doi: 10.2143/AWE.12.0.0000000
AWE 12 (2013) 117-156
ARCHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE DAKHLEH
OASIS, 1819–1977
ANNA LUCILLE BOOZER
Abstract
This article provides the first substantial survey of early archaeological research in Egypt’s
Dakhleh Oasis. In addition to providing a much-needed survey of research, this study
embeds Dakhleh’s regional research history within a broader archaeological research
framework. Moreover, it explores the impact of contemporaneous historical events in
Egypt and Europe upon the development of archaeology in Dakhleh. This contextualised
approach allows us to trace influences upon past research trends and their impacts upon
current research and approaches, as well as suggest directions for future research.
Introduction
This article explores the early archaeological research in Egypt’s Dakhleh Oasis
within the framework of broad archaeological trends and contemporaneous historical events. Egypt’s Western Desert offered a more extreme research environment than the Nile valley and, as a result, experienced a research trajectory
different from and significantly later than most of Egyptian archaeology. In more
recent years, the archaeology along Egypt’s fringes has provided a significant
contribution to our understanding of post-Pharaonic Egypt and it is important
to understand how this research developed.1 The present work recounts the history of research in Egypt’s Western Desert in order to embed the regional
research history of the Dakhleh Oasis within broader trends in Egyptology,
archaeology and world historical events in Egypt and Europe (Figs. 1–2).2
1
In particular, the western oases have dramatically reshaped our sense of the post-Pharaonic
occupation of Egypt as well as the ways in which the Roman empire interfaced with local populations. See www.Amheida.org for representative publications of research at Amheida as well as across
the oasis.
2
Some important geographers are not included in this overview because they do not review the
archaeology substantially. These individuals include: George Alexander Hoskins, who travelled in
Egypt and Nubia in 1832–33 (Hoskins 1837). Three large volumes of drawings made on Hoskins’s
journeys are now in the Griffith Institute at Oxford. Hugh Beadnell visited the oasis in 1899 and
reviewed the topography, water supply and wells in Dakleh, as well as temperatures of water, the
geology and mineral deposits (Beadnell 1901). Beadnell also briefly makes mention of Dakhleh in
another work that focuses mostly on Khargeh (Beadnell 1909). Harding-King was contracted by the
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 117
19/12/12 08:42
118
A.L. BOOZER
Fig. 1: Map of Egypt (drawn by M. Matthews, University of Reading).
Fig. 2: Map of Dakhleh and Kharga (drawn by M. Matthews, University of Reading).
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 118
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
119
This historiography of Dakhleh’s early research history provides four useful
outcomes. First, it enables us to understand this region as both a geographic and
an academic periphery. Dakhleh’s physical and conceptual removal significantly
impacted the development of regional archaeology as well as the contours of
research expeditions to Dakhleh. Second, this research survey enables us to
understand changes in monument preservation. When Dakhleh was first
explored, in the early 19th and 20th centuries, many structures were still visible
and in good condition that were subsequently destroyed or damaged. An historiographical approach to these monuments, as prior scholars saw them, helps us
comprehend the fragmentary records that remain and potential destructive
causes. Third, an overview of past research clarifies patterns within current
research projects and highlights the engagement between foreign researchers and
local Egyptians in regional archaeology. Fourth, this overview promotes a holistic understanding of how expeditions understood Dakhleh’s historical development from earliest human prehistory onward, as well as how this understanding
changed over time.
The temporal parameters of this paper, 1819–1977, cover the range between the
first European discovery of Dakhleh through to the establishment of two major
international projects in the region: the Dakhleh Oasis Project (DOP) and the
Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (IFAO). The DOP and IFAO still conduct research in the oasis today and their establishment in 1977 represented a step
change in both the quality and quantity of research conducted in the Dakhleh
Oasis. In reviewing this research history, I will work through the evidence chronologically, embedding each major research expedition within its archaeological and
historical framework in order to understand how these research campaigns meshed
with broader climates. There is insufficient space to enumerate fully and explain the
observations and discoveries of each expedition, although I have highlighted particularly significant descriptions of monuments and techniques. I provide a table of
Dakhleh’s explorers, including the dates of travel, the sites they visited and their
major publications, below.
Royal Geographical Society to map the Egyptian desert areas to the west of the Nile. His book was
published in 1925 and Darf Publishers have made this modern facsimile of his travels in 1908 and
1909 available to a modern audience.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 119
19/12/12 08:42
120
A.L. BOOZER
Explorers of Dakhleh Oasis
Dates
Name
Sites Visited/
Described
Purpose and/or
Excavations
Publications and
Notes
January–
February 1819
Edmonstone
‘Ain Amur
Al-Muzzawakka
Amheida
Balat
Deir el-Haggar
Exploration;
Discover Dakhleh
Oasis
Edmonstone 1822
February 18193
Drovetti
Al-Muzzawakka
Amheida
Ayn el-Berbyeh
Bashendi
Deir el- Haggar
Mut
Tenida
Qasr el Amyr
Exploration;
Discover Dakhleh
Oasis
Cailliaud 1822
1819
Hyde
‘Ain Amur
Deir el-Haggar
Exploration
Unpublished notes,
located in the British
Library
1819
1820
Cailliaud
Al-Muzzawakka
Amheida,
El Qasr
Deir el Haggar
Geographical
position
established
Cailliaad 1822; 1826
February 23–
March 4 1825
Wilkinson
No significant
descriptions
published
Exploration
Unpublished notes,
located in the
Griffiths Institute,
Oxford
Winter 1873/4
Rohlfs
Map oasis; Name
Al-Muzzawakka
topography;
Amheida
Bir Talata el-Arab Excavation
Deir el-Haggar
El Qasr
Mut
3
Rohlfs 1875;
Rohlfs et al. 1875
Drovetti claims that he visited Dakhleh in 1818, but this is unlikely.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 120
19/12/12 08:42
121
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
Dates
Name
Sites Visited/
Described
Purpose and/or
Excavations
Publications and
Notes
1893–94
Lyons
Mut
Military patrol;
Supplement
Rohlfs’
geographical
description;
Collecting
No notes or
publications,
although his
collected objects are
published:
Spiegelberg 1899;
Gardiner 1933;
Janssen 1968
1900
Moritz
Ismant el-Kharab
Exploration;
Excavation
Unpublished
photographs
and notes;
lost in Berlin?
Moritz 1900
1908
Winlock
Al-Muzzawakka
Amheida
Bashendi
Deir el-Haggar
Ismant el-Kharab
Tenida
Mut
Exploration
Winlock 1936
1917
Elias
Al-Muzzawakka
Amheida
Balat
Deir el-Haggar
Ismant el-Kharab
Mut
Tenida
Antiquities
inspection
Elias 1917
Winters of
1936/7 and
1938/9
Winkler
Eastern portion
of Dakhleh
Petroglyph
recording
Winkler 1938; 1939
1937–1973
Fakhry
Al-Muzzawakka
Ain Aseel
Balat
Bashendi
Deir el-Haggar
Qila el-Dabba
Antiquities
inspection;
Excavation
Fakhry 1973; 2003;
Osing et al. 1982
1960s–1994
Sadek and
CEDAE
N/A
Temple
documentation
None
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 121
19/12/12 08:42
122
A.L. BOOZER
Dates
Name
Sites Visited/
Described
Purpose and/or
Excavations
Publications and
Notes
1954 onwards
Sauneron
and IFAO4
Ain Asil
Qila el-Dabba
Excavation
Giddy 1979; 1987;
Giddy and Grimal
1979a–b; Giddy and
Jeffreys 1981; Giddy et
al. 1981; Grimal 1995
1977
DOP5
Amheida
Deir el Haggar
Mut
Kellis
Survey; Excavation Hope 1981;
Mills 1977; 1978a–b;
1985; 1993
18th-Century Background of Exploration
Unlike Greece and Rome, Egypt did not attract many European visitors until the
last decade of the 18th century.6 Throughout much of the 18th century, local chiefs
continuously fought with one another over the disordered Ottoman dominion in
Egypt. Rebellion was inimical to life, with endless violent peasant and tribal uprisings.7 The constant violence and unrest in Egypt made it an unattractive locale for
European exploration. There was only a small foreign community living and working in Egypt, most of whom engaged in war industries, cotton-spinning and medicine.8
Napoleon’s 1798 invasion of Egypt raised European interest in adding Egypt to
a list of places that any cultured European should visit.9 A wave of European adventurers and explorers descended on Egypt after Napoleon’s conquest. This new influx
of foreigners occurred both because Egypt had become safer and because of Napoleon’s scientific approach to Egypt. This scientific approach led to two major outputs. First, the multi-volume Description de l’Égypte contained a compendium of
observations by French scholars (1809–26).10 Napoleon had sought to establish an
4
The publications are too numerous to list here and only the most important early publications
are included.
5
The current publications and excavations are too numerous to list here and only the most
important early publications are included.
6
Fahim 2001, 8.
7
Vatikiotis 1992, 31. Some of the more organised rebellions had a lasting impact. The Huwara
tribesmen successfully detached Upper Egypt from the rest of the country and Shaykh Huwara set up
his own government there for over 30 years (1736–69) (Vatikiotis 1992, 31).
8
Vatikiotis 1992, 36–37.
9
Starkey and Starkey 2001a, 1.
10
Anderson and Fawzi 1987; Gillispie and Dewachter 1987; Wheatcroft 2003. Bednarski examined the historical context of the Description, concluding that Britain had developed its own Egyptology
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 122
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
123
enduring legacy by attempting to modernise the Egyptian government and promote
the study of native culture. Moreover, savants from Napoleon’s expedition established the Institute d’Égypte in Cairo to help disseminate Western culture and ideas
to the East, as well as collect and export indigenous antiquities.11 Second, Napoleon’s conquest led to the accidental discovery of the Rosetta Stone in Rashid, an
Egyptian port city. The Rosetta Stone contained a bilingual inscription that played
a major role in Jean-Francois Champoleon’s (1790–1832) decipherment of the
ancient Egyptian scripts and which produced results from 1822.12 Travel to Egypt
increased massively after Champollion’s decipherment of the hieroglyphic script in
1821–22.13 In sum, Napoleon’s conquest delved into Egypt’s history and exposed
it to European travellers for the first time.14
Britain, France’s imperial rival, moved in to Alexandria with Nelson’s fleet in
1801 and seized Egypt, as well as the Rosetta Stone, ushering in a long-standing
Anglo-French rivalry in Egypt.15 The British occupation boosted the influx of European travellers into Egypt even more.16 Throughout the 18th century, both the
French and the British developed strong cultural traditions in Classicism and Orientalism. The British elite devised a heritage that relied upon proficiency in Greek
and Latin and taking the Grand Tour to Greece or Italy. Classicism also became a
resource for justifying modern social and political structures: ancient civilisation
provided the principles upon which modern civilisation was founded and ruled by
modern government.17 This fixation on Egypt manifested itself in competitive expeditions to unexplored areas of Egypt, as well as collecting Egypt’s antiquities.
Muhammed Ali enhanced this European surge when he became governor and
viceroy of Egypt (1811–49).18 He called upon the services of Europeans to help
modernise Egypt. Europeans flooded into the country: merchants, soldiers,
tradition and was not necessarily influenced by the Description as much as popularly assumed (Bednarski 2005). The impact of safer travelling conditions upon Egyptology has been not been explored
as thoroughly as it may merit.
11
Jeffreys 2003a, 1–2. See also Ucko and Champion 2003. Many Egyptians viewed Napoleon’s
foray into Egypt as an unwanted Western incursion into the Arab and Muslim worlds (Dykstra 1998,
115).
12
Parkinson 1999, 19–43. For more on the Rosetta Stone itself and how related scripts were
deciphered, see Parkinson 1999.
13
Starkey and Starkey 2001a, 2. A number of key publications also encouraged escalating interest
in travelling to Egypt. Foremost amongst these was the Description de l’Egypte from 1809 to 1826, but
also Vivan Denon’s 1802 volume and the publication of travel accounts (Fahim 2001, 8).
14
Dolan 2000, 114.
15
Reid 1985, 234.
16
Fahim 2001, 8.
17
Dolan 2000, 114–15.
18
Fahmy 1998.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 123
19/12/12 08:42
124
A.L. BOOZER
engineers, doctors, agronomists and teachers all came in the hope of participating
in Egypt’s modernisation.19 Conditions for exploration also improved enormously
under Muhammed Ali’s rule because the personal safety of travellers increased,
which caused young gentlemen to integrate Egypt into their Grand Tours.20 Unfortunately, Egypt’s industrial revolution had a direct impact on its heritage as many
archaeological sites were quarried for their limestone and topsoil and Egypt’s antiquities became a type of currency used between international players.21
These 19th-century travellers tended to combine their fascination with Egyptology with other interests.22 Accounts from the 19th century often included details
of contemporary Egyptian life alongside the monuments of ancient Egypt.23 This
developmental trajectory matches other wider trends in archaeology. Until the 20th
century, few archaeologists were educated in the discipline. Instead, individuals
brought to archaeology a variety of skills and viewpoints acquired in many different
fields and vocations. The major commonality was that all early explorers had studied a classical and biblical curriculum, while some had been further educated in the
physical and biological sciences.24
Egyptology developed out of a Classical Studies model. In the late 18th century
almost nothing was known about ancient Egypt, except for Biblical records and
Greek and Roman accounts. Egyptian scripts could not be read and most of their
writings and works of art were unstudied and largely still underground.25 Egyptology depended upon written records to supply chronology, historical data, and information about the beliefs and values of the past. Egyptologists also focused the
development of art and monumental architecture, which was revealed through
archaeology. Since a vast majority of Egyptian texts had to be removed from the
ground before they could be studied, Egyptology depended more on archaeology
than Greek or Roman Studies.26 Even so, archaeology was a means to an end and
the academic demand for new inscriptions lead to little or no reflection on archaeological context.27 These developments in Egyptology closely paralleled those in
19
Fahim 2001, 10. Many of the diplomatic personnel, particularly from France and Britain,
flocked to Egypt for strategic purposes, both to observe and to influence Muhammed Ali’s domestic
and foreign policies (see Dykstra 1979).
20
Thompson 1992, 23.
21
Jeffreys 2003a, 3; Hassan 2003, especially 61–65; Bierbrier 2003, especially 74. On Egyptian
views of antiquities, see Colla 2007, especially chapter 2.
22
Starkey and Starkey 2001a, 2.
23
Starkey and Starkey 2001a, 3–4.
24
Trigger 1989, 16–17.
25
Trigger 1989, 39.
26
Trigger 1989, 40.
27
Jeffreys 2003a, 5; France 1991.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 124
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
125
Assyriology, which also depended upon archaeological data and translation breakthroughs.
Adventurers poured into Egypt in the early 19th century, including some of the
most familiar characters to be encountered in any general history of Egyptology’s
beginnings. Pre-eminent among them were Johann Burckhart, Giovanni Belzoni,
Henry Salt and Bernardino Drovetti. Burckhart was an explorer and Belzoni a collector.28 Salt (1780–1827) contributed significantly to the development of Egyptian
archaeology in the early 19th century. An English diplomat and collector, Salt was
appointed as British Consul-General in Egypt in 1815 and arrived there in 1816.
During his time as Consul-General, Salt carried out large numbers of excavations
and amassed enormous collections of antiquities for the British Museum and his
own private collection. He also worked closely with and encouraged other key figures of the period, such as Belzoni and Burckhardt, even financing excavations and
expeditions.29 Drovetti (see below) competed with Salt over antiquities as part of
the Anglo-French rivalry in Egyptology.30 Most of this conflict was due to their
competition over Egyptian art work collections, which were amassed for the major
museums in Britain, France and Italy.31
These recent developments led pioneering Egyptologists to visit Egypt and record
temples, tombs and monumental inscriptions and use these records to reconstruct
ancient Egyptian history, chronology, architecture and art. The period between
1809 and 1828 encompassed a watershed in Egyptology when doubtful conjecture
about Egypt’s past was replaced by accurate observation and rapid progress in decipherment.32 Meanwhile, Britain developed its own strong tradition of Egyptology,
in which the work of Belzoni and Wilkinson seemed to have great popular appeal.33
Dakhleh’s First Antiquarians and Explorers (1819–1825)
It was in this climate of massive growth in exploration, collection and recording
that Europeans first visited the Dakhleh Oasis. The years between 1819 and 1825
saw a number of Europeans venturing to this oasis for the first time. These explorers probably tried to escape from the cramped situation along the Nile valley,
28
Peck 2005. On Belzoni, see Mayes 2003.
Dawson and Uphill 1995, 370–71.
30
Reid 1985, 234. Colonial powers appropriated archaeological monuments in order to canonise
their world hegemony and assume a supreme position in the order of the world (Hassan 2003, especially 19).
31
Fagan 1975; Peck 2005.
32
Usick 2007, 310.
33
Usick 2007, 310.
29
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 125
19/12/12 08:42
126
A.L. BOOZER
catalysing a cluster of expeditions to Dakhleh. Bruce Trigger has observed that rapid
phases of growth in archaeology encourage younger archaeologists to strike off in
new directions. These mavericks pioneer cutting-edge analytical techniques and
interpretive models in order to establish their reputation.34 The exploration of the
Dakhleh Oasis seems to follow this trajectory. As the Nile valley became saturated
with explorers and collectors, expeditions moved to Egypt’s peripheries, including
the Eastern and Western Deserts as well as the Sudan.35 In 1819 a number of
explorers descended upon the oasis in quick succession. The oases at this time were
incredibly unruly and Mohammed Ali sent troops to this region to subdue the
oasites in 1820.36 Moreover, the journey to the oases was taxing, requiring nine to
ten days by a waterless route.37 These extreme conditions made it an ideal locale for
adventure and exploration.
Sir Archibald Edmonstone (1795–1871)
Sir Archibald, the third Baronet, was a British explorer and author of an early 19th
century publication on his explorations in Egypt as well as a number of publications
on devotional subjects.38 Edmonstone and Drovetti (see below) both claim to be
the first European travellers to the Dakhleh Oasis, although Edmonstone is largely
regarded as the first (see Table above).39
Edmonstone explained that there were three known oases: Siwa, Oasis Parva and
Oasis Magna. He equated the Oasis Magna with Khargeh and understood Dakhleh
to be a separate, unknown oasis.40 Edmonstone resolved to be the first European to
visit this new environment. Along with his companions Houghton and the Revd
Robert Master, he set out for the oasis on January 14th 1819 and headed down the
Nile. Master did some of the drawings that appeared in Edmonstone’s eventual
volume.41 Edmonstone encountered Belzoni en route, and Belzoni encouraged his
undertaking. Belzoni also informed Edmonstone that two other explorers intended
to explore Dakhleh: Calliaud and Drovetti. Calliaud had already been to the
Khargeh oasis and seen the antiquities there and both men were aware that another
34
Trigger 1989, 17.
For example, Bankes began his major expedition in November 1819 (Usick 2001). Siwa became
a focus for the Egyptian viceroy in 1820 (Kurz 2001, 63).
36
Fakhry 1974, II, 52–53.
37
Thompson 1992, 63.
38
Dawson and Uphill 1995, 137.
39
Vivian 2002, 35–36; Edmonstone 1822, 145–52.
40
Edmonstone 1822, x–xii. Dakhleh and Khargeh together were the Oasis Magna, or great oasis,
in antiquity. Pairing the two as an administrative unit appears to have lead to the confusion that there
was only one oasis: Khargeh.
41
Edmonstone 1822, xiii.
35
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 126
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
127
oasis existed west of Khargeh. Drovetti intended to make an attempt at discovering
it.42
Realising that Drovetti was already en route to Dakhleh, Edmonstone quickened
both his route and his pace from Assyut. He spent February 8th laying-in supplies
and then took off on February 9th.43 He wore Mameluke dress, which he had
purchased in Cairo, complemented by an arsenal of sabres, daggers and pistols.44
Edmonstone, Houghton and Master travelled to the southern oasis of Dakhleh
from Asyut over the Darb al-Tawil in 1819. Edmonstone left Cairo on January
14th, arrived in Balat on February 16th and was at ‘Ain Amur on February 22nd.45
A group of Bedouin who knew the way to Dakhleh guided Edmonstone’s party.
Edmonstone explored a number of sites during the few days he spent within
Dakhleh itself. He first found what appears to be Al-Muzzawwaqa (Fig. 3). Edmonstone described Al-Muzzawwaqa as:
an insulated rock perforated with caverns, which had served as catacombs to human
mummies, the fragments of which lie scattered about. The inhabitants of the adjacent
hamlet had stripped them in hopes of finding something valuable; and the jackalls,
which abound here, had completed the work of devastation.46
Edmonstone and his crew attempted to take one of the mummies away with them,
but their Bedouin guides refused to accompany them further if they did, out of religious considerations.47 Edmonstone spotted some isolated ruins in the vicinity of
Al-Muzzawwaqa, which may have been columbarium farmhouses, but then carried
on to the temple of Deir el-Haggar (Fig. 5).48 He was impressed by these remains and
resolved to return to view it the next day when the winds calmed down.49
On February 19th, on their way back to Deir el-Haggar, Edmonstone found the
Roman city of Amheida (Fig. 4), which he describes as:
…the vestiges of a town of greater extent than any we had seen before in this district.
It was now a complete mass of ruins, and we could distinguish nothing but a small
remnant of a temple, and the fragment of a white marble statue. This last was apparently
of Greek workmanship, and not without elegance, although so imperfect.50
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Edmonstone 1822, 2.
Edmonstone 1822, 4–6.
Edmonstone 1822, 6–7.
Winlock 1936, 3–4.
Edmonstone 1822, 47–48.
Edmonstone 1822, 47–48.
On these farmhouses, see Mills 1993.
Edmonstone 1822, 47–48.
Edmonstone 1822, 49.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 127
19/12/12 08:42
128
A.L. BOOZER
Fig. 3: Muzawaka, View (Amheida Project Staff, ‘Necropolis at Muzawaka (IX)’ Ancient World
Image Bank, New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World 2004,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isawnyu/4545655127).
Fig. 4: Amheida, View North of site towards the Limestone Escarpment (photograph by author).
Fig. 5: Deir el Haggar Temple, View (Amheida Project Staff, ‘Deir el-Haggar (II)’, Ancient World
Image Bank, New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World 2006,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isawnyu/4565507441).
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 128
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
129
It is curious that neither he nor the other explorers seemed to notice the large mudbrick pyramid that is so prominent on Amheida’s surface today. Even so, it is significant that Edmonstone was able to recognise a temple at Amheida as this temple
was only visible in the stone fragments that littered the temple mound when the
Amheida Project began excavations there in 2005.51 Finding nothing else of interest
to him at Amheida, Edmonstone returned to Deir el-Haggar.
Edmonstone was particularly drawn to temples and described the stone temple
Deir el-Haggar in particular detail. It is worth quoting Edmonstone at length
because he provides the first description of this important Dakhlan temple:
As the door-way was choked up by the sand, we scaled the wall without difficulty, and
immediately set about clearing the interior of the temple; but after about three or four
hours, finding that our labours would be fruitless, we desisted and proceeded to measure
every part with a graduated line. The edifice on the outside is 51 feet 4 inches long, by
24 feet 8 inches wide. In the front is a portico of eight columns; three only are standing,
and they in mutilated state: their circumference is 9 feet 6 inches, and the space between
7 feet 7 inches: the two centre have portals reaching half way up, not connected by a
lintel. The first chamber is 23 feet 9 inches, by 20 feet 3 inches, supported by four pillars, 5 feet in diameter at the shaft. As much as is visible of the walls is traced with fingers
and hieroglyphics. This apartment opens into another of the same width, but only
10 feet 4 inches long, perfectly plain and unornamented, excepting by the winged globe
encompassed by the serpent, the emblem of eternity, which is carved over the door.
Beyond this chamber, and communicating with it, are three smaller parallel to each
other, of which the middle one was the Adytum. Here the walls are covered with figures
and hieroglyphics, and much blackened by the lamps used in the service of the temple.
The other two compartments are of the same length as the centre, and 5 feet wide. The
roof still continues entire over these three chambers, which are lower than the rest of the
building. The temple stands due east and west. Round it, at the interval of twenty yards,
are the remains of a thick wall of unburnt brick, and a gateway of stone facing the
entrance. Besides the natural injury this structure has sustained from time and violent
winds, its ruins have been greatly accelerated by the Arabs in the forcible entries they
have made in search of treasure. We finished our observations and got back to Aboudaklough before dark.52
Although Edmonstone’s drawings and notes are of an antiquarian nature, they provide an excellent guide as to Deir el-Haggar’s state of preservation when he first
visited it. This guide is significant since Deir el Hagger suffered from looting at later
stages of its history. Edmonstone’s account of Dakhleh reveals that he was aware of
a strong Roman presence in Dakhleh, but he did not note the less well-preserved
51
52
See www.Amheida.org for preliminary reports.
Edmonstone 1822, 49–55.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 129
19/12/12 08:42
130
A.L. BOOZER
prehistoric material evident in this oasis. Edmonstone was particularly drawn to
Deir el-Haggar but also observed several other significant sites within the oasis,
including Al-Muzzawwaqa and Amheida. These three sites subsequently formed the
standard itinerary of almost all subsequent antiquarian visits.
Bernadino Michele Maria Drovetti (1776–1852)
Drovetti was a Piedmontese lawyer, soldier, traveller and a diplomat for the French,
although he is remembered primarily as an antiquities collector.53 Drovetti served
as the French Consul-General in Egypt during the Empire until 1814 and again
under the Restoration, 1820–29.54 As an explorer and excavator he was an outspoken rival, particularly against the English as part of the Anglo-French rivalry. This
antagonism can be seen in his argument with Edmonstone over who first reached
Dakhleh as well as the support that Cailliaud (a Frenchman) provided to Drovetti.
Drovetti, as a French agent, also competed with Salt, who was a British agent. Salt
also employed Belzoni, Drovetti’s most serious rival, adding more bitterness to this
rivalry.55
This avid explorer resolved to be the first European to visit the Dakhleh Oasis,
although it seems that Edmonstone narrowly beat Drovetti in this task. Drovetti
claimed to have visited Dakhleh in 1818, although it seems more likely that it was
in 1819 and that he trailed Edmonstone by a few days.56 Drovetti’s observations
from his travels are published within the works of Frédéric Cailliaud.57
Upon his arrival in Dakhleh, Drovetti found Tenida largely uninhabited, but he
remarked on the foundations of temple walls that appear to be of Greek construction. He also discovered the temple of Ayn el-Berbyeh near an adjoining spring and
numerous ancient buildings in the environs made out of baked bricks. Drovetti then
travelled to the village of Shaikh Bashandi, which was inhabited by about 30 families and well watered with two streams, but no archaeology was visible here at this
time. Another bout of walking lead him to Qasr El Amyr, an ancient building
53
Dawson and Uphill 1995, 129–30.
Dawson and Uphill 1995, 129–30. Shortly following his exit from the political arena and
engagement in explorations, Drovetti, along with his travelling companions Rifaud and Cailliaud, set
out to explore the Second Cataract and Abu Simbel in 1816. Drovetti and Salt also travelled together
on more than one occasion.
55
Ridley 1991, 240. These rivalries were common amid the Anglo-French competition and
have perhaps been overstated as can be seen in letters written to Drovetti, as published in Curto and
Donatelli 1985. This argument is also expressed in Ridley 1991.
56
Winlock 1936, 3–4; Ridley 1998, 289.
57
These are included under the title: Itinerary of an Excursion to the Valley of Dakel, by M. the
Chevalier Drovetti, French Consul General in Egypt, about the latter end of 1818, with a previous Itenerary from Syout to Dongolah, and Darfour (Cailliaud 1822, 66–77).
54
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 130
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
131
which he believed may have been a temple, judging from its enclosure but it was
buried in sand and difficult to interpret.58
Drovetti mentions ancient Mut and its temple along with an important spring
and basin, which was well-respected by the locals at this time.59 He visited the
tombs at Al-Muzzawwaqa, which were excavated in the gebel ‘which rises in the
form of a sugar loaf’.60 In searching among these tombs, Drovetti found mummies
of men and an animal, which the locals called ‘Ouhech El Gebel’. Drovetti took
the head of one of these horned animals, most likely a ram, which had been reduced
to a skeleton.61 His guides do not seem to have been offended by this action, unlike
the warning the Bedouin guides gave to Edmonstone when he suggested removing
a human body. Drovetti witnessed the unbaked brick of Amheida, but did not dwell
on this site and moved on to Deir el-Haggar where he found more to entertain
him.62 Again, a lengthier quote is worthwhile in order to track the preservation
condition of Deir el-Haggar:
Visiting the remains of several buildings of unbaked bricks, we came, at length, to a
temple called Deyr El Hagar; it has an inclosure of brick-work, which had a portico
joined to it, supported by columns constructed of triangular bricks; the wall was covered
over with plaister; at the lower part of the wall appeared a wainscoting, painted with skill
and judgment. The porticoes of this building led to apartments built also of brick-work.
Certain apartments, perhaps appropriated by the priests, were round about the sanctuary.
This temple, the construction of which is of calcareous stone, in the Egyptian style,
apparently is of a date posterior to the first Ptolemies:its interior decorations were never
finished: we found figures and hieroglyphics, but they were confined to the mantle-pieces
and the parts over the gates. The principal divinity is Osiris, with the head of a ram,
accompanied by Isis and Anubis. The temple has suffered, like that at El Khargeh, from
sinking in the earth; as both are in the same direction, this effect seems to have been
produced by an earthquake, a conjecture which is further strengthened by the proximity
of the hot water springs.63
Drovetti did not seem to understand that the temple was filled with sand due to
the strong winds in this desert environment, but he correctly identifies the dating
of the temple as well as some of the similarities between this temple and those in
the Kharga oasis nearby.
58
59
60
61
62
63
Cailliaud
Cailliaud
Cailliaud
Cailliaud
Cailliaud
Cailliaud
1822,
1822,
1822,
1822,
1822,
1822,
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 131
68.
69.
70.
70.
70.
70–71.
19/12/12 08:42
132
A.L. BOOZER
John Hyde (d. 1825)
Hyde was an English explorer and businessman from Manchester, who never published his own travels and observations. Because of this lapse, he is one of the more
enigmatic early explorers of Egypt and of Dakhleh. Hyde’s journals and notebooks,
which recount his travels, are now in the British Library.64 Hyde accompanied other
explorers on numerous important trips in Egypt, the Sudan, the Sinai and Iran.
Many of the most important 19th-century explorers and Egyptologists mention
Hyde in passing, which clearly indicates that Hyde had close contact with these key
persons, even though he himself does not figure strongly in the development of
archaeology in Egypt and the Near East.65 Hyde travelled with Belzoni, Salt, Bankes
and Drovetti (among others) as well as alone.66
Drawing from Hyde’s notes, as well as the observations of others, Hyde seems
to have visited Dakhleh in 1819. Cailliaud mentions that when he was at Bahriyah
in February 1820, he met Hyde, who had just returned from Dakhleh.67 Hyde’s
name, along with the date 1819, can be found at ‘Ain Amur and at Deir el-Haggar.
He signed his name as I. Hyde on monuments:68 the ‘I.’ stands for ‘Iohannes’. He
visited Egypt’s other oases and wrote his name on many monuments in Kharga and
Dakhleh.69 It is unfortunate that his notes have never been published.
Frédéric Cailliaud (1787–1869)
Cailliaud was a French traveller and mineralogist. As a result of his companionship
with Drovetti, he met Muhammed Ali (1769–49), who eventually made him the
official mineralogist for the Egyptian government and assigned him the task of finding the ancient emerald mines that the Ptolemies supposedly operated and which
were described by the Arab historians.70 Cailliaud was successful in the mission and
assigned to more treasure-seeking explorations. In addition to his mineralogy work
64
Dawson and Uphill 1995, 213. Hyde British Library Add. MS 42106; Hyde British Library
Add Mss 42102, f56 and f88.
65
Mentions of Hyde can be found in the following works: Finati 1830, ii, 320–40; Henniker
1824, 298; d’Athanasi 1836, 41–46; Hoskins 1837, 94. Edmonstone mentions that he is familiar with
Hyde’s subsequent recording of an inscription at Kasr el Zian in Khargeh (Edmonstone 1822, 68),
showing the closeness of contact between these two early Dakhleh explorers. Hyde has been the recent
subject of a conference paper (Ree 2005) and is mentioned in other studies (Usick 2006; Magee 1991).
66
Manley and Rée 2001, 167–68, 172, 288, n.24.
67
Cailliaud 1826, I, 181.
68
Winlock 1936, 4.
69
Fakhry 2003, 74. Squeezes in the Grantham Museum include some of modern graffiti from
Dakhleh. One shows the names of Ibrahim (i.e. J.L. Burckhart, who travelled under this name),
Beechey, Belzoni, Irby and Mangles 1817, Hyde 1819 and R. Burton. The early dates probably need
to be corrected. The Dakhleh squeezes are squeezes nos. 40–41, 47–48, Un7, Un9 (Magee 1991).
70
Dawson and Uphill 1995, 79.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 132
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
133
and explorations in Egypt, Cailliaud also undertook explorations in the Sudan and
at particularly at Meroe.71
Caillaud and his companion Letorzec visited Dakhleh in 1819 and 1820, seemingly unaware of Edmonstone’s visit.72 A certain Frédéric Müller also seems to have
participated in one of these expeditions.73 While in Dakhleh, they determined the
geographical position of the oasis by triangulating three regional measurements.74
Cailliaud’s comments on Dakhleh’s archaeology are extremely limited. Of Amheida,
Cailliaud remarks only that he found Roman houses and diverse crude brick monuments.75 Cailliaud mentions that he found many fragments of human and animal
mummies exposed on the surface of Al-Muzzawwaqa. He then moved on to examine Deir el-Haggar, which he described as being in the Egyptian style and with
hieroglyphics on the doors. He attributed its construction to the Ptolemies, seemingly following Drovetti’s lead in this identification.76 Cailliaud’s own account of
Dakhleh is minimal compared with Drovetti’s contribution, probably reflecting the
difference between their interests and objectives.
Sir John Gardner Wilkinson (1797–1875)
Wilkinson, a traveller and Egyptologist, was largely regarded as the founder of
Egyptology in Great Britain. He was the first individual to make an acceptable
working archaeological and historical survey of all of the primary sites in Egypt and
Nubia, a task that he accomplished single-handedly.77 Wilkinson extended himself
beyond the Nile valley and also devoted much of his time and energy to geographic
explorations, even venturing to Egypt’s Western Desert in 1825.78 While travelling
in dangerous desert regions, Wilkinson disguised himself as a Turk, which concealed the issue of his imperfect spoken Arabic.
From February 23rd to March 4th 1825 Wilkinson spent ten days in Dakhleh
in order to study the geography and ancient remains of the oasis.79 He took 11 pages
of notes on the oasis, which remain unpublished, and which contain observations
about the inhabitants and their physical appearance as well as Dakhleh’s ancient
71
Dawson and Uphill 1995, 79.
Cailliaud 1822, xi.
73
Winlock 1936, 4–5.
74
Cailliaud 1822, 6–7.
75
Cailliaud 1826, I, 221.
76
Cailliaud 1826, I, 221.
77
Dawson and Uphill 1995, 443.
78
Thompson 1992, 62. Frédéric Müller, a French explorer, seems to have visited Dakhleh in the
summer of 1824 and he left his name and this date on Deir el-Haggar and Ain Amur, where they
were copied by Jones Winlock 1936, 5. Little else is known about this individual.
79
Thompson 1992, 64.
72
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 133
19/12/12 08:42
134
A.L. BOOZER
ruins.80 Wilkinson was profoundly unimpressed with Dakhleh, despite his appreciation for the Eastern Desert, which he visited frequently over the years.81 In a
letter many years later to his friend Robert Hay, who had himself just visited the
oases, he had this to say about the inhabitants:
At all events I wish you joy on your return for of all places on earth I do think the oases
the most miserable. People used to talk of fortunate & blessed islands & other similar
nonsense – it was a pity that they were not forced to live there. The people of the wadis
are the most stupid beings on earth full of religious prejudice – a sure sign of ignorance.
You lost nothing by not going to this little oasis.82
Wilkinson used his notebooks as a basis for his first published descriptions of
Egypt’s antiquities and the publisher John Murray (III) also used them for one of
the first travel handbooks for Egypt, which drew mass numbers of European tourists to Egypt.83 The absence of significant notes by Wilkinson on Dakhleh probably
helped to hinder tourism to this isolated region.
Exploration and the First Excavation in Dakhleh (1873/4–1900)
There is a large gap between Wilkinson and the next explorer, Rohlfs. The regional
situation shifted during this time, due to political and developmental changes. Moreover, the allure of an unexplored oasis may have been tarnished by the quick sequence
of expeditions to Dakhleh. Egyptology, as a discipline, also experienced major changes
with respect to accumulated knowledge and subsequent specialisation.
Politically, Muhammed Ali was no longer viceroy in Egypt. Ismail Pasha (1830–
95) was Khedive over Egypt and the Sudan (1863–79) until the British removed
him.84 Like his grandfather, Muhammed Ali, Ismail encouraged modernisation and
education among Egypt’s elite. Ismail was an important figure in expanding the
railway in Egypt and the Sudan as well as the Suez Canal, which opened in 1869.
These infrastructure improvements made Egypt even more accessible than ever
80
Thompson 1992, 64. Ahmed Fahkry has criticised Wilkinson for not saying more about the
antiquities of the oases Fakhry 1974, II, 74; Thompson 1992, 244, n. 12. Cesaretti published smallscale photographs of four of the Dakhleh manuscript pages. These carry the title ‘Cairo to Siouah +
Fayum + Oases to Thebes, 1824–5’ in Cesaretti 1989. See also Kaper 1997, 3. Wilkinson’s manuscripts and papers, which contain notes on the oases, are now in the Griffith Institute in Oxford. One
should always bear in mind that Wilkinson’s published material only ever incorporates a fraction of
his research (Thompson 1992, 62).
81
Thompson 1992, 63–64.
82
Thompson 1992, 64.
83
Wilkinson 1847. The principal titles of Wilkinson’s bibliography can be found in Dawson and
Uphill 1995, 444.
84
Hunter 1998; Ibrahim 1998; Toledano 1998.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 134
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
135
before. The British began their occupation of Egypt in 1882, turning Egypt into a
commercial and trade nexus, and making a significant impact on the demography
of foreign residence in Egypt.85 Moreover, the British army that went to Egypt in
1882 had a surprising number of officers who had prior knowledge of Egypt’s
antiquities as well as a deep interest in ancient Egypt. Many officers went on to
contribute to Egyptology in later phases of their careers.86
The early 19th century was typified by the plundering of ancient Egyptian tombs
and temples, which was halted only after the French Egyptologist, Auguste Mariette
(1821–81), was appointed Conservator of Egyptian Monuments in 1858.87 Mariette took steps to stop all unauthorised work and antiquity removals, which almost
certainly reduced some of Egypt’s early appeal to explorers and antiquarians.88
Despite this advance in protecting Egypt’s antiquities, even Mariette’s excavations
were designed to acquire material for a national museum collection rather than
record the contexts from which these materials were excavated.89 Antiquities still
flooded out of Egypt in droves.
The nature of archaeology as a discipline also changed. The 1842–45 Prussian
Expedition to Egypt and the Sudan, under the direction of Karl Richard Lepsius,
had an enormous impact on the development of Egyptology as an academic discipline.90 Moreover, the Prussian Expedition signalled the expanding list of countries
that express their nationalism through the medium of Egyptology. The famous
Egyptologist, Flinders Petrie (1853–1942), conducted some of his most significant
archaeological research during the late 19th century and pioneered modern excavation techniques, quantitative methods and seriation in the region.91 Archaeology
within Egypt, as well as more broadly, also became more specialised, since both
French and British archaeologists became more formally involved in Egypt’s antiquities at this time.92 This increased specialisation across the archaeology profession
85
Jeffreys 2003a, 8.
Dixon 2003.
87
He established the Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte, which was the early name of the Supreme
Council of Antiquities (Jeffreys 2003a, 10). See also Haikal 2003, 124.
88
Trigger 1989, 39; Reid 2002.
89
Trigger 1989, 39.
90
Lepsius 1852; 1849. On Lepsius, see also Peck 2000; Freier and Reinicke 1988.
91
Jeffreys 2003a, 6. Petrie conducted a survey of the pyramids of Giza (1880–82), a Nile Delta
survey and excavation (1883–86), Fayum Depression excavations (1887–92, and other years) among
other projects. He also became the first Edwards Professor of Egyptology at University College London
(Drower 1995, 200–01). Contained within Petrie we find the professionalisation of archaeology in
Egypt. Petrie summarises his own research in Petrie 1892, especially 156–66; 1931.
92
The Institute Fançais d’Archéologie was opened in 1881 and the Egypt Exploration Fund (later
the Egypt Exploration Society) was founded shortly thereafter (Jeffreys 2003a, 8). On the latter, see
also T. James 1982.
86
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 135
19/12/12 08:42
136
A.L. BOOZER
can be seen in the subtle shift of visitors to Dakhleh. They became more specialised,
focused and driven to record their observations more accurately and thoroughly.
Even so, the major excavations that took place across Egypt and the Near East at
this time were absent from Dakhleh.
Friedrich Gerhard Rohlfs (1831–1896)
In the winter of 1873/74, a German geographer and adventurer named Rohlfs
ventured to the Great Oasis. Khedive Ismael funded the expedition. Rohlfs’ team
included a broadly interdisciplinary range of experts: a botanist (P. Ascherson), a
paleontologist and geologist (K. Zittel), a surveyor (W. Jordan), a photographer
(P. Remelé) and five others.93 Remelé’s photographs are the first known photographs of the Dakhleh Oasis. As a result of this interdisciplinary team, Rohlfs’
volume contains photos and drawings of flora, ethnographic material, people, ruins,
artefacts and other observations.
Rohlfs was the first European to cross Africa north to south and his expeditions
consistently sustained interests in art and antiquities. Rohlfs travelled to Dakhleh
from Farafra as he moved south across Africa. When visiting the Great Oasis, the
names of Rohlfs’ team can still be seen in the graffiti they left behind in both oases.
In Dakhleh, these can be found in the south-east side of the southern hall inside
the pronaos at the Temple of Deir el-Haggar (Fig. 6).94 A similar graffito was
inscribed on the Hibis Temple in the Khargeh Oasis, which is dated to March 24th
1874, although this second graffito has some differences in terms of team members
and composition.95
While in Dakhleh, Rohlfs stayed at El-Qasr and visited ruins in the area, much
like the other earlier explorers.96 During their stay, Prof. Wilhelm Jordan (1819–
1904) worked on creating a more precise map of the entire oasis than was available
from Calliaud’s earlier efforts to fix the position of Dakhleh.97 Jordan began this
work from El-Qasr with a trigonometric theodolite and worked eastwards in order
to create a topographical map of the oasis.98 Meanwhile, Rohlfs, along with Ascherson, spent their time naming mountains and passes within the topography. The
gebel (mesa) to the west of Deir el-Haggar is still known on maps as Gebel
Edmonstone, as a result of Rohlfs’ efforts.99 The Bab el-Gasmund also recalls the
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Rohlfs et al. 1875,
Kaper 2001, 233.
Kaper 2001, 234.
Rohlfs et al. 1875,
Rohlfs et al. 1875,
Kaper 2001, 239.
Rohlfs et al. 1875,
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 136
1–8; Genschorek 1982, 140–52; Kaper 2001, 235–36.
109–10, 120.
201–14.
116–17.
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
137
name that Rohlfs gave to a pass north of El-Qasr.100 Other names were not carried
over, perhaps because they did not represent distinct passes and mountains geographically.101
Rohlfs’ expedition focused on oasite antiquities and they visited the temple of
Deir el-Hager almost immediately upon their arrival. They described the temple as
being of exceptional Egyptian style and built of massive sandstone blocks. They
were quite impressed with its size and preservation.102 Expedition members must
have left their graffiti behind on one of the columns of the pronaos during one of
these visits.103 They commented that the ancient houses near the temple were
painted in a manner no longer present in Egypt, although they did not describe
these paintings in detail. Although these houses still exist, the paintings are no
longer visible.104 Rohlfs asked Remelé to excavate the sanctuary and offering hall of
the Deir el-Haggar temple. This excavation was the first undertaken in the oasis
and it lasted for four days. Remelé, along with the Sheikh el-Balad of el-Qasr began
work at the temple on February 19th with 50 workers and it lasted until February
22nd.105 These excavations were photographed and Lepsius subsequently transcribed and described the hieroglyphic writings and sculptures that were unearthed.106
Rohlfs also visited other sites in the oasis. He commented on the ‘huge mounds,
almost mountains’ of potsherds on Amheida’s site surface – so many that he speculated that perhaps the houses themselves, like modern-day pigeon lofts, had been
mostly constructed of pots.107 Amheida is the most likely location at which Rohlfs
saw well-made stone vessels and found some small bronzes and coins.108 Already
since Lepsius, Amheida was considered to be the site of Trimithis, which has since
been proven.109
100
Gasmund is named after Dr von Jasmund, German General-Consul in Egypt, who helped put
Rolfs into contact with a funding provider (Kaper 2001, 239).
101
Kaper 2001, 239.
102
Kaper 2001, 240.
103
These could also have been carved during Remelé’s excavations at Deir el-Hagger later that
same year.
104
Kaper 2001, 240.
105
Kaper 1997, 3; 2001, 243–46.
106
Rohlfs 1875, 128; Lepsius 1874. Remelé’s description of his work at Deir el-Haggar can be
found within Rohlf’s book (Rohlfs et al. 1875, 124–27).
107
Thurston 2003, 220.
108
Rohlfs et al. 1875, 129.
109
Kaper 2001, 240; Lepsius 1874, 80–83. The papyrologist Guy Wagner identified the ancient
name of Trimithis with the ruins at Ismant el-Kharab and the ancient name of Kellis with the ruins
at Amheida. His papyrological work on Trimithis, although equated with Ismant el-Kharab, should
be understood to represent Amheida since it is now possible to connect the ancient name of Trimithis
with the current name of Amheida (Bagnall and Ruffini 2004, 143–44).
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 137
19/12/12 08:42
138
A.L. BOOZER
Rohlfs mentioned a large number of cliff graves located southwest of Deir elHaggar, which probably refer to the necropolis, Bir Talata el-Arab.110 Rohlfs also
noticed a necropolis northwest of Deir el-Haggar, which must be Al-Muzzawwaqa, although Jordan’s map did not include this site.111 In one of these two sites
he found two rock graves with closed stone doors. He opened these. In the first
he found seven corpses wrapped in sitting positions, two of which were children.
In the middle he found a rod with a worked sycamore head positioned on it.
The group was covered in a matt and a perforated date palm leaf shroud.112 The
skulls of the corpses were brought back to Germany for the Berliner Gesellschaft
für Anthropologie.113 The second grave was also opened, but the workers broke
the ceramic coffin inside and, otherwise, no finds were mentioned from this
grave.114
The expedition also visited the ancient and modern town of Mut.115 Ascherson
reported on the ruins of Mut, which he visited between January 30th and February
2nd. He described large mud-brick fortifications, similar to the Roman forts that
had been seen in Kharga.116 Mut is indicated on the map and Rohlfs described large
ramparts and water systems within a large tower-like building. Aside from mentioning some sandstone ruins, they did not record anything else about ancient Mut.117
This account of Mut indicates that it was fairly well preserved in the late 19th
century, although it suffered considerably from the later urban expansion of modern-day Mut.
Rohlfs observed ethnographic details as well as archaeology, including comments
on water usage, housing, furnishings and the very narrow streets, which he described
as dirty and unhealthy.118 Rohlfs also mentioned abandoned alum mines near Mut,
which were functioning during the time of Drovetti’s visit to Mut in 1819.119 These
ethnographic observations give us some clues about the changing ways of life within
the Dakhleh Oasis during the 19th century as well as how they impacted archaeological preservation in Mut’s vicinity.
110
DOP number 33/390-E9-2.
Kaper 2001, 241. Because this necropolis is located between El Quasr and Deir el-Haggar, it
is almost certain that the expedition must have visited here, especially since Edmonstone, Drovetti
and Cailliaud also visited and described this site.
112
Rohlfs et al. 1875, 132, fig. 13.
113
Hope 1981; Kaper 2001, 241.
114
Rohlfs et al. 1875, 131–33; Kaper 2001, 241.
115
They certainly did not visit the area of Balat and Tenida on the way back (Kaper 2001, 242).
116
Rohlfs et al. 1875, 242, 257–59.
117
Kaper 2001, 243.
118
Kaper 2001, 239–40.
119
Kaper 2001, 239.
111
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 138
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
139
Captain H.G. Lyons
Captain Lyons of the Royal Engineers was on military patrol in the oases during
the Sudan War in 1893–94. During his time there he attempted to supplement
Rohlfs’ geographic and geological description of the oasis.120 In 1894, Lyons
acquired two stelae when he visited Mut and which were supposedly from the
ancient site of Mut.121 He presented these stelae to the Ashmolean Museum in
Oxford and Spiegelberg was the first to publish them.122 Since this initial publication, Gardiner has republished the larger one and Janssen has republished the
smaller hieratic stelae.123 These two stelae indicated for the first time that Dakhleh’s
priesthood, and occupational history, extended back to at least the 22nd Dynasty.
This purchase of antiquities within Dakhleh is one of few recorded instances of
antiquities trade in the oasis. Although looted objects must have found an antiquities market, we simply do not know where these objects ended up.
Bernhard Moritz (1859–1939)
Dr Moritz conducted the second archaeological excavation in Dakhleh in 1900, more
than 25 years after the first excavation. Moritz was an Arabic professor from Berlin,
who had moved to Cairo for work four years earlier. While in Cairo, he served as the
Director of the Khedieval Library of Darb el-Gamamiz, which later became the Egyptian Library. Moritz occasionally assisted Egyptologists in their endeavours, but he
was primarily an expert in Arabic palaeography.124 Moritz was also a keen amateur
geographer, often travelling to exotic locales for months at a time.125 In 1900, he went
on a three-week-long camel trip to Khargeh and Dakhleh during January and February. Moritz travelled from Assyut to the western end of Dakhleh and then back, taking notes along the way, particularly on the geography and topography. Moritz
promptly published these notes in Cairo upon his return. As an Arabist, he was the
first to compare 14th-century place-names to the modern names in the oasis.126
When Moritz visited Ismant el-Kharab (modern Kellis) he discovered paintings
buried in the sand that he resolved to excavate.127 He returned on February 4th 1900
with a dozen workmen from the village and began clearing sand from the central
chamber of the southernmost of the large mausoleums still standing to the north of
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
Lyons 1894.
Spiegelberg 1899.
Spiegelberg 1899. On the donation of the stelae, see Fakhry 1973, 218.
Gardiner 1933; Janssen 1968.
Kaper 1997, 4.
Moritz 1910; 1908; Schmidt and Moritz 1926.
Kaper 1997, 4.
Moritz 1900, 453.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 139
19/12/12 08:42
140
A.L. BOOZER
Fig. 6: Deir el Haggar Temple, Rohlfs Expedition Graffito (photograph by author).
Fig. 7: Ain Aseel, Main Road through Settlement (Amheida Project, ‘Ruins at Ain Asil (II)’,
Ancient World Image Bank, New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World 2006,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isawnyu/4546516398).
the settlement at Ismant el-Karab.128 He uncovered the paintings of the stone-lined
walls, which still stood to ca. 2.70 m in height and he found some dislocated human
remains on the floor. He took photographs of these paintings and showed them to
F. von Bissing, who was excavating at Abu Ghurab, north of Abusir, at this time.129
Moritz’s description of these paintings is based on von Bissing’s interpretation of
128
129
Moritz 1900, 466–71.
Moritz 1900, 467 note. Von Bissing excavated at Abu Ghurab from 1898 to 1901.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 140
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
141
them.130 Winlock returned to the stone-lined mausoleum chamber in 1908 and photographed it.131 The Egyptian antiquities inspector Girgis Elias also reported on these
paintings in 1917, suggesting they may have suffered damage during the interim nine
years.132 The stones of the mausoleum were robed from the tomb in 1920.133 This
brief history of destruction at Ismant el-Kharab suggests that the early 20th century
saw more looting and vandalism than earlier periods of exploration.
Herbert E. Winlock (1884–1950)
In 1908, Winlock, an American Egyptologist from the Metropolitan Museum of
Art (New York), ventured by camel from the Khargeh Oasis to the Dakhleh Oasis
with Arthur M. Jones. Winlock later published his notes, plans and photographs
from the expedition since they contained information that had never been published
before.134 Winlock was the first professional Egyptologist to travel to the region and
describe its monuments in a systematic manner. These detailed notes were published in 1936 and this book has provided a considerable resource for all subsequent
archaeological research in the region.
Winlock was the first explorer to mention the presence of a settlement located near
Bashandi and ruins near Tenida, commenting that they were similar to the Roman
ruins in Kharga.135 He was also the first to dwell on the prehistoric material evident
in Dakhleh.136 He stopped at Ismant el-Kharab and described the ruins in some detail,
noting the barrel vaults and pendentive domes present on the site, as well as the
necropolis.137 Fortunately, he published photographs of the remains of paintings on
the stone chapel at Ismant el-Kharab, which were destroyed in about 1920.138
Winlock visited Amheida, remarking that it was similar to Ismant el-Kharab but
less well preserved. He goes on to say:
About the middle of the E. side [of the site] there is a prominent, pyramidal, brick
structure, built upon a square base measuring 5.75 m on a side and with vertical walls
130
Only one of Moritz’s photographs of the paintings was published when Maspero included it
in his 1919 volume on the history of art in Egypt (Maspero 1919). Maspero misidentifies it as a
painting from a hypogeum in the Bahariya Oasis (Kaper 1997, 5, n. 33). Kaper, Loeben and Hope
looked for Moritz’s unpublished photographs and notes in 1994 in Berlin but were unable to find
them (Kaper 1997, 5).
131
Winlock 1936, pl. xii.
132
Elias 1917.
133
Kaper 1997, 4–5.
134
Winlock 1936, 3.
135
Winlock 1936, 17–18.
136
Winlock 1936, 10, 26, 37, 42, pls. II, IV, V.
137
Winlock 1936, 20–21.
138
Winlock 1936, 21, pl. XII; Fakhry 1973, 218.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 141
19/12/12 08:42
142
A.L. BOOZER
3 m high. The pyramid’s total height is about 7 or 8 m. Around it there are the remains
of mud-brick wall, and there are a great many human bones scattered on the slope on
which it stands.139
This is the first lengthy account of Amheida’s pyramid and it appears to be looted already
by this period, although it was structurally in good condition. The Amheida Project
recently conserved this pyramid, as it grew unstable over the course of the 20th century.140
Winlock visited Deir el-Haggar and made a rapid sketch of the site using a compass
and Beadnell’s map of the site. Winlock provides a lengthy description of the temple and
some of its inscriptions, giving a sense of its high state of preservation at this time.141 He
also visited Al-Muzzawwaqa, describing the painted decoration within the tombs as well
as the state of the human and ram mummies littered about the tombs, which suggests
they were in a stable state from when they were first viewed by Edmonstone in the early
19th century.142 Winlock described ancient Mut as a seriously plundered and destroyed
town site, although the walls and the ancient well were still visible at this time.143
Throughout his monograph, Winlock makes ethnographic observations as well
as observations of the Christian and Mediaeval ruins, which are also visible within
the oasis. Winlock’s account provides a holistic glimpse of the oasis as it was in the
early 20th century and the first professional interpretation of the oasis monuments.
Girgis Elias
Elias, of the Antiquities Service of Egypt, visited Dakhleh in 1917 in his official
capacity. He arrived in Tenida and noted the lack of antiquities in the area before
moving on to Balat where he also found no antiquities.144 Elias then went to the
Western portion of Dakhleh where he visited Ismant el-Kharab, Mut, Amheida,
Deir el-Haggar and Al-Muzzawwaqa. He provided general details and dimensions
of these sites, as well as a sense of changing preservation in the region.145
Partial and Full Independence (1922–1977)
Travel to Egypt fell off during the first half of the 20th century, largely due to the
two world wars and the world-wide economic recession of the 1930s.146 In the
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
Winlock 1936, 25.
See preliminary reports at www.Amheida.org.
Winlock 1936, 29–33.
Winlock 1936, 35–37.
Winlock 1936, 40.
Elias 1917, 141.
Elias 1917, 142–43.
Fahim 2001, 8.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 142
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
143
1920s, Britain’s partial withdrawal from internal Egyptian affairs opened the way
for the gradual inclusion of locals within Egypt’s Antiquities Service and the founding of a national school of archaeology.147 The public interest aroused by Tutankhamun’s tomb ensured that the Egyptian government and Egypt’s elite were now
committed to Egyptology. Moreover, disputes between Ludwig Borchardt and the
Antiquities Service over the removal of Nefertiti’s head to Berlin made Egyptians
more suspicious of foreign missions, which resulted in changes to Egypt’s legal
framework for antiquities.148 Simultaneously, many foreign missions were unable to
secure financial supporters back home because they could no longer produce sufficient quantities of finds for their donors. Both of these political changes positively
impacted the development of indigenous Egyptology. Beginning in 1928, Egypt
began producing its own Egyptologists for the first time.149 Ahmed Fakhry (see
below) was among this first graduating class of Egypt-educated Egyptologists.150
This development had an enormously positive impact on the archaeology of Egypt’s
peripheries, with Egyptians leading the development of archaeology along the
fringes. Complete local control of archaeology came with Egypt’s full political independence in the 1950s.151
Hans A. Winkler (1900–1945)
Winkler was a German ethnographer and philologist. Winkler studied religious
history and semitic philosophy at Gottingen in 1919–21, but took some time off
and became a miner and a radical. Winkler returned to university learning at
Tübingen, where he also lectured and was eventually dismissed for his radical
views.152 Winkler is best known for his ethnographic research on spirit possession
in a village near Luxor in Upper Egypt.153 His strong background in religious practices and folklore shaped Winkler’s interpretations of rock art, which represents his
contribution to the archaeology of Dakhleh.
147
On the increased participation of Egyptian nationals in Egyptology at this time, see Haikal
2003, 126.
148
Jeffreys 2003a, 11.
149
Reid 1985, 234–39. Egyptian nationals (with very few exceptions) had been barred from any
participation in the administration and teaching of Egyptian archaeology until this time (Wood 1998).
150
Haikal 2003, 126.
151
In 1950, Mahmoud Hamza became the first Egyptian Director of the Cairo Museum, and in
1952 Mostapha Amer became the first Egyptian Director of the Service des Antiquités Egyptiennes
(Haikal 2003, 124).
152
Dawson and Uphill 1995, 448.
153
See now Winkler 2009, an English translation of Die reitenden Geister der toten: eine Studie
über Besessenheit des ‘Abd er-Râdi und über Gespenster und Dämonen, Heilige und verzückte, totenkult
und Priestertum in einem oberägyptischen Dorfe (Stuttgart 1936).
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 143
19/12/12 08:42
144
A.L. BOOZER
Winkler recorded Dakhleh’s petroglyphs as part of the Sir Robert Mond Desert
Expedition in the Eastern and Western Deserts, which he led during the winters of
1936/37 and 1938/39.154 The 1939 volume is significant in that it was the first
time a specialist systematically examined Dakhleh’s prehistory. Winkler’s work has
had a strong impact on Egyptian rock art studies and particularly those within
Dakhleh.155 Subsequent archaeologists have appropriated his analyses when forming
their own descriptions of regional rock art, although nearly 50 years elapsed between
Winkler’s publications and the next attempt to survey Dakhlan rock art in 1985.156
Winkler did not include the western portion of Dakhleh in his survey and he
seemed unaware of the substantial Roman ruins in the area, thinking that only the
earliest time periods were well represented in Dakhleh.157 Winkler also seems to
have missed the connections between Dakhleh and other locales since he commented that Dakhleh was substantially more barren and unconnected with other
regions than the Eastern Desert.158
Winkler was the last major explorer who was not trained in archaeology and who
worked in Dakhleh. Until after World War 2 there were very few professionally
trained archaeologists in the world. The post-war era lead to massive growth in
universities as well as archaeology departments and the number of professional
archaeologists. Graduate programmes formed within these departments that were
geared to producing regional specialists.159
Following the Egyptian revolution of 1952, Egypt had strained relations with
the West and travel to Egypt came to be confined to specific purposes (tourism,
study, business).160 Moreover, the age of travellers’ accounts had fallen off, so people no longer tried to experience Egypt holistically, as they had done before. This
shift can be seen particularly in the change from exploratory expeditions to archaeological missions. Therefore, this period became one of increasing activity among
154
Winkler 1938; 1939, 7–9; James forthcoming. Daniel James recently re-examined Winkler’s
research and found hidden potentials there, although there are some considerable errors in the
original text (James 2012; forthcoming). The Winkler archives include unpublished photographs,
negatives, field diary, notes and correspondence and are housed in the Egypt Exploration Society
in London.
155
James 2012; forthcoming.
156
Krzyzaniak and Kroeper 1985. Some rock art interpretations influenced by Winkler include
Berger 2006, 196; 2008; Ikram 2009, 75; Judd 2009, 52–53; Krzyzaniak and Kroeper 1991, 62;
Krzyzaniak 1987, 185; 1990, 96; 1991, 62; 2004, 18; Kuciewicz, Jaroni and Kobusciewicz 2007, 7;
McDonald 1993, 44–45; Riemer 2006, 499–500; 2009. James questions some of Winkler’s interpretations and, in turn, these subsequent analyses (James 2012; forthcoming).
157
Winkler 1939, 3.
158
Winkler 1939, 3.
159
Michaels 1996.
160
Fahim 2001, 8.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 144
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
145
Egyptian archaeologists in Egypt, rather than Western exploration. Publications also
became more focused and professional in approach.
Ahmed Fakhry (1905–1973)
Fakhry, part of the first wave of professional Egyptian archaeologists, catalysed the
first major archaeological work in Egypt’s desert regions. He was the Chief Inspector for Middle Egypt and the oases in 1936. After 1937 Fakhry devoted his attention to desert oasis sites and acted as Director of Desert Researches, a special section
created in the Antiquities Service, from 1944 until 1950.161 He was astonished to
find so many antiquities in Dakhleh since early explorers had found so little there,
compared with Khargeh.162 Descriptions of Fakhry’s research have been published
both by Fakhry himself and others who summarised his work, following his untimely
death in 1973.163
In 1947 Fakhry visited Dakhleh again with A. Zayed to see the Pharaonic site
of Ain Aseel, which inhabitants of Balat had discovered for the first time after a
recent, particularly intense sandstorm (Fig. 7).164 Fakhry also entered the Roman
tomb of Kitinos at Bashandi at this time, which had also been exposed.165 Following a later visit, Fakhry noted that the condition of Deir el-Haggar had deteriorated
considerably since it was first observed by Edmonstone. To make matters worse,
sometime between the December 30th 1965 and October 15th 1968, antiquities
looters attacked this temple on nine occasions and succeeded it cutting away 32 fragments of the best preserved scenes on the temple walls.166
Following these visits to the oasis, Fakhry carried out a number of important
excavations in Dakhleh between 1968 and 1973. He made soundings at Ain Aseel
in October 1968. In April 1970 he discovered the cemetery at Qila el-Dabba. From
April 1971 to September 1972, Fakhry undertook three short campaigns at Balat
during which four mastaba tombs were excavated that belonged to the 6th-Dynasty
oasis governors.167 In May 1971, Fakhry rediscovered the painted tombs at AlMuzzawwaqa, which no-one had reported on substantially since Winlock’s visit in
161
Dawson and Uphill 1995, 147–48.
Fakhry 1973, 217, 222.
163
Fakhry 1973, 220–21; Vercoutter 1977, 275–76; Osing et al. 1982, 14–17.
164
Fakhry 1973, 219.
165
Fakhry 1973, 219; Osing et al. 1982, 57–58. For a full description of Fakhry’s findings, see
Osing et al. 1982, 57–69.
166
Fakhry 1973, 218.
167
Fakhry 1973, 220–21. Mastaba tombs are tombs in the shape of a rectangular, solid bench.
The term derives from the Arabic word for bench (mastaba). For a description of Fakhry’s findings,
see Osing et al. 1982, 42–56.
162
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 145
19/12/12 08:42
146
A.L. BOOZER
1908.168 Subsequently, Fakhry excavated at Al-Muzzawwaqa, realising the significance of the elaborately painted tombs of Petosiris and Petubastis (Fig. 8).169 Fakhry
also began work in front of the Deir el-Haggar Temple at this time. Fakhry’s most
famous archaeological research remains in Dakhleh, and particularly the mastaba
tombs of Balat that he discovered in the 1950s.170 It was Fakhry’s pioneering
research that drew Egyptologists to Dakhleh for the first systematic study of the
oasis.171
Centre d’Étude et de Documentation sur l’Ancienne Egypte (CEDAE)
In the 1960s, CEDAE drew up plans to publish the temples located in Egypt’s oases
and created the Western Desert Project for this purpose. This centre was created in
consultation with UNESCO. An Egyptian, Abdel Aziz Sadek, was appointed head
of this project and was in charge of documentation.172 Sadek participated in Fakhry’s
October 1968 excavations at Ain Aseel. Despite the ambitions of this project, it was
not productive during its life history and Sadek handed over the Khargeh temple
publication responsibility to IFAO in 1994 with no publications produced.173
Despite this lack of published material, CEDAE provided a model for subsequent
missions to the oases, which also spanned broad research questions.
Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (IFAO)
In 1954, Serge Sauneron (1927–1976) visited the monuments of the Southern
Oasis along with a party of scholars, including P. Derchain.174 Sauneron was a
pensionnaire at IFAO in Cairo at the time and, more than 20 years after this visit,
became the director of IFAO (1969–1976).175 As director of IFAO, Sauneron initiated a number of significant excavations in the Southern Oasis.
168
Fakhry 1973, 218–19, n. 5.
For a description of Fakhry’s findings and additional observations, see Osing et al. 1982,
70–95. These two tombs, and particularly that of Petosiris, have been reanalysed recently (Whitehouse
1998). See also Minas-Nerpel 2007 for a demotic inscribed icosahedron recovered from Al-Muzzawakka in the 1980s.
170
Mills 1985; Osing et al. 1982.
171
Dieter Arnold and Jürgen Osing visited Dakhleh in March 1978 in order to publish a volume
on Fakhry’s research results in Dakhleh as well as continue studies that Fakhry considered to be
important (Osing et al. 1982). During this time, Osing also took notes at several temples in the
Southern Oasis and published a series of articles on them (Osing 1985c; 1978; 1985a–b; 1986a–c;
1990).
172
Moukhtar 1995, 28.
173
Grimal 1995, 579.
174
Derchain 1955; Rivet 1954; 1955; 1956.
175
Dawson and Uphill 1995, 373–74.
169
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 146
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
147
Fig. 8: Muzawaka, Petosiris Tomb, Representation of Petosiris (?), Ba bird, hawk, Ibis, Jackal
Horus, Thoth and Anubis (Amheida Project Staff, ‘Paintings from the Tomb of Petosiris at
Muzawaka (X)’, Ancient World Image Bank, New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient
World 2004, http://www.flickr.com/photos/isawnyu/4546285372).
On February 18th 1977, work commenced at Qila el-Dabba. Fakhry had drawn
attention to this site first when he isolated four large mud-brick mastabas for study.
IFAO identified another mastaba and also fully cleared and recorded these structures.176 Then, in 1978, an expedition began work at the Old Kingdom capital, Ain
Asil.177 Soon after he began work at Qila el-Dabba, Fakhry had discovered the site
of Ain Asil, located 1.5 km east of the site. Fakhry identified it as the urban complex
associated with the mortuary site of Qila el-Dabba. IFAO began formal excavations
here with small sondages in 1978 and subsequently expanded excavations after
176
Giddy 1987, 174–84.
Giddy and Grimal 1979b; Giddy, Jeffreys and Soukiassian 1981; Smith and Giddy 1985. On
the start of IFAO’s work in Dakleh, see Valloggia 1986.
177
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 147
19/12/12 08:42
148
A.L. BOOZER
discovering the high degree of preservation on the site.178 IFAO continues to excavate in this area of Dakhleh today.
Dakhleh Oasis Project (DOP)
Geoffrey Freeman of the Canadian Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities
(SSEA) and Anthony Mills of the Royal Ontario Museum visited the Dakhleh Oasis
in 1977.179 They were strongly influenced by Fakhry’s assertion about the potential
for work in the Dakhleh Oasis.180 Shortly thereafter, Freeman and Mills formed the
DOP in 1977. The DOP started its first season on October 10th 1978, with funding from the Canada Council, the Royal Ontario Museum and the SSEA.181 Scholars have become increasingly aware of the benefits of interdisciplinary research and
this approach was always central within the DOP. The DOP objective is to examine the evolution of cultural remains and the oasis environment in tandem so that
scholars can recognise the relationship between humans and the environment.
The DOP surveyed the entire Dakhleh Oasis during the 1970s and 1980s,
largely completing the survey in the 1982/83 field season.182 This survey revealed
that there was a modest resident population in Dakhleh throughout the Pharaonic
period but more than three times as many sites during the Roman and Byzantine
centuries of occupation.183 These results resonated with Edmonstone’s earliest
observations of the oasis. The DOP began excavations after completing their survey
and the DOP continue to excavate at several sites initially observed by antiquarians:
Deir el Haggar, the Roman town Kellis (Ismant el-Kharab) and the Roman capital
city Mothis (Mut). New York University and partner institutions, as part of the
DOP, now excavate the Roman city Trimithis (Amheida).184 Other smaller-scale
excavations have also taken place.
A full description of the DOP and IFAO work is beyond the parameters of the
present work as it represents a completely different phase of research professionalisation in Dakhleh.
178
Giddy 1987, 184–205. The preliminary research on these sites goes beyond the temporal
parameters of this paper, see Giddy 1979; Giddy and Grimal 1979a–b; Giddy and Jeffreys 1981;
Giddy, Jeffreys and Soukiassian 1981.
179
Mills 1977; 1978a; 1978b.
180
Thurston 2003, 17–21. On Fakry’s discussion of Dakhleh’s valuable archaeology, see Fakhry
1973.
181
Mills 1978a. The DOP formation can be found described in Thurston 1987.
182
Mills 1985.
183
Churcher and Mills 1995. This perspective should be revised somewhat now that the ceramics
are better-understood for the Ptolemaic era.
184
Likewise, the papyrologist Guy Wagner conducted important work on the oasis during the
Roman period (Wagner 1987, 191).
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 148
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
149
Discussion
This brief historiography makes antiquarian observations more accessible to Dakhleh
oasis researchers and contributes additional useful outcomes. In particular, it is possible to understand the research implications of working in a peripheral zone;
changes in monument preservation in Dakhleh; the contours of current research
projects within the oasis; and research priorities in this oasis.
First, Dakhleh’s location on Egypt’s edge impacted the development of archaeological research in the oasis. Antiquarian explorers were the first to visit and
publicise the archaeology found within this oasis. Before archaeology became a
formal discipline, antiquarian discoveries and publications commonly brought
antiquities to light for the first time. Dakhleh, as a peripheral area of Egypt,
experienced antiquarian exploration to a less intense degree than other regions of
Egypt and the ancient world. Moreover, increased specialisation in archaeology
at the turn into the 20th century took a long time to manifest itself in Dakhleh.
The isolated location of Dakleh also staved off large excavation projects, which
really did not take place until Fakhry’s pioneering research in the mid-20th century, followed by the large expeditions established in the late 1970s. Tourism in
Dakhleh is still minimal compared with the rest of Egypt, which has helped to
continue to preserve its heritage. This trajectory is substantially later than other
regions, which experienced major excavations in the late 19th century. As a result,
Dakhleh has more sites undergoing excavation for the first time than most regions
within Egypt.
Second, this historiography enables us to understand changes in monument preservation. Dakhleh’s extreme location helped to preserve many of the monuments
from European excavation and collecting until the end of the 19th century, when
we see some antiquities moving onto the market. Most preservation issues seem to
have occurred in the early and middle 20th century when Dakhleh had become
more accessible to Europeans and while Egypt underwent major political changes.
Moreover, the urban expansion of Mut had disastrous effects upon the ancient city
at Mut, particularly in the late 19th and 20th century. Egyptians who monitored
the sites (Elias, Fakhry) noted most of these preservation issues, although we can
glean preservation changes the explorers’ chronicles as well.
Third, the contours of current research become clearer when reviewing Dakhleh’s
research history. The DOP focuses on sites well-known to antiquarians, while the
IFAO expeditions focus on the sites more recently exposed during Fakhry’s period
of work in Dakhleh. Moreover, the DOP is a strongly interdisciplinary enterprise,
which reflects several other missions in the past. In particular, the DOP resembles
the Rohlfs expedition, which brought a broad range of experts to Dakhleh and
Dakhleh’s first excavations.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 149
19/12/12 08:42
150
A.L. BOOZER
It is clear from looking back at prior research that increases in Egyptian research
participation have had a positive impact on the contours of research in Dakhleh.
Egyptian input can be seen at all levels of research in Dakhleh. Muhammed Ali and
Khedive Ismael funded and supported early expeditions to the region. Bedouin and
local Dakhlans guided early explorers, in addition to assisting with excavations.
Fakhry, one of the first professional Egyptian archaeologists, conducted the first
systematic work in this region and locals informed Fakhry of archaeological discoveries as they came to light for the first time. This local participation in archaeology
is rarely glimpsed in antiquarian accounts of Dakhleh and there is clearly a hidden
history of local interest in archaeology. Local stories and contributions rarely receive
the attention they merit in publications, although some recognition has been given
more recently in other regions.185 Importantly, it was an Egyptian, Fakhry, who
drew a number of interdisciplinary foreign missions into Dakhleh and revitalised
research in the region. These results suggest the positive outcomes of increasing
Egyptian involvement in archaeological missions in Dakhleh.
Fourth, re-examining past research allows us to see more clearly what archaeological evidence explorers examined closely, and what evidence they missed. It is
clear that the Roman remains in Dakhleh always drew the most attention. This
observation should not be surprising since subsequent DOP data suggest that the
Roman presence in Dakhleh brought the population density to its greatest extent
until the late 20th century. Even so, it is clear that this phase of Dakhleh’s history
has overshadowed earlier periods. The time lag between Classical and Prehistoric
research is not uncommon in archaeology and can be compared with other areas of
the Near East, where clearly visible remains are explored before more hidden, deep
pasts.186 Prehistoric material was not examined significantly until Winkler’s rock art
research in the late 1930s and then not again until the late 20th century. It is clear
that Dakhleh has much to offer in all phases of human occupation and both IFAO
and the DOP now conduct research outside of the Roman phase of occupation.
In summation, Dakhleh’s rich past has been explored with increasing intensity
and expertise over the past 200 years, with particularly significant developments
occurring since Fakhry realised the research potential of this region. The development of archaeology in Dakhleh cannot be considered in isolation from historical
events or the discipline of archaeology more broadly. Although past Dakhlan
archaeology was not at the forefront of archaeological developments, it clearly
responded to developments that occurred around it. This situation has changed
dramatically since the late 1970s when IFAO and DOP began their research in
185
186
Dural 2007; Matthews 2011.
Matthews 2011, 36, 46–48.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 150
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
151
Dakhleh, leading the way in interdisciplinary and collaborative projects and contributing innovative approaches to the discipline and the local community.
Bibliography
Abbreviations
BIFAO
JSSEA
Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.
Anderson, R. and Fawzi, I. 1987: Egypt in 1800: Scenes from Napoleon’s Description de l’Égypte (Cairo).
Bagnall, R.S. and Ruffini, G.R. 2004: ‘Civic Life in Fourth-Century Trimithis: Two Ostraka from
the 2004 Excavations’. ZPE 149, 143–52.
Beadnell, H.J. 1901: Dakhla Oasis: Its Topgography and Geology (Geological Survey Report 1899.
Part IV) (Cairo).
—. 1909: An Egyptian Oasis: An Account of the Oasis of Kharga in the Libyan Desert, with Special
Reference to its History, Physical Geography, and Water-Supply (London).
Bednarski, A. 2005: Holding Egypt: Tracing the Reception of the Description de l’Égypte in NineteenthCentury Great Britain (London).
Berger, F. 2006: ‘Relative Chronology of Rock Art at Djedefre’s Water Mountain, SW-Egypt’. In
Kroeper, K., Ch¥odnicki, M. and Kobusiewicz, M. (eds.), Archaeology of Early Northeastern Africa:
In Memory of Lech Krzyzaniak (Poznan), 137–46.
—. 2008: ‘Rock Art West of Dakhla: The “Women” from Dachla’. Rock Art Research 25.2, 137–45.
Bierbrier, M.L. 2003: ‘Art and Antiquities for Government’s Sake’. In Jeffreys 2003b, 67–75.
Cailliaud, F. 1822: Travels in the Oasis of Thebes, and in the Deserts situated East and West of the Thebaid, in the years 1815, 16, 17, and 18 by M. Frederic Cailliaud, edited by M. Jomard (London).
—. 1826: Voyage à Meroé, au Fleuve Blanc, au-delà de Fâzoql, vol. 1. (Paris; reprinted Westmead
1972).
Cesaretti, M.P. 1989: ‘Sir John Gardner Wilkinson à Deir el-Hagar’. Discussions in Egyptology 14,
17–29.
Churcher, C.S. and Mills, A.J. 1995: Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis: 1977–1987 2
(Oxford).
Colla, E. 2007: Conflicted Antiquities: Egyptology, Egyptomania, Egyptian Modernity (Durham, NC).
Curto, S. and Donatelli, L. (eds.) 1985: Bernardino Drovetti: Epistolario (Milan).
d’Athanasi, G. 1836: A Brief Account of the Researches and Discoveries in Upper Egypt Made under the
Direction of Henry Salt Esq. (London).
Daly, M.W. (ed.) 1998: Cambridge History of Egypt, 2: Modern Egypt from 1517 to the End of the
Twentieth Century (Cambridge).
Dawson, W.R. and Uphill, E.P. 1995: Who Was Who in Egyptology, 3rd ed. by M.L. Bierbrier (London).
Derchain, P. 1955: ‘Présence romaine dans l’oasis de Thèbes’. Bulletin de l’Association des Classiques
de l’Université de Liège 5, 25–38.
Dixon, D.M. 2003: ‘Some Egyptological Sidelights on the Egyptian War of 1882’. In Jeffreys 2003b,
87–94.
Dolan, B. 2000: Exploring European Frontiers: British Travellers in the Age of Enlightenment (Basingstoke).
Drower, M.S. 1995: Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology (Madison).
Dural, S. 2007: Protecting Çatalhöyük. Memoir of an Archaeological Site Guard (Walnut Creek, CA).
Dykstra, D.I. 1979: Egypt in the Nineteenth Century: the Impact of Europe upon a Non-Western Society
(Ann Arbor).
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 151
19/12/12 08:42
152
A.L. BOOZER
—. 1998: ‘The French Occupation of Egypt, 1798–1801’. In Daly 1998, 113–38.
Edmonstone, S.A. 1822: A Journey to Two Oases of Upper Egypt (London).
Elias, G. 1917: ‘Inspection de l’oasis de Dakhleh’. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 17,
141–43.
Fagan, B. 1975: The Rape Of The Nile: Tomb Robbers, Tourists, and Archaeologists in Egypt (New
York).
Fahim, H.M. 2001: ‘European Travellers in Egypt: The Representation of the Host Culture’. In Starkey and Starkey 2001b, 7–14.
Fahmy, K. 1998: ‘The Era of Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha, 1805–1848’. In Daly 1998, 139–79.
Fakhry, A. 1973: ‘The Search for Texts in the Western Desert’. In Textes et langages de l’Égypte pharaonique. Cent cinquante années de recherches 1822–1972. Hommage à Jean-François Champollion
(Cairo), 207–22.
—. 1974: The Oases of Egypt, 2 vols. (Cairo).
—. 2003: Bahriyah and Farafra, 2nd ed. (Cairo).
Finati, G. 1830: Life and Adventures of Giovanni Finati, who under the assumed name of Mahomet made
the campaigns against the Wahabees for the recovery of Mecca and Medina, edited by W.J. Bankes,
2 vols. (London).
France, P. 1991: The Rape of Egypt: How the Europeans Stripped Egypt of its Heritage (London).
Freier, E. and Reinicke, W.F. (eds.) 1988: Karl Richard Lepsius (1810–1884): Akten der Tagung
anlässlich seines 100. Todestages, 10. –12.7.1984 in Halle (Berlin).
Gardiner, A.H. 1933: ‘The Dakhleh Stela’. JEgA 19, 19–30.
Genschorek, W. 1982: Im Alleingang durch die Wüste: das Forscherleben des Gerhard Rohlfs (Leipzig).
Giddy, L.L. 1979: ‘Balat: Rapport préliminaire des fouilles à Ain Aseel, 1978–1979’. BIFAO 79,
31–39.
—. 1987: Egyptian Oases: BaÌariya, Dakhla Farafra and Kharga during Pharaonic Times (Warminster).
Giddy, L.L. and Grimal, N. 1979a: ‘Rapport préliminaire sur la seconde campagne de fouilles à Balat
(Oasis de Dakhla): le secteur nord du Mastaba V’. BIFAO 79, 41–49.
—. 1979b: ‘Balat: Sondage sur le site de Ain Aseel, rapport préliminaire’. BIFAO 79, 21–30.
Giddy, L.L. and Jeffreys, D.G. 1981: ‘Balat: Rapport préliminaire des fouilles à Ain Aseel, 1979–
1980’. BIFAO 81, 198–205.
Giddy, L.L., Jeffreys, D.G. and Soukiassian, G. 1981: ‘Rapport préliminaire sur la quatrième campagne
de fouilles à Ayn Asil (Oasis de Dakhla)’. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 69, 103–12.
Gillispie, C.C. and Dewachter, M. (eds.) 1987: Monuments of Egypt. The Napoleonic Expedition. The
Complete Archaeological Plates from La Description de l’Égypte (Princeton).
Grimal, N. 1995: ‘Travaux de 1’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale en 1994–1995’. BIFAO 95,
539–645.
Haikal, F. 2003: ‘Egypt’s Past Regenerated by its own People’. In MacDonald, S. and Rice, M. (eds.),
Consuming Ancient Egypt (London), 123–38.
Harding-King, W.J. 1925: Mysteries of the Libyan Desert: A Record of Three Years of Exploration in the
Heart of that Vast and Waterless Region (London; reprinted 2003).
Hassan, F.A. 2003: ‘Imperialist Appropriations of Egyptian Obelisks’. In Jeffreys 2003b, 19–66.
Henniker, S.F. 1824: Notes during a visit to Egypt, Nubia…and Jerusalem, 2nd ed. (London).
Hope, C. 1981: ‘Report on the Study of the Pottery and Kilns: Third Season – 1980’. JSSEA 11.4,
233–41.
Hoskins, G.A. 1837: Visit to the Great Oasis of the Libyan Desert (London).
Hunter, F.R. 1998: ‘Egypt Under the Successors of Muhammad Ali’. In Daly 1998, 180–97.
Ibrahim, H.A. 1998: ‘The Egyptian Empire, 1805–1885’. In Daly 1998, 198–215.
Ikram, S. 2009: ‘Drawing the World: Petroglyphs from Kharga Oasis’. Archaeo-Nil 19, 67–82.
James, D. 2012: ‘Ambiguous Images: the problems and possibilities of analysing rock-art images in
the Egyptian Western Desert’. In Knoblauch, C.M. and Gill, J.C. (eds.), Egyptological Research in
Australia and New Zealand 2009 (Oxford), 71–84.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 152
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
153
—. forthcoming: ‘Hans Winkler and Dakhleh Oasis: a methodology for analysing Winkler figures’.
In Bagnall, R.S., Davoli, P. and Hope, C.A. (eds.), The Oasis Papers 6: Proceedings of the Sixth
International Dakhleh Oasis Project (Oxford).
James, T.G.H. 1982: Excavating in Egypt: The Egypt Exploration Society 1882–1982. (London).
Janssen, J.J. 1968: ‘The Smaller Dakhleh Stela’. JEgA 54, 165–72.
Jeffreys, D. 2003a: ‘Introduction – Two Hundred Years of Ancient Egypt: Modern History and
Ancient Archaeology’. In Jeffreys 2003b, 1–18.
—. (ed.) 2003b: Views of Ancient Egypt Since Napoleon Bonaparte: Imperialism, Colonialism, and
Modern Appropriations (London).
Judd, T. 2009: Rock Art of the Eastern Desert of Egypt: Content, Comparisons, Dating and Significance
(Oxford).
Kaper, O.E. 1997: Temples and Gods in Roman Dakhleh: Studies in the Indigenous Cults of an Egyptian
Oasis (Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen).
—. 2001: ‘Archäologische Forschungen der Rohlfs’schen Expedition in der Oase Dachla (1874)’.
In Preise, K.-H., Reineke, W.F. and Wenig, S. (eds.), Begegnungen Antike Kulturen Im Niltal.
Festgabe Fur Erika Endesfelder (Leipzig), 233–51.
Krzyzaniak, L. 1987: ‘Dakhleh Oasis Project: Interim Report on the First Season of the Recording of
Petroglyphs January/February 1988’. JSSEA 17, 182–91.
—. 1990: ‘Petroglyphs and the research on the development of the cultural attitude towards animals
in the Dakhleh Oasis (Egypt)’. Sahara 3, 95–97.
—. 1991: ‘Dakhleh Oasis Project: Research on the Petroglyphs 1990’. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 4, 80–82.
—. 2004: ‘Dakhleh Oasis. Research on Petroglyphs’. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 15,
181–89.
Krzyzaniak, L. and Kroeper, K. 1985: ‘Dakhleh Oasis Project: Report on the Reconnaissance Season
of the Recording of Petroglyphs, December 1985’. JSSEA 15.4, 138–39.
—.. 1991: ‘A Face-mask in the Prehistoric Rock Art of the Dakhleh Oasis?’. Archaeo-Nil 1, 59–61.
Kuciewicz, E., Jaroni, E. and Kobusciewicz, M. 2007: ‘The Petroglyphs’ Code’. Academia 1.13, 4–8.
Kurz, M. 2001: ‘Linant de Bellefonds: Travels in Egypt, Sudan and Arabia Petraea, 1818–1828’.
In Starkey and Starkey 2001b, 61–70.
Lepsius, K.R. 1849: Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien nach den Zeichnungen der von Seiner
Majestaet dem Koenige von Preussen Friedrich Wilhelm IV nach diesen Laendern gesendeten und in
den Jahren 1842–1845 ausgefuehrten Wissenschaftlichen expedition, auf Befehl Seiner Majestaet hrsg.
und erlaeutert von C.R. Lepsius (Berlin).
—. 1852: Briefe aus Aegypten, Aethiopien und der halbinsel des Sinai, geschrieben in den jahren 1842–
1845, während der auf befehl sr. majestät des königs Friedrich Wilhelm IV von Preussen ausgeführten
wissenschaftlichen expedition, von Richard Lepsius (Berlin).
—. 1874: ‘Hieroglyphische Inschriften in den Oasen von Xãrigeh und Dãxileh’. Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde 12, 73–80.
Lyons, H.G. 1894: ‘On the Stratigraphy and Physiography of the Libyan Desert of Egypt’. Quarterly
Journal of the Geological Society of London 50, 531–47.
McDonald, M.M.A. 1993: ‘Dakhlech Oasis Project: Holocene Prehistory: Interim Report on the
1988 and 1989 Seasons’. JSSEA 20, 43–76.
Magee, D.N.E. 1991: ‘Squeezes in Grantham Museum Made by Alice Lieder in 1851–2’. JEgA 77,
195–97.
Manley, D. and Rée, P. 2001: Henry Salt: Artist, Traveller, Diplomat, Egyptologist (London).
Maspero, G. 1919: Historie générale de l’art: Égypte (Paris).
Matthews, R. 2011: ‘A History of the Preclassical Archaeology of Anatolia’. In Steadman, S.R. and
McMahon, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, 10,000–323 BC (Oxford), 34–55.
Mayes, S. 2003: The Great Belzoni: The Circus Strongman Who Discovered Egypt’s Ancient Treasures
(London).
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 153
19/12/12 08:42
154
A.L. BOOZER
Michaels, G. 1996: ‘Education in Archaeology: Professional Training’. In Fagan, B. (ed.), The Oxford
Companion to Archaeology (Oxford), 192–93.
Mills, A.J. 1977: ‘Notes and News’. JSSEA 8.1, 3–4.
—. 1978a: ‘Notes and News’. JSSEA 8.4, 104–05.
—. 1978b: ‘Report of the Exploration Committee’. JSSEA 9.1, 9–11.
—. 1985: ‘The Dakhleh Oasis Project’ In Posener-Kriéger, P. (ed.), Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar,
vol. 2 (Cairo), 125–34.
—. 1993: ‘The Dakhleh Oasis Columbarium Farmhouse’. Bulletin de la Société Archéologique
d’Alexandrie 45, 192–98.
Minas-Nerpel, M. 2007: ‘A Demotic Inscribed Icosahedron from Dakhleh Oasis’. JEgA 93, 137–48.
Moritz, B. 1900: ‘Excursion aux oasis du désert libyque’. Bulletin de la Société Khédiviale de Géographie,
5e série, 8, 429–75.
—. 1908: ‘Ausflüge in der Arabia Petraea’. Mélanges de la Faculté Orientale de l’Université St. Joseph
de Beyrouth 3, 387–436.
—. 1910: ‘Sur les antiquités arabes du Sinaï’. Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien, 5e série, 5, 87–101.
Moukhtar, G.E. 1995: ‘La Carrière égyptologique d’Abdel Aziz Fahmy Sadek’. Memnonia 6,
28–32.
Osing, J. 1978: ‘Zum Namen des Temples von Deir el-Hagar’. Göttinger Miszellen 30, 57–59.
—. 1985a: ‘Die ägyptischen Namen für Charga und Dachla’. In Posener-Kriéger, P. (ed.), Mélanges
Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, vol. 2 (Cairo), 179–93.
—. 1985b: ‘Die ägyptischen Namen für der Oase Charga in arabischer Überlieferung’. Göttinger
Miszellen 87, 55–62.
—. 1985c: ‘Seth in Dachla und Charga’. KairoMitt 41, 229–33.
—. 1986a: ‘Einige Notizen zu den Oasen’. Göttinger Miszellen 89, 67–75.
—. 1986b: ‘Notizen zu den Oasen Charga und Dachla’. Göttinger Miszellen 92, 79–85.
—. 1986c: ‘Zu den Osiris-Räumen im Tempel von Hibis’. In Hommages à François Daumas, vol. 2
(Montpellier), 511–16.
—. 1990: ‘Zur Anglage und Dekoration des Tempels von Hibis’. In Groll-Israelit, S. (ed.), Studies in
Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim II (Jerusalem).
Osing, J., Moursi, M., Arnold, D., Neugebauer, O., Parker, R.A., Pingree, D. and Nur-el-Din, M.A.
1982: Denkmaler der Oase Dachla aus dem Nachlass von Ahmed Fakhry (Mainz).
Parkinson, R.B. 1999: Cracking Codes: The Rosetta Stone and Decipherment (Berkeley/Los Angeles).
Peck, W.H. 2000: ‘Lepsius, Karl Richard’. In Redford, D.B. (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient
Egypt, vol. 2 (Oxford/New York/Cairo).
—. 2005: Review of P Usick, Adventures in Egypt and Nubia: The Travels of William John Bankes
(1786–1855). JNES 64.3, 202–04.
Petrie, W.M.F. 1892: Ten Years’ Digging in Egypt 1881–1891 (London)
—. 1931: Seventy Years in Archaeology (London).
Ree, P. 2005: ‘John Hyde of Manchester’. Unpublished paper, Association for the Study of Travel in
Egypt (ASTENE) Conference, Manchester, July 2005.
Reid, D.M. 1985: ‘Indigenous Egyptology: The decolonization of a profession?’. JAOS 105, 233–
46.
—. 2002. Whose Pharaohs? Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian National Identity from Napoleon to
World War II (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London).
Ridley, R.T. 1991: Review of B. Drovetti, Epistolario, edited by S. Curto and L. Donatelli. JEgA 77,
237–41.
—. 1998: Napoleon’s Proconsul In Egypt: The Life and Times of Bernardino Drovetti (London).
Riemer, H. 2006: ‘Out of Dakhla: Cultural diversity and mobility between the Egyptian Oases and
the Great Sand Seas during the Holocene humid phase’. In Kroeper, K., Ch¥odnicki, M. and
Kobusiewicz, M. (eds.), Archaeology of Early Northeastern Africa. In Memory of Lech Krzyzaniak
(Poznan), 493–526.
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 154
19/12/12 08:42
ACHAEOLOGY ON EGYPT’S EDGE
155
—. 2009: ‘Prehistoric Rock Art Research in the Western Desert of Egypt’. Archaeo-Nil 19, 31–46.
Rivet, L. 1954: ‘Voyage aux Oasis de Khargeh et de Dakhleh 10–14 mars 1954’. Note d’Information
de la Société d’Études Historiques et Géographiques de l’Isthme de Suez, Ismaïlia 41, 73–89.
—. 1955: ‘Quelques sanctuaries égyptiens des oasis de Dakhleh et de Khargeh, Notes de voyage’.
Cahiers d’Histoire Égyptienne 7, 279–99.
—. 1956: ‘Les temples gréco-romains de l’Oasis de Khargéh’. BIFAO 55, 23–31.
Rohlfs, G. 1875: ‘Dr. Rohlfs’ Exploration of the Libyan Desert: Synopsis of the Remarks of Dr. Gerhard Rohlfs, Before the Society’. Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York 7,
171–73.
Rohlfs, G. with Ascherson, P., Jordan, W. and Zittel, K. 1875: Drei Monate in der Libyschen Wèuste
(Cassel)
Schmidt, C. and Moritz, B. 1926: ‘Die Sinai-Expedition im Frühjahr 1914’. Sitzungsberichte der
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenshaften 7, 26–34.
Smith, H.S. and L.L. Giddy. 1985: ‘Nubia and the Dakhla Oasis in the Late Third Millennium B.C.:
The present balance of textual and archaeological evidence’. In Geus, F. and Thill, F. (eds.),
Mélanges offerts à Jean Vercoutter (Paris), 317–30.
Spiegelberg, W. 1899: ‘Eine Stela an der Oase Dachel’. Recueil des travaux relatifs à la philologie et à
l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 21, 12–21.
Starkey, P. and Starkey, J. 2001a: ‘Introduction’. In Starkey and Starkey 2001b, 1–6.
—. (ed.) 2001b: Travellers in Egypt (New York).
Thompson, J. 1992: Sir Gardner Wilkinson and His Circle (Austin).
Thurston, H. 1987: ‘Everlasting Oasis – Canadian Archaeologists Unearth 200,000 Years of Human
Habitation in Egypt’s Great Western Desert’. Equinox September/October 32, 35.
—. 2003: Secrets of the Sands: The Revelations of Egypt’s Everlasting Oasis (New York).
Toledano, E.R. 1998: ‘Social and Economic Change in the “Long Nineteenth Century”’. In Daly
1998, 252–83.
Trigger, B.G. 1989: A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge).
Ucko, P. and Champion, T.C. (eds.) 2003. The Wisdom of Egypt: Changing Visions Through The Ages
(London).
Usick, P. 2001: ‘William John Bankes’ Collection of Drawings of Egypt and Nubia’. In Starkey and
Starkey 2001b, 51–60.
—. 2006: ‘William John Bankes in Egypt’. In Demarée, R.J. with Leach, B. and Usick, P., The Bankes
Late Ramesside Papyri (London), 3–6.
—. 2007: Review of Bednarski 2005. Egyptian Archaeology 93, 308–10.
Valloggia, M. 1986: Balat I, Le mastaba de Medou-nefer (Cairo).
Vatikiotis, P.J. 1992: A History of Modern Egypt: From Muhammad Ali to Mubarak, 4th ed. (Baltimore).
Vercoutter, J. 1977: ‘Les travaux de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale en 1976–1977’. BIFAO
77, 271–86.
Vivian, C. 2002: The Western Desert of Egypt: An Explorer’s Handbook (Cairo).
Wagner, G. 1987: Les Oasis d’Égypte (Cairo).
Wheatcroft, A. 2003: ‘“Wonderful Things”: Publishing Egypt in Word and Image’. In MacDonald,
S. and Rice, M. (eds.), Consuming Ancient Egypt (London), 151–63.
Whitehouse, H. 1998: ‘Roman in Life, Egyptian in Death: The painted tomb of Petosiris in the
Dakhleh Oasis’. In Kaper, O. (ed.) Life on the Fringe: Living in the Southern Egyptian Deserts during the Roman and Early-Byzantine Periods (Leiden), 253–70.
Wilkinson, J.G. 1847: Hand-book for Travellers in Egypt; including descriptions of the course of the Nile
to the second cataract, Alexandria, Cairo, the pyramids, and Thebes, the overland transit to India, the
peninsula of Mount Sinai, the oases, &c. (London).
Winkler, H.A. 1938: Rock Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt I: Sir Robert Mond Desert Expedition.
Season 1936–1937 Preliminary Report, 2 vols. (London).
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 155
19/12/12 08:42
156
A.L. BOOZER
—. 1939: Rock Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt II (Including Uwenat): Sir Robert Mond Desert
Expedition. Season 1937–1938 Preliminary Report (London).
—. 2009: Ghost Riders of Upper Egypt: A Study of Spirit Possession (Cairo).
Winlock, H.E. 1936: Ed Dakhleh Oasis: Journal of a Camel Trip made in 1908 (NewYork).
Wood, M. 1998: ‘The Use of the Pharaonic Past in Modern Egyptian Nationalism’. JARCE 35,
179–96.
Department of Archaeology
University of Reading
Reading RG6 6AB
UK
A.L.Boozer@Reading.ac.uk
96073_AWE_12_05_Boozer.indd 156
19/12/12 08:42