| A5 | - Variant of group A. Iron rich clay, with a larger quantity of white, green, and yellow particles. Coarser texture, more porous. - Overfired purple-brown and gray in color. The surface is purple usually with a thick white or cream slip. - Jugs, kegs, and storage jars. - Third–fourth centuries. Nr. Ostraka: 62 |
| A11 | - Dense kaolinitic brittle fabric characterized by hard core and fine texture. Medium scatters of small calcareous inclusions, dark red and sometimes black particles are visible. Known also as Christian Brittle Ware. - It fires a range of colors including pale, beige, apricot, and pale gray. - Thin-walled cooking jars, casseroles, and bowls, with a red and cream coating, sometimes decorated in red dots on cream bands. - Late third and fourth century CE. Ostraka: 17 |
| B10 | - Marl clay. The fabric is lightweight, extremely porous texture and moderately coarse. Several grains of quartz, some limestone, and red and black particles of various size. - Fires a luminous pale, gray-green color. - Lids used also as footed bowls, water jugs, and costrels. - Mid third century to the end of the fourth century CE. Ostraka: 11 |
| B3b | - Kaolinitic clay with red hematite inclusions of medium and small size, quartz, and platey fragments of shale and mudstone. Calcium rich clay with very few inclusions. - Fired an orange-red in color. - Flasks and small bowls with yellow slip. (Kharga Red and Yellow Slip). - Third to fifth century CE. Ostraka: 9 |
1. I would like to express my gratitude to Professors R. S. Bagnall (Director, ISAW) and P. Davoli (Field Director, University of Salento) for entrusting me with the study of ceramics of the ostraka found at Amheida, and for giving me the opportunity to present the results of this work. Special thanks go to Professor P. Ballet (University of Paris Nanterre) for her teaching and supervision, and D. Dixneuf (CEAlex) for advice and help given to me in the early years of fieldwork. I also thank my colleagues J. Marchand (PhD, University of Poitiers) and I. Soto (PhD student, ISAW). Additional thanks to B. Bazzani, R. Casagrande-Kim, and V. Liuzzi for their assistance in the writing of this contribution. The study of ceramic supports used for the ostraka at Amheida and at Dime es-Seba (Fayoum) is also the subject of my PhD dissertation defended in July 2014 both at the University of Salento (Lecce) and at the University of Poitiers. Advisors for this research are, respectively, Prof. P. Davoli and Prof. P. Ballet.
2. Lister and Lister 1981; Dupré Raventos and Remolà (eds.) 2000; Ballet, Cordier, and Dieudonné-Glad (eds.), 2003; Peña 2007.
3. Peña 2007: 119–192.
4. According to Bonnet, the potsherds reused in the walls were contemporary to the building, while those present in the fillings were collected in dumps: Bonnet 1994; Henein and Wuttmann (eds.) 2000: 76. See also Ast and Davoli 2016.
5. Peña 2007: 160.
6. In 1899 the papyrologist U. Wilcken showed interest in the ceramic supports used for the ostraka, but it remained an isolated case: Wilcken 1899: 4. Publications from 1902 to 1986 provide almost only philological information. In fact, there are just a few works in which short descriptions of the color of the fragments used are given, but this information is insufficient for identifying the pottery supports: see Amundsen 1935; Gascou 1979; Devauchelle 1983.
7. A substantial breakthrough in the study of these objects occurred in 1994 with a publication of S. P. Vleeming, who, with the cooperation of R. Van Walsen, gave an accurate ceramic description of the ostraka examined: Vleeming 1994: 2–3, 149–156. Two works that are certainly the best example of interaction between philologists and ceramicists are those of Worp (2004), in which the analysis of the supports is managed by Colin A. Hope, and Lozachmeur (2006), in which the analysis of the ceramic supports is by P. Ballet: Hope 2004a: 5–28; Ballet 2006: 106–133.
8. Bingen 1996: 31.
9. Hope 2004a: 5.
10. Bingen 1996; Cuvigny 2006.
11. Since 2009 I have been entrusted with the cataloguing and study of ceramic vessels found during the excavations conducted on the site. This experience has led to better knowledge of the Dakhla Oasis productions and shapes.
12. Ast and Davoli 2016.
13. Bagnall and Ruffini 2012: 13.
14. Bagnall and Ruffini 2012: 13. One of these tags (O.Kell. 270) was published in the first volume of Greek ostraka from Kellis, while the others are still unpublished, Worp 2004: 169.
15. Bagnall 2011: 132–133; Bagnall and Ruffini 2012: 13–14, 31–37.
16. Similar tags have been identified at Bakchias, Karanis, and Tebtynis (Fayyum). The text on these tags consists of the name of the owner or a date, referring to the delivery of the commodities or the year of harvest. H.C. Youtie was the first to suggest that these ostraka probably were located on wheat bags. However, the finds from Amheida and Kellis suggest another use for the labels: H. C. Youtie, Scriptiunculae posteriores I (Bonn 1981) 122–126; Reiter 2007: 266 and 274–277; Reiter 2005, especially 132.
17. For the characteristics of the clay and ceramic materials of the oases, see: Soukiassian, Wuttmann, Pantalacci, Ballet, and Picon 1990: 75–85; Marchand and Tallet 1999; Hope 1999; Patten 2000: 87–104. See also Nordström and Bourriau 1993.
18. For the fabric descriptions see Hope et al. 2000; Hope 2004a: 7–9. Hope has worked extensively on the production of pottery artifacts in the Dakhla Oasis for all historical periods. Most of the fabric descriptions here are taken verbatim from conversations with Colin Hope and Pascale Ballet.
19. Concerning the clay, according to Ballet, the Amheida production differs from the Kharga wares, which are mainly made with kaolinitic material (with red inclusions, probably hematite, and “plaquettes,” which are silicified clay inclusions).
20. Hope et al. 2000: 194.
21. The study of ceramic materials from B2 (Area 1) by D. Dixneuf (CEAlex) appears in Boozer 2015.
22. Hope 1993.
23. Hope 2004a: 9. The standard