The House of Serenos. Clementina Caputo

stratigraphy in Area 2.1 is articulated into four main distinct horizons: the earlier phase (Phase I), with a large public bath occupying the area in which stood Serenos’ house (B1), the school (B5), and, later, the bath to the north (B6), was founded on natural, compacted sand dunes and abandoned toward the end of the third century CE or perhaps somewhat earlier.⁴² The ruins of the bath were razed and covered with dumped materials onto which B1 and B5 were subsequently built in the second quarter of the fourth century CE (Phase II). The phases of use of B1 (Phase III) have been identified in the restorations of walls, floors, and paintings, but little securely datable material has been found in connection with these phases, which belong approximately to the period 335/340-365/370. The post abandonment phase is identified with some refuse found in the DSUs above the floors in B1, S2, and S3 (Phase IV).⁴³

      The study of the ceramic assemblages from this area, according to the stratigraphy,⁴⁴ complements the analysis of the numerous dated ostraca found in both the dump layers (ca. 275–350 CE) and occupation levels (ca. 350–370 CE),⁴⁵ the coins (337–361 CE),46 and other objects,⁴⁷ contributing to a more refined interpretation of the archaeological contexts. In general, the deposits of dumped materials found in the foundations of B1, S2, and S3 have provided ceramic types dated between the end of the first century BCE and the beginning of the fourth century CE. The occupation deposits in B1, S2, and S3, on the other hand, yielded an abundant quantity of pottery dated to the second half of the fourth century CE onwards. To the post-abandonment period of the buildings in Area 2.1 belong those ceramic types that appear sporadically in the units lying directly above the floor deposits and that can be assigned to a period after 370 CE onward.

      Each type in the catalogue of this volume has been dated by taking into consideration a number of factors, including stratigraphic sequence, DSU formation process, and the type’s incidence or absence in the ceramic assemblages coming from the reliable stratigraphic units. Comparisons with wares and shapes attested at other sites also serve as important data. Parallels with vessels found in contemporaneous sites of the western Oasis, as well as elsewhere in Egypt, help to define each production’s chronological horizon. The suggested dates published for these comparanda are provided in the Catalogue.

1.6. STRUCTURE OF THE CATALOGUE

      In order to deliver a synthetic yet analytical overview of the ceramic material, this volume adopts a typo-chronological classification based on a selection of the individual objects found within the most significant contexts in occupation levels and in the dumped layers below House B1 in Area 2.1 (Chapters 2 and 3) and whose classification principles will be explained below. I have based the study on the stratigraphic analysis and interpretation of Area 2.1 made by Paola Davoli, which will be published in Amheida VI. Furthermore, a detailed description of some selected contexts and the quantification of the vessel types illustrating the ceramic assemblages for the most reliable stratigraphic units is also provided (Chapters 4 and 5). The number assigned to each type in the catalogue is also used as a reference number for similar shapes whenever they appear in the analyzed contexts.

      The Catalogue for Area 2.1 is arranged according to functional categories, such as table and service wares used for serving and consumption; utility wares used to prepare food; cooking wares; and storage and transport vessels. Two additional categories include (a) imports from the Nile Valley and the Mediterranean48 and (b) miscellanea. The vessels within each functional category (bowls, dishes, basins, kraters, pots, casseroles, etc.) are classified by type-groups (Group 1, Group 2, etc.) according to the morphological characteristics, and further divided into sub-groups (Group 1a, Group 1b, etc.) according to the variants within each group. In Chapter 2, an analysis of the major categories comprising the corpus is provided by types and is chronologically arranged. The emphasis is on shapes that are encountered frequently within the contexts; rare forms are also included if they were found in well-dated contexts or if they have parallels from other sites. Observations about the possible function or use of particular shapes are indicated when possible. The Catalogue illustrates the most complete or well-preserved examples for each shape found in the whole sequence of stratigraphic units in Area 2.1. Fragmentary vessels are included if they are particularly common or unique.

      Each record in the Catalogue (Chapter 3) consists of the following fields:

      No.: Progressive Catalogue Number.

      Inv.: Inventory Number assigned during the recording phase.

      SSC: Site Shape Catalogue number.

      Context: Type (Room, Street, etc.) and stratigraphic unit (DSU, FSU, etc.).

      Fabric/Ware: Reference code number of the ceramic material, based on the table included in this chapter.

      Dimensions: Main measurements of the fragment expressed in centimeters (cm).

      Description: Morphological characteristics of the vessel, surface treatments, decoration, evidence of use.

      Parallels: Bibliographic references and range of dates for similar types attested in comparative sites.

      Phase-date: The date range of the type, based on the context(s) in which it was found at Amheida (Area 2.1).⁴⁹

      Phase I: Imperial thermae (B3, including B6).

      Phase II: Destruction and levelling with waste and debris of part of the thermae (B3).

      Phase III: Private houses on the levelled yard.

      III.1 – Construction of B1, B8, B5, S2, S3 (around 340 CE).

      III.2 – Restoration and restyling.

      III.3 – Restoration.

      III.4 – Abandonment (around 370 CE).

      Phase IV: Post-abandonment (after 370 CE onward).

      1. Eugene Ball employed the Locus Lot Method in 2004. In 2005, the stratigraphic method was introduced by the new archaeological director, P. Davoli. See Davoli (forthcoming), Amheida VI: The House of Serenos. Part II: Archaeological Report. See also Harris 1989; Roskam 2001.

      2. A general plan is drawn up for each stratigraphic unit, usually in 1:50 scale, showing the unit’s outline, position, and elevations. Sections and any other relevant details of the unit are instead drawn in 1:10 or 1:20 scale, when necessary. A high quality digital photograph is included in the graphic documentation. Area/sub-area and stratigraphic unit numbers are always noted on all records, object drawings, and labels.

      3. The Deposition Stratigraphic Unit (DSU) is reliable or secure only when it is sealed and has not been disturbed in recent times. Surface DSUs are not reliable, nor are DSUs close to the surface unless they were sealed by a collapse of some extension. In our specific case, we can consider as secure contexts only those units directly above floors that were covered by the collapse of the ceiling or by windblown sand, which preserved the last occupation and the post-abandonment deposits. The reliability of a DSU can be discerned in the field during its excavation and during the study of the materials present in the DSU.

      4. On the subject of archaeological drawings, see Leonardi and Penello 1991: 18–41, 41–72. See also Manzelli 1997: 181–9; Mascione and Luna 2007: 87–99.

      5. Available at www.amheida.net. The database has been created and implemented by the Mission’s official IT Engineer, Bruno Bazzani.

      6. The term “fabric” refers to the type of clay used for manufacturing the vessels. The term