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.
From the Ptolemaic until the Byzantine period, most Egyptian houses were built in mud brick. Fired bricks and stone were used primarily to consolidate building corners, stairs, and foundations for mud brick structures.1 B2 conforms to the standard construction features of most Romano-Egyptian mud-brick houses, and this chapter will explore these construction techniques in detail.↩#p480
First, I examine the mud bricks, since they were the dominant building material used in B2. In the course of this discussion, a wide variety of architectural features from the structure will be discussed, including the walls, roofing, bread ovens, floors, and other features. Then I discuss the nature of the mud floor and street construction outside this structure. These construction methods reveal that Area 1 was probably the result of a large construction effort that made use of traditional Egyptian techniques. An analysis of the architecture as well as a reconstruction and relevant comparanda are considered in the following chapter.↩#p481
Mud Bricks in B2
The majority of Egypt’s architecture was composed of mud brick until the modern era. As a result, mud bricks are a critical category for architectural analysis. When archaeologists gather sufficient quantities of data it may be possible to create mud-brick seriations. Even so, the great variability seen in even a single structure makes it unlikely that we can rely upon mud brick to the same degree as we do ceramics for a rough dating of a site or structure.2 Some scholars have made attempts to represent precise temporal horizons through mud brick, but these attempts have been met with varying degrees of success, and the sample sizes are too small to generate a consensus.3 To date, it is possible only to differentiate between major periods, such as Roman, Medieval, and modern bricks.↩#p482
Because Spencer provides one of the most comprehensive studies of Egyptian mud brick, I followed his criteria for recording mud brick data.4 I have not attempted seriations or major phasing assumptions on the basis of this data, as the sample size is too small for meaningful conclusions. The data may, however, be of use for future studies of mud brick architecture in Egypt.↩#p483
Spencer’s set of criteria included the following attributes:↩#p484
The composition of the bricks, and whether burnt or unburnt.
The dimensions of the bricks.
The bonding, preferably described by means of a corpus of bonds. We used the MoLA Archaeological Site Manual (Figure 5.1).5
The distribution of any reed matting or timber tie beams in the brickwork.
The nature of the mortar.
Details of any plaster.
Whether stamped bricks occur.
Any special usages, or bricks of special form.
I follow the above outline in the discussion of bricks below, omitting the attributes that did not occur at all in B2, namely burnt bricks, reed matting, or stamped bricks.↩#p485
Figure 5.1: Illustration of bonds corpus (A. Cervi), after the Museum of London Archaeology Service (now MoLA) Archaeological Site Manual (1994) figure 26.
Composition
It is necessary to study local methods of composing mud bricks, because mud brick studies are a relatively recent innovation in Egyptian archaeology, and significant comparative data is lacking.6 Local preferences and materials dictate which material builders prefer, and these distinctions create different appearances and compositions in the mud brick. The characteristics of these soils differ sufficiently that it is not possible to generalize on the basis of a regional study.↩#p486
Kemp suggests that the generally preferred material in modern Egypt is cultivated topsoil (khart), which was mixed by the farmer's activities and would have been enriched with organics.7 The added temper redirects the stresses the brick undergoes as it dries and shrinks. The reduction in shrinkage, in turn, limits cracking because it reinforces the structural integrity of the brick.8 Straw seems to have been the preferred temper throughout Egyptian history, although other materials would have served as better temper.9 In addition to straw, builders employed ash, sherds, small artifacts, and other rubbish. Reisner observed brick making in Egypt in the late 1920s and early 1930s and found a reasonable explanation for this blend of temper material.↩#p487
The only material which is now deliberately added to the mud is dust and broken straw, by preference the sweepings of the threshing-floor; but even street-sweepings, which usually contain a certain amount of wind blown straw, are used by poor people.10
Individuals typically used four elements to modify soil to make it suitable for mud-brick architecture, and these four elements can be found mentioned in Reisner’s ethnographic description. This practice of accumulating sweepings could easily have been done in Roman Egypt, although there is no means of verifying it archaeologically.↩#p488
The elements usually added to soil for making mud brick include:↩#p489
...coarse sand or aggregate, fine sand, silt, and clay. Any one may be totally absent and the soil may still make satisfactory bricks...The aggregate (sand) provides strength, the fine sand is a filler to lock the grains of aggregate, and the silt and clay (generally identified by particle size rather than chemical analysis) acts as a binder and plastic medium to glue the other ingredients together. Soil structures with a high percentage of aggregate (sand) may be strong when dry, but are more vulnerable to erosion from rain. Soil structures high in clay may be much more resistant to water and erosion, but less strong.11
McHenry’s study of mud-brick structural integrity indicates that the variety of material individuals added to mud bricks aided their strength.↩#p490
The B2 mud brick compositions fall within the parameters of standard Egyptian mud bricks. The majority of the mud bricks in B2 are brown or yellowish-brown in color. The composition of Amheidan bricks more generally shows a moderate-to-high organic content in both the mud bricks and the mud plaster, although sometimes the organic content can be attested only by the cavities left from these materials. Termites and moisture seem to have destroyed much of the organic content in the bricks, although it is clear that straw, seeds, and charcoal parts were used frequently. Indeed, more arid areas of Amheida (e.g., Area 3) show a high organic content in bricks that is similar to that at Kellis, which has a much higher state of preservation for organic materials in general. These Amheidan bricks contained a high content of straw, similar to what was attested in the studies cited above. The B2 bricks also contained a wide variety of non-organic inclusions as well, the most common being small fragments of ceramics and clinker.↩#p491
Dimensions
Mud-brick dimensions are typically irregular, since the size of each brick depends upon the complex structure and topography of each brick, even when bricks are made with a mold.12 A variety of factors can influence the shape of a brick, including shrinkage, the proportions of the brick constituents, disturbance during removal from the mold, and disturbance while drying.13 I follow Hesse and Kemp in only attempting measurements to the nearest half-centimeter, since the irregularity and accessibility of bricks makes attempts at a higher level of precision illusory and unwieldy.14↩#p492
The dimensions of bricks from B2 average approximately 16 x 34 x 8 cm and comply with the general standard in ancient Egypt, in which there was typically an approximate 2:1 ratio between length and breadth.15 This standard was deviated from during some periods of Egyptian history, and we will find similar deviations among special use bricks in B2 (see below).↩#p493
Bonding
All of the B2 walls except for one (F33) show an “English” bond pattern (Figure 5.1). This pattern entailed alternating courses of headers and stretchers offset sideways. The brick-laying pattern for B2 is similar to that found at Karanis; the courses of headers and stretchers on the outer surface alternated with stretchers and headers on the inner surface.16 The main difference between the Karanis pattern and that found in B2 is that the “alternate channels” construction method was employed in almost all of the walls of B2 (except for F33 and F24), but this method of construction is not found frequently in published evidence from Karanis.↩#p494
The alternate channels construction method involved laying the bricks on one side of the channel along their stretchers, while on the other side of the channel they were laid on their headers. The location of the channel varied across the wall, guided by these courses (Figure 4.8). This technique was common throughout Dynastic Egypt and can be found particularly at large-scale construction sites, such as 18th Dynasty Giza.17 These construction projects used wide, unfilled or mortar-filled gaps between bricks in a course.18 Sometimes rubble was used rather than mud, although there are no instances of this practice in the B2 walls.19 These gaps or channels enabled wall thicknesses to be adjusted and irregular brick lengths in header courses to be hidden. This technique enabled workers to build a thick wall with very little trouble because the only important part of the bonding pattern was the exposed faces of the wall, and the wall interior was forgiving of mistakes. Although the alternate channels method permits irregularity, it was sometimes necessary to introduce a half-brick or irregular brick to return the course to the intended laying pattern. We find this irregularity introduced into the B2 wall construction as well.↩#p495
The flexibility of this construction method suggests that a large-scale building episode took place in Area 1. From the drawings of the walls in B2, we find that there are variations in the laying pattern (Figure 4.8). The plaster channels do not have a standardized length or width, and irregularly shaped or non-standard bricks were often used to complete a course. This degree of variability is indicative of a large building project.20↩#p496
Wall feature F33 in room 9 had a singular brick-laying pattern within B2. A wall stub (F33) was added east of the doorway to the street following the construction of the second floor level. It is constructed in three segments, each exhibiting English bond, rather than having the typical English bond pattern that is found on all of the other walls in this structure. It is also the only wall in B2 that does not use the alternate channels construction method. The purpose of this wall is unclear: perhaps it was added to provide additional protection from street dirt and noise, or it may have been added as an additional buttress to one of the walls. It seems that because it was a later addition and did not need to bear enormous loads, it did not merit a sturdy construction pattern.↩#p497
We exposed the foundations of most B2 walls in order to see how they were constructed. The walls of the house follow the natural contours of the original site surface with the foundations of these walls, showing slightly different construction methods. None of the foundations used mortar. Instead, they consisted of a bottom layer of mud bricks standing vertically on their stretchers followed by a course of mud bricks with their stretchers running horizontally. The pattern after this standard foundation layer varied from wall to wall and depended, in part, upon the variable site surface that the builders had to compensate for during construction.↩#p498
It was standard practice in ancient Egypt to use bricks as the foundation for walls. The bricks were sometimes laid as headers along their long edges for the first course of a wall of two bricks or more in width. This orientation was particularly useful to offset variable depths in the foundation trench. The depth of foundations could vary considerably, from effectively nothing to several meters. Foundations were commonly laid without doorways being marked.21↩#p499
The foundation patterns for this house precisely follow the practice that Kemp describes for mud-brick buildings. The foundation depth varied considerably across the structure. We had evidence of a foundation trench along one wall (F1=F32), although it is clear that trenches were not used on most walls. The use of the foundation trench for wall F1=F32 may be due to its exposure to the street, which appears to have been laid out in a single episode. None of the doorways in this structure show signs that the builders marked them out differently from the walls, again suggesting the possibility that a general construction episode took place in Area 1.↩#p500
Distribution of Timber Tie Beams
It was not uncommon for mud-brick houses to be consolidated with timber tie beams inserted into the brick masonry.22 Tie beams were used in large construction efforts in order to even out the load distributions23 and also may have served to dry up the humidity found in the mud bricks. These beams were placed horizontally among the courses (both laterally and longitudinally) at vertical intervals that could vary from five to fourteen courses. These tie beams were particularly necessary in very thick masses of brick where careful bonding of courses was normally abandoned for interior bricks and sometimes the use of mortar as well. Since timbers only started at the first interval above ground level, it is necessary for a wall to be preserved to a height of at least a half a meter in order to detect tie beams. Examples of timber insertions have sufficient chronological spread to suggest that this was a continuous tradition in larger constructions from the Early Dynastic period onwards.24 The longevity of this practice is of interest, as it indicates continuity in building techniques from the Early Dynastic period through to the Roman era.↩#p501
Evidence of tie beams can be found in several Romano-Egyptian sites. For example, Syene House 5 has horizontally laid wooden poles, which the excavators interpreted as an indication that this house had multiple stories. Syene House 5 may date to the early Roman Imperial Period, with a terminus ante quem during the fifth century.25 Although the excavators did not provide comparanda to justify this suggestion, they may be drawing on parallels from Karanis, which contains multiple examples of tie beam construction, particularly along exterior walls.26 As the Karanis houses are predominantly multi-story, it is possible that the excavator linked these two attributes. At this time we do not have sufficient quantities of data to determine if tie beams indicate the presence of a second story.↩#p502
Evidence for tie beams in B2 is uncertain. One wall (F3) has two large holes that extended through the entirety of the wall (Figure 5.2). It seems likely that these holes were for the placement of wood beams that were removed or decayed along with most of the soft organics from B2. There is a large hole for a beam located 191 cm from the west edge of the doorway (F52). This hole is 20 cm wide and 14 cm high. The wall around this hole appears to have been repaired with mud plaster and mud-brick fragments. The hole appears to penetrate through to the south face of the wall. A second hole is visible 110 cm west of the corner of F3 with F2. The hole has a diameter of 15 cm and is approximately 16 cm deep. It is 20 cm above the top of the foundation, and it begins at the top of the preserved wall.↩#p503
Figure 5.2: Photo of timber tie beam holes in wall F3. The foundation bricks are visible as the bottom course of bricks.
The possible B2 tie beams support the conjecture that Area 1 was laid out in a single massive construction episode.27 It is also possible that these holes indicated a means of affixing furniture, but typically these sorts of holes are located quite high in the wall and are much thinner and more irregular.28↩#p504
The Nature of the Mortar
Mortar normally forms a bed beneath each new course of bricks and between each brick. Vertical joints tend to be narrower than horizontal joints. The mortar is often of a similar type to the mud bricks themselves, only more water is used in order to make the mixture easily spreadable, and it is often less rich in vegetal temper.↩#p505
The standard vertical joints in B2 measure 1–1.5 cm, while the standard horizontal joints measure 2–3 cm. The mortar in B2 is similar to the mud bricks in that it is usually yellowish-brown in color and often has organic inclusions, such as seeds and charcoal parts. Non-organic inclusions, such as small pebbles and ceramics, can be detected as well.↩#p506
Details of Any Plaster
Plaster is a significant structural and decorative attribute of buildings. The plastering process was fairly uniform across Roman Egypt and plaster application was a simple process. The greatest variability for simple domestic decoration, as found in B2, depended upon the number of layers employed. First, a base coat of mud plaster, a mixture of mud and straw, is applied to the mud bricks to provide an even surface. The next two stages were optional and, for B2, the exception to the dominant plastering technique. Following the mud plaster, a rough gypsum plaster, with small inclusions of yellow, brown, and black sand, could be applied onto the mud bricks. This preliminary layer is allowed to dry, and a finer coat of gypsum plaster may then be applied on top to give a finer, smoother finish. This second coat of gypsum typically would have smaller and fewer inclusions and be very thin (1–2 mm thick).29↩#p507
Third, after the wall surface has been prepared with its base coat of gypsum plaster, it is ready to be painted with pigment. The painter used different painting techniques depending on the conditions in which he was working. The most common techniques across the Roman Empire were tempera or fresco.30 The tempera technique involves working on a dry surface, which requires pigments to be mixed with some form of liquid medium, such as egg white, animal glue, wax, or vegetable oil to form a paint, allowing the pigments to adhere to the wall.31 The tempera technique works successfully in all dry conditions, and is the most successful method for painting quick drying clay rendered walls (for this reason it is also often referred to as painting a secco). Due to Egypt’s arid climate, most Egyptian wall paintings of all periods were composed using the tempera technique.32 Tempera paintings, such as those from House B1, have survived at Amheida and provide in situ comparanda for this technique on a much more lavish scale than we find in House B2.↩#p508
House B2 contains three different types of plaster used in standard plastering processes: (1) mud plaster, (2) white gypsum plaster, and (3) painted plaster. First, the walls of the house were covered in mud plaster in various states of preservation. Mud plaster is a significant attribute of the mud brick walls because it aids the appearance of the wall, helps protect it against weathering, and adds mechanical strength.33 Plaster often differs from mortar in that it has a higher concentration of straw, which reduces cracking.34 Unfortunately, the cavities left after insect attacks on straw leave the plaster very friable and can deteriorate the base plaster and any decorative plaster that may have overlaid it.↩#p509
Inside B2, a yellowish-brown plaster was frequently found as the base plaster on walls while a reddish-brown plaster was used more frequently for repairs and the replastering of walls. There was a moderate-to-high organic content in the mud plaster, as evinced by a few remains of straw and other organics but more frequently by the impressions and cavities of these organics in the plaster. It is clear that insects removed these organics and accelerated the decay of the building, particularly the mud plaster and decorative plaster on the walls.↩#p510
Second, gypsum plaster served as both a stand-alone white plaster as well as the preparatory surface on which pigments could be applied. Gypsum plaster is frequently found in Romano-Egyptian structures and is composed of gypsum (hydrated calcium sulphate CaSO4.2H2O) and anhydrite (anhydrous calcium sulphate CaSO4), such as that found in Shrine 1 at Kellis.35↩#p511
White gypsum plaster was preserved in a few areas within House B2, such as the north boundary of room 7 (F35) and around the opening to room 11 (F32, F36). Room 1 retained a few scattered fragments of white plaster in its north wall (F2) suggesting that at least a strip of white gypsum plaster was present in that room. A few fragments were recovered from room 6, DSU 38=43. As can be seen in Amheida House B1, as well as in numerous houses at Kellis, white plaster was probably used to outline niches and doorways, and also as strips along the backs of walls in order to catch and reflect light provided by lamps.36 These upper courses of wall have now disappeared in most of B2 thanks to erosion, but there is sufficient evidence to suggest that they were once present, particularly given the gypsum fragments adhering to wall F2 in room 1.↩#p512
Third, in addition to white gypsum plaster, some of the B2 rooms appear to have been painted, at least selectively, in red (room 6) and black, red, and yellow (room 1). The black plaster from room 1 came in many fragments, totaling 0.170 kg of plaster, and was found amid ceiling and wall collapse (DSU 4). Some of this plaster only consisted of plaster painted black, while five fragments were found adhering to mud brick fragments. The red plaster from room 6 was of even smaller quantities. Two fragments were attached to mud brick fragments, and one was found detached within the roof collapse debris (DSU 38 = 43).↩#p513
Table 5.1: Summary of colored plaster recovered from House B2.
This plaster data suggests that the majority of the walls would have had a bare, yellowish-brown mud plaster with patches of reddish-brown plaster marking areas that had been repaired or re-plastered due to wear. In the Dakhla Oasis, white gypsum plaster is typically employed only around wall niches, windows, openings and as strips along the back walls of rooms. In addition to white gypsum plaster, some of the B2 rooms appear to have been painted, at least partially, in red (room 6) and black, red and yellow (room 1). These fragments were found amid roof and wall collapse, and some of the fragments were attached to collapse debris.↩#p514
The companion site of Kellis provides instructive parallels for understanding a potential pigmented painting scheme for House B2. For example, Kellis House 2 from Area A had walls covered in gray mud plaster, while the vaulted roofs had a red-colored plaster over which were painted gray bands along the junctions between the vaults and the walls.39 It is possible that rooms 1 and 6 displayed this variety of simple, colored decoration at roof level, which correlates with the depositions in which these fragments were found. Room 1 seems to have been particularly highlighted through the additional use of yellow pigment, which also would have contributed to the brightness of the room. As room 1 contained evidence of higher status items, it is possible that this room was singled out for more decorative treatment than other rooms, but such suggestions can be only tentative at this time.↩#p515
Special Usages, or Bricks of Special Form
Special bricks occurred in five contexts: the mud bricks from the collapse of a vault (DSU 4, DSU 6, DSU 13, DSU 44, DSU 52), a vaulted ceiling for an under-stairs storage area (F21), a small storage feature (F43 from room 11), a bread oven (F19), and the floors of two under-stairs storage areas (F15 from room 4 and F42 from room 10).↩#p516
All but two of the vaulted roofs had collapsed in B2. The collapse debris was typically highly eroded and was evinced by disarticulated vault bricks debris (e.g., DSU 6, DSU 13, DSU 44, DSU 52). Room 1 had a mass of articulated vault bricks (DSU 4), which we drew in situ. We pulled apart and examined part of this DSU 4 vault collapse in order to assess the construction techniques used. We found that standard vault construction was employed; the bricks were mortared together and small potsherds, known as chinking sherds, were employed to allow the creation of a curve in the shape of a vault out of rectangular-shaped bricks.↩#p517
The vault bricks themselves were similar to those found in B1. They had impressions of a concentric circle pattern made with the fingers across one brick face while they were still wet. It was a common long-term practice in Egypt to score one face (to be the underside) or even both faces, by dragging the fingers down its length while the bricks were still wet in order to create “frogging” (Figure 5.3). Frogging augments the suction of the wet mortar by allowing it to act on a greater surface area, which is particularly important for vaults.40↩#p518
Figure 5.3: Photo of a frogged brick from House B2.
Room 4 had a vaulted ceiling (F21) partially intact, and room 11 had a vaulted ceiling (F43) fully intact. These rooms were instructive for examining how the bricks were laid in situ. Each of these vaults employed a different technique, and both of them differed from the types of vaults typically used over rooms. Most ancient vaults were the pitched type of vault, in which each arc of bricks was laid at a slight angle to the vertical so that the weight of each new one was borne by those already in place.41 Pitched vaults were used for corridors and small spaces and were built against a stable element that propped up the initial courses. These initial courses were laid at right angles to the wall, and the subsequent courses of mud brick rested against the first ones that had been laid.42 It is clear from examining these vaults that a slight angle was employed so that the new course of bricks could be supported by the preceding course as found in pitched vaults.↩#p519
Special bricks were sometimes made for pitched vaults. We were able to examine the vault bricks from the vault (F21) in room 4, as some of the bricks were found in excavation (DSU 44). These vault bricks differed in dimensions from other vault bricks in B2 and those excavated from Amheida House B1. The dimensions of the vault bricks found complete in the vault are: x = 34 cm, y = 13 cm, z = 10 cm. The bricks were curved along their length, and the bottom of the curve was oriented along the bottom of the vault. The bricks used in F21 were much thinner than standard vault bricks and were sometimes slightly curved on the edges. The use of curved bricks in vault construction has a long history in Egypt and can be attested from Dynastic Egypt onwards, and they were typically used for underground rooms. Balat in the Dakhla Oasis is our closest local comparandum for this special type of brick used in Pharaonic times.43↩#p520
Bread Ovens
The bread ovens in B2 (F19) and in Courtyard C2 (F3, F4) were constructed out of mud brick and indicate how mud brick was adapted for special needs. The oven itself consisted of a ceramic body enclosed within a square of mud brick walls one brick thick.↩#p521
The bread oven (F19) from B2 has brick dimensions in the z-axis that are not consistent with the general size found in this structure. The mud brick wall is four courses high and did not have a clear bonding pattern. The mud plaster is less than 1 cm thick and is brown/reddish-brown in color.↩#p522
Table 5.2: Brick dimensions in oven platform Courtyard C2 F3 (in cm).
X
Y
Z
Brick 1
17
34
13
The bread oven (F4), and platform (F3) from Courtyard C2 have highly variable brick dimensions, particularly along the x and y axes, suggesting that some of the bricks were specially shaped or reshaped for these features.↩#p523
Table 5.3: Brick dimensions in oven platform Courtyard C2 F3 (in cm).
X
Y
Z
Brick 1
15.50
–
6.50
Brick 2
–
23.00
6.50
Brick 3
–
27.00
6.50
Table 5.4: Brick dimensions in bread oven Courtyard C2 F4 (in cm).
X
Y
Z
Brick 1
19.00
36.00
6.00
Brick 2
17.00
20.00
7.50
Brick 3
17.00
22.00
9.00
Floors in Rooms 4 and 10: Rooms 4 and 10 had mud-brick pavements rather than the standard mud plaster floor found in other rooms in B2. It was common to use mud-brick floors in storage rooms in Roman Egypt.44↩#p524
The room 4 floor (F15) consists of a mud-brick pavement that originally was covered in mud plaster. The floor itself is in a good state of preservation. The plaster is less well preserved with only small patches of plaster remaining in the southern part, although the northern 80 cm still have plaster adhering to the mud bricks. Both the bricks and the mud plaster are light grayish-brown in color. The mortar is less than 1.5 cm thick and the plaster is less than 3 cm thick. The plaster has charcoal, pottery, and bone inclusions in it. The brick dimensions are somewhat irregular in the floor and may reflect the need to shape the bricks in order to lay them properly. The bricks were not laid in a regular pattern.↩#p525
Table 5.5: Brick dimensions in floor F15 (in cm).
–
X
Y
Z
Brick 1
17
35
–
Brick 2
16
–
7
Brick 3
13
17
–
Brick 4
13
18
–
The floor of room 10 (F42) is preserved only under the north wall (F28) and also as a single line of bricks in two courses towards the south wall (F26) of the room. The central part of the floor is missing and was filled with loose rubble and compacted adobe melt (DSU 66). Under the north wall (F28) the single course of floor that is visible consists of mud bricks laid on their headers, with their faces running east–west. They are laid to form a slight overlap with the wall that was 0.8 cm wide. The upper surface of this overlap is coated with thick mud plaster that is now very poorly preserved, but probably once coved over the junction between the floor (F42) and the wall (F28). The upper course is laid with the bricks on their faces with the header east–west; the lower course is, as far as one can tell from the small area visible, laid with headers north–south, forming what would essentially be English bond if this floor was a wall. The mud mortar is 5 cm thick and has inclusions of pebbles and lime spots.↩#p526
Table 5.6: Brick dimensions in floor F42 (in cm).
X
Y
Z
Brick 1
17
30
8
Brick 2
17.5
24
8
In comparing the bricks used in these floors it is clear that standard bricks were employed, although it was necessary to reshape a brick occasionally in order to adapt it to the laying pattern or the space available.↩#p527
Floor Construction
Floors typically receive much less attention than walls in discussions of architectural construction in Egypt.45 It is a grave concern that floor composition is not studied more thoroughly, since floors reveal not only how they were made but also the activities that individuals carried out on them.46↩#p528
All of the rooms in B2 were excavated at least to the uppermost floor level. The floors consisted of compacted mud except in two storage rooms (rooms 4, 10) that had mud-brick floors. Three well-preserved floor layers were exposed during the excavation of room 7, and this room serves as the best example for exploring how floors were constructed, repaired, and renovated in B2. The sequence of layers described here corresponds to what was preserved to a lesser extent in other rooms (e.g., rooms 9, 6), and the construction methods used appear to be consistent with what was found in other rooms (e.g., rooms 1, 2, 3, 5).↩#p529
Figure 5.4: Photo of room 7 floor section (F17).
We cut a section in the northern half of room 7 in order to assess the construction methods used for the floors of B2 (Figure 5.4). We found a total of three floor layers and minor replastering episodes. These floors were built up with rubble in between, showing how individuals maintained the floor construction throughout the occupation of the house. This practice involved collecting ash, potsherds, mud brick debris, and other refuse to put in place as stabilizing material. This debris was compacted in some areas in a manner that suggests that water was thrown onto this matrix to make it harden. A mud layer was then smoothed on top of the debris matrix to form an even and firm floor surface.47↩#p530
The floor surfaces themselves appeared to be quite similar, with the exception of the first floor (F49) in room 7, which was a fine plastered floor of a light gray color. Some minor repairs, such as patching, also took place on this floor. The floor is extremely flat and compacted. There is one raised area of the floor that seems to be a repair; this is located immediately south of the oven feature (F19). This repair was probably necessitated by the use of F19 in the vicinity, since the hole for fuel and drafts is located here. The repair patch also has a gray ash concentration in the vicinity of the hole into the oven (F19). The floor was tempered with some organics, ash, charcoal parts, and pottery. Deliberately made mud floor plaster appears to require a relatively high organic content, much like wall plaster. The organics usually derived from chopped straw, and the floor is laid out when the matrix of mud and straw is still in a fairly plastic state, without the addition of too much water.48↩#p531
Floor F48 is probably a repair episode, as it was in close proximity to floor F49 below and F45 above. Alternatively, F48 may be a preparatory level for F45 rather than a proper floor layer. F48 rests on large cobbles and debris that were used to stabilize and prepare a foundation for the new floor construction. There are no significant features or marks associated with this floor level, although it was possible to discern ceramic inclusions.↩#p532
F45, the middle floor layer, was in a very good state of preservation. It consists of highly compacted grayish mud plaster with whiter patches. It has a high degree of inclusions, such as charcoal parts, ash pockets, seeds (mostly olive), lime spots, ceramic fragments, and organic fibers. It had several patches of ash concentration on its surface, likely from the use of the oven in the vicinity.↩#p533
The top floor layer (F17) consists of highly compacted light gray mud plaster. It is in a very good state of preservation, although it is largely absent in the vicinity of walls F7, F12, and F27. There is also a large gap in the floor 0–58 cm west of wall F7 and 34–169 cm north of doorway F53. At 50–75 cm north of F12 and 110–130 cm west of F7 there is a gray ash concentration with charcoal inclusions. It is standard that floors erode more quickly along the junctions with the walls and in doorways. There were inclusions of ceramics, organics, charcoal, and seeds in the floor. There are no other discernible features or marks associated with floor F17.↩#p534
We excavated below floor level in several rooms49 in order to understand how the initial laying of the floors took place. Rather than leveling the surface to gebel (“bedrock”), builders used the natural landscape with all of its fluctuations in elevation (see room 1). Instead of modifying the landscape substantially, they appear to have built directly upon the surface of the site with only minor preparations. This construction method appears common for this house and the surrounding structures. We found evidence that suggests individuals trampled and wet the ground before placing a layer of mud brick and other debris in preparation for the mud plaster of floors.50 Floors in open areas could be produced by the combined action of trampling and of wetting the ground. It is possible that this procedure was the first step before beginning the process of building up rubble underneath the first proper floor layer in interior rooms as well.51↩#p535
Exterior Courtyard Floor
F1 is a highly irregular and poorly preserved floor or surface layer, remaining only in patches across the trench excavated in Courtyard C2. It is very thin in parts and uncertain in other areas, so it may be an informal surface, rather than the more prepared surfaces that we find in the rooms within B2. This informal surface had inclusions of lime spots and pottery, but it did not seem to have been mixed with substantial amounts of temper, since organics were conspicuously absent from this matrix. An ephemeral hearth (DSU 5) was located on F1, which secures its identification as a surface.↩#p536
The combined action of trampling and of wetting the ground to produce informal surfaces resulted in a less firm and structured surface than we found in B2.52 Indeed, without the support of bricks and refuse, these informal floors are much more difficult to differentiate from compacted earth in the surrounding matrix.↩#p537
Street Construction
Soil street construction is even more neglected than floor construction in architectural analysis. Part of the difficulty with this study is that we do not yet understand to what extent individuals deliberately constructed street surfaces. There is some evidence of prepared road construction in Pharaonic Egypt for special construction projects and in the Roman Period for trade networks, but there is little discussion of road construction in standard settlements.53 It is possible that compacted muddy surfaces in courtyards and streets may have come into existence through the combined action of trampling and of wetting the ground, a puddling process in itself. These human activity by-products can recur over the same area to produce a laminated effect, however, so it is possible that this compaction occurred naturally through consistent heavy usage.54↩#p538
The street (S1) north of B2 served as a main east–west oriented street into Amheida, and it would have experienced significant traffic. We employed test soundings to investigate the street system. These soundings have the advantage of providing very detailed information at relatively low cost and through a minimally invasive intervention. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that this small-scale trench offers only a localized perspective on the archaeological reality, which must be accounted for when extrapolating from the exposed situation to the rest of the city.↩#p539
A network of streets cannot remain in use without continuous upkeep. We exposed three distinct compacted mud and debris surfaces (Area 1.2, F1, F2, and F3) for Street S1. We distinguished these surfaces by deposit episodes (trash deposition; sand deposition), which may have necessitated at least a partially active preparation of a surface. Other ancient cities, such as Sagalassos, show frequent leveling operations.55 Most ancient towns evince street level alterations over time, which then required that the adjoining buildings had to be adapted to ensure that they were accessible from the street.56 The staircase (F50) shows how B2 was adapted to suit the changing street levels.↩#p540
Looking more closely at the street surfaces, we find that DSU 7 consists of highly compacted adobe with flat-lying sherds both on top and embedded in it. The only discernible inclusions were ceramics. It was highly compacted but difficult to define. Likewise, DSU 10 consisted of an extremely hard matrix of compacted trash. The surface broke apart in large chunks and had several plaster inclusions. DSU 10 was extremely flat and seems to have been a more formal street surface than DSU 7. DSU 10 may be the same surface as DSU 14, since it appeared to slope upwards slightly to the west. DSU 14 consisted of compacted adobe, with flat-lying sherds on a level surface, suggesting that it is more likely to be a prepared street surface than the other ones that we exposed. Artifact densities for DSU 14 were low in all categories, though many categories are represented, such as organics, glass, ceramics, and faience. Many artifacts from DSU 14 had salts adhering to them, suggesting evaporated water. DSU 14 was terminated when we reached soft yellow sand and occasional pockets of ash, which indicated the site surface that was used for preparing the original street surface. This surface included a mix of small bits of refuse (e.g. clinker, ceramics, ash, bone, faience), but did not contain standard material used for temper.↩#p541
Conclusion
This analysis of construction materials and building techniques yields three important conclusions:↩#p542
First, the use of the alternate channels construction techniques points towards large-scale construction in this area of the site. Although the evidence for tie beams is uncertain, the potential use of this construction method also suggests a major construction episode. These data, along with other strands of evidence, indicate that Area 1 may have been created in a single large-scale construction episode.57↩#p543
Second, comparison between the interior floors, courtyard surface, and street surfaces gives us a sense of how individuals considered spaces within and outside of B2. The surfaces exterior to B2 appear to have been created either through repetitive action or non-intensive methods, while the floors in B2 show typical construction patterns along with potential adaptation of techniques used in open spaces, perhaps to increase the stability of these floors and improve their appearance. On one hand, rooms 5 and 7 both contained implements for food preparation, but they both had formal floors due to their location within the house rather than exterior to the house. On the other hand, C2 had informal floor preparations since it was exterior to the house, although the function of this space had some overlap with these interior rooms. The street, S1, seems to have been formally laid out initially, but was subsequently informally maintained, perhaps by the neighborhood.↩#p544
Third, an examination of the building techniques used in B2 indicates that the builders employed traditional Egyptian construction materials and building methods in this structure.↩#p545
12 Only a small number of ancient brick molds, all made of wood, are known (Petrie 1890:26, plate I, Petrie 1917:42, plate XLVII.5, David 1986:plate 1, Clarke and Engelback 1930:fig. 263e). These remains suggest that ancient brick-making was identical to traditional brick-making in Egypt today (Spencer 1979:3).
43 Found in the SCA magazine near Ismant el-Kharab. The brick dimensions are 1.28 x 30 cm; 17 x 6.5 cm, and the color is beige (Minault-Gout and Deleuze 1992:72, Spencer 1979:141-142).
46 Hecker 1986, Matthews and Postgate 1994. It is difficult to process micro morphology samples from Egypt at this time because they cannot be exported for research and there are limited capabilities within Egypt. We have left floors intact in B2 for sampling by future archaeologists.
53 Ibid.:93. A recent edited volume on roads (Ballet, Dieudonné-Glad and Saliou 2008) includes two contributions on Romano-Egyptian roads (Ballet 2008, Marouard 2008). On the construction of roads in the Western Desert, see Klemm, Klemm and Steclaci 1984:Tafel 11, Wagner 1987:140-154. For desert roads in Nubia, see Hester, Hobler and Russel 1970. On Egyptian Eastern Desert roads, see Sidebotham 2011:125-140. These desert roads were unpaved roads, which the Romans termed viae terrenae (Ulpian, Digesta 43.11.1.2).
