2010: 73.
5. Mills 1908: 18–25; Leahy 1980: 331–2; Churcher and Mills 1999. A short visit to the Dakhla Oasis was carried out by H. E. Winlock in 1908, and a series of preliminary investigations were conducted by the Egyptian archaeologist Ahmed Fakhry, whose results were published only in 1982: Winlock 1936; Osing et al. 1982.
6. Hope 1980: 303, 307–11, Pl. XXVII; Hope 1993: 121–7. See also Ballet 2019: 160–1.
7. The topographical survey of the site started in 2001, before the excavation itself, by a Museum of London team (2001–2002) and was continued by the archaeologists from the firm Ar/S Archeosistemi of Reggio Emilia (Italy): Davoli 2015: 61–76. A complete list of reports and publications to date about the work at the site can be found at www.amheida.org; for most of these publications, a downloadable file or a link to on-line open-access publication is provided.
8. See Davoli 2019: 46–80. A first ceramological investigation, made by P. Ballet, J. Marchand, and the author, was made in February 2013 in Area 11 (Caputo 2014: 163–77) and a second prospection (P. Ballet, I. Soto Marín, and the author) took place in February 2014 in Area 6. A short survey of the decorated plaster on walls of several buildings visible from the surface of the site was undertaken in 2015 by S. McFadden, D. Dzierzbicka, B. Norton, E. Ricchi, and A. Sucato: http://www.amheida.org/inc/pdf/Report2015.pdf. For the geoarchaeological surveys carried out at Amheida in 2011 and 2013 by a team of geologists, archaeologists, and ceramologists, see Bravard et al. 2016: 305–24; Davoli 2019: 48–53.
9. Boozer 2015. The study of the ceramics found in House B2 (Area 1.3) was carried out by Delphine Dixneuf (2015: 201–80).
10. Davoli and Cribiore 2010: 73–87; Ast and Davoli 2016: 1447–71; Davoli 2012: 267–77; Davoli 2017: 193–220; Davoli 2019: 61–9. Aravecchia et al. 2015: 21–43; Aravecchia 2018. For a preliminary study of the ceramic materials found in B1, see Caputo, Marchand, and Soto 2017: 1011–26.
11. Davoli and Kaper 2006: 12–14; Davoli 2012: 263–7; Davoli 2015: 35–42 and 57–60; Kaper 2015: 42–56.
12. Because of security restrictions, it was not possible to have field seasons since 2016; thus it cannot be predicted when it will be possible to continue the work on House B10. For a preliminary study of the context, ostraca, and ceramic assemblage collected from the house, see Bagnall et al. 2017: 195–211.
13. Cribiore, Davoli, and Ratzan 2008: 170–91; Cribiore and Davoli 2013: 1–14; Cribiore 2015a: 179–92; O.Trim. 1; Vittmann 2017: 491–503. For the study of the material aspects of the ostraca of Amheida see Caputo 2016: 62–88.
14. O.Trim. 2: 95–102.
15. McFadden 2015: 193–212; McFadden 2019: 281–96. See also Schulz 2015: 23–6.
16. Davoli 2017: 202–4.
17. O.Trim. 2; Ast and Davoli 2016: 1447–71.
18. An assemblage has been defined as all the ceramic vessels from the occupation layers of a single building or street, assuming that the scatter pattern of ceramic fragments is mostly confined to that location.
19. Ast and Davoli 2016: 1447–71.
20. I would like to thank my colleagues Irene Soto Marín and Julie Marchand for their help in the ceramic quantification on the field. The pottery from Area 2.1 was sorted on site and recorded also by other ceramicists, such as Gillian Pyke (2005–2006 seasons), Delphine Dixneuf (2007–2009 seasons), and Andrea Myers Achi (2008–2011 seasons).
21. The present study does not include the oil lamps that have been found in the house of Serenos because they have been considered as small finds. The small finds and coins found in the same contexts of the house are under study and will be part of another volume.
1
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES
This chapter is devoted to the description of the excavation methodology and the post-excavation analysis of the contexts and the ceramic finds from House B1, Street 2, and Street 3, to facilitate the understanding of the relation between the ceramic materials and their archaeological contexts.
Excavation at Amheida is based on the stratigraphic method.1 Stratigraphic units have been distinguished according to their formation processes and described either as Deposition Stratigraphic Units (DSU), which are layers or strata, and Feature Stratigraphic Units (FSU), such as floors, walls, pits, ovens, cuts, etc. All the units are identified by a number that is unique within each archaeological area or sub-area.2 Amheida is divided into eleven different “Areas” (Area 1, 2, 3, etc.), each corresponding to a section of the settlement characterized by its location, architectural characteristics, and other notable features. Within each area are sub-areas (sub-area 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, etc.) that are generally predefined and recognizable spaces (buildings, streets, etc.). We refer to buildings by using B followed by a number (e.g., B1, B5, etc.), and to streets by using S followed by a number (e.g., S2, S3, etc.).
All finds are recorded daily on Stratigraphic Unit Quantitative (SUQ) data forms. Once a stratigraphic unit is completely excavated, a final SUQ form is filled out to summarize all the daily sheets. The final SUQ is useful, as it gives a general overview of what has been found in each stratigraphic unit. The weight (kg) and the quantity (no.) of all the objects, ceramic fragments, and fabrics are entered into the form, sorted according to the reliability of the archaeological context in which they were found (secure versus insecure contexts).3
All diagnostic and recognizable objects are individually recorded on Find Record forms, where they are identified by an Inventory Code. The Inventory Code consists of the initial of the site (A = Amheida), the year in which the find was recovered, the number of area/sub-area, and the stratigraphic unit from which the artifact came, followed by a unique, progressive number assigned by the recorder (e.g., A07/2.1/243/12054). This form contains the description of the object, the category to which it belongs, the maximum dimensions of the piece expressed in centimeters, the material, the manufacturing technique, and the state of preservation. Each Find Record form is accompanied by a digital color image of the object and in some cases by a drawing in 1:1, 1:2, or 1:5 scale.4
All forms (DSU, FSU, SUQ, and Find Record) are entered into the project’s official online database.5 This important tool allows us to relate every find back to its archaeological context, as well as perform searches and generate statistics.
1.1. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND CERAMICS PROCESSING
The general methodology applied to the quantification analysis of ceramic materials consists of two main steps. The first takes place in the field and consists of sorting the ceramic fragments found in each stratigraphic unit. Sherds found in secure contexts are divided according to fabrics and wares and are analyzed in detail.6 Each fabric group is weighed, the sherds are counted, and the information is recorded on the SUQ form. Rims, bases, and handles are also counted separately and recorded according to their typology. Body sherds are generally discarded unless they can be re-joined or belong to a stratigraphically relevant unit, in which case all pottery is kept. For non-secure contexts, only diagnostic sherds and body sherds from unknown fabrics or with notable characteristics are recorded on the SUQ form and kept for further studies.
The second step consists of the systematic quantification of the fragments collected for each context and stratigraphic unit, so as to determine the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI),7
