The Excavations at Mut al-Kharab II: The Third Intermediate Period in the Western Desert of Egypt

By Richard J. Long

For over a century our knowledge of Egypt’s Western Desert during the Third Intermediate Period relied almost entirely on the Greater and Smaller Dakhleh Stelae. These two significant documents were purchased by Henry Lyons in 1894 in Dakhleh Oasis and indicated the existence of a substantial temple at Mut al-Kharab dedicated to the god Seth. Apart from these sources, very little information from the Western Desert could be dated to this period. Excavations at Mut al-Kharab began in 2000 and in recent years, evidence from the Third Intermediate Period temple has grown considerably. A range of artefacts has been unearthed, including decorated temple blocks, stelae, ostraka, in situ architectural remains, other small finds, and a large collection of well-dated ceramics. The scale of evidence suggests Mut al-Kharab was probably the most significant Third Intermediate Period site in the Western Desert.

In light of this new material, a re-examination of activity in the Western Desert during this period has been possible. This volume presents all the available evidence relating to the western oases during the Third Intermediate Period, with a particular focus on the ceramics. Occupation appears to have been more widespread than the limited evidence previously suggested, and these oasis communities were closely connected to the populations in the Nile Valley. The Egyptian central administration continued to be interested in the Western Desert, although political control does not seem to have been consistent. Moreover, subtle yet distinct variations in the material record, including aspects of pottery traditions and religious practices, may reveal the existence of an oasis culture. As such, we are developing a much clearer picture of activity in this region.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: Dec 3, 2021
• ISBN: 9781789257144

Richard J. Long

Richard J. Long completed his PhD at Monash University in 2019. He has worked with the Dakhleh Oasis Project since 2004, investigating activity during the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. His main area of interest is the archaeology of the Western Desert, with a particular focus on the ceramics.

Book preview

Chapter 1:

Introduction

In 1894 British Army Captain Henry Lyons purchased two sandstone stelae while in Dakhleh Oasis. Dating to Dynasties XXII and XXV respectively, the Greater and Smaller Dakhleh stelae (Plates 1.1 and 1.2; Gardiner 1933; Janssen 1968), as they came to be known, derived from Mut al-Kharab, located in the central part of the oasis (Figure 1.1). These two significant documents indicate that a substantial temple dedicated to the god Seth existed at the site. In fact, the Greater Dakhleh Stela describes the visit by a member of the royal family to Dakhleh to resolve a local dispute, showing this oasis was certainly valued by the central administration. In 1928, a third stela dedicated to a priest of Seth named Khai was recovered from the vicinity of Mut al-Kharab (Plate 1.3; van Zoest and Kaper 2006, 24–5), further alluding to temple activity during Dynasties XXII–XXIII. When formal excavations at Mut al-Kharab commenced in 2000, under the direction of Colin Hope of Monash University, it was believed that extensive Third Intermediate Period material would be unearthed to corroborate the Dakhleh stelae (Hope 2001a, 29 and 34). Unfortunately, definitive evidence from this period was difficult to identify. This was especially surprising given Mut al-Kharab was a major site and the likely capital of Dakhleh at this time (Hope 2001a, 43). Nevertheless, as excavations have continued significant progress has been made. As a result, a far more detailed picture of Dakhleh Oasis during the Third Intermediate Period is now emerging.

This volume evaluates both the extent and nature of Third Intermediate Period activity in the Western Desert. The central focus is the collation and analysis of all available evidence from the Third Intermediate Period temple at Mut al-Kharab, but for a comprehensive investigation, relevant material from the Nile valley and Delta, as well as other desert and oasis sites must be considered. Although the vast Western Desert is characterised by its desolate and barren environment, the existence of the principal fertile oases, namely Siwa, Bahriyya, Farafra, Dakhleh and Kharga (Figure 1.2), provides a unique perspective from which to view the ancient Egyptian civilisation. Despite their location far from the Nile valley, these oases have an incredibly long history of occupation and during pharaonic times, were valuable assets over which the Egyptian state attempted to maintain authority. As such, this study will also consider the nature of the oases’ relationship with the Nile valley, with a specific focus on the extent of formal control exerted over the Western Desert by the central administration.

European interest in the oases commenced in the early 1800s, with four separate individuals visiting Dakhleh in 1819 alone. These were Edmonstone, Drovetti, Hyde and Caillaud (Kaper 1997a, 3; Boozer 2013, 120, 126–33). Important observations were also made by Rohlfs in 1873–1874, and Winlock in 1908, the latter being the first professional Egyptologist to visit Dakhleh and Kharga (Kaper 1997a, 5; Boozer 2013, 120, 136–42). Winlock (1936) made significant notes on the preserved antiquities in Dakhleh, and took valuable photos which greatly helped later investigations. It was, however, Ahmed Fakhry who laid the foundations for modern research in the Western Desert. From the late 1930s onwards, his substantial work highlighted the importance of the oases during pharaonic times and included excavation of the governor’s mastabas near modern-day Balat in eastern Dakhleh, but also detailed studies of Bahriyya and Farafra (Fakhry 1939, 1942, 1950, 1972 and 1974). In response to these exciting discoveries, l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (l’IFAO) began working at ‘Ain Aseel and its cemetery Qal‘a al-Dabba in 1977; in the same year Anthony Mills made his first visit to Dakhleh and founded in the Dakhleh Oasis Project (DOP) in 1978. These two projects marked the first systematic exploration of this oasis.

Currently, only Dakhleh, Bahriyya and Kharga have produced material from the Third Intermediate Period. Siwa, located further north and west than the other main oases, does not appear to have formally commenced its association with the Nile valley until the Late Period (Giddy 1987, 18; Kuhlmann 1998, 161–3; Hardtke 2019, 245–7), while interestingly, Farafra is yet to produce any evidence of pharaonic activity (Giddy 1987, 16; Cappozzo and Palombini 2014, 55). An investigation of the three former oases is important for three key reasons: (1) recent fieldwork has produced a growing corpus of new material, thus an updated study is necessary; (2) well-dated sites in the oases can contribute to the overall understanding of the Third Intermediate Period, which is a complex and somewhat challenging phase of Egyptian history; (3) the oases provide an excellent opportunity to examine regionality, namely the development of cultural variation within Egyptian civilisation. A discussion of each of these factors is provided below.

Plate 1.1 top: The Greater Dakhleh Stela – Ashmolean Museum 1894.107a (© Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford); bottom: detail of the lunette.

Plate 1.2 The Smaller Dakhleh Stela – Ashmolean Museum 1894.107b (© Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford).

Plate 1.3 Stela of Khai – JE 52478 (after Van Zoest and Kaper 2006, 25).

Figure 1.1 Map of Dakhleh Oasis showing key sites mentioned in this study.

New Fieldwork and New Material

An increase in recent fieldwork in the Western Desert has led to a growing corpus of Third Intermediate Period material. A significant contribution has been made by Monash University’s excavations at Mut al-Kharab, which are part of the DOP. This multi-disciplined, international research project aims to study the interaction between humans and the environment in both Dakhleh Oasis and the surrounding areas of the Western Desert, from the earliest populations in the region down to modern Islamic times.¹ The DOP survey was undertaken between 1978–1987 and initially identified only three sites in Dakhleh that preserved evidence of Third Intermediate Period activity (Churcher and Mills 1999, 259; Hope 1999, 229), but as excavations have evolved and our understanding of the local material culture has developed, in particular the ceramics, numerous more sites can now be added to this list. Work at the site of Amhida in western Dakhleh, led by Roger Bagnall on behalf of New York University’s Institute for the Study of the Ancient World,² has also produced relevant material, showing the existence of another important site in Dakhleh during this time.

Other projects are currently exploring the Western Desert. The aforementioned IFAO is conducting fieldwork in Bahriyya, Dakhleh and Kharga, with the latter also being investigated by the Northern Kharga Oasis Survey (NKOS).³ With regard to the Third Intermediate Period, the sites of Qasr Allam and Qarat el-Toub in Bahriyya have produced valuable results (Colin and Zanatta 2006, 28–9, 32, figures 13–16; Colin 2011, 47–84), as has Amun Rock, a location surveyed by the NKOS (Warden, forthcoming). The Theban Desert Road Survey⁴ also continues to document contact between the Nile valley and Kharga, while the Abu Ballas Trail, located in the southwestern part of the Western Desert, is being investigated by the University of Cologne as part of the ACACIA Project (Arid Climate, Adaptation and Cultural Innovation in Africa).

To complement these projects, there has also been an increase in publications on Third Intermediate Period pottery in recent years. In 1996, Aston described the investigation of the pottery from this time as ‘Tentative footsteps in a forbidding terrain’, due in particular, to a lack of well-stratified and in situ material; this was exemplified by the total of only four deposits which Aston (1996a, 20) could date to specific Third Intermediate Period rulers. Since then, substantial progress has been made with assemblages from this time being identified at numerous sites including Elephantine (Aston 1999), Memphis (Aston and Jeffreys 2007), Tell el-Retaba (Rzepka et alii 2011; 2014), and many sites at Karnak, such as the Mut Temple (Sullivan 2011; 2013), the Treasury of Thutmose I (Jacquet-Gordon 2012), and the Ptah Temple and Chapel of Osiris Ounnefer Neb-Djefaou (Boulet 2016; 2017). To this list can now be added deposits from the Western Desert, including those from Mut al-Kharab. Collectively, this work has resulted in a deeper understanding of the period’s ceramic traditions, thus building greater confidence to identify key forms and fabrics. These developments are especially valuable for this study as the ceramic material plays a central role in determining the date and function of sites in the western oases.

It is also worth noting that no study focusing solely on the Western Desert during the Third Intermediate Period has been undertaken. Giddy’s Egyptian Oases (1987) provided a meticulous analysis of all the available data relating to the oases, including evidence from the Nile valley and fieldwork at ‘Ain Aseel in Dakhleh Oasis; however, it did not go beyond the New Kingdom. A more recent study by Hubschmann (2009) examined the oases during both the Third Intermediate and Late Periods, but significant new evidence, such as ceramics, ostraka and other inscribed material, has emerged since then. Much work has been published about individual sites and specific discoveries, but a collation and evaluation of all these sources is yet to be undertaken.

The Third Intermediate Period

Information from the oases can make a significant contribution to the overall understanding of the Third Intermediate Period. Comprising Dynasties XXI–XXV, this phase of Egyptian history continues to present challenges to Egyptologists and archaeologists alike, so new material is always welcomed. Kitchen’s pioneering work The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1972, 1996 revised edition) provided a comprehensive examination of the epoch as a whole, including the rise of foreign rulers, the existence of contemporary dynasties, and a reduction in Egypt’s influence throughout northern Africa and the Near East. It is, however, the chronology of the era that has been the source of much debate. This issue has seen a plethora of publications in recent years, with scholars continuing to investigate the many intriguing elements of this period, for example, the wḥm-mswt ‘Renaissance’ and the transition to the XXIst Dynasty (Jansen-Wilkeln 2006a, 218–33; James and Morkot 2010, 231–60; 2013, 217–54; Dodson 2012, 181–9; Thijs 2014, 209–23). This is further exemplified by the 2007 ‘Libyan Period in Egypt’ conference where four separate papers focused on royal sequence and regnal dates (Aston 2009; Broekman 2009; Dodson 2009; Kitchen 2009). Despite this valuable discourse around an absolute chronology, it must be stressed that a relative chronology is more relevant to this study. This is due to the lack of royal names and regnal years at sites in the Western Desert. This means that material culture, in particular ceramics, must play a crucial role in dating activity, and with styles and traditions often spanning long periods of time, alignment with specific years is almost impossible. Therefore, the regnal years of kings are not included in the text. Rather, they are outlined in Table 1.1, which presents an overview of three key chronologies of the Third Intermediate Period, namely those adopted by Kitchen (1996; 2006), Jansen-Winkeln (2006a; 2006b) and Dodson (2012). This is designed to show the range of regnal dates proposed by these scholars, but also phases that share some consensus (e.g. Dynasties XXI and XXV) and clear disagreements (e.g. Dynasty XXIII). Nevertheless, progress in this complex field continues to be made. At the aforementioned conference, a resolution confirming the numbering system for the numerous Shoshenqs was passed (Broekman et alii 444–5), providing confidence for subsequent chronological discourse about this period. In addition, recent discussions have confirmed that King Shabitku of Dynasty XXV actually preceded, rather than succeeded Shabaka (Jurman 2017, 124–51). It is also worth noting that in accordance with Table 1.1, all dates in this volume are BCE unless otherwise stated.

Figure 1.2 Map of Egypt and the Western Desert, showing key sites mentioned in this study (based on Manning 2010, iv).

Another feature which defines the Third Intermediate Period is the marked difference from the preceding First and Second Intermediate Periods. In particular, this includes the clear phases of political stability and its extended duration, lasting over 400 years. Sub-phases identifying political divisions are therefore necessary to provide a more manageable chronological framework. During the first phase, comprising Dynasty XXI, power was shared between the royal line in the Delta and the High Priests of Amun in Thebes (Kitchen 1995, 3; Assman 1996, 287–8). The next phase, covering Dynasties XXII–XXIV, saw the emergence of contemporary rulers throughout the country, with many being of Libyan heritage. According to Piye’s victory stela, by the late eighth century there were ‘kings’ at Bubastis, Leontopolis, Hermopolis and Herakleopolis, four autonomous ‘Great Chiefs of the Ma’ residing in the Delta, and a ‘Prince of the West’ named Tefnakht controlling the western Delta and Memphis (O’Connor 1983, 242; Kitchen 1996, 366–8; Taylor 2000, 337). In the final phase, Dynasty XXV, Egypt was again unified but under a line of Nubian kings. Taking a more traditional approach to kingship, they looked back to the Old Kingdom pharaohs for inspiration, especially in relation to royal titularies, burial customs and artistic styles (Taylor 2000, 356–7). The Third Intermediate Period came to a close following the Assyrian conquest of Egypt, when the Nubian kings of the XXVth Dynasty were expelled, and Psamtek I, initially acting as an Assyrian vassal, then became an independent ruler (Lloyd 2000, 371–82).

Our understanding of the Third Intermediate Period is constrained by a lack of sites containing well-stratified material which can be accurately dated. Exceptions include Tanis, the royal capital of Dynasties XXI–XXII, and Thebes, the primary religious and political centre in the south (Figure 1.2). Much of this material, however, tends to derive from tombs, cemeteries and temples, thus information from non-funerary contexts is often at a premium (Taylor 2000, 331). Another problem contributing to a dearth of sites providing in situ remains is the central role of the Delta during this period. This area became increasingly prominent following the New Kingdom, but for many years, fieldwork was hindered by geological factors, such as rising groundwater and expanding modern-day settlements, both resulting in poor levels of preservation (Bennett 2019, 13). It is known that in the aftermath of the Libyan wars of the XXth Dynasty, large numbers of Libyan captives were resettled throughout the Nile Delta (Kitchen 1990, 20–1; 1996, 245) and it was sites such as Leontopolis, Bubastis, Mendes and Sais which became the centres of Libyan influence (Taylor 2000, 339–45). Fortunately, much progress has been made in recent times, with excavations occurring at many sites in this part of Egypt. Despite these challenges, important progress in our understanding of the Third Intermediate Period continues to be made. Volumes such as The Libyan Period in Egypt (Broekman et alii 2007), Thebes in the First Millennium BC (Pischikova et alii 2014), Thebes in the First Millennium BC: Art and Architecture of the Kushite Period and Beyond (Pischikova et alii 2018) and The Archaeology of Egypt in the Third Intermediate Period (Bennett 2019) present not only the latest research, but the growing interest in this unique phase of Egyptian history. The discovery of new Third Intermediate Period material in the western oases can contribute significantly to these developments.

Regionality

The oases provide an excellent opportunity to examine the existence of cultural variation within Egyptian civilisation. According to the central ideology of the Pharaonic state, the Egyptians were a homogeneous group who shared a unique culture, language, and belief system, and lived within a clearly defined homeland. This territory was marked by the Nile Delta in the north, the First Cataract at Aswan in the south, and the narrow Nile valley to the east and west; beyond these boundaries lay the distant, unknown, non-Egyptian world (Shaw 2000, 318; O’Connor and Quirke 2003, 17; Smith 2003, 4; Jeffreys 2010, 103). In this book, the territory within these frontiers will be referred to as ‘Egypt’. From a geographical perspective, the location of the oases beyond Egypt’s traditional border implies their populations were considered foreign. Indeed, oasis porters are represented in many New Kingdom tomb scenes of foreign tribute (Giddy 1987, 69–74), while the Egyptian word for ‘oasis’ (wḥ t) contains the hieroglyphic determinative indicating a foreign land (Gardiner 1957, 488, N25). Juxtaposing this situation is the archaeological record in the oases which has produced material and textual remains from the pharaonic era that are typically Egyptian. Prominent indicators include religious practices, ceramic repertoires, artistic and architectural styles and the use of the hieroglyphic script. (Giddy 1987, 174–212; Soukiassian et alii 1990; 2002; Hope 1999, 217–26; Mills 1999, 174–5; Marchand and Tallet 1999; Hope and Kaper 2010a and 2010b). This apparent contradiction raises important questions about the culture of the oasis populations.

Table 1.1 Chronology of the Third Intermediate Period.

This table provides an overview of three key chronologies of the Third Intermediate Period. All dates prior to the accession of Taharqa in 690 are approximate. All dates are BCE.

UE = Upper Egypt; LE = Lower Egypt.

* It is now generally accepted that Shabitku preceded, rather than succeeded Shabaka. This change is a recent development and was therefore not included by the authors whose chronologies are summarised in this table.

Two key factors of the Third Intermediate Period make it a conducive era to investigate regionality in the Western Desert. The first is political fragmentation, which is characteristic of the period. According to Jeffreys (2010, 104), the ‘intermediate periods’ provide perhaps the best opportunity to explore the true diversity of the Egyptian culture. The absence of a unified central government may have reduced the dominance of statewide cultural norms, thus allowing local traditions to flourish. An example can be seen in the aftermath of the Old Kingdom, where the changing political situation saw an increase in the number of elite cemeteries and the emergence of different pyramidbuilding patterns (Jeffreys 2010, 104). Given the location of the oases, and their relationship with the Egyptian state, they offer an interesting case study for exploring the development of regional culture. This is further reinforced by the significant impact of the natural environment on regionality (Jeffreys 2010). While the populations of the Nile valley shared numerous geographical features, such as the dominance of the Nile and the annual flood which created fertile agricultural fields, the unique landscape of the oases provided a wholly different experience. Despite the occurrence of typically Egyptian material culture throughout the Western Desert, a re-examination of the archaeological record, in light of these considerations, is necessary.

The second element is the growing influence of ‘Libyans’. The term Libyan is used to describe various groups of semi-nomadic pastoralists who inhabited areas to the west of the Nile valley in antiquity. Unfortunately, this term is rather misleading, as has been highlighted in numerous studies (for example Gardiner 1961, 35; Spalinger 1979, 125; O’Connor 1990, 30; Snape 2003, 94–5). From Predynastic times, two specific groups termed the Tjemehu and Tjehenu, were identified by the Egyptians as traditional enemies of the state (Uphill 1965, 394, 406–7; Spalinger 1979, 126–36; Baines 1996, 364–6; Hope 2007, 399–403). From the New Kingdom onwards, however, the emergence of new ‘Libyan’ groups resulted in their influence increasing greatly. This was due, in particular, to a series of invasions and population movements led by groups named the Meshwesh and Libu (Kitchen 1990, 16–22). Over time, members of these groups were able to gain positions of authority and eventually succeed in taking control of the Egyptian throne. By the time of the XXIInd Dynasty, the most dominant figures in the Delta were the ‘Great Chiefs of the Meshwesh’ and ‘Great Chiefs of the Libu’ (Kitchen 1996, 285–6, 291; Taylor 2000, 338–9). The association between these Libyan groups and the Western Desert is well-documented. They appear to have utilised Farafra Oasis and possibly Siwa or Bahriyya during Merenptah’s Libyan War of Year 5 (Kitchen 1990, 19–20; 2003, 1 and 4; Manassa 2003, 28, 31–2 and 94–5), while texts from Deir el-Medina refer to Meshwesh and Libu arriving in Western Thebes from the desert during the closing stages of the New Kingdom (Haring 1992, 73–4). Moreover, the Smaller Dakhleh Stela reveals that a Libyan group called the ‘Shamin’ was residing in this oasis during Dynasty XXV. Considering the Western Desert’s close association with ‘Libyans’, the oases are well-positioned to explore this defining element of the Third Intermediate Period.

Finally, the excavations at the temple of Seth at Mut al-Kharab allow for an examination of a regional cult centre. Seth was one of the great state gods of Egypt. Known from predynastic times, he formed part of the Ennead of Heliopolis (Te Velde 1977, 7–12, 27) and played a fundamental role in Egyptian mythology. Not only was Seth responsible for the death of Osiris, resulting in his long-standing rivalry with Horus (Te Velde 1977, 32–46, 81–4), he was the protector of Re, defeating Apophis on his daily journey through the underworld (Te Velde 1977, 99–108; Cruz-Uribe 2009, 204). Despite this apparent contradiction, whereby Seth is both the hero and villain, his influence and popularity were widespread. This is epitomised by the name of New Kingdom rulers, such as Seti I and II, and Sethnacht. During the first millennium BCE, however, it has generally been accepted that the cult of this deity experienced a state-wide decline. This theory was raised by Gunn and Gardiner (1918, 45), but was elaborated upon and strengthened by Te Velde (1977), whose seminal study of Seth advocated a proscription of this god. This movement was characterised by a prohibition on the use of the Seth animal in art or inscriptions, a dramatic reduction in the use of the word Seth in personal names, and an overall decrease in state support for the god’s temples (Te Velde 1977, 138–51; Kaper 2001, 72). In Dakhleh, references to Seth date back to the Old Kingdom (Hope 206, 123; Polkowski 2019, 159), and the occurrence of Seth petroglyphs throughout the oasis show this deity’s importance to the local population (Polkowski 2019, 143-170). While the first evidence of formal worship comes from a New Kingdom stela at Mut al-Kharab (Hope and Kaper 2010b), the cult of Seth flourished at the site during Third Intermediate Period. This was in direct contrast to the cult’s decline in Egypt. Many texts, including the Greater Dakhleh Stela, identify Seth as ‘Lord of the Oasis’ (Gardiner 1933, 22–3, line 2; Ritner 2009, 174–6, no. 4), and it is clear that the central administration was well-aware and even supported the existence of this cult at Mut al-Kharab. Although the extent and nature of the so-called ‘proscription’ of Seth has been challenged in recent times (Cruz-Uribe 2009, 206; Smith 2010, 417; Hope and Warfe 2017), the apparent success of this cult in Dakhleh Oasis provides a great opportunity to investigate a regional cult centre of this important state god.

Theoretical and Methodological Approach

The material culture of the western oases plays a vital role in this study. The analysis of decorated blocks, inscriptions, ostraka and above all ceramics, provides valuable information about the people who were living in the oases during the Third Intermediate Period. As mentioned above, the archaeological record shows their material culture was the same as the populations living in the Nile valley. This interpretation, however, is problematic given the existence of Libyan groups in the Western Desert and the location of the oases well-outside the borders of the Egyptian state. Can it therefore be assumed that the people using these artefacts were Egyptian? This question relies on the belief that the material record is an active reflection of the