Dakhleh Oasis and the Western Desert of Egypt under the Ptolemies

Published in the United Kingdom in 2016 by

OXBOW BOOKS

10 Hythe Bridge Street, Oxford OX1 2EW

and in the United States by

OXBOW BOOKS

1950 Lawrence Road, Havertown, PA 19083

© Oxbow Books and James C. R. Gill, 2016

Hardcover Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-135-1

Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-136-8(epub)

Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-137-5(kindle)

Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-138-2(pdf)

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Gill, James C. R., author.

Title: Dakhleh Oasis and the western desert of Egypt under the Ptolemies / James C. R. Gill.

Other titles: Monograph (Dakhleh Oasis Project); no. 17.

Description: Oxford; Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, 2015. | Series: Dakhleh Oasis project: Monograph; 17 | Includes bibliographical references. | This book is a modified version of a PhD thesis completed in 2014 in the Centre for Archaeology and Ancient History (now the Centre for Ancient Cultures) at Monash University.

Identifiers: LCCN 2015030002 | ISBN 9781785701351 (hardback)

Subjects: LCSH: Ptolemaic dynasty, 305-30 B.C. | Excavations (Archaeology)--Egypt--Dakhla Oasis. | Pottery, Egyptian. | Dakhla Oasis (Egypt)--History. | Dakhla Oasis (Egypt)--Antiquities. | Egypt--Economic conditions--332 B.C.-640 A.D.

Classification: LCC DT73.D33 G55 2015 | DDC 932.2021--dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015030002

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher in writing.

Printed in the United Kingdom by Short Run Press, Exeter.

For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact:

UNITED KINGDOM

Oxbow Books

Telephone (01865) 241249, Fax (01865) 794449

Email: oxbow@oxbowbooks.com

www.oxbowbooks.com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Oxbow Books

Telephone (800) 791-9354, Fax (610) 853-9146

Email: queries@casemateacademic.com

www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow

Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group

Front cover: Kantharos from Mut al-Kharab, Dakhleh Oasis; © C. Hope.

 CONTENTS

Preface

Abbreviations

List of Illustrations

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1   Introduction

1.2   Previous Research

1.3   Methodological Approach

1.4   Nile Valley Evidence

CHAPTER 2 MUT AL-KHARAB

2.1   Introduction

2.2   The Ptolemaic Pottery Deposits

2.3   A Transitional Late Period/Early Ptolemaic Period Deposit

2.4   Miscellaneous Pottery from Other Trenches

2.5   Ptolemaic Ostraka from Mut al-Kharab

2.6   Summary of Ptolemaic Activity at Mut al-Kharab

CHAPTER 3 PTOLEMAIC POTTERY FROM DAKHLEH OASIS

3.1   Introduction

3.2   Previous Research

3.3   Presentation of the Material

3.4   Fabrics and Wares

3.5   Decoration

3.6   Manufacturing Techniques

3.7   Forms

3.8   General Discussion

CHAPTER 4 PTOLEMAIC SITES IN DAKHLEH OASIS

4.1   Introduction

4.2   Structure of the Catalogue

4.3   Site Identification

4.4   Site Types

4.5   Site Distribution

4.6   General Discussion

CHAPTER 5 PTOLEMAIC ACTIVITY IN THE WESTERN DESERT

5.1   Introduction

5.2   Kharga Oasis

5.3   Farafra Oasis

5.4   Bahariya Oasis

5.5   Siwa Oasis

5.6   Minor Oases

5.7   Discussion

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION

6.1   Results of the Study

6.2   Beyond the Fayum: Ptolemaic Settlement in the Western Oases

6.3   Directing Divine Offerings to the Valley

6.4   Gateway Communities, the ‘Oasis By-Path’ and Long-Distance Trade

6.5   A Military ‘Buffer Zone’

6.6   The Persian Legacy

6.7   Conclusion

APPENDIX 1 Mut al-Kharab: Context Descriptions

APPENDIX 2 Pottery Assemblages from Mut al-Kharab

APPENDIX 3 Ptolemaic Pottery Forms: Examples and Parallels

APPENDIX 4 Catalogue of Ptolemaic Sites in Dakhleh Oasis

APPENDIX 5 Pottery Assemblages from Dakhleh Oasis Sites

APPENDIX 6 Catalogue of Ptolemaic Sites in the Western Oases

Bibliography

Plates

 PREFACE

This book is a modified version of a PhD thesis completed in 2014 in the Centre for Archaeology and Ancient History (now the Centre for Ancient Cultures) at Monash University. It presents an analysis of recently discovered Ptolemaic pottery from Mut al-Kharab in Dakhleh Oasis, as well as a reexamination of pottery collected by the Dakhleh Oasis Project during the survey of the oasis from 1978–1987. Significantly, this book challenges the common perception that Dakhleh Oasis experienced a sudden increase in agricultural exploitation and a dramatic rise in population during the Roman Period. It argues that such changes had already begun to take place during the Ptolemaic Period, likely as the result of a deliberate strategy directed toward this region by the Ptolemies. Whilst the focus of this study is predominantly on Dakhleh, I have also taken this opportunity to survey the evidence for Ptolemaic activity in the oases of Kharga, Farafra, Bahariya and Siwa. This book therefore represents the first major synthesis of Ptolemaic Period activity in the Egyptian Western Desert.

I am indebted to a number of people who have assisted me along the way. In particular, I would like to thank my PhD supervisor Associate Professor Colin Hope for his guidance, patience and understanding, as well as for providing access to unpublished notes and drawings of the Dakhleh Oasis Project held at Monash University. I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr Gillian Bowen for her invaluable advice.

I am grateful to my friends and colleagues in the Centre for Archaeology and Ancient History who helped to create an enjoyable and stimulating work environment. In particular, I would like to thank Dr Paul Kucera for his companionship during numerous fieldtrips in and around Dakhleh and for the many fruitful discussions over the years. I would also like to thank Dr Christian Knoblauch for assisting in various ways, and for his ongoing friendship and support.

I have had the privilege of working with the Monash University team in Dakhleh for several seasons, and I would like to extend my thanks to all of the members of the Dakhleh Oasis Project who made this experience so enjoyable, and in particular the director of the project Professor Anthony Mills. Whilst in Dakhleh I was able to gain access to unpublished field notes of the DOP, as well as pottery and other archaeological material excavated by the Monash University team.

My field trips to Dakhleh were supported by grants from Monash University and the Near Eastern Archaeology Foundation of the University of Sydney, and I benefited from some additional assistance from the Centre for Archaeology and Ancient History at Monash University. I received further support for my research from Monash University in the form of a Faculty of Arts Teaching and Research Scholarship, which I held from 2009–2010. Whilst preparing this manuscript for publication I held the position of Adjunct Research Fellow in the Centre for Ancient Cultures at Monash University. I am extremely grateful for all of this support.

I wish to acknowledge the many colleagues who kindly answered questions, shared unpublished research and provided copies of their published work. They include Dr Sylvie Marchand, Dr David Klotz, Dr Gábor Schreiber, Dr Alison Gascoigne, Dr Catherine Defernez, Dr Christelle Fischer-Bovet, Dr Gaëlle Tallet, Dr Paola Davoli, Dr Frank Förster and Dr Roberto Buongarzone. I am especially grateful to Professor Olaf Kaper for answering numerous questions about his work on the temples of Dakhleh. Thanks also go to Dr David Aston and Professor Joseph Manning for their comments on the original thesis. Dr Mark Eccleston kindly allowed me to reproduce his photographs of the oasis fabrics and Bruce Parr provided technical assistance on a number of occasions.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, family and friends for their encouragement and ongoing support. Above all, I must thank my daughter Alia, who arrived during the writing of the original thesis, and my son Archer, who arrived shortly after its completion. They are a joy and a (pleasant) distraction and they continue to remind me each day of what is most important in life.

None of this work could have been completed without the love, support and understanding of my wife Rachael. It is to her that this book is dedicated.

James Gill

Melbourne

 ABBREVIATIONS

GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN POTTERY CAPTIONS

 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES

PLATES

TABLES

 CHAPTER 1

  INTRODUCTION

While there is evidence for gradually increasing activity in the oasis during the Late Period and the Ptolemaic centuries, it was not until the advent of the Romans in Egypt that a major influx of people and energy into the Dakhleh Oasis is seen.

Mills (1997: 2).

So far there is very little evidence of any Ptolemaic presence…

In Dakhleh there is abundant evidence of an intense agricultural exploitation during the Roman Period…

van Zoest and Kaper (2006: 11–12).

…the Ptolemaic period is not richly represented. In the Roman period there is an explosion of settlement…

Bagnall and Rathbone (2004: 262).

1.1 INTRODUCTION

There is a common perception in the published literature that Dakhleh Oasis experienced a dramatic increase in population and significant agricultural expansion during the Roman Period (Bagnall and Rathbone 2004: 262; Bard 2008: 308; Davoli 2010: 357–358; 2014: 6; Kaper 1998: 148; Mills 1984: 208–209; 1985: 128; 1997: 2; 1999a: 177; van Zoest and Kaper 2006: 12). This view appears to have largely resulted from the misconception that there is relatively little evidence for Ptolemaic Period activity in the oasis in contrast to the Roman Period remains (Bagnall and Rathbone 2004: 262; Mills 1980: 256; 1997: 2; van Zoest and Kaper 2006: 11); a misconception that also applies to the broader Western Desert of Egypt (Bagnall and Davoli 2011: 139; Bagnall and Rathbone 2004: 249; Kaper 2012a: 717–718). Through an examination of evidence from Dakhleh Oasis, I will challenge the view that the population of the oasis expanded suddenly during the Roman Period and I will demonstrate that a significant population increase had already taken place during the Ptolemaic Period. I will show that there is in fact substantial evidence for increased settlement and agricultural exploitation in Dakhleh during the Ptolemaic Period and I will examine evidence from the other oases of the Western Desert in order to demonstrate that this situation was not unique to Dakhleh.

At its core, this book presents an analysis of Ptolemaic pottery from Dakhleh Oasis, including a detailed study of Ptolemaic forms, fabrics and wares, and an extensive corpus of pottery from Mut al-Kharab and other Ptolemaic sites in the oasis. It also presents a catalogue of Ptolemaic sites from Dakhleh, as well as a second catalogue that focuses on Ptolemaic material from other parts of the Western Desert, specifically the oases of Kharga, Bahariya and Siwa (FIGURE 1.1). It thus represents the first major synthesis of Ptolemaic activity in the Western Desert of Egypt, as well as the most extensive study of Ptolemaic Period pottery from the oases to date.

Written sources concerning the oases are much more abundant for the Roman Period than for the Ptolemaic Period. There are some Ptolemaic ostraka from Dakhleh and Kharga that have been published (e.g. Kaplony-Heckel 1997; 2000; Nur el-Din 1982; Vittmann 2012), along with inscriptional evidence from the temple of Qasr el-Ghuieta in Kharga (Darnell et al. 2013), and of course the famous Edfu Oasis List (Dümichen 1877: 23ff, Pl. 3–10); however, such evidence is relatively rare and presents only a limited picture. Clearly, if we are to develop our understanding of Ptolemaic activity in the Western Desert then a different approach is needed, one that does not rely on the inscriptional evidence alone. Pottery is therefore the focus of this study as it is the most abundant form of evidence available and because it can be used as a key tool for dating Ptolemaic sites, whilst also informing such aspects as site function, trade and cultural interaction. Even so, I have not concentrated on pottery exclusively and I have endeavoured to incorporate a wide range of archaeological evidence, including both material culture and inscriptional evidence. Despite its abundance, the Ptolemaic pottery from Dakhleh has remained, until now, largely unpublished and our understanding of this material has been rather limited. Therefore, one of the key aims of this study has been to establish a corpus of Ptolemaic pottery from the oasis, which I have then used as a springboard for discussing Ptolemaic activity in the oasis more broadly.

FIGURE 1.1 Map of the Egyptian Nile Valley and the Western Desert showing the location of the five major oases, along with minor oases and key settlements.

1.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH

DAKHLEH OASIS

The Dakhleh Oasis Project (hereafter DOP), under the direction of Anthony Mills, has been documenting the antiquities of the oasis since 1978 (Mills 1979a). Evidence for Ptolemaic Period activity in Dakhleh was already noted during the initial years of the project (Hope 1981: 233; Mills 1980: 254; 1981: 181), although it was considered quite limited compared to the abundant Roman Period remains (Mills 1980: 256; cf. also Churcher and Mills 1999: 260–263). This apparent difference has encouraged scholars to conclude that Dakhleh experienced a sudden and dramatic increase in population during the Roman Period, primarily due to the introduction of new irrigation technology and agricultural practices (e.g. Kaper 1998: 148; 2012a: 718, 730; Mills 1984: 208–209; 1985: 128; 1999a: 177).

The problem with this conclusion is that most of the sites recorded during the initial survey of the oasis, conducted by the DOP from 1978–87, were dated on the basis of the pottery remains (Mills 1981: 182), and at that early stage knowledge of the pottery industry in the oasis was only beginning to be developed (Hope 1979; 1980; 1981; 1983). Pottery dating to the Ptolemaic Period was not easily recognised, nor was it easily distinguished from Roman Period pottery. In early publications dealing with the pottery from Dakhleh (Hope 1980; 1981), the term ‘Roman’ was used loosely, with the understanding that it was likely to also include material dating to the late Pharaonic or Ptolemaic periods, and with the expectation that it could be later refined (Hope 1981: 233–234).

As research continued, this expectation proved to be correct, as some of the pottery published in the early reports was subsequently re-assigned a Ptolemaic date by Colin Hope (1999: 230). Additional work on the Ptolemaic pottery from Dakhleh was undertaken by Shirley Patten as part of an unpublished PhD thesis completed at Macquarie University (Patten 1999). Her aim was to create a typology of Late Period, Ptolemaic and Roman pottery from the oasis, and although she was largely successful in identifying the key features of both Late Period and Roman Period pottery, Patten’s attempt to distinguish Ptolemaic pottery was hindered by the lack of well-stratified Ptolemaic deposits available for study. Further research was undertaken by Mark Eccleston in an unpublished PhD thesis completed at Monash University in 2006, which focused on high-temperature industries of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods in Dakhleh. Despite his focus on the Ptolemaic and Roman pottery industries in the oasis, Eccleston was likewise limited by the lack of available Ptolemaic material and as such the majority of his research deals with the Roman Period industries. Until recently, the studies of Hope (1999), Patten (1999) and Eccleston (2006) have represented the extent of our knowledge concerning the Ptolemaic pottery industry in Dakhleh. Since the latter two studies have remained unpublished, it is the short overview by Hope (1999: 230) that has remained the key reference for Ptolemaic pottery in the oasis, although this is now clearly in need of revision.

Recent excavations at Mut al-Kharab have yielded large amounts of pottery, which has been identified as Ptolemaic on the basis of comparative material from the Nile Valley (cf. Gill 2012b). This has provided an opportunity to gain a much better understanding of the Ptolemaic material, and to build upon the studies of Hope, Patten and Eccleston. A small selection of Ptolemaic pottery has been published in the preliminary reports on the excavations at Mut al-Kharab (Hope 2005a: 44–45, Figs 15–16; Hope et al. 2006: 37–40, Figs 14–16; Hope et al. 2009: 59–63, Fig. 9), although the discussion of this material is understandably brief. More detailed studies have appeared recently and are a direct result of research conducted for the current study (Gill 2012a; 2012b; Forthcoming a; c). Through an analysis of the Ptolemaic pottery from Mut al-Kharab it has been possible to improve greatly our understanding of this material and to create a corpus that will be used as the basis for all future research. This analysis has also enabled a re-examination of pottery from other sites in the oasis, much of which was collected during the initial survey by the DOP, with the result that a large amount of this material has been redated as Ptolemaic.

In addition to these studies of Ptolemaic pottery, a few studies focused on other types of Ptolemaic evidence from the oasis have also appeared in the published literature. These include a study of skeletal remains from the cemetery of Qila al-Dabba, which are thought to be of Ptolemaic date (Dzierzykray-Rogalski 1980), and a study of cartonnage coverings from Cemetery K1 at Kellis, some of which have been dated stylistically to the Late Ptolemaic Period (Schweitzer 2002), although the most important studies are arguably those dealing with Ptolemaic ostraka. A cache of 29 Demotic ostraka of Late Ptolemaic date were discovered at Qaret el-Muzawwaqa in 1972 by Ahmed Fakhry, prior to the work of the DOP, and were published a decade later by Mohammed Nur el-Din (1982). In the past decade, hundreds of Ptolemaic ostraka in both Demotic and Greek have been discovered at Mut al-Kharab (Hope 2005a: 42–43; Hope et al. 2006: 38), a selection of which has been recently published by Günter Vittmann (2012), whilst a small number of Ptolemaic ostraka from Amheida have also been published recently (Bagnall and Ruffini 2012: Nos 278, 280, 315).

THE WESTERN OASES

The situation in the published literature is much the same for the other oases as for Dakhleh: Ptolemaic material is documented, yet it is usually not examined nor published in detail. Studies that deal with the oases regularly report finds of textual and/or archaeological material of Ptolemaic date, yet for the most part, the implications of this evidence have not really been considered. A notable exception is the recent study by Darnell, Klotz and Manassa (2013), which presents some interesting conclusions concerning the exploitation of the oases during Ptolemaic times.

Evidence for Ptolemaic Period activity in the Western Desert of Egypt was already noted at the end of the 19th century, as Arthur Silva White (1899: 236-238) retrieved a bronze coin of Ptolemy I from the tombs at Gebel el-Mawta in Siwa. Likewise, Harding-King (1913: 457; 1925: 211, 214) discovered bronze coins of apparent Ptolemaic date at the isolated site of Abu Gerara located in the desert north of Kharga Oasis.

During the early 20th century, excavations conducted at Hibis in Kharga by Herbert Winlock for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, revealed what are arguably some of the most important Ptolemaic remains to be found in the Western Desert. This site comprises a temple complex of Persian date, which was subsequently expanded during the Ptolemaic Period, and which was surrounded by a large settlement. Whilst reports on the excavations (Winlock 1909; 1910; 1941), as well as volumes on the Greek inscriptions and the decoration of the temple were published (Davies 1953; Evelyn-White and Oliver 1938), the vast majority of the archaeological material revealed in the excavations was not subject to detailed study. Since then, further studies on the inscriptions and graffiti from the temple have appeared (Cruz-Uribe 1988; 2008; Klotz 2006), as well as a study on the Demotic ostraka from the site (Kaplony-Heckel 1997; 2000); however, much of the archaeological material, such as the pottery, remains to be studied.

The first person to attempt a broad survey of the archaeological remains of the Western Desert was Ahmed Fakhry, working during the middle part of the 20th century (Fakhry 1942; 1944; 1950; 1973; 1974). Fakhry described many of the visible antiquities of the oases, and he also conducted clearance and excavation at a large number of sites (APPENDIX 6 for examples). In some cases, Fakhry’s descriptions provide the only information we have for ancient sites in the oases, such as at Meshendid in Siwa (Fakhry 1944: 68) and el-Gazayer in Bahariya (Fakhry 1942: 35; 1974: 105–106), although the situation is beginning to change in recent years as more and more archaeological projects are established in the oases. Fakhry identified many sites that he dated to the Ptolemaic Period, although more often than not his reasons for such a date are not clear. Some monuments were dated on stylistic grounds, whilst others were dated on the basis of associated material culture, such as pottery; however, he rarely provided descriptions or illustrations of this material, so it is difficult to be sure of the reliability of his dating.

In addition to the work of Fakhry, other publications have appeared that present useful summaries of the antiquities of the oases, including a significant number of Ptolemaic Period monuments. These include the surveys of Porter and Moss (1952), Aufrère et al. (1994), Wilkinson (2000) and Bagnall and Rathbone (2004), as well as more general guides to the antiquities of the oases, such as those by Willeitner (2003), Dunand and Lichtenberg (2008), and Vivian (2008). These studies provide useful descriptions of the better known Ptolemaic monuments, such as the temples of Qasr el-Ghueita and Hibis, but for the most part they reiterate the work of earlier scholars and lack detailed analysis. Bagnall and Rathbone (2004: 249) noted that the Ptolemaic remains are ‘enormously outweighed’ by those dating to the Roman Period, although they did not explain whether this is the result of differences in preservation, or whether it reflects a real discrepancy between the Ptolemaic and Roman Period settlement of the oases.

A useful synthesis of Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine activity in the oases, which focused on Greek inscriptional and papyrological evidence, was published in 1987 by Guy Wagner. The Ptolemaic evidence discussed in this volume is not particularly abundant, but it did demonstrate that the Southern Oasis at least was incorporated into the Egyptian administration at this time and was governed by officials from the Nile Valley (Wagner 1987: 142–143; cf. Section 1.4 below).

Numerous studies dealing with the archaeology of the oases have