This document is part of the online version of the book Amheida II: A Late Romano-Egyptian House in the Dakhla Oasis / Amheida House B2 by Anna Lucille Boozer, which is available at http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/amheida-ii-house-b2/. It is published as part of the NYU Library's Ancient World Digital Library and in partnership with the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World (ISAW). Further information about ISAW's publication program is available on the ISAW website. Please note that while the base URI of this publication is stable, the exact content available at that address is likely to change over time.
TOWARDS AN INTEGRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF LIFE IN A ROMANO-EGYPTIAN HOUSE
Anna Lucille Boozer
This chapter returns to the specific research objectives set out in chapter 1:↩#p3210
Establish the chronology of B2
Fit B2 within the Romano-Egyptian domestic spectrum
Determine socio-spatial contexts, activities, and practices
Determine the people who occupied B2
Determine relationships to the Roman Empire
The preceeding chapters provide the grounding for this summative approach to daily life within B2. This holistic presentation of the material contributes to the overarching goal: to investigate the relationship between domestic life and social identity in Roman Egypt.↩#p3211
Living: The Chronology of House B2
We had limited textual and no usable numismatic data from B2 in order to establish absolute chronologies. Rather, most of the phases within the chronology of this house are relative within a more general absolute time (Table 20.1).↩#p3212
Phase 0: Site preparation
Phase 0 is used in this volume primarily to denote the pre-construction material, particularly with reference to refuse dumped on the site in order to prepare it for construction.↩#p3213
Phase 1: Construction
The ceramics found underneath floor depositions suggest that the interior and exterior walls of B2 were laid out sometime during the early- to mid-third century CE.1 This construction episode appears to have been part of a large-scale development in Area 1.2 An analysis of the constructed floors and the occupational debris above floors indicates that the first occupational phase can be dated to a mid-third century temporal bracket.↩#p3214
Phase 2: Structural Alterations and Occupation
Probably quite early in the occupation of B2, a bread oven (F19) was added to room 7 (Phase 2a). Floor and wall repairs took place (Phase 2b).↩#p3215
Phase 2c: New floor levels (e.g., F16, F39, F40, F41, F45, F48) were put into place over the original floors. The stairs (F50) to the Street S1 were added.↩#p3216
Phase 2d: A final floor layer (F17) was added to room 7. In room 5, repairs were made to the west wall (F14), a new floor layer was added (F41), and an informal hearth was put into place above the previous hearth (F46). A wall stub (F33) was added to room 9. This wall was associated with floor level F39 and not with the original floor level (F44), because it was built on top of rubble (DSU 74), which, in turn, rested on top of the original floor level (F44).↩#p3217
Phase 3: Abandonment, Collapse, and Deflation
Abandonment is a complex social process rather than a discrete event. The B2 abandonment process raises a plethora of unanswerable questions. Why did people leave? How did they organize their departure? To where did they migrate? Did they plan to return? Even when occupants abandon a structure, this building may experience ephemeral usage, and an abandoned building often influences conceptions and spatial usage in its immediate vicinity.3 It seems that it was quite common in ancient cities to find that certain building plots or parts of urban quarters went into disuse, while elsewhere in town urban life continued as before.4 B2 was located on a major road into Amheida, and it is likely that people passed by this house long after its abandonment.↩#p3218
It is unclear to what extent individuals reused or disturbed B2, although some evidence of post-abandonment reuse is clear. In particular, room 1 has signs of an ephemeral burning episode on one of its walls (F4), which may suggest that squatters used this room for a short period of time. Furthermore, it is possible that individuals from this house relocated elsewhere at Amheida itself. The family may have revisited their earlier habitation over time, and their abandonment of B2 could have been gradual and long-term in scope rather than rapid and final. Although the vagaries of the abandonment process preclude definitive interpretations, we can say a good deal about Area 1 and hazard provisional suggestions for the usage of B2 during the latest occupational phase.↩#p3219
Phase 3a: B2 was abandoned sometime in the early fourth century CE. B2 may have witnessed some casual use, as indicated by the previously mentioned signs of burning on a wall (F4) above the floor surface in room 1. During this phase some windblown sand blew into rooms 1, 7, 8, and 9.↩#p3220
Phase 3b: There was a phase of considerable collapse evinced by the presence of ceiling collapse in some rooms.5 Some wall collapse also occurred (room 7).↩#p3221
Phase 3c: The structure was partially covered in windblown sand, but this sand cannot have been in substantial quantity, since this would have protected the structure from wind damage. Rather, a dramatic deflation process occurred that was caused by constant wind erosion, evinced by the smooth and consistent deterioration evident in the east–west section of the northernmost portion of B2. This deflation clearly occurred after ceiling collapse, since the collapse in all of the rooms was flush with the preserved walls, having eroded at the same rate as the walls post-collapse. This erosion process was particularly evident in room 1, while room 3 was the most damaged by erosion.↩#p3222
Phase 4: Bedouin Use Present-day
The Bedouin from the village north of Amheida herd their animals across the easternmost end of Area 1. Trash from the modern village filters into the area, but we have not seen damage to the archaeological material within the excavated areas in Area 1.↩#p3223
Table 20.1: Proposed B2 chronology.
Date
Phase
Activity
Evidence
Prior to 250
0
Habitation in Area 1 or Amheida More Generally
Ceramics found in sondages below floor level
Ca. 250
1
Construction
Ceramics beneath floor deposits in B2
Ca. 250–275
2a
Structural Alterations and Construction
Addition of bread oven (F19)
Ca. 260–275
2b
Structural Alterations and Occupation
Floor and wall repairs
Ca. 260–300
2c
Structural Alterations and Occupation
New floor levels are put into place over original floor levels. The stairs (F50) to Street S1 are added.
Ca. 275–315
2d
Structural Alterations and Occupation
A final floor layer (F17) is added to room 7. In room 5, repairs are made to the west wall (F14) a new floor layer is added (F41), and an informal hearth is put into place above the previous hearth (F46). A wall stub (F33) was added to room 9. This wall was associated with floor level F39 and not with floor level F44 (the original floor level) because it is built on top of rubble, DSU 74, which, in turn, rests on top of F44.
Ca. 315–350
3a
Abandonment, Collapse, and Deflation
B2 is abandoned. Ephemeral use as indicated signs of burning on wall (F4) in room 1 that is above the floor surface. Windblown sand in some of the rooms (Room 1, 7, 8, 9).
Ca. 350 to Present Day
3b
Abandonment, Collapse, and Deflation
There was a phase of considerable collapse evinced by the presence of ceiling collapse in some rooms (rooms 1,2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10). Some wall collapse is also evident (room 7).
The structure is partially covered in windblown sand and eroded by constant wind (see especially rooms 1 and 3).
20th–21st C
4
Bedouin Use to Present Day
Animal herding in vicinity, but no substantial disturbance to B2 or Area 1 more generally.
House B2 and the Romano-Egyptian Domestic Spectrum
B2 is a representative house within the contemporaneous Dakhlan housing spectrum, indicating what may be a strong regional house type. There are two other regions in Egypt worth exploring more deeply for comparisons across the Romano-Egyptian domestic spectrum: the Kharga Oasis and the Fayum.↩#p3224
The architectural analysis showed that B2 differed from the (apparently) standard architecture found in Fayum houses, although some points of similarity are evident. Fayum houses generally lacked a clustered plan of access, central open areas, a pronounced horizontal component, and food preparation areas incorporated within the house. Houses at Karanis and Soknopaiou Nesos have a strong vertical component, while B2—and Dakhlan houses in general—tend to favor the horizontal component. Likewise, “kitchens” were almost never located within Roman Period houses in the Fayum, while B2 incorporated cooking areas into the house proper.6 Amheida House B1 also had some food preparation areas integrated within the main household core (rooms 4 and 8), as indicated by the presence of a hearth, instruments for grinding, and storage bins in these rooms.7↩#p3225
Comparisons between B2 and houses from the Kharga Oasis indicate that the two oases may be more closely related within the Romano-Egyptian housing spectrum. Khargan houses show a preference for a vertical component, which can be found commonly in the Fayum. Khargan houses also tend to have a more clustered room arrangement, which seems to have been typical of Dakhla. There are also close links between Amheida House B1 and the recently excavated houses at Douch.8 This Khargan evidence suggests that there were subtle regional variations on house plans. It seems reasonable to suggest that regions within close proximity to one another, or with strong social ties, influenced conceptions of house design.9↩#p3226
These results suggest that there were regional housing developments within Egypt. Some houses followed a more traditionally Egyptian layout, while others appear to have been more influenced by Roman Mediterranean traditions. Dakhla seems to have been shaped more by Roman Mediterranean norms than most housing regions currently known from Roman Egypt. The Fayum gives the impression a more traditionally Egyptian character, although a recent publication by Wilfong indicates that this interpretation could change if unpublished archives are consulted.10 Meanwhile, Kharga may be situated in between Dakhlan norms and the Fayum norms. These results suggest that houses should be examined within their regional spectrum and that it is important to build up comparisons between regions. They also indicate that we should no longer consider Karanis to be a standard Romano-Egyptian town, but rather a regional type of town.↩#p3227
The Materiality of Everyday Life in House B2: Socio-Spatial Contexts, Activities, and Practices
The artifacts and ecofacts from B2 provide evidence for a wide range of daily activities within the house. The individuals who occupied B2 may have thought through some of these activities carefully, while other activities probably involved subconscious movements. Elements such as light, sound, temperature, framing, and accessibility inform the multi-sensory and embodied aspects of these activities.11↩#p3228
An embodied exploration of the contrasts found in domestic space draws attention to the texture and variability of social relations and meanings. Clear contrast can be found in the activities that took place inside or outside the house, in the light or in the dark, or in public or private space.12 In order to bridge between structure and agency, it is necessary to explore how individuals define identity, reproduce social relations, and catalyze change. Exploring mundane concerns, such as which labor was done in the house and where certain individuals worked and under what conditions, can inform us about particular aspects of individual agency.↩#p3229
Figure 20.1: Plan of B2 rooms with key to objects and quantities at occupational level (A. Cervi).
The production, exchange, and use of “ordinary goods” can be just as significant as prestige goods in the creation and maintenance of multiple group identities and affiliations, since these quotidian remains form the foundation of daily life experiences.13 Commonplace objects have been employed infrequently in pursuit of identity questions, and the present work hopes to draw attention to the experiences and identities of ordinary individuals in Roman Egypt. The following pages reassemble House B2 in order to recreate a walk through this late Romano-Egyptian house.↩#p3230
Street S1
Street S1 would have been a busy thoroughfare into Amheida, due to its considerable breadth and optimal locale on the edge of the city. We have excavated only a small aperture into this street, but we can make some conjectures on the basis of the evidence at this time. The S1 trench showed an area that was kept clean from most debris, but sand and other refuse would have built up over time, particularly on the south side of the street, opposite to the prevailing wind. The street was notably clean of rubbish disposal, suggesting that most refuse disposal may not have occured here but was placed in dumps not yet located at Amheida. The lack of waste (e.g., faunal remains) in the street may indicate that it was a civic mandate to keep this major conduit clear of such refuse. Moreover, it is the only major street so far identified at Amheida without significant intrusive constructions added.14↩#p3231
Room 9
Moving west into Amheida, a left turn along S1 placed the visitor at the entrance to B2. The front door was large and originally had a door bolt. Presumably, the door would have been kept shut against the wind and noise.↩#p3232
The German sociologist Georg Simmel was highly critical of urban life and wrote extensively about how individuals negotiated its complexities. In his writing, doors and entrances represent a liminal space, since they transcend the separation between the inner “personal” world and outer “urban” world.15 Many authors have echoed this sentiment and found that the fundamental difference between Greek and Roman houses lies in the different entrance systems and visibility within the house. The Greek house created a private world by excluding passers-by, while the Roman house invited him in and put the occupants and their material life on display.16 Likewise, in many Roman cities the exteriors of the doorways into houses were lavished with decoration in recognition of the vital connection between the interior space of the house and the exterior space of the city.17↩#p3233
Houses from Roman Egypt often show greater attention to the design and construction of doorways.18 Alston argues that the Egyptian house is more similar to the Greek house because it was closed off to visitors.19 It was certainly common to have dodged entrances in Egypt. These dodged entrances may reflect different social perceptions of houses, but Egypt’s environment must be considered an important factor in design preferences, since the strong sand-laden winds necessitated a less-porous entrance. Numerous locations in Egypt had small adobe barriers constructed on either side of doorways to block sand, and the dodged entrance system indicates a similar pragmatic approach to the environment.20 Because of these environmental conditions, the entrance cannot reveal the openness of domestic spaces in Roman Egypt. Rather the entire house plan must be taken into account.↩#p3234
The entrance room, room 9, provided the only access into House B2. When entering the house, one would face into a wall and make an immediate left turn before entering the central room (room 7). Room 9 initially opened directly onto the street but later was provided with stairs so the occupants could access the rising street surface. There are no signs that the walls of this room were ever decorated, although it is certainly possible. It appears that little effort was made to make this space impressive. Rather, it served as a transitional space from the chaos, dirt, and noise of the street into the house itself.↩#p3235
Room 7
Moving into the central room, an open and highly variable space would become visible. Room 7 is located east of room 9, and functioned as a multi-use area. The central position of this room suggests a Roman influence on the layout of the structure, and it may be interpreted as an aithrion. Aithria provided open and light spaces that would have contrasted sharply with the dark, closed confines of roofed rooms. Aithria were multi-functional and would have changed character throughout the day and the time of year, depending on shifting conditions such as light, temperature, and ephemeral activities. Individuals had to pass through room 7 repeatedly throughout the day in order to access the other rooms in B2, and women probably spent considerable time there for cooking activities. Because of its central location, size, and openness, it was probably the dominant gathering place in the house for social activities and interaction.↩#p3236
The principal feature of room 7 is a bread oven in the northeast corner. Courtyards and aithria often contained hearths or ovens, because such areas offered an open space through which the smoke could rise. These ovens would have drawn individuals to them for both the utility of preparing food and the warmth they would have provided during cold seasons. The floor space in front of the oven was patched and repaired, indicating intensive use of the oven feature. Given the amount of ash and residue found in room 5, it is notable that there was not more oven debris spread into the rest of the aithrion. Any ash produced by using the oven must have been cleaned and masked by the use of floor repairs. This cleanliness may have been motivated by the exposed and central location of room 7. Any visitor would have seen this room, and the ash would have been tracked easily throughout the house.↩#p3237
Walls play an integral role in the staging of inner space, through dividing up areas and also offering a medium for decoration, such as painted designs and niches. Light and sound would have traveled less well in the roofed side-rooms than in the courtyard, and they would have felt more private and isolated, even when open to public usage and viewing. Each of these side rooms, except for room 5, had a doorway closing it off from room 7. Individuals could create a sense of privacy by closing the doors to these rooms, which would have removed them from the activity and noise of the aithrion.↩#p3238
Room 1
Room 1 was the first room encountered from room 7. Objects used for adornment and trade dominate the reliable occupational deposits found in room 1. The room itself did not have any fixed or portable signatures, such as ovens or querns, that would suggest that it had a singular function. Some remains of emmer wheat were found in the room, likely due to its close proximity to room 7 and the bread oven. Probably, room 1 was used for a variety of functions and it is possible that emmer wheat was processed here.21 Given that several objects linked to management and trade were in room 1, it is possible that individuals working in estate management and trade affairs may have used this room frequently. In particular, adult males may have frequented this room, but it is likely that most family members assisted in management and trade activities. Room 1 preserves no evidence that it was decorated with figural or geometric motifs, but there is evidence that it was painted with monochrome embellishments.↩#p3239
Room 2
Room 2 was located along the east side of room 7. The objects from room 2 can be linked to adornment, trade, and potentially apotropaic practices. Like room 1 above, room 2 could have been used for a variety of functions, although most likely it was used less often for craft and food production. Also like room 1, room 2 had remains of emmer wheat associated with the floor level.22↩#p3240
Both Greek and Demotic ostraka were found in the room, the Demotic all in pre-construction debris. The Greek ostraka referred to accounts of loads transported to or from various wells, suggesting that the inhabitants of this house received or used products of trade or transportation.23 Such evidence complements objects found in room 6 (see below), other ostraka, and the width of Street S1. The ostraka from B1 also mention wells, although these tags derive primarily from dumped pre-occupational material. They indicate a high level of well-management.24 These findings underscore the importance of water management in Dakhla, as well as the lower socio-economic bracket of B2 occupants in comparison to the B1 occupants.↩#p3241
Room 3
The south door in room 2 leads to room 3. Room 3 was the most private room in House B2. It was the only room not accessible directly from room 7. Many objects in room 3 indicate linen-weaving, including a loom-weight, a linen textile fragment, hammerstone, a polishing stone, and substantial remnants of flax found in botanical samples.25 Greek ostraka recovered as surface finds in Area 1 mention linen-weavers, which may refer to the B2 occupants.26 The term linouphos (occupational linen weaver) appears in two of the ostraka we recovered, although it is not possible to place the linen weavers from these texts securely within B2 itself. Given the dominating presence of weaving materials, room 3 may have been devoted (in part) to weaving or the storage of weaving implements.↩#p3242
The concentration of weaving items in specific rooms of houses was common throughout Egyptian history, which suggests that such practices were performed consistently in the same codified space, likely because looms could be quite heavy and were presumably stationary.27 Women typically did the domestic weaving in Egypt, and the concentration of weaving implements in this room may reflect their use of this room more frequently than other family members. If there was a professional linen weaver in the house (unlikely), the room may have been used more frequently by a man, although comparanda suggest that other family members probably participated in this enterprise. It may have been desirable to remove weaving activities from the commotion and noise of the courtyard, or this room may have been used to store these materials. Of note is that the external courtyard, C2A, also contained a number of loom weights, spindle whorls, and botanical remains linked to weaving.28↩#p3243
Although room 3 had a concentration of objects associated with craft production, it was not used exclusively for this purpose. Complete food storage containers were found clustered and upright in the southwest corner of the room. These jars may have been in-situ, as they were surrounded by rodent coprolites, which is indicative of an area used for food storage. Additional refuse was found in this room, suggesting that cleaniless in this locale was not important. The beads recovered from room 3 also appear to be for female adornment, furthering the suggestion that women used this room frequently.↩#p3244
Room 6
The south door in room 7 provided access to room 6. The objects deriving from room 6 are associated primarily with storage and craft production. The room may have served different purposes throughout the day or seasons, since there are no fixed implements or signatures of debris in this room that would have necessitated that it retained a singular function.↩#p3245
The floor was poorly preserved but sustained a basket fragment (Inv. 11554). A simple storage pit, covered with a wooden lid, was located just inside the doorway to this room. Two large storage jars were recovered, but their contents were missing, either because they were soft organics that decayed or because they were removed at or after abandonment.↩#p3246
There are some signs that this room may have been painted selectively with red, white, and black paint, although there is insufficient evidence to argue for figurative or geometric motifs. The paucity of data recovered makes it impossible to suggest more specific uses of this room.↩#p3247
Room 5
A short hallway led west from room 7 into room 5. This room had the most occupational residue of any room in the house. Three floor levels were excavated in room 5, and each showed signs of fire damage and ash debris. By contrast with the general cleanliness of room 7, which was also used for food preparation, the inhabitants had less concern about masking the food preparation debris in room 5. Large quantities of ash suggest that that room 5 was used primarily for food preparation. Although many of the other rooms in B2 were multifunctional, the ash in room 5 would have been an impediment to craft production and other activities.↩#p3248
The top floor layer had a simple fireplace construction created by stacking two bricks on top of one another, a common practice found throughout Roman Egypt.29 The first (bottom) floor layer was exposed in the southwestern quadrant of the room, and a more formal hearth feature30 was identified below the location of the mud brick fireplace. This iterative practice shows reminiscence of the location of the previous fireplace and the reuse of “material scraps” from the past successively over time.31 It seems that this same place housed the fireplace throughout the occupation of this structure.↩#p3249
The intensity with which individuals repeatedly used this same locale for cooking damaged the western wall of the room. Individuals poorly repaired this wall by packing broken ceramics into its base. The ceramics assemblage from within room 5 includes at least one large storage jar, which was probably used for grain. An unfired “bread plate,” used for allowing bread to rise, was also found with the room 5 ceramics assemblage. Several so-called fire-dogs were found at all floor levels. Fire-dogs are elongated ceramic objects with “legs” that enable them to stand vertically and support objects on top of them. These fire-dogs were blackened and were probably used to support cooking pots.↩#p3250
This cohesive ceramic assemblage combined with the architectural and depositional data suggest that room 5 functioned as the primary cooking area for the house. Courtyards and cooking areas are typically the core of domestic activity, a pattern intensified for this house because the cooking area was incorporated into the house proper, rather than being located behind or to the side of the house.32↩#p3251
Room 8
The west wall of room 7 also gave access to a short hallway and staircase (room 8). We found no significant portable objects on the staircase, but there were botanical remains on the hallway floor of room 8. It is possible that foods were stored in the vicinity or upon the roof, which was accessed from this staircase. Indeed, it is likely that the roof was used for cereal drying and grain cleaning, since it was an open, bright space, ideal for such tasks. Rooftops have been used throughout Egyptian history as an additional work, storage, and sleeping area. A portion of the ceramics assemblage from room 6 was found within roof collapse and may have originated from this roof, which corroborates conjectures that the roof was used for storage and work.↩#p3252
Rooms 4, 10, and 11
Rooms 4 and 10 served as the primary storage areas for this house. Storage activities involve placing useful material resources in specific physical locations so that they can be easily retrieved in the future, although they are not available currently.33 The material signatures of storage include portable containers and fixed features, such as pits and rooms. We have found both signatures in B2: the jars found in room 6 were portable containers and rooms 11, 4, and 10 were fixed features. Both rooms 4 and 10 were situated under the stairs, which is a common place for storage areas.34↩#p3253
Rooms 4 and 10 had low artifact densities in all categories except for botanical remains, such as seeds and olive pits, and there were no largely complete vessels in either room. Such lack of material is singular for B2 and suggests that objects may have been removed from these rooms at the time of abandonment. What objects would have been stored here that the inhabitants would want to take with them? In order to gain some perspective on what such storerooms often contained, I draw upon a papyrus from c. 200 CE, slightly earlier than the proposed occupation of this structure. This papyrus contains the following inventory of household goods:↩#p3254
In the cellar: basin, bronze, 1; tankard, tin, 1; cup, tin 1; wooden measure, ironclad, 1; small washtub, 1; lampstand, bronze, with shade, 1.
In the storerooms: small dish, tin, 1; cups and saucers, tin, 3; small lamp, bronze, 1; cloak, gold-colored, 1; counterpane, ditto, 1.35
The inventory consists of extra household objects placed in storage rather than items that would have been in active use, such as perishable provisions. Although rooms 4 and 10 contained some organic remains, these rooms were largely cleared before the house was abandoned, much like the storage jars in room 6. This clearance indicates that the majority of the items stored in those rooms were of some economic or emotional value to the inhabitants, or that other people removed them post-abandonment because of their economic value. Such objects would correspond with the range of objects listed in the above inventory. It is plausible that most food items in B2 would have been kept in room 11 and the storage jars located in room 6 because these ground floor storage areas were more easily accessible for daily needs than the under stairs storage areas.↩#p3255
Even static activities, such as storage, are part of the biography of lived space and, in turn, of the people living in houses.36 Two of the storage areas in B2 are concealed under the stairs and one under a trap door. The people living in the house or using these goods had knowledge of the contents, whereas visitors to B2 would not have a clear conception of the types and quantities of goods that the inhabitants had in their possession. Room 11 was in a more visible area of the house. There were probably differentiations between the types of goods stored in these discrete locales of rooms 11, 4, 10, and under the floor of room 6. The patterns of repeated usage and differentiated nature of storage spaces must have been even more obvious to their users than to us, their excavators, in the daily practices of individuals.37↩#p3256
Knowledge about the presence of storage spaces represents knowledge of the hidden dimension of social and physical space in houses. People would have divergent levels of knowledge about what was stored, especially because the type of storage that individuals used created differences in visibility.38 This knowledge can be hierarchical, with distinct levels of understanding both within the house and exterior to the house.↩#p3257
These storage areas also carry associations with gender and age.39 Many storage areas located under stairs were simply too small for adults to enter comfortably. Children could access these storage areas through trap doors and could maneuver about the confined spaces more effortlessly than adults. The fully-grown adults in B2 may not have been able to explore the under stairs storage areas thoroughly. On the other hand, the below floor (room 6) and room 11 storage areas were readily accessible to all ages and genders. Outside of the house, visitors to the residence may have known about some of these spaces, as well as their number and location. For example, storage areas are common below stairs, so visitors could assume their existence. People may have wondered if their neighbors had a large supply of goods stored up or if their storage facilities were empty. Knowledge about stored goods probably entered into social interactions, either overtly or as background knowledge.↩#p3258
Courtyard C2
The large open space south and southeast of B2 is thought to be an exterior courtyard (C2) belonging to the mostly unexcavated house east of B2 (B9) during at least one phase of its occupation. Early on during our excavations we presumed that B2 might have had a strong connection to C2, due to the proximity of the two and the lack of division walls found east of B2. Subsequent excavations revealed that Courtyard C2 belonged to House B9. In either case, the presence of this external courtyard enabled activities such as off-loading and on-loading goods, provisioning animals, and other domestic activities that the ostraka from Area 1 mention. A bread oven, exposed in the southwest corner, underscores the multi-use nature of this space.↩#p3259
The test excavations in the courtyard yielded low to moderate densities of material culture. These material remains included an ostrakon dating to the third century CE, a miniature lamp, a clay figurine head, loom weights, and several complete vessels. The miniature ceramics and clay figurine head may have been toys, which would suggest the presence of children in the vicinity.40 Alternatively, these objects could be associated with magic or cultic activities. The overall image of the courtyard acquires a multifaceted dimension, since it seems to have been used as a locale for stabling animals, producing food, and possibly even child-play. It would have been a vibrant place with so many activities possible and probably overlapping.↩#p3260
Overview
The confluence of our data sets suggests that there was differential use of space within B2. Food preparation (rooms 5, 7) and storage areas (rooms 4, 6, 10, 11) are particularly evident within this structure. There are also more subtle spatial distinctions, such as the strong clustering of ostraka, amulets, statues, and objects of adornment in the eastern rooms of the structure (rooms 1–3, 7), and areas focused upon craft production (rooms 3, 6). Based upon these data, I suggest that rooms 1–3 and room 6 could have been used for sleeping in addition to other activities. This usage was dependent upon how these rooms were being used, the weather, who occupied the house at that time, and how many people were present. During certain times of the year, the roof space and room 7 might have offered an attractive escape from the heat. Conversely, rooms close to ovens (rooms 1 and 6) may have been preferred during cold winter months. It is important to remember that furniture, such as beds, was expensive, and most households probably did not have a bed for each individual who lived and slept in the house.↩#p3261
Practical activities, such as cleaning, inform our understanding of the spatial distinctions between rooms and between houses. Excavations in the two primary rooms used for food production in B2 (rooms 5 and 7) revealed very different states of cleanliness. The practical activity of cleaning a room reveals that room 7 merited greater social consideration than room 5. This result might be expected because room 7 was a central room that would have been visible to all guests and household members. This cleanliness disparity also may reveal attitudes towards the gendered importance of cleanliness; spaces used almost exclusively by women did not warrant the additional time it would take to clean them thoroughly. If this is true, then it could be imagined that women chose to prioritize their time over the cleanliness of rooms accessed infrequently by others, such as room 5 and (to a lesser degree) room 3.↩#p3262
The condition of the house upon its abandonment also reveals attitudes towards cleanliness.41 It is notable that the inhabitants of B2 did not clean the house rigorously upon abandonment. They appear to have left many intact vessels as well as jewelry and tools behind.42 It is possible that the abandonment of B2 was quick or that they moved to too great a distance to call for transporting basic items with them. Also, it is likely that the house was reused post-abandonment for ephemeral activities that resulted in moving objects in or out of the house.↩#p3263
Recreating the B2 Household: The People Who Occupied B2
Daily life and individual experience focused upon domestic space in Roman Egypt. The holistic B2 excavations and analysis enable us to explore social life and identity among an ordinary household from later Roman Egypt. At the present moment, we hold a wealth of cross-cultural comparative data on houses and households across the Roman Empire.43 The material remains recovered from House B2 inform our understanding of identity from a particular province and moment in time while adding to comparanda in the Roman Empire.↩#p3264
Identity is an inherently nebulous concept and difficult to evaluate, but that does not negate its importance. By probing our data for clues as to the possible occupants of B2, we can move beyond the normative assumptions that once dominated archaeological thought. Particular themes worth exploring include the population size, economic stratum, gender, age, and ethnicity of the B2 inhabitants.44 These themes structure the following pages.↩#p3265
Population Size
The compositions of households varied considerably from house-to-house in Roman Egypt. Papyrological data suggests that 25.3 per cent of households were multiple family households consisting of two brothers or sisters and their spouses, or a married couple with married children who remained in the parental home. These multiple family households had a mean of 10.36 people in them within towns.45 Van Minnen has argued that 4.5 people would share a dwelling with four to five rooms, which entails that the B2 household, which has a slightly larger number of rooms, might be somewhere in the order of 9 people.46 Papyrological data for Philadelphia indicate that 9 people per house might be likely.47↩#p3266
These comparative data suggest that B2 may have housed up to nine people at any one time, although it is likely that the numbers of individuals who occupied these spaces varied considerably during the occupational history of this structure. Mortality rates and birthrates were higher than in the present era and there would be fluctuations in household size over time. Moreover, recent research suggests that pre-modern households had lifecycles of their own and were not static compositions.48↩#p3267
Economic Stratum
Within the Dakhlan domestic spectrum, House B2 appears to be a modest dwelling. From a general Roman perspective, however, B2 appears to be quite well-off. Research on Amheida House B1, and elsewhere in Dakhla, indicates that elite Dakhlan houses displayed a predominantly classical identity. During the course of excavating B2, it was hypothesized that these cultural signatures may be linked to status.49 The ambiguous cultural signatures found in B2 indicate a clear distinction between B1 and B2, which may be linked to economic stratum. Additional recovered materials provide more detail for the disparities between B2 and B1.↩#p3268
The Greek ostraka from B2 suggest that the occupants may have had something to do with trade or management, as they mention donkey-driving, camel-driving, and various goods that may have been delivered. The C2A excavations reveal that this courtyard was used for stabling animals, and at least one item mentioned as a transport good in the texts (doum fruit) was found there. The ostraka also mention linen-weavers, and a tailor or a teamster, which suggests laborers, regardless of their degree of specialization.50↩#p3269
Although there is mention of donkey and camel driving, it is unclear if this driver was a member of this household or this reference is to someone external to this household, with whom its members had contact. Even so, B2 (or B9 to the east) provides a likely location for these activities given the width of the street and the close proximity of a sizeable courtyard. These data justify a link between laborers and B2’s occupants. It is notable that the B2 ceramics are of a consistently lower quality than those from Amheida House B1, and there are many utilitarian artifacts that point towards manual labor.51↩#p3270
Regardless of occupation, the B2 occupants must have been of a moderate social status since they owned gold-glass beads and other modest jewelry items. The qualities of personal adornment indicate that the inhabitants were able to amplify their physical appearance with goods that imitated more elite au courant jewelry. In conjunction with particular forms of clothing or hairstyles, personal adornment attests to different identities within communities, regardless of whether these differences were formed on the basis of gender, status, or age. Material identity signatures, such as jewelry, generated assumptions about the social group(s) in which an individual would fit. Possessing adornment bestowed prestige upon the possessor because of the economic, historical, and social value of the object.52 Moreover, these objects may have served as embodiments of family and domestic history, setting the family apart from others or drawing individuals or the family into an understood group.53↩#p3271
In summation, the architecture, texts, and objects from B2 suggest that the inhabitants may have been engaged in trade and/or lower-level management. They were of a moderate economic status, given the presence of moderately expensive goods within the house, the size of the house, and the texts surrounding the type of occupations conducted in and around this house.↩#p3272
Gender
There are some indications of gender and that there may have been a gendered use of space within House B2.↩#p3273
In traditional, Pharaonic society as well as Roman Egypt, married women were termed the “mistress of the house,”54 and they were expected to control household affairs, while men held various public offices and participated in agricultural activities.55 Likewise, in the Roman period, the female domain focused upon the household nexus.56 Typically, women were responsible for producing food, weaving, storing grain, animal husbandry, craft production, and assisting their husband’s business.57 As mentioned earlier, women’s letters found elsewhere in Roman Egypt frequently mention food and clothing, which delineates the importance of these gendered responsibilities for household maintenance.58↩#p3274
Throughout Egyptian history, women were responsible for producing food.59 During the Roman Period, this gendered responsibility continued to be the case, and women’s letters frequently mention concerns about food and clothing.60 It is not uncommon for functional spaces, such as food production areas, to be less formal than other areas of the house. Functional spaces typically contained few to no ritual objects and evince little concern for constructing appearances, as can be found in the lack of decorative elements and motifs. Within this house, it is likely that women primarily used room 5. These individuals used room 5 in a routine manner rather than actively considering and constructing how others might view it. This perspective on room 5 contrasts with room 7, the aithrion, which was also used for cooking and shows evidence of “positioning” for social reasons.61 The cleaning and arrangement of objects in room 7 were designed to influence social perspectives on the space.↩#p3275
There is a definite female presence in this house, given the evidence of adornment artifacts associated with women and amulets that were mostly likely used to protect women and children. There is no formal evidence that men and women controlled different areas of the house and no real evidence that one gender controlled the house. Nevertheless, on the basis of comparanda and excavated evidence, I suggest that women preferentially used room 5. It is likely that women frequented the north end of room 7 in order to use the bread oven. Also, it is probable that women commonly used room 3, since the artifact assemblage contains evidence of cloth production. This room shows a less singular function than room 5, and men also may have used room 3 for various activities, including linen weaving. The B2 women spent more time inside the house than was customary in houses that placed cooking facilities outside of the covered house. This spatial difference would have shaped family dynamics considerably.↩#p3276
There is an explicit male presence in B2, suggested by the finger ring with a seal (Inv. 3452), as well as a number of texts indicating trade and estate management. Most of this material was found in room 1, which may indicate that men used this room preferentially. The easternmost rooms of the structure show the highest concentration of texts and male-associated artifacts, indicating that men probably frequented this portion of the house.↩#p3277
Age
In the absence of physical remains of bodies, it is very difficult to determine the age of the people who once lived in houses.62 Even so, recent advances in ancient demographic studies allow some conjectures about the occupants at different stages of the household life course.63↩#p3278
It is conceivable to postulate the presence of children in House B2 at some stage of the occupational history of this structure.64 Children here are defined as being younger than the age of fifteen, as this age has been employed as the common cutoff in recent studies of childhood in the Roman Empire.65 Children are a significant demographic component (approximately 40–65 per cent) of most documented social groups, and they can be expected to have created portions of the archaeological record.66 It is important to consider that children were involved in many of the practical and economic activities within B2, as childhood in Roman Egypt was not a privileged time when children were entirely removed from household production.67 Children may have used material objects that do not directly indicate links with them.↩#p3279
The material and physical remains of B2 suggest some possibilities for linking material culture and physical space with children. In particular, amulets recovered in excavation from room 2 may attest to the fears of child mortality, which was a genuine threat at this period in history.68 Women probably wore such amulets while pregnant, and children most likely wore them throughout their childhood. With respect to physical space within B2, children probably accessed the storage rooms (rooms 4 and 10) frequently, since these rooms were too small to comfortably admit adults into their confines. The small stature of children would enable them to maneuver within these spaces more easily and they doubtless contributed to household tasks by accessing these spaces. Outside of the house, we find evidence that women and men used the exterior courtyard, as evinced by the presence of a bread oven, a figurine, miniature clay lamp, and coprolites from animals used for transportation. Children almost certainly assisted in these tasks, which would have served an important role for training them in future obligations and expectations as well as assisting with the economic functioning of the household.69↩#p3280
Beyond children, it becomes even more challenging to address the ages of the occupants. Romano-Egyptian census data indicates that the average age of a woman’s first marriage was at about 19 years of age.70 In the Roman Empire it seems that women married in their mid–late teens or early twenties and men between the ages of 25 and 30.71 In Roman Egypt, the mean life expectancy at birth for women was 22.5 years and 25 years for men.72↩#p3281
It is not possible to link specific categories of material to aged occupants of House B2. Even so, most Romano-Egyptian households were multi-generational, and families usually cared for the elderly.73 Elderly men, in particular, held important roles for religious practices and probably served a useful role in household management.74↩#p3282
Ethnicity
The inhabitants of B2 do not present a clear or cohesive preference for either a Roman Mediterranean heritage or an Egyptian heritage, suggesting that the individuals in this house may have had an ambivalent view towards heritage or perhaps a mixed heritage.↩#p3283
There are no ceramics in B2 that imitate the high-status ceramics used within the greater Roman Empire, and instead they reflect local ceramic traditions. The jewelry from this house indicates that individuals occupied a modest social status, and most of these objects draw from Egyptian traditions. In particular, the two amulets recovered reflect Egyptian apotropaic practices. The terracottas suggest that traditional Romano-Egyptian belief systems were in place and there are no signs that the inhabitants converted to Christianity.↩#p3284
Even seemingly simple and utilitarian actions, such as food choices and refuse disposal, contribute to identity construction.75 Of particular interest is the presence of emmer wheat in this house. This agricultural product was ubiquitous in Pharaonic Egypt, but it disappeared as a major cereal by the Roman Period. The ample quantities of emmer wheat remains in room 1 suggest that the individuals who occupied this house continued to practice at least some traditional Egyptian consumption habits through making porridge. Doum fruit (mentioned in the room 7 tablet and found in Courtyard C2) is another traditional Egyptian food. Moreover, the meats consumed by the inhabitants suggest a traditional Egyptian diet.↩#p3285
Likewise, the flax remains found in room 3 indicate a conventional Egyptian crop used for textile production. Comparanda from Kellis indicate that cotton was cultivated and cotton cloth produced in the oasis during the period that B2 was occupied.76 Despite this option, the B2 occupants adhered to the traditional product. It should be kept in mind that fine linen production was strictly controlled by the State, both for quality and quantity produced, during the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods (i.e. from ca. 323 BCE).77 We have no evidence of large-scale, controlled linen production in Dakhla as yet, but the KAB does list a weaving workshop among its tenants, suggesting that textile production in Kellis was not restricted to small businesses.78↩#p3286
The adaptation of new plant species and technologies signifies the social and political consequences of their implementation and often leads to the eradication of older species. Equally, adherence to traditional plant species and technologies during phases of innovation and change can create a strong impact. The consequences of innovations and conservativism varied with the scales of cultivation and the scheduling of activities in the agricultural cycle. Food production changed in later Egyptian history with the introduction of durum and bread wheat, so much so that emmer wheat was nearly eradicated from the diet. Cotton, which was introduced to the oases in the Roman period, probably had a strong economic impact on the region. The introduction of new products changed labor requirements, the agricultural cycle, food and cloth preparation, dress, and social feasting practices. The adherence to conventional food and textile practices within this house is notable and suggests that the women resisted changing from traditional foodways and textile production.↩#p3287
Naming practices can also reveal ethnic undercurrents within families. The names of individuals in the ostraka attest to perhaps as many as forty-six people with names typical for Roman Dakhla. The ostraka also include individuals named after the god Thoth, the central deity at Amheida, which is a much more common naming element in B2 than in Amheida House B1.79 Individuals who recall the central deity of their city may have had stronger feelings of ethnicity and locality than individuals who moved on to other sources for naming.↩#p3288
Material culture, employed with caution, can reveal ethnic affinities among individuals. A Roman Mediterranean heritage by the third and fourth centuries CE became intertwined with many Greek signatures.80 Among the material that we can link with Roman Mediterranean influences is a limestone statuette and the transition to the Greek language. The most overwhelming signature of a Roman Mediterranean influence can be seen in the architecture of B2, which reflects a pronounced Roman influence on the way that individuals used domestic space, particularly with the clustered plan and the incorporation of cooking areas inside the house.↩#p3289
In summation, B2 manifests a confluence of ambivalent heritage displays in a modest house (among the local assemblage) with a more Romanized plan than houses in other regions of Egypt. These findings suggest future lines of inquiry into the associations between specific ethnic heritages, economic level, architectural style, and perhaps even neighborhood. Overt public expressions of status and ethnicity probably advertised the individuals who were in control of decisions and resources. The absence of overtly visually expressive objects suggests that this family was not among the most significant politically and socially at Amheida. Even so, it is notable that the men, more than the women and children, appear to have taken on the changes that came with incorporation into the greater Roman Empire.↩#p3290
Embedding House B2 within the Roman Mediterranean
We can begin to explore the impact that Roman rule had upon Romano-Egyptian daily life through the lens of Amheida House B2. House B2 enables us to explore micro-level relationships within this household, which was positioned in a distinct region within Rome’s Egyptian province. This focused study of one household promotes a specified understanding of Rome’s impact upon a particular local area. Such microhistories do not necessarily correlate with the broad picture achieved through macroscale explorations. Although B2 may or may not be representative of a local “norm,” an exploration of the results helps us to avoid descriptive interpretive models, such as Romanization. In particular, these results contribute to new ways of viewing identity, social change, cultural interplay and daily life in Egypt under Roman rule.↩#p3291
Identity
The concept “identity” encapsulates the components that distinguish individuals and groups from other individuals and groups in social relationships.81 The greater social milieu shapes identity definitions because an individual’s identity does not occur in isolation. We can explore identity from two different perspectives: the macroscale and the microscale. On the macroscale level of the Roman Empire, formal associations and categories define identities. On the microscale of the household or the individual, the single subjective agent experiences many fluctuating facets of identity throughout the life span.82 Macroscale identities are generally stable and long-lasting, while microscale identities are more fluid and dependent upon immediate social contexts.↩#p3292
The Roman world is a rewarding space in which to explore the complexities of cultural identity and textures of individual experience. In particular, the Roman world enables us to explore the subtle layering of identities in the wake of conquest and consolidation. Recent studies of provincial identities suggest that different cultural markers cannot be assumed to be orchestrated and harmonious expressions of a single absolute of “cultural identity.”83 Material culture has its own grammar that does not always shadow political and linguistic changes. Cultural goods can be transported and appropriated with extraordinary ease and frequency into different contexts. In the course of this transport, the cultural attributes of material goods often become separated from their original milieu and imported objects become endowed with local meaning. Moreover we find that Roman imperial categories and preconceptions about various provincial peoples under its rule do not necessarily correspond with the microscale realities in these same provinces.84↩#p3293
Current globalization scenarios provide us with present-day examples of the cultural transmission and appropriation process. In essense, globalization spreads a similar material culture across the world, but research has shown that local areas use these goods in divergent ways.85 These contemporary studies suggest that shared goods do not necessarily entail that a given group that uses these same goods is similar to any other group(s) that also appropriated them. Local areas may use equivalent goods in different ways and attribute different meanings to the same type of object. The present study of House B2 indicates the ways in which one household made use of material culture in a manner that would have influenced their conceptions of self and their placement within the Roman world.86↩#p3294
Stratified Cultures
The complexity of cultural interactions over time is a particularly thorny issue in the study of ancient Mediterranean identities. Ancient Mediterranean cultures are highly stratified, and the traces of each episode of conquest and colonization often influenced subsequent interactions for many centuries. Egypt, in particular, had a complicated layering of foreign rule, including Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and finally Roman rule. These progressive waves of conquest did not erode with each new conquest, but compounded, shifted, and recombined over time.↩#p3295
Roman rule had disparate results among Egypt’s diverse population. As a consequence of Egypt’s history as a locale for rebellion, Rome tried to stave off immigration to Egypt from elsewhere within the Roman Empire.87 This policy affected Egyptian demographics. Relatively few Romans migrated to Egypt during Roman rule, unlike the many thousands of Greeks who were encouraged to immigrate to Egypt under Ptolemaic rule.88 This demographic impact was differentiated between cities and rural areas, particularly in the early phases of Roman rule. Despite the prohibitions against immigration, migrations and other demographic changes took place, which complicated the already multi-faceted identities that built up during post-Pharaonic Egypt. Although these Roman legal categories of “Greek” and “Egyptian” came to an end prior to the occupation of B2, we cannot expect that individuals experienced these licit changes instantaneously. Scholars often presume that ethnic affinities dispersed by the late Roman Period in Egypt, but few have employed a material-based approach to justify this assumption.↩#p3296
Because the Roman conquest was the critical watershed for shaping Romano-Egyptian daily life, it is easy to lose sight of the interactions that took place beyond a bilateral exchange between these two polities. Migration can be multidirectional.89 Demographic movements, trade, and the exchange of ideas took place throughout the empire as well as within Egypt itself. Objects deriving from Egyptian, Greek, or Roman traditions, as well as any combination between these and other influences, became available on a much broader scale than they were prior to the Roman conquest. In addition to these far-reaching exchanges were small-scale movements within Egypt itself. Locals appear to have migrated from one region of Egypt to another with great frequency, as evinced by changing population densities in Egypt’s Western Desert.90↩#p3297
The various components of Romano-Egyptian social expression served as essential mechanisms of social change. Individuals reconfigured their relationship to their own past, their conquerors and the particularities of their local situation through new material goods. These multiple layers of migration and exchange (local, national, international) can be found in the material residues of the households that once lived through these wide-ranging developments.↩#p3298
Such residues present formidable categories to disentangle, because simplistic ethnic categories (such as Egyptian, Greek, and Roman) merged and overlapped in unexpected ways, rendering ethnic terms ineffectual for describing the daily realities of individuals. During the Roman Period it is difficult to unwind the complexities of these ethnic designations, since political, bureaucratic, economic, and social issues defy simplistic categorization.↩#p3299
The terms “Egyptian” and “Greek” are particularly challenging categories in Roman Egypt. The Ptolemaic bureaucratic and political system disadvantaged the Egyptian ethnic category. This bias encouraged Egyptians to manipulate their ethnic identity and many Egyptian individuals acquired the Greek language and mores in order to be classified as “Greek.” Although the term “Greek” might denote someone totally or partially of immigrant Greek descent, there also existed “Greek” individuals who achieved this ethnic designation on the basis of their occupation and tax status. This maneuvering worked well under Ptolemaic rule, but the system imposed under Roman rule severely restricted membership in the “Greek” group. Romans and citizens of the few Greek cities (such as Alexandria) held the highest status under Roman rule, while the rest of the population were categorized as “Egyptians.” These Egyptians, in turn, were subdivided into villagers and metropolitans, with the metropolitans representing the higher status.91↩#p3300
Likewise the concept of what it meant to be “Roman” was complicated during the Late Roman Period. Rome had been a multi-cultural environment with a variety of influences since its earliest days.92 In reality, at the time of Egypt’s occupation, the term “Roman” was more of a political than an ethnic category.93↩#p3301
Prior research on Romano-Egyptian material culture and architecture indicates that individuals intricately interwove Egyptian, Greek, and Roman cultural traditions.94 The fusion found in mortuary contexts has received the most attention from Romano-Egyptian scholars. This fusion, often called “double-style” in the literature, involves motifs drawn from Egyptian, Greek, and Roman traditions.95 Recent studies have employed more sophisticated theoretical models to explain how individuals deployed specific motifs in order to promote their identity for the afterlife and that these signatures varied by gender and geographic location.96 Moreover, it seems that Egyptian motifs were associated with death and may have been employed more frequently in mortuary contexts, regardless of the tomb owner’s heritage.97↩#p3302
Multilingualism provides another means of viewing the interweaving of Mediterranean cultures.98 Coptic, a late form of Egyptian written in the Greek alphabet with seven additional characters, appeared in the second half of the third century CE. During the later Roman Period, individuals frequently operated between Greek and Coptic. Individuals, such as Dioscorus of Aphrodite, created Greek-Coptic literary glossaries and conducted activities in both languages.99 It is unclear to what extent this written evidence reflected the spoken word, but these glossaries suggest that these two cultures became increasingly connected. Moreover, because individuals had to Hellenize in order to infiltrate the higher strata of society, it was not uncommon to carry both Greek and Egyptian names. These double names may serve as an index of an individual’s negotiation between these different heritages.100↩#p3303
This prior research indicates that Greek elements could be included in Egyptian contexts and also that Egyptian elements could serve as part of a Roman atmosphere. Moreover, being Egyptian, Greek, or Roman did not necessarily entail discrete identities by the time of Roman rule.101 Under Roman rule, concepts of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman offered modes of expressing identity, and the meanings of these categories depended upon the context as well as other factors, such as gender, status and locality.↩#p3304
Houses allow us to explore the lived experiences of how these cultural identities combined in Roman Egypt. The nature of the domestic material left behind allows us to tease apart how households may have perceived these different cultural strands as well as how individuals performed everyday activities within the Romano-Egyptian multicultural landscape. Given the significance of context for identity formation, it is essential that we add the lived experiences of individuals to the existing mortuary studies in order to shape a fuller representation of these identity negotiations under Roman rule.↩#p3305
The superimposition of cultures forged a complicated amalgamation of what had come before with the current regime. This amalgamation goes beyond what some scholars have termed cultural hybridity—the phenomenon of two cultural strands coexisting. Instead, cultural amalgamation represents a more complex process that some scholars have referred to as creolization.102 The creolization cultural metaphor can be employed to describe material that employs two (or more) cultural traditions in an informed manner and which draws upon these traditions to differing degrees depending upon context. The outcome of this duality is a highly ambiguous material culture, because material goods become imbued with different meanings in different contexts.103↩#p3306
This creolization of material culture describes one of the most remarkable features of the Roman Mediterranean, which is that local peoples triangulated their local identity between Greek culture, Roman political inclusion, and their local identity.104 It was entirely possible to adopt Greek and Roman culture without ceasing to be a local from the Dakhla Oasis in Egypt.↩#p3307
Romanization
Scholars have often described the process of adopting Roman culture using the term “Romanization.” This descriptive terminology has had a profound effect on the ways that scholars have analyzed and understood the impact of Roman rule on local areas. Unfortunately, the term Romanization often serves as descriptive shorthand for complicated processes, because it glosses over the multifaceted ways in which ordinary people experienced the Roman Empire. For example, individuals could unintentionally or indirectly take on Roman signatures.105 Moreover, the term does not explore the mechanisms or agents involved in cultural change. As a result, the concept does little to explain the complicated processes that took place on the ground, enacted by ordinary people. Romanization also has experienced a long history of study, which resulted in numerous contrasting interpretations.106 Recently, scholars have questioned the value of the concept out of concerns that the term itself is unclear and because it encourages simplified analyses of multifaceted social processes.107↩#p3308
Roman conquest also catalyzed other cultural changes in local arenas that were not necessarily Roman. For example, it is completely impossible to separate the process of Romanization from Hellenization (the adoption of Greek culture). These two cultures are interdependent in Imperial Rome, and in some cases Romanization and Hellenization are synonymous. At its most basic level, Hellenization can be described as a stylistic and cultural influence, while Romanization served as a political overlay.108 In other words, the term “Roman” was a juridical category that was defined by citizenship, by membership of the populus Romanus, or by other types of relationships to Roman imperium. By contrast, the term “Hellenic” served as a cultural category for describing people with a shared language and culture in a way that peoples of the Roman Empire never experienced.109 Bowersock’s discussion of Hellenism as a cultural expression that in no way threatened other cultures and religions gives us fertile ground for thinking through the multiplex social influences we have identified in the Roman Empire.110↩#p3309
We ought to set aside the assumption that Roman rule eradicated local differences and identities by spreading a common cultural language or koine.111 This assumption does not allow for the possibility that local areas appropriated Roman Mediterranean cultural goods in distinctive ways. Moreover, comparanda from contemporary globalization studies suggest that new, global influences can serve to heighten the sense of locality rather than eroding it.112 Together, these concepts suggest that Roman imperial goods changed meanings when they moved into local areas and that it is necessary to track these changes closely rather than equate Roman-style goods with the appropriation of Roman culture. With these concerns in mind, I suggest that the concept of Romanization does not sufficiently explain the multi-cultural conditions found in the Roman Mediterranean, and particularly in Roman Egypt and Roman Dakhla.↩#p3310
Households in the Late Roman Empire
An exploration of household identity provides significant insights into how we might interpret the local impact of Roman rule. The House B2 excavations revealed multiple strands of individual identities and these results reveal the ways in which one Romano-Egyptian household experienced the Roman Empire during the late third to early fourth centuries CE.↩#p3311
Exploring domestic contexts in detail helps us to understand the mechanisms for how specific social groups experienced and changed as a result of Roman rule. Domestic scenarios account for how everyday life conveys cultural memory through commonplace actions and behaviors. Investigations into Roman social memory point to the household as the pivotal point of tradition transmision through the generations. Families pass along memories through names, genealogy, religious rites, and quotidian activities, such as preparing food and learning the family trade.113 Memory is central to the construction of familial identity, because parents often required their children to step into the roles of their ancestors in everyday activities. Children served as key actors in the process of infusing ancestral commemoration with memories and conveying this infusion on an everyday basis. An investigation into children and familial traditions reveals that Roman family identities were oriented both towards the past and their ancestors as well as shaped by children and turned towards the future.114↩#p3312
The emergence of new, intentionally expressive material culture and the more general increase in the number and varieties of things that people made and used had real consequences. These goods shaped the ways in which people acted out who they were and what they intended as their relationships with others, even unconsciously expressing and recognizing affinities to groups. Importantly, the new materiality of the Roman Period provided, if not the finished product, then at least the tools required for fashioning new expressions of individual, household, and village identities. A significant component of these changes was the widening variety of new objects in daily life that could be employed for many different purposes. Moreover, the physical shape of houses changed palpably, particularly through bringing female activities more closely within the ebb and flow of daily domestic activities.↩#p3313
House B2 provides clear indications that this house was immersed in the material culture and social influence of the Roman Empire. The B2 inhabitants co-opted and adapted Roman Mediterranean goods and ideas into their own web of significations. This complicated interplay means that House B2 is a difficult house to unwind, because cultural signatures point to Egyptian, Roman, and Greek traditions. What is enormously difficult to assess is whether this result entails that the inhabitants had multiple identities (whether in conflict or in harmony), or that the household absorbed new practices into a single cohesive identity. In other words, did taking on Roman material culture make this family feel specifically Roman, or associated with a broader Mediterranean cultural koine? Alternatively, this household may not have considered these goods to be cultural interlopers. It is impossible to resolve such questions at this time, but future research on similar households may enable us to reexamine these questions more satisfactorily in the future.↩#p3314
Future Directions
It is hoped that we can begin to compare House B2 with more houses that have been examined holistically. These comparisons will help us to determine where the B2 household was positioned within the Romano-Egyptian domestic spectrum.↩#p3315
The immediate social nexus of the neighborhood surrounding House B2 will provide an additional, significant area of future research. Houses, neighborhoods, and settlements created tangible, physical, and relatively permanent boundaries around groups, their activities, and possessions. In the Roman Empire, neighborhood was seen as the key element in the articulation of the city and the control of its population.115As we continue to excavate in Amheida Area 1, we will gain a better sense of how B2 fit within the meso-level of the neighborhood. For example, we can explore the extent to which this neighborhood was a bounded group and later the extent to which Amheida differed from other cities in Roman Egypt. The area around B2 is currently under excavation as it will enable us to explore the immediate social network surrounding this household.↩#p3316
Conclusion
This volume argues that we require more detailed studies of stratigraphically excavated and fully recorded individual houses and neighborhoods in order to build up our understanding of the impact of Roman rule upon daily life across the empire. As we grow to understand the small-scale impact of Roman imperial rule we can begin to explore the mechanisms and actors involved in the social changes evident on the grand scale. Hopefully this holistic exploration of Amheida House B2 contributes a beneficial step towards this eventual goal.↩#p3317
2 The alternating channels method, for example, was often used in large-scale construction since it was more malleable than other rigid brick-laying patterns (Kemp 2000:90, fig. 3.4 (1)).
7 A bread oven, however, has not been found yet in or around B1: Boozer 2007:122-190. It is possible that this type of food production was done outside the house.
8 For example, see Reddé, Ballet, Barbet and Bonnet 2004:25-74.
9 Compare to strong regionalization among temples, which Kaper has argued for Dakhlan temples: Kaper 1997. For a discussion of this regionalization of temples and houses in Dakhla, see Boozer 2011.
14 Rubbish deposits refer to deliberate or accidental accumulations of waste, normally coming from domestic occupation or industrial production. Rubbish preservation is typically achieved through burial in “fill” layers, from building construction, or the digging of waste pits. In very late urban contexts, waste sometimes accumulated in a haphazard way, in public and private spaces, comparable to trash accumulation in prehistoric and medieval settlements. Because of the inadvertent way it accumulates, rubbish often reflects everyday life better than abandonment levels. Sometimes these deposits can be linked to specific activity areas, which can provide substantial information about spatial organization within a community, such as consumption patterns. These deposits were probably heavily sorted for re-usable items, making functional identification complex (Lavan, Swift and Putzeys 2007:7).
28 See www.Amheida.org for reports on the ongoing excavations in C2.
29 This type of hearth was also found in House B1 at Amheida.
30 This type of hearth is common; for example see Bayoumi and Aravecchia’s excavations at Ain el Gedida. They uncovered several in the following locations: Mound 1, room B1 had a hearth (diameter c. 90 cm), Mound 1, room B6 has a hearth (diameter not given), room B10 had a hearth (diameter c. 45 cm), and room B19 (diameter c. 58 cm) had a hearth (Aravecchia forthcoming). For the range of fireplaces and ovens found at Karanis, see Husselman 1979:49-51.
31 On this type of iteration in archaeology, see Borić 2002:54.
34 Husselman 1979:39. An arrangement similar to B2 was found at House 2 at Kellis, which has a corridor leading to stairs and an under-stairs cupboard. The later addition of a kitchen was added in close proximity to the under-stairs cupboard and stairs (Hope 1988:169). Understairs areas were commonly associated with women, especially when menstruating (Wilfong 2002:51, 77), but this understairs area from B2 is too small to enable women to use it in that fashion.
35 Stud Pal. XX 67 recto, discussed in Lewis 1983:52.
39 Xenophon provides us with an indication of gendered roles for storage in a Greek context: “It would surprise me” answered my wife, “if the leader’s activities did not concern you more than me. For my care of the goods indoors and my management would look rather ridiculous…if you did not see that something is gathered in from outside.” “And my ingathering would look ridiculous,” I countered, “if there were not someone to keep what is gathered in.” (Xenophon Oikonomikos VII.37-41). In this Greek context, men were viewed as suppliers and women as users of storage spaces. It is unclear if this concept was current in Roman Egypt.
40 The category of “toy” is problematic. The functional classification of an object as a purpose-built toy is a complicated undertaking (Lillehammer 1989, Egan 1996). Moreover, children often play with the everyday objects that surround them (Sofaer Derevenski 1994). Even so, it is worthwhile suggesting the possibility since we know that children used these miniatures in similar contexts. For example Karanis had several examples of probable toys, including a wooden horse on wheels (Accession Number 0000.00.3312), a rag doll (Accession number 0000.01.0113), and a miniature comb (Accession Number 0000.00.3162). More examples can be located using the Kelsey Museum Artifacts Database, available online at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kelsey?page=index.
41 The term “abandonment” is used when we are focused on “the leaving,” such as the disoccupation of a structure or site, and the term “migration” is used when we focus on “the resettlement” of groups (Nelson 2000:53).
42 This abandonment practice contrasts sharply with Amheida House B1.
43 The literature on this topic is enormous at this point. Influential works include Hendon 2004, Blanton 1994.
44 On materiality studies that view objects as significant agents in human lives that serve to construct as well as reflect individual identities, see Miller 1987, Shanks and Tilley 1987a, Miller 2005, Thomas 1991, Buchli 2002.
53 A papyrus document dating much later than the occupation of this house (566–73 CE) discusses the necessity of clothing a wife so that she will physically resemble the husband’s family in terms of status. (P.Cair.Masp. III 67310 + P.Lond. V 1711). On this papyrus, see Pomeroy 1994:210.
54 Also found in the Dakhla Oasis, in which the Greek word oikodespoina is used: Bagnall 1997:102-103. This term also appears in ostraka from Amheida House B1 (Bagnall and Ruffini 2012).
55 Robins 1993:93, 99. Women, however, could own property, although it was much more common for men to own property and objects than women (ibid.:93, 99).
57 On women’s domestic activities, see Robins 1993:100-101. On wives assisting husbands in business affairs, see Rowlandson 1998:317. Women continued to possess property and participate in trade relationships during the Roman Period (Bagnall 1993:92-99).
62 Skeletal remains can also be problematic for studying children. Biologically accurate analyses of skeletal development form rather artifical boundaries with regard to social and mental development (Sofaer Derevenski 1994:8). Moreover, it is challenging to recover a relative sample size due to the small size of bones, their relative fragility, and the widespread practice of burying children through different methods or in different locations from adults (Baxter 2005:99, Kamp 2001).
63 On life expectancies in the Roman world, see Laes 2011, Bagnall and Frier 1994. On general issues of demography in the Roman world, see Scheidel 2001. Geographic conditions were highly variable in Roman Egypt, with some regions more or less healthy than others, which would have impacted life expectancies (ibid.).
64 On children and childhood in archaeology generally, see Baxter 2005, Dasen and Späth 2010, Sofaer Derevenski 2000, Johnson 2007, Kemp 2001. Key texts on children and childhood in the Roman Empire include: Wiedemann 1989, Rawson 2003, Golden 1990, Dasen and Späth 2010, Laes 2011. On considering the geography and environment as an influence on the Roman childhood, see Revell 2010.
65 Laes 2011:1-2. Boys and girls probably reached puberty later than in present society (Laurence 2005).
66 Baxter 2005, Hiner and Hawes 1985:xi, Chamberlain 1997. A more conservative estimate is given as approximately 33% in Rome (Laes 2011:28, table 2.2).
67 On child labor in Roman Egypt, see Mirkovic 2005. On child labor in the Roman Empire, see Bradley 1991:103-125, Petermandl 1997, Laes 2011:148-221. Capasso examined human skeletal remains from the Vesuvian eruption in 79 CE at Herculaneum and found that 24 per cent of individuals under the age of 20 showed signs of injuries from participating in heavy labor (Capasso 2001:esp. 1028-1031).
68 Between 30 and 35 per cent of newborns did not reach beyond the first month of life, and approximately 50 per cent survived to the age of 10 (Laes 2011:26).
69 It is notable that the children in or possibly around House B1 seem to have been educated in the classical tradition (Cribiore, Davoli and Ratzan 2008), while there is an absence of this type of data in and around B2.
73 For example, 25.3 per cent of households had married couples with married children who did not leave the parental home (Bagnall and Frier 1994:57-64).
74 On old age in the Roman Family, see Parkin 2003:203-23, Boozer 2011. On old age in the Roman Empire more broadly, see also Parkin 1997, Parkin 1998.
75 Lightfoot, Martinez and Schiff 1998, Martin et al. 2000.
76 Bowen 2001:22, Hope 1999a:64, Bagnall 1997:lines 547, 556, 558-59, 720 and 1484, Thanheiser and Bagnall 1997:39-40.
78 On this workshop, see Bagnall 1997:line 1266. For a receipt of fine linen that was produced in Dakhla and transported to Hermopolis Magna, in the Nile Valley, see P.Kell. 1 Gr.51.3–6.
95 Castiglione 1961, Empereur, Gout and Clement 1995, Gabra, Drioton, Perdrizet and Waddell 1941, Osing et al. 1982, Venit 1997, Venit 1999, Whitehouse 1998
111 On problems with this concept with respect to language, see Wallace-Hadrill 2008:128-129.
112 Cowen 2002, Kildea and Leach 1976, Redmon 2005, Condry 2006. On weak globalization, which denotes that individuals deploy local meanings upon global objects, see Friedman 1995:78. See also Boozer 2012a.
