Two Representative Deposits From The Monastery of Apa Apollo

Édité par
Florence Calament et Gisèle Hadji-Minaglou
BAOUÎT (2008-2018),
PANORAMA
ET PERSPECTIVES
RENCONTRE DE L’ARCHÉOLOGIE
ET DES TEXTES
INSTITUT FRANÇAIS D’ARCHÉOLOGIE ORIENTALE
Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Édité par
Florence Calament et Gisèle Hadji-Minaglou
baouît (2008-2018)
panorama et perspectives
Rencontre de l’archéologie et des textes
Journées d’étude des 7-8 juin 2018

Paris, École du Louvre
INSTITUT FRANÇAIS D’ARCHÉOLOGIE ORIENTALE

BIBLIOTHÈQUE D’ÉTUDES COPTES   

Sommaire
Florence Calament, Gisèle Hadji-Minaglou

Introduction générale ....................................................................................................................................................... 
ARCHÉOLOGIE
Gisèle Hadji-Minaglou
Baouît - : les fouilles .................................................................................................................................... 
Eleni E. Efthymiou, Cédric Meurice

Quand la sculpture n’est plus à sa place .......................................................................................................... 
Héléna Rochard
Le décor peint de l’église principale du monastère de Baouît.
Premières observations .................................................................................................................................................... 
Christophe Guilbaud
Les peintures murales de la salle . Observations techniques
(matériaux, mise en œuvre et chronologie) ................................................................................................. 
Bruno Szkotnicki
Les peintures murales de la salle . Problématique de conservation .................................... 
Baouît (2008-2018). Panorama et perspectives V

María Victoria Asensi Amorós
Le point sur les analyses xylologiques des objets en bois de Baouît.
De la fouille au musée ....................................................................................................................................................... 
Dominique Bénazeth
Vandalisme au monastère ............................................................................................................................................. 
Sayed Awad Mohamed

e Burials South to the Main Church : Archaeological Description .................................... 
Roberta Cortopassi
Les inhumations au sud de l’église principale. Les textiles............................................................... 
Paul Bailet
Les inhumations au sud de l’église principale. Étude anthropologique .............................. 
Delphine Dixneuf, Alexandra Konstantinidou, Anna Południkiewicz

Pottery in Context : Two Representative Deposits
from the Monastery of Apa Apollo ..................................................................................................................... 
TEXTES
Florence Calament
Un monastère exploré et interprété par les textes : récents éclairages ................................ 
Isabelle Marthot-Santaniello
Les dipinti des amphores de Baouît. Premiers résultats ..................................................................... 
Alain Delattre, Naïm Vanthieghem

La documentation papyrologique de Baouît. Bilan et perspectives ...................................... 
María Jesús Albarrán Martínez

Baouît dans la collection Palau-Ribes. Un corpus en progression ........................................... 
Anne Boud’hors
Réflexions sur les conditions d’existence d’une bibliothèque à Baouît................................ 
VI Sommaire

Joanna Wegner
Farmers, Collectors, Managers: Individual Agents of the Monastery of Apa Apollo
in Bawit During the th–th Centuries ............................................................................................................ 
Florence Calament, Gisèle Hadji-Minaglou

Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................................... 
Abréviations et bibliographie ................................................................................................................... 229
Les auteurs .................................................................................................................................................................. 249
Baouît (2008-2018). Panorama et perspectives VII

Delphine Dixneuf, Alexandra Konstantinidou,
Anna Południkiewicz
Pottery in context
Two Representative Deposits
from the Monastery of Apa Apollo*
. INTRODUCTION
e pottery assemblage from fifteen years of archaeological fieldwork at the monastic site of Bawit
(2003–2018) is known from individual articles and preliminary reports.1 An unpublished site catalogue
by Sylvie Marchand illustrates wares from the northern sector and from a survey project on the kom
and hill. Pending detailed publications of this assemblage (the work is still ongoing), the authors present
two distinctive contexts: a well-dated 7th-century deposit from “Room 7” in the northern sector of the
settlement and an enigmatic, probably late 8th/9th-century assemblage found outside the main church
of the monastic compound.
. NORTHERN SECTOR
e excavation of the northern sector started in 2003 and brought to light almost forty rooms that
were parts of three different buildings.2 e first of these buildings included a court, a number of cells,
“rooms”, a kitchen, and the so-called “Room 7”, identified as a reception hall and decorated with elaborate
wall paintings (fig. 1). e ceramics were recorded in both primary and secondary contexts. For example,
amphorae that had been re-used in substantial number in vault construction to fill the extrados were
discovered in fragments in the rubble of the collapsed roofs. Large assemblages of sherds were found
in occupational contexts on the terrace roofs, in the storerooms, and in the courtyard. e assemblage
includes a rich inventory of forms of both amphorae and other pots, dating mainly from the 7th century
and still under study.
Excavation of “Room 7” revealed a layer of aeolian sand rich in ceramic finds (US 188) right under
the surface layer. With the progress of excavation, it turned out that the collapsed roof of “Room 7” was
underneath. e quantification of the assemblage led to the following striking observations. Transport
amphorae—the Egyptian Late Amphora 7 type, to be more precise—comprised more than 80 of the
material. Other transport amphorae included the imported (non-Egyptian) Late Roman Amphorae (LRA) 4
* We are grateful to Iwona Zych (Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Warsaw) for kindly
revising the English.
1. Marchand, Dixneuf 2007; Dixneuf 2008; Południkiewicz, Konstantinidou 2012; Dixneuf 2017.
2. See regular excavation reports: Bénazeth 2006, pp. 367–369; Bénazeth 2007, p. 282; Bénazeth 2008a, pp. 404–405;
Hadji-Minaglou 2008, pp. 408–409; Hadji-Minaglou 2009, pp. 561–563.
Baouît (2008-2018). Panorama et perspectives 115

and LRA 1, as well as the Egyptian Amphorae (EA) 5/6 and 8. Also found were all kinds of pots: for storage
of foodstuffs (jars and other storage vessels), for the preparation and the cooking of meals (troughs, large
and medium-size bowls, frying pans, and casseroles), and a small quantity of tableware.
.. on-gyptian amphorae and other vessels
e amphorae imported from non-Egyptian territories are divided into five groups. e LRA 1 rep-
resents more than 50 of the material (fig. 2, no. 1). e vessels are generally similar on typological and
chronological grounds, crudely made, probably identified as Dominique Pieri’s LRA 1B1 type from the
mid-7th century.3 eir necks were coated with thick, black resinated linen, which is probably pitching.
e second group were Palestinian wine amphorae known as LRA 4 (fig. 2, nos. 2–3), most often pitched
and, according to the form of their mouth, either Grzegorz Majcherek’s Type 44 or D. Pieri’s Type B3.5
is type is dated mainly to the 7th century, even if the respective finds in Kellia are dated between the
mid-7th and the mid-8th century.6 e remaining three groups include the Palestinian LRA 5, containing
fish products,7 an African “spatheion”, and a large amphora with pitched walls (fig. 2, no. 4) resembling
LRA 2B,8 but slightly carinated and without incisions on the upper shoulder. is last form could belong
to the generic type of “late globular” amphorae, also known as “Castrum Perti” after the place where
they were discovered; it is also tempting to relate it to the African “Globular” 2 or 4 amphorae from the
7th century mainly or later,9 but in this case the fabric fails to confirm the assumption. Last but not least,
there is a red slip LR “D” dish, Hayes Form 9C, made in Cyprus or in south Asia Minor (fig. 2, no. 5) and
dated principally to the 7th century.10
.. mphorae and other ceramics of gyptian manufacture
EA 7 or LRA 7 is the best represented category in the deposit under discussion. Eight of the complete
amphorae contained fish remains.11 Several variants have been distinguished, the most characteristic ones
being as follows:
– large variant with rounded shoulder;
– narrower variant, also with rounded shoulder and a knobbed spike (fig. 3, no. 6);
– narrow variant with slightly carinated shoulder that forms a central concavity, more or less pronounced
(fig. 3, no. 7);
– variant with carinated shoulder, surrounded by a double ridge (fig. 3, no. 8);
– carinated variant with a ridge at the base of the neck (fig. 3, no. 9);
– variant with rounded or carinated shoulder bearing deep ribbing on the upper shoulder (fig. 4, no. 10).
3. Pieri 2005, pp. 75–76.

4. Majcherek 1995, p. 177, pl. 8.
5. Pieri 2005, p. 107.
6. Egloff 1977, p. 117, pl. 61.1.
7. Van Neer et al. 2007, pp. 150–151.
8. Pieri 2005, p. 87, fig. 45.
9. Bonifay 2004, pp. 152–153, Type 64 or Type 66.
10. Reynolds 2011, p. 64.
11. Van Neer et al. 2007, p. 151.
116 Pottery in context

Necks and mouths present a striking variety of shape, forming a band that is either short or long,
concave or C-shaped. ese crudely made amphorae often bear pseudo-decoration of white colour, most
probably lime wash; the commonest patterns are vertical or intersected bands on the body and wide, flat
bands on the shoulder and the neck. A singular example bears red arches on the shoulder. LRA 7 containers,
which have been discovered in other contexts, were furnished with a number of small handles attached
to their shoulders; next to the rare application of red slip on the surface, this feature may be considered
as fairly atypical. A round perforation of the neck is noted frequently, sometimes still blocked with a small
branch in it and a white substance of unknown nature. A vast majority of these amphorae were pitched;
their capacities vary from 5–6 litres to 8–9 litres, the latter being less common.
e bitroncoconical late EA 3 vessels are represented by 11 specimens (fig. 4, no. 11). e forms dis-
covered in Bawit are characterised by a very long, troncoconical, ribbed neck, with heavy ribbing in the
lower part. e generally rounded and slightly everted rim is externally underlined by a projecting ridge.
e shoulder is convex and progressively narrows down to a conical spike that bears an annular bulge. Like
the amphorae LRA 7/EA 7, the late EA 3 are made of a fine to medium-fine, chocolate-brown, alluvial fabric
that is tempered mainly with some straw particles and mica specks.
e large family of EA 5/6 is divided into two groups, according to the nature of the fabric: calcareous
or alluvial. e calcareous group includes both buff-brown, medium-fine fabric versions and finer,
medium-sandy versions with the colour in the break varying from pink to reddish; the external surface
of the later versions is either pinkish with whitish zones or merely whitish. It is very probable that some
of these amphorae were manufactured in the Abu Mena workshops12 and/or the region of Mareotis. e
second group is represented by a single fragment. e alluvial fabric is brown and medium-fine, and the
vessel was pitched; this fabric suggests a local or at least a regional Middle Egyptian production.
A certain group of Egyptian amphorae imitates, more or less successfully, the imported LRA 1
(fig. 4, nos. 15–16). Two production workshops have been identified to date: one at the Saint Jeremiah
Monastery in Saqqara13 (amphorae made of alluvial fabrics) and another at ‘Uyun Musa (“Sources of
Moses”) in Sinai14 (amphorae made of calcareous fabrics). A third production centre situated somewhere
in Middle Egypt is intimated by a macroscopic examination of the fabrics. e walls of these amphorae
are often pitched, hence their connection with wine production.
e assemblage also includes a small number of ceramics, mainly storage vessels: a pithos (fig. 4, no. 17),
a large storage jar with black spirals and dots painted on a pinkish-white slip on the external surface (fig. 4,
no. 18), many jars with triangular rim that may be identified as saqiya-pots (fig. 4, nos. 19–20), a jar with
small everted rim (fig. 4, no. 21), and a small storage vessel (fig. 4, no. 22). e alluvial fabric in these cases
has a texture often medium-fine to coarse, open and sometimes porous; the inclusions are mainly straw
and/or quartz particles.15
Next to the ceramics used for the transportation and storage of wines, water, and dry products, there
are also many vessels used for the preparation of food (fig. 4, nos. 12-14). e presence of such vessels and
tableware on the roof of “Room 7” makes one wonder whether certain cooking processes took place there;
however, it is also likely that these pots were simply stored on the roof. e assemblage includes: a large
trough decorated with incised wavy lines, a strainer or sieve (fig. 5, no. 23), and a funnel (fig. 5, no. 24). In
addition, there are many medium-sized bowls, as well as some small bowls16 (fig. 5, nos. 25–27), two frying
pans, and ten cooking pots (fig. 5, nos. 28–29). It is noteworthy that no cooking installation (oven, portable
oven or brazier) was recorded during the removal of US 188. e common wares are made of alluvial fabric,
12. For the Abu Mena amphorae, see: Engemann 1992; Empereur, Picon 1992, pp 150–151.
13. Ghaly 1992, pp. 168–169, fig. 16.
14. Ballet 2001, p. 48, figs. 9–11.
15. Dixneuf 2017, p. 954.
16. Dixneuf 2017, p. 962, fig. 6, no. 32.

similar to the one used in the manufacture of storage vessels; it is a medium-coarse version, containing
straw particles and/or quartz. e cooking wares were made of finer and better purified alluvial fabric.17
Tableware is represented by a large, carinated bowl with everted rim of triangular section made of
alluvial fabric (fig. 5, no. 30), an Aswan red slip plate with rounded rim (fig. 5, no. 31), and an Aswan red
slip carinated bowl with painted decoration (fig. 5, no. 32). A large hemispherical bowl with thickened rim
stands out because of decoration with black painted spirals and dots on the inside (fig. 5, no. 33).
Completing the assemblage were a saucer lamp (fig. 5, no. 34), two lids, one of them bearing a horizontal
handle (fig. 5, no. 35), and four saqiya-pots (fig. 5, nos. 36–37).
D. D.
. MAIN CHURCH
.. verview of the contexts
e main church and its surroundings were covered with windblown sand containing a substantial
representation of ceramic wares and types. e pottery from these generally disturbed layers dates from
the 7th through the 10th century. Clear contexts were excavated below these layers. West of the church,
a room with mudbrick walls was full of EA 7, for the most part from the 7th century (Layer 1160). A mud-
brick structure practically attached to the north wall of the church was filled with 9th-century pottery
(Layer 1080). A series of 9th-century ovoid EA 5/6 was found in the rubble of a wall that had been embedded
in the wall built over the west wall of the church (Layers 1152, 1171).
In 2016, several burials (Layers 1113, 1121, 1122) were discovered along the south wall of the main church
and in the western part of the excavated area.18 ese burials are most probably of 8th–9th century date.
Two rooms excavated further east were found filled with waste after their abandonment (fig. 6). e south
room was covered with a layer of fine ash with fragments of painted plaster and carved stones; the pottery
found included mainly 9th-century types of open and closed vessels and a small quantity of late 7th- or
8th-century residual material. e mouth of a large pithos tied with a rope appeared against the north wall
of the room (fig. 7a); a basket lay on top of it. Inside of this large storage jar were some unexpected finds.
.. ots in a pot
Once the sand was removed, a number of complete vessels appeared in view, and it soon became
evident that they had been placed inside the jar in a very particular way.
A basket full of pots lay at the bottom of the pithos (fig. 7b). It was covered by a layer of sand, appa-
rently for protection. e sand included other material, such as small pebbles, sherds, even dung; the
assumption is that it was hastily collected without paying any attention to what it contained. Another
basket full of pots was placed right above the first one and likewise covered with sand. is process was
repeated at least for one more time. A stone slab broken into three fragments was found among the pots
(fig. 7c); surprisingly, it had done no damage to the vessels.
17. Dixneuf 2017, p. 955.

18. See supra, p. 83.

In total, eleven complete vessels and a lid were hidden in the pithos. ree of them were made of Aswan
fabric. A red slip (Group “O”) dish with rolled rim, low-placed carination, and a hollowed base19 (figs. 8, 10,
no. 38) is the only object that broke, most probably due to the post-depositional conditions and the fact
that its walls are extremely thin at the carination point. Other than that there was a painted (Group “W”/
Aswan Medieval Painted Ware) small plain-rimmed cup with flat base20 (figs. 8, 10, no. 39) decorated on
the outside, below a band of black colour (result of misfiring); two parallel lines define a zone decorated
with alternating double arcs in red colour.21 e third vessel was a painted (group “W”/Aswan Medieval
Painted Ware) plain-rimmed bowl with sloping walls curving into an almost rounded base22 (figs. 8, 10,
no. 40) and adorned on the inside; a central medallion in black is depicted at the bottom, but the main
motif remains illegible—only traces of red colour are visible. e rim is painted red, while the walls are
decorated with an interlace-like motif;23 its outline is black and some of its nodes are coloured red. A small
vertical notch cut into the outside edge of the rim is extended with a red line painted down to the base.
e remaining eight vessels are made of Nile silt fabric. So far, no parallels have been traced. e finest
of these is a small plain-rimmed glazed bowl with disk-like base (figs. 8, 10, no. 41). e inner surface is
decorated with black vitreous colours on white slip covered with a yellowish transparent glaze; a row of
splashes adorns the rim, while four more similar motifs are visible on the bottom; a black line runs around
the exterior of the rim. e outer surface of the bowl is generally worn.
Maybe the most interesting pot of the assemblage is a plain-rimmed open vessel with a distinctively
high foot (figs. 8, 11, no. 42). It seems that it was made with no special care, since it is entirely irregular. Both
surfaces are covered with a white powdery substance that looks like unfired slip. e fact that it bears
no traces of contact with fire makes its identification as a censer quite doubtful, yet not improbable. e
distinctive high foot and the overall form of this vessel also characterise chalices. e identification is thus
difficult: perhaps it was made with the intent of using at a censer but was never used.
A cup (figs. 8, 11, no. 43) coated with pinkish slip, dripping at the lower edge and inside the neck, has
a rare morphological detail: two vertical handles attached very close to one another (one fully preserved,
the other leaving traces at the attachment points). eir size and maybe even their shape may have not
been identical.24
Another closed vessel is a carelessly manufactured two-handled flagon with narrow neck, ovoid body,
and turned base25 (figs. 8, 11, no. 44).
Four heavily sooted cooking utensils were also hidden inside the pithos: a shallow casserole (figs. 9, 12,
no. 45), two cooking pots (figs. 9, 12, nos. 46–47), and a conical cooking-pot lid with pierced knob handle
(figs. 9, 12, no. 48). All the cooking vessels have two handles. One of the cooking pots is rather small in size
and is characterised by an almost spherical, unribbed body (figs. 9, 12, no. 46,); the other is larger in size,
the neck is gently fluted and the body is almost carinated (figs. 9, 12, no. 47). e interior of the casserole
was covered with a white unidentified powdery substance, different from that covering the surface of the
19. It is a simplified and later version of the Form e in: Hayes 1972, pp. 388-389, fig. 85; or of the Types 33–34 in:
Egloff 1977, pp. 80–81; this long-lasting type evolves and occurs at various Egyptian sites from the 6th until the
10th century. e plate that was hidden in the pithos has parallels in the 8th century, in: Gempeler 1992, pp. 101-102,
fig. 43, no. 11, Form T344c. Some parallels, based on Gempeler’s typology, also can be found in Martin-Kilcher,
Wininger 2017, Form GT 344, Typentafel 9, pp. 253-255, 287-288.
20. Similar but not exact form in: Gempeler 1992, fig. 73, no. 9, Form T624a–b.
21. Similar motif in: Gempeler 1992, fig. 75, no. 16; Bailey 1998, p. 37, pl. 19, C714.
22. Similar form in: Gempeler 1992, fig. 29, no. 1, Form T271.
23. Similar motif in: Gempeler 1992, fig. 75, no. 17.
24. For a similar one-handled pot dated to the 9th–10th century, see: Danys-Lasek 2014, pp. 627–628, fig. 24, Nd. 11.219.
25. For a similar but not identical two-handled flagon dated to the 8th–10th century, see: Bailey 1998, p. 90, pl. 53,
J324.

high-footed vessel. Another curious detail is the preservation of the lid. e edges are cut in a particular way
and the lid was reused in this form; its original and subsequent functions could have easily been different.
e last of the vessels hidden in the pithos was a medium-sized bowl with a rim forming a concave outer
face, diagonal walls, and a flat base (figs. 9, 12, no. 49). is bowl is decorated with an incised wavy line.26
ree shells were also left beside the ceramics and the stone slab (fig. 13a). ey may have been used
as spoons or perhaps as capacity measures. As for the stone slab, it was probably meant to be used as a
funerary stela.
.. he hiding place
e pithos in which these vessels were hidden is a large recipient (figs. 13–14) almost 1 m high; its
maximum diameter is 0.60 m. It was found with a large crack running vertically down almost the entire
body (fig. 13b). Mud added on either side of the crack and especially around the rim (fig. 13c) suggests that
the crack had been repaired possibly before the objects were hidden in the pithos. e rim was tied with
a rope (fig. 13b), which was then covered with mud probably as a protection measure when repairing the
large jar. Two holes pierced the pithos wall and they both seem to have existed before the vessel cracked;
one of them was certainly made before firing and should be linked to the primary use of this large vessel;
the other one was pierced after firing (fig. 13d).
e circumstances of concealment of the described vessels and the reason for which someone hid
them in the pithos is obscure. e pithos displays specific characteristics that raise questions about its
proper function and possible reuse, such as the hole pierced before firing and the repaired crack. ere are
at least three different reasons to repair a pot: first, the user’s inability to buy a new one; second, difficult
access to a market or an individual pottery seller; third, a sentimental attachment to a specific object. e
first two reasons seem the most logical explanations for the way the pithos was maintained. It should be
kept in mind that it was not simple to repair a pot, as it demanded different techniques to be applied
depending on the vessel, e.g. drilling holes, pouring metal clasps, etc. Hence, one should not overlook the
importance and “value” of the pots that were repaired instead of being replaced.
As for the hidden vessels, they are hardly what we could call a hoard.27 Even if one accepts that pottery
was indeed worth protecting, like some precious artefacts of gold, silver or precious stones, one will certainly
not expect to find heavily sooted cooking ware (including an already reused lid) and other undecorated
objects. Apart from some Aswan fine wares, the remaining pots hidden in this pithos were just such wares.
e only issue that can be resolved is the time when these objects were concealed. e Aswan red slip
and medieval painted wares indicate a dating to the late 8th or most likely the 9th century, confirmed by
comparanda. However, the chalice-like pot, the slipped cup, and the cooking wares are almost unparalleled.
Ultimately, the most intriguing questions are who hid away these objects and under what circumstances.
Were they monks hiding things that were “precious” to them? Were these vessels valuable because of an
intrinsic “religious” purpose? Were they simple people protecting their belongings from danger? Whoever
they were, they did not return, leaving this little treasure in our hands.
A. K. and A. P.
26. For a somehow similar, yet larger, bowl, which is dated to the second half of the 9th century, see: Gayraud,
Vallauri 2017, p. 92, pl. 61, 8307–8308.
27. Wipszycka 2015, pp. 365–376.

. CONCLUSIONS
e northern sector and the main church at Kom Bawit have yielded assemblages that were apparently
similar and yet clearly different, due to their nature and date. e ceramics found in the northern sector
and the buildings there were related to the activities taking place there. e pottery from the main church
comes from various layers of windblown sand and rubble as well as specific usage, like burials, building
methods, and storage. As for “Room 7”, it produced an undisturbed and generally well-dated late 7th-century
assemblage, while the contexts from the main church date between the 7th and the 10th century.
Most of the wares are made of Nile fabric and it seems that a Middle Egyptian origin is very likely for
most of them. Flourishing workshops were operating in the neighbouring cities of Hermopolis Magna and
Antinoopolis. However, specific forms (EA 5/6, EA 7 late type, EA 8, coarseware bowls) cannot be attribu-
ted to any of these workshops based on the available published data; the question is thus raised about
another possible Middle Egyptian pottery production centre or even specialised production destined for
the monastery of Bawit. Apart from ceramics of Middle Egyptian origin, there is also a substantial quantity
of other Egyptian products like the not negligible number of Aswan wares. Ceramics made in the oases
of the western desert are found mainly in the main church. Nile Delta and Mareotic vessels are scarce.
Finally, non-Egyptian wares are present both in “Room 7” and the church, and include African and eastern
Mediterranean red slip wares and amphorae.
e ceramics of “Room 7” constitute a generally well-dated undisturbed 7th-century assemblage that
represents the participation of the site to the international networks. e pottery from the main church
is evidently affected by the sudden changes that occurred in the Mediterranean during the 7th-century.
Furthermore, it includes wares and types that indicate activities at the site well after the 8th century,
raising questions about the nature of these activities and the history of Bawit in the early medieval times.

Y= 4270
X=5050
X=5060
X=5070
X=5080
N
Y= 4260
.
.
BUILDING 3
Y= 4250
Room 7
Courtyard
BUILDING 1
Y= 4240
© 2012, IFAO/Louvre, R. Boutros, G. Hadji-Minaglou
BUILDING 2 Y= 4230
0 1 5 10 m
Drawing : Ramez Boutros (2009)

Completed by : Gisèle Hadji-Minaglou (2012)
Louvre / IFA0
Fig. 1. Plan of the buildings in the northern sector.

2
4
© 2018, IFAO/Louvre, D. Dixneuf
0 5 cm
Fig. 2. Amphorae and imported ceramics, US 188.

5 cm
0
9
8
7
Fig. 3. Egyptian amphorae LRA 7/EA 7, US 188.

6

12
11
13 14
15 16
10
17
18
19 20
21
22 0 5 cm
Fig. 4. Amphorae and Egyptian ceramics, US 188.

24
23
25
26 27
29
28
30
31
32
34 35
33
36 37
0 5 cm
Fig. 5. Egyptian ceramics, US 188.

© 2016, IFAO/Louvre, G. Hadji-Minaglou (IFAO archives
nu_2016_01458, nu_2016_01453, and nu_2016_01466)
Fig. 7. Discovery and contents of the pithos.

b.
© 2018, IFAO/Louvre, G. Hadji-Minaglou
Fig. 6. Location plan of the pithos.

X=5220

nu_2016_01458, nu_2016_01453, and nu_2016_01466)
N
a.
X=5230
X=5240
c.
Baouît (2008-2018). Panorama et perspectives
X=5250
pithos
1
5
X=5260
Y=3985
Y=3975
10 m
127

nu_2016_01458, nu_2016_01453, and nu_2016_01466)
38 39
40 41
42 43
© 2018, IFAO/Louvre, A. Południkiewicz
44 0 5 cm
Fig. 8. Egyptian open and closed vessels placed in the pithos, nos. 38–44.

45
46 47
48
49
0 5 cm

38.
© 2016, IFAO/Louvre, I.M. Ibrahim (IFAO archives nu_2016_02368,
39.
nu_2016_02373, nu_2016_02377, and nu_2016_02403)
40.

41.
nu_2016_02354, nu_2016_02360, nu_2016_02394, and nu_2016_02395)
42. 43.
44.

45.
46. 47.
nu_2016_02379, nu_2016_02383, nu_2016_02398, and nu_2016_02407)
48.
49.

a.
nu_2016_02426, nu_2016_02428, and nu_2016_02430)
b. c.
d.
Fig. 13. e pithos, no. 50.

50
0 5 cm
Fig. 14. e pithos, no. 50.

Two Representative Deposits From The Monastery of Apa Apollo

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Two Representative Deposits From The Monastery of Apa Apollo

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Édité par

Florence Calament et Gisèle Hadji-Minaglou

INSTITUT FRANÇAIS D’ARCHÉOLOGIE ORIENTALE

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Journées d’étude des 7-8 juin 2018

INSTITUT FRANÇAIS D’ARCHÉOLOGIE ORIENTALE

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Florence Calament, Gisèle Hadji-Minaglou

Eleni E. Efthymiou, Cédric Meurice

Baouît (2008-2018). Panorama et perspectives V

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Sayed Awad Mohamed

Delphine Dixneuf, Alexandra Konstantinidou, Anna Południkiewicz

Alain Delattre, Naïm Vanthieghem

María Jesús Albarrán Martínez

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Florence Calament, Gisèle Hadji-Minaglou

Abréviations et bibliographie ................................................................................................................... 229

Les auteurs .................................................................................................................................................................. 249

Baouît (2008-2018). Panorama et perspectives VII

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Baouît (2008-2018). Panorama et perspectives 115

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

.. on-gyptian amphorae and other vessels

.. mphorae and other ceramics of gyptian manufacture

3. Pieri 2005, pp. 75–76.

116 Pottery in context

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Baouît (2008-2018). Panorama et perspectives 117

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

.. verview of the contexts

.. ots in a pot

17. Dixneuf 2017, p. 955.

118 Pottery in context

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Baouît (2008-2018). Panorama et perspectives 119

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

.. he hiding place

120 Pottery in context

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Baouît (2008-2018). Panorama et perspectives 121

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Drawing : Ramez Boutros (2009)

Fig. 1. Plan of the buildings in the northern sector.

122 Pottery in context

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Fig. 2. Amphorae and imported ceramics, US 188.

Baouît (2008-2018). Panorama et perspectives 123

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Fig. 3. Egyptian amphorae LRA 7/EA 7, US 188.

© 2018, IFAO/Louvre, D. Dixneuf

124 Pottery in context

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Fig. 4. Amphorae and Egyptian ceramics, US 188.

Baouît (2008-2018). Panorama et perspectives 125

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Fig. 5. Egyptian ceramics, US 188.

126 Pottery in context

Spécimen auteur – © Ifao – 20/06/2023

Fig. 7. Discovery and contents of the pithos.

Fig. 6. Location plan of the pithos.

© 2016, IFAO/Louvre, G. Hadji-Minaglou (IFAO archives

© 2016, IFAO/Louvre, G. Hadji-Minaglou (IFAO archives