Beyond the Fayum: The Development of Egypt's Western Oases during the Ptolemaic Period

]F

Beyond the Fayum:The Development of Egypt's Western Oases during the Ptolemaic Period

James C. R. Gill

Abstract

This paper argues that, like the Fayum, the oases of Eg,,pt's Western Desert were targeted by the Ptolemaic rulersfor development.This involved a process of new settlement foundation and agricultural exploitation, which together was designed to increase boththe population ofthe oases and the amount ofarable land under cultiyation. In this way, the Ptolemies ensured that additional foodsupplies were made available to the temple estates of the Nile Valley, which was particularly important during times of low-inundationwhen food stores were at their lowest.

Introduction

Under the early Ptolemaic kings the Fayum witnessed asignificant increase in population, evidenced by numerousnew settlements and extensive land reclamation andexploitation (Clarysse and Thompson 2006, 90; Davoli1998; H6lbl 2001, 62-63; Manning 2010, 5; Thompson2003, 108; cf. Monson 2012, 65-66). This developmentwas designed to meet the Ptolemies' need for increasedrevenue (Thompson 2008, 35), as well as providing arableland for kleruchs (Manning 2010, 161-163; Mueller 2006,183). The Fayum was apparently targeted because it wasthe only region with the necessary conditions to enablesuch extensive development, due to its low populationdensity, abundant arable land, and proximity to the Nile(Hdlbl 2001, 63; Manning 2010, 139); howeveq thePtolemies did not target the Fayum exclusively. The regionaround Oxyrhynchus also appears to have been developed,albeit not on the same scale as the Fayum (Thompson2008, 30), whilst certain areas of the Nile Delta, such asthe Wadi Tumilat, and parts of Upper Egypt also appear tohave been subject to increased settlement and exploitation(Davoli 2010, 353; Rowlandson 2003^256-25$.

The role of the Western Oases within the broaderdevelopment policy of the early Ptolemaic rulers haslargely remained unconsidered in the published literature,despite the fact that this region also met the criteria fordevelopment. This included proximity to the Nile Valley,low population density, and available arable land, not tomention the added advantage of year-round water supply(Figure l). Whilst recent studies have touched on theftolemaic exploitation of the oases (Darnell et al. 2013,30-31;Klotz 2013a,909; cf. also Gill 2014),the generalimpression gained in the published literature is that it wasunder the Romans that the oases were really developedand exploited (cf. Bagnall andRathbone 2004,262;Cruz-Uribe 2010, 502; Davoli 2010, 351-358; 2014, 6; Kaper1998, 148; Mif ls 1984,208-209;1985, 128; 1999,171,vanZoest and Kaper 2006, l2). The idea that Ptolemies couldhave similarly exploited the oases has not found favourin the literature, mostly due to the (incorrect) perceptionthat there is hardly any evidence for ftolemaic activity inthe oases compared to the Roman evidence (Bagnall and

Davoli 2011: 139;, Bagnall and Rathbone 2004:249;Kaper2012a: 717-118). Certainly, inscriptional evidence forPtolemaic activity in the oases is comparatively limited.The key sources are the 'Oasis List' at Edfu (Diimichen187'7, 23ff, Pl. 3-10; most recently Aufidre 2000), aDemotic inscription at Gebel Sheikh el-Haridi (Spiegelberg1913, 68, 71;, cf. most recently Cruz-Uribe and Farid2000), inscriptions at the temples of Hibis (Winlock 1941,39) and Qasr el-Ghueita (Darnell et al. 2013), a recentlypublished private statue belonging to an administrator ofthe Southern Oasis (Klotz 2013b), and ftolemaic ostrakafrom both Kharga (Kaplony-Heckel 2000) and Dakhleh(Nur-el-Din 1982; Mttmann 2012). The archaeologicalevidence is more abundant (Gill 20 l4), particularly theceramic remains (Glll2012a1,2012b1' In press a), althoughthis has not received as much attention in the publishedliterature.

Cruz-Uribe (2010, 502) has suggested that during thePtolemaic Period 'there was little incentive to view theoases as an area of potential wealth...'; howeveq this viewdoes not fit with what we know of Ptolemaic economicpolicy and agricultural development schemes in other partsof Egypt. Considering the desire of the early Ptolemaicrulers to exploit regions such as the Eastern Desefi, LowerNubia and Cyrenaica, it is logical that the Ptolemiesalso looked to the Western Oases as an area for potentialdevelopment. As we shall see, recent research conductedby the author supports such a contention.

Dakhleh Oasis

Recent studies have greatly enhanced our knowledgeof the ftolemaic pottery industry in Dakhleh Oasis (cf.Gill 2012a;2012b;2014). One key result of this work isthat a significant amount of Ptolemaic evidence has nowbeen identified in the oasis. Based on an analysis of theceramic remains, sevenfz-two Ptolemaic sites have nowbeen identified, which is far more than the seventeeninitially recorded by the Dakhleh Oasis Project (Churcherand Mills 1999, 260-263). This contradicts the commonidea that there is very little evidence for Ptolemaic activityin Dakhleh, especially when compared to the abundantevidence for Roman Period activity (Bagnall and Rathbone

79

Javps C. R. Gtl

2004, 262; Mills 1980, 256 van Zoest and Kaper 2006,I l). It also challenges the popular conclusion that the oasisexperienced a sudden and dramatic increase in populationduring the Roman period (cf. above).

The population of the oasis appears to have doubled insize during the ftolemaic period; only thirfy_five LatePeriod sites have been identified (Hubschmann 2009, 4)compared to seventy-two ptolemaic sites (Gill 2014). Ofcourse, I have assumed that the total number of sites inthe oasis during any given period is directly proportionalto the overall size of the population. Ideally, we shouldconsider not only the total number of sites, but also thenumber of each type of site (i.e. settlement; cemetery)and the size of each site (i.e. surface area; number andsize of buildings; number of tombs); however, this is notpossible, as most of the sites discussed here have beensubject to only cursory investigation, and details relatingto the size and number of buildings, and the number oftombs are generally only estimates. Nonetheless, based onthe total number of sites in the oasis it appears that thepopulation had doubled again by the Roman period. Thisargues against the conclusion that the oasis experienceda dramatic increase in population during the RomanPeriod. Rather, it appears that we should view the Romanexpansion more as a continuation of a population increasethat had begun already in the ptolemaic period,

Whilst the number of sites alone has important implicationsfor the study of ptolemaic Dakhleh, when we look atthe distribution of these sites it is possible to see certainpafferns emerge, which provide further insight into thenature of human settlement in the oasis during this period.It is evident that the majority of sites are located either onor beyond the edge of the modern cultivation (Figure 2);this may be a direct result of increased preservation outsidethe areas of modern cultivation due to a lesser degree ofhuman interference, but it may also reflect environmentalconditions in the ptolemaic period, such as the locationof sand dunes and the availability of water sources. It isclear that many sites are clustered into distinct groups,which are relatively evenly distributed across the oasis,with five groups located in the north-western region, fivegroups located in the central region, and three groupslocated in the eastern region (Figure 2). These groups aredefrned partly on the basis of geographic proximity, withthe majority of sites in any given group falling within aradius of two kilometres, but also on the basis of the typesof associated sites. For instance, each group comprisesa major settlement, one or more cemeteries and usuallyalso a temple. These groups appear to represent distinctcommunities, with major communities centred on the sitesof Dayr al-HaggaE Mut al-Kharab, ,Ain al-Azizi,and .AinBirbiyeh.

Prior to the Ptolemaic period, important settlements appearto have been located at Mut al-Kharab (Hope 2005; Hopeet al. 2009, 64-66; Kaper 2012b, 167-t6g), and Amheida(Davoli 2012, 263-267; Kaper 2012b, 169_172), whilstthere is also a small amount of evidence for Late penod

activity at 'Ain al-Azizi (Hope 2000, lg2_lg3). ptoler:,"activity continued at each of these sites, most likelr :i :."Mut al-Kharab as the administrative capital of the oa-r ,we go by the size ofthe site and the nature of the ptolerr. ,.evidence discovered there (cf. Glll2}l2a; Vittmann 20. _Three-quarters of ptolemaic sites in the oasis have yiei::.:little or no evidence for pre-ftolemaic activity, ri h. : .suggests that these were newly-developed €r€oS un.;:.the Ptolemies (Figure 2). In particular, the region south .Dayr al-Haggar (Group A) appears to have been subjec: :increased exploitation, as was the region south ofAmhe: -,(Groups D and E). Other areas that appear to have Lr*-developed under the ptolemies include the region *:..of 'Ain al-Azizi (Group G), the area to the north of t1- ,(Group H), the region around Ismant al-Kharab (Gro_:K), and the eastern end of the oasis around .Ain Birbir.-(Groups L. M and N).

It appears that the strategy implemented by the ptolemi:,involved the maintenance of settlements that were alreac..present in Dakhleh, as well as the foundation of a numb,.-of new settlements, in order to increase both the populatir..:and the agricultural productivity of the oasis. Overa: .this pattern of development mirrors that which has bee:identified for the Fayum; there the settlements of Bacchia.and Tebtynis appear to have been already occupied durin:the Late Period (Davoli 2010, 353; Marchand 1996,.and were subject to continued development under th.Ptolemies, whilst many other Fayum settlements appear rLbe new Ptolemaic foundations.

The Western Oases

The development apparent for ptolemaic Dakhleh is likelrto have also occurred in the other oases, althougt theevidence is much more tenuous. The strongest evidencecomes fiom Kharga Oasis, where it seems that a similarprocess of settlement development and land exploitationprobably took place under the ptolemies (Gill 2014).Exist ing setr lemenrs at Hibis (Winlock 1941. 34_35) andQasr al-Ghueita (Darnell et al. 2013, g, 20) continued tobe occupied during the ptolemaic period and the templesat both of those sites each received additions under thePtolemies. The region around ,Ain Manawir/Dush inthe south of Kharga had already experienced increaseddevelopment under the persians (Wuttmann and Marchand2005,197-199), and it is clear that the area continued tobe exploited during the ptolemaic period (Wutlmann et al.1996,392; 1998, 381, 438). New Rolemaic settlementsappear to have been established in the north of Kharga,as there is some evidence for ptolemaic activiW at Ummel-Dabadib (Rossi and tkram 2006. 281-2f. ):,

.Ain el_Labakha (fbrahim et al. 2008,25) and,Ain el_Dabashiya(Dunand et al. 2013; Ikram and Rossi 2007: 1j7). El_Deir appears to have already been occupied durins the4s century BCE (Tallet 2014), although it was

"rpulld"dsubstantially under the trtolemies with the addition of anew temple (Dunand et al. 201 0 : 47 ; 20 12: 2g7 _29 1 : Tallet

80

et al. 2012:353).r Furtherrnore, recent rvork at that sitehas begun to reveal evidence for extensive ftolemaic landexploitation (Tallet et al. 2072; G. Tallet pers. comm.2013).

The Ptolemies likely made use of established settlementsin Kharga as key centres fiom which new settlementsin the surrounding region could be administered. NewPtolemaic foundations would have benehted from a closerelationship with the larger regional centres, where majortemples had been previously established and administrativeliameworks were already in place. This interpretation fitswell with the settlement pattern identified for Dakhleh andsuggests that a similar Ptolemaic development strategywas implemented in both of these oases.

The picture in the other oases is less cleaq although thereis evidence for Ptolemaic activity in Bahariya and Siwa,which demonstrates that those oases at least continuedto be occupied, if not extensively developed (Gill 2014).The presence of a very large Ptolemaic/Roman cemeteryin Bahariya, the so-called Valley of the Golden Mummies(Hawass 2000), could perhaps be regarded as evidencefor increased settlement during this time. The idea thatBahariya was developed by the Ptolemies is furthersupported by inscriptions from the temple of Qasr el-Ghueita in Kharga, which record that it was provisioned'with all good products which come from Bahariya Oasis'(Damell et aL.2013,30; cf. below). I i-r Siwa, the presenceof several large Ptolemaic/Roman settlements on the eastbank of Lake Zeitun might point to the development ofthe region under the Ptolemies (Heinzelmann and Buess2011).

Overall, the archaeological evidence points to a deliberatestrategy of settlement foundation and land development inthe oases during the Ptolemaic Period (Gill 2014;, contra.Cruz-Uribe 2010, 502). lt appears that many existingsettlements continued to be occupied; however, at thesame time the Ptolemies also established new settlementsin areas that were previously unoccupied, or at leastunderdeveloped, in order to maximise the agriculturalproductivity of the oases.

The Oasis Advantage

The key advantage to the exploitation of the oases wasthat, unlike agricultural production in the Nile Valleyand the Fayum, which relied on trapped water fiom theannual Nile flood for irrigation, the oases had access to acontinuous year-round water supply by means of naturalartesian springs and artificial wells. The introduction ofa new water-lifting device,the saqiya, which was in usefrom the 3'd century BCE (Hairy 2009, 562-564), wouldhave allowed the Ptolemaic rulers to make greater use ofthe artesian water supply and exploit new areas of arable

Thc tcmplc was rccently discussed by G. Tallet, C. Gradcl and Y.Chevalier at the conference Les mobiliers archdologiques darn leur:ontexte, de la Gaule d I'Orient mdditerranden, Poitiers, 27-29 Ocloberl r l 14.

BEvowo rnn Fayuvr

land that were previously inaccessible. The sqqtya enabledwaterto be drawn more quickly than the traditional shaduf,and also enabled farmers to exploit much deeper wells(Hatry 2009,564).

The Ptolemies might have also taken advantage of existingqanat systems in Kharga, Farafra and Bahariya, which hadbeen introduced by the Persians and which were apparentlyreused during the Roman Period (Buongarzone el aL.2010;De Angeli 2013; De Angeli and Finocchi 2010; Schacht2003; Wuttmann 2001). The possibility that such qanatsystems were reused during the ftolemaic Period haslargely remained unexplored in the published literature,despite the fact that they are found associated with sitesthat have yielded evidence for Persian, Ptolemaic andRoman activity (e. g. at' Ain Manawir/Dush). Signifi cantly,qanat syslems are located at both Umm el-Dabadib and'Ain el-Labakha in northern Kharga (Schacht 2003);since both sites appear to have been occupied only duringthe Ptolemaic and Roman periods, there is a possibilitythat the qandts at these sites were in fact constructed inPtolemaic times, rather than during the Roman Period asis assumed by some scholars (Rossi in Rossi and Ikram2010,238).In Dakhleh, possible qqnat systems have beenrecently discovered, but they do not seem to have beenwidespread.2 Instead, we find throughout this oasis theremains of ancient irrigation channels, which are oftenattributed to the Roman Period (Mills 1979. 175;' Zaghloulet al. 2013, 160; cf. Kleindienst et al. 1999,40-41), butwhich could just as easily be of Ptolemaic date. Thesechannels are particularly visible in the area surrounding'Ain al-Azizi and also around Dayr al-Haggar (Zaghloulet al. 2013), both areas that appear to have been subjectto increased settlement during the Ptoiemaic Period. Suchinfrastructure is not easily dated, but it is problematic tosimply assume a Roman date.

The Ptolemies likely exploited the agricultural potential ofthe oases in order to supplement their stores in the NileValley (Damell et al. 2013: 30-31; Klotz 2013a: 909).With the advantage of a continuous water supply, the oasescould provide food even when Nile Valley production wasdiminished, such as during a particularly low-inundationreported in the Canopus decree of238 BCE (Pfeiffer 2004:93-99). An inscription of Ptolemy lll Euergetes from Qasral-Ghueita informs us that he built the temple 'in order todirect divine offerings to Thebes, for his father' (Damellet al.2013:31), and in doing so Ptolemy III was ableto support his building programme there (Darnell et al.2013: 30-3l ). These 'divine offerings' comprised productsfrom Kharga Oasis, and evidently also from Bahariya,and included wine, food-products and myrrh (Damell eral. 2013: 29). Demotic ostraka of Ptolemaic date fromel-Muzawwaqa (Nur el-Din 1982) and Mut al-Kharab(Vittmam 2012) in Dakhleh provide further evidencefor the types of goods that were collected as payment by

t Thesc arc locatcd at thc castern cnd of Dakhlch. Thcy wcrc discusscdby Sabri Youssefat the 7'h International Conference ofthe Dakhleh OasisP ro i e c t. Leiden. 20-24 J une 2012.

Jeves C. R. Gu

the temples. The two most common products mentionedare wheat and oil, whilst wine, olive oil, barley, sesame,grapes, lotus oil, incense and myrrh are also attested (Nurel-Din 1982, 115-116; Vittmann 2012,30). Most of theseproducts are discussed in the context of temple paymentsand receipts of payments, so it is likely that these were thekinds of goods that were redistributed to the Nile Valleytemples. Wheat and oil are mentioned frequently in theDakhleh ostraka, suggesting that they were staple oasisproducts, and we can also add wine to this group. Wineis listed in the Ghueita inscription (Darnell et al. 2013:30), and furthermore, the oases are ffequently identihed aswine-producing lands in Ptolemaic temple offering scenesin the Nile Valley (Poo 1995: 139tr). Vine-motifs are alsoencountered within the painted decoration on Ptolemaicpottery fiom Dakhleh (Gill In Press b), emphasising therole of wine as a key oasis product. Not only does thisdemonstrate the importance of agricultural productionin the oases, but it points to the existence of an entireindustry, as well as the infrastructure that would have beenassociated with it.

Conclusion

I have argued here for the existence of a deliberatePtolemaic policy aimed at exploiting the Western Oases.By developing new settlements, increasing the populationand expanding the land under cultivation, the Rolemieswere able to increase the agricultural productivity of theoases. The Ptolemies certainly saw the potential wealthin the oases and they targeted the area for developmentmuch as they did in the Fayum. Wheat, oil and wine werekey oasis products, which could be used to supplementthe storerooms of the Nile Valley temple-estates, andwhich could perhaps also be exported abroad. Either way,increased agriculfural production meant increased revenue.In many ways the ftolemies continued a process that hadbegun already during the Saite and Persian periods, andwhich laid the foundation for the development witnessedunder Roman rule. The Romans took the existinginfrastructure put in place by the Ptolemies and used it totheir advantage, so much so that they are now given creditfor the entire process (cf. Cruz-Uribe 2010, 502).

Bibliography

Aufrdre, S. 2000. 'La liste des sept oasis d'Edfou' . Bulletinde I'Institut Franqais d'Arch1ologie Orientale 100: 19-127.

Bagnall, R. S; Davoli,P.201l. 'Archaeological Work onHellenistic and Roman Egypt, 2000-2009'. AmericanJournal of Archaeologt I l5: I 03-l 57.

Bagnall, R. S; Rathbone, D. W. (eds). 2004. Egtpt fromAlexander to the Copts: An Archaeological andHistorical Guide. London: British Museum Press.

Buongarzone, R; De Angeli, S; Finocchi, S; Medaglia,S. 2010. 'L'Oasi di Farafra. Sistemi idrici a qanate insediamenti di etd romana e bizantina. Risultatipreliminari della prima missione dell'Universiti degliStudi della Tuscia'. ln Ricerche italiane e scsvi in

Eglllo (RISE) lV, edited by Pirelli, R. Cairo: Cenn-:Archeologico ltaliano, 63-83.

Churcheq C. S; Mills, A. J. 1999. ' lndex Lisr .-Archaeological Sites Surveyed by the Dakhleh Oa:':Project (Appendix II)'. In Reports from the Survetthe Dakhleh Oasis 1977-1987, edited by Churcher. CS; Mills, A. J. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 251-265.

Clarysse, W; Thompson, D. J. 2006. Counting the Peop.,in Hellenistic Egtp4 Volume 2: Historical Studi;,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cruz-Uribe, E. 2010. 'Social Structure and Daily Lit!Graeco-Roman', in A Companion to Ancient Eg,p:edited by Lloyd, A. B. Chichester and Malden: Wiler -Blackwell, 491-506.

Cruz-Uribe, E; Farid,A.2000. 'ANew Look at anAncier::Graffito'. Journal of the Society for the Stu$-Egtptian Antiquit ies 27 : 27 -33.

Darnell, J. C; Klotz, D; Manassa, C.2013.'Gods on th.Road: The Pantheon of Thebes at Qasr el-Ghueita'. I:Documents de Th4ologies Thdbaines Tardives Z edite;by Thiers, C. CENiM 8. Montpell ier, l-31.

Davoli, P. 1998. L'Archeologia urbana nel Fa1ryum di er,ellenistica e romana. Naples: G. Procaccini.

Davoli, P. 2010. 'Settlements Distribution, Structure.Architecture: Graeco-Roman'. In A Companion tAncient Eg,tpt, edited by Lloyd, A. B. Chichester ancMalden: Wiley-Blackwell, 350-369.

Davoli, P.2012.'Amheida 2007-2009: New Results fion:the Excavations' .ln The Oasis Papers 6: Proceeding:of the Sixth Internqtional Conference of the Dakhlei:Oasis Projecl, edited by Bagnall, R. S; Davoli, P.Hope, C. A. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph l_{.Oxford: Oxbow Books, 263-278.

Davoli, P. 2014. 'Hetrlenistic and Roman Egypr-Archaeology of'. In Encyclopedia of Globa.Archaeologt, edited by Smith, C. New York: Springer.3247-3255.

De Angeli, S. 2013. "Qanat Landscapes' in the oases oithe Western Desert of Egypt: The cases of the Bahriraand Farafra Oases'. ln Bahriya Oqsis: Recent Researchinto the Past of an Egtptian Oasis, edited by Dospdl.M; Sukovii, L. Prague: Charles University in Prague.27 t-285.

De Angeli, S; Finocchi, S. 2010. 'Origine e diff.rsionedei canali idrici drenanti (qanaffiggara) in Africasettentrionale in etd antica'. Bollettino di ArcheologiaOn Line 1:39-52.

Diimichen, J. 1877. Die Oasen der Libyschen l(ilste:Ihre alten Namen und ihre Lage, ihre vorziiglichstenErzeugnisse und die in ihren Tempeln verehrtenGottheiten, nach den Berichten der altcigtptischenD enkm cil er. Strassburg: Triibner.

Dunand, F; Heim, J.-L; Lichtenberg, R. 2012. 'LesNdcropoles d'el-Deir (Oasis de Kharga)'. In TheOasis Papers 6: Proceedings of the Sixth InternationalConJbrence of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, edited b1Bagnall, R. S; Davoli, P; Hope, C. A. Dakhleh OasisProject Monograph 15. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 279-29s.

8l

Dunand, F; Heim, J.-L; Lichtenbere. R: Brones, S;Letellier-Willemin, F. 2010. El-Deir ,\ecropoles I, Landcropole Sud. Paris'. Cybdle.

Dunand, F; Ibrahim, B. A; Lichtenberg, R. 2013. Lemqtdriel archdologique el les restes humains de landcropole de Dabashiya. CENIM 7. Montpellier.

Gil l, J. C.R.2012a.'Ptolemaic 'Black Ware' from Mutel-Kharab'. ln Egtptologt in Australia and NauZealand 2009: Proceedings of the Conference held inMelbourne, September 4,h-6'h, edited by Knoblauch, C.M; Gill, J. C. BAR International Series 2355. Oxford:Archaeopress . | 5-25.

Gill, J. C. R. 2012b. 'Ptolemaic Period pottery from Mutal-Kharab, Dakhleh Oasis'. ln The Oasis papers 6:Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference ofthe Dakhleh Oasis Projecl, edited by Bagnall, R. S;Davoli, P; Hope, C. A. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 23 l-241.

Gill, J. C. R. 2014. The Western Desert of Eg,,pt during thePtolemaic Period: A View from Dakhleh Oasls. phDThesis. Monash University, Melboume.

Gill, J. C. R. -fn Press a.'A Corpus of Late period andPtolemaic Bes-Vessels fiom Mut el-Kharab, WesternDesert of Egypt'. ln Vienna 2 - Ancient Eg,tptianCeramics in the 2lst Century: proceedings oJ theInternational Conference held at the tJniversity ofVienna 14th-l8th of May, 20t2, edited by Badeq B;Knoblauch, C. M; K6hler, E. C. Orientalia LovaniensiaAnalecta. Leuven: Peeters.

Gill, J. C. R.. fu Press b.'Pottery Decoration in DakhlehOasis during the Ptolemaic period: Evidence for a'Dakhleh S\tle' , Cahiers de la Cdramique Egyptienne10.

Hairy I. 2009. 'Les machines de I'eau en Egypte et dAfexandrie'. ln Du l{il d Alexandrie: Histoires d'eaux,edited by Hairy, I. Alexandria: Harpocrates, 550-571.

Hawass, Z.2000. Valley of the Golden Mummies. London:Virgin Publishing.

Heinzelmann, M; Buess, M; 2011. .Untersuchungen zurSiedlungsstruktur der Oase Siwa in hellenistisch-nimischer Zeit: Vorbericht zu einer erstenForschungskampagne am Birket Zaytun 2009,. Kolnerund Bonner Archaeologica l: 65-j6.

H6lbl, G. 2001. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (trans.T. Saavedra). London and New york: Routledge.

Hope, C. A. 2000. 'Kegs and Flasks from the DakhlehOasis'. Cahiers de la Cdramique Egyptienne 6: 189-234.

Hope, C. A. 2005. 'Mut el-Kharab: Seth's city in DakhlehOasis'. Egtptian Archaeolog,, 27 : 34.

Iope, C. A; Bowen, G. E; Cox, J; Dolling, W; Milner,J; Pettman, A. 2009. 'Report on the 2009 Seasonof Excavations at Mut el-Kharab, Dakhleh Oasis'.Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Eg,,ptolog,, 20:17-86.

:lubschmann, C.2009. The Oases of the Western Desert ofEg'tpt during the Third Intermediate and Late periods:The Stu$t of a Regional ldentity. phD thesis. MonashUniversi6r, Melbourne.

BEyoNo rrrE FRyuv

Ibrahim, B. A; Dunand, F; Heim, J.-L; Lichtenberg, R,Hussein, M. 2008. Le matdriel archdologique et lesrestes humains de la ndcropole d'Ain el-Labakha(oasis de Kharga). Paris: Cybdle.

Ikram, S; Rossi, C. 2007. 'North Kharga Oasis Survey2004 Preliminary Report: Ain el-Tarakwa, Ain el-Dabashiya and Darb Ain Amur'. Mitteilungen desD euts c hen Archc)ol ogis chen I nstituts Abteilung Kairo63: 167-184.

Kaper, O. E. 1998. 'Temple Building in the EgyptianDeserts during the Roman Period'. ln Life on theFringe: Living in the Southern Eg,,ptian Desertsduring the Roman and Early-Byzantine periods, editedby Kaper, O. E. Leiden: CNWS publications, 139-15g.

Kaper, O. E.2012a.'The Westem Oases'. ln The OxfordHandbook of Roman Eg)pt, edited by Riggs, C.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 717-735.

Kaper, O. E. 2012b. 'Epigraphic Evidence flom theDakhleh Oasis in the Late Period'. ln The Oasis paper,s6: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conferenceof the Dakhleh Oasis Project, edited by Bagnall, R. S;Davoli, P; Hope, C. A. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 167-t76.

Kaplony-Heckel, U. 2000. 'Die 28 demotischen Hibis-Ostraka in New York'. Enchoria26: 59-83.

Kleindienst, M. R; Churcher, C. S; McDonald, M. M.A; Schwarz, H. P. 1999. 'Geography, Geology,Geochronology and Geoarchaeology of the DakhlehOasis Region: An Interim Report'. ln Reports from lheSurvey of the Dakhleh Oasis, Western Desert oJ Eg,,pt,1977-87, edited by Churcher, C. S; Mills, A. J. DakhlehOasis Project Monograph 2. Oxford: Oxbow Books,l -54.

Klotz, D. 2013a. 'Administration of the Deserts andOases: First Millennium B.C.E.'. ln Ancient Eg,,ptianAdministration, edited by Garcia, J. C. M. Leiden andBoston: Bril l , 901 -909.

Klotz, D.2013b. 'ATheban Devotee of Seth from the LatePeriod - Now Missing: Hannover, Ex-Museum AugustKestner, Inv. S. 0366'. Studien zur Altcig,,ptischenKultur 42: 1 55- 1 80.

Manning, J. G. 2010. The Last Pharaohs: Eg,,pt Underthe Ptolemies, 305-30 BC. Princeton and Oxford:Princeton University Press.

Marchand, S. 1996. 'Prdsentation de la cdramique du IVesidcle av. J.-C. d6couverte d Tebtynis,. Cahiers de laCdramique Egyptienne 4: l7l-188.

Mills, A. J. 1919.'Dakhleh Oasis Project: Report on theFirst Season of Survey, October - December 1978'.Journal oJ the Society for the Study qf EgtptianAntiquities 9: I 63-1 85.

Mills, A. J. 1980. 'Dakhleh Oasis Project: Report on theSecond Season of Survey, September December1979' . Journal of the Society for the Study of EgptianAntiquit ies l0l 4: 25 1 -282.

Mills, A. J. 1984.'Research in the Dakhleh Oasis,. InOrigin and Early Development of Food-producingcultures in North-EasternAfrica, edited by Krzyzaniak,

J.q,Naes C. R. Gl,l-

L; Kobusiewicz, M. Poznan: Poznan ArchaeologicalMuseum,205-210.

Mills, A. J. 1985. 'The Dakhleh Oasis Project'. InMdlanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, Volume II. Cako:Institut Frangais d'Arch6ologie Orientale, 125 -134.

Mills, A. J. 1999.'Pharaonic Egyptians in the DakhlehOasis'. In Reports from the Survey of the DakhlehOasis, Western Desert of Egtp4 1977-87, edited byChurcher, C. S; Mills, A. J. Dakhleh Oasis ProjectMonograph 2. Oxford: Oxbow Books, l7l-178.

Monson, A. 2012. From the Ptolemies to the Romans:Political and Economic Change in Egtpt. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Mueller, K. 2006. Settlements of the Ptolemies: CityFoundations and New Settlements in the HellenisticWor I d. Letv en: Peeters.

Nur-el-Din, M. A. 1982. 'The Demotic Ostraca from Qaretel-Muzawwaqa'. ln Denkmciler der Oase Dachla ausdem Nachlass von Ahmed Fakhry, edited by Osing,J; Moursi, M; Arnold, D; Neugebaueq O; Parker, R.A; Pingree, D; Nur-el-Din, M.A. Mainz am Rhein:Philipp von Zabem, 103- I I 7.

Pfeiffer, S. 2004. Das Dekret von Kanopos (238 v.Chr.): Kommentar und historische Auswertung einesdreisprachigen Synodaldekretes der rigtptischenPriester zu Ehren. Munich: KG Saur.

Poo, M. 1995. Wine and Wine Offering in the Religion ofAncient Egtpt. London and New York: Kegan PaulInternational.

Rossi, C; Ikram S. 2006. 'North Kharga Oasis Survey, 2003Preliminary Report: Umm el-Dabadlb'. Mitteilungendes Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts AbteilungKairo 62:219-306.

Rossi, C; Ikram S. 2010. 'North Kharga Oasis Survey2007, Preliminary Report: Ain Lebekha and AinAmur'. Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchciologischenInstituts Abteilung Kairo 66: 235 -242.

Rowlandson, J. 2003. 'Town and Country in PtolemaicEgypt'. br A Companion to the Hellenistic World,edited by Erskine, A. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,249-263.

Schacht, I. 2003. 'A Preliminary Survey of the Ancient

Qanat Systems of the Northem Kharga Oasis'.Mitteilungen des Deuts chen Archciologis chen InstitutsAbteilung K airo 59:. 4ll-423.

Spiegelberg, W. 1913. 'Eine Urkunde iiber die Erdffnungeines Steinbruchs unter Ptolemaios XIII'. Zeitschrift

fiir cigtptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde 5l: 65-75.

Tallet, G. 2014. 'Culture matdrielle et appartenancesethniques: quelques questions pos6es par les n6cropoles

d'El-Deir (oasis de Kharga, Egypte)'. Dialoguesd' histoire ancienne suppl6ment 10: 217 -252.

Tallet, G; Bravard, J.-P; Garcier, R; Guddon, S; Mostapha-4.2012.'The Survey Project at el-Deir, Kharga Oasis:First Results, New Hypotheses'. In The Oasis Papers6: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conferenceof the Dakhleh Oasis Projecr, edited by Bagnall.R. S; Davoli, P; Hope, C. A. Dakhleh Oasis ProjectMonograph 15. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 349-361.

Thompson, D. J. 2003. 'The Ptolemies and Egypt'. In .{Companion to the Hellenistic World, edited by Erskine.A. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 105-120.

Thompson, D. J. 2008. 'Economic Reforms in the Mid-Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus'. ln Ptolemy IIPhiladelphus and His World, editedby McKechnie, P:Guillaume, P. Leiden: Brill, 27-38.

vanZoest, C; Kapeq O. E.2006. Treasures of the DakhlehOasis. Cako.

Vittmann, G. 2012. 'Demotische und kursivhieratischeOshaka aus Mut al-Kharab'. ln The Oasis Papers 6:Proceedings of the Sixth International Conferenceof the Dakhleh Oasis Projecr, edited by Bagnall.R. S; Davoli, P; Hope, C. A. Dakhleh Oasis ProjecrMonograph 15. Oxford: Oxbow Books, l9-3 l.

Winlock, H. E. 1941. The kmple of Hibis in el KhargehOasis, Part I: The Excavatio,ns. NewYork: MetropolitanMuseum ofArt.

Wuttmann M. 2001. 'Les qanats de 'Ayn-Manawir (oasisde Kharga, Egypte)'. In Inigation et drainage dansI'antiquit6: Qanats et canalisations soutenaines enIran, en Egtpte et en Grece, edited by Briant, P. Persika2. Paris: Thotm, 109-135.

Wuttmann, M; Barakat, H; Bousquet, B; Chauveau, M:Gonon, T; Marchand, S; Robin, M; Schweitzer, A.1998. "A'\jrn ManawTr (oasis de Kharga): Deuxidmerapport pr6liminaire' . Bulletin de I'Institut Franqaisd'Arch4ologie Orientale 98: 367 -462.

Wuttmann, M; Bousquet, B; Chauveau, M; Dils, P:Marchand, S; Schweitzeq A; Volay, L. 1996.'Premierrapport pr6liminaire des travaux sur le site de 'AynManawTr (oasis de Kharga)'. Bulletin de l'lnstilutFr anq ais d' Ar c hd o I ogi e O r ient al e 96:. 3 85 -452.

Wuttmann, M; Marchand. S. 2005. 'Egypte'. InL'arch6ologie de I'empire achdmdnide: nowellesrecherches, edited by Briant, P; Boucharlat, R. Persika6. Paris: Thotm, 97-121 .

Zaghloul, E. A; Hassan, S. M; Bahy El-Dein, A. M; Elbeih,S. F. 2013. 'Detection of ancient irrigation canals ofDeir El-Hagar playa, Dakhla Oasis, Egypt, usingEgyptsat-l data'. The Eg,tptian Journal of RemoteSensing and Space Sciences 1612:. 153-161.

8.1

BrvoNo rns Fayuv

t-----, Alexanclrio

Mediter,ran n,$e&

*!t.

N

A

Fayum

.7t( t

f \\J\ i

\

Siwa Oasis

"" _@.'%- d

\6

i4 '

ubl

uooutso ou*tl*. ,.,,

Ii . . . / :

faralu Oasrs

0 1t)0 200 krn

'1

- ' i&,'h*. w. ., ,t 'Dakhleh Orsrs

1." Khrrga Oasis

$,r,B

Frcuns I Mep or Ecvpr snowrNc THE WESTERN Oasps.

85