Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Proceedings of the Ninth International Dakhleh Oasis Project Conference: Papers presented in honour of Anthony J. Mills
Proceedings of the Ninth International Dakhleh Oasis Project Conference: Papers presented in honour of Anthony J. Mills
Proceedings of the Ninth International Dakhleh Oasis Project Conference: Papers presented in honour of Anthony J. Mills
Ebook1,206 pages9 hours

Proceedings of the Ninth International Dakhleh Oasis Project Conference: Papers presented in honour of Anthony J. Mills

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

This new volume in the Oasis Papers series marks the 40th anniversary of archaeological fieldwork in the Dakhleh Oasis in Egypt’s Western Desert under the leadership of Anthony J. Mills and presents a synthesis of the current state of our knowledge of the oasis and its interconnections with surrounding regions, especially the Nile Valley. The papers are by distinguished authorities in the field and postgraduate students who specialise in different aspects of Dakhleh and presents an almost complete survey of the archaeology of Dakhleh including much unpublished, original material. It will be one of the few to document a specific part of modern Egypt in such detail and thus should have a broad and lasting appeal. The content of some of the papers is unlikely to be published in any other form elsewhere. Dakhleh is possibly the most intensively examined wider geographic region within Egypt.
LanguageEnglish
PublisherOxbow Books
Release dateJan 19, 2020
ISBN9781789253771
Proceedings of the Ninth International Dakhleh Oasis Project Conference: Papers presented in honour of Anthony J. Mills

Related to Proceedings of the Ninth International Dakhleh Oasis Project Conference

Titles in the series (2)

View More

Related ebooks

Archaeology For You

View More

Related articles

Related categories

Reviews for Proceedings of the Ninth International Dakhleh Oasis Project Conference

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    Proceedings of the Ninth International Dakhleh Oasis Project Conference - Colin A. Hope

    The North Kharga Oasis Darb ‘Ain Amur Survey: Past Research and Future Questions

    Salima Ikram

    Abstract

    The North Kharga Oasis Darb ‘Ain Amur Survey (NKODAAS) has successfully explored most of the western ‘lobe’ of Kharga Oasis. This paper will present an overview of the results of the survey, and will explore current research questions that have resulted from the earlier work. The focus is on locations of sites from different areas in relation to the landscape and the changing environment.

    Egypt’s oases had largely been ignored by archaeologists until Ahmed Fakhry (1942) (re-)awakened interest in these areas through his publications and excavations. Serious large-scale, holistic archaeological and environmental investigation began in the late 1970s with Tony Mills’ initiation of DOP and Serge Sauneron’s work for IFAO in the south of Kharga, whose team, over the years, also made forays into the northern part of the oasis. However, for the most part, the area of north Kharga has remained ignored, save for the investigations of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the early part of the twentieth century, particularly of the spectacular temple of Hibis (Winlock 1938–1941; Sauneron 1955; Cruz-Uribe 1988), the neighbouring Christian cemetery at Bagawat (Hauser 1932; Munier 1941; Fakhry 1951), and some documentation of prehistoric sites conducted by various groups (Caton-Thompson 1952; Simmons and Mandel 1985), including the Kharga Oasis Prehistory Project, an offshoot of the DOP that is headed by Maxine Kleindienst and Mary McDonald (this volume).

    In 2000/2001 Corinna Rossi and Salima Ikram initiated the North Kharga Oasis Survey (NKOS) to record the hitherto undocumented areas of the oasis, from its northern edge to some 20 kilometres north of Kharga Town. The results showed a long, albeit intermittent, occupation and exploitation of the area, from the earliest times until the present, with a significant number of Late Antique remains (Rossi and Ikram 2018). NKODAAS was launched in 2007 by this author, and in 2013 Rossi started the Italian Archaeological Mission to Umm al-Dabadib.

    The goal of NKODAAS is to explore and document the western ‘lobe’ of Kharga Oasis (Figure 1), and the north-west section of the oasis, in order to investigate environmental and climatic change in the region, reflected in the changing human exploitation of the area (Ikram 2013; 2015/2016). The area of the survey is roughly 1,623 square kilometres, about 625 square miles, and the geology and topography within it varies considerably. It includes soft powdery red sand scattered with ferrous boulders, north to south lines of crescent-shaped sand dunes ranging from thirty to three metres in height, large empty spaces of soft sand covered with limestone boulders, mud playas, and occasional sandstone massifs. While beautiful, the dunes obscure a significant percentage of the evidence of human activity, and although areas of powdery earth or those covered with boulders are relatively bare of archaeology, they are challenging to survey in detail. Until recently Google Earth had limited coverage of the area, and only at a low resolution; this has now changed, and easily accessible satellite imagery has facilitated the exploration of this part of the oasis.

    Previous work in north Kharga was very limited due to the terrain and issues of accessibility, both practical and political. Most of past exploration has focussed on the Darb ‘Ain Amur (the ‘Road of the Lovely One’ or ‘Road of the Moon’, depending on the reading), and parts of the Darb al-Ghubari (the ‘Road of Dust’): the two major tracks that connect Kharga to Dakhleh (Cailliaud 1821; Wilkinson 1847; Brodrick 1896; Hall and Wilkinson 1907; Beadnell 1909, 21; Winlock 1936; Carlo Bergmann [personal communication]; Arita Baijeens [email communication]; Ikram forthcoming). Only a minimum of attention was given to the standing remains of the fort and settlement at Umm al-Dabadib, and the temple of ‘Ain Amur (Winlock 1936; Fakhry 1941; Fakhry 1942). Finds along the two tracks consisted of a handful of way stations (mahatta) characterised by ceramic scatters, and rock art of different eras (Winlock 1936 and Winkler 1939), with most recorded along the Darb al-Ghubari, the more southern, longer, but easier route.

    Figure 1 Map of Kharga defining the area of the survey (drawing by N. J. Warner and C. Rossi).

    The survey method initially adopted by NKODAAS consisted of long-range driving, in transects whenever possible, and walking over areas that seemed promising. Following the improvements in the quality of satellite imagery, some areas were pinpointed in advance using Google Earth, and subsequently explored on the ground. Playas and sandstone outcrops are often focal points for intensive surveys as the edges of the former are rich in prehistory, while the massifs have sheltered travellers for millennia. Once sites have been identified, their positions are marked by GPS. On site, surface collections/recording of anthropogenic materials are made, and petroglyphs recorded both photographically and by tracing. The sites are then plotted onto a map.

    Since the start of NKODAAS, over 80 new sites have been identified and recorded. These include extensive prehistoric sites with rock engravings and lithic scatters, prehistoric (Storemyr 2014) and Roman quarries, Pharaonic inscriptions from the Early Dynastic Period onward, gazelle hunting/trapping areas, water depots, lookout points, and shelters (mahatta). Numerous strands/off-shoots of the Darb ‘Ain Amur itself have been encountered as any desert track, owing to factors such as moving sand dunes and differences in the size of caravans, commonly develops a Protean aspect (Föster and Riemer 2013; Rossi and Ikram 2013). All this evidence of human activity also provides clues to how the environment of this area changed over time.

    Prehistoric Sites

    Prehistoric sites are defined as areas with a significant scatter of worked lithics, including grinding stones and hand stones, and/or a concentration of ostrich eggs shells, and/or rock engravings that do not fit into the dynastic canon of art, with the caveat that images of animals, in particular, are difficult to date (Ikram 2009a and 2009b). Several areas of lithic scatter have been found, many with ostrich egg shells also present in different amounts (Figure 2). It is always hard to judge the perimeter of a prehistoric site on a survey; the edges of the ones noted by NKODAAS were determined by a significant thinning, but not absence, of archaeological material. A few highlights are presented here in a preliminary fashion.

    Thus far, one area of some 11.5 square kilometres in what is roughly the middle of the western lobe (Figure 2) is significantly richer in prehistoric encampments than anywhere else in that area . The residents of these sites might well have been the artists who carved the images found in areas where sandstone massifs exist; in this space only fairly crumbled remains of stone outcrops survive. ‘The Grove’, named for the calcified remains of tree trunks and roots found here, covered at least 6,000 square metres. The site seems to have bordered a small lake, in addition to possessing an independent water source, either a well or enhanced spring, perimeter of which is marked by several broken, but possibly reconstructable, ostrich eggshells surrounding it, reminiscent of the ceramic sherd scatter found around wells. Grinders, hand stones, and worked stone tools abound, as do small areas with ostrich bead production. In one part of the site, the lithic scatter suggests that someone sat while knapping in the shade of a tree amongst the tree roots. In another area, closer to the lake, an ostrich bead manufacturer had apparently set up shop, with completed beads on one side, and blanks on the other. A curious feature of the site is the fact that so many artefacts are in situ, giving the impression of people having just put things down and left, due to a threat, either natural, human, or perceived as being supernatural. Karin Kindermann has dated some of the stone tools from this site, based on photographs, to within the range of circa 6200 to 5400 BCE.

    Figure 2 Map showing the distribution of the main prehistoric sites thus far located; the grey area is where there is a concentration of prehistoric sites, dominated by lithics (drawing by N. J. Warner).

    Other individual sites within these 11.5 square kilometres include ‘Barbershop’, notable for the number of blades found in the area. Kindermann has preliminarily dated the majority of these to between circa 5600–5200 BCE, with some examples from the northern limits of the area being slightly earlier. ‘Silex’, a little to the east was dated to circa 5800–5200 BCE, with some heavily weathered Palaeolithic artefacts also being noted in the area, and ‘Ostrich Well’, named for the three areas that might have been springs or wells, with surrounding ostrich eggs and neighbouring lithic artefacts are also similarly dated. To the north of ‘Grove’ are ‘Piet’s Bun’, ‘Grinder’, ‘More Grinders’, and to the west is ‘Prehistoric Palace’ with a range of finely made lithic tools, some found within a crude stone shelter, and ‘Grinder Heaven’, that is distinguished by a large number (of grinding stones, over 25 of different sizes and shapes. To the south is an extensive area of yardangs with grinders and blades scattered throughout.

    A large sandstone massif named ‘Cave Rock’, 2 km further to the west hosts a large ) incised giraffe, over 1.5 m in length, and a similarly adorned rock, ‘Judith Giraffe’, stands some 7 km to the east. The giraffes on the latter rock are accompanied by deeply-cut lines the meaning of which cannot presently be ascertained, that seem to be of a significantly earlier date. Other concentrations of Prehistoric encampments/settlements with both lithics and petroglyphs, generally giraffes and oryx, with occasional images of Barbary sheep and ostriches, lie closer to the edge of the Abu Tartur plateau and near large massifs associated with playas, such as at ‘Aa’s Rock’ and ‘Fish Rock’, which also hosted microliths, all falling within the heading of ‘epipalaeolithic’. There is also a concentration of petroglyphs in the vicinity of ‘Split Rock’, ‘Gebel Ahmed’, ‘Prehistoric Wadi’ and ‘Snake Wadi’ in the north. Again, the majority of dates for the tools found at these points fall between circa 5800–5200 BCE, although the veracity of this dating can only be checked on-site by a trained prehistorian who might also notice earlier material that escaped the attention of the surveyors.

    Figure 3 The distribution of the main pharaonic sites located in the survey area (drawing by N. J. Warner).

    This whole area seems to have flourished during the sixth millennium BCE, with sites near the massifs and in the north, possibly associated with seasonal lakes, flourishing well into the fourth or even the early third millennium BCE. The remains of playas and the abundance of grinders, though dating these is a vexed subject, suggest a welcoming landscape with access to water, wild animals including ostrich, giraffe, oryx, Barbary sheep and elephant, edible plants, and cereals, either cultivated, wild, or a combination thereof (Bunbury and Ikram 2014). By the mid fourth millennium the elephants had probably moved south.

    Dynastic Material

    Curiously, despite the significant amount of dynastic material in Dakhleh, relatively little survives in this part of Kharga. What exists largely takes the form of inscriptions dating from the Early Dynastic onward (Ikram and Rossi 2004; Rossi and Ikram 2014; Lazaridis 2015a; 2015b; 2017; this volume), with a concentration of sites located in the more western part of the lobe, including ‘Year Rock’, ‘Ankhet Rock’, ‘NikPik Rock’ ‘Thoth Rock’, ‘Inscription Rock’, and an outlier to the north of ‘Split Rock’. Other evidence for dynastic period activity consists of a few identifiable images of humans and animals dating to the Early Dynastic, Old and New Kingdoms (Ikram 2015/2016; Ikram 2018), as well as ceramics. The latter are predominantly Marl A amphorae of the New Kingdom (18th and early 19th Dynasty) found at several sites, most notably ‘Ayman Amphora’, ‘Seth Rock’, ‘Henge’, ‘Door Rock’ and ‘Happy Valley’, with a smaller group of Third Intermediate Period ‘bottles’ found at ‘Amun Rock’ some 12 kilometres east of the Abu Tartur plateau’s north-eastern corner (Figure 3).

    The ceramics provide the strongest clue to the most regularly exploited tracks through the desert, serving as indicators of areas that had naturally available water, rather than being a deliberate water depot, which might be the case for the New Kingdom ‘Door Rock’ and ‘Henge’. Sites with such concentrations include ‘Ayman Amphora’, the southern part of ‘Dolphin’ and ‘Happy Valley’ (Ikram forthcoming). Based on the ceramic evidence and more limited textual material, there seems to have been an increased use of the Darb ‘Ain Amur in the 18th/early 19th Dynasties. In some cases, when the sherds are located near rocks, inscriptions of New Kingdom date are also found. Many of these rocks have year dates inscribed upon them, for example ‘Year Rock’ and ‘Seth Rock’ (Lazaridis 2015a), but are sadly lacking in royal names, with the possible exception of two cartouches: one tentatively identified as belonging to Thutmose III and the other to Ramesses IX.

    Figure 4 Romano-Byzantine sites in the western lobe of Kharga Oasis (drawing by N. J. Warner).

    One striking feature of the New Kingdom/Third Intermediate Period activity is the existence of two vernacular shrines, one at ‘Amun Rock’ and the other at ‘Seth Rock’ (Lazaridis 2012; 2013; Ikram 2013; 2015/2016). Both sites invoke Amun-Ra, Lord of Heaven, and Seth, the protector of desert travellers. The existence of shrines and the considerable amount of graffiti, including carvings of hands, feet and Seth animals, attest to a more regular use of the routes, both by the literate possibly on official business, and the illiterate at this time. Perhaps some of the sites, such as ‘Amun Rock’ in a protected location with potential water sources, also hosted a more permanent presence here, at least for a part of its history. Certainly as yet there is no other indication that any parts of the western lobe of Kharga were used for anything other than traversing the desert in dynastic times.

    Roman Period

    As with the main oasis, a significant number of the sites in Kharga’s western lobe date to the Roman/Late Antique era, ending sometime in the late fifth or early sixth centuries CE (Figure 4). Often, due to erosion/deflation patterns, Roman era sherds lie alongside epipalaeolithic stone tools. Almost all the evidence takes the form of ceramics, with some instances of Coptic graffiti in a few places, with concentrations at ‘Copt Rock’ and ‘Pet Rock’. The ceramic material clearly defines a well-used track with variations marked not only by sherd scatters, but also by regular stopping places (mahatta). The track originates roughly in the area of Beleida and continues diagonally in a north-westerly direction toward the Abu Tartur plateau, and thence to ‘Ain Amur (Ikram forthcoming).

    This route, or at least portions of it, seems to have been formally controlled as, approximately half way between Beleida and ‘Ain Amur, there is a mud-brick structure with a midden, small well and garden (‘Toll Station’). Just 640 metres to the west is a large well (‘Bir Salima’). The well clearly served travellers, as a further kilometre to the north-east stands a large massif (‘Pot Palace’) surrounded by a very high density of sherds, most notably of kegs of different periods. The areas in between the well and the inselberg is also punctuated by overhangs and sheltered dips in the landscape, all rich in sherds, which attest the use of this area as a stopping place for travellers. To the west of the well is a pair of crude stone shelters (‘Shelter+Pots’) that seemingly define the end of the official water provisioning and stopping point. The overhangs slightly beyond it have some contemporary sherds, but far fewer. It is very tempting to speculate that those who had not travelled with a caravan, or could not pay a fee, had to shelter at the very edges of the ‘safe’ area, while the more economically blessed could camp in the guaranteed safety afforded by the state.

    Another heavily used mahatta, but one lacking associated mud-brick structures, is ‘Pot Stop’. There are a few stone enclosures/remains of shelters here of indeterminate date. Although in some places there is some evidence of prehistoric and New Kingdom activity, the majority of material is of Roman date. It is quite possible that a well or spring existed here, although no incontrovertible evidence for this has been found as yet. This location remained a popular stopping place in more recent years, as is evidenced by the discovery of an Ottoman clay pipe bowl. Moving closer to the edge of the Abu Tartur plateau a greater density of sherds is encountered; some of this section of the track was also traversed by Winlock (1936), and a number of fragmentary, eroded, Ottoman pipe bowls were also recovered in this traverse.

    In addition to this southern route through the western lobe, there is some evidence for Roman activity in the north, also marked by Roman ceramics. A percentage of this is probably associated with the fort of Umm al-Dabadib and the alum mines related to it (Ikram forthcoming). It also seems that there was a lesser-used branch of the Darb ‘Ain Amur in the north. In addition to a few small mahatta with sparse sherd scatter, it boasts a water depot (‘Pot Drop’), with a concentration of Late Roman Amphora 7. This may possibly indicate a slightly later date, perhaps due to a decrease in available water in the area, or a seasonal need for it, or as the result of a specific expedition. On the whole, the majority of Roman/Late Antique activity in this portion of Kharga is more central than northern.

    Discussion and Future Work

    The work that has thus far been carried out by NKODAAS has vastly increased our knowledge of human activity over time in this area, and echoes the findings of the DOP. Human exploitation and interaction, as expected, has helped to trace environmental change. The early (circa seventh millennium BCE or earlier), more hospitable, environment with accessible water in the form of lakes, springs, and possibly wells, supported groups of humans that could engage in hunting, gathering, and maybe eventually even a basic form of agriculture. With the passage of time, the amount of dependable water appears to have decreased, perhaps with limited seasonal access to lakes or springs. This might have sustained small pockets of settlers or, more likely, wandering pastoralists or hunters. Eventually, by the end of the Old Kingdom, the majority of the area gave way to an extremely desiccated landscape, with very sporadic access to water, dependent on the geology. This situation seems to have continued, with the locations and amounts of available water varying during different periods. At this time the western lobe of Kharga became a place to explore, to traverse, or to exploit for minerals such as ochre or alum (Ikram et alii forthcoming), as is clear by the traces left by travellers of different periods who went between Kharga and Dakhleh (Ikram forthcoming; Bunbury et alii under review).

    However, there is scope for much more work in this area. Not all the sites have been fully documented, nor has the whole area been explored. The DOP and NKODAAS still need to explore and document the branches of the Darb ‘Ain Amur on top of the Abu Tartur plateau. Routes from the north of the oasis are also in want of exploration. An analysis of the rock art and the study of lithic and ceramic finds from previously discovered sites remains outstanding. The prehistoric sites that have been located by the initial survey need to be recorded and studied in detail. Geological coring and associated analyses, including archaeobotanical, archaeozoological and palynological work is still needed in order to flesh out the picture of Kharga at different historical moments, with particular regard to the landscape and climate.

    Amongst the many questions that have arisen due to the work in this area and that NKODAAS would like to address, two are of pressing interest. One is a closer study of actual water sources and the degree to which this feature of the landscape is depicted in rock art, and the other is the role that cattle might have played in the area. Are their depictions in some of the northern parts of the western lobe indicative of the area’s ability to support herds of such animals (after all, the name for Farafra was ‘Land of the Cow’ (t# ἰḥw, Giddy 1987, 152–3, table VI; 47–8), or do they record a particular event or events when large herds were driven through this area? If the latter were the case, what was the purpose of this activity, and can this be tied to a specific historical event, rather than being part of some more regular cattle census, herd movement for pasturage, or similar occurrence. It is hoped that work on this part of the oasis will soon resume, and that further aspects of the history of Kharga Oasis in terms of its environment and human exploitation, as well as its relationship with other portions of the Western Desert and its oases and the Nile valley, will continue to be explored.

    Acknowledgement

    We are extremely grateful to Karin Kindermann for graciously working on the stone tools via photographs.

    REFERENCES

    Beadnell, H. J. L., 1909, An Egyptian Oasis: An account of the Oasis of Kharga in the Libyan Desert, John Murray, London.

    Brodrick, M. (ed.), 1896, A Handbook for Travellers in Lower and Upper Egypt, John Murray, London.

    Bunbury, J. and S. Ikram, 2014, A Saharan Patchwork of Lakes, Egyptian Archaeology 45, 9–12.

    Bunbury, J., S. Ikram and C. Roughley, under review, Holocene Large Lake Development and Desiccation in the Kharga Basin of the Egyptian Sahara, Geoarchaeology.

    Cailliaud, F., 1821, Voyage a l’Oasis de Thebes et dans les Deserts Situes a l’orient et a l’occident de la Thebaide, fait pendant les annes 1815, 1816, 1817 et 1818, Imprimerie Royale, Paris.

    Caton-Thompson, G., 1952, Kharga Oasis in Prehistory, Athlone, London.

    Cruz-Uribe, E., 1988, Hibis Temple Project: Translations, Commentary, Discussions and Sign List, Van Siclen Books, San Antonio.

    Fakhry, A., 1941, A Roman Temple Between Kharga and Dakhla, ASAE 40, 761–8.

    Fakhry, A., 1942, Recent Explorations in the Oases of the Western Desert, with a chapter by Ét. Drioton, IFAO, Cairo.

    Fakhry, A., 1951, The Necropolis of El-Bagawat in Kharga Oasis, Government Press, Cairo.

    Förster, F. and H. Riemer (eds.), 2013, Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond, Africa Praehistorica 26, Heinrich-Barth-Institut, Köln.

    Giddy, L., 1987, Egyptian Oases: Bahariya, Farafra, Dakhla and Kharga during Pharaonic Times, Aris and Phillips, Warminster.

    Hall, H. R. and W. J. Gardner, 1907, A Handbook for Egypt and the Sudan, E. Stanford, London.

    Hauser, W., 1932, The Egyptian Expedition 1930–1931: the Christian Necropolis in Khargeh Oasis, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 27 (3.2), 38–50.

    Ikram, S., 2009a, Drawing the World: Petroglyphs from Kharga Oasis, ArchéoNil 19, 67–82.

    Ikram, S., 2009b, A Desert Zoo: An exploration of meaning and reality of animals in the rock art of Kharga Oasis, in H. Riemer, F. Förster, M. Herb and N. Pöllath (eds.), Desert animals in the eastern Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne December 14–15, 2007, Colloquium Africanum 4, Heinrich-Barth-Institut, Köln, 263–91.

    Ikram, S., 2013, Wanderers in the Desert: The North Kharga Oasis Survey’s Exploration of the Darb ‘Ain Amur, in R. S. Bagnall, P. Davoli and C. A. Hope (eds.), The Oasis Papers 6: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 9–18.

    Ikram, S., 2015/2016, Tracks in the Desert: Discovering and Recording the Remains from the Darb Ain Amur, Bulletin of the American Research Center in Egypt 207, 26–32.

    Ikram, S., 2018, Fat Ladies, Thin Men, Blobby People and Body Parts: An Exploration of Human Representations in the Rock Art of the North Kharga Basin, in D. Huyge and P. Van Noten (eds.), What Ever Happened to the People? Humans and Anthropomorphs in the Rock Art of Northern Africa, Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences, Brussels, 359–70.

    Ikram, S., forthcoming, The North Kharga Oasis Darb Ain Amur Survey (NKODAAS): Surveying the Tracks Between the Two Oases, in R. Bagnall and G. Tallet (eds.), Oasis Magna: Kharga and Dakhla Oases in Antiquity, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Ikram, S., G. Tallet and N. Warner, forthcoming, A Mineral for All Seasons: Alum in the Great Oasis, in J. C. R. Gill, C. H. Hamilton, A. J. Pettman, D. A. Stewart and A. R. Warfe (eds.), Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honour of Colin A. Hope, Peeters, Leuven.

    Lazaridis, N., 2017, Carving out identities in the Egyptian desert: self-presentation styles and adopted by the ancient travelers of Kharga Oasis, in Gl. Rosati and M. Chr. Guidotti (eds.), Proceedings of the XI International Congress of Egyptologists, Florence, Italy 23–30 August 2015, Museo Egizio Firenze, (Archaeopress Egyptology 19), Archaeopress Publishing Ltd., Oxford, 328–32

    Lazaridis, N., 2015a, Crossing the Egyptian Desert: Epigraphic Work at Kharga Oasis, Maarav: a Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures 19.1-2 (2012), 117–29

    Lazaridis, N., 2015b, Amun-Ra, lord of the sky: A deity for travellers of the western desert, British Museum Studies of Ancient Egypt and Sudan 22, 44–60.

    Munier, H., 1940, Oasis de Khargah, Note sur le Christianisme à Khargah et Bibliographie d’al Bagawat, Bull. d. l. Société archéolog. copte VI, 223–6.

    Rossi, C. and S. Ikram, 2013, Evidence of Desert Routes across Northern Kharga (Egypt’s Western Desert), in F. Förster and H. Riemer (eds.), Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond, Africa Praehistorica 26, Heinrich-Barth-Institut, Köln, 265–82.

    Rossi, C. and S. Ikram, 2014, New Kingdom Activities in the Kharga Oasis: the Scribe Userhat Travels West, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 100, 474–8.

    Rossi, C. and S. Ikram (eds.), 2018, North Kharga Oasis Survey: Explorations in Egypt’s Western Desert, British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan 5, Peeters, Leuven.

    Sauneron, S., 1955, Quelques sanctuaires égyptiens des oasis de Dakhleh et de Khargeh: notes de voyage, Cahiers d’Histoire Égyptienne 7 (4/5/6), 279–99.

    Simmons, A. H. and R. D. Mandel (eds.), 1986, Prehistoric Occupation of a Marginal Environment: An Archaeological Survey near Kharga Oasis in the Western Desert of Egypt, BAR International Series 303, Oxford.

    Storemyr, P., 2014, A Prehistoric Grinding Stone Quarry in the Egyptian Sahara, AmS-Skrifter 24, 67–82,

    Wilkinson, J. G., 1847, Handbook for Travellers in Egypt, John Murray, London.

    Winkler, H., 1939, Rock Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt II, Oxford University Press, London.

    Winlock, H. E., 1936, Ed Dakhleh Oasis: Journal of a camel trip made in 1908, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

    Winlock, H. E., 1938–1941, The Temple of Hibis, volumes 1– 2, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

    Ladies, Sandals and Giraffes. Four Decades of Rock Art Research by the Dakhleh Oasis Project

    Pawel L. Polkowski

    From the History of Fieldwork

    Before the DOP ...

    Rock art research in Dakhleh finds its beginnings many years before the DOP started surveying the oasis. We cannot point out, however, any systematic studies prior to Hans Alexander Winkler’s visit to Dakhleh in the late 1930s. Prior to that time, only two publications mentioning rock art had appeared. The first one was Mysteries of the Libyan Desert by Harding King (1925), in which he dedicated some space to enumerating carved designs found along the Ghubari Road. Most of them were identified as wusûm, tribal markings of Arabs and Bedouins. The other one was Herbert Winlock’s Ed Dakhleh Oasis (1936), of his visit to Dakhleh in 1908 in search of pharaonic remains. Here Winlock described his travel experiences along the Darb al-Ghubari, including discovery of several petroglyph panels. He recognised the ancient origin of some of them, but apparently they did not arouse his particular interest.

    During the winter of 1937/1938, the Dakhleh Oasis was reached by Winkler (1939). The German scholar was already well acquainted with Egyptian rock art, as he had travelled widely across Upper Egypt in search of petroglyphs and paintings. Equipped with a chronological sequence of rock art that he had established earlier (Winkler 1938), he began exploration of the south-easternmost areas of Dakhleh, again along the wide al-Ghubari Road tracks (Figure 1). Soon, he was able to report good results, as rock art proved to be extremely abundant in the region. Many of the identified petroglyphs could easily be compared with their counterparts in the Nile valley and the eastern desert, e.g. curvilinear motifs, giraffes and other animals, or dynastic and Arab images. Some, however, appeared to be unlike any other pictures known from Egypt or Nubia. Winkler called these figures ‘goddesses’, recognising in them pregnant women, interpreted by him as prehistoric deities. By linking their formal appearance, such as exaggerated lower bodies contrasting with thin and often simplified upper parts, with the Mediterranean concept of the ‘Mother Goddess’, he proposed to define them as petroglyphs related to a fertility cult of some sort. If it had not been for his rush towards mysterious rock art of Gebel Uweinat, and his subsequent death in the turmoil of the Second World War, he would have probably continued to explore this fascinating research strand. But it was destined to be otherwise.

    DOP and the Petroglyph Unit

    No work on Dakhleh rock art was conducted for the next forty years. With the advent of the DOP survey the situation slowly started to change. Soon, the DOP surveying team began to encounter individual petroglyphic sites (Mills 1981, 180, plate XIIIb), which, similar to other archaeological remains, were plotted on a map and registered. Such finds, however, turned out to be more and more frequent (Mills 1983), and the need for conducting a more detailed rock art survey grew concurrently. Responding to those needs, Mills invited Lech Krzyzaniak (Plate 1), the then director of the Poznan Archaeological Museum to join the project. Krzyzaniak already had experience in rock art research as he had spent two seasons in Tassili n’Ajjer in Algeria researching rock paintings (Krzyzaniak 1982). The newly-established mission was called the ‘Petroglyph Unit of the Dakhleh Oasis Project’ (PUDOP) and initially comprised only two members: Krzyzaniak and his wife Karla Kroeper.

    The preliminary investigations took place in December 1985 (Krzyzaniak and Kroeper 1985). This marked the beginning of Krzyzaniak’s research, which he continued until his death in 2004. Over a period of almost 20 years, he launched seven further campaigns, in 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2000 and 2003.

    From the very beginning, one of the most pressing aims was to rediscover some of the sites identified and described by Winkler (1939, 7–8), the location of which had been largely forgotten. Despite appearances, this was not an easy task, because a map published by Winkler was not sufficiently precise. In addition to Winkler’s sites no. 62, 63, 67 and 68 that were found during the first four campaigns, site 64 and 66 were rediscovered in 1993 (Krzyzaniak 1994). In 2000, site 69 was finally recognised, and according to Krzyzaniak (2001, 254) ‘the topographic position of all the petroglyph sites discovered in the late 1930s is now known’, although there is no mention of site 65 in the published reports. These are the sites that Winkler discovered in the south-easternmost corner of Dakhleh; but the remaining rock art localities that he found on his way from Kharga, situated farther east along Darb al-Ghubari, still await relocating.

    Figure 1 The main rock art sites and complexes in Dakhleh Oasis.

    However, looking for ‘old’ sites was only an addition to the main work carried out by the Petroglyph Unit during all those years. The major task was to search for new rock art sites. Krzyzaniak selected various areas to be surveyed, particularly in the eastern parts of the oasis. His work began in the area designated as square 61-39/E3, which proved to be extremely rich in petroglyphic localities. Eighteen sites were registered in this square, and additional five in the surrounding ones (Krzyzaniak 1987, 185). Although all those sites were discovered in the 1988 season, the recording continued during the very last campaign in 2003 (Krzyzaniak 2004). Doubtlessly, this was the core area for Krzyzaniak’s research, and it has generated an immense record, especially of prehistoric rock art.

    Other places as well were tested for the occurrence of petroglyphs. One such area is situated in the northern part of the oasis, close to the sites found by Mills in 1983. Krzyzaniak discovered there a group of dynastic sites with images of what he identified as gryphons and anthropomorphs (Krzyzaniak 1999; Polkowski this volume). This locality is also relatively close to Halfat al-Bir, where pharaonic imagery also prevails (Giddy 1987, 253–7 and 273–89). Another area was situated between Teneida and the westernmost Winkler sites. There too, dynastic and later rock art seemed to predominate, and the discovery of a scene depicting a winged god identified as Amun-Nakht can be considered one of the rock art highlights in Dakhleh (Site 30/450-A2-1; Figure 2). Nearby, Krzyzaniak found also a very important dynastic site containing many hieroglyphic inscriptions (Baud et alii 1999) and figurative images, numbered 31/435-P2-3.

    In his last fieldwork season, Krzyzaniak decided to survey an unexplored area in the central part of Dakhleh. He chose a long wadi running north-south along a large rocky ridge that separates the two cultivation areas of Kellis and Balat basins. The valley proved to be very rich in rock art, and because of the experiment conducted there, namely covering freshly-made petroglyphs with traditionally-produced pigments (Krzyzaniak 2004, 189), the area was called the Painted Wadi (Plate 2).

    Figure 2 Amun Nakht scene from Site 30/450-A2-1. © PUDOP/Poznan Archaeological Museum.

    Krzyzaniak conducted his fieldwork applying the then fairly standard but solid methodology. Nearly all of the rock art panels were photographed, and many selected compositions were traced on transparent foil (Plate 3). In a few cases, latex moulds (Krzyzaniak 1987, 185) and negatives imprinted in aluminium foil (Krzyzaniak and Kroeper 1990, 77) were made, but this mode of documentation was abandoned shortly after. In the pre-GPS era moving around rocky landscape and mapping sites must have been a challenging task. Hence, to increase the ‘resolution’ of his research, Krzyzaniak used aerial photographs to navigate in a desert environment, and to mark all finds as precisely as possible at that time (Plate 4). This was the methodology employed by Tony Mills during the earlier survey. Furthermore, not only rock art, but also other archaeological remains were recorded, and information on their location was subsequently communicated to other DOP specialists. At times, the rock art survey was augmented with a parallel ‘site survey’ (McDonald 1990, 43–6) in order to gain a better understanding of spatial relations between petroglyphs and other kinds of archaeological material. As yet, no detailed site distribution map has ever been published due to Krzyzaniak’s unforeseen death.

    The Petroglyph Unit after Lech Krzyzaniak

    During the last fieldwork seasons of Krzyzaniak’s research, the Petroglyph Unit was extended to accept new members, and the team was joined by Ewa Kuciewicz and Eliza Jaroni, both at that time from the Poznan Archaeological Museum. With the passing of Krzyzaniak, the future of the mission became uncertain, but fortunately leadership was soon taken over by his lifelong friend, Michal Kobusiewicz from the Polish Academy of Sciences. Hence, the project could continue the research with fresh goals and ideas.

    The first significant change concerned the area of fieldwork, because Kobusiewicz decided to focus entirely on the central parts of Dakhleh. This involved conducting a systematic survey of the Painted Wadi, which had previously been only briefly explored. Beginning in 2005, and continuing for nearly a decade, the whole wadi was prospected and the total number of sites reached 60 rock art localities (Kuciewicz et alii 2007; 2008; 2010; Kuciewicz and Kobusiewicz 2011). Soon, it became clear that rock art was abundant not only in the Painted Wadi, which runs near the eastern fringe of the sandstone ridge, but probably across the entire rocky landscape of the central oasis. The team started thus small-scale prospections to the west of the valley, which soon confirmed this observation (Kuciewicz et alii 2010, 309; Kuciewicz and Kobusiewicz 2012; Polkowski and Kobusiewicz 2012; Kuciewicz et alii 2014). A large number of sites was registered when this author joined the Petroglyph Unit and the vast area west of the Painted Wadi was subsequently meticulously surveyed (Polkowski 2016, 38–44).

    Although the central oasis remained the main focus area, other spots were also investigated. Some were entirely new, such as the sites south of Teneida (Kuciewicz and Kobusiewicz 2011, 240–4), and some were well-known but still required documentation (Kuciewicz et alii 2014; 2015). Fieldwork came to a temporary halt in 2014.

    Much had been achieved. A concentrated effort in the central oasis resulted in registering almost 200 new rock art sites with nearly 1,400 petroglyphic panels, including the Painted Wadi. All these localities were precisely mapped in GIS, to the level of a panel. Each panel has been described with multiple attributes that enabled various spatial analyses to be conducted and detailed motif-oriented distributional maps to be produced. A simple GIS database was, thus, established.

    The central oasis has become the largest and the most thoroughly explored area. Moreover, during the survey many other archaeological features were noted and recorded. These include pottery concentrations, remnants of paths, stone road signs (alamat), rock-cut tombs, Steinplätze, various stone constructions, settlement features, and so forth. All these remains require, however, proper documentation. The same applies to many of the rock art sites, especially as some of them are seriously endangered (Polkowski 2018a).

    Dakhleh Oasis Rock Art: Highlights of the Research

    Since the PUDOP began its fieldwork on rock art, at least 315 petroglyphic sites have been registered. This includes sites discovered by Winkler; however, the overwhelming majority of those was found by the DOP members. There are around 1900 panels distributed among these localities, whereas the number of individual petroglyphs is impossible to estimate. Due to many circumstances, the oasis has not been evenly surveyed as far as rock art is concerned. The largest prospected area is located in the central area of Dakhleh; the eastern region was also widely tested, even though the particular work areas were much smaller than the central oasis survey zone. The western fringe of Dakhleh has not yielded any rock art sites, but this may reflect the state of research and not the real distributional pattern.

    Plate 1 Lech Krzyzaniak. © PUDOP/Poznan Archaeological Museum.

    Plate 2 Eliza Jaroni covering the freshly-made petroglyphs with paint. © PUDOP/Poznan Archaeological Museum.

    Plate 3 Rock art documentation at Site 61-39/E3-2-1. © PUDOP/Poznan Archaeological Museum.

    Plate 4 An example of aerial photographs used by Krzyzaniak during fieldwork.

    It is also important to note that the PUDOP was not the only research team to carry out some rock art research in Dakhleh. Another such project was conducted by the IFAO in Halfat al-Bir (Giddy 1987, 253–7, 273–89). It was only an ephemeral effort, mostly confined to the recording of the encountered rock images. A further initiative, in turn, was undertaken by Olaf Kaper for DOP (Kaper and Willems 2002; Kaper 2009) and focused upon hilltop sites interpreted as Old Kingdom watch-posts. Such places are usually associated with dynastic rock art, so by employing excavations, Kaper could propose dating and interpretation of some of the petroglyph types. Across the years, research on rock art was thus conducted and published also by the non-Petroglyph Unit members of the DOP. This includes works by Olaf Kaper, Mary McDonald (1990), as well as Daniel James (2012).

    Finally, much rock art research has been conducted in direct proximity of the oasis to be highly relevant for Dakhleh studies. The Cologne University expedition recorded important sites on the southern outskirts of the oasis (Riemer et alii 2005), and farther south in areas of the Meri site (Riemer 2011), Khufu Hill (Kuper 2014/2015) and Abu Ballas Trail (Förster 2015). In turn, highly comparable material from the east has been brought to light by the North Kharga Oasis Survey (Ikram 2009a). It is thus evident that rock art is not limited to Dakhleh, which constitutes only a component of the wider complex in the heart of the western desert of Egypt.

    Particular rock art traditions of Dakhleh have been briefly described elsewhere (Polkowski et alii 2013; Polkowski forthcoming; this volume). The remainer of this overview focuses upon selected ‘highlights’ of the PUDOP research and also briefly reviews the main interpretative and methodological issues.

    Figure 3 A pregnant(?) giraffe attacked by bowmen and dogs. Site 61-39/E3-3-1. © PUDOP/Poznan Archaeological Museum.

    Krzyzaniak’s Research on the Process of Cultural Attitudes towards Animals in Late Prehistory

    Krzyzaniak, being a prehistorian, concentrated primarily on prehistoric rock art. In Dakhleh, he became particularly interested in depictions of animals, which, he believed, could shed light on various processes such as domestication. As he wrote himself, the petroglyphs were depositories of important information on the cultural and historical processes which were taking place in later prehistory (Krzyzaniak 1987, 182). The idea behind Krzyzaniak’s research was thus to study imagery as assemblage, and infer not so much the meaning of particular drawings, but rather wider ‘universal’ meanings of prehistoric rock art in Dakhleh. One can surmise that he regarded petroglyphs as a sort of prehistoric photograph that depicted specific activities or represent definite entities.

    Although the programme and objectives had been clearly laid out at the very beginning of the research (Krzyzaniak 1990), in the subsequent years Krzyzaniak focused more on surveying and recording of rock art than on the analytical side of research. The main reason for that was probably the well-known issue of precarious rock art chronology. Krzyzaniak wanted to improve the Winkler sequence, which already at that time seemed to be outdated (Krzyzaniak and Kroeper 1990, 78), and he even attempted to adjust rock art chronology to the temporal framework established for prehistoric cultural units of Dakhleh (Krzyzaniak 1990). Nonetheless, he never really successfully escaped from ‘Winkler’s shadow’ as recently pointed out by Daniel James (2012, 73–4).

    However, Krzyzaniak’s achievements are significant and his work undoubtedly laid the foundations for further research. He certainly ‘rediscovered’ Dakhleh rock art for the broader scientific community. The mission recorded a large number of rock art panels in photographs and detailed drawings, because producing high quality documentation was for Krzyzaniak a priority. He rediscovered the forgotten sites of Winkler, and successfully prospected vast areas across the oasis. What is significant, he introduced to rock art studies the DOP archaeozoologist Rufus Churcher, and cooperated with other project members in line with a cross-disciplinary and collaborative DOP research strategy.

    Krzyzaniak left his main project of investigating the development of cultural attitudes towards animals unfinished. In his publications, he only ‘sketched’ the main assumptions and deductions, leaving the impression that he was mainly interested in reconstructing the ‘evolutionary’ processes of transition from hunting economy towards the full domestication of selected species. Examples that make clear the way he seemed to understand rock art and other particular cultural phenomena, are provided in his Archéo-Nil article (Krzyzaniak 1990). An exceptional find of a giraffe surrounded by bowmen and dogs (Figure 3) was used to illustrate an early stage in development of the local cultural attitudes (Krzyzaniak 1990, 95–6), whereas the next stage is represented by zoomorphic depictions in association with human figures. It seems then that Krzyzaniak’s rock art research was more about evolutionary (diachronic) rather than intra-systemic (synchronic) processes; in practice it was anchored in the culture-historical paradigm, even though the set aims had much to do with the New Archaeology agenda.

    In a ‘Zoological Garden’ of Dakhleh

    Animals in Dakhleh petroglyphs, as in the rest of the central western desert, clearly constitute the most exploited rock art theme. They prevail within a broad repertoire of prehistoric imagery, but are also markedly present in rock art corpora from later periods. And it is not only the numbers that make them so dominant, for often this pivotal role is expressed as much in their specific traits, such as size, emplacement, or compositional properties. Krzyzaniak’s research into animal imagery was important, because it has provided both insights into its significance and, of course, the particular zoomorphic rock art finds, which is actually fundamental to any interpretation.

    Plate 5 Two giraffes, an oryx antelope and a meandering line, pecked into a sandstone slab. Site CO158, panel 1. © PUDOP/Poznan Archaeological Museum.

    If we take into account all the panels documented by Krzyzaniak, and add them to the record collected by the Petroglyph Unit after 2004, we arrive at nearly 1,500 zoomorphic depictions. The latest study on species recognition (Polkowski 2018c) has enabled the identification of some 24 or 25 different animals, sometimes only to the level of genus or family, which shows that the large number of examples contrasts with a rather restricted number of species. This considers all zoomorphs, regardless of their chronology.

    Half of these species are represented in Dakhleh rock art by less than ten depictions, indicating that zoomorphic petroglyphs are the result of a deliberate choice, and cannot be considered a simple reflection of any past environment. However, identifying animals in Dakhleh rock art is not an easy task, and the achieved results are unavoidably biased due to a number of reasons such as state of preservation, lack of definite features and ambiguity of form. This is confirmed by the distinguishing of ‘unidentified quadrupeds’, the large number of which (n = 318) highlights the problems in identification. This must strongly influence any attempt at analysing the material.

    Nevertheless, the study reveals a number of observations on zoomorphic rock art of Dakhleh. There are two particular species that dominate the inventory: the giraffe (n = 311) and the oryx antelope (n = 221) (Polkowski 2018c, figure 2). Most of them seem to have been produced during the prehistoric period, probably in the times of the Bashendi cultural unit (Plate 5). These two species are supplemented by ostriches (n = 99) and a small number of gazelles, other antelopes, and a few elephants. The chronological position of these petroglyphs is still extremely difficult to establish, so only broad dating, ranging from at least 7000 BCE to the arrival of the Nile valley colonists in the 3rd millennium BCE, is usually proposed. Most of these animal petroglyphs were produced either in a pecking or smoothing technique, sometimes with engraved additions. It seems, then, that engraving, used to produce outline or stick-like figures, was much more common in later times, beginning from the Late Neolithic in the 4th millennium BCE. There is a substantial number of undetermined quadrupeds and bovids executed in the ‘angular’ outline style, which we cautiously associate with the late pastoral communities and the dynastic period in the oasis (Kuper 2014/2015, 296, Abb. 23). It seems that many (most?) of the cattle depictions (n = 107) should be ascribed to this category of rock art and to the time-period between circa 4th and 2nd millennia BCE.

    At the other end of the time-scale, mostly domesticated animals occur. Two species clearly prevail: camels (n = 72) and horses (n = 40), which makes Dakhleh rock art comparable with other regions of Egypt (Huyge 1998). Again, precise dating of these petroglyphs is difficult, but, particularly in the case of camel depictions, the Persian Period seems to be a terminus post quem. A small group of donkey figures (n = 12), due to stylistic reasons, should be linked mostly with the pharaonic times.

    A couple of significant questions result from this study. One of them concerns the prehistoric imagery and a clear discrepancy between the recognised species in rock art and the identified faunal record from excavations. The lack of giraffe bones is here the most explicit example, in view of the principal position of this animal in the petroglyphic inventory. However, a ‘reverse’ situation also occurs. Namely, most of the animals recognised in zooarchaeological material, such as the hare, the gazelle or the hartebeest, are almost absent in prehistoric rock art, unless they remain unidentified in the ‘undetermined quadrupeds’ category. This has already been noticed for other areas of the western desert (Riemer 2009, 38; Ikram 2009b, 285), but becomes particularly clear in Dakhleh. Moreover, another question arises as to a conspicuous absence of domesticates in the mid-Holocene rock art, which stands in stark contrast to their supposed economic role, especially in the Bashendi B phase. Either we have dated incorrectly some of the cattle depictions, or domesticates never really entered the petroglyphic repertoire prior to the 4th millennium BCE.

    From Goddesses to Anthropomorphs: Discussing Identity and Significance of the ‘Female Figures’

    Although animals constitute a markedly larger group, Dakhleh rock art is primarily known for its particular kind of anthropomorphic figures. First described by Winkler (1939), these petroglyphs have certain distinctive features allowing their distinction from other kinds of human depictions. The vast majority is shown in profile, having exaggerated lower body parts but slim and simplified torsos. It is not uncommon that arms and heads are schematically drawn or even non-existent. Some of the figures have been marked with sexual traits, which prompted Winkler to identify them as women. These features included not only breasts but also evident protrusions at the height of a belly, interpreted by him as an indication of pregnancy. By linking various arguments and evidence, Winkler (1939, 27–30) proposed a concept of goddesses, the petroglyphs depicting figurines of deities, and fertility cult in late prehistory of the oasis.

    This topic was also taken up by Krzyzaniak. He seemed to be in a slightly more comfortable position because during the years of fieldwork the PUDOP managed to discover and document a significant number of new petroglyphs of this kind. Most of them were found in the south-easternmost extremities of Dakhleh, in area designated as 61-39, squares: D3, E3, E4, E5 and F4 (Krzyzaniak 1987). Among the numerous ‘female’ figures, often isolated or shown in pairs, Krzyzaniak discovered also more complex compositions involving not only the anthropomorphs. One such scene, where an antelope(?) held on a line is associated with a ‘female’, served as an exemplification of an alleged sacred character of the latter (Krzyzaniak 1990, 96, figure 3). In his interpretations, Krzyzaniak solidified Winkler’s concept, as he largely retained his terminology and line of thinking (James 2012). The ornamental and intricate nature of some of the figures (Krzyzaniak 1987, 187, figure 3), in strong contrast with other rock art motifs, must have strengthened his conviction about the supernatural character of the ‘female’ depictions. However, he also considered other explanations, which he demonstrated in his short essay on masked figures (Krzyzaniak and Kroeper 1991).

    Fieldwork conducted by Kobusiewicz, Kuciewicz, and the author, resulted in extending the known number of the depictions to a total of at least 210 attestations. The main concentration of ‘females’ is located in Krzyzaniak’s and Winkler’s study area in the east. A total of 148 individual petroglyphs have been counted distributed on 69 panels from a total of 522 panels recorded in the eastern oasis. In turn, 1,378 panels known from the central oasis contain only 29 panels with 62 figures. This highly uneven distribution begs explanation, and more fieldwork is needed to make such a study more reliable.

    The conceptual work carried out by Kuciewicz has evolved once more around the fertility cult idea (Polkowski et alii 2013, 106–11). On the one hand, she largely dismissed the ‘goddess’ interpretation; on the other hand, however, she expanded upon the concept of fertility, linking meaningfully the petroglyphs and their placement in landscape (Kuciewicz 2017). She thus followed Winkler in associating ‘female’ figures with their location high upon hills, facing the sky. It is certainly true that many panels containing such petroglyphs are exposed, well visible, or even placed in some dramatic surroundings. One such example is the panel called ‘altar’, situated on top of a high hill (Site 61-39/E3-2; Polkowski et alii 2013, 108, figure 8) with a commanding view. It is truly difficult not to imagine this place in terms of some sacredness. The problem lies in variability of landscape contexts in which one finds ‘female’ figures, as there are also many panels difficult to see from a distance, hidden, and occupying low parts of hillocks. Nevertheless, Kuciewicz tried to link petroglyphs with their hilltop position, in order to arrive at a concept of rock art’s possible symbolic (ritual?) associated with rain, a topic raised also by Winkler. She argued that considering harsh environmental conditions, even during the more humid times, local communities must have been dependent on rain, at least to some extent. Moreover, she drew attention to instances of ‘female’ figures carved inside oval quern-like depressions found on some hilltops in the eastern oasis (Kuciewicz 2017, 144, illustration 5). Because these cupulae could have been used to grind cereals or other plants, she tried to link elements of rain, economy, and the very representational character of the figures themselves, believed to depict pregnant women. She also briefly examined potential meaning of repetitive associations of ‘females’ and giraffes. Drawing on Martin Van Hoek’s (2003, 60) research, she argued that the giraffe could have been considered a ‘rain animal’, thus it would provide another element in this fertility cult hypothesis.

    Figure 4 A selection of anthropomorphs depicted in ‘pairs’ (not to scale) from: 1) Winkler’s site 62 (a pair of human figures highlighted on purpose by the author); 2) Chufu 01/01 (© R. Kuper); 3) Meri 00/85 (© H. Riemer); 4) Meri 00/87 (© H. Riemer); 5) Kharga (© S. Ikram); 6) and 7) Winkler’s site 67 (after Winkler 1939, plate XLVIII); 8) Winkler’s site 67; 9) Site 61-39/E3/10-D in Dakhleh; 10) Site CO65 in Dakhleh. (1, 8–10 © PUDOP/Poznan Archaeological Museum).

    As much as the fertility concept may be persuasive, it also has some problems. In his critical paper Daniel James (2012) put forward arguments challenging or even contesting the fertility paradigm. The major controversy concerns determining the sex of the anthropomorphic figures. He pointed to a tendency among scholars in accepting a priori the interpretations laid out by Winkler. It is hard not to agree with him that in the Dakhleh inventory there are figures devoid of clear sex indicators, and thus treating them as female depictions is no more than just an educated guess. It also sounds reasonable that if we cannot be sure of each figure’s sex and/or pregnancy, the whole concept of fertility becomes weakened, although not necessarily refuted.

    Although in their writings Winkler and Krzyzaniak consistently discussed ‘women’ depictions, the question of ‘men’ has been raised by others. Not only by James (2012) or Salima Ikram (2018, 355–6), because even earlier Friedrich Berger (2008, 139–40, figure 9) suggested that certain variations within this class of petroglyphs can perhaps be recognised as ‘males’. He based his idea on particular findings from the Khufu area, where some figures have a belt-like element, and their posture seems to be markedly slimmer. His best example shows a pair of anthropomorphs: one being a ‘classic’ opulent female-like figure, and the other a thinner specimen with a ‘belt’. This clear formal variation might indeed reflect a difference in identity, such as sex.

    This observation is corroborated by the fact that the motif of a ‘pair’ occurs regularly (Figure 4), and in fact it has already helped the author in proposing another interpretation of the ‘female’ category of rock art (Polkowski 2016, 396). This is based on the assumption that communities of hunter-gatherer-pastoralists of the mid-Holocene Dakhleh, similar to other past and present groups around the world, could have lived on the basis of ontology that we can define today as animistic (Dowson 2009; Wallis 2009; Porr and Bell 2012). Although there is no single coherent definition of animism, it usually manifests itself in the potential existence of non-human persons with whom humans can communicate, as well as in a certain general belief in ‘life-force’ that must be perpetually maintained. Such a responsibility for maintenance rests on the shoulders of both human and non-humans. This is why hunting, for instance, is not just ‘economy’ but a fairly complex and meaningful practice involved in the process of the flow of life forces.

    Figure 5 A selection of sandal and foot figure ‘types’ recorded in Dakhleh. Compare Polkowski 2016, aneks 4.

    If we accept that part of the Dakhleh figures indeed depict pregnant women, we may consider this imagery as relating to the importance of life-force, life cycle, or maintaining the world. Assuming the existence of such an ontology in Dakhleh communities, this would be their fundamental knowledge, which would require ongoing transmission, explanation, and would be utilised in practice in everyday life. Rock art would then act as a tool in all those fields: not as a mere representation of knowledge, but as an aid in understanding the world (Ingold 2000). Hence, Dakhleh inhabitants might have comprehended pregnant females in the context of this broad knowledge of the way the world seemed to function.

    In turn, the already mentioned ‘pairs’ of the supposed male/female couples could be associated with the act of procreation, sexuality or ‘marriage’. We know such examples not only from Dakhleh but also from Khufu Hill (Kuper 2014/2015, 295, Abb. 22), the Meri sites (Riemer 2006, 499–501, figure 4), and Kharga (Ikram 2018, 364, figure 14). Moreover, some of the pairs seem to be connected by a stroke (e.g. Winkler 1939, plates XLVIII.24–25). Winkler (1939, 29) wrote that the meaning of such images facing each other and connected by strokes joining the genital parts ... is impossible to explain. But the easiest, and at the same time the most fitting explanation, might link them with a sexual act, the consequences of which can be identified in many ‘pregnant female’ images. If all of this was indeed associated with a particular ontology, then another fundamental aspect, namely co-responsibility for maintaining the flow of vital life forces (Dowson 2009, 380) of human and non-humans, can shed light on a composition from site CO53. For Kuciewicz (2017, 146) this extraordinary scene underlines a symbolic nature of pregnant giraffes and women as related to fertility, and rain symbolised by giraffes in particular. However, this composition could have referred to the world’s harmony, especially its life-cycle, being dependent on various living beings, not just humans. No doubt, this is a speculative hypothesis which clearly requires more investigation, and that is why a further study is underway.

    In the Footsteps of Ancients: Research on Dynastic and Graeco-Roman Feet and Sandal Petroglyphs

    In the research agendas of Winkler and Krzyzaniak, post-prehistoric rock art played a minor role. This is reflected in their publications, as both scholars dedicated less space to dynastic, Graeco-Roman, Christian or Islamic petroglyphic traditions. Fortunately, they did not discriminate between classes of rock art during fieldwork and documented equally petroglyphs of all periods. This is particularly true for Krzyzaniak whose extensive documentation contains a lot of ‘historical’ rock art. Nevertheless, studies of such material have begun only recently.

    So far,

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1