The Oasis Papers 6: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project

By Oxbow Books

The Dakhleh Oasis Project is a long-term holistic investigation of the evolution of human populations in the changing environmental conditions of this isolated region in the Western Desert of Egypt. The Project began in 1978 and has combined survey and excavation to collect an extensive range of geological, environmental and archaeological data which covers the last 350,000 years of human occupation. This latest volume in the Monograph series publishing the results of the Project contains 41 papers with a wealth of new research and significant discoveries, from Prehistory, through Pharaonic and Roman times to the Christian period.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: Feb 20, 2017
• ISBN: 9781782971412

Book preview

Major Archaeological Sites in Kharga Oasis and Some Recent Discoveries by the Supreme Council of Antiquities

Bahgat A. Ibrahim

The Governorate of the New Valley includes the oases of Kharga, Dakhleh, Farafra and several other smaller oases. Archaeological evidence attests to important military, political, and social activities within the oasis, for which impressive monuments and buildings were constructed. In fact, this region of Egypt was considered to be the border of the country to the west and south, so that its strategic and historical importance was always recognized. Kharga oasis itself is located on several ancient routes, such as the Darb el-Arba‘in, which provided commercial connections between Egypt and Nubia, especially during late antiquity and the Middle Ages. More importantly, during the Pharaonic Period, Kharga Oasis became a major hub of economic and military routes, including the Gerga Road, which provided the shortest track between the Thebaid and the southern oases. Because of their strategic locations, Egyptian rulers of all periods took particular interest in the oases. Not surprisingly, the oases are home to remarkable historical remains dating to a wide range of periods from the Old Kingdom through the Islamic period, including temples, towns, fortresses, cemeteries, monasteries and palaces. Not only these, but also within the oases are remains of residential structures and sites from the Prehistoric Period.

Kharga Oasis

Kharga is Egypt’s largest oasis. The name Kharga means ‘the outer one’, which suggests the limits of what was considered Egypt proper in ancient times. During the Dynastic Period it was called kenmet, the oasis, or the southern oasis, a name that included the areas of both modern Kharga and Dakhleh oases. This is consistent with the fact that two important roads connected the two oases from ancient times. The first is the Darb el-Ghubari, which is still used at present. The other is called the Darb ‘Ain Amur, leading from north Kharga to ‘Ain el-Labakha to Umm el-Dabadib to ‘Ain Amur across the Abu Tartur plateau to Dakhleh. In the late Pharaonic Period, Kharga was also known as Hibit, in ancient Greek, Hibis, which means ‘plough’ in ancient Egyptian. This name, with its reference to the instrument used to prepare land for cultivation, clearly indicates that the Oasis was a richly fertile place where, in particular, wheat was grown. Already by the time of the New Kingdom, Kharga Oasis was an important area for wine production, particularly the slopes of Gebel Ghueita.

Hibis Temple

Hibis temple (Plate 1) is located two kilometres north of the modern town of Kharga. It is the only Egyptian temple which survives mostly intact from the Saite-Persian Period in Egyptian history (660–330 BCE). The temple, in its current form, was constructed and decorated during the first Persian Period, primarily by Darius I. Scant evidence exists for Saite foundations at Hibis. Later, the Egyptian Pharaoh Nectanebo II added the portico to the front of the temple circa 350 BCE. The importance of this temple is that it represents the different historical periods, including Pharaonic, Persian, Ptolemaic, and Roman. Some of the religious texts in the temple provide a link between New Kingdom theology and the hymns of the Greco-Roman Period. Construction started during the 26th dynasty in the year 660 BCE by Psamtek. The temple continued in use through the Roman period until Egypt converted to Christianity, when the temple was closed and a Coptic church was built out of mud-brick north of its portico. The Coptic church was removed during the excavation of the temple in 1908–1912. Only the post holes in the east wall of the temple remain as visible reminders of that structure. The sanctuary is at the west end of the central axis of the temple, which is decorated in high reliefs with hundreds of images of different deities.

These are very well preserved, because they were covered with the sand until excavated by archaeologists of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, early in the twentieth century. Beside the sanctuary are crypts and rooms which were used for storing valuables. The outer walls of the temple are inscribed with scenes of the king (Darius I) giving offerings to the gods. Hibis temple was dedicated to the Theban triad Amun-Mut-Khonsu in their local manifestations as lords of Hibis. Generally, the temple of Hibis is very well preserved, with the temple representing different periods in the history of Egypt and containing significant divine hymns and showing the importance of the oasis in ancient times.

Plate 1 The Temple of Hibis, Kharga Oasis; © B. A. Ibrahim.

Plate 2 The Temple of Hibis: excavation of the trench for the diaphragm wall; © B. A. Ibrahim.

Plate 3 The Temple of Hibis: anchoring blocks during consolidation work; © B. A. Ibrahim.

Rescue Project of Hibis Temple

Although many explorers visited the ruins of Hibis temple during the 1800s, it was not until 1908–1912 that the ruins of the temple were excavated by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and thereafter by the Egyptian Antiquities Organization, who began the long process of restoring the temple to its present condition. The extensive project for restoring the temple carried out by the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) to conserve and protect the Hibis temple included main four stages:

(1) The diaphragm wall: surrounding the temple complex with a diaphragm wall (11 x 13 m deep) to prevent seepage of ground water to the foundations of the temple (Plate 2).

(2) Lime piles: drilled piles (10 m deep) were filled with lime for reducing swelling potential of the soils around the temple.

(3) Anchoring blocks and pieces in the temple together by a new technique, used for the first time at Hibis temple. This technique is called the CINTIC system and works by using steel and a kind of CINTIC grout inside the walls of the temple; this work is later invisible (Plate 3).

(4) Reconstructing the previously dismantled structures. Four parts have been reconstructed, namely: a: The first part (quay). The first site upon arrival at the temple which one can see is the remains of the quay. This quay was located at the edge of the ancient lake, which stretched from there out past the modern asphalt highway. The quay was only used for ceremonial purposes, as the ancient town of Hibis was located to the south, west and north of the temple.

b: Roman gate. Immediately next to the quay are the ruins of the outer gateway. On the eastern face of this gateway are two monumental inscriptions in Greek. The one on the north was written in 69 CE by the Roman prefect Tiberius Julius Alexander, legislating on a number of economic and legal matters.

c: Avenue of sphinxes. Going through the small avenue of sphinxes, one comes to the great gateway.

d: Great gateway. The great gate of the temple was built in the Ptolemaic Period, from the year 247 BCE.

In addition, we should mention the Mammisi, or birth temple, a small building which is located in the south-west.

I would like to thank Doctor Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of the SCA, for making the successful decision to keep the temple in its present location, rather than moving it to another site. The extensive restoration project has not only conserved and preserved the temple but also made it ready to be opened to visitors.

Major Discoveries in Kharga Oasis from 1994 to 2009

Among the many important archaeological sites discovered recently were those dating from the Second Intermediate Period and New Kingdom until the Greek and Roman Periods. I shall focus on three important sites that should be mentioned. First, ‘Ain el-Dabbashiya is located about 21 km to the north-west of Kharga city, and 6 km west of a small village called el-Qatara. Here are some ruins, partly made of mud bricks and partly of stone, cemeteries, tombs and pigeon towers, in addition to a huge main building called Qasr el-Dabbashiya, which is probably a Roman temple. The following small finds were discovered: (1) wooden figures for the Gods Anubis and Horus; (2) ceramic vessels of different shapes and sizes; (3) necklaces of beads; (4) human bones, skulls, and parts of mummy cartonnage (Figure 1).

Figure 1 ‘Ain el-Dabbashiya: schematic general plan of tombs; © B. A. Ibrahim.

Figure 2 ‘Ain el-Dabbashiya: section and plan of Tomb N 22; © B. A. Ibrahim.

Plate 4 ‘Ain el-Dabbashiya, Tomb N 22: painted wooden coffin of Ny-sw-a; © B. A. Ibrahim.

Plate 5 ‘Ain el-Dabbashiya, Tomb N 22: wooden figure of Ptah-Sokr-Osiris; © B. A. Ibrahim.

Plate 6 ‘Ain el-Dabbashiya, Tomb N 22: canopic box; © B. A. Ibrahim.

The most important discovery was a rock-cut tomb, N 22 (Figure 2). Tomb N 22, according to the plan, consists of a burial shaft with two rooms on each side of the shaft. The eastern room was empty, and the other one on the west side was found intact. It included a wooden painted coffin (Plate 4) for a man called Ny-sw-a, son of Pa-di-aset and his mother Tta-di, in very good condition. Inside the wooden coffin there is a mummy well wrapped in fine linen. It is covered with cartonnage on the face, breast and feet and has been X-rayed. The wooden coffin also includes some painted text inside and outside. Another unpainted wooden coffin includes a mummy in good condition inside; this has also been X-rayed

Also noteworthy was a marvellous wooden figure of Ptah-Sokr-Osiris, with a model of a tomb on the pedestal (Plate 5). Five figures of Horus are represented, and a painted text appears on the pedestal. Another important find was a painted wooden box and lid, probably a canopic box, with scenes of Horus, Isis, Nephthys, and the deceased presenting offering to Osiris appearing on the sides of the box (Plate 6). The lid has an image of Anubis on a shrine. This tomb and all of its contents, which likely date between the first century BCE and the first century CE, will soon be published.

‘Ain-Motlla or el-Zohor

This site is located one kilometre north of Kharga on the highway to Assiut (Figure 3). Mud-brick ruins and rock-cut tombs are visible at the site. From 1997 until 2009, the site has been excavated during several campaigns. The work has been continued during this time on both the north and the south sides. Some ordinary tombs were discovered. All include human bones, ceramic jars, some amulets and other objects. During the first season, 18 tombs were discovered to the south of the hill, dating to the Seventeenth Dynasty and the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty. This is an important discovery, since the Zohor tombs were the first Pharaonic burials identified in Kharga Oasis. At the north site there were Greek and Roman tombs, some of them built with mud bricks. Others were carved into the rock. Scientific publication of this important site is in progress. Most recently, the following were discovered at el-Zohor during June 2009: 71 Coptic burials in addition to two Roman tombs and one Pharaonic tomb, which probably dates back to the Late Period (Plate 7) and is partly destroyed. Inside these tombs many objects were discovered, such as ceramics of different shapes and sizes, ceramic beads, human bones, many complete mummies, scarabs, kohl-pots, a silver cross and a crux ansata (Plate 8). All these objects are under study.

Figure 3 Map of Kharga Oasis (R. Garcier).

Plate 7 el-Zohor: burial; © B. A. Ibrahim.

Plate 8 el-Zohor: crux ansata from a burial; © B. A. Ibrahim.

Author s Affiliation and Email Address:

Director of el-Kharga Antiquities Zone

New Valley,

Egypt

[e-mail]

Wanderers in the Desert: The North Kharga Oasis Survey’s Exploration of the Darb ‘Ain Amur

Salima Ikram

The North Kharga Oasis Survey (NKOS) of the American University in Cairo, co-directed by Corinna Rossi and the author, has spent several seasons locating, identifying, and mapping sites in the northern part of the Kharga Oasis depression, from the northern escarpment to some 15 kilometres north of Kharga Town (Rossi 2000; Rossi and Ikram 2002; Rossi and Ikram 2006; Rossi and Ikram in press, a; Ikram and Rossi 2002–2003; Ikram and Rossi 2004b; Ikram and Rossi 2007; Ikram 2005; Ikram 2006; Ikram 2007; Ikram 2008a and b).¹ Initial work was focused on the main body of the oasis, but in the past few seasons attention has shifted to tracing the Darb ‘Ain Amur, a route that connects Kharga and Dakhleh Oases (Figure 1), and is the subject of this paper (Ikram 2008b; Ikram 2006; Ikram 2005; Rossi and Ikram in press a, b; Winlock 1936). The track takes its name from the site of ‘Ain Amur, the ‘Spring of the Moon’, located two-thirds of the way up the escarpment of the Abu Tartur plateau at the south-western end of the Kharga depression, en route to Dakhleh oasis. This route was in regular use by locals with donkeys as recently as 1983 (Giddy 1987, 11) as well as occasionally by small camel caravans.

Parameters of the Route

The portion of the route that is being investigated starts at the site of Qasr Lebekha, a Roman-era fort and settlement with antecedents that date at least to the Ptolemaic Period (Ibrahim et alii 2008). It then crosses a low spur of the northern escarpment of the oasis going west to the contemporary fort and settlement of Umm el-Dabadib (Rossi and Ikram 2006). From here the route proceeds to the temple, spring, and enclosure of ‘Ain Amur, before climbing up the escarpment, and thence to Dakhleh. The standing remains at ‘Ain Amur consist of a large mud-brick enclosure containing the spring, a sandstone temple, the remains of some settlement activity, a cemetery, and lookout points (Rossi and Ikram in press, a). The Darb itself is very clearly defined here, both in the direction of ascension to Dakhleh and descent to Kharga. At ‘Ain Amur the route ascends the Abu Tartur plateau, crosses it, and descends into the Dakhleh oasis in the area around Teneida. As with many other desert routes, the Darb ‘Ain Amur is not a single path, but rather a series of roughly parallel and sometimes interconnecting paths that have been created over time as travellers negotiate the changing terrain of the desert and adapt to it, taking into consideration their own practical needs in terms of speed, ability of their mounts, and access to sustenance (Ikram 2006, 18–23; Rossi and Ikram in press, b). The routes remain quite varied due to the continuing movement of Barchan dunes in the area (Beadnell 1910; Ashri 1974). As one might expect, the various routes are punctuated with stopping points, or mahattas, that play a major role in the NKOS survey. These are often characterized by a dense sherd scatter and occasional inscriptions concentrated around the area of a large rock or inselberg. In some instances it is possible that remains of small seasonal lakes, or a high level of ground water made such sites more attractive to wayfarers.

The march between Qasr Lebekha and Umm el-Dabadib is relatively easy and can be carried out in a day, depending on how heavily laden and large the caravan might be (Rossi and Ikram 2002). As the crow flies, the distance between the two sites is only 14 kilometres, but in reality the travel-distance is closer to 20 kilometres or more. Here again, several routes are possible, and as water was available at both sites, the traverse was not a great worry for ancient travellers. Indeed, the work of the 2009–2010 season of NKOS revealed at least two sites (Far Horizons and Water Site) well supplied with qanats, lying between these two major settlements. These were clearly locations often used as short-term stops, as evidenced by the plethora of graffiti marking the rocks in the area in Wadi Bershama and West Lebekha Petroglyphs. Petroglyphs and pot scatters of various periods marked other branches of this route (Rossi and Ikram 2002).

Figure 1 Sketch map of the route of the Darb ‘Ain Amur; drawing by C. Rossi and N. Warner.

Plate 1 Stone emplacement for pots; © S. Ikram.

The journey between Umm el-Dabadib and ‘Ain Amur is much longer, approximately 44 kilometres as the crow flies, but, depending on the path taken (either by intent or accident) the route can be as long as 60 kilometres, if not more. Its point of departure from Umm el-Dabadib is not obvious and it would seem that many jump-off points are viable. At ‘Ain Amur itself, the path is much clearer. Some branches of the caravan route are clearly delineated by broad spaces whose surface has been pounded flat over centuries of use by humans and animals, with portions still bearing the meandering tracks of camels and the straighter paths worn by the hooves of donkeys. Further evidence of the track is found in the form of shattered pots lining the routes, as well as the ever-present cairns that mark its different branches, and today sometimes lead the unsuspecting traveller into dune fields.

The Environment

The majority of the Darb ‘Ain Amur lies between Umm el-Dabadib and ‘Ain Amur. At least eight major dune fields, running north to south, interrupt the desert here. Wadis of differing sizes are found in the depression, with a concentration in the north. Portions of the tracks skirt or, in a few instances, go through the remains of ancient playas, a few of which have sparse vegetation in the form of tamarisk trees and some camel thorn. The remaining parts of the desert vary between very powdery, treacherous sand that is difficult to march through, some more navigable sand, and large expanses of sand covered by limestone pebbles and boulders that is extremely hard to walk (or drive) through. In some instances it is clear that the caravan route took long detours in an effort to avoid either this rocky terrain or the very powdery sand. In most of the area the landscape is not overly blessed with large sandstone massifs to provide shelter to travellers; some of the extant ones are swallowed by sand dunes, while others are set in inhospitable terrain. The few suitably situated rocks have indeed been used by travellers over the ages, as is attested by sherds and inscriptions.

Range of Activity in the Region

Inscriptions, small finds, and ceramics in the area indicate that the Darb ‘Ain Amur has been exploited from the prehistoric period to the present – indeed, cattle and camel smugglers are said to have used this route in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, in addition to the Darb ‘Ain Amur’s mahatta, NKOS has also found other types of sites in the western extension of Kharga. The majority of these take the form of petroglyphs pecked or incised on rock faces. Additionally, NKOS has discovered several prehistoric campsites, complete with chipped stone tools, ostrich egg-shell beads and fragments, querns, and handstones. Most seem to date from the Neolithic or later, although there are a few locations that might be of an earlier vintage. Sites for extracting raw materials have also been found during the course of the survey: a identification of a quarry for grinding stones was made by the geologist, Per Storemyr, and several sites for alum extraction have been tentatively identified in the area to the west and south of Umm el-Dabadib. A few examples of each type of site will be presented below.

Mahattas

There are several mahattas found along the different branches of the Darb ‘Ain Amur; here I shall focus on only a few of these to give a sense of the type of evidence NKOS has encountered over the years. One of these spots, Pot Drop, dates exclusively (based on surface sherd identification) to the Roman era. It is found in a relatively direct route some 13 kilometres west of Umm el-Dabadib, and marked by several cairns. The site is actually located on a low rise and consists of a series of stone emplacements for pottery. The emplacements are fairly simple, consisting of two squares made of piled sandstone, measuring between 30 and 50 centimetres (Plate 1). A few roughly square single emplacements were also noted, although the double ones are more common. Remains of what might possibly be crude rock shelters are situated near the pot emplacements and might have been used to shelter lookouts posted to ensure the safety of travellers as they passed through this rocky terrain. In some instances the jar emplacements were situated within these structures.

The majority of ceramics recovered from this area were amphorae, LRA 7. Some oddities of shape in the necks of these amphorae might suggest that they were of local production, although this is still debatable.² Some examples of a few more globular shaped vessels were also identified. One bore the painted image of a bird with some vegetation beneath its feet, and was tentatively dated to the late fifth through the early sixth centuries CE. The pottery also included body sherds of other oasis wares. The date range for LRA 7 is wide, from the fifth to the tenth centuries CE. Possibly the examples found here are closer in date to the fifth/sixth centuries CE, when this area was heavily trafficked, rather than from later on, but this need not be the case. Further investigation of the area might yield more information.

There are faint traces of petroglyphs of an indeterminate period in a small wadi, some eight metres long, that cuts into the rise. Images of a human, birds, and unidentifiable quadrupeds could be discerned here. Most probably these were not made at one time. Between 12 and 17 kilometres east of ‘Ain Amur lies a cluster of rocks that skirt the edge of the Abu Tartur plateau (Rocks 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 19 and Scribe Rock). These probably mark a branch of the track that connected to the Darb el-Ghubari, the gentler, but longer, route between Kharga and Dakhleh, and the one that the modern asphalt road follows today. Due to the very intense sherd scatter surrounding it, Rock 5, a fairly eroded rock, is one of the most notable in the group. It lies about 14 kilometres west of ‘Ain Amur. Most of the sherds are very small and bitty and difficult to identify as few diagnostics remain. Kegs, a few LRA 7 amphorae, and some glazed sherds, possibly of Mamluk date, have been recovered from here, together with the bowl of an Ottoman pipe whose precise date is still to be determined. Clearly this was a significant branch of the route from the fifth century through the Ottoman period, if not longer. A few engraved wusum (Bedouin tribal marks), including one that looks like an ankh sign, were found on the north face of the rock. Rocks 6, 7 and 8 also have similar scatters. Rock 8 has the added distinction of also hosting possible Prehistoric activity in the form of grinding stones and what might be tumuli – without excavation this cannot be determined with surety, together with pottery from the Roman era and perhaps the late New Kingdom.

Some of the sites recently discovered by NKOS indicate a significant variant in the route, one that links the site of Beleida, just some 4.5 kilometres west of Bagawat and the site of a large Roman (if not earlier) settlement, in a diagonal, to the Darb ‘Ain Amur. A large rock with a significant number of pots around it has been defined as Pot Palace. The sherds seem to be exclusively Roman in date. The assemblage is dominated by kegs, including occasional kegs with filters, handles, and/or stamps. Non-keg forms are very rare, but include LRA 7, LRA 1, bowls and an early Roman pitcher.³ Clearly this was an important stopping point in the Kharga-Dakhleh route in the Roman period. A little to the north of this rock another small rocky outcrop (Pet Rock) sported an Arabic inscription (probably relatively modern – 1980s or so), and two Coptic inscriptions that were fairly eroded, but seemed to be of the ‘so-and-so was here’ type. Sherds of the fourth to the sixth century CE were noted, as well as glass of the third to the early sixth centuries CE, and the skeleton of a donkey of undetermined date. There is a surprising paucity of animal bones found in this area; one would expect many more bones left along the route, but either the route did not have too many casualties, or the bones have been reduced to powder. To the south-east of Pot Palace a small outcrop was surrounded by a light sherd scatter dating to the fifth and sixth centuries CE. The south and east sides of the rock were densely covered by Coptic graffiti which are currently being studied.⁴ About 70 metres north-east from this rock is another large massif, which bears an image of a so-called ‘fat lady’. This human figure is probably much earlier in date (Ikram 2009a and James 2012 for discussions of these images), possibly separated in time from the Coptic graffiti by more than 5,000 years, a common chronological phenomenon in this part of Kharga oasis.

These few examples of mahattas in the area indicate a variety of paths that connected to form the Darb ‘Ain Amur. It seems that from the fourth and fifth centuries onward (and maybe even before) Beleida, rather than Qasr Lebekha, was the principal starting point for the Darb ‘Ain Amur for larger caravans. Certainly this would be practical as the large town of Beleida would be better suited than the smaller site of Qasr Lebekha to equip (and tax) caravan traffic to and from Dakhleh and beyond, and the Nile Valley. It was also more central to the life of the oasis. This idea seems to be supported by the experience of more recent travellers: a similar route was favoured by both Wilkinson and Winlock, some sixty-odd years apart (Wilkinson 1843, 365–7; Winlock 1936, plate 1), and is mentioned by Beadnell (1909, 171). Additionally, the terrain in this area is less challenging, albeit longer, than the route going to Qasr Lebekha. Another possibility is that the Lebekha route might have been favoured by travellers coming from more northerly points in the Nile Valley, and going straight across to Dakhleh, while the Hibis/Beleida exit point was favoured by those entering Kharga from a more southerly direction. Further work on these routes and significant stopping places might help establish which strands of the Darb ‘Ain Amur were active at particular times in history.

Petroglyphs

Petroglyphs are found throughout the western extension of the Kharga Depression, with fewer examples coming from the oasis proper (Rowe and Schacht 2004; Rossi and Ikram in press, a, b), with the notable exception of the quarries at Gebel el-Teir (Fakhry 1951; Devauchelle and Wagner 1984; Cruz-Uribe 1994; Cruz-Uribe 1995). This might be due to two reasons; firstly, once in the main part of the oasis people would be spending their time in settled rather than marginal areas, and secondly, there is a paucity of good stone surfaces in the body of the oasis.

The majority of the petroglyphs discovered take the form of animals (Ikram 2009a, 2009b), and, for the most part, date to the prehistoric/Predynastic periods. The dynastic era is well represented by a series of inscriptions, some dating to the Old Kingdom, and many others inscribed in the New Kingdom. Images of deities, particularly Seth, as well as some animals, were also engraved during the Dynastic Period, and found on several inselbergs in the area. Here only two very different rock art sites will be discussed, to give a sense of the wide range of evidence from the area.

Plate 2 The painted panel from Nick’s Grotto; © S. Ikram.

A particularly interesting group of images were found some 2.5 kilometres east of ‘Ain Amur, off the main track. This site, Nick’s Grotto, is a rocky overhang in a small bay about 50 metres off the main ‘Ain Amur track, and was unusual in that it contained painted rather than carved images. Painted images are well attested from the Gebel Uwainat and Wadi Sura regions of the Western Desert, but few examples are found this far east in the Sahara. This overhang commanded a view of the route and was well-shaded and quite secluded; part of the overhang has crumbled away, so the lower portion of the painted surface is lost. There was no datable ceramic evidence found on the surface. The paintings in it were made at different times, as is obvious from superpositioning, patina and the differential preservation of paint.

A long vertical panel dominated the grotto, with some faint traces of painted images still discernible on the ceiling. The ones on the ceiling were burnt sienna in colour, probably having faded from a brighter red ochre-based paint. The ceiling images consisted of the remains of chunky bovids. The legs of the cattle were better preserved than their bodies.

The main panel (Plate 2), starting from the left, showed at least three cows/bulls/oxen. The first two were not very well preserved – only the curved upside-down U of their legs was bright, while the head and horns were more faded, as was the case with the animals on the ceiling. The third animal was brighter and far better preserved. Whether it was painted slightly later than the other two, or was brighter due to an accident of preservation is hard to tell. Beyond it was the image of a man, also in red. The man looked as if he was shown fully frontal, holding what might be a shield in one hand and perhaps a weapon in the other. He might also be interpreted as holding out a jar of some sort, but this is unclear. A jar of some sort is pictured just beyond him, and might well be part of the same pictorial event. It seems as if the cattle were one event, and the man holding the shield/jar another.

After the vignette of the man comes a group at the bottom, broken, edge of the grotto. This group seems to be a discrete unit and shows a man, facing proper right toward the man with the shield, and some birds. He and some of the birds are painted in a different, slightly browner, shade of red. Unfortunately we had no colour charts to hand when this area was explored. Some of the birds seemed to be contemporary with the man, while others might have been drawn later, a supposition based both on style and colour. The man and a few of the ducks were clearly Pharaonic in style, reminiscent of sketches from New Kingdom Thebes. Others were in a much darker red and more ponderous in their execution. If they were all made at the same time, they were drawn by a different, and less gifted artist. These non-Pharaonic looking birds were at a slight remove from the others, and might have been associated with an image of a man, facing front, wearing what looks very much like a bowler hat (although it is highly unlikely that is what it is). Stylistically, this man and the crudely-drawn birds probably date to the Coptic-Byzantine era at the earliest, although it is quite possible that they are much later in date.

Plate 3 The petroglyphs on Hula Rock; © S. Ikram.

Plate 4 An image of Horus and Seth on Hula Rock; © S. Ikram.

To the right of the standing, behatted man, is the fragmentary figure of another kilted man, facing proper right. His head has been eroded away, to a large extent. Beyond him are other painted bovids. These do not, however, resemble the animals on the far side of the panel or the ceiling; they are more static and geometric in form than the others, and are probably of a later date. The colour of the man and the animal is a light orange, presumably faded from a deeper red.

At a higher level of the panel, between the man with the shield and the behatted man, is a curious vignette showing a large figure of a man wearing what might be some sort of greaves or boots of some sort, as well as a shendyt-style kilt, with his right hand upraised, reminiscent of a smiting pose, and his left hand at his side, holding some sort of bag or small receptacle. The upraised hand clasps a stick or mace. He too, like the smaller figure with the birds, faces to his right. A crescent moon oriented horizontally, with a dot in the centre, is painted beneath the raised hand. This appears to be superimposed over a curious design that might be interpreted as a group of buildings, and is of an earlier date than the man and the moon. Beyond this image is a painting of a canid, also facing proper right, running toward a structure that takes the form of the hieroglyph ḥwt. The man, dog, and building seem to be of the same scale and colour and part of a group, while the crescent and building complex belong to another – or maybe even two – separate events.

The panel clearly was painted at different times, possibly reflecting six separate events. Thus far there are no parallels in the ‘Ain Amur, or indeed, even the Kharga area for such images. The only vaguely similar images have been noted in a limestone quarry in the Theban area,⁵ which yielded material used to build the memorial temples of Hatshepsut and Amenhotep III (Petrie 1909, 15–16; Bickel 1997, 15–35, Tafeln 5–16; Nishimoto et alii 2002). A provisional examination of the ceramics and inscriptional evidence from the quarry indicate New Kingdom and Romano-Byzantine dates, although it is quite possible that some of the drawings date to the intervening years.

Another unusual group of petroglyphs were found on a rock named Hula Rock, some 17 kilometres east of ‘Ain Amur. This site is located on a large massif that measures approximately 0.22 kilometres in length and is roughly oriented north-west–south-east. A scatter of late third to late fifth century ceramics, together with a very few sherds dating to the late New Kingdom, were noted at the north-western end. The rock is only decorated on the north-eastern face. The images that give the site its name are located halfway along the rock, some 50 metres or so up the rock face. They consist of a series of deeply incised vertical lines that look like a skirt worn by hula dancers, narrower at the top and flaring out at the bottom (Plate 3). At least two long ‘skirts’ are visible. Another set of smaller ‘skirts’ has been commandeered by a later artist to form the legs and tail for a giraffe. This adaptation is not entirely successful as the giraffe appears to have six legs too many. This abstract design is unusual in the oasis. NKOS has found a curving abstract design on Aa’s Rock during the course of earlier seasons (Ikram 2009a,72–3);⁶ however, that pattern might well represent some sort of trap or other feature. It is unclear what the images on Hula Rock are meant to represent – if anything. They could be interpreted as a sign for rain or a cascade of water, and might be a form of sympathetic magic. Perhaps the drawing had water poured over it to encourage rain? Conversely, these lines originating from a narrow point and fanning out might indicate the rays of the sun, reminiscent of the Aten, but missing the crucial solar disk. They could also be interpreted as images of tracks, starting out from a single point and then opening out, as is seen on the Darb ‘Ain Amur. Other interpretations might suggest that the lines represent wadis, or even bunches of grass or some other plant.

To the north-west on the same rock, closer to the sherd scatter, NKOS found a few isolated carved images of seated Seth-animals, and the very faint remains of two inscriptions, one of which seems to feature a badly drawn falcon-type bird, indicative of Horus (Plate 4). The Horus/Seth imagery, similar to that of Amun-Nakht in some cases, is not unique to this rock; Seth Rock, located less than a kilometre to the north, is rich in images of Seth. Other rocks throughout the western part of the Kharga depression bear images of Seth, as well as of Horus. It is logical that Seth, Lord of the Desert, was invoked along this route. Indeed, he is present in several temples in both Kharga and Dakhleh oases. The presence of Horus is easily explained as he and Seth are often paired together, balancing the control of the desert and the Nile Valley, and keeping people safe in both. Further work on dating and mapping the locations of petroglyphs might provide more information about the routes travelled at different times in history. These images also flesh out the history of human exploitation of the area. The Darb ‘Ain Amur and the landscape that it traverses still need further exploration. NKOS hopes to continue to document the tracks, mahattas, rock shelters, petroglyphs, inscriptions, cairns and sherd scatters along it, in an effort to understand the different ways in which this part of the Kharga depression was exploited by humans throughout its long history.

Author’s Affiliation and Email Address:

American University in Cairo

[e-mail]

REFERENCES

Ashri, A. H., 1974, The Movement of Sand Dunes at Kharga Oasis, Egyptian Journal of Geology 17.1, 37–46.

Beadnell, H. J. L., 1909, An Egyptian Oasis: An account of the oasis of Kharga in the Libyan Desert, London.

Beadnell, H. J. L., 1910, The Sand-Dunes of the Libyan Desert. Geog. Journal 35, 379–95.

Bickel, S., 1997, Untersuchungen im Totentempel des Merenptah in Theben III: Tore und andere wiederverwendete Bauteile Amenophis III, Stuttgart.

Campbell, D., 1935, Camels through Libya, London.

Cruz-Uribe, E., 1994, The Demotic Graffiti from Gebel Teir (Kharga Oasis), Acta Demotica, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 17, 79–86.

Cruz-Uribe, E., 1995, Hibis Temple Project: The Demotic Graffiti of Gebel Teir, San Antonio.

Devauchelle, D. and G. Wagner, 1984, Les graffites du Gebel Teir: Textes démotiques et grecs, Cairo.

Fakhry, A., 1951, The Rock Inscriptions of Gabal el-Teir at Kharga Oasis, Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 51, 401–34.

Giddy, L., 1987, Egyptian oases: Bahariya, Farafra, Dakhleh and Kharga during Pharaonic Times, Warminster.

Hope, C. A. and A. J. Pettman, this volume, Egyptian Connections with Dakhleh Oasis in the Early Dynastic Period to Dynasty IV: new data from Mut al-Kharab, 147–65.

Ibrahim, B. A., F. Dunand, J.-L. Heim, R. Lichtenberg and M. Hussein, 2008, Le materiel archéologique et les restes humains de la Nécropole d’Ain el-Labakha, Paris.

Ikram, S., 2005, Brief Report of the North Kharga Oasis Survey’s 2005 Season, Bulletin of the American Research Center in Egypt 187, 8–11.

Ikram, S., 2006, Paths, Petroglyphs, and Piety: the North Kharga Oasis Survey 2006 Season, Bulletin of the American Research Center in Egypt 190, 18–23.

Ikram, S., 2007, The North Kharga Oasis Survey: A Brief Overview, in J. C. Goyon and C. Cardin, eds, Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, Leuven, 953–59.

Ikram, S., 2008a, Egypt’s Frontier Oasis: A Visual Journey, Archaeology 61.6, 36–41.

Ikram, S., 2008b, The North Kharga Oasis Survey, Bulletin of the American Research Center in Egypt 193, 28–31.

Ikram, S., 2009a, Drawing the World: Petroglyphs from Kharga Oasis, Archéo-Nil 19, 67–82.

Ikram, S., 2009b, A Desert Zoo: An exploration of meaning and reality of animals in the rock art of Kharga Oasis, in H. Riemer, F. Förster, M. Herb and N. Pöllath, eds, Desert animals in the eastern Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne December 14–15, 2007, Cologne, 263–91.

Ikram, S. and C. Rossi, 2002–2003, Surveying the North Kharga Oasis, KMT 13.4, 72–9.

Ikram, S. and C. Rossi, 2004a, An Early Dynastic Serekh from Kharga Oasis, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 90, 211–15.

Ikram, S. and C. Rossi, 2004b, North Kharga Oasis Survey 2001–2002 Preliminary Report: Ain Gib and Qasr el-Sumayra, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 60, 69–92.

Ikram, S. and C. Rossi, 2007, North Kharga Oasis Survey 2004 Preliminary Report: Ain el-Tarakwa, Ain el-Dabashiya and Darb Ain Amur, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 63, 167–84.

James, D., 2012, Ambiguous Images: The Problems and Possibilities of Analysing Rock-art Images in the Egyptian Western Desert, in C. M. Knoblauch and J. C. Gill, eds, Egyptology in Australia and New Zealand 2009, Proceedings of the conference held in Melbourne, September 4th–6th, Oxford, 71–84.

Nishimoto, S., Y. Yoshimura and J. Kondo, 2002, Hieratic Inscriptions from the Quarry at Qurna: an interim Report. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 1: 14–25. thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/bmsaes/issue1/nishimoto.html.

Petrie, W. M. F., 1909, Gurneh, London.

Rossi, C., 2000, Umm el-Dabadib, Roman Settlement in the Kharga Oasis: Description of the Visible Remains, with a note on Ayn Amur, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 56, 235–52.

Rossi, C. and S. Ikram, 2002, Petroglyphs & Inscriptions Along the Darb Ain Amur, Kharga Oasis, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 129: 142–51.

Rossi, C. and S. Ikram, 2006, North Kharga Oasis Survey 2003 Preliminary Report: Umm el-Dabadib, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 62, 279–306.

Rossi, C. and S. Ikram, in press, a, North Kharga Oasis Survey 2007 Preliminary Report: Ain Lebekha and Ain Amur, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 64.

Rossi, C. and S. Ikram, in press, b, Evidence of desert routes across northern Kharga (Egypt’s Western Desert), in F. Förster and H. Riemer, eds, Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond, Cologne.

Rowe, A. and I. Schacht, 2004, A Preliminary Interpretation of Newly-Discovered Petrogyphs From Northern Kharga Oasis, Sahara 15, 118–21.

Wilkinson, J. G., 1843, Modern Egypt and Thebes, I–II, London.

Winlock, H. E., 1936, Ed Dakhleh Oasis: Journal of a camel trip made in 1908, New York.

¹ The NKOS team has varied over the years. I am particularly grateful to the Darb ‘Ain Amur group: M. I. Ahmed Ali, A. Belekdanian, C. Boyer, P. Collet, A. Gascoigne, D. Huyge, N. Lazarides, P. Rose, P. Storemyr, L. Warden, N. Warner, and the Pan Arab team, as well as the National Geographic Society, the Antiquities Endowment Fund, the American University in Cairo, and the Friends of Kharga Oasis.

² I am grateful to A. Gascoigne and P. Rose for looking at the material.

³ The ceramic analysis is grace of L. Warden and P. Rose.

⁴ N. Lazarides and C. Boyer are in charge of this, in consultation with J. Westerfield and E. Cruz-Uribe.

⁵ I am deeply indebted to Andres Diego for pointing out this parallel and for providing me with photographs of the Theban example.

⁶ The reading of the name Aa has been questioned and an identification as Qa’a proposed, one of the initial possibilities proposed by Ikram and Rossi (2004a): see Hope and Pettman, this volume.

Demotische und kursivhieratische Ostraka aus Mut al-Kharab

Günter Vittmann

Während der andauernden Grabungen der Australischen Mission in Mut al-Kharab wurden bisher, zwischen 2001 und 2009, im Temenos des Seth-Tempels mehr als 500 Ostraka in ägyptischen Kursivschriften entdeckt,¹ darunter kleine und kleinste Fragmente, und es ist mit einem weiteren Anwachsen in den nachsten Kampagnen zu rechnen. Die genaue Anzahl der bis jetzt an Licht gekommenen Stücke läßt sich nicht angeben, da es manchmal wegen des schlechten Erhaltungszustands unmöglich ist zu entscheiden, ob ein bestimmter Text in Demotisch, (Kursiv)hieratisch oder Griechisch bzw. Koptisch geschrieben war, oder ob die betreffende Scherbe überhaupt beschrieben war. Außerdem können isolierte Fragmente, die separat registriert wurden, gegebenenfalls und noch unerkannt als Teile eines zerbrochenen Stücks zusammengehören.

Das meiste ist Demotisch und kann in die zweite Hälfte der Ptolemäerzeit datiert werden, es gibt jedoch auch eine relativ kleine, aber wichtige Anzahl hieratischer Ostraka. Die notorischen Schwierigkeiten des Demotischen auf der einen Seite und der nahezu regelmäßig schlechte Erhaltungszustand² auf der anderen machen das Studium dieses Materials zu einer zeitaufwendigen Angelegenheit.³ Von Anfang an sollten aber drei Aspekte beachtet werden:

(1) Von keiner anderen Fundstätte in Dakhleh kommen so viele demotische Ostraka wie aus Mut. Zudem stammen die Objekte aus einem gesicherten archäo-logischen Kontext, worin sie sich von den noch weit zahlreicheren sogenannten Oxyrhynchos-Ostraka in Pisa und Köln unterscheiden, deren Herkunft eher in der Westwüste zu suchen ist (Bahriyya?, vgl. Litera-turhinweise bei Den Brinker et alii 2005, 813).

(2) Sowohl hinsichtlich Inhalt als auch Formular(en) unterscheiden sich die demotischen Ostraka aus Mut häufig von dem, was aus dem Niltal bekannt ist. In Anbetracht des Fundplatzes kann es nicht überraschen, daß sich die Texte mit kultischen, finanziellen und administrativen Belangen des Seth-Tempels befassen.

(3) Die hieratischen Dokumente sind von besonderer Bedeutung für Entwicklung und Verbreitung der vordemotischen Kursivschriften im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Bekanntlich war das sogenannte Kursiv-oder „Abnormhieratische" während der 25. und 26. Dynastie die in Theben für dokumentarische Texte gebräuchliche Schriftart, bevor es im Laufe der Regierungszeit des Amasis (570–526 v.Chr.) vom Demotischen verdrängt und abgelöst wurde (Donker van Heel 1994). Die neuen Funde aus Mut sowie aus Amhida bestätigen aber, daß das Kursivhieratische auch außerhalb der Thebais in Gebrauch war.

Während es aber im Niltal unüblich war, Kursiv-hieratisch sowie – mit seltenen Ausnahmen (Zauzich 2006/7, 100) – Frühdemotisch auf Ostraka zu schreiben, war dies in den Oasen, wo vielmehr demotische Papyrusurkunden eine Seltenheit darstellen,⁴ völlig normal; man denke nur an die frühdemotischen Ostraka aus ‘Ain Manawir (Chauveau 1996; 2003; 2004).

Da die hieratischen Texte aus Mut älter als die demotischen sind, ist es sinnvoll, mit ihnen zu beginnen. Für „ normales " Standardhieratisch ist bisher, von einem vereinzelten Fragment⁵ abgesehen, nur ein einziges eindeutiges Beispiel bekannt: Zwei aneinander an-schließnde, in verschiedenen Kampagnen aufgetauchte Fragmente (0/20 + 32/1) nennen (Abbildung 1):

Abbildung 1

Abbildung 2

Abbildung 3

Abbildung 4

(1) Gottesvater des Seth, Pa[…

(2) Gottesvater des Seth, Pa[…

(3) Gottesvater des , Nespa[…

Mehrere andere Ostraka (Abrechnungen u.ä.; Briefe) repräsentieren, wie schon erwähnt, den sonst überwiegend in Theben anzutreffenden kursivhieratischen Typus.⁶ Abbildung 2 zeigt die Konvexseite von 4/3, das mit der Datierung „Dritter Monat der schemu-Jahreszeit (= Payni), Tag 12" beginnt und verschiedene Personennamen wie Pairkep, Harsiese, Iret …, Anchhor und Mench … enthält. Weitere meist typische Spätzeitnamen finden sich auf 6/12 (Abbildung 3): Auf der Konvexseite erscheinen An(u)tja, Jufdi (‘lw=f=dj „Er ist hier"), Harwa Sohn des Amenirdis, auf der Konkavseite Paiuiu (Pз-ỉwỉw „Der Hund"), Paiuwah,⁷ Irthorru Sohn des Tja[…], Pascheramun.

Es gibt einen fragmentarischen Brief, der nicht dem typischen Kursivhieratischen der 25. und 26. Dynastie entspricht, möglicherweise – aber das ist noch unsicher – ist er ein wenig früher zu datieren (13/6, Abbildung 4). In Z. 3 erkennt man „Leben, Heil und Gesundheit an jedem Tag(?), in der folgenden Zeile „Lob und Beliebtheit vor (ḥs mr m-bзḥ), was zweifellos als Teil einer im Briefstil üblichen Phrase zu verstehen ist (etwa „Amun gebe dir Lob und Beliebtheit vor dem Pharao" zu ergänzen).

Abbildung 5

Abbildung 6

Abbildung 7

In der Kampagne vom Januar 2009 wurden drei zusammengehörige größere Fragmente eines Briefes geborgen. Leider ist das meiste nicht zum geringsten wegen der gravierenden Beschädigungen und Lücken noch unverständlich (29/14, Abbildung 5). Der Terminus tech-nicus pз ḫrw, wörtlich „die Stimme, mit dem der Text eingeleitet wird, konnte auch in 6/116; 8/27, 9/17, 29/14 und Tomb 1/10 identifiziert werden. Das kurze, aber vollständig erhaltene Dokument 9/17 (Abbildung 6) enthält „die Stimme des Sethirdis, Sohnes des Chonsuirdis, die/der vor Ruru, Sohn des Namenchamun, ist. Es geht darum, daß ein gewisser Besenmut⁸ etwas empfängt; die Details sind vorläufig unklar.

Wenden wir uns nun dem umfangreichen demotischen Material zu!

Wie auch andernorts in Ägypten finden wir Namen-listen, Quittungen⁹ und Abrechnungen¹⁰ wie z.B. 18/164 (Abbildung 7):

Tabelle 1 An Phibis, Sohn des Peteyris, von den Schreibern des Seth adressierte Zahlungsanweisungen.

Tabelle 2 weitere Ostraka, die Phibis, Sohn des Peteyris, nennen.

(1) „Die die aus der Hand des Horos empfangen und quittiert(?) wurden.

Im einzelnen: Die Ausgabe(n), (2) die gemacht wurden(?) für

Phibis, 1/10;

Harsiesis, 1/10;

(3) Phibis, 1/5;

Nes…, (Sohn des) Peteimuthes, 1/10;

was gemacht wurde(?) als Ausstattung (4) für den Mann, der nach Hibis ging, 1/10;

Phibis, (5) 1/10;

was gemacht wurde(?) im Haus (? =Tempel?) 1/10;

Harsiesis, 1/10;

(6) Komohatres(?), 1/10.

Macht insgesamt 1 (Artabe) Weizen."

Von höchstem Interesse ist ein ziemlich umfangreiches Archiv der Tempelverwaltung, das Anfang 2005 ans Licht kam.¹¹ Hervorstechendes Merkmal zahlreicher Ostraka dieses Fundes ist die Nennung eines Kollektivs der sogenannten „Schreiber des Seth" (nз sẖ.w Stḫ). Wo sie in den Dokumenten erscheinen, geben sie einem Beamten Anweisung, bestimmte Personen für Dienstleistungen, die mit dem Tempel in Verbindung stehen, zu bezahlen. Für diese Zahlungsanweisungen wird im allgemeinen die Formel mj tw=w „möge gegeben werden" benutzt, die bisher nur sporadisch von einigen Ostraka aus Dakhleh (Nur-el-Din 1982, 110–1, Nr. 19–20; Bagnall and Ruffini 2012, Nr. 315), Kharga (Kaplony-Heckel 2000, 716, Nr. 16–26) und dem Niltal (Muhs et alii 2006, 12–4) bezeugt war.

Abbildung 8

Von Jahr 4 bis 7 eines ungenannten Herrschers (der König wird in diesen Ostraka nie mit Namen genannt) ist als Adressat dieser Schreiben der „Schreiber des Seth" ein gewisser Phibis (Pз-hb), Sohn des Peteyris (Pз-dj-Ḥr), belegt (Tabelle 1).

Sehr wahrscheinlich derselbe Phibis, Sohn des Peteyris, ist in anderen Ostraka erwähnt, die zwischen „Jahr 3 und „Jahr 52 datieren. Da sich letzteres nur auf Ptolemaios VIII. beziehen kann (wie überhaupt ähnlich hohe und eindeutige Daten in Mut nicht selten belegt sind¹²), liegt es nahe, die Daten zwischen Jahr 3 und Jahr 10 in die Regierung von Kleopatra III. / Ptolemaios IX., also zwischen 115/4 und 108/7 v.Chr., zu setzen. Die Bezeugungen von Phibis, Sohn des Peteyris, würden somit also von Jahr 34 Ptolemaios’ VIII. (137/6 v.Chr.) bis zum Jahr 10 der genannten Herrscher (108/7 v.Chr.) reichen, also eine Zeitspanne von fast dreißig Jahren abdecken (Tabelle 2).

Wie aus Tabelle 1 und aus weiteren Dokumenten ersichtlich, spielt ḥtr, ein allgemeiner Ausdruck für „Verpflichtung, Notwendigkeit im Sinne von „(jährliche) Abgabe (an den Tempel), die in Geld oder Naturalien wie Öl, Getreide oder Wein gezahlt wird, in den Archiven des Seth-Tempels eine große Rolle.¹³ Die Zah-lungsanweisungen beginnen in der Regel (soweit erhalten) nach der Nennung von Absender und Adressat mit der Formel mj tw=w ẖn pз ḥtr n ḥз.t-sp x „Möge gegeben werden von der A/r-Abgabe des Jahres x". Ein gutes Beispiel, das freilich auch den nur mittelmäßgen Erhaltungszustand eines großen Teils des Materials wider-spiegelt, ist 18/60 (Abbildung 8):

(1) „Die Schreiber des Seth schreiben Phibis, Sohn des Peteyris: Mögen gegeben werden (2) von der ḥtr-Abgabe des Jahres 6 für die Illumination (sḥt?)¹⁴ des Sanktuars (ntj-wcb) (3) in den Monaten Phamenofh (und) Pharmuthi: Öl 15 (Hin), (für) die Brandopfer (4) des Festes der ⌈Mut⌉, ½ ¼ für die Illumination des Hauses der Mut … (5) unklar (6) … Phamenoth, Öl 1 (Hin)… …, Pharmuthi, 1 (Hin), (7) macht 2; 19¼, (die Hälfte davon macht) 9 ½ ⅛, macht 19¼ (Hin) wiederum.

(8) Geschrieben von Paraus(?) (im) Jahr 6, 11. Pharmuthi(?).

(9) Geschrieben von P… Sohn des Paos(?) entsprechend dem, was oben geschrieben ist. Öl (10) 15 Hin wiederum."

Interessant sind die unerwarteten, überraschenden Erwähnungen der Göttin Mut¹⁵ und eines ihr gewidmeten Heiligtums. Ein etymologischer Zusammenhang zwi-schen dem Namen der Göttin und dem Toponym Mut (Mūṭ) < Mωθις mag auf den ersten Blick verlockend erscheinen, ist jedoch im Hinblick auf die mutmaßliche hieroglyphische Entsprechung Mt (Kaper 1992, 130) unwahrscheinlich. Was die lokalen Kulte¹⁶ betrifft, ver-dient das gut erhaltene Ostrakon 21/4 besondere Beachtung (Abbildung 9):

„(1) Die Schreiber des Seth schreiben Sethirdis, Sohn des Petemestus:

Abbildung 9

(2) Mögen gegeben werden von der ḥtr-Abgabe des Jahres 4(?),¹⁷ entspricht Jahr 2, für (3) die Opfer-darbringung vor Seth, Osiris, Horus, Isis und die Götter, (4) die mit ihnen ruhen, zusammen mit dem, was in der Hand des Chons-neb-anch, (5) Sohnes des Paonchis, und(?) (der des) Petemestus, Sohnes des Sethirdis, gefunden wurde(?): insgesamt (?) 152 (Artaben) Weizen, (die Hälfte) macht 76 (Artaben) Weizen, macht 152 (Artaben) Weizen wiederum.

(6) Geschrieben von Tithoes, Sohn des Harpsemis, der im Namen des Chesthotes (7) des Tempelschreibers schreibt der im Namen der Priester des Neferhotep[-des]-Kindes schreibt.

(8) Geschrieben im Jahr 4(?), entspricht Jahr 2, 30. Pharmuthi."

Wie man sieht, werden die Götter des Osiriskreises –Osiris, Horus, Isis und allen voran natürlich Seth – zusammen mit den theoi synnaoi erwähnt. Wir dürfen daher annehmen, daß Gottheiten wie Mut in jene anonyme Gruppe integriert wurden ebenso wie Hathor, die in einer Abrechnung (22/86) erwähnt wird.

Eine hier nicht genannte Gottheit ist Imhotep, der in 18/141 erscheint:

Abbildung 10

„(1) Psenthotes, Sohn des Psenanuphis, der Be-vollmächtigte der Kultgemeinschaft des (2) Imhotep, Sohnes des Ptah, grüfit Phibis, (Sohn des) Peteyris: (3) Möge gegeben werden … 5½ 1/10(?), indem sie zu deinen Lasten sind, (als) Anteil für die Kultgemeinschaft (4) … … Jahr 2, das … das zu deinen Lasten ist. Es ist (5) empfangen und quittiert. Geschrieben (im) Jahr 3, 19. Pachon."

Obwohl diese Übersetzung wieder einmal mit den üblichen Unsicherheiten und Lücken behaftet ist, steht die Identifizierung dessen, was uns hier besonders interessiert, zweifelsfrei fest. Die Existenz einer Kult-gemeinschaft des vergöttlichten Imhotep in dieser Gegend ist bemerkenswert. Nahezu sämtliche demotischen Papyri mit den Satzungen der Kultgemeinschaften kommen aus dem Fayyum (de Cenival 1972; Muhs 2001; Monson 2005); aber ihre Existenz ist auch für Oberägypten bezeugt (de Cenival 1972, 103–52). Das besprochene Ostrakon stellt somit eine höchst willkommene geographische Erweiterung dar.

Ein bemerkenswert klares Beispiel für die Vergütung von Aktivitäten im Dienste von Tempel und Kult ist 18/81 (Abbildung 10):

„(1) Die Schreiber des Seth schreiben Phibis, Sohn des Peteyris: (2) Möge gegeben werden von der ḥtr-Abgabe des Jahres 6 an Haryotes, Sohn des Paonchis, (3) den Priester, für die Ausgaben dafür, daß er in die Stadt kam wegen (4) der Salbung: Öl (Hin) 12, (die Hälfte davon) macht (Hin) 6, (macht Hin) 12 wiederum. Geschrieben […] (5) Jahr 6, 27. Phamenoth 27(?).

(6) Geschrieben von Chensertais, Sohn des Imuthes, entsprechend dem, was [oben] geschrieben ist: (7) Öl (Hin) 12."

Die grammatische Konstruktion zeigt deutlich, daβ Haryotes erst seine Aufgabe zu erfüllen hatte „für das Salben" (wbз pз] tḥs), und erst im Nachhinein Ausla-genersatz erhielt „für die Ausgabe(n) des in die Stadt Kommens, das er machte. Der mit „Stadt übersetzte Ausdruck ist tjm (< dmj), der Vorläufer von Koptisch time. Vermutlich war „Stadt" als Gegensatz zum Tempelbereich gemeint, in dem Haryotes lebte, aber das ist unsicher.

Abbildung 11

Nicht immer ist klar, ob diese ḥtr-Abgaben sozusagen den Fonds darstellen, aus dem bestimmte Auslagen ersetzt werden, oder ob es um die Zahlung der ḥtr-Abgaben selbst geht. Diese Unsicherheit liegt einerseits am schlechten Erhaltungszustand vieler Ostraka und andererseits an der Mehrdeutigkeit der Präposition (n-/r-)ḏr.t, die sowohl „aus der Hand von; durch als auch „in die Hand von bedeuten kann. Eine gründliche vergleichende Analyse wird hier aber sicher weiterhelfen. In Fällen wie 18/43 steht es jedenfalls außer Zweifel, daß von einer Zahlung der ḥtr-Abgabe die Rede ist:

„ (1) Eingegangen (ỉw) von der Hand des Pbekis, Sohnes des Psenamunis(?): Die ḥtr-Abgabe (für das) (2) Jahr 41: Öl, 4 (Hin, die Hälfte) macht 2, macht [4] wiederum. Geschrieben von Pete[…], Jahr 42, 3. Epiph(?)." (Vgl.die Parallele O. Muzawwaqa 12, Nur-el-Din 1982, 108).

Ein wichtiges, aber im Detail schwer verständliches Dokument (18/113, Abbildungen 11 und 12), beginnt folgendermaßen:

„ (1) ..?.., Sohn des Imuthes, der für das Gottesopfer des Osiris verantwortlich ist, (2) grüßt Phibis, Sohn des Peteyris. Verpachtet habe ich dir die (3) Ausgaben(?!) für die 10 (Aruren?) meines ‘Lichtfeldes’ für(?) das Gottesopfer des Osiris, (4) das gegründet ist(?), vom Jahr 11, 1. Thot, bis 30. Mesore."

Abbildung 12

Offenbar geht es um die Verpachtung (sḥn) von Land an den uns bereits wohlbekannten Phibis, Sohn des Peteyris, durch einen Mann, der für die Opferstiftung (ḥtp-nṯr)des Osiris verantwortlich war. Der Begriff „Lichtfeld" (зḥ wjn) ist eigenartig; man fragt sich, ob ein inhaltlicher Zusammenhang mit den in der Saitenzeit belegten Feldern besteht, die zum Unterhalt einer Lampe bebaut wurden (ẖr-ḥbs; Leahy 1981; 1988, 185[e]). Ein Problem liegt auch darin, daß man zwar einen Acker verpachten kann, aber nicht die damit verbundenen Ausgaben (allenfalls die Einnahmen). Hier, wie in vielen anderen Ostraka, besteht noch Klärungsbedarf.

Überraschend und ungewöhnlich ist die einmalige Einleitung „eine Abstandnahme¹⁸ von seiten des Esharpokrates (wc wj n-ḏr.t Ns-ḥr-pз-ẖrd). Leider ist die Schrift auf dem betreffenden, in ein „Jahr 2 datierten Ostrakon 21/1 derart verblaßt, daß nahezu der gesamte Text unlesbar geworden ist, aber die zitierte Lesung ist sicher, und an zwei Stellen kann das Wort p3 hp „das Recht" identifiziert werden.

Im Material aus Mut sind auch verschiedene kürzere und längere Briefe vertreten. In einem ziemlich umfang-reichen Exemplar (22/83) spricht der Absender, dessen Name zerstört ist, zu einem Paminis, (Sohn des) Ptolemaios, von Olivenbäumen oder Olivenöl (das demotische Wort ḏjt bezeichnet beides). Trotz des ver-gleichsweise guten Erhaltungszustandes ist vieles noch nicht recht verständlich. Letzteres gilt auch für 18/65, wonach der Adressat Geld einsammeln (štj ḥḏ) soil, um irgend etwas vollständig zu bezahlen; auch von einer Zahlung an den Tempel (dj.t ḥḏ r pз ỉrpj) ist die Rede.

Ein anderer kurzer Brief (15/4) lautet:

Abbildung 13

„(1) Horos, Sohn des Har(p)chypsis, (2) grüßt Pataheba:¹⁹ Wenn(?) … (3) laß sie(? Pl.) nicht hier (4) … Silber (Deben) 1, Silber (Deben) 1 (sic). Wenn es geschieht, daß (5) Hermias sie (Pl.) empfangen hat, soll er das Gottesopfer schicken.„