Versión clásicaVersión móvil
OpenEdition Books

The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports

 | 
Jean-Pierre Brun
, 
Thomas Faucher
, 
Bérangère Redon
, 
et al.

Pottery from the Wâdi al-Hammâmât. Contexts and Chronology (Excavations of the Institut français d’archéologie orientale 1987-1989)

Pascale Ballet

Texto completo

  • 1 Bloxam et al. 2014; Couyat and Montet 1912.

1The Wâdi al-Hammâmât is probably one of the most striking landscapes in the Eastern Desert (reference to the general map of the conference), due to the rugged mountain terrain (Fig. 1-2) and because earliest evidence for quarrying activity here dates back to pre and early dynastic times; the latter have left inscriptions of great interest (Fig. 3).1 From 1987 to 1989, the Institut français d’archéologie orientale (IFAO), directed by Annie Gasse, examined texts inscribed on the rock walls, and cleaned the working faces to discover new epigraphic data. The project also re-examined the installations on both sides of the wâdi.

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

The rocky environment of the Wâdi al-Hammâmât.

© P. Ballet

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Quarry face in greywacke.

© P. Ballet

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Offering at Min, Persian period, Couyat and Montet 1912, n ° 95.

© P. Ballet

2This mission was successful and produced, in addition to new inscriptions, including those of Ameny, spokesman of Sesostris I, unpublished materials about the occupation of the site and its chronology, in part, thanks to the ceramic evidence.

3My contribution here is modest because it relies on a relatively old and thin set of documents. Thanks to the initiative of Jean-Pierre Brun, I unearthed a cupboard full of drawings, notes and pottery sherd counts and although not very substantial, this folder contains some important points relative to the overall objective of the conference and this publication: the rhythms of occupation on this major west-east road in the Eastern Desert, which goes from Coptos to Myos Hormos, particularly during the Imperial period, and the activities that were organised along it.

  • 2 Goyon 1957.

4To understand the aim of this contribution and the difficulty of answering the question about the occupation of this area of the Wâdi al-Hammâmât, some elements of the local topography should be outlined. The area in question was worked by the quarrymen who left marks of their devotion, from the Old Kingdom to at least the time of Tiberius. Georges Goyon found the sanctuary of Amon of the Pure Mountain there, to which we will return.2

  • 3 Bernand 1972.
  • 4 Kayser 1993.

5On the south side of the Wâdi of Paneion are some inscriptions, published more or less in full by André Bernand:3 in front, to the north, the naos says “of Tiberius” which I will discuss later on, and the Greek inscriptions on the monument, dated, mostly, from the beginning of the Empire and published by François Kayser.4

The contexts

6The main objectives of the mission of the IFAO directed by A. Gasse were to check the documents from the previously published epigraphic corpus and to extend that corpus with new elements, specifying the contexts.

  • 5 Cf. “K. Mission épigraphique au Wadi Hammamat” in "Travaux de l’Ifao en 1987-1988", BIFAO 88, 1988, (...)
  • 6 Gasse 1988, pp. 83-94.

7During the 1987 campaign, on the south side, among the fifty new texts, was a long inscription of Merenre and that of Ameny,5 published in the same BIFAO,6 which dated to the reign of Sesostris I. The base of the rock walls, having been cleared, allowed the study and dating of ceramics found in the debris –some were from the Late Pharaonic Period, others were Roman– and the naos, in black shale or greywacke has an inscription which dates from the reign of Tiberius. When a survey was carried out at the back of the small chapel, pottery fragments were found that date from the New Kingdom –but this needs confirmation.

  • 7 Goyon 1949; Goyon 1957; Baud 1990; Gasse 2012, pp. 138-140.

8This area was once identified by Georges Goyon as the sanctuary of Amon of Pa-djou-ouab (p3-dw-w‘b), shown on the Turin Papyrus, which depicts the map of the gold mines (Fig. 4).7 On the document interpreted by Michel Baud (Fig. 5), there are numbers shown between brackets which match the Egyptian hieratic inscriptions, which are not shown on this graphic document. Among the most notable elements of this document are the Wâdi al-Hammâmât (“the road leading to Yam”), the village where gold was worked, the mountain and its scree, and the temple of Amon. In the lower part of the document is a second road, parallel to the Wâdi al-Hammâmât, called “the other leading to Yam”, the Wâdi al-Qash.

Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Papyrus of the “gold mines”, Museum of Turin.

© All rights reserved

Fig. 5

Fig. 5

Simplified graphical version of the “gold mines” papyrus, Baud 1990, fig. 1.

© All rights reserved

9The Turin Papyrus is a document with very real aims, for the preparation of expeditions and, in the words of Michel Baud, was, for the traveller, a marked route through a network of dry valleys. Indications on the map correspond to topographical realities useful for those wishing to travel to and work there. It is, therefore, not an example of an actual map, and indeed, there is very little evidence for maps in Egypt.

  • 8 BIFAO 89, 1989, pp. 313-315.
  • 9 BIFAO 1989, fig. 19, p. 314, p. 326; for a presentation of the Wâdi al-Hammâmât, from the origin to (...)
  • 10 Cuvigny 1997. 

10In 19888 according to the report of activities duly recorded, “Annie Gasse looked for new texts and removed them from the sand where necessary, while checking the texts known or discovered in the previous year. This removal of the sand at the base of the rock walls revealed some ceramic material of Late Period and Roman era which was sorted and classified by Pascale Ballet” (Fig. 6). Full clearing of the naos “of Tiberius” and the surrounding zone (Fig. 7-8), identified by Georges Goyon as “the location of the sanctuary of Amon-master-of-the-pure-mountain” has helped uncover a group of probable workers' houses. It constitutes a good twenty rooms or spaces divided by dry stone walls, on each side of the greywacke chapel, furthermore it is surrounded by a wall of the same type, the cult area thus defined as rectangular in shape. “The objects found in this area (pottery, fragments of Greek inscriptions, ostraca) date these houses as contemporary to the inscriptions on the naos”.9 Ceramics from the southern bank are well-dated to the Late Pharaonic Period, and those found in the enclosed facilities surrounding the “naos of Tiberius” to the north, are dated a priori to the first century AD. Some sherds found at this location were selected for study since they were of great interest to Hélène Cuvigny in 1997, who was intrigued by what was happening around the greywacke monolith and asked me for information on the date of the ceramics found near “the schist naos dated to Tiberius”: she then prepared an article on the decline of the cult of Pan.10 At the time, I produced a short summary for her in the form of a note, which I am presenting here, slightly modified.

Fig. 6

Fig. 6

The sherds from the epigraphic mission of IFAO in 1988.

© P. Ballet

Fig. 7

Fig. 7

The zone of the “naos of Tiberius”, seen towards the north.

© Ifao, A. Lecler.

Fig. 8

Fig. 8

The “naos of Tiberius” and neighbouring installations.

© Ifao, P. Deleuze

Ceramics and chronology

11Although these remarks deal primarily with the Imperial era, it is necessary to note the presence in the debris lying at the base of walls, well documented on the south side in particular, of a number of tangible pieces of evidence, if not from the First Persian Domination, then at least from the end of the Late Period.

  • 11 Aston 1999, n° 2038, n° 2041, pl. 72; Ballet 2006, p. 107-116, pl. 5-7.

12There are several categories of typical ceramics, in particular from the XXVII dynasty, such as a bowl with a slightly bevelled edge and a series of jars in marl clay often with ribbed walls (Fig. 9, 1-3), of which there are some parallels at Elephantine.11 There, in the cave of Khnum and his consorts, protective gods from the sources of the Nile, are texts of the Judeo-Aramaic community, written on this type of jar. The convergence of palaeographic data and the ceramics allows us to date the texts and the containers to the fifth century BC. In the Wâdi al-Hammâmât, the jars were probably water storage containers for the expeditions during the last Egyptian dynasties, but it seems unwise to attribute them only to the Persian period; here again, it is best to place them with the ceramics of the end of the Late Period.

  • 12 S. Marchand, “Les siga des Oasis datées de la XXVIIe-XXIXe dynastie et de l’époque ptolémaïque anci (...)

13Another group consists of Sega (Fig. 9, 4-5), which are keg-barrels, so characteristic of the western oases, from Bahariya to Kharga. The pottery fabric is like that of Kharga and Dakhla: the external surface of the containers has coarse traces of smoothing and over-firing. Dates, wine, oil were the products of the western oases carried towards the Nile Valley and its forking towards the eastern territories, from the time of the New Kingdom. Some of them come with a rather high collar, a generally attested morphological feature from the Late Period to the very beginning of the Ptolemaic era.12

Fig. 9

Fig. 9

Wâdi al-Hammâmât. Ceramics of the Late Period and Ptolemaic Period.

© Drawing P. Ballet; infography Kh. Zaza and A. Simony

  • 13 Cuvigny 2003, p. 191.
  • 14 Université d’Égée, Izmir.

14In the opinion of the authors of La Route de Myos Hormos,13 “the evidence for traffic on the road and its organization in the Ptolemaic period is rare”. Can we bring new elements confirming this general observation based on various comments? An amphora with a triangular base (WH/1988.C6) (Fig. 9, 6) of the type “with a mushroom lip” from the southern Aegean deserves to be reported: it is somewhat later than our lot from the Late Pharaonic Period because it is dated to the beginning of the third century BC by Kaan Şenol. It does not come from the workers’ settlements close to the naos of Tiberius, but instead from one of the layers which comprises a small facility on the southern slope of the wâdi with traces of “domestic” or “culinary” use near the M de Goyon sector (No. 2 on the plan of the wâdi produced by Goyon). In 1988, a survey documented a cooking structure like a “bread oven” and a series of ash layers mainly comprising ceramic remains characteristic of the Late Pharaonic Period, as reported earlier. Kaan Şenol14 commented: “Your amphora foot from Wadi Hammamat belongs to a common form of South Aegean amphorae. For me your amphora is an earlier version of the Nicandros group of amphorae due to the characteristics of its fabric. In any case the early third century BC seems more likely”. (Information K. Şenol, March 24, 2016). I wonder if it could be dated to the fourth century BC, which would match all the ceramics from this context, whose features resemble those of the last Egyptian dynasties.

15Nevertheless, apart from this early indication, some ceramics of the late Ptolemaic period were identified, in room 17 in particular, one of the rooms that surrounded the “naos of Tiberius”. The context of room 17 is interesting in that it comprises, amongst others, three ceramics: two carinated bowls and a convex bowl (WH/1988.C61, WH/1988.C 51 WH/1988.C52) (Fig. 9, 7-9) which morphologically predate the Roman features and, more precisely, are datable to the end of the Ptolemaic period.

  • 15 Ballet et Południkiewicz 2012, n° 34, inv. 3037-6.

16Convex bowl WH/1988.C52 (Fig. 9, 9), with a coarse alluvial fabric, is quite close to an example at Tebtynis15 from a context dated to the second half of the first century BC and which has similarities with flared convex Eastern Sigillata (ES) A bowls (Tell Anafa TA Type 25); the shape of the foot is similar to Hellenistic forms. Indeed, the bowls of Eastern Sigillata A, and their imitations from Fayoum, which are contemporary to them, or perhaps a little later, have a different footing, with a well-defined base.

  • 16 Ballet 1996, fig. 8; Ballet 1998, fig. 8; cf. infra: water vases, a regional production.
  • 17 Dixneuf 2011, pp. 129-133.

17However, apart from these three vessels, the rest of the material present in room 17 is early Roman, including a jug WH/1988.C 55, certainly Roman, a very common type in the Eastern Desert (Fig. 10, 1),16 and amphora WH/1988.C54 (Fig. 9, 10) with the shoulder offset and which can be placed in the group Egyptian Amphora 4; these are first seen in Egypt from the second half of the first century BC.17 We thus note the relative heterogeneity of the assemblage summarised here.

Fig. 10

Fig. 10

Wâdi al-Hammâmât. Ceramics of the Early Roman Empire.

© drawings P. Ballet, infography Khaza Zaza and A. Simony

The Early Roman Empire

  • 18 These rooms were numbered and have the initials m. (maison=dwelling) or p. (pièce=room).

18The ceramics dated from the Roman period were mostly found in the quarry workers’ houses or shelters18 surrounding the “naos of Tiberius”.

19Here we will identify the main elements of the ceramics identified in these areas, in order to clarify dating.

Water vases, a regional production

  • 19 Tomber 2006, pp. 64-67.
  • 20 Coptos 2000, cat. 143, pp. 176-177.
  • 21 Ballet 1998, p. 49.
  • 22 Cuvigny 2003, p. 198, règne de Trajan et/ou d’Hadrien ?

20Many of the containers, probably for water, manufactured regionally, attested from Thebes to Coptos, have parallels in the Musée des Beaux-Arts (Lyon). They were distributed in the Eastern Desert, from the Wâdi al-Hammâmât to Mons Claudianus,19 and are one of the most common productions in this region.20 This pottery has a limestone-rich fabric, and is fitted with a filter (WH/1988.C55) (Fig. 10, 1); we can trace this type to Yemen21 in contexts of the Early Roman Empire. They are long lived, from the first to third century AD; only a detailed study from stratified, dated levels would clarify their typology. The repertoire of water vases includes a number of slightly different forms, such as a jug with one handle (WH/1988.C15, house/room 9) (Fig. 10, 2) which is similar to example B55 from Krokodilô.22

Cooking wares

21A second set of pottery vessels consists of cooking wares: cooking pots and “casseroles” which are difficult to date precisely, but I am tempted to date them to around the first century BC or AD, although I do not have any other well-dated parallels.

  • 23 Brun 1994, C52.
  • 24 Tomber 2006, type 66, p. 116, fig. 1.45.

22One of them (WH/1988.C53, house/room 22) (Fig. 10, 3) seems to fit in with the continuity of “cooking pots with everted rims” which have their origins in Alexandria at the end of the third and second centuries BC, and whose morphology gradually evolves up to the beginning of the Early Roman Empire. It is similar to an example at Al-Zarqâ’/Maximianon where, apart from some early individuals from the late first century BC and the beginning of the first century AD, the majority of the pottery dates between the middle of the first and the end of the second century AD.23 Other types, such as the pan WH/1988.C50 (room 8) (Fig. 10, 4), appear to experience some longevity, since a parallel was found at Mons Claudianus from the Antonine period.24

Finewares

23Looking at the most important finewares –those useful for establishing a tighter chronology– we will begin with the importations.

24Among non-Egyptian finewares, despite the lack of Italian sigillata, there is some Eastern Sigillata, which provides useful benchmarks.

  • 25 Atlante delle forme ceramiche II, ES A type 35, AD 40-70, p. 30, pl. V, 7; Slane 1997, pp. 307-308, (...)

25Plate WH/1988.C48 (room 18, workers dwellings near the “naos of Tiberius”) (Fig. 10, 5),25 well attested in contexts at Tell Anafa, is generally dated to the Claudian-Neronian period, which corresponds to contexts highlighted the Atlante II. This type, well-distributed in Syria-Palestine, is also found in Corinth and Pompeii. There have long been numerous discussions on the date of this type of bowl: Kenyon and Crowfoot proposing a date prior to 25 BC, which was clearly contradicted by the findings at Tell Anafa, as well as the opinion of K. Slane. This form was distributed to some extent in the Mediterranean towards the middle and third quarter of the first century AD.

  • 26 Atlante delle forme ceramiche II, ES A, type 48, 40-70 apr. J.-C., p. 36, pl. VI, 16.

26Bowl WH/1988.C16 (room 6, workers dwelling near the “naos of Tiberius”) (Fig. 10, 6),26 although represented in Greece and the eastern Mediterranean, has no parallels in Pompeii, and is dated to the same period, between AD 40 and 70.

  • 27 Atlante delle forme ceramiche II, ES A, type 47, 10-60/70, p. 35, pl. VI, 15.

27The start of production of bowl WH/1988.C73 (room 22, workers dwelling, near the “naos of Tiberius”) (Fig. 10, 7) is slightly earlier (AD 10-60/70); it is morphologically similar to ES type A4727 itself probably derived from an Italic-type (Conspectus, forms 17, 22, 25).

  • 28 Personal communication M. Picon.

28At the end of the 1980s the question about the origin of these three examples arose, and the ceramics laboratory in Lyon examined them, confirming their link with eastern productions (almost certainly the region of Antioch, but they also shared common characteristics with productions at Pamphylia and Cyprus).28 At least with regard to Egypt and neighbouring regions, these were the first investigations looking at the origin and dissemination of glazed finewares in the eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

  • 29 Élaigne, 2017.

29Present in small amounts in these makeshift dwellings at Wâdi al-Hammâmât, these sigillata are not devoid of interest chronologically as they provide anchor points during the first century AD. If one refers to the ceramics found in the backfill of the Kaisareion at Alexandria (second half of the first century BC), the characteristics of the imported ceramics and in particular to the Eastern Sigillata A, those at Alexandria, are totally different, in that they are earlier.29

The Aswan production

30The pottery from Aswan, with a kaolinite fabric, found in the homes of the workers, clarifies the chronology of that sector.

  • 30 Conspectus form 13; Goudineau type 7 Atlante II, p. 196, pl. LVI, 15-17, 25/20 BC – AD 15 or Goudin (...)

31A bowl with a low carination, Aswan WH/1988.C68 (room 5, workers dwellings near the “naos of Tiberius”) (Fig. 10, 8) could be derived from carinated Hellenistic bowls which probably prefigure the Italian sigillata types dated from the middle of the Augustan period.30 It is, therefore, an important indication of a relatively early date for its circulation in Wâdi al-Hammâmât, compared to other establishments spaced out on the road from Coptos to Myos Hormos.

  • 31 Slane 1997, pp. 324-328.

32Collared-rim bowl Aswan WH/1988.C 67 (room 4, workers dwellings near the “naos of Tiberius”) (Fig. 10, 9) reproduces a form that is widespread throughout the Mediterranean world, similar to Eastern Sigillata A examples, such as Tell Anafa TA 34.31 This generic form, of which only the eastern references will be cited here, was also adapted for the Cypriot typology (Tell Anafa, FW 564), just as our Aswan copy must have been, in the workshops of the First Cataract. Tell Anafa TA type 34 has three variants: a, b, c. The variant ES A TA 34 was clearly and directly inspired by Conspectus 22, and can be dated from the first century AD.

Earthenware tableware

  • 32 Nenna, Seif el-Din 2000.

33Illustrated by a collar-rimmed cup (WH/1988.C60) (Fig. 10, 10) and a platter with a low carination (WH/1988.C69) (Fig. 10, 11), respectively Nenna-Seif el-Din T1 2.4 and Nenna-Seif el-Din T13.3,32 earthenware containers are represented here by the most conventional forms known of this type of tableware during the first two centuries of the Roman Empire, and even up to the early third century AD. Since these two containers attest the relatively careful formation of this type, with thin walls and well-defined mouldings, one might suggest that these are earlier, compared to examples that are thicker and a little later in date, but that remains a hypothesis.

The amphorae

  • 33 Dixneuf 2011; Gabbari, US 30561, fig. 31.
  • 34 Brun 1994, fig. 12.

34As for the amphorae belonging to a large group of Egyptian Amphora 3, one example from Wâdi al-Hammâmât (WH/1988.C24, dwelling 2) seems to be dated relatively early in the “Roman” history of these types of containers. We compare it to the AE 3-1.1, variant A,33 used in the first century, perhaps even the first half. This type, with an upright rim and a rounded handle under the shoulder, which can be linked amphora WH/1988.C24 (Fig. 10, 12), precedes that of an example at Al-Zarqâ’/Maximianon.34 Its maximum diameter is halfway down the body, and the whole forms the shape of a spinning-top. This morphological feature, which marks a milestone in the evolution of container AE 3 is not quite achieved on amphora WH/1988.C24, whose body is still in line with the types from the end of the Hellenistic period, with the semblance of a shoulder. If a pattern of morphological evolution for form AE 3 may be proposed for the first two centuries of the Roman Empire, we should also note the presence of a type still formed with a shoulder on the spinning-top shaped body, the shoulder itself having totally disappeared.

  • 35 Brun 1994, p. 23. The range of dates of Al-Zarqâ’ is relatively wide, from the middle of the first (...)

35Assuming a probable common origin –at least the same regional production area– for alluvial amphora AE 3 from the Eastern Desert, from the Wâdi al-Hammâmât to Al-Zarqâ’/Maximianon35 and Mons Claudianus and probably other centres on the road to Myos Hormos, a detailed study of the morphology of these containers should allow us to understand the relevant evolutions and regional variants.

Conclusion

  • 36 Kayser 1993, p. 114.
  • 37 Kayser 1993, p. 128.

36If ceramic evidence dating from the reign of Tiberius is absent from sectors close to the “naos” there is, however, some convergence of dating, which suggests the occupation of workers’ dwellings near the “naos of Tiberius” generally covered the first century AD, with some anchor points around the reigns of Claudius and Nero. This is consistent with the epigraphic data studied by François Kaiser, which states that proskynema and signatures covering the surface of the greywacke monolith fall within a relatively tight timeline between ca. AD 14 and 67-6836 with the texts on ostraca collected during the 1987-1989 IFAO mission being dated generally to the first century AD.37

Bibliografía

  

Aston D.A. 1999. Elephantine. XIX. Pottery from the late New Kingdom to the early Ptolemaic period. Archäologische Veroffentlichungen 95, Mainz.

Atlante II. 1985. Atlante delle forme ceramiche II. Ceramica fine romana nel bacino mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo impero), Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica classica e orientale, Roma.

Ballet P. 1996. “De la Méditerranée à l’océan Indien. L’Égypte et le commerce de longue distance : les données céramiques”. Recherches sur les monarchies hellénistiques, l’Arabie et l’Inde, Topoi 6/2, pp. 808-840.

Ballet P. 1998. “Cultures matérielles des déserts d’Égypte sous le Haut et le Bas-Empire : productions et échanges”. In Life on the Fringe. Living in the Southern Egyptian Deserts during the Roman and early-Byzantine Periods. O. Kaper (ed.), Proceedings of a Colloquium Held on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Netherlands Institute for Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo 9-12 December 1996, Leiden, pp. 31-54.

Ballet P. 2006. “La collection Clermont-Ganneau. Les supports céramiques”. In Les ostraca araméens d’Éléphantine. H. Lozachmeur, Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres XXXV, Paris, pp. 106-133.

Ballet P., Południkiewicz A. and Tebtynis V. 2012. La céramique des époques hellénistique et impériale. Campagnes 1988-1993. Production, consommation et réception dans le Fayoum méridional, FIFAO 68, Cairo.

Ballet P. Forthcoming. “And the potsherds? Some avenues of reflection and synthesis on the pottery of the Great Oasis”. In Oasis Magna : Kharga and Dakhla Oases in Antiquity, 19-20 september 2014. R.S. Bagnall and G. Tallet (eds.), Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York University, New York.

Ballet P., with the collaboration of Y. Chevalier et de M. Evina. Forthcoming. “De Douch à El-Deir: Approches des faciès céramiques dans l’Oasis de Kharga”, CCE 11.

Baud M. 1990. “La représentation de l’espace en Égypte ancienne : cartographie d’un itinéraire d’expédition”, BIFAO 90, pp. 51-63.

Bernand A. 1972. De Koptos à Kosseir, Leiden.

Bloxam E., Harrell J., Kelany A., Moloney N., el-Senussi A. and Tohamey A. 2014. “Investigating the Predynastic origins of greywacke working in the Wadi Hammamat”. Archéo-Nil. Prédynastique et premières dynasties égyptiennes. Nouvelles perspectives de recherches 24, pp. 11-30.

Brun J.-P. 1994. “Le faciès céramique d’Al-Zerqa. Observations préliminaires”, BIFAO 94, pp. 7-26.

Coptos 2000, Exposition Coptos. L’Égypte antique aux portes du désert, Lyon, Musée des Beaux-Arts, 3 février-7 mars 2000, Lyon.

Couyat J., Montet P. 1912. Les inscriptions hiéroglyphiques et hiératiques du Ouâdi Hammâmât, MIFAO 34.

Cuvigny H. 1997. “Le crépuscule d’un dieu : le déclin du culte de Pan dans le désert Oriental”. BIFAO 97, pp. 139-147.

Cuvigny H. (ed.) and alii. 2003. La route de Myos Hormos. L’armée romaine dans le désert oriental d’Égypte. Praesidia du désert de Bérénice I, FIFAO 48.

Dixneuf D. 2011. Amphores égyptiennes : production, typologie, contenu et diffusion (iiie siècle av. J.-C.- ixe siècle apr. J.-C.), Études Alexandrines 22, Cairo.

Élaigne S. 2017. “Alexandrie, cinéma Majestic. Étude céramologique du remblai 117/119. Les importations”. In Alexandrie, Césaréum. Les fouilles du cinéma Majestic. La consommation céramique en milieu urbain à la fin de l’époque hellénistique. J.-Y. Empereur, P. Ballet, S. Élaigne, P. Rifa, K. and G. Şenol (ed.), Études Alexandrines 38, pp. 121-186.

Gasse A. 1988. “Amény, un porte-parole sous le règne de Sésostris Ier”. BIFAO 88, pp. 83-94.

Gasse A. 2012. Wadi Hammamat and the Sea froms the Origins to the End of the New Kingdom. In The Red Sea in the Pharaonic Times. Recent Discoveries along the Red Sea Coast. P. Tallet et E.S. Mahfouz (ed.), Proceedings of the Colloquium held in Cairo/Ayn Soukhna 11th-12th January 2009, BdE 155, pp. 133-143.

Goudineau Chr. 1968. La céramique arétine lisse, Paris.

Goyon G. 1949. “Le papyrus de Turin dit 'des mines d’or' et le Wadi Hammamat”, ASAE 49, pp. 337-392.

Goyon G. 1957. Nouvelles inscriptions rupestres du Wadi Hammamat, Paris.

Kayser Fr. 1993. “Nouveaux textes grecs du Ouadi Hammamat”. ZPE 98, pp. 111-156.

Nenna M.D., Seif el-Din M. 2000. La vaisselle en faïence d’époque gréco-romaine : catalogue du Musée gréco-romain d’Alexandrie, Études Alexandrines 4, Cairo.

Slane K.W. 1997. “The Fine Wares”. In Tel Anafa II.i, The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. S.C. Herbert (ed.), JRA Suppl. 10, pp. 247-418.

Tomber R. 2006. “The Pottery”. In Survey and Excavations. Mons Claudianus 1987-1993 III, Ceramic, Vessels and Related Objects from Mons Claudianus. V.A. Maxfield / D.P.S. Peacock (ed.), FIFAO 54, Cairo, pp. 1-236.

Notas

1 Bloxam et al. 2014; Couyat and Montet 1912.

2 Goyon 1957.

3 Bernand 1972.

4 Kayser 1993.

5 Cf. “K. Mission épigraphique au Wadi Hammamat” in "Travaux de l’Ifao en 1987-1988", BIFAO 88, 1988, pp. 205-206.

6 Gasse 1988, pp. 83-94.

7 Goyon 1949; Goyon 1957; Baud 1990; Gasse 2012, pp. 138-140.

8 BIFAO 89, 1989, pp. 313-315.

9 BIFAO 1989, fig. 19, p. 314, p. 326; for a presentation of the Wâdi al-Hammâmât, from the origin to the New Kingdom; Gasse 2012.

10 Cuvigny 1997. 

11 Aston 1999, n° 2038, n° 2041, pl. 72; Ballet 2006, p. 107-116, pl. 5-7.

12 S. Marchand, “Les siga des Oasis datées de la XXVIIe-XXIXe dynastie et de l’époque ptolémaïque ancienne trouvées à ʽAyn Manâwir (oasis de Kharga) et à Tebtynis (Fayoum) ”, CCE 6, 2000, p. 221-225; P. Ballet, “And the potsherds? some avenues of reflection and synthesis on the pottery of the Great Oasis”, R.S. Bagnall and G. Tallet (eds), Oasis Magna: Kharga and Dakhla Oases in Antiquity, 19-20 septembre 2014, Institute for the Study of the Ancien World, New York University, New York, in press; P. Ballet, in collaboration with Y. Chevalier and M. Evina, “De Douch à El-Deir : Approches des faciès céramiques dans l’Oasis de Kharga”, CCE 11, forthcoming.

13 Cuvigny 2003, p. 191.

14 Université d’Égée, Izmir.

15 Ballet et Południkiewicz 2012, n° 34, inv. 3037-6.

16 Ballet 1996, fig. 8; Ballet 1998, fig. 8; cf. infra: water vases, a regional production.

17 Dixneuf 2011, pp. 129-133.

18 These rooms were numbered and have the initials m. (maison=dwelling) or p. (pièce=room).

19 Tomber 2006, pp. 64-67.

20 Coptos 2000, cat. 143, pp. 176-177.

21 Ballet 1998, p. 49.

22 Cuvigny 2003, p. 198, règne de Trajan et/ou d’Hadrien ?

23 Brun 1994, C52.

24 Tomber 2006, type 66, p. 116, fig. 1.45.

25 Atlante delle forme ceramiche II, ES A type 35, AD 40-70, p. 30, pl. V, 7; Slane 1997, pp. 307-308, Tell Anafa Type 23 (FW 175; similar to Conspectus 18.2).

26 Atlante delle forme ceramiche II, ES A, type 48, 40-70 apr. J.-C., p. 36, pl. VI, 16.

27 Atlante delle forme ceramiche II, ES A, type 47, 10-60/70, p. 35, pl. VI, 15.

28 Personal communication M. Picon.

29 Élaigne, 2017.

30 Conspectus form 13; Goudineau type 7 Atlante II, p. 196, pl. LVI, 15-17, 25/20 BC – AD 15 or Goudineau 18, 24 Atlante II, p. 196, pl. LVI, 18, pl. LVII, 1-3.

31 Slane 1997, pp. 324-328.

32 Nenna, Seif el-Din 2000.

33 Dixneuf 2011; Gabbari, US 30561, fig. 31.

34 Brun 1994, fig. 12.

35 Brun 1994, p. 23. The range of dates of Al-Zarqâ’ is relatively wide, from the middle of the first century to the end of the second.

36 Kayser 1993, p. 114.

37 Kayser 1993, p. 128.

Índice de ilustraciones

Título Fig. 1
Leyenda The rocky environment of the Wâdi al-Hammâmât.
Créditos © P. Ballet
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5233/img-1.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 348k
Título Fig. 2
Leyenda Quarry face in greywacke.
Créditos © P. Ballet
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5233/img-2.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 856k
Título Fig. 3
Leyenda Offering at Min, Persian period, Couyat and Montet 1912, n ° 95.
Créditos © P. Ballet
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5233/img-3.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 404k
Título Fig. 4
Leyenda Papyrus of the “gold mines”, Museum of Turin.
Créditos © All rights reserved
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5233/img-4.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 676k
Título Fig. 5
Leyenda Simplified graphical version of the “gold mines” papyrus, Baud 1990, fig. 1.
Créditos © All rights reserved
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5233/img-5.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 544k
Título Fig. 6
Leyenda The sherds from the epigraphic mission of IFAO in 1988.
Créditos © P. Ballet
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5233/img-6.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 684k
Título Fig. 7
Leyenda The zone of the “naos of Tiberius”, seen towards the north.
Créditos © Ifao, A. Lecler.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5233/img-7.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 788k
Título Fig. 8
Leyenda The “naos of Tiberius” and neighbouring installations.
Créditos © Ifao, P. Deleuze
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5233/img-8.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 272k
Título Fig. 9
Leyenda Wâdi al-Hammâmât. Ceramics of the Late Period and Ptolemaic Period.
Créditos © Drawing P. Ballet; infography Kh. Zaza and A. Simony
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5233/img-9.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 200k
Título Fig. 10
Leyenda Wâdi al-Hammâmât. Ceramics of the Early Roman Empire.
Créditos © drawings P. Ballet, infography Khaza Zaza and A. Simony
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5233/img-10.jpg
Archivo image/jpeg, 248k

Autor

ArScAn (UMR 7041), Paris Nanterre

© Collège de France, 2018

Condiciones de uso: http://www.openedition.org/6540