Introduction

1Bi’r Samut and ‘Abbad are Hellenistic fortifications located in the Eastern Desert of Egypt (fig. 1). They are part of an archipelago of watering stations, mining facilities and way stations that linked market cities in the Nile Valley, particularly Koptos (modern Qift) and Apollonopolis Magna (modern Edfu), with Red Sea ports at Myos Hormos (modern Quseir al‑Qadim) and Berenike Troglodytica in the Greco-Roman era. These desert installations, and many others, were nodes in a dynamic and variable network that persisted for hundreds of years, well into the Late Roman era.1 The initial fluorescence of this desert network was, however, in the early Ptolemaic period, although these installations quite clearly were established by drawing on a map of resource exploitation derived from Pharaonic, especially New Kingdom, initiatives.2

Fig. 1 – Regional map of the Eastern Desert with select Ptolemaic sites, including ‘Abbad and Bi’r Samut (L. Manière/Desert Networks).

2These fourth-century expeditions were directed at mineral resources, especially gold, as demonstrated by the surface pottery recovered through archaeological surveys in the region.3 For example, recent excavations by the French Archaeological Mission to the Eastern Desert at the site of North Samut in the central Eastern Desert document the early intervention of the Ptolemaic state at the gold mine there, where a suite of administrative buildings and dormitories were constructed sometime in the late fourth century BCE.4 This initial phase of resource exploitation appears to have been somewhat short-lived, lasting no longer than the turn of the fourth century, when a proliferation in the number of desert sites suggests a re-evaluation of the desert’s economic role by state actors, particularly under Ptolemy II and continuing until the end of the third century. At this time, greater investment was made in desert infrastructure and fortifications and way stations like Bi’r Samut and ‘Abbad were constructed to support travel between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea, primarily to support elephant hunters traveling to the African coast further south as well as trade among the Red Sea ports.5 This network of interconnected, transient communities flourished in the third century and was only disrupted in its later decades, perhaps by the Great Theban Revolt of 206 BCE or even slightly before. In any case, the revolts or preceding events stymied the economic network of supply that would have been critical to the maintenance of these outposts in the late third century. The revolt also presumably disrupted access to the region through the Upper Egyptian routes, although only temporarily. This interruption is clear at ‘Abbad and Bi’r Samut since both sites were abandoned in the later third century BCE and only sporadically reoccupied in later centuries.6

3Like many sites in the Eastern Desert, the level of preservation at ‘Abbad (fig. 2) and Bi’r Samut (fig. 3) is extraordinary. Excavation seasons between 2014 and 2018 by the French Mission revealed well-preserved fortifications constructed in the third century preserved abandonment levels in most rooms that date to the last decades of the third century BCE. In the case of Bi’r Samut, exterior middens were also well preserved. This new evidence presents an opportunity to evaluate the networks of supply that supported Ptolemaic exploitation of the Eastern Desert’s resources during the late fourth and third centuries BCE. The ceramic assemblages from the two installations reveal a diverse array of sources for the pottery supplied to the fort, which in turn suggests a wide-ranging web of economic and social connections between the fort’s inhabitants and the Egyptian countryside, as well as – to a much more limited extent – the Egyptian northern coastal zone and the Aegean. For example, the amphora assemblage from both installations contains a limited range of imported southern Aegean amphoras as well as many more locally-produced Upper and Middle Egyptian amphoras. Some of these Egyptian products precisely imitate Aegean types, while others present a distinctive morphology that is best understood as a “mélange” of attributes borrowed from imported types but combined with local elements to produce a form that is neither directly imitative, nor entirely free from the influence of Aegean models. These amphoras – both imported and Egyptian – were used as vessels for the storage and transport of liquids, and, in reuse, as repositories for commodities stored in the forts and as installations such as ovens and pipes.

Fig. 2 – Architectural plan of ‘Abbad in 2018 (B. Redon/MAFDO).

Fig. 3 – Architectural plan of Bi’r Samut in 2016 (B. Redon/MAFDO).

4This short paper offers a preliminary overview of the amphora assemblage from these two sites and considers the economic and social implications of amphora presence, form and use in the third century BCE in Egypt’s Eastern Desert. In addition to outlining the primary morphological characteristics of this third century amphora assemblage, depositional patterns at the site as well as patterns of use and reuse of amphoras in these desert fortifications are also discussed. Imported Hellenistic amphoras constitute a relatively small proportion of the amphoras at these sites and are only lightly covered here. This preponderance of Egyptian products is in stark contrast with the imported amphoras that prevail at the late fourth century gold-mining settlement at North Samut in the Eastern Desert where there are no Egyptian amphora of the types documented from the later occupations at Bi’r Samut or at ‘Abbad. This variance suggests that the assemblages at ‘Abbad and Bi’r Samut chronicle the early decades of amphora production in Upper Egypt during the middle of the third century BCE. Using this data as well as preliminary work completed on the dipinti on some of these vessels, the last section considers what the use of amphoras for the packaging and distribution of liquid commodities in the Eastern Desert can tell us about the Ptolemaic economy of the third century and what institutional factors are likely the most important in interpreting these data patterns.

Hellenistic Eastern Desert amphora in archaeological context

5The forts at ‘Abbad and Bi’r Samut (fig. 2‑3) were built sometime in the middle of the third century BCE, perhaps as late as the early 250’s BCE.7 Both are nodes in the reticular network of way stations in the Eastern Desert and served related functions. Although Bi’r Samut is much larger than ‘Abbad, both are roughly square fortifications built around a central well and equipped with cisterns and numerous interior rooms, many of which housed facilities for grain processing. Bread ovens were a feature of both forts as were facilities for the storage of food commodities, and bathing installations.

6Greek and demotic ostraca recovered at the site indicate that the forts were used as centers for the distribution of supplies – especially water and grain – to soldiers or policemen (demotic “calasiris”) and other non-military travelers moving out of Egypt and into the desert borderlands.8 They were also venues for interactions between these groups and diverse desert-dwelling nomadic peoples who feature in the ostraca as “Arabs of the desert” or “Blemmyes”.9 The social life of the fortification was eclectic, and remains somewhat obscure, since the recovered documents offer only oblique glimpses of the visitors to the fort and their activities.10 The Ptolemaic military figures little in the textual sources recovered at the site, which is surprising given the role that the military is known to have played in the elephant hunts that must have provided a key rationale for the initial construction of the forts.11

7Primary archaeological deposits were present inside and outside both fortifications. This was particularly the case in the interior rooms of the fort where abandonment floors were regularly recovered, sometimes with considerable and varied materials remaining in situ (fig. 4). At Bi’r Samut, stratified midden deposits many meters deep formed outside the main and postern gates over a period of many years and contain the debris produced by the fort’s occupants (fig. 5). At ‘Abbad these middens were destroyed by bulldozing in recent decades and were preserved only to the height of 20‑30 cm in a few areas south and west of the fort.12 Both forts were regularly cleaned out by their occupants, meaning that the pottery recovered in the rooms is associated with the final phases of the fort’s life in most cases, while the middens (when they are preserved) are the only evidence for earlier phases. Thus, the in-room floor deposits date to the last decades of the third century BCE, while the middens at Bi’r Samut detail a much longer occupational history – probably extending from the middle of the third century BCE until just before the abandonment of the fort; this encompasses a period of some 50‑60 years, although the precise duration cannot be known with a high degree of certainty.13

Fig. 4 – Abandonment floor in room 1 at ‘Abbad (B. Redon/MAFDO).

Fig. 5 – A section of the north midden at Bi’r Samut (J.‑P. Brun/MAFDO).

8Amphoras are ubiquitous in the abandonment levels inside both fortifications and in the preserved middens at Bi’r Samut. They are the primary transport vessel form at both forts, although there are significant numbers of kegs (siga) also present, especially in the middens at Bi’r Samut.14 The amphoras found at both forts are usually fragmentary, although amphoras abandoned, whole and smashed by falling debris, were found inside rooms in both forts. The rims, toes and body sherds of broken amphora were commonly reused at both sites. Body sherds were used to pave rooms at ‘Abbad, for example, and amphora necks and bodies to construct ovens at Bi’r Samut, while amphora bodies were regularly used at both sites as storage receptacles embedded in floors and courtyards and deliberately prepared for this function by the careful removal of their neck and rim (fig. 6).

Fig. 6 – Oven constructed of reused amphora necks and bodies at Bi’r Samut (J. Gates‑Foster/MAFDO).

Egyptian and imported amphoras from ‘Abbad and Bi’r Samut

9The vast majority of amphoras recovered from Bi’r Samut and ‘Abbad were made in Egypt and are Ptolemaic AE1 bead rim amphoras (fig 7: 1‑5).15 This early indigenous amphora rim form is common in Middle and Upper Egypt and is a somewhat generic riff on rim types associated with southern Aegean production centers, especially Rhodes and Knidos.16 It is first produced in the early third century BCE and continues to be a common type throughout the century and into the early second century. The rim is characterized by a heavy, round to slightly more almond-shaped rim, sometimes undercut (fig. 7: 4), on a straight, smooth neck. The ovoid strap handles join the neck just below the rim and attach just below the turn from the thick neck to the wide shoulder. The body itself is barrel-shaped and thick with a smooth outer surface usually showing pre-firing rope impressions laid horizontally around the thickest points of the body and shoulder. The interior surface is usually also smooth, although it may occasionally show ridging or finger-smoothing at the shoulder and neck.17 Examples at ‘Abbad and Bi’r Samut were occasionally found with intact unstamped plaster or mud stoppers (fig. 8) and several types of stamps were infrequently applied to the neck or handle (fig. 9).

Fig. 7 – Third century BCE AE1 amphora rims and toes from ‘Abbad and Bi’r Samut (M. Hepa/MAFDO).

Fig. 8 – AE1 amphora with mud stopper in situ from ‘Abbad (G. Pollin/MAFDO).

Fig. 9 – AE1 amphora neck with illegible hieroglyphic stamp from ‘Abbad (G. Pollin/MAFDO).

10Toe forms associated with the AE1 vary, but the most commonly occurring type in the Eastern Desert is a generic solid peg toe broadly imitative of Aegean forms, although again not identical to any specific imported prototype (fig. 7: 6‑9).18 Many but not all examples of this toe type have a shallow depression in the center of the base. At Bi’r Samut and ‘Abbad, other toe types include direct imitations of southern Aegean amphora toes (fig. 7: 10‑11) that are also probably (although not definitively) associated with the rim described above. No complete examples of amphora with these Aegean imitation toe forms were recovered, but comparable examples from Thebes show this pairing of rim and toe.

11AE2 amphora (fig. 10: 1) were also documented at Bi’r Samut although only a handful of examples were found in the latest phases of the middens and in the fort’s interior near the cistern.19 This type is probably associated with the final occupation phase of the fort, and so potentially in the last decades of the third century BCE or the early second century. This type has a squared-off rim on a slightly outward angled neck, usually smooth, but sometimes with interior ridging. No complete examples of this type were found, but similar examples documented at Koptos had a peg-like toe similar to those associated with the AE1 rim at ‘Abbad and Bi’r Samut (fig. 7: 6‑9).20 This amphora type did not appear at all at ‘Abbad in third century deposits and is a feature of only limited late deposits at Bi’r Samut.

Fig. 10 – 1: EA2 amphora rim from Bi’r Samut; 2: unidentified bead rim amphora from ‘Abbad (M. Hepa/MAFDO).

12These Egyptian amphoras are fabricated in both alluvial and calcareous clays, and represent a range of production centers in Middle and Upper Egypt.21 For example, at ‘Abbad AE1 amphoras appear in both alluvial and calcareous fabrics, although the latter is more common, which also is the case at Bi’r Samut, where calcareous and mixed clays predominate. Interestingly, no coastal or northern amphora fabrics were identified at either site. Further description of the amphora fabrics will be offered in the final publication of this material, but it is likely that the examples from both forts are all associated with Middle and Upper Egyptian production centers, particularly the Theban region.

13Notably, a distinctive amphora of slightly smaller size than the typical range of AE1 and in a hard, dark reddish-brown fabric with distinctive white grits was recovered in several rooms of the fort at ‘Abbad, overlying the late third century BCE abandonment levels in some places. Very large quantities of this amphora type were recovered from room 4 in particular and in deposits laid in over definite third century material in rooms 14 and 16. While these amphoras carry a bead rim similar to the standard AE1 type (fig. 10: 2), their smaller size and distinctive fabric as well as their stratigraphic relationship to the abandonment deposits raise the possibility that these are evidence of a slightly later phase of third or even second century use of these rooms that post-dated the abandonment of the fort in the late third century BCE. Their origin is unknown, although a Theban origin is likely.

14Imported amphoras (possibly in reuse as transport containers) are also present at ‘Abbad and Bi’r Samut but represent less than 5% of the total amphoras at either site. Represented types include Samian, Thasian, Knidian and most commonly, Rhodian amphora dating, when stamped, to the second half of the third century BCE. For example, a Rhodian amphora was found burned and smashed on the floor of room 1 at ‘Abbad. Although not completely restorable, the amphora carried two legible handle stamps dating to the vessel to Period IIa, ca 234 BCE (fig. 11).22 Stamped Rhodian vessels of similar date were also found inside the fort at Bi’r Samut.

Fig. 11a‑b – Third century BCE Rhodian amphora from ‘Abbad (photo: A. Bülow‑Jacobsen; drawing: J. Marchand/MAFDO).

15This stands in contrast to the late fourth century installations at North Samut (and the lowest levels of the north midden at Bi’r Samut), where the amphoras are almost entirely imported. The assemblage at North Samut, in particular, shows no evidence of a widespread tradition of indigenous amphora production. At Bi’r Samut and ‘Abbad, however, the diversity of toe forms and the quantities of Egyptian vessels testifies to a well-established industry flourishing in response to a trade in commodities between regions. It is tempting to see the fluorescence of the indigenous AE1 amphora form, and the production of amphora in general, as a solution to the problem of large-scale movement of wine and foodstuffs to diverse regions of the Ptolemaic state and its imperial holdings, of which the Eastern Desert was but one of many. This is discussed further in the following section.

Amphora and the Egyptian economy of the third century BCE

16Based on preliminary data analysis of all sherds collected and catalogued at Bi’r Samut, where the middens were mostly intact, the amphoras represent more than 70% of the total pottery assemblage at the fortifications by weight – not surprising given their size and heft – but also dwarf all other forms in terms of the sheer numbers of vessels present at the site. In select midden strata at Bi’r Samut, for example, MNI numbers range between 40‑50 amphoras per 6 cm layer across the midden. These middens are up to 1.2 m deep in some areas, yielding a rough (and certainly highly generalized) estimate of between 800‑1,000 amphoras in each exterior midden at Bi’r Samut alone. This does not consider the midden deposits inside the fort, which are concentrated in the south-western corner of Bi’r Samut near the postern gate, nor does it consider dumping activities in abandoned interior rooms in the fort’s later years, which would add considerably to the overall total.

17The scale of consumption of amphora-born commodities in a period of some 60 years or so then falls into the range of between 26‑33 amphoras discarded in both exterior middens combined per year at Bi’r Samut. A more conservative estimate for the fort’s use life of around 50 years would produce a pattern of amphora discard in the exterior middens of around 30 or 40 vessels annually. This exercise of course ignores numerous factors. For example, it assumes uniform annual consumption, which was almost certainly not the case, as well as constant proportional use of amphora as the preferred transport container. Kegs were a common alternative although never as numerous as the amphoras, and there were also leather pouches used to transport liquids and other commodities. In short, these numbers are early speculations based on preliminary statistical analysis and will certainly change when final MNI numbers are calculated for each midden deposit and for the interior rooms.

18Even so, they provide a starting point from which to consider the overall scale of commodity transport and consumption at the forts. For comparison, the entire site of North Samut yields a MNI for all vessel types (not just amphora) of only 339, only a small proportion (<10%) of which are large jars or imported amphoras.23 This site, it is estimated, was occupied for a period of less than ten years, but the scale of consumption of commodities transported in amphoras and large jars is clearly many magnitudes smaller than what is suggested by the deposits at Bi’r Samut, even accounting for the presumed difference in occupational duration and scale of the settlement.

19What do these preliminary patterns of amphora discarded at Bi’r Samut and ‘Abbad suggest about the Egyptian economy of the third century? The forts are nucleated settlements populated by a transient community of individuals related to one another by their association with the Ptolemaic state – primarily the Ptolemaic army or police – and individuals traveling across the desert to the Red Sea ports or to mining installations in the desert itself who might or might not be coordinating with these groups. We might assume that the supply of foodstuffs to the fortifications was largely dependent upon the state, which (according to the historical sources) oversaw the construction of the fortifications and supplied a rationale for their continued use. Accordingly, the forts are emphatically different contextually from most other contemporary data sets – Ptolemaic household deposits in the Fayyum, Alexandria or Thebes, for example. This makes it difficult to compare the consumption practices of these divergent groups, but it seems safe to say even at this preliminary stage of analysis that the reliance on amphora-born commodities in the Eastern Desert forts is proportionally much higher than in contemporary third century households in other parts of Egypt. There are numerous possible reasons for this.

20The transformation of the Egyptian economy in the third century was in large part due to the requirements of the reorganized countryside with its settlers, new urban centers, and the army, as well as an increased demand for exports.24 Increased production of cereals and wine supplied these new markets, and it is the context of that increased demand and resulting supply that best explains the patterns observed through the amphoras at Bi’r Samut and ‘Abbad. Indeed, the ostraca make clear that Bi’r Samut and ‘Abbad both lay outside “Aigyptos” and were conceptually an outpost of the regime that required supply and maintenance as would a Ptolemaic colony in the Aegean, or in Eretria further south.25 Therefore, the large numbers of amphoras discarded at the site are evidence of a supply chain stimulated by and directed at least in part towards the maintenance of the army and other travelers who utilized this network of fortifications and watering stations.

21This centralized control of commodity supply accords well with observations that can be drawn from the amphoras in terms of their capacities and possible contents. For example, in a room at Bi’r Samut, twelve Egyptian amphoras with their necks removed were set into the floor and reused as storage vessels, probably for grain and other commodities (fig. 12‑13). All were empty when rediscovered except one that contained charcoal.26 The neck and handles and toes of each amphora had been deliberately cut away and each was closed with a roughly-formed stopper made of alluvial clay covered with a thin wash of red paint.

Fig. 12 – Egyptian amphoras in situ in the floor of room 12 at Bi’r Samut (B. Redon/MAFDO).

Fig. 13 – Egyptian amphoras after removal from room 12 at Bi’r Samut (J. Gates‑Foster/MAFDO).

22All but one of these amphoras carried inscriptions related to the contents they carried before they were reused in the floor of the fort. Five had jar labels in both Greek and demotic. Five of the amphoras carry one or more regnal years (“years 10, 12 and 14”) and notations of capacities in both Greek and demotic in measurements that, when compared with the carrying capacities of the almost complete amphora, suggest that an Attic (as opposed to an Arsinoic) metrological system may have been in use.27 There appear to have been two amphora sizes in use at the fort; the Egyptian amphora capacities documented in the complete amphora from Bi’r Samut cluster around 42 and 60 liters, making these some of the largest Hellenistic amphora ever documented.28 None of this information is particularly helpful with regard to the actual commodities that were shipped in these containers in their primary use, but the ostraca mention wine and water, and other commodities will presumably appear as the dipinti are examined further.29 The enormous size, presumably maximized to suit transport options in the desert, as well as a need for extensive storage capacity and the use of an Attic measurement standard and regnal years, all suggest a centralized control of the distribution if not production of the jars.

Conclusions

23The supply of amphora to occupants of the Ptolemaic Eastern Desert forts is evidence of a concerted effort to provision these settlements and to sustain these supply networks in areas where environment and topography present a considerable challenge to state resources and institutions. Despite these problems, and the attendant costs in transport occasioned by climate, topography and hostile actors, the supply of amphoras to both forts appears to have been reasonably consistent and voluminous throughout their life cycles. The establishment of an amphora production industry in Egypt, that occurs sometime in the first half of the third century BCE and is so amply attested at the Eastern Desert forts, was stimulated by the necessity of moving foodstuffs and liquid commodities to communities of consumers throughout the country and beyond Egypt’s borders. It was, in essence, an industry stimulated by Ptolemaic imperialism, both within the Egyptian homeland and outside its core territory. The fact that these vessels take on the modified form of imported Aegean amphora attests to their initial association with the commodities associated with that region – most importantly, wine, but certainly others as well. These fortifications provide an excellent example of the entanglement between the needs of the state and the amphora industry, particularly as Ptolemaic territorial claims expanded into new territories beyond its inherited borders.