 15: THE "RUINS" NORTH-EAST OF PHILOTERIS = KANOPIAS (?)

Photo 15.1: The place of “The Ruins” today.

213

CHAPTER 16 MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS1 Plans are Photos 16.1-16. 4; Maps II and III; X – XI; XV

At first sight, the ancient remains of Philoteris are extremely disappointing: the large area to the south of the green land between Dionysias in the west, and the road to the Wadi Rayan in the east shows little of interest [Photo 16.5]. There are only fragmentary walls of fired and mud bricks, and huge amounts of scattered pottery. Our survey between 2000 and 2003 revealed more: huge water reservoirs to the north of the village, a canal system between the village and those reservoirs, and in the village, a small temple and a bath house, as well as several buildings of which the purpose was difficult to discern [Google Earth Map = Photo 16.4]. A field school conducted by W. Wendrich in 2002 revealed more of the small temple and two other buildings. However, the real interest of the site came out only when the team of T. Herbich undertook a geomagnetic survey for the German Archaeological Institute in 2010-2013. A granary became visible in the village, probably connected to a landing place at one of the canals, the canals themselves with wells and other facilities along them showed more of their real character, and single buildings outside the village gained a different face. The map produced by the geomagnetic survey made excavations desirable. Since then the use of the waterways and reservoirs has been more deeply studied and understood. In 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2017 excavations were carried out on the site by the German Archaeological Institute under my direction. The building outside the village to the north-west, interpreted during the archaeological survey as a temple, is the first village gymnasium archaeologically attested in Egypt [Photo 16.2 and 7]. Insofar, Watfa has become one of the most exciting places in the Fayoum for anybody interested in the irrigation system of the Fayoum and the Graeco-Roman settlements in general. Like the other villages along the main feeder canal of the north-western Fayoum (from the east: Theadelpheia, Euhemeria, Dionysias), Philoteris was founded under Ptolemy II. It was named after Philotera, a younger sister of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II.2 The full name given in a Demotic text is “the village of Sobek (dmySbk) (named) the place of Philotera (pꜣꜤ.wynPltrꜣ)”, emphasizing the 1

2

GEO-ID 1780; the exact location is 29˚ 23’ North–30˚ 28’ East (datum point); the main papyrological evidence is listed in Calderini V 89; Suppl. 1, 248 [a]; Suppl. 2, 233 (1&3); Suppl. 3, 160 (1 &3); Suppl. 4, 139 (1); Suppl. 5, 107 (1); Wessely 1904 Topographie 158; P. Tebt. II 353 and 358; 408; B. Van Beek, Trismegistos – Fayum; for the archaeological site see Davoli 1998 L’archeologiaurbana 329-330. This chapter is a revised version of Römer 2004, 281-305, a preliminary report on the Fayoum Survey Project. The geomagnetic survey carried out by T. Herbich and his team in 2010-2013, and the excavations undertaken in 2012 to 2017 have altered the picture of the site in several important aspects. The results of the excavations are part of this Chapter as Appendices written by P. Kopp and I. Klose pp. 339-355. Philoteris is the feminine adjective to the name Philotera, the full name of the village being Φιλωτερὶϲ κώμη = Philotera’s Village. Other settlements named after the princess take their names from the noun, not the adjective, like Philoteras at the coast of the Red Sea (GEO-ID 1777). Another village of the same name, Philoteris, is located in the Herakleidou Meris (GEO-ID 1779). The village may have taken its name via the name of a deme in Ptolemais; see Clarysse 2005 ‘Toponymy’ 75-78.

216

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

cult of the crocodile god which was popular here as elsewhere in the Fayoum.3 This name was probably given shortly after the princess’ death in 272 BC4, but the village may have been created a few years earlier under another name. Like the other villages around here, Philoteris was abandoned in the 4th century AD. The Egyptians call the site of Philoteris Watfa or Medinet Watfa.5 The remains of the village can be easily reached today by following the highway along the Birket Qaroun towards Qouta, and turning left into the road leading to the Wadi Rayan. After three and a half kilometres, a pumping station is located on the left side of that road; opposite the pumping station, there opens a desert path leaving the modern little mosque and the new houses of the Egyptian Land Reclamation Public Company to its left. Following the desert path for about 150 metres, the kom of ancient Philoteris becomes visible straight ahead. It is completely surrounded by desert land, but green fields and new settlements creep out from the east and north towards it, more dramatically in the last three years. A village of considerable size has been established at a distance of about 1.5 km on the ridge to the south of the site. This Village of Yusuf Saddiq gives the name to the district around here.

1. General Description of the Remains of Philoteris and its Environment6 The main kom with an intensive layer of potsherds and shallow ruins of various building materials measures ca. 430 × 250 m7 and is up to about 5 metres high. Traces of ancient human activities in the environment of Philoteris reach out in all four directions. The ancient canals which provided the vital water for the village could be traced on the sandy surface for over 500 metres to the east of the village (nearly to the road to the Wadi Rayan), and even farther to the west [Photo 16.8]; today, fields of tomatoes, onions and camomilla overgrow the traces of the canals in the eastern area. Along the north side of the kom, canals are nearly undisturbed, except by vehicles that take a direct route to the south and through the ancient site [Photo 16.9]. Still in 2006, the flow of the canals was easily traceable for about 2 km to the west of the ancient village. In 2004, I could still write: “After an interruption of some hundred metres which is due to agricultural activities in modern times, one of the canals reappears on the desert surface and extends to the outskirts of Dionysias which is 4 km away from here and clearly visible from Philoteris.” This is not true anymore. Agriculture has spread here intensively.

3

4 5 6

7

P. LilleDem II 64, 5; most villages in the Fayoum bear the additional name of the crocodile god in Demotic texts as a qualification of the village: Soknopaiu Nesos and Tebtynis for obvious reasons (cf. Sethe – Partsch, Demotische Urkunden16-17), but also Hawara (Reymond 1973 CatalogueoftheDemoticPapyri13), and Philadelpheia (Martin 1986 ‘A Demotic Land Lease’ 167–168 to line 6 of the document); it is unlikely that this has to do with tax purposes, as proposed in the introduction to P. Tebt. II 281, the only Greek example (cf. P. Bürgsch. 16). See now P. Count. 5, note to l. 2, and P. Count. II 112. Fraser, PtolemaicAlexandria II, n. 417. Watfa is a more appropriate transliteration of the Arabic than Wadfa as Grenfell and Hunt called the place. This description corresponds still closely to the map that was published together with the preliminary report in ZPE 147, 2004, in jacket at end of volume. Different from Grenfell, Hogarth and Hunt, P. Fay. p. 62: 200 × 100 m; the same indication is found in Davoli 1998 L’Archeologiaurbana 329. Our measurements do neither include the cemeteries to the south, nor the basins to the north of the main kom. From the pottery survey (see Bailey, Vol. B), it appears that the village may have shrunken in the Roman period in respect to its seize in the Ptolemaic period. The scarsity of pottery to be dated to the Roman period at the fringes of the site, may speak for that assumption. The dating of the bath in the south-eastern part of the site to the Hellenistic period (see below, pp. 224-225) may corroborate this historical development of the village.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

217

In the north of the village, there is a series of large water basins some of which are directly connected to the canal system (see below pp. 234-235) [Photo 16.4 and 10]. In the south at a distance of ca. 150 metres from the village, a chain of cemeteries was detected with its presumably oldest part dating from the Ptolemaic period laying in a south-western direction from the village, and extending on a small ridge towards the east in later times.8 Further to the south-east, clandestine diggers have opened several graves recently (see below p. 228). In the west, north of the canals and in the west of the water basins, a large stone-walled building was surveyed that was “most probably” (as written in 2004) “a temple”; the excavations in 2014, 2016 and 2017 have revealed this building as the gymnasium of Philoteris (see below pp. 226-227).

2. Earlier Visitors to Philoteris The area to the south of the western part of Birket Qaroun (the whole area west of Theadelpheia) was completely deserted in the time of the early travellers, in the condition in which it had been abandoned by the end of the 4th century AD.9 In the 13th century, no human presence was to be found here, An-Nabulsi does not mention the region. But the temple of Qasr Qaroun (Dionysias) attracted Belzoni, Wilkinson and others who visited the area in the 19th century and looked around for other ancient remains in the area. Belzoni did not approach Philoteris, but he visited Dionysias on 2 May 1819 to see the wellpreserved temple, which some at his time still believed to be the Labyrinth.10 Belzoni does not tell anything about other ruins close to Dionysias but his observations about the area around the site and between Dionysias and the lake are nevertheless worth mentioning. Returning from Dionysias to his boat, Belzoni “passed a tract of land which had once been cultivated, and saw a great many stumps of plants almost burnt”.11 Also when landing the night before, obviously further to the east, Belzoni observed: “The land we were now in had been cultivated, as there appeared many stumps of palm and other trees, nearly petrified. I also observed the vine in great plenty.”12 Wilkinson visited the area on 18 December 1824 and also noted vineyards on his map (see Map III).13 For Philoteris, Wilkinson’s map is of special interest. It shows a canal extending from the south-east to the north-west and splitting up in two branches that both continue in a western direction. He marked this fork-like feature as “Old Canals”. The relationship of these canals to the location of Dionysias and to what Wilkinson calls “Pottery, Tombs” and what must represent the kom of Philoteris on his map, makes it very likely that Wilkinson saw the same remains of canals which can still be studied today. On his map, the canals are not connected to the site of Dionysias, a connection that was still traceable at least for one of the waterways in 2006 (see above). To the north of the split up canals, Wilkinson has a “Stone Wall” stretching from south-west to north-east. This may be the stone wall which we found and mapped north of Basin 1 = Water channel, a location which certainly lies east of the point where the two canals split up and therefore east of where Wilkinson put it, and he may have seen another wall which is lost today. Still further north Wilkinson saw the “Vineyards”. He did not have a name for the site in this location, but astonishingly, 8

9 10 11 12 13

It is very unlikely that the Drymos of Theadelpheia extended as far up as here; the cemeteries were clearly set on dry land; cf. Chapt. 13, Theadelpheia, pp. 108-109. See Chapt. 1 p. 9; for a later inhabitation of Dionysias see Chapter 18. Belzoni 2001 NarrativeoftheOperations 267-268. Belzoni 268. Belzoni 267. Wilkinson’s diaries are still unpublished. They are housed in the Bodleian Library in Oxford. Excerpts may be studied in his TopographyofThebes, 1835, 353.

218

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

Wilkinson has a place called “Watfee” close to the point, where Qasr el-Gabali is nowadays. In his ModernEgyptandThebes (p. 350), he states: “About 1 ½ mile below Nézleh are other mounds, called Watféeh, and the tomb of Shekh Abd el Bári”, and continues about the wall down in the ravine. That there was an ancient settlement at Qasr el-Gabali is very likely (see Chapt. 12), but Wilkinson must have had wrong information about the name of the site, or got it mixed up afterwards. It is rather unlikely that the name of a site at Qasr el-Gabali would have shifted to where Watfa is today at some time in the 19th century. M. Linant de Bellefonds, the Directeur Général des Ponts et Chaussées en Égypte, drew a map of Middle Egypt which was published in 1854. The remains of “Casr el Binte” (Euhemeria) and “Hereet” (Theadelpheia) are not well located on his map, but he also indicates the existence of “Restes d’un ancient canal” in the area east of Dionysias. The “Décombres” and “Tombeaux” to the south of this canal should be Philoteris and its cemetery. Grenfell and Hunt were “searching for papyri for a few days” in Philoteris at the beginning of 1899,14 till they identified the name of the village. The appearance of the site as viewed from the south is the same as today’s view (see Figure 1). Most of the papyri Grenfell and Hunt found are published in the volume FayûmTownsandtheirPapyri (= P. Fay.). As usual, the two papyrologists did not show any interest in the archaeological remains of the site, reporting only finds of “ten ostraca, some beads, a painted pot (Roman), a few coins, bronze rings, and some surgical instruments” which they consider all “of no particular importance”.15

Figure 1: The site of Philoteris seen from the south by Grenfell and Hunt.

14 15

P. Fay. p. 62-63. P. Fay. p. 63. For the coins, see further below “Small Finds”.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

219

G. Caton-Thompson and E. W. Gardner were more interested in the predynastic settlement south of Philoteris than in the Graeco-Roman site, but their intriguing map shows a chain of cemeteries to the south of Dionysias and Philoteris (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Map from Caton-Thompson and Gardner 1934 TheDesertFayoum.

Those cemeteries are located far too much to the south to be the cemeteries close to the site of Philoteris, and perhaps there were Roman cemeteries as far out as that, on the ridge on which nowadays Yusuf Saddiq is built. P. Davoli dedicates one page to the site of Philoteris emphasizing the basins and canals visible on the aerial photos of the RAF. Two photos of the site show the remains of the fired brick building (see below pp. 220-221; her Fig. 159), and one of the canals in the west of the kom (her Fig. 160).16 In 2002 an Archaeological Field School took place in Philoteris under the directorship of Willeke Wendrich.17 16 17

Davoli 1998 L’archeologiaurbana 329-330. Photos of some trenches opened during that school can be seen on http://www.archbase.com/Fayoum/project_2002. htm (last opened in August 2017); see Photos 16.13 and 17 in this volume.

220

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

3. The Survey of the main kom18 We carried out the survey at Philoteris for several weeks between 2000 and 2003; this was the largest site we had to manage, and sometimes we dispaired about the size of the area to be investigated on the one hand, and our equipment on the other. Our datum point was settled on the highest mound on the kom, which had also been used as a point of reference for the Egyptian surveyance maps.19 Its height is given as 13 metres above sea level. This was most probably the main temple of the village. The main kom, measuring ca. 430 × 250 m (see above) rises from north to south by c. 3 metres while the level from west to east stays nearly equal throughout, except for some areas around higher upstanding walls. It is scattered with mostly shallow remains of walls in diverse construction materials. The two extensions to the east and the west show only thick layers of pottery, and we assume that both these areas were rubbish dumps of the village. The space between the datum point and the small temple (A) has been disturbed to such a degree that remains of houses are less clearly visible here. This can be the area where Grenfell and Hunt were “searching for papyri for a few days” in the beginning of 1899.20 The assumption is corroborated by the fact that during the Field School in 2002 the house opened by trench 4 in the south of this area showed “modern intrusions at very deep levels”.21 Our survey concentrated on the more clearly visible structures. Many of them have become more traceable now after the geomagnetic map has been drawn. The houses are oriented west-east throughout with slight variations in some places. One main street runs in a west-eastern direction south of the block of the temple A. It leads to an open space south-east of the datum point (”sandy area” on map). A second street may be found to the north of the temple (A), but not enough remains of its further run to give a secure guideline. If single points on that second street are taken into consideration the insulae between the two streets would have been 40 metres wide.22 The village showed the usual picture of a Graeco-Roman settlement with most houses built of mud bricks. Stone houses are rare, but seem to have been more frequent along the canals in the north; even rarer are constructions of fired bricks. The mud bricks are of greyish or yellowish colour (the yellow ones were made from clay rather than from mud), in some of the buildings mixed together side by side or in layers. Structures containing only large greyish bricks may derive from the Ptolemaic period, like the temple (A) and the building on the mound of the datum point. Buildings of mixed material that often shows a high percentage of straw, are scattered around the whole kom: remarkable is a high upstanding wall to the south-west of the temple A (Bb), and a large structure (D) in the far south-eastern corner of the kom close to the bath (C). Presumably such structures of mixed material can be dated to the Roman period.23 Some massive blocks of fired bricks remain north-east of the datum point (G) [Photo 16.11]. Their former context is lost, but plaster on what was probably an inner corner of the building may

18

19

20 21 22 23

Indication by capital letters (A, B, etc.) refer to the map included in ZPE 147, 2004, and now added to the geomagnetic map (Photos 1 and 3). There are grey mud brick walls on this kom, and single small pieces of lime stone. This was probably one of the main temples of Philoteris, even though no dromoscan be identified leading from here down into the village so far. P. Fay. 62-63. See above footnote 17 and Photos 13 and 17. For sizes of insulae in Ptolemaic settlements see Müller 2006 SettlementsofthePtolemies 114-121. Husselmann 1979 Karanis 33.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

221

identify the structure as part of a water tower similar to that excavated in Hermopolis,24 or of large tanks similar to those entirely preserved at Theadelpheia.25 It seems excluded that this was a bath, since the location is high above the surrounding ground. In some of the mud brick houses, door posts were built of limestone.26 In one case, this feature certainly belongs to a temple (A); but in other structures a special use of the building could not be identified. Buildingsofspecialinterest: A) The small temple (Figures 3 and 4) Photo 16.12 and 13

Figure 3: Temple A seen from north-east in 2003 (Photo D. M. Bailey).

The structure is located in the middle of the inhabited area at a distance of 160 metres to the east from the datum point. Its outer walls emerge from the surrounding surface up to 80 cm, while the inner walls appear only for some centimetres, but enough is visible to identify this building as a small temple.27 The building measures ca. 11 (east-west) × 12.50 (north-south) metres, its walls 24 25 26

27

See Roeder 1959 Hermopolis, Kap. IV § 37-38. See here Chapter 13 about the purpose of that construction in Theadelpheia, Fermentation Vats. A feature to be observed also in Karanis; cf. Husselmann 1979 Karanis 40 with plate 40a (E 112 from the Ptolemaic period). Similar observations can be made in Medinet Madi. During the field school in 2002, trench 2 was laid into this building. The excavations corroborated our interpretation of layout and purpose of the building. See the photo on the page indicated in the above footnote 17, here Photo 16.13.

222

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

consist of grey mud bricks.28 To the north and the south, there are further mud brick structures, while there are open spaces to the west and east of it.29 The open space to the east is clearly defined by other walls.

Figure 4: The small temple A (Plan by Ch. Kriby). 28 29

The outer walls reach a thickness of 90 cm. The building to the north of the temple is also made of grey mud bricks and shows a short piece of a wall which is lined with limestone. The distance between the temple and this building is half a metre, the small corridor between the two structures being blocked towards the open space in front of them. To the north of this building, three square stone blocks (60 × 60 cm) with thick layers of plaster on one side are scattered on the surface. They may originate from this building or from the temple. The fact that this second building also shows limestones attached to one inner wall may indicate that we have here a number of chapels belonging together, and not just a small “temple”.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

223

Entrance to the sanctuary was provided through a door from the eastern open space. One entered a transverse court that extended from wall to wall. The doorposts were made of limestone. On the wall opposite the entrance, two doorways opened to a transverse corridor, while to the left of them a third door seems to have led into a third compartment (possibly a staircase?). Of the two doorways, the one to the left lies exactly opposite the main entrance door. From this corridor one could proceed ahead through three doors into three further rooms, or turn left to the presumed staircase. The left door of the three lies exactly in line with the main entrance door. This door was framed with limestone and led into the sanctuary, which must have been the centre of the building. The sanctuary was lined with limestone on all sides, the blocks being well cut and fitted.30 A thick layer of plaster is visible between the mud brick wall and the limestone blocks [Photo 16.13]. There can be no doubt that this building with the expensively walled middle chamber was a sanctuary. It may well originate from the Ptolemaic period, being located at the heart of the settlement and showing a characteristic layout. The size of the mud bricks also point to the Ptolemaic period.31 This small temple is of the same type as the chapel of Isis-Thermouthis in Tebtynis.32 Here, too, a central sanctuary is built into a mud brick construction and lined with limestone blocks. The chapel as excavated is dated to the second half of the 1st century BC.33 The Tebtynis chapel lacks the transverse corridor in front of the sanctuary that is found in Philoteris. Comparable in layout is also the temple of Ptolemy IV in Deir el-Medina, which exhibits a second transverse hall,34 and the so-called Cenotaph of Alexander the Great in Kom Madi, dated to the end of the Ptolemaic period.35 B) Buildings near the temple A pedestal of fired bricks was found in the mud brick house (Ba) north of the space that opens in front of the temple. Walls around the pedestal were covered with a thick layer of plaster. The entrance and one of its inner walls showed stone lining. The corners of this house had been fortified by limestone, as also happens in Karanis.36 South-west of the temple a structure (or maybe parts of two structures) still stands up for 14 layers of mud bricks above the surface (Bb), the layers alternating between grey and yellowish bricks which both contain a high percentage of straw.37 The walls are 60 and 70 cm thick [Photo 16.14]. About 60 metres south-east of the temple, participants of the 2002 Field School dug a trench (their Trench 1) in a house of which only a part emerged from the sandy surface when we did our survey (Bc). It contained several large millstones (presumably not insitu) and a small plastered basin. More millstones scattered in the area to the south of the building may also belong to this context. W. Wendrich sees here “an olive oil production site”,38 but it is surprising that none of 30

31

32 33

34 35 36 37

38

Some of these blocks had been removed and now lie outside to the west of the building. The standard measures of these blocks are c. 78 cm (long) × 45 cm (broad) × 22 cm (deep), but the blocks in situ were not deeper than 20 cm. A standard measure of the mud bricks in this temple seems to be 34 × 14 × 12 cm. Similar brick sizes (31 × 14.5 × 10.5 cm) are found in Ptolemaic layers in Karanis; cf. Husselman 1979 Karanis33. Gallazzi and Hadji Minaglou 2000 TebtynisI, 43-64. TebtynisI, Fig. 13 and 14; the figures show the condition IIa; cf. pp. 57-58; earlier phases have the same layout without the limestone lining of the inner chapel. Plan in Arnold 1999 TemplesoftheLastPharaohs 174-176 with fig. 122 and 123. Bresciani 1980 KomMadi1977e1978.Lepitturemurali 21-22 and fig. 7; cf. TebtynisI p. 64. An example is House C 5024 at Karanis; cf. Husselmann 1979 Karanis35 with plate 15. 29˚ 20’ 56” North–30˚ 27’ 05” East. We called this building the “Paddington” for its furry appearance due to the straw in the bricks. So on the page indicated in the above footnote 17.

224

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

the typical olive presses consisting of an oblong stone block with two square holes, as they are present in many ancient Fayoum villages were found in this building. One of such typical olive presses is still insitu in a house just south of the wall in the east of the village [Photos 16.15, 16.16 and 16.17]. C) The bath in the far south-eastern corner of the kom [Photo 16.18].39 Since the survey in 2003, this building has been heavily dug by clandestine workers. Much more was visible in 2010 than what we could see during the survey, but much has also been destroyed.40 In 2015 digging had gone further down; the inspectorate ordered then to cover the whole building by sand. In 2003, the structure emerged only slightly from the sandy surface but enough was visible to identify it as a small bath house (7.20 m north-south; 5.20 m west-east). The building materials are stone, mud bricks and fired bricks. All internal walls, except those of the entrance hall, are covered with plaster. The summary of the layout has been veryfied by the clandestine digging [Photo 16.19]. One entered the bath from the north into a small hall (the apodyterion) from where a u-shaped, double right-angled corridor leads further on into a circular bath chamber. This chamber has one larger and three smaller adjoining niches, the plaster between the niches exhibiting vertical mouldings and vertical stripes painted in red. The recess to the left of the entrance (1.60 m × 1 m) had a vaulted ceiling of which the spring could be distinguished just under the surface of the sand; it contained an immersion bathtub. The second niche to the right housed a pot (inner diameter 10 cm) of which the upper rim stuck out of the sand [Photo 16.20]. When I visited the site in May 2010 together with B. Redon, we found the bath house half excavated and half destroyed. The entrance from the north including the U-shaped corridor is still intact and only here and there traces of clandestine digging are visible. The diggers concentrated on the circular bath chamber, of which the walls stick out from the ground now by half a metre in some places, when they are still there at all. The well preserved corridor as visible now was decorated with green and yellow geometrical ornaments (see below). Before entering the bath chamber, there is a basin on the right hand side in the last angle of the corridor [Photo 16.21]. In the bath chamber itself, more of the plaster exhibiting vertical mouldings and vertical stripes has come out. Red colour was used throughout for decoration; only behind the bath tub yellow colouring on the plaster is visible. Here, patterns of painted bricks appeared, the seams being highlighted by white and reddish colours [Photo 16.22]. The walls around the immersion bathtub are now better discernible in their outline; to the south, the wall protrudes farther into the room than we could recognize before, so that the bathtub is somehow settled into a horse-shoe shaped niche. At the northern end of the tub, a small rim (about 10 cm wide) runs along the rim of the bath. The niche next to the bath tub and opposite the entrance was obviously a heating place. It is built of fired bricks into the outer mud brick and lime stone wall, and ends in a vault, which consists of red mortar obviously hardened in the process of constant firing. This seems to be the same 39

40

There is no reason to assume that this bath was the only one in Philoteris, and therefore connected with the job of Chaireas and Maron, who collected the bath tax in Philoteris in AD 34 (O. Fay. 5) and AD 28 (SB XX 14383) respectively (see B. Van Beek in Trismegistos – Fayum). With great probability, Philoteris had other, and larger baths than this one at the far south of the village. For reasons of water supply, bigger baths are to be expected somewhere along the main canal to the north of the village. Our plan to excavate the whole bath in September 2015 could not be realized for security reasons.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

225

material as that of the bricks [Photo 16.23].41 The niche to the right of the entrance to the bath chamber probably contained a hip-bath. All the walls to the east of this heating place and around up to the entrance have disappeared; so is also the pot, which stuck out with its rim from the sand in the niche to the right of the heating place. Obviously this pot, probably still complete, was the main interest of the diggers. The layout and the decoration of this bath make a dating to the Hellenistic period likely. The layout, and in particular the bath chamber resembles parts of the large bath house recently excavated in Tebtynis, which C. Gallazzi dates to the 2nd century BC.42 The wall decoration behind the bathtub and in the U-shaped corridor corroborates this dating [Photo 16.24]. Both style and colouring resemble wall decorations in tombs at Alexandria. Tombs I, II and V, the best preserved tombs at Anfushy, show similar patterns of painted “fake” bricks similar to the decoration behind the tub and in the upper register of the corridor.43 In Alexandria and in Philoteris those “fake” bricks exhibit seams drawn in two colours. These seams make the “bricks” look like obtruding from the walls. The tombs at Anfushy are dated to “2nd through 1st century BC” (Venit, Monumental Tombs p. 199-200). The dating of the bath to the Ptolemaic period supports our view that the village may have shrunken from a larger settlement of the Ptolemaic into a smaller village of the Roman period (see p. 216 with note 7). As stated above, the bath in Tebtynis had a heating system, as had the Hellenistic bath at Philoteris and the “Great Bath” in Karanis.44 The wall giving the corridor its U-shaped form is also a recurrent pattern in these buildings. It may have functioned as a shield to prevent hot air from getting out of the bath chamber into the apodyterion.45 The bath at Philoteris was covered by sand c. 90 cm deep down from the rim of the bathtub.46 We should not assume that all other buildings on the kom are covered also nearly 1 m under the surface. Possibly the apodyterion and the bath chamber were reached by some steps going down (as in the “Great Bath” in Karanis). On the other hand, excavations by the field school in 2002 revealed walls still standing up to one metre under the current surface.47 D) The large buildings near the bath Some large buildings are scattered in the south-eastern corner of the kom. They all are built in a mixture of grey and yellowish bricks [Photo 16.25] like the walls that touch the bath at its western, southern and eastern sides. Whether the bath has any connections to the large buildings in the area could not be detected. On the geomagnetic map, large complexes of buildings can be

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

For heating systems in such baths see now Redon – Fournet 2013 ‘Heating Systems’ 239-263, with plan on p. 257, and discussion on p. 256 See Gallazzi 1999 ‘Further Surprises from Tebtunis’ 17 with photos on lower part of the page; the dating is changed to the late 2nd / early 1st century BC by Fournet and Redon 2017 ‘Catalogue’ 44 B163 p. 448. Images in Venit 2002 Monumental Tombs, Anfushy I, Room I, Plate I and pp. 74-77; Anfushy II Fig. 62-65 and pp. 77-85; Anfushy V, Room 4, Plate III and pp. 85-90. I thank M. Bergmann for valuable advice in this matter. The “Great Bath” in Karanis is similar but more sophisticated and has more rooms. For this bath see now Castel 2016 ‘Bain nord de Karanis’ 230-245. The layout of the bathhouse in Sakha is similar as well, and the place of the heating system can only be guessed; ed. El-Mohsen El-Khashab 1949 PtolemaicandRomanBaths 55-56 and plan 5. Cf. Fournet and Redon 2013 ‘Heating Systems’ 239-264, with plan on p. 257. Cf. the height of the bath tub (65 cm) in the “grand bain gréco-romain à Karanis”, El-Nassery, Wagner, Castel 1976, 231-275; and more recently Castel 2016 ‘Bain nord de Karanis’ 230-245, in particular p. 229 (the bath tub is 56 cm deep inside). See photos mentioned in footnote 17.

226

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

seen, including one that seems to have an exedra. Excavations could not be carried out in this area till now. The layout of the structure at some distance to the north of the bath (D) shows a number of small rooms side by side. This was probably some kind of a storage house,48 perhaps a granary. E) The House of the Crocodile A house with four solid limestone walls lies directly west of the datum point. No entrance could be detected. Scattered bones and part of the lower jaw of a crocodile found within these walls may identify the building as a sanctuary for the crocodile god [Photos 16.26 + 16.27]. As such, it could have been in a close connection to the main temple of the village, the building under the datum point (as the cemetery of the sacred animals behind the temple at Theadelpheia; see Chapt. 13). Whether the remains of the crocodile(s) belonged to a living or a mummified animal was not possible to discern. F) The granary revealed by the geomagnetic survey [Photos 16.3 + 16.28 + 16.29] When the team of T. Herbich undertook the geomagnetic survey in 2011-2013, the best visible feature emerging was the granary to the south of the main temple and the datum point. The bricks are so dark, and therefore of such magnetic value that the building can be traced in its entirety, even though next to nothing is visible on the surface. The whole building measured c. 22 × 15 m, the orientation is exactly north-south.49 Around a lengthy courtyard of c. 5 m width opening to the north, a row of 8 double compartments lies to the west, while the south-eastern corner is taken by a larger room followed by 5 double compartments. Next to the gate in the north, there is a square room of c. 3 × 3 m reaching into the middle courtyard; close to it in the north-eastern corner of the building stretches a lengthy room of 7 × 5 m. The layout of this building resembles the much larger Granary C123 at Karanis.50 It looks as if the granary was connected to the canal and a small landing place at the canal by a winding street that departed from the landing place towards the south, circled around the House of the Crocodile and reached the granary at its northern side, where the entrance was (see Photo 16.3). G) Features in the west of the main kom The area between Canal I and IV (see below) is scattered with a few heaps of rubble and some pottery. Further to the west, where Canal I is interrupted by agricultural activities, there are remains of a small solid stone house (just off the map of 2004) with two rooms. Crater-like excrescences lie to the south of the house.

4. The Gymnasium of Philoteris (under excavation) [see Photo 16.2] To the north-west of the village, at a distance of 250 metres from the datum point, a separate kom lies north of the triangular basin and south-west of the basins 1–5 (see below) measuring 72 (westeast) × 65 (south-north) metres; its height does not exceed 1 metre. As was highlighted by the geomagnetic map, the building was well connected to the water supply of the canals. 48 49 50

Cf. ArchaeologicalReport 1898/99, 9, by Grenfell and Hunt about an obviously similar structure in Euhemeria. Buildings around here follow the same orientation. See Husselman 1979 Karanis.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

227

Visible features on the surface are remains of stone walls of a building (23 × 26 m) and an outer wall of which parts survive on the western, southern and eastern sides. The stone wall to the west is well preserved; it does not run parallel to the walls of the main building, and lies at a distance of ca. 8–10 metres. Predominantly Ptolemaic pottery is scattered all over this kom (see Bailey, Vol. B, pp. 16-17). The main building showed a distinguishable feature in its southern part already to the eye of the surveyers, “where a chamber between two other rooms has a smaller chamber or an altar built into it”, as I wrote in the preliminary report of 2004 [Photo 16.30].51 In the meantime, excavations in 2014 have shown that the “chamber with a smaller chamber built in” is a banquet hall in the Hellenistic-Roman style with klinai built along the walls in horseshoe shape [Photo 16.31]. The front sides of the klinai were plastered and decorated. This building seems to be therefore a villa outside the village with an installation to receive guests, or rather the gymnasium of Philoteris. For the latter speak the following observations: the building is well connected to the water streams, and looks as if surrounded by gardens to the north and east; a long strechted empty space just south of the building is followed along its northern side by a small water stream (part of the lower canal was channeled along here; see below); this empty space ends in crescents on both sides; this space is c. 220 metres long and therefore long enough to accommodate races of a stadium (c. 187 metres); the pottery found in the building, also the newly found items, date predominantly to the Ptolemaic period, when gymnasia were installed in many of the villages with a high percentage of Greek settlers, as Philoteris was without any doubt. In the Roman period such institutions were not allowed anymore in the villages, but only in the metropoleis.52 Banquet halls were part of gymnasia in the Hellenistic world.53 A small fragment of a dentil frieze found during the survey within the main building here seems to indicate features of Hellenistic architecture [Photo 16.32]. In the meantime, a large exedra could be identified in the west of the building (publication forthcoming).

5. The Cemeteries On a ridge which extends from the south-west to the south-east of the village numerous tombs were detected (see Map in jacket of ZPE 147, 2004 and Photo 16.1). Where the ridge is closest to the village, the distance between the two measures c. 150 metres. In this space between the cemetery and the village an oval well of nicely fitted limestones was found on the last day of the survey in 2003 [Photo 16.33].54 Visible features in the cemetery are rectangular holes cut into the bedrock and measuring roughly 40 × 60 cm, thus providing entrances to underground grave chambers [Photo 16.34]. Human bones scattered around some of the tombs, and pieces of a pottery sarcophagus in the western part of the cemetery show the work of intruders (some tombs are now inhabited by foxes). Here, some mud bricks reveal possible former burial chapels, but no remains of such chapels above ground were found in other parts of the cemetery. 51

52

53 54

“Since the distance between the walls of the chamber and the built-in structure is only 20 cm it seems to be rather a built-in altar”. See map in ZPE 147, 2004. For the gymnasia in Graeco-Roman Egypt see Habermann 2007 ‘Gymnasien’ 335-348; Paganini 2010 ‘The Hybrid Nature of Gymnasia’ 36-50. See Mango 2007 ‘Bankette im hellenistischen Gymnasion’ 273-311. If this was really a well, its function here to the south of the village and towards the cemetery is difficult to understand, but a second well to the east of here has been dug up by clandestine diggers in 2017. This needs further investigation.

228

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

There may be many more of these that are now covered under the sand. It seems that not the whole ridge provided space for such tombs but that groups were dug at irregular intervals, the eastern-most group being situated close to the new road to the Wadi Rayan55. It becomes now clear that the graves were dug where the limestone plateau on which the village and its environment rests provided numerous hollows that were used for wells in and at the village (see below), and also for the cemetery. One had only to dig through the limestone for c. 60 cm and arrived at naturally built underground chambers that were filled with light material easily to be removed. In 2012, we found that several tomb chambers had been cleared by clandestine diggers in the far south-east. One of the tombs in that region could be visited [Photos 16.35];56 the naturally formed chamber measured roughly 4.10 (N/S) × 2.60 m (W/E), and was little more than 1.20 m high. Three sarcophagi were cut into the limestone at the farther end of the chamber, the main one had the following measures: length: 2.02 m, including the rim 2.15 m; depth: 32 cm; inside width at foot 28 cm, at head 43 cm, outside at foot 41, at head 58 cm. From the rim of the sarcophagus to the ceiling there were 95 cm. The two other sarcophagi were of similar measures.57 All three sarcophagi were oriented exactly towards the west with their heads58. If there had been any grave goods, they had all been removed. According to the pottery finds, the most western group of tombs seems to be the oldest, dating to the Ptolemaic period. The situation of this cemetery corresponds only roughly to a chain of tombs on Caton – Thompson’s map, where tombs are indicated on a ridge south of Dionysias and Philoteris.59 Further fragments of a pottery coffin and scattered human bones were found in the “Sandy area” in the south of the kom. Whether these are original to the place, or were dropped and abandoned here is not clear.

6. The Canal System around Philoteris Remains of the ancient canals (ὑδραγωγοί)60 around Philoteris have been noticed since the time of the early travellers (see above). What they probably saw and what is still visible, are long stretches of dykes (χώματα) in the form of long winding heaps of limestone rubble which give a secure guideline along the former waterways (see Photo 16.8). In some cases, there is just one side of a canal traceable by such a feature, and we may assume here that the other bank did not contain enough stone rubble to survive. Since the material forming the dykes seems to consist of what was excavated when the canal was built, this material can be of diverse consistency, depending how much of the bedrock below had to be removed. There is no doubt that the canals in this area were cut into the bedrock. At one place west of the village, the northern side of the canal was cleared 55

56 57

58 59 60

The tombs close to the road are now situated within an enclosure wall which was being built during our survey in 2002. Workmen told us that a zoo was being established in the area along the road. In 2017 no animals had arrived yet. The exact location is 29°22’ 26.3’’ 30° 27’ 56.3’’. Today, the tomb has been filled again. Sarcopahgus II: length 2.13 m, including the rim 2.23 m; depth 32 cm; inside width at foot 30, at head 45 cm, outside at foot 41, at head 56 cm. Sarcophagus III: length 1.92 m (no rim); width at foot 25, at head 32 cm; the edge between sarcophagi I and II measured 23 cm, 12 cm at the middle raised part; the edge between II and III 47 cm. Outside the tomb were some slaps found that once covered the sarcophagi inside the grave; they were c. 10 cm thick and were between 57 and 41 cm wide. As expected in the Egyptian belief which holds that the dead should be buried in the west (if possible). TheDesertFayoum, plate CVIII; Figure 2 in this Chapter. For the Greek terminitechnicisee Bonneau 1993 Lerégimeadministratif, for ὑδραγωγοί 21-22, and P. Petrie Kleon, p. 21; the term seems to designate canals which are built by human labour; ὑδραγωγοί transport the water of the annual flood further on; during the other seasons they have a constant share of the irrigation and bring fresh water to the villages.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

229

by clandestine diggers and showed the vertical northern bank of the canal below the dyke [Photo 16.36]. A faint idea about the run of these canals could be obtained from the aerial photos taken by the Royal Air Force in April 1955 (see Figure 6). But walking back and forth along the remains of the rubble banks during the archaeological survey sharpened our eyes to detect more details. In the geomagnetic map, the canals show with great accuracy by the deposit of silt at their banks. The canals in the east, leading towards the kom A geomagnetic survey was not possible in this part of the site, because of the increasing agricultural acitivities in this zone. The description of the canals here, as it appeared in 2004 has to remain valid (see Photo 16.1 and Map in ZPE 147): One bank of such a canal in the east of the village became visible first just at the wall surrounding the modern houses of the EgyptianLandReclamationPublicCompany,close to the road to the Wadi Rayan.61 This canal, which is the most southern in this area (Canal I), shows stone rubble remains in both banks; of these the northern one can be followed throughout, while the southern one appears now and then. The height of the remains of these dykes oscillates between a few centimetres and more than one metre and a half. The canal widens considerably in places: where both banks are preserved the distance between the tops of these reaches 12 metres. The canal next to it to the north (Canal II) was much smaller. Its northern bank emerges from the ground about 275 metres west of the first appearance of Canal I, in the form of a small winding line of rubble that follows the banks of Canal I at approximately the same distance throughout. Where both banks of Canal II are visible, it reaches a width of just 3 metres. A third canal with low rubble heaps forming its borders approaches Canal I and II after 350 metres from the first occurrence of Canal I, and follows in a parallel line. Canal III arrives from a north-eastern direction and could be traced from a modern track which is connected to the desert path leading to the kom. Where this canal first appears, its distance from the other two canals is about 80 metres. Its width, as measured between the tops of its banks that are visible over long distances, is 8 metres. Where Canal III encounters the other two, the northern bank of Canal II becomes more prominently visible. The three canals now flow parallel for about 350 metres until they reach a basin with a blocking dyke towards the west that gives way to just two canals. From here, only two canals continue along the main kom. From here on, the geomagnetic map gives a more precise picture (see Photo 16.1). Before the three canals reach the basin, Canals I and III widen substantially; the dykes between them, and their outer borderlines gain some height (up to one and a half metres between Canals I and II, and II and III respectively) and seem to have been particularly fortified (there is more stone rubble here than along the dykes). This may indicate that extreme flooding in the time of the Nile flood was not unusual at this point of the irrigation system. It is not without reason, so it seems, that the village was protected by a stone wall (τεῖχοϲ) towards the east exactly at that point, where the basin into which the three canals empty was constructed. Perhaps a landing place for boats (of what seize?) existed at the wall, but there is no obvious street leading from here into the village, as would be expected between a landing place and the centre of the village. At least here, the

61

A search for the continuing parts of the canals on the Eastern side of the road proved fruitless. This area has been heavily disturbed in recent years when the new road and the modern canal which follows it were built.

230

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

geomagnetic map is not clear enough, and a trench opened from the wall towards the village revealed just another wall, and not a street (see Appendix II). Up to here, Canal I was the largest waterway which obviously had the task of transporting larger amounts of water towards the west. Since its southern banks are not preserved over long distances, gaps to lead water onto neighbouring fields are not distinguishable here. Whether there existed fields to be irrigated to the south of the canal is not clear. The area between the canal and the Roman part of the cemetery, which lies on a very low ridge at a distance of 600 metres south of the canal may have lacked any cultivation. If there were fields to the south of it, Canal I would have had its share in the irrigation. No other traces of water resources were detected in this area thus far, but see above (p. 227) with Photo 16.33. There is a clearly visible gap (ἄφεϲιϲ) in the northern dyke of Canal I 125 metres before the collecting basin. Canals I and II were connected here, and probably water from the bigger canal was discharged into the smaller one. A gap on Canal III opens to the north at a distance of ca. 260 metres before it reaches the basin, obviously irrigating the fields in the north.

Figure 5: Detail of geomagnetic map with main canals along the village.

The canals at the village (from east to west) (see Figure 5) The two canals which depart from the basin (I) continue on different levels, the northern one (Northern Canal = Canal II) at about half a metre below the southern one (further on Canal I). Dykes on both sides of them are clearly visible nearly throughout, the middle dyke being shared by both canals over long distances. The Northern Canal released water into the collecting basins (1–5). Two gaps are clearly visible opening into Basin 3, one discharges into the south-west corner

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

231

of Basin 1. At this point, two stone walls seem to divert the remaining water of the Northern Canal into a north-western direction and then channel it along a stone wall towards the west (along the race track; see above), where it joins Canal I again. Canal I has continued in a curve around the western end of the village (where the House of the Crocodile is situated), before turning west, north-west and then west again. Ca. 55 metres west of the stone wall (τεῖχοϲ) remains of sakiya pots show that at this point water was lifted from Canal I onto the level of the village (sakiya station 3) [Photo 16.37].62 At this point, the geomagnetic map shows a straight line leading from the Upper Canal to a small circle; this must be the channel between the canal and the basin in which the water wheel moved. The functions of the two canals in the area close to the kom are clearly distinguished: Canal I continued transporting larger amounts of water towards the west, as it did before. Being close to the village, this canal clearly served as a water resource for general use (channelled into the village at the point of the sakiya station 3, and certainly other ones) and all kinds of washing and pleasure activities for the people living here. The function of the Northern Canal seems to have been to feed the large basins to the north of it. In this area at the village, the two canals do not run exactly parallel to the street that we could probably identify within the village.63 During excavations along the Northern Canal in 2012 and 2014, two wells were cleared that were connected to the water reservoirs, Well A to Basin 2a, Well B to Basin 3 (see Appendix II to this Chapter). Both wells had an upper part of fitted stones sitting on the limestone plateau; that plateau of c. 60 cm was cut through and the wells continued further down into natural hollows.64 Those hollows were connected to the water reservoirs, and may have provided water resources in periods when water was only available in the reservoirs, and the Northern Canal had stopped being fed from the Upper Canal. The fact that at least at Well A a lock could be opened to let water directly from the Lower Canal into the garden around the well may speak for the wells being the “last resources” since they were connected underground to the reservoirs. A cross section at Well A illustrates this situation (see Photo 16.10 and Appendix II, p. 342). The Canal System west of the Village Canal I continues in western direction, and passes the House of the Crocodile in south-western direction. Where it bends towards the west again (in a sharp bend = ἄγκων), the system of waterways became more confusing for our eyes. The geomagnetic map helps to understand the situation better (pacewhat was written in ZPE 147, 2004): about 50 metres after the decisive turn to the west, a massive mound of stone rubble (a) splits the water into two flows. A large gap opens to the south-west between the mound (a) and another mound to the south (b). From here, one stream continues in a south-western direction, bends to the west and peters out after only c. 60 metres. Another gap is marked by the northern edge of the mound (a) and a stone building (c) that sits on the northern bank of the canal. This gap channels the water towards the west. From the more southern stream water could be released into the northern one halfway between the mound (a) and the bend to the west.

62

63

64

For the organization of the lifting of water from the canals for municipal use in the Roman period see P. Lond. III 1177 and the commentary by Habermann 2000 ZurWasserversorgungeinerMetropole. What this means for the order in which both were built is problematic; cf. Rathbone 1997 ‘Surface Survey’ on the layout of streets and canals in Talit, 15. Compare the use of such hollows in the cemetery south of the village (above p. 228).

232

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

On the south wall of the southern stream, there is a sakiya station (Station 2).65 Following that stream during the archaeological survey we could see the northern and southern dykes of a canal emerge clearly from the surface, and called this canal Canal IV [Photo 16.38]. The width of this canal from top to top of its two dykes measures 5 metres already at this point and it becomes wider the more it advances to the west. At certain times, this must have been a substantial water stream. However, on the geomagnetic map, the canal does not continue further to the west (there are no remains of silt to give any further signals), even though on the surface, we could follow it for c. 2.5 km [Photo 16.39]. It seems that this Canal IV was planned but never set to function. Along its way, clandestine diggers have dug the bed of this canal: a perfect bed cut into the bedrock. We could see that the bed opened at one place to one of the underground hollows; that must have made the Canal IV disfunctional, when water could not be retained within the bed, but disappeared into hollows underneath. To the west of this area, Canal I bends towards the west where the remaining water of the Northern Canal reaches it and they continue side by side while the middle dyke is shared by both of them. After ca. 250 metres, the Northern Canal is blocked by a stone wall, and united again with Canal I. They become one large waterway that carries on towards Dionysias. 350 metres further on, a sakiya station (Station 1) is situated on its southern bank.66 With some interruptions due to modern agricultural activities, this canal could be traced up to the outskirts of Dionysias till 2006. In the area south of the two canals several small mounds with pottery scattered around may be the remains of farmer’s cabins in the fields. The conclusions drawn in 2004 about the water supply of Philoteris are nearly all still valid: The village received its vital water supply through a sophisticated system of waterways from the east. One main canal (Canal I) provided a large amount of water flowing by closely and giving the village the necessary resources. This stream continued up to Dionysias, discharging to Canal IV, as long as that canal was functioning (if it ever was). North of the village, it was followed by a second canal (The Northern Canal = Canal II) which fed large basins, branched off and rejoined Canal I again in the west of the village. To the east of the village, where three canals ran side by side over a longer distance, there was an extended area of a thin layer of pottery from the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. This pottery area covers large parts of Canals I and II, but not of Canal III (the most northern one). If this layer of pottery is original to that site, it could mean that this area has been used as a rubbish dump. In this case, only Canal III would have continued to function serving an already much lower living standard in the village, perhaps only feeding the water reservoirs to the north. Is that a sign of the village’s decline, and the decline of the whole area in later Roman times? This question is connected to the problem of how to interpret the position of the longest Canal I (which continues up to Dionysias) within the irrigation system of the north-western Fayoum as a whole. Was this canal the continuation of the main water stream which fed Theadelpheia and Euhemeria and which finally reached Dionysias, or was it a side branch of it? The RAF photos of the area show an overall straight line with one bend to the north-west of Philoteris; this line runs in the desert close to what was then (in 1955) the borderline of the cultivated land (see Figure 6) and looks like a canal of some dimensions. It seems to continue towards Dionysias. If the interpretation of the aerial photos is right, this should have been the main canal leading to Dionysias from which canals I, II and III would have branched off at some point before

65 66

Pottery remains in this circular small area show the typical features of sakiya pots (see Bailey, Vol. B). At 29˚ 21’ 00” North – 30˚ 26’ 21” East.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

233

Figure 6: Photo of the Royal Air Force from 1955; courtesy of RAF (the arrow marks the basins to the north of the village).

reaching Philoteris. The possible former main canal as shown on the aerial photos is now completely hidden in the cultivated land. It seems that Philoteris was situated pretty much on the edge of the desert. The cemetery, a natural borderline to the land of death (the desert) lies at a distance of only 150 metres behind the village, and this area was clearly not cultivated. If the interpretation of the aerial photos and the other observation are not correct, Canals II and III would have branched off Canal I at some distance before, and would have rejoined it just before Philoteris. This is, of course, not impossible.67 Whether Canal I or a different canal now under the cultivation was the main water supplier, neither of the two scenarios helps to understand the fate of Dionysias. Dionysias was bound to die at the moment when water no longer reached Theadelpheia and Euhemeria, which were both situated on

67

We do not assume that Canal I was navigable for large ships at Philoteris as the main canal up to Philagris obviously was (cf. SB XXII 15281). But this does not speak against it being the main canal up to Dionysias.

234

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

the main water stream further to the east, and were both abandoned in the 4th century, as was Philoteris. The water supply for a possible later inhabitation of Dionysias must have had other sources.68

7. The Water Reservoirs to the North of the Village [Photo 16.40] Immediately north of the kom and separated from it only by the two canals, there are at least six separate basins of different sizes. The surrounding dykes are still up to 2.30 m high in some places. No traces of structures were found in these basins. Under the shallow sand the characteristic dark grey of the Nile silt appears where the surface is disturbed. These basins were set onto the bedrock, and not natural. Where they are connected to wells (see above, p. 231 and Appendix II, p. 342), their ground is drilled through into hollows underneath. The measurements of the basins are as follows: W-E (m)

N-S (m)

Size m2/arourai

max. height of (along the race track?)

capacity at 2.00 m height of dyke

1

55

270

14 850 m2 5.39 Ar

1.20

29,700 m3

2a

150

80

12 000 m2 4.35 Ar

2.30

24,000 m3

2b

220

60

13 200 m2 4.79 Ar

1.50

26,400 m3

3

100/180

75/220

28 500 m2 10.34 Ar

2.00

57,000 m3

4

75

60

4 500 m2 1.63 Ar

1.00

9 000 m3

5

35

35

1 225 m2 0.44 Ar

1.00

2 450 m3

No.

The overall size of all six basins is 74, 275 m2, which equals 26.95 arourae. The given capacities can be only a rough estimate because of the differences in height of the extant dykes. Their average height is about 2.00 m, which would make for a capacity of 148,550 m3 for all six basins. However, even today, in some places the dykes are higher than that. If their average height was 2.50 m in antiquity, the basins would have had a capacity of 171,375 m3. Since no exact values can be given, we should assume an average capacity of ca. 160,000 m3, without taking into consideration any of the possible hollows underneath (see Appendix II). In 2004, we entertained the possibility that these basins served agriculture on the base of basin irrigation, a usual procedure in the Nile Valley. It has become clear though that basin irrigation was not the typical system of agriculture in the Fayoum.69 Only in the north-east, around Philadelpheia, flooding water was used this way. It is unlikely that there were περιχώματα, “ring dykes”70 here in Philoteris. These basins here served only the storage of water. 68

69 70

Evidence for the survival of Dionysias into later periods remains rare. P. Laur. III 93, 3 mentioning μείζονεϲ of a village called Dionysias is the only extant papyrus dated after the 4th century (its handwriting certainly dates to the 6th/7th centuries); see Chapt. 18 on Dionysias. Rapoport and Shahar 2012 ‘Irrigation’ 131. Cf. Bonneau 1993 Lerégime 45ff.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

235

Unfortunately, there is little comparable evidence for this kind of basins in the Fayoum or in Egypt at all. Immediately to the north-west of Soknopaiou Nesos there is an area with smaller basins similar to those at Philoteris.71 Other irrigation basins have been discovered in the north-eastern part of the Fayoum between Soknopaiu Nesos and Karanis, but those are much larger and of natural origin.72 A term denoting, as it seems, smaller basins in the papyri is hydrostasion.It is difficult to see why this term should refer only to basins that are formed by natural depressions, as D. Bonneau claims.73 P. Fay. 131, 9–12 rather sounds as if the hydrostasion mentioned here served a well defined purpose, and may therefore be artificial.74 In P. Bacch. 19, 10-11 a hydrostasionis said to be fed with water by a canal which otherwise is used for irrigation of the fields next to the village. The situation described seems to be similar to that at Philoteris, where one might also consider the basins as lying “below” the village.75 So, even if the Philoteris basins are clearly not of natural origin, they might still be hydrostasia. Two basins (1 and 3) have visible gaps towards the canal, and in the northwest corner of basin 5, there is an outlet in the form of a small canal to the north. None of the other basins has any visible in-or outlets, but 1 and 2a and 2b are interconnected. On the northern bank of Basin 2b, traces of at least 3 Sakiya-Stations can be identified by the remains of the characteristic pots piled up here; the middle station was connected to a stone channel leading further to the north. This stone channel can be followed down to the beginning of the green land nowadays. Thus, the area north of the basins could also be irrigated from the reservoirs by means of water wheels that lifted the water from Basin 2b to the land above. There are some building remains of mud bricks and stone on the dyke between basins 2a and 2b;76 this structure may have served as a “watch-house”, similar to those found in the large basins north of Karanis.77 The existence of this building shows that it did matter how much water was let into the basins, and what was going on in them. An ἀγροφύλαξ may have been on guard here. The idea that the basins were used for crocodile breeding can be excluded. 8. The Papyrological Evidence78 According to Trismegistos, 125 Greek or Demotic papyri attest the village of Philoteris.79 Of these, 14 were found in the village, and 32 written there.80 Further evidence derives from papyri written by or to residents of the village known from other papyri.81 The earliest Greek text mentioning Philoteris is P. Petrie Kleon 92 (earlier P. Petrie III 37a), dated in year 28 of Ptolemy II i.e. 258/257 BC, mentioning a komarch and a komogrammteus of 71

72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79 80 81

Caton-Thompson and Gardner 1934 TheDesertFayoum 157 with pl. CV. Unlike at Philoteris, it is not even clear how the Soknopaiou Nesos basins were supplied with water at all. Whether they were connected somehow to the irrigation canals coming from Karanis, is questionable, but cf. Boak 1935 SoknopaiouNesos 2-3. Caton-Thompson, and Gardner 1934 TheDesertFayoum 140ff. with pl. LXXXVII. Bonneau 1993 Lerégime 62-63. ἐὰν τὸ ὕδωρ κατέλθῃ πάϲῃ προθυμίᾳ χρῆϲαι ἔϲτ᾿ ἂν τὸ ὑδροϲτάϲιον γεμιϲθῇ (3rd/early 4th century). P. Bacch. 19, 10-11: καὶ εἰϲ τὰ ὑδροϲτάϲια τὰ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῇ (τῇ κώμῃ) κατέρχεται. AD 171. Called “Fox hill” after its inhabitants. Caton-Thompson and Gardner 1934 TheDesertFayoum153. In 2005, B. Van Beek put a thorough article on Philoteris into the Trismegistos Fayum Gazetteer; I refer to that for any more detailed information. In BGU III 802, a tax-list from AD 42, Philoteris is mentioned 17 times. Published or described in Fayûm Towns (see above note 20). A number of papyri from the Heroninus Archive (see below with notes 89ff.) give such information.

236

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

Philoteris; next is P. Petrie Kleon 39 (= earlier P. Petrie III 43 (3)) of 241 BC. Among the Demotic texts mentioning the village the earliest is P. LilleDem II 95 (A3 and B6), dated to 226 BC.82 The Greek papyrus with the latest date is P. Col. VIII 236 from June/July AD 313.83 All centuries between these corner dates are attested. The only Greek inscription which refers to Philoteris dates from the late Ptolemaic period.84 At some point not long after 238/237 BC, Philoteris counted c. 719 tax paying inhabitants, 370 males and 340 females (P. Count. 11 Col. II 11). These numbers nearly equal those given for Dionysias (P. Count. 11 Col. II 13; 712; 371; 341), and we expect that the two villages were originally laid out in the same size and for the same number of people in the beginning. In the Greek texts, no public buildings are mentioned, but P. LilleDem II 64, 7 (226 BC) shows that one temple in Philoteris was dedicated to the cult of the crocodile god Sobek (as in most villages in the Fayoum). The temple housed a “magasin (?) royal”. In the Roman period, several public functions were carried out at Philoteris – functions which must have existed here in one form or another also in the Ptolemaic period. There was a κωμογραμματεύϲ (village secretary) in AD 208 (PSI XII 1243, 6–7 and 23–24), tax collectors bothered the villagers with demands for money (πράκτορεϲ ἀργυρικῶν) in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (P. Amh. II 114, 7; PSAA 50 verso 26; P. Fay. 61, 5–6), and demands for grain (ϲιτολόγοι) in AD 313 (P. Col. VIII 236,2). Bath houses are attested for the 1st century AD by one ostracon (and perhaps two), but whether the small sum here was paid to a bath-attendant as fee for using a privately owned bath, or as tax for using a public bath is not clear (O. Fay. 5; SB XX 14383 from a not further identified Philoteris).85 Notices about people’s activities to earn a living in the village are scattered over the centuries, and may be true for one period but not for the following 100 years or vice versa. Throughout the period of the existence of the village, the main activities of its inhabitants will have centered around the cultivation of land which was arable in at least three directions from the village, to the west, north and east,86 and which must have been of high quality as long as the water arrived by the main canal. Settlers of the first generations were ἑκατοντάρουροι, soldiers who had 100 arourai of land allotted to them (P. Genova 106, 15–17; 219 BC?). In Augustan times, Maecenas, the famous patron of Horace held possessions near Philoteris (SB XIV 11657).87 In the 2nd century AD, date palms in the area of the village belonged to the imperial estate of Antonia daughter of Drusus (P. Fay. 60; AD 149). Beer was drunk in Philoteris from the beginning of its existence, a beer brewer being mentioned in 226 BC (SB XVI 12415), while a goldsmith may have been of more interest for the women living here (P. LilleDem II 64; 226 BC). The washerman Artemidoros, son of Agathon exercised his profession in the village in 222 BC.88 Nearly a quarter of the total number of the Greek papyri mentioning Philoteris belong to the Heroninus Archive of the mid third century AD.89 Heroninus managed the unit of the estate of Appianus in Theadelpheia, another unit being located in Philoteris. Though numerous letters were 82

83 84 85 86

87 88 89

de Cenival 1973 Cautionnementsdémotiques; further Demotic texts mentioning Philoteris are P. LilleDem II 64, 5 (226 BC); 92, 6 (?);76 B 9 (222 BC); 84 A3 (222 BC); 40, 8 (209 BC). A coin found by Grenfell and Hunt dates between AD 337/38 and 350. See below, Small Finds. I Fay I 16, a dedication offered by an epistates Herakleides and the inhabitants of Dionysias, Philoteris and Kanopias. Sijpesteijn 1987 ‘A Receipt for Bath-Tax’ 201-204 thinks the two receipts were issued by state officials. Whether the land to the south between the village and the cemeteries was cultivated to a larger extent is not clear (see above, 6. The canal system). Cf. Poethke 1976 ‘Der Berliner Epimerismos-Papyrus’ 101-109. For his Demotic dossier see W. Clarysse, forthcoming. A thorough study of this archive is Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism; Theadelpheia Archive No. 7.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

237

written to and by the managers of the Philoteris unit, Tryphon (AD 250-251) and Palas (AD 255265), information about their activities in Philoteris remains scanty. Surprisingly, wood and finished wood were produced in Philoteris, and transported from there to Arsinoe and other places (P. Flor II 129; P. Prag I 106).90 Cattle, oxen and asses were also reared.91 On the other hand, wine was brought to Philoteris in large quantities, just as it was transported to Dionysias and Euhemeria.92 This is surprising as both in Belzoni and Wilkinson claim that the area around Dionysias was rich in vineyards (see above).93 Besides agricultural activities, people of the village of Philoteris must have been involved in the mining of copper which took place in the area, probably close to Dionysias.94 In 240 BC, a gang of miners “is not to be withdrawn from Philoteris”; they had refused to continue working until their achievements had been measured. Want of water supply seems to be involved in the problem (but cf. P. Petrie Kleon 39). The geographical proximity of Philoteris and Dionysias – the temple of Dionysias is visible from the kom of Philoteris on clear days – produced close links between the inhabitants of the two places. A Philoterian uses the bank of Dionysias (P. Corn. 41), a man from Dionysias is ordened to carry out liturgies in both villages – and refuses to do so (PSI XII 1243). Fields at Philoteris are cultivated by farmers from Dionysias in the 2nd century AD (P. Vindob. Sal. 16). Another near-by village was Kanopias.95 Inhabitants of Kanopias put up a dedication to an unknown god together with people from Dionysias and Philoteris.96 In AD 48, charges for the transportation of sheaves of grain to the threshing floor, and from the threshing floor to the granary are split between Philoteris and Kanopias (P. Upps. Frid. I). In the 2nd century AD, a certain Charias makes payments on behalf of the people of Kanopias for the transport tax, and on behalf of the people of Dionysias who work fields around Philoteris for other taxes (P. Vindob. Sal. 16).

9. Archives, in which Philoteris features Philoteris features prominently only in the Heroninus Archive (see Theadelpheia, Archive 7). The Appianus Estate had a branch in Philoteris, as in most of the villages around here.97 Around AD 250 a certain Tryphon was the administrator of that branch (Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism 75), between c. 255-265 a certain Palas (Rathbone 74).

10. Small finds Besides the large number of pot sherds and pieces of glass (see Bailey, Vol. B), some small objects may be worth mentioning separately.98

90 91 92 93

94 95 96 97 98

See Rathbone 1999EconomicRationalism 217. See Rathbone 1999EconomicRationalism217-218. See Rathbone 1999EconomicRationalism278-280. The reason why even more wine was needed in Philoteris may be that the caravan route to the western oasis must have started around here. On the place of the copper mines see Chapt. 17. For the village of Kanopias see Chapt. 15 I. Fay. I 16, see above note 84. Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism 26-29. See also the fragment of a dentil frieze, found in the western part of the Gymnasium (see above p. 227).

238

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

a) Coins and metals A Ptolemaic bronze coin was found on the bottom of Canal IV, the face side being too eroded to make a secure dating possible.99 Some Roman coins, found on the main kom, had the same fate and are not securely datable. A Roman bronze finger ring dates to the first century AD. Grenfell and Hunt had come across a coin from the reign of Constans (337/38–350).100 This may be the most recent evidence for the life of Philoteris. b) Pottery, sculpted limestone, baskets The two amphora handles found: a Rhodian 2nd to 1st century BC example contained a completely eroded rectangular impression, the other one has a kantharos on a plain rectangular background and may be from a Thasian amphora of the 3rd to 2nd century BC (cf. Vol. B, Nos. 1082 and 1091).101 A terracotta head of a bearded philosopher, and the top-knot of a female statuette were found on the main kom. They both date to the Roman period; see Bailey, Vol. B, Nos. 1461 en 1463. A small architectural fragment with two rosettas turned up at the lower canal, below the main mound of the site [Photo 16.41]. In the ruins of the former main temple, on which we set the datum point (see above p. 215 with note 1), fragments of baskets, handles of such baskets and strings were found. They show that humidity has not reached the site of Philoteris at least not in the upper layers [Photos 16.42, 16.43 and 16.44]. In the northern part of the village, close to the Upper Canal a piece of limestone with a grooving was found [Photo 16.45].

11. Conclusion Philoteris in the Themistou Meris is still worth visiting if you have enough time to get your eyes sharpened to recognize the winding dykes of the canals in the desert around it and of the basins to the north. These features make the place unique; there is no other site in the Fayoum where the irrigation system can be studied as thoroughly as here. The main kom may be disappointing, but the archaeological and geomagnetic surveys revealed details of some of the buildings enhancing our picture of the settlement. Archaeological and papyrological data corroborate each other regarding the time span in which Philoteris flourished. Today, the whole place still looks pretty much the same as it did in Grenfell and Hunt’s time. Excavating Philoteris is worth while if we are content with archaeological results which did not mean anything to the two papyrologists who found the site “very poor and not worth digging extensively”.102 The recent excavations carried out in Philoteris show that the village has a lot to offer which cannot be achieved in any other site in the Fayoum (see Appendix II). The gymnasium has now been identified beyond doubts (publication forthcoming).

99 100 101

102

Ptolemy III or IV? We thank Andrew Meadows at The British Museum for advice in this matter. P. Fay. p. 71. Rectangular stamps are common on Thasian jars, and the kantharos is often found; however, none could be traced which is anepigraphic. They are often stamped on the upper curve of the handle, whereas ours is near the top of the straight vertical part. The fabric is not unlike that of Thasian amphorae. For somewhat similar kantharoi, see Bon and Bon 1957 ÉtudesthasiennesIV, nos 592, 801, 869, 987, 1656, 1796, 2065-66. P. Fay. p. 63.

0

50

100 Meter

9.08m

Sakiya Station 1

500 Meter

Quarry?

Canal I

Stone wall / Dam

Stone wall

Canal

Track/boundary

Canal IV

d

8.82m

LI

E

Bridge Foundation

Granary

Crocodile house

Sandy area

G

Fragment of Bath House pavement

5.20m

Well

Bb

A

Water channel

Bc

Open area

Ba

8.34m

CANAL I

0

L II

CANA

5.46m

Gap

50

Bath House

C

8.10m

100 Meter

8.40m

Heights according to Survey of Egypt

8.40m

Gap

Quarry

Mounds of rubble

Coordinate System : WGS84 DMS and/or UTM Zone 36R

Map based on: Field Survey (2005-2014) Magnetometer map by T. Herbich and Team Satellite images Google Earth 2015

Watfa

Canal I

Canal II

Canal III

Eastern rubbish dump

Quarry

Gap

???

Philoteris

D

Stone wall

CHANNEL?

Sakiya S tation 3

6.80m

Basin 3

Terracotta coffin fragments

Sandy area

Well

Stone and pottery

Stone and pottery

Stone building area

Stone walls

Doorway

CANAL I

Slag debris

Basin 2a

Fox Hill settlement

Basin 2b

Sakiya stations

Circle of scattered pottery Stone and pottery

Stone walls with gaps 8.62m

CANAL II

Remains of stone buildings

Western rubbish dump

NA

CA

ll e wa Ston

Sakiya Station 2

Ancient Cemetery A

Basin

Mound of stone rubble

Mound

b

a

c construction

Stone

Embankment of stone rubble

7.50m

Gymnasium

Piles of stone rubble

Stone wall

Stone rubble

Mound of stone rubble e

Canal I

Canal II

Stone construction

Basin 1

Block stone

Depression 4

Ancient Cemetery B

Pottery

Basin - probably within stonewall

Pottery

Canal I

Mounds - bone and pottery (1x Roman sherd)

Canal III

Photo 16.1: The master plan of Philoteris /Watfa; geomagnetic map by T. Herbich and his team, harmonized with Google Earth Map (enlarged map in jacket of book).

Canal IV

Canal I

Canal II ?

Depression 5

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

239

e Stone construction stone rubble

a Mound of

c

&NCBOLNFOU
PG TUPOF
SVCCMF

I L A

Western rubbish dump

N CA

ll e wa Ston

E

Doorway

5.20m

Stone walls

Stone walls with gaps

Crocodile house

G

Bridge Foundation

8.62m

CANAL II

Photo 16.2: The north-western part of Philoteris with the newly discovered gymnasium.

Stone rubble

d

Mound of stone rubble

7.50m

Gymnasium

8.82m

Stone DPOTUSVDUJPO

Slag debris

Basin 2a

W

240 CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

Photo 16.3: The complete village; geomagnetic map by T. Herbich and his team, harmonized with Google Earth Map, detail of 16.1 (enlarged map in jacket of book).

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

241

Photo 16.4: Google Earth photo from 2013; the large basins to the north of the ancient village, the canals, and even the layout of the (ancient?) fields in the north of the basins are clearly visible.

242 CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

243

Photo 16.5: The site of Philoteris from the north in 2006; in the middle, the remains of the fired brick building, to the right the mound of the datum point; cf. the photo taken by Grenfell and Hunt in 1899, here Figure 1.

Photo 16.6: The area of the gymnasium in the Google Earth photo of 2010; black lines in the east of the gymnasium are vehicle tracks in deep sand.

244

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

Photo 16.7: The building in the north-west of the village, the gymnasium. To the south of it, the water stream channeled along the stone wall, and the connection of the stream towards the gymnasium are cearly visible. South to the water stream extends the free space of 220 m length that was the race track.

Photo 16.8: Looking towards the west on Canal IV, with the team of 2003.

Photo 16.9: In the Upper Canal close to the village, looking east; T. Herbich and his team in action.

245

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

Watfa, Cross Section A

South

North

houses 9

$anBl
*

8.5

$anBl
**

8

lock

7.5 7 6.5 6

wall

well fluvial and lacustrine sediments of sand, silt and clay

aquiclude/aquitard basin

5.5 5

aquifer soft bedrock (calcareous clay and lime rich mud with silts)

4.5 4

hard bedrock (limestone and marls) hollow space

tunnel

?

aquiclude/aquitard

3.5

meter a.s.l. vertical exaggeration: 5x

0

10

20

30

40

50 meter

Photo 16.10: Cross section from the village in the south to the basin in the north at Well A; diagramme by I. Klose, based on the excavations in 2012 and 2014 (see Appendices I and II).

Photo 16.11: Massive blocks of fired bricks north-east of the datum point (G).

246

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

Photo 16.12: Sanctuary of Temple (A) with lining of limestone blocks.

Photo 16.13: Sanctuary of Temple (A), after the Field School of Willeke Wendrich in 2003.

Photo 16.14: Structure (or perhaps parts of two structures) standing up for 14 layers of mud bricks above the surface (Bb on survey map).

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

247

Photo 16.15: Building with a number of millstones (Bc).

Photo 16.16: Small basin in the building of millstones (Bc).

Photo 16.17: Building with a number of millstones after the Field School of W. Wendrich in 2003 (Bc).

248

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

Photo 16.18: Plan of the Hellenistic bath by Fournet and Redon 2017, ‘Catalogue of the Greek Tholos Baths of Egypt’ 41 (B294) p. 445.

Photo 16.19: Entrance to the bath chamber as seen from inside the chamber, from the south.

Photo 16.20: The pot still in situ in 2000.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

249

Photo 16.21: View into the corridor leading to the bath chamber, from east to west.

Photo 16.22: Wall decoration behind the bath tub.

Photo 16.23: Heating place in the bath chamber.

250

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

Photo 16.24: Wall decoration on northern wall of the corridor.

Photo 16.25: Alternating mud and clay bricks in the building near the bath.

Photo 16.26: Part of the lower jaw of a crocodile found in the House of the Crocodile (E).

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

251

Photo 16.27: Crocodile bones from the House of the Crocodile (E).

Photo 16.28: The granary revealed by the geomagnetic survey; numbers indicate photos taken on surface (see next photo).

Photo 16.29: Photo taken on surface above the granary from north to south (Photo 105 of T. Herbich).

252

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

Photo 16.30: Banquet Hall in the gymnasium; “chamber with a smaller chamber or an altar built into it” as stated in ZPE 147, 290-291.

Photo 16.31: The banquet hall in the gymnasium after excavation in 2014; view towards the south.

Photo 16.32: Small fragment of a dentil frieze, found in the gymnasium.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

253

Photo 16.33: Rim of a well located between the village and the Ptolemaic cemetery.

Photo 16.34: Grave entrance in the Ptolemaic cemetery.

Photo 16.35: Tomb chamber in south-east of the village with the two northern sarcophagi cut into the bed rock.

254

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

Photo 16.36: Canal cut into the bedrock; northern side of Canal IV, west of the village.

Photo 16.37: Sakiya pot from Sakiya Station 3 at the northern fringe of the village.

Photo 16.38: Looking west along Canal IV (Photo 34 of T. Herbich); see here Photo 39.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

255

Photo 16.39: The geomagnetic map with indication of photo taken at the end of Canal IV (see here Photo 8).

Photo 16.40: View to the north over Basin 2a to the Fox Hill.

256

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

Photo 16.41: Small architectural fragment with two rosettas.

Photo 16.42: Fragment of a basket.

Photo 16.43: Fragment of a basket.

CHAPTER 16: MEDINET WATFA = PHILOTERIS

Photo 16.44: Handle of a basket.

Photo 16.45: Piece of limestone with a groove.

257

CHAPTER 17 ΤΑ XΑΛΚΩΡΥΧΙΑ, THE COPPER MINES,1 IN THE AREA OF DIONYSIAS Τὰ Xαλκωρύχια, “The copper mines”, are attested from the 3rd century BC (P. Petrie Kleon 39; 241 BC) until the 3rd century AD (SB XXVI 16554) in 14 documents (BGU I 153, 152 AD is a copy of SPP XXII 48; 19. Febr. AD 152). All these documents are from the Arsinoite nome; eight also mention the village of Dionysias2, one is said to be written at the Copper mines.3 After the third century AD, there is no reference to the copper mines in the papyri, but the find of an extensive mint, in which more than 15,000 moulds for the production of coins were found, on the site (see Chapt. 18) may be an indication that copper was still found in the neighbourhood of Dionysias in the first quarter of the 4th century AD. Archaeological evidence for copper mines in the Fayoum in general does not exist till today. Geomorphological maps do not show any copper deposits in the Fayoum at any time. This is a remarkable situation; where exactly the copper was extracted from these mines is not attested in the papyri, nor does any document deal with the methods of mining. In archaeologically investigated ancient copper mines the digging went on in irregularly shaped tunnels, underground chambers, and galleries; this procedure is known since prehistory; see L. Swan, ExcavationsatCopperQueenMine, Northwestern Zimbabwe, The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 57, No. 176, 2002, 74. There is no doubt that the copper mines in the Fayoum were located in the Themistou Meris, near the village of Dionysias; that village even takes its name from the mines, being called Dionysias at the Copper Mines in SB XX 15155, 5-6 (217-216 BC), BGU I 197, 2-3 (14 Oct. AD 17), P. Ups. Frid. I 24 (July AD 48), P. Alex. 7 (21 July AD 113), P. Gen. I2 8, 7 (7 Oct. AD 141), BGU I 153, 5-7 = Chrest. Mitt. 261= SPP XXII 48, (19. Febr. AD 152), P.Strasb. IV 201, 4-6 (7 Jan. AD 162); cf. SB III 7200, 19 (2nd century AD).4 More specifics about the location of the copper mines may be inferred from the following texts: In P. Petrie III 130, Frg. 2, recto 1-6 (3rd century BC) payments are made for the transport of ricinus (κρότων) by three persons from the copper mines and two from Kanopos. In Chapt. 15, pp. 211-212 it is suggested that the “Ruins” to the north-east of Philoteris might be identified with Kanopias (Kanopos). In that case, we may expect the copper mines in the green land north-east of Philoteris. Yet, that would make the explicit combination of the copper mines 1 2

3

4

GEO-ID 496; Calderini V 108; Suppl. 2, 236; Suppl. 3, 161; Suppl. 4, 141. BGU I 197; P. Alex VII; P. Gen. I (2e éd.) 8; P. Strasb. IV 201; P. Ups. Frid I; SB XX 15155; SB XXVI 16554; SPP XXII 48. SB XIV 11968 is republished in BASP 53, 2016, 291-292; the hypomnema is apparently written near the Copper Mines, but rather not found there. CPR VI 80, a 2nd century AD letter from Eudaimon to Apollos about securing the “metal mines”, may refer to the copper mines; l.4 “τῶν τοῦ μετάλλου φυλάκ[ων]”; the papyrus is from Soknopaiou Nesos.

260

CHAPTER 17: THE COPPER MINES, IN THE AREA OF DIONYSIAS

with Dionysias in at least 8 documents (see above) rather strange. On the other hand, we do not know whether the combination of the two sites in P. Petrie III 130 really indicates a close vicinity. Ricinus (κρότων) is attested in combination with the copper mines in SB XIV 11968, 1-6 (132131 BC), a petition submitted to the topogrammateus by Dionysios the owner of the sixty arourae near the copper mines that are κροτωνοφόροι. The oil manufactured from the seeds of ricinus was a state monopoly in Ptolemaic Egypt, and its cultivation perhaps therefore especially guarded in the neighbourhood of the mines (?); see P. Rev. 60-72. Ricinus seems to be a rather frugal plant, but it may be too far-fetched to deduct from the combination of the ricinus cultivation and the copper mines that both were located rather close to the edge of the desert. In P. Petrie Kleon 39 (ca. 241-240 BC) workers in the copper mines (as it seems, but see below) ask to be transferred to Alabanthis5, since they have already worked beyond their duty; they also claim that there is not enough water. The request is written on 27 July 240 BC; this may be just before the flood was finally arriving in the area around Dionysias at the end of the main feeder canal. The complaint about the scarcity of water need therefore not mean that the mines were out in the desert; it means rather that that part of the Fayoum had problems in general during the summer months, before the arrival of the flood! B. Van Beek argues that these men were not working in the mines at all, but were dispatched to work on the new canal leading from Philoteris to Dionysias in the “vicinity of the mines”, since the men’s work is measured in schoinia, usually used for work on dykes (see commentary to P. Petrie Kleon 39). BGU I 197, 8-11 (14 Oct. 17 AD) is a lease of land; Thermouthis daughter of Stotoetis has leased to Soterichos and his son Petesouchos a plot of two arourae belonging to her near the copper mines, formerly belonging to a Kephalon. The crop to be cultivated is not specified; the arourae seem to be appropriate for the cultivation of any kind of plants. SB XXVI 16554, 3-7 (3rd century AD) is a receipt for rent; Aurelius Polydeukes acknowledges to Ptollis that he has received the rent in grain for the arourae which belong to him near the copper mines in the place called “of Protaros (?)”.

Conclusion Nearly all attestations show cultivated land located near the copper mines (except of P. Petrie Kleon 39). The exact location of that cultivated land is unknown, as is the location of the copper mines. Clearly, however, the copper mines were somewhere within the cultivated land or near to it in the neighbourhood of Dionysias. Fatma Hamouda

5

This Alabanthis is the village near Tamais in the Herakleidou Meris of Arsinoite nome (GEO-ID 97) rather than a village in the Hermopolites.

CHAPTER 18 QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS1 Plan is Figure 18.3; Maps II and III; V; XI

Qasr Qaroun is one of the largest archaeological sites in the Themistou Meris; it measures 900 × 600 m (without the cemeteries), and shows a large variety of building remains. Given our restricted sources of funds and time, it was impossible to undertake a thorough survey on this site. Donald Bailey worked there for some days collecting preliminary ceramological data;2 we also searched for the cemeteries, with some success (see below). When I finally moved to Egypt in 2010, having more time to spend for archaeological activities, the site had been given over to an Italian team from the University of Siena. A preliminary report on those excavations which turned out to be very limited, was published in 2010.3 The site is even more shallow at first sight than Philoteris, and therefore papyrologists did not invest much time to excavate here in the hope of finding papyri; after some excavations of the Egyptian authorities in the northern part behind the police station in the 80ies of the last century, it became clear that at least in that part of the site walls still stand more than 2.5 metres high. The well preserved (and now completely restored) temple from the Ptolemaic period in the western part of the site generated more interest [Photo 18.1]. This temple attracted visitors in the time of Napoleon and before, since it had been identified with the Labyrinth mentioned by Herodotus.4 The attitude of early travellers in the 17th and 18th centuries towards this identification splendidly reflects the development of enlightenment in Europe at the time, the Description d’Égyptebeing its final result. Further interest in the site arose, in particular with the locals, from the story of King Qaroun and his immense wealth.5 The connection drawn between the legendary figure of an extremely rich man and this very site may have to do with the mint which worked here at least in the 4th century, the copper mines nearby, perhaps the extraordinary layout of the temple (see below), and something else, about which we do not have any idea as yet. Up till today, the inhabitants of the villages around whisper about the “bank” still housed in the temple. The name of the legendary king lives on in the name of the modern village nearby that gave its name to the site Qasr Qaroun – The Castle of Qaroun. This name does not refer to the Roman military camp, but to the temple! Jomard interpreted the name Qasr Qaroun as deriving from the form of the temple, the “Temple 1

2 3 4

5

GEO-ID 565; Wessely 1904 Topographie 58-59; Calderini II 107-110; Suppl. 1, 96; Suppl. 2, 44-45; Suppl. 3, 31-32; Suppl. 4, 52; Suppl. 5, 29; P. Tebt. II 375; P. Fay. pp. 11 and 63; for the archaeological site see Davoli, L’archeologiaurbana 301-323 and Fig. 142-323. See Bailey, Vol. B pp. 17-18. Papi et al. 2010 ‘La missione dell’Università di Siena’ 239-250, and 5 Tavole. Audebeau 1930 ‘La légende du lac Moeris’ 105-127; cf. Obsomer 1992 ‘Hérodote, Strabon et le “mystère”’, in particular 243-251. LXX Numeri 16; Qur’an, Surah 28, el Qasas 76. In the OT, a certain Korah rebels against Moses and is swallowed up by the earth; in the Qur’an a certain Qaroun is swallowed up by the earth in punishment for being exultant in his wealth. Cf. Hewison 1985 TheFayoum 55-56; 2008, 54-55.

262

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

with the horns”, observing the upper protruding rim of the temple (Descriptiond’ÉgypteIV (1821) 475-477). The modern name Qasr Qaroun may be a combination of the two: the site was called Qasr Qaroun after the form of the temple, then the name of the legendary king was combined with the name. Dionysias is one of only two villages “around Lake Moiris” mentioned in the Geography of Claudius Ptolemaeus (c. AD 160), the other one being Bacchias (IV 5, 36). While the latter marks the entrance into the Fayoum from, and the exit to Memphis, Dionysias marks the exit to and entrance from the oases of the western desert, and from the south. For the correlation of the two village names see below p. 276. The NotitiaDignitatum (later 4th century AD) lists the Roman military camp at Dionysias as home of the alaquintapraelectorum(XXVIII 34). Nabulsi (AD 1245) names Qaṣr Qārūn as the place where “the Tanabṭawiyya [canal] terminates in the lake”, and lists it between the abandoned villages in this region; this means that in the 13th century the site and its temple were already known under the name of Qasr Qaroun.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE The enormous site extends between the desert in the south, the road to Qouta in the north, the village of Ibrahim Abd el-Karim Faysal in the west, and fields in the east. Remains of ancient canals in the south show that the village was once surrounded by green land.7 These canals are the extensions of Canal I studied at the village of Philoteris, c. 5 km upstream (see Chapt.16). The modern canal Bahr Qasr el-Banât (= Bahr Qaroun) probably existed already in antiquity (see Chapter 16, Philoteris).8 The canal system seems to have advanced beyond Dionysias further to the west, because in 1937 A. Fakhry reported on ancient canals west of the site.9 Our survey in the area was not successful in tracing any ancient canals here, but the area is now heavily disturbed. The northern part of the site lies c. on the 0 level, rising towards the temple at its highest point to c. +3 m. Dionysias was never located on the shore of the lake, as shown by several ancient sites directly located at the shore of the modern lake at –45 m b.s.l. (see Chapt. 1 p. 5). Under Ptolemy II, the location of the newly built villages in the Themistou Meris went strictly with the run of the canals that followed the sophisticated plan of the Greek engineers; it looks as if the shoreline was sought only in cases where a connection to the northern shore was considered important, as in the case of Berenikis Aigialou, where people embarked for Soknopaiou Nesos (see Chapter 25), or at Neilopolis (see Chapt. 1). The roof of the temple of Dionysias offers splendid views in all four directions and the archaeological monuments (letters (A) etc. refer to the map in RapportsII,here Figure 3 below). To the east, the ancient dromos divided the village into a northern and a southern part [Photo 18.2]. At its end, the remains of a kiosk become visible some 330 m down from the temple (B); a stone-built house (E) just to the north of the dromos, marks another station on the sacred 6

7 8

9

For the Tanabṭawiyya [canal] see Chapt. 1 pp. 13-17; evidence taken from the complete English translation provided by Y. Rapaport. Cf. the photo of the Royal Air Force from 1955, as printed in Davoli 1998 L’Archeologiaurbana Fig. 156. On Maps VI and VII, the Bahr Hafiz which branched off the Bahr Qasr el-Banât some km before Theadelpheia and seemed to rejoin the Bahr Qasr el-Banât after Euhemeria, follows the main canal (here called Bahr Wakil) all the length down to Dionysias, running by the site in the south (in 1909!). That this ever happened, is very unlikely. Anyway, the Bahr el-Wakil cannot be the old canal which came down from Philoteris to Dionysias, for that was never reactivated. Fakhry 1941 ‘A Fortnight’s Digging’ 901.

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

263

way. Further out to the east, at a distance of 450 m, there is the so-called Mausoleum built in late antiquity from fired bricks (A). To the west, and close to the modern village, are the remains of the Roman fort (N), and between the fort and the temple a number of houses built from mud bricks and, less clearly visible, traces of a Hellenistic tholos-bath. Behind the fort, the modern village seems to come ever closer to the site [Photo 18.3]. North of the temple, east of the police station at the entrance of the site, the Egyptian Authorities have excavated an area of some extension, in which remains of houses made from mud bricks and stone were found. Some walls stand here more than 2.5 metres high, the sequence of stone and mud bricks being sometimes reversed to what is expected, the stones following on top of the mud bricks [Photo 18.4]. The bases of the houses in this area stood far below the foundation of the temple, and on a layer of soil, not on the bedrock. As the village of Dionysias was set on the same limestone range that reached up to here from Qasr el-Gabali in the east, it seems to have stood on sloping ground. As in Philoteris, the limestone range declined more rapidly towards the north than to the south.10 In the south, one distinguishes more mud brick houses, and far in the south at a distance of c. 4 km, the so called “Old Railway Track” “The Gisr el-Hadid” (see p. 289), a ridge that departed from the Gebel el-Qatrani in the west of Dionysias, and reached down to Narmouthis (Medinet Madi). This ridge runs at the 20m level approximately at the shore line of the Middle Kingdom lake.11 HOW TO GET

TO

DIONYSIAS

There are two ways to reach Dionysias: – The first may be easier, as long as the signpost remains standing on the road to Qouta. Follow the road to Qouta along the lake, and beyond the crossing with the road to the Wadi Rayan; continue for c. 3 km, where a road sign points to the left; follow the small road through vineyards to the south; arriving at the main road of the village of Qaroun, turn right, cross a bridge, and you will see the temple in front of you. – The other way avoids the small road between the lake and the village road and is perhaps easier; take a left turn where the road to the Wadi Rayan splits off the road along the lake; at the first crossing, turn right at the gas station and follow that road through the village of Qaroun. At a bifurcation take the left road.

1. Earlier Visitors to the Site, and Excavators12 The site of Qasr Qaroun with its well preserved temple attracted visitors from very early on, because the temple had been identified with Herodotus’ Labyrinth (Histories II 148). This identification was to make Qasr Qaroun a popular destination for travellers, even if E. Jomard, who visited here in 1799, did no longer believe the identification, following Father Sicard and the 10

11

12

In Philoteris the foot of this slope was used to form the huge water storage basins; see Chapt. 16. No traces of such basins have been found so far at Dionysias. “The Old Railway Track” is by no means the bed of an old canal, as stated by Schwartz and Wild 1950 RapportsI 4, Cestari 2010 Villaggidell’Egittoantico, and (following her?) P. van Minnen in Trismegistos – Fayum. This topic is given extensive space in Cestari 2010 Villaggidell’Egittoantico 19-32.

264

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

geographer d’Anville in his opinion; by the middle of the 18th century, it was known that the Labyrinth which Herodotus saw and described was the mortuary temple of Amenemhet III at Hawara.13 Till the 20th century, the isolated location of Qasr Qaroun well into the desert may have added to the fascination of the site, and also protected it. From the beginning, there were two ways to reach Qasr Qaroun: over the lake hiring a boat with fishermen at Sanhour, who seem to have had their boats moored near the mouth of the Wadi Nazlah, and on horseback via Nazlah and further on to the west through the desert. Johann Michael Vansleb, a German theologian and member of the Dominican Order, travelled to the Fayoum in 1672; he heard from locals of a building of many, many rooms at Qasr Qaroun, and believed this was Herodotus’ Labyrinth; he wanted to see the building, but security reasons made a visit to the site impossible.14 Nevertheless, it was Vansleb who triggered the interest in the site. Paul Lucas, a French merchant, physician and antiquarian in the service of Louis XIV, travelled extensively in the Eastern Mediterranean between 1699 and 1717. In February 1717 he went to Qasr Qaroun on horseback, and had a drawing made of what he thought was the Labyrinth. He reached the site after a four hours’ ride from Nazlah.15 Lucas’ name, incised high up on the right door reveal is visible at the entrance of the temple.16 The high location of this incision suggests that at that time the temple was filled with sand up to a high level. Nevertheless, Lucas does describe the inner temple and the numerous chambers therein with some confidence, claiming to have seen 150 chambers, which makes his report suspect. He discusses at length the differences between what Herodotus said about the Labyrinth and the building he visited (pp. 271-290). The temple is the only object of his interest on the site. The engraving in Lucas’ travelogue shows the front of the temple of Qasr Qaroun, of which the roof seems to be covered by houses, one of them even three storeys high (see Figure 1). Lucas’s description of the outer appearance of the temple coincides with this drawing: “On voit sur cette frize [the cobra frieze]17 les ruines de plusieurs portes dans differents étages, qui servoient aparemment d’entrée aux apartemens qui etoient au-dessus, mais qui sont à present entirement détruits” (p. 264). If this image and the description would have anything to do with the reality at Lucas’ time, those buildings may have belonged to a small hamlet that once existed on top of the temple (and around?). Conceivably, this hamlet might have to do with the only papyrus found so far that mentions the village of Dionysias in the 6th century AD (see below), because such a hamlet would have been built only after the temple had been abandoned. However, such a hamlet, if built on top of the temple, might have existed rather when the temple was nearly completely hidden under the sand and access to the top would have been easy, unless this was the guard tower of the village around, to which access could be gained only via the old staircases of the temple. In Lucas’ time, the temple seems to have been freely accessible, even though he mentions the “debris” on the floor of the first hall, but still estimated the hight in this part of the building to reach c. 12 metres (p. 265). Who would have “excavated” the temple between the 7th and the 18th century? On the 13

14 15 16 17

This assumption has been questioned only in the 20th century; see Obsomer 1992 ‘Hérodote, Strabon et le “mystère”’ 221-324, with Pl. I – IX, in particular 243-251. 1677 Nouvellerelation268-269. 1719 TroisièmevoyageII 254. Image of the incision in Papi 2010 ‘La missione dell’Università di Siena’ Tav. IV b. This frieze does not exist anymore, at least not in that position.

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

Figure 1: The temple of Dionysias as seen by Paul Lucas in 1717. TroisièmevoyageduSieurPaulLucasII 254.

265

266

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

other hand, Lucas left his name very high up on the door reveal, so that one must assume that the temple was filled with sand very high up. The Descriptiond’Égypte does not mention buildings on top of the temple, and we may better not consider Lucas’ description and engraving as having anything to do with the reality of his time. E. Jomard ridicules Lucas’ engraving and his description of the temple (see below). Claude Sicard, the head of the Jesuit Mission in Cairo between 1708 and 1712, visited the Fayoum and took a tour on the lake in 1717, just three months after P. Lucas. He was the first to question the identification of the temple at Qasr Qaroun with the Labyrinth, and came up with new ideas of three different labyrinths and two different lakes in the Fayoum. This was an attempt to harmonize the discrepancy between Herodotus’ report and the reality at Qasr Qaroun.18 Richard Pococke, an English clergyman, visited Qasr Qaroun in 1737;19 he was convinced that the well-preserved temple on the site was the famous Labyrinth, once described by Herodotus. Pococke approached the site, as did others after him, by land from Medinet el-Fayoum via Nazlah. He reports that “about a league (= c. 5.5 km) from [the temple], I observed several heaps as of ruins” (p. 61), and identifies these ruins with the village of Qaroun. This is probably a mistake, and he may have seen the ruins of Philoteris here, of which the distance to the temple of Qasr Qaroun is c. 5 km. Overall, Pococke’s descriptions are not very reliable.20 On the site near the temple, he first found what looks like a grinding mortar made of a “reddish stone or marble with a solid handle on each side” (p. 61 and his Pl. XXIII, A), and continues to describe the Mausoleum (p. 61; plan also on his Pl. XXIII, B and C). In Dionysias, Pococke saw for the first time bricks made of clay with a high proportion of straw (p. 62), a common phenomenon in all Graeco-Roman sites of the Fayoum. His “ oblong square building a little further to the east” with 10 columns built into the walls is obviously the kiosk (D on his Pl. XXIII). To the north-west of this, Pococke saw remains of a gateway (F on his Pl. XXIII), and another one to the north-west of the temple (G on his Pl.), exhibiting an arch. This may be the arch that also Wilkinson saw nearly 100 years later; Pococke’s F on his Pl. XXIII seems to be what Davoli later interpreted as a gate to a deipneterion.21 Pococke’s description of the temple is confused and clearly biased by his interpretation of the building as the Labyrinth (drawings of all sides of the temple in his Pl. XXII). The most influential rejection of the identification of the temple of Qasr Qaroun with Herodotus’ Labyrinth came from the geographer Jean Baptiste Bourguignon d’Anville in his Mémoires sur

18 19 20

21

Sicard 1982 OevresI, Lettres 13 and 14, pp. 50-53. Pococke 1743 ADescriptionoftheEast, Vol. I60-63 with a plan of the temple and other buildings facing p. 61. From Nazlah, he reports (p. 60), he rode for two hours to the north-west, after which the “sandy plain” begins. Here he saw “a ruined castle at some distance to the east (!), called Casr Cophou; and further on such another, called Casr-Cobal.” It is difficult to understand, what he might have seen “in the east” riding himself towards the west. He continues: “To the west is a high single hill, appearing somewhat like a pyramid, half built; it is called El-Herem-Medaiah-El-Hebgad”. I can only imagine this to be the single hill towards Qouta (see Chapter 19), which is natural. L’archeologiaurbana 303. Schwartz and Wild described a “horseshoe shape” building behind the gate (C and U on their map); this made Davoli considering a deipneterion here. It may very well be that the dromos was lined by such installations, as in Tebtynis; cf. Rondot 2004 LetempledeSoknebtynis.

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

Figure 2: Plate XXIII from R. Pococke, 1743 ADescriptionoftheEast.

267

268

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

l’Égypteancienne in 1766.22 Though he did not visit the site, he realized that the temple, small as it is, cannot be what Herodotus described. Edme-François Jomard, the editor of the Descriptiond’Égypte, reached Qasr Qaroun in January 1799; he travelled from Medinet el-Fayoum on horseback, crossing, not without difficulties, the Wadi Nazlah, where he and his entourage got lost at night.23 To Jomard the description of the temple given by Paul Lucas, including the image of it in Lucas’ travelogue, was not credible. Following d’Anville he denied that the temple of Qasr Qaroun was the Labyrinth, and ridicules Lucas’ claim to have seen 150 rooms in the building;24 Lucas’ arches and houses on top of the temple are mentioned by Jomard as being “tout-à-fait controuvé”. Jomard’s description is far more reliable,25 the images of the temple in the Descriptiond’Égypte are more realistic. Vol. IV pl. 69 shows a view of the temple from the south, the imposing mountains of the Gebel el-Qatrani behind the temple a little bit too close. A second image below on the same plate shows the temple as seen from the east, with a large gap of broken stones above the entrance.26 Pl. 70 provides cross sections from east to west, and from north to south, a reconstructed front of the temple, a plan of both storeys, and details of the relief in the chapel situated on the roof; furthermore, there is the plan of the small square building, what we now call the Mausoleum.27 North-west of the temple, Jomard saw an altar measuring 1 m × 60 cm, and 80 cm high. According to his description the altar was adorned on the one side by a festoon and a frieze of leaves encircling a human face, and on the other side by two horns; on top, a recess of 8 cm depth was to receive libations; this altar was obviously of Hellenistic or Roman make, not Egyptian.28 Jomard entertains the possibility that this altar once fitted into a hutch in the sanctuary of the temple. Giovanni Belzoni came to the Fayoum on his third journey to Egypt in 1819;29 on the morning of the 1st of May he approached the lake and took a fisherman’s boat (in his words “a boat entirely out of shape”) from where “the canal, or the Bahar Yousef, discharges into the lake”, no doubt where the Bats Drain reaches the shore. They made towards the west, “where the famous Labyrinth is supposed to have been situated”, as Belzoni still states. Belzoni reports that the water of the lake was “good enough to drink, but a little saltish, owing to the extraordinary overflow of the Nile, which surmounted all the high lands, …, that it raised the water twelve feet higher than ever it had been remembered by the oldest fishermen among them” (p. 267). On the 2nd of May they landed somewhere north of Qasr Qaroun and walked three miles towards the temple. He describes the temple as “standing in the midst of the ruins of a town, of which there is still a track of the wall (!)30 to be seen, and the foundations of several houses and other small temples”. Belzoni considered the idea that the temple with its small compartments on the ground floor “had been altered, or rather rebuilt”. He gives a reasonable plan of the temple on his Pl. 32, and is surprised that the temple has no writings or reliefs on its walls, except for the chapel on the roof of the building. He considers “the exterior workmanship of a later date than the temple itself” (p. 267). 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Bourguignon d’Anville 1766 Mémoiressurl’Égypte 159-162. Descriptiond’ÉgypteIV (1821) 457-458 with footnote. P. 469 with footnote. Descriptiond’ÉgypteIV (1821) 460-473. Fig. 144 Davoli 1998 L’archeologiaurbana. Fig. 145 loc. cit. P. 470 with reference to Pl. 70, fig. 16-18. Belzoni 2001 NarrativesoftheOperations 266-268. Exclamation sign mine; see below p. 273 for the wall, of which the Italian mission has found parts.

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

269

Belzoni also shows an interest in the site as a whole, not only in the temple. He saw “something like a gateway in octangular form” in the east of the site, not far from the Mausoleum, which he visited; he thought that it was of a later date. West of the temple, he saw “parts of other gates connected with the wall”, “several pieces of marble and white granite” (p. 267). He deducts from the appearance of this precious material that “there must have been some building of considerable importance in this town” (p. 267-268). He concludes that “it does not appear that this was the place of the famous Labyrinth” considering the whole place much too small to hold a building as large as the one described by Herodotus (p. 268); when Belzoni visited, he estimated the site as measuring “about a mile in circumference”. The most interesting information we gain from Belzoni’s visit is his mention of a wall around the town, and of the precious building material. The first seems to be a rather familiar phenomenon in villages of the Roman period, the second is certainly surprising in a place so far removed from the nome capital. Sir Gardiner Wilkinson visited Qasr Qaroun in 1824, and described the site as measuring 2334 by 1050 feet (= 711 × 320 m);31 he proposed to approach the site by land from Medinet el-Fayoum via Nazlah, but seems to have tried also the passage across the lake. Interestingly, he observed a wall on the shore of the lake north-east of the ancient village, and deducted that this may have been the “harbour” attached to Dionysias.32 Quite recently, the whole shore line has been fortified with broken limestones and cement, and nothing whatsoever remains of that wall.33 Wilkinson gives a short description of the temple and mentions the kiosk on the dromos and the ruins of the house nearby; he also saw the building, now identified as a Mausoleum of the late Roman period (see below pp. 274-275), and called it a “Roman temple of brick”. Ca. 100 m behind the temple, he saw the “remains of an arch, partly of crude brick, whose northern face looks towards the lake, and the other towards a small crude brick ruin.”34 He continues: “Near the arch is a stone resembling a stool, or an altar, also of Roman time”. This is perhaps Jomard’s altar. It was clear to Wilkinson, as it was to us, that Qasr Qaroun had once been surrounded by fields. Carl Richard Lepsius came to Qasr Qaroun across the lake by boat and stayed for two days, from 8 to 9 July 1843;35 at that time, Herodotus’ Labyrinth was already identified with the mortuary temple at Hawara, in which Lepsius and his team worked extensively, and the temple at Qasr Qaroun was attributed to a much later date. Lepsius described the site as the remains of a “große Stadt”, in particular in comparison with Dimeh, which he had visited before.36 He measured the diameter of the site as a walk of 20 minutes to half an hour. Lepsius still saw the gate (“Eingangstor mit römischem Ziegelbogen”), the Mausoleum, and a small Egyptian temple; he mentions plenty of Roman glass and pieces of marble (p. 42). He calls the temple rather a “palace”, because there are “zuviel Wohnzimmer” in it. Lepsius was surprised also by the scarcity of reliefs on the walls (as we do today, he only saw the scene in the chapel on the roof), and considered the possibility that the walls had once been plastered over and painted. The plan of the temple drawn by

31 32

33

34 35 36

Murray 1847 HandbookforTravellers 254. Murray 1847 Handbook for Travellers 255, “to the north-east, on the shore of Birket el Korn, are vestiges of masonry, perhaps of the port (if it deserves the name) of this town [Qasr Qaroun]”. We undertook a trip by sail boat in March 2016 to look for this “Wilkinson Wall”; the shore from where the road branches off to the Wadi Rayan is now covered by several compounds with numerous villas and the Byoum Hotel, which was opened in late 2016. See above R. Pococke. Lepsius 1849 DenkmälerI 7. Denkmäler II 41.

270

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

Lepsius’ architect Erbkamp is admirably accurate.37 A painting by E. Weidenbach shows the temple in a more ruined state than what Jomard saw, from the north-east.38 A small mask of a lion’s head of violet glass, broken from a glass container, was found and brought to Berlin (Inv. Berlin 977). Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt worked in Qasr Qaroun in the winter of 1898/1899;39 they were the first to tentatively identify the site with ancient Dionysias, even though, from the small amount of papyri they had unearthed, they did not find clear evidence for this identification. The two papyrologists noticed that a customs house receipt mentioning Dionysias would suit the location of Qasr Qaroun as a village on the border very well (P. Fay. 68; AD 158). Only the later excavations of the Roman fort by the French/Swiss team in 1948/1950 made the identification certain, following the NotitiaDignitatum that mention a camp at Dionysias. Jacques Schwartz and Henri Wild, one from the IFAO in Cairo, the other from the University of Geneva, started to excavate in Dionysias in the spring of 1948, and continued in the autumn of 1950; the results of those excavations are collected in two volumes.40 The first campaign resulted in the finds of a. b. c. d. e. a.

37 38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47

the “Southern Insula” with the Hellenistic bath, the so called South Bath (O),41 the fort to the west of the temple (N),42 the houses between the temple and the fort with some dipinti and a fresco (J),43 the mint, in which more than 15, 000 moulds for the production of coins were found (L),44 small finds of Egyptian and Graeco-Roman character.45 The South Bath is of a similar kind and make as such facilities in Euhemeria and Theadelpheia (see Chapters 14 and 13), but it seems to have had only one tholos, not two as in the other villages, where separate tholoi for male and female bathers were provided. This reflects a later date of the facility, probably the end of the Ptolemaic period. Th. Fournet and B. Redon consider this a “transitional or hybrid” type of bath with the following characteristics: “retrograde circuit, presence of latrines, restricted number of hip-bathtubs (ten in a single tholos), and probably an advanced heating system”.46 This later date of the South Bath points to an extension of the village in the later Ptolemaic period. The South Insula is c. 300 m south of the temple, also beyond the place where E. Papi found remains of the wall surrounding the village (see below). Two further baths were found between the temple and the fort: (W, “Dionysias North”)47 near the fort, and (K), the so called Thermae to the west of the temple. The Hellenistic bath, Denkmäler,Tafelwerk, Abtheilung I, Blatt 51; Davoli 1998 L’archeologiaurbana Fig. 146. Denkmäler,Tafelwerk, Abtheilung I, Blatt 53. ArchaeologicalReport1899, 12-13; P. Fay. pp. 11 and 63. Schwartz and Wild 1950RapportsI;1969RapportsII. RapportsI 51-62 with Fig. 10 and Pl. XIII – XVIIIc RapportsI63-71 with Fig. 12 and 13, and Pl. XVIIId – XIX (general introduction); the main report is that of the excavations in 1950: RapportsII. RapportsI 15-34 with Fig. 5-9, and pp.72-80 with Pl. I and XX. RapportsI39-48 with Pl. XIIa and b. RapportsII 83-97 with Pl. XVIII – XIX. Fournet and Redon 2017 ‘Catalogue of the Greek Tholos Baths of Egypt’ No. 10 (B 291, F 45). It is not clear whether this bath had one or two tholoi. See Fournet and Redon 2017 No. 9 (B 290, F 46); photo on p. 50, Fig. 14. The bath is not on the map of RapportsI (here Figure 3), but see the map in Trismegistos.

Figure 3: The map of J. Schwartz and H. Wild in RapportsII.

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

271

272

b. c.

d.

48

49

50

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

or South Bath (O) was certainly connected to the canals south of the village, but we would expect a constant water supply also between the temple and the fort to support the other two baths located there. The fort, because it is still well recognizable on the ground, will be dealt with in the sections on the single buildings on the site (below, p. 275). The houses west of the temple have now nearly disappeared under the sand. Of great interest are the dipinti found on the wall of Room 8 in House J, at c. 40 metres behind the temple (Rapports I Fig. 8 on p. 27), and in particular the fresco in the layer beneath the plaster with the dipinti; the dipinti show two figures, c. 25 cm in hight, and executed in black and red ink, of minimal art, with feet resembling the claws of chicken or doves, and circle round faces surrounded by red and black spots. The face of the figure on the right is divided vertically in two halfs (the nose) by a straight line, with black spots to the right and left of that line representing the eyes. Do we see here an attempt to present birds? The dipinti of the other rooms are of no greater sophistication; whether we have here the sign of Ankh, later employed by the Christians, seems as doubtful to me as the assumption that the birds in Room 8 are representatives of Sol Invictus (Schwartz pp. 29-34). However, it seems that these dipinti stem from a period when the main village of Dionysias had been abandoned already for some time, i. e. to the 5th century or later, whether these are Christian motives or not. The colourful fresco in the layer below, of which there is a splendid water colour by H. Wild on Pl. 1 (Rapports I 72-80) measures 1. 40 m × 75 cm; despite its fragmentary condition, which has preserved only the upper part, at least two figures can be distinguished: a young beardless male in Roman uniform, a halo around his head and a rich necklace around his neck stands (?) in the middle; his right hand holds an offering plate, from which it pours a libation (onto an altar?); above the hand with the offering plate a second person, in smaller scale, is seated on a throne-like chair and dressed in a Roman toga; this person seems to hold a stick in his right hand, and wears a necklace with a roundish golden pendant. To the left of the person in the middle, uncertain objects may belong to a third person, or even to the harness of a horse (?). H. Wild interprets this painting as the god Heron pouring a libation, similar to presentations of the god found at Medinet Qouta (Chapt. 19, p. 295 with footnote 39), and in the Temple of Pnepheros at Theadelpheia (Chapt. 13, p. 123). Similar motifs have been found on wooden panels housed in several collections around the world. The title of Rondot’s book on these images Derniersvisagesdesdieux48 may be misleading, for often the figures shown do not represent gods, but priests appearing as the gods they serve in cult. A newly re-found fresco from Karanis seems to corroborate this interpretation.49 The fresco from Dionysias may well belong to the time when the fort (see below, p. 275) was in use, around the 3rd – 4th centuries AD. According to J.-M. Carrié,50 a Palmyrene influence may be seen in the fresco as well as in the architecture of the fort. The 15,000 moulds found in a house to the north-west of the temple (L on S.-W.’s map) make sure that this was a real mint, in which coins were cast and the bronze for that process melted. Nearly all coins stem from the reign of Maximinus (emissions from 311 to 313), Licinius (emission 313-315) and, to a lesser degree, of Constantine (emissions from 315-317). Several homes of mints occur (Alexandria, Antiochia, Cyzicus, and Thessalonika), and Wild assumed Rondot 2013 Lesderniersvisages;the fresco of Dionysias is shown on p. 65 in Fig. 32, but not much further commented on. Römer 2016 ‘The Gods of Karanis’ 481-494; in that article I also argue that those images do not represent the god Heron, but one of the Dioscuri. Carrié 1974 ‘Les castra Dionysiados’ 819-850; for the fresco pp. 842-850.

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

e.

273

that the production of coins at Dionysias was an illegal procedure, facilitated by the near copper mines (see Chapt.17).51 In 1950, the entire house of the mint was excavated and c. 500 more moulds were found, corroborating the statistics of the earlier excavation;52 the entire find remains unpublished.53 Among the objects of Egyptian character, a small tablet represents an enigmatic scene with the crocodile god Sobek,54 a stela is dated to the later Roman period,55 and a mould forms single parts of the human body.56 Among the objects of Graeco-Roman character are inscriptions (see below), some ostraca, lamps, clay figurines, metal objects, glass, and coins.57 Of special interest are some of the well preserved capitals found in the Roman fort.58

Emanuele Papi and his team worked in Dionysias from 2009 to 2013. According to the preliminary report (see footnote 3), they stayed at Dionysias from 24 January to 14 February 2009, and from 1 to 26 February 2010, and in the following years at unknown dates. The aim of these missions was 1. to learn more about the natural environment of the village 2. to reconstruct the topography of the village 3. to reconstruct the organization of the village 4. to understand better the productivity of the village in special sectors 5. to reconstruct its commercial activities. The preliminary report gives detailed information on the technical procedures to create a DTM (Digital Terrain Model). According to this survey, the town covered c. 30 hectares of land, or 760 × 460 metres, including some suburban areas it measures 850 × 610 metres. This corresponds to what is visible in Google Earth. According to Papi, the eastern limits of the town are not far from the kiosk on the dromos. The only remains of the old town wall are visible c. 200 metres to the south of the temple; they run parallel to the main streets for 70 metres. Half down the length of this wall, there are the remains of a rectangular tower. The geomagnetic survey revealed the well defined layout of the village: the dromos of 6-6.30 m width gave the main orientation to the streets around; it ends in a square, close to the kiosk. The report gives some information about how to achieve a new and better plan of the temple, about some pottery finds and about stone implements, in particular olive mill mortars and millstones.

2. The Layout of the Village. Single Buildings on the Site59 (see Figure 3) The village was laid out in insulae of 50 × 50 m,60 the orientation of the temple and the dromos connected to it giving the main orientation of the whole settlement. It seems therefore certain that the temple belonged to the first phase of the layout of Dionysias; if it was not built in stone in the

51

52 53 54

55 56 57 58 59 60

This assumption was withdrawn in RapportII 103, and an origin of the copper officially transmitted from Alexandria to support the troops at the nearby fort proposed. RapportsII 99-105. Noeske 2006 MünzfundeII 408-409. Found in the temple, while it was being cleared; Rapports II 83-92. This object may have been part of a casket covering the mummy of a crocodile, as seen in one example found at Naucratis (not found in Dionysias, pace P. van Minnen in Trismegistos – Fayum). RapportsII 92-95. RapportsII 95-97. RapportsII 107-127. RapportsII 129-134. For this passage I refer also to Davoli 1998 L’archeologiaurbana301-323. RapportsI6.

274

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

beginning, certainly there existed a forerunner built with mud bricks.61 Schwartz and Wild identified two streets running parallel to the dromos, and two crossing streets. With this combination of a Greek pattern of streets on the one hand, and the dromos as the main feature of the layout highlighting the temple, Dionysias seems to have been special, combining Greek and Egyptian elements. K. Müller sees here “a result of progressive acculturation, a successful application of a Greek town planning concept to an Egyptian context”.62 The temple, measuring roughly 27 × 19 × 10 metres, dominates the landscape around it, and is visible from as far as Philoteris on clear days. Also when the houses of the village were built around the temple, it will have been visible above their roofs. Today, the temple presents itself in a completely restored shape, clean inside and outside [Photo 18.5]. It consists of three stories, one underground, a ground floor and an upper floor with a chapel, which has an open ceiling and the only relief found in the temple on its western wall, representing the crocodile god and a pharao. Some chambers between the ground floor and the upper floor are accessible from the two staircases on the left and right sides of the temple. The sanctuary proper has three deep niches in which statues of the crocodile god or mummified crocodiles were exhibited,63 and more small niches in the northern and southern walls [Photo 18.6]. The Italian mission of E. Papi has carried out intensive research in the underground chambers, which corroborated the enigmatic layout of those chambers. They were accessible only for persons knowing how to turn the right stone (information by E. Papi). The numerous chambers in the temple which surprised Lepsius so much that he considered this building a “palace”, must have been the reason for the former identification of this temple with the Labyrinth, and for naming it the castle of the legendary rich king Qaroun. Clearly the temple was accessible and not filled up with sand for many centuries. The other striking phenomenon that the walls were covered neither by reliefs nor by hieroglyphs, apart from the chapel on the roof, was also noticed already by Lepsius. Magnificent plans of the building are provided by Lepsius (see above) and Arnold.64 The final report of Papi’s Italian mission is eagerly expected. The dromos led for 330 m from the entrance of the temple towards the east, ending in a square, as Papi’s geomagnetic survey has revealed. One kiosk is preserved after c. 300 metres, measuring 10 × 9 metres, with four columns on each side, the corner columns being each shared by two sides. The roof may have been made of timber.65 A building already mentioned by Pococke is the Mausoleum in the eastern part of the site (A), about 450 metres east of the temple, a nearly complete square construction made of fired bricks. Peter Grossmann66 has shown that this was an elegant tomb with a row of columns in front of the entrance; inside there were niches on all the three sides, the niche opposite the door perhaps providing space for a statue of the deceased, as in the chapel of Isidora at Tuna el-Gebel. A further 61

62

63 64 65 66

The dating of the temple is not certain. E. Papi considers a date of the 2nd century BC more likely than of the early Ptolemaic period (information Papi). Arnold 1999 TemplesoftheLastPharaohs 254, dates it to the Roman period, like the two temples at Karanis. Arnold highlights the “unconventional pronaos built against the façade”. Müller 2006 Settlements119-120; cf. Pensabene 1995 ‘Il tempio di tradizione faraonica’. It may be adventurous to see Dionysias as such a special case, for we do not know how Euhemeria and Theadelpheia, which were certainly built before Dionysias (though not much), and many other villages were laid out. Only at Philadelpheia, certainly one of the earliest settlements in the Fayoum, the strict pattern of a Hellenistic town was partly excavated. In Theadelpheia the cult statues were obviously mummified crocodiles (see Chapt. 13). See footnote 65. Arnold 1999 TemplesoftheLastPharaohs 254. 1995 ‘Ein spätantikes Mausoleum’ 139-148 with Pl. VII and VIII; plan and photo also in Davoli 1998 L’archeologia urbana Fig. 155.

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

275

entrance at the southern side of the building led to the underground chambers, of which two seem to have contained the sarcophagi. Grossmann sees this construction as a forerunner of the tomb chapels in El-Bagawat that date to the 5th century. The Mausoleum in Dionysias may date to the 2nd or 3rd century AD.67 Of the Roman fort, large parts of the outer walls and details from the inner rooms are still visible today, though they stick out of the sand at some places by only a few centimetres [Photo 18.7]. The NotitiaDignitatum mentions “Dionysiada” at Or. XXVII 34; the commander of that military camp between AD 341 and 352, Flavius Abinnaeus, is known from his archive of c. 89 papyri (see below, Archive No.1). The nearly square construction measured 83 × 70 m, and had protruding towers on all four corners, thus following a common shape.68 The gate opened to the north-east, i. e. towards the lake, from where, as it seemed, no danger could arrive, and to where, perhaps, the safest retreat could be organized. By its location at Dionysias the fort could only serve to protect the area from raids by the desert beduins from the west (see below). All four sides of the building have protruding bastions, round to the south and east, and to the right and left of the gate, and square to the west. The inner layout of the fort also follows a common pattern with rows of barracks and a wide street (the principia) between them leading from the entrance gate towards the apse with the sanctuary. In the sanctuary, a fragmentary marble statue of the goddess of revenge, Nemesis, was found and brought to the IFAO in Cairo.69 The principia were lined by columns, as were the spaces between the barracks and the rooms attached to the outer walls. Schwartz and Wild did not distinguish different building phases of this fort and dated it to the time of Diocletian. In 1974, J.-M. Carrié postulated at least two building phases, one of the mid 3rd century, and a later one even after Diocletian.70 Carrié links the building of the camp with raids by Libyans in AD 258, attested by a papyrus from Philadelpheia (P. Princ. II 29). Furthermore, the dating to the middle of the 3rd century allows Carrié to connect the layout of the military camp and its decorative capitals with the partial occupation of Egypt by the Palmyrene queen Zenobia from AD 269 to 272 at the latest. He sees here the influence of Palmyrene architecture. Taking this idea even further, he also recognises Palmyrene motives in the fresco of House J (see above). Although he admits that the time of the Palmyrenes in Egypt was short, he still considers such an influence possible.

3. The Cemeteries About 3 km south of the main site our survey found a cemetery containing several clearly visible tombs. The area is situated on a small ridge c. 1 km from the “Old Railway Track”. The location of the cemetery so far to the south shows how far cultivation reached here at least in the Roman period. Several tombs had been plundered, so that the building materials and measures could be studied. Numerous parts of human bones as well as some pottery are scattered on the ground. Tomb A, the 67 68

69

70

For the difficulties of the dating of this building see Davoli 1998 L’archeologiaurbana 310-311 with note 556. Plan also in Davoli 1998 L’archeologia urbana Fig. 153; the newly found Roman fort at Narmouthis is smaller (50 × 50 m), but very much comparable in layout; Bresciani 2006 ‘The archaeological activity’ 65-68; ead. 2009 ‘Il castrum Narmoutheos’ 221-231. Only the feet of the goddess, the wheel to her right side, and a little figure onto which she steps are preserved. This is the so called “Nike-Type” Nemesis, promising victory over the hybris of enemies. The statue is dated to the 2nd century AD and must have been kept somewhere else before the castle was built. Lichocka 2004 Nemesis109 No. I A 5; see also Lichocka 1989 ‘Le barbare’ 115-126. Carrié 1974 ‘Les castra Dionysiados’ 819-850.

276

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

best visible example, measured c. 2 m × 70 cm, was made from fired bricks and vaulted over on top. The inside was plastered, the same plaster being used as the mortar to keep the bricks together [Photos 18.8 + 18.9]. According to D. Bailey, the pottery dates this cemetery to the Roman period. No other cemetery was found, so that we do not know where the dead were buried in the Ptolemaic period. The discovery of the cemetery of the Ptolemaic period might help to understand the development of the extent of land under cultivation in this area.

4. Papyrological Survey71 The first attestation of Dionysias is from 229/228 BC; in P. LilleDem. 110, the village is called “the new village”.72 In my view, this denomination as a “new village” at that time need not mean that Dionysias was a foundation of Ptolemy III. To the engineers of Ptolemy II (or even Ptolemy I) it must have been clear that the canal system would work properly and for maximum yield of the fields, if the water ways were led down into the plain at Dionysias. At Philoteris the space available for the canals was limited, because the “Old Railway Track” was close to the village here (and the ground not without problems due to the hollows in the bedrock), but at Dionysias the plain widened and offered opportunities for agricultural activities. Certainly, it took more time to have the canal dug as far as Dionysias (as we have seen at Philoteris, one branch of the canal had to be abandoned soon and never went into use; see Chapt. 16, p. 232) and to have the settlers arrive, but the site of a settlement here must have been marked on the first sketch map of the engineers, with the important divine name attached to it probably from the beginning. Perhaps the village with the name Dionysias was intended as a counterpart of Bacchias on the other side of the Fayoum, founded under Ptolemy II on the other, eastern, new canal.73 Dionysos was dear to all Ptolemies from the beginning,74 the foundation of Dionysias may go back to the time of Ptolemy II. Between 243 and 217 BC, Dionysias had nearly as many inhabitants as Philoteris (between 1200 and 1500), which seems to indicate a similar layout of both villages from the beginning (P. Count. 11); the further history of the village may have been similar to that of the other villages in the Themistou Meris. The outpost situation towards the end of the main feeder canal which was perhaps navigable up to here, at least for smaller boats,75 may have had a negative influence on the prosperity of the village, but being the gate to the western desert may have made up for the rather unfavourable location. The nearby copper mines may have offered some advantage, and in the middle of the 3rd century AD the Roman fort must have given the village a new impulse. Dionysias had its own toparchy in AD 118 (P. Lond. II 295, 1), and belonged to toparchy 7 and 9 in AD 300 (P. Sakaon 2, 7, 9, 22), a toparchy with two numbers as is usual in the second half of the third century.76 In Dionysias, as elsewhere, the economy was based on agriculture, fields of wheat,77 olive78 and palm tree plantations79 delivering the main cash crops; vineyards are less common than expected 71

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

This chapter summarizes the recent extensive papyrological survey on Dionysias by P. van Minnen in Trismegistos – Fayum. See Lippert 2015 ‘Chapels, Chambers and Gateways’ 161-162. PaceP. van Minnen in Trismegistos – Fayum. Huß 2001 ÄgypteninhellenistischerZeit 322-323. I cannot find any reference though in RapportsI 4 for a quay (pace P. van Minnen in Trismegistos – Fayum). Derda 2006 ΑΡΣΙΝΟΙΤΗΣΝΟΜΟΣ 123-130. For the Ptolemaic period see De Cenival 1980 ‘Compte de céréales’ 199-202. As in the Archive of Lucius Bellienus Gemellus, see below Archive No. 2. SPP XX 70 from AD 261.

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

277

in a place with such a name.80 Fishermen may have worked in the canals or in the lake, which was only 4 km away (no distance of any consideration for a donkey!).81 Transport animals were bred in Dionysias; camels are rented out and sold.82 The gate of the customs house into the western desert will have made Dionysias a centre for transport animals. Ten customs house receipts refer to the import or export of merchandise through the gate of Dionysias.83 They all date to the 2nd or early 3rd century AD, and most of them declare camels, many together with foals, which carry lesser burdens. The main merchandise to be transported to the oases, or just “to the north”, are olives or oil, twice we hear of vegetables, once of dates. In AD 183 10 donkeys and 4 camels are imported into the Arsinoite from Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy. LXIX 4740). In some cases, the “Tax for the Harbour of Memphis” is paid at the gate in Dionysias (SB V 7822). SB XIV 12135 is a letter accompanying the account of the income of the gate at Dionysias, addressed to the eklogistes of the Arsinoite nome. Even though the evidence is not rich, the gate seems to have been busy, at least in the later imperial period. The direction of the route indicated as “to the north”84 may give a further hint to the route through the Wadi at Qouta (see Chapt. 19), though that Wadi lay to the north-west-west. In the receipts, the overall direction to the north was probably meant. The walls around the village, still seen by Wilkinson (see above) and partially registered by Papi, complete the picture of a village at the border between desert and agricultural land, where customs had to be paid.85 One papyrus from the 6th century mentions village heads, meizones, of a village called Dionysias (P. Laur. III 93). Possibly, this papyrus refers to the same location at that time with a community of some sort that provided a station on the camel route to the oases, or a monastic settlement. This is the only attestation of such a late date for any of the villages around here in the Themistou Meris. It does not seem likely that the houses on top of the temple, reported by Paul Lucas (see above pp. 264265) have anything to do with that settlement, but the ceramological evidence corroborates the late occupation of the site, at least between the temple and the fort (see Bailey, Vol. B, pp. 17-18). Water supply must have come then from the lake, which at that time had probably grown and come closer.86 Between the 3rd century BC and the 4th century AD, there are 289 texts relating in some way to Dionysias, the vast majority being written in Greek, only some in Demotic or Latin. In texts other than Greek, the name Dionysias is transliterated, not translated or even altered.

5. Papyrological Archives 1.

80 81 82 83

84

85

86

Only one papyrological archive belongs to a person who spent a large part of his life in Dionysias; Flavius Abbinaeus was the commander of the fort of Dionysias from 342 to 351. He left an archive of 89 texts that is half official, half private, today divided between several collections See below with footnote 88. SB XXVIII 17073; SPP XX 67; PSI VII 737; a fish pond is leased at Dionysias in P. Oxy. XLIII 3089 (AD 146). See for example BGU II 468 from AD 150; BGU I 153 from 152; etc. BGU XIII 2308 (AD 133); P. Fay. 68 (AD 158); BGU XI 2029 (161-168); P. Customs 475 (AD 207); P. Customs 466, 467, 469, 470 (all AD 208). P. Customs 466; 467; 469; 470; 475. It may be by coincidence that these are all the latest preserved receipts that we have. For the location of such custom houses in the Nile valley and around the Fayoum see Kritzinger 2015 ‘Das römische Zollsystem’ 11-55; Vandorpe 2015 ‘Roman Egypt and the organisation’ 89-110. See Chapt. 1 p. 9, where I argue that when the canals in the north-western Themistou Meris were abandoned because of difficulties at the dam between Itsa and Abu el-Nur, the water must have rushed down the Wadi Nazlah nearly uncontrolled which must have led to an increase of the water table in the lake.

278

2.

3.

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

(P. Abinn.). The archive was probably found in Philadelphia to where Abbinaeus retired when he abandoned his command at Dionysias in 351.87 It allows a view not only into his duties and everyday affairs, but also into the private circumstances of an officer of the Roman army in late antiquity. For 33 years Abbinaeus had served as a ducenarius in the vexillatio of Parthian archers, stationed in Diospolis Magna (Luxor). After having escorted a group of refugees from the Blemmyes to the court at Constantinople, he was appointed praefectusalaequintaepraelectorum, stationed at Dionysias. Whether this was a desirable position at the time, we do not know; at least, the Blemmyes were far away; the archive does not contain any reports of fighting in the north-western Fayoum. Abinnaeus appears as a wealthy man; he owned a house in Alexandria, his wife Nonna alias Polyethion had Alexandrian citizenship, and owned more real estate in Alexandria and in Philadelpheia. It may be of interest that Abinnaeus did not retire to the metropolis of Alexandria, but preferred to stay in the Fayoum. ArchID 1; K. Geens in Trismegistos; Graeco-RomanArchives pp. 138-142. The Archive of Gemellus (or better Epagathos) has been dealt with in Chapter 14, Euhemeria, Archive 1, where Epagathos, the manager of Gemellus’ estate, resided around AD 100. There existed close relations between the two villages, because Gemellus owned extensive olive groves at Dionysias. Several times Epagathos is sent from Euhemeria to Dionysias to look after the watering and digging of the olive-yards there (P. Fay. 110; 112). In P. Fay. 110, 15-16 that trip is ordered by a mere διάβα εἰϲ Διονυϲιάδα, as if to cover the distance of c. 13 km were nothing (by donkey, or boat?). Gemellus also owned wheat fields at Dionysias (P. Fay. 102). Once, Epagathos is sent to buy lotus at Dionysias, obviously seeds of the plant (P. Fay. 111). ArchID 134; R. Smolders in Trismegistos; Graeco-RomanArchives pp. 132-136. The Heroninus Archive, so named after the head of the branch of the Appianus Estate at Theadelpheia has been dealt with in Chapter 13, Archive 7. Horion, the head of the branch in Dionysias between AD 247 and 260,88 was in a constant business relationship with Heroninus. The fact that so much wine was exported from Theadelpheia towards Euhemeria and in particular to Dionysias, the village named after the god of wine, has surprised scholars.89 J.-M. Carrié wanted to see here a connection to the construction of the military camp in the middle of the 3rd century, when workers and soldiers would have been paid, at least partially, with wine. This is possible. But it needs to be remembered that Belzoni and Wilkinson saw many vines still sticking in the sand at their time which obviously belonged to old vineyards in this area. ArchID 103; H. Verreth and K. Vandorpe in Trismegistos; Graeco-Roman Archives pp. 170-175.

6. The Inscriptions The six fragmentary inscriptions found at Dionysias, now collected as I. Fay. II 137-142. do not tell much about life in the village. More relevant than the others is No. 6. 1.

87

88 89

I. Fay. II 137 Fragments of a dedication under Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-205) or Ptolemy V Epiphanes (205-180); the only certain feature is the name of Arsinoe III in l. 2. Perhaps this is a dedication of a prothyron (l. 3-4), the name of the dedicant is Chares. The Recently, Gallazzi 2015 ‘Dove è stato ritrovato l’archivio di Abinneo?’ 170-179 has argued, rather unconvincingly, that the archive may have been found in the temple at Dionysias. Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism 64. Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism 245, 213, 279-281 and 289-293.

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

279

two independent fragments were found in the far south of the site by Schwartz and Wild in 1950. Photo on Pl. 37, and in Schwartz 1969 RapportsII Pl. XXI. I. Fay. II 138 A single line of a dedication under Ptolemy VII Euergetes II, 148116 BC (dating according to the letter forms). The dedicants seem to be a couple and their children (καὶ τῶν τέκνων could also refer to the children of the King). Schwartz 1969 RapportsII109-110. I. Fay. II 139 Dedication of a pronaos under Tiberius or Claudius (24/25 or 51/52 AD), 3 fragmentary lines. Dedicants may be two persons, one of them a gymnasiarch or ex-gymnasiarch(l. 1), the other an ἐπὶ τῶν προϲόδων (l. 2). The man with the gymnasiarchal title is called Sotas, a name recurring also as that of a strategos in the Oxyrhynchite in AD 37 (but the name is rather common). Found in the eastern wall of the main road. Schwartz 1969 RapportsII111-112; J. Bingen, CE 1970, 177. Bernand, Pl. 37. I. Fay. II 140 Very fragmentary dedication; only 7 letters preserved; from the time of Trajan (?). Schwartz 1969 RapportsII112; Photo in Bernand Pl. 38. I. Fay. II 141 Fragmentary dedication of uncertain date; the dedicants are a couple and their children, who set up a wooden object (l. 2; fem.) for the crocodile god and the synnaoitheoi. Schwartz 1969 RapportsII111. I. Fay. II 142 Dedication by the epistates of Dionysias, Heliodoros son of Eudaimon, from the 2nd to 1st century BC; the object is the dromos. Part of that text was first transcribed in 1817 by E. Jomard in the Descriptiond’Égypte (II, Chapt. XVII 21 = 1821, 475; Planche Vol. V 56, no. 21). Cf. G. Wagner and J. Gascou, Nouvelles inscriptions d’Égypte relevées par le Père Sicard, BIFAO 78, 1978, 260-263, who found out that a more complete text had been copied already in 1716 by a traveller who accompanied Paul Lucas, and who made it known to Père Sicard; SEG XXVIII, 1470. The date of this inscription does not necessarily mean that the dromos and the temple date to the later Ptolemaic period. The dedication may just refer to a refurbishment of the dromos.90

Dionysias is worth a visit for those who want to see a nearly complete temple in the Egyptian style built in the Ptolemaic period, and for those who enjoy walking along the dromosand feeling the extention of a village that flourished more than 2000 years ago.

90

Pace P. van Minnen in Trismegistos – Fayum.

280

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

Photo 18.1: The temple from the south-east; condition in 2009.

Photo 18.2: View from the roof of the temple towards the east; at the far end, the kiosk on both sides of dromos; behind to the right, the mausoleum.

Photo 18.3: View from the roof of the temple towards the west.

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

281

Photo 18.4: Wall in the northern part of the site exhibiting mud bricks and stones; set on the soil above the bedrock.

Photo 18.5: View of the temple from the north; condition in 2014.

Photo 18.6: Inside the temple, looking towards the sanctuary; condition in 2014.

282

CHAPTER 18: QASR QAROUN = DIONYSIAS

Photo 18.7: Looking into the Roman fortress from its entrance towards the sanctuary; condition in 2014.

Photo 18.8: Tomb A in Roman cemetery.

Photo 18.9: View from the Roman cemetery towards the site.

CHAPTER 19 MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?1 Plan is Photo 19.1; Map XV

Medinet Qouta is the most enigmatic site in the Themistou Meris. Unlike all the other sites, Medinet Qouta is not situated in the plains of the oasis, where surrounding fields made for a living of the inhabitants, but lies on the slope of the mountain range west of Lake Qaroun, between 20 and 40 metres above sea level. This must have been the furthermost western settlement of the Fayoum for many centuries. Finds in its direct vicinity and an inscription excavated on the site (now lost) show that this area was already frequented and – perhaps on a small scale – inhabited in the Middle Kingdom. Closely connected to the site is a large wadi that descends from high above over the ancient settlement [Photos 19.2 + 19.3]. This wadi, an impressive landmark in the area, seems to give the clue for the location of ancient Qouta. Taking together all the evidence from the Middle Kingdom to the Roman period allows for a better understanding of this site. The high quality of fragmentary sculptures, broken glass and cultic objects found here (see below) make it unlikely that this was just a humble station into the desert at the western border of the Fayoum. Even though we found some pot sherds from the Roman period at the edges, when walking up in the deep sand, this steep wadi does not seem to provide a very suitable path for caravans. It is difficult to climb over the cliff at the top [Photos 19.4 + 19.5]. An enigmatic structure on top of the mountain range at the upper mouth of the wadi just over Qouta adds to the impression that the area around the wadi had a significant religious meaning, which goes back to the Middle Kingdom. Just where the wadi reaches the plateau above, stones are lined up to encompass a rectangular space [Photo 19.6]. As the pottery finds show (see Bailey, Vol. B, p. 18), Medinet Qouta was not abandoned in the 4th century AD, unlike the other sites in the north-western part of the Themistou Meris, but the area continued to be frequented till the 7th century, then perhaps as a station on the caravan route to the west. On nearly all maps of the Fayoum, Medinet Qouta is misplaced on a peculiar roundish hill, which rises up to 11 metres above sea level in the area between the lake and the western mountain range. This misplacement occurs first on Map VII from 1926 and is finally also to be found in P. Davoli’s map2 and in the Barrington Atlas of the Ancient World.3 We walked around on the top of that hill to make sure that there are no remains of any ancient settlement there. In the Middle Kingdom, the hill was under water, while in the Graeco-Roman period it seems to have been just a barren place, elevated above the fields around.

1 2

3

GEO-ID 45006 in Trismegistos. 1998 L’Archeologiaurbana 346; in the description of the site, Davoli gives the right location with “essendo situato sulle pendici dell’altopiano del Gebel Qatrani”. Already in 1941, Fakhry had pointed out that on the survey maps of 1930 “Qouta is put wrongly at a distance of about four kilometers to the east of the site”, 897, note 1; see also Bernand 1981 I. Fay. II 129, note 1. Talbert 2000 BarringtonAtlas Map 75.

284

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

The real location of the site of Medinet Qouta is on the slope of the mountain range, the Gebel Qatrani, which extends here in a north-south direction to the west of the western end of Lake Qaroun at a distance of about 7 km; north of Qouta, the same mountain range follows the lake in a west-eastern direction along its northern shore after bending to the east; south of Qouta the mountain range bends to the west. The distance between the two bends around Qouta is about 2.4 km; Medinet Qouta is located south of the exit of the wadi, about halfway between the northern and the southern bends of the mountain range. HOW TO REACH MEDINET QOUTA Medinet Qouta is reached today by following the road along the lake up to modern Qouta. At the bridge and some small shops in the middle of that village turn right and follow the tarmac road along a canal in a north-western direction for about 1.5 km, leaving the peculiar roundish hill at your right. Having passed the hill, you enter the modern village of Ezbet Ali Basha el-Rubi at its school yard. Cross the school yard diagonally and take the dirt road at its north-western end straight on towards the west for about 2.4 km, keeping towards the wadi in the mountain range; follow this road as far as possible to the edge of the green land (this track is not appropriate for normal cars). From here you have to walk up the slope continuing in the direction of the road on which you came. The site lies above the terrace, about a fourth of the way up to the top of the mountain range, and just south of the mouth of the wadi[Photo 19.7].4

1. General Description of the Site Leaving the green land at the foot of the mountain range and walking towards the terrace on its slope, one first encounters an area in which the land rises step by step, covered with a white sedimentation; in this area, fossilized water animals can be found here and there (we saw a fossiled crab and what seemed to be a shark’s tooth). Having arrived on the terrace at about 20 metres above sea level, one encounters remains of ancient pottery with increasing density, the more one advances up hill [Photo 19.8]. On the terrace itself, the large amount of ochre is striking. The settlement of the Graeco-Roman period was located above this terrace in an area of about 150 (west-east) × 300 (north-south) metres, which borders the southern edge of the large wadi to the north. It is an ondulating moonscape with deep depressions and heaps of rubble, which seem to be partly due to modern excavations, partly to torrents of water which come rushing down in spring from the mountain above [Photo 19.9]. Big squarish stones are scattered all over the site and above it, slided down from above like big suitcases. Here and there, a few fragments of stone and mud brick walls emerged from the ground when we did the survey between 2003 and 2006 [Photo 19.10]; more had come to light when I visited the site in February 2010 (House 2 on the map) [Photo 19.11]; a house built from stone and mud bricks had been partially excavated by clandestine diggers (House 1 on the map) [Photo 19.12]. A little farther up, a deep hole had been dug in the ground bringing to light a further mud brick wall with remains of wooden beams, when we visited in 2016; an image from Google Earth shows what looks like more buildings, but we 4

It is here the place to warn readers of Cassandra Vivian’s book TheWesternDesert, Cairo 2000, 243, who gives the coordination of modern Qouta and promises “ruins of houses, inscriptions, and furnishings sitting atop a mount at the base of the scarp and the edge of the cultivated land”. The new edition (2008) has some alterations.

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

285

could locate only some of these on the ground [Photo 19.13]. In some places, there are very hard remains of coagulated afsh.5 The whole site is scattered with layers of broken pottery, glass and fayence. We put our total station close to a salient hill, which apparently marked the highest edge of the site.6 Beside that hill, there was a deep shaft going into the mountain, most likely dug in modern times. Clandestine digging, facilitated by the remote location of the site, continues to this day. The terrace below the Graeco-Roman settlement had been inhabitated since the Middle Kingdom (c. 20 metres above sea level!). On the terrace towards the north beyond the exit of the wadi, several areas exhibit remains of Middle Kingdom pottery, as well as a larger field scattered with flint stones, while on the terrace to the south from the Graeco-Roman village we found some Middle Kingdom bakery forms (for the Middle Kingdom finds see below).

2. Earlier Visitors to the Site Since the discovery and immediate loss of a black granite stela with a hieroglyphic inscription on the site in 1898 (see below 4. The Hieroglyphic Inscription), visitors were mainly looking for that stela. None of them mentions any Middle Kingdom finds. The earliest reference to ancient Qouta is in Georges Daressy’s report on his mission to the site in a letter to the Directeur Général (V. Loret), dated to 3 April 1898; only about 2 weeks earlier the Moudir du Fayoum had informed the Directeur about the newly found ancient settlement; Daressy was sent to look into the matter.7 He calls the location El Yaouta, as the bedouins of the region do. Daressy reported on a small settlement without any larger buildings, that must have been once squeezed in between the lake and the slope of the mountain (p. 45). He observed that the lake must have arrived up to the foot of the mountain in earlier times. The buildings he saw were made of marl (sic), and all the pottery of the Graeco-Roman period seemed to be piled up in one heap. Daressy also claimed to have found “Greek marble statues”, “a lion crudely sculptured from wood”, “a hexagonic block, which may have served as an altar”, reed baskets, and coins from the reigns of one of the first Ptolemies and of Trajan. He mentions two marble altars (sic) with Greek inscriptions, of which he gives a preliminary transcript (see below 5.) and one stela of black granite; this stela with its hieroglyphic inscription remains the most important find of the spot; Daressy made a transcript and dated it to the Ptolemaic period. Altogether, Daressy did not expect that beautiful monuments would be found at Qouta in the future; he considered the site to be the remains of a workmen’s village, who would live here to extract clay, marl and shelly lime. His identification of Yaouta with Dionysias8 was shortly afterwards proved wrong by the discoveries of Grenfell and Hunt at Qasr Qaroun. Grenfell and Hunt excavated at Yâkûta in early February 1901 (see Figure 1);9 they found more parts of the Greek inscriptions, which they transcribed, and dated to the late Ptolemaic period; their 5

6 7 8 9

This very hard coagulated afsh forms itself in contact with water; cf. the “walls” of such hard afsh in Euhemeria (see Chapt. 14). The exact location is 29o 27. 533’ N, 30o 19. 462’ E. The hight at that point is around 34 metres above sea level. His letter containing the report is printed in Daressy 1900 ‘Rapport sur el-Yaouta’ 44-46. Daressy 1900 ‘Rapport sur el-Yaouta’ 47. See ArchaeologicalReport 1900-1901, 6-7.

286

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

best find here was a “fine head of Alexander (?) in marble of Ptolemaic workmanship” (see below 6.). Already on February 14 they left the site; the few papyri they had found did not reveal the name of the place.10 There is no mention of the granite stela in their report, but a photo of the stela is preserved in the holdings of the EES in London; see below 4. The Hieroglyphic Inscription).11

Figure 1: Grenfell and Hunt’s photo of the site, looking north-west from the terrace below (Courtesy of EES London).

G. Caton-Thompson and E. W. Gardner visited Yahuta in the early 30ies and reported12 that the site had been sacked by natives; they mention a sandstone wall on the north-east side, and give 10 11

12

The papyri are still housed in Oxford at the Sackler Library; no information about their content is given. There is no trace whatsoever in Oxford, so I am informed, of a squeeze of the hieroglyphs on the granite stela made by Hunt in 1901. A workman of Grenfell and Hunt’s gave a report to A. Fakhry about his work with the British scholars 35 years before, and claimed that the stone was found then again and handled by Mr. Hunt. The workman Mohammed Sa’ad also reported about “pieces of marble statues, a very beautiful head” (that must be the Alexander’s head mentioned in the Archaeological Report, and other fragments of statues), “a number of inscribed stones” (obviously the Greek inscriptions), “beads, scarabs, coins and a good quantity of fragments of papyri”; this report is cited by Fakhry 1941 ‘A Fortnight’s Digging’ 899. Concerning this report Fakhry admitted that Mohammed and two other workmen of Grenfell und Hunt’s, who were present with him in 1936 could not agree on the find spot of the stela: “They did not even agree as to whether the stela was in the mids of the ruins or on the slope of the ridge”. TheDesertFayoum 158, no. 252.

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

287

the measurements of mud-bricks as 14 × 7 × 14 inches (c. 36 × 18 × 10 cm), or 9 × 5 × 2 ½ inches (c. 23 × 13 × 6.5 cm). They further report on some big complete peg-bottomed amphorae about 36 inches high (their Pl. XCVIII 7), and fragments of cavetto cornices, which they interpreted as parts of a gateway. The two coins they found were dated to the reign of Ptolemy VI. They conclude: “The site seems to be placed on the caravan route to the oases from the north on which Abu Ballas is one station, and the Rayan springs another”. There is no mention of the granite stela in this report. A. Pochan searched for the granite stela in vain in 1935, and did not mention other finds at Qouta.13 Since the content of the hieroglyphic inscription was considered important for understanding the changing levels of Lake Qaroun, the irrigation inspector of the Fayoum, A. Shafei Bey explored the site and even brought the sheikh, who had accompanied Daressy to Qouta in 1898, to obtain more information about the finding spot of the stela. But since this gentleman was a “very fat old man”, he could not ascend the cliff; “he pointed from the bottom a site near the ruins of the village and which may be assumed as R. L. 18 metres. He emphasized the fact, that it was near the ruins and not at the foot of the cliffs”, where the stela had been found by Daressy.14 Finally A. Fakhry undertook excavations at Qouta in search for the stela;15 he had been appointed by the Irrigation Department of the Fayoum in 1937, which at that time was involved in scientific research about how to use the Wadi el-Rayyân depression as a reservoir; it was again Ali Shafei Bey, who initiated this (up till today) last search for the stela. Fakhry did not find the stela, but during his excavations that went on for only two weeks, he unearthed a large number of small objects, which give at least some idea about the standard of living in that village on the mountain slope (see below 8). Since then, only clandestine diggers have tried their luck on the site; after all we know, the stela is still on the site, somewhere in that moonscape under the rubble, which has been piled up by the clandestine diggers or by the ravines which come down from the mountains above. It is also possible that to search for the stela within the area of the Graeco/Roman site, is wrong from the beginning. The stela may be buried at the exit of the wadi, just north of the site. P. Davoli dedicates two pages to Qouta and gives two photos of the site, one from above and one from below.16 She does not conclude anything about the location of this enigmatic site.

3. The evidence of a Middle Kingdom Settlement at Qouta (or the area around Qouta) Our survey on the terrace below the Graeco-Roman settlement (between the 20 and 25 m line) to the north and the south of that site produced a number of surprising results.

13 14 15 16

1936 ‘Note au sujet de la Gorge d’Illahoun’ 136. 1940 ‘Fayoum Irrigation’ 113-119. 1941 ‘A Fortnight’s Digging’ 897-909 with Pls CXXX – CXXXIV; see above here with footnote 11. L’Archeologiaurbana 325-327 with fig. 157 and 158.

288

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

To the north of the Graeco-Roman site, beyond the mouth of the wadi, we found several small hoards of Middle Kingdom pottery.17 [Photo 19.14] Most of this material is very fragmentary, but it can certainly not be dated to the Graeco-Roman period (see Bailey, Vol. B, p. 18).18 Among these pottery hoards, there is an extended area of flintstones, which show good workmanship [Photo 19.15].19

Figure 2: Drawing of two flintstones by Ch. Kirby.

To the south of the Graeco-Roman settlement, there were also some Middle Kingdom potsherds scattered in small quantities over the terrace. More striking was here the find of about 12 rather well preserved Middle Kingdom bakery forms, which were piled up together in one spot [Photos 19.16 + 19.17].20 These are clay tubes of c. 25 cm lengh and c. 7 width (at the smaller end), which show openings at both ends; while the opening at the larger end of the cone encompasses the whole diameter of the tube, the hole at the smaller end is much more restricted: the dough was filled into the tube from the larger opening at the one side, and then pushed out by pressure from the smaller hole, once it had been baked in the fire into which the tube had been thrown. Such bakery forms were common during the XIIth Dynasty, and have been excavated in a number of sites, lastly in Marsa Gawasis.21 Their reproduction in the 17 18 19 20 21

The exact locations lie between: 29o 27. 929’ and 29o 28. 121’ N, 30o 19. 611’ and 30o 19. 570’ E. The material is too fragmentary to be compared to any evidence produced in Schiestl and Seiler, 2012 Handbook. They cannot be dated conclusively to any period; I owe this information to K. Kindermann. Their exact location is 29o 27. 278’ N, 30o 19. 426’ E. See Jacquet-Gordon 1981 ‘A Tentative Typology of Egyptian Bread Moulds’ 11-41 with Fig. 4, in particular 16ff., Type C. Petrie discovered some of this type in Kahun (Petrie 1890 Kahun,GurobandHawara pl. 14/14, 22) and calls them “long pipe-like objects”. Jacquet-Gordon 19: “We gain the impression that Type C moulds, though primarily typical of the Middle Kingdom, were already being produced sporadically at the end of the First Intermediate Period and continued in use, like many of the Middle Kingdom pottery forms until the beginning of the XVIIIth dynasty.” See more recently Schiestl and Seiler 2012 Handbook,Vol. 1, 754-757, “Bread Moulds, Slender Shape”.

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

289

reliefs of Middle Kingdom tombs, were they are part of the offerings, show their characteristic conical shape, which corresponds closely to the shape of the forms found near Qouta.22 All these finds make sure that the terrace below the Graeco-Roman site attracted people already in the Middle Kingdom. Since the terrace lies about 20 metres above sea level, the settlement of that period was situated on the shore of the lake.23 This may have been a holy site for the people of the Fayoum. From Medinet Qouta the terrace continues further south after an interruption at the mouth of another wadi, before it bends over into a south-western direction in a smooth curve. This continuation of the terrace is usually called the Gisr el Hadid el Qadim, “The old railway track”, a well defined ridge, which wiggles down in a south-eastern direction parallel to the edge of the green land. The ridge, which is between 18 and 24 metres high, once formed the southern bank of the north-western lake. What made people to leave traces on the terrace below the later Graeco-Roman settlement already at the time of the Middle Kingdom is not clear, but the hieroglyphic inscription may give an answer.

4. The Hieroglyphic Inscription

Figure 3: The Middle Kingdom stela found at Qouta, side I (Courtesy of EES London).

22

23

de Garis Davies 1913 FiveThebanTombs Pl. XXXVIII; lower register: bakery forms, piled up breads, breads are placed into baskets. Scholars now agree about this level of the lake during the Middle Kingdom; for an overview of the problem see Sampsell 2003 ATraveller’sGuidetothegeology89-94, in particular 92-93.

290

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

Figure 4: The Middle Kingdom stela found at Qouta, side II (Courtesy of EES London).

4. The Hieroglyphic Inscription a. Interpretation The only scholar who has seen and transcribed the stela in black granite is Daressy.24 His report states: “The most important monument found in this town up till now is a black granite stela measuring 2 m.10 in height, 0.m 88 in breadth at the base, and 0.80 at the centre, and is 0.m 40 to 0.m 48 thick. On the principal side (I) there is a hieroglyphic inscription in two columns facing one another and a third one is under them. On the other side (II), the third line is omitted. The stone is removed from its original place, half-buried in sand and is overturned but, anyhow, it is not far from its original place. The cutting of hieroglyphs is not carefully done and the stela dates in all probability from the Ptolemaic period”. This must have been an impressive monument on the site, by its measures and material. Daressy’s text was reprinted and corrected by A. Fakhry.25

24

25

See above with note 7. The text is reprinted without translation and any further commentary in Zecchi 2002 HieroglyphicInscriptionsI 93. 1941 ‘A Fortnight’s Digging’ 902-905.

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

291

Side I

Fakhry gave the following translation and interpretation: The two opposite lines, which are written on both sides of the stela: (a) The boundary of the northern lake of Sobek; (b) The boundary of the southern lake of Sobek. This boundary stone was erected at the point where two territories met; both sides of the stone provided the same text to the beholder, whether he arrived from one or the other territory.26 The position of Medinet Qouta is not without significance in this respect. The mountain range, which runs in a north-south direction west of the lake, measures about 2.4 km (see above). Qouta lies just south of the mouth of a wadi, which exits halfway between the northern and the southern end of this sector of the mountain range. Splitting the lake in a west-eastern direction would make best sense dividing it halfway down on the western shore of the lake. This point corresponds exactly to the mouth of the wadi at Qouta. Fakhry had difficulties to understand the third line below the two vertical ones, which is found only on one of the sides, and claimed that it was either badly copied or faulty in the original. He gave two possible explanations: (A) “This stela on the shore of the lake by the supervisor of …” The following word should be the geographical denomination of the site where the stela was erected, but Fakhry did 26

For boundary stelae in the Middle Kingdom see Müller-Wollermann 1996 ‘Gaugrenzen und Grenzstelen’ 5-16; those stelae are typical of the Middle Kingdom period.

292

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

not find the word in any other text as a geographical denomination. Fakhry noted, though, that could be understood as “west” (Gauthier, Dict. Géog. I 149), and (1) is mentioned in Papyrus III of the Musée de Boulaq (see Pl. 6, (2) a locality called l. 17 in Gauthier II 1912, 63). Brugsch had identified that locality with Ptolemy’s Βακχὶϲ περὶ τὴν Μοίριδοϲ λίμνην “Bakchis on the Lake Moiris” (Ptolemy IV 5, 36). Fakhry is a mistake for , we can say that the town mencontinues: “If we accept that the tioned on our stela is probably the Banchis (sic) of Ptolemy” (p. 902). This interpretation is difficult, since the place Ptolemy mentions is Bakchias on the eastern side of the lake; if ever Bakchias is mentioned here, it could only be in reference to the eastern counterpart of the site in the west, because Bakchias lies at the eastern side of the lake. If this is the right interpretaion, the stela must date from the Ptolemaic period, for Bakchias did not exist before that time under this name.27 But dating the stela to the Ptolemaic period is problematic (see below). (B) Drioton proposed a different interpretation (in Fakhry p. 902-903). He too suspects some mistakes in the transcript (or the text itself) and comes to the following translation: “This stela divides the Lake for the benefit of these citizens”. With this interpretation fewer corrections are necessary. How “the citizens benefitted”by putting up the stela, is not clear. (C) As Dietrich Raue tells me, it might be possible to understand the text of the third line as follows: “This stela is beside the lake by the overseer of the citizens” (?), an expression which points to the Middle Kingdom, and excludes the dating to the Ptolemaic period. For this reading, no alteration of the text is necessary. b. Dating Besides the linguistic features in the third line, which point to the Middle Kingdom, there are other hints to a dating in that period, namely the expression “Northern and Southern Lakes. Fakhry puts forward several attestations of that expression; two seem important: (a) The inscriptions on the statues of Sobekhotep from Dimeh, which date to the XVIIIth Dynasty and are housed today in Berlin and Marseille. Sobekhotep’s statues were erected in the temple at Dimeh, but he was buried in Thebes. In his tomb28 he has the title “Mayor of the southern lake and the lake of Sobek”. (b) A Middle Kingdom statuette supposedly from Medinet Madi, which came to the Egyptian Museum in 1937 (Fakhry p. 904). The statuette belongs to Sa’ankh-ka-re’ son of Shedi, who was “Master of the starboard-gang of the boat of Sobek in the southern Lake of Sobek”, and a “Supervisor of the household of the Southern and Northern Lakes”. For Fakhry the most likely explanation of the expression “Northern and Southern Lake” is that the lake was divided into two parts for administrative purposes (p. 904-905), and that the stela was erected at the spot where these two administrative districts met. In his view this division of the 27

28

For a village named Genout, which was called Bakchias by the Ptolemies see Yoyotte 1962 ‘Processions géographiques’ 79-138, in particular 116-119. That village appears in a list of Fayoumic localities, which goes back into the time of Ramses II. TT 63; Gardiner 1913 ATopographical Catalogue, p. 22, tomb no. 63; the tomb has now been extensively reedited by Dziobek and Abdel Raziq 1990 DasGrabdesSobekhotep; see in particular the Exkurs on The Tombowner and his Family by B. Bryan, in: Dziobek and Abdel-Raziq 1990 DasGrabdesSobekhotep 81-88.

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

293

lake was not introduced in Ptolemaic times, “but is an older system, which had already existed under the XIIth Dynasty if not earlier”. Fakhry ruled out the other possible explanation, that the two lakes may refer to the two principal canals, which were irrigating the province of the Fayoum (sic). He states, that “the officials of irrigation had other titles.” Recently, K. Vandorpe has come back to the problem of the “two lakes”, ignoring the stela.29 Her main topic is the Henet of Moeris, a dividing line in the Fayoum between a northern and a southern part, which she identifies with the Bahr Yusuf. This division line runs between the Ptolemaic Herakleidou Meris on the northern side, and the Polemonos and Themistou Merides on the southern side. Demotic texts (and only few Greek texts in abundant expressions, which are added to the designation of the Meridesand are obviously translations from the Demotic) use this twofold division up to AD 45;30 a division line that divided the lake in the Middle Kingdom, when the lake was much larger than during the Ptolemaic period, may have had a very different direction than it did in the later period.31 In any case, the western point, from where the division line started, can well have been the wadi at Qouta, a clearly visible landmark on the western shore of the lake; according to the stela found at Qouta, this was indeed the place where the lake was divided. On the other hand, H. Beinlich, in his edition of the Book of the Fayoum, argues that the division line between the northern and the southern lakes ran from Soknopaiou Nesos in the “west” to the entrance of the Bahr Yusuf into the Fayoum in the east.32 Ignoring the evidence of the stela at Qouta, he also takes the Ptolemaic/Roman division line between the Herakleidou Meris in the north, and the Themistou Meris/Polemonos Meris in the south as the demarkation line between the northern and the southern parts of the lake, drawing a line between Soknopaiou Nesos and the entrance of the Bahr Yusuf into the Fayoum; this line only works if Soknopaiou Nesos is shifted somewhat to the west from where it really lies; this line furthermore misses the nome capital Shedet, which is highly unlikely for the period of the Middle Kingdom. In general, it is dangerous to argue for a division line of the lake before the Ptolemaic period referring to the demarcation line between the merides, an invention from the time when the lake had receded by more than 60 metres. All the land covering the area north of Shedet had been under water then, and no division between merides was even thought of. More recently, S. Lippert has put forward new ideas on how to read and understand the geography of the Book of the Fayoum.33 She revises Beinlich’s map (p. 115) and comes to the conclusion that the sacred place “Ha, The Lord of the West” (No. 54 in the Book of the Fayoum) should be identified with Medinet Qouta, and that the demarcation line between the northern and southern lakes should end here in the west at Medinet Qouta; this new interpretation gives full credit to the stela found on the site.

5. The Greek Inscriptions Two identical inscriptions on pieces of limestone, of which Daressy had given a preliminary transcript (he thought it was marble) were later found on the site and correctly transcribed by Grenfell

29 30 31

32 33

2004 ‘The Henet of Moeris’ 61-78; for argumentation by Pearl and Vandorpe, see also Chapt. 1 pp. 6-7. Pearl 1954 ‘ΑΡΓΑΙΤΙΣ and ΜΟΗΡΙΣ’ 27-34. See Gomaà 1986 DieBesiedlungÄgyptens 388-389. Gomaà does not give any evidence for a settlement at the site of Qouta. Beinlich 1991 DasBuchvomFayoum 303-306 with Abb. 64 on p. 305. 2013 ‘Das Fayyûm als Abbild Ägyptens’ 95-118.

294

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

and Hunt.34 They report a “Limestone cornice (26 × 68 cm) very rudely inscribed”. A photo of the stone taken by the British scholars is printed in É. Bernand, I. Fay. II, pl. 38. The inscriptions were carved into two limestone architraves; it is not clear to which building the architraves once belonged, but the content would favour a sanctuary of the Dioscuri. Both inscriptions (I. Fay. II 143 and 144) are dedications to the Dioscuri by a certain Decimus alias Ptolemaios; Decimus dedicated the monument ex-voto on behalf of himself, his wife Methe and his son Antilochos. The names of the family members are surprising: the father has a Roman – Greek double name, the mother a rare Greek name; the son is named after a figure from the Homeric epics: Antilochos is the son of Nestor. The Dioscuri are called θεοὶ σωτῆρεϲ μεγάλοι in both versions of the text. Grenfell and Hunt date the text to “probably the late Ptolemaic period”, while Bernand puts them in the early imperial period, on the basis of the writing and the Latin name of the dedicant.35 The Dioscuri are venerated also in other places in the Fayoum; we have dedications to the two heroes in Dimeh (I. Fay. I 74; 2. 12. AD 50), Magdola (I. Fay. III 154; later Roman Empire; τοὺϲ ἀνικήτουϲ μεγάλουϲ θεοὺϲ ἥρωαϲ; for the interpretation of the Dioscuri in this inscription see I. Fay. III pp. 55-56) and Theadelphia (II 123; here *23 in Chapt. 13; 127/128 AD; σωτῆρεϲ ἐπιφανεῖϲ θεοί).36 6. Sculpture Grenfell and Hunt also found some objects of various materials. Their most important find is certainly a small head after the type of Alexander the Great in alabaster (Grenfell and Hunt considered it to be of white marble), which shows fine workmanship of the Ptolemaic period.37 The head is 10 cm high and was broken from a statuette immediately under the chin; the material is extremely transparent. Edgar could not find any published examples of which this head is a replica. “The arrangement of the hair recalls that of the British Museum head, which is likewise an Egyptian work. It can scarcely be called a portrait, but it is possible that it represented a deified Alexander” (Edgar p. 20-21). In 1898 two fragments of marble statues entered the Museum in Cairo:38 a) A fragment of a youthful male figure in bluish-tinged marble of 32 cm height; only the part between the waist and the knees of the naked body is preserved (Edgar, CG 27448, p. 10). b) Part of a right leg from a statuette in white marble of 21 cm height; Edgar considers it to be of a “good style” (CG 27451, p. 10-11). Daressy gave a summary report on objects he found on the site (see above p. 285). Their present whereabouts are unknown.

34 35 36

37

38

ArchaeologicalReport 1900-1901, 6. Bernand 1981 I. Fay. II, at no. 143, p. 132. A survey of the cult of the Dioscuri in Egypt is given by von Bissing 1953 ‘Il culto dei Dioscuri’ 347-357; also: Rübsam 1974 GötterundKulteIndex; Römer 2016 ‘The Gods of Karanis’. Archaeological Report 1900-1901, 6; Edgar 1903 Catalogue Général, Greek Sculpture, No. 27476 p. 20-21 and Pl. X; see also p. VI; Lawrence 1925 ‘Greek Sculpture in Ptolemaic Egypt’ 188; Gebauer 1938/1939 ‘Alexanderbildnis’ 19 K 38; Grenier – Liverani 2002 ‘Special effects in der hellenistischen Porträtkunst’ 554, Anm. 4. These should be the fragmentary statues of which Fakhry knew that they were among Grenfell and Hunt’s finds (Fakhry 1941 ‘A Fortnight’s Digging’ 899).

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

295

Fakhry 1941 reported a number of small finds at the site in his excavations in 1939 (905-909; their whereabouts are unknown): a) b) c) d) e) f)

Two damaged lions (?) of Roman date; rough work (Pl. CXXX 1). An alabaster palm and wrist pierced to be strung (Pl. CXXX 2) An alabaster hand, being part of a statue of very fine work; Ptolemaic? (Pl. CXXX 3). A broken pottery statuette of a lion, ordinary workmanship, Roman? (Pl. CXXX 4). Part of a leg of a statuette made of very fine white alabaster (Pl. CXXX 5). Fragmentary leg of an alabaster statue, natural size (Pl. CXXX 6).

The quality of the workmanship of these fragmentary statues and statuettes as mentioned in their descriptions or seen in the plates given is surprising for a place so remote as Qouta; this quality of workmanship is also present in a fragmentary blue fayence statuette of a man (Pl. CXXXI 1) and in a bronze spoon for perfume (Pl. CXXXI 15). The large number of works executed in alabaster (material used for the lack of marble?) is also striking. The high quality of these finds corresponds to the quality of some of the vessels found during our survey and registered by D. M. Bailey (see Bailey, Vol. B, p. 18).

7. Painting Among Fakhry’s finds, there is a coloured painting on a wooden board of a god, who has been identified for a long time as Heron (9 × 55 cm);39 the god, whose cult is also attested in Magdola (here together with the cults of the Dioscuri) and in Theadelpheia (but see footnote 39 and Chapt. 13), stands beside his horse and is clad in the uniform of a Greek soldier; this is one of the usual types of representation of the Dioscuri, the other one showing the other god on horseback, as seen in the temple of Pnepheros in Theadelphia.40 In the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, two boards, which are nearly identical, are shown in Room 14.

8. Other finds, objects of domestic use Fakhry gives images of fayence amulets, a limestone head of Harpocrates, a pottery statuette of a man holding a lamp (?) and of fayence beads (all Pl. CXXXI). Bone hair-pins (?) were also found. Among the oil lamps found in Qouta, there is an outstanding object of blue fayence with two spouts (Pl. CXXXII). Unfortunately, the dipinti on amphora necks are too fragmentary to allow further conclusions; one is in Demotic; they all date to the Roman period (Pl. CXXXII and III).41 Also of the Roman period are a number of small wooden stools, chairs or altars. They were excavated by Fakhry and published by Drioton (see note 39), who recognizes that they were used for decorating private altars in the houses of individuals on the site. The five stools are 4-5 cm, the chair is 11 cm high. These pieces of doll house furniture could have received statuettes of seated deities, so Drioton (but no such seated statuette has been found). The 9 small altars, also made of 39

40 41

Published by Drioton 1941 ‘Objects de culte domestique’ 923-35, in particular 923-925; see Rondot 2013 Derniers visages 112-114, Nr. 9, who for this object comes to the conclusion that the god may not be Heron, but one of the Dioscuri. For a new interpretation of the images of Heron in the Fayoum as images of the Dioscuri see now Römer 2016 ‘The Gods of Karanis’ 481-494. For the typology of the representation of what was believed to be Heron see LIMC V 391-394 (E. Will). Thanks are due to Jean-Luc Fournet, who looked at the photos for me.

296

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

wood, measure between 8 and 15 cm in height; they can only have been mock-ups, for the sycomore wood of which they are made, cannot be used for burning incense without damaging the objects. Usually, these small altars are made from limestone or other stone.42 In 2005, also our team found one of such small wooden altars.

9. Medinet Qouta = ? The location of the settlement would fit a toll station on the road from the Fayoum to the oases. However, all toponyms in the custom house receipts from the Fayoum have been identified with known places.43 More likely, Medinet Qouta gained more from religious ideas than from its position as a station on a caravan route. Perhaps this place, situated in the far west of the lake, had been a sacred space since the time of the Middle Kingdom. Here the crocodile god went to rest in the evening, disappearing from the sight of people up through the wadito the west. The enigmatic stone lines above the wadi may have to do with the sacred space extending from the entrance of the wadi below to the high plateau behind it in the west. So, this may be “Ha, Lord of the West” as indicated in the Book of the Fayoum.44 The few papyri found on the site by Grenfell and Hunt do not give any clue about the name of the settlement in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, at least in the bad condition of preservation in which they are stored now. Medinet Qouta is worth a visit because of the enchanting view it offers to the east and over to the lake also for those who do not feel as climbing up the steep wadi and enjoying the marvellous lookout from above.

42 43 44

See Edgar 1903 CatalogueGénéral,GreekSculpture, p. 62-64. See P. Customs. See Lippert 2013 ‘Das Fayyûm als Abbild Ägyptens’, and above p. 293 with footnote 33.

60

65

60

55

N 3261900m

N 3261800m

50

N 3261700m

31.86m

20.37m

15

20.93m

22.57m

Dump

Dump

5

19.86m

19.33m

19.60m

E 240700m

-10

-10

-5

0 -5

0

5

10

10

50 100 m

Natural features Rock outcrop Wadi with Sand & Gravel

Archaeological features Ancient settlement Historic building/ruin Stone ‘wall’

Legend

0

Heights according to Survey of Egypt

Coordinate System : WGS84 DMS and/or UTM Zone 36R

Map based on: Field Survey (2000, 2003 and 2005 ) Topographic Maps (Survey of Egypt) Satellite images (Corona 1960s and Google Earth)

Medinet Qouta

Photo 19.1: Plan of Medinet Qouta (I. Klose after Ch. Kirby and P. Brosch).

20

26.66m

Stone Foundations

31.99m

34.45m

35.65m

House 1 House 3 Wall of Boulders

House 2

20

cluster of 3 stone blocks

24.50m

23.85m

26.65m Stone Foundations

33.32m

D.P. 39.00m asl

Rock Outcrop

25

27.77m

30.22m

34.13m

35

45

40

65

30.57m

30

35

Rock Outcrop

40

WADI

25

E 240600m

15

30

N 3261600m

20

E 240500m

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

297

45

50

55

298

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

Photo 19.2: View from east to west towards the wadi; Medinet Qouta is situated at the lower left edge at the mouth of the wadi.

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

299

Photo 19.3: Google Earth image of the wadi and the terraces below.

Photo 19.4: Just below the upper edge of the wadi.

Photo 19.5: View from the upper edge of the wadi towards the east and the lake.

300

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

Photo 19.6: The enigmatic rectangular space lined up by stones, centered at the top of the wadi.

Photo 19.7: Looking up towards the site from the foot of the slope.

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

301

Photo 19.8: On the site, looking towards the wadi.

Photo 19.9: On the site, looking over the terrace towards north.

302

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

Photo 19.10: One of the few stone buildings on the site (“Stone Foundations” at northern end of site).

Photo 19.11: Remains of a building in mud brick (House 2).

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

303

Photo 19.12: Remains of a building in mud brick, and stone wall nearby (House 1).

Photo 19.13: Google Earth image of the site showing presumed buildings, most of them not decernable on the site.

Photo 19.14: Fragments of some Middle Kingdom pottery.

304

CHAPTER 19: MEDINET QOUTA = HA, LORD OF THE WEST = ?

Photo 19.15: Flintstones found on the terrace below Medinet Qouta, to the north.

Photo 19.16: Middle Kingdom bakery forms found on the terrace below Medinet Qouta, to the south.

Photo 19.17: Middle Kingdom bakery forms found on the terrace below Medinet Qouta, to the south.

CHAPTERS 20-21 THE VILLAGES ON THE PLATEAU BETWEEN MEDINET EL-FAYOUM AND ITS FRINGES Maps II; V; VI; XV

The centre of the Fayoum is covered by a plateau, in the middle of which sits Medinet el-Fayoum, the nome capital (see Chapt. 1). From the nome capital, the western part of the plateau reaches out for c. 13 km to the north, up to modern Sanhour/ancient Apias (?) on the fringe of the plateau, and for 16 km to the north-west, reaching up to modern Ibshaway/ancient Pisais. To the west and south-west, the plateau descends abruptly into the Wadi Nazlah; along the Wadi the ancient sites of Tell el-Kinissa and Kom el-Arka mark the fringe of the plateau, between them the modern village of Abou Dinqash (see Chapt. 8). In the south-west the plateau descends smoothly towards the upper course of the Wadi Nazlah. That western part of the plateau between Medinet el-Fayoum, Sanhour in the north, the Wadi Nazlah in the west, beyond the Wadi Nazlah to the south-west, and to the Itsa – Abou el-Nour dam in the south, belonged to the Themistou Meris. From around Medinet el-Fayoum the land lowers from c. 21 metres above sea level, to c. 0 metres at its fringe in the north. This land on the plateau is watered by the 6 canals which depart from the Bahr Yusuf at the western end of Medinet el-Fayoum (see Photos 1.17 and 1.18 in Chapt.1. Introduction). The fresh waters of the Bahr Yusuf made and make this the most fertile area of the whole oasis. 1 It is extremely difficult to identify ancient villages here, because this part of the Fayoum has been inhabited and used for agriculture throughout its history from the Ptolemaic period onwards. Ancient villages on the plateau were built over by modern villages or are covered now by fields; except for Tell el-Kinissa and Kom el-Arka, two clearly visible koms along the Wadi Nazlah, only in two cases the outer appearance of a modern village or cemetery betray the ancient ruins underneath. This is the case of the modern village Fedemin, of which the papyri give the ancient name Psentymis, and of Kom Abou el-Nour, a cemetery east from Ibshaway (ancient Pisais). Starting from the north, the following larger modern villages were possibly or certainly built over ancient settlements (distances are given between these villages and the villages on the fringe of the plateau): 1. 2. 3. 3.

Fedemin El- Ajamiyyin Abou Ganshou Tubhar

= Psentymis =? =? = ?2

3.5 km south of Sanhour; on 10-17 m a.s.l. 5 km south of Abou Ksa; on c. 16 m a.s.l. Today a southern part of Ibshaway; on c. 5 m a.s.l. 6 km south of Ibshaway; on c. 15 m a.s.l.

With two exceptions, none of these modern settlements is mentioned as containing ancient fertile material in the “Liste des Tells et Koms à sebakh”, issued by the IFAO in 1915. Only “Tell Abou Genshou et el Kénayessa” listed on p. 15 for the district of Medinet el-Fayoum may refer to another ancient site, and Tell el-Kinissa. The height a.s.l. of El- Ajamiyyin and Tubhar makes it 1 2

Cf. Haug 2015 ‘Environment, Adaptation, and Administration’ 55-71. For a proposed identification of Tubhar with Ampeliou see below p. 309.

306

CHAPTER 20-21: THE VILLAGES ON THE PLATEAU

plausible that they were the first to be installed (if there were Ptolemaic settlements here), because they lie only just under the level of the former Middle Kingdom shore line (17-20 m). Countless smaller villages scattered between the larger villages may also sit on ancient settlements, but are not considered here by lack of evidence.

20. FEDEMIN = PSENTYMIS3 [Photos 20.-21.1 + 20.-21.2] The bustling large4 village of Fedemin is located on the main road leading from Medinet el-Fayoum to Sanhour, and further on to the lake. The distance from the centre of Medinet el-Fayoum to Fedemin is c. 10 km, from Fedemin to Sanhour c. 3.5 km, and from Sanhour to the lake c. 7 km. Thus, Fedemin marks half of the way from the capital to the lake. Up to Fedemin, that road follows a north-western direction, while it bends strictly to the north and to the lake from here. In Chapt. 24, I argue that Sanhour, located on the fringe of the plateau, sits on the ancient site of Philopator Apiados/Apias. From papyrological evidence we know that Fedemin was built over ancient Psentymis (see below). The height of this settlement is between 10 and 17 metres above sea level. Perhaps the road just described follows the ancient route connecting the nome capital with the shore of the lake (and therefore Soknopaiou Nesos) via Psentymis and Philopator Apiados/Apias down to Berenikis Aigialou “on the shore”. Over long distances between Medinet el-Fayoum and Fedemin that road now runs on a dam between orchards that produce mangos. The border between the Themistou and the Herakleidou Merides was somewhere here, along the Bahr Sanhour, or on the dam on which the modern road runs.5 The area around Fedemin is one of the most fertile of the Fayoum, with water resources provided by the Bahr Sanhour and the canals Bahr Nayalifa and Bahr Tersa in the east. Fedemin seems to be built on several hills; the Bahr Sanhour, not wider than 3 metres nowadays, rushes through its middle, to the south-west of the main road; that road cuts through the village on a level high above the canal. The whole village impresses by its steep streets and alleys. In a wood engraving of the late 19th century, houses throne above the canal like castles overviewing its run that is lined by palm groves.6 The location of the village high above the canal has induced the early visitors to assume that it sits on ancient ruins.

3

4

5 6

GEO-ID 1970 for both Ψεντῦμιϲ and Φεντέμιν; Wessely 1904 Topographie 153; P. Tebt. II p. 406 (Grenfell and Hunt misspelled the name as Φεντῦμιϲ; for correction see L. C. Youtie, Φεντῦμιϲ: a False Place Name, BASP 18, 1981, 173-175); Calderini V 155; Suppl. 2, 243; Suppl. 4, 137; Suppl. 5, 105 and 111; Timm 1988 Daschristlich-koptische Ägypten, Teil 4 957-958; Verreth 2013 Survey 639. Cf. Keenan 2007 ‘Fayoum Villages’ 487-496; also: P. Pintaudi 21, 3. Wessely 1904 Topographie 153, says that it had 5600 inhabitants in his days; today, the number is nearly 20 times as high, as indicated by the Fayoum Governerate Homepage. For the border between the Merides see Chapt. 1 pp. 5-8. Keane (ed.) 1885 TheUniversalGeography ‘The Sefi Canal at Fidemin-el-Fayoum’ after p. 360 (French edition after p. 522): “Sefi Canal” means “Summer Canal”; “such canals are excavated below the mean low-water level from 26 to 30 feet below the surface, so that they are reached by the stream even at the very height of the dry season”. It looks as if the image shows the canal in summer time, when the water was low and the canal small, most likely not “excavated” in the true sense.

CHAPTER 20-21: THE VILLAGES ON THE PLATEAU

307

Figure 1: From TheUniversalGeography (see Footnote 6).

Visitors to Fedemin Visiting here on May 6, 1819, G. B. Belzoni concluded from the hilly appearance of the village that it had been built over ruins. His detailed report is not without interest for the history of the village (p. 270-271): “at sunset we arrived at Fedmin el Kunois, which means the Place of the Churches: it stands on a high mound of earth and rubbish, and has evidently been rebuilt on other ruins. It is divided into two parts by a small canal7 from the Bahr Yousef. One side of the town is inhabited by Christian Copts, and the other by Mahomedans; and though the two religions officiated almost in sight of each other, they never interfered on each other’s rights.” Till today, Fedemin is known in the Fayoum as the place of many churches; recently a huge new cathedral was built on top of the eastern hill. J.-J. Rifaud, who lived in the Fayoum for some time in 1823/1824 and excavated at Hawara, mentions the “aspect riant et pittoresque” of Fedemin, and the high percentage of Christians living here.8 Sir Gardner Wilkinson, who came here in 1824, recognized, as Belzoni did, that Fedemin is built on an ancient village, and hailed its “pretty vicinity”.9 7

8 9

In May, when Belzoni was visiting, the canals would have been all very low. Admittedly, the canal doesn’t look navigable, neither today, nor in the woodcut of the UniversalGeography from the later 19th century. Rifaud 1830 Tableaudel’Égypte 194. Wilkinson 1843 ModernEgypt 352.

308

CHAPTER 20-21: THE VILLAGES ON THE PLATEAU

The name of the village Since the ancient name Ψεντῦμιϲ (probably from Egyptian Itm/Atoum) and the modern Fedemin sounded similar, already E. Amélineau had assumed that Fedemin was Psentymis.10 The identification seems to be corroborated by the bilingual P. Ross. Georg. V 73 of the 8th century, where the name Φεντέμιν is given also in Arabic, and as Fedemin. The development from the one to the other name is to be observed in texts from the 2nd to 3rd century, where Φεντέμιν is written, while Psentymis is still in use.11 Trismegistos lists 36 texts mentioning Psentymis or Fentemin; the earliest attestation of the village is P. Sedment 175_6.A, 22-24, a declaration of animals by village from the 3rd century BC;12 the name Ψεντῦμιϲ is used into the 4th century AD, the last attestation being SB XVI 13001, 12 and 15, a list of villages of the Themistou Meris with amounts of grain credited to them by sitologi.13 Already in the 2nd to 3rd century AD, the name Φεντέμ(ιν) appears for an ἐποίκιον in CPR VII 8 Frg. 3, 4 and 45, a list of reed plantations. There is no attestation for the name as Φεντυμιϲ (pace PapInfo for P. Col. II 1 r Col. 2, 8; cf. L. Youtie, BASP 18, 1981, 173-175). Therefore, the identification of both should be, perhaps, scrutinized again. If Fedemin and Ψεντῦμιϲ were the same village, the following papyrological evidence is available for that village which stood where today Fedemin is located. The 35 papyrological texts mentioning the village of Psentymis are spread over 1000 years, from the 3rd century BC to the 8th century AD. Unfortunately, no texts tell us what was special in Psentymis. From the only Ptolemaic text so far (P. Sedment 175_6.A, 22-24; see above with footnote 12), we may want to compare numbers of unspecified cattle and heifers in Psentymis with the data for Theadelpheia and Philoteris in the same list. In Theadelpheia there are 62 unspecified cattle (βοῦϲ), in Philoteris 92, and in Psentymis 84; for Theadelpheia 42 young cows are registered, for Psentymis 20, for Philoteris the number is in lacuna. Unfortunately, in PSI XV 1544 (2nd – 3rd century AD), a list of villages and their numbers of sheep and cattle, all numbers are in lacuna, so that a comparison – and even a snapshot as in the Ptolemaic text – is not possible. In a year between AD 136 and 150 Psentymis provides 7 privately owned donkeys for the transport of grain (P. Col. II 1 ro 5, Col. 2, 8); reed was produced here (CPR VII 8 Frg. 3, 4 and 45; 2nd to 3rd century AD); the village is called here an epoikion. The Appianus Estate probably had a branch also at Psentymis in the mid 3rd century AD.14 P. Flor. III 364 gives a list of goods being transported to and from villages to Arsinoe by 25 camels; since the back of the papyrus (P Flor. II 184) certainly belongs to the Heroninus Archive, P. Flor. III 364 also belongs to the archive. In l. 16 empty oil-jars were transported from Psentymis. The papyrological evidence draws a picture of a common Fayoum village, where cattle was bred, wheat, reed and olives were grown. It is surprising that no orchards are mentioned here so far. The fertile environment should have provided good opportunities to grow vines, and other fruits (as today mangos etc.).

10 11 12

13 14

Amélineau 1893 LaGéographiedel’Égypte 490-491. ντ was obviously being pronounced as δ, as in modern Greek. The papyrus is published by El-Ashiry and Kashaf 2010 ‘Account of Livestock’ 5-11. Unfortunately, the photo given does not allow to verify readings (I did not gain access to the original in Cairo). For Psentymis, 84 cows and 20 heifers are registered. For that papyrus and its value for locating villages in the Themistou Meris see p. 326. See Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism 25 and 271.

CHAPTER 20-21: THE VILLAGES ON THE PLATEAU

309

In SPP X 1 (7th century), a list of locations pertaining to the large estate of Strategios Paneuphemos from the house of the Apiones, Fentemin appears together with Psineuris, Ampeliou, Bernikidos, Karpe, Kainos, and a place of which the name ends in –nol. J. Benaji has argued that this text lists parts of the estate in the same geographical vicinity.15 The following identifications and locations seem to be certain (only Fedemin) or proposed by Benaji: Fentemin = Fedemin Psineuris = is not Sanhour, as Benaji proposes; cf. here Chapt. 24 p. 317 with footnote 29. This is rather Sinnouris in the Herakleidou Meris. Ampeliou = Benaji wants to identify Tubhar (close to Ibshaway) with Ampeliou, assuming links between villages by daring interpretations of texts. Kosack’s historical maps16 are as valuable for him as the assumption that villages mentioned together in papyri are necessarily close to each other. But Kosack’s maps are not nearly accurate enough to base any argument on them. Indeed, Kosack rejects the identification of Pkalankeh with Qalamsha, on which Benaji’s argument rests.17 Bernikis = at the shore of the lake, near Shakshouk, as argued on pp. 322-32518; 10 km north of Fedemin; Benaji’s identification rests on the wrong interpretation of P. Flor II 126; seems to be located in the Polemonos Meris, and not up in the north (as stated in Karpe19 Trismegistos Places). Kainos put by Benaji “in the region of Lake Moeris and not far from Karanis”; this combination is unlikely. As in the case of Theadelpheia, fishing took place also inland, and not only at the lake. A place, of which the name ends in –nol. = ? Psinol is mentioned in P. Dub. 34, 2 of AD 511 as the home of one of the contracting parties. No further identification is possible.20 The two main weaknesses of Benaji’s attempts to identify and locate ancient villages rest on the one hand on his assumption that ancient villages mentioned in the papyri are necessarily found under modern villages. As can be seen below, this is by no means the case. There were and are ancient sites which are just overgrown by fields. On the other hand, his arguments ignore that villages mentioned together in lists written on papyrus are not necessarily in close vicinity.

21. VILLAGES HAVING DISAPPEARED UNDER FIELDS OR CEMETERIES There is no chance to recognize ancient villages now overgrown by fields, unless one is guided to the right spots by people who know, or if one finds relevant indication on old maps that show the situation of 100 years or more ago [Photo 20.-21.3]. On map VI three ancient sites are indicated to the north of the road leading from Medinet el-Fayoum to Ibshaway. On the last 6 km before reaching Ibshaway, and after leaving the village of Sinaru, that road curves to the south-west, and then north-west in a smooth angle. This road runs on the old railway track built under Mohamed Aly to provide direct connection between the 15 16 17

18 19

20

Benaji 2001 AgrarianChange 246-247. Kosack 1971 HistorischesKartenwerk. Kosack 1971 HistorischesKartenwerk64; cf. Wessely 1904 Topographie126; P. Tebt. II p. 396. F. Morelli’s paper on ‘I χωρία in α’ 2004, 125-137, does not contribute anything to the identification or location of villages. As proposed here in Chapt. 25. This Karpe is different from the Karpe in the Herakleopolites. However, since there is also a Karpe in the Arsinoite nome, P. Bingen 146 may still come from the Fayoum (pace Benaissa 2010 ‘Bemerkungen zu Papyri’ 209). See Benaissa (foregoing note) 205.

310

CHAPTER 20-21: THE VILLAGES ON THE PLATEAU

sugar-cane fields at Abou Ksa and the nome capital Medinet el-Fayoum. Trains were still operating here in the 80s of the last century. The dam on which the railway track runs may be ancient. It closes the northern part of the western plateau of the Fayoum towards the valley of the Bahr Ibshaway. Within the bend, and just north of its knee the three sites lie in close neighbourhood of each other (from the west): Tell el-Kharaba Kom el-Ahmar Kom Abou el-Nour

“Hill of the Ruins”, and east to it, by c. 1.2 km: “The Red Hill”, and north of it by c. 1 km: “Hill of Abou el-Nour”.

All three sites are located c. 17 m above sea level, and may therefore have been settled early, possibly even before the Ptolemaic period; this can be assumed also for the dam around these three villages [Photo 20.-21.4]. Both Tell el-Kharaba and Kom el-Ahmar have now disappeared under orchards of mangos, apricots, vines, and olives. The ground is completely level here with the gardens around. There is pottery on the ground, also larger pieces of amphorae, but without the indication of the old map one would not recognize the sites of old villages here [Photo 20.-21.5]. People working in the gardens told us that they are aware of the ancient sites once flourishing here. The situation in Kom Abou el-Nour is different. The hill still clearly emerges from the fields around by 3 to 4 metres and is used nowadays as a cemetery [Photo 20.-21.6]. Ancient pottery is found between the tombs and visible in particular around the edges of the hill. One may feel inclined to recognize the village of Trikomia (“Three Villages”) here, but it may be by chance that three villages are attested here close to each other, a pattern perhaps found also in other areas. If modern Itsa is Lysimachis (see Chapt. 2), we would expect Trikomia in the neighbourhood of that village, rather than here near Ibschaway = Pisais. There is a fourth ancient settlement south of the road to Ibshaway, slighly to the west of Tell el-Kharaba, Kom el-Attar (see Map VI). Under the current political circumstances, it was not possible to visit that site. A larger area of uncultivated land appears also around Kafr el-Sheikh Sa’ad on Map VI.

Photo 20-21.1: Viewing north along the Bahr Sanhour in Fedemin (Photo I. Helmedag).

CHAPTER 20-21: THE VILLAGES ON THE PLATEAU

Photo 20-21.2: An alley in Fedemin (Photo I. Helmedag).

Photo 20-21.3: Detail from Map VI.

311

312

CHAPTER 20-21: THE VILLAGES ON THE PLATEAU

Photo 20-21.4: Detail from Google Earth Map 2011.

Photo 20-21.5: Kom el-Ahmar; ancient pottery scattered under the mango trees.

Photo 20-21.6: The cemetery of Kom Abou el-Nour, seen from the south-east.

CHAPTERS 22-24 THE VILLAGES ON THE NORTHERN FRINGE OF THE CENTRAL FAYOUM PLATEAU; FROM WEST TO EAST Photo 22.-24.1; Maps II – III; V; IX; XI; XIV; XV

On the map of modern Fayoum a significant slope in the formation of the landscape can be observed 8-12 km south of the lake shore, and 10-15 km north of Medinet el-Fayoum; that slope runs roughly between the Wadi Nazlah in the west and the plains to the east of Tersa. [Map XIV; 1:50 000] At this point the landscape rises above the gently sloping plains bordering the lake, taking a decisive step of 10 metres (from –5 to +5 m) before reaching the plateau of the central Fayoum. The edge of that significant slope is nowadays lined by the villages of Ibshaway, Abou Ksa, Sanhour and Tersa, which overlook the plains to the north and the lake (from west to east, as far to the east as the area may have belonged to the Themistou Meris, but Tersa was probably already in the district of Herakleides). E. Jomard has given an impressive description of the plain below, standing himself on the slope: “tout cet espace semblait, en quelche sorte, abandonné par les eaux depuis une époque récente. Il est entièrement inculte, couvert de sable, de lagunes, de croûtes salines, ou de quelques arbustes d’une végétation sans force”.1 His observation is well presented on the map of the Description (Vol. VI, 54, fol. 19). A much more dramatic scene will have offered itself to the beholders in early Ptolemaic Fayoum, since those parts between –5 and –45 m certainly emerged from the swamp later than all the other parts of the oasis. Today, the area between the shore of the lake and that slope is less well watered than the plateau, and barren in its northern part, which is mostly watered from the drains, and therefore also more salty. The canals coming from Medinet el-Fayoum only partially reach down as far as the shore line; irrigation is more difficult here than on the plateau. Vansleb, travelling here in 1672, says that the fishermen of the lake stay at Sanhour. That may mean that in the 17th century the slope in the landscape had formed a natural shore for the lake, but this is rather unlikely also because of Jomard’s description; the plain below the slope seems to have been uninhabitable at that time.2 The land on the plateau itself, before it slopes down towards the lake, extending behind those villages on its edge seems to be privileged, as numerous canals coming from Medinet el-Fayoum pass here smoothly flowing into northern and western directions; indeed, these villages are located where the fringe of the plateau was cut by those canals (or were these natural canyons in which the canals flowed?); in the Graeco-Roman period, probably all these villages had harbours, at least two are attested (see below, 1. and 2). The distance between those villages and the capital is only between 15 (Ibshaway) and 11 (Tersa) km. Nowadays, the land on this plateau is most fertile, 1

2

Jomard 1821 Description de l’Égypte IV 442. For the peculiarities of αἰγιαλόϲ “shore land” see Bonneau 1985 ‘Aigialos’ 131-143; ead. 1993 LeRégimeadministratif52 and 240-244. Vansleb 1677 Nouvellerelation270; Wilkinson 1847 Murray’sHandbook 248, advises “to apply to the shekh of Senhoor to obtain a boat for crossing the lake”. He does not say that the boats departed from here.

314

CHAPTERS 22-24: THE VILLAGES ON THE NOTHERN FRINGE

covered with orchards of mango (south of Abou Ksa and Sanhour) and olives. The excellent quality of the soil around here may explain why the temple of Soknopaiou Nesos and its priests possessed land in this area, high quality land close to their home. Villages around here enjoyed close connections to Soknopaiou Nesos (see below). The fringe of the plateau lies at c. ± 5 m, well below the lake-level of the Middle Kingdom (+17 to + 20 m), but little below, or above the level of the north-western Themistou Meris (Theadelpheia c. + 8; Dionysias 0); these lands on the fringe of the slope had emerged from the swamp shortly before the area between Theadelpheia and Dionysias. Modern places and their possible identifications with ancient villages are (from west to east): 22. IBSHAWAY3 = Πιϲάιϲ / Pꜣy-Šꜣy This village lies at the mouth of a small canyon, which extends from the modern village of El-Ajamiyyin (at c. +15 m) in a western direction and reaches the fringe of the plateau at Ibshaway. The modern “Canal of Ibshaway” runs in this canyon.4 Ibshaway has been identified with ancient Pisais by linguistic observations, which connect the modern name to the name of the Egyptian god Shaï.5 The Coptic name is ⲡⲓϣⲁⲓ. The name together with the location seems to make the identification nearly certain, though no ancient remains have been found here. It may be worth mentioning though that a “Bahr el-Kom” is indicated just to the west of Ibshaway on the 1:100.000 Map of 1935 = Map XI. There are 52 references to Pisais6, which up to the 3rd century AD is usually called an epioikion, not a village (κώμη);7 the point of reference for the epioikion was the village of Herakleia (see Chapt. 23). The earliest text mentioning Pisais is P. Bürgsch. 22 of 244/243 BC, the only text from the Ptolemaic period; the last attestation in a Coptic text is the colophon of a manuscript of the 10th century;8 the 1st – 3rd, and the 7th centuries yield most of the remaining references. The village had a thesauros “of the god Soknopaios” (BGU XI 2033 and P. Lond. II 216); in both papyri people from Herakleia (see below, Chapt. 23) and Soknopaiou Nesos play a role. A mill here (probably on the canal, where the water fell at the slope from +5 to –5) was owned by the god Soknopaios (P. Louvre I 25; AD 115, and P. Lond. II 335; 116 / 167).9 The harbour of this village, mentioned in P. Berl. Leihg. II 43, is certainly situated on the canal reaching Pisais directly from Arsinoe, today the Ibshaway Canal.10 The text is a clearance of donkey drivers on compulsary duty who had delivered goods (grain, acacia wood) into the harbour in

3 4

5

6

7 8 9 10

Ibshaway = Pisais enjoys a thorough treatment by W. Clarysse in Trismegistos – Fayum. It seems reasonable to expect that canal to have existed already in the Graeco-Roman period; however, whether that canal created the small canyon between Ibshaway and El-Ajamiyyin, or whether the ancient forerunners of those villages were created at the mouth and the end of that canyon when the canyon already existed, can only be understood from geological investigation. El-Ajamiyyin is visible on Map VI east of Abou Ganshou. See Quaegebeur 1975 LedieuégyptienShaï 198-199; Wessely 1904 Topographie 25-26 had already observed the similarity between the name of the modern village and the name of the Egyptian god. GEO-ID 1836; Wessely 1904 Topographie 125-126; P. Tebt. II 354, 358, 378, 396; Calderini IV 144; Suppl. 3, 127; Suppl. 4, 110; Suppl. 5, 82; Timm 44-45; Trismegistos – Fayum (B. Van Beek). In AD 216 e. g. it is called a κώμη (P. Louvre I 3, 18). Van Lantschoot 1929 RecueildescolophonscoptesNr. 47. See Hobson 1985 ‘The Village of Herakleia’ 101-115, in particular 106-108. The lake was nearly as far away as today (pace W. Clarysse in Trismegistos – Fayum).

CHAPTERS 22-24: THE VILLAGES ON THE NOTHERN FRINGE

315

October11 between AD 175 and 199, obviously destined for further transportation by boat to Arsinoe. The relationship between Pisais / Herakleia / Apias, and Soknopaiou Nesos has been thoroughly studied by D. Hobson in three articles in BASP and Aegyptus.12 23. ABOU KSA = Ἡράκλεια (?) Abou Ksa lies, like Ibshaway, at the mouth of a small canyon, in which the canal runs coming from Medinet el-Fayoum, called after the village on the fringe. It seems that Abou Ksa (“The Father of Ksa”) stands on an ancient settlement. In 1989, three fragments of ancient monuments were found on a construction site in the village. P. Davoli reports on a massive lintel of a Middle Kingdom temple showing the name of Amenemhet III, part of a column in the typical bundle-form of the Middle Kingdom, and a millstone.13 No Middle Kingdom temple can have stood here, since AbouKsa lies on the 8 m level at its highest point, which was certainly under water in the time of Amenemhet III. However, the old construction items and the mill stone may have been brought here in the Graeco-Roman period (or later).14 In Abou Ksa, E. Jomard saw a large water reservoir of 50 × 50 metres, built of bricks and covered with solid cement; he considered the bricks of this basin (of which he, unfortunately, does not give the depth) to be similar to those of “constructions égyptiennes”, and connected to the irrigation of the area. He believed that “cet ouvrage fait en même temps fonction de digue pour retenir les eaux de l’inondation, qui arrivent à Abou-Keseh par une des neuf branches” of the canal coming from Arsinoe. “Le réservoir donne le moyen de distribuer les eaux par degrés et suivant les besoins” (1821, Section I, p. 451). On the map of the Description, that reservoir lies east of the village; the canal approaches it from the south, while there are two exits from the reservoir towards the north (Vol. VI 54, fol. 19). Jomard does not date that basin, but considers it to be as ancient as the canal reaching Abou Ksa, and that is certainly the Graeco-Roman period. But who knows … we did not see that basin anymore. The image in Google Earth shows a rectangular layout of a small canal and streets in the east of the village, a feature perhaps following the borders of that ancient basin. If Ibshaway was Pisais the scanty remains of an ancient settlement at Abou Ksa may have belonged to Herakleia, the village to which the epoikion Pisais was closely connected.15 The distance between the modern villages of Ibshaway and Abou Ksa is c. 4 km only.16 This is a good example of a settlement of which the modern name does not have anything to do with the ancient one, different from what we have at Pisais = Ibshaway.

11 12

13

14 15

16

At that time of the year, after the flooding, the canals would have been best navigable. Hobson 1984 ‘Agricultural Land’ 89-109; ead. 1985 ‘The Village of Herakleia’ 101-115; ead. 1982 ‘The Village of Apias’ 80-123. Davoli and Abd el-Aal 1998 ‘Three Monuments from Abouksa’ 1-8; Davoli 2001 ‘Aspetti della topografia del Fayyum’ 353-359, in particular 358-359, and Tav. XVI a. Cf. the items observed in Ezbetel-Kharaba (Chapt. 29). Grenfell and Hunt argued for an identification of certain ruins along the railway between Medinet el-Fayoum and Ibshaway with Herakleia; see P. Tebt. II p. 377-378 and the map at the end of the book. For those ancient sites see Chapt. 21. I abandoned my first idea of identifying Tell el-Kinissa with Herakleia because of the harbour attested for Herakleia. The location of Tell el-Kinissa on the border of the Wadi Nazlah, where the canal was only petering out, would hardly have allowed for a harbour here.

316

CHAPTERS 22-24: THE VILLAGES ON THE NOTHERN FRINGE

Ἡράκλεια is well attested in the papyri over nearly 1000 years, with 202 references to the village, and 65 texts written in that village.17 The oldest attestation is in a papyrus from the Zenon Archive (P. Cair. Zenon IV 59656; 256-248 BC), and it is still mentioned in the 7th century (SB XXII 15729; AD 639; P. Sijpesteijn 36; AD 650-699). Nearly half of the texts come from the grapheion of Herakleia in the 2nd century AD.18 The name of the village seems to derive from the Alexandrian deme Herakleios, or from the semi-god Herakles directly.19 The assumption that Herakleia was indeed situated at the site of the modern village of Abou Ksa has to be questioned in the light of the enigmatic text BGU III 831 (AD 201), in which a villager from Soknopaiou Nesos wants to rent some land in two portions; both parcels are ἀπὸ χέρϲου αἰγιαλοῦ περὶ τὴν αὐτὴν κώμην “of χέρϲοϲ land on the shore around the same village” (l. 5; “the same village” understood as Soknopaiou Nesos)20; the second parcel (ll. 9-11) has the boundaries of Herakleia (ϲυνορία [Ἡρακλ]είαϲ)21 in the south, and χέρϲοϲ αἰγιαλοῦ in the west, north, and east. That parcel of land would have been north of Abou Ksa and closer to the lake in the middle of the χέρϲοϲ αἰγιαλοῦ (see Map IX), if we leave l. 5 aside or understand the meaning of “at the same village” (NOT as Soknopaiou Nesos). More difficult is the location of the first parcel, which has an ὄροϲ in the north, χέρϲοϲ αἰγιαλοῦ in the west, a road (ὁδόϲ) in the east and a canal in the south. D. Hobson rightly argued that such a parcel of land would be difficult to imagine south of the lake with desert to it in the north.22 The street in the east, and the canal in the south are too unspecific, I think (even though there was a διῶρυξ in Soknopaiou Nesos; P. Aberd. 36b), to rule out a location on the northern shore; however Hobson’s suggestion to read ὅρμοϲ instead of ὄροϲ would fit a location of this second parcel between Abou Ksa and the shore of the lake. In this case the ὅρμοϲ would be a harbour on the lake. Both parcels are in the area of “the same village”. Herakleia had a harbour – probably on the canal coming from Arsinoe – (P. Petaus 69), but possibly also one on the shore of the lake. Its close connection to Soknopaiou Nesos and Neilopolis would well fit a harbour mostly serving Herakleia, but Berenikis Aigialou was not far away (c. 8 km as the crow flies). In AD 50, the village shared a grapheion with Soknopaiou Nesos and Neilopolis (BGU I 297).23 Some legal transactions involving people from Soknopaiou Nesos were carried out at Herakleia and validated at the grapheion of that village, even though Soknopaiou Nesos had its own grapheion.24 This was certainly due to the extensive land holdings of Soknopaiou Nesos persons at Herakleia (as in Pisais and Apias; see Hobson 1985 ‘The Village of Herakleia’ p. 105-106). This orientation towards the lake and the village beyond makes Grenfell 17

18 19 20

21

22 23

24

GEO-ID 772; Wessely 1904 Topographie 66-68; P. Tebt. II 377-378; Calderini II 206-208; Suppl. 1, 125 (1); Suppl. 2, 61-62 (1); Suppl. 3, 43 (1); Suppl. 4, 63 (1); Suppl. 5, 37 (1). Trismegistos – Fayum (B. Van Beek). For particularities see Hobson 1985 ‘The Village of Herakleia’ 101-115. See list of officials of the grapheion in the Trismegistos – Fayum page. For the village names in the Fayoum see Chapt. 1, pp. 8-13. The difficulty in understanding the text properly is easily solved if we take περὶ τὴν αὐτὴν κώμην (l. 5) to mean “around the same – NOT the already mentioned – village” = both parcels are around the village of Herakleia, even though this is not the usual meaning of ἡ αὐτὴ κώμη in documents of this kind. Thus supplemented by Grenfell and Hunt in P. Tebt. II p. 377; all the arguments proetcontraa location of Herakleia on the northern shore of the lake are already discussed there. Hobson 1985 ‘The Village of Herakleia’ 103-105. For the identification of Neilopolis with Qaret Rusas at the eastern end of the lake see Bonneau 1979 ‘Niloupolis du Fayoum’ 258-273; this identification seems to be reasonable if one accepts that the village has moved up to a higher location, when in the 4th century AD the lake was rising and putting the site of Qaret Rusas under water. Neilopolis and a monastery there are still attested in the 7th century. S. Lippert’s observation on the sacred spaces around the Birket Qaroun according to the Book of the Fayoum confirms the identification of Qaret Rusas with Neilopolis; see Lippert 2013 ‘Das Fayyûm als Abbild Ägyptens’ 95-118, in particular 103-104. For the grapheion in Soknopaiou Nesos see DDD III p. 103-108.

CHAPTERS 22-24: THE VILLAGES ON THE NOTHERN FRINGE

317

and Hunts tentative identification of the ruins along the railway at Ibshaway with Herakleia rather unlikely (see footnote 15). Herakleia was closely connected with Pisais (see above Chapt. 22), and Apias (SPP XXII 50; AD 204). It is therefore tempting to locate also Apias on the edge of the fringe of the central plateau. One of the crops growing around Herakleia were olive trees; oil production is prominent in the papyri, again in connection with Soknopaiou Nesos (e. g. BGU XI 2052, 3; 2nd AD; see Hobson 1985, 109-110); wheat and barley were grown in the πεδίον of Herakleia (P. Graux II 14; 2nd – 3rd AD), perhaps the plain north of the village towards the shore of the lake (see SB XXII 15729; AD 639),25 but rather the plain above with its wheel watered soil. In P. Ryl. II 171 (AD 55-56), an application for a lease of land, the parcel is situated between βαϲιλικὴ γῆ ἐν ἠπείρῳ in the south, and βαϲιλικὴ γῆ ἐν αἰγιαλῷ in the north, thus probably in the plain between the slope in the south (ἤπειροϲ), and the shore land in the north (αἰγιαλόϲ). In the west and east of that, parcels of imperial ousiai were located, which certainly gives an indication of the quality of land in that area (not much χέρϲοϲ!). A public canal at Herakleia is mentioned in BGU XI 2052, 3 (2nd AD).

24. SANHOUR = APIAS / Pꜣ-῾.wy-n-Pa-Ḥp?, and Tersa Sanhour Sanhour lies where a larger canal, the Bahr Sanhour, reaches the fringe; that canal comes from Medinet el-Fayoum and passes by Fedemin, which certainly stands on ancient ruins on the west bank of that canal, identified with Psentymis of the Themistou Meris [Photos 22.-24.2 + 22.-24.3]. 26 In the map of the Description d’Égypte, the ancient site of Sanhour is also located to the west of that canal. Wilkinson saw “extensive mounds of a large town, but without any ruins” at Sanhour.27 Nothing ancient has been found here so far. Grenfell and Hunt suggested to identify the Sanhour on the slope with ancient Ψεναρύω because the names sound similar (P. Tebt. II, p. 410). However, since the publication of the Petaus Archive we know that the village of Psenaruo belonged to the same komogrammateia as Ptolemais Hormou, and therefore to the area at the entrance of the Bahr Yusuf into the Fayoum.28 Another suggested identification of modern Sanhour is with Psineuris, again because the modern name sounds similar.29 Psineuris belongs to the Herakleidou Meris, which of course may have reached as far west as here straight north of Arsinoe; however, if Sanhour (and its forerunner village) belonged to the Herakleidou Meris, it would be difficult to explain why Psentymis (= Fedemin) on the same west bank of the canal belonged to the Themistou Meris.30 It seems more reasonable to look in this place for an ancient settlement belonging to the Themistou Meris, which had the same, or even stronger connections to Soknopaiou Nesos as Herakleia and Pisais, the two villages not too far to the west of Sanhour. Apias is, indeed, a strong candidate

25 26 27 28 29

30

Πεδία of Herakleia are also mentioned in SB XXVI 16414. For Fedemin see Chapt. 20. Wilkinson 1847 Murray’sHandbook 252. See P. Petaus p. 29-30. Benaji 2001 Agrarian Change 178 and 247; I find his argumentation difficult to follow, since “connections” of villages are not specified and investigated for their real meaning, and the geographical situation is completely left out of the argumentation; see also P. Eirene II 6, 9 with commentary (Eirene 40, 2004, 48-49). For Ψινῦριϲ not being identical with Ψινεῦριϲ (an assumption on which Benaji bases his identification of Ψινεῦριϲ with Sanhour) see Kreuzsaler 1999 ‘Zwei Fragmente’ 159. For the borders of the Themistou Meris see Chapt. 1.

318

CHAPTERS 22-24: THE VILLAGES ON THE NOTHERN FRINGE

for this location;31 the ancient name need not have its echo in the modern one, as we have seen in Abou Ksa and elsewhere (but what does Sanhour mean?). Apias32 is attested 161 times in the papyri, the earliest reference is a fragmentary contract for public works of 246/245 BC (P. Petrie Kleon 91, 178), the latest seems to be a tax receipt from AD 216 (P. Lond. III 855). The vicinity to Herakleia is suggested by the description of a plot of pasturage which borders the ἐδάφη Ἡρακλείαϲ in the north, the ἐδάφη Ἀπιάδοϲ in the south, and canals to west and east (P. Lond. III 842, p. 141). Such a meadow must have been north of Sanhour and Abou Ksa in the plain, since it is further described as being in the “plain of Psabatalis and Pyrrhou”. In that case, the farmland of Herakleia would have extended towards the east and north of the farmland of Apias in that plain.33 More telling is perhaps the description of two catoecic arourae located περὶ κώ(μην) Ἀπιάδα καὶ Ἡρακλείαν, therefore not only on the ἐδάφη of the two villages, but around the two villages themselves (SPP XXII 50; AD 204). A proximity is also suggested by administrative matters shared by both villages (BGU III 790 and SPP XXII 158). As in Pisais and Herakleia, persons from Soknopaiou Nesos are frequently involved in landholdings around Apias. Hobson cites 8 texts in which catoecic land at Apias is owned by people from beyond the lake.34 Farmland here was very fertile, as is to be expected on the plateau; crops grown included wheat, olive trees (Gemellus had holdings here)35, and vine; sheep were pastured36 (probably in the plain to the north below). The identification of Apias is somewhat complicated because Apias seems to have had a twin village first called Philopator, and after c. AD 50 Philopator Apiados.37 The village Philopator, obviously bearing a dynastic name, is first attested between 247 and 231 BC (P. Petrie III 78), ten years or more before Ptolemy IV Philopator came to the throne in 222 BC.38 Presumably, the cult title of the king-to-be “Philopator” was given to him by his father, who favoured his elder son Ptolemy over the younger Magas, who was supported by his mother.39 The naming of a village after the crown prince may have been a programmatic signal for the struggle to come. Since Ptolemy IV was born in 244 BC, we should not expect the cult name to have been given to him before c. 234 BC, a date which is covered by P. Petrie III 78 for the village name. Apias had existed at this time already for at least ten years. Was a second, dynastic name, transferred to the village of Apias at about 234 BC, while the first name continued to be in use? BGU III 973 of AD 194-195 seems to show 31

32

33 34

35

36 37

38

39

On the village of Apias see Hobson 1982 ‘The Village of Apias’ 80-123; Battaglia 1982 ‘Philopator Kome’ 124-147, in particular 126-130. GEO-ID 240; Wessely 1904 Topographie 37-38; P. Tebt. II 358 and 368; Calderini I 2, 13 (s. v. Amia); Suppl. 1, 44; Suppl. 2, 21; Suppl. 3, 18; Suppl. 4, 17; Suppl. 5, 17; B. Van Beek in Trismegistos – Fayum 2003. Hobson 1982 ‘The Village of Apias’ 81, argues for a location of Apias south to Herakleia. Pp. 88-91; see also Hobson 1984 ‘Agricultural Land and Economic Life’ 102 with note 31. The Greek soldier attested in 243/242 BC in PSI IV 389, 3-4 as Νίκανδροϲ Ἀπιεύϲ is a person from the Alexandrian deme Apias rather than a person from the village Apias; see GuidetotheZenonArchive p. 479. P. Fay. 102, 112 and 120; these holdings were administered by Epagathos, who also looked after Gemellus’s holdings in Euhemeria; this does not necessarily mean though, that Apias was located close to Euhemeria. On the agricultural activities around here see Hobson 1982 ‘The Village of Apias’ 91-93. GEO-ID 1775; Wessely 1904 Topographie157-158; P. Tebt. II p. 407; Calderini V 85; Suppl. 2, 232; Suppl. 3, 159; this village enjoys a page in Trismegistos – Fayum by Van Beek. See B. Van Beek in Trismegistos – Fayum, based on Battaglia 1982 ‘Philopator Kome’; for the distinction between Philopator Apiados and Philopator Theogenous in the Herakleidou Merissee Hobson 1982 ‘The Village of Apias in the Arsinoite Nome’ 84-87. See the discussion of the political background by Huß 2001 ÄgypteninhellenistischerZeit 382-384 with footnote 16.

CHAPTERS 22-24: THE VILLAGES ON THE NOTHERN FRINGE

319

that, at least at this time, Philopator Apiados and Apias were the same village. However, in c. 234 BC Philopator Apiados may have been a new foundation close to the already existing Apias. Naming of a village after the crown prince suggests a certain importance of this location. In the case of Sanhour = Philopator Apiados/Apias the importance was certainly due to the location between the nome capital Arsinoe in the south, and the harbour facing the main sanctuary in the Fayoum, Berenikes Aigialou in the North, and on the main waterway from Arsinoe towards the north and the lake.40 Philopator Apiados has 33 references in the papyri; they end in the later 3rd century (BGU II 634; 275-299), while Apias continued to exist for more than a hundred years at least. This early death of both villages – at least under the names they carried since the Ptolemaic period – is rather surprising given their splendid location (which is not only argued from the geographical point of view, but also from the written evidence). Perhaps their decline was connected with the abandonment of Soknopaiou Nesos in the 3rd century, which may have hit those villages more than others. Tersa Whether the ancient forerunner of the modern village of Tersa was part of the Themistou Meris, is questionable (see Chapt. 1, pp. 6-7). Here follows a short presentation of the evidence for an ancient settlement on this spot. Belzoni came here on the morning of the 5th of May 1819, and observed “several blocks of white stone and red granite, which evidently must have been taken from edifices of greater magnitude than what had ever stood here.”41 Belzoni suggested that those stones came from the Labyrinth, for which he was searching all over the Fayoum, and which he could not imagine to have been built in a place like Tersa. As we have seen in other places (see in particular Ezbet el- Kharaba, Chapt. 29), parts of ancient monuments may have been distributed through the country, but some of them we should consider original to the places were they are found. In the case of Tersa, only its splendid location on the fringe of the plateau, and at an important canal which runs in a natural valley (the “Bahr Tersa”) makes me consider this the place of an ancient settlement, most likely of the Herakleidou Meris.

40

41

It seems that the other village in the Fayoum carrying the dynastic name of Philopator, Philopator Theogenous, had a key location on the shore of the lake in the Herakleidou Meris as a gateway to Arsinoe via Ἀνδριάντων κώμη. Belzoni 2001 NarrativesoftheOperations270.

320

CHAPTERS 22-24: THE VILLAGES ON THE NOTHERN FRINGE

Photo 22-24.1: View from the northern shore of the lake at Soknopaiou Nesos towards the Fayoum; the plateau rises visibly at the horizon.

Photo 22-24.2: The last mill in the Fayoum driven by water power alone (till some years ago) in the village of Sanhour; view from south at one of the cascades of the canal.

Photo 22-24.3: Inside the mill (c. 2002).

CHAPTERS 25-28 ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN IN THE THEMISTOU MERIS, FROM EAST TO WEST Photos 25.-28.1 and 2; Maps II-III; V; IX; XI; XIV; XV

25 26 27 28

Khashm az-Zinah and El Hammâm. Two (or one?) Ptolemaic-Roman settlement(s) on the shore of the lake (Alexandrou Nesos and Berenikis Aigialou?) Sanhour el-Baharia(“North Sanhour”) Ἁλμυρᾶϲ The “Ruins of an Ancient Village” = Minyet Aqna = Knâ?

25. KHASHM AZ-ZINAH AND EL HAMMÂM = BERENIKIS AIGIALOU AND ALEXANDROU NESOS Khashm Az-Zinah On the south shore of the Birket Qaroun, at the base of a long promontory extending westward into the lake ca. 1 km east of Shakshouk (Khasm al-Imârah), an ancient mound is indicated on Wilkinson’s map [Photos 25.-28.1 + 25.-28.2]. Till today that place is marked by its outstanding hight of c. – 36 m on the shore line of the lake which runs at – 45 m; behind that hill, the land drops again to the – 40 m line [Photos 25.-28.3 + 25.-28.4]. The exact location is 29°28’17.23 N, 30°44’14.53 E, c. 3.5 km west of the Auberge du Lac on the road which runs along the lake. Today, the hill here is covered by a modern cemetery, and in its western part, by a huge hotel complex owned by the Egyptian army. The modern name of the area is Khashm az-Zinah “Decorated Promontory” referring to a small promontory reaching north into the lake at this point. On the 1909 map of Egypt, the place is called Elwâet el-Minqar [Map IX]. Wilkinson’s map, created in 1824, mentions “brick ruins” at this place. The site is completely destroyed, as the sebakhin have removed all ancient remains right down to lake deposits, showing continous geological strata in excavations made for modern tombs at the surviving high levels and also much lower down at the western edges of this large mound; the whole mound may have measured c. 600 × 300 m. Only at the eastern end a few fragments of pottery are left behind by the sebakh-diggers: the western end may or may not have been occupied in antiquity; it is covered now by the hotel. The diagnostic sherds include an echinus bowl of Egyptian manufacture and of Ptolemaic date, an Egyptian Type A amphora of the first to early fifth century AD, and an Egyptian Type B amphora of the fifth to seventh century; no Arab-period pottery was noted.1 It seems that the place was inhabited from the Ptolemaic through the Roman period, and perhaps into late antiquity.

1

D. Bailey in his notebook.

322

CHAPTERS 25-28: ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN

The settlement in this location would have belonged to the Herakleidou Meris, if we follow Grenfell and Hunt’s map in P. Fay., but see Chapt. 1 pp. 6-7. A denomination as Νῆϲοϲ would be appropriate for the outstanding hight of c. 9 m above the environment here (but see below). Also when the lake was rising, this height would have been spared from inundation (up to a certain point, –36 m). On clear days, one can see from here Soknoupaiou Nesos on the northern shore. At the extreme eastern end, deep quarrying showed silt brought down by a river or drain, underlying the lake deposits.2 The site was briefly visited on Friday, 25 August 2000; I visited the site again in January 2013, observing more pottery in freshly dug tombs; the cemetery has been dramatically enlarged within the last 13 years. Close to Khashm az-Zinah was another ancient site.

El Hammâm Just west of Khashm az-Zinah, and on the promontory of modern Shakshouk, the Wilkinson Map indicates an ancient place called “El Hammam (the Baths)”. Audebeau’s 1:200.000 map of 1897 = Map V is less precise in drawing the outline of the promontory,3 but gives “El Hammam, Ruines” in this area and close to the lake (not mentioning the “brick houses” on Khashm azZinah). In 1819 Belzoni had visited this area and gave the following description: “On the morning of the 5th [of May 1819], I took the road on the west side of the lake,4 and saw the site of another town, named “El Hamam”, of which nothing now remains but scattered pieces of brick and part of a bath.5 This place is situated full forty feet (c. 12 m) above the lake, and the ground all round was covered with small shells, such as cockles, small conchilies, and others not unlike periwinkles.”6 Belzoni seems to describe the ancient site of Khashm az-Zinah (see above) which impresses by its location high over the shore line of the lake.7 However, he calls that site “El-Hamam”, the name which was given to the ruins down at the shore line on Wilkinson’s and Audebeau’s maps. It looks as if these were the remains of a large ancient settlement spread over the hill and the bay below, for which the locals had only one name, or indeed two ancient sites with shifting denominations, and not clearly distinguished from one another. The distance of the two presumed sites is not even 1.5 km, depending from where to where you measure. If this had been one large village, its bath would have been certainly located in the lower part rather than on top of the hill for logistic reasons. Indeed, in Wilkinson’s HandbookforTravellers in Egypt we read “At El-Hammâm by the water’s edge, at this end of the lake, are the remains of “baths”, and a few other ruins of no great interest, broken amphorae, glass, and other fragments. A little above was the town to which they belonged”.8 2 3

4

5

6 7 8

D. M. Bailey in the description of the site in his diary. On this map, it looks as if the lake was somewhat higher at that time than today! The map is also printed in Benaji 2001 AgrarianChange242-243. “The road on the west side of the lake” is somewhat misleading. Belzoni had started his journey on May 1st from the eastern end of the lake, where the TamiehDrain reaches the lake, and visited Dionysias and Soknopaiou Nesos from there by boat, then he returned to the east; see Belzoni 2001 NarrativesoftheOperations 266-270. On the 5th of May he finally took the road along the lake towards the west. Unfortunately, Belzoni does not give a description of that bath, whether it was a Hellenistic tholos-bath or a Roman bath. Belzoni 2001 NarrativesoftheOperations 270. Belzoni 2001 NarrativesoftheOperations; 12 m are not a bad guess. Murray 1847 HandbookforTravellersinEgypt 253 r.

CHAPTERS 25-28: ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN

323

Belzoni’s observations suggest that the lower part had been under water since “it was scattered with shells etc”. No wonder, because like Qaret Rusas and the villages at the eastern end of the lake, a village close to the shore line would have been inundated (and destroyed) in the time when the lake was rising, probably in the 4th century AD.9 In Belzoni’s time, the lake had receded, and buildings made of fired bricks were visible again, as stone artefacts are now visible also in Qaret Rusas. No traces remain of this part of the ancient settlement today; the modern fishermen’s village of Shakshouk, the Panorama Hotel, and the green land east of it seem to have completely overgrown the ancient village. However, the location of these ruins indicated by Belzoni, Wilkinson, and Audebeau, makes this an interesting point in the geography of the Graeco-Roman Fayoum. In modern times, Shakshouk has developed into the main landing place for fishermen and is now the center for the fishing industry of Birket Qaroun, sheltered in the natural bay between the two promontories Khasm el-Wadi and Khasm el-Imârah [Photo 25.-28.5]. Since in the Graeco-Roman period the shore line of the lake was running more or less at the same level as today (see Chapt.1), this bay must have existed then, offering a natural harbour. Furthermore, this point where the northern and southern shores of the lake come closest together in the area, is opposite Soknopaiou Nesos on the northern shore. Crossing the lake by boat from Soknopaiou Nesos, this bay and the village “El-Hammâm” would have been the place to go. From here, one could take to the south into the Oasis, first crossing the plains adjacent to the lake, and then ascending onto the fertile plateau around Arsinoe, which rises at a distance of between 8 and 13 km from the lake shore. On its edge, the plateau now exhibits a chain of villages starting from Ibshaway/ Pisais (see Chapt. 22) in the west. Thus, the shore at “El-Hammâm” would have been the gate to the Fayoum for those coming from Soknopaiou Nesos, and the departure place for those who wanted to visit the shrine of Soknopaios in the north;10 it would have marked a centre of the natural and of the religious landscape of the Fayoum. Such a place would have carried a particular name. It is tempting to identify “El-Hammâm” with ancient Βερενικὶϲ Αἰγιαλοῦ – Pꜣ-῾.wy-n-Brnygꜣ = Berenike’ Village on the Shore,11 the dynastic name being appropriate for a village in this particular location.12 Βερενικὶϲ Αἱγιαλοῦ is attested 429 times in the papyri; most attestations come from the large tax registers BGU III 803 (AD 42) and IX 1893 (AD 149); 7 papyri were written in Berenikis. 9

10

11

12

For those places at the eastern end of the lake and their history see the preliminary remarks by Cappers et al. 2013 ‘The Fayyûm Desert as an Agricultural Landscape’ 35-50, in particular 37-38. The ferryboats between Soknopaiou Nesos and the southern shore of the lake and the monopoly of ferrying rights belonged to the temple in Soknopaiou Nesos during the Ptolemaic period, whereas in the Roman period that right was exercised by the state, see Hoogendijk 2007 ‘Dispute Concerning Ferrying Rights’ 435-452, in particular 435-437; in this text (P. Vindob. G 24508) boats go between Soknopaiou Nesos and Philopator Theogenous in the Herakleidou Meris, a harbour on the southern shore of the Birket Qaroun with connections to Biahmu = Ἀνδριάντων κώμη (so Hoogendjik 448-449); however, since Philopator Theogenous was a toll station, it must have been somewhere on the fringe of the Arsinoites, not on the southern shore of the lake; it was probably located on the eastern side of the lake, perhaps to the north of Qaret Rusas = Neilopolis. For the dating of that text to 11/10 BC see Mitthof 2008 ‘Urkundenreferat 2007’ 281-282. GEO-ID 429; Wessely 1904 Topographie 48-49; P. Tebt. II 373 (2); Calderini I 35 (3); Suppl. 1, 79; Suppl. 2, 34; Suppl. 3, 26; Suppl. 4, 47; Suppl. 5, 24; Timm 1984 Daschristlich-koptischeÄgypten, Teil 1382. For other dynastic place-names in the Themistou Meris see Müller 2006 Settlements 15-35. Wessely 1904 Topographie 48-49, locates Βερενίκηϲ Αἰγιαλοῦ “im Themistesbezirk nahe von Ἀλεξάνδρου Νῆϲοϲ”, and puts it tentatively to the north of Qasr el-Banât (see map at the end of the book); Rathbone 1991 EconomicRationalism XIX, has Βερενίκηϲ Αἰγιαλοῦ far more to the east, and not too far west of Shakshouk; Müller 2003 ‘Places and Spaces in the Themistou Meris’ 120, comes to the conclusion with her computer based method that Alexandrou Nesos was situated close to Berenikis Aigialou “in the northern central part of the Meris”, ruling out close affinity of the settlements with Theadelpheia or Arsinoe.

324

CHAPTERS 25-28: ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN

The oldest attestation is P. MacQuarie 499 = SB XX 14527, a bilingual account of money received, dated to 235 BC. The Demotic part of the text calls it Pꜣ-῾.wy-n-Brnygꜣ, “The Place of Berenike”. Βερενίκηϲ Αἱγιαλοῦ is probably still attested in the Byzantine period, if Berenikis mentioned in CPR XIV, 55 (7th century), a letter couched in the monastic world, is the place on the shore. F. Morelli has made a successful attempt to understand the story behind this letter, which has some implication for the location of the place; he says: “Lo scrivente, dopo essere stato dal destinatario, ne è ripartito per recarsi verosimilmente al suo abituale luogo di residenza. Qui, o durante il tragitto, egli si incontra con un monaco, venuto a cercarlo a causa di alcuni altri monaci che intendono recarsi alla S. Croce. Egli intende dunque recarsi di persona a Ζίννιϲ per rendersi conto di persona della faccenda, dopo di che si recherà a Βερενικίϲ dove egli si potrà incontrare con il destinatario”.13 Zinnis in the Herakleidou Meris is obviously located to the north of Arsinoe,14 while the Monastery of the Holy Cross was near Fânû, near modern Fedemin. The scene of the story is therefore the area north-north-west of Arsinoe. Morelli takes Βερενικίϲ as Berenikis Aigialou, but puts it far to the west close to Theadelpheia and Euhemeria, following Calderini-Daris II p. 42. He does not comment on the fact that the writer of the letter promises to be at Βερενικίϲ at the 5th hour, after he has arrived at Zinnis at the 4th hour. Even allowing for a generous time calculation, the writer of the letter would never arrive from a location where Zinnis must have been, as far to the west as Theadelpheia or Euhemeria, in particular because he would have to cross the Wadi Nazlah. The story as reconstructed by Morelli makes sense only if Βερενικίϲ was straight north of Fedemin and Zinnis; and there we arrive at the bay of Shakshouk.15 A further text of the 7th century, listing places connected to the possessions of the Apiones in the Fayoum has Berenikis (Aigialou) in a cluster of other villages exactly in this region (SPP X 1, after AD 616; for the places on the fringe of the fertile plateau above Berenikis Aigialou see Chapter 25). This written evidence from the Byzantine period fits the location of the village on the shore of the lake only if we assume that the village had an upper and a lower part. As mentioned before, we know from the evidence of the villages in the far east of the lake, that the water was rising in the later 4th century (see Chapt.1). At that time, the lower part of Berenikis Aigialou would have submerged, while the upper part survived; unless we assume two different villages of which the name of the lower part shifted to the upper part in the later period. H. Verreth proposes an alternative solution: the whole village of Berenikis Aigialou disappears at that time and all references from the Byzantine period are to Berenikis Thesmophorou. There are 13 attestations for a Byzantine Berenikis; since none of them has the specification Aigialou or Thesmophorou, probably only one of the two places still existed and all attestations have to be ascribed to one place; in Trismegistos all Byzantine Berenikides have been ascribed to Berenikis Thesmophorou, admittedly without fundamental arguments, but the fact that the area of Berenikis Aigialou would have been under water from the late 4th century AD on, strongly points to Berenikis Thesmophorou. There are, however, some problems with the identification of “El Hammâm” with Berenikis Aigialou. P. Sakaon 39 (7. 9. AD 318) has been used as evidence that Βερενικὶϲ Αἰγιαλοῦ belonged to the same pagus as Theadelpheia, namely the 8th pagus,16 and was therefore located not too far from Theadelpheia. P. Sakaon 39 is a petition to the praepositus pagi (the number is extremely difficult to read) Aurelius Olympios by Sakaon, who complains that 16 goats were driven off ἐν πεδίῳ Βερενικίδοϲ Αἰγιαλοῦ τοῦ ὑπὸ ϲὲ πάγου (ll. 5-6). Sakaon writes from Theadelpheia, but 13 14 15 16

Morelli 2002 ‘CPR XIV 55, Il τίμιοϲ Σταυρόϲ del Fayyûm’ 159-167, esp. p. 166. P. Tebt. II p. 375; Morelli 2002 ‘CPR XIV 55, Il τίμιοϲ Σταυρόϲ del Fayyûm’ 166. Already in AD 351, we have a church attested in Berenikis (P. Abinn. 55). So also Derdα 2006 ΑΡΣΙΝΟΙΤΕΣΝΟΜΟΣ 277.

CHAPTERS 25-28: ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN

325

the crime happened in the plain of Βερενικὶϲ Αἰγιαλοῦ. Sakaon would not have mentioned the place of the crime with reference to the pagus of his addressee if the pagus were the same as the one from where he was writing. The phrasing sounds like an explanation why Sakaon did not write to the praepositus of his own pagus. On the photo of P. Sakaon 39, provided by the CSAD in Oxford, the nearly illegible end of the first line does not exhibit a possible η (as proposed by the ed. pr.), but rather a ς, which would stand for the 6th pagus. In his preliminary map on p. 273 Derda 2006 ΑΡΣΙΝΟΙΤΗΣΝΟΜΟΣ proposes the 6th pagus extending eastward from Shakshouk, thus covering the area of “El-Hammam”. Coming back to the other site in this area, the ancient village on top of the hill at Khashm el-Zinah, one may think of Alexandrou Nesos. Βερενικὶϲ Αἰγιαλοῦ is, indeed, often associated with Ἀλεξάνδρου Νῆϲοϲ in the Themistou Meris.17 In CPR VII 8, 75-80 it seems that a reed plantation owned by a certain Theodora lies just between the two villages. For the following discussion one should keep in mind that this place name is perhaps not a dynastic name, since in Demotic the village is called “The Island of the Dog (pꜣwhr)”, which perhaps refers to a prominent inhabitant with a double name Alexandros alias Pouoris (P. LilleDem. 50 and 51). Ἀλεξάνδρου Νῆϲοϲ18 is attested 164 times in the papyri; the earliest attestation is dated to 250 BC (P. Petrie Kleon 90, 20), the latest occurs in the martyrium of Shenoufe in a manuscript of the 9th century (the story, of course, is certainly older, as it deals with events under Diocletian).19 In the Ptolemaic period, texts from Ἀλεξάνδρου Νῆϲοϲ concern mostly wine and vineyards in and around the village (vineyards are prominent also at Βερενικὶϲ Αἰγιαλοῦ), while in the Roman period a cattle market attracted interest and visitors.20 A direct connection between Alexandrou Nesos and Soknopaiou Nesos is not obvious from the papyrological evidence, though better attested than the connection between Berenikis Aigialou and Soknopaiou Nesos. 1) Taxes for Alexandrou Nesos are paid by the temple of Soknopaiou Nesos in AD 35 (P. Dime II 31); the editors think that an oil factory in Alexandrou Nesos was owned by the Soknopaiou Nesos temple. Of course, other places farther away from the shore had also connections to the temple in Soknopaiou Nesos (see Chapters 22-24). 2) The cattle market, well attested in the Roman period may have had a connection with the cattle-breeding in Soknopaiou Nesos. 3) The oracular question P. Strasb. V 354 (2nd century AD), addressed to Ammon at Soknopaiou Nesos and referring to the cattle market in Alexandrou Nesos, may give a glimpse into the life of someone who was not decided whether he should just take a boat over the lake or not. Possible arguments against this identification: 17

18

19

20

See P. Gurob 13 (3rd BC); P. Petrie II 43 a –b (3rd BC), where temples of Demeter and the Dioscuri are mentioned in Ἀλεξάνδρου Νῆϲοϲ; P. Tebt. III 1028 (early 2nd BC); SPP XX 43 (1st – 2nd AD); PSI XV 1544 (AD 175-225); CPR VII 8, 75-80 (2nd – 3rd AD); Alexandrou Nesos need not to be placed in the Herakleidou Meris as proposed in the introduction to that text (p. 27), since the village of Fentemis (today Fedemin) is to be identified with ancient Psentymis, located in the Themistou Meris (see Chapt. 20). For the borderline between the merides see Chapt. 1. Müller 2003 ‘Places and Spaces in the Themistou Meris’ 120 using a computer based method suggests that Alexandrou Nesos was situated close to Berenikis Aigialou “in the northern central part of the Meris”; see above footnote 12. GEO-ID 105; Wessely 1904 Topographie 32; P. Tebt. II 366; Calderini I 210; Suppl. 1, 24; Suppl. 2, 13; Suppl. 3, 15; Suppl. 4, 14; Suppl. 5, 14; Timm 102-103; W. Clarysse in Trismegistos – Fayum. Four Martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan Coptic Codices, edd. Reymond and Barns 1973 FourMartyrdoms 245a, p. 109 (translation p. 207). Alexandrou Polis (sic) is mentioned here as “the city of the Fayoum”. There are several attestations for the 6th – 9th centuries. See Jördens 1995 ‘Sozialstrukturen im Arbeitstierhandel’ 37-100, in particular 50 and 89.

326

CHAPTERS 25-28: ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN

The strongest argument against the location of Ἀλεξάνδρου Νῆϲοϲ on the shore of the lake comes from a list of villages in the Themistou Meris. SB XVI 13001 (= P. Fay. 243) verso (AD 300-325) has 20 lines, most of them containing village names, and probably amounts of grain credited to each of them (now lost). In ll. 9-11, the villages Πτολεμαίϲ, Πτολεμαίϲ Δρυμοῦ, and Ἀλεξάνδρου Νῆϲοϲ appear, Πτολεμαίϲ Δρυμοῦ and Ἀλεξάνδρου Νῆϲοϲ having already appeared before in ll. 4 and 6. In front of ll. 9-11 the same hand has written comments on those villages; L. Youtie resolves the abbreviations like this: 9 10 11

ἐπι(κειμένη) Εὐη(μερείᾳ) ἐπι(κειμένη) Διο(νυϲιάδι) Θε(αδελφείᾳ)

Πτολεμαίϲ Πτολεμαὶϲ Δρυμοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου Νῆϲοϲ

Note: ἐπι(κειμένη) is not written in l. 11. L. Youtie concludes that Ptolemais was close to Euhemeria, Ptolemais Drymou close to Dionysias, and Alexandrou Nesos close to Theadelpheia. However, the fact that two of the annotated villages appeared in the list already before, – without comment –, and some geographical facts make her interpretation questionable. If this is really a list of “villages with amounts of grain to each by certain individuals who were undoubtedly sitologoi” (p. 51), then one may ask, why the geographical location would have been of any interest in this context, and why only at the second entrance of two of the villages in question. It seems more reasonable to connect those annotations to the entries of grain at the right side of the column of writing which are now lost. If a geographical specification may be necessary for a village named Ptolemais – for there were many with that name (in this region only Πτολεμαὶϲ Καινή) –, it was not needed for Ptolemais Drymou or Alexandrou Nesos. In l. 3 we have καὶ ἀπὸ λόγου [, followed by the village list, an indication that we are dealing here with accounts of grain. Were the comments at ll. 9-11 indications for certain transfers on “virtual” accounts of those villages rather than geographical indications?21 The problem I have with the geographical interpretation of these comments refers also to Ptolemais Drymou, supposedly located near Dionysias (l. 10). We would expect a village with that dynastic name on the fringe of a significant drymos, but near Dionysias, close to the end of the main feeder canal in the Themistou Meris, such a drymos can hardly be expected. Huge drymoi extended around Theadelpheia (see Chapt. 13). The demotic name of the village Ptolemais Drymou, “The Southern Point”, is also of interest here (DDD P. 2010 p. 23). Considering our doubtful understanding of P. Fay. 243, I consider a location of Alexandrou Nesos high above the shore of Lake Qaroun possible. The implications for the borders of the Themistou Meris are discussed in Chapt. 1.

26. SANHOUR EL-BAHARIA (“NORTH SANHOUR”) Maps IX; XIV and XV Midway between the the bay of El Hammâm and Sanhour, which lies on the fringe of the central plateau of the Fayoum, several stone objects typical of the Graeco-Roman period were observed by P. Davoli in the village of Sanhour el-Baharia (at –25 m).22 This village does not lie strictly speaking on the shore line of the lake, and probably never did. 21

22

Of course, the terminus technicus would be εἰϲ λόγον, whereas ἐπιγραφεῖϲαι would mean “registered for”, or ἐπιβληθεῖϲαι “assigned”, perhaps as seed. Davoli 2001 ‘Aspetti della topografia del Fayyum’ 353-359, in particular 358-359 with Tav. XVIb.

CHAPTERS 25-28: ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN

327

There was a 4.2 m high limestone column of a diameter of 55 cm, and a mortar, also made of limestone. In a field nearby, a fragment of a sphinx or a lion (1.4 m long, and 75 cm high) was found in 1997 by a farmer ploughing the ground, scattered with ancient pottery.23 This was probably an ancient site different from that above at Sanhour on the fringe of the plateau (see Chapt. 24); in how far these villages were connected in antiquity as documented nowadays by the name (Sanhour – North Sanhour), is not clear. A possible candidate for the identification of that site is Pelousion, which K. Müller puts into the same cluster V as Berenikis Aigialou and Alexandrou Nesos.24 However, from the papyrological evidence Pelousion (3rd century BC to 4th century AD) seems to have been a prosperous village surrounded by rich agricultural land,25 which is unexpected in the plain below the fringe. 27. Ἁλμυρᾶϲ26 Maps IX; XI; XIV and XV The Epoikion Halmyras (ἐποίκιον Ἁλμυρᾶϲ), later Chorion Halmyras (χωρίον Ἁλμυρᾶϲ) is mentioned 4 times in the Greek papyri of the 1st to 2nd century AD. Its location close to the lake is implied by BGU I 277, 9 (between 130 and 160 AD), where fishermen from Neilopolis, Soknopaiou Nesos and Halmyras appear together. Other villages mentioned in this text are Boubastos (I 16 and 20) und Herakleia (II 16). The connection of Halmyras to Herakleia is made clear in BGU XIII 2242, 11-12 (2nd century AD), where the Epoikion Halmyras is said to be located πε[ρὶ κώμην] Ἡράκλειαν. All further attestations come from the Byzantine era (5th – 8th century) and do not help to understand the settlement’s character.27 A hint to that character may be found in the name of the settlement itself; Ἁλμυρᾶϲ has certainly to do with “salt”, and perhaps salt production. Nowadays, there is a huge factory in operation on the shore of the lake just north of Abou Ksa (= Ἡράκλεια?) at a distance of c. 5 km, in the bay south-west of Shakshouk; this is the “Egyptian Co. for Salts & Minerals. EMISAL”; extensive basins for salterns surround the factory. Just to the west of that bay, the drain of the Wadi Nazlah reaches the shore, doubtlessly washing amounts of salt into the lake.28 The mostly north-western winds push this highly salinated water directly into the adjacent bay to the east. It seems possible that this place was a place for salt production also in antiquity [Photo 25.-28.6].29 E. Jomard reports in the Descriptiond’Égypte about salt workers meeting him in Nazlah to accompany him and his group to Qasr Qaroun: “We acquired provisions, two new guides, three local sheiks, three armed Arabs and two workers from the salt mines. These men told us that at three leagues (ca. 15 km) from Qasr-Qeroun there were large salt mines. The rains falling on the Libyan chain of

23 24 25 26 27

28

29

All these items mentioned were brought to the storehouse at Kom Aushim. P. 120. GEO-ID 1661; H. Verreth in Trismegistos – Fayum. GEO-ID 10903. Like Berenikis Aigialou (see above), Halmyraswould have moved up the shore when the level of the lake rose in the later 4th century AD. For the problem of salinization of the soil in the Fayoum see Monson 2013 ‘Salinization and agricultural productivity’ 123-140. Drainage water is supposed to contain a large amount of salt (p. 128); for the situation in modern times see El-Shabrawy and Dumont 2009 ‘The Fayoum Depression’ 95-124. For salt in the Birket Qaroun and at its shores around 1800, see Napoleon’s ingeneur De Rozière 1826 ‘Histoire Naturelle’ 671-673.

328

CHAPTERS 25-28: ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN

hills dissolved this salt and contributed to the salination of the water in the lake”.30 If the indication of 15 km from Qasr Qaroun is right, these salt mines would be somewhere on the shore of the lake east of Qasr Qaroun, and north of Theadelpheia. On the map of the Descriptiond’Égypte (VI 54, fol. 19), a “Saline” is indicated north-east of Qasr Qaroun. It is striking though, that the modern salt factory at Shashouk lies at 15 km north of Nazlah (did Jomard misunderstand?). Closer to Qasr Qaroun and at a distance of ca. 15 km other places close to the shore of the lake are obviously highly salinized. “Carriers of salt” feature in P. Count 2, 101-145, with the total of 43 people in l. 145 (229 BC).31 This puzzling appearance of carriers of salt in such numbers in the 3rd century BC, may attest a situation on the shore of the lake of which the Epoikion Halmyras formed part. However, the location as indicated on the map of the Description would be difficult to connect to Abou Ksa (= Herakleia?). So, Halmyras may have been located in the bay south-west of Shakshouk.

28. THE “RUINS OF AN ANCIENT VILLAGE” = MINYET AQNA?32 On the 1:200.000 map of the Intelligence Branch.War Office dated 1882,33 “Ruins of a Village” are indicated on the western bank of the Wadi Nazlah, c. 2 km from the shore line (in the late 19th century). This is approximately the location of the modern village Ezbet ash-Shaqfah, located at between – 35 and – 30, more or less on the level of Ἀλεξάνδρου Νῆϲοϲ (?; see above). Whether one should identify this village with Minyet Aqna, mentioned by An-Nabulsi as the only place west of Ibshaway (p. 57 Salmon), before the desert starts, is uncertain, but somewhere in this area that medieval village must have been situated. It may be identical with Kna (Κνᾶ), a χωρίον attested 9 times between the 6th and the 8th centuries AD. Two lists of settlements from the Vienna Papyrus Collection suggest that it was not far from Pisais.34 Nabulsi describes Minyet Aqna as follows: “ Minyat Aqnā and its hamlets. This is a large village, in the west of the Fayyum, right at the edge of the province. It has date palms, olive, fig and orange trees; a belvedere, an orchard and a bathhouse. [The bathhouse] was built by al-Malik al-Mufaḍḍal, may God have mercy upon him, when he was the iqṭā῾-holder of the Fayyum. Then the villagers destroyed it out of ignorance and resentment. When the amir Badr al-Dīn al-Marandizī became the governor of the Fayyum, he rebuilt and restored it. Yet when he was discharged from the Fayyum, the peasants (fallāḥūn) and their scoundrels attacked it again, and they destroyed it for the second time. When I visited it, I ordered the villagers to rebuild it at their expenses, and they committed themselves to doing so. The water goes through the center of this village, which is divided into three quarters, each with spacious land and plentiful cultivation.”35 Located on the western fringe of the Fayoum, that village can have been only at the water resource of the Bahr Nazlah, or the Wadi Nazlah, not on the Bahr Qasr el-Banât, which had dried out a long time ago.36 30

31 32 33

34

35 36

Jomard 1821 Section II457-458, note 1; transl. by Thompson 2015 ‘The Fayoum in the Description de l’Égypte’ 168-169. For those salt-carriers see now Thompson 2015 ‘The Fayoum in the Description de l’Égypte’ 7-9. GEO-ID 1120. Compiled at the Intelligence Branch. War Office in 1882, principally from the Surveys made by the Egyptian General Staff and Mr. John Fowler C. E. SPP X 90, 3 and 253, 2-3, both mentioning other villages, that we are not able to locate at all. For Aqna see Timm 1984 Daschristlich-koptischeÄgypten, Teil1 141-142; Ramzi 1968 IndexzumGeographischenWörterbuch23. Translation by Y. Rapoport. For Minyet Aqna see now Gaubert and Mouton 2014 HommesetvillagesduFayyoum214-215 and 249. I consider it impossible that Aqna was located on the Bahr Qasr el-Banât at the time, as Goubert and Mouton indicate on their map, more or less at the location of ancient Euhemeria.

CHAPTERS 25-28: ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN

329

About the fluctuation of the lake level, that inflicted on Minyet Aqna at his time, Nabulsi says the following: “When the Nile inundation is high, waters from the Grand Canal are relieved (naffasa) into [the drainage canal of] al-Baṭs, and then the water flows towards the fishery lake, which is known by its name [i.e., Minyat Aqnā]. As a result, some of the village lands are submerged, and its revenues are reduced. In years of lower inundations, these lands are exposed and are sown by the villagers. Its revenues then increase, as happened this year, which is the year [6]42 (AD 1244-5).” This scenario is possible only for a village in the vicinity of the lake, as were the ruins on the banks of the Wadi Nazlah still standing at the end of the 19th century (see above). Nabulsi continues with the description of an enigmatic building that supposedly reached over the lake: “The length of this lake is a full day’s ride, and its width is two hours ride. One bank of this lake is at [the foot of] the mountain,37 and the other bank is at the cultivated fields of Minyat Aqnā and Minyat al-Baṭs.38 It used to have arches (qanāṭir) in it, which allowed people to pass from one side to the other, and served as aquaducts (῾abbāra li’l-mā᾿). The water passed over these arches to the other side of the lake, towards the lands at the foot of the mountain. These lands were cultivated by means of the water that passed over the arches, and which came from the opening in the Grand Canal that served the village [i.e., Minyat Aqnā]. Over the course of many years, the water had damaged the arches. Today, some of the lands that lie at the foot of the mountain are cultivated by waterwheels, [which raise water] from the lake. Currently there is only one waterwheel on the lake.” If there was a connection between the southern and northern shores of the lake, it would have started in the area of the mouth of the Wadi Nazlah on the southern shore, or, perhaps more likely, at the peninsula extending to the west of Shakshouk. Such a dam would have reached to the west of Soknopaiou Nesos in the north. This is the point where the two shores of the lake come closest together. The northern small peninsula west of Soknopaiou Nesos reaches far into the lake [Photo 25.-28.7].39 In the 9th century, Minyet Aqna was still a flourishing village, obviously because the Wadi Drain was still carrying water. In AD 821, an olive press is sold here (PERF 698; Raghib 1982 ‘Contrat d’affermage’ 293-299 = Chrest. Khoury I No. 65 = P. Alqab 34).

37 38 39

That must be the northern shore of the lake. Obviously, the two points at which the two main drains reach the lake in the west and east respectively, are named. Some preliminary investigations at that peninsula and in the lake just south of it have revealed that for some 100 metres the lake is very shallow at this point. I do not exclude that at some time, a dam would have been thrown up here, that was then inforced by a wooden bridge reaching over the lake. Further investigations are under way.

330

CHAPTERS 25-28: ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN

Photo 25-28.1: Detail from Wilkinson’s map with indications of “the bath” at the promontory of Shaskouk, and “Brick ruins” at Khashm az-Zinah.

Photo 25-28.2: Google Earth map showing the situation of 2016; the bay west of Shakshouk is nowadays filled by the facilities of the Egyptian Salt and Minerals Factory.

CHAPTERS 25-28: ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN

331

Photo 25-28.3: View along the beach towards the west and the promontory of Khashm az-Zinah.

Photo 25-28.4: On the eastern part of the promontory of Khashm az-Zinah, looking over to the east and the lake.

Photo 25-28.5: Shakshouk, “The Venice of the Fayum” seen fom the Panorama Hotel in the bay between Khashm az-Zinah and Shakshouk.

332

CHAPTERS 25-28: ANCIENT VILLAGES ALONG THE SHORE OF LAKE QAROUN

Photo 25-28.6: Mountains of salt east of the Egyptian Salt and Minerals Factory.

Photo 25-28.7: The northern shore of the lake at the small peninsula.

CHAPTER 29 EZBET ABD EL-QÂDIR IBRAHIM1 = EZBET EL-KHARABA2 = EZBET QUWAYDA3 = ? Maps VI; XII; XIV

The village is situated 1, 3 km east of El-Misharrak Qibli, and is reached by following the road to Esh-Shawâshna from El-Misharrak Qibli.4 It is a pleasant little village of about 2000 inhabitants today (as I am told). The name “Esbet el-Kharaba” (“Village of the Ruins”) suggests that around the 30s and 40s of the last century, when the Survey of Egypt map was produced, people were aware of ancient ruins in this area. Wandering around in the village we were led by some inhabitants to a few items (A – C), which clearly show that there was indeed an ancient settlement around here. Nothing can be said about the seize or importance of this village, but if the part of a column in pink granite (C), found in the field to the south of the village has not travelled a long way to end up here, it is possible that Ezbet Quwayda (to call it by the modern name) was once a settlement with a temple of some seize, in which Middle Kingdom material was reused, but see (C). The fields around the find spot of (C) certainly show a higher amount of pottery than what is found in so many places.5 The village lies at the height of ca. –4 m between the Bahr el-Misharrak in the south, and the road between El-Misharrak and Esh-Shawâshna in the north. The fields around here must have received their water supply from the Bahr el-Misharrak which must have existed also in antiquity. A

B

C

1

2 3 4 5

A group of ancient stone utensils lays on the ground between the road leading straight into the village and the huge open space to the right [Photo 29.1]. One recognizes a millstone, parts of what may have been an olive press, and one large block of limestone with handles. Continuing straight into the village, in an alley to the right, a stone hand mill caught our eyes. It was laying upside down, but showed the round smooth deepening inside when turned over [Photos 29.2 + 29.3]. To the south of the village, at about 100 metres out in the fields, lies a part of papyrus-bundle column carved from pink granite; 8 stalks form the column [Photo 29.4]. The diameter on top is 90 cm, but measures extend certainly to 1 m at the lower end, which is hidden in the ground. The fragment seems to stem from the lower part of the column; some heavily erased lines seem to come from the presentation of the wedge-like leafs of papyrus plants as seen on such columns. Columns found in ancient Arsinoe dating to the Middle Kingdom, and now

On the 1:50 000 map, Mudîrîyet el-Faiyûm, surveyed in 1901/2, revised in 1904-5 and 13, printed in 1914, sheet IV–II S.W. = Map VI. On the Survey of Egypt map, corrected reprint of 1935, and the 1:25 000 map, sheet 74/570 from 1947 = Map XII. The modern name as on the 1:50 000 map, published in 1994 = Map XIV. The exact location is 29° 22’ 48’’ N, 30° 34’ 49’’. For the problem of ceramics to be found on fields, where they are not genuine, see Bailey 1999 ‘Sebakh, Sherds and Survey’ 211-218.

334

CHAPTER 29: EZBET ABD EL-QÂDIR IBRAHIM = EZBET RL-KHARABA = EZBET QUWAYDA = ?

exhibited in the open air museum in Karanis, show exactly the same make and measures. Probably, therefore, this part of a column travelled here from ancient Arsinoe. In the middle of the upper part, a square hole of 7 × 7 cm has been cut into the stone; whether it had been a faucet hole in the original column, or this part of the column had been cut and used as a kind of mill-stone, is not clear. The column being strange to the find spot, the latter is more likely. But, how this architectural element cut from precious stone ended up here, is not clear. A similar drum of a lotiform column was found in Abou Ksa in 1998 (see Chapt. 23 with note 13). The measures of that part of a column with also 8 stalks forming the bundle are very similar to those found here (diameter of 93 cm at top, 108 at bottom). Only the the central hole is much bigger in the drum in Abou Ksa, 14, 7 cm. Davoli also considers it possible that the drum in Abou Ksa originated in Kiman Faras = Arsinoe. Since Abou Ksa is on the fringe of the central plateau of the Fayum, transportation of the drum from Kiman Faras to there was not as difficult as the transportation of such an item to the western part of the Themistou Meris, at whatever time that transportation occurred.6

6

See Introduction for the geographical layout of the Fayoum.

CHAPTER 29: EZBET ABD EL-QÂDIR IBRAHIM = EZBET RL-KHARABA = EZBET QUWAYDA = ?

Photo 29.1: Ancient stone utensils at the entrance to the village.

Photo 29.2: Stone hand mill.

335

336

CHAPTER 29: EZBET ABD EL-QÂDIR IBRAHIM = EZBET RL-KHARABA = EZBET QUWAYDA = ?

Photo 29.3: Stone hand mill turned over.

Photo 29.4: Part of a papyrus-bundle column.

CHAPTER 30 THE MONASTERY OF ST. MACARIUS OF ALEXANDRIA IN THE WADI RAYAN Outside any of the maps The monastery is located c. 10 km to the south-west of the lakes in the Wadi Rayan; it can easily be reached on the newly constructed tarmac road between the Fayoum and the Nile Valley that leads from the road along the lake first into the Wadi Rayan, and then further on to the Wadi Heitan (“The Valley of the Wales”), or straight ahead to the Nile Valley. The journey southwards from the Wadi Rayan offers enchanting views on the desert, and some shallow extentions of the lakes; proceding towards the Nile Valley after the monastery, one passes by the sites of Magdola and Tebtynis. Even though it seems that the monastery is not as old as one is told, a short overview about its history is given here; a “temple” located within the large area that belongs to the monastery may rather be a stop of the camel caravans, which passed here on their way from the Nile Valley to the Bahariya Oasis, or a farm house. At that site, ancient pottery is scattered on the ground (see below). The location of the monastery is at the foot of a mountain range that streches from west to east and forms here two wide horseshoe shape bays opening towards the south; it is possible that beside the springs around here, it were these bays that first attracted monks to the place. Water supply is guarantied by four wells, as the monks tell. The monastery had a lifely history in the last 5 dekades, when monks reclaimed ground around the site, which is believed to go back to the 5th century, or even earlier. It seems best to give the reports from two journals about these partially violent events. “The St Macarius monastery in Wadi al-Rayan is the site of mountain caves that were used by Christian hermits as far back as the third (sic !) century. The cave walls still carry Christian inscriptions from those times. In modern times, monks started re-inhabiting these caves in 19601 and until 1969 when they were ordered by Pope Kyrillos VI to leave and go restore and develop St Macarius Monastery in the Western Desert. In 1998, another group of monks headed by Fr Eleisha went to Wadi Rayan for a monastic revival there. Even though their relationship with the mother Coptic Orthodox Church has been bumpy, their population grew; they built a church, and cultivated a plot of land near the caves. Conflict erupted between the monks and the Environment Ministry which, in 2011, accused the monks of encroaching on the national park of Wadi al-Rayan because they built a wall to protect them from the all-too-frequent attacks by local Bedouin during the security breakup that followed the Arab Spring uprising in January 2011. The conflict was resolved in 2013 by the government sanctioning the building of the wall and the monks signing a document acknowledging that the grounds were government property.”2 “The present complex was established in the 1960s when Father Matta Al-Maskin and his disciples moved to the site from Wadi Natron. Its residents claim that the area was home to 1 2

About this first resettlement of the caves see Meinardus 1999 TwoThousandYears 253-255. Watani International; 7. 10. 2014.

338

CHAPTER 30: THE MONASTERY OF ST. MACARIUS OF ALEXANDRIA IN THE WADI RAYAN

a monastic foundation as early as the fourth century and say that they possess manuscripts that prove this. Father Matta and his disciples dug caves that they used as cells. Matta remained at the monastery until Pope Kirollos VI ordered him to return to Wadi Natron. The monastery then remained closed until 14 monks unilaterally decided to reopen it.”3 The monastery presents itself today as a huge area that is well defined by an enclosure wall of several km. The main gate opens into the vast area which smoothly rises towards the mountain. A newly built church lies to the left of the road that leads towards to monk’s cells and the main church. The cells are hawn into the bedrock and lined up in an even row along the mountain slope, obviously taking advantage of a horizontal geological feature in the bedrock, which offers smoother material to be hawn out. Nearly all cells are adorned in the front with little gardens. We were told that 60 monks live here (2017). The older church lies on the same level and is also hawn into the bedrock; with its coolish atmosphere it shows the advantage of this kind of construction. The authentic date of the foundation of the monastery can only be obtained from the pottery, coins and inscriptions found on the site. Most of it is still unstudied. Visitors are shown the remains of one cell at the foot of the mountain bay, consisting of stone walls that are plastered over. Nothing in this little construction points necessarily to an early date. Recently M. Eissa and colleagues have published several Coptic graffiti and dipinti from the monastery giving a general presentation of the site.4 The texts in Sahidic, Bohairic and Fayoumic come from the rock-cut hermitages that obviously go back to an earlier period, but nothing is securely to be dated to a premedieval period. One dipinto in red (photo on their p. 19, but unpublished) has recetly been made known by A. Delattre et al.5 as the following text : “The Roman came to the land of Egypt, Era of the Martyrs year 884. Lord, bless the brothers who took trouble in the church of Michael. Papa Soror...” The year 884 of the Martyr’s era is 1167/1168, the year in which King Amalric of Jerusalem (1163-1174) led an invasion into Egypt as the head of a Frankish army. The extraordinary information gives at least a date for the existance of the monastery, but furthermore not even a hint to its importance at the time; the monks, who signed the text may have experienced an encounter with the Frankish army in the Nile Valley, and not on the site of the monastery. When the group of the 7th International Fayoum Symposium visited the monastery on 2 November 2018, we were also shown the “remains of a Ptolemaic temple” at one of the wells at the monastery, south of the caves. There were some walls in stone and mud bricks visible, but no layout of the building appeared clear enough to identify it as a temple; the pottery is rather Roman than ptolemaic. Whether this is one of the buildings mentioned by A. Fakhry in 1947 is not clear.6 Fakhry considered a site that he called El-Wastaneh a farm house comprising several houses and a chapel. Without excavations here, no certainty can be reached about the nature of that ancient building.

3 4 5 6

El-Ahram Weekly; 24. 3. 2016. Eissa, Sayed, Elnaggar 2016 ‘Deir St. Macarius of Alexandria’ 12-23. Delattre, Dijkstra, Van der Vliet 2018 ‘Christian Inscriptions’ 307-328. Fakhry 1947 ‘Wadi el-Rayyan’ 1-18 with 3 plates.

APPENDIX I THE GEOMORPHOLOGY AND GEO-ARCHAEOLOGY OF PHILOTERIS/WATFA The geomorphological situation of ancient village Philoteris differs from other Graeco-Roman villages in the Fayoum because the village is built on top of a rocky ledge (limestone range). The special condition of the ground may have been to people’s advantage or disadvantage. In any case, the inhabitants settling in the very west of the Fayoum depression had to face a particular challenge concerning the water supply. Geomorphology The area of Philotheris is covered today with shallow windblown soils, mostly sheets of sand overlying the ancient alluvium and the rocky ledge. Partly the rockyledge reaches the surface. The modern cultivated land is constantly extending and approaching precariously close to the ancient site, almost completely encircling it. One can suppose that the situation of the agricultural land in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods almost mirrors the current one and that more or less the same portions of land are brought today under cultivation as in the past. Only in very recent times the cultivation has reached areas which were once not covered by the Ancient Lake Moeris (as on the ridge high above Philoteris, where the modern village of Yusuf es-Sadiq is located) once depositing fertile Nile silt.1 Before fertilizer and pumping stations the cultivation of the Fayoum was necessarily limited to the areas showing deposits of fertile soil. The rocky ledge upon which the ancient village is built, stretches out over an area of several kilometers including also the ancient settlement of Dionysias in the west, the modern village Tunis, and Qasr el-Gabali in the east. The ledge is almost level, but dips gently from south to north. The rock formation itself dates to the Eocene (56 to 34 million years ago) and consists of limestone, shales and marls of varying composition and degree of solidness.2 The Eocene sediments in the Fayoum depression are found from –45 m up to 35 m above sea level. They are exposed by several shorelines of various periods and often visible by huge steps cut into the limestone. High water levels of the Nile brought via the Bahr Yusuf floodwater into the depression, formed the lake and left characteristic deposits of various periods on the ground of the lake.3 Old deposits suggest a water level of 43 m above sea level, but more recent sediments indicate a shoreline around 20 m a.s.l. during the pharaonic period.4

1

2 3 4

Compare the modern settlement of Yusuf el-Sadiq and its surrounding cultivated land located only one kilometer south of ancient Philoteris. Also compare the Wadi Rayan, which was established 1973. For satellite images before 1973 see Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies, University of Arkansas/U.S. Geological Survey: Corona Atlas of the Middle East. Beadnell 1905 Thetopography14; Issawi 1976 GeologyoftheFaiyum 151; Sampsell 2003 GuidetotheGeology 89. Marks et al. 2018 HoloceneLakeSendiments 2018, fig. 4. Said 1993 TheRiverNile81.

340

APPENDIX I: THE GEOMORPHOLOGY AND GEO-ARCHAEOLOGY OF PHILOTERIS/WATFA

In Ptolemaic times, when the lake became reduced to the level of today, large areas covered by the lacustrine clays were exposed and especially fruitful for cultivation. This alluvial soil is for the most part identical in origin and composition with the river alluvium of the Nile Valley. The eastern and central part of the cultivated land of the Fayoum forms more or less level table-land, from which the ground slopes gently down towards the lake. In the western area of the Fayoum are also areas covered with alluvial deposits, which include sands, sandy clays, and clays of a distinct type which is due to the subsoil. The deposits are composed of materials that mostly derived from the Eocene strata and mixed with some material of very fine silt drifted from the Bahr Yusuf, and by sand blown in by wind. They represent the slowly formed accumulations of the quieter and more remote times of the ancient lake Moeris and the earlier prehistoric lake. The deposits can be observed at the recent shoreline of the lake. Large parts of these fertile sediments from higher flood stages of the lake are eroded since then by wind, especially if they were not under cultivation anymore. In the surrounding recent fields this fertile soil can be observed in a thicker deposit, that has medium good permeability and is moderately saline. It is difficult to estimate how voluminous the fertile lacustrine deposits have been in the time of Philoteris as many transformations occurred since then and the near surface geology various a lot in a small area. Drillings on the site of Philoteris showed that layers of the typical fine dark fertile mud appear in a layer of half a meter in thickness. When all these outlying districts were abandoned the land became absorbed by the surrounding desert. Prospection measures/Core-drillings5 To provide some information about the general nature of features, objects, and deposits just beneath the ground surface techniques like augering and coring were applied.6 The interest here is mainly on the two canals which provided the water supply of Philoteris. All together 56 drilling were conducted. The ancient site is divided into two parts by the canals, the basins in the north, and the settlement in the south. Coming from the east the course of the Lower (Canal II) and Upper (Canal I) Canals is at first parallel, and they run straight from east to west. Only west of the village the two canals separate in slightly different directions, but still heading to the west and the next destination, the village of Dionysias. As mentioned, the site itself and also the canals are covered with a veneer of aeolian sand. Both Canals I and II are filled with deposits up to the surface level so that they are even with the surrounding ground. After the veneer of aeolian sand, which is mixed with small gravel, a layer of soft fine and dark brown silt could be observed. This layer has an average thickness of half a meter and the material is very homogeneous. There are no traces of a fluvial deposition and accordingly the sediments are aeolian deposits. Their origin is local, namely the lacustrine deposits or in other words the surrounding farmland which was exposed to aeolian deflation after the area was abandoned. Then a layer of a different kind of silt follows with an average thickness of 30 cm. Its

5 6

See cross section on p. 245. Within the Fayoum-Survey-Project prospection measures were performed with the core-drilling technique. They were done by Eijkelkamp hand auger equipment using Edelmann-, riverside- and stony soil augers. Sediment analysis were made on field and colours were determined on wet (at field capacity) sediments using the Munsell Soil Color Charts. All together 56 single core-drillings have been carried out and were documented. The drillings were mainly set in and along the water canals of the ancient village, few more drillings were conducted in the ancient village and in the water basins.

APPENDIX I: THE GEOMORPHOLOGY AND GEO-ARCHAEOLOGY OF PHILOTERIS/WATFA

341

consistency is much harder, also fine but its colour more greyish. Also the material is heterogeneous, since ceramics in the cores are few, but found constantly. The material got soaked with water over a long time period, if not deposited by water. Encrustations of salt and gypsum which are ubiquitary provide evidence of fluctuating water levels. Below this and at the bottom of the canal bed a layer of medium to coarse sand is mixed with many small and rounded ceramic sherds. This kind of material is an indication of a water flow with some current. The coarse sand was always found only on one side of the canal while on the other half of the canal the hard greyish silt continued down to the canal bottom. The depth of the canal from the surface level is within a range from 1 m to 1.4 m. The canals were dug in the ground and only marginal measures for the stabilization of the banks with limestone slabs as paving could be observed in some trenches. The bedrock sediment derives from the Eocene that consists of limestone, marls and shales. Most striking is the different degree of hardness of its varying layers. As mentioned above the ancient settlement is built on a rocky ledge but this is only half a meter thick. (Appendix II, the well). Below a much softer stratum follows consisting of more sand mixted with marls and shales and much less compressed. In the eastern part of the site the canals use the ledge as bed, while in the western part the ledge is much closer to the surface and cut through to reach the necessary depth for the decline of the canal bed. An almost complete insight of a canal profile was provided at a robbery pit which was cut through Canal IV in the very west of the site (Photo 16.36). This water system was unfortunately part of the canal which was never used, so that no further information about the sediments formation in the canal could be gained (Photos 16.38 and 39 on pp. 254 and 255). The measurements of the canal here are 2.5 m in depth from the surface and 5 to 6 m in width. The elevation of the canal bed here is 7 m a.s.l. To compare: the bed of Canal II at the first well (A) is at a height of 6.7 m a.s.l. The investigations in Canal II showed that the decline on a distance of almost 1 km is very small and in the average less than 0.1%. This is sufficient to provide a constant water flow. For the decline of Canal I we did not yet find any slope of the canal bed. Here further investigations are necessary. In the west of the ancient village Canal I is separating again into two branches. The northern course of Canal I reunites with Canal II after a distance of 2 km. Ilka Klose

APPENDIX II CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS/WATFA IN 2012 AND 2014 The excavations in 2012 and 2014 concentrated mainly on locations related to the water management of Philoteris. The village received its water supply by two canals which passed the settlement in the north (Fig. 1).1 They transported the water from the east to the west on two different levels. The present surface of the sediments is in southern canal about 75 cm higher than in the northern one. Between them is nowadays a dike of 20 cm (Fig. 2). The original shores of the canals were not preserved and were, like the antique surfaces next to them, dug away by sebakhîn. To get an idea of the maximum possible water level in ancient times it was necessary to find a walking horizon above the higher canal. About 15 m to the south of the upper canal a clay floor of a house was preserved (Figs. 1 and 2: trench 6). Its surface was on a height of 9.01 to 9.12 m a.s.l. and it had never had any contact with water. Hence the maximum water level of the canal was not higher than 9 m a.s.l.. It was less than 1 m higher than the modern surface in the southern canal and so the loss of soil by the sebakhîn was also less than a metre.2

Figure 1: Location of trenches 2, 5-7, 11 and 14, profiles A-B and C-D. 1 2

Römer 2004 ‘Philoteris in the Themistou Meris’292-295. A dike in the south of the canals can be excluded because there was clearly no trace of a dike in trench 7.

344

APPENDIX II: CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS IN 2012 AND 2014

The lower canal got its water from the upper one in the east of the village. From here it was partly released to huge water basins in the north. At the northern shore of the lower canal a trench was opened where a concentration of stones was visible on the surface and in the geomagnetic map (Fig. 3 and Photo 1). After cleaning the surface the edge of the canal was clearly visible by the dark colour of the sediments in the canal and the lack of pottery on their surface.3 In some places few remains of roots of reed were seen. The stone concentration was the remnant of an installation for the water regulation of two smaller ditches (instl 1). These had a width of 25 cm and branched off to the west and to the north. It seems that it was possible to lock at least the ditch to the north. The bottom of this ditch was partially built of limestone slabs. Surprisingly it slopes slightly upwards to the north where the well is located at a distance of about 25 m (Figs. 1 and 2). Unfortunately the ditch is preserved only for a few centimetres behind the lock. But this slope of 20 cm towards the north does not necessarily mean that the water flowed from the north to the south, because with a higher water level the flowing direction could have been vice versa. Anyhow, it is quite unlikely that the well supplied the lower canal. On the contrary, the water was flowing from the lower canal into the basins (that happened in the east of the village) and from the basin the water was taken out through the well. The small ditches probably provided gardens between the lower canal and the basins with water. To fill the ditches with water the water table had to be at least 40 cm higher than the present surface of the lower canal.

Figure 2: Sections A-B and C-D.

3

Sandy silt of a dark greyish brown colour (10 YR 4/2).

APPENDIX II: CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS IN 2012 AND 2014

345

Figure 3: Locks (instl 1) and lower canal in trench 2.

The water well in the north was not completely preserved and has nowadays a height of 2.78 m (Figs. 4-5 and Photos 2-3). The area in the north to it was destroyed by modern clandestine digging. The well has an ovalish ground plan of a diameter of 1.70 to 1.85 m. Five incomplete rings of limestone blocks in regular courses are preserved.4 Some years ago two blocks of a sixth ring were still lying in position5 and were now still traceable by their impressions in the mortar, when we excavated the well in 2012. Eleven of the originally 12 blocks of the lowest rings were still found insitu. The bed joints were straight, only at one place there was a small step. The single blocks had a height of 14 to 24 cm. Their length varied between 23 and 68 cm, most were between 50 and 55 cm thick. The blocks had a cuboid shape with the curvature of the well’s aperture on one of the long sides. The sides, the top, and the bottom were less smoothed and had diagonal chisel traces. In contrast, the backsides were not smoothed, and showed fractured surfaces. The mortar used for building the well was a greyish loam.6 A foundation pit for the well was not visible. Most probably the foundation pit was refilled with the spoil of its digging. So it was not recognizable because it was filled with the same material that coagulated with water from the well. The two lower stone rings of the well were darker on their surface than those above, the third one partially. If this is a trace of the water level, it must have been for quite a long time around 6 m a.s.l. This seems rather unlikely because in this case the adjacent basin would have had a filling height of only 0.5 m.

4

5 6

The well in the court of the temple of Theadelpheia had a similar construction, see Breccia 1926 Monuments de l’Égypte106, Tavv. LI and LIV. Other circular wells are known from Karanis, Ashmunein and Dionysias. El-Nassery, Wagner and Castel 1976 ‘Un grand bain’ §15 and pl. XLVIII.45; Spencer 1993 Excavations at el-Ashmunein III Pl. 20, 22a and 25a; Schwartz 1969 RapportsII Plan 1, letter G. Pers. comm. C. Römer. The use of loam for building wells is also attested for Roman Period wells in Tell Basta and Karanis, and for a Ptolemaic sakiyastation at the Birket Qaroun. Grönwald 2003 ‘Der Brunnen’ 84; Boak 1933 Karanis29; Ball 1939 ContributionstotheGeographyofEgypt 211.

346

APPENDIX II: CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS IN 2012 AND 2014

Figure 4: Water well (instl 3) and wall 3 in trench 5.

An oval opening exactly in the size of the well’s aperture was cut into the natural limestone slab below the stone rings. The surface of the cut shows strong diagonal chisel traces. The well opened below the slab to a subterranean chamber of 1.25 m height. This chamber was cut into a softer layer of dense loam with limestone pieces below the limestone slab. Its shape was irregular with an extension of about 5 m to 4.20 m. In the north a subterranean passage led away (Photo 4). Recently a narrow trench of not more than 70 cm width had been dug into the sediments on the bottom of the passage. The ancient passage ended probably beneath basin 2a where we can expect

APPENDIX II: CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS IN 2012 AND 2014

347

Figure 5: Section E–F (trench 5).

another cut in the limestone slab (as at Well B). From here the well was supplied with water. There might be a bigger artificial cavern below the limestone slab but due to safety reasons a subterranean investigation was not possible. Such a cavern would have increased the amount of stored water that was less affected by evaporation than the surface basins. The function of this water well was to serve as a place where it was possible to get clean water from basin 2a. Water directly taken from the basin was probably relatively muddy and also difficult to reach.7 Certainly it was possible to get water from the well even when the basin was quite empty. The well was not a part of a sakiya station. There were no sherds of sakiya pots around it as at other such places,8 and anyhow the diameter of the well seems to be too small for a sakiya. Apparently rather small portions of water for drinking, kitchen or garden use were taken from here. 7

8

In contrast to the Romans, the Greeks probably did not use surface water with air contact for drinking. Fahlbusch 1987 ‘ElementegriechischerundrömischerWasserversorgungsanlagen’, 140. Römer 2004 294-295.

348

APPENDIX II: CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS IN 2012 AND 2014

Figure 6: Pots 5-3-1-1 and 5-3-1-2 from the water well.

Several pottery sherds were found at the bottom of the well. A larger group belonged to vessels of a similar shape and was made of Nile clay (Fig. 6).9 These pots have a globular shape with slightly ribbed walls on the upper half. Beneath the everted round or triangular rim is a short neck. Two short handles are joined to the neck and to the upper body. They are flat and rather irregular. This shape seems to be a variant of Roman cooking vessels. These have a globular shape with short and mostly rounded handles. They might be attached to the rim or slightly below. Both the rim and the neck show a wide range of variants (see Bailey, Vol. B, Chapt. 8).10 The shape of the vessels from Philoteris might be dated to the first half of the first millennium AD.11 None of the vessels from this water well in Philoteris was completely preserved, but the rather large fragments show that they were destroyed on the very spot by falling into the water well. Apparently their function was connected with the well and therefore they might have been used (together with buckets) to draw small amounts of water from the well. The water well was separated from basin 2a by a wall (M3). The preserved remains of the wall seem to have been its foundation. The wall had a width of about 1 m and was built of roughly hewn limestones with a length of up to 85 cm. The maximum preservation was two courses; the wall was cut by the same modern clandestine digging as the well. Because of this wall, an additional above-ground ditch leading from the well to the basin can be excluded at this place. Another well was located approx. 155 m to the east next to basin 3 (instl 5; Figs. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and Photo 5). Unlike the well at basin 2a (instl 3), this well was not circular but had a rectangular shaft of 2.15 × 1.85 m. Rectangular wells seem to be rare in the Fayum but are for example attested in Greece.12 The general construction was similar to the circular well. At first the builders dug a pit into the ground until they reached the natural limestone slab. That has a thickness of approx. 35-50 cm at this spot. Then an aperture of the inner size of the well was hewn into the limestone. A chamber of about 5 m in width and 1.1 m in height was dug into the softer ground below the slab. The walls of the well were built in random courses on the limestone slab using quarry stones and loam mortar.13 These limestones had a maximum length of 1.56 m and a height up to 22 cm. 9

10

11 12 13

Pot 5-3-1-1: diameter of rim: 14.2 cm; preserved percentage of rim: 100%; height of the fragment: 14.4 cm; clay: Nile silt with few straw < 0.2 cm and rare lime < 0.5 mm; colour: red (10 R 5/6), fracture reddish brown (5 YR 5/4). Pot 5-3-1-2: diameter of rim: 13.2 cm; preserved percentage of rim: 25%; height of the fragment: 8,5 cm; clay: Nile silt with few straw < 0.2 cm; colour: reddish yellow to yellowish red (5 YR 6/6-5/6), fracture in rim grey. Compare for example Tomber 2001, ‘The Pottery’ 270 and Figs. 6.13.8-12; Rodziewicz 2005 Elephantine XXVII: EarlyRomanIndustries,Pl. 95.1550-1553; Tomber 2006 ThePottery 80 and Fig. 1.30;Ballet and Południkiewicz 2012 TebtynisV:Lacéramique Pl. 28. Pers. comm. P. French. Glaser 1983 AntikeBrunnenbauten(KPHNAI)inGriechenland, 127-128. The same kind of walls had a circular cistern in Karanis. Boak 1935 29 and Pl. IV.

APPENDIX II: CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS IN 2012 AND 2014

349

On the northern side an u-shaped stone of 64 × 42 cm was built into the north-western corner (Fig. 8 and photo 5). The long open side was placed directly on the natural limestone slab with an opening towards the well. There was probably a long piece of wood sticking in this shaft used as a climbing aid for leaving the well after maintenance works. Since there was no foundation trench leading from this stone to the north, it was not the outlet of a pipe from basin 3. The well was filled with grey loam containing only few limestones. It was very homogenous and didn’t show any layers. Probably it was the first fill of the well after its use; different from instl 3, this well had not been disturbed in modern times.

Figure 7: Water well (instl 5) with shadouf foundation (instl 6) in trench 11.

350

APPENDIX II: CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS IN 2012 AND 2014

Figure 8: Section G–H (trench 6).

The foundation of a shadouf (instl 6) was found directly to the south of the well (Figs. 7-9 and photo 5).14 It was roughly T-shaped and built of limestones up to 63 × 47 cm. On this waterproof foundation were once two pillars suspending a long pole on a crossbeam.15 For getting two irregular lever arms, the pole was fixed off its centre. At the longer end a kind of vessel was hanging to take the water, while a weight was fixed to the short end which served as the counterpoise. The water was taken with the vessel from the well and emptied into a groove between the pillars. This groove had a width of 30 cm and sloped to the south. The sides and the bottom were made of limestone slabs and were preserved up to a height of 19 cm. Depending on the water level it was necessary to lift the water approx. 1-3 m.16 A modern Egyptian shadouf of a similar construction can heave 2 l of water per second at an average height of 2 m.17 Because of the limited lifting height and this rather small amount of raised water, the shadouf irrigation was not used for larger fields but for horticulture.18 The well at basin 2 also had a subterranean passage to feed it with water. In this case it was even possible to trace the drain in basin 3 that collected the water for the well (instl 7; Fig. 9, Photos 5-7). In the north was a 22-24 cm wide groove with an u-shaped deepening. It had a length of 3.9 m and was 17 cm deep. When the water level in the basin was rather low it collected the 14

15 16 17 18

This seems to be the first of such an installation from Graeco-Roman Egypt found on site; cf. Malouta and Wilson 2013 ‘Mechanical Irrigation’ 273-305; about the shadouf 278-280. Compare the modern Egyptian shadouf: Henein 1988 MārīGirgis 57-61, Figs. 32-33 and Pl. 11a. The modern shadouf raises water usually up to 3 m. Henein 1988 57. Henein 1988 61. Butzer 1984, ‘Schaduf’.

APPENDIX II: CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS IN 2012 AND 2014

Figure 9: Drain (instl 7) in basin 3 to the subterranean passage, water well (instl 5) and shadouf foundation (instl 6) in trenches 11 and 14.

351

352

APPENDIX II: CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS IN 2012 AND 2014

Figure 10: ‘Southern bridge foundation’ (instl 4) in trench 7.

rest of the water and led it to the south into the following drain. The drain was cut through the natural limestone slab and was approx. 16 m long. This drain is slightly curved with a width of 65 cm and narrows down to 30 cm in the south closer to the well. On the last 3.5 m it widens to 1.65 m being also deeper here. The bottom of the drain was not reached during the excavations because the very dense loam contains here numerous limestones up to 40 cm and was therefore too hard to remove. Anyhow, it is possible to say that the deepest point was at least 40 cm below the bottom of the natural limestone slab. The minimum depth of the drain was thus 70 cm. The grey loam with limestones that filled the drain became lighter and contained here many snail shells of the freshwater species bellamyaunicolorthe deeper it went. At the wide southern end of the drain a pit was cut into the dense yellow loam. The subterranean passage to the well started from this pit. The canals around Philoteris might also have been used for communication by boat. On the other hand, they detached the village from the agricultural land and basins in the north. Hence it was necessary to have at some places the possibility to cross the canals. About 150 m southwest of the water well instl 3, there is a street well visible on the geomagnetic map (Fig. 1). To the south it leads to a granary building. Where it reaches the water in the north, there is a necking from both sides in the canal. Behind the canal, the street continues in a north-western direction to the gymnasium. The southern side of this necking was investigated by digging a trench at this point (Fig. 10 and Photo 8). As in trench 2, the sediments in the canal and its shore were clearly visible because of the strong colour differences. The street reaches foundations here which were built partially into the canal. The canal had a width of about 12 m at this point, but between the foundations it was only 7.5 m wide. The foundations were built of limestone blocks with a length up to 1.85 m and were in total about 4.6 m wide. At the riverside there were irregular stone settings to strengthen the embankment. These foundations were either part of a landing stage for a boat to cross the river or the base for an abutment of a small bridge. Because of the bad preservation it is not possible to say anything about the height of a possible bridge at this place and hence the navigability of the canal. Certainly it was only possible to pass it with rather narrow boats. Anyhow, for a small boat connecting the two banks, the canal was fully navigable. Peter Kopp

APPENDIX II: CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS IN 2012 AND 2014

353

Photo App II. 1: Locks (instl 1) in trench 2.

Photo App II. 2: Water well (instl 3) and wall 3 in trench 5, in the background basin 2a.

Photo App II. 3: Water well (instl 3) in trench 5.

354

APPENDIX II: CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS IN 2012 AND 2014

Photo App II. 4: The subterranean passage leading to the water well instl 3.

Photo App II. 5: Shadouf foundation (instl 6) and well (instl 5) in trench 11, in the background the drain (instl 7) in basin 3.

APPENDIX II: CANALS, WELLS AND BASINS: EXCAVATIONS IN PHILOTERIS IN 2012 AND 2014

355

Photo App II. 6: Drain (instl 7) in trench 14 (photomontage).

Photo App II. 7: Groove in the north of the drain (instl 7) in trench 14.

Photo App II. 8: The ‘southern bridge foundation’ (instl 4) in trench 7, in the background the street leading to the ‘bridge’.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Papyrus editions are cited according to the ChecklistofPapyrusEditions, accessible at . Inscriptions from the Fayoum are cited in the editions by É. or A. Bernand, see below. ArchID, see www.trismegisto.org/arch. GEO-ID, see www.trismegisto.org/geo. LDAB, see www.trismegisto.org/ldab. Trismegistos, see www.trismegisto.org. Trismegistos-Fayum, see www.trismegisto.org/fayum. Adams, C. 2007 LandTransportinRomanEgypt, Oxford. Alleaume, G. 1992 ‘Les systèmes hydrauliques de l’Egypte pré-moderne. Essai d’histoire du paysage’, in: Itinérairesd’Égypte,MélangesoffertsaupèreMauriceMartins.j., Le Caire, 301-322. Alston, R. 2002 TheCityinRomanandByzantineEgypt, London-New York. Amélineau, E. 1893 Lagéographiedel’Égypteàl’époquecopte, Paris (Repr. Osnabrück 1973). Arlt, C. and Stadler, M. (edd.) 2013 DasFayyûminHellenismusundKaiserzeit, Wiesbaden. Arnold, D. 1966 ‘Bericht über Fahrten in das Gharaq-Becken’, MDAIK21, 101-109. Arnold, D. 1999 TemplesoftheLastPharaohs, Oxford. El-Ashiry, M. and Kashaf, M. 2010 ‘Account of Livestock from Fayoum Villages’, BACPSI 27, 2, 5-11. Ast, R. and Azzarello, G. 2013 ‘New Perspectives on the Gemellus Archive: Sabinus and his Correspondence’, in: DasFayyûminHellenismusundKaiserzeit, edd. C. Arlt and M. Stadler, Wiesbaden, 19-28. Bagnall, R. 1980 ‘Theadelphian Archives: a Review Article’, BASP 17, 97-104. Bagnall, R. 1982 ‘The Population of Theadelphia in the Fourth Century’, BSAC 24, 35-57. Bagnall, R. and Frier, B. 1994 TheDemographyofRomanEgypt, Cambridge. Bagnall, R. and Rathbone, D. 2004 EgyptfromAlexandertotheCopts.AnArchaeologicalandHistorical Guide, London. Bailey, D. M. 1998 ExcavationsatEl-AshmuneinV:Pottery,LampsandGlassoftheLateRomanandEarly ArabPeriods. London. Bailey, D. M. 1999 ‘Sebakh, Sherds and Survey’, JEA 85, 211-218. Bakhoum, S. 1971, ‘Une statue en bois de Sarapis au Musée Gréco-Romain d’Alexandrie’, Archaeological andHistoricalStudies 4, 65-80. Ball, J. 1939 ContributionstotheGeographyofEgypt, Cairo 1939. Ballet, P. and Południkiewicz, A., 2012 TebtynisV:Lacéramiquedesépoqueshellénistiqueetimpériale, FIFAO 68, Cairo. Barnard, H., Wendrich, W. et al. 2015 ‘The Fourth-Century AD Expansion of the Graeco-Roman Settlement of Karanis (Kom Aushim) in the Northern Fayum’ JEA 101, 51-67. Battaglia, E. 1982 ‘Philopator Kome’ Aegyptus62, 124-147. Beadnell, J. L. 1905 TheTopographyandGeologyoftheFayumProvinceofEgypt, Cairo. Beinlich, H. 1991 DasBuchvomFayum, Text- und Tafelband, Wiesbaden. Belzoni, G. B. 2001 (ed. A. Siliotti, London) NarrativesoftheOperationsandRecentDiscoverieswithin thePyramids,Temples,Tombs,andExcavations,inEgyptandNubia,inSearchfortheAncientBerenice,andanothertotheOasisofJupiterAmmon, London 1820.

358

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benaissa, A. 2010 ‘Bemerkungen zu Papyri XXIII’, Tyche 25, 209. Benaissa, A. 2012 RuralsettlementsoftheOxyrhynchiteNome.APapyrologicalSurvey, TrismegistosTOP 4. Benaji, J. 2001 AgrarianChangeinLateAntiquity, Oxford. Bernand, A. 1992 La prose sur pierre dans l‘Égypte hellénistique et romaine 1. Textes et traduction – 2. Commentaires, Paris. Bernand, É. 1981 I. FayoumII = RecueildesinscriptionsgrecquesduFayoumII.LaMérisdeThémistos, Bibliothèqued’Étude 79, Le Caire. Bernand, É. 1981 I. FayoumIII = RecueildesinscriptionsgrecquesduFayoumIII.LaMérisdePolémôn, Bibliothèqued’Étude 80, Le Caire. Bingen, J. 1994 ‘Le dieu Hèrôn et les Hèrôn du Fayoum’, in: HommagesàJeanLeclant 3, Cairo, 41-50. Bingen, J. 1989/2007 ‘Normalité et spécificité de l’épigraphie grecque et romaine de l’Égypte’, in: L. Criscuolo and G. Geraci (edd.), Egittoestoriaanticadall’ellenismoall’etàaraba, Bologna 1989, 15-35; now in English in: HellenisticEgypt, ed. R. Bagnall, Edinburgh, Chapt. 19, 250-278. Fr. von Bissing, W. 1953 ‘Il culto dei Dioscuri in Egitto’, Aegyptus 33, 347-357. Blouin, K. 2014 TriangularLandscapes.Environment,Society,andtheStateintheNileDeltaunderRoman Rule, Oxford. Boak, A. E. R. 1935 SoknopaiouNesos,TheUniversityofMichiganExcavationsatDimêin1931-1932, Ann Arbor. Bogaert, R. 1995 ‘Liste géographique des banques et des banquiers de l’Égypte romaine’, ZPE 109, 133-173. Bogaert, R. 1998 ‘Liste géographique des banques et des banquiers de l’Égypte ptolémaïque’, ZPE 120, 165-202. Bon, A.-M. and Bon, A. 1957 ÉtudesthasiennesIV,lestimbresamphoriquesdeThasos, Paris. Bonneau, D. 1964 LacrueduNil,divinitéégyptienne,àtraversmilleansd’histoire, Paris. Bonneau, D. 1979 ‘Niloupolis du Fayoum’, in: Actes du XVe Congrès International de Papyrologie IV, edd. J. Bingen, and G. Nachtergael, Bruxelles, 258-273. Bonneau, D. 1979 ‘Ptolemais Hormou dans la documentation papyrologique’, CE 54, 310-326. Bonneau, D. 1982 ‘Le drymos, marais du Fayoum, d’après la documentation papyrologique’, in: L’Égyptologie en1979,ColloquesinternationauxduCNRS595,Axesprioritairesderecherches I, Paris, 181-190. Bonneau, D. 1983 ‘Loi et costume en Égypte: un example, les marais du Fayoum appelés drymos’, JESHO 26, 1-13. Bonneau, D. 1985 ‘Aigialos, La terre riveraine en Égypte, d‘après la documentation papyrologique’, YCS 28, ed. N. Lewis, 131-143. Bonneau, D. 1993 Le régime administratif de l’eau du Nil dans l’Égypte grecque, romaine & byzantine, Leiden. Boraik, M. 2009 ‘Ptolemaic Baths in Front of the Temple of Karnak, A Brief Preliminary Report – November 2007’, in: LebaincollectifenÉgypte, edd. M.-F. Boussac et al., 73-86. Boud’hors, A. 2005 ‘Manuscripts and Literature in Fayoumic Coptic’, in: ChristianityandMonasticismin theFayoumOasis,ed. G. Gabra, Cairo-New York, 21-31. Bourguignon d’Anville, J. B. 1766 Mémoiressurl’Égypteancienneetmoderne,Paris. Breashear, W. and Hoogendijk, F. 1990 ‘Corpus Tabularum Lignearum Ceratarumque Aegyptiarum’, Enchoria 17, 1-54. Breccia, E. 1918 ‘Teadelfia’, BSAA16, 91-118. Breccia, E. 1926 LerovineeimonumentidiCanopo,TeadelfiaeiltempiodiPneferôs, Bergamo. Bresciani, E. 1980 KomMadi1977e1978.LepitturemuralidelcenotafiodiAlessandroMagno, Pisa. Bresciani, E. 1999-2000 ‘L’Università di Pisa in Egitto a Medinet Madi e a Khelua, Rapporto preliminare’, EVO 22-23, 105-112. Bresciani, E. 2005 ‘Sobek, Lord of the Land of the Lake’, in: DivineCreatures,AnimalMummiesinAncient Egypt, ed. S. Ikram, Cairo – New York, 199-206. Bresciani, E. 2006 ‘The archaeological Activity of Pisa University in Fayum – Egypt. October-November 2006’, EVO 29, 65-68. Bresciani, E. 2009 ‘Il castrum Narmoutheos ritrovato a Medinet Madi nel Fayum’, Rendiconti dell’AccademiaNazionaledeiLincei,ClassediScienzemorali,storicheefilologiche, s. 9, v. 20, 221-232.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

359

Brienza, E. 2007 ‘Impianti idraulici antichi rinvenuti a Medinet Madi’, EVO 30, 9-21. Butzer, K. W. 1976 EarlyHydraulicCivilizationinEgypt:AStudyinCulturalEcology, Chicago. Butzer, K. W. 1984 ‘Schaduf’, in: LexikonderÄgyptologieV,edd.W. Helck and W. Westendorf, Wiesbaden, col. 521. Butzer, K. W. 2012 ‘Collapse, environment, and society’, PNAS March 6, 2012 (on-line at www.pnas.org/ content/109/10/3632); with good map in „Supporting Information“. Callender, M. H. 1965 RomanAmphoraewithIndexofStamps, London. Calderini, A. and Daris, S. 1935-1987 Dizionariodeinomigeograficietopograficidell’Egittogreco-romano I–V , Cairo/Milano; Daris, S. Supplemento 1, Milano 1988; Suppl. 2, Bonn 1996; Suppl. 3, Milano 2003; Suppl. 4, Pisa 2007; Suppl. 5, Pisa 2010. Caneva, St. G. 2016, FromAlexandertotheTheoiAdelphoi, Leuven. Cankardeş – Şenol, G. 2015-2017 LexiconofEponymDiesonRhodianAmphoraStamps, Vol. I–IV (= Études Alexandrines 33, 35, 37, 39), Alexandria. Cappers, R., Cole, E., Jones, D., Holdaway S., and Wendrich, W. 2013 ‘The Fayyûm Desert as an Agricultural Landscape’, in: DasFayyûminHellenismusundKaiserzeit, edd. C. Arlt and M. Stadler, Wiesbaden, 35-50. Casanova, G. 1975 ‘Theadelphia e l’archivio di Harthotes: ricerche su un villaggio egiziano fra il IIIa e il Ip’, Aegyptus 55, 70-118. Casanova, G. 1979 ‘Il villaggio di Theadelphia e l’archivio di Harthotes. Addenda’, Aegyptus 59, 112-118. Casarico, L. 1989 ‘Lista di villaggi’, Aegyptus69, 10-12. Castel, G. 2009 ‘Bain nord de Karanis’, in: LebaincollectifenÉgypte, edd.M.-F. Boussac et al., Le Caire 230-245. Caton-Thompson, G. and Gardner, E. W. 1934 TheDesertFayum, London. Cestari, I. 2010 Villaggidell’Egittoantico.3.Dionysias, Imola. Cherpion, N., Corteggiani, J.-P., and Gout, J.-Fr. 2007 LetombeaudePétosirisàTounael-Gebel,Relevé photographique, Cairo. Clarysse, W. 1994 ‘Jews in Trikomia’, in: Proceedingsofthe20thInternationalCongressofPapyrology, ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen, Copenhagen, 193-203. Clarysse, W. 2003 ‘Tomoi synkollesimoi’, in: Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions: Concepts of Record-keepingintheAncientWorld, ed. M. Brosius, Oxford, 339-344. Clarysse, W. 2005 ‘Toponymy of Fayyum Villages in the Ptolemaic Period’, PapyrologicaLupiensia14, 67-81. Clarysse, W. and Van Beek, B. 2002 ‘Philagris, Perkethaut and Hermupolis: Three Villages or One?’, ZPE 140, 195-200. Claytor, G. 2013 ‘A Schedule of Contracts and a Private Letter: P. Fay. 344’, BASP50, 77-121. Claytor, W. G. and Mirończuk, A. 2015 ‘The Archive of the Theadelphian Herdsman Heron, Son of Hermas’, ZPE 194, 193-200. Criscuolo, L. 1982 Bollid’anforagrecieromani.Lacollezionedell’UniversitàCattolicadiMilano, Studi distoriaantica 6, Bologna. Crum, W. E. 1893 CopticManuscriptsbroughtfromtheFayum, London. Daniel, R. W. 2010 ArchitecturalOrientationinthePapyri, PapyrologicaColoniensia 34, Paderborn. Daressy, G. 1900 ‘Rapport sur el-Yaouta (Fayoum)’, ASAE 1, 44-46, with an Appendix El Yaouta–Dionysias, 47. Daris, S. 1997 ‘Urbanistica pubblica dei villaggi dell’Arsinoite’, in: ArcheologiaepapirinelFayum, Atti delConvegnoInternazionale, ed. Istituto Internazionale del Papiri, Siracusa, 173-196. Davoli, P. 1998 L’archeologiaurbana nelFayyumdietàellenisticaeromana, Napoli. Davoli, P. 2001 ‘Aspetti della topografia del Fayyum in epoca ellenistica e romana’, in: AttidelCongresso internazionalediPapirologia, edd. I. Andorlini et al., Firenze, 353-359. Davoli, P. 2015 ‘Papyri, Archaeology, and Modern History: A Contextual Study of the Beginnings of Papyrology and Egyptology’, BASP 52, 87-112.

360

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Davoli, P. and Abd el-Aal, A. 1998 ‘Three Monuments from Abuksa’, SEAP 17, 1-8. De Bellefonds, L. 1854 CartehydrographiquedelaMoyenneEgypte, Paris. De Bellefonds, L. 1872-1873 Mémoiressurlespricipauxtravauxd’utilitépubliqueexécutésenEgypte, Paris. De Cenival, F. 1973 Cautionnementsdémotiquesdudébutdel’époqueptolémaïque, Paris. De Cenival, F. 1980 ‘Compte de céréales de plusieurs villages du Fayoum: P.dém. Lille 110 (inv. Sorbonne 205 à 213)’, in: Livreducentenaire, MIFAO104, Le Caire, 193-203. Delattre, A., J. Dijkstra, J., Van der Vliet, J. 2018 ‘Christian Inscriptions from Egypt and Nubia’, BASP55, 307-328. Denecker, E. and Vandorpe, K. 2007 ‘Sealed Amphora Stoppers and Tradesmen in Greco-Roman Egypt: archaeological, papyrological and inscriptional evidence’, BABESCH 82, 115-128. Depuydt, L. 1993 CatalogueofCopticManuscriptsinthePierpontMorganLibrary, Vol. I and II, Leuven. Derda, T. 2006 ΑΡΣΙΝΟΙΤΗΣΝΟΜΟΣ.AdministrationoftheFayumunderRomanRule, Suppl. toJJP VII, Warsaw. de Ricci, S. 1903 ‘Une inscription grecque d’Égypte’, WienerStudien 24, 1902, 276-278; reprinted in APF 2, 1903, 442 no. 60. Drioton, E. 1941 ‘Objets de culte domestique provenant de Médinet-Qoûta’, ASAE 40, 923-935. Dry, S. ‘Lease of a Vineyard’ BASP 36, 1999, 99-104. Dzierzbicka, D. 2005 ‘Wineries in Graeco-Roman Egypt’, JJP 35, 9-91. Dziobek, E. and Abdel Raziq, M. 1990 DasGrabdesSobekhotep:ThebenNr.63, Mainz. Edgar, C. C. 1903 Cataloguegénéral desantiquitéségyptiennesduMuséeduCaire,GreekSculpture, Le Caire. Eissa, M. A., Sayed, L. M., Elnaggar, A. 2016 ‘Deir St. Macarius of Alexandria in Wadi el-Rayan, Fayoum, A Forgotten Monastery’, Shedet3, 12-23. Emmel, S. 2005 ‘The Library of the Monastery of the Archangel Michael at Phantoou (al-Hamuli)’, in: ChristianityandMonasticismintheFayumOasis, ed. G. Gabra, Cairo, 63-70. Empereur, J. L. 1977 ‘Timbres amphoriques de Crocodilopolis-Arsinoé’, BIFAO 77, 197-233 and Pl. XXXIII -XL. Eyre, C. J. 1994 ‘The Water Regime for Orchards and Plantations in Pharaonic Egypt’, JEA 80, 57-80. Fahlbusch, H. 1987 ‘Elemente griechischer und römischer Wasserversorgungsanlagen’, in: DieWasserversorgungantikerStädte,GeschichtederWasserversorgung2, edd. G. Garbrecht et al., Mainz. Fakhry, A. 1947 ‘Wadi el-Rayyan’, ASAE 46, 1-18 with 3 plates. Fakhry, H. 1941 ‘A Fortnight’s Digging at Medinet Qûta’, ASAE 40, 897-909 with Pls CXXX–CXXXIV. Filges, A. 1997 StandbilderjugendlicherGöttinnen, Köln. Fischer-Bovet, Ch. 2014 ArmyandSocietyinPtolemaicEgypt, Cambridge. Petrie, W. M. Flinders 1890 Kahun,GurobandHawara, London. Fournet, Th. and Redon, B. 2017 ‘Catalogue of the Greek Tholos Baths of Egypt’, in: CollectiveBathsin Egypt2.NewDiscoveriesandPerspectives, ed. B. Redon, Le Caire, 389-435. France, J. 1999 TheadelphiaandEuhemereia.VillageHistoryinGraeco-RomanEgypt, TrismegistosTOP SS1, Leuven. Franceschelli, C. and Tassinari, C. 2006 ‘Bakchias X (2002). Esempi di architettura monumentale di età ellenistica: i portali del tempio A’, FayumStudies 2, 95-115. Frankfurter, D. 1998 ReligioninRomanEgypt, Princeton. Fraser, P. M. 1972 PtolemaicAlexandria, Oxford. Gallazzi, C. 1999 ‘Further Surprises from Tebtunis’, EgyptianArchaeology 14, 16-17. Gallazzi, C. and Hadji-Minaglou, G. 2000 TebtynisI,Lareprisedesfouillesetlequartierdelachapelle d’Isis-Themouthis, Cairo. Gallazzi, C. 2015 ‘Dove è stato ritrovato l’archivio di Abinneo?’, APF 61, 170-179. Gallazzi, C. (ed.) 2018, TebtynisVI, Le Caire. Gardiner, H. A. 1913 ATopographicalCatalogueofthePrivateTombsofThebes, London.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

361

Garbrecht, G. and Jaritz, H. 1990 Untersuchungen antiker Anlagen zur Wasserspeicherung im Fayum/ Ägypten, Braunschweig/Kairo. de Garis Davies, N. 1913 FiveThebanTombs, ArchaeologicalSurveyofEgypt 21, London. Gaubert Ch. and Mouton, J.-M. 2014 HommesetvillagesduFayyoumdansladocumentationpapyrologique arabe(Xe–XIesiècles), Genève. Gauthier, H. 1912 Lelivredesroisd’ÉgyptedelaXIIIeàlafindelaXVIIIedynastie,MIFAO 18, Le Caire. Glaser, F. 1983 AntikeBrunnenbauten(KPHNAI)inGriechenland, ÖsterreichischeAkademiederWissenschaften.Philosophisch-historischeKlasse,Denkschriften,161. Band, Wien. Gebauer, K. 1938/39 AlexanderbildnisundAlexandertypus, AM 63/64, 1-106. Geissen, A. and Weiser, W. 1983 KatalogAlexandrinischerKaisermünzenderSammlungdesInstitutsfür AltertumskundederUniversitätzuKöln, Bd. 4, Opladen. Goddio, F. and Fabre, D., edd. 2017 Osiris.DasversunkeneGeheimnisÄgyptens, München. Gomaà, F. 1986 DieBesiedlungÄgyptenswährenddesMittlerenReichesI,OberägyptenunddasFayyûm, Wiesbaden. Grace, V. 1952 TimbresamphoriquestrouvésaDélos, BCH 76, 514-540. Graeco-RomanArchives, see Vandorpe. Grenfell, B. and Hunt, A. 1898-1899 ‘Excavations for Papyri in the Fayûm; the Position of Lake Moeris’, EEFArchaeologicalReport 7, 8-15. Grenfell, B. and Hunt, A. 1900-1901 ‘Excavations in the Fayûm’, EEFArchaeologicalReport 9, 4-7. Grenier, J.-C. and Liverani, P. 2002 ‘Special effects in der hellenistischen Porträtkunst. Betrachtungen zum Alabasterporträt einer hellenistischen Königin in Privatbesitz’, AntikeWelt 33, 5, 551-555. Grimm, G. 1975 KunstderPtolemäer-undRömerzeitimÄgyptischenMuseumKairo, Mainz. Grönwald, H. 2003 ‘Der Brunnen’, in: Chr. Tietze, ‘Rekonstruktion und Restaurierung in Tell Basta’, ARCUS 6, 85-94. Grossmann, P. 1995 ‘Ein spätantikes Mausoleum in Qasr-Qarun-Dionysias’, BSAC 34, 139-148. Habermann, W. 1990 ‘Statistische Datenanalyse an den Zolldokumenten des Arsinoites aus römischer Zeit II’, MBAH 9, 50-94. Habermann, W. 2000 ZurWasserversorgungeinerMetropoleimkaiserzeitlichenÄgypten, München. Habermann, W. 2007 ‘Gymnasien im ptolemäischen Ägypten’, in: Das hellenistische Gymnasion, edd. D. Kah and P. Scholz, 2nd ed. Berlin, 335-348. Hagedorn, D. 1986 ‘Flurbereinigung in Theadelphia?’, ZPE 65, 93-100. Hadji-Minaglu, G. 2007 TebtynisIV,Leshabitationsàl’EstdutempledeSoknebtynis, Le Caire. Halm, H. 1979 ÄgyptennachdenmamlukischenLehensregisternI. OberägyptenunddasFayyûm, Wiesbaden. Hassan, F. 1986 ‘Holocene Lakes and Prehistoric Settlements of the Western Faiyum, Egypt’, Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 13, 483-501. Hassan, F. ed. 2002 Alexandria,Graeco-RomanMuseum.AThematicGuide, Cairo. Hassan, F. and Tassie, G. 2006 ‘Modelling environmental and settlement change in the Fayum’, EA 29, 37-40. Hassan, F. and Hemdan M. 2007 ‘The Faiyum Oasis – Climate Change and Water Management in Ancient Egypt’, in: TraditionalWaterTechniques:CulturalHeritageforaSustainableFuture, ed. F. Hassan, Cairo, 112-142. Haug, B. 2015 ‘Environment, Adaptation, and Administration in the Roman Fayyum’, in: VonderPharaonenzeitbiszurSpätantike–KulturelleVielfaltimFayum.Aktender5.InternationalenFayum-Konferenz, ed. N. Quenouille, Wiesbaden, 55-71. Heinen, H. 1994 ‘Ägyptische Tierkulte und ihre hellenistischen Protektoren’, in: Aspekte spätägyptischer Kultur,FestschriftfürE. Winter, edd. M. Minas and J. Zeidler, Mainz, 157-168. Henein, N. H. 1988MārīGirgis.VillagedeHaute-Égypte, Cairo. Héral, S. 1992 ‘Archives bilingues de nomarques dans les papyrus de Ghôran’, in: LifeinaMulti-CulturalSociety: EgyptfromCambysestoConstantineandBeyond, ed. J. H. Johnson, Chicago, 149-157 with map on p. 155. Hewison, N. 1985 TheFayoum.APracticalGuide, Repr. Cairo. Hewison, N. 2008 TheFayoum.HistoryandGuide. New Revised Edition, Cairo.

362

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hobson, D. 1982 ‘The Village of Apias in the Arsinoite Nome’, Aegyptus 62, 80-123. Hobson, D. 1984 ‘Agricultural Land and Economic Life in Soknopaiou Nesos’, BASP 21, 89-109. Hobson, D. 1985 ‘The Village of Heraklia’, BASP 22, 101-115. Hobson, D. 1986 ‘The Inhabitants of Heraklia’, BASP23, 99-123. Hoffmann, P. and Klein, B. 2006 ‘Careful with that Computer: on Creating Maps by Multidimensional Scaling of Papyri in K. Mueller’s Recent Studies on the Topography of the Fayum’, JJP 36, 67-90. Hoogendijk, F. A. J. 2007 ‘Dispute Concerning Ferrying Rights’, in: Proceedingsofthe24thInternational CongressofPapyrologyI, edd. J. Frösen et al., Helsinki, 435-452. Hohlwein, N. 1957 ‘Le vétéran Lucius Bellienus Gemellus, gentleman-farmer au Fayoum’, ÉtudesdePapyrologie8, 69-91. Husselman, E. M. 1979 Karanis,ExcavationsoftheUniversityofMichiganinEgypt1928-1935,TopographyandArchitecture, Ann Arbor. Huß, W. 2001 ÄgypteninhellenistischerZeit, München. Jacquet-Gordon, H. 1981 ‘A Tentative Typology of Egyptian Bread Moulds’, in: Studienzuraltägyptischen Keramik, ed. D. Arnold, Mainz, 11-41. Jördens, A. 1995 ‘Sozialstrukturen im Arbeitstierhandel des kaiserzeitlichen Ägypten’, Tyche10, 37-100. Johnson, J. H. ed. 2001 ChicagoDemoticDictionary (CDD), Internet Publication. Jomard, E. 1821 ‘Description des antiquités du nome Arsinoite, aujourd’hui le Fayoum, Section I (Description des vestiges d’Arsinoé ou Crocodilopolis, et des antiquités situées dans l’intérieur de la province’, in: Descriptiondel’Égypte IV, 2nd ed. by Panckoucke, C. L. F., Paris, 437-456. Jomard, E. 1821 ‘Description des antiquités du nome Arsinoite, aujourd’hui le Fayoum, Section II (Qasr-Qeroun)’, in: Descriptiondel’Égypte IV, 2nd ed. by Panckericke, C.L.F., Paris, 457-477. Kawanishi, H. and Suto, Y. 2005 ExcavationsatAkorisinMiddleEgyptI,AkorisArchaeologicalProject, Tsukuba. Kater-Sibbes, G. J. F. 1973 PreliminaryCatalogueofSarapisMonuments, Leiden. Keane, H. A. (ed.), 1885 TheUniversalGeographybyÉ. Reclus,Vol.X,North-EastAfrica, London. Keenan, J. 2003 ‘Deserted Villages: From the Ancient to the Medieval Fayyūm’, BASP 40, 119-139. Keenan, J. 2007 ‘Fayum Villages in SPP XX 229’, in: ProceedingsoftheInt.CongressofPapyrology,edd. J. Frösen et al., I, Helsinki, 487-496. El-Khashab, El-Mohsen 1949 PtolemaicandRomanBathsofKomel-Ahmar, Suppl. ASAE 10, 1949, 55-56 and plan 5. El-Khachab, Abd el-Mohsen (sic) 1978 ΤΑΣΑΡΑΠΕΙΑ,àSakhaetauFayum,oulesBainsThérapeutiques, ASAE Suppl. 25, Le Caire. Khoury, R. G. 1993 Chrestomatiedepapyrologiearabe, Leiden. Kosack, W. 1971 HistorischesKartenwerkÄgyptens,TextundKarten, Bonn. Kraemer, B. 2010 ‘The Meandering Identity of a Fayum Canal. The Henet of Moeris/Dioryx Kleonos/Bahr Wardan/Abdul Wahbi’, in: Proceedingsofthe25thInternationalCongressofPapyrology, ed. T. Gagos, Ann Arbor, 365-376. Krause, M. 1991 ‘Libraries’, in: TheCopticEncyclopedia V, ed. A.S. Atiya, New York. Krause, M. 2003 ‘Das koptische Antiphonar aus dem Handschriftenfund von Hamuli’, in: Ägypten–Münster,FestschriftE. Graefe, edd. A. I. Blöbaum, J. Kahl and S. D. Schweitzer, Wiesbaden. Kreuzsaler, C. 1999 ‘Zwei Fragmente – eine Lohnquittung: SPP III 304 + 569’, Tyche 14, 157-160. Kritzinger, P. 2015 ‘Das römische Zollsystem bis ins 3. Jh. n. Chr.’, in: StudienzumrömischenZollwesen, edd. P. Kritzinger, F. Schleicher and T. Stickler, Duisburg, 11-55. Kruse, Th. 1998 ‘P. Hamb. I 34 und die προβατοκτηνοτρόφοι von Euhemeria und die Schafe und Ziegen der Μαικηνατιανὴ οὐϲία’, ZPE 120, 145-156. Lagloired’Alexandrie:Alexandrie–L’Égypted’AlexandreàCléopâtre, CatalogueExpositiondesMusées delaVilledeParis1998.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

363

Lajtar, A. 2003 CataloguedesinscriptionsgrecquesduMuséeNationaldeVarsovie, JJP Suppl. II, Varsovie. Lanciers, E. 1986 ‘Die ägyptischen Tempelbauten zur Zeit des Ptolemaios V Epiphanes’, MDAIK 42, 81-98. Launey, M. 1949 Recherchessurlesarméeshellénistiques,Paris. Lawrence, A. W. 1925 ‘Greek Sculpture in Ptolemaic Egypt’, JEA 11, 188. Lefebvre, G. 1909 ‘Un original retrouvé’, BSAA 11, 294-297 with pl. in text. Lefebvre, G. 1910 ‘Égypte gréco-romaine II. Crocodilopolis et Théadelphie’, ASAE 10, 155-172. Lefebvre, G. 1911 ‘Égypte chrétienne IV. Inscriptions coptes et grecques’, ASAE 11, 238-250. Lepsius, C. R., DenkmälerausAegyptenundAethiopien,TextbändeundTafelwerke, nach d. Zeichnungen d. von Seiner Majestät d. Koenige von Preußen Friedrich Wilhelm IV. nach diesen Ländern gesendeten u. in d. Jahren 1842-1845 ausgeführten wiss. Expedition auf Befehl Seiner Majestät; hrsg. u. erl. von C. R. Lepsius, Berlin (1850)–1913 (on-line im Lepsius-Projekt, Sachsen-Anhalt). Lewis, N. 1983 LifeinEgyptunderRomanRule, Oxford, repr. 1985. Lichocka, B. 1989 ‘Le barbare dans les représentations de Némésis en Égypte romaine’, Klio 71, 115-126. Lichocka, B. 2004 NémésisenÉgypteRomaine, AegyptiacaTreverensia 5, Mainz. Lindsay,J. 1963 DailyLifeinRomanEgypt, London. Lippert, S. 2013 ‘Das Fayyûm als Abbild Ägyptens, Zu den topographischen Abschnitten des Buches vom Fayyûm’, in: DasFayyûminHellenismusundKaiserzeit, edd. C. Arlt, and M. A. Stadler, Wiesbaden, 95-118. Lippert, S. 2015 ‘Chapels, Chambers and Gateways. The Religious Architecture of Soknopaiou Nesos According to the Demotic Documentary Papyri’, in: Soknopaios. The Temple and Worship, edd. M. Capasso and P. Davoli, Lecce. Lucas, P. 1719 TroisièmevoyageduSieurPaulLucasfaitenM.DCCXIV&c.,parordredeLouisXIV, II Rouen. Maehler, H. 1983 ‘Häuser und ihre Bewohner im Fayûm in der Kaiserzeit’, in: DasRömisch-Byzantinische Ägypten,AktendesinternationalenSymposionsinTrier, edd. G. Grimm, et al., Mainz, 119-137. Malouta, M. and Wilson, A. 2013 ‘Mechanical Irrigation: Water-Lifting Devices in the Archaeological Evidence and in the Egyptian Papyri’, in: TheRomanAgriculturalEconomy, edd. A. K. Bowman and A. Wilson, Oxford, 273-305. Mango, E. 2007 ‘Bankette im hellenistischen Gymnasion’, in: DashellenistischeGymnasion, edd. D. Kah and P. Scholz, 2nd ed., Berlin, 273-311. Martin, C. 1986 ‘A Demotic Land Lease from Philadelphia’, JEA 72, 167-168. Mcfadden, S. 2014 ‘Art on the Edge: The Late Roman Wall painting of Amheida, Egypt’, in: ActesduXII Colloquedel‘Associationinternationalepourlapeinturemuraleantique, ed. N. Zimmermann, Wien, 359-370 (on-line on the webpage of the Amheida Project). Meinardus, O. 1965 ChristianEgypt,AncientandModern, Cairo. Meinardus, O. F. A. 1999 TwoThousandYearsofCopticChristianity, Cairo. Melaerts, H. 1997 ‘Une liste de villages de la méris de Polémon’, in: InhonoremAloysiGerlo, edd. R. De Smet, H. Melaerts and C. Saerens, Leuven, 171-182. Michel, N. 2005 ‘Travaux aux digues dans la vallée du Nil aux époques papyrologique et ottomane: une comparaison’, CRIPEL 25, 253-276. Mitthof, F. 1999 ‘Review of P. Sorb. II 69, ed. J. Gascou, Atlanta 1994’, Gnomon 71, 134-139. Mitthof, F. 2008 ‘Urkundenreferat 2007’, APF 54, 266-298. Monson, A. 2013 ‘Salinization and agricultural productivity in the Fayyûm’, in: DasFayyûminHellenismus undKaiserzeit, edd. C. Arlt and M. Stadler, Wiesbaden 123-140. Monson, A. 2012 FromthePtolemiestotheRomans, Cambridge. Montserrat, D. 1996 ‘No Papyrus and no Portraits, Hogarth, Grenfell and the First Season in the Fayum’, BASP 33, 133-176. Moormann, E. M. 2012 DivineInteriors:MuralPaintingsinGreekandRomanSanctuaries, Amsterdam. Morelli, F. 2002 ‘CPR XIV 55, Il τίμιοϲ Σταυρόϲ del Fayyûm, e un papiro dimenticato = SPP X 219’, ZPE 138, 159-167. Morelli, F. 2004 ‘I χωρία in α dell’ Arsinoite’, ZPE 149, 125-137.

364

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Müller, K. 2003 ‘Places and Spaces in the Themistou Meris (Fayum/Graeco-Roman Egypt). Locating Settlements by Multidimensional Scaling of Papyri’, AncientSociety 33, 103-125. Müller, K. 2006 SettlementsofthePtolemies, StudiaHellenistica 43, Leuven. Müller, W. 1971 ‘Die Berliner Papyrusgrabungen in Dîme und Medînet Mâdi 1909/10’, APF 21, 5-55. Müller-Wollermann, R. 1996 ‘Gaugrenzen und Grenzstelen’, CE 71, 5-16. Murray, J. ed. 1847 HandbookforTravellersinEgyptIncludingDescriptionsoftheCourseoftheNileto the SecondCataract,etc., being a New Edition, corrected and condensed of “Modern Egypt and Thebes by Sir G. Wilkinson” (Murray’s Handbook), 249-257, digitized by Google (different from the edition cited by Grenfell and Hunt [“fifth edition”] in P. Fay. p. 63, nonvidi). Nachtergael, G. 1996 ‘Trois dédicaces au Dieu Hérôn’, CE 71, 129-142. Nachtergael, G. 2000 ‘Sceaux et timbres de bois d’Égypte I. En marge des archives d’Hèroninos: cachets et bouchons d’amphores de Theadelphie’, CE 75, 153-170. Nachtergael, G. 2001 ‘Sceaux et timbres de bois d’ Égypte II. Les sceaux de grand format’, CE76, 231-257. Nachtergael, G. 2002/2003 ‘Documents de fouilles en provenance du nome Arsinoïte et d’Antinoé’, Analecta Papyrologica 14-15, 285-298. El-Nassery, S. A. A., Wagner, G., Castel, G. 1976 ‘Un grand bain gréco-romain à Karanis’, BIFAO76, 231275, Plan 1-14, and Pl. XXXII–XLVIII. Noeske, H.-Ch. 2006 Münzfunde aus Ägypten II, Die griechisch-römischen Münzfunde aus dem Fayum, SFMA 22, Mainz. NotitiaDignitatum, ed. O. Seeck, Frankfurt 1876, Repr. 1962. Obsomer, C. 1992 ‘Hérodote, Strabon et le “mystère” du Labyrinthe d’Égypte’, in: Amosiadès,Mélanges offertsauProfesseurClaudeVandersleyen, edd. C. Obsomer and A.-L. Oosthoek, Louvain-la-Neuve, 221-324, with Pl. I–IX. Omar, S. 1979 DasArchivdesSoterichos(P. Soterichos), PapyrologicaColoniensia 8, Opladen. Otranto, R. 2000 Antichelistedilibrisupapiro, Bari. Paganini, M. 2010 ‘The Hybrid Nature of Gymnasia in Ptolemaic Egypt’, in: FirstHellenisticStudiesWorkshopinAlexandria2009,Proceedings, ed. K. Savvopoulos, Alexandria, 36-50. Paganini, M. 2014 ‘Receipt of Hay for the Transport (?) of Roses’, ZPE193, 226-230. Panagos, P., Jones, A., Bosco, C., Senthil Kumar P.S. Europeandigitalarchiveonsoilmaps(EuDASM): Egypt. Papi, E. et al. 2010 ‘La missione dell’Università di Siena a Qasr Qaroun – Dionysias (2009-2010)’, RISE 4, 239-250 and Tav. 1-5. Parássoglou, G. M. 1978 ImperialEstatesinRomanEgypt, ASP18, Amsterdam. Pearl, O. 1951, ‘ΕΞΑΘΥΡΟΣ Irrigation Works and Canals in the Arsinoite Nome’, Aegyptus 31, 223-230. Pearl, O. 1954 ‘ΑΡΓΑΙΤΙΣ and ΜΟΗΡΙΣ’, Aegyptus 34, 27-34. Pedley, J. G. 2012 TheLifeandWorkofFrancisWilleyKelsey.Archaeology,Antiquity,andtheArts, Ann Arbor. Pensabene, P. 1995 ‘Il tempio di tradizione faraonica e il dromos nell’urbanistica dell’Egitto greco-romano’, in: Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano, Atti del congresso internazionale italo-egizio, edd. A. Tullio, et al., Roma, 205-219. Pochan, A. 1936 ‘Note au sujet de la Gorge d’Illahoun’, BIE 18, 136. Pococke, R. 1743 ADescriptionoftheEastandSomeOtherCountries, Vol. I, London. Pococke, R. 2013 Letters from Abroad III: The Letters from the East. Grand Tour Correspondence of R. PocockeandJ. Milles, ed. R. Finnegan, Kilkenny. Poethke, G. 1976 ‘Der Berliner Epimerismos-Papyrus vom Jahre 139 (P 11529 + 16015)’, APF 24/25, 101-109. Quaegebeur, J. 1975 LedieuégyptienShaïdanslareligionetl’onomastique, OLA 2, Louvain. Raghib, Y. 1982 ‘Contrat d’affermage d’un pressoir à huile en 205/821’, StudiaIranica 11, 293-299. Ramzi, M. 1968 IndexzumGeographischenWörterbuchvonÄgyptenvonderFrühzeitbis1945,I, Cairo.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

365

Rapoport, Y. and Shahar, I. 2012 ‘Irrigation in the Medieval Islamic Fayyum: Local Control in a Large-Scale Hydraulic System’, JournaloftheEconomicandSocialHistoryoftheOrient 55, 1-31. Rapoport, Y. and Shahar, I. 2018 The Villages of the Fayyum: A Thirteenth-Century Register of Rural, IslamicEgypt, Turnhout. Rapoport, Y. and Shahar, I. 2018RuralEconomyandTribalSocietyinIslamicEgypt.AStudyofal-Nabulusī’s‘VillagesoftheFayyum’, Turnhout. Rathbone, D. 1990 ‘Villages, land and population in Graeco-Roman Egypt’, ProceedingsoftheCambridge PhilologicalSociety 36, 103-142. Rathbone, D. 1991 EconomicRationalismandRuralSocietyinThird-CenturyA.D. Egypt, Cambridge. Rathbone, D. 1997 ‘Surface Survey and the Settlement History of the Ancient Fayum’, in: Archeologiae papiri nel Fayyum, Atti del convegno internazionale, ed. Istituto internazionale del Papiri, Siracusa, 7-20. Rathbone, D. 2008 ‘Villages and Patronages in Fourth-Century Egypt: The Case of P. Ross. Georg. 3.8’, BASP 45, 189-207. Rathbone, D. 2013 ‘Heroninos Archive’, in: The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, edd. R. Bagnall et al., New York, 3190-3191. Redon, B. and Fournet, Th. 2013 ‘Heating Systems of Greek Baths, New Evidence from Egypt’, in: Greek BathsandBathingCulture, edd. S.K. Lucore and M. Trümper, Leuven, 239-263. Rehard, J. W. 1996 ‘The Stamped Amphora Handles’, in: W. D. E. Coulson, AncientNaukratis II PartI, Oxford, 147-161. Reymond, E. A. E. 1973 CatalogueoftheDemoticPapyriintheAshmolean, Oxford. Reymond, E. A. E. and Barns, J. W. B. edd. 1973 Four Martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan Coptic Codices, Oxford (special ed. 1998). Rifaud, J.-J. 1830 Tableaudel’Égypte,delaNubieetdeslieuxcirconvoisins, Paris. Rigsby, K. 1996 Asylia, TerritorialInviolabilityintheHellenisticWorld, Berkeley. Rodziewicz, M. D. 2005 Elephantine XXVII: EarlyRomanIndustriesonElephantine, AV 107, Mainz. Roeder, G. 1959, Hermopolis1929-1939, Hildesheim. Römer, C. 2004 ‘Philoteris in the Themistou Meris. Report on the Archaeological Survey carried out as Part of the Fayum Survey Project’, ZPE 147, 281-305. Römer, C. 2013 ‘The Greek Baths in the Fayum at Euhemeria and Theadelphia’, in: GreekBathsandBathingCulture:NewDiscoveriesandApproaches,PapersoftheConferenceHeldattheAmericanAcademyatRome,16-17April2010, edd. S. Lucore and M. Trümper, Leuven, 223-231. Römer, C. 2013 ‘Why did the Villages in the Themistou Meris die in the 4th Century AD? New Ideas about an Old Problem’, in: DasFayyûminHellenismusundKaiserzeit.FallstudienzumultikulturellemLeben inderAntike, edd. C. Arlt and M. Stadler, Wiesbaden, 169-179. Römer, C. 2016 ‘The Gods of Karanis or Heron is not Heron’, ZPE 200, 481-494. Römer, C. 2017 ‘The River Nile in the Fayum. Strategies of Dominating and Using the Water Resources of the River in the Oasis’, in: TheNile.NaturalandCulturalLandscapeinEgypt, edd. H. Willems and J.-M. Dahms, Bielefeld, 171-191. Römer, C. 2018 ‘A Nilometer at Theadelphia? Location, and Possible Meaning of a “Well” ’, in: Πολυμάθεια. StudiClassicioffertiaMarioCapasso, edd. P. Davoli and N. Pellé, Lecce, 385-394. Rondot, V. 2004 LetempledeSoknebtynisetsondromos(TebtynisII), Le Caire. Rondot, V. 2013 Derniersvisagesdesdieuxd’Égypte, Paris. De Rozière, F. M. 1826 ‘Histoire Naturelle. De la constitution physique de l’Égypte’, in: Description de l’Égypte XXI, Paris, 215-220. Rowland, J., Inskip, S. and Zakrzewski, S. 2010 ‘The Ptolemaic-Roman Cemetery at the Quesna Archaeological Area’, JEA96, 31-48. Rubensohn, O. 1902 ‘Griechisch-römische Funde in Ägypten’, AA, 46-49. Rubensohn, O. 1905 ‘Aus Griechisch-römischen Häusern des Fayum’, JDAI 20, 1-25. Rübsam, W. J. R. 1974 Götter und Kulte in Faijum während der griechisch-römisch-byzantinischen Zeit, Bonn.

366

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rykolt, K. 2018 ‘Two Self-Dedicatious Adressed to Isis-Nephersais of Euhemeria (P. Cairo CG 500018 and P. Louvre E 10606)’ in: Hieratic, Demotic and Greek Studies and Text Editions, edd. K. Van Heel, F. A. J. Hogendijk and C. Martin, Leiden-Boston, 205-218 Salmon, G. 1901 ‘Répertoire géographique de la province du Fayyoûm d’après le Kitâb Târikh al-Fayyoûm d’An-Nâboulsî’, BIFAO 1, 29-77, with map after p. 72. Sampsell, B. M. 2003 ATraveller’sGuidetotheGeologyofEgypt, Cairo – New York. Scaife, A. R. 1988 ‘Accounts for Taxes on Beer and Natron’, ZPE 71, 105-109 and Tafel V. Schiestl, R. and Seiler, A. 2012 HandbookofthepotteryoftheEgyptianMiddleKingdom, 2 Volumes, Wien. Schwartz, J. and Wild, H. 1950 Qasr-Qarun/Dionysias1948,FouillesFranco-Suisses,RapportsI, Le Caire. Schwartz, J. and Wild, H. 1969 Qasr-Qarun/Dionysias1950,FouillesFranco-Suisses,RapportsII, Le Caire. Sethe, K. and Partsch, J. 1920 Demotische Urkunden zum ägyptischen Bürgschaftsrechte, Leipzig = P. Bürgsch. El-Shabrawy, G. M. and Dumont, D. J. 2009 ‘The Fayum Depression and its Lake’, in: TheNile:Origins, Environments,LimnologyandHumanUse, ed. D. J. Dumont, Wien. Shafei Bey, A. 1940 ‘Fayoum Irrigation as described by Nabulsi in 1245 A.D.’, BSRGE 20, 113-119. Sharp, M. 1999 ‘The Village of Theadelphia in the Fayyum: Land and Population in the Second Century’, in: AgricultureinEgypt, edd. A. K. Bowman and E. Rogan, Oxford, 159-192. Sicard, C. 1982 Oeuvres I, Lettres et relations inédites, Présentation et notes de M. Martin, Bibliothèque d’Étude 83, Le Caire. Sijpesteijn, P. J. 1964 Penthemeros-CertificatesinGraeco-RomanEgypt, PapyrologicaLugduno-Batava12, Leiden. Sijpesteijn, P. J. 1987 ‘A Receipt for Bath-Tax from Philoteris’, CE 62, 201-204. Soldati, A. 2015 ‘Θραϲώ/Σαθρώ’, AnalectaPapyrologica 27, 143-148. Spencer, A. J. 1993 Excavationsatel-Ashmunein III: TheTown, London. Sztetullo, Z. 2000 ‘Pottery Stamps’, in: K. Mysliwiec, TellAtrib1985-1995, Warszawa, 53-265. Talbert, R. J. A. 2000 BarringtonAtlasoftheGreekandRomanWorld, Princeton. Thiers, Ch. 2006 ‘Égyptiens et Grecs au service des cultes indigènes. Un aspect de l’evergétisme en Égypte lagide’, in: Lesrégulationssocialesdansl’antiquité, ed. M. Molin, Rennes, 275-301. Thompson, D. J. 1999 ‘Irrigation and Drainage in the Early Ptolemaic Fayum’, in AgricultureinEgypt,From PharaonictoModernTimes, edd. A. K. Bowman and E. Rogan, Oxford, 107-122, with Appendix B. Thompson, D. J. 2015 ‘The Fayum in the Description de l’Égypte’, in: Von der Pharaonenzeit bis zur Spätantike–KulturelleVielfaltimFayum.Aktender5.InternationalenFayum-Konferenz, ed. N. Quenouille, Wiesbaden, 163-171. Timm, St. 1984 Daschristlich-koptischeÄgypteninarabischerZeit, Teil1, Wiesbaden. Timm, St. 1988 Daschristlich-koptischeÄgypteninarabischerZeit,Teil4, Wiesbaden. Tomber, R. 2001 ‘The Pottery’, in: TheRomanImperialQuarriesSurveyandExcavationatMonsPorphyrites1994-1998, EESExcavationMemoir 67, edd. V. Maxfield and D. Peacock, London. Tomber, R. 2006 ‘The Pottery’, in: SurveyandExcavationMonsClaudianus1987-1993,Vol. III,FIFAO 54, V. Maxfield and D. Peacock, Cairo. Uebel, F. 1962 ‘Griechische Papyri der Zeit Euergetes II aus Euhemeria in Giessen und Jena’, APF17, 115-146. Uebel, F. 1963 ‘Leipziger Fragmente zu P. Jen. Inv. 77-79’, APF 18, 39-43. Uytterhoeven, I. 2009, HawaraintheGraeco-RomanPeriod.LifeandDeathinaFayumVillage, OLA 174, Leuven. Van Beek, B. and Clarysse, W. 2003 ‘Lysimachis’ in Trismegistos on-line. Van Beek, B. 2017 TheArchiveoftheArchitektonesKleonandTheodoros (P. PetrieKleon), Collectanea Hellenistica 7, Leuven. Vandorpe, K. 1988 EgyptischegeografischeelementeninGrieksetranskriptie, TrismegistosTOP SS1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

367

Vandorpe, K. 2004 ‘The Henet of Moeris and the Ancient Administrative Division of the Fayum in Two Parts’, APF 50, 61-78. Vandorpe, K. 2005 ‘Sealing Containers’, BSEP 3, Pisa, 163-175. Vandorpe, K. 2015 ‘Roman Egypt and the Organisation of Customs Duties’, in: Studien zum römischen Zollwesen, edd. P. Kritzinger, F. Schleicher and T. Stickler, Duisburg, 89-111. Vandorpe, K., Clarysse, W. and Verreth, H. 2015 Graeco-Roman Archives from the Fayum, Collectanea Hellenistica–KVAB 6, Leuven. Van Lantschoot, A. 1929 Recueil des colophons coptes des manuscripts chrétiens d’Égypte. Tome I Les colophonscoptesdesmanuscriptssahidiques, Leuven. Van Minnen, P. 1998 ‘Bookish or Boorish?’, JJP 28, 99-184. Vansleb, J. M. 1677 NouvellerelationenformedeIournald’unvoyageenEgypte, Paris. Venit, M. S. 2002 MonumentalTombsatAncientAlexandria, Cambridge. Verreth, h. 2013 ASurveyofToponymsinEgyptintheGraeco-RomanPeriod,TrismegistosTop2. Vivian, C. 2008 TheWesternDesertofEgypt, Cairo 2000, rev. edition 2008. Vleeming, S. 2001 SomeCoinsofArtaxerxesandotherShortTextsintheDemoticScriptFoundonVarious ObjectsandGatheredfromManyPublications, StudiaDemotica 5, Leuven. Wessely, K. 1904 TopographiedesFaijûmingriechischerZeit, DenkschriftenderKaiserlichenAkademie derWissenschaften,phil.-hist.Klasse I, Wien. Westendorf, W. 2008 KoptischesHandwörterbuch, 2. Aufl., Heidelberg. Will, E. 1990 ‘Heron’, in: LIMC V, 391-394. Wilkinson, J. G. 1835 TopographyofThebesandGeneralViewofEgypt, London. Wilkinson, Sir J. G. 1843 ModernEgyptandThebes:BeingaDescriptionofEgypt,includingInformation requiredforTravellersinthatCountryIandII, London (cf. Murray, J. (ed.), HandbookforTravellers inEgypt1847). Willcocks, W. 1913 EgyptianIrrigation, London. Wipszycka, E. 1972 LesressourcesetlesactivitéséconomiquesdeséglisesenÉgypteduIVauVIIIsiècle, Bruxelles. Whitehorne, J. 1991 ‘P. Mich. Inv. 255: A Petition to the Epistrategus P. Marcius Crispus’, CE 66, 251. Worp, K. A. 1989, ‘Ein neuer Atias-Papyrus’, Tyche 13, 1998, 253-254 and Pl. 12. Worp, K. A. 1994, ‘A Checklist of Bishops in Byzantine Egypt’, ZPE 100, 283-318. Worp, K. A. 2012 ANewSurveyofGreek,Coptic,DemoticandLatinTabulaePreservedfromClassical Antiquity, TrismegistosTOP 6. Yeivin, S. 1930 ‘The Ptolemaic System of Water Supply in the Fayyûm’, ASAE 30, 27-30. Youtie, L. C. 1983 ‘P. Fay. 243 Verso: Topography in the Themistou Meris’, ZPE 50, 51-55. Yoyotte, J. 1962 ‘Processions géographiques mentionnant le Fayoum et ses localités’, BIFAO 61, 79-138. Zecchi, M. 2002 HieroglyphicInscriptionsfromtheFayumI, Imola. Zecchi, M. 2008 ‘The Monument of Abgig’, SAK 37, 373-386. Zecchi, M. 2012 HieroglyphicInscriptionsfromtheFayumIII, Imola.

INDICES I. Indices of Sources I.1. Papyri and Ostraca BGU I 141, 8 33 BGU I 153, 5-7 259 BGU I 197, 2-3 259 BGU I 197, 8-11 260 BGU I 277, Col. I 9 327 BGU I 277, Col. I 16 and 20 327 BGU I 277, Col. II 16 327 BGU I 297 316 BGU I 320 71 BGU II 634 319 BGU III 753 27 BGU III 755 112 BGU III 790 318 BGU III 802 235, note 79 BGU III 803 323 BGU III 831 316 BGU III 973 318 BGU IV 1075 142 BGU IV 1076 99, note 12; 142 BGU IV 1077 193 BGU IV 1077, 6 99 BGU V 1210 150 BGU IX 1893 323 BGU IX 1894, 82 and 79 149 BGU IX 1895, 63 33 BGU IX 1896, 192 195 BGU IX 1897a 11 196 BGU XI 2029 ? BGU XI 2033 314 BGU XI 2052 317 BGU XI 2052, 3 317 BGU XIII 2242, 11-12 327 BGU XIII 2250 36 BGU XIII 2261 143 BGU XIII 2262 99; 193 BGU XIII 2308 277, note 83 C. Ord. Ptol. 68 146 Chrest. Khoury I 65 329 Chrest. Mitt. 261 259 Chrest. Wilck. 337 196

Chrest. Wilck. 344 27 Chrest. Wilck. 388 142 CPR VII 8 Frg. 3, 4 and 45 308 CPR VII 8, 75-80 325 and note 17 CPR XII 37 27 CPR XIV 55 324 O. Deiss. 52 37 O. Fay. 2 183 O. Fay. 3 183 O. Fay. 5 224; 236 O. Fay. 10,4 196 O. Fay. 35 37 O. Fay. 38 196 O. Fay. 41 199 P. Abinn. 27 198 P. Abinn. 27,3 173 P. Abinn. 49 71 P. Abinn. 55 324, note 15 P. Abinn. 55,7 85 P. Abinn. 57 71 P. Aberd. 36b 316 P. Alex. 7 259 P. Amh. II 114, 7 236 P. Athen 35 108, note 9 P. Bacch. 19, 10-11 235 and note 75 P. Bagnall 30 143 P. Berl. Frisk 1, col. 33, 1.10 27 P. Berl. Leihg. I 16 a-e 151 P. Berl. Leihg. II 32 112 P. Berl. Leihg. II 43 314 P. Berl. Zill. 8 42 P. Bingen 146 309, note 19 P. Bürgsch. 16 216 P. Bürgsch. 22 314 P. Bürgsch. 23 32 P. Cair. Zen. I 59138 212 P. Cair. Zen. I 59138, 9 212 P. Cair. Zen. IV 59656 316 P. Cair. Zen. IV 59670 192 P. Cair. Zen. IV 59671 192

370 P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P.

Cair. Zen. IV 59771 192 Cair. II 31255 196 Cair. II 31257 189, note 57 Cair. II 31262 189, note 57 Cair. II 31267 189, note 57 Cair. II 31268 189, note 57 Cair. II 50004 189, note 57 Cair. II 50018 196 Col. II 1 ro 5, Col. 2, 8 308 Col. V 1 v 4 143 Col. VIII 236 236 Col. VIII 236,2 236 Col. VIII 237 110 Col. Zen. I 51 2, note 12 Col. Zen. I 51 31, note 8 Col. Zen. I 51, 6 36 Corn. 41 237 Count 3, 1ff. 2, note 12 Count 3, 45, 49, 85, 130 31, note 9 Count. 5 216 Count 11 100; 110; 193; 194; 276 Count 11 Col II 11 236 Count 11 Col II 13 236 Count 22, 24, 26 and 31 37 Count 22, 23, 26 and 34 36 Count 23 36; 38 Count 26 36 Customs 466 277, note 84 Customs 467 277, note 84 Customs 469 277, note 84 Customs 470 277, note 84 Customs 475 277, note 83 and 84 Dime II 31 325 Dub. 34, 2 309 Duk. Inv. 676 33 Eirene II 6, 9 317, note 29 Eirene III 35 85 Enteux. 11 100 Fay. 6 176; 197, note 89 Fay. 7 176; 198, note 92 Fay. 9 198 Fay. 11 194 Fay. 24 193 Fay. 25 194 Fay. 34 98 Fay. 40 71 Fay. 47 196 Fay. 48, 1 195 Fay. 54 194 Fay. 60 236 Fay. 68 270 Fay. 77 99, note 12; 142

INDICES

P. Fay. 78 99, note 12; 142 P. Fay. 81 112 P. Fay. 87 195 P. Fay. 102 278 P. Fay. 102, 112 and 120 318, note 35 P. Fay. 108 98 P. Fay. 110; 112 278 P. Fay. 111 278 P. Fay. 111, 4-7 195 P. Fay. 115, 3-8 195 P. Fay. 117 196 P. Fay. 131, 9-12 235 P. Fay. 134 198 P. Fay. 135 r 198 P. Fay. 136 197; 198 P. Fay. 209 197, note 89 P. Fay. 210 197, note 89 P. Fay. 211 197, note 89 P. Fay. 215 196 P. Fay. 241 196 P. Fay. 242 descr. 195; 199 P. Fay. 243 descr. 199; 326 P. Fay. 246 descr. 196 P. Fay. 286 descr. 193 P. Fay. 287 descr. 192 P. Fay. 288 descr. 192 P. Fay. 289 descr. 193 P. Fay. 290 descr. 192 P. Fay. 344 descr. 100 P. Fay. 364 descr. 193 P. Fay. 366 descr. 192 P. Flor. I 9 71 P. Flor. II 119v; 127; 201; 275r 151, note 117 P. Flor. II 126 309 P. Flor. II 129 237 P. Flor. II 129, 131 and 178 110 P. Flor. II 184 308 P. Flor. II 223 143 P. Flor. II 273v 143 P. Flor. III 322 184 P. Flor. III 364 308 P. Gen. I2 8,7 259 P. Gen. I 59 173, note 4; 198 P. Gen. II 89 112 P. Genova III 106, 15-17 236 P. Giss. Bibl. I 1, 1-10 191, note 65 P. Giss. Bibl. I 6 194 P. Giss. Bibl. I 8, 1 194 P. Giss. Bibl. I 10 196 P. Giss. Bibl. I 12 99, note 9 P. Giss. Bibl. 226 196 P. Götterbriefe 4 189, note 57

371

INDICES

P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P.

Graux II 14 317 Graux IV 31 Col. III 1 and 3 149 Gur. 13 325, note 17 Gur. 28 212 Gur. 27 193 Hamb. I 17 36 Hamb. I 34 195 Hamb. I 34, 10-11 194 Hamb. I 75 99, note 12; 193 Heid. VI 372 212 Horak 24 151, note 117 Iand. I 3 194 Iand. I 7 194 Iand. I 3 198 Iand. VII 135 27, note 3 Köln VII 315 212 Köln VIII 345 110 Köln X 441 A 4 32 Laur. III 93 277 Laur. III 93, 3 234 Leit. 14 98, 99 Lille Gr. I 11 36 LilleDem. II 40, 8 236, note 82 LilleDem. II 46 110 LilleDem. II 50 and 51 325 LilleDem. II 56 and 59 189, note 57 LilleDem. II 64 236, note 82 LilleDem. II 64, 5 216 LilleDem. II 64, 7 236 LilleDem. II 68,70,85,89 86 LilleDem. II 74 27 LilleDem. II 83 101 LilleDem. II 84 A3 236, note 82 LilleDem. II 92, 6 236, note 82 LilleDem. II 95 236 LilleDem. II 96 31, note 6 LilleDem. III 110 212; 276 Lips. II 150 192 Lips. II 152 152, note 121; 197, note 86 Lond. II 216 314 Lond. II 295 112 Lond. II 295, 1 276 Lond. II 335 314 Lond. III 842 318 Lond. II 256r (e) 1 p. 95-97 27 Lond. II 256r (e) 4 p. 99 27 Lond. III 855 318 Lond. III 895 190, note 63 Lond. III 900,24 194 Lond. III 906, 7 195 Lond. III 1177 231 Lond. III 1218 190, note 63

P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P.

Lond. III 1170 108, note 9; 109 Louvre I 3, 18 314 Louvre I 25 314 MacQuarie 499 324 Med. I 6, 8 71, note 11 Med. I 8, 14 and 29 148 Meyer 15 197, note 86 Mich. III 174 151 Mich. X 595 99, note 12; 142 Mich. XI 617 108, note 9 Mich. XII 654 143; 192 Mich. XV 701 36 Mich. XVIII 770 36 Mil. I 6 72; 108, note 9; 109; 109, note 11 Münch. III 1 99, note 12 Münch. III 84, 8 191 Münch. III 108 142 Oslo II 30 101 Oslo III 89 108, note 9 Oslo III 89-91 98 Oslo III 90 108, note 9 Oslo III 90 and 91 99 Oslo III 91 108, note 9 Oxy. XLIII 3089 277, note 81 Oxy. LXIX 4740 277 Petaus 69 316 Petr. II 2, 1 194 Petr. II 2, 1, 18 196 Petr. II 13 7 Petr. III 42 G (7)a 7 Petr. II 43 a-b 325, note 17 Petr. III 58e, 20-21 71 Petr. III 66b, col. 2, 12 33 Petr. III 78 318 Petr. III 78, 5-6 33 Petr. III 78-79 100 Petr. III 78, 79, 80 36 Petr. III 82 173 Petr. III 82, 6 148 Petr. III 130 211 Petr. III 130r, 1-6 259 Petr. Kleon 39 236; 237; 259; 260 Petr. Kleon 86 7 Petr. Kleon 90, 20 325 Petr. Kleon 91, 178 318 Petr. Kleon 91 1. 104 27 Petr. Kleon 92 235 Pintaudi 21, 3 306, note 3 Pintaudi 45 212 Poethke 8 32 Prag I 106 237 Princ. II 29 275

372 P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P.

Rein. I 54v 151, note 117 Rein. II 115 143 Rev. 60-72 260 Ross. Georg. III 8 191; 199 Ross. Georg. V 73 308 Ryl. II 94 195 Ryl. II 98a 108, note 9 Ryl. II 124 190 Ryl. II 124-152 190, note 62 Ryl. II 125 185; 190 Ryl. II 125, 3 194 Ryl. II 126 193 Ryl. II 126,6-9+14 194 Ryl. II 127 194; 195 Ryl. II 131 195 Ryl. II 132 and 133 195 Ryl. II 133 196 Ryl. II 133, 12 193 Ryl. II 134, 7-9 194 Ryl. II 138, 4-5 194 Ryl. II 139 193 Ryl. II 140 and 141, 7-8 194 Ryl. II 146 193 Ryl. II 146 195 Ryl. II 148, 5-9 194 Ryl. II 152 193; 195 Ryl. II 166 195 Ryl. II 171 317 Ryl. II 211 192 Ryl. II 212 192 Sakaon 2 276 Sakaon 7 276 Sakaon 9 276 Sakaon 22 276 Sakaon 22, II 9 111 Sakaon 32 12; 199 Sakaon 32, 27 ff. 86, 87 Sakaon 35 70; 71; 72 Sakaon 35, 5-6 9 Sakaon 35, 8 9 Sakaon 39 324 Sakaon 42, 17-18 70 Sakaon 48 110 Sakaon 53 199 Sakaon 76 99; 100 Sedment 175_6A, 22-24 308 Sorb. I 59 142 Soterichos 22-25 150 Strasb. I 8 101, note 23 Strasb. V 314, 11-12 191 Strasb. IV 201, 4-6 259 Strasb. IV 249d 99, note 12; 142; 193

INDICES

P. Strasb. V 354 325 P. Strasb. V 465 99 P. Strasb. VII 606 98, note 8 P. Tebt. I 86 6 and 7 P. Tebt. I 164 7 P. Tebt. II 554v 191 P. Tebt. III 866, 11 85 P. Tebt. III 1028 325, note 17 P. Thead. 14 199 P. Thead. 53 199 P. Ups. Frid. 1 211; 237; 259 P. Vind. Sal. 16 211; 237 P. Vindob. G 15148 85, note 11 P. Wisc. I 31 108, note 9 P. Wisc. I 31, 34 and 35 109 P. Wisc. I 34-45 108, note 9 P. Wisc. I 37 99, note 9 P. Yale I 53, 2 194 PERF 698 329 PSAA 50 verso 26 236 PSI I 51 143 PSI III 160 99, note 9; 108, note 9 PSI IV 389 318, note 34 PSI V 458 108, note 9 PSI VII 735 108, note 9 PSI VII 737 277, note 81 PSI VIII 921Ro 71 PSI IX 1060, 7 195, and note 83 PSI IX 1060, 7 195 PSI XII 1236 71 and 72 PSI XII 1243 237 PSI XII 1243, 6-7, 23-24 236 PSI XII 1263 71 PSI XV 1544 37; 308; 325, note 17 SB I 1446 186 SB I 1449 42, note 11 SB I 4369, 43, 53-54 33 SB I 5124 192 SB III 6154, 7 173, note 4 SB III 7200, 19 259 SB III 7202, 17 32 SB V 7822 277 SB V 8885 197 SB V 8887 197 SB VI 8964 191, note 65; 197 SB VI 9036 199 SB VI 9362 151, note 117 SB VI 9409 149 SB VI 9415 151, note 117 SB VI 9622 110 SB VIII 9674-75 191, note 65 SB VIII 9674,4 196

373

INDICES

SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB

VIII 9679-80 191, note 65 X 10252-254 191, note 65 X 10544 192 XII 10859 33 XII 10964 142 XII 11032 143; 192 XII 11048 36; 37 XIV 11608 191, note 65 XIV 11610 191, note 65 XIV 11657 236 XIV 11883 191, note 65 XIV 11966 191, note 65 XIV 11968, 1-6 260 XIV 12054 133 XIV 12135 277 XVI 13001, 12 and 15 308 XIV 13611 191, note 65 XVI 12320 99 XVI 12315 143; 192 XVI 12316 142 XVI 12317 142 XVI 12318 143 XVI 12320 193 XVI 12414 31, note 6 XVI 12415 236 XVI 12597 99, note 12; 142 XVI 12598 142 XVI 13000 199 XVI 13001 199; 212; 326 XVI 13056 143 XVIII 13877 192 XVIII 13995 99 XX 14383 224; 236 XX 14401 151

SB XX 14440 150 SB XX 14524 110 SB XX 14527 33; 324 SB XX 14955 33 SB XX 14955, Col. 1, 12 ff. 37 SB XX 14999 36 SB XX 15032 190, note 63 SB XX 15155 259 SB XX 15182 190, note 63 SB XXII 15281 233 SB XXII 15728 173; 197; 198 SB XXII 15729 316; 317 SB XXII 15759 143; 192 SB XXIV 16219 85, note 11 SB XXVI 16414 317, note 25 SB XXVI 16638 (10) 186 SB XXVI 16638 (2) 186 SB XXVI 16638(6) 186 SB XXVI 16506 196 SB XXVI 16554 259; 260 SB XXVI 16569 195, note 81 SB XXVIII 17073, 14 277, note 81 Sel. Pap. II 278 185; 190 SPP III 310 72, note 12 SPP X 1 309; 324 SPP X 90, 3 and 253, 2-3 328 SPP X 106 and 162 72 SPP X 144 85 SPP XXII 158 318 SPP XX 43 325, note 17 SPP XX 67 277, note 81 SPP XX 70 276, note 79 SPP XXII 48 259 SPP XXII 50 317; 318

I.2. Inscriptions I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I.

Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay.

I 16 236, note 84 II 4 187, note 48 II 19 211 II 102 144 II 103 144 II 104 144 II 105 144 II 106 144 II 107 145 II 108 145 II 109 145 II 110 145 II 111 145 II 112 146

I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I.

Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay.

II II II II II II II II II II II II II II

113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

146 146 146 146 146 147 147 147 147 147 147 95, note 2; 147, note 106 147 147

374 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I.

Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay. Fay.

INDICES

II II II II II II II II II II II II II II

127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140

147 147 147 148 42, note 11 187 187; 196 187 187; 196 176; 187; 196 278 279 279 279

I. Fay. II 141 279 I. Fay. II 142 279 I. Fay. III 200 197, note 89 I. Fay. III 201 197, note 89 I. Prose 33 146 I. Prose 34 146 I. Prose 37 146 I. Prose 38 187 I. Prose 39 187 SEG XXVIII 1470 279 SEG XLIX 2205 42, note 11 Vleeming No. 115 148 Vleeming No. 116 148

I.3. Ancient Literature, as source or found on sites Athanasius, Life of Anthony 49 76 Claudius Ptolemaeus, Geography IV 5, 36 Euclid, Elementa I 39; 41 198 Geoponica VI 1.3 131

262

Herodotus 9; 261; 263 Homer, Iliad 176 Homer, Odyssey 176

II. Geographical Index Bahr = Canal; Birka = Lake Abgig 12; 28; 53 Abou Dinqash 12; 42; 48; 55 (Photo 8.3 and 4); 305 Abou Dinqash Drain 51; 55 (Photo 8.2) Abou el-Nour 10; 19 (Photo 1.5); 28; 29 (Photo 2.1); 31-32; 34 (Photo 3.1-3) Abou Gandir 10; 11; 32; 35; 37; 53 Abou Ganshou 13 Abou Ksa 8; 13; 310; 313; 315-317; 327 Abousir el-Meleq 7 Alexandrou Nesos 13; 325-327 Ampeliou 309 Andromachis 71 Anoubias 32 Apias/Philopator Apiados 6; 33; 305; 306; 317319 Ἀργαίτιδοϲ διῶρυξ 6; 7 Arsinoe = Krokodilopolis 6; 28t; 53; 110; 334 Arsinoe on the Dam/on the Lock 2; 3; 9; 10; 31-33; 71 Arous Canal 12 Bacchias 176; 185; 262 Bahr Abou Ganshou 13; 60 Bahr Ajamiyyin 12

Bahr Arin 12 Bahr Arous 27; 29 (Photo 2.1) Bahr Dessiah 12 Bahr Difinnou 12; 27 Bahr el-Arin 51 Bahr el-Kom 314 Bahr Gharbiah 12 Bahr Hafiz 107; 108; 109 Bahr Ibshaway 314 Bahr Motoul 12 Bahr Nazlah 9; 10; 11; 16; 32; 41; 42; 69; 83; 87; 98; 328 Bahr Qasr el-Banât 6; 9; 10; 11; 20 (Photo 1.6); 22 (Photo 1.13); 23 (Photo 1.15); 42; 69; 70; 83; 87; 98; 106; 107; 143; 155 (Photo 13.2 and 4); 173; 191; 262 Bahr Sanhour 1; 6-7; 13; 306 Bahr Sha’lân 95 Bahr Tersa 6; 7; 306; 319 Bahr Tubhar 12 Bahr Yusuf 1; 2; 6; 8; 12; 305 Banquet Hall 227 Bashawat Canal 17 Basin of the Birds 2; 27; 48

INDICES

Barajtaut = Perkethaut 16 Batn Harit 11; Chapt. 13 Bats Drain 2; 48 Berenikis Aigialou 13; 262; 306; 309; 316; 323324; 327 Berenikis Thesmophorou 324 Birket Qaroun 5; 18 (Photo 1.1); 21 (Photo 1.9); 24 (Photo 1.19); 284; 321 Boubastos 327 Bousiris 7 Χῶμα Δρυμοῦ 193 Chorion Halmyras 327 Chorion Κάνωπος 212 Copper Mines 211; Chapt. 17 Deir el-Hammam 85 Difinnou/Tebetnou 7; 12 Dionysias 3; 6; 9; 11; 12; 31; 33; 36; 48; 185; 194; 211; 217; Chapt. 18; 326 Baths 270 Cemeteries 261; 275; 282 (Photo 18.8 and 9) Dromos 280 (Photo 18.2) Earlier Visitors to the Site and Excavators 263 Flavius Abbinaeus 277 Fort 270; 280 (Photo 18.3); 282 (Photo 18.7) Gate 266; 269 Harbour 269 Layout of village 271 (Figure 3); 273 Papyrological Archives 277 Temple 261; 265 (Figure 1); 267 (Figure 2); 274; 280 (Photo 18.1-3); 281 (Photo 18.5 and 6) Thermae 270 Town wall 269; 273 [Δρ]υμεῖ(τις) διῶρυξ 193 El-Ajamiyyin 305; 314 El-Arin 42 „El Hammâm“ 97 „El Hammam Ruins“ 13; 322 El-Hanbushiya = Nazlah 41; 43 El-Khawajat 83 El-Qâsma 10; 22 (Photo 1.14) El-Shahat Drain 7 Ἔμβλημα Ταορβελλείους 193 Ἐποίκιον Δρομέως 193 Er-Rayan 16 Ezbet Abd el-Al 95; 97 Ezbet Afifi 174; Ezbet Ahmed Dhou al-Faqqar 83 Ezbet Ali Id 52 Ezbet ash-Shaqfah 328 Ezbet el-Ghani el-Buhayri 59 Ezbet el-Kharaba 88; 95; 97; Chapt. 29; 335 (Photo 29.1 and 2); 336 (Photo 29.3 and 4);

375

Ezbet Khalaf 51 Ezbet Qalioun 69 Ezbet Tawfiq 97; Euhemeria 3; 6; 11; 106; 128; Chapt. 14; 326 Bath 1 175; 179; 180 (Figure 3); 185; 202 (Photo 14.4 and 5); 203 (Photo 14.6-8); 204 (Photo 14.9 and 10) Bath 2 181; 182 (Figure 4); 205 (Photo 14.11-13); 206 (Photo 14.14-16); 207 (Photo 14.17 and 18) Blocks of Fired Bricks 207 (Photo 14.19); 208 (Photo 14.20-22); 209 (Photo 14.23 and 24) Decline and death 198 Dromos 175; 176; 185; 191 Gymnasium 197 Inhabitants 193 Layout of the Village 191 Overview of Village 178 (Figure 1 and 2) Sebakh Wall 201 (Photo 14.2) Temple 176; 185 Fedemin/Psentymis 6; 305; 306; 307 (Figure 1); 311 (Photo 20-21.1 and 2); 309 Garadou 12 Gebel Qatrani 5; 24 (Photo 1.19); 263; 284 Gharaq Basin 17 Halmyras/Epoikion Halmyras 13; 321; 327 Hamlet of Dromeus 193 Hamlet on the Sands 193 Hamouli 10; 12; 16; 21 (Photo 1.11); 42; 87 Haráb-t-el Yahood Chapt. 12 Hawara 177; 264 Herakleia 13; 33; Chapt. 23 Hermopolis 9; 11; 69; 71; 72 Ibshaway 8; 10; 13; 44 (Photo 6.3); 60; 305; 309; 313-315; 328 Itsa Chapt. 2; 29 (Photo 2.1); 35; 36; 310 Kafr el-Kharaba 13 Kafr el-Sheikh Sa’ad 310 Kainos 309 Kanopias 11; Chapt. 15 Karanis 48; 111 Karnak 128; 183 Karpe 309 Kharâbat Sha’lân 12; Chapt. 12 Khashm el-Zinah 13; Chapt. 25; 331 (Photo 25-28.3 and 4) Khor Sabra Drain 10 Kiman Faras 334 Knâ 11; 13; Chapt. 28 Kom Abou el-Nour 305; 310; 312 (Photo 20-21.6) Kom Alioun 11; Chapt. 10 Kom Alioun, Houses 73-74; 79 (Photo 10.4-5) Kom el-Ahmar 13; 310; 312 (Photo 20-21.4 and 5)

376

INDICES

Kom el-Arka 12; 32; 42; Chapt. 8; 305 Kom el-Asfar 11; 71 Kom el-Attar 13 Kom Hamouli 11; 69; 70; 71; Chapt. 11 Krokodilopolis = Arsinoe Krotou Ibion 71 Lagis 10; 28; 32; 36; 38 Lysimachis 12; 27; 28; 31; 32; 36; 37; 310 Magais 71 Magdola 123 Medinet el-Fayoum 7; 8; 9; 16; 23 (Photo 1.17); 24 (Photo 1.18); 36; 310; see also Arsinoe. Medinet Madi 11; 17 Medinet Qouta 1; 5; 20 (Photo 1.7); 283; Chapt. 19; see also Qouta Medinet Watfa 12; Chapt. 16; see also Watfa Minyet Aqna 328; 329 Minyet el-Heita 7; 8; 10; Chapt. 4; 39 Monastery of the Archangel Michael 11; Chapt. 11 Monastery of Alli 76; 84; 85; 87 Monastery of the Holy Cross 324 Narmouthis 11; 17; 70; 185; 263 Nayalifa 306 Nazlah 10; 31; 35; 41; Chapt. 6; 48; 59; 60; 95; 264 Neilopolis 316; 262 Ὀρεινὴ διῶρυξ 193 Pelousion 327 Perkethaut 16; 42; 72; 85-86 Phantoou 85 Philadelpheia 111 Philagris 10; 12; 16; 42; 71; 85 Philopator Apiados 6; 33; 305; 306 Philoteris 3; 6; 11; 12; 20 (Photo 1.8); 23 (Photo 1.16); 36; 72; 109; 173; 194; Chapt. 16; 266 Bath 248 (Photo 16.18-20); 249 (Photo 16.2123); 250 (Photo 16.24) Canal system 211; 215; 216; 228; 230 (Figure 5); 244 (Photo 16.8 and 9); 245 (Photo 16.10); 253 (Photo 16.33); 154 (Photo 16.36 and 38); 255 (Photo 16.39) Cemeteries 217; 227; 253 (Photo 16.34 and 35) Gardens 227 General view 218 (Figure 1); 233 (Figure 6); 239 (Photo 16.1); 241 (Photo 16.3); 242 (Photo 16.4); 243 (Photo 16.5 and 6) Geomagnetic map 215; 230 Granary 250 (Photo 16.25); 251 (Photo 16.28 and 29) Gymnasium 215; 226; 227; 240 (Photo 16.2); 244 (Photo 16.7); 252 (Photo 16.30-32) House of the Crocodile 226; 250 (Photo 16.26); 251 (Photo 16.27)

Small finds 237 Temple 221 Small temple 218 (Figure 3); 221; 222 (Figure 4); 246 (Photo 16.12 and 13) Water Reservoirs to the North of the Village 215; 234; 255 (Photo 16.40) Water tower 221; 245 (Photo 16.11) Vineyards 217 Φολήμεως διῶρυξ Ηρακλείδου 193 Pisais 13; 305; Chapt. 22 Πλωτὴ (διῶρυξ) χάλικος 192 Polydeukeia 10; 12; 97-100 Psentymis/Fedemin 6; Chapt. 20 Ψιναλειτὶϲ διῶρυξ 99; 193 Psineuris 309 Psinol 309 Ptolemais 326 Ptolemais Hormou 317 Ptolemais Drymou 326 Ptolemais Kaine 32 Pyrrheia 32 Qaret Rusas 323 Qasr el-Banât 11; Chapt. 14 Qasr el-Gabali 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 35; 47; 49 (Photo 7.1); 60; 97; 98; 218 Qasr el-Inglisi 174 Qasr Qaroun 12; 16; Chapt. 18; 328 Quarter of Maron 36; 37 Qouta see Medinet Qouta „Ruins“ 11; 173; Chapt. 15 „Ruins of an Ancient Village“ 321 Sanhour 6; 8; 13; 305; 306; 313; Chapt. 24 Sanhour el-Baharia 321; Chapt. 26 Sha’lân Chapt. 12 Sha’lân Drain 95 Shakshouk 13; 321; 323; 327; 328; 330; 331 (Photo 25-28.5) Shawashna 8; 10; 35; 38 Sentrempais 100-101 Sinarou 13 Soknopaiou Nesos 5; 6; 7; 8; 185; 262; 306; 314; 316; 318; 320 (Photo 22-24.1); 323; 325; 332 (Photo 25-28.7) Sonbat 12 Sopehes 85 Talath 12 Tamieh 47; 48 Tanabtawiyya Canal 13; 16; 17; 85; 86; 262 Tebetnou 85 Tebtynis 73; 112; 185 Teleia 52 Tell Arin 52

INDICES

Tell el-Arka 52 Tell el-Kharaba 13; 310; 311 (Photo 20.-21.3) Tell el-Kinissa 13; 41; 43; 44 (Photo 6.2); 51; 53; Chapt. 9 Tersa 313; 319 Theadelpheia 3; 6; 9; 11; 12; 15; 33; 36; 51; 69; 97; Chapt. 13; 173; 185; 326 Αὐθεντικὴ διῶρυξ 143 Bath 1 106; 118; 126; 127; 128 (Figure 14); 158 (Photo 13.11 and 12) Bath 2 126 (Figure 13); 128; 129; 158 (Photo 13.13); 159 (Photo 13.14-16); 160 (Photo 13.17-19) Baths, small 133; 135 (Figure 8); 136 (Figure 19); 137 (Figure 20); 138 (Figure 21); 168 (Photo 13.42 and 43); 169 (Photo 13.44) Boubasteion 125 Canal of Aphrodisios 143 Canal of Onnophrios 143 Cemeteries 106; 139-142; 156 (Photo 13.5); 171 (Photo 13.50-52); 172 (Photo 13.53 and 54) Cemetery of the sacred animals 125 Dark Ashes Hill 156 (Photo 13.6-7); 157 (Photo 13.8) Desert Canal of Archelais 143 Fermentation vats 106; 115; 116; 130 (Figure 15); 133; 161 (Photo 13.20-22); 162 (Photo 13.23-25); 163 (Photo 13.26-28); 165 (Photo 13.33); 166 (Photo 13.35-37); 167 (Photo 13.38-40); 168 (Photo 13.41) Gymnasium 144 Harbour 112 Houses 114; 115 Κωμικὴ διῶρυξ 143

Number of inhabitants of Theadelpheia 110 Παλαιὰ ἑξάθυρος (διῶρυξ) 142 Φολήμεως διῶρυξ 143 Πλωτὴ διῶρυξ 143 Ψιναλείτιδος διῶρυξ 142 Συρίωνος πλωτὴ διῶρυξ 143 Temple of Ἡρώων ἀγυ(ιέων) 149 Temple of Boubastis 148 Temple of Heracles 148 Temple of Heron 148 Temple of Isis 148 Temple of Isis Eseremphis 148 Temple of Isis Sachypsis 148 Temple of Osiris 148 Temple of Pnepheros 106; 111; 115; 117 (Figure 5); 118 (Figure 6); 119 (Figure 7); 120 (Figure 8); 121 (Figure 9); 122 (Figure 10); 124 (Figure 11 and 12); 126 (Figure 13); 127; 143; 145; 146; 148; 155 (Photo 13.2); 157 (Photo 13.10) Temple of Premarres 148 Temple of Thoeris 149 Temple of Zeus 149 Theoxenis 9; 11; 69; 70; 71; 109 Tobhar 51; 305 Tuna el-Gebel 177; Trikomia 10; 28; 32; Chapt. 4; 310 Wadi Drain 1; 10; 21 (Photo 1.10); 35; 37; 41; 42; 51; see also Wadi Nazlah Wadi Nazlah 1; 2; 3; 8; 9; 16; 18 (Photo 1.2); 32; 39 (Photo 4-5.1); 48; 49 (Photo 7.2); 50 (Photo 7.3); 86; 98; 305; 324; 327; see also Wadi Drain Watfa see Medinet Watfa Zinnis 324

III. Gods, Egyptian and Greek Ammon 187; 196 Chnum 123; 125; 147 Dioscuri 100; 125; 147; 149; 294; 295 Hapi 123 Harpocrates 125; 147; 196; 295 Helena 125 Hermouthis 125 Heron 123; 144; 146; 295 Isis 125; 147; 176; 196 Isis Nephersis 196 Isis Sachypsis 147

377

Isis Sasopsis 147 Isis Sasypsis 148 Osiris 147 Pnepheros 187; 196 Premarres 145; 187; 196 Psosnaus 187; 196 Sarapis 123; 126; 196 Soknopaios 314; 323 Souchos 147; 196 Soxis 187; 196 Thot 196

378

INDICES

IV. Kings, Queens, Emperors and their Families Alexander the Great 294 Amenemhet III 264; 315 Antonia, wife of Drusus 194 Arsinoe II 28; 110 Caius Caesar 194 Claudius 194 Cleopatra I 187 Cleopatra II 187 Cleopatra Tryphaine 187 Domitian 194 Euander, son of Ptolemy 195 Germanicus 194 Julian 198 Julius Alexander, C. 194 King Qaroun 261 Lagos 37

Livia, wife of Drusus 194 Lysimachos 28 Magas 318 Marcus Julius Asclepiades 195 Petronius, C. and P. 195 Philotera 215 Ptolemy I 8; 28; 31 Ptolemy II 8; 31; 173; 212; 215; 262 Ptolemy IV Philopator 318 Ptolemy V Epiphanes and Cleopatra I 187 Ptolemy VI 187 Ptolemy VII Euergetes II 279 Ptolemy XII Auletes 187 Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos 187 Sesostris I 53 Tiberius Claudius 279

V. Index of Modern Scholars Amelineau, É. 308 An-Nabulsi 10; 13-17; 15 (Figure 3); 32; 42; 48; 85; 86; 99; 112; 217; 328 Audebeau, C. 323 Belzoni, G. 175; 217; 268; 307; 322; 323 Bonneau, D. 109 Bourguignon d’Anville, J. B. 264; 266 Breccia, E. 116; 118 (Figure 6) Caton-Thompson, G. and Gardner E. W. 179; 219 (Figure 2); 219; 286 Daressy, G. 285 Davoli, P. 179; 219; 287 de Bellefonds, L. M. A. 175; 218 Drioton, É. 292 Fakhry, A. 262; 287; 291-292 Flinders Petrie, W. 14 (Figure 2) Gardner Wilkinson, Sir J. 47-48; 52; 113; 175; 217; 266; 269; 307; 317; 321; 322; 323; 330 (Photo 25-28.1) Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S. 3; 5; 6; 7; 12; 95; 97; 98; 100; 106; 107; 113 (Figure 3); 114; 149; 174; 176; 185; 218; 220; 270; 285; 286 (Figure 1); 293; 294; 316; 317 Grenfell, B. P., Hunt, A. S. and Hogarth, D. G. 88; 138 Hogarth, D. G. 176

Grossmann, P. 88 Jomard, E. F. 175; 261; 263; 268; 313; 315; 327 Jouguet, P. 115 Kelsey, F. W. 88; 105 (Figure 1) Lefebvre, G. 88; 95; 97; 115; 116 (Figure 4); 131; 132; 134 Lepsius, C. R. 269 Lippert, S. 293 Lucas, P. 264 Meinardus, O. 88 Papi, E. 273 Pochan, A. 287 Pococke, R. 5 (Figure1); 175; 266 Raue, D. 292 Rifaud, J. J. 307 Rubensohn, O. 106; 109; 114; 177 Schwartz, J. and Wild, H. 270 Shafei, A. 112; 287 Sharp, M. 112 Sicard, C. 263; 266 Vandorpe, K. 293 Vansleb, J. M. 264; 313 Wendrich, W. 219 Yeivin, S. 126 Zucker, F. 88

INDICES

379

V. General Index Afsh 285 Administrative Archive of Theadelpheia 150 Amphora handles 61; 68 (Photo 9.12-13); 188; 209 (Photo 14.25); 210 (Photos 14.26-31) Alaquintapraelectorum 262 Alabaster 295 Alypius 130 Antiphonarium 89 Appianus Estate 100; 129; 133; 184 Arab period 3 Archephodos 194 Archiphylakites 194 Archive of Aphrodisios, son of Philippos and descendants 150 Archive of Aurelius Sakaon, son of Satabous and Thernoutarion 152 Archive of Decian Libelli of AD 250 152 Archive of Epagathos 176; 188; 190; 195; 278 Archive of Harthotes and his brother Marsisouchos 150 Archive of Heroninus 151; 191; 278 Archive of Neilammon and Kalamos, sheep lessees of Theadelpheia 153 Archive of Ptolemaios son of Diodoros 151 Archive of Sakaon 191 Archive of Soterichos and Didymos 149; 150 Archive of Village Heads 191 Astrological text 198 Asylia Inscriptions 115; 143; 146; 176; 187 Baking forms 5 Bank 31; 33; 194 Barley 112 Barrington Atlas 4 Basin 35 Baskets 238; 256 (Photo 16.42 and 43); 257 (Photo 16.44) Bath 61; 106; 224 Beads 295 Beer 33; 36; 196 Bishop Apa Petrus 42 Books 197 Bridge 35; 36; 37; 44 (Photo 6.3) Butchers 112 Byzantine period 3 Canal system 1; 8 Cartonnages 139 Cattle breeding 112; 308; 195 Cemetery 51; 52; 55 (Photo 8.4); 61; 69; 75; 76; 81 (Photo 10.8-10); 83; 84; 86; 93 (Photo 11.6); 99; 106; 138; 175; 177; 191; 321

Central Plateau of the Fayoum 1; 6; 8; 12; 42; 51; 59; 305; 313 Ceramic Factory 43; 44 (Photo 6.1); 45 (Photo 6.5) Christians 196 Church 42; 59; modern 66 (Photo 9.6); 69; 76; 82 (Photo 10.11-12); 307 Cleruchs 194 Coins 125; 185; 198; 238; 270; 272; 287 Colophons 76 Columns in Abou Dinqash 51; 55 (Photo 8.3) Column in Nazlah 42; 45 (Photo 6.4) Column base TH 136; 169 (Photo 13.46) Comarchs 194 Coptic Manuscripts 83; 84; 88; 89 Customs house receipts 270; 277 Demes in Alexandria 28 Demotic Inscriptions 143 Desert 5; 6 Desert roads 5 Dipinti 270; 272 Doctors 112 Doll House Furniture 295 Donkeys 308 Drains 8 Dromos 111; 118; 126; 145; 175; 176; 185; 191; 262; 273; 274 Drymos / marsh 108; 149; 326 Drymos of Theadelpheia 109 Drymos of Theadelpheia and Polydeukeia 96; 98; 109 Egyptian Antiquity Service 59; 61; 126 Egyptian Salt and Minerals Factory 330 (Photo 25-28.2); 332 (Photo 25-28.6) 8th pagus 112 Epistates 194 Ergasteria 111 Excavations 3 Fertility of soil 8 Fish 151 Flintstones 288 (Figure 2); 304 (Photo 19.15) Flute-players 112 Fodder crops 112 Ford 41; 62; 98 Fossilized water animals 284 Frescoes 123 Fuller 36 Garden Land 33; 111 Gisr el-Hadid 75; 84; 263 Glass 285

380

INDICES

Goldsmiths 112 Goose-breeders 122; 145 Grain 36; 112 Granary 27; 36; 73; 74; 79 (Photo 10.5); 80 (Photo 10.6-7); 176; 186; 194; 226 Grapheion 3; 112; 316 Gravity irrigation 9; 108 Greek engineers 1; 2; 8; 112 Gypsum Plaster 83 Hand Mill 333 Harbour 27; 316 Henet of Moeris 6 Herakleidou Meris 5; 6; 7 Heroninus Archive 70; 109; 110; 112; 116; 134; 143; 149; 237; 308 Imperial cult 196 Insulae 220; 273 Itsa - Abou el-Nour Dam 1; 2; 7; 10; 19 (Photo 1.3 and 4); 35; 48; 305 Jewellers 195 Jews 37 Komogrammateus 36; 37; 194 Kiosk 126; 262; 266; 269; 273 Labyrinth 261; 263 Latin 210 (Photo 14.26 and 27) Legumes 112 Lentils 112 Light Railway 35; 37; 309 Limestone Range 11; 22 (Photo 1.12); 35; 48; 95; 97; 102 (Photo 12.1); 107 Lists of villages 3 Local Archives 149 Maecenas 194 Mausoleum 263; 266; 269; 274 Main feeder canal 3; 6; 31; 173 Middle Kingdom 1; 5; 12; 21 (Photo 1.9); 53; 263; 283; 285; 287; 288; 289 (Figure 3); 290 (Figure 4); 296; 303 (Photo 19.14); 304 (Photo 19.16-17); 315; 333 Millers 112 Millstones 133; 136; 137; 164 (Photo 13.30); 169 (Photo 13.45); 170 (Photo 13.49); 184; 223; 247 (Photo 16.15-17); 315 Mint 270; 272 Monastic Settlement 76; 83 Multidimensional Scaling 3 Mummification 141; 177 Nile Valley 9 Nilometre 122; 125 Notitia Dignitatum 262 Nymphaeum 125 Objects of domestic use 295

Ochre 284 Oil Lamps 295 Old Assuan Dam 10 Olive press 329 Opussigninum 129 Pagus 324; 325 Painted Plaster 93 (Photo 11.7-8); 165 (Photo 13.32) Palm Grove 33 Papyrus 109 Papyrus-bundle column 333 Pastophoroi 36 Penthemeros-certificates 142; 192 Pigs 195 Pierpont Morgan Library 83; 88 Plain 9; 70 Plough 114 Polemonos Meris 2; 6; 7; 11; 16; 17; 27 Police 36 Praktores 194 Prison 32; 194 RAF-Photograph of 1955 108; 233 Reed beds 152; 308 Ricinus 211 Roman fort 263; 275 Roses 33; 195 Safflower 33 Sakiya Station 254 (Photo 16.37) Salt ebullition 107 Sarcophagus 52 Seamsters 112 Sebakh 52; 201 Sebakhin 72; 88; 106; 107; 127; 175; 321 Sellers 112; 195 Sellers of oil 112 Sheep 36; 37; 71; 112; 195; 308 Sheik’s tomb 2; 32; 47 Shrinkage of lake 1 Sitologos 36; 194 Storage of water 9 Storage Facilities 52; 59; 66 (Photo 9.8); 67 (Photo 9.9-11); 74 Strategios Paneuphemos 309 Sugar Cane 13 Swamp 5; 8; 51 Tax Registers 36; 37 Terracotta Figurines 186 Theodosiopolite Nome 71 Thesauros 3 Toll station 5 Tomb of Petosiris in Tuna el-Gebel 163 (Photo 13.28)

INDICES

Tomos Synkollesimos of census returns from Theadelpheia 151 Transport of grain 27; 36 Treading floor 134; 167 (Photo 13.40); 168 (Photo 13.41) Trismegistos 4 Vineyard 33; 111; 152 Wadi at Qouta 283; 291; 296; 298 (Photo 19.2); 299 (Photo 19.3-5); 300 (Photo 19.6 and 7); 301 (Photo 19.8)

381

Watchtowers 191 Weavers 147; 195 Weirs 9; 10; 22 (Photo 1.13) Wilkinson Wall 8; 47-50; 60; 98 Wine production 61; 112; 134; 149; 152; 195 Wood; wooden objects 149; 185; 186; 195 Wool 112; 195

MAPS

Narmouthis

Theadelpheia

Euhemeria

Philoteris

Dionysias

Medinet Qouta

Tebtynis Map I

Soknopaiou Nesos

Krokodilopolis

Philadelpheia

Karanis

MAPS

385

MAPS

Map II

386

387

Map III

MAPS

MAPS

Map IV

388

389

Map V

MAPS

390

MAPS

Euhemeria

Theadelpheia

Kom Hamouli

Kom Alioun

Map VI (enlarged copy in jacket of book)

MAPS

Map VII

Kom Hamouli

Kom Alioun

Map VIII

391

MAPS

Map IX

392

393

Map X

MAPS

394

MAPS

Map XI (enlarged copy in jacket of book)

Map XII (enlarged copy in jacket of book)

MAPS

395

396

MAPS

Minyet el-Heita

Wadi N a

zla h

Ro

ad =

Wadi N a

Ol

ah

zl

to

Ba

hr

N

az

la

h

Abou el-Nour Map XIII

It s d

a

m Da

397

MAPS

Euhemeria Theadelpheia

Kom Hamouli

Kom Alioun

Tell el-Kinissa

Kom el-Arka

Map XIV (enlarged copy in jacket of book)

Map XV (enlarged copy in jacket of book)

398 MAPS