This document is part of the online version of the book An Oasis City by Roger S. Bagnall, Nicola Aravecchia, Raffaella Cribiore, Paola Davoli, Olaf E. Kaper and Susanna McFadden, which is available at http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/oasis-city/. 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 specific content available online will be updated to include more links to supplementary material and related digital resources.
Figure 24. Plan of Amheida showing the reconstructed temple precinct.Figure 25. View of the surviving part of the temenos wall.Figure 26. A pit on the temple hill showing marks from digging.
The area of the main temple of Trimithis is located at the top of the settlement's central hill (Fig. 24). Like the whole archaeological area, it has suffered from harsh erosion (see §1.1), as well as undergoing considerable plundering. On the basis of the only visible surviving segment of the temenos wall (Fig. 25) it has been calculated that at least 1.5 m of the stratigraphy here has been lost. Several pits of different dimensions and depth have destroyed the original deposition sequence. These pits were dug principally to recover soil rich in organic materials (natural fertilizer, sebbakh), in what was virtually a mining operation pursued during various phases using the torya, a typical agricultural tool, of which clear marks remain on the surviving edges of the pits (Fig. 26).1 Other activities, like the removal of stone blocks from the temple, contributed to the destruction and disordering of the archaeological remains. No evidence has been found to date these activities, but we can plausibly associate them with the development of local settlements—such as El-Qasr in the Mamluk and Ottoman periods—and of agriculture, always in need of fertilizer, as already noted. To judge from the remarks of nineteenth-century travellers, much of this damage took place in the second half of that century (see Introduction).↩#p56
Figure 27. Part of a wall collapsed into pits.
The main aim of the excavation carried out so far in this area (Area 4) was to recover data about the presence of the temple and thus all the remains of the building. Thousands of stone blocks were found collapsed in dozens of pits, some of them first dug when parts of the temple walls were still standing to a height of 2 or 3 m. As a consequence, the walls and foundations collapsed into the pits—this was shown most clearly during the 2013 season (Fig. 27). These events, together with the natural erosion and accumulation of sand, changed the landscape and completely altered the stratigraphy.↩#p57
The pits cover all of the temple area. In order to understand what kind of activity they represent, we excavated their contents, leaving their edges intact. These edges are the only witnesses to the presence of a deep anthropic stratigraphy accumulated over the millennia and testifying to the presence of mud-brick buildings, now so badly preserved that it is very difficult even to know whether they are part of a sequence of settlements or of industrial or religious establishments. The pit diggers removed between 2 and 3 m of the mud-brick walls and stratigraphy, composed of horizontal layers of reddish clay plus great quantities of ashes mixed with pottery. Certainly, the oldest periods of the sequence were not reached everywhere, and there is still hope of recovering good data from a sufficiently deep stratigraphic excavation. The pottery, recovered in large quantity but all out of its original contexts, covers a time span from the Old Kingdom to the fourth century CE; mixed with it were various bearers of textual evidence, mainly hieratic, demotic, and Greek ostraka.↩#p58
A preliminary study of the stratigraphy visible in the edges of several pits and of the pottery2 suggests a close similarity with the archaeological situation found at ʿAin Asil:3 nothing is left of the upper layers with deposits belonging to the periods between the New Kingdom and the mid- to late fourth century CE, except a few segments of collapsed walls, some foundations of walls, and some coffins of the sacred animal necropolis of the Late Period still in situ. However, ostraka, pottery, decorated temple blocks, and other items testify to activities and buildings dated to these periods; these are described in more detail in the next section.4↩#p59
The visible walls in the surviving stratigraphy belong to at least three major building phases, but only two possible floor levels have been recognized so far. A few of them are connected with one another, and describe rectangular rooms roughly oriented with the compass. Pottery samples collected in stratigraphical sequence have allowed us to determine two main levels directly superimposed, dated to the end of the Old Kingdom or early First Intermediate Period and to the 13th Dynasty to Second Intermediate Period. The pottery of the two periods found is very similar to that discovered at ʿAin Asil, where the same stratigraphic sequence has been found.↩#p60
Figure 28. Double bread molds reused as revetment on the temple hill.
The exceptional number of bread molds (Fig. 28), single and double, and of grinding stones in hard black sandstone, suggests the presence of a bakery in the area during the 13th Dynasty–Second Intermediate Period.5 A great quantity of ash is also present in deeper layers, but the floor level of the end of the Old Kingdom has not yet been reached. Part of a stela dated to the end of the First Intermediate Period was found in 2012 out of its original context.6↩#p61
Figure 29. A steatite cylinder seal of the Early Dynastic Period, with impression (Inv. No. 14161.
Apparently there is a chronological gap in the sequence of layers of Area 4 where the Middle Kingdom strata should be. However, the 12th Dynasty kings Sesostris I and Amenemhat II are mentioned on a stone lid and on a cylinder seal found on the settlement surface, showing that the site was not abandoned in that period. Other objects found on the surface or in layers formed of dumped material, mainly of the third–fourth centuries CE, are dated to earlier periods, such as a piece of a slate palette (from Naqada III, the last phase of the Naqada culture) and of a steatite cylinder seal of the Early Dynastic Period (Fig. 29). Such scattered objects cannot be considered as evidence of settlements in these eras and in these locations, but they certainly invite more in-depth and extensive investigations.7↩#p62
There is no clear evidence, either, of the presence of a temple in the area before the 19th Dynasty (see §2.2), but the bakery of the 13th Dynasty–Second Intermediate Period might be associated with a public function. An incomplete pottery offering-tray—with offerings roughly incised—of the kind used during the Middle Kingdom–Second Intermediate Period, was found in the area and may be related to this activity.↩#p63
Thanks to this evidence it is possible to add Amheida to the list of the Old Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period settlements in the Dakhla Oasis. During those eras, ʿAin Asil was the main city; there were located the governors' palace and the offices of the high-ranking officials, as is well attested by the excavations of the Institut français d'archéologie orientale (IFAO) in both the settlement and in the necropolis. In the western part of the oasis, the DOP survey, too, discovered several archaeological sites in which pottery and/or features dated to these periods were found. A cemetery with an estimated one hundred Old Kingdom tombs has been identified at Amheida, east of the pyramid. Moreover, two groups of Old Kingdom pottery kilns were surveyed in 1979 west of Amheida, respectively at about 500 m and 2.5 km distant. Both places (sites 33/390 K9-1 and I9-3) are now covered by sand dunes and thus invisible.8↩#p64
A significant Old Kingdom walled settlement is situated four km south of Amheida, at ʿAin el-Gazzareen,9 and a spring mound with Old Kingdom and Roman-period ruins has been found two km north of Amheida. Old Kingdom pottery was also collected to the west, near the Muzawwaqa tombs and the Deir el-Hagar temple. A Second Intermediate Period necropolis (32/390 K1–2), located on a spring mound south of the south pyramid at Amheida, may perhaps be connected with the Second Intermediate Period settlement or the bakery found on the temple hill. In this necropolis fifty tombs were recognized—of which four were excavated—by the DOP survey in 1979.10 It is thus evident that the western part of the oasis was densely inhabited at least during the end of the Old Kingdom, and the Second Intermediate Period is also well represented.↩#p65
The chronological range covered by pottery and other objects, and by the stratigraphic contexts found at Amheida so far, spreads over three millennia, a situation similar to that at Mut el-Kharab. It is too early to establish or to fully appreciate the extent, the importance, and the function of the pharaonic-period settlements that were the forerunners of Roman-period Trimithis. The settlement of the Ptolemaic period is yet to be found. We need more investigation into Amheida's vast cemetery and into the deep stratigraphy on the temple hill.↩#p66
2.2. Textual and decorative evidence for the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period
Olaf E. Kaper
Figure 30. Ostrakon with Kemyt text.Figure 31. Stela showing Seti II making offerings to Thoth and Horus (Inv. No. 16309).
One of the unexpected finds among the remains of the temple was an ostrakon bearing a literary text, known as the Kemyt, which was used as a school exercise (Fig. 30). This ostrakon was found among the remains of the later temple of Thoth, and it indicates that there had been a school attached to the New Kingdom temple.11 In 2014, this was confirmed by the find of a large stela of King Seti II of the 19th Dynasty (Fig. 31), together with the plinth upon which it once stood. It shows the king making offerings to Thoth and Horus, as well as the goddess Seshat and another unidentified male divinity. On it were four damaged lines of a painted inscription in hieroglyphs, describing building work undertaken at the orders of Seti II. The prominence of Thoth upon the stela makes it likely that the temple at Amheida was already dedicated to that deity; his title "Lord of hieroglyphs" refers to schooling. Seshat was a goddess of writing also, and Horus, the son of Osiris, refers to the concepts of childhood and succession.↩#p67
It therefore seems likely that the stela was set up to commemorate the building of a school at Amheida, where the national curriculum would be taught, and it is possible that the temple itself was also built or extended at this time. The ostrakon with the Kemyt text was produced in this institution. By means of such schools Seti II promoted uniformity in the training of Egyptian officials. The school text Kemyt has been found all over Egypt, wherever officials were being educated. Even in Nubia the same curriculum was practiced. Another copy of the Kemyt has been found at Kuban in Nubia, while at Amara West two ostraka with another literary school text, called "The Teaching of Amenemhat", were found in a context dating from the 19th Dynasty.↩#p68
The Amheida ostrakon is also interesting because its scribe made a mistake, most likely the result of a memory lapse. In mid-sentence, our scribe suddenly introduced a phrase from an earlier section of the text—in fact not quite the same phrase, but one starting with a similar-sounding word. This lapse indicates that the text must have been written down from memory, rather than copied from a written text or from dictation, and it invites us to reassess the role of memory in scribal education.↩#p69
The stela and its plinth were reused in the masonry of the Roman-period temple, and their great size and weight make it unlikely that they were brought in from far away. Therefore, the New Kingdom temple must have stood at this same location or very close to it.↩#p70
For further information about Amheida at this time we must turn to sources from the Nile valley. At Tell el-Amarna wine vessels that come from the Dakhla Oasis have been found. The docket of one of them mentions the "vineyards of Sawahet belonging to the domain of the Aten [the sun-god worshiped under Akhenaten]." Two further dockets mention vineyards, and seem to refer also to the same source for the wine.12 Moreover, the tomb of Tutankhamun contained a jar of fruit from the oasis (as interpreted by Pierre Tallet) from year ten of the reign of Akhenaten (Tallet makes this dating likely). Its source is not explicitly designated as Sawahet—it simply says "Southern Oasis" (that is, Kharga and Dakhla)—but it is possible that the fruit in question came together with the wine from the estate of the Aten at Sawahet. Sawahet's wine industry is still attested later in the New Kingdom by another wine docket.13 The temple at Amheida was further extended under Ramesses IX, as a small piece of temple relief is dated to his reign.↩#p71
Figure 32. Amheida hieratic stela of the 23rd Dynasty (Inv. No. 3073).
The excavations at Amheida have further added to our knowledge of the Third Intermediate Period. This era, which follows the New Kingdom, saw the country divided into a number of separate kingdoms ruled by kings of Libyan descent. At Amheida, the evidence from the temple of Thoth dates especially to the later part of the Libyan period, the end of the 23rd Dynasty. Under Takeloth III, a stela was erected recording a land donation to the temple in the time of the governor of Dakhla, Esdhuti (Fig. 32). The same governor is mentioned again in a stela from Mut from the reign of the Nubian king Piye. Yet fragments of two limestone stelae written in hieratic Egyptian seem to reflect activity in this temple earlier, during the 22nd Dynasty. Two fragments were found of the lunette of a hieratic stela that much resembles that of the Greater Dakhla Stela (Fig. 14).14↩#p72
The growing body of epigraphic evidence from the recent excavations in Dakhla shows that the Southern Oasis was never free from Theban control. Part of the background to Theban activity in the oases was the violent incursions into the Nile valley by Libyan groups during the later years of the New Kingdom, as documented in the records from Deir el-Medina.15 The reign of Ramesses IX was especially disturbed by such incursions, which must have had their origins in the oases of the Western Desert. In this light, the recent find of temple decoration of Ramesses IX at Amheida cannot be seen as unrelated; instead, it probably forms part of a deliberate attempt by the Egyptian government to impose control over the region. These events had made it clear that the southern Western Desert could pose a threat to security. The Banishment Stela of Menkheperre16 tells us that the oases served as a place of exile for adversaries of the government during the 21st Dynasty, making tight control over the region even more urgent. The Greater Dakhla Stela, now in Oxford, was erected at the temple at Mut al-Kharab in the reign of Shoshenq I or perhaps Shoshenq III,17 and its text testifies to the central administration's continuing efforts to maintain law and order in the oases.↩#p73
By erecting temples in Dakhla, the kings and High Priests of Amun at Thebes contributed to the stability of the oases. At the same time, we may assume that the Libyan background of the rulers of the 22nd and 23rd Dynasties caused them to look with different eyes, and perhaps a genuine interest, at the regions west of the Nile valley.↩#p74
2.3. The temples of the Late Period
Olaf E. Kaper
Amheida is one of the few sites in Egypt where a temple from the Late Period can be studied. Although many were built during this era throughout the country, they were almost everywhere demolished and replaced by new buildings in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. In the Delta, where the political and religious center of the country was situated, not many monuments from antiquity survive, simply because this was also the location of the subsequent capitals Alexandria and Cairo, and obsolete stone monuments, as we have seen, were generally demolished for use as building material.↩#p75
The Late Period temple of Amheida suffered the same fate—demolished and its stone then reused. But owing to the subsequent disturbance of the later temple and the survival of its remains, we have the opportunity to examine every surviving stone from that temple and to reconstruct its antecedents. If we were able to take apart, for instance, the temple of Edfu, we would also learn quite a lot about the building history of that site.18↩#p76
The Late Period temple at Amheida probably stood close to the site of the Roman one, because many stone blocks were reused in close proximity to others from the same original wall relief. This would not have happened if it had been necessary to transport the blocks over longer distances. A second indicator of a close location is the find of underground burials of sacred animals from the Late Period next to the remains of the Roman temple. Large numbers of votive bronzes of Osiris from the Late Period were found around here, which must also relate to this sacred cemetery.↩#p77
Figure 33. A doorway from the Late Period temple, reused at El-Qasr (photo O. E. Kaper, 1990).
The name of the god Thoth of Setwah appears on many blocks of the Late Period. It was suggested in the introduction that the place name had changed during the reign of Amasis, who was particularly active at Amheida. Three kings of the 26th Dynasty are named in the temple reliefs: Nekau II, Psamtik II, and Amasis. Other parts were added to the temple complex under Petubastis IV and Darius I of the Persian period. The demolition and reuse of the Saite and Persian buildings in the later Roman-period temple are evident from the occurrence of gypsum mortar on the faces of most earlier reliefs. Often these blocks also display one or two roughly cut grooves across their relief faces, which may relate to the process of cutting the blocks down to size for their reuse.19 One doorway of the Late Period temple (Fig. 33) seems to have been spared in Roman times—it was found intact and reused in the town of El-Qasr, without any signs of damage.↩#p78
The excavations have yielded hundreds of blocks and fragments of the Late Period temples. We do not know what the temples looked like before this era, because the Late Period kings did not reuse any earlier reliefs in their buildings.↩#p79
Figure 34. A fragment of a temple decoration with the Horus name of Nekau II.Figure 35. The arm of Thoth holding a staff, from the temple of Amasis, showing blue coloring.
The earliest dated fragment of temple decoration from the Saite Dynasty shows one part of the series of titles (the Horus name) of Nekau II (610–595 BCE) (Fig. 34). Only a few other relief blocks and fragments may be associated with this reign, all of which seem to derive from a single temple doorway, which he may have had erected in front of the earlier temple. The presence of Nekau II is surprising, as nationwide there are only a few extant remains of his activities as a temple patron.20 Subsequently, Psamtik (Psammetichos) II (595–589 BCE) added another doorway to the temple. Several blocks from this doorway show evidence of reuse in the time of Amasis, so that it seems that this part of the building stood for only some sixty years at most. Under Amasis (Ahmose II, 570–526 BCE), major building work took place at Amheida; many fragments survive from the relatively large temple erected and decorated during his reign. The reconstruction of these fragments shows a temple with reliefs in different sizes and different styles of cutting. The building was entirely decorated in sunk relief that was plastered and painted, and in which the predominant color was blue. All hieroglyphs and the skin color of many gods, among them Thoth (Fig. 35), were rendered in blue.↩#p80
Among the blocks are two fragments of a building inscription, which may be reconstructed as follows: "The Son of Re, Lord of appearances Amasis, who lives for ever, he has made as a monument to his father Thoth [. . .]."↩#p81
Figure 36. The head of Amun in a relief from the temple of Amasis.
The façade of this temple built by Amasis can be reconstructed with a high degree of certainty. It contained a sizable scene on each side of the entrance doorway. The one to the left depicted the king lifesize, facing Thoth and Nehmet-Away. The god carries the titles "Thoth the two times most great, the Lord of Setwah." The doorway bore small-scale scenes on the jambs and the lintel. To the right of the doorway was a larger than lifesize figure of the god Seth depicted with outstretched wings and wielding a spear against the serpent Apophis. A lion accompanied the god, assisting him in the attack. A smaller and less elaborate version of this image appears in the Persian-period temple of Hibis.21 The temple's sanctuary seems to have been vaulted, and painted scenes were added at the top of the vault, with lifesize figures of gods shown in relief on both side walls (Fig. 36). The following gods are represented in the temple of Amasis: Thoth and Nehmet-Away, Tefnut, Hathor, Meret, Seth, Shu, Ptah, Min, and Amun, but others such as Mut will certainly also have featured. These gods are well known from the Nile valley, and it is perhaps remarkable that no specifically local deities of the oasis are represented here. Only the figure of Seth stands out, because this god had fallen out of favor by the time of the 26th Dynasty in the Nile valley, whereas he continued to function as the principal deity of Dakhla.↩#p82
Figure 37. A stone block showing the titulary of Petubastis IV (Inv. No. 16362).
The 2014 excavation season brought a major surprise in the form of three temple relief blocks carrying four of the five names of the titulary of Petubastis IV (Fig. 37). The find allowed us to identify two previously discovered blocks as also belonging to the same building phase. This little-known king erected a temple at Amheida, or at least he extended the existing temple building. Until now, his name had been known only from a few seal impressions and written sources from the area to the south of Memphis. The inscription sheds more light on the Persian occupation of Egypt, and on the army sent by Cambyses into the Egyptian Western Desert.22 In May 525 BCE Cambyses captured Egypt; his reign is counted as the start of the 27th Dynasty, the number given to the era when Egypt was part of the Persian Empire. There was much resistance against this foreign occupation. The last king of the previous dynasty, Psamtik III, organized a revolt in 524, according to Herodotus, which ended in his assassination.↩#p83
Between 522 and 520 there was a second large rebellion, this one led by Petubastis IV, who declared himself king of Egypt.23 The new evidence from Amheida shows that this ruler claimed full royal titles and that he was especially active in the southern oases. This tells us that he had a power-base in the Western Desert, and maybe specifically at Dakhla. His revolt may well have started in the oases and spread to Memphis, the capital from which the Persian satrap Aryandes ruled Egypt at the time.24↩#p84
The presence of this rival king in the oases may have been the reason why Cambyses sent an army into the Western Desert, a force that never returned. Herodotus (4.26) says that this army disappeared in a desert storm, but the new evidence suggests that it may have been sent out against the army of Petubastis, only to suffer a humiliating defeat. This defeat would have coincided with Cambyses' failed expedition into Nubia (Kush), in which case further losses were even more painfully felt and it would have been decided to hide what had really happened.↩#p85
Petubastis IV managed to rule over a part of Egypt for perhaps several years, until the Persian army suppressed the rebellion. It is noticeable that Darius I, who succeeded Cambyses, managed to spend large resources—larger than anywhere else in the country—in the Southern Oasis. He built new temples for Amun-Re in Kharga: a large temple at Hibis, and a smaller one at Qasr el-Ghueita.25 The recent finds at Amheida have now added another to the list, because Darius was responsible for erecting another shrine to Thoth at the site. This may have stood next to the temple of Amasis, because both were demolished and reused together as building material during the Roman period.↩#p86
Figure 38. Empty cartouches of Darius I.Figure 39. A baboon in raised relief from the temple of Darius.Figure 40. A representation of Khepri from the entrance doorway of the temple of Darius (photo Christopher Kleihege).
Only a small part of the name of Darius I has been preserved, on a single relief block from the temple. Other cartouches of this king were left blank here, as also in the temple at Hibis (Fig. 38). The relief style at Amheida closely resembles that at Hibis, making it very likely that the same group of artists worked in both places. Darius' temple of Thoth consisted perhaps of a single large room in which rows of deities were represented on the lower register. Among these were certainly Thoth, Mut, Nephthys, Hathor, and Neferhotep. In the register above them were a series of representations of Thoth as a baboon, each set inside its own chapel. Remarkably, the walls depict the baboons in raised relief, whereas the rest of the scenes are in sunk relief (Fig. 39). The same combination of cutting styles is seen on the remains of a doorway, whose jambs are in raised relief and the relief on the adjacent wall in sunk relief. On the entrance doorway to this temple were representations of a number of gods, among them Khepri and the goddess Meret, executed on a smaller scale than those inside (Fig. 40).↩#p87
Darius I was responsible for minor building projects at several sites in Egypt,26 but he devoted remarkably more attention to the temples of the southern oases than to those in the rest of the country.27 The mud-brick temple at ʿAin Manawir also dates to the 27th Dynasty, but it is not known from which reign.28 This intensive preoccupation with the Southern Oasis must be seen in the light of the rebellion of Petubastis IV, which can now, as we have seen, be located in the Western Desert. In order to prevent a similar insurrection occurring again from the same region, the Persian state invested heavily in the oases' infrastructure. Among other things, the irrigation of the region was overhauled and a Persian system of subterranean aqueducts (qanats) was introduced into the Kharga and Bahariya oases.↩#p88
One objective of the kings who wished to control the Western Desert oases may well have been long-distance trade. The site of Qasr Allam in northern Bahariya has yielded an important storage center from the time of the 26th Dynasty.29 Trade was one of the principal interests of the Saite kings, as is shown by the foundation of Naukratis, but also by the digging of a canal to the Red Sea under Nekau II.30 This canal was eventually finished under Darius I, and the development of trade routes continued under Persian rule.31 By developing the infrastructure of the oases, and by building temples, the conditions for trade through the Western Desert were improved. Agricultural produce is likely to have been one of the most important commodities in the long-distance trade of the oases with the Nile valley and its neighboring countries, but a definite identification of the nature of this trade still requires more information from other sources.↩#p89
The prospect of a reliable year-round water supply and continuous agriculture must have been attractive to the state, providing a significant impetus to the economic development of the Western Desert oases.↩#p90
Outside of Dakhla, there is no conclusive evidence to link the construction date of the Hibis temple with the Saite Dynasty,32 even though, to judge from the length of their reigns and their known activities elsewhere in the oases, Apries or Amasis may well have conducted previous building works at the site. Otherwise, there is evidence for building works in the name of Apries and Amasis at Bahariya.33↩#p91
During Amasis' reign, economic activity intensified markedly. Temple building in this king's name was undertaken by the governor of Bahariya, Djed-Khonsu-iuf-ankh, at ʿAin el-Muftella.34 Amasis forced the local ruler of Siwa, Sethirdis, with the intriguing title "Chief of the Two Deserts," to acknowledge his authority, after which the temple at Aghurmi was built and decorated in both their names.35 In Dakhla and Kharga no local governors are known at this time—in notable contrast to the oases in the north. It may be that the political system of powerful governors that was still in force at the end of the Libyan period36 had been replaced by a different system in the 26th Dynasty, of which we have not yet encountered the archaeological or textual evidence.↩#p92
2.4. A sacred necropolis
Paola Davoli
Figure 41. Pottery bird coffins shown in context.
One of the most interesting discoveries on the temple hill is a small area of 3 × 5.5 m that remained undisturbed in the digging of the pits (see §2.1). Its excavation is not yet finished, but it can be interpreted as an animal necropolis, datable probably to the Late Period. Five sealed pottery coffins (Fig. 41) have been recovered, and many other fragments of similar containers have been found scattered around the area. The coffins, of relatively poor quality, are oval (70–46 × 40–35 × height 40–21 cm), and each has a cover sealed to the container with gypsum plaster. Two of them were emptied directly in the field, because they were broken and too heavy to be removed without damaging their contents. In fact, the coffins are handmade of coarse clay, in one piece and badly fired, and thus very fragile as well as heavy. Their surfaces are whitish-coated and lack any decoration or inscription.↩#p93
The five recovered coffins had been buried very close to each other, and carefully deposited with a north–south orientation. According to their elevations, they can be considered as two groups of deposition: two of them were buried immediately below the other three.37 It is evident that they had been put at the bottom of pits dug for the purpose, but of these we could not see the perimeter except in the case of one coffin, for which part of a previous-period wall was cut away.↩#p94
So far, Salima Ikram has identified thirty-five birds, including both raptors and ibises, from examining the bones from one coffin.38 Its contents comprised hundreds of small bones and dark dust. No bandages, other wrappings, or other items have been found.↩#p95
These containers seem to be part of a larger animal necropolis in which birds (specifically, ibises) sacred to Thoth were interred together with raptors sacred to Horus or perhaps Amun-Re. The combination of the birds sacred to Thoth and to Horus in the same cemetery is quite common, but at Amheida there are several unusual aspects to this practice—or at least, aspects not common to the many other animal necropoleis known so far: namely, that the animals were buried in great numbers all together in one coffin and without any dedication or inscription. These were certainly never the sacred living animals of the temple of Thoth. However, they cannot be compared with the votive offerings to the god from pilgrims, which were generally single mummies in single coffins, and buried in chambers together with hundreds of similar items.39 In shape and in color, these coffins resemble a gigantic egg. It is therefore certain that the burials are strictly connected with the temple and its cults; and possibly, the deposition of a considerable number of birds in one coffin40 was performed during a feast. It is also possible that the temple was equipped to produce the coffins, as they are of the same shape and technique, and in view of their fragility they cannot have travelled any distance. Further excavation in the area and analysis of the contents of the other coffins will probably clarify the meaning of these collective burials.↩#p96
Figure 42. Miniature pottery vessels from the sacred animal necropolis.Figure 43. Bronze Osiris statuettes.Figure 44. An Osiris figurine of unfired clay.
From the same context as the coffins came a cluster of forty miniature pottery vessels and about forty-five bronze fragments of Osiris statuettes (Fig. 42) and pendants.41 The restoration of the bronzes revealed statues of different sizes, with inlaid eyes and gilded surfaces (Fig. 43). Among these figurines was one, made of unfired clay, that was of particular interest (Fig. 44). Osiris figurines, as ex-votos, are very common finds in animal necropoleis and in the related temples.42 The difficulty of dating them precisely via stylistic analysis is well known, and our objects are not immune to this problem.↩#p97
To judge from the estimated extent of the later temple, the surviving area where the coffins have been found was outside the Roman-period sanctuary, but because of the destruction of the stratigraphy it is impossible to know if it continued under the temple. However, the concentration of coffin fragments and of the Osiris statuettes points to an area southwest of the Roman temple.↩#p98
The date of these coffins and of the Osiris statuettes has not been proved by radiocarbon (14C) analysis or by any inscriptions, and so is uncertain, but they could be of the Late Period or specifically of the 26th Dynasty. If this were confirmed, the cemetery would have been part of the temple complex of that dynasty, as described in the previous section.43↩#p99
Chapter 2 Notes
1 A similar activity was recognized at ʿAin Asil and contributed to the destruction of the upper stratigraphy, together with erosion: Soukiassian, Wuttmann, and Schaad 1990: 347.↩#footnote-2.1
2 The pottery still needs to be fully studied; these are preliminary conclusions based on its partial study. Pascale Ballet is in charge of supervising the study of the Amheida project pottery.↩#footnote-2.2
4 An ostrakon of the 19th Dynasty is published in Kaper 2010. Blocks and stelae attest to religious activities in the First Intermediate Period, the 19th (Seti II), the 20th (Ramesses IX), the 23rd (Takelot III), the 26th (Nekau II, Psamtik II, Amasis), the 27th (Petubastis IV, Darius I), and the Roman period (Titus, Domitian and possibly Hadrian): see Kaper and Demarée 2005, Kaper 2012a. Demotic ostraka have been dated to the end of the Ptolemaic or beginning of the Roman period: see O.Trim1.280, 1.378, 1.305, 1.315, 1.422, 1.427, 1.428. The stelae found may suggest a funerary activity, but human burials can be excluded in this area: no human bones or coffins have been found; moreover the kind of materials forming the stratigraphy points to habitation or industrial activities. On New Kingdom pottery in Dakhla see Hope 2002.↩#footnote-2.4
5 A similar situation and context are found in ʿAin Asil, where the bakery of the 13th Dynasty also had some round silos annexed. No round silos have been recognized so far in Area 4: Baud 1997: 24.↩#footnote-2.5
7 These periods are underrepresented in the Dakhla Oasis, but the documentation in the valley attests to a close connection to the oasis: cf. Limme 1975; Baud 1997: 27. Recent discoveries at Mut el-Kharab, in Dakhla, Kharga, and the Western Desert are bringing new data to the discussion of the Early Dynastic–Old Kingdom interaction between the local and the valley cultures: Hope and Pettman 2012.↩#footnote-2.7
8 The pottery discovered has been studied and published by Hope 1980. The Old Kingdom potsherds are said to be similar in fabric and shapes to the pottery found at ʿAin Asil and can be dated to the 6th Dynasty and to the First Intermediate Period.↩#footnote-2.8
9 The archaeologists suggested a 4th Dynasty foundation and a function as trading post until the end of the Old Kingdom–First Intermediate Period: Pettman 2012.↩#footnote-2.9
10 Hope 1980: 293–8. A possible settlement of the Second Intermediate Period and originally connected with this cemetery is located further southeast (32/390 I5-1), but too far away to be the settlement for this cemetery.↩#footnote-2.10
17 Leahy 2010. See fig. 14 for an illustration.↩#footnote-2.17
18 A group of decorated blocks from the Late Period was found under the pavement of the forecourt of the Edfu temple in 1984; von Falck 2010.↩#footnote-2.18
37 The first group's elevation was 147.75 m above sea level; the second group's was 147.98 m above sea level.↩#footnote-2.37
38 According to S. Ikram 2012, Sacred Ibises (Threskiornis aethiopicus) and Glossy Ibises (Plegadis falcinellus), buzzards (Buteo sp.), eagle (Aquila sp.), kestrels (Falco sp.), or kites (Milvus sp.) were identified. Study of the contents of the coffins by Salima Ikram and Megan Spitzer.↩#footnote-2.38
39 For an overview of these necropoleis see Scalf 2012; Ikram 2012.↩#footnote-2.39
40 Multiple burials of mummified birds and bundles in large vessels dated to the Roman period were found at Abydos: Bailleul-LeSuer 2012: Cat. No. 30; Loat 1914: 40, pl. IV.↩#footnote-2.40
41 For a description of these objects see Davoli 2012b: 267. Similar bronzes have been found at ʿAin Manawir (Kharga Oasis) in a temple dedicated to Osiris during the first Persian period: Wuttmann et al. 1996.↩#footnote-2.41
42 Coulon 2008: 22. Some 370 statuettes were found in the temple at ʿAin Manawir and several hoards were recovered from the Sacred Animal Necropolis at Saqqara: Wuttmann, Coulon, and Gombert 2007: 167–73; Davies 2007: 174–87.↩#footnote-2.42
43 The stratigraphy also points to a period later than the New Kingdom. The erosion of the stratigraphy from the New Kingdom to the Late Roman Period prevents us from being more precise.↩#footnote-2.43
