body of the containers, areas that are generally straighter and have smooth surfaces and lack external ribs (98%). There are only a few instances where the texts are written on diagnostic parts of the vessel (i.e., rims, handles, bases); in fact, only 17 out of 893 Greek ostraka (2%) are diagnostic sherds (Figs. 11–14). Texts identified on these sherds are mostly memoranda, lists or uncertain (i.e., 1.77, 258, 355, 380, 402, 419, 2.504, 569, 644, 737, 806, 815, 838). None of these refers to trading or administrative transactions.
Most of the ostraka analyzed are from locally produced vessels: 122 from jars, 30 from kegs, 24 from jugs, 23 from basins, craters, and large bowls, 17 from small bowls, 6 from cooking pots, 6 from lids. In addition there are 318 ostraka also made from locally produced vessels, but for which it was not possible to define the shape. The highest percentage (96.50%) belongs to fragments in Group A fabrics (i.e., A1a, A1b, A2a, A2b, and A5), the same used for the production of the majority of containers present on the site. 1.60% is kaolinitic clay (A11), used for the production of containers, known as Christian Brittle Ware, 1.04% is in calcareous local clay (B10) used mainly for the production of jugs. Only 0.86% is in B3b, the fabric associated with the yellow slipped productions of the Kharga Oasis.
Table 3. Distribution of ostraka according to ceramic group (fabric).
No ostrakon made with fragments of Oasis Red Slip Ware or imports from other areas of Egypt and the Mediterranean was found (Table 3). The majority have irregular quadrangular shapes; however, ostraka used as tags seem to maintain a quite constant shape and size, with rectangular and triangular outlines. Very few ostraka are circular in shape (Fig. 15). These circular examples are the result of a secondary reuse of the sherd: indeed, the sherds were first cut to become circular lids used in stoppers to seal containers such as jars or amphorae, and only after the jars were opened and the lids disposed of did they become supports for writing. Interestingly, at Amheida one example shows that also the opposite process was possible. In this case, the sherd first was used as an ostrakon and only later was recut, partially obliterating the written text, to become a lid (Fig. 16).
The thickness of the sherds used as support for writing ranges between 0.5 and 1 cm (Table 4), dimensions that are characteristic of vessel types such as medium-sized bowls, jars, kegs, and cooking pots. Therefore, fragments of basins and craters were rarely used as support for writing, apart from a few notable exceptions. The size of the fragments is between 6 (min.) and 18.5 (max.) cm in the case of accounts or letters, while tags vary between 1.4 (min.) and 7 (max.) cm.
Figure 10. Wine flasks from the Kharga Oasis.
Table 4. Thickness range and writing surface of fragments in cm2 of ostraka.
Contrary to what has been previously argued, some categories of texts, primarily well tags, were not written on randomly chosen sherds,43 but rather they were specifically manufactured in large quantities by cutting body sherds into similar shapes meant to accommodate formulaic texts.44
The process was probably as follows: once a ceramic vessel broke, as commonly happened because of heavy daily usage, the larger body sherds were selected and collected for reuse as ostraka. This could have happened inside each dwelling right after the vessel broke, or the selection could have happened after the sherds were discarded in an open area dump. At present there is no evidence that could exclude or confirm one hypothesis over the other. An attendant, possibly trained in this skill, would break these larger fragments using a sharp tool, most likely a flint or a hammer, by hitting them. Such a blunt stroke would produce a series of fragments differently shaped.45 Only those fitting a predetermined size would be kept, while the remaining ones would be discarded.
The thickness of the sherds used was crucial, since thicker walls did not break easily; additionally, body sherds must have been preferred to rims, bases, or handles, as these thicker portions of a vessel did not allow for a regularly shaped break.
This process seems to be confirmed especially in the case of well tag ostraka, which, as said above, present roughly similar shapes and sizes, since they needed to fit on top of mud stoppers (Figs. 17–18). In the case of longer texts, such as letters or lists, the body sherds needed to be larger to fit more text, and to come from a rather straight portion of the vessel to facilitate the process of writing (Fig. 19). Larger vessels, like jars or cooking pots as well as kegs, seem to be preferred because of their larger body shapes, which provided a wider field for the text.46
Several scholars have argued in the past that the color of the sherd’s surface and the texture of its fabric were the main discriminants behind the choice of specific sherds versus others. I believe, however, that fragments from Group A vessels were preferred at Amheida because of the intrinsic qualities of the fabric, and not only because this ceramic type was the most common at the site and thus readily available. Indeed, Group A sherds present a degree of hardness that allows for neat breaks.47 This is not the case with B10 and A11 fabrics: during the experiment, B10 sherds were almost pulverized when they were hit by a flint tool, whereas A11 sherds shattered, and the fragments became unusable as writing surfaces. The choice of fabric was thus not at all random, nor was it dictated by qualities affecting its suitability as a writing surface. Those concerns, rather, drove the choice of vessel shape.
Figure 11. Diagnostic ostraka.
Figure 12. Diagnostic ostraka.
Figure 13. Diagnostic ostraka.
Figure 14. Diagnostic ostraka.
Figure 15. Circular lids reused as ostraka.
Figure 16. Ostrakon reused as a lid: O.Trim. 1.60.
3.2.4. CATALOG OF DIAGNOSTIC OSTRAKA
Fig. 11 a. O.Trim.
