Kom Firin I: The Ramesside Temple and the Site Survey

Kom Firin I: The Ramesside Temple and the Site Survey

Neal Spencer with a contribution by Kveˇta Smoláriková

Publishers The British Museum Great Russell Street London WC1B 3DG Editor Josephine Turquet Distributors The British Museum Press 46 Bloomsbury Street London WC1B 3QQ Kom Firin I: The Ramesside Temple and the Site Survey Neal Spencer Front Cover: View of the south-eastern part of Kom Firin, looking north. ISBN 978-086159-170-1 ISSN 1747-3640 © The Trustees of the British Museum 2008

Note: the British Museum Occasional Papers series is now entitled British Museum Research Publications. The OP series runs from 1 to 150, and the RP series, keeping the same ISSN and ISBN preliminary numbers, begins at number 151. For a complete catalogue of the full range of OPs and RPs see the series website: www/the britishmuseum.ac.uk/ researchpublications or write to: Oxbow Books, Park End Place Oxford OX1 1HN, UK Tel: (+44) (0) 1865 241249 e mail [email protected] website www.oxbowbooks.com or The David Brown Book Co PO Box 511, Oakville CT 06779, USA Tel: (+1) 860 945 9329; Toll free 1 800 791 9354 e mail [email protected]

Printed and bound in the UK by Latimer Trend and Company Ltd

Contents

Preface

v

1. Introduction

1

2. The Regional Context

3

3. Overview of the Ancient Settlement

20

4. The Ramesside Temple

36

5. Ceramics from the Ramesside Temple Kveˇta Smoláriková

58

6. Finds from the Ramesside Temple and Excavations A and B

64

Appendix 1. The Ceramic Typology Kveˇta Smoláriková

79

Appendix 2. Checklist of Silvagou Burials

100

Appendix 3. Checklist of Contexts

107

Bibliography

115

Figures

119

Plates

159

Preface

The British Museum work at Kom Firin, begun in 2002 and still ongoing, would not have been possible without the permission and support of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) in Egypt. As such, we are grateful to Dr. Zahi Hawass (Secretary General) and Magdy el-Ghandour (Head of the Department of Foreign Archaeological Missions’ Affairs) in Cairo, and Fawzi el-Khoulani, Chief Inspector for Beheira governorate. The SCA inspectors who accompanied our missions were Hisham Nahmen Att-allah (2002), Karem Kotp Abu Kamr (2003), Abdu Rahim Ali el-Tehami el-Maadawy (2004), Ibrahim Sobhy Ibrahim (2005) and Bahgat Ibrahim (2006). Ismail Said Mohamed, conservator with the SCA, joined us during the 2006 season. Other Beheira inspectors, though not assigned to the project, were also helpful, notably Ahmed Kamal and Ashraf Abdel Rahman. As ever, thanks are due to Hisham el-Eithy (SCA, Cairo), who proved extremely helpful at various times during the project. At the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, access to the material from Silvagou was made possible through the former director, Mamdouh el-Damaty, and his staff May Trad, Sabah Abd el-Razeq and Mahmoud Ibrahim. Sabah and Wahid Girgis arranged for the new photographs of the Ramesside reliefs in the museum, taken by Ahmed Amin Abdel Rahim, photographer at the Egyptian Museum. Such a project is by its nature a colloborative venture, and it is here appropriate to thank the team members during the first five seasons of work, and their institutions for allowing them the time to work on the project, both in the field and with postexcavation work. Excavations were supervised by Elizabeth Frood (2002–2004; Universities of Oxford and Liverpool), Andrew Ginns (2006), Helen Macquarrie (2006; AOC Archaeology Group), Paul Murray (2005; Oxford Archaeological Unit) and Neal Spencer (2002–2006). The plans of individual trenches published here are based on their original drawings, inked by the author. The pottery was studied by Květa Smoláriková (2004–2006; Charles University, Prague), while the epigraphic and ceramics drawings are the work of Liam McNamara (2003–2006; University of Oxford). Finds were drawn by both Liam McNamara and Mat Dalton (F006, F007, F065, F066, F072, F081, F101, F112, F145, F164), with Liam inking all of these drawings for publication. The magnetometry survey was undertaken by a team from the Archaeological Geophysics Laboratory at the University of Akron, Ohio, led by Ann Donkin (2003–2005). Ann was assisted by Tracey Linville, Charlotte Mader and Linda Whitman (2003), Stuart Nealis (2004) and Jim Sutter (2005). The support of Timothy Matney, Associate Professor in the Department of Classical Studies, Anthropology & Archaeology at Akron, is gratefully acknowledged, as well as the Robert W. Little Foundation for assistance with funding. Work on the modern history of the site, and local attitudes towards the archaeological site, was by Mennat Allah el-Dorry (2005,

American University in Cairo), who also participated in a project to work with local schools, alongside Nicholas Badcott from the British Museum’s Department of Learning and Information (2005). Finally, Tracey Sweek cleaned, conserved and installed the doorjamb of Ramses II and other antiquities adjacent to the resthouse (2006, 2007), with the support of David Saunders, Keeper of the Department of Conservation and Scientific Research at the British Museum. Team members who have worked on aspects of the project not covered in this volume will be acknowledged in future publications. Excavations were undertaken by workers from Kom Firin and the surrounding villages: Atiya Abdallah (2003), Sobhy Abdallah (2003–2006), Ahmed Abd el-Fatah (2004, 2005), Faisal Abd el-Fatah (2005), Najah Abd el-Fatah (2004), Sayed Abd el-Fatah (2003), Hamdi Abd el-Gawad (2003), Mahmound Abd el-Hady (2004, 2005), Hamdi Abdja (2005), Nisma Attiya (2005), Mustafa Awal (2003–2006), Mohamed Eithamed (2005), Jabel Elwani (2003–2006), Ahmed Fathi (2003), Faisal Fathi (2004), Gomaa Fayez (2003), Jamil Gaad (2003, 2005), Reda Gaad (2003, 2004), Saad Gaad (2003–2006), Umgali Gaad (2003), Yahyeh Gaad (2003), Younis (Ramadan) Gaad (2003– 2006), Mohammed Hamed (2004, 2005), Shahat Hamed (2004, 2005), Ali Hassan (2003–2005), Mahmoud Meshut (2004– 2006), Khairy Mahmoud (2005), Fathi Mohamed (2005), Shaban Mohammed (2004, 2005), Shahat Mohamed (2003), Shahat Mohraby (2004), Farag Rifalla (2003–2005), Hassan Rifalla (2003, 2004), Miguela Rifalla (2004), Ramzi Rifalla (2003, 2004), Sabri Rifalla (2003), Mahmoud Said (2004, 2005), Ramadan Selim (2003) and Hannayat Shabaan (2005). The site ghaffirs Nasr Allah and Mohamed Khairy also deserve our gratitude. The team has always lived in one of the village houses, first that of Hagg Rashad (2002) and since autumn 2003 in the farmhouse of Hagg Gaad and Hagg Rifalla. Hagg Rifalla sadly passed away in the Spring of 2008. We are all grateful for the large family putting up with our strange ways during the season, and particularly to Ramzi Rifalla and Abd el-Aziz Gaad for their help with everything. The villagers of Kom Firin and the neighbouring ezba have all been extremely welcoming, and we are glad to have experienced life in a western Delta village at the beginning of the 21st century, from births through weddings and deaths. None of those who have participated in the project will forget their experiences in Markaz Dilingat. The project has been funded by the British Museum, most notably through the generosity of the Townley Group, part of the British Museum Friends. In addition, further support was received from Vodafone Egypt, with Stewart White being particularly helpful, and M. Vernor Miles. The Egypt Exploration Society (EES) in Cairo, firstly Rawya Ismail and then Faten Abd el-Halim Salah, provided valuable help with logistics and also equipment. Kom Firin I | v

Spencer Finally, I would like to thank Vivian Davies, Keeper of the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan at the British Museum, for his support for the fieldwork at Kom Firin, Claire Messenger for help with logistics, and Claire Thorne for producing the map of the eastern Mediterranean (Fig. 3), and advice relating to artwork. Josephine Turquet patiently saw the book through to publication. I would also like to thank all of the colleagues who have provided food for thought with regards the site, the surrounding region and the nature of the architecture and obejcts discovered in the first five seasons at Kom Firin: Jeffrey Spencer, Dietrich Raue, Ahmed Abd el-Fatah, Marcel Marée, Elizabeth Frood, Liam McNamara, Donald Bailey, Alexandra Villing, John Taylor, Elizier Oren, Kenneth Kitchen, Cynthia Sheikholeslami, Kasia Szpakowska, David Jeffreys, Judith Bunbury, Angus Graham, Astrid Hassler, Kvĕta Smoláriková, Kyoko Yamahana, Elisabeth O’Connell, Stephanie Moser and John Baines. Penelope Wilson acted as peer reviewer for the volume and provided some very helpful comments. I am grateful to Patricia Spencer and Chris Naunton

vi | Kom Firin I

(EES), for permission to read Petrie’s letters sent from Naukratis. The post-excavation burden, especially the scanning of drawings, has been considerably lightened by the help of several volunteers at the British Museum, notably Hélène Virenque, Karis Eklund, Bori Nemeth, Elena Valtorta and Alice Williams. Of course, Martha indulged my wish to spend weeks of every year in the Nile Delta since 2002. Finally, I would like to dedicate this book to my sisters, Julie and Kate. Notes

1

2

Field seasons at Kom Firin took place as follows: 10–27 September 2002, 8 September– 2 October 2003, 4–30 September 2004, 7 September– 6 October 2005 and 3 September– 5 October 2006. The ARCE project published an account of living conditions during work at Naukratis in 1980 (Weiss in Leonard 1997: 230–3). Much has changed in the Nile Delta since 1980, with electricity, running water, red-brick houses, vehicles and of course mobile phones now prevalent. This account also suggests an almost complete detachment between the American team and the local villagers, which seems very different from our experience.

1: Introduction

Kom Firin has been known to Egyptologists since the late 19th century, through the short descriptions in the Egypt Exploration Fund’s two Naukratis memoirs. Yet the site has been subject to very little attention, despite Petrie’s statement that ‘so many good things coming from this site in one season [at Naukratis] seems to show that work there would well repay the labourer; though it would not seem a promising ground for any special historical results’ (Petrie 1886: 95). While five seasons of excavation and survey by the British Museum have not yielded a wealth of spectacular objects, a mass of information relating to this important site, first settled in the Ramesside era, and occupied for some two millenia after, has been recovered. Rather than provide a summary of all previous work here, the details of specific areas, individual monuments or contexts studied will be discussed at the relevant points in the text. However, to foreground the British Museum work, it is useful to outline the extent of previous work. Petrie’s description of the site (1886: 94–5) resulted from two visits he made while directing the excavations at Naukratis. The first visit, on 8 December 1994, was prompted by a delay to the start of work at Naukratis,1 he returned early the following year, accompanied by Francis Llewellyn Griffith. The latter subsequently provided his own description in the second Memoir on Naukratis (Gardner 1889: 183).2 Unfortunately, neither description offers a map of the site, making interpretation of their observations rather difficult. Though evidently intrigued by the site, Petrie was never to return. As he commented in one of his letters as he returned to base at Naukratis, there was still much to learn about the site: I wish we could find the old name of Tell Afrin. I was tired as we came back, + it was late – nearly dark – when we got back, + to this I attribute the touch of fever. (EES Archive XVII d 47)

The next published reference of note to the site is by Campbell Cowan Edgar, who as Inspector of Antiquities for the Nile Delta, visited the site to see some inscribed column bases which had come to light (Edgar 1911). A year later, three sculptures of the Roman Period were transferred to the Graeco-Roman Museum in Alexandria, though the circumstances of their discovery are not known (Coulson and Leonard 1979: 160–2, figs.14–16). Despite the evident promise of the site, no systematic investigations were then undertaken until between 1949 and 1952, when Shafiq Farid, chief inspector of the Service des Antiquités, directed work both in the temple and in the adjacent cemetery site, named Silvagou (see Chapter 2). Unfortunately, other than subsequent reports on the cemetery, the excavations have not been published, and no records seem to have survived in the SCA archives in either Damanhur or Cairo. Study of the Journal d’Entrée and Temporary Register volumes in the Egyptian Museum provides some details of

provenance and thus a hint of how work progressed. Eight inscribed Ramesside blocks were excavated in 1949 (Pls.137–45), but no other objects were ascribed to the area,3 suggesting that some of the blocks were partly visible on the surface, perhaps as a result of illicit excavations or heavy rains. The present topography of the temple area indicates that significant amounts of archaeological deposits may have been cleared to check for more blocks (Chapter 4). Farid’s work was clearly focused on the cemetery, as 177 objects were registered in the Egyptian Museum from the work in 1949, 1950 and 1951. Excavations by the Supreme Council of Antiquities have continued intermittently to this day (see Chapter 2);4 the cemetery is not part of the British Museum concession granted by the SCA. The site itself, in addition to both satellite sites of Silvagou and Kom Dahab, was part of the wide-ranging Naukratis Project carried out under the auspices of the American Research Center in Egypt, with fieldwork taking place over several short seasons between December 1977 and 1983.5 Ten sites within a 25km radius to the west and south of Naukratis were surveyed, in addition to some augering (Coulson 1996: 163–75). Kom Firin, deemed a major site, was mapped in the first season, and a surface survey was undertaken. Later seasons saw small excavations take place in three areas: the Citadel, the central northern area and east of the Ramesside temple; the results are treated in the relevant parts of this book (Chapters 3 and 4). While the survey yielded evidence of Roman pottery, the excavations extended the history of the site back to the Third Intermediate Period. Though the methodology of these excavations has been criticised since (Rathbone 1998), with justification, the value of the work, as one of the first published records of stratigraphy in this area, cannot be denied. Kom Firin, as with many other sites in the Nile Delta, has been subjected to repeated illicit excavations, and more damagingly, the sebakh-mining and gradual encroachment of cultivated land (see page 21). Sebakhin activity, at its peak in the late 19th and early 20th century, accounts for the rather alien landscape that presently greets the visitors to Kom Firin. Tall abstract-shaped pedestals of archaeological deposits are scattered across the surface of the site, sometimes standing 12m proud of the surrounding, dug-out, ground level (Pls.60, 64; front cover). This rather confused landscape was also, however, one of the reasons for the British Museum project.6 Though confused and disturbed, the afore-mentioned pedestals of deposit preserve metres of stratigraphy, above the water-table, a rarity in the Nile Delta. Furthermore, the open sections revealed by the sebakhin-activity provide an insight into the phasing and nature of deposits in several areas of the site, a glimpse not afforded those working at more gradually deflated or truncated settlement mounds. In addition, the Kom Firin I | 1

Spencer archaeological strata are largely clear of modern constructions, other than the antiquities resthouse near the modern village, and a limited network of paths criss-crossing the site (Pl.253) These provide farmers with shortcuts between their fields and the various clusters of houses. Unlike at countless other Delta sites, there is no village or cemetery on top of the mound, and no industrial or military structures are located in the vicinity. Kom Firin has evident archaeological potential, and the aims of the present project deserve outlining. The western Delta has been the subject of little archaeological investigation over the last century or more, with the obvious exception of Alexandria. The fascination with Naukratis prompted a survey of sites in its hinterland (the Naukratis Project), but did not motivate more detailed investigation of any of the sites. Coulson and Leonard noted the need for more fieldwork in Beheira, and an urgent need for the pottery of the area to be studied and published, but the situation has scarecely improved in the last 25 years, particularly for pre-Hellenistic sites (see Chapter 2). This project thus represents a muchneeded addition to the evidence for the nature of occupation in this area of Egypt. Could Kom Firin provide contextualised, securely provenanced evidence for the onwards trade of imported goods which had entered Egypt via Naukratis, or of Egyptian imitations of imported wares? What was the nature of a large city not far from sites such as Sais (29km to the northeast) and Alexandria, seats of power at various periods during Kom Firin’s history? The presence of Greek individuals at Kom Firin is clear from the distinctive burials in the cemetery (Chapter 2) but material evidence of the effects of the earlier ‘Sea-Peoples’ is rather more elusive in the archaeological record thus far retrieved from Kom Firin. Evidence which may help in dealing with some of these questions has already come to light, but the later stages of Kom Firin’s history will be presented in a subsequent volume (and see Spencer 2008c). This volume deals rather with the earlier phases of Kom Firin’s occupation. The presence of decorated architecture from the reign of Ramses II, discovered by Edgar and Farid, had already suggested the possibility that the site was a significant New Kingdom settlement. In light of the wellattested practise in the Nile Delta of moving temple architecture and statuary to other sites, as occurred at Tanis and Tell Basta, confirmation would be needed that this architecture was originally from Kom Firin, especially as the Naukratis Project had encountered no ceramics earlier than the Third Intermediate Period. If Ramesside levels could be identified, Kom Firin would offer an important opportunity to investigate a settlement at the fringes of Ramesside Egypt. The initial focus of the project, once a detailed survey had been undertaken, was to investigate the temple area in a bid to provide an architectural setting for the surviving reliefs, but also to ascertain its date. However, the project is evidently also interested in the surrounding city, and excavations are ongoing to set the temple within the contemporary town as a whole.

2 | Kom Firin I

Textual sources, particularly from the reign of Merenptah and Ramses III, attest to conflicts with Libyan groups in the western Delta, and that fortified complexes were built in response to the perceived threat. Despite reasoned speculation on the location of these structures, and even suggestions Kom Firin may be one of those toponyms known from texts (Rowe 1953; 1954; Kitchen 1999: 328), our knowledge of New Kingdom occupation in this region was largely confined to records of disturbed inscribed material, as illustrated by the evidence cited in the above publications. This first volume of work on Kom Firin presents the modest temple of Ramses II, based on both a magnetometry survey and excavation work undertaken since 2003 (Chapter 4), along with the ceramics and finds from these excavations (Chapters 5–6). The regional setting of Kom Firin, particularly the satellite sites of Silvagou and Kom Dahab, are discussed in Chapter 2, allowing the main site to be placed in context. Chapter 3 is effectively a gazeteer of the site, to allow the reader a sense of the present-day layout of the site, and what we know about the occupation levels in each area. This includes a description of the extensive Ramesside complex, identified through magnetometry in 2003 and still the subject of ongoing excavations. The comments on the enclosure are thus somewhat preliminary, but an awareness of this complex is crucial towards understanding the role and context of the temple at its heart. In advance of subsequent publications of material relating to Kom Firin, updated reports are available online: http:// www.britishmuseum.org/research/research_projects/kom_ firin.aspx . Notes

1

Letter from Petrie, with entries of various dates (1884–1885). The original is held in the EES archive in London (XVII d 47). 2 January 1885, according to the same set of letters. 3 JE 89281–89288. For a summary of excavations see Van Voss 1953: 294 [38]. 4 The majority of these objects are assigned a number prefixed with G in the Journal d’Entrée and Temporary Register volumes, that is associated with an individual burial (grave). However, 25 objects are given a provenance of ‘in the kom’. This could refer to material from the temple excavations, elsewhere at Kom Firin, or even from the cemetery, but it is impossible to ascertain without further records coming to light. The type of material, and its date range (New Kingdom or later), correlate well with the artefacts from the cemetery, and our knowledge of when the kom itself was occupied. Short references to this work appeared in various publications: Brunner 1957: 387; Burri 1969: 279. 5 Coulson and Leonard 1979: 158–62; Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 79–86; Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 361–80; Coulson and Leonard 1982c: 203–20; Coulson and Leonard 1983: 64–71; Coulson and Wilkie 1986: 61–75. 6 In the five years prior to the British Museum project, two other missions considered working at Kom Firin, though eventually opted for other sites: Carol Redmount (University of California – Berkeley, now at el-Hiba) and Loredana Sist (Univerity of Rome La Sapienza, now at Kom Ghuraf).

2: The Regional Context

This chapter aims to place Kom Firin within its immediate region. The most intensive survey of the area took place as part of the Naukratis Project. Though the majority of efforts were directed towards the famous Greek trading emporium, the expedition also surveyed ten other sites within a 25km radius of Naukratis. The principal survey method was surface collection of ceramics, complemented by a limited number of small test trenches and the recording of visible objects and structures at some of the sites. The satellite sites of Kom Dahab and Silvagou will be discussed in more detail at the end of this chapter, as they relate directly to Kom Firin. Following the Naukratis Project, and excepting Egyptian Antiquities Organisation/SCA excavations which have yet to be published, little intensive investigation of sites has been undertaken in the area. Notable exceptions include work at Kom el-Hisn (Wenke et al. 1988; Kirby 1998), and Tell Abqa’in (Thomas 2000). The latter, as a Ramesside complex, is particularly relevant to Kom Firin and is briefly considered in Chapters 3 and 4. Two recent projects in the area are those at Schedia (Kom Hammamm/ Kom Giza)1 and Kom el-Ghuraf (Ghoraf 2006), though preHellenistic levels have yet to be encountered at either site. However, our knowledge of the wider area has increased markedly through the activities of the Delta Survey, under the auspices of the EES. Many sites are now listed in Beheira (www.ees.ac.uk/deltasurvey/dsintro.html), a figure which will increase in coming years. The Kom Firin team have been involved in visiting various other sites in the area (Spencer and Wilson 2004; more detailed descriptions and images can be found upon the Delta Survey website), while the University of Durham/EES team have surveyed some sites in more detail as part of a wider programme to look at settlement patterns along the Canopic branch of the Nile (Wilson 2007; 2008b). With knowledge of the ancient environment and settlement patterns changing so rapidly, the following should be viewed as a preliminary and necessarily brief scene-setting for the site of Kom Firin itself. The environmental context The geomorphology of the Nile Delta will not be discussed here (see Said 1993: 68–78; Butzer 2002), but a preliminary outline of how Kom Firin was served by waterways is appropriate. A programme of augering commenced in autumn 2007 should shed further light on this aspect of the site.2 Kom Firin lies 25km from the current Rosetta branch of the Nile, the nearest active channel (Fig.4). However, the Canopic branch flowed considerably nearer the site. This branch seems to have bifurcated from the Rosetta branch in the environs of Kom Hamada (Wilson 2007), from which it flowed in a northwesterly direction, dicharging into the Mediterranean on the western side of Abu Qir bay (Wilson 2006a: 9), not far from the 4th century bc coastline, as the city of Heraklion flourished

throughout the Hellenistic era (Goddio 2006). Of course, the Canopic branch may have become subdivided into further channels by the time it reached the coastline (Wilson 2008a). But how did Kom Firin relate to the Canopic branch throughout its history? Evidently, at the time of its foundation (assumed here to be the Ramesside era, see Chapters 3–4). Naukratis did not yet exist, at least as a significant settlement. If the Nile of the late 2nd millennium did follow a similar course to that described above, Kom Firin would be 10.5km from the Nile at Naukratis (Fig.4), a trading emporium which would have required riverine access to the Mediterranean. Augering at the latter site suggested the river ran south-east of the site at the time of its foundation, but that it had shifted northwards by the late Ptolemaic period, perhaps having created clear land on which the Egyptian temple enclosure of the 4th century bc was constructed (Villas in Coulson 1996: 171–4). The possibility of a canal linking Naukratis to the dynastic capital of Sais, itself on the bank of the Rosetta branch some 20km further east, has been suggested by Wilson, perhaps taking advantage of an existing distributary of a Nile branch (2008a), and given the apparent importance of Kom Firin (already occupied for over five centuries by the time Naukratis was founded), it may also have been connected to Naukratis by a waterway. The other important site in the area, in terms of known extent and length of occupation, is Kom el-Hisn, occupied at a much earlier period than Kom Firin. The ancient Egyptians evidently associated Kom el-Hisn with the Nile, describing it as ‘that which comes forth from the Great River (it rw aA)’ (Gardiner 1947: 166), perhaps due to its proximity to where the Canopic branch started. Other textual evidence relating to nearby Kom el-Hisn indicates a canal near the site (Daressy 1903: 284–5). If there was a distributary of the Canopic branch of the Nile running northwest from Kom el-Hisn, this might have run within a few kilometres of Kom Firin. The Naukratis Project undertook three cores in the area near Kom Firin and Kom Dahab (Villas in Coulson 1996: 174–5), though the location of these cores has not been published. However, ‘active channel sands’ identified in the upper 2m of the bore holes indicated the presence of channels more recent in date than the Naukratis ones described above. Perhaps the orientation of the Ramesside enclosure (Chapter 3), with its gateway facing slightly east of north, suggests that access to a waterway (itself possibly providing access to the Canopic branch) lay in this direction? The auger programme mentioned above (n.2) may clarify such questions. Intriguingly, there is also the possibility that a river branch existed south and west of the site. The location of this is suggested by a meandering canal (Fig.4), along the route of which are a number of ancient sites.3 This is not the main Canopic branch; dating the period when this waterway was Kom Firin I | 3

Spencer active will be an important step towards understanding the shifting landscape in this area during the occupation of Kom Firin. A late 18th-century map (Egypten oder Misir, verfasst von Herrn d’Anville, 1787) shows the site (‘Efrim’) south of the Canopic branch (Pl.3), but lying north of another waterway, designated the ‘Kanal von Bahire [Beheira]’, which may be the modified ancient waterway. Daressy long ago suggested the Farhaak canal, which runs south-west of Kom Firin (Fig.4) was that named xnsw in ancient texts from Kom el-Hisn (1916: 242–3). The gradual slowing down of the Delta branches is known to have been taking place in the 1st millennium bc, perhaps causing some of the channel migration seen at Naukratis. In the 2nd century bc, water was already being channelled into the ancestors of the current two branches (Butzer 2002: 90–1). As the latest evidence for occupation at Kom Firin is the 7th century ad (Chapter 3),4 it is possible that the drying up of the Canopic branch was one of the factors, perhaps the principal factor, in the abandonment of the site; the same situation is apparent at Schedia, further downstrean on the Canopic branch (Bergmann and Heinzelmann 2004: 9). Wilson contrasts archaeological mounds in Beheira with those further east (around Kafr es-Sheikh), where there is often much later material, of the 11th century ad (2008a). By the 12th century large areas of the north, western and eastern Delta were no longer cultivable. Sea level cannot be ignored either, with evidence that there may have been a 1–2m rise in sea level during the 4th–3rd century bc, followed by declining levels until the 7th–8th century ad (Villas in Coulson 1996: 171). For example, Villas suggests that the floodplain around Naukratis became submerged during high sea-levels. The same scenario is unlikely to have badly affected Kom Firin, seemingly founded upon a large, somewhat elevated sand-bank, as is clearly visible on old suvey maps (Fig.4, Pl.5). This sand-bank, now confirmed through augering, may have been an important factor in the choice of location for the new complex founded in the Ramesside period. The sandy matrix into which the burials at Silvagou are cut (Pls.8, 11; see below) provides a clear illustration of the environmental context in the area. Formed from Pleistocene sands reshaped by shifting river courses, these stood proud of the later (ancient) floodplain and provided attractive locations for settlement, in the unstable Delta landcsape (see Said 1993: 69–71, fig.1.30).5 Petrie noted that the desert could be seen from Kom Firin (1886: 194), which is no longer the case. But does Petrie mean the desert proper? It is difficult to assess where this started in ancient times, but the Nile Delta could be reached through routes from the western desert, one of which ran through the Wadi Natrun towards el-Barnugi, 11km north-west of Kom Firin (Fakhry 1940: 838). Some of these routes may be similar to those used by Libyan groups on their approach to the Nile Delta in the late 2nd millennium bc. A late 18th-century map cited above shows Kom Firin (‘Efrim’) lying at the end of a direct route to the Wadi Natrun (Pl.3). Did Kom Firin also lie on a land-orientated transport network within the Delta? Little is known about road systems in ancient Egypt, particularly in the Delta. The Roman era routes known to us caution us against assuming all longdistance travel was by water, or that modern routes mirror earlier ones. Thus a road ran across the Delta from Pelusium to Alexandria, via Tanis and Cynospolis in the area of Busiris (see Adams 2007: 23). 4 | Kom Firin I

When considering the environment around Kom Firin from the late 2nd millennium bc through the middle of the 1st millennium ad, one has to remember that this was a changing landscape, with meandering river channels, whose movement would lead to the creation of dried-up channels, oxbow lakes and swamps, with attendant consequences for settlements in the surrounding area.6 That landscape has been greatly modified in the last two centuries, so caution is needed when considering ancient settlements in this area. By the 19th century, only a thin band of cultivation remained along the western edge of the Rosetta branch, though in ancient times, the Canopic branch would have allowed cultivation for some distance west of the Rosetta branch (Wilson 2006a: 12–13). The post-Isma’il regime started a huge reclamation project in the new province of Tahrir on the western Delta edge, and land was parcelled out to college graduates and army veterans; the work was suspended before completion (Ayrout 2005: 24−5). Nonetheless, in 1938, Beheira givernorate was still sparsley populated and had the lowest agricultural productivity of any Egyptian region (Wilson 1955: 223–4). ‘Afrîm’ is cited in the late 12th-century ad writings of Aboul Hassan el-Makhzoumi (Toussoum 1922: 107, pl.10). It is listed as one of the settlements benefitting from irrigation by the waters of the ‘Bahr Ramsis’ (the Canopic branch) and the Khaba el-Tabarina, which can be identified with the el-Hagar canal on modern maps, further south-west of the Farhaak canal (Fig.4, Pls.4, 5). Presently, the region between Kom Firin and the Wadi Natrun is almost entirely under intensive cultivation, with long stretches of parallel irrigation canals delimiting the region known as al-Bustan (‘garden’). Settlement patterns around Kom Firin Kom Firin’s position places it at the edges of the third nome of Lower Egypt (Imnt .t), though the western limit of this nome as shown in most books is based more on modern topography than any ancient evidence (Helck 1974: 153–8). Pre-Ramesside activity west of the Canopic branch is poorly attested. While this absence of data could reflect the lack of significant occupation, it will have been more affected by the nature of research: most of the material visible atop settlement mounds is of the 1st millennium bc or later, with any earlier deposits invisible beneath later strata, or destroyed by shifting waterways. If modern size is used, as an admittedly unreliable guide, Kom el-Hisn, Kom Firin and Naukratis could be considered as the major settlements in this area (Fig.4), though the last of these sites did not exist until the later phases of ancient Egyptian history. Both Old Kingdom (Wenke et al. 1988) and Middle Kingdom (Kirby et al. 1988: 27–31) settlement layers have been identified at Kom el-Hisn, in addition to a sizeable cemetery with burials of the First Intermediate Period through the New Kingdom (Hamada and el-Amir 1947; Brunton 1947). A finely decorated First Intermediate Period tomb has also been published (Silverman 1988). Statuary and reliefs from the temple include material of late 12th dynasty date, inscriptions of Ramses II and Sheshonq III, and a copy of the Canopus Decree of 238 bc (PM IV: 51–2). Kom el-Hisn, known in pharaonic times as ImAw, as inscribed on several of the monuments found on site, is generally accepted as the capital of the third nome of Lower Egypt, something reflected in

The Regional Context Ptolemaic temple texts (Edfu I: 330; Dendara I: 124; see Gardiner 1947: 170–1*). This is not an appropriate place for a detailed description of Naukratis (see most recently Villing and Schlotzhauer 2006), but a few aspects are worth highlighting in relation to Kom Firin. We are still unaware of how Kom Firin may have been linked to the Canopic branch that ran through Naukratis, at least during the latter’s hey-day. It should be stressed that Kom Firin was founded several centuries before Naukratis, the latter being developed as a sizeable settlement from the 26th dynasty onwards. Naukratis may not have been unique later in the 1st millennium, though there was at least the intention for it to act as the sole point of entry for Greek merchants (Herodotus II: 178–9). There were, however, many emporia in the eastern Mediterranean, and from the early Saite period other settlements in Egypt may have been trading directly with Mediterranean localities (see Defernez 2001: 490–5). The coastal settlement of Thonis-Heraklion seems to have been thriving, as it continued to through the Hellenistic era (Villing and Schlotzhauer 2006: 5; Fabre in Goddio 2006: 193–203). The discovery of a stela from the reign of Nekhtnebef, mirroring the famous Naukratis Stela, emphasises that this settlement may also have played a prominent role in eastern Mediterranean trade. Other sites were clearly nodes for trading activity, though our knowledge of these sites is evidently affected by the vagaries of preservation and archaeological research (e.g. Tell el-Herr; Defernez 2001). Sadly, much of the Egyptian material, especially the pottery, was ignored both during the excavations at Naukratis, and in subsequent study of the finds from this site, precluding a comparison between the material found at Kom Firin, in mixed contexts, and that at the more famous emporium. Pottery from several Greek sites and islands has already been identified in and around the enclosure walls of the late 1st millennium bc at Kom Firin (see Chapter 3 and Smoláriková 2006), but also in the Citadel area.7 It is as yet unknown whether Kom Firin would have participated in direct trade and exchange with the Greek world, or only through Naukratis. This question can be asked of the many Egyptian sites which have yielded imported pottery in any quantity. Sixth- and 5th-century bc material from Chios, Samos, Clazomenae and Cyprus have also been identified in recent excavations at Sais (Wilson 2006a: 121, pls.10–12), the demand for luxury foreign products being unsurprising at a residence city. Greek pottery has also been recovered from sites of lesser importance in this region, including Kom Barud, Kom Kortas, Kom Hadid and el-Barnugi (Smoláriková 2002: 31–2). The presence of pottery evidently attests to trade, whether direct or indirect, with the east Greek world; the importance of wine from places such as Chios is evident throughout the 6th–4th centuries bc (Defernez 2001: 506–8). Sites other than Naukratis are also likely to have had foreign residents, whether on a permanent or temporary basis.8 At Kom Firin, we are fortunate to have clear evidence that some Greeks settled at the town, as purely Greek burials are found in the cemetery at Silvagou, though these are Hellenistic in date (see Chapter 3). Herodotus reported that Greek settlers were given land under Psamtek I (II, 152–4), and perhaps some of it was in the area around Kom Firin. Of course, Kom Firin, Kom el-Hisn and Naukratis were not the only significant settlements in this area, and the growing

intensity of survey in Beheira provides a more reliable glimpse at the density and distribution of settlement remains. The vast majority of sites in this area have thus far yielded only Roman or later material (see, for example, Rowland and Wilson 2006).9 Ptolemaic occupation levels are not rare, as found at Kalabt Shafiq (Coulson and Leonard 1981: 86), Kom Barud (Coulson and Leonard 1981: 78–9), Kom Dilingat (Coulson and Leonard 1981: 86) and Kom el-Gharaz (Coulson and Leonard 1981: 79–80). Late Period occupation can most often be recognised through reports of imported pottery of the 6th and 5th century bc being seen, as at Kom Barud, Kom Kortas, Kom Hadid and el-Barnugi (Smoláriková 2002: 31–2); 6th-century bc Greek pottery was also noted upon the surface at Abu el-Tulul.10 Late Period sherds have been noted at other sites too, such as at al-Awamir southwest of Naukratis (Wilson 2008a). Evidence of earlier activity is not entirely absent from the archaeological record, outside of Kom Firin and Kom el-Hisn. Tell Abqa’in was evidently an important complex and associated settlement in the Ramesside era (Thomas 2003), but it is unknown if this was occupied prior to that period; many other important sites may have disappeared, or been divided into isolated small mounds, somewhat cloaking the original extent of the sites in question. Ramesside and Tuthmoside inscriptions were found at el-Barnugi (Edgar 1911: 278), where an 11th dynasty limestone tomb with painted decoration was also discovered (Maspero 1907: 109–18, pl.56–7). As ever, this picture is likely to change: there may be pottery of an early New Kingdom date at the site of Disunis, north of Naukratis (Wilson 2007; 2008b). The Neolithic and Predynastic levels encountered at Sais (Wilson 2006b), however, provide a reminder that the wider area was settled in much earlier times, though it is interesting that there may be lengthy periods of abandonment during the 4th millennium bc, perhaps due to climatic conditions. The administrative, economic and cultic context Climatic conditions, combined with sporadic archaeological investigations, mean what little knowledge we have about the administrative and religious institutions derives largely from references in documents and monuments from more southerly sites. The depiction of funerary domains in Old Kingdom tombs and pyramid temples includes several toponyms which can be assigned to the third nome of Lower Egypt, during the 5th and 6th dynasties (Jacquet-Gordon 1962), and the title imy -r Imnt.t is attested in the 5th dynasty (Helck 1974: 154). The principal settlement is @wt-iHyt, generally accepted as a designation of Kom el-Hisn, under the authority of a HAty -a (Helck 1974: 153–4). The White Chapel of Senwosret I at Karnak provides information on the Third Nome of Lower Egypt, again named simply ‘the West’ (Imnt.t), it is associated with the god Apis, and the settlement @wt-iHyt (Lacau and Chevrier 1956: 232, pl.42). The dimensions given for this nome, of over 10 it rw, place it as a medium-sized nome within the Lower Egyptian series. Ramesside officials explicitly associated with this area include chariotry officers, though the decoration in the temple of Kom Firin also provides evidence for persons holding titles such as royal scribe and great steward (Chapter 4). Subsequently, Libyan influence must have been keenly felt in this area, as ‘great chiefs’ are well attested in the region, Kom Firin I | 5

Spencer particularly upon donation stelae, including examples from Kom Firin (see Chapter 3). It is assumed that Kom Firin lay within the region of the kingdom of the West, ruled by Tefnakht and Bakenrenef, encompassing significant areas east of the Rosetta Branch, including the metropoleis of Sais and Buto (Grimal 1981: 209–11, 221; Kitchen 1986: 138–44).11 This polity was effectively the precursor of the Saite dynasty, with Necho I rather than Taharqa being recognised at other cities in the Delta (see Perdu 2004: 103–10). However, no local authority is mentioned in connection with toponyms in the far western Delta, unlike with many other Delta cities (Grimal 1981: 150–7), probably as the former area was located amongst the heartland of Tefnakht’s original territory, eventually ceded to Piye (Grimal 1981: 170–1). Once Psamtek I regained control over all of Egypt, high-ranking officials associated with the western Delta are evidently active throughout Egypt. A small block statue now in Berlin gives a glimpse at the career of a successful official in the western Delta, at the time of Psamtek I, or shortly afterwards (Perdu 2006: 172–5). This man, Nesnaysut, held eight posts of governor (HAty -a), though some of the titles may have been held concurrently. These governorships related to the towns or regions named Pr-inbw, Pr-Nbt-imAw, xAst-TmHw, Pr-rmA, RA- kA-im, Mr-nTrt, the latter being held with the title ‘great governor of the West’. Nesnaysut subsequently moved south to take up positions in el-Kab and Edfu. The early phase of his career was clearly spent in the western Delta; Pr-rmA might be Kom Firin itself (see Chapter 3), while the others cannot all be securely identified.12 Governors are also known at Sais (e.g. el-Sayed 1975: 61–72 [5]) and Tell Muqdam during the 26th dynasty (Yoyotte 1953: 180 no.3), suggesting large towns were nominally under the authority of holders of this title. The military threat from Libya may not have remained the issue it had been in the Ramesside era, but two Saite titles indicate individual officials had some responsibility for the western border of Egypt: ‘overseer of the foreign troops of the Tehenu’ and ‘overseer of the Tjemehu’, both held by officials holding other elite titles (Pressl 1998: 263–4). Further south, there is evidence for interaction between Egyptians and Libyan groups in the reign of Psamtek I (Goedicke 1962). What about the temples and associated rituals and festivals in this region of Egypt? Priestly titles particularly associated with this region in the Late Period include the combination of the titles rnp and Hpt-wDAt (see De Meulenaere 1964; Perdu 1992: 186–7); several holders of these can be explicitly associated with Kom Firin, on the basis of burials in the cemetery at Silvagou (see page 10). However, holders of these titles often invoke Hathor of ImAw (Kom el-Hisn), are associated with Sais, and hold a priesthood of ‘Amun of Thebes of the North’ (Guermeur 2006a: 106–16). De Meulenaere cites references to rnp-priests in Ptolemaic temples, in which they are explicitly associated with the third nome of Lower Egypt and ‘Hathor lady of ImAw’ (1964: 162–3); the rn p-priests are explicitly associated with the third nome in a papyrus of the 2nd century ad (Osing 1998: 240). The Hpt-wDAt title is also attested in Upper Egypt (Leclant 1954: 24–5 [s]). Thus, it should not be assumed there is a direct correlation between Kom Firin and this combination of titles. Elite persons often held priesthoods in several locations at any one time, of course.

6 | Kom Firin I

The Third Intermediate Period stelae from Kom Firin suggest a cult of Sekhmet and Heka at the town, continuing into the Late Period (see below and Chapter 3); the former deity was is prominent upon monuments found in this part of Egypt, even in Ramesside times. Thus at Zawyet Umm el-Rakham, a chapel with jambs inscribed for Ptah and Sekhmet yielded a naos and statue of the governor, both featuring images of Sekhmet (Snape 2004: 151, figs.13–14). Hathor was the focus of cult at Kom el-Hisn (De Meulenaere 1964: 167–8), often associated with Sekhmet and Wadjit. However, there was also important cults of Amun in the area (see Guermeur 2006a: 81–116, 126–38), including priesthoods at Kom el-Hisn and the as yet unlocated Pr-irw (Guermeur 2006a: 82–3). Other goddesses associated with the third nome of Lower Egypt include Hat-Mehit (De Meulenaere 1964: 159–60). Further textual sources provide a glimpse at the sacred topography of this area, unfortunately not complemented by archaeological data. In the Ptolemaic temples of Upper Egypt, the nome lists represent the donation of the bounty from each nome. The third nome of Lower Egypt is typically associated with the toponyms ImAw but also %A-SAyt (Dendara I: 124; Edfu I: 330) and the toponym @wt-iHyt reappears(Dendara X: 331). Other texts from Delta traditions provide more details. A papyrus bearing a comprehensive guide to myths and legends of Delta cities and regions, compiled in the early 26th dynasty, affords the western province four sections (Meeks 2006: 31–2 and 288–95 [§38–41]). Firstly reference is made to Osiride rites in the ‘temple of Ha in the West(ern region)’.13 Secondly, ‘Horus lord of the West’ is invoked, as a symbol of this region. The third section refers to the rite of making replicas of the eyes of ‘Min who is in the @wt-Sa’; Min perhaps seen here as an aspect of Ha. This latter toponym is found in the reliefs at Medinet Habu (Epigraphic Survey 1932: pl.70). It has yet to be identified with an archaeological site, thus Kom Firin remains one of several plausible candidates. The final entry on the Western region concerns the waning moon-god and the applying of the cosmetic lines to render the udjat-eye whole again. Such texts, though difficult to interpret, are important as they reveal the cultic richness and variety present in this region, as with others,14 which is often forgotten when considering only the monumental evidence for temples. In other words, though it is clear that Sekhmet and Heka were particularly venerated at Kom Firin in the 1st millennium bc (Chapter 3), there was likely to have been a wide variety of cults and rituals,15 some of which may have demanded dedicated structures, now lost. The Brooklyn papyrus clearly refers to burial rites; at other sites, animal catacombs and Osiride tombs were involved in such rituals; thus it is possible such complexes existed at Kom Firin too (see Meeks 2006: 188–9, particularly on the designation of Kom el-Hisn (ImAw) as the ‘town of Apis’, which echoes the references on the White Chapel of Senwosret I). Unfortunately, documents such as the Geographical Papyrus from Tanis, effectively a handbook of priestly knowledge, are not sufficiently preserved to elucidate the sacred geography of the West (Griffith and Petrie 1889: 21–5, pls.9–15). However, a 2ndcentury ad papyrus from Tebtunis records several religious features of the nome, with the principal town as Pr-Nbt-ImAw, and a holy place named @wt-ih (Osing 1998: 240), illustrating the persistent of ancient toponyms across the centuries.

The ancient name of Kom Firin An ancient toponym for the site has yet to be securely identified, but there are several candidates. Petrie referred to the site as Kom Afrin (1886: 94–5), and other spellings have also been noted (Efrin, Farein: Coulson and Leonard 1979: 158). Interviews conducted during the 2005 season,16 revealed that some residents of Kom Firin and neighbouring villages retained their own etymologies of the site’s name. Some claimed the original name was Kom Kiffar, ‘mound of the nonbelievers’ (‘kiffar’ as plural of ‘kaffir’). This term may allude to the pharaonic nature of the site, i.e. that it was settled prior to the arrival of Islam. Other sites with pharaonic remains have been assigned names based on this word (e.g. Kahl 2007: 22). Furthermore, many villagers have wondered whether there was a Jewish community at Kom Firin in prior times, a suggestion perhaps prompted by American interest in the site in the late 1970s; our project is repeatedly seen as seeking evidence for Jewish inhabitants at ancient Kom Firin. Another local etymology assigns the name ‘Firin’ to an ancient ruler, who lived either ‘5,000’ years ago or ‘around 1,600 ad’. It is not possible to link this name with that of any known ruler, thus this is probably an etymology that has developed after the site took its name. Finally, it has been suggested ‘Firin’ refers to ovens or kilns (‘furn’ meaning oven; plural ‘afran’), which would make sense in light of the partly visible evidence for ancient ovens and kilns in certain parts of the site (see Chapter 3). Could the term Firin actually be a degradation of an ancient toponym commencing with the article pA?17 Names of this form are not uncommon in Ramesside Egypt, particularly for foreign toponyms (Gauthier 1925: 36–44). The Ramesside historical inscriptions and temple scenes relating to conflicts with Libyans feature several toponyms that were located in the Western Delta, thus providing a series of plausible candidates for Kom Firin. Several forts are alluded to in the textual sources: one named ‘Merenptah-Ht p -Hr- mAat destroyer-of-*Hnw’ was located in the region of Pr-ir-r (Manassa 2003: 56, 58 [c]).18 Under Ramses III, a fort known as ‘Usermaatra-Meryamun is the repeller of the *mHw’ is attested (Epigraphic Survey 1931: 303; KRI V: 14).19 Two western Delta forts depicted in Ramses III’s battle reliefs at Medinet Habu are named as ‘d mi Hwt-Sa (the settlement of the enclosure of sand)’ and ‘Usermaatra-Meryamun, the settlement which is upon the mountain of wp -tA (the beginning of the earth)’ (KRI V: 50, 3–4: Epigraphic Survey 1932: pl.70). The former seems appropriate given the Ramesside complex now identified at Kom Firin (Chapter 3), but also the Pleistoscene sandbank upon which Kom Firin was founded. One of the reliefs from the temple at Kom Firin refers to a temple (Hwt) of ‘[Usermaatra-]setepenra in the domain of Amun’ (JE 89287, Pls.145, 149). It is clear that Ramesside installations along the limits of Egypt proper were usually given rather grandiose names including the name of pharaoh, and these are known from the battle inscriptions. The renaming of settlements in ancient times, to reflect the accession of a new pharaoh (see Morris 2005: 414–15), makes it possible that several of the names cited above could relate to a single site. Another settlement named NAy -Imn-Ra is known, through the inscription of a ‘high steward of the Western River’ Amenmose (Hamada 1947: 19; Frood 2007: 183–5). NAy -Imn-Ra was evidently a settlement of some importance, perhaps built

on previously flooded land, as Amenmose, as overseer of works, describes how ‘it had been a pool; I made for him (Amun-Ra) chapels (r-prw) and shrines (kAyt) on its foundation in the domain of Amun ’. Finally, P.Harris I describes how ‘the Rebu and Meshwesh were inhabiting Egypt, they seized the towns of the western bank, from Memphis to Qerben’ (Grandet 1994, II: 246), the latter site not yet identified. All of these Ramesside toponyms cannot be excluded as possible place names for Kom Firin, and new evidence may yet provide a certain identification. Ramesside activity in the area is clearly long-remembered, with a modern town named ‘Qaryat Ramsis’. Though a dense settlement, a pre-Hellenistic phase has been identified in augering at this site (Wilson 2008b); it is of course possible the name echoes the intensive investment in the area during the later part of the New Kingdom. The site of Pr-ir-r, mentioned in the lengthy inscription of Merenptah at Karnak (see Manassa 2003: 172−3) may be attested in sources of the later 1st millennium bc. A toponym named Pr-irw has been placed in the region of Kom el-Hisn (De Meulenaere 1964: 170−1), on the basis of an early Saite statue which invokes ‘Sekhmet the great lady of the Two Lands’ and gives the owner Padi-hor-khebi the titles Hpt-wDAt, rnp and priest of ‘Amun lord of Pr-irw’ (Guermeur 2006a: 83). As ImAw (Kom el-Hisn) is not explicitly mentioned in this inscription, perhaps Pr-irw refers to Kom Firin, a sizeable settlement where priests with these titles are known to have been buried. Remaining with post-New Kingdom evidence, one of the Third Intermediate Period donation stelae ascribed to Kom Firin (Spiegelberg 1920: 8, pl.5) contains three lines of hieratic inscription, the last one of which includes the word AHt, but this is likely to be the word ‘field’ in view of the nature of the monument. Another stela refers to a priest of Heka-the-child ‘nty … aH’, with the latter word finished with a pr-determinative (Berlandini 1978: 154, 156); another stela from the site features Heka-Hry -ib-aH (Bakir 1943: 77).20 Is this one of the temple’s names?21 A settlement (d mi), perhaps named Rbgr, is referred to on another stela (Kitchen 1970: 64–7, fig.4). A fourth donation stela of similar date, which may be from Kom Firin, is now in the British Museum (EA 73965, Pl.89; see Chapter 3). The inscription refers to a w ab-priest of Sekhmet, and cites a toponym pA-xArw.22 Saite sources refer to a ‘Thebes of the North’ (WAst mH), not that at Tell el-Balamun, but explicitly identified as located in the Great Kingdom of the West (Guermeur 2006a: 106–16). It is perhaps unsurprising that the nascent political forces in this region of the Delta wished to identify with the sacred city of Upper Egypt. This western Delta ‘Thebes’ was the location of a cult of Amun (‘Amun of of Thebes of the North’); many of the holders of a priestly position in this cult also hold the titles rnp and Hpt-wDAt, which can be associated with Kom Firin, but also Kom el-Hisn or Sais, as discussed above. In light of the granite block inscribed with the name of Amun, perhaps from a postNew Kingdom temple at Kom Firin, this toponym is another tentative candidate for being identified with Kom Firin. The toponym ImAw has long been associated with Kom el-Hisn, while also being cited on two statue bases found at the site, in association with forms of Sekhmet and Hathor (KRI II: 471, 10). The writing of the toponym varies in these inscriptions, from three trees alone, to one tree followed by the Kom Firin I | 7

Spencer broad m-sign, three plural strokes and the town determinative. The same toponym seems to appear on the stela from Kom Firin, recorded by Petrie (1886: pl.36). The goddess in the lunette is labelled as ‘Bastet lady of Im(A)t, mistress of the [two?] land[s?]’. In the Ht p - d i- nsw formula beneath, the toponym is written with two trees and the town-determinative (ImAwy?). Given the inconsistency in writing the toponym (and the apparently sloppy paleography on the cited stela), and the fact that we cannot be certain the stela is from Kom Firin, as Petrie was merely purchasing objects from villagers (or even people in Cairo), it is not possible at present to state whether ImAw or ImAwy could be used of both Kom Firin and Kom el-Hisn. The toponym @wt-iHyt, may have been a precursor of ImAw as capital of the third nome of Lower Egypt. Its location has not been securely identified, though both toponyms could refer to the same place. A variety of conflicting views are outlined by Gauthier, a link being made with other toponyms that could be associated with bovine cults, including Aphroditopolis, Momemphis and a niwt nt @p (1927: 51). Finally, three toponyms known from Greek sources have been associated with Kom Firin.23 Petrie proposed Kom Dahab (1886: 93) was actually Skiathis from Ptolemy’s Geographia. Coulson and Leonard wondered if the same toponym might refer to Kom Firin itself (1979: 163). Previously, Montet had suggested Kom Firin could be identified with Gynaekopolis (1957: 59−60). Momemphis may also be a term for Kom el-Hisn, but along with Andronpolis and Gynaekopolis (Helck 1974: 155−6), new evidence is required before any identifications can be put forward with certainty. More recently, Yoyotte has proposed Papremis should be located at Kom Firin, using a 14th-century Arabic cadastral survey which refers to Qalâwat Afrîm or the ‘fort of Afrîm’ (Yoyotte 2006). The site is referred to by Herodotus, who claimed that the festival of Ares held in that town was the sixth largest in Egypt (II: 59, 63). His detailed description of the festival,25 though unfortunately lacking the topographic detail of his account of Bubastis, does indicate the presence of a temple with a porch (which must be sizeable as ‘more than a thousand men’ can gather outside it) with a cult statue carried in a gold (or gilded) shrine, from ‘the temple to another sacred chamber’. The latter detail indicates at least two sacred structures. The identification of Ares with an Egyptian god is difficult, with Onuris being a likely candidate. Herodotus also refers to the district of Papremis being one where hippopotami were held to be sacred (II: 71), evidently suggestive of cults of various deities including ‘the White One (@Dt)’, Ipet, Reret, Taweret, Isis, Hathor, Neith and Nut (Störk 1982: 503). Herodotus is the only source that associates the animal explicitly with religious beliefs in the western Delta. Papremis is also described by Herodotus as the site of the battle in 459/458 bc, in which Inaros defeated the army of the Persian satrap Achemeres (III: 12). Inaros led a revolt based in the western Nile Delta, in alliance with Athens; 10,000 Persians are thought to have perished in the battle at Papremis (Lloyd 1975: 38–47). Could the extraordinary extent of the cemetery at Kom Firin reflect the burial of fallen soldiers, particularly the mass burials excavated in 1952 (see page 11)? Herodotus also refers to a class of warriors (Hermotubies) being settled in the area of Papremis (II: 165). A papyrus from Oxyrhynchus refers to the 8 | Kom Firin I

town of Papremis in the 2nd century bc (Ray 1981: 60). If this identification is correct,26 and it seems reasonable, the ancient Egyptian form of the name is suggested as Pr-rmA, without the definite article before it (Yoyotte 2006: 187). A statue of an individual who held the title of governor at various western Delta sites during the early 26th dynasty, including Pr-rmA, is known (Perdu 2006: 172–5). It is nonetheless interesting that Qalâwat Afrîm is recorded in a 14th century cadastral survey, as the archaeological evidence suggests that Kom Firin had been abandoned long before (7th century ad). The remains of its enclosure walls and defenses, as well as the size of the ancient site, must have been sufficiently impressive to warrant the designation Qalâwat. The map of d’Anville, of 1787 (Egypten oder Misir, verfasst von Herrn d’Anville, Pl.3), suggests that in the late 18th century, Kom Firin was still an imposing site, as it is marked on the map at the same scale as sites such as Nekras (Naukratis) and Sa (Sais). In conclusion, until further evidence comes to light, particularly that from the site itself, Kom Firin will remain somewhat detached from the textual records. It is reaonable to assume, given the extent and importance of the remains at Kom Firin, that it would have been referred to in many ancient texts. Satellite sites This chapter concludes with a consideration of the two sites adjacent to Kom Firin itself, Kom Dahab and Silvagou, both of which have been the subject of earlier survey and excavations, but do not form part of the British Museum concession. Silvagou is important as it represents a major, long-used, burial ground associated with the settlement site of Kom Firin, where no burials have been encountered. Kom Dahab, in contrast, appears to have been occupied in the later phases of Kom Firin’s history, with Naukratis Project excavations revealing kilns for amphora production. Silvagou The first published reference to a cemetery at Kom Firin dates to 1911, when Edgar described a ‘cemetery which seems for the most part to be under cultivation’ to the south of the western part of the site (1911: 278). This is evidently the location now referred to as Silvagou, 500m south-west of Kom Firin (Fig.4),27 apparently echoing the name of a wealthy merchant of Greek descent (Coulson and Leonard 1979: 168). The cemetery, still the principal burial ground for the villagers of Kom Firin (Pls.10, 255), has been the subject of long-term, if intermittent, excavations by the EAO and SCA. Excavation seasons were directed, amongst others, by Shafiq Farid (1949–52, assisted by Abd el-Hadi Hamada, unpublished but see Van Voss 1953: 294 [38]), Mounir Basta and Samy Farag (1966–7),28 and Sabri Ali Choucri (1992–94).29 Further information can be gleaned from the records in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, and on-site observations. The British Museum project also undertook the first systematic recording of the sarcophagi stored adjacent to the SCA resthouse at Kom Firin. It should be stressed that no plan of the cemetery, nor of any single feature within it, has been published by any of its excavators. The site is approached from the north by a path, effectively a sand embankment raised c.150cm above the level of the

The Regional Context irrigated land on either side (Pl.7). The open sections thus created are consistent across the cemetery, featuring clean fine yellow sand with significant shell inclusions, and almost no cultural debris (Pl.8). The cemetery thus seems to have been founded upon the same sand turtleback as Kom Firin itself (see n.2; Fig.4), most of which has been reclaimed for agriculture in the last century or so. Nonetheless, it is not impossible that a waterway existed between Kom Firin and Silvagou in ancient times, perhaps echoed in the western limits of the site and the extant lake at its southern edge. The excavations of Mounir Basta were prompted by the activities of agents of the ‘Agrarian Land Reform’, whose bulldozers revealed canopic jars from a mudbrick tomb (Basta 1979: 183). The site was unknown in the early 20th century, when a large tract of land to the south and west of Kom Firin was still uncultivated, and shown as a sandy expanse on early maps (Pl.5). Other than one house near the northern end of the track, there are no modern dwellings between Kom Firin and Silvagou, until one reaches the cemetery itself. Though a registered antiquities site, there has been recent construction work here, particularly the erection of a house to the west of the track; two older houses are located on the opposite side of the path. Further to the south-west is a cluster of four houses and a mosque (Pls.7, 10), though these are in an area beyond the visible extent of the ancient cemetery. Sand is in high demand for construction work in Egypt, and large deposits are being actively quarried in the areas west of Kom Firin: convoys of trailer-tractors intermittently passed through Kom Firin during our seasons. The main industrial sand quarries are located several kilometres south-west of Kom Firin. Nonetheless, areas of open sand visible near Silvagou in 2002 had become cultivated land by September 2006. In this climate, it is unsurprising that groundwater seriously affected many of the tombs (el-Wakil 1988). The site is effectively split in two by the track which leads to Kom Firin. The smaller, western, part of the cemetery is still strewn with ceramic coffin fragments, though the area is littered with piles of straw, plastic and other modern rubbish (Pl.9). The larger area to the east features many more ceramic coffin fragments, but also mudbrick structures and two limestone monuments (Pls.12–16). The Muslim cemetery lies at the far eastern end of the site, with small plastered mudbrick and redbrick tombs, though recent ones are constructed of breeze blocks (Pl.255). Silvagou is still the principal cemetery for Kom Firin: food, drink and floral offerings continue to be placed before individual tombs. New graves are simply added to the last row when needed, according to Abdallah Abdel Gawwad Salem, presently responsible for digging graves. The Muslim cemetery is also the highest point of the extant site; in the 1960s, parts of the cemetery lay 3m above the level of the cultivation (Basta 1979: 183). The site encompasses an area of around 0.6ha, though the ancient cemetery was considerably larger. Firstly, from the present-day level of the Muslim graves, it seems very likely the ancient cemetery runs under the later burials; evidently it is not possible to conduct excavations in a cemetery which remains in use. Secondly, Basta describes a site covering ‘hundreds of acres’ (Basta 1979: 183), and it clearly extended a significant distance to the west of its curremt limits (el-Wakil 1988: 265). The exact number of burials excavated in the last half-

century is unknown. Farid’s numbering system reaches 182 in the Egyptian Museum records, but 450 graves were apparently visible (Leclant 1952: 247), with another 200 excavated in the spring of 1952 (Leclant 1953: 100). Basta referred to another 249 graves and Choucri mentioning a further 377 burials, giving a grand total of 1276,30 if we assume no burials were re-excavated. It is unclear how these excavations relate to the areas presently visible, as no plan has ever been published. This creates problems in assessing whether the cemetery spread out across time, as well as featuring different phases of burials gradually accumulating. The latter process is clear from the most recent excavations, which revealed up to three strata of super-imposed tombs (Choucri 2003: 124). Significant variation in the level of the individual grave cuts, for the burials in ceramic coffins, is still evident at the site today. Choucri describes how 363 graves were found in his area A and B, with only 13 being found in C and D. This may reflect the parts to the west and east, respectively, of the road. Throughout the following description, burials excavated by Farid are referred to by the system used in the Egyptian Museum registers (G1, G2, …) while I have assigned a different letter to those tombs numbered by Basta (T1, T2, …). A full list of the burials is provided in Appendix 2. Burial types at Silvagou Basta classified the burials into 8 types (1979: 183–96), while Choucri later extended this to 11 (2003). There is some overlap to the descriptions, so I have provisionally synthesised their findings into four broad groups: limestone tombs, mudbrick tombs, shaft burials and those graves without apparent superstructure. Limestone tombs The wealth of some inhabitants is evident through the presence of limestone tomb superstructures, along with associated stone sarcophagi, as there are no limestone quarries nearby. Basta found between 9 and 11 stone tombs (including nos. T12, T14, T18, T31, T35, T40, T168, Basta 1979: 183–90), typically constructed with flat rooves. The most grandiose tomb (T31) was built of dressed masonry, and provided with a pitched roof, a mud-brick casing wall against its eastern exterior face, and an entrance to the south (Basta 1979: 186–91, figs. 2, 4–7). Within, a narrow upper chamber contained the canopic jars and shabti figurines, while the room beneath housed the burial proper. Basta intimates that tomb T35 (Basta 1979: 188) may have been similar in style. Two of the limestone tombs discovered by Farid exhibit similar features, though perhaps only on one level, with a pitched roof in one case (Leclant 1952: pl.49 fig.29 [left side]). Interestingly, these tombs appear to have been constructed as contiguous units, echoing the double- and triple-chambers of some of the mudbrick structures. These limestone tombs were effectively extensions of the sarcophagus, in some case only one or two courses of masonry in height, thus not chapels that could be entered after the burial; the original entrance blocking was found in several cases (T18: Basta 1979: 185–6; T31, Basta 1979: 186–9, fig. 2). In some cases, the floor of the interior was paved in limestone (T18, Basta 1979: 185–6; T31, Basta 1979: 189). Presumably provision was made to provide a focus for the offering cult, Kom Firin I | 9

Spencer perhaps in the form of a small niche, maybe even a stela or statue emplacement on one side, or near, the burial, but no evidence for these survives, other than a funerary stela found in 1887 (Egyptian Museum JE 27784: Basta 1979: 189, 192 fig.8; Munro 1973: 344; Jansen-Winkeln 1998: 159–62, fig.2 pl.9), long before the cemetery was first systematically investigated.31 Osiris is depicted in the lunette of the stela, approached by the Hpt-wDAt smn-mAat named Usir-nakht; his father is named as Peftjawyneith, the combination of names and titles suggesting he may be the man buried in tomb T18. Of course, such stelae, and perhaps smaller examples, may also have been associated with tombs other than those constructed of limestone. Two partly preserved limestone structures are still visible at Silvagou, in the north-eastern corner of the cemetery. These may pre-date several nearby mudbrick structures, which are founded into the sandy surface at a higher level. The southernmost of the two limestone structures measures 2.38x2.02m, and is built from well-dressed masonry blocks, though not polished or decorated (A, Pl.12). Of smaller dimensions (1.77x1.9m), the adjacent structure is built of both limestone and mudbrick (B, Pl.13). The presence of an in situ pottery coffin just south-west of the latter stone tomb, and at a similar (perhaps contemporary) level, indicates that there may not have been strict social stratification in positioning of burials. The two limestone tombs are probably similar to those found by Basta, west of the extant site. In several cases, the preservation of funerary goods allowed the identification of the person buried in these limestone tombs. A Hpt-wDAt and w ab-priest named %A[-X?] (T14, Basta 1979: 185, 188 fig.4); another Hpt-wDAt, who also held the title smn- mAat, called Peftjawyneith was buried in T18 (Basta 1979: 185–6, fig.1).32 The largest, two-tiered, limestone tomb (T31) contained the burial of a xrp-Hwwt Hpt-wDAt named Basa. His parentage is identical, excepting paleographical details in the mother’s name, to that of Peftjawyneith, suggesting they were brothers (Basta 1979: 186–9, fig.4). His tomb is also the only surviving example with internal decoration, in this case horizontal and vertical bands of hieroglyphic inscription bearing invocations from the gods Ra-Horakhty and Anubis, but also a Ht p - d i- nsw formula invoking Geb (Basta 1979: 189–91, figs.5–7). This burial chamber was clearly envisaged as an architectural sarcophagus, with the interior decoration mirroring the layout of inscriptions on coffins of the New Kingdom and later. The title Hpt-wDAt was evidently of some importance in the 26th dynasty (De Meulenaere 1964: 164–5), as the holders were in a position to commission hard-stone statuary to set up in temples or cemeteries, if of fairly modest dimensions (including two examples possibly from Kom Firin: Perdu 1992: 184–7, pl.11; De Meulenaere 1964 161 [17], pl.32). With a number of other Hpt-wDAt priests being perhaps active at Kom Firin in the Saite era (Perdu 1992: 186–7), it is possible that some of the tombs and sarcophagi with no preserved names may belong to these men (see page 6 for a discussion of these titles). A faience shabti now in the Egyptian Museum, bears another priestly title, of a Hm-nTr %x mt Wahibra (10/4/53/12, Pls.26–7); unfortunately this was not found in strict association with a tomb.

10 | Kom Firin I

Mudbrick tombs The majority of the burials provided with a structure, rather than simply placed in a pit cut into the ground, consist of mudbrick architecture. The more elaborate examples feature contiguous vaulted chambers. These tombs can be of significant size, such as the triple-chambered tomb T20 (Basta 1979: 187 fig.3, 190−3), with a surface area of 5.65x2.8m, and 1.3m in height. The entrance had been blocked with mudbrick, and the rooves of two of the chambers were no longer extant. Basta excavated six tombs consisting of two adjacent chambers, also vaulted (T6, T41, T49, T61–T64; Basta 1979: 193). One of these was much larger than the triple tomb (T6: 5.8x5.6m). The presence of eight canopic jars in one chamber of a double tomb indicates two burials were placed within one of the chambers, as the adjacent chamber was provided with four canopic jars of its own (T63b, Basta 1979: 193). The four bronze eye inlays found in one chamber of another tomb (T61b, Basta 1979: 193) may also point to a double burial, or a single burial within nested coffins. Twenty single-chambered tombs with vaulted roof were excavated by Basta (1979: 193, Choucri excavated further examples, 2003: 126). The dimensions of one tomb (T48: 2.9x2.0x0.47m) illustrate that these mud-brick structures were not simply encasing walls for a coffin, but rather structures of some size intended to house the coffin and a number of burial goods. Vaulted tombs were also found at Kom Abu Billo, dated to the New Kingdom by its excavators (Farid 1973: 23, pl.5), but are also known in Upper Egypt.33 Another form of burial consisted of mummies encased in mudbrick. Basta describes 16 examples where the bodies were placed directly on the sand, and then two to five courses of bricks were laid over them, but also ones where a layer of bricks was placed underneath the bodies (T50, T75, T84, T86, T88, T147–T148, T151–T152, T161–163, T165, T167, T171, T180; Basta 1979: 193). In some cases, a layer of sand and brick fragments were placed between the body and the brick courses above. Such burial arrangements were clearly less costly than the mudbrick burial chambers described above, and the associated burial goods are noticeably less lavish. These brickencased graves could be for individual or multiple burials, with up to five bodies encountered in a single large structure (T50 was 5.4x4.8x 0.45m, Basta 1979: 193). The bodies were found lying in several orientations, with one tomb featuring bodies laid with head facing north, while others face west (T84, Basta 1979: 194); the arms lying extended or crossed over the chest. Another tomb had bodies piled on top of each other, though it had been badly disturbed (T147, Basta 1979: 194). At least one of these brick-cased burials featured a wooden coffin, judging by the recovery of bronze eye inlays (Basta 1979: 196), but many more examples housed ceramic coffins, with the brick overlay often taking the form of a vault (Choucri’s ‘6e type’, 2003: 127). The nature of the published record unfortunately precludes consideration of an interesting question: did the burials in the communal encasements happen at one time, or were these structures extended and/or re-opened when needed? Elements of three mudbrick structures are still visible on the surface today. One is adjacent to the south-west of the limestone tomb A, and is aligned with it. It measures 3.1x2.5m (C, Pl.14). Nearer the pathway in this eastern part of the cemetery, a further structure is visible, of sizeable dimensions (D, 7.3x3.1m, Pl.15), perhaps with internal divisions. Nearby is

The Regional Context another example, measuring 2.86x1.8m (E, Pl.16). The state of preservation makes it difficult to ascertain if these were vaulted tomb chambers. The mudbrick tombs mentioned in relation to the 1994 excavations must also fall into one of these categories (el-Fattah and Georges 2007: 25). A rather unusual mudbrick tomb was unearthed by Choucri. ‘Quadrilatère’ in plan, it was also provided with a vaulted ceiling (‘10e type’, Choucri 2003: 127). The contents included an alabaster urn with handles in the form of a duck, in which lay the bones and ashes of the deceased. Shaft-burials The tombs and burials at Silvagou are cut into thick sand deposits, which are sufficiently compacted to allow tall open faces, left from quarrying and agricultural activity, to remain standing (Pl.8). This solidity also allowed the excavation of tomb shafts in ancient times, to a depth of between 1.5 and 2m. Four such tombs were found by Basta (1979: 194–5). Recesses at the bottom provided a location for the burial in some cases (in one example upon a layer of mud, T139, Basta 1979: 195), while in others the coffins or bodies were simply placed at the foot of the shaft. Two burials were encountered in one shaft (T149, Basta 1979: 195). The top of the shaft was blocked with mudbricks in the form of a gable. A wide range of burial containers were found in these shafts, including evidence for wooden coffins (T139), but also ceramic anthropoid, doublecylinder jar coffins and coffins of a Greek type (T140). Where mentioned, the heads were turned to the east, with the arms either extended or crossed over the chest. Burials without associated structure Three broad types of burial are encountered in which there was seemingly no evidence of any structure around the coffin or body. The most notable examples are of gypsum anthropoid coffins embellished with Medusa masks and griffons (T137– 138, T141, T143, T145, T173, T175, T181; Basta 1979: 194), similar iconography may have been found on wooden coffins (Choucri’s ‘2e type’, 2003: 126). Basta’s descriptions do not clarify whether these were buried in groups or individually. Other types of coffin placed in simple pit-burials were made of cartonnage (Choucri’s ‘4e type’, 2003: 126) or ceramic. Many fragments of ceramic coffins are still visible on the surface at Silvagou (Pls.9–10), and clearly represented one of the most common types of burial at Kom Firin. Occasionally ‘clad’ with mud-plaster or mud-brick, on the underneath of the coffin, some of these burials may have been akin to the mud-brick tombs described above. Others, however, were simply placed in the sand,34 alongside more grandiose tombs (Leclant 1952: pl.47 fig.26 and pl.49 fig.28). Throughout the cemetery, Basta encountered burials simply placed in a shallow pit cut into the sand, occasionally with a layer of mud underlying the body (Basta 1979: 195, cf. Leclant 1952: pl.48 fig.27; Leclant 1953: pl.25, fig. 43–4). Unfortunately, the records do not allow us to ascertain if these more modest burials were associated with an array of burial goods. No funerary objects were found associated with the simple burials seen by Basta, but Choucri noted a modest assemblage of one or two pots, necklaces, bracelets, and earrings (2003: 124). ‘Simple’ burials were not necessarily bereft of grave goods: at Kom el-Hisn, nearly all of the amulets

and jewellery were found in simple burials rather than in the mud-brick tombs (Hamada and el-Amir 1947: 104–5). Rams, bulls and jackals were also found buried amongst these tombs at Kom el-Hisn. With the modest burials at Kom Firin, bodies were occasionally completely suffused with a thick black resin, bitumen or pitch (Choucri’s ‘3e type’, 2003: 126). In 1952, three groups of around 50 bodies buried side by side were excavated at Silvagou; the excavators posited this might have been the consequence of an epidemic (Leclant 1953: 100). Without study of the skeletal material, it will never be possible to ascertain if these multiple burials are the consequence of disease, war35 or otherwise. While children were often found buried as part of a family group (Leclant 1953: 100, pl.25 fig.44), child inhumations within amphorae and other pots were also found (Choucri’s ‘11e type’, 2003: 127), in some cases blocked with pottery lids or even bricks (Leclant 1952: 247, pl.50 fig.31). Such burials are also found in the cemetery at nearby Kom el-Hisn (Hamada and Farid 1948: 308) and Kom el-Kharaz (Hamada and Farid 1948b: 332). Alas, the nature of the published record from excavations at Silvagou precludes an investigation of whether certain burial types were in vogue at different periods. Burial assemblages at Silvagou The burial assemblages can be partly reconstructed from the objects now in the Egyptian Museum, with some tomb groupings possible, through use of the notes accompanying the registration volumes in Cairo,36 and to a lesser extent the article of Basta. It should be borne in mind that these cannot be seen as closed contexts; even if the burials were undisturbed,37 it is likely that the early excavators only removed the intact objects, and that many fragments were left behind, particularly of pottery. Unfortunately, it is difficult to assess in detail any possible social stratification through analysis of the burial goods preserved. While the assemblages from the limestone tombs can be reconstructed with some reliability (see below), some of the more ‘middle-ranking’ burials in the cemetery had evidently been disturbed, for example the rather large tombs with multiple vaulted mud brick chambers (T6, T20; Basta 1979: 187 fig.3, 190−3). Some of the material studied in the Egyptian Museum is illustrated here (Pls.26–51), to afford readers a glimpse at the variety of object classes, but the material deserves a dedicated study. Coffins and sarcophagi Other than the simple matt-lined burial, the most essential part of a burial was a coffin and/or sarcophagus. These occur in wood, ceramic, gypsum and stone at Kom Firin. While a mudbrick setting is not impossible for the limestone sarcophagi, particularly for those sarcophagi whose exterior was not finished to a smooth surface (e.g. no.4 below), it seems likely that a stone structure would have surrounded the smaller sarcophagi. Choucri refers simply to the sarcophagi and canopic chests, stating that they date to the Late and Ptolemaic Periods (Choucri 2003: 127). Many of the stone sarcophagi were moved to an area just north of the Kom Firin resthouse,38 and have been re-sited onto low benches to isolate them from groundwater and salt (Pl.25).39 As these have not been properly recorded before, there follows below a brief catalogue of these Kom Firin I | 11

Spencer monuments. Unfortunately, it is not known in which tombs they were found, though it is reasonable to assume many, if not all, come from the limestone tombs described above. Though rare, similar examples were found at Naukratis (Gardner 1889: 24). 1 Limestone sarcophagus base, tapering inward towards feet, with a mummiform cavity. Very eroded, with none of the original surfaces surviving, cavred from poor quality limestone (Pl.17). Exterior dimensions: 212x67x44cm, tapering out to 54cm wide at the head. Interior dimensions: width at feet 29cm; width at shoulders 45cm; maximum width of head 24cm; interior depth 28cm. 2 Fragment of a limestone sarcophagus lid, with a similar erosion pattern to no.1, and dimensions suggesting that it is from the middle of the lid of that sarcophagus base (Pl.19). Dimensions: 120x57x23cm. 3 Fragment of a limestone sarcophagus lid, severely eroded, carved with a lip at the edge to allow it to fit with base no.4 (Pls.18, 252). Exterior dimensions: 158x91x21cm. 4 Limestone sarcophagus base, intact apart from the section of one side missing. Rectangular in form, it bears no decoration, but three 7cm deep channels, varying between 12–17cm wide, are cut across the width of the base, at roughly equidistant intervals (41–3cm), clearly to allow straps to be removed after having been used to lower the coffin into place. The lack of polish applied to the exterior might indicate that it was set into a narrow stone (or brick?) structure (Pl.252). Exterior dimensions: 205x92x96cm. Interior dimensions: 202x71cm. Depth: 78–79cm. Also painted with labels: ‘SCA 10’ and ‘72’. 5 Fragment from the lid of a limestone sarcophagus, badly eroded, lying upside down on ground. Part of the same sarcophagus as no.6 (Pl.22). Dimensions: 125x59x19cm. Also painted with label: ‘111’. 6 Base of a limestone sarcophagus, tapering towards feet, with mummiform cavity carved within. Exterior dimenions: 196x70x40cm (tapering out to 53cm wide at the head) (Pls.20, 22). Interior dimensions: width at feet 23cm, width at shoulders 43cm, width of head 22.5cm; depth 29cm. Also painted with label: ‘111’. Possibly the sarcophagus illustrated by Coulson and Leonard (1981: 72, 93 fig.34). The authors described it as a ‘much weathered undecorated sarcophagus of Hellenistic or Roman date’. 7 Fragment of a vaulted limestone sarcophagus lid, now badly eroded (Pl.22). Dimensions: 94x24x65cm (edges taper to 17cm thick). Again, possibly the sarcophagus illustrated by Coulson and Leonard (1981: 72, 93 fig.34). 8 Limestone sarcophagus lid lying underside up, cut with 3cm deep depression of anthropoid form, presumably to match that of base. Eroded, but clearly unworked, exterior face (Pl.21). Exterior dimensions: 228x98x27cm (tapering out to 81cm at the head). Interior dimensions: width at feet 44cm, width at shoulder 67cm, width at head 49cm. 9 Limestone sarcophagus base, broken into two fragments. Surface somewhat eroded but rough chisel marks are still visible on the exterior, which has also been subject to recent staining (Pl.23). Exterior dimensions: 215x74x59cm (tapering to 74cm at the feet). Interior dimensions: width at feet 28cm, width at shoulder 41cm, width at head 26cm; length 177cm. 10 Fragment of a limestone sarcophagus lid, with slight curvature to upper surface. Dimensions: 54x47x10cm.

12 | Kom Firin I

11 Fragment of a limestone sarcophagus lid, the stone (and that of no.12) being of a finer-grained, harder, variety than all of the other fragments. Dimensions: 97x53x23cm. 13 Fragment of a limestone sarcophagus lid, the stone (and that of no.11) being of a finer-grained, harder, variety than all of the other fragments. Dimensions: 35x54x24cm. Also painted with label: ‘2’.

None of these were decorated, perhaps due to their intended architectural setting, effectively encased in limestone or mudbrick. They are likley to date to the Hellenistic era, or perhaps later; similar sarcophagi have been found around Sais (Wilson 2006a: 227–8, pls.36 [b, d], 37 [a, b, c]). Wooden coffins were evidently used in the cemetery at Kom Firin. As in most Delta cemeteries, the wood had usually decomposed, leaving only the amulets and other goods housed within. The presence of bronze and precious stone inlays in the form of eyes and separate eyebrows, often found in pairs (Pls.29, 32, 34), indicates that the burials were provided with anthropoid wooden sarcophagi. Evidence for such coffins were found in both the limestone and mudbrick tombs: T14 (Basta 1979: 185), T31 (Basta 1979: 189), T35 (Basta 1979: 188), T61–T63 (Basta 1979: 193), but also in the shaft burials (T139, Basta 1979: 195).40 In the case of limestome tombs, these wooden coffins may have been placed inside the limestone sarcophagi. It is also possible that nested coffins were provided in some cases, though multiple coffins in a single tomb may simply attest to several individuals being buried within (e.g. Farid’s G65, Pls.29, 32). In the case of tomb T31, the supertsructure itself acted as a coffin, as evident from the layout of the internal decoration (Basta 1979: 186–91, figs.4–7). The most distinctive burials in the cemetery featured coffins embellished with Medusa masks, as several painted terracotta and plaster examples of this type of object were found along with nails and the remnants of wood (Choucri’s ‘2e type’, 2003: 126). Farid excavated several of these fittings, in graves G7 (JE 89422, along with eight rosettes which may also have been attached to the coffin, JE 89424), G69 (JE 89423) and G101 (JE 89564), but examples were also found in one of Basta’s shaft tombs (T140, Basta 1979: 195) and in the debris between burials which featured gypsum coffins, seemingly placed directly into the sand (Basta 1979: 194). Excavations in 1994 yielded at least three more such fittings (el-Gattah and Georges 2007: 30–1). Further objects survive from the coffins. Tomb G7, excavated by Farid, was provided with quite an array of figurines, all of terracotta but preserving traces of gilding and plaster: seven winged horses (JE 89425), seven winged lions (JE 89426), seven bucrania (JE 89427), and two pottery vessels (JE 89417; see Leclant 1952: pl.50, fig.30, which may display some of these objects). Basta described finding fragments of gilded terracotta griffins in one of the shaft tombs (tomb 140, Basta 1979, 194–5). None of these burials were provided with scarabs or Egyptian amulets, common in many of the other graves; this is strongly suggestive of a Greek population retaining its own cultural identity, in contrast to the Egyptianisation so familiar from most periods of Egyptian history. Medusa masks, rosettes and the bucrania and winged horses were also found at

The Regional Context Naukratis (Gardner 1889: 24–5, pl.16), where Gardner gives a hint at the possible shape of the coffins to which these were originally fitted: ‘an oblong box, and a gable-shaped lid, which presents a high-pitched pediment at each end. These pediments, as well as the rest of the cofin, are divided into panels, and ornamented with painting and with terra-cotta reliefs’; large nails found during excavations were presumably used to hold the coffins together. It is notable here that in the few examples of burial assemblages given by Gardner, there are no truly Egyptian amulets or scarabs, and the pottery is all of Greek forms. Gardner dates them to the 4th century bc, no graves from the early phase of occupation at Naukratis have been found. Terracotta figurines of this nature are found in graves elsewhere in the Greek world (Parlasca 2001: 177–80, pls.25–7), and are probably fittings from wooden sarcophagi. Returning to the Egyptian forms of coffins, remnants of gilded plaster associated with areas of blue paint led the excavators to suggest mummy masks may have been provided for some burials (T40, Basta 1979: 190). The fragments of gold found in one of the chambers of a mudbrick tomb (T61, Basta 1979: 193) could have come from a mask or gilding upon the wooden coffin itself. Cartonnage coffins were encountered by Choucri (‘4e type’, 2003: 126). Anthropoid in form, these were decorated with typical motifs and scenes, including collars, pectorals, figures of deities, and a scene of Anubis beside the mummy upon a bier. Unfortunately, these were not sufficiently preserved to allow the inscriptions to be read, which would have provided invaluable information on the inhabitants of Kom Firin at this era. Anthropoid ceramic coffins seem to have been the most common choice at Kom Firin, unsurprising in a region where high quality stone and wood would have been expensive commodities.41 Such coffins were apparently employed throughout much of the chronology of the cemetery, with examples in New Kingdom tombs, but also in the Hellenistic shaft-burials (Basta 1979: 195); such coffins are not known from Middle Kingdom cemeteries. Examples excavated by Choucri had been enclosed in a brick casing. Some ceramic coffins had been whitewashed and decorated with red bands to echo the décor of wooden coffins of the New Kingdom (Choucri 2003: 127).42 Simple oval ceramic coffins were found in the upper strata of excavations (Choucri 2003: 127, ‘8e type’), consistent with the Roman date their form suggests. The northern area of Choucri’s excavation also yielded burials placed within the cavity formed by two semi-conical jars stuck together (‘9e type’), again typical of Roman era cemeteries in Egypt.43 Remnants of the ceramic coffins are still evident upon the surface of the site (Pl.9). Though fragmentary and badly damaged, some are still preserved to 150cm in length and 49cm in width. Examples with separate base and lid, or of cylindrical form with separate head and breast element (‘sarcophages à plastron’), are known. While some had anthropomorphic features modelled in nauralistic form upon the lid, including the face and hands,44 in some cases the modelling produced a rather heavy, ‘blocky’ apperance.45 In other cases, the nose, eyes, ear and mouth but no hands were simply added to the upper rounded surface of the lid.46 Finally, one coffin features a whole face and wig added almost as a two-dimensional appliqué, with two opposing hands added onto the chest area.47

Unfortunately, these highly individualistic coffins defy dating when disassociated from their archaeological context. The simplest form of ceramic coffin were simply provided with a flat top (Cotelle-Michel 2004: 101). The fragments still visible at the site were without exception made from unslipped, coarse Nile siltware. Interestingly, the orientation of these burials varies widely, with examples close to each other showing an orientation of head to east-north-east, south-east or east.48 Shabtis and Canopic jars Shabtis were found in several tombs at Silvagou (Pls.26–7, 41–2), typically of faience with a pale blue or green glaze, and often with a distinct base and back pillar, a form first introduced in the 26th dynasty. These shabtis are not of the highest quality, and are often uninscribed. Faience shabtis are known from tombs T14 (1, Basta 1979: 185, 187 fig.4), T31 (30, Basta 1979: 186–9) and T48 (40, Basta 1979: 193), G60 (10/4/53/25), G72 (8/12/54/21), in addition to two found in disturbed contexts (10/4/53/12 and 14/4/53/2). Farid also recovered two pottery shabtis from the cemetery (8/12/54/6), while G16 contained both ceramic and faience shabtis (10/4/53/24, Pl.41). In the latter case, it is possible the grave contained two burials, of a rather different date, as the shabtis include examples of typical Saite, or later, form, along with examples from an earlier period (as late as the end of the Third Intermediate Period; John Taylor, pers. comm.). The lack of shabtis in many of the graves may indicate the modest means of their owner, but also perhaps the early date of some of these burials (see below). Two shabtis, badly eroded and without preserved inscriptions, were found in the Citadel during excavations in 2007;49 presumably these were re-deposited from disturbed graves, or derive from a production area somewhere at Kom Firin. Finally, it should be noted that several of the groups of shabtis accessioned under one number at the Egyptian Museum, and ascribed to one burial in the associated records, are in a wide variety of materials and styles. Perhaps these attest to disturbed burials, or instances of re-used tombs. Canopic jars were provided in the more lavish tombs, both the limestone ones and those with multiple vaulted burial chambers. These could be painted with the names of the Four Sons of Horus (T31,50 Basta 1979: 186–9). Dummy examples were also used, even in rather lavish burials with stone superstructures and burial goods in precious materials (T18, Basta 1979: 185–6). They were also a common find in the multiple-chambered mudbrick tombs (T.61 [a&b], T63 [a&b], Basta 1979: 193). One chamber contained eight canopic jars, presumably implying a double burial (T63b, Basta 1979: 193). Scarabs, amulets and jewellery From the Second Intermediate Period, elite burials were often provided with heart scarabs, distinctive for their large size, choice of material and typically inscribed with the name of the owner and Book of the Dead spell 30B.51 Though the Kom Firin cemetery falls within this date range, no true heart scarabs have been found at the site. Rather, two Saite burials excavated by Basta did yield fine scarabs inscribed with their owners’ titles and parentage, and a short religious text in one case, but not based on spell 30B (Basta 1979: 186 fig.1, 188 fig.4).52 The vertical layout of the text, taken up mostly by titles and parentage, does have parallels.53 Kom Firin I | 13

Spencer The majority of scarabs from Silvagou, however, were smaller scarabs and scaraboids inscribed with representations of deities, royal names, officials’ titles or decoratif designs. These come in a wide range of materials: lapis lazuli (T18, Basta 1979: 185–6, fig.1; G25, JE 89547), ‘chalky blue’ (T61a, Basta 1979: 193), black granite (T61a, Basta 1979: 193), carnelian (G118, 8/12/54/9), schist (T61b, Basta 1979: 193 and G8, JE 89407, Pl.40), amethyst (G131, JE 89463), silver inlaid with turquoise and lapis lazuli (G121, JE 89460), and of course faience and steatite. Some burials were provided with multiple scarabs (two in T61a, Basta 1979: 193; tombs G5, G118, G131, G142; three in G121), even as many as four (G143). Design motifs include a smA-tAwy symbol flanked by anx-signs (G121, JE 89458), a simple star (G118, 8/12/54/9), groups of hieroglyphs including anx and nbw (‘without burial’, JE 89561), a cobra flanked by papyrus stalks and the forepart of a lion (G121, JE 89459, Pl.47), a cobra and a fish (G143, JE 89470), or typical ‘Second Intermediate Period’ groupings of signs (G143, JE 89466) or coils (G173, JE 89471). Animal forms were also depicted, including pairs of monkeys (‘without burial’, JE 89559) and an an ibex (?) amongst foliage (G143, JE 89468, Pl.48). Deities represented include Ptah and Hapy (G47, JE 89557), a falcon-headed god (G113, JE 89560)54 and the image of a cobra (G50, JE 89558). Royal name scarabs survive, with the following rulers attested: N(y)- mAat-r a (G131, JE 89462, Pl.45), Mn-xpr-r a (G56, 8/12/54/7; G118, 8/12/54/8), and Nb - mAat-r a (G127, JE 89461). Private names were encountered only with the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period scarabs (the ‘heart scarabs’ referred to above excepted): a ‘child of the kAp, %nbf (y)’ and a ‘nbt-pr %t-Hwt-Hr nb im3xy’, perhaps husband and wife (G142, JE 89464 and 89465). Many of the scarabs which can be assigned to the New Kingdom were annotated as ‘in the kom’ by Farid. The meaning of this phrase is unclear, though it would seem reasonable to assume it referred to material recovered from the main settlement mound rather than the cemetery, for which the designation ‘without burial’ or a grave number would be assigned. Unsurprisingly, one of the most common forms of amulets encountered was the udjat-eye, in a wide range of materials: carnelian (four examples in T61b, Basta 1979: 193), feldspar/ amazonite (T61b, Basta 1979: 193), faience (not associated with a burial, 14/4/53/6; G4, 8/12/54/1; three examples in G21 [Pl.43], JE 89408), diorite (not associated with a burial, 14/4/53/7 and 8/12/54/15 [Pl.28]; G149, JE 89454) and a combination of amethyst and ivory (G170, 14/4/53/5). Djedcolumns, heart-shaped amulets,55 falcons, bulls, feathers, Isisknots, double-fingers (Pl.31), double-feathers, head-rests (Pl.51), frogs (Basta 1979: 196), wings (Basta 1979: 185–6),56 Hr-face amulets (tomb 18: Basta 1979: 185–6; tomb 31: Basta 1979: 186–9), wAD-sceptres and Dt-snakes (Choucri 2003: 126; G5) were also encountered. Again, a wide range of materials is employed for amulets: lapis lazuli, obsidian, turquoise, carnelian, limestone, schist, diorite, hematite, flint and faience. Figures of the Sons of Horus, though all four are not always preserved, were found in T14 (faience Imsety, Basta 1979: 185), T18 (faience, Basta 1979: 185–6), T31 (Basta 1979: 186–9) and T48 (Basta 1979: 193), the first three of these tombs being securely dated to the 26th dynasty. Amulets of other deities 14 | Kom Firin I

included Bes (G4, 8/12/54/1; el-Fattah and Georges 2007: 25), Maat (faience plaque, tomb 48, Basta 1979: 193), Ptah (faience, 14/4/53/3 from G168), Anubis (faience, tomb 48, Basta 1979: 193), Taweret (Choucri 2003: 126; el-Fattah and Georges 2007: 30–1 [10], fig.9), Isis and Horus (faience, 8/12/54/15), Isis (including 14/4/53/3 from G168; el-Fattah and Georges 2007: 25), Thoth (el-Fattah and Georges 2007: 30 [9]), Horus, an unidentified seated god (G4, 8/12/54/1), a triad of Isis, Nephthys and Horus (latter in faience; Basta 1979: 196), Bastet (el-Fattah and Georges 2007:25) and maybe Neith (14/4/53/3 from G168). Monkeys seem to have been particularly favoured in many of the graves, with small finely made amulets being found (G21, JE 89408 [Pl.43]; G131, JE 89439 and 89440), sometimes with gold monkey figurines as part of necklaces (G131, JE 89439–40). Scarabs and seals bearing representations of monkeys were also found (G11, JE 89568; ‘without burial’, JE 89487). Sixteeen amulets of unspecified types were encountered in one burial (T40, Basta 1979: 190), while 13 were found in another (G5). A gold amulet of unknown type was removed from tomb T168, along with other gold fragments (Basta 1979: 190). It seems most likely that many of these amulets derive from the mummy wrappings, long decomposed, as the forms fit the well known typical repertoire of mummy amulets. Occasionally the amulets are strung together with others, and in some cases, combined with beads (G4, 8/12/54/1). Some amulets are rather different in form, bearing inscriptions that make them more akin to seals. Thus G11 yielded an amulet with the cartouche of Ramses II, and a monkey shown on the reverse (JE 89562), while a double-sided plaque found in G143 combined a scene of a king before a baboon god, and a sphinx (JE 89469, Pl.49). Jewellery was often a fairly common inclusion in the burial assemblage, with rings, earrings, necklaces and collars surviving. Indeed, Smith’s analysis of intact Theban tombs of the Second Intermediate Period and 18th dynasty led to the conclusion that a coffin and jewellery were the most important objects made specifically for the burial; amulets and shabtis became important in the Third Intermediate Period (Smith 1992). A faience ring was found in T14 (Basta 1979: 185), and Basta comments that a small number of other rings, disc beads and (less commonly) earrings were recovered (Basta 1979: 196). Bronze rings were found by Farid (G29, 14/4/53/14). The Egyptian Museum registers refer to a shell ‘hair-ring’ found in G16 (shell, 8/12/54/17), a calcite one in G117 (8/12/54/16) and jasper examples in G157 (JE 89477) and G246 (JE 89478); pairs of carnelian ‘hair-rings’ were found in G20 (8/12/54/18), G46 (8/12/54/19) and G50 (8/12/54/20). Earrings in both silver and gold were found in G22, presumably a tomb of a relatively wealthy individual, perhaps of Greek origin (JE 89475, 8/12/54/22). In contrast, the silver earrings in G72 (8/12/54/21) came from a tomb provided with shabtis. Earrings were also found in G161, one pair being of silver and electrum (14/4/53/15, JE 89476). Bracelets of cowrie-shell and faience were recovered from G88 (8/12/54/23), and copper examples in G119 and G149 (14/4/53/17 and 14/4/53/16 respectively). Strings of beads and pendants in a variety of materials were seemingly common in the cemetery.57 Carnelian pendants58 strung with scarabs (G53, JE 89555) were also encountered. One tomb (G121) featured three distinctive necklaces: a string

The Regional Context of amethyst bull heads with a turquoise lion in the centre (JE 89430), a string of spherical amethyst beads (JE 89432), and one of carnelian beads with a lion in the centre, of the same material (JE 89433). A gold disc and both a faience and an agate bead were found in G156 (JE 89431). A pair of beads finely decorated with circular motifs on the exterior surface were recovered by Farid, but unfortunately are not associated with a burial (14/4/53/8). Net-works of beads were found in G95 (JE 89429), G125 (JE 89436) and G163 (JE 89445), suggestive of the typical mummy coverings of this type used from the mid-1st millennium bc onwards (Taylor 2000a: 206–7). Pottery and other vessels Pottery vessels were encountered in the less lavish burials, notably those featuring bodies encased in mud-brick, for example the two vases found in tomb T147, or a single vessel in T76 (Basta 1979: 194), and ceramics were also presumably a part of the more wealthy burials. Choucri noted that many of the ceramic coffins were asscociated with significant amounts of funerary goods, perhaps including the pottery vessels placed at the foot of the grave, outside the brick encasing (Choucri 2003: 126, fig.3); this was also clearly the case with many of the tombs excavated by Farid (Leclant 1953: pl.24 fig.42 and pl.26 fig.45). Alternatively, vessels could be placed by the head end of the coffin (G132, Leclant 1952: pl.49 fig.28). One of Farid’s burials featured a wide range of vessels, in pottery (two), calcite (two), and lead (G22); metal vessels were also found in G63 (8/12/54/32).Larger vessels included amphorae, found associated with the gypsum coffins (Basta 1979: 194). Farid’s work yielded small cylindrical vessels (8/12/54/40), twohandled jars (G8, 10/4/53/17; G16, 10/4/53/19; G29, 10/4/53/18, perhaps like those in Leclant 1953: pl.26 fig.45), tall-necked jars with rounded bases (G22, 10/4/53/22; G47, 10/4/53/21), highshouldered jars (G48, 10/4/53/23), pilgrim flasks (G99, 8/12/54/37 and 38; G101, 8/12/54/39) and cups (G63, 8/12/54/36). It is likely that only complete vessels were transferred to the Egyptian Museum. Basta summarises the ceramics from his excavations as mostly Late Period forms with some 18th dynasty examples, and a number of amphorae with ‘either a pointed bottom with two small handles or a conical bottom with two big handles’ (Basta 1979: 195). He also noted six small alabaster vases, but the form of these vessels is not specified. Farid found calcite vessels in G22 which were registered as ‘Greek’, including an alabastron and a blackglazed vessel (JE 89411, JE 89412, JE 89418). In addition, a calcite plate was found by him in G63 (8/12/54/35) and a vase in G72 (JE 89398). Three seasons of work by Choucri yielded further imported vessels, including lekythos, lekythos aribalisques, unguentarium and alabastrons, in addition to amphorae (Choucri 2003: 124, 128, fig.4). Farid’s G87 was provided with lekythoi (JE 89419), but the asssociated presence of a local imitation of a Mycenaean vessel (JE 89420) strongly suggests this context was disturbed, or, less likely, that the earlier vessel had been re-used. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to check if the two pottery vases in G7, a tomb otherwise wholly Greek in its burial assemblage, were of Egyptian or foreign manufacture. The presence of Mycenaean vessels (JE 89421), or local forms thereof (JE 89420), is unsurprising given the activity at the settlement in the early 19th dynasty. One vessel, JE 89421 is

a relatively rare example of a Late Helladic IIIB vessel (reign of Ramses II or later) found in Egypt.59 Finally, two unusual vessels deserve mention. Firstly, a vessel containing intact duck eggs was found in one of the single-chambered mudbrick tombs (Choucri 2003: 126). Secondly, a large jar with tapering walls was found nestled within a duck-shaped vessel, formed from a ceramic of similar appearance (Leclant 1953: pl.26, fig.46). Other Three faience gaming pieces were found in one of the vaulted mud-brick tombs (Choucri 2003: 126) indicating that gaming sets were part of the burial assemblage in some cases. A faience plaque bearing a female head adorned with a uraeus was encountered in one tomb (G20, 8/12/54/25), a type of object otherwise unattested in the cemetery. Copper mirrors were part of some assemblages (G22, 14/4/53/10; G66, 8/12/54/28; G118, 8/12/54/27; G120, 14/4/53/11; G246, 14/4/53/12), in one rather lavish burial (G131, mirror 14/4/53/13) being accompanied with a calcite kohl-pot, two necklaces, a scarab and a gold scarab-ring. Mirrors are a common occurrence in the partly contemporary cemetery at Kom el-Hisn (Hamada and el-Amir 1947: 107; Hamada and Farid 1947: 198) Weapons were found in several burials excavated by Farid. A small copper knife (or blade?) and a flint arrowhead were found in G9 (10/4/53/13 and JE 89410, respectively), a copper ‘spear-head’ in G58 (8/12/54/29), a copper axe-head in G174 (14/4/53/9) and a dagger of the same material in G85 (8/12/54/30). No other items from the burials were registered in the Egyptian Museum. In contrast, G99 contained a copper knife, pin and clasp, along with two pilgrim flasks. It is unfortunate better records of these burials do no survive, particularly in light of the known military activity in this area during the Ramesside Period. Axe-heads were found in the cemetery at Kom el-Hisn also, of First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom date (Brunton 1947: 143–5 [especially for dating]; Hamada and el-Amir 1947: 107, pl.31; Hamada and Farid 1947: 198, pl.56). Dating the burials It is possible to date some of the tomb groups, allowing examples of one possible ‘typical assemblage’ of certain eras (notably G131 for the Middle Kingdom, G142 for the Second Intermediate Period, G16 and T31 for the Late Period, G7 for a ‘Greek’ burial; see Appendix 2). Most of these periods are also well-represented in the material not assigned to individual burials. Establishing the date of the earliest burials is of key importance for the site of Kom Firin. Late Middle Kingdom material, namely scarabs, have been known from the cemetery since Farid’s excavations, but the lack of contemporary pottery from the settlement site, along with a paucity of data on material found with the scarabs, or on the stratigraphy of the graves, leaves open the possibility that these objects were re-used in later burials. This would seem a particularly reasonable interpretation of the gold scarab-ring inscribed for N(y) - mAat-r a (G131, JE 89462), and to a lesser extent the scarabs of officials (G142, JE 89464–5). However, consideration of the material found in these graves provides no clear evidence to doubt that the scarabs were broadly contemporary Kom Firin I | 15

Spencer with the burials in which they were found. Indeed, the presence of amethyst in these tombs fits well with a Middle Kingdom or Second Intermediate Period date (Ben-Tor 1993: 41; Aston et al. 2000: 51–2). Thus it seems reasonable to date tombs such as G121, with scarabs of a form unknown after the early 18th dynasty and significant amounts of amethyst jewellery, to the Middle Kingdom or Second Intermediate Period. The same probably applies to G142, with two broadly contemporary private name scarabs. Similarly, the presence of amethyst items along with kohl-pots of Middle Kingdom form, and a gold finger-ring of Amememhat III, suggests G131 was a burial which predated the New Kingdom. The apparent lack of bronze eye inlays in all of these burials is consistent with this dating, as rectangular coffins would have been favoured in the Middle Kingdom, and early anthropomorphic and rishi-coffins were not usually provided with inlaid eyes. A single sherd of Pan-grave pottery was identified at Kom el-Hisn, in late Middle Kingdom layers (Kirby 1998: 28, 30 fig.2 [m]), in addition to polished Kerma wares; such a small sample does not prove the presence of Nubian groups residing at the site. As Kom Firin lay only 13km to the north-west, such material may have been present at that site also. In some cases, however, tombs contain mostly pre-New Kingdom objects but with other items which it is difficult to data to such an early period. Burial G143 contained four scarabs datable to the Second Intermediate Period or the very early 18th dynasty, but the plaque is more consistent with a Ramesside dating. Either the motifs on this plaque were in use earlier than generally accepted, or the deceased came to own four scarabs of much earlier date. The spiral/coil decorative motif around the edge of many of the Silvagou scarabs are typically seen as dating to the period between the Middle Kingdom and the beginning of the 18th dynasty (Ben-Tor 1993: 60–3; for an example from the reign of Tuthmosis I, see Hornung and Staehlin 1976: 235 [222], pl.21), but it is worth remembering that they do appear in later contexts;60 so caution is needed with graves such as G173, where no other objects are known which could help support a dating. New Kingdom tombs are more clearly identifiable through the existing records. The notorious unreliability of scarabs bearing the name Mn-xpr-r a, where scarabs can be contemporary with the reign, sometimes re-used at a much later date, or be made at a later date (Jaeger 1982), means such material is of little help for dating the Silvagou graves. Examples were found in G56 and G118. However, some of the scarabs with 18th dynasty names can be confidently dated to the New Kingdom rather than later, and with the presence of carnelian beads and scarabs (see Ben-Tor 1993: 41), an 18th dynasty date for some tombs is quite plausible (e.g G127). In G127, in which a scarab of Nb - mAat-r a was found, the presence of a type of jewellery common in the New Kingdom suggests it may be contemporary with the reign of Amenhotep III, or early Ramesside in date. Those tombs containing Mycenaean ceramic vessels are also likely to be contemporary with the New Kingdom (Coulson and Leonard 1979: 168; G128). The presence of lekythoi in G87, alongside a local imitation of a Mycenaean stirrup jar, indicates that this burial was disturbed, or represents a mixture of contexts rather than one burial. One would expect, on the basis of the evidence from the settlement site (Chapters 3 and 4), to find significant amounts of late New 16 | Kom Firin I

Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period burials, though the latter period is less easy to identify in the remains known to us. Those tombs which yielded bead-nets (G95, G125, G163) may be as early as the Third Intermediate Period, but are more likely to date to the second half of the 1st millennium bc. Late Period burials are more easily identifiable: the inscribed material from the limestone tombs indicates several of these date to the 26th dynasty (T14, T18, T31),61 and it is reasonable to assume that the less lavish burials include examples of the Late Period, particularly those with shabtis of distinctive Saite (or later) form (G8, G16, G60, G72). Those with a wide array of amulets that originate from the wrappings could perhaps be assigned a post-New Kingdom date (G5, T48, T61, T63; see Taylor 2000a: 203). The uninscribed sarcophagi may be contemporary with the inscribed Saite examples, or could be of a later date. The gypsum coffins (Choucri 2003: 124) clearly date to the Hellenistic era, on the basis of the Greek pottery contained therein. This also applies to those burials provided with Medusa masks and other attachments for the sarcophagi (G7, G69, G101, T140). Roman burials are also to be expected, if the ceramic corpus from Kom Firin is used as a guide. Textiles and wooden objects (such as mummy labels) typical of burials of this period, are unlikely to have survived at Silvagou, given the environmental conditions. It is quite possible some of the graves provided with mirrors (e.g. G22) are actually not for Egyptians, as mirrors formed a common grave good in the Greek burials of the Ptolemaic era at Naukratis (Gardner, 1889: 28). Finally, in light of the Ramesside complex and strategic location of Kom Firin (Chapter 3), it is unfortunate that the graves with weapons cannot be dated, as other objects were not generally found associated with these burials (G9, G58, G85, G174).62 In the 1950s and 1960s, Silvagou remained a sizeable cemetery with seemingly intact burials ranging across a period of two millennia; a rarity in Nile Delta archaeology. Sadly, the opportunity for a careful analysis of this cemetery, which would have elucidated funerary practises across many social classes but also Egyptians and foreigners in the Western Delta, has effectively been lost. Nonetheless, the objects and records,63 allied with observations on the remains of the cemetery, do give us a glimpse of the burial practises for the settlement at Kom Firin. While the lack of published plans of this cemetery make difficult any attempt to see if there is a chronological zoning to the burials, the possibility that there were other burial zones, now lost, around Kom Firin should also be borne in mind. The general character of the Kom Firin cemetery, both in terms of tomb types and grave goods, is paralleled at nearby Kom el-Hisn, where brick tombs, clay coffins, pot burials and simple burials in the sand were also found (Hamada and el-Amir 1947; Hamada and Farid 1947). The cemetery at Quesna presents a similar array of burials in mudbrick ‘coffins’ and ceramic coffins, although decorated hard stone sarcophagi were also prevalent at that site (Rowland and Zakrzewski 2008). Though few tomb structures survived at Naukratis, the Hellenistic coffin types were similar to those found at Silvagou (Gardner 1889: 21–9), which underlines the presence of Greek inhabitants at Kom Firin, in the Ptolemaic period, if not before.

The Regional Context With regards to the ceramic coffins, the debate as to whether some of these were for burials of non-Egyptians, as often stated in relation to the Sea-Peoples,64 requires more evidence, which at present cannot be provided by the data from Silvagou. The cemetery seems to have been in use from the late Middle Kingdom onwards, which may stretch the occupational history of Kom Firin several centuries earlier than that suggested by the material from the site itself. It is not impossible that these burials relate to a Middle Kingdom/ Second Intermediate Period settlement distinct from the later site, though no traces of any such occupation have yet been identified.65 Kom Dahab Kom Dahab (‘mound of gold’)66 is a mound of rather unremarkable appearance which lies 520m south-east of Kom Firin (Fig.4, Pls.53–4). Described as measuring 110m northsouth by 170m east-west in the late 1970s (Coulson and Leonard 1979: 162–3), the site does not seem to have suffered in extent in the last 25 years; our survey recorded the extent of the site as 115x195m. The site is today sharply defined by cuts into its northern, western and southern sides, with the eastern edge being built over with a single row of modern houses, themselves flanking the Firiniya canal that runs northwards and passes east of Kom Firin (Pl.254). The presence of a small modern village at the edge of Kom Dahab inevitably means people and animals are constantly walking across the mound, with a path having been created running from the canal bridge towards the southern end of the modern village at Kom Firin. Modern rubbish is particularly noticeable in the south-western part of Kom Dahab, with fragments of modern zirs nestled amongst discarded plastic and metal, alongside animal waste and debris from processing rice. The gently undulating small kom is covered with the halfagrass common at Kom Firin, though small areas are bare of vegetation. An area of noticeably higher elevation is found in the south-western corner (Pl.54), where the ground is rather sandy. This area is presently used as a football field. An elevated ridge near the eastern edge of Kom Dahab is distinctive in being covered with shok-grass, and for a higher concentration of ancient pottery sherds, notably amphora body sherds, toes and handles. The cuts into the edge of the mound have revealed areas of open stratigraphy, of up to 180cm in height. Parts of a mudbrick wall were noted in a west-facing section at the edge of the mound, and fragments of fired brick at the north-western egde of the site (in an east-facing section). This latter open section also showed very compacted clay deposits, well-articulated mudbrick walls, and lenses of windblown sand. A similar range of deposits was found in a nearby north-facing section. During regular visits since 2002, no structural remains, and very little pottery, have been noted on the surface. The reason for this is rather clear: Kom Dahab was selected by the Naukratis Project to be a test site for a statistical survey method for surface pottery (Coulson and Leonard 1979: 162–3, fig.18; Wilkin in Coulson and Leonard 1981: 73–7; Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 82–3). The site was divided into 10x10m squares, in which all of the surface material was collected in 1980, largely coarse local wares mixed with African Red Slip material (Coulson and Leonard 1979: 162). Nearly 30,000

sherds were counted, weighed and categorised into 12 fabric types, with a concentration noted at the northwestern end of the mound. Amphora rims, toes and handles predominate, though this may be as much due to the process of erosion and deflation, which will leave behind heavier, larger sherds, as much as any echo of the actual activity here. Other surface finds included remains from inside a furnace or kiln, along with pottery wasters. These ‘furnace products’ were found in greater numbers along the eastern edge of the site. Many flint blades were collected from the surface and two excavation trenches. The Naukratis Project expedition sought to test the reliability of such survey methods using statistical software packages, and suggested north-south transects were more reliable than chequerboard sample. Kom Dahab is a site which has been churned over and truncated over the years, and thus probably retains only a small proportion of its original extent. Furthermore, a significant depth of archaeological deposits survive below the surface. Thus the ceramic survey of 1980 expended much time and energy on analysing sherds, of which a high proportion may have been lying in secondary deposits, from a very small part of the ancient site. Nonetheless, the concentration of furnace products (‘vitrified remnants of the inside of the furnace chamber of a kiln’) and amphora fragments along the eastern edge of the site, led the team to posit a kiln emplacement here (Coulson and Wilkie 1986: 66). Two 2x2m trenches were subsequently excavated, in 1981. Trench I, at the eastern edge of the site (grid D9, see Coulson and Wilkie 1986: 66 fig.8), yielded a mass of white-slipped amphora fragments and pottery wasters. An intervening ash layer sat above nearly 2m of mud-brick detritus, which suggests lengthy occupation of the area, or the collapse of a significant structure. Remains of two walls were uncovered, preserved in four courses, amounting to a height of 30cm. This height suggests rather thin bricks, a feature common to post-New Kingdom structures at Kom Firin itself (see Chapter 3). Ground water was reached after 3.21m. This trench is directly adjacent to the modern village, which must have grown in size in the last 25 years. Trench II featured 1.5m of sterile clay (perhaps evidence of modern agricultural activity) before a 20cm deposit of amphorae sherds was reached. South-west of Trench I, in grid square E11, an anomaly in a magnetometry survey 67 suggested a kiln, and excavation of a 2x2m trench proved this to be the case (Coulson and Wilkie 1986: 66–73; Coulson et al. 1984: 29–31). Built of mudbricks and measuring 3.1m in diameter, the kiln consisted of a lower domed furnace chamber and an upper firing chamber, the latter apparently loaded from the top as no access point was found in the side walls. Amphorae sherds and fragments of cooking pots were removed from within, and a date of late Ptolemaic Period was proposed, supported by a bronze coin found in the debris (Coulson and Wilkie 1996: 70, fig.16). Coulson and Leonard proposed Kom Dahab as the industrial quarter of Kom Firin (Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 82), though in a city of Kom Firin’s size, it is unlikely industrial production areas would be limited to a peripheral part of the city.68 Kiln emplacements have been found in the central area of Kom Firin too (see Chapter 3), thus Kom Dahab should either be seen as a late satellite site,69 or perhaps even an extension of Kom Firin I | 17

Spencer the main site, now interrupted by a half-kilometre of cultivated land.70 The former interpretation is probably preferable, as the site is already distinct on the 1916 map (Pl.4). It is also possible that a waterway separated Kom Dahab from the settlement for all or parts of its occupation history (see pages 3–4 and n.2). Our knowledge of ancient Egyptian settlement is largely confined to large towns and cities, at least in the Nile Delta and Valley. The density of Roman sites, sometimes of quite modest dimensions, in Beheira, might hint at a distribution of smaller settlements, from farmsteads to villages, spread through the countryside around the larger towns. Wilson (2008a) draws a parallel between such a model and the settlement pattern as reflected in modern Egyptian administrative boundaries.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Notes 1

2 3

4

5 6

7 8 9

10 11 12

13 14

15 16

Bergmann and Heinzelmann 2004; the site dates from the Hellenistic era through the 7th century ad. In collaboration with the Dr. Judith Bunbury and Eleanor Hughes of the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge. I am also grateful to Angus Graham for input into the project. The Abou Soum canal, shown on the 1916 map (Pl.4). Ancient sites along this canal include Kom Barud, Kom Sidi Ahmed, Kom Siedia, Kom el-Ahmar. Wilson has also proposed a waterway in this region (2008b). As this volume goes to press, a small number of glazed Islamic wares have been identified in topsoil layers in the Citadel, but these alone are not sufficient to posit intensive occupation at this period. Auger-core surveys have shown several other sites in Beheira are founded on such features: Rowland and Wilson 2006. Survey work at Sais has underlined how variable settlement patterns were across the centuries, in large part due to shifting river channels (Wilson 2006b: 102–10). Sites located on islands may have been immune from destruction by river migration (J. Bunbury, pers. comm. Though in rather small quantities, despite the extent and depth of area exposed (trenches CA, CB in the 2007 season). The presence of Greek pottery at a particular site does not per se point towards Greek inhabitants at that site (see Defernez 2001: 513–14). Sites visited by the Kom Firin team in the immediate area commonly showed evidence of Graeco-Roman era occupation, but nothing earlier: Kom Dilingat, Kom el-Ghoz, Tell Umm el-Laban, Kom el-Ahmar (Ezbet Ibrahim Effendi Fahmi = EES no. 440), Kom el-Khatimi, Abu Homar el-Saghir and el-Kebir, Kom el-Qamha, Kom esh-Shimuli, Kom el-Ahmar (EES no.443). Information collected during the visits can be accessed at www.ees.ac.uk/ deltasurvey.htm. Visit of September 2004; Roman brown-ware amphorae and late antique pottery was also noted, suggesting a lengthy occupation period. The relevant passage in the Piye stela refers to his territory as encompassing an area that included an, perhaps a swampy region near Kom el-Hisn (Grimal 1981: 12–13, 16 n.17). Perdu (2006: 174–5) suggests a site in Menoufiya (Pr- i n bw), Kom el-Hisn (Pr-Nbt - i mAw), a place at the western edge of Lake Mareotis (xAst -TmHw), Kom Firin (Pr- rmA), and Tell Barnugi (Mr- nTrt). Kom el-Hisn has been identified with Momemphis of the Greek authors, site of a battle between the forces of Apries and Amasis (Helck 1974: 154–5). Perhaps at Kom el-Hisn, see Meeks 2006: 140–1. This god is specifically associated with the the West, Clère 1958: 39. Indeed, one should not view these myths as specific to a distinct regions, as there is evidence that the same narratives could be set in different places, presumably to serve different audiences (Meeks 2006: 166–7). The third nome of Lower Egypt is also featured in the late Ptolemaic Book of Thoth (Jasnow and Zauzich 2005: 342, 347). It is clear, for example, that important cults of Amun existed in the western Delta from at least Ramesside times (Guermeur 2006a: 81–116). These interviews were conducted by Mennat Allah el-Dorry in

18 | Kom Firin I

24 25 26 27 28

29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

2005, as part of a wider investigation into local inhabitants’ attitudes towards, and memories of, the ancient site. I am grateful to T. Schneider (University of Wales-Swansea) for this suggestion. Elsewhere, the ‘fields of Perire’ are said to form part of the ‘western border’ (tAS i m n t t) (Manassa 2003: 23). Such forts could be renamed to reflect a new ruling king, thus the name does not necessarily provide a reliable indication of the date of foundation (Morris 2005: 414–15). Yoyotte (2006: 188) now doubts how secure the provenance of Kom Firin is for JE 85647, though it is clearly from this region. That aH came to designate parts of temples, see Guermeur 2006b: 124. I am grateful to Daniela Rosenow and Daniel Werning (Humboldt University, Berlin) for a preliminary translation of the hieratic inscription upon this stela. Gardiner already commented on the problem in correlating Greek toponyms in the western Delta with sites or even pharaonic toponyms (1947: 170*). Stevenson 1932. This edition has been criticised, see http:// penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_ Texts/Ptolemy/4/5*.html [May 2 2007]. The playing out of a conflict between rival groups of priests echoes mythological texts relating to battles between Horus and Seth: Meeks 2006: 232–3. Previous proposals for Papremis included Letopolis (Altenmüller 1964), and Sakhebu (Ray 1981: 58–61) EES Delta survey ID: no.459 (www.ees.ac.uk/fieldwork/ deltasurvey.htm); coordinates 30°51.593’N 30°28.859’E. Basta 1979. The author describes a cemetery lying 3km south-west of Kom Firin. However, the clear reference to Farid’s excavations (Basta 1979: 184), themselves explicitly associated with Kom Firin in the Journal d’Entrée, make it clear we are dealing with Silvagou. A figure of 2km is given by Coulson and Leonard (1981 I: 73). Choucri also seems to distinguish between the Kom Firin cemetery and that at Silvagou (Choucri 2003: 124), but it must be the same site, much reduced by agricultural activities since the mid-20th century, particularly to the south and west. Perhaps both figures are measured from the centre of Kom Firin to the cemetery, and it is also likely that what is visible today are the remains dug by Choucri, while the areas excavated by Farid and Basta have long disappeared under land reclamation schemes. This interpretation is supported by el-Wakil (1988), who notes how much of the site has been lost to agricultural reclamation. An image taken in 1952 shows Farid’s excavations, with the south-western edge of Kom Firin distinctly visible in the near distance (Leclant 1953: pl.24 fig. 42), as it is today from Silvagou. Choucri 2003. There are also brief reports of the work in Leclant’s annual summary of fieldwork: Leclant 1952: 247, n.18, pls.47–50, figs. 26–31; Leclant 1953: 100, n.18, pls. 24–6; Leclant 1969: 246; Leclant 1982: 413; Leclant and Minault-Gout 2001: 216. A few objects from the 1985-1986 and 1994 seasons are published in el-Fattah and Georges 2007: 30–1. Ahmed Abd el-Fattah, who worked in the Beheira inspectorate from 1969 to 1999, informs me of many other excavations that were undertaken in this cemetery (pers. comm.). The number revealed during the 20th century is likely to be higher, on account of the lack of publications of the work during many of the seasons. Jansen-Winkeln notes that records in Cairo state it was purchased in Abd es-Salam (1998: 161), presumably a village in the area. His parents, who perhaps had lived and were buried at Kom Firin also, were a Hp t -wDAt and x rp -Hwwt named Ih(a) and Neb(et)ines. See the example recently excavated at Amarna, apparently provided with a wooden coffin, and perhaps intended for two burials (Kemp 2006: 30–6 fig.6). Ceramic coffins are often from such simple grave types: CotelleMichel 2004: 59, 63. Particularly in light of the possibility that Kom Firin was ancient Papremis, the site a a battle between Persian and Egyptian armies (see page 8). Those objects now in the Egyptian Museum are referred to by their JE or TR numbers, with further details given in Appendix 2. Basta suggests most of the graves, excepting those at the surface, were intact (1979: 183).

The Regional Context 38 The ‘sarcophagus’ found by Basta (i.e. the inscribed tomb walls), was apparently moved to Kom el-Shofaga in Alexandria (el-Wakil 1988: 265). 39 A project overseen by Tracey Sweek from the Department of Conservation and Scientific Research at the British Museum, in October 2007, in collaboration with the Supreme Council of Antiquities. 40 Further evidence of such coffins was found by Farid, though the burial type is unknown: G13 (10/4/53/8), G15 (10/4/53/9), G16 (10/4/53/10), G29 (10/4/53/11), G60 (10/4/53/14), G65 (10/4/53/6, 10/4/53/7, 8/12/54/24), G163 (14/4/53/4). 41 See Cotelle-Michel 2004, with examples known from the Western Delta sites of Naukratis, Kom Firin, Kom el-Hisn, Kom ed-Doubbia, Kom el-Kharz, Alqam and Kom Abu Billo. 42 See Cotelle-Michel 2004: 52–5, 71–3. 43 For example, at Quesna, Rowland and Strutt 2007: 33–5. See Cotelle-Michel 2004: 306–12. 44 E.g. T132, Leclant 1952: pl.49, fig.28. 45 A coffin now in the Graeco-Roman Museum. Alexandria, no. 30697: Cotelle-Michel 2004: 101 fig.73 and 279 [III-B1-32]. 46 Two complete coffins of sub-cylindrical shape, seen in the SCA magazine at Kom Firin, September 2003. The facial form and shape resemble a New Kingdom example from Cotelle-Michel 2004: 248 [II-C2-15]. These coffins are no longer stored in the Kom Firin magazine, having been moved to Alexandria. 47 Complete coffin tapering towards foot with vertical sides to the base, seen in the SCA magazine at Kom Firin, September 2003. The facial form resembles an 18th dynasty example from Aniba (Cotelle-Michel 2004: 249 (II-C2-17)), though the Silvagou one is actually a coffin with separate lid and base. The wig is quite distinctive, with long striated sides and a top part dotted with small holes, effectively a more angular form of Cotelle-Michel 2004: 41 [6]. The hands are of the form ‘f–i’ illustrated on p.45, apparently indicative of a New Kingdom date. 48 A photographs from Farid’s excavations shows a similar variation in alignment: Leclant 1953, pl.24 fig. 42, though other areas exhibited more uniformity in orientation (Leclant 1952: pl.47 fig.26). 49 F358 and F386 from CA 1044. 50 Basta’s description makes it unclear if these canopic jars were of limestone or alabaster. 51 Ben-Tor 1993: 17–18, 52–5. 52 The size of these scarabs is not given, though the density of text upon them does indicate they are probably at least 4–5cm in length. Malaise states that the inclusion of parentage is unusual (1978). It is notable that both scarabs are of a blue material (lapis lazuli and a ‘chalky blue’ substance), rather than the green and black stones usually preferred. Texts other than BD 30B are found on heart scarabs, including spells 26, 27 and 29B (Taylor 2000a: 206), but the Silvagou scarab does not bear any of these (Malaise 1978: 51, n.5). 53 Bonn 1100 (Regner 1995: 89–90, pl.24) is an example in blue glass frit, originally over 7.6cm in length, of a xrp -Hwwt Hm-nTr wHmw n Nt , Hm- nTr n MH-Nt PA- d bHw, undoubtedly a high official of the 26th dynasty at Sais. Petrie also illustrates a ‘blue paste’ scarab

with similar design, 1915: pl.48 [28]. 54 A falcon also appears on the damaged scarab JE 89467, from G143. 55 One particularly lavish example is made of gold, carnelian and turquoise (G159, JE 89455). 56 The wings are most likely from winged scarab groups, common in burials of the first millenium bc. 57 G8, JE 89409; G12, 8/12/54/2; G40, 8/12/54/3; G66, 8/12/54/4; G89, JE 89428; G118, 8/12/54/5; two examples in G124, JE 89434–5; three examples in G121, JE 89430, 89432–3; G126, JE 89437; G127, JE 89438; two examples in G131, JE 89439–40; G150, JE 89442; G160, JE 89443; G161, JE 89444; G169, JE 89446; G170, JE 89447; G171, JE 89448; G172, JE 89450; G249, JE 89451. 58 The ‘cornflower’ or ‘poppy bud’ form of these pendants, as with JE 89449 from G171 and JE 89451 from G249, matches that of F047, found in the temple (see Chapter 6, Pl.201). These are typical of New Kingdom jewellery (D. C. Patch in Roehrig 2005: 206–7 [125a–b]). 59 I am grateful to Astrid Hassler (University of Vienna) for her comments on the Mycenean vessels, following her study of material in the Egyptian Museum. 60 For example, the dark stone example found at Medinet Habu, seemingly in a Third Intermediate Period context (Teeter 2003: 100 [159], pl.46b). 61 T18 contains dummy canopic jars, typically a feature of Third Intermediate Period burials, but also some later burials, when the viscera were placed back in the body cavity (Taylor 2000a: 72–3, 76). 62 With the exception of the two axe-heads, one of which is of a form found in the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period (14/4/53/9 from G174), while the other is of a simpler form more typical of a much earlier date (JE 89397, from ‘in the kom’), problematic with the known date range of occupation at Kom Firin. 63 Many of the objects in the Egyptian Museum were inaccessible for study, due to preparations for the Grand Egyptian Museum. Additionally, there may be material in the Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria, also currently closed for refurbishment. 64 Coulson and Leonard 1981: 73. 65 Remains of a temple of Amenemhat III were found in the Wadi Natrun (Fakhry 1940), which can be accessed from several routes which start near Kom Firin. 66 EES Delta survey ID: no.591 (www.ees.ac.uk/fieldwork/ deltasurvey.htm); location: 30°51.591’N 30°29.846’E. Coulson and Wilkie suggest it can also be referred to as Kedwat el-Dahab (1981: 65). It appears as Kadweh el-Zahab in the SCA register for archaeological sites of Beheira (100229), and Tell el-Dahab on the EGSA map of 1924–43 (Pl.5). 67 Nothing else of this survey has been presented in the publications, and there is no reference to any work of this nature being undertaken at neighbouring Kom Firin. 68 At Amarna, industrial units were scattered throughout the city (Kemp 1989: 309). 69 The Roman ‘city’ of Petrie is probably a rather grandiose interpretation for this site (1886: 93). 70 The apparent loss of such an expanse of an ancient site, effectively creating two sites is, of course, not uncommon.

Kom Firin I | 19

3: Overview of the Ancient Settlement

This chapter provides an overview of the site, allowing the Ramesside temple to be placed in context. In addition to a description of the different parts of the site, preliminary results from excavations elsewhere on the kom (2004–2007) are briefly discussed, where they elucidate elements of the magnetometry survey. Data from the sondages undertaken by the Naukratis Project is also considered, in addition to the information from two initial test trenches (A and B) undertaken by the British Museum project in 2002. Survey method The first season of work in 2002 focused on the generation of the first accurate topographical map of the site (Fig.1), including survey of all visible structural remains, where intelligible. Points and features were surveyed using a Topcon GTS-211D total station, from 19 survey stations (STN1, STN2 and so forth), selected on the basis of their elevated positions and suitability for viewing relevant areas of the site. Subsequent seasons saw a further five survey stations added to the list, following destruction of some of the original series, including the movement of a telegraph pole embedded in concrete! Each point was marked with survey spikes and sections of ridged rebar, which remain in the ground. In 2006, several stations were re-marked with concrete and breeze-block markers, designed to avert theft (STN 2, STN 15, STN 24). STN 22, positioned on the roof of the SCA resthouse in the centre of the site, provides the most reliable vertical control in the series.1 The site levels cited throughout the publication, and in all previous reports, are with reference to STN 2 being assigned site level 12.00m. This is the highest accessible point on the site, and reflects the maximum height of archaeological deposits above the level of the surrounding fields. Individual series of trench designations were used for different areas of the site: A and B for the initial sondages in 2002, TA, TB … then UA, UB … for the trenches in and around the Ramesside temple.2 One series of context numbers is used throughout (0001, 0002 …) for all archaeological deposits, structures and features, including those not within the excavation trenches. Extent and general character of site Present-day Kom Firin covers an area of c.47ha, with a maximum extent of 1130m east-west, by 600m north-south (Fig.1, Pl.254).3 When Petrie visited, he described the site as ‘about a mile long, by half a mile wide’ (1886: 94), i.e. around 1600x800m.4 By 1977, the extent of the site was put at 550m north-south by 110[0]m east-west (Coulson and Leonard 1981: 71). It is clear that there has been a considerable loss of eastwest extent since the early 20th century; a 1916 map indicates up to 300m more of archaeological material extended east of Kom Firin I | 20

the current site edge (as shown with dotted line on Fig.4). However, Kom Dahab was clearly not part of the main site in the late 19th century, as this is 550m south-east of Kom Firin, so must already have been separate at the time of Petrie’s visit. The same applies to Silvagou, 500m south-west of the mounds of Kom Firin (see Chapter 2). The site of Kom Firin is now kidney-shaped (Pl.254), the regular oval form of the mound being cut into along its northern edge with fields, over an area of around 140m eastwest by 270m north-south. This ‘incursion’ is already a feature of the site by the mid-20th century (Pl.5). However, it does not appear on the 1909 map (Pl.4). A further extension of cultivated land in this area, westwards from that described above, had occurred by 1996 (Pl.6), causing the loss of another 6000m² of the site. During the Naukratis Project work at Kom Firin, a map was drawn up between 1978 and 1981, largely based on kite photography. The map, in various forms, has been published in several places, but those in Coulson and Leonard 1982b (376, ill.12) and Coulson and Wilkie 1986 (63, fig.3) are by far the most detailed and informative. Aerial photographs were spliced together to form a composite map, but this was only published, at a small scale (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: pl.49, fig.19; Coulson and Wilkie 1986: 62, fig.2).5 A modern village abuts the southern edge of the site (Pl.55), the houses clustered either side of a north-south track. In autumn 2006, there were around 60 houses in the village. The age of this village is difficult to ascertain, although a hamlet named Ezbet Soliman Boreik appears on a map of 1916 (Pl.4).6 The reference to ‘Qalâwat Afrîm’ in a 14th-century cadastral survey (Yoyotte 2006), and the presence of ‘Efrim’ on an early 18th-century map (Pl.3) do not necessarily indicate a village was located here at that time. The village is now simply known as Kom Firin. The present-day houses are nearly all of red brick and concrete. Immediately west of the village, and also abutting the southern limits of the archaeological site, is a large body of water (Pl.254), whose level fluctuates throughout the year. It is usually at its highest level during periods when rice fields are flooded. The distinctive red hue results from the intensive use of chemical fertilisers in the surrounding fields. Does this lake reflect an ancient feature, or at least some site formation process? Nile Delta hydrology is exteremely complex due to the long history of meandering water channels, natural springs, man-made irrigation networks, modern-day pumping and water treatment, the effect of the Aswan dams and ongoing land reclamation. It is possible that this lake reflected the excavation of something in the recent past, such as largescale sebakh-removal, or even part of an ancient waterway (see Chapter 2). Coulson and Leonard did speculate that the village and lake may originally have been part of the ancient site (1982c:

Overview of the Ancient Settlement 215), by comparing Petrie’s dimensions for the site with their own, but there is not as yet any clear evidence of structures south of the current edge of the site. Furthermore, the village does not seem to lie on elevated ground, as found at so many archaeological sites beneath modern settlements.7 There is no obvious density of ancient ceramics in the unpaved paths of the village either.8 Turning to the kom itself, it principally consists of low undulating terrain, with a fairly sandy surface layer, but covered in halfa-grass of medium density (Pls.56–7). In parts the halfa gives way to a short green grass, particularly around STN 10 and 13. Other areas, particularly low-lying ones, are covered in shok-bushes, for example in the temple and immediately to the north. No structural remains are visible across the majority of the site, but this changes with the previously cleared mudbrick structures in the elevated Citadel area (Pl.255), and in the eastern part of Kom Firin. This latter area includes the low-lying remnants of the Ramesside temple’s foundations, but also segments of its associated enclosure wall, along with structures and deposits built around and over the wall in the ensuing centuries. It is also the area that was the focus of sebakh-quarrying, creating the confused ‘moonscape’ visible today (Pls.2, 60, 64, 66). The site is criss-crossed by paths (Fig.1), some of which are frequented by vehicles, particularly the route that leads into the site from the north-east, and now forms an extremely compacted surface, over 5m wide in places (Pl.63). Many of the smaller paths are used only by pedestrians, donkeys and other animals. The current limits of the site are almost entirely surrounded by a track, with the adjacent fields either at a similar elevation, particularly along the eastern edge, or cut down to a lower level. By the edge of the kom at the northern edge of the site, near STN 8, the fields lie 3m below the edge of the archaeological deposits (Pl.61). The western edge of the site is bounded by a relatively recent irrigation channel. With the height of preserved stratigraphy in the Citadel, the southern approach to Kom Firin is rather different. Leaving the village, the houses give way to a sandy expanse, some 175m in north-south extent, with almost no vegetation, and no evidence of archaeological strata. This area is now used as the village football pitch. Directly behind this rises a sheer open section (Pl.62), largely of clean yellow sand, that forms an apparent southern edge to the ancient remains. As discussed below, this is not an ancient limit, and the site must have continued some way to the south, though probably not as far as the modern village.9 A dirt road runs from the village to the canal to the east, through Kom Dahab; preparations for surfacing the road were evident in October 2007. South-eastern Kom Firin: a puzzle left by sebakhin decimation Kom Firin is far from alone in having been decimated by the activities of sebakhin in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, though a walk through the south-eastern part of the site still offers a striking reminder of the destruction wrought across Egypt (Pls.2, 60, 64, 66). Sebakh was classified into two forms sebakh baladi, the animal dung and soil mixed to form fertiliser, and sebakh kafri, material taken from archaeological mounds (Ayrout 2005: 44−5); it is the latter form that is relevant here. Sebakh was employed principally for use as agricultural fertiliser. It was also used to aid with land

reclamation, as flooding was a persistent problem throughout much of the Delta in the 19th century, and to manufacture saltpetre (see Bailey 1999b: 235–9). The Western Delta was intensively worked for sebakh: digging on a large scale is known to have taken place at Sais from the 1870s onwards (Wilson 2006a: 74–5). Sebakhin activity at Kom Firin was already commonplace in the 1880s, as Petrie described how the ‘depth of excavations is about forty feet below the top, and the greater part of an area about a third of a mile each way has been removed’ (1886: 94). This extent, or c.536x536m, is much larger than the area extant today, suggesting Petrie also saw such activity taking place in the Citadel, further to the north, or even in a zone now turned over to cultivation. The Ministry of Public Works decreed on 12 August 1897 that extraction of sebakh could only take place with the authorisation of the Service des Antiquités, who would supervise work through guardians paid 5pt per day. The decree does not seem to have been enforced until 1909, and it is clear that the Service was also selling off sebakh and sherds.10 Wilson (2006a: 79–81) gives a summary of this, and how it relates to Sais area. By 1899, Rail Companies established railway branches to carry more sebakh further away, and such a rail route was in place at Kom Firin by 1916 (Pl.4), running eastwards to Ittihad, where it joined another line which ran south to Dilingat.11 The railway was also used to exploit other sizeable sites in the area, such as Kom el-Hisn (Daressy 1903: 281–2). The route of the railway line into Kom Firin remains the access track from the road alongside the Firiniya canal to the site, and brick sleepers from the railway are still visible in places on this path. Edgar employed sebakhin to clear the area around two limestone column bases during his 1911 visit (1911: 277). It is plausible to assume that parts of Kom Firin, at least in the south-eastern area, were preserved to a higher elevation for much of the 19th century. The three massive enclosure walls seem to have been targeted, resulting in negative evidence for their original presence (see below; Pls.64, 72), and to a lesser extent the deposits between and around these walls. These walls provided a mass of degraded, compacted mudbrick, free from large sherds and fragments of stone, unwanted by the sebakhin. The situation at Sais was not dissimilar, particularly in relation to the northern enclosure, which disappeared almost completely between the late 19th and early 20th century, following the laying of a railway line into the centre of the ruins (Wilson 2006a: 81–2).12 Though Kom Firin was badly affected by sebakhin activity, it did not suffer as badly as nearby Kom el-Hisn, a very extensive site almost completely levelled by 1943, having stood 8–9m high a century before (Hamada and el-Amir 1947: 101). One of the problems with sebakhin activity was the tendency to sieve the archaeological deposits for sherds, thus creating massive mounds of sherds. As a result, not all mounds will reflect ancient deposition, but rather can reflect the confusion caused by the sebakhin (Bailey 1999a; Wilson 2006a: 101–3). The area most targeted by the sebakhin, at least in the last stages of the removal of deposits on an industrial scale,13 gives Kom Firin its distinctive appearance. Tall fingers of material left behind by the sebakhin, sometimes structural but often depositional layers, cluster in the south-eastern part of the kom Kom Firin I | 21

Spencer to form a rather other-worldly appearance (Pls.2, 60, 64, 66). The term ‘pedestal’, used already by Coulson and Leonard (1982c: 220), sums up their shape, and has been retained in our survey, but it must be stressed that these are not ancient structures. However, they often contain traces of ancient structures (Pl.66), or in some cases ‘negatives’ of now destroyed stuctures (Pl.72). These pedestals can attain over 10m above the level of the nearby fields, providing archaeologists with significant areas of open sections which can prove very instructive, after a cursory trowelling of the exposed areas to remove the wind- and rain-eroded surface layers. The exact date when large-scale sebakh-removal was halted at Firin is unknown, though the 1996 map no longer shows a railway emplacement, but rather a track or path in its place, as is still found today (Pl.6). The railway is likely to have been dismantled somewhat earlier; at Sais, it was removed between 1951 and 1996 (Wilson 2006a: 83). While small-scale excavation, and collapse of these pedestals, undoubtedly still occurs, one cannot really speak any longer of ‘the damage that is being inflicted upon the Delta sites by the sebakhin’ (Coulson and Leonard 1982c: 220). A more gradual, but still detrimental, encroachment of the surrounding cultivated lands continues today(Pl.67, Pl.257), plus collateral damage from human activity, that is now threatening the site, rather than any concentrated efforts of large-scale removal of deposits. Occasionally, there is evidence of more ambitious destruction of the site. Thus part of the north-eastern edge of the site was cut by bulldozers between February and September 2003, with the excavated deposits dumped just west of wall 0600 (pictured in Spencer 2004a: 38).14 Over six seasons of fieldwork, we have gradually built up an understanding of many features within the open sections left by the sebakhin. In particular, segments of a significant enclosure wall became evident, with minimal cleaning (Pls.64–5, 68). Combined with magnetometry survey, allowing the more northerly, buried, wall segments to be identified, and ground-truthing excavations, it has been possible to reconstruct the layout of three phases of enclosure walls.15 These are discussed in the next section, providing a wider context for the Ramesside temple presented in Chapter 4. Of course, a complex network of walls from smaller structures, founded at various levels reflecting long-term occupation, rebuilding and change within the settlement, can also be glimpsed within the pedestals left by the sebakhin, alongside strata of burning, general refuse and windblown sand, but also features such as ovens and hearths. The Ramesside complex The south-eastern temple area of Kom Firin has for long been the most ‘intelligible’ area of the site for first-time visitors. Here is neither an area of unremarkable kom covered with grass without visible structures, nor a zone decimated by sebakhin activity. Rather, limestone blocks and column fragments attest to the original presence of an ancient structure, the Ramesside temple discussed in Chapter 4 (Pl.69). During excavation of this temple, the wider context remained of evident interest. Was this temple surrounded by an enclosure? Is it related to the standing enclosure wall segment at the north-eastern edge of the site (0600-0601; Pls.70–1, Pl.253)? Does anything survive of those enclosures seen by Petrie and Griffith in the late 19th 22 | Kom Firin I

century? The topographic survey, with the necessarily exhaustive coverage of the site’s surface through walking, had brought several areas of monumental wall remains to our attention (Pls.64–5, 68). However, assessing their alignment and phasing was often impossible, as many segments were shrouded in later deposits; faces could not always be seen, making assessment of the wall’s alignment rather difficult. Magnetometry proved the key to unlocking the layout of three successive phases of enclosure, in a time- and cost-efficient manner. Magnetometry (or magnetic gradiometry) has been effectively used at sites throughout Egypt in recent decades, most notably at Delta sites such as Qantir (Pusch et al. 1999b), Tell el-Balamun (Herbich and Spencer 2006) and Buto (Herbich and Hartung 2004). A detailed description of the principles is thus not necessary here (see Pusch et al. 1999a); this method of remote sensing effectively allows subsurface features to be mapped through an analysis of small changes in the earth’s magnetic field. The survey at Kom Firin was conducted using a GeoScan Research Fluxgate Gradiometer FM-36.16 Each 20x20m square was surveyed in transects spaced at 1m intervals, with datapoints collected at a density of 8 per metre (12.5cm spacing), resulting in 3200 datapoints per grid square, or 80,000 per hectare.17 The survey, covering an area of 140,000m² (just over 30% of the extant site), has generally been very successful, particularly in revealing parts of the temple foundation walls (Pls.1, 74), where the depth of deposits was noticeably shallower. It has also been possible to identify walls of significant thickness, particularly several successive phases of enclosure wall, including a walled complex surrounding the Ramesside temple (Pl.74). Achieving this without remote sensing would have taken extensive excavations, allied to good fortune. The magnetometry survey was less succesful, however, in areas where dense strata of occupational material and structures were preserved: iron and fired clay provide very stong anomalies which can mask the subtle changes provided by, say, a mud-brick wall. Thus the area immediately west of the Ramesside temple (Pls.74, 76), but also to the north of the gateway, presented rather ‘confused’ data, with many dipoles. At other sites, smaller-scale buildings have been more readily identifiable, on account of differing soil conditions, but also low-lying topography and thick-walled casemate structures typical of Late Period towns.18 Magnetometry was thus not extended into areas such as the Citadel. Following the survey of the temple proper within a 100x100m square in 2003 (Pl.76, discussed in detail in Chapter 4), the surrounding area was covered in the 2004 and 2005 seasons, with the principal aim of assessing the context in which the temple was located. While study of the open sections in the pedestals south of the temple had revealed that segments of a monumental east-west wall were preserved (Pl.64), it was hoped that the survey may reveal the position and layout of a temple enclosure wall, perhaps one whose northern extent was marked by a large segment of standing wall still visible by the entrance track into the present-day archaeological site (0600+0601; Pls.70–1, Pl.253). The latter theory proved false, and it is now clear that this segment of standing wall forms part of a later enclosure, discussed briefly below.

Overview of the Ancient Settlement Nonetheless, the magnetometry did reveal that the temple was set within an enclosure of significant size. The processed data clearly showed an enclosure of 225x199m (Pl.74). The northern and eastern stretches of the enclosure wall were particularly clear in the survey data, suggesting a wall c.5m thick. Strikingly, the two northern corners were provided with projecting external features, around 10.5x10.5m in dimension, perhaps corner towers. Furthermore, an entrance gate was clearly visible in the central part of the northern wall stretch. This was of imposing appearance, consisting of two parallel ‘towers’, projecting proud of the enclosure wall both within and outside the complex. The data suggested these towers has a ground plan of around 16x8m, with a passageway of c.5m between them. The western wall is much less clear in the magnetometry survey, though a ‘scar’, up to 11m in width, perhaps attests to the trenches cut when the wall was dug out. The archaeological deposits in this area are extremely truncated (Pl.73), thus it is plausible not even the lowest courses of the wall survive. Finally, the southern wall of the enclosure is hardly visible at all in the magnetometry data, but here the visible segments amongst the pedestals can be surveyed to complete the layout of the enclosure. It is clear from the magnetometry survey that the enclosure is aligned with the Ramesside temple at its centre, the northern gateway situated upon the northerly projection of the temple axis. Temple and enclosure might thus be contemporary, a theory which excavation subsequently proved. The standing segment of enclosure wall near the north-eastern edge of the site (Pls.70–1, 0600+0601) was clearly not part of the enclosure around the temple, lying 143m north-north-east of the northeast corner of the enclosure. Instead, it forms part of a later temenos, discussed in the following section. The Ramesside enclosure, evidently an imposing building within the local landscape, has been investigated through excavation between 2004 and 2007,19 but further investigations are necessary to better understand the layout and function of the buildings within. As such, a detailed treatment of this enclosure will be presented in the next volume of excavation reports. However, to allow the context of the Ramesside temple to be appreciated, here follows a brief summary of the evidence as presently known. Evidently, aspects of this could be subject to modification in light of the ongoing survey and excavation programme. Excavations revealed the wall to be constructed of mudbrick, with a similar variety in brick clays found in the temple itself (Chapter 4). These mudbricks were generally in the size range 37–42x17–20x9–12cm. The thickness of the wall varied from 4.25m in the uppermost preserved levels, to up to 5.95m. Preserved in places to 3.08m high, the presence of articulated brick collapse over 10m from the outer edge of the wall hint at the undoubtedly impressive original height of the structure, perhaps 10m or more.20 The exterior of the wall was covered in a thick coat of white plaster (Pl.79); this was only present from 65cm above the foundation level, perhaps because the courses below would have been invisible once construction was complete.21 Furthermore, there seems to have been one or two ‘steps’ to both the interior and external faces of the wall. Where a sufficient depth of excavation was possible, it seemed the enclosure was founded atop clean sand, perhaps the contemporary surface of the sand turtleback.

The inner face of the eastern tower of the gateway was excavated, confirming the magnetometry data, but also yielding a mass of decorated limestone fragments.22 It is very likely these come from a stone lining to the gate corridor, as attested at Zawyet Umm el-Rakham (Snape 2004: 150, 156 fig.8). Parts of the projecting square feature at the northeastern corner were excavated in 2005, revealing that this was a contemporary structure, built with the same type of mudbricks.23 There is no evidence for any ditches constructed around the walled complex. Stratigraphic evidence for the dating of this wall was found around the interior of its north-eastern corner. Following a period of erosion and degradation of the wall surface, at least two rooms were built against its inner face.24 Constructed from noticeably less compact bricks, the pottery found lying above the floor surfaces of these rooms was very homogenous, consisting of wide-mouthed storage jars, Nile B2 beer jars and bowls with internal rims, which can be dated to the Third Intermediate Period. Furthermore, a trench extending east from the exterior of the east stretch of the enclosure wall revealed the build up of debris from the Third Intermediate Period through the Late Period.25 This is consistent with a Ramesside dating for the enclosure around the temple. Thus far, this enclosure and the temple at its centre represent the earliest structures known at Kom Firin, and match the earliest date of the pottery (see Chapter 5). The cemetery suggests occupation of this area at an earlier date (see Chapter 2), but evidence of pre-Ramesside activity at Kom Firin itself has yet to be identified. This is not the place to discuss at length as to the function of this large Ramesside complex, but its layout in comparison to sites such as Zawyet Umm el-Rakham (Snape 2004: 153 fig.2), Tell Heboua II (el-Ayedi 2006)26 and to a lesser extent Amara West (Spencer 1997: 15–19, pl.3), are all factors which would support this being identified as a complex which fulfilled a defensive role, at least to some degree.27 Tell Abqa’in features an imposing brick enclosure wall, though on a less regular plan than the other sites (see Thomas 2002), perhaps dictated by local topography. In light of the historical context of Ramesside Egypt, with Libyan groups attacking or attempting to infiltrate Egypt, and the location of Kom Firin, it is reasonable to assume this complex was constructed in response to the perceived threat from Libyan groups.28 This interpretation is further supported by the tone of the doorjamb inscription of Ramses II (Chapter 4). The appearance of this massive, whitewashed, complex must have been quite striking in the flat landscape of the Nile Delta. Enclosing an area of 4.4 hectares, this enclosure is not matched in size by many of the contemporary ‘frontier’ complexes, including Zawyet Umm el-Rakham, Tell Abqa’in, Tell Heboua II, Amara West, Akhsa (Serra West). Sesebi, Soleb and Tell Heboua I are, however, larger in extent (for a summary of these sites, with further references, see Morris 2005). The labour resources required to build a complex such as the Ramesside complex at Kom Firin were far from negligible: around 6 million mudbricks would need to be made and laid to construct the enclosure wall alone. Could Kom Firin have been an example of a Ramesside nxt (‘stronghold’), of the type where prisoners were re-settled: ‘he has placed the Shasu in the West-land, and settled the Libyans on the ridges; filled are the strongholds he has built ...’ (KRI II: 206, 14–16)? Kom Firin I | 23

Spencer Further excavations may help elucidate such questions. The magnetometry data also indicates the presence of buildings within the enclosure, other than the temple at its centre. These are most clear in the north-eastern and northwestern corners. Further excavations may clarify the nature of these features, but the magnetometry does not distinguish between features of different date or phase, and much of the deposits within the enclosure, particularly to the north, west and east of the temple, are preserved to a higher level than the foundations of the temple or the enclosure wall.29 On the basis of the contemporary sites cited above, one would expect other buildings in this enclosure to include housing, administrative offices, storage facilities, ancillary chapels and maybe even production areas. Later enclosures in eastern Kom Firin North of the Ramesside enclosure is an area of low-lying grasscovered ground, before one reaches the principal path. Magnetometry data in this area showed a number of nearrectilinear anomalies, through none clear enough to allow a tentative drawing of a plan of these features. A number of dipoles, clustered in the area 50–90m in front of the Ramesside gate, probably attest to significant disturbances of ceramicheavy deposits, or industrial activity.30 Much clearer, however, were the long rectilinear features some 160m north-east of the Ramesside gate. These provide the key to unlocking the layout of later enclosure walls at Kom Firin. The Late Period enclosure An impressive segment of well-constructed mud-brick enclosure wall stands near the modern entrance to the site (0600), preserved to 7.5m in length, a height of 5.63m, and a thickness of 3.1m (Pls.70–1, Pl.253). As only the eastern face is preserved, the original wall could have been significantly thicker. The bricks used in its construction are made from a variety of clay colours, as with the Ramesside temple. The exterior face is provided with circular holes cut into the existing brickwork; such holes are features of many Egyptian temple enclosure walls.31 The dimensions of the bricks used for this wall are notably larger than with the Ramesside structures at Kom Firin: 40–50x20–26x8–12cm. At a later phase, the wall was thickened by a significant addition of brickwork to its exterior face, preserved to a thickness of 3.70m. It is reasonable to assume that this thickening was added along the length of the wall, as evidence of it has been found elsewhere at Kom Firin. The later phase is constructed in a rather less careful manner, with uneven courses, areas with mortar packing rather than brickwork, and noticeably smaller bricks (32–40x20–23x6–9cm). 32 The preserved exterior face allows the line of wall 0600 to be projected southwards. Excavations in trench EB (2006) did in fact reveal a small remnant of this monumental mudbrick wall (0327).33 This wall was constructed above 3.9m of accumulated deposits rich in pottery of the Third Intermediate Period and early Late Period. Still being studied, a preliminary dating of the ceramics from these strata would support a wall built in the 7th–6th century bc or somewhat later. This accumulation of occupation debris partly explains the high level at which 0600 was founded (site level 4.90m) in contrast to the Ramesside enclosure wall (1.38m).34 Interestingly, the 24 | Kom Firin I

line of the wall between 0327 and 0600 runs across the projecting external ‘tower’ at the north-eastern corner of the Ramesside wall (Pl.253), explaining why its eastern edge was preserved to a much lower level than the western part of it. Other traces of this wall have since been identified, principally through magnetometry survey. A 122m long feature, perhaps consisting of elements built at different times, was clear in the survey data (Pl.74), running at an alignment orthogonal to that projected southwards from 0600 through 0327. It seemed very likely this should be identified as remnants of the same enclosure, with the segment in between missing where the Delta Light Railway Line, now the entrance pathway to the site, ran through. Excavations across the line of the wall were undertaken in 2006 (trench NA), immediately east of STN 15. These excavations not only confirmed the presence of a significant mudbrick wall in the location suggested by the remote sensing, but also that this wall was built in at least two phases (0416+0417). The brick sizes displayed more variation than 0600 (in this case 34–45x12– 15x7–10cm), but this is not in itself sufficient to question the interpretation of these wall segments as part of the same wall. Indeed, a mass of Late Period ceramics had accumulated against the outer face of wall 0416+0417, before being truncated by a construction cut for a later wall, which seems to be part of the Ptolemaic enclosure, discussed below. The results from trench NA and EB will be presented fully in a later monograph. Fortunately, more segments of this wall could be identified through careful study of the open sections left by sebakhinactivity, but also some damage wrought by a farmer before the 2006 season. The latter activity revealed 0605, an 8.9m stretch of well-constructed mudbrick wall (Pl.257). Twelve courses were preserved, with brick sizes in the range 36–39x15–18x5.5– 8cm. Though the visible portion was created by an angled cut across the wall, surveying the alignment of the brickwork after minimal cleaning of the surface deposits allowed the orientation of the wall to be ascertained. Once plotted on the site map (Pl.253), it is clear that this represents part of a northsouth segment, in fact the west, or ‘rear’, wall of the enclosure dicussed here. A mere ‘shadow’ of this wall is visible just to the south in the magnetometry data, immediately east of STN 11 (Pl.77). Two visible segments of enclosure wall in the south of Kom Firin allow us to locate the southern stretch of this enclosure. In the Citadel, discussed further below, a 14.1m stretch of mudbrick wall (1030), much eroded and partly buried in sandy deposits, is visible (Fig.5, Pls.8, 253), its alignment matching that of the northern stretch seen in the magnetometry (i.e. 0416+0417). Though mostly constructed of dark grey bricks set in a grey mud mortar, the presence of a few lighter-colour bricks in the visible portions echo that of the other wall segments (0600, 0605), and the bricks which could be measured are of 36x14x10cm. This is the wall marked on the Naukratis Project’s key map of the site, indicating that it was already exposed in the early 1980s (Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 96, fig.9, just south of the label ‘Citadel area’). Finally, further to the east, in the area badly affected by sebakhin activity, another part of the southern wall has been identified, 7.2m thick (0623, Pls.87, 253). The bricks, of 36+x19–23x6.5– 9cm, again exhibit a variety of clay colours.

Overview of the Ancient Settlement Thus an extensive mudbrick enclosure has been identified, surrounding an area of c.480x390m, or over four times that of the Ramesside enclosure. However, its size is comparable to that of other Late Period enclosures at many of the principal urban sites of the Delta, underlining the importance of Kom Firin.35 If this is a Late Period temple enclosure, its thickness is somewhat smaller than we would expect, in comparison to the temenos walls at Mendes (Redford 2004: 6 [12+m]), el-Ashmunein (Spencer 1989: 72 [15m]) and Buto (Faltings et al. 2000: fig.12 [c.17m]). Nonetheless, other sizeable enclosures at Buto had walls of around 9m in thickness (Hartung et al. 2003: pl.42). Another aspect of this enclosure parallels evidence from elsewhere rather well: it appears the complex was divided into two parts by the provision of a cross-wall some 185m from the east wall (Pl.253). Parts of this wall, though badly pitted and dug through, are visible to the north-east of STN 13 (0606; Pl.83). A concentration of imported pottery was collected during surface survey here in 2005. Perhaps emanating from fill material used in the wall construction or simply from layers accumulated around and against the walls, these include sherds from decorated amphorae from Chios (mid-6th century bc) and Clazomenae (second half of the 6th century bc), in addition to Samian ware (perhaps as 5th–4th century bc) (see Smoláriková 2006).36 This material is consistent with a Late Period dating of this temenos. Interestingly, notably higher percentages of imported pottery of a similar date were also found clustered around the remains of the earlier, Ramesside, gateway and a test trench to the north of here, including material from Kos, Lesbos and Chios.37 North-east of the visible brickwork, a lengthy cut into the surface, 60m long, runs from here (Pl.80), presumably echoing the original location of the wall. The visible sections on either side featured a 5–20cm thick deposit of limestone chippings, some up to 20cm in length. While this gouge illustrates the destruction caused by the sebakhin, it also reveals that strata of limestone chippings, perhaps from an earlier temple, had built up against both sides of this wall. The stone chips could also be the remnants of an exterior stone cladding to the corner of the enclosure wall, as found at Tell el-Balamun (Spencer 1996: pls.4 [b], 5). Extending the line of this cross-wall to the south, two negative imprints of its former presence can be identified. Firstly, a c.8m gap in the northern stretch of the Ramesside enclosure, immediately west of STN 24 (Pl.1), can now be interpreted as damaged caused by one, or both, of two processes. The construction of the later wall would have cut through the (presumably eroded) remnants of the Ramesside wall. Later, and perhaps more tellingly, the quarrying away of the Late Period cross-wall in the late 19th or early 20th century, would have removed remnants of the earlier wall too. The second negative imprint of the cross-wall is found 58m further to the south, where two pedestals of fill reveal dozens of layers of archaeological strata, but no structural features (Pl.72). These strata were deposited in a manner only possible if they had accumulated against something which once occupied the gap; the location and width of this space indicates that the cross-wall ran through here. Cross walls are known from a number of temple enclosures of the Late Period,38 and clearly sought to provide a physical division to echo a distinction between different parts of the enclosure, perhaps in terms of

varying degrees of sanctity. It is not presently possible to ascertain if the cross-wall is contemporary with the outer wall, though this is the case with several of the other sites cited in note 38; it may also have been in use with the Ptolemaic wall discussed below. It is hoped that future fieldwork will allow a more precise dating of this Late Period temenos. The Ptolemaic (?) enclosure The magnetometry data revealed the presence of another walllike feature north of the temenos described above, though on a very similar alignment (Pl.74). Excavations in trench NA revealed the southern face of the wall (0436). Most significantly, the foundation cut for this wall trenched through deposits rich in Late Period storage jars and coarse casseroles (the latter perhaps somewhat later in date), indicating that this wall dated to the Ptolemaic era or shortly before. That it should be placed early in the Ptolemaic Period is suggested by the dense deposits of dumped ceramics, domestic refuse and loom wights found above the remains of wall 0436, the two clearest phases dating to the 4th–1st century bc and then the 1st century bc–3rd century ad.39 Where else can other evidence of this wall be found? Three other segments can be proposed as belonging to this wall, in light of their alignment, though dating evidence has yet to be sought for these. Firstly, the western stretch of the enclosure might be represented by the intimation of a second, more westerly, wall in the magnetometry survey around STN 11 (Pl.77). Some brickwork is visible upon the surface in this area, though not sufficiently well preserved to allow its orientation to be mapped (Pl.84). Two more impressive standing remnants of wall are found along the wall’s southern stretch. Wall 0624 forms a southern boundary to part of the Citadel area (Fig.5, Pl.86). A 35.5m stretch of the wall’s original southern face is visible, preserved to over 3m high, built mostly from yellow/ white- coloured bricks. Brick sizes in this wall vary significantly, with widths of 16.5–22cm and thickness of 6.5– 11cm. An external projecting feature may be part of a bastion or a later thickening. Interestingly, an adjoining north-south wall is indicated on the Naukratis Project map (Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 96, fig.9), suggesting a return wall was visible then. This is no longer the case, and the walls also turns northwards at its eastern end, before abutting the tower which collapsed between the seasons of work by the Naukratis Project. The other part of the southern stretch, 0621, is in the southeastern part of the site, visible only in sections as both faces are shrouded by deep deposits of accumulated fill (Pls.82, 253). A 4.3m thick mudbrick wall was later thickened on its exterior side (0622), the addition happening after a build-up of deposits outside the wall. Brick sizes are in the range 38–48x19–21x7– 10cm. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify an eastern stretch of this later enclosure wall. A topographic depression running along for 130m, on the correct alignment, at the far east of the site, is suggested by satellite imagery. No remnants of a wall are visible on the surface here. Nonetheless, such a position, 50m east of the corresponding Late Period temenos wall, would suggest the later enclosure largely mirrored the size and alignment of the earlier enclosure. Kom Firin I | 25

Spencer Earlier descriptions of the enclosures The first published descriptions of Kom Firin make much of the presence of sizeable mud-brick enclosure walls. Petrie’s published comments are not particularly helpful (‘on the northeast side are two inclosures [sic], walled in beyond the great walls of the town’, Petrie 1886: 94), though he is more expansive in his letters back to the Egypt Exploration Fund. In a later dated 8 December 1884, he notes bricks of bricks are ‘15 to 16.5 x 7.2 to 7.9 x 4.4 to 4.5 [inches]’ (EES Archive XVII d 47), dimensions (38–42x18.2–20x11–11.4cm) which fit well with the Ramesside complex. However, the variability in brick sizes in the two later enclosure walls make it possible Petrie was referring to these enclosures too. Griffith also referred to two enclosures: the eastern one is double, with a long street, formerly paved with limestone, running east and west. I should suggest that a temple lies buried at the west end of the street. There is no sebakh dug in that part, but there are many traces of former limekilns. I much doubt the existence of a temple at the eastern end. Little is to be seen there beyond some limestone blocks high up and some massive brick walls. It is a place well worth a trial. (Gardner 1889: 83)

The lack of sebakhin activity strongly suggests Griffith is not discussing the south-eastern part of the site, badly decimated by this quarrying activity. Rather, I would propose he is talking about one of the later enclosures, which is divided in two (‘double’) and encompassed a much larger area, and in all likelihood was focused around a temple in the area where limekilns were excavated by the Naukratis Project in the early 1980s. The enclosure was evidently a more obvious feature of the site in the late 19th century. Griffith goes on to note the other enclosure is separated from the first by about 200 yards [183m], and is entirely on the sand of the desert. (Gardner 1889: 83)

The reference to the ‘sand of the desert’ could refer to any of the enclosures, as the Ramesside complex is seemingly founded on natural sand, and the walls running south of the Citadel are in places covered with windblown sand. The distance cited by Griffith is perplexing, as the Ramesside enclosure is contained within the later temenoi. Evidently, Griffith could not see all three enclosures in their full extent: parts must have been destroyed, or hidden by later deposits.40 Nonetheless, 183m is the distance between the east- and crosswall of the Late Period enclosure. By 1911, Edgar was describing one (or several?) of the enclosures as ‘the ruins of a great fortress walls running around the main part of the site’ (1911: 278). Traces of the late temples A series of enclosures were built at Kom Firin over a period of around ten centuries, presumably centred around formal cult temples. Unfortunately, the remains of these structures have all but disappeared. The deposits in the western parts of these enclosures, that is west of the abandoned Ramesside complex and north of the Citadel, are relatively truncated, with the exception of some elevated stratigraphy around STN 10. Thus it is unlikely in situ remains of any structures will be found. The form of these two enclosures suggests they are temple temenoi, of a type well-known at this period in the Nile Delta. The replacement of an existing enclosure with a later one following a very similar layout, is found at Tell el-Balamun (26th then 30th dynasty, Spencer 1996: 26–35), Mendes (pre26 | Kom Firin I

30th dynasty (?), 30th dynasty and finally early Ptolemaic, Redford 2004: 6–23) and perhaps Tanis (see Brissaud 1998: 32–3, pl.2), again around cult temples built of stone. Despite the disappearance of these buildings at Kom Firin, there is evidence that stone temples of this material existed here, almost certainly the key buildings in the enclosures. Griffith’s comments about an east-west avenue once paved with limestone (Gardner 1889: 83), with the suggestion that the temple was at the western end of this, is further supported by Petrie’s report of an avenue running 10° north of west (Petrie letter of 8 December 1888; EES Archive XVII d 47), which fits with the orientation of the later enclosures as here reconstructed (Pl.253). A small excavation to bed a survey station marker, in 2006, came down upon a strata of limestone chippings, and a discarded limestone paving block (Pl.88). Well-carved, this block, with smoothed upper surface, measured 69x60x9cm. Given the position of this block, at STN 24 on the central east-west axis of the later enclosures (Pl.1), and the associated strata which may derive from now destroyed other blocks, it is quite likely that this is part of the avenue seen by Petrie and Griffith. This suggests a temple orientated east-west, which would correlate well with the layout of the two later enclosures, perhaps facing east. This is similar to the orientation of the New Kingdom (and later?) temple at Kom el-Hisn (Kirby et al. 1998: 24 fig.1). What of the temple proper? Petrie saw a naos which must have originally been installed in one of the sanctuaries of this temple: a 6ft high [1.8m] monolithic shrine ‘covered with inscriptions written small inside + out. This is clearly of XXVI– XXX dyn.’ (EES Archive XVII d 47). This brief reference hints that the naos may have been decorated in a manner similar to those installed at other Delta sites in the 26th and 30th dynasties, though some were still in use during the early Ptolemaic era (Spencer 2006b: 19–30). A bronze barque fitting in the form of a falcon-headed god wearing a tripartite wig crowned with a sun-disc was acquired by Petrie at the site (Pl.92). Inlaid with gold, it bears the cartouche of Amasis, and may have been part of the temple’s ritual equipment.41 A large quartzite block housed outside the rest-house (Pl.24, Coulson and Leonard 1981: pl.9 [5] = Coulson and Leonard 1979: 160, fig.13) may well come from this Late Period or Ptolemaic temple, it bears a finely carved depiction of at least two shrines of the pr-nw form, set amongst palm trees. A close parallel was found in the Palace of Apries at Memphis, supporting the dating of the Kom Firin block to the 26th dynasty (Petrie 1909: pl.6). Evidence from the cemetery sheds light on the priests who held office in this temple (see Chapter 2), including holders of the titles Hpt-wDAt, x rp -Hwwt and smn-mAat (Basta 1979: 185–9, figs.1, 4). The Hpt-wDAt title, whose owners also hold the priestly title rn p, is found on two private statues attributed to Kom Firin. Firstly, the lower part of a small granodiorite kneeling figure holding an image of a goddess, named Wennefer, whose father Ankhhor held the same position (Perdu 1992: 183–7). Secondly, a similar figure in a private collection, of a [Pe]tehorkheb; again, his son Ankhsekhmet held the same titles (Cybèle Collection, De Meulenaere 1964: 161, pl.32 [17]). The latter bears an invocation to ‘Sekhmet the great’, and the rn p-title is qualified as ‘of Amun lord of PA-iry’. With a number of other HpAt-wDAt priests being perhaps active

Overview of the Ancient Settlement at Kom Firin, or nearby sites, in the Saite era (Perdu 1992: 186–7), it is possible some of the tombs and sarcophagi with no preserved names may belong to these men. A faience shabti from Silvagou bears another priestly title, of the Hm-nTr %x mt WAh-ib-r a (10/4/53/12; Pls.26–7), confirming the presence of a Sekhmet priesthood at Kom Firin. An unprovenanced bronze figurine of the goddess was dedicated by a HpAt-wDAt priest (Daressy 1906: 274 [39105]); presumably such votive figurines would have cluttered the temple(s) at Kom Firin much as they did throughout Egypt during the 1st millennium bc. A third temple statue, attributed to Kom Firin by Petrie (Pl.91), dates to the same era, but the provenance is not reliable.42 Finally, it is appropriate to mention here a vase found somewhere at Kom Firin or Silvagou (JE 89565, see Appendix 2), which bears a reference to a mwt -nTr Hm-nTr WADyt nb(t) P _p; unfortunately the name is not preserved. This title is known from the 17th dynasty onwards, but is a typical of elite priestesses of the Third Intermediate and Late Periods, at sites such as Tanis and Thebes (Berlandini 1979: 100–9). Was there a cult of this form of Wadjit at Kom Firin, or is this a donation from someone holding the titles at another location? The granite blocks clustered in the north-west of the site, (Pl.93) could also have been dragged from the late temple;43 these include one with a very badly eroded horizontal inscription. The only word that can be read is the name of Amun-Ra. The presence of a (subsidiary?) cult of Amun at a western Delta site such as Kom Firin is not surprising (Guermeur 2006a: 106–38). Sekhmet appears to be the most important deity at this site, and this is further underlined by the donation stelae attributed to Kom Firin. All of these stelae depict Sekhmet and the child-god Heka. Upon the Egyptian Museum stela JE 85647, the gods are qualified as ‘Sekhmet the great, lady of the Two Lands’ and ‘Heka Hry -ib -aH’. The stela bears the cartouches of Aa-kheper-ra Sheshonq [V] (Bakir 1943, Yoyotte 1961).44 Another stela gives Sekhmet the same epithet,45 bears the same cartouches, and cites a settlement (d mi), perhaps named Rbgr (Kitchen 1970: 64–7, fig.4). The third stelae is dated to year 30 of Rudamon (Berlandini 1978), while another refers to year 15 of Sheshonq ‘son of Sabast’ (Spiegelberg 1920: 57–8).46 The references to Shoshenq V upon some of the stelae is interesting. A son of Pimay, he ruled shortly before the rise of Tefnakht and the Great Kingdom of the West, within which lay the settlement of Kom Firin. Shoshenq V is attested through temple decoration at Tanis, Tell el-Yahudiyeh and the burial of an Apis bull at the Serapeum in his year 37 (Kitchen 1986: 354–5). This type of stela, with images of donors offering fields to deities, may have been set up in a temple complex, though the thickness and shape of BMA 67.119 (Kitchen 1970: 64–7, fig.4) would make it ideal to act as a field marker.47 A stela recorded by Petrie (1886: 94–5, pl.36 [2])48 is of a rather different type, depicting the goddess Bastet in the form of a seated woman wearing a wig and uraeus, labelled as ‘Bastet lady of Imau, lady of the land’. An offering formula invoking Bastet follows, and cites a scribe whose name is lost. This could come from a temple, or the cemetery, although the latter site was not systematically dug until the late 1940s (see Chapter 2).49 The nature of Sekhmet made her an attractive choice in areas near the limits of Egypt;50 the association with Bastet and

possibly other feline goddesses is unsurprising. Schneider has suggested the presence of Sekhmet here may even relate to the Distant Goddess theme,51 though this is usually set in Nubia. These stelae may have been set up in the Ramesside temple, though as shown in Chapter 4, there is clear evidence that at least parts of this complex had been overrun by domestic activity by the early Third Intermediate Period. As these stelae date towards the end of this era, it seems equally plausible that the Late Period enclosure and its temple may have been preceded by a temple of the late 8th or 7th centuries bc in a similar position. The latest phase of enclosure wall at Kom Firin seems to date to the early-/mid-Ptolemaic era, but the temple may have functioned for some centuries after that, at least until the era when parts of it were being burnt to produce lime, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries ad (see below). A figurative terracotta lamp, clearly Roman in date, and said to come from Kom Firin, could reflect the continuity of cult and ritual in the settlement’s temple(s), as this god seems to be unattested in the sphere of domestic religion (Kaper 2003: 372–3 [T13], see pp.176–8) Of course, temple enclosures of the second half of the 1st millennium bc typically featured a range of other buildings and installations, other than the main temple. Secondary chapels, storage areas, sacred lakes and wells are all likely to have been found within the Kom Firin enclosures. A feature common to several temple complexes of this date in the Nile Delta is a large mudbrick casemate structure (Spencer 1999b); it is possible such a building existed at Kom Firin, now buried beneath the Citadel (see below). At this era, provision for sacred animal cults and the associated burials are also to be expected, and textual sources do hint at bull- and cow-cults in the western Delta nome (see Chapter 2). An industrial area A glimpse at the later history of the Late Period and Ptolemaic temple(s) can be made in the central part of the northern half of the site. This area is rather distinctive, with high mounds of archaeological deposits that seem to represent a continuation of the Citadel area, overlooking a large cultivated area which provides the site with its distinctive kidney shape (Pl.94). East of the field cut which gives Kom Firin its distinctive shape, and north-east of the more elevated areas around the Citadel, the grass-covered ground evens out. During our topographical survey we noticed a concentration of slag and partially fired bricks on the surface in this area, and the magnetometry survey of 2003 provided information which supported the identification of the area as originally containing kilns. The processed magnetometry data revealed two circular anomalies, around 10m in diameter (Pls.1, 74). The figure of 10m is unlikely to reflect the size of the kilns, as features with high magnetic properties appear as much larger areas in the processed data. The orientation of the dipoles indicates disturbance in the area, i.e. the material, at least near the surface, is not all in situ. Surface observations suggested there was an even bigger ‘kiln’ just outside the south-western edge of the magnetometry grid. It seems likely that these two anomalies are the location of ancient kilns, as two limeburning kilns were found in this area by the Naukratis Project (Coulson and Wilkie 1986: 61–5 figs.1–7; Coulson et al. 1984: 28–9).52 Kiln ‘A’ was built of both mud bricks and fired bricks Kom Firin I | 27

Spencer into a layer of sand, and consisted of a reducing chamber, transitional tunnel and stoking chamber, covering an area of c.4.1x1.3m. The stoking chamber, to the south, was partly founded on an earlier mudbrick wall (415), though it was not possible to date this wall. The reducing chamber, originally in the form of a dome, was preserved to 2.3m in height. Along with large amounts of kiln waste and other debris from the collapse of the structure, a 45cm thick deposit of lime was encountered in the tunnel between the stoking and reducing chambers. Kiln ‘B’, 20m southwest of ‘A’, though less wellpreserved, appeared to be of similar plan, though laid out on a different alignment. Evidence of lime was also found here, thus this seems to have been an area where limestone was being processed into lime for use in plaster.53 The excavators dated the pottery to the 2nd and 3rd centuries ad (Coulson and Wilkie 1986: 65). The limestone being burnt was almost undoubtedly from parts of a pharaonic temple which had fallen into neglect, in most likelihood the Late Period or Ptolemaic temple. Whether the strata of limestome chippings evident in exposed sections 145m south-east of here (near STN 24) attest to the same destruction process is unclear. Of course, this industrial area would lie inside the two later temple enclosures (Pl.253), and rather close to where the temple is assumed to have been located, just north of an assumed east-west axis. These kilns may have been located here due to the proximity of the ancient temple, facilitating processing of limestone during dismantlement. Evidence of kilns for pottery production has yet to be identified at Kom Firin, perhaps unsurprising in view of the small proportion of the site excavated. A settlement of this size must have had pottery production units of significant size, to produce the large amounts of utility wares needed by the inhabitants. In addition, the ceramic coffins in which many of the inhabitants were buried would have been made in Kom Firin or near the cemetery.54 We know from the presence of amulet moulds on the site (Chapter 6: F075, F193) that objects of this type, perhaps in faience, were being produced here. Further north, as the ground levels out, there were no concentrations of high readings in the magnetometry data to suggest the industrial area extended further in this direction. However, there are a series of features (Pl.74) which could be interpreted as medium-sized buildings with smaller elements, or even a series of grouped smaller buildings. These are on a similar but not identical orientation; the layout is more organic than planned. South-east of the cluster of kilns, the magnetometry data reveals features which one might interpret as small structures, some of which may be aligned to the Ramesside enclosure (the north-west corner of which lies only 60m from the kilns). However, there are also a series of small sub-circular anomalies, 2–3m in diamater, which may be bi-products of some industrial activity, as there is a large amount of slag visible on the surface in this area. The ‘Citadel’ Discussion of this area of the site will be kept brief, as excavations commenced in 2007 are likely to modify our appreciation of this area. Nonetheless, a survey of the nature of the structures in the area, and what is known about their occupation date, will allow the reader to relate this area to the 28 | Kom Firin I

remainder of the site discussed in this chapter.55 The term ‘Citadel’ was first used by Petrie, in the earliest known description of Kom Firin, and was propagated by the Naukratis Project.56 The centre of the town was occupied by a citadel, which stood on artificial mounds of sand; the retaining walls have all been cut away, and the sand now forms a shapeless mass amid the ruins, strewn on the top with chips of limestone. (Petrie 1886: 94)

Petrie suggested in one of his letters back to the Egypt Exploration Fund that the Citadel was a mass of cellular brickwork, with sand filling the chambers (15 January 1885, EES Archive XVII d 47), which he compared to the raised platform at Naukratis. This suggestion is interesting in light of the presence of such structures in other sizeable Late Period temple enclosures (Spencer, A.J. 1999b). However, observations of the visible structures, and features within open sections, suggest a more complex building history. It is of course possible that a casemate structure does lie at a lower level, now obscured by later phases. The Citadel represents a gradual build-up of archaeological deposits, with structures being continually founded upon the remains of earlier buildings. The south-facing exposed section which forms the southern boundary of the Citadel area (Pls.52, 62), running from just south of STN 1 to immediately south of STN 3, and rising nearly 8m above the ground immediately to the south, reveals that the occupational strata are interrupted by quite deep layers of clean yellow sand. These occur at irregular intervals, and the compaction of the sand, and lack of cultural material, alluvial mud or even plant material, strongly suggest that this is a wind-blown deposit.57 Occasional ashy lenses were noted between the different layers of sand. Was the Citadel periodically subjected to partial burial during lengthy sandstorms? Covering an area of 1.6 hectares, the Citadel is distinctive for its relatively high elevation, but particularly the number of ancient mud-brick structures visible on the surface (Pl.256). These have been assigned letters during our survey of the area (structuere A, B…; Fig.5). There is little evidence of the systematic quarrying that decimated areas further east. Rather, the visibility of many of these structures is due to excavation. While it is clear that Shafiq Farid dug in both the temple (Chapter 4) and the cemetery at Silvagou (Chapter 2), he also excavated in the Citadel. By 1977, when the Naukratis Project team first visited the site, several buildings were already clearly outlined on the surface, which the directors ascribed to Farid’s excavations between 1943 and 1949 (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 377). These excavations apparently yielded Greek pottery as early as that found at Naukratis, as briefly referred to in several publications.58 Some of these structures are still standing today, as is clear from comparing the Naukratis Project map (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 376, fig.12) with our survey map. There are two main clusters of buildings partly exposed in the Citadel (Fig.5), one of which starts immediately west of the resthouse enclosure, with another group of wall fragments visible south-west of STN 2, both on the elevated surface, and in the exposed south-facing section. The remainder of the area is a mixture of grass-covered and sandy surfaces, with rapid changes in elevation. A modern path provides an apparent northern boundary to the area, though the character of the

Overview of the Ancient Settlement terrain does not alter much for a further 50m. The visible buildings are all built of mud-brick; the relatively small scale of many of the structures, the modest thickness of their walls and their close spacing are suggestive of a settlement area. Without excavation it is difficult to assess the contemporaneity of any buildings, and of course urban areas would rapidly develop rather uneven surface levels even between contemporary structures, due to the unsystematic process of rebuildings, demolitions and the erection of new structures atop the ruins of old. The majority of structures feature mud-brick walls of modest thickness, apparently unplastered, suggestive of one-storey buildings, or perhaps the upper floor of a multi-storey dwelling (Pls.59, 256). In many cases, the walls are partly covered by accumulated deposits, themselves often shrouded in grass. The bricks, while exhibiting the same variation in colour across the Citadel area that is familiar from elsewhere at Kom Firin,59 are of generally smaller dimensions (especially in thickness) than those used in the New Kingdom complex, or indeed the later temple enclosures (e.g. B: 16–18cm width; 6–8cm thick; C and D: 6–7cm thick; G: 33x16–17x8cm; M: 36x18x5–7cm; O: 34x16x8– 9cm). The three-roomed structure B 60 was perhaps a modest dwelling of three rooms (3.4x5m, 4x5.3m and 8.5x5m), the walls at 40–50cm thick probably not sufficient to support a storey above. Nearby, features C and G follow a similar alignment, and are suggestive of a relatively dense cluster of buildings. That they may echo the orientation of the earlier enclosure walls (1030 and 0624; Fig.5, Pls.81, 86) is unsurprising, as even if these were partially destroyed, they would still have been noticeable topographic features which would influence the layout of subsequent constructions. The walls 1035, 1036 and 1037 to the east of here, seen only in section, may well represent an earlier phase of occupation of the area; 1036 is an imposing wall of at least 3m in thickness. Other buildings take on a more tower-like apperance, such as A, which is seemingly a one-roomed structure (4.9x3.5m) with tapering walls, probably of at least two storeys, as two brick vaults are visible on its nothern side. In addition to these structures of modest dimensions, there are walls of more significant buildings. Some are founded at a relatively high level (D, E, S). Parts of buildings of a similar scale are visible around STN 2, though these are founded at a much higher level, as only the lowest courses of brick and mortar are preserved, founded directly onto a stratum of windblown sand.61 This is the case with H and I/J, which are the only features in this area which suggest part of an enclosed space or room, the latter covering an area of at least 4.6x5.1m. These structures, perhaps later in date, are laid out at orientations distinct from those buildings around B. The tall exposed section just south of here features several earlier-phase walls beneath the sand stratum (M, N).62 A small sondage was undertaken by the Naukratis Project in 1982 (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 378–9, ills.12, 14, pl.49 [fig.20]; Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 79–80, fig.10; Coulson and Leonard 1982d: 14–15, 20–1, figs.5–6), 5.5m to the north of ‘structure S’.63 Large mud-brick walls were encountered, ascribed to six different periods (Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 79–80, fig.10; Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 379, n. 47). Associated ceramics allowed these to be dated from the late Ptolemaic period to the 3rd century ad,64 including a circular

wall interpreted as part of a granary. Beaneath the earliest wall (1045), a layer of largely clean sand was encountered, in which a few Third Intermediate Period sherds were identified. The nature of the walls encountered is consistent with those visible in exposed sections throughout the area, and indeed walls made visible by illicit excavations in 2006 or early 2007.65 ‘Trench I’ lies at a lesser elevation than the area around structure B, thus these structures might date to the later phases of the site’s occupation. However, as early Greek pottery seems to have come from excavations in this area (see n.36), it is possible the more elevated buildings are of Late Period date, perhaps founded on a casemate structure, while those further west, at a lower level (including those in ‘trench I’), may be later in date. Large casemate structures are a feature of late 1st millennium bc buildings in the Nile Delta, and positing one beneath the visible buildings in the Citadel would be consistent with the location in relation to the temple, but also the network of apparently parallel, sizeable, mudbrick walls visible in one open section (1035, 1036, 1038). Excavations in 2007 revealed parts of Late Period buildings underlying B, C and G. As the excavations reached a depth of 3.57m, being stopped by the water-table, it seems deposits in the Citadel might not predate the Third Intermediate Period (sherds of this date being encountered in the excavations). This would be consistent with our knowledge of the site’s development, with the New Kingdom occupation focused around the enclosure in the south-east of Kom Firin. Other than this excavation, the most notable aspect of the Citadel reported by the Naukratis Project is rather depressing. In 1977, the directors had visited the site and noted the remains of what they described as a ‘large circular tower’ (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 377, n.65; see Coulson and Leonard 1979: 160, fig.11). They estimated a quarter of the tower still stood at that date, but that the digging out of its foundations by ‘sebakhin’ had undermined the structure, which had collapsed 30 months later (see Coulson and Leonard 1982b: pl.49 [fig,17]), along with some other walls further west in the Citadel (Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 79). Correlating the ARCE map with our survey data, this tower must have been located just south of features H and O, near STN 2. As mentioned above, it may have been related to the enclosure wall segment 1030. The Citadel is best characterised as a densely occupied settlement zone, with a long history, spanning the Hellenistic and Roman eras, though with activity possible in this area from the 10th century bc. Much of it lay within the temple enclosures of the mid-1st millennium bc or later, though the majority of buildings visible today date to a period when these temples may have fallen out of use. The distinctive apperance of the Citadel today may be as much to do with archaeological fortune, rather than it being a zone that the inhabitants of ancient Kom Firin would have recognised as distinct. The north-western area The granite blocks and excavation B A distinct area in the north-west of the site, just before the kom drops off into the current fields, and flanked on two sides by the tramped down mud surface of one of the busier tracks, is covered in thick grass and debris from rice threshing and winnowing undertaken by the adjacent farmhouse, Kom Firin I | 29

Spencer (incidentally that where the project has been based since 2003).66 Amongst the grass, in a noticeable depression, are seven monumental red granite building blocks (Pl.93), first noted by the Naukratis Project (Coulson and Leonard 1979: 159–61, fig.12). A further block lies 16m south of the main cluster.67 Evidently from a structure of significant size, unfortunately no architecturally diagnostic blocks survive, such as column drums, bases, capitals or fragments embellished with cavetto cornice or torus mouldings. As such it must be assumed that these are blocks from a temple’s walls, or less likely from its stone substructure. One of the blocks bears a very weathered series of hieroglyphs that once formed part of a horizontal line of inscription, but all that can be made out now is the name Imn-Ra. From where do these blocks come? The south-eastern Ramesside temple is the first structure that deserves consideration. Though all of the preserved decorated blocks are of limestone, the presence of granite and other hard stone chippings in the temple area (see Chapter 4) provide evidence that these materials were being used, though perhaps for statuary, stelae and other small monuments, rather than architectural elements. The modest mud-brick walls which make up the foundations and much of the superstructure of the temple suggest that it did not feature significant amounts of granite, and it is unclear why blocks would have been moved 650m to their current location.68 Unless they were carried, dragged or otherwise transported there by circumnavigating the site, the more elevated central zone of Kom Firin, in the Citadel and directly to the north (Fig.1), would have to have been tackled. As such, it seems more likely these blocks derive from another temple, namely that in the temple enclosure of the Late Period or Ptolemaic era. Though this building has been completely destroyed, it is most likely to have been located in the area west of STN 24, as proposed above. The distance from this area to where the granite blocks are located is around 300m, and the field cut undertaken in the early 20th century lies between the two areas. Perhaps the preparation of these fields necessitated collecting stray granite blocks and piling them up where they now rest. Of course, with our limited knowledge of the western part of Kom Firin, it is not impossible that a further temple existed out here, west of the known enclosures (Spencer 2004a). In a bid to seek contextual evidence for these blocks, a 120x100m area was subjected to magnetometry survey in 2003 (Pl.75), with the same method described above, following a small sondage made in 2002 (trench ‘B’, Figs.1, 32).69 The collection of data was hampered by several factors. Firstly, the aforementioned path, subject to human, animal and vehicle (donkey-cart, tractor and car) traffic, presents a somewhat scarred profile, on account of the compacted character of its upper layers. Secondly, and severely affecting the data, is the presence of three metal telegraph poles set on concrete bases, running north-south through the eastern half of the survey area. Though only between 12 and 28cm in diameter, the strong magnetic signal affects an area that appears as up to 12m in diameter in the processed data. The area immediately around the granite blocks was very difficult to interpret, on account of the amount of disturbed 30 | Kom Firin I

materials here, including two pits used for recent burning, as well as the blocks themselves. The south-western area of the surveyed area is rather different: it lacks both the clarity of the monumental structures identified elsewhere at Kom Firin, but also any concentration of adjacent high and low readings, typical of areas of superimposed archaeological deposits containing a significant density of ceramics (see the magnetometry data for ridges of spoil around the southeastern temple area, Pl.76 and Chapter 4). This ‘silent’ area featured magnetic gradient readings in the range -2nT to +2nT, suggestive of homogenous deposits, in contrast to the area immediately east or west of here, with its numerous dipole spikes.70 It is tempting to interpret this as the corner of a rather large building, or rather the foundation for one, whose orientation seems to align broadly with that of the Ramesside temple and the three phases of enclosure walls. Note that the southern part of this feature corresponds well with an area of no vegetation cover, rare at Kom Firin. A small sondage made in 2002, termed excavation B, sought to ascertain the nature of the deposits upon and within which the blocks currently lie (Pl.93). After cutting and burning the thick grass within which the blocks were partly obscured, three contiguous 1m square trenches were laid out, though only a 1 x 2m segment was fully excavated, down to a depth of 89cm (site level 2.37m, Fig.32). Initial removal of a very thick clay soil deposit (0551) yielded dozens of fragments of red granite. Below this layer we came across significant sections of clean yellow sand (0042, 0552; Pl.90). Two bricks placed endto-end (0557) were revealed within a layer of densely compacted clay (0041), but it was not clear if these were in situ. The lowest level attained (0554), had a high content of sand, but also included a north-south dark brown feature running through it, consisting of dark very clay-like soil (Pl.90). One side of this ran north-south, but its western edge was not parallel. In the south-east corner of the trench, three bricks, sand-yellow in colour, were revealed (0044), also aligned north-south. Finds from this area were limited to the granite fragments, though some animal bone was also retrieved (0041, 0551, 0552). The small amount of siltware ceramics found in 0041 included jars with flared necks (C007, Fig.41),71 highwalled jars (C008, Fig.41),72 a bowl with plain rim (C009, Fig.36),73 and from the lower level 0043, another high-walled jar (C031, Fig.41), and a red-slipped flat-bottomed plate (C032, Fig.36). This material is consistent with a late Third Intermediate Period or Late Period date, though the spinning bowl (C033, Fig.46) may date to the late New Kingdom.91 The presence of granite chippings might hint that a sacred pharaonic structure lay somewhere in this area of the site (Spencer 2004a), but could also be from the degradation of these blocks in more recent tines. The mud-bricks are evidence of ancient occupation of this area of Kom Firin, though too small an area was revealed to allow the nature of this activity to be assessed. East of the area containing the granite blocks, across the north-south pathway, lies an area where kilns for glass production were noted by Coulson and Leonard (1979: 161): ‘the remaims of an oval glass kiln, the preserved portion of which measures 2.20m. x 1.50m’. Many fragments of both glass and metal slag were noted in the vicinity of this kiln, indicating industrial activity in this area of Kom Firin, 200m west of the

Overview of the Ancient Settlement temple enclosures of the 1st millennium bc. Unfortunately, Coulson and Leonard offer no evidence for the date of these kilns. Excavation A Another test trench (10x2m), termed ‘A’, was excavated in 2002. Located 180m southwest of the granite blocks area discussed above, east of survey station STN 8 (Figs.1, 31). This area was chosen as it was hoped to gauge whether the gently undulating mounds on the western edge of the site did indeed represent areas of ancient acitivity, and whether structures were located here, or if the mounds represent a later re-deposit of material, including rubbish dumps or even wind-blown sand deposits from the nearby desert or sand turtle-back. The topsoil (0001), a loose deposit with some halfa-grass cover, yielded ceramics and a few small finds, after which the trench was reduced to 5m by 2m on account of time constraints. A further 128cm of compacted sandy deposits were then excavated, with lenses of wind-blown sand, a small area of ashy deposit and occasional fragments of mud-brick encountered (0002, 0003, 0006, 0007, 0015; Figs.31, 33). Throughout the upper levels, small fragments of metal slag were recovered, including some adhering to sherds. Several phases of fragmentary walls were encountered. Wall 0004 was constructed from sandy yellow-coloured bricks. There was no preserved relationship between the walls. Subsequently, an earlier-phase wall was discovered, running north-south (0010, Figs.31, 33, Pl.95). Only a half-brick thickness was visible at the edge of the trench. Up to three courses of this wall were excavated, before backfilling commenced at the end of the season. Further bricks were discovered in a mortar-like matrix in the north-eastern corner of the trench (0012), but it was not possible to ascertain, by the end of the season, whether any of these were in situ. Ceramics and small finds were found in trench A, but the lack of sealed deposits preclude any clear chronological divisions between the material. The small quantity of pottery recovered is almost exclusively of late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period date, throughout the contexts.74 Forms include: shallow bowls (C001, Fig.37; C016, Fig.35),75 many of them with red-painted rims (C005–006, C010–C015, C024, C030, Figs.36–7);76 bowls with everted rims (C018–C019, Fig.37),77 inner rims (C025, Fig.35),78 or incurving rims (C028–C029, Fig.38);79 jars with ‘ball’ rims (C020–021, Fig.40),80 and with rolled rims (C095–096, Fig.40).81 Other forms included jars with flared necks (C027, Fig.41), restricted bowls (C002, C026, C123, Fig.42),82 high-walled jars (C017, Fig.41)83 globular jars with flared neck (C004, Fig.39),84 and bases from medium-size jugs or mugs (C122, Fig.45; C124, Fig.46).85 Sherds from wide-mouthed storage jars were also found (C126, Fig.42),86 though this form persists until the Late Period. There was a notable concentration of amphora handles and toes, in both buff-slipped and coarse-ware fabrics (e.g. C023, Fig.43; C098–099, Figs.43–4),87 some in a very fine marl fabric (C103, Fig.45),88 but also large high-shouldered basket-handled storage jars fired to a pinkish-grey (C003, Fig.43).89 One blue-painted sherd was found, a rim from a vessel with bulbous exterior modeling around the rim (C424, Fig.45). Additionally, part of a strainer (C034, Fig.45)90 was preserved. A few later sherds could be classed as intrusive (e.g.

a self slipped bowl of Ptolemaic date (C022, Fig.38) or a late Hellenistic/Roman amphora handle (C101, Fig.44),92 unsurprising in light of the disturbed contexts. The finds from this excavation are included in Chapter 6. The most significant object was a large fragment from a purple quartzite quern stone (F171, Pl.229), perhaps reflecting the domestic nature of this part of the site. Small finds were limited to a small carnelian red bead of uncertain date (F174, Pl.202), the base from a faience vessel (F170+F255, Pl.212, Fig.50),93 and a glazed-composition rosette-element for inlay (F172, Pl.209). A small amount of animal bone was also collected from all of the deposits, and some small fragments of metal slag were found in the upper levels (from 0001, 0003). These results proved that the town did extend as far as the north-western area of the site, but until further excavations, it is too early to offer dating or interpretation for the buildings and finds. How far the occupation layers descend beneath these layers is impossible to know without drill-coring or extensive excavations. The south-west area at Kom Firin This area remains the area of the site about which the least is known, in terms of archaeological features. The mound rises gently from the track which surrounds the edge of the kom, to two noticeable high points, around STN 4 and 5 (Fig.91, Pl.96). The shok- and halfa-cover is rather patchy here. A limestone block came to light between the 2002 and 2003 seasons, featuring a worked face but no decoration. The area has been badly pitted with animal holes, some large enough for an adult to clamber into. However, the addition of much higher resolution satellite photographs to Google Earth in 2006 has prompted an intruiging possibility. Almost directly adjacent to the track forming a perimeter around the south of the site is a clear rectangular feature, suggested by patterns of vegetation as much as anything else, but also partly mirrored by the topography (partly visible in Pl.254). Is this a structure, possibly measuring as much as 180x90m? There is a noticeably sandy patch to the eastern end of this feature, and it is tempting to see this as an interior building within an enclosure. The alignment of this feature is noticeably different from the two enclosures to the west of the site, being closer to a true eastwest. With the new satellite imagery in mind, a closer look at the area was undertaken in 2006. Immediately east of STN 4 is an area with evident brick structures, though badly eroded by both wind and rain, so individual courses of brick are often indistinct. Further to the north are more areas of brickwork, again heavily eroded, though it is clear that there are stratfied deposits between two area of brickwork. All of these features are along the eastern edge of the large feature. Limestone chippings are scattered around the area. Edgar referred to a ‘sort of suburb’ west of the great fortress-wall (1911), which could simply mean occupation remains outside the wall. The Naukratis Project’s map does show a building, presumably then visible on the surface, in the north-eastern part of this zone (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 376, fig.12). Trapezoidal in plan (max. 31x23m), with internal walls creating at least three distinct spaces or rooms; a smaller structure seems to abut the exterior of its western wall. It is quite possible the brickwork Kom Firin I | 31

Spencer discussed above is the remnants of the structure mapped by the Naukratis Project. South-western Kom Firin is clearly an area with archaeological potential. Development of the city through the centuries, and abandonment A 47ha site, once significantly larger, was evidently a settlement of some size in terms of Egypt of the late 2nd and 1st millennia bc. Caution is necessary, however, as all areas of the site were probably not occupied throughout its history. Many cities, both ancient and modern, provide examples of significant shifts in occupation, with once thriving areas becoming peripheral or even abandoned. At Memphis, the shifting Nile prompted a modification to the settlement pattern (Jeffreys and Tavares 1994). There is an area with clear occupational hiatus at Sais (Wilson 2005: 4−8), while at Kom el-Hisn a New Kingdom temple seems to have been dug through an earlier cemetery (Kirby et al. 1988: 32). Wilson notes the sprawling nature of many Delta settlement sites, where high ground was sought to reduce the impact of flooding (2006a: 241–2). The development of Kom Firin through time is something that can only be glimpsed through surface survey (plagued by the implicit lack of information on what lies beneath, unless the site has been dug over), the scatter of excavated trenches94 and to some extent the magnetometry survey. Augering should provide further evidence, particularly of deeply buried deposits. Present knowledge suggests Kom Firin was founded in the Ramesside era, perhaps with the construction of the complex surrounding the contemporary temple decorated for Ramses II. However, as discussed in Chapter 2, the cemetery suggests an earlier settlement existed here or nearby. New Kingdom pottery is noticeably absent from the surface deposits elsewhere, perhaps to be expected with centuries of later activity. However, excavations in the Citadel (Naukratis Project trench I), and north of the Ramesside enclosure (Naukratis Project kiln excavation, our trenches NA, TO) yielded no material of this date. In contrast, the pottery in excavation A, in the far northwest part of the site, was almost exclusively of New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period date. A few sherds of late New Kingdom pottery were also found near the granite blocks in the north-west of the site (excavation B). We should not assume, of course, that the area between the northwest of the site and the Ramesside enclosure was densely occupied in the New Kingdom. It is apparent that the settlement continued to focus around the Ramesside enclosure during the Third Intermediate Period, as parts of the temple were re-used for domestic buildings (Chapter 4), and a storage facility seems to have been located inside the north-eastern corner of the Ramesside enclosure. East of the enclosure, strata of deposits with New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period sherds accumulated over time, before the foundation of the Late Period enclosure. It is not impossible that this was preceded by a Third Intermediate Period temple and complex along a similar orientation, as donation stelae survive from a temple of this date. Presumably, the Third Intermediate Period saw continued occupation of areas to the west of the Ramesside complex; some sherds were found in the Citadel. The construction of a large enclosure must have radically 32 | Kom Firin I

changed Kom Firin in the Late Period (Pl.253), with a complex four times the area of the Ramesside one, apparently orientated east rather than north. Presumably designed principally for a temple and its associated chapels, storerooms, wells and lakes, it is unknown whether dwellings and industrial areas would also have been located within this area, or limited to areas outside.95 Little work has yet been done in the western half of Kom Firin. The last phases of occupation at Kom Firin, in the Hellenistic and Roman eras, saw intensive occupation of the Citadel area, in the south-western corner of the temple enclosures, though these may eventually have been largely ruined. It is likely that the remainder of these enclosures were also dense with buildings (note the mass of domestic refuse found in trench NA), though eventually kilns for lime production were set up near the presumed location of the Late Period/Ptolemaic temple. Evidence from Late Antiquity is well represented in the western Delta, again perhaps the result of surface surveys being more common than deep excavations. The surface ceramics survey of the Naukratis Project covered fourteen 20x20m squares, the location of which are plotted on the map (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 376, fig.12; Coulson and Wilkie 1986: 63, fig.3), with the express aim of increasing the corpus of Hellenistic and Roman domestic wares, as a complement to those at Naukratis (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 378). Between 1,000 and 2,000 sherds were collected in each square, a figure that could not be matched today, perhaps attesting to the removal of sherds by this survey, but also the deposition of sand and other material through wind activity. To a lesser extent, dumping and other recent activity will also have affected the pottery distribution. There are no clear dumps of pottery which might be ascribed to the Naukratis Project. The survey team recovered many 1st–2nd century ad amphorae, as well as African Red Slip forms (Coulson and Leonard 1982c: 216; Red Slip ware has also been found around the gateway of the Ramesside enclosure, and immediately to the north).96 Cypriot Red Slip ware, which may date to as late as the 7th century ad, occurs at Kom Firin too (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 378).97 As with our work in the temple area, a notable number of shallow bowls with rims painted red were encountered, though no date was offered (81/1-2 on Coulson and Leonard 1982b: ill.13). ‘Trench II’ east of the temple area revealed a dense deposit of 1st–2nd century ad ceramics atop earlier domestic contexts, perhaps evidence of continued occupation of the area at this late date. Fired brick is largely absent from the remains of structures at Kom Firin, despite the proposed occupation of the site down until the 7th century ad. The rare fired brick encountered in our survey and excavations often looks like mud brick burnt in a kiln rather than intentionally fired for use in construction. Fired brick architecture is known in the western Delta (a 2m thick wall was found at Kom Barud; perhaps of the Ptolemaic or Roman eras: Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 85). Of course, many of the later structures at Kom Firin will have been destroyed during the sebakh-mining of the south-eastern part of the site. The lime kilns excavated by the Naukratis Project, dated to the 2nd and 3rd centuries ad, attest to industrial activity at the site at this era, and the abandonment of the temple, presumably that of the Ptolemaic era. The hard stone

Overview of the Ancient Settlement from this temple must have been dragged towards the northwestern part of the site (an event impossible to date, and possibly much more recent), although much material may have been re-used in houses and other constructions over the following centuries. No objects with explicitly Christian iconography have been found at Kom Firin, though the population in this region must largely have been converted by the 7th century ad. The lack of small finds from the site, particularly those of wood, metal or textile, might partly explain this dearth of evidence; utilitarian pottery, so abundant here, is less likely to bear religious iconography. None of the previous observations and work on Kom Firin yielded medieval or later material, such as typical glazed ware. The site is not alone in flourishing during the first six or seven centuries of our Era, though perhaps many were of diminished national importance. For example, Sais remained an administrative centre, but was not included in the Roman road system (Wilson 2006a: 3–4). Some 12km east of Kom Firin, we know that Naukratis was the seat of bishops in the 5th century ad (Worp 194: 303), as was Sais between the 4th and 8th centuries ad (Worp 1994: 306). The abandonment of Kom Firin, apparently not unusual in this area, may well have been due to the silting up of Nile branches (see Chapter 2).

11 12 13 14

15

16 17

Notes 1

A resthouse, set within a small enclosure, was already extant during the late 1970s, as it appears on maps of the Naukratis Project (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 376, fig.12). The remnants of the mudbrick enclosure are still visible along the western and southern sides of the resthouse, but it is possible that the current building was constructed somewhat later, when a series of resthouses were built across Egypt in identical architectural style, for example at Kom el-Hisn and Samanud (the latter was built after the early 1990s, see Spencer 2001: 23, pls. III [1–2]). At Kom Firin, the resthouse enclosure was originally provided with shade: a palm tree is visible in one photograph (Coulson and Leonard 1979: 160, fig.10). 2 Trenches EA, EB … (2005–7) are located in the north-eastern corner of the Ramesside enclosure, while NA refers to a trench in the north-east of the site near STN 15 (2006); finally, the series CA, CB ... denote excavations in the Citadel (2007). Many of these are only briefly discussed here, but the trench designations are given, as they will allow easy cross-referencing once subsequent volumes are published. 3 EES Delta Survey ID: no.294 (www.ees.ac.uk/fieldwork/ deltasurvey.htm); location: 30°51.807’N 30°29.305’E (STN 2 on map, Fig.1). Site no. 100260 in the SCA register of archaeological sites for Beheira. 4 Daressy noted that Kom el-Hisn amounted to 60 hectares at the start of the 20th century (1903: 281). 5 I have not been able to access the originals of these images, which would, when compared to the early 21st century satellite photography, provide a very good record of how the kom has changed over a 25-year period. 6 A similar situtation is portrayed on a pre-Second World War map (Pl.5), where the village is named ‘Ez. Sulimân Buraiyik’. 7 For example, at Samanud, Spencer 2001. 8 The presence of pottery on the surface is not indicative either, as it can easily be redeposited or dumped across a wide area, as noted with regards Naukratis (Coulson and Leonard 1979: 155), though the sherd scatter was still used, misleadingly, to intimate the ancient urban extent (Bailey 1999: 215–18). At Kom Firin, it is easy for children to collect sherds and carry them to the village; we have witnessed many examples of surface pottery being collected into groups and piled up somewhere on, or near, the kom. 9 The auger core AS02 near STN 20 yielded sherds to a depth of 5m below the surface. 10 Much of this work was sponsored by the government. The removal of rubble, evidently including stratified archaeological deposits, also aided Egyptologists, who availed of the light railways as a

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27

28

time- and cost-efficient means of clearing stone temples of later remains, such as at Karnak (Azim and Révaillac 2004, I: 32). At el-Kab, sebakh from the now-lost mound was quarried to provide material for the railway embankment (Clarke 1921). The Delta Light Railway transported passengers, agricultural produce and sebakh. The railway at Sais was shortened between 1899 and 1917, presumably as the northern enclosure ceased to be a cost-effective source of sebakh. It is possible that, say, the north-eastern area had been mined down to a certain level, near the present-day elevation, before the focus was moved to the south-eastern area. It has recently been estimated that 10% of the surface area of archaeological areas at Memphis, a much better-known site, has been lost between 1981 and 2006 (Jeffreys and Nicholson 2006: 19). The Naukratis Survey map (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 386, ill.12) does indicate the location of some wall segments, but it is difficult to reconcile them with present remains, and the fact that all of the walls shown are of similar length and thickness suggests this map is somewhat schematic. The survey was led by Ann Donkin (University of Akron, Ohio), who undertook all post-collection processing, using GeoPlot 3.0 software. This choice of sampling technique was chosen after initial trials. Walking the survey squares in 0.5m transects, with 4 datapoints per metre (25cm spacing) produced the same number of data points, but a ‘sharper’ processed image, as each data point represents an area (0.5x0.25m) that is less ‘stretched’ in one axis (as opposed to a 1.0x0.125m rectangle, aligned east-west). However, this sampling strategy requires the surveyors to walk twice as much ground, with attendant effects on how much ground can be covered in a field season. Following trials, it was decided that the resulting difference in the appearance of the processed data did not warrant the extra time needed (or less squares surveyed). Trials were also undertaken with resistivity, using a GeoScan RM-15 Electrical Resistance Meter. However, ensuring contact between the probe and the dry surface deposits proved difficult during the autmn season of 2005. Furthermore, on account of the high water table, the readings reflected the changes in surface elevation more than subsurface features. See, for example, Herbich and Hartung 2004: 15, where the remote sensing has been concentrated on the low-lying areas of the site. Trenches TI, TJ, TL, TM, TO, EA, EB, EC, EE. An interim discussion of these excavations is Spencer 2008b. The temenos wall at Medinet Habu recahed 18.5m in height (Hölscher 1951: 1). A similar situation is found at Amara West, though here the coating is simply of mud-plaster: Spencer 1997: 15, pl.6 [d]. Trench TI, 0150 (including F115), and TJ, 0160a. Trench EA, 0311. Trench EA, 0309 and 0312. Trench EB. Tell Heboua II features a square enclosure with regular bastions on the exterior wall. A magazine complex was identified within; the rest of the enclosure contained no buildings. The excavator suggested it was a space for chariots to be stored, though it is possoible the truncated nature of the site has simply led to the destruction of evidence for the type of buildings that did once exist. Temple enclosures of the Ramesside era did take on a fortified appearance. This is still very evident at Medinet Habu, where the interior enclosure walls were provided with bastions, but is also evident from representations of the Ptah temple enclosure at Memphis (Kemp 1989: 188–90). A distinction between ‘temple enclosures’ and ‘forts’ is a modern construct: border installations were provided with temples, and temple enclosures were embellished with echoes of military architecture. Installations along a border could have performed both a practical, and a symbolic, defensive role. The confrontation between Egypt and Libyan groups in the Ramesside Period, foreshadowing the success of Libyan rulers in ruling parts of Egypt during the ensuring Third Intermediate Period, has inspired an extensive body of literature, though the relative paucity of archaeological evidence is striking throughout. The following references cover only the key textual and epigraphic

Kom Firin I | 33

Spencer

29

30

31 32 33

34 35

36 37 38

39 40

sources. For reliefs at Karnak from the reign of Seti I, see Epigraphic Survey 1986: 27–32. No battles are explicitly attested during the reign of Ramses II, but the policy towards Libyan captives is referred to (KRI II: 206, 15–16; 289, 16; 406, 4), and a ‘deputy of the chariotry of the Lord of the Two Lands [in] the western Delta region’ is known (KRI III: 243, 6–7). Lengthy inscriptions from the reign of Merenptah detail battles in the western Delta (Manassa 2003, KRI IV: 2–12 [Karnak inscription]; KRI IV: 19−22 [Kom el-Ahmar stela of Merenptah]; KRI IV: 23 [column of Merenptah]). These texts refer to toponymns not yet identified on the ground: Pr- i r- r and a fort named ‘MerenptahHt p -Hr- mAat destroyer-of-*Hnw; see Chapter 2 for further comments on these toponyms. Further confrontations took place under Ramses III, as depicted in the reliefs at Medinet Habu (KRI V: 10–27, 43–71 and Epigraphic Survey 1932: pls.67b–86), in which two forts are depicted, and named as ‘d m i Hwt -Sa (the settlement of the enclosure of sand)’ and ‘Usermaatra-Meryamun, the settlement which is upon the mountain of w p - tA (the beginning of the earth)’. A fort known as ‘Usermaatra-Meryamun is the repeller of the *mHw’ is also referred to. See Lesko 1980 for a suggestion that the scenes of a ‘year 5’ battle may be copied from the temple of Merenptah. A further site, Qrb n, is attested in Papyrus Harris I (Grandet 1994, I: 337). Problems persisted in the later 20th dynasty (Kitchen 1990: 22–3). See Chapter 4 for a description of Third Intermediate Period occupation of the temple area; trench EA and EB yielded evidence of Third Intermediate Period occupation, and a Late Period enclosure wall. There are also tall pedestals of deposits left in the area west of the temple, some of which feature layers with ceramics datable to Late Antiquity. Some of these features could be linked, allowing an interpretation of small scale structures, perhaps of fired brick on account of the high magnetic differentials. However, the almost complete lack of fired brick at Kom Firin suggests caution with such a reading of the data. The 4th century bc wall at Mendes has holes 23–30cm thick for timbers, with fragments having been recovered (Redford 2004: 9). Early accounts of an enclosure wall at Sais suggest a phased construction process (Wilson 2006a: 71–2). The 154m distance between 0600+0601 and 0327, includes a rather unusual topographical feature: an extensive plateau, with level surface, standing on average 2m above the surrounding surface level. Covering a roughly rectangular area of 31x24m, its level suggests the Late Period enclosure would have been built above this feature. Ramesside wall 0326, trench EB. The base of the late wall seen in EB (0327) is at 6.06m, thus 1.16m higher than 0600. Such variation is unsurprising for a large wall built across accumulated deposits. Tanis, Ptolemaic enclosure of Amun temple, 435x375m (after Brissaud 1998: 16, pl.2); northern (Saite?) enclosure at Sais, 800x600m (Wilson 2006a: 112), Buto, 255x220 m (after Faltings et al. 2000: fig.12); Tell el-Balamun, 420x410m (Spencer 1996: 32, pl.1). If we are to accept Yoyotte’s identification of Kom Firin with Papremis of the classical authors (Yoyotte 2006), then the size of the enclosure is fitting of somewhere said to host the sixth most important festival in Egypt. References to Early Greek pottery found at Kom Firin have long been known, though with no details of the nature of that material provided: Austin 1970: 68 n.2; Kitchen 1986: 345. Trenches TI, TJ, TM, TO. This material will be published with the excavations on the Ramesside enclosure. Two distinctive types are found. Firstly those with walls parallel to the main temple axis, whereby access to the main shrine would not necessitate passing through the cross wall: el-Ashmunein (30th dynasty, Spencer 1989: 72–3, pl.92). Other examples feature the cross walls laid orthogonally to the axis, with these walls perhaps provided with pylon structures. Such enclosures are different in that the cross wall may actually be a development of the pylon/ gateway, rather than closing off an area of the enclosures from the main temple zone. Examples of this type of enclosure are found at Mendes (Ochsenschlager 1967: pl.20) and perhaps at Tukh el-Qaramus (Naville 1890: 53–4, pl.9; the description of the enclosure being built in segments suggests a Late Period date). Deposits 0402 and 0402A, in trench NA. In fact, the Late Period wall is built partly over the north-eastern corner of the Ramesside enclosure.

34 | Kom Firin I

41 British Museum EA 16037, height 14cm (Pl.92), Petrie 1886: 95, pl.12. It is perhaps noteworthy that a kneeling royal statue of Amasis is inlaid in gold with similar inscriptions (Hill 2007: 121, 210, no. 47). Unfortunately unprovenanced, these two objects attest to a policy of donating precious cult objects to temples. Another aegis, excavated at the Serapeum, bears the king’s name in incised hieroglyphs (Hill 2007: 137–9 [46]). 42 British Museum EA 16041, height 30cm (Pl.91), Petrie 1886: 94–5, Gardner 1889: 81, pl.23 [1 a–c]; Perdu 2006: 165–8, pl.22. Assigning Kom Firin as its provenance is questionable, as the inscription refers to activities at Sais, and Petrie actually purchased it in Cairo, not Kom Firin: ‘Then Abd es-Salam capped it all by saying that a headless kneeling statue which I bought of (his cousin) Suleiman at Cairo came from there [Kom Firin]. This greatly increases its value to me, + above all this figure has three long inscriptions upon it, mentioning that the man, Psamtik-seneb, had built the temple of Neith which had fallen into disrepair (as far as Griffith can make it out). This is probably the very temple in question, as Neit was the most venerated deity of that time’ (Nov 1884-Feb 1885; letters of Petrie, EES Archive XVII d 47). 43 Pink granite was a favoured building material for Late Period temples in the Delta, for example at Samanud (N. Spencer 1999), Bubastis (Rosenow in Spencer 2006) and Sais (decorated blocks of the Saite dynasty, Wilson 2006a: 208–32). 44 Yoyotte has recently questioned how secure this provenance for the stela is, preferring to assign it merely to the surrounding region (2006: 188). 45 A fragment of faience bowl discovered in the upper strata of the Citadel in 2007 (F382 from CA 1044), bears an inscription naming ‘Sekhmet lady of …’. Ceramics in this layer were principally of Ptolemaic date. 46 An unprovenanced donation stela in the British Museum displays many similarities with this group (EA 73965, height 30.5cm, Pl.89), dated to year 7 of Sheshonq V, depicting the ‘great chief of the Libu’ Tjerpet offering to Sekhmet and Heka. See Chapter 2, p.8 and n.22. 47 Meeks lists several other donation stelae which are attributed to the western Delta. 48 Despite Petrie’s statement that this stela was sent to the British Museum (echoed in PM IV: 51), no such object was ever registered at the Museum. 49 Egyptian Museum JE 27784 (Basta 1979: 189, 192 fig.8). 50 Note the royal scribe and great chief of the army Panehsi dedicated a stela showing Ramses II before Sekhmet, at Zawyet Umm el-Rakham (Habachi 1980: 18, pl.6a). 51 Paper given at Walls of the Ruler: Fortifications, Police Beats, and Military Checkpoints in Ancient Egypt conference, University of Wales-Swansea (May 22–25, 2006). 52 It is difficult to correlate the Naukratis Project maps with our data to any great accuracy. The best-fit suggests the excavated kiln lay within a few metres of those encountered in the magnetometry survey, but it is very likely it is one of those anomalies. 53 For parallels see Holladay 1982: 35–7. 54 Cotelle-Michel speculates that some coffins may have come from particular workshops, on the basis of stylistic details (2004: 55). However, it seems unlikely that a single workshop supplied burials as distant as Kom Abu Billo and el-Bakarsha (near Tanis), particularly for cumbersome, easily breakable and heavy objects, made of a raw material abundant throughout the Delta. It is more likely that craftsmen travelled, transmitting methods and ideas. 55 The Citadel formed part of the topographic survey in 2002, with further observational work and survey undertaken in 2006. Magnetometry survey has not been undertaken here, as the deep strata, with significant ceramic material, would undoubtedly produce a rather unclear dataset. The area has recently become the focus for illicit excavations, noted before and after the autumn 2006 season. The presence of visible buildings on the surface (not found elsewhere at Kom Firin) and its elevation (which means people digging there would not be seen from the village or paths criss-crossing the site) make it an attractive place to probe for antiquities. 56 Edgar (1911: 278) referred to locals using the term qala or citadel to discuss part of the site. 57 Such a depositional sequence is not uncommon in the area. At Kom Defshu, at the eastern edge of Lake Maryut, a sand layer separates Late Roman layers from earlier occupation strata, Rowland and

Overview of the Ancient Settlement Wilson 2006: 3. 58 Austin 1970; Kitchen 1986: 345. 59 Indvidual buildings are generally built of one brick type. This might attest to a single source for individual structures, rather than the multiple clay pits evidently in use for the massive construction projects such as the temple enclosures. 60 Identical to ‘A’ on the ARCE maps, e.g. Coulson and Wilkie 1986 (1986): 63, fig.3. 61 Intermittent abandonment of occupied areas is well attested at ancient Egyptian sites. Thus a domestic quarter at Memphis saw abandonment between the late Middle Kingdon and the early 18th dynasty; a deposit of rather clean (possibly wind-blown) sand divides the two phases (Jeffrey 2006: 30–2). 62 Though these walls are apparently on the line of the Late Period enclosure, they are of much smaller scale, and are laid out to a different alignment. 63 Identical to ‘B’ on the ARCE maps, e.g. Coulson and Wilkie 1986 (1986): 63, fig.3. 64 A sherding square of the Naukratis Project just south of here, i.e. in the more elevated area between S and I/J, yielded only late Roman ceramics. 65 Two trenches, cut with some care, were found immediately south of E (revealing a brick wall at a significantly lower level than 1019) and east of S (again revealing a mud-brick wall). 66 While all the block were visible prior to excavations in the area during 2002, by the 2006 season, nearly all had become obscured again by the flourishing grass. 67 Block dimensions: 83x143x47cm; 83x57x38cm; 180x63x139cm; 173x160x77cm; 174x74x50cm; 89x72x28cm (largely buried); two blocks visible in 2002 are now entirely buried. 68 Granite blocks are often removed from fields where they obstruct agriculture, or taken to be re-used as construction material. Neither of these scenarios seem to apply here. 69 The six southeastern-most 20x20m squares in this grid were not surveyed, as the ground was very disturbed by modern activity. 70 Some of those in the easternmost squares are undoubtedly caused by large sherds visible upon the surface. 71 My śliwiec 1987: 67 fig. 540. 72 Spencer 1996: pl 69 [15, 18]. 73 Aston 1996a: 318 fig. 216 [k] (Phase III); Spencer 1996: pl. 63 [22]. 74 The pottery was assessed and studied by Květa Smoláriková.

75 Aston 1996a: 136 fig. 34 [3]; Tefnin et al. 1998: 320, fig.32 [1]. 76 Spencer 1999: pls. 70 [1], 72 [1–4]; Aston 1996a: 126 fig. 24 (Elephantine), 138 fig. 36 [1, 6] (Qantir). 77 Tefnin et al. 1998: 320, fig. 32 [8, 15]; Aston 1996a: 197 fig. 95 [18–20] (el-Ashmunein). 78 Aston 1996a: 196 fig. 93 [7–9] (el-Ashmunein), 197 fig. 94 [11], 199 fig. 96 [21]. 79 Spencer 1996: pl. 63 [5, 10]. 80 Brissaud 1997: 308; Aston 1996a: 205 fig. 103 [A64]. 81 Aston 1996a: 117 fig. 15 (tomb of Ramesses III), 324 fig. 34 [42–44]; Redford 2004: pl. L [14–18]. 82 Tefnin et al. 1998: 326 fig. 35 [52]; Redford 2004: pl. O [9]. 83 Spencer 1996: pl 69 [15, 18]. 84 Aston 1996a: 111 fig. 9 [251], 167 fig. 65 [415]; Tefnin et al. 1998: 322, fig. 33 [18]; Spencer 1999: pl. 73 [12–13]. 85 Mug or jug: Aston 1998: 521 no.2109 (a cream-slipped burnished example). 86 Spencer 1999: pl.70 [4]; Tefnin et al. 1998: 326, fig. 35 [53]. 87 Aston 1996a: 143 fig. 41 [9] (Tell el-Dab’a), 171 fig. 69 [4] (Memphis), 213 fig. 111 [246] (Amarna) and 285 fig. 183 [3] from Elephantine; Brunton 1948: pl. 46 [10]. For C099, see Aston in Raven 2005: 117, pl. 127. 88 Small Ramesside amphora: Aston 1998: 437 no.1559. 89 Redford 2004: pl. W [11,13], dated to the 6th–4th centuries bc. 90 Aston 1998: 592–3, fig. 6.05, no.2441. 91 Redford 2004: pl. U [1–3]; Aston 1996a: 273, fig. 171 [Y1] (Medinet Habu). 92 Hartung et al. 2003: 259 fig. 20 [2], with cream-pink slip from 2nd –1st century bc. 93 That the two joining fragments were found in two distinct contexts underlines the disturbed nature of the deposit. 94 Excavation trenches opened between 2002 and 2006 amounted to 1050m², or less than 0.3% of the site’s surface area. 95 It is worth bearing in mind that evidence of housing areas within temples is balanced by texts mentioning programmes for clearing sacred areas of houses (e.g. Jelinkova-Reymond 1956: 101–5; Thiers 1995: 502–3). 96 From contexts TI 0150 and TO 0219. 97 A vessel with flaring sides found in TK 0162 may be as late as the 7th century ad (see Chapter 5).

Kom Firin I | 35

4: The Ramesside Temple

Previous research Remnants of a pharaonic temple have been known at Kom Firin since the reports of Petrie and Griffith, but caution is needing separating material from the Ramesside temple, which forms the subject matter of this chapter, and later temples (see Chapter 3), when considering evidence for temples at Kom Firin. Petrie reported that Towards the south-east side there stood a large temple, with a long avenue leading to it. This has all been dug over by the Arabs, to extract the fine limestone pavement of the temple and avenue; and some years ago sphinxes were found at the beginning of the avenue, and carried away on carts by a pasha. (Petrie 1886: 94)

These sphinxes, now lost or at least no longer associated with Kom Firin, may have been part of the Ramesside temple, but it is also possible that they embellished the approach to the later temple. That material from this late temple was visible during Petrie’s visit to Kom Firin is clear from the fact that he saw a monolithic shrine of a type found only in the Late Period (cited on p.26). We owe the first detailed description of parts of the Ramesside temple to Edgar (1911). In 1911, or shortly before, two limestone column bases, each made of two semicircular pieces, inscribed for Ramses II, were revealed during sebakhquarrying. It is unclear if these were found in the temple area, as Edgar simply states that he made the sebakhin clear all the neighbouring ground in the hope of finding some further remains of the building to which the bases belonged, but nothing more came to light. The soil between the two columns was full of burned wood. (Edgar 11: 277)

He describes their findspot as ‘about the middle of the fortress’, but whether this is part of the Ramesside enclosure, or one of the other enclosures is unknown; neither Petrie nor Griffith left a map or sketch of the site. It seems reasonable to posit the column bases came from the south-eastern temple, where fragments from similar bases were found in 2003; the Ramesside column bases are discussed in detail below. The lack of structural context encountered by Edgar when the surrounding area was cleared indicates that these column bases may have been some way removed from their original position, or that the clearance overseen by Edgar was rather cursory. Shafiq Farid conducted excavations in the temple area in 1949, which led to the discovery of eight limestone fragments, including doorjambs and lintels, all inscribed for Ramses II (Egyptian Museum JE 89281–89288; Pls.137–45). Unfortunately, no records of the excavation have survived,1 and no publications were produced. However, the present-day topography of the temple area, and our excavations, have provided a reasonable understanding of where Farid excavated, and where his workers dumped the spoil. In 1981 Kom Firin I | 36

and 1982, the Naukratis Project excavated ‘Trench II’ to the east of the temple area (Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 80–1, fig.11; Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 376 [ill.12], 379–80, pl.49 [fig.18]; Coulson and Leonard 1982d: 15); this is discussed further below, in relation to other structures outside the temple proper. The British Museum excavations This chapter presents the results of excavations within the temple area (2003–2006), and incorporates invaluable data from the magnetometry survey carried out in 2003.2 The different sectors of the temple are considered in turn. Reference, where appropriate, is made to the ceramic evidence, itself discussed in further in Chapter 5. The same applies to the finds, covered in Chapter 6. A local grid (T/U) was set out in the temple area, following the orientation of the temple, as far as could be ascertained from surface traces. Individual trenches, of variable size, were assigned two letter codes, initially TA, TB etc… and then continuing with UA, UB and so on (Fig.2). Each trench was excavated with a combination of turiah, trowel and brush, by context. These archaeological contexts were assigned unique four digit numbers (0001, 0002… see Appendix 3), with finds assigned a number in the series F001, F002... ceramics selected for the typology series were numbered C001, C002... . These numbering systems apply to the whole site. Levels are again relevant to survey station (STN 2) being set at level 12.00. Before turning to the details of the temple, an overview of the general nature of the archaeology here is useful. The temple proper, as much as it is visible to the presentday visitor, is located in a low-lying area strewn with limestone column bases and other blocks (Pl.69). No decoration is preserved upon these, and the surface of many are badly laminating and/or powdery, due to contact with the moist ground, wind and rain. The area is distinctly rectangular, defined by elevated ridges at the north, east and west edges. Excavations proved that this appearance echoes both the orientation and limits of the ancient temple, but also the spoil heaps from Farid’s excavations. Modern material was found in deposits in trench TG. The spoil heaps, rich in sherd material, provide a slightly misleading view of the temple plan towards the edges of the structure in the magnetometry (Pl.76), though the basic layout and orientation of the temple is nonetheless clear. A loose sandy layer of topsoil covers most of the low-lying area, sometimes lying less than a centimetre in thickness above the temple’s mud-brick walls, and often laced with both shokand halfa-grass. The pottery encountered in these layers is very eroded and fragmentary; whole vessels were recovered in only a few instances. Nonetheless, the material is mostly of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Chapter 5), reflecting the time during which the temple was built, functioned, and

The Ramesside Temple was later converted, at least in parts, into an area with domestic dwellings. Ceramics of the Late Period and subsequent centuries were less common though not absent, as a result of later occupation and especially the digging over of this area in more recent centuries. Many of the deposits upon the brick foundation walls were rich in lumps of iron magnesium oxyhydroxide,3 a substance that occurs when iron- and magnesium-rich soil becomes oxygen enriched, principally through ground water. These deposits were particularly concentrated in the areas above walls with a high proportion of bricks made from light yellow clays, rich in sand. Small fragments of corroded metal were also recovered from various topsoil contexts. In April 2002, the temple area exhibited clear evidence of water erosion, with hard packed water-smoothed channels running down from surrounding high points. The water table was reached at level 0.24 in 2004 [TD], 0.58 in 2003 [TY] and 0.50 in 2006 [UD]).4 There are significant areas of wall collapse found in the temple, with brickwork in varying degrees of articulation. Dark grey bricks in a sandy mortar predominate in these deposits, presumably reflecting the types of bricks used for the upper courses of the walls in question. In several places, it allows a minimum number of courses to be ascertained for some walls (see below). Wall collapse is particularly prevalent in the southern and eastern areas of the site (TX, TW, UA, TE, TR, TQ; Figs.11, 14, 16, 19, Pls. 103, 122); these deposits are not shaded on the plans, to distinguish them from in situ walls. The well-articulated nature of much of the brickwork from the collapsed wall indicate that parts of the building deteriorated within a short timespan. One cannot rule out a levelling operation, perhaps at the time when a Third Intermediate Period temple was being built, that within which the donation stelae were set up (Berlandini 1978: 147–62; Kitchen 1970: 64–7, fig.4; Spiegelberg 1920: 57–8, pl.5).5 Foundation walls The results of four seasons of excavation in the temple exposed parts of a monumental structure, principally a network of mudbrick walls which formed the foundation for the building (Fig.2). When planned, it is clear that these walls reflect the position of the now lost walls of the superstructure. These mudbrick walls are built directly onto a thick layer of clean sand, clearly visible seen in trenches TD (0135 founded into 0154–0155, Figs.10–11, Pl.85), TG (0157 founded into 0189, Figs.12–13, Pl.97) and TK (0173 founded into 0236, Fig.28). This sand is similar to that visible in the open sections around Silvagou (Pl.8), perhaps suggesting it is the surface of the sand turtleback on which the site is founded. There is, unsurprisingly, some variation in the foundation levels of the walls. The outer edges of the walls are often eroded, principally by water, making the thickness of the walls rather variable (Pl.98). Nonetheless, it is clear that the walls varied in thickness from two brick lengths thick (e.g. 0208 in TN, Fig.15) to twice that (e.g. 0135 in TD,Fig.9), excepting the massive 3.23m-thickwall defining the eastern edge of the temple proper (0293 in UC; Fig.25, Pl.125).6 The bricks used in the walls were clearly being produced from a variety of clay sources, as the finished bricks vary in colour from dark grey-black, to light grey, and sandy yellow-white; some bricks even feature a

‘swirly’ mixture of yellow-white and light grey clays (Pl.258). The distinctive use of different clays in contemporary structures, and even within the same wall, is of interest. In particular, in the central temple area, though the walls are very denuded, there is a tendency for the lower courses to be of predominately sandy (TD 0135, Pl.85) or ‘swirly’ bricks (TG 0157, Pl.97), whereas the upper courses are of a darker colour (visible with 0173 and 0174 in TK [Pl.119], but also with TT 0093 and 0094, Pl.100). The same type of brick varieties and construction method are used for the enclosure wall, noticeably in the southern stretch (Pl.68), along the eastern side (EB 0326), and for the gateway to the complex (TI 0169, TJ 0152). Such variation in brick types is not uncommon in the Delta; scientific analyses of the composition of bricks was carried out at Mendes (Redford 2004: 5, n.3). Of course, these walls, as foundations, would not have been visible when the building was in use. The same holds true for the Ramesside enclosure wall, which was plastered white, at least on its exterior face (EB 0326). Brick dimensions in the temple walls fall into the range 36−40x16−17x10−12cm, again consistent with those used in the surrounding enclosure wall. These dimensions are somewhat smaller than the Ramesside brick sizes noted by Spencer (1979: 69), though this list exhibits significant variation and is principally based on data from Upper Egyptian temples.7 The brickwork is all bonded with mortar, usually a light grey coloured material, but sometimes much darker, or even sandy coloured. Again, this may reflect a variety of production areas and associated clay and sand pits. It is not possible to classify the system of brick-laying, as it varies significantly throughout the temple, amd walls are often not sufficiently preserved; however, much of it can be broadly categorised as A2 or A3, both rather common systems (Spencer 1979: 136, pl.1–2).8 The thick wall which delimits the eastern side of the temple (0293, Fig.25, Pl.125) is rather different in construction method. Firstly, the bricks are laid on their sides or ends (in the lower courses), rather than on the larger bottom surface as standard with other walls in the temple. Secondly, the bricks are all at the larger end of the size range for the temple walls (39–41cm in length, 10–11.5cm in thickness). The visible bricks in this wall are all of one clay type (dark grey-black), though only a small proportion of it has been cleared. Nothing suggests that this wall dates to a different phase of construction, as it features a similar foundation level and alignment as the temple, and the deposits accumulated above and around it, are very similar. The distinctive construction method may simply reflect its size and function as the physical boundary between the sacred space of the temple proper and more profane buildings on the other side of the wall. Ramesside structures at other sites attest to the laying of bricks on their edges in the first courses (Valbelle and Leclère 2007: 30). The temple foundation walls were laid out to an orthogonal plan; all but the smallest of walls undoubtedly relate to the original presence of a superstructure wall above. Foundation trenches were generally not encountered, reflecting the fact that this temple was founded on a sandy surface, providing a blank canvas for the builders. What filled the spaces between the foundation walls, upon which the flooring and superstucture walls were laid: perhaps more sand? These Kom Firin I | 37

Spencer cavities are now filled with mud and clay deposits, rich in pottery of varied date, accumulated over many centuries, and often disturbed. Where significant amounts of natural sand existed, as at Sais, temple builders could simply have cut trenches in sand and set walls on top of the sand (Wilson 2006a: 124–5). Temple foundations with networks of mudbrick walls are not typical of the Late Period,9 providing us with the first suggestion that this was an earlier temple, subsequently confirmed by excavations in TK, discussed below. Rather, the method found at Kom Firin is better paralleled by the situation in New Kingdom temples. Unfortunately, few New Kingdom temple foundation levels have been studied in the Delta. At nearby Kom el-Hisn, the foundation levels of the temple consisted of parallel mud-brick walls with intervening rubble, perhaps forming a foundation for a wall up to 3.85m thick (Kirby et al. 1988: 32–7). Brickwork was used in foundations for stone buildings, even in Upper Egypt (Chevrier 1947: 157, pl.47); alternatively, stone foundations could be placed directly onto sand (e.g. Jacquet 1983: 20, pls.13, 15). The use of brick foundations represents a practical response to the abundance of alluvial mud compared to stone, not available locally. The temple at Kom Firin may have been provided with ritual deposits beneath key places in the temple, notably at the corners (Weinstein 1989). However, none have been found in our excavations, despite several corners being excavated. That the level which would lie beneath the paving stones of the temple no longer exists, or is badly disturbed, led the project to decide against expending resources upon a search for a foundation deposits, particularly in light of the ceramic, epigraphic and especially stratigraphic evidence which provides secure dating for the temple. Recovering a temple plan The denuded and disturbed nature of the archaeological strata suggested that complete excavation of the temple area would not be a wise use of resources, particularly as it became clear that doorway emplacements would not be preserved. The magnetometry survey clearly confirmed the orientation of the temple (16º east of north-south; Pl.76), matching that of the enclosure within which the temple is set, and allowed the position of the significant walls, and the overall symmetry, to be understood. The construction method of these walls was then confirmed through selective excavations (Fig.2). Alongside the excavated data, and that provided by the magnetometry survey, the Naukratis Project map suggests that more walls were exposed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, than are presently visible (Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 96 fig.9). Hereafter follows a description of the individual spatial elements of the temple, which covers an area of 38x20m, if one discounts the ancillary rooms. Comparing this temple to contemporary monuments, the Kom Firin structure was somewhat smaller than the Hathor temple at Memphis,10 and that at Amara West (42x17m, without the forecourt outside the temenos, Spencer 1997: pl.4).11 The temples at Zawyet Umm el-Rakham (20x12m; Snape 2004: 150, 153 fig.2) and one outside the south-west corner of the Ptah enclosure at Memphis (19.7x12m, Anthes 1965: pl.2) are smaller than the Kom Firin temple, with no antechamber preceding the sanctuaries, but rather a court embellished with square pillars rather than columns. 38 | Kom Firin I

Approach The immediate approach to the temple has not been investigated in any detail, due to the significant depth of deposits accumulated here, rising 150-200cm above the typical level of the temple foundation walls, also found along the whole western edge of the temple area (Fig.13). In the magnetometry data, the zone imediately north of the temple appears as a concentration of high magnetic readings (Pl.76). In light of the excavations undertaken here, in a 10x2m exposure (TG) running parallel, and just west of, the temple axis, it is now clear that the clustering of high magnetic signals here is due to the dense deposits of pottery sherds. As is clear from the section (Fig.13), these deposits are at least 171cm deep to the north of the mud-brick wall 0157, and contained no structural remains. The deposits in question include concentrations of dark clay brick rubble (0146, 0147), some at a high level within the trench, suggesting recent re-deposit (0146). As mentioned above, darker-coloured bricks are typical of the upper parts of the temple’s mudbrick walls. Otherwise, the strata encountered north of the wall 0157 consisted of relatively homogenous layers of dark brown clay of varying levels of compaction, with arbitrary context divisions being imposed for control. The lowest layer encountered, 0170, had a much higher sand content than the upper deposits. This may suggest the virigin sand is not far below (though 0170 was excavated to site level 1.81, still 76cm above where the sand 0189 was encountered to the south of wall 0157), or this is contamination caused by dumping of spoil from the temple area into this zone. Significant amounts of pottery, and some small finds, were recovered, but nothing structural. However, some articulated sandy brickwork was noted during recording of the south-facing section (beneath 0159 at northern end of trench) but it is unclear if these are in situ. Modern material was recovered from some deposits, including a modern bullet (F094) in 0136. The character of the upper deposits, and the way they lie with a slight southwards slope, support their identification as redeposited spoil, undoubtedly from Shafiq Farid’s excavations in the mid-20th century. Of course, some of the layers may be the result of earlier, unrecorded, excavations. The ceramics from this area provided representatives of most periods of occupation at Kom Firin, further underlining their identification as secondary deposits. Notable pieces includes material contemporary with the late New Kingdom: a shoulder sherd from a blue-ware jar (C225 from 0136; Fig.46, Pl.263), a miniature jar (C264 from 0159; Fig.45) and a fragment of a Canaanite amphora (C306 from 0167; Fig.44). Material more broadly datable to the late New Kingdom or Third Intermediate Period included carinated bowls (C227 from 0136; Fig.35), globular jars (C216 from 0145; Fig.39) and storage jars (C211 from 0156; Fig.44). The majority of sherds, however, represented coarse-ware storage jars and cooking pots, along with amphorae fragments. The presence of both storage jars of Late Period form in one of the lower contexts (C214 from 0156; Fig.43), and Chian amphora fragments of a similar date, indicate how much this area has been disturbed over time. A few Ptolemaic and Roman sherds were also encountered. Due to the depth of excavated deposits, and the 21m² area of trench TG, a sizeable number of finds were encountered north of the temple wall, some of which may have been

The Ramesside Temple discarded or unnoticed by Farid’s workers. These included the ubiquitous ceramic cobra figurine fragments, found throughout the levels: F071 (from 0145, Fig.48, Pl.159), F065 and F077 (0159, Figs.48–9, Pls.160, 170), F135 and F136 (0159-0167, Fig.48, Pl.165), F078 (0167, from north end of trench, pl.162) and F101 (0169, Pl.177). These are difficult to spot during excavation, as when covered in moist mud can look like small sherds, so it is very likely that such objects were simply ignored in the Farid excavations. Other figurines in fired clay were also found during our excavattions. F099 (0136, Fig.50, Pl.180) may be from a human figurine, perhaps of Hellenistic date, while F134 is from a figure of a long-neck animal (0159-0167, Pl.181). Objects that might have been set up in the temple include F301, a fragment of stone architecture, perhaps from a small naos (0146, Pl.220) and a faience statue base, F112 (0167, Fig.51, Pls.240, 247). Small objects encountered included a faience rosette (F088, 0159, Pl.208), a shell bead (F097, 0159), a pierced disc (F083, 0167, Pl.194), and an ivory pin or cosmetic applicator (F090, 0167, Pl.206). Some fragments of faience (F086, 0134), diorite (F095, 0136), calcite, gold leaf (F067, 0159, Pl.242) and a small amount of corroded metal were also recovered. The profile of this material undoubtedly reflects domestic contexts from various periods of occupation in this part of Kom Firin. One would expect the temple approach to have been a direct route from an axial entrance to the gateway in the Ramesside enclosure. This may have been lined with stone, but the deep deposits have precluded seeking evidence of this avenue. It is interesting that the magnetometry data in this area shows lesser levels of disturbance than the zones immediately to the east and west (Pl.76). This correlates well with an avenue flanked by areas of densely spaced buildings, with associated occupational debris. In front of the far north-western corner of the temple, smaller scale structures had been built up against the exterior wall, as is clear from the one-brick thick wall 0230, running north for at least 1.15m from the front wall 0174 (Fig.28). This small wall, bonded to the main wall with mortar, with no evidence to suggest it was not contemporary, could not have provided support for a significant structure; perhaps it was simply the emplacement for a pit, a light lean-to building or other modest construction. Walls of a similar dimension have been encountered within the temple itself, though the interpretation of these is not straightforward.12 ‘Flimsy structures’ in New Kingdom levels at Memphis have been interpreted as temporary single-storey shelters, requiring no substantial load-bearing capacity (Jeffreys 2006: 29) Courtyard The northernmost wall of the temple encountered, 0157, was revealed at the southern end of trench TG (Figs.12–13, Pl.97), which had to be extended southwards by 1m to confirm the thickness of this wall. The western end of this wall, 0174, was revealed in trench TK (Figs.26–7, Pl.99). On the magnetometry data, this wall appears as a thin white line, just south of the high magnetic signals created by the deep, and disturbed, deposits discussed above (Pl.76). The wall, preserved to a height of 1.11m (TG 0157), was well constructed from good quality mud-bricks, with a predominance of the ‘swirly’ clay bricks in its lower courses (Pl.97). It was originally

at least 2.26m thick: a considerable barrier, fitting for the front of cult structure. As with many of the mud-brick walls in the temple area, it was easy to demonstrate this was founded on clean yellow sand (0189), encountered at site level 1.09­–1.14m. The extension of this wall, 0174, was preserved to only 1.68m thick (Fig.26). This could reflect erosion and damage; otherwise, it is possible that a thicker wall was built in front of the courtyard, whereas a less imposing wall was needed to front the ancillary structures located to either side of the temple proper (Fig.2). The latter explanation may account for why the rear wall (0222, 0243) is only 1.64m thick. In light of the temple plan, it is proposed wall 0157-0174 represented the front of the temple proper, which would have been provided with a stone-lined gateway, perhaps including some of the jamb and lintel fragments discussed below. Whether the temple featured a pylon is unknown. At the small temple outside the Ptah temple enclosure at Memphis, a pylon, 22.4m wide and built of masonry with interior brickwork, fronted a narrow courtyard before the temple proper (Anthes 1965: pls.1, 6b); brick pylons are also known in Upper Egypt and Nubia.13 The standard temple plan familiar from Egyptological publications does not reflect the variety of structures found throughout the Egyptian empire in the late New Kingdom. The courtyard beyond the front wall is completed with two side walls, and a southern wall which also acts as the front wall of the colonnaded courtyard, forming a space 14.25m broad by 8.22m deep at the front of the temple. The side walls of the court are recognisable on the magnetometry survey (Pl.76). The eastern wall’s position corresponds with a raised ridge in the surface level, and was partly revealed as 0452 in trench UD, preserved to a height of 86cm (Figs.2, 23–4). Interestingly, this wall is set some 2m further west than symmetry would dictate. Unlike in some areas of the temple, a clear intermediary level between the wall 0452 and the sand onto which it is founded was visible. This layer, 0458, consisted of sand mixed with bricks, brick fragments and mortar (Pl.101), perhaps to level off the surrounding ground. 0460 is a similar deposit visible on the southern face of 0451. A somewhat similar deposit was found in TZ (0115, Fig.14). The existence of the western side wall was confirmed with the excavation of trench TQ. Preserved to its original thickness of 1.33m, or three brick lengths plus the mortar divisions, the wall (0267) is still preserved to a height of 92cm (Fig.16, Pl.102). Once again, it is built directly on clean sand (0351, 0375). As with the front wall of the temple (0157, 0174), that the upper levels of the wall mostly consisted of dark grey brick is evident from a well-articulated section of westerly brick collapse found in this trench (0270). Most clearly visible in section, one can see that part of the brickwork collapsed outwards/westwards from the wall (0267) (Fig.17, Pl.103). This articulated collapse clearly preserves another 104cm of the wall height, meaning the western side of the courtyard was bounded by a mud-brick wall 196cm in height. As such a height is considerably more than required for the foundations of such a structure, it can be assumed that the superstructure itself was built of brick, perhaps plastered or lined with limestone, the former being more likely. The height of the preserved doorjamb (see below) indicates doorways of at least 3.70m in height. If one takes into account the extra height of the lintel above the doorway, another 50cm can be posited (JE 89284). As the walls Kom Firin I | 39

Spencer near the front of the temple are likely to have been the tallest, it follows that the wall superstructure must have been at least 4.2m high, with at least 73cm of wall foundations below, and perhaps somewhat more.14 Returning to the wall rubble (0270), including the articulated collapse, its excavation yielded a fine granodiorite muller (F240, Pl.231). The ceramics recovered from this deposit dated to the late New Kingdom and early Third Intermediate Period, notably sherds from Canaanite amphorae and a fragment of a blue painted ware (C421, Fig.46). This rubble layer is then likely to have been deposited shortly after the New Kingdom. This chronology matches well with that encountered in TK (see below), and with the evidence that the eastern enclosing wall of the temple (0293) was partly destroyed by the 7th century bc, when storage jars were being placed into holes cut into its eroded upper surface (C361 and C419 into wall 0293, Fig.43, Pl.104). East of wall 0267, 76cm of deposits were excavated before reaching the clean sand (0351). These deposits (0261, 0261a, 0261b) consisted chiefly of brick rubble amongst a matrix of clay. The bricks were not deposited in patterns of articulated collapse, as found on the other side of the wall (0270). The most notable feature of this area was the discovery of a large limestone threshold block (0272, Fig.16, Pls.110–1) 15, clearly not in situ but evidently originally part of one of the temple doorways. The rubble around it included mostly late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period forms (e.g. C362, C364 and C365; Figs.37, 41, 44), consistent with our knowledge of when the temple fell out of use. The door threshold is discussed further below; it indicates that 102cm wide doorleaves were part of some gates in the temple, most likely one not far from this area. As throughout the temple, the deposits between the mudbrick walls are truncated to beneath the original floor level, so doorways and any original pavement or surfaces have disappeared. However, a slight ridge in the surface topography, running parallel to, and east of, wall 0267, on the western side of the courtyard, was not matched with any visible features in the magnetometry data, thus an 18m² area was exposed to seek clarification. This trench did indeed reveal the presence of a north-south wall, two bricks thick (0364, Figs.11, Pl.106), flanked and partly obscured by wall rubble (0365, 0367). The construction method and range of bricks match that of other walls in the temple. A 6.05m stretch of this wall was exposed, but one must assume it ran the whole western length of the courtyard, and was probably matched by a counterpart wall on the opposite side (Fig.2). No evidence has been found of a similar wall on the north or southern sides of the court. What could this relatively narrow wall have been for? The most plausible suggestion is that it represents foundations for a colonnade, whether of columns or square-sectioned pillars, as found in several contemporary temples.16 However, as we are beneath the floor level of the ancient structure, this cannot be ascertained. The southern limit of the courtyard is formed by wall 0135, preserved to 1.47m thick (four brick lengths), and preserved to 73cm in height (Figs.9–10, Pl.85). The wall is built on clean sand; a 115cm sondage revealing no cultural material. The westward extension of this wall, exposed as 0262 in trench TQ, is somewhat thinner (1.17m, Fig.16), perhaps as it lies outside the temple core, namely the columned hall, in much the same 40 | Kom Firin I

way as the northern wall is of less thickness in the north-west of the temple (0174) than near the axis (0157). The shallow deposits excavated from around this wall yielded two blue painted ware sherds (C208, C209, Fig.46) and a fragment from a ‘red-on-cream ware’ vessel (C210; Fig.46, Pl.262). Columned hall Behind the courtyard lay a columned hall, a space of 16.02x12.33m centred around two rows of three columns. Column bases fragments have probably been visible upon the surface since Farid’s excavations of 1949.17 There are currently seven fragments of drums and bases strewn across the temple area, discussed in more detail below, with the remainder of the superstructure. Those fragments lying upon the surface are in some cases near their original positions, but the magnetometry survey of 2003 showed six circular features laid out in two rows of three, along the presumed axis of the temple (Pl.76). It seemed likely that these were column base emplacements, and the south-eastern one was excavated to confirm this was the case. As elsewehere in the temple, the lowest level consisted of a layer of sand. The surface of this sand was reached in three places inside the columned hall, from north to south at site levels 1.51m (0154), 1.42m (0156) and 1.29m (0066). Of course, this does not mean such a gradient was present at a time contemporary with the temple’s construction. In the position beneath where the column was located, a circular pit (0058) of 125cm diameter and 89cm depth was cut into the sand (0056; Figs.8, 21, Pl.109). Is this a foundation pit? The extra depth of foundation, to site level 0.58m, contrasts with the foundation levels of the temple walls, between 1.09 and 1.85m.18 Could this reflect a concern for the support of the combined weight of stone column base, shaft and capital, unlike the walls of the temple itself, largely built of mud-brick? This pit was first sectioned (Fig.21), revealing a thick layer of black clay (0029), with significant lenses of clean yellow sand. A fragment of quartzite, some corroded metal pieces and two sherds worked into circular counters were found in this layer (F026, Pl.189). Lying at the bottom of this thick clay layer, on the bottom of the cut, were several limestone column base fragments, some still bearing decoration and painted surfaces (F036, F053, F054+058, F056; Pls.151–5, see below). It seems likely that these were dumped in here during a destruction phase, or possibly during excavations in the late 19th or 20th century; deposit 0029 would then represent subsequent accumulation. Its depth suggests that the destruction phase in question was ancient, whether at the end of the operational existence of the temple, and the presence of Late Period ceramics (e.g. C040, C041; Figs.37, 41) may indicate that it represents late activity, perhaps even Roman dismantling of the temple for lime production (see Chapter 3, p.28). This late activity was not happening within a foundation pit cut in preparation for the erection of stone columns. Rather, the pit (0058) considerably post-dates the temple, and its diameter (1.25m) is significantly smaller than that of the column bases (1.65m). It is more likely to be the result of much later excavations under the column bases, after their removal, either to seek more stone (for burning in lime kilns) or even to retrieve antiquities in a more recent era. This would explain

The Ramesside Temple the very regular arrangement of these pits in the magnetometry survey: they mirror the layout of the columns, as the robbers or limestone burners dug directly underneath each base. Were any foundations provided for these columns? Continuous foundation walls (such as at Karnak, Arnold 1991: 145–6, figs.4.68–4.69) were not provided, as they would have been encountered joining the northern (0135) or southern (0221) walls of the hall, or those to the west (0264). In the hypostyle hall at Karnak, each column was founded into an individual pit, itself filled with a layer of sand (18in) and then of small stones (Clarke and Engelbach 1930: 74−5), and something similar may have been provided at Kom Firin. It is not impossible, however, that the column bases were placed directly upon sand. In the sand immediately surrounding the pit cut under the column bases, a number of dark clay bricks are embedded in the surface (0082, Fig.8). These might be rubble or debris from the building operation. It is striking that they are not associated with any rubble or other brick debris, and are thus very similar to brick deposits found in the sanctuary area (UA 0386, Fig.19). The columns, perhaps up to 4m tall (given the known height of at least one doorway), were arranged in two rows, allowing a central passageway of around 2m,19 similar to that of the doorways from which the sills (0272, 0280; Pls.111–12) have been found. Each of these thresholds supported a doorleaf of 102cm in width. Thus anything that could fit through the doorways could also be carried along the axis of the columned hall towards the inner parts of the temple, such as portable shrines or divine images. The walls forming the limits of this 12.33x16.02m hall are just discernible in the magnetometry survey (Pl.76), and all four sides of the hall have been partly exposed in excavations (Fig.2). The 1.47m thick north wall, 0135–0262, was discussed above as it also forms the southern wall of the forecourt. The west wall (0264), which is bonded with 0262, was exposed along a 5.5m stretch in trenches TQ and TS (Fig.16). The southern end of this wall, where it joined the east-west wall 0208, had been almost completely truncated, reduced to a thin layer of brick clay and mortar (0237 in TN), which clearly echoed the wall’s original position (Fig.15). Preserved to only 75cm thick here, the wall is likely to have been somewhat thicker, in line with the eastern (0024, 1.41m thick), northern (0135, 1.47m) and southern (0241, 1.01m) walls. Returning to the west wall (0264), the topsoil (0298) above it yielded a copper chisel head (F248, Pl.246), and a charred worked piece of wood (F249, Pl.244). Immediately west of wall 0264 lay a deposit of brick rubble in a compacted clay matrix (0286–0287). Some of these bricks undoubtedly come from the upper courses of the columned hall wall, while others may come from nearby walls (e.g. 0262, 0265). Underneath this rubble deposit was a layer of clay with sand lenses and a small number of tiny brick fragments (0281), but a noticeable lack of whole bricks as with the stratum above. Within this layer, another limestone doorsill (0280) was discovered, lying along a similar alignment (Pl.112). The small amount of pottery from deposit 0281 (e.g. C367; Fig.37) suggested the doorsill became buried here in the Third Intedediate Period, or shortly thereafter, and was subsequently covered with brick rubble as the surrounding temple walls collapsed, or were dismantled. It is remarkable that both doorsills lie on a similar alignment, and

have probably not moved far from the original doorway(s) of which they formed a part, most likely from a side door in the western wall of the temple’s first court, or an axial entrance to the columned hall. The doorway architecture is discussed in more detail below. The south wall (0208–0241) of the columned hall, exposed along its entire 12.33m length (Figs.2, 19), was preserved to a maximum thickness of 1.01m, or two and a half brick lengths, allowing for mortar. Again, no doorway emplacements were found here, despite exposing the presumed location of the axial route from the columned hall to the rooms at the back of the temple. As the wall was preserved to site level 2.21m, this provides an indication of the minimum level for the temple floor, at least in the rear of the building, which may have had a higher floor level. All of the adjoining walls, both those to the north forming the columned hall, and those to the south outlining the temple antechamber and sanctuary are bonded, and thus contemporary, with 0241. Pottery recovered from around the western end of the wall included bowls with redpainted rims of the New Kingdom or Third Intermediate Period (in topsoil 0202). Finally, the eastern wall (0024) completed the courtyard 0024. Though badly eroded, it was preserved to 1.41m thick (Fig.7). A few fragments of limestone, not in situ, were found lying upon the surface of the clean sand (0109). Very little of the surface area of the columned hall was excavated. Apart from the area around the south-eastern column emplacement, discussed above, a swathe across its southern side was exposed (trenches TC, TN; Figs.7, 15). This area yielded a black polished fragment of stone, possibly for inlay (F050, from 0029), a carnelian bead (F061, Pl.205) and a pierced faience disc (F060, Pl.205) from clay deposit 0029. The pottery presented the usual chronological range (e.g. C036–038; Figs.35, 37), though in very small amounts, as the deposits above and around the wall were very shallow. As elsewhere, no fragments of roofing blocks were found, though it seems reasonable to assume that the columned hall had been roofed, which was probably not the case with the peristyle courts of the type found at Zawyet Umm el-Rakham (Snape 2004: 153 fig.2). In addition to the axial doorways at either end of the hall, access to the eastern rooms must have been provided through one or several doors (the ancillary rooms may have been interconnecting), and there may also have been a gateway through to the corridor west of the columned hall. The layout of the temple at Zawyet Umm el-Rakham (Snape 2004: 150, 153 fig.2) is best paralleled by the subsidiary cult chapel found outside the south-western corner of the Ptah temple enclosure (Anthes 1965: pl.2). Both are built of stone and provided with a simple tripartite sanctuary. While the Memphis temple features a four-pillared hall in front of the chapels, the Rakham temple has two cross-rooms in between the sanctuaries and a peristyle court, also provided with pillars rather than columns. Kom Firin may have had more in common with Amara West (Spencer 1997), where a columned hall preceded an antechamber before the sanctuaries. The rear part of the temple Assuming a gateway was located axially, in the middle of the east-west wall 0241 which formed the southern end of the Kom Firin I | 41

Spencer columned hall (Figs.2, 19), a person walking through the temple would then access the sacred heart of the building. The magnetometry data was less clear in this area (Pl.76), partly due to the walls being of a lesser thickness, but also the shallower levels of preservation (Pl.116). Nonetheless, the division between the antechamber and the sanctuaries, and especially the rear wall of the temple proper, is clear. On account of these limitations to the survey, a higher proportion of the area was exposed through excavation, which revealed that an antechamber followed the columned hall, itself giving access to four spaces. These are interpreted as a tripartite sanctuary flanked by either another chapel, or possibly a staircase. The surface layer (0239) was here removed as one context, yielding some ceramic material, notably Canaanite amphorae fragments (C380, Fig.43), vessels with exterior cord-impressed decoration of the late New Kingdom or Third Intermediate Period (C379, Fig.38), and some later forms (e.g. C378, Fig.37). The rooms at the rear of the temple were bounded to the north and south by the walls already discussed, 0208–0241 and 0222–0243, respectively (Figs.2, 19). The latter ran across the whole exposed width of the temple complex (45m), but varied in thickness, to a maximum of 1.55m directly behind the temple’s chapels. The side walls, 0360 (west, in trench TW, Fig.15) and 0278 (east, in trench UA, Fig.14) were presumably of the same size, though 0360 was preserved to a thickness of 1.02m, while 0278 was only revealed as 0.84m thick. However, the latter wall was badly damaged and obscured by brick collapse and associated rubble. The first room after the columned hall is a transverse space, created by the east-west wall 0208–0242, preserved to a thickness of up to 90cm, but with only 30cm of its height preserved, i.e. litle more than the first two courses of brickwork (Fig.19). With the plans of other Egyptian temples, it seemed reasonable to assume that this transverse hall would span the width of the rear part of the temple, but this is not actually the case here. Instead, a short north-south wall, 0211–0352, creates the western limit of the transverse hall (Fig.15). This 82cm thick wall continues south of here for 8.5m, to form the western edge of the tripartite sanctuary complex. The transverse hall thus covered an area of 8.9x2.7m. The clay deposits were not fully excavated from within the room, though sand was reached near its western (0255, 0372) and eastern (0285) edges. In the latter case, an interesting feature appeared: a seemingly random group of large dark grey clay bricks, some complete and other fragmentary (0386), lying flat on the surface of the sand (Pl.114). This is reminiscent of the bricks (0082) found in the sand around the column base emplacement, and perhaps represents construction debris. Only two small finds were recovered from the clay deposit 0274 excavated from this room: a ceramic mould for a square bead or inlay (F193, Fig.50, Pl.210) and two fragments from a small faience vessel (F196). The sanctuary proper consisted of three contiguous rooms directly south of the transverse hall. Doorways in wall 0242 must have provided access to the spaces behind (see Spencer 1997: pl.4), but the walls are not preserved to a height which allows their emplacement to be seen. The three spaces were of equal size (4.75x2.98m), defined by the exterior walls already mentioned, in addition to two north south walls, 0244 and 0395. These two walls are striking in that they were only one 42 | Kom Firin I

brick length thick; perhaps the chapels were originally lined with thin stone blocks.20 The rear wall of the sanctuary area (0222–0243), indeed of the temple proper, was a significant wall of 1.55m thick, and though badly damaged by grass roots, was preserved to 1.09m in height (Fig.19, Pl.117); all of the walls running north of this wall were bonded, and contemporary, with it. Areas of brick collapse, well articulated in some places, were encountered to the north of the wall (0248 and 0249; Fig.19), though mixed up with other areas of rubble clearly derived from the side walls of these rooms. These deposits include 0247 from wall 0244, 0245 from wall 0395 (with up to 11 courses of articulated collapse) and 0384–0276 from the east wall (0278) of the sanctuary complex. Part of the wall collapse 0247 was removed to reveal the wall 0244, and a layer of clean sand (0253; Pl.117).21 Sherds of Late Period date were encountered within the deposit; the same was true of rubble 0276 (e.g. C383, C385, Figs.37, 41). This evidence suggests the destruction and collapse of the building may still have been occurring during the late 1st millennium bc, unless it represents a secondary deposition of this building rubble. Elsewhere, parts of the temple had fallen into disuse during the Third Intermediate Period, notably in the north-western corner (see below). The shallow deposits in the three sanctuaries yielded few finds. Corroded metal fragments were found within the wall collapse 0248 and 0276. In the fill (0275) excavated out of the easternmost of the three rooms, a fragment of bifacially worked flint was recovered (F200, Pl.236), along with a corroded fragment of a chisel or tool blade (F370). As the transverse hall did not extend across the full width of the temple proper, another space was created in the southwest corner. At 3.56m wide and 9.05m long, it is bounded by the walls 0352–0218 (east), 0360–0209 (west), 0208 (north) and 0222 (south) (Figs.2, 15, 19). Only a small proportion of this space was exposed, principally in trench TW. The exterior, or western wall, 0360, was covered by a 35cm thick layer of rubble and brick collapse when first exposed (0368),22 including some areas of articulated brickwork, but also a mass of brickwork (0359) which could not be attributed to collapse from wall 0360 or the eastern wall of the space, 0352. Interestingly, the southern wall of this space west of the three chapels is less thick (by 63cm) than the rest of the temple’s back wall. In contrast, the wall is 1.55m thick behind the central sanctuary, and seemingly those two rooms to the east, as a similar thickness is encountered at the wall’s far eastern end (now 1.33m thick but with no preserved edges). The reduction in the scale of the wall west of the sanctuary could reflect that the rooms on either side of the three sanctuaries were considered less sacred, and thus less in need of architectural protection (on architectural protection, see Spencer 2003c). In any case, it was clearly envisioned as a different type of room to the three immediately to the east. Could the space west of the three sanctauries have been used as a staircase to provide access to the roof? Contemporary temples in areas near the limits of Egypt proper also feature tripartite sanctuaries. At Zawyet Umm el-Rakham, the chapels are arranged symmetrically about the temple’s axis (Snape 2004: 150, 153 fig.2). In contrast, at Amara West, the three contiguous chapels are arranged slightly to the left of the central axis, thus creating a space for a stone staircase (Spencer

The Ramesside Temple 1997: 49, pls.4, 50 [a, c]). At Aksha, a possible staircase was located on the other side of the sanctuary (Vercoutter 1962: 111, fig.1). Though the asymmetry about the central axis is more marked at Kom Firin, it is possible this south-western corner of the temple proper provided access to the roof. Of course, it is also possible that the room had another function, perhaps as a storeroom or additional chapel, but the change in wall thickness of the rear wall would be difficult to explain in the latter case. The Amara West temple is built of sandstone, whereas the Kom Firin example is largely of mud-brick. Nonetheless, staircases in multi-storey mudbrick structures lay well within the abilities of ancient Egyptian builders. Alas, the almost total destruction of this area means finding further evidence for the function of the spaces rests largely on the excavation of similar structures. Side rooms and later occupation The layout of walls to the west and east of the temple proper indicate a series of small contiguous spaces, but the location of any interconnecting doorways has been lost, as elsewhere in the temple (Fig.2). While the axial location of the main doorways makes a plausible reconstruction of the temple plan a relatively straightforward task, there is more ambiguity as to how the rooms to either side of the temple are interpreted. It is very clear that the east and west complex of rooms differed somewhat in their layout: the western suite features broader rooms, accessed off a narrow corridor running the length of the columned room and sanctuary complex. In contrast, to the east, the rooms are smaller, and are not accessed off a corridor. Outside the eastern run of rooms was a long narrow space, seemingly not divided further, as no cross-walls appeared in the magnetometry data, excavations, nor in the surface topography. Finally, a monumental wall ran parallel to the temple on its eastern side, most likely the division between sacred temple and more profane structures immediately to the east. Western rooms Immediately west of the temple’s first court was a space measuring 10.15 by 9.05m. Very little of this area was excavated. The south-eastern corner was bounded by the walls 0267 and 0279. The small area revealed within this corner of the room was, after removal of the topsoil (0240), found to contain deposits of articulated brickwork (0270), clearly formed following the westwards collapse of wall 0267 (Figs.16–17, Pl.103). No finds were encountered within this collapse. The north-western corner of this room, bounded by walls 0173 and 0174, was partly cleared as part of trench TK, after removal of a deposit of wind-blown sand (0163) and a mass of well-articulated easterly wall collapse (0175, Fig.26) from wall 0173 had been removed. This collapse was up to 1.15m thick in places, and yielded a faience udjat-eye (F141, Pl.200) and a fragment from a small vessel of the same material (F155). Fragments of shallow bowls with red-painted rims were recovered from the wall collapse, along with redburnished sherds of the New Kingdom. Below this collapse lay a brown clay deposit (0227). Unfortunately, not a single sherd was recovered from this deposit, which could have helped date the collapse of the wall. Other than a small fragment of

corroded metal, the most notable feature of this north-western corner was the presence of powdery deposits of bright blue and deep red, most likely to be from decomposed faience objects, possibly (in view of the shape of these deposits) rectangular plaques. As these traces were found near the north-western corner, they may be the remnants of foundation deposits, otherwise not encountered at Kom Firin. It is likely that this room, of unknown purpose, would have been accessed through a side door in the front court; one is found on either side of the peristyle court at Amarna West (Spencer 1997: pl.4), while a single side door provides access to the same space at Zawyet Umm el-Rakham (Snape 2004: 153 fig.2). The clean sand on to which the walls were founded was revealed as 0236 (Pl.102) beneath the clay layer (0227). The east-west wall (0174) has been discussed above, but the excavations in trench TK made it clear that this wall was contemporary and bonded to the westernmost wall revealed in the temple (0173, Fig.28). This wall was at least 1.59m thick, and may have been up to 3.75m thick, if the brickwork 0235 was part of this wall. At such a thickness, this wall could be seen as an western counterpart to the enclosing wall on the east side of the temple complex (0293). In this interpretation, there would be a degree of symmetry to the temple complex, though without the corridor between side rooms and perimeter wall. However, it is also possible that 0235 represents part of an eastwest wall extending west of the wall 0173, perhaps forming part of a sequence of spaces at the western edge of the temple space, or outside a thicker enclosing wall as found on the eastern side (0293). The easterly collapse from the north-south wall 0173 is important in that the dark clay bricks set into a sandy mortar are sufficiently well articulated to indicate they derive from at least seven distinct courses of the original wall (Fig.26). When added to the 11 preserved courses of brickwork, an original minimum height for this wall of c.1.90m can be ascertained. Again, this suggests that the wall was not merely part of the substructure but was part of the main superstructure, perhaps plastered or even lined with stone blocks. The lower, still in situ, parts of the wall 0173 were predominately of bricks featuring a a distinctive ‘swirly’ mix of sandy and grey clay, as found in the lower courses of several other of the temple walls (e.g. the front wall (0157) in TG, Figs.12–13). Wall 0173 was also exposed some way further south, as 0031 (see below). Trench TK: re-occupation of the temple area The 18m² area exposed to the west of the wall 0173 proved one of the most rewarding areas of excavation within the temple area, both in terms of the preserved deposits and in situ objects, but especially on account of the important chronological information recovered. The excavation of the surface deposit (0158), in which a concentration of ceramic material was clustered along the western edge of the trench, immediately indicated that this area might yield a different assemblage of pottery and finds than that encountered elsewhere in the temple area. Besides a modest amount of red granite chippings, and sizeable fragments of worked granodiorite (F119, Pl.222) and quartzite (F111, Pl.215), perhaps from architecture or statuary set up in the temple proper, this deposit yielded a relatively large selection of finds. Five fragments of fired clay cobra figurines (F064, Kom Firin I | 43

Spencer F066, F068, F069 and F081, Fig.48, Pls.158, 161, 168, 169, 176), a ceramic mould for a Bes amulet (F075, Pl.218), a pierced limestone object (F109, Pl.214), some stone pounders or rubbers (F110, F113, F120, Pls.216–17, 223), a flint ‘scoop’ (F072, Fig.51, Pl.232), a tringular ceramic ‘counter’ (F082, Pl.198) and some corroded copper alloy fragments all came from this deposit. The pottery included material from Late Antiquity, but also parts of New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period and Ptolemaic vessels, including pilgrim flasks of widely varying date (e.g. C248, C345, Fig.45). Some of the sherds bore staining with a vitreous material. Beneath the surface layer (0158), an area of degraded brickwork was exposed (0162), that eventually turned out to follow the line of the walls revealed below but also another adjacent pottery-rich deposit just to the north (0165). The degraded brickwork (0162) also yielded very varied pottery, including sherds dating to Late Antiquity, with an exterior buff slip, but also late New Kingdom and Third Intedmediate Period material (C246, C260, Figs.39, 46, Pl.263). The pottery-rich deposit to the north (0165) filled a gap in the walls of the small room described hereafter (0172, 0182, 0183, 0184), and thus cannot be considered as wholly secure, as some later material may have infiltrated the north-western corner of this space. Ceramic material included sherds from Canaanite jars, pilgrim flasks (C245, Fig.45) and vessels with cross-hatched decoration (C246, Fig.46, Pl.259), alongside material of the late Roman and Coptic periods. Finds included the upper part of a cobra figurine (F107, Fig.49) and a smoothed fragment of limestone of unclear purpose (F114). Once these deposits were removed, a small room with dimensions of 1.48x3.33m was clearly delineated by four mudbrick walls (Figs.26–7, Pl.99). The walls were distinct from those in the temple, being constructed of bricks only 8cm thick, bonded with sandy mortar. Some of the bricks were of sandy clay, while others were of a dark grey-black clay, but in both cases, individual bricks were not always discernible due to the poor quality of the material; the clay often crumbled when brushed or trowelled. The walls were between 92cm (0172, on east side) and 46cm thick (south wall 0182), and preserved up to 1.56m in height. Within, three distinct phases of occupation were revealed, each with homogenous ceramic assemblages and a range of objects and vessels one would expect to find in a domestic, rather than a formal, sacred, context. Excavations were partly hampered by illicit overnight cutting into deposits to remove apparently intact pottery, which was then smashed in the hope of revealing antiquities within. The first, or latest, level encountered in this room, was a 47cm thick deposit of compacted clay and organic material (0180). Other than a few intrusive Ptolemaic sherds, most likely from the deposit 0165 which lay over and against the northwestern corner of the room, where no wall was preserved (an ancient doorway emplacement?), the pottery in this deposit could all be ascribed to the very end of the New Kingdom or the early Third Intermediate Period (see Chapter 5). Three large cooking vessels were placed against the three walls of the room (Figs.26–7, Pl.120), all in a very coarse open fabric (48, 49 and 65cm in diameter; one is included in the corpus: C301, Fig.39, Pl.249). Alongside some corroded metal fragments, the finds amounted to a small limestone cup (F145, Fig.51, Pl.219), a worked siltstone object (F156, Pl.221) and a flint knife blade 44 | Kom Firin I

with serrated edge (F138, Pl.234). A slightly more compacted deposit lay beneath the cooking vessels (0201), the top of which may actually have been a de facto floor surface. This deposit proved to be only 16cm thick, but yielded a mass of very homogenous ceramic material with more in common with New Kingdom forms rather than the ensuing centuries. The finds within were consistent with the identification of this space as a domestic setting: a fragment from a hand-modelled ceramic figurine, perhaps a gazelle (F137, Pl.182), a series of beads and a necklace spacer (faience, carnelian, steatite; F142, Pl.204) and a faience amulet (F143, Fig.50, Pl.203). The next deposit excavated, 0225, was again of a similar character, in this case up to 21cm thick. A granodiorite cuboid impressed with a smooth depression was recovered (F152, Pl.224), along with a fragment of worked quartizte (F153) and a piece of limestone with smoothed sides (F154, Pl.225). The final level (0228), earliest in the stratigraphic sequence within this small room, was rather different in terms of material, with a higher proportion of brick rubble, most likely from the temple walls (0173, 0235) just beneath. Many of the sherds bore evidence of burning, and there was a noticeable increase in the amount of animal bone, particularly near the centre of the room, where many fragments of charcoal were also encountered (Pl.121). The pottery within the 34cm of deposit excavated included forms typical of the final phase of the New Kingdom. Some fragments of faience vessels (F165) and a base from a small ceramic cobra figurine (F168, Pl.173) were found in this layer (Fig.49). Other than providing a secure series of phases of domestic occupation of the Third Intermediate Period,23 or shortly before, the importance of this room lies in the fact that its walls are founded upon the partly destroyed remains of the temple walls. By the time the eastern wall of the rooms was built (0172), at least seven courses of the temple wall (0173) had collapsed eastwards (0175; Fig.26). Thus by the end of the New Kingdom, this part of the temple had fallen into disrepair, and had been re-used for domestic purposes. As the temple was in all likelihood founded during the reign of Ramses II, it seems only to have been in use for less than two centuries.24 The stratigraphic evidence from this trench also proves that the Ramesside stonework found in the temple was not re-used at a later date,25 but rather is contemporary with the construction of the temple. Whether more of the temple was subject to domestic re-use at this era will never be known, as the area is severely truncated. This is partly the consequence of Shafiq Farid’s excavation of the temple, but perhaps also levelling activity in the latter part of the 1st millennium bc or later. Around the room excavated in TK, one would expect to find a series of similar size spaces, but these areas have not been the subject of investigation (though note the comments on the deposits encountered in TF, below). It is evident, however, that other parts of the temple walls collapsed during the Third Intermediate Period, if not before (0270 in TQ), though in other parts it might have happened later (0293 in UC; rubble 0276 and 0247 in TX and UA). Returning to consider the suite of rooms alongside the western edge of the temple complex, a narrow 1.91m-wide corridor flanks the whole 16m length of the western side of the

The Ramesside Temple columned hall (Fig.2), bounded by the walls 0262 (north), 0209/0264 (east), 0265 (west) and 0208 (south). It seems reasonable to assume that a doorway provided communication between the temple forecourt and this corridor, from which access was provided to the two rooms to the west of here, and possibly to the corridor immediately to the south (flanking the sanctuary area). Again, doorway emplacements are not preserved. The 74cm-thick wall providing the western limit of the corridor (0265) was preserved to 52cm in height. Part of the northern end of this corridor was excavated in trench TQ. Much of it was filled with brick collapse from the surrounding walls (0281, 0286 and 0287, Fig.16). These must partly derive from wall 0265, but also the northern wall (0262, 106cm thick and preserved to 52cm in height). These collapse layers could not be closely dated on the basis of ceramics, though Canaanite amphora fragments were recovered from 0286 (C366, Fig.43), as well as forms dating to the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (e.g. C367, C368, C371, Figs.36–7, 40). No finds were recovered from here, other than the massive limestone doorsill (0280, Pl.112). As this was not in situ, it should not be assumed that it relates to a doorway leading from this space; it is discussed further below. In a southerly extension to trench TQ, more of wall 0264 was revealed (Fig.16), with clear articulated collapse to the west (0287). As mentioned above, the surface layer (0298) yielded a copper alloy chisel head (F248). A narrow east-west room (10.4x4.7m) lay off the northern end of the corridor. While the western wall of this room was not revealed, it is reasonable to assume that it is identical to the wall encountered elsewhere as 0031 and 0173. The northern wall 0279 was contemporary and bonded with walls 0267 and 0262, which both formed part of the first court in the temple proper. Wall 0279 was 90cm thick, and preserved to 98cm in height; a small area excavated within the room consisted of a sand-heavy clay deposit (0290) which probably lay just above the natural sand found elsewhere in the temple area. The stratum above (0266), a mixture of clay, sand lenses and a few brick fragments, yielded pottery forms diagnostic of the late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (C363, C369, C372, C373, Figs.35, 39–41), including a body sherd of ‘red-oncream’ ware (C370, Fig.46). Finds recovered from here included fragments of worked quartzite (F187, Pl.227), a ceramic object of unclear purpose (F190) and a sandstone quern (F192, Pl.228). Several small pieces of corroded metal were also recovered. The southern limit of this room was bounded by the east-west wall 0282, which was only partly revealed, as it was flanked by articulated brick collapse to both the north (0283) and south (0284). South of this room lay another space, again bounded on the east by 0209 and 0265 (the latter 2½ bricks thick and preserved to only 11cm in height). The magnetometry data (Pl.76), and observations of the surface topography, suggest no other cross wall existed between the wall 0282 and wall 0050 (excavated as part of trench TE and TZ), thus indicating a larger space of 10.4x c.9.60m.26 As with most of the walls on this western side of the temple, there were significant deposits of brick collapse (0032, 0049), some well articulated (Fig.14, Pl.122), north of wall 0050. While the wall was preserved to only 70cm in thickness, and 38cm in height, the collapse deposit included 10

clear courses of articulated brickwork, providing evidence that this wall originally stood at least 1.58m in height, once again illustrating the fact that many of the mud-brick walls formed part of the superstructure as well as the foundations. The topsoil (0028, 0035) above and around the east-west wall 0050 yielded a rim fragment of a black-slipped Ptolemaic bowl (C035, Fig.37), a fragment from a ceramic figurine of a quadruped (F006, Fig.50, Pl.178), and a sherd worked into a circular disc (F042, Pl.190). Wall 0050 was bonded to the north-south wall 0031, itself preserved to 70cm in height, though its full thickness was not revealed. As with other walls preserved to this height, the upper courses consisted of dark grey-black bricks bonded with a sandy mortar (Pl.123). These two rooms were presumably accessed from the long corridor flanking the temple’s columned hall, otherwise it would have been an unnecessary feature of the building, though it is of course possible that they were interconnected in their own right. A space to the south of these rooms (10.4x8.8m), west of the sanctuary complex of the temple proper, was also flanked by a narrow corridor-like space (8.8x1.91m), formed from walls 0208, 0209 and 0218 (Fig.2). Some of these walls have been discussed in relation to the adjacent spaces, but it is worth noting that the western wall (0361), at 1.18m thick and preserved to 80cm in height, seems to have been somewhat thicker than that to the east (0360, Fig.15). From the brick rubble fill (0363) encountered in the corridor, two fragments of cobra figurines were recovered (F250, F251, Pls.163, 175). There is nothing to suggest that this space was further divided, but another small structure formed with walls only a half-brick thick was identified in the middle of the space (0380), at a somewhat different alignment to the walls of the temple proper (Fig.15, Pl.124). Preserved to only one course of bricks, which may have been its original height, the fill (0381) excavated from within yielded a worked fragment of calcite (F252) and a Canaanite amphora sherd. As with the example to the east of the temple (0294–0295 in UC), it is difficult to provide an interpretation of this feature’s function, though it would have blocked the route of the corridor if built up beyond foundation level. Similarly ‘flimsy’ structures were encountered in New Kingdom levels at Memphis (Jeffreys 2006: 29). It is unknown whether this southern extension to the corridor was only accessible from the northern corridor, or if access was provided from the east, that is from the room adjacent to the three sanctuaries. The room to the west of this corridor was only exposed over a very small area, in trenches TZ and TW. After removal of the surface layer (0028) in TZ, and subsequent layers of clay with varying amounts of brick rubble in it (0098, 0100, 0102), some containing Late Period ceramics (e.g. C195, Fig.46), a layer of sandy-clay was encountered (0115), with patches of brick mortar splashed across its extent (Fig.14). Just south-east of here, more brick rubble (0362) was encountered in trench TW, adjacent to the western edge of wall 0361. The southern boundary of this room was not exposed, but the surface topography clearly indicated that wall 0222/0243, the back wall of the temple, continued westwards (Pl.69). Eastern rooms Four spaces lined the eastern edge of the temple proper, in a similar layout to those on the opposite side, though the sizes of Kom Firin I | 45

Spencer the individual rooms vary (Fig.2). Furthermore, there is no corridor betweem the columned hall and these eastern rooms. Thus the middle two rooms either had dedicated access doors from the columned hall, or were reached from the rooms adjacent to the north and south. The northernmost space in the eastern suite is formed from a continuation of the temple’s front wall (0157), the eastern wall of the court (0452), an east-west wall (0457) and the long northsouth wall that provides the boundary for this whole eastern suite of rooms (0292 in UC, 0094 in TB and TT). This last wall is best preserved as 0292 in UC, where it is 1.38m thick, or three brick lengths with mortar (Fig.25). The room encloses an area of 6.7x11.1m, the part excavated yielding only accumulations of clay (0451) and sand (0455), with a small amount of redeposited brick fragments, lying atop clean sand (0461). The water table was encountered at site level 0.49m. Unlike the layout on the western side, the lack of a corridor on the eastern side creates a small, seemingly redundant space immediately west of the south-western corner of the northernmost room on this side of the temple (Figs.2, 23–4). Only 2.5m² in area, once the thickness of the eastern wall (0452) and western wall (i.e. the wall of the columned hall, 0024) are taken into account, a space only 75cm wide would remain. While this could have been used as a storage cupboard, it is also likely to have been bricked up. Alternatively, given the level to which these walls are preserved, it may have been a feature not reflected in the superstructure’s architecture. The next room in the eastern suite (7.9x4.4m) abutted directly on to the columned hall, though did not necessarily have a doorway leading from that space. Again, the deposits encountered within included brick rubble (0456), whose articulation pattern suggest it might derive largely from the wall of the columned hall lying just west of here (Fig.24), and a sandy layer with many fragments of mortar and brick fragments (0460). The latter deposit may have been a consequence of the building preparations, as it runs under walls 0451 and 0452 (Fig.23). A hand-made spindle-flask (C427, Fig.45) was found in these levels. Parts of all four walls of the third room in the eastern suite (7.9x7.8m) were exposed during excavation (0024, 0453, 0094 and 0118), but little of the internal area was excavated. Decorated sherds included two fragments of blue-painted ware (C198, C199, Figs.46–7), a sherd from a jar with flared neck bearing a buff-coloured motif (C200, Fig.41) and one decorated with blue and brown bands (C207, Fig.46). The southernmost room on the eastern side (8.0x8.8m), that is south of wall 0241, was similar in size to that to the west of the sanctuary complex, but without the intervening corridor. The south-eastern corner of this room, formed from walls 0093 and 0094, which are contemporary and bonded, was excavated as part of trench TT (Fig.8, Pl.100). A deposit of brick rubble (0117) with a high sand content, perhaps hinting at the presence of natural sand further below, yielded a disc cut from a sherd (F063, Pl.193). Outside the wall forming the eastern edge of these rooms (0452, 0292, 0094, 0093) lies a space 4.1m wide; the lack of cross walls encountered in excavations, or suggested by survey and surface observations, suggests that this is an open space or corridor, between the superstructure of the temple proper and the thick enclosing wall. The only notable features were two 46 | Kom Firin I

small adjoining brick walls (0294–0295), bonded to wall 0292, and founded on the virgin sand (0431, Fig.25). These walls, both only one brick length thick, define a space 1.44m wide, while at least 0.97m long, the northern limit not being found within trench UC. What was the nature of this structure? As with the wall north of the temple proper (0230 in TK, Fig.28) discussed above, this cannot have formed the support for any significant structure, and the fact that the walls are not aligned to the temple itself may suggest that it is not part of the original plan for the superstructure. Again, it may be a pit used during construction, subsequently hidden by the superstructure. The scale of a feature such as this is not likely to appear on the magnetometry survey, nor be reflected in the surface topography, so we cannot rule out the possibility that further structures of this type were located south or north of here. The small amount of deposit (0355) excavated from within the structure yielded sherds from New Kingdom/early Third Intermediate Period storage jars. Identifying the function of these rooms flanking the temple proper is not possible from foundation layers alone. The lack of symmetry between the two sides is not in itself unusual, and sites with better preservation show how these areas can be frequently remodelled within a relatively short time frame, as at Amara West (Spencer 1997: 55–60, pl.4). The temple at that site features a set of four contiguous rooms east of the hypostlye hall, accessible off a corridor that runs parallel with the temple axis (Spencer 1997: 55–60, pl.4). This corridor can be reached from a doorway in the side wall of the peristyle court which precedes the hypostyle hall. The rooms featured vaulted brick ceilings and inscribed stone doorways; one of them yielded a number of mud-seal impressions, supporting their identification as magazines or papyrus storage rooms. Larger temples have, of course, various subsidiary chapels, storerooms and other rooms within the main building The temple’s boundary wall The temple is flanked on its eastern side by a brick wall of imposing thickness (3.23m), partly exposed in trenches TA (0030, Fig.6) and UC (0293, Fig.25, Pl.104, 125). This is the wall that forms the temple outline visible on the magnetometry (Pl.76). No cross walls linking the wall to structures within the temple have been found through excavation, and are not suggested by the magnetometry data or surface topography. The method of construction used for this wall sets it apart from the other walls in the temple proper, as is clear from segment 0293 revealed in UC. This wall was built from well-made bricks of the same scale, though at the longer end of the scale, being 39–41cm in length, but all of dark grey clay, and distinctively laid on their sides. The only finds recovered from around this wall were small fragments of corroded metal, and a fragment from a fine calcite vessel (F212, Fig.50, Pl.213), from the surface deposit (0291). This surface layer also yielded Canaanite amphorae fragments, and bowls of various dates (e.g. C391–394, Figs.35, 40, 42–3). A cut (0446) into the (evidently long-degraded) wall, 30cm in diamater and lined with mud-plaster, was made to position two superimposed jars (C419, C361, Fig.43), both preserved only as the lower part of the original vessel (Pl.104). One of these can be dated to the 7th century bc (C419), indicating that the boundary wall was severely truncated

The Ramesside Temple within five centuries of its construction. The boundary wall continues south of trench UC, clearly visible as a ridge in the surface topography (Pl.126), reaching the level of the back of the temple sanctuaries. It was found to be less well-preserved in trench TA, though of similar thickness (0030, Fig.6). Considering its position and thickness, it seems reasonable to interpret this wall as one which delineated the boundary between temple and what lay outside the sacred zone. The wall is reminiscent of the ‘4 meter wall’ delimiting the eastern side of a small temple of Ramses II at Memphis (Anthes 1965: 54, pl.1) It would seem very likely that a similar wall existed on the western side, but this has not been identified, principally due to the thick later deposits all along this side. At present, the western most wall identified (exposed as 0031 in TE and 0173 in TK; Figs.14, 28) may have been the corresponding wall. It was only exposed to a thickness of 1.53m, as it was not possible to clear its full width due to the overlying domestic layers. However, it is more likely that this is actually the wall preceding the corridor/space before the enclosing wall, i.e. equivalent to 0292 and 0094 on the eastern side. The construction method of 0031 and 0173 does not match that of the eastern enclosing wall 0293, but rather follows the method used for walls in the temple proper. Symmetry would suggest that the western wall, if we assume it existed, lay just over 4m west of the wall 0031–0173, and would now be shrouded by significant depths of later occupation deposits. Where was the temple’s southern boundary wall, if it existed? Beyond the rear wall of the temple proper (0222– 0243), the magnetometry data shows a conspicuous lack of recognisable features (Pl.76). There are no rectilinear patterns, particularly not the grey-white lines which represent walls within the temple proper. Yet this is not due to being obscured by thick deposits of material with a high magnetic signal, such as ceramics, as on the western and northern edges of the temple. Rather, for some 150m there is a conspicuous silence in the data, south of which the area seems to be more densely populated by areas with higher magnetic differentials. The ground level drops considerably from the already low-lying temple in this area with ‘quiet’ magnetic data. A 12x2m trench (UB) running south from the rear wall of the temple was opened in a bid to answer some of these questions (Fig.30). This confirmed what the magnetometry and surface topography had suggested, namely that beneath a shallow layer of topsoil (0350), which yielded the base from a ceramic cobra figurine (F233, Fig.49, Pl.171), lay a thick, dark clay deposit, only loosely compacted (0366). This proved to be between 30 and 40cm thick, but due to the extensive area exposed (9.3x2m) it is perhaps not surprising that a number of finds and a substantial amount of pottery came from this context: a cylindrical ceramic bead (F229, Pl.207), a flint object (F230, Pl.237) and tool (F244), and two knife blades (F231, F232, Pls.238–9), a quartzite rubber/pounder (F237, Pl.230)27 and worked fragments of calcite (F247) and greywacke (F253), alongside some corroded metal fragments. The pottery recovered included storage jars and bowls of the Third Intermediate Period (e.g. C388, Fig.39). Underneath this clay deposit (0366) lay the now familiar clean yellow sand (0376) which was not excavated (Pl.127). Thus any structures which may have existed here have now

disappeared. In one part of the trench, a deposit of more compacted clay (0367) yielded some Third Intermediate Period forms (e.g. C390, Fig.36), but more intriguing was the very compacted clay deposit at the very south of the trench (0391), preserved to some 1.10–1.27m higher than the sand surface (Fig.30). Careful cleaning of this revealed some brick lines (0390), made up of ‘crumbly’ bricks similar to those found in the domestic installation (trench TK). The exposed area was insufficient to interpret the nature of these features satisfactorily, though it is clearly different from the wellconstructed brick walls in the temple proper. Thus it may also represent a later phase of occupation, or at least a distinct type of structure. Outside the temple West of the temple The area immediately north of the temple has been discussed in the introduction to this chapter, where our comprehension is rather hampered by the thick layers of re-deposited material. If anything, the situation to the west is worse. The present ground level rises steeply to the west of wall 0031 (trench TE, Figs.22, 29), onto a gently undulating surface, lying around 2m above the level of the temple proper (Pl.129). As a result of the additional 2m of stratigraphy in this area, the magnetometry survey does not provide evidence of clear features (Pl.76). That this is due to a high concentration of ceramic deposits, with contrasting magnetic signals in close proximity in the magnetometry data, is clear from trench TF. Even looking some way west of the temple, it is difficult to see any orthogonal patterns, and this data most likely reflects later, often disturbed, deposition rather than structures related to the temple. The imposing 3.23m-thick wall which seems to form an eastern boundary for the temple (0293) would presumably have been matched with a western wall, if not one to the south and north. Two trenches have provided data on this accumulation of material west of the temple, with quite different results. West of the rear of the columned hall, a 5x2m trench was laid out in 2003 (TF, Fig.29), which yielded a mass of ceramics on a scale not encountered elsewhere in the temple area. The upper levels were very loose and yielded a significant amount of ceramics, notably strata 0052 and 0072 (Fig.22). The number of finds was noticeably higher than in the temple proper, and along with the ceramic evidence, pointed towards a domestic context as much as anything else, largely contemporary with that described for TK, above. The topsoil (0047) yielded a pottery disc (F044, Pl.192) and object of unclear purpose (F041, Pl.197), but also a significant amount of Third Intermediate Period pottery (e.g. C127–128, C130, C132–133, C135; Figs.38, 40, 42) and a decorated sherd of similar date (C197, Fig.46). Subsequent strata consisted of very compact deposits of clay, sometimes with intervening lenses of ash or charcoal, and patches of brick rubble (0051, 0052, 0053, 0061). The homogeneity of the ceramic material was reflected in the considerable ceramic evidence, largely of Third Intermediate Period date,28 though with some later sherds in the upper deposits,29 probably a testament to the amount of disturbance in this area since ancient times, including the excavation of the temple and deposits above it. In Kom Firin I | 47

Spencer addition, a fragment of a firedog was found in 0052 (F007, Pl.251). The lowest of the layers excavated (0061) was notable for the amount of metal slag, and corroded metal, encountered, but also two hand-modelled animal figurines: a horse (F070, Fig.50, Pl.179) and an unfired cobra figurine (F007, Fig.48, Pl.164). The latter may have been destined for firing as it is the only unfired example yet found at Kom Firin. The base from a fired figurine was found in the stratum above (F185 from 0052, Pl.172). A number of other finds derived from these similar contexts: 21 pottery discs (F001, F003, F009, F016, F037, Pls.183–5, 187, 191), and fragments of hard stone with worked surfaces (quartzite, F019; granite, F020). In the 116cm depth to the excavation, the only structural feature encountered was the 1.74m length of a narrow mudbrick wall (0068). Only one brick length thick, this was built on a different alignment to the walls in the temple, but rather similar to the alignment of the small room found in TK, 22m north of here (walls 0172 and 0183 in particular; Fig.28). The level atop the wall was 3.44m, again similar to the occupation levels encountered in the small domestic room to the north of here (2.48–3.84m in trench TK, Fig.27). Furthermore, the size and quality of the bricks (28−30x9−10x8cm thick) is also similar, and distinct, from those encountered in the Ramesside temple. It thus seems reasonable to interpret this area (TF) as being part of the domestic occupation zone which post-dated the temple’s occupation. The nature of the finds discussed above, with ceramic figurines, coarseware pottery, a firedog and remnants of slag and charcoal, though not in situ, are consistent with this interpretation. On the same level as this wall, but at the eastern edge of the trench, a thick deposit of clay, sand and ash, but with noticeable areas of powdery green staining, was partly excavated (0069, 0072, 0091, 0092, 0114). The concentration of ceramic material was even higher here, with a mass of fineware small bowls alongside coarseware sherds; the material dated almost exclusively to the late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period.30 Coarseware sherds bearing remnants of slag were found in 0072. Two further pottery discs (F023, Pl.188) and a ceramic base for a cobra figurine were found here too (F025, Fig.50, Pls.167, 174). Further finds from contexts in this trench are worth noting: a pottery object (F005 from 0067, Pl.156) and a carnelian pendant (F047 from 0069, Pl.201). East of the temple The present situation east of the temple, that is outside the boundary wall (0293), is rather different (Fig.2). Here, the surface level does not rise as rapidly as in the western area, but rather there is a zone of low-lying ground. The current project’s excavations, focused on the temple, have not investigated this area, except in three trenches (UC, TH and TA). In both cases, segments of the same north-south wall were revealed (0296 in UC; 0078 in TH; 0026 in TA), running parallel with the temple, leaving a gap 1.95m wide, perhaps originally an unroofed corridor.31 With a thickness of c.1.35m, wall 0296–0078–0026 must have been part of a significant structure, built in the same construction technique as the temple itself. It is likely that this complex is broadly contemporary with the temple. In the 48 | Kom Firin I

compacted clay deposit east of wall 0026, some limestone fragments and a ceramic disc were unearthed (F014, Pl.186); a cluster of limestone fragments, all unworked, were found above the remains of wall 0296. The topsoil above and around this wall yielded a ceramic bead (F012) and part of a cobra figurine (F015), while a number of painted plaster fragments were found in lower deposits, notably above the wall itself (F030, F039, F062, Pls.241, Pl.261), as well as the head from a cobra figurine (F035, Fig.48, Pl.157) and a faience vessel fragment (F059, Pl.211). Viewing the area as a whole, it is clear that the wall forms part of a network of walls visible to the south. Shafiq Farid is likely to have cleared these walls, as they were still visible in the late 1970s when the area was mapped by the Naukratis Project (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 376 ill.12). Though heavily eroded and covered with sand and grass, the ridges of the surface topography clearly indicate the location of these walls (Pl.131). There are three contiguous spaces, aligned east-west, laid out on the same orientation as the temple proper. The middle of these spaces may have been further divided, as surface traces suggest at least one north-south cross wall. The wall forming the southern boundary of these rooms has a possible doorway at its western end, south of this is a notable depression, clearly delineated in the surface topography, and roughly on the same level as the temple sanctuary complex. Could it have been some form of pool, lake or water feature? East of this complex, the surface slopes upwards, atop which is a pedestal of accumulated deposits and structure (Pl.132), revealing deposits built up against and over an east-west mudbrick wall, with 10 courses of grey-black clay bricks visible in section. This material may be broadly contemporary with the domestic occupation on the western side of the temple. ‘Trench II’ of the Naukratis Project was located east of the temple area (Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 80–1, fig.11; Coulson and Leonard 1982b: 376 [ill.12], 379–80, pl.49 [fig.18]; Coulson and Leonard 1982d: 15). On the basis of their map, correlated with our topographic map and observation of surface features, the location of this trench can be fairly accurately identified (Fig.1). It lay to the east of the depression that marks the temple area excavated by Farid, or c.27m east of the temple’s eastern enclosing wall (0293 in trench UC). Between this wall and trench II lay a series of partly visible mudbrick walls, termed ‘structure C’ in the Naukratis Project reports. This trench sought to see how this area related to the temple. Deposits, 365cm thick, were removed in the 2x2m trench, to 3.04m ASL, where the water table was encountered; such a depth of deposits is consistent with this trench being on more elevated ground east of the temple depression.32 Five phases were identified (Coulson and Leonard 1982a: 81): I A sandy deposit (2023), sterile around the water table. Many snail shells, proposed to be water-borne natural deposition. The presence of this layer accords well with discovery of sterile sand throughout British Museum excavations (2003–2006), though no snail shells were noted. II ‘Floor’ 2020 (laid directly on sand 2023 and hearth 2019. The ‘floor’ is described as being made of ‘sandy, silt bricks arranged in a patternless mosaic of between one to three courses. Several fragments of iron were recovered from the floor; these may represent the remains of nails used to hold down a ‘wood or mat covering’. It is difficult to agree with this interpretation. This layer would seem more likely to be an area of brick rubble and collapse, as rather fragmentary bricks are used, the thickness of the deposit is very uneven, and it is not

The Ramesside Temple associated (within the 2x2m sondage) with any structure or space. A 4m² area of brick collapse is not uncommon at Kom Firin, especially in the temple area.33 The excavators then suggested this ‘massive’ floor may have been a predecessor to a limestone temple avenue of the type seen by Petrie. This is rather unlikely, as we know the limestone avenue was not in this area, and is probably part of the later temple, not the Ramesside structure (see Chapter 3). In any case, this ‘trench II’ was not upon the axis of the Ramesside temple. A hearth was found upon this floor, or at least a rectangular area of 0.45x0.8m, filled with soot, ash, charcoal and burnt bone, lined with sherds and burnt sand. It was suggested that this may have been a ceremonial fireplace, in connection with the avenue. A Third Intermediate Period date is assigned to the pottery, which would correlate well with the known date of collapse and destruction of parts of the temple (see below). These contexts, with domestic activity taking place upon a surface, itself perhaps formed from collapsed walls, is very reminiscent of the situation encountered in TK (see below). III Deep sediments (2013) with an east-west wall (2014) preserved to 30cm in height. It is constructed of a variety of brick sizes and clay types; the excavators proposed it was built of re-used bricks. This is possible, but the use of a variety of bricks in walls is not unusual at Kom Firin. Ceramics are dated to the Ptolemaic era. IV A debris zone 80cm thick, with contexts 2012–2004, which yielded 600 offering bowls of five types (Coulson and Leonard 1982a: fig.12), pithos fragments, amphorae with pierced bases, and much bone, brick and charcoal fragments. The amount of pottery led the excavators to the suggestion this is a pottery dump associated with the temple, and thence that Structure C was a storeroom. Pottery of the 1st–2nd centuries ad was recovered from these contexts, again much too late for this temple to be functioning. It is more likely this is a later occupation level. V Contexts 2003–2001, with loose debris containing ceramics, bone and limestone fragments. The lack of compactness to the deposit led the excavators to interpret these layers as spoil from Farid’s excavations of Structure C.

Another account of this trench gives somewhat different information, perhaps while work had yet to be completed: after 100cm was removed from the surface, a ‘destruction level’ (2005) of mud-brick rubble, charcoal fragments and bone. Twenty complete and 185 fragments of shallow bowls were recovered from this context (nos.81-6 to 81-12; Coulson and Leonard 1982b: ill.13), as well as large pithos fragments and at least three amphorae with pierced bases. The temple superstructure The superstructure of the temple is almost entirely destroyed, and this may have been the case since the early 1st millennium bc, but was certainly the situation when Petrie visited the site. Nonetheless, fragments of architecture and other evidence can be brought together to produce some idea of the structure’s original appearance. Mud-brick and limestone were the key materials, but the evidence for a range of other stones, painted surfaces and metal objects remind us that such structures would have been populated with architecture, statuary, furniture and cult equipment in a variety of materials, lending a richness of colour and texture now largely lost from temples throughout Egypt. Of course, more delicate materials such as wood and papyrus almost never survive in the Delta environment. Mud-brick was used copiously in the temple foundations, but the excavation of up to seventeen courses of a mud-brick wall, implying a height of 1.9m (TK 0173-0175; Fig.27), with a later domestic context built over it, suggests that some of the temple superstructure was also built of mud-brick, possibly

lined with stone. The rough surfaces upon the non-inscribed faces of the large door-jamb (see below) were clearly prepared in a manner best suited for the jamb being inserted into a mudbrick wall (Pl.148).34 Mud-brick is used for supersturcture architecture in a wide number of New Kingdom temples, and not just for ancillary structures and enclosure walls. Several New Kingdom temples feature mudbrick pylons (see n.13), and the temples at Tell el-Amarna are also largely of mudbrick. At Kom el-Hisn, Kirby posited a mud-brick temple of the New Kingdom, with limestone chippings perhaps attesting to blocks which originally lined the walls (1988: 31–7). Unfortunately, the small areas exposed made it unclear if the mudbrick walls revealed were merely foundation walls or actually parts of the superstructure, so it is not certain that this temple had a mudbrick superstructure. The dependence on brick as a building material would ease pressure on resources, a key concern in the Delta where decent stone quarries were always some distance away. With whitewashing, and even lining the walls with thin limestone reliefs, one must not see these temples as drab mud-brick coloured structures. Limestone, varying widely in quality, was the other principal building material at Kom Firin, as attested by the column drums, base fragments and large blocks found on the surface. Limestone chippings found in the south-eastern temple are most likely to come from the Ramesside temple,35 but dense deposits found elsewhere at Kom Firin may come from later temples (see Chapter 3). Seven fragments of columns lie on the surface in the temple area. 1 Column drum. Dimensions: 26cm thick, diameter:88cm. 2 Column drum (Pl.134). Dimensions: 37cm thick, diameter:102cm. No worked surfaces preserved. 3 Column drum. Dimensions: 25cm thick, diameter: 99cm. No worked surfaces preserved. 4 Half of a column base (Pl.136). Dimensions: 71cm thick; lower radius: 81cm; upper radius: 70cm. The upper, more narrow, part is 37cm thick, while the lower part is 36cm, creating a stepped profile. 5 Half of a column base. Dimensions: 71cm thick, upper radius: 81cm. Same profile as no.4 6 Half of a column base (Pl.136). Dimensions: 46cm thick, upper radius: 81cm. Same profile as no.4, but very weathered. 7 Half of a column base. Dimensions: 81cm thick, upper radius: 81cm.

The two Ramesside column bases recovered by Edgar (1911), whose wherabouts are no longer known, were 165cm in diameter and were also formed of two semicircular elements, thus presumably part of the same series as nos. 4–7 above. Their stepped appearance may be original, but it is unusual, so it may reflect the cutting out of a horizontal band of hieroglyphs from the bases at some point. The fragments recovered in the foundations (F036, F053, F054+058, F056; Pls.151–5) could be from one of these bases. The three other Kom Firin I | 49

Spencer circular segments from columns, listed above (nos. 1–3), are of varying diameters, and must come from the column shafts. All three of these pieces appear to be of a denser limestone, though perhaps the surfaces are simply better preserved due to the depositional environment. The diameter, varying between 88–102cm, reflects the taper of the completed column shafts towards the top. Several large limestone blocks littered on surface may indicate that the walls of the temple superstructure were not all of mud-brick, with limestone used only for columns, gateways and relief lining. Two notable examples currently lie just south of the temple: that to the south-west measuring 96x102x84cm (Pl.135), while that to the south-east being 123x84 x 74cm. The main doorways of the Ramesside temple were built of limestone, as is evident from the doorjamb re-erected at the antiquities resthouse (Pl.146–8), but also from the jamb and lintel fragments in Cairo (Pls.138–45). As mentioned above, these originally abutted mudbrick walls. The inner face of the doorjamb, set back from the inscribed surface, is cut with two deep rectangular depressions, around half way up the height of the jamb (Pls.147, 150). These must have allowed for the locking of the door, using timber bars with a rectangular crosssection (14x24cm). The door would then have pivoted inwards. The discovery of two door-sills (0272, 0280, Pls.111–12) near the front of the Ramesside temple was fortuitous, in view of the almost complete destruction of any stone architecture. These provide invaluable information on the width of some of the gates in the temple. Measuring 184x60x26cm (0272) and 188x78x24cm (0280), they are similar in form to examples found at Medinet Habu,36 with the wider dimensions along one edge originally lying on the exterior side of the door, consistent with door-leaves that opened inwards (0280, Pl.112), and a depression to take the door pivot. Such sills are usually bedded directly onto sand. Sockets are often quarter- or half-circles, as the doors only opened through 45–90°, but the Kom Firin examples both feature fully circular holes. For an example of a complete Ramesside house doorway, with lintel, jambs and theshhold block, see house 50 at Elephantine (Von Pilgrim 1996: 152, fig.60 [b]). The two sills still bore the scratch marks from the repeated opening and closing of the door, indicating identical dimensions of 102cm for the door-leaf of each door. Neither were found in situ, being found face down amongst layers of brick collapse. The opposite surface to the socket is not smoothed, but there is smoothing on the longer edges of both examples, which would aid fitting with the adjacent paving blocks. What is the most likely original location for these doorsills? The main axial gates, providing entrance into the court (in wall 0157) and columned hall (in wall 0135) are good candidates, as these would almost certainly have been embellished with stone, and they lie close to where the sills were found (Fig.2). However, it is possible that they were originally part of doorways nearer the inner parts of the temple, or even from the ancillary rooms. As mentioned above, brick temple magazines are often provided with decorated stone doors. What other stone was used in the Ramesside temple? It is common in Delta temples for significant parts of the superstructure to be built of limestone, with other elements (columns, roofing blocks, lintels, doorjambs) to be made with 50 | Kom Firin I

other varieties of stone. However, this may be truer of Saite and 30th dynasty structures (Samanud, Tanis, Behbeit el-Hagar, Tell Basta) than New Kingdom ones. A quartzite block now at the resthouse is more likely to have come from the now destroyed Late Period or Ptolemaic temples, in addition to the naos seen by Petrie (see Chapter 3).37 However, chips of stone, sometimes with worked surfaces surviving (these ones assigned F-numbers), were found in the temple, including pink granite,38 grey-hued granodiorite,39 quartzite,40 calcite,41 greywacke42 and a very eroded dark stone, perhaps basalt.43 While these may come from architectural elements, it is quite possible that these are the remnants of more portable objects such as stelae or statuary. Of course, wooden statuary and doorways must have existed in the temple, but this material does not survive at Kom Firin. Fragments of corroded metal were fairly typical in archaeological contexts throughout the temple, and doorways could have been embellished in metal. Of course, metal statuary and cult equipment would also have been present in the temple, though the fragments recovered are as likely to come from later re-occupation of the area.44 The decorative programme Amongst the small number of decorated stonework surviving from Kom Firin, all but one can be securely assigned to the Ramesside era, the exception being the quartzite block. Eight reliefs were recovered by Shafiq Farid between 1949 and 1951, complementing the Ramesside column bases recorded by Edgar in 1911,45 the doorjamb now re-erected by the resthouse and the fragments found dumped into a hole beneath an original column emplacement. The preserved Ramesside decoration is found upon three types of architecture: column bases, door lintels and doorjambs. The door-lintels and jambs can be further grouped into those with royal texts, and those bearing depictions and/or references to officials. This material suggests a temple of modest decoration, but it is possible decorated limestone blocks lined the walls, or even that painted scenes were executed on the whitewashed mudbrick walls. Column bases The scale and material of these bases is discussed above, thus comments here are confined to the decoration of the columns. No element of decorated surface has survived from the shafts, despite several drums being well preserved. Perhaps decoration was never intended, or was to be executed in plaster and paint, or was simply never commenced. The bases of the columns were decorated, with parts of at least three separate bases having been recovered. The bases recorded by Edgar (1911: 277–8) were both decorated with a pair of vertical cartouches (Ra-ms-s mry -Imn and Wsr- mAat-r a st p -n-r a), with a band of text running around the circumference of the column base in both directions. This band presented the five-part royal titulary: Living Horus ‘Beloved of Maat’, Two Ladies ‘Protector of Egypt who defeats the Foreign Lands’, Gold ‘Horus Mighty of Years, Great of Strength’, the Dual King Ws r- mAat - r a st p - n - r a

The symmetrically opposed text finished with the nomen: ‘Son of Ra, Lord of Appearances Ra-ms-s mry -Imn’, though one bears the later form of the king’s nomen, Ra-ms-sw mry -Imn,

The Ramesside Temple the form found in all other inscriptions from Kom Firin. Fragments of column bases found dumped in the temple area are evidently parts of similarly inscribed bases. The horizontal line of inscription on these fragments is set within a 17cm high band. The fragments include the following phrases: arranged left to right ‘mry -MAat nb[ty]’ (F054+058, Pl.155) and right to left ‘@r kA nxt’ (F056, Pl.153) and ‘[@r] nbw’ (F053, Pl.154); another fragment comes from a sun disc (F036, Pl.151). None of the fragments preserved parts of vertical cartouches as on the bases seen by Edgar. While ‘Horus Stong Bull beloved of Maat’ fits with several other Ramesside pharaohs (Twosret, Seti II, Amenmesse), the Gold Horus name is that of Ramses II), identical to that noted by Edgar (the face being that of a seated figure), though this writing is not included by Von Beckerath (1999: 155; G1a is a variant). As each column base featured texts running in both directions, the number of bases from which the fragments derive cannot be ascertained. That these column bases, or at least the inscriptions upon them, were painted is clear from the traces of red (F056) and blue (F036) paint found upon them, as with the doorjamb discussed below. Doorways The best preserved part of a doorjamb is that now installed adjacent to the SCA resthouse at Kom Firin, having been revealed by rains in 1983.46 The lower part had been visible at the site since our first season in 2002, though only the inner inscribed surface was visible, and the inscription became progressively more unreadable as it weathered between 2002 and 2005 (compare Pls.150 and 133). A photograph taken in 1993 alerted us to the possibility that the upper fragment existed.47 During assessment of the stone sarcophagi and other remains housed near the resthouse in 2005 (see Chapter 2), a small fragment of limestone was noted protruding from the ground, partly covered with sheep dung and other detritus. Initial clearing of the soil from around the block soon revealed it to be the upper fragment of a doorjamb. With the agreement of our inspector Ibrahim Sobhy Ibrahim, both fragments of the jamb were removed from the moist ground and temporarily placed on wooden blocks on the pavement surrounding the SCA resthouse. This move aimed to reduce contact with groundwater and salts; unfortunately, there is no space within the Kom Firin magazine to store such large and heavy objects. Parts of both fragments’ inscriptions had been covered in muslin and plaster during a previous conservation treatment, presumably that following their discovery in 1983, or maybe even before burial in 1993 or shortly thereafter. This treatment had obscured many details of the hieroglyphs, but cleaning work by Tracey Sweek, from the British Museum’s Department of Conservation and Scientific Research, revealed important new details of the inscription, and brought new clarity to an earlier phase of decoration on the front face. Finally, the fragments were rejoined with a dowel, and the restored jamb was installed upright next to the resthouse.48 Where did the jamb come from? It must have been part of a gateway in the Ramesside temple, perhaps one of the doorways on the main axis. Several villagers claim to remember when the fragments, known locally as a messiha (obelisk), were first revealed, and removed to the ground near the resthouse, recalling the use of a tractor to drag it from the east. The men

generally point to the south-east of the site, some way south of the temple proper, with one workman pointing to an area near the late enclosure wall segment 0621+0622 (Pl.82, Pl.253). Abdel Fattah’s recent publication indicates that the blocks were found ‘about 80m southwest of two bases mentioned by Edgar’,49 we do not know the exact emplacement of these, but if they are near those lying upon the surface today, then these doorjamb fragments were found some way south of the temple proper. Presumably, the doorjamb had been re-used or dragged out of position in ancient times, as the settlement was occupied for many centuries after the Ramesside temple had fallen into ruin. Rejoined, the doorjamb is 3.7m in height, decorated on both the front and inside faces with a single column of sunk relief inscription (Pls.146–8). The jamb originally formed the left side of a gateway as one approached it, as evident from both the architecture and the orientation of the inscriptions. As befits the traditional layout of inscriptions in a temple setting, the single column of text on both inscribed faces is set in opposing orientations. Minute traces of blue paint indicate the doorway was originally painted.50 Both faces begin with the nsw - bity title, at the top of the jamb; one of the lintels in Cairo (JE 89284) suggests that horizontal cartouches may have been located immediately above this title (Pl.137).51 Each inscription run down to a point 106cm above the base of the jamb. The texts read as follows (Fig.34):52 Front: Nsw-bity nb tAwy (Ws r-mAat-r a st p - n - r a)| sA Ra nb xaw (Ra-ms-sw m ry -Im n)| di Hr m aHA tpy m sqw Dual king, lord of the Two Lands, Usermaatra-setepenra, son of Ra, lord of appearances, Ramses beloved-of-Amun, giving command(s) 53 as a fighter at the head of troops.54 Inner face: Nsw-bity nb tAwy (Ws r-mAat-r a st p - n - r a)| sA Ra nb xaw (Ra-ms-sw m ry -Im n)| iti nxt -xpS sxm-pHty 55 Dual king, lord of the Two Lands, Usermaatra-setepenra, son of Ra, lord of appearances, Ramses beloved-of-Amun, sovereign, strong of forearm, powerful of might.

The form and layout of this text are typical for a late New Kingdom temple door jamb. In contrast to one of the other jambs from Kom Firin, which describes the king as ‘beloved of Ra-Horakhty’ (JE 89282, Pls.139–40), both inscriptions on this left jamb eschew religious qualifications of pharaoh in favour of epithets of a rather bombastic, even explicitly military, tone. It seems reasonable to assume that the opposite doorjamb in this gateway would have borne epithets of a similar tone. Similarly, the jamb which formed a pair with JE 89282 may have referred to another deity, most likely Amun-Ra or a form of Ptah. The evidence from better preserved Ramesside temples, principally at Thebes and in Nubia, indicates that military scenes were generally located in the front, more accessible, areas of temples. Could the door jamb still at Kom Firin have been part of the first gate, with that bearing religious epithets forming part of a doorway in the more restricted, inner, part of the temple? Though the inner face combines very common royal epithets (it i nxt-xpS sxm-pHty),56 the succession of words with three ‘brandishing weapon’ signs (Gardiner sign-list D40) is striking, perhaps invoking notions of plurality through this visual repetition. The front inscription is more assertive in its Kom Firin I | 51

Spencer language, underlining Ramses II’s role and success as a warrior king. Again, the same determinative is repeated here, twice. The aHA-sign, with its combination of arms and weapons, may here act as the third aggressive sign, to echo the plurality embodied in the inscription of the inner face. A further paleographical detail in the front inscription is worth remarking upon: the ends of the bee’s legs in the nsw bity title have been embellished with a human hand. Is this a further visual pun, underlining Ramses as a king capable of decisive action? The end of the bees’ legs in this common hieroglyph are often reduced to simple horizontal lines for ease of carving and clarity, though finely detailed examples do show a slight curvature, which may reflect the small claw at the end of a bee’s front leg (e.g. Harpur and Scremin 2006: 255 [397]).57 The hieroglyph on the Kom Firin jamb is clearly provided with human hands, evidently a development of the naturalistic detail to allow word-play.58 The same detail is found upon a quartzite architrave fragment of Ramses II from the eastern Delta,59 and appears upon both of the bee-hieroglyphs on a limestone lintel of Ramses III.60 Intriguingly, this detail is not repeated in the nsw - bity title atop the inner face: are we seeing here a scribe or craftsman taking the initiative for some additional detail, rather than simply copying from a draft? The limited number of decorated blocks of Ramses II found in the western Delta and along the Mediterranean coast include several bearing inscriptions with military phraseology,61 perhaps unsurprising in light of the strategic importance of this area, as attested in inscriptions of the 19th and 20th dynasties. As the Ramesside temple at Kom Firin lay at the heart of a complex surrounded by a thick wall with narrow entrance gateway and tower-like structures at its corners (Chapter 3), it is reasonable to assume that the site fulfilled a defensive role. Protection against the threat from Libyan groups would take two forms. Firstly, the practical deployment of military forces, aided with an infrastructure based around fortified complexes.62 Secondly, the conflict would be undertaken on a symbolic level, with the gods and pharaoh’s supreme power being proclaimed in inscriptions upon temple walls and elsewhere. Both approaches are probably embodied at Kom Firin, in a manner similar to that found at other frontier sites such as Zawyet Umm el-Rakham and the Nubian planned settlements. As mentioned previously, the ancient name of the Ramesside complex at Kom Firin does not survive (Chapter 2), though it would perhaps have been mentioned upon a doorjamb. The thorough cleaning of the doorjamb also revealed parts of an earlier inscription, on the front face. The first cartouche bears a wide rectangular sign, also cut in sunk-relief, that cannot be part of the prenomen (Pl.128)63 and traces of other signs are visible in and around the main inscription of Ramses II. Furthermore, additional signs continue beneath the end of the main inscription, for a further 52cm. These signs are not as deeply cut, are somewhat squatter in proportions, and are contained within a narrower band (28 rather than 34cm in width), also framed with two vertical lines. It has not been possible to recover the entire text, as the deep signs of the later inscription have, in many cases, obliterated the earlier signs. The beginning of this earlier text are particularly obscure, with only a few signs visible,64 but the lower part can be reconstructed as follows (Fig.34): 52 | Kom Firin I

[nb] tA[wy] (…- r a …r a (?))| mry [P]t[H] nb [MAa]t nsw- tAwy nf r-Hr Hry st -wr(t) [Lord of the Two] Lands … -ra … [of] Ra … beloved of Ptah lord of Maat, King of the Two Lands, Beautiful of face, who is upon the Great Throne.

The cartouche, unfortunately, cannot be identified, other than the presence of two sun-discs. These clearly formed part of both the name proper and an internal epithet. The names of several 18th and 19th dynasty rulers would fit these traces; the internal epithet indicates a date of Tuthmosis III or later. Material of the 18th dynasty has yet to be found at Kom Firin, though burials of this period and earlier are known from the site’s cemetery at Silvagou (see Chapter 2). It seems more likely the earlier inscription on the doorjamb dates to the early 19th dynasty. The traces, with two sun-disc signs, could be consistent with forms of the prenomen of Ramses I,65 Seti I66 or of course Ramses II. It is even possible that the earlier text also dates to the reign of Ramses II, as the traces are suggestive of the epithets st p -n-r a or even t it-r a.67 Could there have been two phases of decoration in the temple of Kom Firin under Ramses II?68 None of the other decorated blocks bear signs of reworking, so the modification may have been limited to a few key inscriptions. The jambs and lintels at Kom Firin all present the late form the nomen of Ramses II (Ra- ms-sw), generally thought to be current after year 20 or year 21, at least in Upper Egypt.69 In contrast, the column bases seen by Edgar bear both this form and the spelling Ra- ms-s, 70 generally accepted as the early form of the king’s prenomen. This would suggest the majority of the temple’s decoration took place between c.1259 and 1213 bc, with some of the columns being completed earlier, and possibly the original inscription on the recarved doorjamb. The preserved decoration at Zawyet Umm el-Rakham features an early form of the king’s nomen (Snape 2004: figs.8, 13). Returning to the earlier inscription upon the doorjamb, while the epithets nfr-Hr and Hry st-wr(t) are extremely common, and can be used of many gods,71 the combination of the two epithets is typical of Ptah, particularly in the New Kingdom.72 Furthermore, these epithets are often combined with the qualification ‘lord of Maat’. For example, a statue of a Deir el-Medina workman, Penbuy, from the reign of Ramses II (Turin 3048), describes Ptah as nb MAat nsw-tAwy nfr-Hr m st-wrt.73 Another scribal statue repeats this string of epithets: PtH nb MAat nsw -tAwy nfr-Hr n st-wrt.74 Invoking this, and related, forms of Ptah is not surprising in the Western Delta at this period: Ptah lord of Maat is found at Kom el-Hisn during the reign of Ramses II,75 while a doorjamb at Zawyet Umm el-Rakham refers to a ‘[Ptah lord of] anx-tAwy, nfr-Hr Hry st-wr(t)’.76 A small limestone chapel from the latter site is dedicated to Ptah and Sekhmet (Snape 2004: 151, 160 fig.14). The inner face of the Kom Firin doorjamb did not bear an earlier text; the style, content and scale of the inscription on this face clearly indicate that it is contemporaneous with the later of the two texts upon the front face. Thus when the gateway was initially decorated, the left jamb bore only a single inscription qualifying a king as ‘beloved of’ a form of Ptah. Presumably the right jamb was inscribed with a similar text on its front face. The doorjamb was then redecorated, with an inscription added to the interior return face, and the front text replaced with a rather different text. Both new texts could be

The Ramesside Temple described as military in tone. The earlier inscription was no longer deemed suitable. Why make this change, rather than simply adding an inscription to the inner face?77 Perhaps in the later half of Ramses II’s reign, one (or more) of the doorways of a temple, set within a monumental complex sited along edge of the Western Delta, was redecorated to present a proclamation of royal bravery in battle, in contrast to the more pious inscription already extant on the doorjamb. Visitors to the temple were thus reminded of Ramses II’s ability to protect Egypt, a grandiose statement perhaps more relevant here than at many other sites. The eight limestone blocks now in the Egyptian Museum shed further light on the ancient decoration of this temple.78 These can be divided into two distinct groups: a lintel and three jambs bearing royal titulary, with sunk relief inscriptions in a consistent style (JE 89281–89284) and four other fragments with references to officials upon them (JE 89285– 89288). The former group will be discussed first, as they are from monuments similar to the doorjamb discussed in detail above. As was originally the case with the doorjamb still at Kom Firin, the three jambs preserved in the Egyptian Museum were only decorated on the front face, with no inscription on the inner return edge. None bear evidence of having been redecorated. The content of the inscriptions, in all cases carved in sunk-relief and laid out in a single column between two bands, is very standardised, though the epithets are preserved on only one example: JE 89281 (Pl.138) Fragment of limestone doorjamb (left side), with a single column of sunk relief inscription: ‘[Dual King], lord of the Two Lands, Usermaatra-setepenra, son of Ra, lord of appearances Ra[mses beloved of Amun] …’ Dimensions: 1.40x0.45m. Depth unknown. Estimated width of inscription band: 25.5cm. This block was re-used for a different purpose, as a round hole with a deeper rectangular hole set within it has been cut into the surface, just in front of the ‘son of Ra’ title. JE 89282 (Pls.139–40) Two joining fragments of a limestone doorjamb (left side), with a single column of sunk relief inscription: ‘[Dual King], lord of the Two Lands, Usermaatra-setepenra, son of Ra, lord of appearances Ramses beloved of Amun, beloved of Ra-Horakhty.’ The two t-signs at the top of the block complement the bee and sedge signs which would have been carved on the lintel block which originally lay atop this block, perhaps JE 89284. Dimensions: 1.60x0.44m. Depth unknown. Estimated width of inscription band: 22.4cm. JE 89283 (Pl.141) Fragment of limestone doorjamb (left side), with a single column of sunk relief inscription: ‘[Dual King], lord of the Two Lands, Usermaatra-setepenra, son of Ra, lord of appearances Ramses beloved of Amun …’ The two t-signs at the top of the block complement the bee and sedge signs which would have been carved on the lintel block which originally lay atop this block, perhaps JE 89284. Dimensions: 1.08x0.38m. Depth unknown. Estimated width of inscription band: 20.1cm. JE 89284 (Pl.137) Fragment of limestone lintel (left side) with a rather crudely-carved horizontal torus-moulding and base of cornice preserved. Carved with a sunk-relief inscription: part of a horizontal cartouche (Ramses beloved of Amun) is preserved, presumably mirrored by another

cartouche above the right side of the gateway. Beneath the cartouche is the start of an inscription: ‘Dual King …’. The decorated area is framed with incised lines. It is possible that this lintel joined JE 89282 or 89283. Dimensions: 0.53x0.56m. Depth unknown. Estimated width of inscription band: 21.3cm.

All three jambs are from the left side of a doorway, according to the orientation of the hieroglyphs, thus attesting to a further three doorways in the Ramesside temple, perhaps four if JE 89284 does not join JE 89282 or 89283. Identifying emplacements in the Ramesside temple (Fig.2) for four or five stone gates is not difficult. In addition to the axial doorways into the courtyard, columned hall and antechamber, there are three further entrances to the chapels. Additionally, stone gateways may have been a feature of ancillary chapels and/or magzines in the spaces contiguous to the temple proper. It should not be forgotten that the entrance to the whole complex may well have had a decorated stone gate, though this would have taken a different architectural form to these jambs (see Chapter 3). That none of these jambs were recarved with inscriptions of a military nature may indicate that it is more likely that they come from doorways in the inner, more restricted, parts of the temple, where inscriptions were seen by few. It is also clear that the inscriptions upon some of these doorways were shorter than on the doorway with the military phraseology; thus JE 89281 has a very basic epithet ‘beloved of Ra-Horakhty’ (Pl.38). The height of the doorways would have decreased as one progressed towards the sanctuary, which may provide further support in assigning these jambs to the inner doorways. The cartouches of Ramses II are largely consistent throughout these doorway fragments, with no attestation of the earlier prenomen form (Ra- ms-s), as on the column bases. Small variations do exist amongst the inscriptions, perhaps attributable to the individual craftsmen. Thus, the small seated figures within cartouches do vary: Maat is always shown with a feather on her head, and holding an ankh sign, but the figure of Ra can hold an ankh (doorjamb on site and JE 89281) or a combined ankh and wAs (JE 89284, JE 89282) while the seated Amun holds a wAs-sceptre (Fig.34). There are also subtle stylistic differences. For example, the xaw-sign is sometimes carved in large form (doorjamb on site, JE 89281), or can be more diminutive (JE 89282 and 89283). The second group of decorated fragments found by Farid consist of parts of two lintels and two doorjambs. The three fragments with clear inscriptions are very distinct from the ‘royal’ reliefs discussed above, with smaller scale inscriptions and more densely arranged signs. JE 89285 (Pls.143–4) Limestone block, in two joining fragments, carved with three columns of text in sunk relief hieroglyphs. The smoothed surface at either side is not decorated. This is likely to have been a doorjamb.79 Right to left: (1) ‘Adoring the king, lord of the Two Lands, he gave your lifetime upon earth (Hry -tp tA) in prosperity (wDA), health, a burial in peace (qrst m Htp) for the ka of the great praised one of the perfect god, counted80 …’ (2) ‘Adoring the king, lord of appearances, Ramses beloved of Amun, he made his ka exist in your chapel (r- p r) strong (rwDt) every day … making a good place for the ka of the excellent one of the sovereign, making peace …’. (3) ‘Adoring the king, lord of the Two Lands, he gave Hw-offerings and aq w-offerings for the place (st) in which you exists, may you be true of voice every day, (at) the first of morning (t p - dwAt), for the ka of the great praised one of the perfect god, the effective (Ax) … Kom Firin I | 53

Spencer Dimensions: 1.15x0.54m. Depth unknown. Estimated width of three bands of inscription: 9.2cm. JE 89286 (Pl.142) Three joining fragments of a limestone doorjamb inscribed with a single column of sunk-relief hieroglyphs. ‘.. may I be as one who loves to endure in (his) presence, my name has not left his side, for the ka of the royal scribe, great steward, P(A) - n n st - tAwy true of voice.’ Dimensions: 1.15x0.37m. Depth unknown. Estimated width of inscription band: 12.9cm. JE 89287 (Pl.145) Fragment of a limestone door lintel, carved with sunk relief decoration. An official kneels, facing left, in front of the serekh and cartouches of Ramses II. Behind him is a single column of inscription: ‘Temple (Hw t) of [Usermaatra-]setepenra in the domain (p r) of Amun, NDm -Ht p true of voice.’ Dimensions: 1.17x0.29m. Depth unknown. Estimated width of inscription band (right column): 7cm. This type of scene is very common on private door-lintels (see Anthes 1965: pl.33 [a.24]; Smith 1976: 118−19, pl.25 (1); further examples in Budka 2001), including that of a chariotry lieutenant Meryatum (reign of Ramses II, Hanover Kestner-Museum 1925-186: Petrie 1921: 29, pls.71/2 no.54). JE 89288 Limestone lintel, with a horizontal torus-moulding and cavetto cornice. Badly damaged, the surface is very eroded, but the outlines of several figures can be seen. To the left, a figure walks right towards a seated figure, the latter wearing a billowing kilt. The right hand side includes a standing figure facing right, with arms, before another seated figure. Another standing figures is shown behind the latter person. Dimensions not recorded (it was not possible to access this object, nor obtain photographs).

At least one of these doorways come from one smaller than those with royal inscriptions. The symmetrical layout of the decoration on lintel JE 89287, around the two cartouches of Ramses II, allows us to reconstruct the original total width as 108cm. As this would include jambs beneath, it was clearly a smaller doorway than those provided with the 102cm door-leaf (known from threshhold blocks 0272 and 0280). Where were these smaller doorways located? The reference to Hw- and aq w-offerings, the ‘good place’ (bw nfr) and especially the introduction of the individual’s name and titles with ‘for the ka of’ demands consideration as to whether these may have been part of a funerary chapels at the site. Ramesside tombs may have been located nearby the temple, from where these reliefs were apparently found by Farid in 1949. Though the practise of elite burials located within the temple forecourt is better known from Third Intermediate Period and later temples (see Spencer 2007, with further references), earlier examples of elite tombs near temples are known from Mit Rahineh (Anthes 1965: 79–96).81 Alternatively, the ‘non-royal’ doorjambs from Kom Firin could come from ancillary chapels or even magazines within the temple complex, as found at contemporary sites, such as Zawyet Umm el-Rakham.82 Another possibility is that these reliefs embellished doorways to officials’ houses. At Amara West, mudbrick houses and the ‘governor’s palace’ were provided with sandstone doorjambs bearing the names and titles of the owners, introduced by the formula n kA n (Spencer 1997: 133–4, pls.94 [a–b], 107 and pl.149–57); a large number of Ramesside house doors are known from sites throughout Egypt.83 Inscribed jambs could also flank large royal stelae, as 54 | Kom Firin I

found in the forecourt of the Ramesside temple at Amara West (Spencer 1997: 31, pl.25). The officials who commissioned these monuments cannot be directly associated with other known individuals. The sS-nsw imy-r pr wr named P(A)-n-nst-tAwy (JE 89286) could bethe man who held the title of royal scribe but also imy -r xAst.w nw &A-%t i, implying a role in Nubia.84 The name P(A)-nnst-tAwy is, however, not a rare one (Ranke 1935: 109). In view of Kom Firin’s location, it is worth bearing in mind that high ranking army personnel also held civil and priestly titles, so without fully preserved title strings it is difficult to ascertain exact role of any official. The combination of sS-nsw and imy-r pr wr is held by several high military officials of the Ramesside era.85 Officials with these titles are also known to have been assigned to outposts such as at Beth Shan and Ramses-Nakht (Morris 2005: 393). The second individual whose name is preserved is NDmHt p,86 who held a title, now lost, relating him to an institution named ‘the temple (Hwt) of [Usermaatra-]setepenra in the domain (pr) of Amun’ (JE 89287). Without the full text, it is impossible to ascertain if the domain being referred to was at Kom Firin or elsewhere; however, cults of Amun are known in the western Delta during the Ramesside era.87 The inclusion of the prenomen or nomen of Ramses II in a toponym is not rare. The inclusion of the royal name within the Hwt-sign and the qualification ‘in the domain of Amun’ is typical in references to the mortuary temple of Ramses II at Thebes (Gauthier 1927: 61). However, it need not refer only to Theban temples, as Nubian temples were termed ‘in the domain of Amun’ (Haring 197: 30–4). Thus the temple at Wadi es-Sebua is the ‘temple (Hwt-nTr) of Ramses-meryamun in the domain of Amun’ (Guermeur 2006a: 485–90). It is thus likely that the official NDm-Ht p is citing his title in relation to the temple at Kom Firin. In addition, constructions with the royal name and the phrase ‘in the domain of (god) X’ are commonly used of statues (e.g. Habachi 1969: 13–14, pl.6), but as the Kom Firin inscription is immediately followed by the name of an official, the preceding phrase must form part of a title: perhaps Nedjemhotep was responsible for the temple, part of its running, or even some of its statuary? It is unfortunate that the name of the official commemorated on JE 89285 is lost, but similar limestone reliefs naming officials are found elsewhere at this period. For example, the already cited jamb from Sais (n.79), and a block found at Qantir, with a shorter introductory text (di.sn snb/ Awt-ib nb n kA n) of the ‘royal scribe and steward in the temple of millions of years of Ramses-beloved-of Amun in the temple of Ptah, May’ (Hamza 1930: 37−8). No fragments of wall reliefs have survived from the temple, perhaps a result of systematic dismantling and subsequent burning. Fragments of relief found at Tell el-Borg show that temples in defensive complexes could also feature battle reliefs of a type familiar from Upper Egypt (Hoffmeier and PinchBrock 2005). The small number of inscriptions which survive from the Ramesside temple at Kom Firin invoke or refer to the gods Ra-Horakhty, Amun and Ptah, perhaps unsurprising in a Ramesside temple. No ceiling blocks have survived; while the roof is likely to have been the first part to fall into ruin, it is also possible that it was made of wood. The temple at Kom Firin was a structure of modest scale

The Ramesside Temple and materials of construction, but was clearly conceived as the central feature of a large complex delineated by massive mudbrick enclosure walls. Its plan mirrored that of a typical Egyptian temple (in as much as such a concept is valid):88 courtyard, columned hall and tripartite sanctuary. While elite officials, perhaps resident or posted to Kom Firin for a determined period, provided parts of the temple, or perhaps nearby houses, with decorated doorways, at some point the inscriptions upon one of the main doorways were modified to reflect Kom Firin’s strategic position along or near a de facto frontier threatened by Libyan groups.

15 16

Notes 1

2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

14

Files on these EAO excavations are referred to in the Temporary Register and the Journal d’Entrée of the Egyptian Museum: ‘Fouilles Service file 27-9/1 in 31/1/53’ for 1949 and 1950 excavations; ‘Museum file 2/1/5A’ for 1951; ‘Dossier 2/1/5A’ for the Ramesside reliefs recovered in 1949. These have not been located. See Chapter 3 (p.22, n.17) for the survey methodology. I owe this identification to Linda Whitman, of the University of Akron. Conditions are far from constant, year to year, at the site. In addition to variations in the water-table, other differences were noticeable. For example, the low-lying temple area was more heavily covered with shok-grass in September 2004 than it had been the previous year, presumably due to annual climate fluctuations. Preparation work for the Late Period temple at Sais may have included levelling operations, as the Late Period levels sit directly on Predynastic remains in some places, Wilson 2006b: 81–3. Two walls, of only a half-brick thickness, are not considered here, as they could not have supported a superstructure of any significance: 0294–0295 (UC) and 0380 (TW). Brick dimensions should be used cautiously as a dataset, see Kemp 2000. E.g. 0135 (TD), 0241 and 0242 (TX, UA), 0452 (UD), 0352 (TW); however, bonding A6 is found in 0360 (TW), 0222-0243 (TP, TX, UA). Late Period temples are typically built upon ‘sand boxes’, usually large rectangular pits, lined with brick walls of some thickness, into which was placed sand and then the stone masonry above (for both foundations and superstructure). Such a method is known from the platform of Amasis at Mendes (Hansen 1967: 6−7, pls.3, 9 [7]) and also at Tell el-Balamun, where the rectangular pit is cut into existing settlement levels (Spencer 1996: 37). Separate ‘sandboxes’ could be provided for the naos and pronaos of the temple, and the front parts of these monuments could be provided with individual sand foundation trenches for walls, as with a structure at Tell el-Balamun (Spencer 1999: 16). Such foundations, when excavated, can indicate the general form of the temple, but not its internal arrangement, for which parallels must be relied upon. At Kom el-Hisn, it appears the temple substructure consisted of brick walls, as a test pit undertaken by the EES suggested three parallel rows of bricks with sandy areas in between (Kirby et al. 1998: 35−6, fig. 6), although variations in the brick size and the limited nature of this small trench excavation preclude ascertaining whether the walls belonged to different phases. On the basis of the proportions of the columned hall of 19x23m; Mahmud 1978: 2 fig.2. For purpose of comparison, note the modest size of many temples in the Middle Kingdom forts in Nubia, for example Mirgissa (11x9.5m) and Buhen (25x19.3m), Vogel 2004. 0294–0295 in UC, and 0380 in TW (Figs.15, 25). A late Second Intermediate Period or early New Kingdom ‘pylon’ of brick was recently found in the Mut precinct at Karnak (Bryan 2007: 10). Further south, mud-brick was used to construct a pylon at Wadi es-Sebua, in the reign of Ramses II (Gauthier 1912: 19–20, pl.9). The figure of 73cm is the maximum preserved height of wall 0135 in trench TD, the east-west wall separating the columned hall from the forecourt. The preserved wall is all part of the substructure, as a doorway emplacement must have been located here, along the temple axis. Interestingly the level in the middle of the exposed

17 18 19

20

21 22 23

24

25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32

33 34

wall, 2.1m (TD plan), matches the level where wall 0267 is preserved to (TQ), with the parts above that having tumbled in one event, to form 0270. This strongly suggests the western wall of the court was toppled while the ground level was at or around 2.10m; the doorway to the rear of the columned hall was at least 10cm higher, at 2.21m, as no traces of an emplacement appeared in TX/ UA. Is this then the ground level contemporary with the last phases of the temple functioning as a cult building? It is similar to that of one of the fallen limestone blocks (0280), though the northern one is significantly lower (0272, at 1.61–1.79m), suggesting a more complex series of events in this area). Such threshold blocks could also come from domestic and administrative buildings, as attested at Tell Heboua I (Maksoud 1998: 80, fig. 115) and Memphis (Jeffreys 2006: 14 fig.13). Amara West (Spencer 1997: pl.4), Zawyet Umm el-Rakham (Snape 2004: 53, fig.2) and the Hathor temple at Memphis (Mahmud 1978: 2, fig.12). The emplacements for such a peristyle in a court following a pylon are also present in the quartzite model of a temple gateway, inscribed for Seti I (Badawy 1972). Edgar does not mention any others when describing the two inscribed bases (1911), and the bases visible today are evident in Naukratis Project photos (Coulson and Leonard 1981: pl.8 [4]). The walls at the rear are founded somewhat higher, which may reflect the rise in floor level as one approached the sanctuary area, typical in many formal Egyptian temples. As the pits underneath the original column emplacements are not exactly of the same size, it is possible they provide slightly narrower arrangement of the columns, if each pit was not directly below the centre of the original column base. The courtyard of the small Hathor temple at Memphis, also dating to the reign of Ramses II, features a side wall built of thin limestone slabs around a core of limestone chippings, rubble and soil (Mahmud 1978: 2–3, fig.2). Though an external wall of the temple, it was only 108cm thick. This sand appeared to be somewhat finer than the more compacted ‘natural’ sand encountered elsewhere at the site, and may represent a windblown deposit. A body sherd from a blue-painted vessel was found in this context (C422, Fig.46, Pl.264) A domestic context of similar date was found at Sais, and included several short-lived phases, with flints (cutting and sickle blades), beads and pottery (mostly goblets/chalices with ring-base feet, and flared cups with fine rims) found (Wilson 2005: 3−4), thus quite similar in character to the material described here. Such a relatively rapid demise is not unusual in pharaonic Egypt. The small temple of Ramses II at Memphis was re-used as a burial place and a pottery-production area (Anthes 1965: 8–9); the redating of these burials to the 20th dynasty (Aston and Jeffreys 2007: 71–3) implies a very short time elapsed between decoration of the temple and an adapative re-use. For example, under Third Intermediate Period rulers, as at Tanis. As the full width of wall 0282 is unknown, this is only an approximation. It may be significant that of the four pounders found during excavations in the temple area, one came from this secondary deposit south of the temple proper, and the other three are all from trench TK: F105 (from 0165, a pottery rich context overspilling into the ‘domestic’ room), F110 and F113 (both from 0158, topsoil). For example, C046, C047, C048 (0051); C049, C050, C052, C053, C134, C138, C201 (0052); C054–056, C058 (0053); C074, C075, C077–079, C153, C154, C202, C203 (0061). e.g. C044, C045 (0051); C051, C139 (0052); C057 (0053); C073 (0061). E.g. C080, C081, C171, C173 (0069); C084, C085, C147, C149–151 (0072); C082 (0091), C083, C117, C155 (0092). Brickwork 0103 (Fig.25) found at the western edge of trench TH was somewhat perplexing. It was clearly not part of wall 0078, but was arranged along a similar line. Perhaps part of a paved floor? The British Museum excavations reached water at only 88cm below the surface in TC (2003), 74cm in TD (2004), both trenches in the central part of the temple area. In contrast, on the elevated deposits west of the temple, the clean sand in TK was 2.45m below the surface level, the water-table not being reached. Brick floors are not, however, uncommon in New Kingdom domestic contexts, e.g. at Memphis (Jeffreys 2006: 12). Arnold 2002: 75; a 140x23cm jamb found at Tell el-Borg also had a

Kom Firin I | 55

Spencer

35

36

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

45 46

47 48



49 50

similar roughed out surface suggesting it was intended for inserting into a mud-brick wall (see Hoffmeier and Bull 2005: 80). In TA 0027, TK 0165 (F114), TK 0225 (F154), TY 0057 (including the column base fragments, but also a fragment of an architectural block (?) (F055)), and another fragment with many shell inclusions. An example from the palace at Medinet Habu has somewhat smaller dimensions 137x13x42cm (Hölscher 1951: 29−30, fig.28). Very similar shapes of sills were found in the Seti I palace at Tell Heboua (M. Abd el-Maksoud, paper given at Walls of the Ruler: Fortifications, Police Beats, and Military Checkpoints in Ancient Egypt conference, University of Wales-Swansea, May 22–25, 2006). See also Hölscher 1939: pl.27 for a sill just under 200cm in width. Quartzite and granite blocks were a feature of the 26th dynasty temples at Sais, in addition to limestone, Wilson 2006a: 208–32. In TF 0053 (F020). In TG 0136 (F095), TK 0158 (F119). In TK 0158 (F111), TK 0225 (F153), TY 0029 and UA 0266 (F187), and just west of the temple in TF 0051 (F019), TF 0061. In TG 0156, TW 0381 (F252) and UB 0366 (F247). From UB 0366 (F253). F301 from TG 0146. Though from a later temple, of the 4th century bc onwards, the range of metal, stone and ceramic cult equipment from Heraklion provides a glimpse at the number and variety of objects found in a temple, Goddio 2006: 110–77. Also included in KRI II: 472, 13−16. This has recently been published by Abdel Fattah, 2005 [Register book of West Delta Department of Antiquities, no.585]. Habachi notes rain revealing monuments at Zawyet Umm el-Rakham, 1980: 15. I am very grateful to Dietrich Raue who provided me with photographs from his visitto Kom Firin in November 1993. This work was also carried out by Tracey Sweek during the 2006 season, with the able assistance of Ismail Said Mohammed, conservator at the SCA. The plaster and muslin was mechanically removed with the help of small amounts of water, acetone swabs and cotton wool. To rejoin the two sections, two stainless steel dowels were inserted. For the main dowel a 25mm hole was drilled to a depth of 300mm in each section of the doorjamb, and for the locking dowel a hole to the depth of 100mm. Study of the small fragments created through drilling suggest the stone is consistent with the types of limestone occurring in the Mokattam Group east of Cairo: Tura and Maasara would be the most likely candidates for the quarry source of this doorjamb, and the others on site. Using the limestone powder produced by the drilling, lime mortars were prepared for filling the joint. Several test samples were made using varying combinations of stone dust, sand and hydraulic lime, the proportion used in the selected mix was 2: 2: 1 respectively. A lime mortar (3: 1 sand to hydraulic lime), was used to create a cap on the upper surface of the doorjamb, to reduce the effect of rainwater; this is not visible from the ground. A foundation was prepared to support the weight of the doorjamb: 2x2x0.5m, lined with a retaining wall of breeze blocks, and filled with concrete (3:1 sand to Portland cement). Prior to re-siting the doorjamb a damp proof membrane was placed onto the concrete foundation, to prevent the migration of salts from the concrete plinth into the lower section of the doorjamb. The lower section of the doorjamb was lifted from its horizontal position to the vertical, using slings and the lifting capability of a JCB. Once lifted and clear of the ground the door jamb was lowered onto a lime mortar bed (3 sand:1 hydraulic lime) laid directly on the foundation structure. The upper section of the doorjamb was lifted using the same technique as before, this was lowered and positioned down onto the stainless steel dowels (grade 306). The two sections of the doorjamb were adhered to each other with an epoxy resin, Araldite 2011. When the resin had cured, the join between the two sections was filled with a lime mortar (2 limestone: 2 sand: 1 hydraulic lime). Tea was used as a colourant for all the fills and repairs, to match the tone of the limestone. To help with drainage, loose pebbles were evenly spread over the concrete plinth. Abdel Fattah 2005: 23. Paint is found on the front face, near the plural strokes of sq w, in between the horizontal cuts of the m-sign in the phrase tpy m, and to the left of the earlier cartouche, below the later m-aHA phrase.

56 | Kom Firin I

51 JE 89284 cannot be from the same gateway, as the n sw - bity title is preserved upon both it and the doorjamb at Kom Firin. 52 Conversations with Elizabeth Frood and Liam McNamara about the content of the inscriptions proved very stimulating; I am grateful to them for their invaluable input. See also Spencer 2008b. 53 See Wb II, 468; III, 127. 54 Wb IV, 313. An obelisk at Tanis, originally from Per-Ramses, describes Ramses II in almost identical terms, continuing HAq &A-%ti m qnt fx *Hnw ‘plundering Nubia in bravery, destroying Tjehenu’ (KRI II: 409, 13–14). Inscriptions on the other three faces of this obelisk describe other aspects of pharaoh’s control over foreign lands. 55 The lower part of the text on this face is badly eroded, but photographs taken in 2002 (Pl.150) clearly show these three epithets (and see Abdel Fattah 2005: 21 [B]). 56 sxm - pHty is used to describe Ramses II in battle reliefs on the exterior south wall of the hypostyle hall at Karnak, Gaballa 1969: 86−7, fig.5 [A]. 57 See also cover of KMT 18/1 (Spring 2007) which shows a finely carved low relief bee in the n sw - bity title, with the ends of the legs carved with much detail, almost like a human hand. 58 Other examples of image play are found in royal titularies of the New Kingdom: Van Essche 1997a: 67–9, figs.3–4; more generally, see Van Essche 1997b. 59 Previously displayed in the Open Air Museum at Tell Basta (Zagazig), the block bears a large-scale sunk relief inscription ‘the living Dual King Usermaatra-setepenra [beloved of] Atum lord of …’. Referred to in Tietze and Abd el Maksoud 2004: 47 [21], where a provenance of Qantir is proposed. Such a paleographical detail was perhaps not rare, though the small scale of such details, in a rather common royal titulary, can easily escape attention. Such details can only noted in closeup photographs or careful epigraphic copies. 60 British Museum EA 1344, see Bierbrier 1982: pl.28. The detail is illustrated in N. Spencer 2008a. 61 No monuments of other Ramesside kings are known from the western Delta; we rely wholly on textual sources, all from Upper Egypt and the Memphite area, for evidence of military activity in the western Delta during the reigns of Merenptah and Ramses III. A list of monuments with military references, dating to the reign of Ramses II and from this area, follows. Kom el-Hisn: dyad of Ramses II and Sekhmet, one of royal epithets reads swsx.k tS.k m tA nb ‘you extend your boundary in every land’ (KRI II: 471 [5−10]); sandstone statue with an inscription describing Ramses II iti nxt tA nb ‘strong ruler (of) every land’ (KRI II, 472 [1−4]). El-Barnugi: inscribed granite fragment, [Sf]y nxtw snD.f m tAw nb ‘renowned of victories, fear of him is in all the lands’ (KRI II, 473 [5−6]; this has the early Ra- m s- s form of cartouche). El-Gharbanyat: column with epithet of Ramses II Hwy … ‘who strikes down …’ (KRI II, 473 [11−13]), though it could be read as ‘[beloved of] Houron…’ (Habachi 1980: 24, fig.6). El-Alamein: stela fragments with references to conflict, Xs m nxt wr bAw aA nrw m tAw nb.w xAst.w nb ‘the vile … in victory, one mighty in power, great of terror in all the lands and every foreign country…’ (KRI II, 475 [1−2]) and xr m-m dnw Hdb.f … Hr imny.f n aHA nsw - bity (Ws r- mAat - r a st p - n -Ra)| sA-Ra … [HA]q.f pA-Rbw m At sxm.f ‘the enemies amongst families, he has overthrown … on his right, fighting, the Dual King, Usermaatrasetepenra, son of Ra … he plunders Libyans in the moment of his power’ (KRI II, 475 [1−2] and Habachi 1980: 20–1, fig.4). Zawyet Umm el-Rakham: an inscription upon the east tower of the enclosure gateway states mnnw Hr xAst *mH Sdywt m -Xnw.sn r sqbH ‘fortresses upon the foreign land of Tjemehu (and) the wells inside them to refresh’ (Morris 2005: 624). Doorjambs from the same site feature similarly bombastic statements: nTr nfr qn swAH.k *Hmw ‘perfect god, you destroy the Tjehemu’ (Habachi 1980, 16, pl.V[A]) and nTr nf r nb tAwy nb nxt - xpS ‘perfect god, lord of the Two Lands, possessor of might’ (Snape 1997: 24). 62 Morris 2005: 611–45, 774–82. 63 Indeed it cannot have been part of an earlier cartouche, as its width extends to near the vertical lines framing the inscription. The sign itself is likely to have been an S- or m n-sign. 64 Traces that can be clearly seen include a possible tA-sign and plural strokes under the broad sign (in the area of the later prenomen cartouche), and another tA-sign (?) and a broad sign (cut by the sA Ra n b xaw). 65 Mn -pHwy - r a t it -Ra, Von Beckerath 1999: 149 [T6]. This form is

The Ramesside Temple usually restricted to horizontal cartouches, Brand 2000: 32–3. 66 Von Beckerath 1999: 151 [T8, T10, T11, T12, T13]. 67 t it - r a is used as an epithet in years 1 and 2 of Ramses II, typically in horizontal cartouches, Brand 2000: 35. 68 Two limestone doorjambs found at Qantir bear an inscription of Ramses II, recut with a different text: Habachi 2001: 197 fig.35 [Kat. 70], pl.41 [a] and 201–2 fig.37 [Kat.76], pl.27). In one of these cases (Kat.70), both phases clearly date to the reign of Ramses II, the inscription being modified to bear a new form of the cartouches, but the content of the ensuing epithet remained essentially the same. I am grateful to Elizabeth Frood for bringing this material to my attention. Other temples attesting to more than one phase of decoration during the long reign of Ramses II include Amara West, Spencer 1997: 37. 69 Brand 2000: 34–6. Brand states that Ra- m s- sw is found sporadically in year 1 and 2 also, before Ra- m s- s becomes standard for the first half of the reign. 70 Edgar 1911: 277. 71 Leitz 2002a: 214−16 and 2002b: 375–6. 72 Leitz 2002a: 217. The use of a conjunction n ‘of’ or m ‘in’ between the epithets varies; a later hieratic papyrus omits the linking word altogether: Barguet 1962: 10. 73 KRI II, 744 [1]. 74 Maspero 1883: 147 [XXVIII]. 75 KRI II: 472 [1−4] (Maat sign restored). 76 Habachi 1980: 15, fig.2. 77 If the original cartouche predated Ramses II, the modification could have been limited to recarving the cartouches. 78 Due to the ongoing restrictions in access to the basement of the Egyptian Museum, it has only been possible to look at photographs of these blocks. I am extremely grateful to Mamdouh el-Damaty,

79

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

88

former director of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, Mahmoud Ibrahim and May Trad, for facilitating access to the relevant Journal d’Entrée and Temporary Register volumes in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Sabah Abd el-Razek provided me with new photographs of the blocks, taken by Ahmed Amin Abdel Rahim. A jamb now at Sais (2006a: 206–8, pl.28a) is of a similar scale (163.5cm high, full height preserved), and commemorates a ‘royal scribe, Overseer of the Great House in the @w t of Usermaatrasetepenra, the [director] of the houses of all the gods of the Western River; supervisor (sSm) of the festival of Amun-Ra’. Similar doorjambs were found at Qantir (Habachi 2001: 187–9, fig.29). Perhaps part of a phrase such as ‘I was counted upon his heart’ (ip. kwi Hr ib.f ), see Anthes 1965: 86–7, fig.9. For a survey of Ramesside tomb decoration see Hoffmann 2004. Habachi 1980: 13–15, fig.2. Budka 2001. According to a statue of his son Nxt - mnw, himself a holder of military titles; Borchardt 1925: 185–6. Chevereau 1994: 12–13 [1.19], 27 [2.52], 43 [5.03], 83 [11130]. The name, clearly preserved as NDm -Ht p, is not listed in Ranke 1935: 215−16, though several names are formed with nDm and a verb form. ‘Amun of Sais’ is referred to on the stone enclosure wall of Ramses II at Karnak (Guermeur 2006a: 118−19) and upon a private doorjamb (Guermeur 2006a: 120−21). Saite evidence is more plentiful, see p.7. I have advised caution on seeking a ‘typical plan’ for temples of the 30th dynasty (Spencer 2003c); the same comments could apply to the Ramesside era, where much of our knowledge comes from the mortuary temples at Thebes or the temples in Nubia.

Kom Firin I | 57

5: Ceramics from the Ramesside Temple by Kveˇta Smoláriková

It is remarkable that an area so badly affected by natural processes and human activities, both ancient and modern, yielded such a large amount of ceramic material. The material was heavily eroded, and complete vessels were extremely rare. A mixture from a wide range of dates was often found within the same context, a testament to several phases of disturbance of this area, most notably from the excavations of Shafiq Farid between 1949 and 1951. Information from certain archaeological contexts is rather limited. Nonetheless, the chronological and typological value of the corpus is undeniable, particularly with the paucity of published ceramic assemblages from the Western Delta.1 All excavated sherds were washed and sorted, leading to a selection of material upon which a typological series was constructed. This consisted mostly of sherds with handles (or parts thereof), bases, and rims, but also body sherds with distinctive surface treatments, including painted fragments. Each sherd in this series was provided with a number of the form C001, C002… etc, a numbering system universal to the site. Appendix 1 provides a detailed description of the form, fabric, temper and any surface treatment.2 The typology series was drawn and described by the author, with the most significant and well preserved sherds being recorded by Liam McNamara, whose drawings illustrate this chapter (Figs.35–47). The pottery analysis offered here concerns excavations in the Ramesside temple area only. This assembly falls into two broad groups: 1) material of the late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, and 2) ceramics of the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods. The plate illustrations are arranged by form, to facilitate reference by those working on related material, but the two groups are discussed separately here. In general, the ceramic material from the temple area is diverse in form and encompasses cups, bowls, dishes, plates, bottles, jugs, trays, a wide range of jars, and small fragments of blue painted pottery. The latter typically consists of plain bands of red and black on a blue background. A considerable number of Levantine and East Greek amphorae fragments were also recorded. This is the case with the majority of Egyptian sites occupied during the 1st millennium bc, attesting to intensive trade links within the Eastern Mediterranean. The later pottery, principally of the Ptolemaic and Roman eras, was found almost exclusively in the upper levels, and presumably forms parts of secondary deposits. This type of pottery is relatively rare across the temple area, in contrast to the profusion of such material in the area north of the Ramesside enclosure wall.3 Late New Kingdom–Third Intermediate Period As noted above, pottery of this date was found throughout the Ramesside temple area (Appendix 1), with each trench Kom Firin I | 58

producing a similar range of forms and fabrics. Nevertheless, one particular trench (TK), excavated in the northwest part of the temple, deserves particular attention, as the structures post-dating the temple provide an insight into the material culture of a late New Kingdom/early Third Intermediate Period domestic context. From a ceramological perspective, the most interesting stratigraphy derived from a relatively small room situated above the original Ramesside temple mud-brick walls (trench TK). Here, the largely undisturbed archaeological strata represent consecutive phases of domestic occupation (0180, 0201, 0225, 0228, Fig.27), with the pottery found therein permitting these phases to be dated. The wealth of cooking, serving and storage vessels discovered in this unit must have served part of a community of permanently settled inhabitants. Before discussing these phases, it is useful to first note that the layers above this intact domestic area included a number of fragments belonging to the late New Kingdom or early Third Intermediate Period, including a body sherd with crosshatched black decoration from context TK 0165 (C246, Fig.46, Pl.259),4 and the upper part of a pilgrim flask (C245, Fig.45). Aside from some intrusive Late Period and Hellenistic sherds, contexts TK 0158 and TK 0162 also yielded a large amount of Third Intermediate Period pottery, particularly large storage jars. The uppermost, or latest, occupation stratum in this area, TK 0180, yielded domestic vessels; these included three massive casseroles or large bowls (48, 49 and 65cm in diameter; Pl.120), one of which bears exterior cord decoration (C301, Fig.39, Pl.249).5 A coarse-ware ceramic potstand was also found on the same level (Pl.248; upper diameter: 22cm; lower diameter: 31cm).6 Other occupational material includes a flint knife (F138, Pl.234), an elegant limestone cup (F145, Fig.51, Pl.219), and an abundance of pottery datable to the late New Kingdom or early Third Intermediate Period, including globular jars with inner rims7 of various surface treatments (C267, Fig.39). Jars with cylindrical necks (funnel jars) occur in two forms, with either a rounded or flat base; the majority of pieces were fired to a light red colour (and others to brown). Assemblages of carefully smoothed or self-slipped mediumsized bowls and cups with bulbous,8 pointed, or rounded bases (C305, Fig.39) also occurred in this layer. Dating this deposit to the late New Kingdom or early Third Intermediate Period is supported by other forms as well,9 including a series of carefully smoothed or self-slipped restricted bowls and an ovoid jar with a heavily ribbed interior (C300, Fig.40).10 An abundance of bread tray fragments were also discovered, all of Nile C fabric with a simple surface treatment. The majority are wet-smoothed or self-slipped, though some bear a fugitive buff or pinkish slip. Numerous fragments of shallow bowls, their rim diameters varying between 15–36cm, and carinated bowls

Ceramics from the Ramesside Temple were identified. Restricted forms included an amphora with a sharply pointed (tapering) bottom, similar to those found at Tell el-Balamun.11 This vessel form and its surface treatment (a very fine thick yellowish slip) are rare at Kom Firin. More common were Egyptian amphorae,12 rounded, flat-based medium-sized jars made of red fabric of medium quality (Nile B2: porous, chaff- and sand-tempered, and micaceous), and large storage jars with pale cream or pink exterior slips. The earlier phases in this room of domestic character (TK 0201, 0225 and 0228) contained forms more typical of the late New Kingdom, rather than the Third Intermediate Period. This included a medium-sized jug with an incised handle (C298, Fig.45, Pl.250), a type of finer ware absent in the later contexts. Also unique to the earlier phases were three bowls with a widely everted rim-ledge (C304, Fig.37), a type assigned to Phase Ia (20th dynasty) by Aston,13 along with faience beads (F142, Pl.204), an amulet (F143, Fig.50, Pl.203), and a few fragmentary terracotta figures (F137, Fig.50, Pl.182, see Chapter 4). Furthermore, these contexts yielded a significant sample of common household wares, in some respects similar to those of later periods: mostly medium-sized vessels in closed and open forms. One context (TK 0201) yielded an intact, coarse medium-sized jar with an everted rim (C299, Fig.41, Pl.250). A great many jars were found, including an ovoid example similar to that found in TK 0180. The majority of vessels could be identified as simple bowls; these were shallow, deep (in Nile B2) and varying in size and fabric. Some bore traces of black staining and may have been used as cooking vessels, while others were marked by a roughly made hole in the middle of the base (C312, Fig.46). Red-rimmed and carinated (C275, Fig.35) bowls and globular jars were also encountered. The earliest contexts, TK 0225–0228, yielded a coarse miniature torpedo jar with remnants of two small vertical handles (C297, Fig.45),14 as well as numerous fragments of red-rimmed bowls and shallow bowls with internal rims.15 Though Canaanite amphorae represented the majority of imported wares discovered in the temple area, only small fragments were found, some of which are apparently Egyptian imitations.16 A fragment from the body of a Levantine pilgrim flask of pink/reddish fabric, decorated with concentric red circles (C310, Fig.45) was discovered, while a few examples of burnished thick red slip vessel fragments were found. Despite the diagnostic fragments of the above mentioned vessels having been deposited in at least two main phases (0180 preceded by 0201–0225–0228), during which time the character of the vessels used by the inhabitants changed remarkably little, the ceramological information reveals that these phases are not as chronologically distinct as they would appear at first glance. Rather, they seem to reflect the transitional period between the 20th–21st dynasties and the beginning of the Libyan era. Other than trench TK, the archaeological strata in the temple area were rather truncated, and as a result lacked the richness of the diagnostic material found in TK. No other deposits with material of a homogenous date were encountered. The bulk of diagnostic pottery was recovered from the debris accumulated over collapsed or destroyed walls. The majority of the ceramic material described below was of Nile silt fabrics such as Nile B2,17 Nile C, and Nile D; very few fragments of marl vessels were encountered.

Our dating of much of the Kom Firin pottery thus relies on parallels from other sites, as there are few independent stratigraphic sequences within the temple area. The bulk of forms are well attested at sites such as Tell el-Balamun,18 Qantir,19 Tanis,20 and Mendes.21 Open forms Bowls with inner rims came into use towards the end of the 20th dynasty,22 but were relatively scarce in the temple area at Kom Firin. Where identified, they are of considerable size and depth and bear buff pink or cream slips (C074, C085, Fig.35). The excavations yielded a number of carinated bowls in a variety of shapes; some with well pronounced upper parts (C151, C275, C302, Fig.35),23 others biconvex (C025, Fig.35),24 and some with slightly bevelled rims (C071, C110, C227, Fig.35).25 Most feature a buff, dark red or pink/orange slip. Bowls, dishes, and plates range from shallow to deep, the majority featuring plain rims (C016, C037–038, C059, C083, C149, C368, C372, C381, C382, Figs.35–6) and rounded bases. The large assemblage of red-rimmed bowls, dishes, and plates clearly suggests that this style was the most typical common domestic serving ware at the site during these centuries. This material is only slightly modified over a long period of time (C030, C065, C066, C068, C160, C173, C183, C188, C190, C313–320, C323, C324, C328, C329, C346, C390, Figs.36–7).26 The surface of this type of pottery usually features a red band painted on the rim, which varies in thickness, or a red slip on one or both sides. Such bowls were fashionable in the New Kingdom, particularly in the Ramesside period, but became highly popular in the Third Intermediate Period. When slipped on one side, the color often overlapped onto the other, forming a red band. The bases of these bowls are flat or rounded. Bowls with everted and rolled rims are typical at Kom Firin. This is especially true for a small set of medium-sized bowls featuring a wide everted rim (exterior ledge) and conical base (C304, Fig.37).27 Such bowls can be dated to the 20th dynasty, and may represent a development of earlier forms.28 The majority of examples have an everted rim (C056, C080, C082, C364, C367, Fig.37).29 Bowls with rolled rims are also hallmarks of the Third Intermediate Period (C385, Fig.37),30 while examples with incurved rims are distinctive for their fine surface treatments (C036, C154, C271, C341, Fig.37).31 Numerous large, shallow bowls with ring bases or with simple rounded bases were encountered, typically with horizontal rows of cord impressions on the exterior. The rims vary from rounded, squared off or modeled, to ledged (C127, C132–133, C138, C157, C162, C169–170, C376, C379, Fig.38).32 Large bowls, such as C301 (Fig.39, Pl.249) from the well stratified context TK 0180, were rare. As is apparent from the sheer quantity of the above mentioned examples, bowls of different shapes and sizes form the core of the ceramic repertoire from most contexts. Judging from the rim fragments, cups would have been numerous; however, among the small number of surviving sherds, only a few could be identified with certainty (C052, C269–270, C273, C305, Fig.39).33 Finally, there was little evidence for footed cups or chalices, though three slender and well-treated examples are presented here (C047, C058, C153, Fig.39).34 Kom Firin I | 59

Smoláriková Closed forms Funnel-necked jars, elegant and tall vessels with an ovoid body shape and rounded to slightly flattened base, were found in the temple area. The necks of two examples from excavation A are of this type (C092–93, Fig.39; see Chapter 3); the broaderbodied example of these two may date to the late 19th dynasty, but the majority recovered from the temple area were slenderbodied with a flat base,35 suggesting a date towards the end of the New Kingdom. Earlier types of globular jars with characteristic, wellpronounced inner rims or ledges (Aston’s Phase I) were found in the northern part of the temple area in stratified contexts TK 0180-0225 and in TG 0145 and UB 0366 (C216, C267–268, C272, C388, Fig.39).36 A later form (Aston’s Phase II), featuring a plain but slightly flared neck was more common (C043, C063, C260, C363, Figs.39–40).37 Buff, cream or pink slips are typical among these vessels, but self-slipped surfaces were also encountered. Jars with ball-rims vary in neck diameter and appear to be a development of New Kingdom types.38 Given the significant quantities recovered from Tanis39 and Mendes,40 the quantity of fragments gathered from the temple area in Kom Firin is unsurprising (C055, C064, C075, C078, C084, C086, C106, C135, C393, Fig.40). Exterior and interior rims are covered with cream, orange, or fugitive buff slips. Jars with rolled rims41 are in many ways similar to the previous type, though smaller and with less pronounced necks. This type seems to be a common ware, with fragments identified throughout the temple area (C116, C167, C330, C373, C384, Fig.40), as with the group of jars with external, almost flat rims (C070, C168, C311, C371, Fig.40).42 Slender ovoid jars43 with a rounded base and drop-shaped body (C300, Fig.40) are typical of Aston’s Phase I. This form shows a maximum body diameter in the lower third of the vessel, and was especially popular during the 20th dynasty, though only three sherds were identified in our excavations. Small ovoid jars with slightly everted rims (C150, C299, Fig.41) also appear among the Third Intermediate Period repertoire. These display a typical, rather coarse, surface treatment.44 Small jars with flared necks and inner rims date to the transition between the 20th and 21st dynasties. The example presented here bears a simple buff-slipped surface (C274, Fig.41),45 and was found in a well-stratified layer (TK 0201). Large storage jars of varying shapes were very common in the temple area, composing the bulk of the pottery excavated, but the sherds were very fragmented and eroded. Thus, of the flared-neck storage jars excavated all over the temple area (C362, C369, C375, Fig.41), only those from trench TQ were in a sufficiently well-preserved state to demonstrate the different surface treatments. These include a self-slipped surface with a thick, dark-red painted rim, a red-slipped surface, and a buffslipped surface.46 High-walled jars can be assigned, on the basis of their situlae-like profiles47 to the late Third Intermediate Period or early Late Period; these were relatively rare in our pottery assemblage (similar to those in trenches A and B: C008, C017, C031, Fig.41). On the other hand, storage jars with narrow mouths (C069, C088, C165, Fig.42) were encountered in numerous contexts, albeit with heavily degraded surfaces .48 Restricted bowls were highly fashionable during the Third 60 | Kom Firin I

Intermediate Period. Examples from this period are found throughout Egypt. The mouths of small restricted bowls vary widely; some are wider with well-articulated rims (as in excavation A: C026, C123, Fig.42),49 while in others the neck is either completely absent (C128, Fig.42),50 or short and extremely narrow (C392, Fig.42).51 Amongst the traditional domestic wares, large restricted bowls and fragments were common in the temple area. The features of this vessel (a larger variant of the previous type) are somewhat uniform; the jar is neckless, with a massive rim that is more or less incurved (C049, C054, C081, Fig.42),52 and a buff or fine cream surface slip. Wide-mouthed storage jars (C077, C130, C389, Fig.42)53 can undoubtedly be considered antecedents of the deep, widemouthed vases with moulded rims (see below) characteristic of the Late Period. During the Third Intermediate Period, however, jars featuring a simple mouth with inner rims and with both surfaces slipped orange, buff or dark pink were still in use; self-slipped surfaces were very rare. Two large jars with similar and well-preserved lower sections were discovered in trench UC, set inside each other in a hole cut into the eastern boundary wall (0293) of the temple precinct (Fig.25, Pls.104, 125). Both feature a simple but carefully self-slipped surface treatment. The first, marked by a pointed base (C361, Fig.43), is very similar to a jar found at Hermopolis Magna, datable to the Third Intermediate Period;54 and is nearly identical to the base of a jar found during German excavations at the mortuary temple of Seti I in Thebes, broadly assigned to the Late Period by Myśliwiec, though Aston has suggested a 26th dynasty date, supported by French.55 The second jar, marked by a rounded base and pronounced bulblike cavity at the bottom (C419, Fig.43), parallels a vessel found among the illustrations of the Hermopolis assemblage, although the latter demonstrates a more pointed base.56 Thus, taking into account Aston’s likely more accurate dating for Level 1 for Hermopolis (700–600 bc rather than 750–650 bc), both examples from Kom Firin should be dated to the very end of the Third Intermediate Period or the beginning of the Saite era. Amphorae, or two-handled storage jars, were indispensable to ancient life and are consequently extremely popular in the Egyptian ceramic repertoire. Though Egyptian amphorae imitate the two-handled, angular-shouldered Canaanite storage jars of the Late Bronze Age, towards the end of the New Kingdom Egyptian potters preferred the large, slendershouldered amphorae with longer, bulging necks and rounded bases.57 Amphorae fragments were, unsurprisingly, found in all trenches in the temple area. The same holds true for massive neckless storage jars (C211, Fig.44).58 These large coarse vessels, marked by a self-slipped or fugitive buff surface treatment, may have been particularly useful due to the ease with which they could be transported. Two small and solid handles were attached directly to the rim and upper part of the body, rather than further down the vessel body, as with amphorae. Examples of amphorae clearly illustrate this distinction (C072, C115, C155, C365, Figs.43–4).59 As mentioned above, the number of Canaanite jars discovered in the temple area was fairly significant; the handles and rim shown here are likely to be genuine imports, though without laboratory analysis this remains tentative (C306, C366, C380,

Ceramics from the Ramesside Temple Figs.43–4).60 The fabric of an amphora handle fragment (C394, Fig.43) can be assigned a provenance along the Aegean coast; the occurrence of such pieces in the temple area was rare. A complete small jug with an incised handle (C298, Fig.45), excavated in a well stratified context (TK 0201), represents a unique type in the Kom Firin pottery assemblage, both by its shape and by the incised decorations on its handle. One can only assume that a greater quantity of this or similar small vessels existed in the now disturbed territory surrounding the temple. The jug’s dark brown colour and rather schematic incisions of short lines implies that this jar may be a simple copy of a metal jug, reflecting a desire to imitate luxury products. Earlier strata in the same trench (TK 0255) yielded yet another unique piece: a nearly complete miniature handmade jar (C297, Fig.45).61 It is surprising, in fact, that these smaller vessels are omitted from Aston’s otherwise comprehensive corpus of late New Kingdom/Third Intermediate period pottery.62 Fragments of pilgrim flasks were not common, though sherds from both Egyptian and Levantine examples were enountered. Of the three heavily eroded Egyptian fragments excavated, only the most well-preserved is presented here (C245, Fig.45). Parallels discovered at Medinet Habu63 are described as having concentric circles in a wide range of colours on the body: red, brown, and black, the latter being most like our flask. The fabric of Levantine imports differs from Egyptian flasks considerably in texture quality, but also in colour. The painted handle of a Levantine pilgrim flask (C248, Fig.45)64 and a body sherd from another very fine flask (C310, Fig.45), for example, tend to be light grey and pink in colour and composed of well-levigated clay. Fragments of fine ware vessels include the neck of a juglet (C164, Fig.45); a blue-glazed bowl (C424, Fig.45),65 a miniature two-handled jar or flask (C264, Fig.45; probably of the New Kingdom),66 a small jar with concave lumps of clay attached to the widest point of the body (C117, Fig.45) and a set of bases from small or medium-sized jugs or mugs (C039, C113, Fig.45),67 The unusual example of vessels with irregular, roughly made holes in their bases and traces of surface staining (C312, Fig.46) were noted in the short description of context TK 0225 above. The bread-mould presented here (C048, Fig.46) may be considered one of the best preserved from a group of at least seven bread-moulds identified in the temple area. Parallels for this type of coarse ware, which features a careless surface treatment, a ribbed interior and often a hole in the middle of the base, are obviously difficult to locate. This is particularly true of the type found at Kom Firin, which features a deep groove above the base.68 Bread trays (C053, Fig.46) made of Nile C fabric, were rather common and displayed a wide range of profiles. Painted pottery Fragments of painted vessels formed a relatively modest proportion of the Kom Firin pottery assemblage, principally consisting of blue-painted ware (C198, C204, C207, C209, C225, C420–422, Figs.46–7, Pls.259–260, 262–265). All fragments bear simple horizontal lines in blue, brown and green, or red69 applied to the exterior. Exceptions to this standard late Ramesside pattern are two small body sherds

from bottles or jars bearing schematic lotus petals and a medium-sized bowl rim with a pattern alternating between light blue squares and red and black vertical stripes.70 Two body sherds (C210, C370, Fig.46, Pl.262) can be assigned to the ‘red-on-cream’ ware type.71 As Aston notes, this group is quite rare, and the forms on which this decoration was applied were extremely limited, being used only on open forms. The latter sherd is too small to define in this respect, but C210 appears to be a plate fragment (Fig.46, Pl.262). Another body sherd (C246, Fig.46, Pl.259) bears a cross-hatched pattern, a rare motif;72 assigned to Phase I by Aston (12th–10th centuries bc), but also found in Phase II (10th–8th centuries bc). A group of four body sherds (C134, C197, C201, C203, Figs.46–7) with red horizontal bands painted onto a buff exterior73 are of a decoration type common during the Third Intermediate Period. The same dating applies to sherds with buff, fugitive bands applied to a self-slipped surface (C199, C202, C206, Fig.47). Incised decorations have been mentioned above in connection with a small jug; three sherds from open vessels (C147, Fig.47) bear carefully applied geometric patterns. Late Period and Graeco–Roman Periods The ceramics from the temple area which can be dated to the Late Period through the Roman era are much less numerous than those attributable to the earlier phases. The ceramics discussed above provide clear evidence of activity in the temple contemporary with its construction, but also of the subsequent domestic re-occupation of the area in the Third Intermediate Period, as clearly illustrated in trench TK. From the Late Period onwards, this part of the site may have been partially abandoned as activities moved further to the north (and possibly west), a move which may be associated with the construction of other enclosure walls during the late 1st millennium bc (see Chapter 3). This could explain the relative paucity of pottery of a later date in the temple area, though it is not impossible that a levelling operation took place in this area during the 1st millennium bc, and the destruction caused by earlier excavations should also be borne in mind. Carinated bowls from the well-stratified deposits in trench TK illustrate the development of this type during the Late Period, when profiles appear less concave with straight rims and slightly rounded bases (C062, C391, Fig.35).74 Few fragments were found, but those uncovered feature carefully finished surfaces, including buff-slipped exteriors and dark red-slipped interiors. Red-polished Saite vessels are very easily recognisable due to their fine surface treatment, similar to the shallow plates found in excavation B (C032, Fig.36) shown here. Bowls or dishes with plain rims continue through this period (C073, Fig.36)75 while shallow bowls with everted rims seem to have become increasingly fashionable (C041–042, Fig.37).76 Deeper ledge-rimmed vessels, however, are relatively infrequent onsite (C378, Fig.37).77 Bowls with rolled (C385, Fig.37), or external, rims, and rounded and pointed bases were common at Tell el-Balamun,78 and thus provide valuable comparative material. Some medium-sized bowls (C161, Fig.36)79 appear to be antecedents of the popular and ubiquitous incurved Hellenistic Kom Firin I | 61

Smoláriková bowls. One bowl with a burnished rim is particularly fine (C035, Fig.37),80 but the majority of the bowl fragments discovered in the temple area bear a simple self-slipped surface. The majority of the later ceramics are closed forms, including jars with external rims (C060, C374, Fig.40),81 a medium-sized jar (C383, Fig.41) with a red-slipped surface, and jars with cylindrical or flared necks, with or without grooves under the rims (C040, C377, Fig.41). A distinctive rim sherd featuring red dots and lines painted onto a buff surface (C057, Fig.41) may be of Roman date and is in fact unique amongst the relevant material from comparative sites. Evidence for large storage jars was scarce, perhaps due to the fact that amongst the mass of Third Intermediate Period material, sherds from such large jars of a later date were very fragmentary and eroded in nature. Nonetheless, three massive jars with flared necks and dark pink slips were covered with burned organic temper (straw and chaff) on their exteriors (C044–045, Fig.41).82 Storage jars typical of the Late Period include vases with moulded rims, again common at Tell el-Balamun.83 Though the variety of rim shapes was not particularly rich, no two identical profiles were found in the Kom Firin assemblage (C051, C087, C131, C139, C171, C214, Fig.43). On the other hand, as sherds were recovered in extremely fragmentary states no complete profile could be restored. Fortunately, other parts of the site yielded sherds from these jars in significant quantities. An amphora toe of the 5th century bc was recovered from the eastern part of the temple (C450, Fig.44). Roman amphorae were present in some trenches, but only as heavily eroded and diagnostically insignificant body fragments, the poor quality of the fabrics used in their manufacture contributing to this state of preservation. The date of the coarse, handmade spindle flask (C427, Fig.45) found in context UD 0460 is also uncertain; published comparative material suggests it could be from a very long range of time (Ramesside–Late Period).84 The rims of a fine juglet (C120, Fig.45)85 and the neck of a flask decorated with buff horizontal bands (C345, Fig.45)86 date to the Hellenistic era. Conclusion Analysis of the relatively modest ceramic assemblage recovered from the area of the small Ramesside temple at Kom Firin allows us to make a number of conclusions. Relatively little pottery from the initial Ramesside settlement phase was recorded, consisting primarily of blue-painted pottery and fragments of fine, polished New Kingdom jars. The paucity of material is probably due to the intensive Third Intermediate Period re-occupation of this part of the extensive Ramesside complex (Chapter 3). The wide range of household and storage pottery of varying qualities attests to the re-use of the area for domestic activities, the collapsed and eroded mud-brick walls of the temple providing a convenient basis for dwellings. Some of the finer vessels identified amongst the pottery assemblage may provide evidence of commercial contact with important centres in the Delta that were responsible for the distribution of Egyptian and imported ware. The occurrence of Late Period, Hellenistic and Roman pottery in the temple area was very low, perhaps reflecting the 62 | Kom Firin I

shift in focus of the site to other parts of Kom Firin. Nevertheless, the presence of pottery proves that the temple area was not completely abandoned; unsurprising as this area remained within the enclosures of the latter half of the 1st millennium bc. Notes

1

2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Though see published material from Naukratis (Coulson and Leonard 1981; Coulson 1996; Leonard 1997), Kom el-Hisn (Kirby et al. 1998; Cagle 2003) and Sais (Wilson 2006a: 105–7) The gaps in Appendix 1 are sherds from excavations elsewhere at Kom Firin, which will be published in a forthcoming volume. As encountered in trenches TO and NA. Also see Smoláriková 2006. This type of painted decoration, usually dated to the Libyan Period, is rare but is known from Elephantine and Abu ‘Id, for example, cf. Aston 1996b: 29, fig.55 and n.70 below. Aston 1996a: fig.187 [k] – Phase Ia; Aston 1998: 452. This rather coarse type, with wet-smoothed surface, was discovered whole but broke into four fragments during removal. For comparison see: Aston 1996a: 294 fig.192/e. Another type of support, the ‘fire-dog’, is also found at Kom Firin (F184 from TF 0052); for parallels see Aston 1989 and Rose 2007: 49–51, 194. Aston 1996a: 172 fig.70 [3, 4] (Saqqara). Spencer 1996: pl.72 [6, 7]; Aston 1996a: fig.9 [263, 265] (Tanis, 20th–21st dynasties, perhaps some date to the late 19th dynasty. Aston 1996a. Aston 1996a: 297 fig.195 [c], but without decoration. Spencer 1999a: pl.75 [11]. Anthes 1965: pl.56 [397, 398]; Aston 1996a: 116 fig.14 [1] (Qantir). Aston 1996a: 136 fig.34 [3] (Tell Nebesheh) and 290 fig.188 [e]. One can not exclude that this hand-made miniature vessel was used as a container for luxurious perfume or oil. Unfortunately, no stopper was found. Spencer 1996: pl.41 [5–6]. Aston 2004, especially p.200. Because of the considerable variability of Nile B2 fabric, we should describe two types which are especially frequent in the Kom Firin assemblage. For medium-sized jars, the section is red-brown with a narrow pink core, medium hard, rather porous, and includes a high proportion of sand, mica and chaff (as with Arnold and Bourriau 1993: pl.2 [a]). With jars, however, the section is brownred to black, medium porous, includes sand, mineral inclusions, and a medium amount of straw (Arnold and Bourriau 1993: plate 2 [c]). For important observations on New Kingdom and Saite fabrics see Aston in Raven 2005: 94–101; Hummel and Shubert in Redford 2004: 145–6. Spencer 1999. Aston 1998. Tefnin et al. 1998: 316–32. Redford 2004. Spencer 1999a: 67, pl.72 [8-10]; Tefnin et al. 1998: 320, fig.32 [8]; Brissaud 1987: pl.10 [151]; Redford 1999 : pl.P [4–9]. Tefnin et al. 1998: 322, fig.33 [33]. Tefnin et al. 1998: fig.32 [3]; Spencer 1999a: pl.72 [12]. Aston 1996a: 278, fig.176 [138] (North Karnak). Spencer 1999a: pls.70 [1], 72 [1–4]; Aston 1996a: 126 figs.24 (Elephantine), 138 fig.36 [1, 6] (Qantir). Aston 1996a: 136 fig.34 [3]; Tefnin et al. 1998: fig.32 [1]. Aston in Raven 1991: pl.47 [22]. Tefnin et al. 1998: 320, fig.32 [8, 15]; Aston 1996a: 197 fig.95 [18–20] (el-Ashmunein). Aston 1996a: 125 fig.23a [236], 192 fig.90 [124]. Tefnin et al. 1998: 320, fig.32 [12]; Spencer 1996: pl.72 [3]. Aston 1996a: 196, fig.93 [7–9] (el-Ashmunein), 196 fig.94 [11], 198 fig.96 [21]. Tefnin et al. 1998: 322, fig.33 [19, 20]; Aston 1996a: 138 fig.36 [6]; 164 fig.62 [486, 489, 491]. Examples with nipped base: Aston 1996a: 131 fig.29 [192], 133 fig.31 [135]. Defernez and Isnard 2000: 182, 217 [34B]. A similar form from Tell el-Balamun is Spencer 1999a: pl.73 [7]. Aston 1996a: 136 fig.34 [3] (Tell Nebesheh). Anthes 1965: pl.58 [411, 414, 416]; Spencer 1999a: pls.71 [a-6], 73 [12, 14]. Aston 1996a: 111 fig.9 [251], 167 fig.65 [415]; Tefnin et al. 1998: fig.33

Ceramics from the Ramesside Temple

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

[18]; Spencer 1999a: pl.73 [12–13]. Aston 1996a: 117 fig.15 (tomb of Ramesses III). Aston 1996a: 324 fig.34 [42–44]. Redford 2004: pl.L [14–18]. Brissaud 1987: 308; Aston 1996a: 205, fig.103 [A64]. Tefnin et al. 1998: 324 fig.34 [37]. Aston 1996a: 267 fig.165 [D1], 268 fig.166 [Q8] (Medinet Habu). Spencer 1996: pls.70 [5], 73 [5]. Aston 1998 : 299 [956]. Aston 1996a: 114 fig.12 [256] (Tanis), 157 fig.55 [3] (Tell el-Yahudiya); Tefnin et al. 1998: fig.34 [37] (Tanis). Spencer 1996: pl 69 [15, 18]. Aston 1996a: 203 figs.105 [89, 91]; Redford 2004: pl.F [5], though with different surface treatment. Tefnin et al. 1998: fig.35 [52]; Redford 2004: pl.O [9]. Tefnin et al. 1998: fig.34 [40]. Aston 1996a: 133 fig.31 [330] (Tanis). Brissaud 1987: pl.21 [368–73]; Tefnin et al. 1998: 326 fig.35 [56]; Redford 2004: pl.O [5]. Spencer 1999a: pl.70 [4]; Tefnin et al. 1998: 326 fig.35 [53]. Aston 1996a: 208 fig.106 [96] (Site W, Level 1). Aston 1996a: 251 fig.149 [359]. Aston 1996a: 205, fig.103 [68]. For a detailed analysis of New Kingdom amphorae see Aston 2004: 175–213. Aston 1998: 562 fig.6.04 (dated to the 21st dynasty). Aston 1996a: 143 fig.41 [9] (Tell el-Dab’a), 171 fig.69 [4] (Memphis), 213 fig.111 [246] (Amarna) and 285 fig.183 [3] (Elephantine); Brunton 1948: pl.46 [10]. Aston in Raven 2005: 117, pl.127 [128a]. The author dates this shoulder and handle to the late 19th-20th dynasties, see C306 from Kom Firin; Aston 2004: 184, fig.4 [a]. For a similar but not identical form see Aston 1996a: 150 fig.48 [65] (Tell el-Retabeh). Generally, many authors tend to include only those vessels which can be dated through published parallels from other sites. In future, however, these ‘undatable’ pieces may well assist in identification of pieces elsewhere (as noted by Rose, 2003: 208). Numerous parallels from Mendes have been published (Redford

2004: 175 pl.M, 182–3 pls.T–U). 63 Hölscher 1954: 3–8 (Medinet Habu). See also Aston 1996a: 53–4, 270–3 figs.168–71, especially fig.171 [U3 and U6]. 64 Aston 1998: 667 no. 2749. 65 Anthes 1965: fig.17 [233], pl.47 [a233] (22nd dynasty). 66 Miniature jars with two handle were more usual in New Kingdom that in later periods, see Kelley 1976: pl.76 [2/6]. A close parallel is Aston 1998: 453 no.1539 (two-handled flask, 8cm in height). 67 Mug or jug: Aston 1998: 521 no.2109 (a cream-slipped burnished example from Qantir). 68 The closest parallel seems to be in Aston 1996a: fig.88 [3] (Herakleopolis Magna). 69 Aston 1998: 413 nos.1458, 1460 (Ramesside, Qantir). This type of decorated pottery is best known from Tell el-Amarna (Rose 2007). 70 For a very similar pattern see Aston 1998: 369 no.1300 (carinated bowl from the Ramesside levels at Qantir). 71 Aston 1996a: 82, 322 fig.230 [j, k]; for more detailed discussion see: Aston 1998: 193 no.554. 72 Aston 1996a: 81, 332 fig.230 [g]. 73 Aston 1998: 569 no.2334. 74 Spencer 1996: pl.61 [A3.5, 7]; Wilson 1982: pl.14 [6, 7]; Aston 1996a: 264–5 figs.162–3 [3–5]. 75 Aston 1996a: 318 fig.216 [k] (Phase III); Spencer 1996: pl.63 [22]. 76 Spencer 1996: pl.63 [39, 44, 48]. 77 Spencer 1996: pl.66 [C6.10], described as a short-necked vase with shaped external or internal rim. A similar form is Redford 2004 : pl.N [12–14]. 78 Spencer 1996: pl.63 [A5]. 79 Spencer 1996: pl.63 [A4.2] 80 Hartung et al. 2003: 249, fig.18 [1) (Buto). 81 Spencer 1999a: pl.43 [13] (Persian Period). 82 My śliwiec 1987: 67 fig.540. 83 Spencer 1996: 91, pls.64–6, described as wide-mouth vases with external moulded rims, wide-mouth vases with a plain rim, and closed vases without necks. See Holladay 1982: pl.23. 84 Kelley 1976: pl.79 [3/76]; Myśliwiec 1987: 61, fig.405. 85 Leonard 1997: fig.6.61/28. 86 Coulson 1996: fig.39/802.

Kom Firin I | 63

6: Finds from the Ramesside Temple and Excavations A and B

The finds from the project’s excavations in the south-eastern temple are presented here. All of the objects are crossreferenced in the description of the excavations themselves (Chapters 2 and 4); this chapter does not include material from previous work at the site, by the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation or the Naukratis Project. Very few of the finds were found in undisturbed contexts. After an initial discussion of important groups of finds, though not the decorated columnbase fragments from the temple (see Chapter 4), this section concludes with a catalogue of the finds, organised by find number (F). This numbering system, as with the archaeological contexts and ceramic typology, is applied to the site as a whole. Numbers not included in the sequence thus represent objects from excavations in areas not covered in this book, for example around the Ramesside enclosure wall and its gateway. The discussion of the cobra figurines makes use of information from examples found outside the temple, which will be published in full later. Though finds were relatively rare, on account of the amount of previous disturbance to the area, the range of material nonetheless correlates well with that found at other New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period sites (Sais, Memphis), suggesting a relative homogeneity to material culture at this date, at least in northern Egypt. This may not have been the case throughout Egyptian history. Certain object classes are notable by their absence, however, for example scarabs.1 The lack of organic remains, particularly papyrus, basketry and leather, is less surprising, of course, in the climatic conditions of the Delta. Cobra figurines

Fifty fragments of cobra statuettes have been found at Kom Firin during the excavations between 2003 and 2007. Many fragments were not correctly identified at first, as without the head or base they can easily be mistaken as sherds (a problem encountered at Memphis too: Giddy 1999: 16). In some cases, the cobra figurine fragments were first noticed in the pottery baskets, and even identified several seasons after excavation, once we had become more familiar with the form of these objects. While this volume is concerned with the temple excavations, several finds of cobra figurines from excavations elsewhere on the site are cited here, as they shed light on the purpose of these figures, and their variety of forms. The cobra figurines are, thus far, the most ubiquitous find at Kom Firin. Two fragments came from the corridor west of the temple sanctuaries (F250, F251; Pls.163, 175), and another from the deposits south of the temple’s rear wall (F233; Fig.49, Pl.171). The majority, however, came from the strata in the later structures built to the west of the temple (F007, F185, F064, F066, F068, F069, F081, F107, F168); the last-cited example is from a securely dated context of the late New Kingdom or early Kom Firin I | 64

Third Intermediate Period. Further examples were found in the ruins of the structures immediately outside the eastern boundary wall of the temple (F015, F035) and in the deep deposits north of the temple courtyard (F065, F071, F077, F078, F101, F135, F136). Fragments of cobra figurines were also found around the northern gateway of the Ramesside complex,2 in and around the north-eastern corner of the same enclosure3 and in the deposits revealed north of part of the Late Period temenos wall.4 Though one has to take account of the shallower deposits in the temple, it is quite striking that only one of the 50 cobra fragments found come from the temple proper; they are more common in the later domestic contexts, in the area north of the temple (though this is perhaps spoil from the temple proper), and the ancillary buildings around the temple. The cobras are all hand-modelled in Nile silt,5 and fired to a colour that varies between pink through red to a light brown exterior, except F084 which is a mix of marl and silt. The sections left exposed from the ancient breaks typically reveal a brown-black interior, with mica inclusions and chaff not uncommon. One example has noticeable burnt out casts on the surface (F084). The level of firing and variagation in the fabric also varies from one figurine to the next, unsurprising with such modest objects, hand-made from a widely available material. There is no evidence that the cobras, particularly those with bases, were modelled in separate pieces then joined before drying and firing (as at Memphis, Giddy 1999: 15 and Beth Shan, James and McGovern 1993, II: figs.2–3). No complete examples have been recovered; usually, the vulnerable head has become detached from the body, and there are several bases which are no longer attached to the main body of the snake.6 Generally, the cobras are very stylised in form, especially in the lack of curvature (when viewed in profile) to the body and hood. Some display more curvature (F066 [Fig.48, Pl.168], F136), with the body curving back from the base before turning forwards again with the top of the hood and head, but many are almost perfectly vertical (F219, maybe F135 [Fig.48, Pl.165]). Only one is not fired (F007 [Fig.48, Pl.164]), and traces of red and white paint preserved on this example may indicate that it was not intended to be. Some of the cobra figurines had received a simple white wash being applied to the rear and/or front surface (e.g. F069 [Pl.176], F135 [Fig.48, Pl.165], perhaps F220), while others bear stains from their depositional environment (F064, F065, F068, F078, F130, F221, F223). During the hand-modelling of the figures, the head was drawn forward from the main body of clay, then the eyes were pinched out, leading to variations. The smallest is only 3.1cm in length (F125), while the largest reaches 4.2cm (F064, Pl.158). In all case, the eyes are simply pinched out, and the top of the skull is impressed lightly with the thumb. Not unexpectedly,

Finds from the Ramesside Temple the cobras thus display quite a variety in the appearance of their heads. One example stands out, F005, is of a fairly typical size, and bears a thumb imprint on top of it, but the left eye is modelled in relief through the addition of a nodule of clay (Fig.48, Pl.156).7 The other eye has not been provided with this (it is not damaged). F135 provides a clear example where the head looks ‘upwards’ rather than simply ‘forwards’ (Fig.48, Pl.165). Only one fragment is sufficiently preserved to allow its original height to be ascertained (F219, 14.5cm, Pl.167). The other examples come from figurines of similar size, but also ones which must have been significantly smaller or larger. F078 is 7.5cm wide at its maximum width (Pl.162), whereas F219 is only 6.0cm wide. The figurine base F233 preserves around half of the main body/hood, yet measures only 5.6cm in height (Pl.167) is also rather diminutive, with only a 3.2cm width to the broken section, around a third of the way up the body (Fig.49, Pl.173). At Memphis, the cobras ranged in size from 7–10cm (Giddy 1999: 14–15). The treatment of the front falls into three groups (some fragments cannot be assigned to one group or another): 1) A plain front surface, such as F135 (Fig.48, Pl.165). See also F122, F147, F065, F078, F068, F250, F223, F219, F136 and probably F310. 2) A narrow nodule of clay applied separately to the front surface, as on F007 (Fig.48, Pl.164), See also F107, F066, F077, F081 and F131. It is usually located centrally, though on F131 it has been placed some way to the proper left. The length of this feature varies (F007: 3.2cm; F066: 4.0cm; F077: 4.4cm), presumably somewhat dictated by the size of the figurine itself. In some cases the top of this feature is noticeably thicker (F007, F081) and in all cases the top protrudes further forward than the bottom. This has led to the identification of this element as a ‘miniature cobra’,8 a suggestion suported by the sinuous shape of some of these appliqués (F107, Fig.49, Pl.166). Of the fragments which are sufficiently preserved to identify whether the front was plain or provided with another element, 10 are plain, 5 have the ‘miniature cobra’ and 1 has a different feature (F204). One of these examples has a thumb-impressed depression beneath the applied feature (F077, Fig.49, Pl.170). 3) The last type of embellishment, preserved only on F204, is a small nodule of clay applied to (approximately) the middle of the front surface. The element on F204 is slightly damaged, but measures 2.3x2.3cm and projects 1cm proud of the body. The upper surface seems intentiuonally level, and this could be representative of a small offering cup. While this form is somehwat suggestive of ithyphallic Osiride figures, the form and similarity to the other cobras from Kom Firin suggests it is either a poorly modelled miniature cobra, or a different type of feature.9 Several types of bases are known, but there is no clear evidence that a certain type of base was always provided with figurines of a certain scale, or those with a particular form of frontal decoration. 1) A rounded, stubby base which provides no balance to the object as a whole, implying thes figurines could not stand unsupported (F204, F219, F077, F069 [this stands presently, but would not have with weight of upper part intact]; F311). In some cases this ‘foot’ projects somewhat from the body of the cobra (thus approaching the form of the next type), in other

cases (F219) it actually tapers inwards. The latter form would easily allow insertion into a support, whether of pottery (F025, F251, Pl.167), or perhaps into a wooden base (unlikely) or even into a mud or clay surface. Parallels to this form are known from Akoris.10 2) The next form is a logical development of the previous, with the clay at the bottom of the figurine pulled out to form a flat bottom surface which will allow the cobra to stand unsupported, as with F233 (Fig.49, Pl.171). See also F168, F101 and F185. This base invariably projects back behind the body of the cobra much more than it does at the front. As ever, these bases vary in scale and even elegance (compare F101 (Fig.49, Pl.177) with F233 (Fig.49, Pl.171)), reflecting the size of the original figurine. Some of the undersides of these bases are every level and smooth, suggesting the pressing of the moist clay against a hard flat surface (F233), while others are probably roughed out with the hand, creating a more uneven surface (F101). This last example also has a noticeable element running back from the cobra’s rear, atop the base. This is best interpreted as a practical means of ensuring the figurine could stand upright,11 rather than evoking the cobra’s tail as found at other sites (laid out flat along the base, Giddy 1999: 14–15, pls.1–6 or bunched up in tight coils, e.g. British Museum EA 2002 and 2003). F085 may fall into this group, as it can stand unsupported at present. 3) Finally, there are two examples of bases, almost certainly from cobra statuettes, which were formed and fired separately from the main body of the figurine.12 F025 is the better preserved example, with nearly all of the underside preserved, taking the form of the examples cited above (Fig.50, Pls.167, 174). The sides of this example taper, and the top surface is lost from the back (where the base narrows), but the front part is preserved fully. Here, instead of the wide but thin body/hood of the cobra rising up, an oval depression (maximum depth: 1.6cm) has been hollowed out before firing, with (in the case of F025) a small, deeper, ‘slot’ cut into the base of the depression. The sloped sides of this depression provide a reverse image of the inward tapering base to some of the cobra figurines, especially F219. In fact, though F219 and F025 are from very different areas of the site, and of quite different fabric, F219 can be supported upright by the base F025 (Pl.167), thus confirming that this was how some cobra figurines were set up in ancient times. The other example (F251, Pl.175) of this two part base is slightly different, in that the depression seems to run through the base (i.e. a hole right through), and the rear part of the base (which would have been behind the cobra) is provided with a raised element which should perhaps be interpreted as the end of the serpent’s tail. This would be the only example of this extended tail, seemingly standard on examples at other sites (Giddy 1999: 14–15, pls.1–6). A large number of similar figures have been found at sites throughout Egypt and neighbouring regions (Szpakowska 2003; Giddy 1999: 13–28, pls.1–6, 77–9; Stevens 2006: 100–3). It may be notable that many have been found at sites near the limits of Egypt proper (including two examples at Zawyet Umm el-Rakham).13 Securely provenanced examples illustrate that these could be deposited in tombs14 or temples, as well as being used in domestic contexts. The date range for examples from other sites broadly matches that at Kom Firin (New Kom Firin I | 65

Spencer Kingdom–Third Intermediate Period), though their use evidently continued into the Late Period. The majority are of Nile silt, were fired and take on a similar form to those found at Kom Firin. The main distinction between the forms of these other cobras is that many have more elaborately formed tails, as cited above.15 At nearby Sais and Tell Abqa’in, however, the form of the cobras is broadly similar to those at Kom Firin.16 Previous studies present a summary of possible interpretations for these objects, including the possible identity of the god represented: Renenutet, Meretseger, Mut and or Wadjit.17 It has also been suggested that a specific deity may not have been invoked by such figures. Spells relate the use of clay figurines of uraei in rituals (see Szpakowska 2003: 120–1 with reference). A text upon a magical papyrus (P.Turin 1993; Borghouts 1978: 51−5 [84]), recounts a spell to ward off poison, in which Isis kneaded Ra’s spit with earth, and fashioned it into a noble serpent (Ddf t Spst) and gave it a pointed shape (Hty). It did not move though it had come to life in her presence. She left it at a cross-roads where the great god passed along in order to let his heart dwell in his Two Lands.

Is this latter reference pointing to sacredly charged area such as where processional routes cross? A rather domestic context is suggested by another text, of the late New Kingdom (Ramesside: Ritner 1990: 25−41), in which a spell to protect against the dead and demons is to be recited over four uraei ([ar]arywt) of pure … clay with flames in their mouths. One is placed in [each] corner [of every room] in which there is a man or woman… sleeping with a man [or woman?] (ibid. 25−7).

The discovery of a fragmentary cobra in the small late new Kingdom/early Third Intermediate Period room at Kom Firin (F168, Fig.49, Pl.173) fits well with the modest domestic context suggested by this papyrus; it is notable that later phases of use in this room left us with a ceramic figurine of a gazelle (F137, Fig.50, Pl.182) and a faience amulet (F143, Fig.50, Pl.203).18 Finally, a further possibility should be considered. Nearly all of the cobras have been found with head and body detached. While the head is clearly vulnerable to breakage, it is also possible that it could have been ritually broken from the figure, to render this dangerous form impotent (on such practises see Ritner 1993: 148–53). Other ceramic animal figurines

In addition to the cobra figurines, six further fragments of ceramic figures were found during excavations within the temple. More figures were found during excavations around the gateway and north-eastern corner of the enclosure wall, and from around the later enclosure walls.19 All are of fired Nile silt, modelled by hand, and relatively simple in form and workmanship. Two represent the lower parts of quadrupeds (F006, F070, Fig.50, Pls.178–9), two fragments preserved the neck and head of what may also have been quadrupeds (F134, F137, Fig.50, Pls.181–2), and one, of noticeably different clay and surface finish, is a fragment of a human figure (F099, Fig.50, Pl.180). Identifying the particular animal represented in each figure, even with the head preserved, is often impossible. The example with preserved feet emphasises the rather summary workmanship; the maker sought to convey the salient characteristics of an animal through a minimum of 66 | Kom Firin I

modelling. The feet are simply drawn or pinched out into short stubs, separated by a partly incised line to distinguish the legs, which are but 1.2cm long (F006). This latter example is broken where the front legs/torso joined with the head and the main part of the body, though it is clear that the body was roughly circular in section, and 2.5cm in diameter. This fits well with the scale of two other fragments preserving part of the neck and head (F134, F137). One is rather elegant, with a neck of around 23mm in diameter, and seemingly representing a young gazelle or calf (F137).20 The eyes are modelled with applied nodules of clay, the horns are simply ‘pulled out’ from the main head, and the nostrils and mouth are represented with incised lines. A length of clay has been applied to the back right side of the neck, of unclear significance, and there is also a protrusion modelled on the forehead. The other example, F134, is significantly cruder in appearance, though this may not have been the case when fully preserved. The neck is of the same size (2.3cm diameter), and quite elongated, with a snout crudely indicated. A broken area on the proper right side of head must have been an ear or horn, but the corresponding feature on the other side is on the top of the head rather than to one side, giving the piece an asymmetrical appearance.21 White paint or wash is still preserved in places on two of the figurines (F006, F134), while F137 is embellished with a red slip or wash fom the nostrils up and over the forehead and down the back of the neck, providing a striking contrast with the wet-smoothed surface on the cheeks and beneath the neck. Thus despite the summary modelling of the animal form, care was still taken to apply a surface finish. Quadruped figurines are not rare in Egyptian settlement sites, but are rarely considered by Egyptologists, being poorly represented in museum displays or catalogues;22 in fact, they are often assumed to be Roman or later in date.23 It is clear, however, that such figures are common in settlement sites of the Second Intermediate Period through the Late Period, throughout Egypt and areas under its influence. Of course, the tradition of small-scale fired clay sculpture goes back to the early phases of Egyptian civilisation (e.g. Needler 1984: 355–74). The inconsistent identification of the type of animal represented underlines the difficulty in interpreting these figuries. In the housing and granary areas at Tell Heboua, a variety of such crude fired clay animal figurines was found in late Second Intermediate Period and early New Kingdom levels, identified as cows or dogs (Abd el-Maksoud 1998: 267 fig.49; no.490 has legs very similar to F006). The excavations at Kom Rab’ia revealed further examples of animal figurines in mid/ late 18th dynasty and Ramesside levels, nearly always handmade in poorly fired clay (Giddy 1999: 307−17; further material from Amarna and Saqqara is cited here, but see also Stevens 2006: 98–9, 103–5, 110–11). Ducks, geese and bovines predominate; some have traces of paint on the surface, and there are examples where some elements were to be fitted postfiring (e.g. a head). In the Egyptian garrision at Beth Shan, a quadruped similar to those found at Kom Firin was identified as a bull with yoke across its back. (James and McGovern 1993, I: 174–5, II: fig.93 [1]). At the other end of the sphere of Egyptian influence, figurines in unfired clay, ceramic and faience were found at Askut, a third of which were quadrupeds (Smith 2003: 132−3, 135, fig.5.32 [E−I]). It should also be noted that New

Finds from the Ramesside Temple Kingdom vessels were sometimes embellished with figurines of gazelles and other animals; however, these are generally of a much finer fabric than the more modest figurines discussed here.24 The material culture of the Third Intermediate Period is in many ways a continuation of that of the late Ramesside era, and thus it is unsurprising that such figurines continue to be used throughout this period. A large number of hand-modelled clay figurines were found in the Third Intermediate Period settlement at el-Ashmunein (Spencer 1993: 39–40, pls.37–9).25 While some of these are of horse-mounted riders, a rather more complex form, others are clearly animals depicted alone. Again, the style of modelling, particularly of the legs, is reminiscent of the Kom Firin artefacts. The discovery of a fragment of a coarse fired clay quadruped during the Naukratis Project (Coulson 1996: 141–3 [12], pl.17 [1], identified as a ‘horse’), duck/goose and quadruped figures at Mendes (Redford 2004: 130–1 figs.83–4), and the large number of fired clay figurines of various animals at Tell Edfu (Michałowski 1938: 119–20, pl.38) underlines that such objects were prevalent in later times too. For what purpose were these figures made? The find contexts of the five Kom Firin quadrupeds are partly instructive: one comes from a late New Kingdom or early Third Intermediate Period occupational deposit in the domestic structures north-west of the temple (F137), thus similar to the findspot of one of the cobras (F168). The others come from a deposit from a similar area to the south (TF 0061, F070) and from topsoil in one of the western ancillary rooms of the temple (TE 0035, F006). The final example came from a deposit north of the temple proper (F134). The excavation of such figures in domestic contexts fits well with the evidence from other contemporary settlements. Examples from the deposits in and around the temple may not relate to ritual practises in the temple building itself, but rather derive from later occupation phases. While we might assume that such figurines were used in household rituals, perhaps to provoke prosperity (particularly with the bovine figurines), it is less easy to see them being employed in protective rituals, for which figurines of snakes, Bes and Taweret may have been more suited. It is difficult to identify any of these figures as representing an individual deity. Finally, we should allow for multiple roles for these figurines, and we should not rule out their use as toys either (as noted by Giddy 1999: 310). A fragment from the proper right of a male figure (F099, Fig.50, Pl.180) is distinct from the above group, on account of its subject matter, but also the fine pink fabric, surface finish and the quality of the workmanship. The figure wore a garment, the pleats of which are indicated just above the elbow, the remainder of the arm being bare. Unfortunately, nothing survives of the head or lower part of the body, thus identification of the figure is not possible. This fragment comes from the surface layer in trench TG, north of the temple courtyard, thus a late date, perhaps Hellenistic or Roman, is reasonable given the style of the figure. Other ceramic artefacts Recut sherds Ceramic discs have been found in some quantity at Kom Firin, but only a sample are presented here. These represent all of the

examples found in the 2003 season, in the 114m² of shallow trenches excavated in the temple that year. Trenches TA (F014, Pl.186), TY (F026, Pl.189) and TE (F042, Pl.190) yielded only four of these recut sherds between them, with none being found in TB, TC, TH, TT or TZ. In contrast, the deep deposits encountered in TF yielded 16 examples in a 10m² area (F001, F003, F016, F023, F037, F044, Pls.184, 185, 183, 188, 191, 192), perhaps reflecting the domestic character of this space in the Third Intermediate Period, though the greater depth of deposits would also have been a factor. The quality of recutting unsurprisingly varies from fairly rounded to crude polygonal shapes, and the range of fabrics is very varied. These discs represent opportunistic re-use of material at hand, namely broken pottery vessels. There are discs cut from buff-slipped, unslipped and even red-and-cream décor. Evidently, non-diagnostic vessel sherds with little or no curvature were chosen; fragments of very coarse kithcen ware would not be suitable for cutting into small discs. The discs presented here vary from 2.0–4.2cm,26 and are also of a fairly uniform thickness, from 0.5–1.2cm. Two discs in the group F016, including the red-on-cream decorated sherd, bore holes drilled into, but not through, the surface. Of course, it is impossible to gauge whether this drilling pre- or post-dates the cutting down of the sherd to a circular shape, but in neither case does it allow the disc to be suspended, as with discs featuring a hole. Such objects are rarely published,27 and even those deriving from controlled excavations are rarely found in situ, thus hampering the interpretation of their original purpose. The most common interpretation is that the discs were used as counters or gaming pieces. The large number of these found at Kom Rabi’a led to the reasonable suggestion that these were objects used frequently by the inhabitants, and evidently of some importance (Giddy 1999: 324−30). Giddy offers several other plausible uses: as plugs or stoppers (see also Maxfield and Peacock 2006: 300), weights, scrapers and scoops where the shape lent itself to this function. Distinct from this group are the sherds, again typically recut into a circular shape, which have been drilled through to create an object that could be used as a weight, most probably as a spindle whorl, though other uses should not be excluded (F083, F302, F303, Pls.194–6).28 One of the examples has simply been drilled through, with no attempt to recut it into a more regular form (F063, Pl.193), underlining the purely practical nature of these objects. A stone disc with a drilled hole (F109, Pl.214), discussed below, may have fulfilled similar functions. Miscellaneous A number of ceramic objects recovered from the temple could not be interpreted as parts of vessels, nor of other types of object (F041, F118, Pls.197, 199). Early Third Intermediate Period levels at Tanis produced a series of crude ceramic and limestone cones, perhaps used as gaming pieces or counters, though their inclusion in foundation deposits suggest they could also have a ritual value (Zivie-Coche 2000: 114, 135, pl.6). Alternatively, F118 could be tentatively interpreted as part of a crude gaming piece, similar to examples from Kom Rabi’a (Giddy 1999: 322, pl.72 [863, 1289]). Whether the flatter, triangular, object F082 (Pl.198) or an object combining cuboid Kom Firin I | 67

Spencer and cylindrical elements (F190), should be similary understood is unclear. F190 could well be a recut part of a vessel handle or knob. Though not immediately identified as such, fragments of a firedog, a stand for large vessels (Aston 1989), were found in Third Intermediate Period occupation debris at Kom Firin (F184, Pl.251).29 Examples of these have been found in Third Intermediate Period, but not New Kingdom levels, at Kom Rabi’a (Giddy 1999: 250−3, pls.54, 91, ‘fire-hobs’) and el-Ashmunein (Spencer 1993: 47–8, pls.42–3), though they were clearly employed in the New Kingdom (Rose 2007: 49–51, 194). A pot-stand was also found associated with the large cooking vessels in occupation layer 0180 in trench TK (Pl.249; see Chapter 5). Finally, two ceramic beads (F012, F229, Pl.207) and two amulet moulds (F075, F193, Fig.50, Pls.210, 218) were found (see below). Amulets, beads, pendants and appliqués

Amulets A faience amulet found in the small room in trench TK (F143, Fig.50, Pl.203) is difficult to interpret, due to the rather bulbous modelling of the small object (height: 1.9cm). With a hole for suspension or stringing, a head, arms resting on hips and short legs can be discerned. Atop the head are three or four elements which may represent some type of headdress, perhaps even feathers. The proportions of the figure point towards an identification with Pataikos or Bes, although I am not aware of any exact parallel for this form.30 Bes amulets, in carnelian and basalt, were found by Farid in 1949 (Egyptian Museum 10/4/53/3 and 10/4/53/4; see Appendix 2). The mould for a Bes-amulet (F075, Pl.218) shows such objects were being produced on site, this example being found in topsoil above the domestic complex built over the northwestern corner of the temple. This is a sub-rectangular handmade ceramic mould, with a relatively smooth back and rounded top.31 Finely modelled internal details are present on the Bes figure (four tall feathers with internal striations, hands on hips, bandy legs, facial features). Farid found a slightly smaller, though otherwise similar, Bes-mould ‘in the kom’ (JE 89401).32 One other mould was found, in a deposit in the temple antechamber (F193 from UA 0274, Fig.50, Pl.210). It would have produced a cuboid bead or inlay element; the latter is perhaps more likely due to the single ‘runnel’ which would have facilitated providing a hole for stringing or suspension (see Giddy 1999: 243, pl.53). A faience udjat-eye was found in wall rubble at the northwestern corner of the temple area (F141 from TK 0175, Pl.200). Udjat-eyes are common in the graves at Silvagou, and seven were recovered ‘in the kom’ during Farid’s excavations, of similar size (10/4/53/1, 10/4/53/2, 8/12/54/13); these excavations also yielded amulets in the form of vases (JE 89456). Beads and spacer bars Simple necklaces were worn by the inhabitants of Kom Firin, something reflected in the burial assemblages at Silvagou (see Chapter 2). Forms of beads include spherical carnelian (F061, Pl.205), shell (F097) and flat faience examples (F060, Pl.205). A series of disc beads were found together, along with two cylinder beads and a spacer bar for six strings (F142, Pl.204) in 68 | Kom Firin I

the small room built over the north-western corner of the temple.33 More complex forms include the carnelian cornflower bead (F047, Pl.201), typical of New Kingdom jewellery,34 and found in burials at Silvagou (JE 89449 from G171 and JE 89451 from G249, see Chapter 2). Beads and parts of necklaces were found ‘in the kom’ by Farid (JE 89452, 89453). Two hand-made barrel beads were recovered from the temple area (F012, F229, Pl.207); similar examples have been found in Third Intermediate Period deposits at Tell el-Balamun (Spencer 1999: 83, pl.99 [101–2]).35 Faience rosettes The form of the two rosettes found at Kom Firin (F088, F172, Pls.208–9) is paralleled in some of the ceramic moulds found in New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period levels at Kom Rabi’a (Giddy, Giddy 1999: 247−8, pl.53 [655 791, 800, 801] with parallels cited), which all have ‘runnels’ to faciliate piercing of the object. Müller-Winkler (1997: 283−5. pl.27 [521−30]) and Herrmann (1985: 108–17) show both naturalistic and more stylised rosettes, typically of faience, from Deir el-Bahri, el-Ashmunein Amarna, Qau, Lisht, Dahshur, Saqqara and Qantir.36 Such inlays and appliqués were principally used to decorate boxes, were sewn into garments or attached to headbands (James and McGovern 1993, II: 151); one of the Kom Firin examples (F088) has a hole through its centre, suggesting it could be sewn onto a garment, whereas the other rosette (F172) must have been inlaid or otherwise attached to another surface. Small faience vessels No intact examples of faience vessels have been found in our excavations at Kom Firin, but as a common part of the material culture of the New Kingdom and later period, it is unsurprising that several fragments have been found in the temple area (F059, F086, F165, F196, Pl.211).37. Though no diagnostic fragments (rims, bases) survive, the thickness of these fragments and particularly the curvature, indicate they are from small vessels, most likely bowls. The quality of the faience is variable, and the glaze is rarely preserved. One example (F059) still preserves remnants of two lines of dark, originally black (?), decoration on a surface which is now white, but was presumably glazed blue or green. This is likely to be a fragment from a small bowl with black figured decoration, whether of figures, animals, plant life or geometric forms (e.g. those found in household and temple contexts at Beth Shan, James and McGovern 1993, I: 146–7 and II: fig.71; for complete examples see Brovarski et al. 1982: 140–4). A faience goblet found in the Citadel, clearly of a later date, bore decoration on the exterior (Coulson and Leonard 1982b: ill.15), presumably of black on blue-green, though this is not specified in the publication. Giddy presents a number of such examples from New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period levels at Kom Rab’ia (1999: 265−76), again only preserved as small fragments with little surviving colours (and not only blue and green), but largely from cups or small bowls. Giddy underlines that published examples are usually from funerary or sanctuary contexts, but we must consider that they would also have been widely used in domestic contexts.

Finds from the Ramesside Temple Stone objects

Stone objects recovered from the temple, other than architectural elements (see Chapter 4), included fragments of vessels, tools such as rubbers, grinders and hammers, saddle querns, and other objects whose purpose was difficult to identify. Vessels A 6.9cm high limestone cup (F145, Fig.51, Pl.219), of degraded limestone was amongst the objects found in the small room in trench TK. It has been carefully made, with the natural veining of the stone has been used to good aesthetic effect. The inside is roughly carved out, and does not follow the exterior profile. It is possible that the granodiorite fragment F095, with its smoothed curved interior surface, amy come from a vessel. Some fine fragments of worked calcite can, by their shape, be identified as remnants of small vessels. One is a body sherd 8.1cm in length (F212, Fig.50, Pl.213), where the fine veining of the stone has been used to create a decorative effect running around vessel. Unfortunately the form of this vessel cannot be reconstructed. Complete vessels with double handles were found by Farid in 1950 (JE 89415 and 89416). Other fragments of calcite are likely to be from small statues or cosmetic vessels, but the pieces are too small to allow identification (F247, F252). The excavations at Kom Rabi’a yielded an array of stone vessels (especially in alabaster) and mortars, suggesting these were a common element in elite household assemblages of the New Kingdon and Third Intermediate Period (Giddy 1999: 255). Rubbers, grinders, hammers A number of objects can be placed in this category, being worked stone artefacts, in some cases with evident wear patterns or polished areas. The material from Kom Rabi’a again represents the best published corpus of this type of material. Giddy classifies ‘grinders’ as hand-held, and usually of a coarsegrain stone (quartzite, basalt or granite), with one particularly flat, or near flat surface (1999: 205−10, pl.44). While graingrinding is by far the most common type of activity probably for these ubiquitous objects, other tasks evidently made use of them too. ‘Polishers’ or ‘rubbers’ are usually of a finer-grained stone, often ovoid in form, and with little or no extra treatment other than the smoouthed surface created through use. Examples of rubbers or smoothers are found in granodiorite (F110, Pl.216), quartzite (F113, Pl.217), while a quartzite example may have been used as a hand-held grinder (F237, Pl.230). Finally, a much finer object was the scribal granodiorite muller (pigment grinder, F240, Pl.231). Petrie dated examples of the same form to the 12th dynasty (1927: pl.56 [13]), but such forms would have remained popular for centuries thereafter. ‘Pounders’ or ‘hammer stones’ are normally of a finergrained stone, with a battered surface caused by percussive use allowing their purpose to be identified (Giddy 1999: 210−14, pl.45). No clear examples of such objects come from the temple area at Kom Firin.38 One type of related object not yet identified at Kom Firin are the small smooth pebbles that my have been used for smoothing and especially burnishing pots. All such objects were necessary wherever human occupation was located, and as such must have been fairly ubiquitous, perhaps occasionally through an opportunistic

re-use by-product material from building projects. While such objects may have been used for one principal use, it is quite likely that convenience could lead to, say, a rubber being used as a hammer, if needed; nearly all can be comfortably held in hand. As with the recut sherds, such objects are rarely published.39 Querns Fragments of two saddle querns were recovered, one of quartzite (F120, Pl.223),40 the other in conglomerate sandstone (F192, Pl.228), with two holes drilled into the working surface. Another large fragment of fine pale quartzite (F187, Pl.227) also had a smoothed surface worked into a curve similar to that on grinding stones, though the relative weight to working surface is a little high. The hard stones used here matches well with the querns found at Kom Rabi’a (Giddy 1999: 201–5, pl.43); this is another object type under-represented in the literature, but amongst the most ubiquitous on settlement sites in Egypt. How such objects were transported from the quarries, and thence distributed to settlements throughout Egypt, deserves further research. Other An intriguing stone piece is a cuboid granodiorite artefact with a small depression on one of its smaller surfaces; the base of this depression being highly smoothed through use (F152, Pl.224). The size and form of this piece is very similar to a crude limestone object found at Kom Rabi’a, tentatively identified as a (small) door-socket rather than a drill-head or mortar (Giddy 1999: 305). The Kom Firin example cannot be a mortar, as the depression is even smaller, and the use of granodiorite for a doorway of necessarily small size would be rather surprising. It is more likely to be a drill-head; those from Kom Rabi’a are shallower in form (Giddy 1999: 223–4, pl.49 [255, 1589]), more similar to F169 (Pl.226) than F152 (Pl.224). A stone disc with a drilled hole (F109, Pl.214), may have fulfilled similar functions to the ceramic discs (F083, F302, F303), as weights. Otherwise, no objects that can be explicitly identified as weights, on the basis of form,41 have been found in the temple area at Kom Firin. A highly polished siltstone object (F156, Pl.221) was perhaps used as a palette (there is no evidence of wear).42 Found in the latest secure level of the domestic occupation levels in TK (0180), it was clearly an object used or at least kept in the home. Another enigmatic object is F249 (Pl.244), a worked piece of charred wood, with small holes drilled into it. Other pieces of stone have been recovered, during excavations in the temple area, which cannot be identified with a certain type of object, but have clearly been subject to modelling. Stones encountered of this type include limestone (F114, F154, Pl.225), greywacke (F253), basalt (F301, Pl.220), quartzite (F111, F153, Pl.215), granodiorite (F095; F119, Pl.222), and red granite (F020). The last object has a smooth surface and a very polished opposite surface, thus it may come from a piece of temple statuary or architecture. Clearly, some such fragments could be from architectural or sculptural objects (including bowls, libation basins etc), while others may have been more practical tools or implements.

Kom Firin I | 69

Spencer Flint tools As noted by Giddy (1999: 226−43), this material, often ignored in other publications,43 requires specialist study, which would be warranted only with a larger corpus. Only eight flint objects have been found in the temple area, of which three (maybe four) could be classified as sickle-knives.44 Another object also took the form of a curved knife blade (F080, Pl.233), but without a serrated edge. The topsoil of TK (0158) yielded a scoop-shaped implement (F072, Fig.51, Pl.232) which would not be out of place in the domestic contexts uncovered in the strata below; an object with a similar function was found south of the temple (F230, Pl.237). The latter is better preserved, and suggests that the leading edge (rounded and rather thick) was not needed to cut, whereas the side edges were rather sharp. One of the Kom Firin flints (F138, Pl.234) found in the domestic context (TK 0180) had a serrated cutting edge (sickle) but the stone had not been removed from the rear face of the implement; this was also the case with the three other examples (F231, F232, F244, Pls.238–9) found south of the temple.45 Others were worked down to flint alone (F230, F080, Pls.233, 237). These implements may have been used directly as tools, or perhaps inserted into a shaft or handle, presumably of wood. At Kom Rabi’a, examples of flint blanks were found, indicating the reworking of these objects did not always take place where the raw material was found (Giddy 1999: 228); the same was true at Kom Firin.46 The raw material used for the flint tools from Kom Firin is a pale brown colour, with one exception: a dark grey flint implement of unclear use (F200, Pl.236).47 Metal

Small fragments of corroded copper alloy were encountered in many deposits in the temple area, usually in very small fragments with no original surfaces which would allow identification of the object type. Even when the shape was discernible, the levels of corrosion would often preclude interpretation. Thus F046 may have been a nail or pin, as it seems to have no broken surfaces. Some objects, such as the pin/nail with large head (F098, Pl.243) are of a type well attested at other sites.48 By far the most notable metal objects recovered are two similar pieces, both broken in two and covered in corrosion and other deposits (F246, F248, Pls.245–6). These were clearly arrowhead, with examples of similar form found in New Kingdom contexts at other site, classed as elliptical at Beth Shan (James and McGovern 1993, I: 209; II figs.156 [1, 2, 8], 157 [7–12]), but also found at Kom Rabi’a (Giddy 1999: 177, pl.37) and Tell Heboua (Abd el-Masksoud 1998: 262–3 [469]).49 Other

An ivory pin or applicator was found in the deposits north of the temple proper (F090 in TG 0167, Pl.206). Two very small fragments of gold leaf were recovered from TG. One bears several smaller parts attached and folded over it, suggesting it may have been part of a covering for an object of some significance (F067, Pl.242). Finally, three groups of plaster fragments were recovered from a trench in the north-east of the temple (TH). These preserved areas of blue (F062) and red (F030, F039, Pls.241, 261) paint. All three bear black pigment 70 | Kom Firin I

too, though this may be post-depositional staining rather than original paint. Did this coloured plaster originally form part of the wall decoration? It is also possible it comes from a smaller, plastered, object. A fragment of a faience statue base (F112, Fig.51, Pls.240, 247) was found in the lowest deposit excavated north of the temple courtyard (TG 0167). Originally rectangular, it was provided with a sloping front surface embellished with a series of impressions suggestive of steps. The statue would have been inserted into a 1cm-deep recess (the statue with a base of around 6cm in length).

Catalogue of finds F001 (Pl.184) Three ceramic counters. (1, left) Diameter: 2.8cm; thickness 0.6cm. (2, middle) Diameter: 2.4cm; thickness 0.4cm. (3, right): Diameter: 2.7cm; thickness 0.8cm. TF 0051 Sherds from Nile silt vessels, worked into coarse discs. F003 (Pl.185) Two ceramic counters. (1, left): Diameter: 2.6cm; thickness 0.7cm. (2, right): Diameter: 2.8cm; thickness 0.6cm. TF 0051/0053/0061 (section cleaning). Sherds from Nile silt vessels, worked into discs; (2) from a vessel with exterior buff-slip. F005 (Fig.48, Pl.156) Head from a fired clay figurine of a cobra. Length: 3.2cm; width. 3.3cm. TF 0067 Formed from Nile silt, fired to a grey core with orange-red surface. Broken at one end, where the head joined the main part of the figurine. The centre of the head is narrower, before flaring out around the ‘snout’. Thumb-like indentation on the upper surface, evidently from the hand-modelling process. A depression marking the left eye is clear, with a separate nodule representing the eyeball added before firing. The right eye is not modelled. F006 (Fig.50, Pl.178) Fragment from a fired clay figurine of a quadruped. Height: 4.3cm; width: 4.3cm; body diameter: 1.2cm; diameter of neck: 2.3–2.5cm. TE 0035 Hand-modelled from Nile silt fired to a pale red colour. The surface has simply been roughly smoothed, with no treatment applied. This fragment represents two crudely modelled front legs, and part of the adjoining body. The figurine is broken in three places: at the neck, along the main part of the body and the extremity of the proper front right leg. The main body is of sub-cylindrical form. F007 (Fig.48, Pl.164) SCA 7 [2003] Unfired clay figurine of a cobra. Height: 7.4cm; width 5.5cm. TF 0061 Hand-modelled figurine of a cobra, the bottom of which is broken. A ‘miniature cobra’ has been applied to the front surface, and the head protrudes forward from the body, though the front of the head is damaged. There are remnants of white pigment on top of the head and hood, and red paint on the chest and proper right of hood. F009 (Pl.187) Ten ceramic counters. (Left to right, top to bottom) (1) Diameter: 2.8cm; thickness 0.8cm. (2) Diameter: 2.4cm; thickness 0.8cm. (3) Diameter: 2.5cm; thickness 0.7cm. (4) Diameter: 2.4cm; thickness 0.7cm. (5) Diameter: 2.5cm; thickness 0.7cm. (6) Diameter: 2.6cm; thickness 0.7cm. (7) Diameter: 2.7cm; thickness 0.8cm. (8) Diameter: 2.7cm; thickness 0.9cm.

Finds from the Ramesside Temple (9) Diameter: 2.6cm; thickness 0.8cm. (10) Diameter: 2.2cm; thickness 0.7cm. TF 0052 Fragments from pottery vessels (various slips and fabrics) worked into coarse discs. F012 Ceramic barrel bead. Length: 2.9cm; diameter 2.2cm; diameter of hole 0.6cm. TH 0055 Ceramic bead of Nile silt fired to a light orange surface. Handmodelled. F014 (Pl.186) Ceramic counter. Diameter: 2.9cm. TA 0027 Fragment from a vessel made from Nile silt, fired to orange with a red slip. Worked into a disc shape. F015 Fragment from a fired clay figurine of a cobra. Width: 5.8cm; height: 5.2cm. TH 0055 Coarse Nile silt fabric, fired to orange with a grey core. The fragment can be identified as as being from a cobra figurine due to its scale, hand-modelled workmanship and the distinctive section shape. The beginning of a curve towards the head is preserved at the top of the fragment; the surface is very eroded. F016 (Pl.183) Seven ceramic counters. (Left to right, top to bottom) (1) Diameter: 3.0cm; thickness: 0.5cm. (2) Diameter: 2.9cm; thickness: 0.9cm. (3) Diameter: 2.8cm; thickness: 0.8cm. (4) Diameter: 2.3cm; thickness: 0.8cm. (5) Diameter: 3.0cm; thickness: 0.4cm. (6) Diameter: 3.5cm; thickness: 0.8cm. (7) Diameter: 2.3cm; thickness: 0.3cm. TF 0061 Fragments from Nile silt vessels worked into crude discs. The original vessels had various surface treatments; (5) features a red band upon a buff slip. F019 Fragment of worked quartzite. 5.6x3.8x4.8cm. TF 0051 F020 Fragment of worked red granite. Thickness: 4.0–5.3cm; Length: 11.2 (maximum); width 6.5cm. TF 0053 Red granite fragment with three broken edges. One face is polished smooth, the opposite face being simply smoothed. F023 (Pl.188) Two ceramic counters. (1, top) Diameter: 2.5cm; thickness: 0.6cm. (2, bottom) Diameter: 2.8cm; thickness: 0.7cm. TF 0091 Fragments of Nile silt vessels, one buff-slipped (2), worked into crude discs. F025 (Fig.50, Pls.167, 174) Fired clay base for a clay cobra (?) figurine. Length: 8.1cm; width 5.1cm; height: 2.8cm. TF 0092 Hand-modelled from Nile silt (with some limestone inclusions) fired to a thick red-orange band with a black-grey core. The base is smoothed, as are the tapering sides. One end, presumably towards the front of the cobra, is wider and features an oval depression 1.8cm deep, in which the cobra figurine would have been placed. The top of the rear part of the base is broken. F026 (Pl.189) Two ceramic counters. (1, top) Diameter: 2.7cm; thickness 0.6cm. (2, bottom) Diameter: 2.0cm; width 0.5cm. TY 0029 Fragments from two vessels, one fired to red-orange with an orange wash (1), the other fired to a grey core with a light orange slip (2).

Worked into crude discs. F030 (Pl.261) Fragments of painted plaster. Area (maximum): 1.6x1.1cm; thickness: 0.3cm. TH 0086 Fragments of white plaster bearing a red-pinkish paint. One fragment also bears some black paint. No figures or motifs can be discerned. F034 Fragment of glass. Length: 2.0cm; width 0.3cm. TH 0076 Small, sub-cylindrical, fragment of opaque glass with smoothed upper and lower surfaces. F035 (Fig.48, Pl.157) SCA 6 [2003] Head from a fired clay figurine of a cobra. Length: 3.6cm; width 3.0cm; height: 1.9cm. TH 0077 Hand-modelled from Nile silt (with fine chaff inclusions), fired to a homogenous grey-red, with no further surface treatment. Eyes indicated by pinching out; the bottom surface shows the beginning of a curve towards the vertical. Broken at the base of the neck. F036 (Pl.151) SCA 1 [2003] Fragment of an inscribed limestone column base. Height: 9.2cm; width 9.9cm; depth 9.3cm. TY 0056 The curvature of the inscribed surface indicates that this fragment is probably from a decorated column base. Part of one sunk-relief hieroglyph is preserved, a circular form most likely to be part of a sundisc. Traces of blue paint adhering to the inside edge of sign, not inconsistent with a sun-disc if it was a sign inside a cartouche. F037 (Pl.191) Ceramic counter. Diameter: 3.1cm; thickness 0.7cm. TF 0053 Fragment of a Nile silt vessel, fired to orange, recut into a crude disc shape. F039 (Pl.241) Fragments of painted plaster. Largest fragment 1.1x1.4x0.6cm. TH 0077 Fragments of white plaster bearing traces of red-pinkish paint, with one example also bearing black paint. F041 (Pl.197) Ceramic object. Diameter: 3.8cm; height: 3.2cm. TF 0047 Sub-cylindrical object recut from an object of fired Nile silt. The ‘bottom’ surface is pressed in and smoothed, while the ‘top’ features a crudely incised depression. The edges are broken in appearance, but these are fired surfaces: it is not a recut sherd. F042 (Pl.190) Ceramic counter. Diameter: 2.6cm; thickness 0.5cm. TE 0035 Fragment from a Nile silt vessel (limestone temper), fired to orange with a buff slip applied, re-cut into a crude disc. F044 (Pl.192) Ceramic counter Diameter: 2.8cm; thickness 0.7cm. TF 0047 Fragment from a Nile silt vessel with an orange wash, re-cut into a crude disc. F046 Metal pin or nail (?) Length: 1.1cm. TY 0029 F047 (Pl.201) Carnelian cornflower bead. Length: 1.2cm. TF 0069 Broken red carnelian bead in the form of a cornflower or poppy-seed. The upper edge preserves the lower part of the hole for stringing.

Kom Firin I | 71

Spencer F050 Fragment of polished stone. Height: 1.0cm; thickness 0.1cm. TC 0029 Small fragment of highly polished, thin, black stone. F053 (Pl.154) SCA 2 [2003] Fragment of a decorated limestone column base. Preserved arc 26.0cm; height: 18.0cm; thickness: 14.0cm. TY 0057 Part of the upper surface of the original column base is preserved, and a segment of the curving face. Two signs are visible upon the rounded face: the rear edge of a n bw-sign, and the head of a seated figure (see Edgar 1911: 277). The latter still bears significant amounts of red paint. The upper line framing the horizontal sunk-relief inscription is preserved. F054+F058 (Pls.152, 155) SCA 3 + 5 [2003] Two joining fragments of a decorated limestone column base F054: Preserved arc 36.0cm; thickness 13.0cm; depth 42–43.0cm. F058: Preserved arc 17.0cm; height: 15.6cm; depth 27cm. TY 0057 These two fragments feature part of a horizontal lune of inscription, reading m ry -MAat nb[ty]. This text is formed from the following signs (left to right): a seated figure of Maat (upper part lost), a mry-sign, two feathers, and a vulture sitting atop a n b-basket. Some black staining and lamination is evident upon the surface, but no ancient paint, with neither the original top or bottom surface of the column base surviving. F055 Limestone architectural fragment (?). Dimensions: 21.0x22.0cm; 10cm thick. TY 0057 Traces of light blue and red paint are evident on one surface, but the surfaces have only been roughly worked, not smoothed, polished or decorated. F056 (Pl.153) SCA 4 [2003] Fragment of a decorated limestone column base. Preserved arc 26.0cm; height 11.0cm; thickness: 16.0cm. TY 0057 The side surface is carved with a sunk relief inscription, ‘Horus Strong Bull’ (right-left). Though the carving is not of the highest quality, there is internal detailing to the signs, including an indication of the falcon’s plummage, and the bull’s eye, rib cage and hooves. F059 (Pl.211) Fragment from a faience vessel. Length: 1.9cm; diameter: 0.5cm. TH 0076 Faience fragment whose curvature indicates it comes from a small vessel. The interior surface bears two yellow-hued bands, probably originally black decoration on a blue-green surface, but the glaze is now entirely lost. F060 (Pl.205) Faience disc-bead. Diameter: 0.9cm; thickness 0.1cm. TC 0063 Disc-bead with light blue glaze. F061 (Pl.205) Carnelian bead. Diameter: 0.7cm; thickness 0.5cm. TC 0063 Pale red carnelian spherical bead, drilled for stringing. F062 Fragment of painted plaster. Dimensions: 0.2x0.1cm. TH 0086 Small piece of powdery plaster, with light blue surface colouring still preserved. A small piece of black pigment may represent staining from the depositional environment. F063 (Pl.193) Ceramic sherd with hole. Width: 7.5cm; thickness: 1.0cm. TT 0117

72 | Kom Firin I

Nile silt sherd, fired to red and unslipped. A 6mm hole has been cut through the centre of the sherd, but it has not been otherwise reshaped. F064 (Pl.158) SCA 1 [2003] Head from a fired clay figurine of a cobra. Length: 3.7cm; width: 2.9cm; height: 2.1cm. TK 0158 Head from a hand-modelled cobra figurine, made from Nile silt, fired to pink with a grey core. The surface is eroded and partly covered in salt accretions, with black stains under the front of the head. F065 (Fig.48, Pl.160) Upper part of a fired clay figurine of a cobra. Height: 8.6cm; width: 6.2cm; thickness (at bottom): 1.7cm; thickness (at head): 2.2cm; width of head (from break): 2.4cm. TG 0159 Hand-modelled from Nile silt, fired to purple-red with a black core. The surface is eroded, and the head broken off. The flared hood is unevenly modelled, but the curvature of the cobra is clearly visible in profile. F066 (Fig.48, Pl.168) Middle section from a fired clay figurine of a cobra. Height: 7.2cm; width 5.3cm; thickness of applied element: 2.0cm. TK 0158 Hand-modelled from Nile silt, fired to red with a grey-black core. The surface is eroded but bears no evidence of a slip. The curvature of the cobra’s body is evident in profile. An additional feature has been applied to the front, before firing, perhaps a ‘miniature cobra’. F067 (Pl.242) Fragments of gold leaf. Dimensions: 0.4x0.5cm; thickness: 0.1cm. TG 0159 Small piece of gold leaf, with an additional fragment now detached from the larger part. Formed from two layers of gold leaf, but no decoration is apparent. Perhaps originally part of the gilding of another object. F068 (Pl.161) Upper part of a fired clay figurine of a cobra. Height: 7.4cm; width 7.5cm; thickness (at head): 2.6cm; width of head (from bread): 2.4cm. TK 0158 Hand-modelled from Nile silt, fired to dark red with a thick black-grey core. The head, now lost, was positioned asymmetrically towards the proper right. White deposits adhere to the eroded surface. F069 (Pl.176) Lower part of a fired clay figurine of a cobra. Width: 5.1cm; height: 6.0cm; thickness: 1.8cm; thickness of ‘foot’: 3.0cm. TK 0158 Hand-modelled from Nile silt, fired to red-brown with a grey core. The front surface is very eroded at front, but part of a white wash is preserved on the rear surface. A slight curvature to the body is visible in profile. The bulbous ‘foot’ is crudely modelled; at present the object stands freely, but may not have done when complete, due to the weight of the (now lost) upper part. F070 (Fig.50, Pl.179) Fragment from a fired clay figurine of a quadruped. Length: 5.1cm; width: 2.2cm; height 3.0cm. TF 0061 Hand-modelled from Nile silt (with a small amount of chaff), fired to red with a grey-black core; no slip applied. This fragment preserved the rear haunches of a quadruped, with its tail pinched out in high relief; the legs and head are missing. The body is cylindrical in form (diameter: 2.3cm). F071 (Fig.48, Pl.159) SCA 2 [2004] Head from a fired clay figurine of a cobra. Width: 2.1cm; depth: 3.4cm; height: 1.7cm. TG 0145 Hand-modelled from Nile silt fired to red-pink with a thin grey core; the surface is untreated. Broken where the head joined the main body, there is a noticeable thumb-shaped depression atop the head, and the eyes are much deeper than typical on these figurines, creating striking ‘eyebrows’.

Finds from the Ramesside Temple F072 (Fig.51, Pl.232) Flint implement. Length: 6.6cm; width: 2.5cm. thickness: 0.9cm. TK 0158 Finely worked, pale brown-yellow, flint implement. The smooth upper surface is curved, suggesting it was used primarily as a scoop (though the edges are sharp, so it could have been used to cut as well). There is a clean break at one end, but the form of the object suggests it was not significantly longer. F075 (Pl.218) SCA 3 [2004] Ceramic mould for an amulet of Bes. Height: 5.2cm; width: 3.9cm; thickness: 0.8cm. TK 0158 Mould made from coarse Nile silt, with rear surface smoothed and somewhat rounded. The Bes figure is well-modelled, with the four feathers of the headdress, ears, grotesque face and hands on hips clearly visible. The bottom of the mould is broken away, so the figure’s feet are not preserved. F077 (Fig.49, Pl.170) Lower part of a fired clay figurine of a cobra. Height: 10.1cm; width: 6.9cm; thickness: 2.8cm. TG 0159 Hand-modelled from Nile silt fired to dark red, with a thick grey-black core; no evidence of surface treatment. The front bears some white deposits, and a grey-purple staining in the middle. The coarsely modelled foot is fully preserved, its uneven bottom surface indicates the figure could not stand unsupported. A thumb-shaped depression is located just above the foot on the front surface. An additional clay element has been applied to the front prior to firing, perhaps a ‘miniature cobra’ (4.4cm in length; 0.6cm thick). F078 (Pl.162) Upper part of a fired clay figurine of a cobra. Height: 8.cm; width: 7.8cm; thickness: 2.9cm; width of head (from break): 2.0cm. TG 0167 Nile silt (with small amounts of fine chaff and mica) fired to red-orange with a thick grey-black core; no evidence of surface treatment. The hood is rather asymmetrical in form. F080 (Pl.233) Flint knife-blade. Length: 9.5cm; width: 3.4cm; thickness: 0.6cm. TD (cleaning of trench). Roughly knapped pale brown flint knife, the inner curve feature a serrated edge. F081 (Fig.48, Pl.169) Middle section from a fired clay figurine of a cobra. Height: 5.2cm; width: 5.6cm; thickness: 2.8cm. TK 0158 Hand-modelled from Nile silt, fired to thin red-orange exterior with a thick grey core. The surface is partly eroded, but there is no evidence of a slip. No curvature to the body is perceptible in profile view. Part of a ‘miniature cobra’ is preserved on the front, made from a crudely modelled piece of clay added prior to firing; this element is not symmetrically positioned. To the left of this feature are a series of alternate raised lines and grooves (