A Social Archaeology of Roman and

Late Antique Egypt: Artefacts of

Everyday Life Ellen Swift
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-social-archaeology-of-roman-and-late-antique-egyp
t-artefacts-of-everyday-life-ellen-swift/
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

A Social Archaeology of Roman

and Late Antique Egypt
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

A Social Archaeology
of Roman and
Late Antique Egypt
Artefacts of Everyday Life

ELLEN SWIFT
JO STONER
and
A P R I L P U D SEY

1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Ellen Swift, Jo Stoner, and April Pudsey 2022
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2022
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021942702
ISBN 978–0–19–886734–0
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198867340.001.0001
Printed and bound in the UK by
TJ Books Limited
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

Acknowledgements

The project for which this is one of the published outputs, ‘Roman and Late Antique
Artefacts from Egypt: Understanding Society and Culture’, was funded by an Arts
and Humanities Research Council project grant, we are very grateful to the AHRC
for this support. Thanks also to current and former staff at the Petrie Museum of
Egyptian Archaeology, University College London, especially Louise Bascombe,
Anna Garnett, Maria Ragan, Alice Stevenson, Alice Williams, and Catriona Wilson.
It was a real pleasure working with Petrie Museum staff and we are very grateful to
them for their contribution in making this project a successful one.
Thanks also to the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; Bristol Museum and Art
Gallery; the British Museum, London; the Egypt Centre, University of Swansea;
the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York;
the Museum of London; the Petrie Museum; Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden; the
Victoria and Albert Museum, London; and World Museum, Liverpool, for permis-
sions to reproduce images of objects in their collection, and/or assistance with study
visits. The Brigham Young University Egypt Excavation Project, and Alexandra
Pleşa, also assisted with illustrations for the book.
Many thanks to Karlis Karklins, St John Simpson, Joanna Then-­Obłuska, and
Marilee Wood, for assistance with object identifications, and to Elisabeth O’Connell,
Joanna Then-­Obłuska, and Carol van Driel-­Murray for comments on draft chapters.
Csaba La’da kindly assisted with a Greek inscription, and Tian Tian provided infor-
mation from a beads list from Xia Nai’s archive, and translated it from Chinese.
Thanks also to David Creese, Jenny Cromwell, and Joachim Quack for their
comments.
We would also like to thank our project advisory board, Kevin Dawe from the
University of Kent, David Creese from Newcastle University, and Richard Alston
from Royal Holloway, University of London. They provided invaluable advice and
support throughout the project.
Making the replica objects and sound recordings was a particular challenge and
could not have been achieved without substantial help. David Walsh and Ada Nifosi
kindly assisted by playing some instruments for sound recording, and Frank Walker
made the recordings. Egert Pöhlmann kindly allowed us to use his transcripts of
music in the recordings. Eric Hall, formerly a professional potter, provided advice
about the replica creation for the ceramic artefacts, and Andrew Lamb, of the Oxford
Bate Collection, assisted with information about comparative ethnographic musical
instruments; Keith Greenhow, Daniel Knox, George Morris, Julien Soosaipillai, and
Georgia Wright, currently or formerly at the University of Kent, and jeweller Justin
Richardson, made the replicas of the sound-­making objects. Many thanks to all
of them.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

vi Acknowledgements

Finally, Lloyd Bosworth, Archaeology Technician at the University of Kent, has

contributed in multiple ways to the success of this project, 3D scanning the objects,
creating 3D models, editing most of the photographs taken by us at the Petrie
Museum, and helping with many other queries throughout the project. We are very
grateful for his assistance.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

Contents

List of Figures ix
List of Tables xv

1. Introduction 1

I E X P L O R I N G T H E S O C IA L F U N C T IO N S
OF DRESS OBJECTS
2. Introduction to Part I 33
3. Original String and Bead Assemblages 60
4. Bracelets and Torcs 115
5. Shoes and Sandals 162
6. Concluding Discussion to Part I 195

I I T H E D OM E S T IC R E A L M A N D EV E RY DAY
EXPERIENCE
7. Introduction to Part II 207
8. Production and Experience: Objects Related to Textile Production 228
9. Children’s Material Culture 263
10. Sound-­Making Objects 289
11. Concluding Discussion to Part II 325
12. Egypt in the Roman and Late Antique World: An Artefacts Perspective 335

Appendix 1: Phased Bead Assemblages from Qau 343

Appendix 2: Assemblages of Beads with Evidence of Original Association 346
Appendix 3: Data Set of Artefacts Including Ancient String, with Dating
Evidence359
Appendix 4: Data Sets for Bracelets and Torcs 373
Appendix 5: Shoes Data Set 375
Appendix 6: Spindle Whorls Data Set 387
Appendix 7: Sound Measurement and Studio Recording 399

References 407
Index 445
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

List of Figures

1.1. Tomb card 690 from Petrie cemetery 7000. 16

1.2. UC74026, the extant assemblage which can be associated with tomb 690. 17
1.3. Map of Egypt in the Roman period showing principal sites. 20
2.1. Examples of earrings with closed loops for permanent wear. 37
2.2. Chain necklace with imitation fastening section. 38
2.3. Mummy portrait of an older woman, her only jewellery a pair of earrings. 41
2.4. Comb with wide teeth on one side. 43
2.5. Fragments of a dark coloured hair-­net. 44
2.6. Hairpins in a range of materials. 45
2.7. Hair-­piece in three surviving fragments. 46
2.8. Hairpins with decoration on the theme of feminine adornment. 47
2.9. Hairpins with evidence of wear. 48
2.10. Detail of decorated hairpins. 49
2.11. Hat made using the sprang technique. 50
2.12. Byzantine type openwork decorated comb. 51
2.13. Crossbow brooch. 52
2.14. Germanic dress pin. 54
2.15. Germanic bucket pendant and close-­up view. 55
2.16. Examples of cross pendants in different materials. 57
2.17. Assemblage from Tomb 1844 at Mostagedda. 59
3.1. Examples of beads originating far beyond Egypt. 74
3.2. Example of necklace with comma-­shaped beads and flat drop-­shaped beads in
an alternating pattern, on original string. 75
3.3. Example of an assemblage with two necklaces made from different materials. 77
3.4. Example of an assemblage with a large number of green and yellow glass
‘date’ beads. 78
3.5. Example of an assemblage composed of yellow striped glass beads. 79
3.6. Unripe dates. 80
3.7. Example of an assemblage including opaque glass beads with trail decoration. 83
3.8. Example of a necklace with a variety of different coloured glass beads,
on original string. 84
3.9. Necklace with multiple animal pendants made from shell. 86
3.10. Examples of different types of amulets. 87
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

x List of Figures

3.11. Graph, dating of objects with original string present. 90

3.12. Examples of colours in ancient string. 92
3.13. Graph of the frequency of coloured string. 94
3.14. Graph of string function in one hundred artefacts. 95
3.15. Graph, the uses of natural and red string compared. 97
3.16. Examples of coloured tape on burial shrouds. 98
3.17. Key with ornate strap in two colours, and decoratively knotted red string. 99
3.18. ‘Coptic’ multi-­coloured textile. 100
3.19. Red string associated with different objects. 102
3.20. Necklace of graduated angular amber beads from Qau, Egypt. 104
3.21. Necklace of graduated angular amber beads from Katwijk, The Netherlands. 105
3.22. Schematic drawing of curation and reuse of an amber bead necklace. 108
3.23. Bead assemblage from Fag el-­Gamous burial #44. 109
4.1. Figurine of Isis-­Aphrodite. 117
4.2. Comparison of small iron bracelet with iron hoop earring. 118
4.3. Cable bracelet made from vegetable fibre. 119
4.4. Different types of bracelet found in Egypt. 122
4.5. Examples of bracelets made in matching pairs. 125
4.6. Example of a bracelet with one terminal cut off. 128
4.7. Inner diameters of bracelets found with different age groups, graph of
combined data from late Roman cemeteries at Lankhills and Colchester. 130
4.8. Inner diameters of bracelets, graph comparison of data from Britain and Egypt. 131
4.9. Bracelets with features that would facilitate wear on the upper arm. 133
4.10. Motifs on amuletic disc bracelets, and a pendant amulet. 134
4.11. Examples of amuletic disc bracelets. 135
4.12. Graph showing diameter range of amuletic disc bracelets. 136
4.13. Amuletic disc bracelet with ancient repair. 140
4.14. Second-­century ce mummy portrait of a woman with neck jewellery,
probably a heavy chain necklace. 142
4.15. Second-­century ce mummy portrait of a child with neck jewellery, probably a torc. 143
4.16. Icon of St Sergius and St Bacchus from St Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai. 144
4.17. Items from tomb 1411 at Mostagedda. 148
4.18. Torc with three projecting medallions including one of a front-­facing emperor. 149
4.19. Torc set with three projecting medallions including central glass set roundel. 150
4.20. Torc with flat front and two symmetrical mounts. 151
4.21. Torc with expanding fastening. 152
4.22. Torc made from thin wire with hook and eye fastening. 153
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

List of Figures xi

4.23. Graph showing individual skull lengths in order of size, from Dendera and
Lachish, compared with diameters of extant torcs from Egypt. 155
5.1. Example of sandals with border decoration. 166
5.2. Graph showing frequency of decoration types for shoes in the data set. 168
5.3. Example of sandals with red fibre. 169
5.4. Sandals showing red strap stubs on treadsole. 169
5.5. Example of a plaited leather toe strap. 170
5.6. Several examples of red dyed leather shoes. 171
5.7. A red gilt sandal. 172
5.8. Example of shoes with red trim. 173
5.9. A second example of shoes with red trim. 174
5.10. A third example of shoes with red trim. 175
5.11. Detail from an ancient portrait of a woman wearing red socks. 175
5.12. Pair of red socks. 176
5.13. Example of sandals with cross-­hatched soles. 177
5.14. Example of sandals with zigzag tool marks. 178
5.15. Example of a sandal sole with a pointed toe. 179
5.16. Example of children’s slippers with gilt scrollwork. 180
5.17. Example of unworn fibre sandals. 186
5.18. Example illustrating wear to the underneath of a fibre sandal. 187
5.19. Example of a wide sandal with wear to the ball area of the sole. 188
5.20. A sandal from Buhen, Sudan. 189
5.21. Example of a wide leather sandal. 190
5.22. Examples of sandals with a notch by the toe. 191
7.1. A ceramic vessel used for cooking. 210
7.2. A fragment of a glass drinking vessel. 211
7.3. Examples of mirrors. 214
7.4. An example of a soft brush. 220
7.5. A plant fibre mat with a handle on one side. 223
7.6. A bung made from reused textile rags. 224
7.7. Wooden curtain rings with fragments of attached textile. 225
8.1. Complete spindle. 231
8.2. Example of wooden whorl. 232
8.3. Spindle with multiple bone whorls and skein of wool. 233
8.4. Graph of materials represented in the data set of spindle whorls. 235
8.5. Examples of ceramic whorls. 236
8.6. Examples of ceramic whorls made from potsherds. 237
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

xii List of Figures

8.7. Examples of different types of glass whorl. 238

8.8. Examples of bone/ivory whorls. 241
8.9. Stone whorls with scratched floral designs. 242
8.10. Graph showing whorl weights by material. 245
8.11. Graph showing whorl weights and diameter by design. 246
8.12. Examples of comb pendants and the full-­size weaving combs that they imitate. 250
8.13. Front and side view of comb pendant. 252
8.14. Bone distaff with finial representing Venus. 255
8.15. Close-­up of wear on the shaft of the distaff. 257
9.1. Wooden doll. 268
9.2. Ceramic doll-­like figurine. 269
9.3. Wheeled wooden horse toy, disassembled. 273
9.4. Rudimentary ceramic animal figurine. 275
9.5. Copper-­alloy animal figurine with rider. 278
9.6. Copper-­alloy dog figurine. 279
9.7. Copper-­alloy figurine of a hand holding a figure of Harpokrates. 282
9.8. Fragment of ceramic depicting a winged Harpokrates. 283
9.9. Copper-­alloy figurine of Bastet holding a sun-­disk lion-­head aegis and a
figurine of a cat. 285
9.10. Copper-­alloy figurine of a youth playing panpipes. 286
9.11. Ceramic figurine, front view, detail of side view, and close-­up of cheek. 288
10.1. The assembled replica instruments. 299
10.2. Bell with Bes mask. 304
10.3. Bell with rings attached. 306
10.4. Bell on bracelet, UC58536. 307
10.5. Bell on bracelet, UC58538. 307
10.6. Bell on bracelet, UC58540. 308
10.7. Bell on bracelet, UC58537. 309
10.8. Bell on bracelet, UC58538. 309
10.9. Nut-­shaped ceramic rattle. 310
10.10. Pointed ceramic rattle. 311
10.11. Cymbal made by forging. 312
10.12. Cymbal made by casting. 313
10.13. Replica of cymbals UC33269a–b. 313
10.14. Replica of cymbals UC35798. 313
10.15. Cymbal with extreme wear pattern from handle attachment. 314
10.16. Reed panpipes. 315
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

List of Figures xiii

10.17. Wooden clappers, UC71305a–b. 317

10.18. Replica of wooden clappers, UC71305a–b. 318
10.19. Wooden clappers, UC59603 and UC59609. 318
10.20. House with courtyard from Tebtynis. 320
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

List of Tables

1.1. List of sites in Egypt and Nubia mentioned in the text. 19

2.1. Examples of earrings with closed loops for permanent wear. 37
2.2. Crossbow brooches from the western Roman provinces in the
Petrie Museum collection, all found at Lahun. 52
3.1. Dating evidence for types of beads. 64
3.2. Site details for data set of ancient string. 90
3.3. Ancient string classification of colour and function. 93
3.4. Occurrences of coloured string in the fifteen examples of ‘mixed’ string artefacts. 94
4.1. Types of bracelets and dating (provenance is listed where known). 119
4.2. Bracelets that correspond to Roman weight standards. 126
4.3. Torcs from Egypt with site-­level provenance. 145
5.1. Sites represented in the data set of shoes. 163
5.2. Materials represented in the data set of shoes. 164
5.3. Decoration on infant shoes. 173
5.4. Decoration on adult male shoes. 174
5.5. Deposition of footwear in pairs or as single items. 181
5.6. Details of shoe deposition at Hawara and Buhen. 182
5.7. Evidence of wear on shoes in the data set. 185
8.1. Whorls with site attributions. 234
8.2. Comb pendants. 248
10.1. Date and context information for data set of sound-­making objects. 292
10.2. Decibel levels for replica instruments. 301
10.3. Sound levels of everyday noises for comparison. 302
10.4. Comparison of decibel level of ancient rattles with modern examples. 311
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

1
Introduction

The first in-­depth study of the society and culture of Roman and late antique Egypt
(c.30 bce to 700 ce) to use everyday artefacts as its principal source of evidence, this
book presents the results of the major AHRC-­funded research project ‘Roman and
Late Antique Artefacts from Egypt: Understanding Society and Culture’. Its central
focus is the outstanding collection of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology,
UCL, which contains more than 8,000 objects dating to the periods under study,
including many objects in organic materials that rarely survive elsewhere. Through
its detailed investigation of these artefacts, the book transforms our understanding
of aspects of the society and culture of Egypt. By taking a social archaeology approach
to a substantial body of artefact data, it provides significant insights into everyday
social practices and social relations. For instance, in Part I it illuminates how social
structures centred on the life course and family status are constructed through dress
objects, especially for women, and examines the particular social functions of
selected artefact types. In Part II, it investigates topics in social archaeology such as
the character of Romano-­Egyptian childhood, the socially embedded nature of
­production, and the importance of sound to communal activities including play,
entertainment, and ritual practice. The book also constitutes a fundamental refer-
ence work for scholars of artefacts from Egypt and beyond, with much new and
essential information on a range of Roman and late antique artefact categories. It
additionally provides evidence on wider topics of interest to historians and archae-
ologists, such as long-­distance trade patterns with Roman and late antique Egypt,
and wider economic and social changes across the period.
The potential of artefact evidence has been very under-­exploited in scholarly
research on Egypt in the periods under study.1 Museums hold significant collections
from Roman and late antique Egypt, yet most of these objects have never been stud-
ied systematically. Most come from archaeological excavations carried out in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.2 They are rarely published—and the same
is, surprisingly, true of artefacts which stem from much more recent excavations,
although assemblages from the Red Sea and Eastern Desert are an exception (Bagnall
and Davoli 2011; Peacock and Blue 2006; Sidebotham and Wendrich 2001). They
have potential, however, to illuminate many aspects of life that are rarely covered in
the written sources. We focus on two areas in particular: ordinary dress objects, and
everyday functional objects in their domestic context. Together, they make up the
suite of material culture most often used by people within their daily lives (discussed

1 An exception is Brooks Hedstrom 2017, a rare study which integrates evidence relating to artefacts
into a consideration of monastic spaces.
2 For the historiography of early archaeology in Egypt, including the selective acquisition of objects
focusing mainly on textiles, papyri, and inscriptions, see O’Connell 2014a; Reid 2015, 19–37 and 81–107.

A Social Archaeology of Roman and Late Antique Egypt: Artefacts of Everyday Life. Ellen Swift, Jo Stoner, and April Pudsey,
Oxford University Press. © Ellen Swift, Jo Stoner, and April Pudsey 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198867340.003.0001
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

2 A Social Archaeology of Roman and Late Antique Egypt

further below, pp. 8–9). The Petrie Museum provides a rich resource in both these
areas, and most of the relevant objects in their collection have not been the subject of
any previous research. Material from the museum is, additionally, supplemented with
data from research visits to other UK museums with relevant collections.3 There have
been substantial developments in theoretical and methodological approaches to the
study of Roman material culture in recent years, many of them fostered by the lead
author for this book (for example, Swift 2017, 2012b, 2009; Eckardt 2014; and Cool
2006) and a renewed interest in the contribution of artefacts to studies of daily life
(for instance, Allason-­Jones 2011, 2008; Cool and Baxter 2002). We examine the
neglected artefacts from Roman and late antique Egypt within this wider research
context. Although the approach is principally archaeological, it is also inter­dis­cip­lin­
ary, drawing on further evidence regarding the topics under study from papyri and
other textual sources, and from visual sources. It is informed by perspectives from
archaeological theory, anthropology, and also historical and archaeological studies of
both the wider Roman world, and other periods and regions.
In addition to the new social interpretation of everyday life that is proposed,
fundamental advances presented in the book include more accurate dating of both
individual objects and assemblages, and reconstruction of contextual information
for some dress objects, through the study of site archives held in the Petrie Museum.
A large proportion of the material under study is shown to be late antique in date (c. fifth
to seventh century ce), rather than Roman (c. first century bce to fourth century ce)
as had been previously assumed; however, this material shows significant cultural
continuity with the earlier Roman period, in both the types and functions of every-
day objects. Although the focus is on the interactions of daily life within communi-
ties, the book also illuminates how individual communities were connected to the
wider social world of Egypt and beyond through trade, shared cultural practices, and
the movement of individuals. Moreover, the evidence from objects shows how political
and economic changes in Egypt, particularly towards the end of the Byzantine occu-
pation of the province, impacted on the lives of communities at a local level.
This introductory chapter first gives an overview of interpretative approaches con-
ducive to our goal of achieving a social archaeology of everyday life. Methodological
issues relating to the research are then explored; for example, we outline the rationale
that lies behind our selection of object categories for study, and give an assessment of
the quality of the data available for investigation. The latter includes an account of
research undertaken that significantly improves the accuracy of dating for objects
and enhances our knowledge of their site provenance and archaeological context.
The final section sets out the social and cultural background relating to Egypt in the
period studied, together with a brief overview of the distinct regions that make up
Egypt and their different character, in order to provide a broad framework for the
subsequent data studies.

3 There are many museums worldwide with significant collections which could have been included, for
example the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, the Musée du Louvre, Paris, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, and the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan. For these museums, and others, we
have made use of the published catalogues and online databases that exist. The remit of our project, how-
ever, funded by the UK government through the Arts and Humanities Research Council, was to focus on
neglected UK collections in particular.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

Introduction 3

A Social Archaeology: Interpretative Approaches

A social archaeology approach is one that foregrounds everyday life and social
ex­peri­ence. The aim is not simply to document the types of objects that existed as
components of daily living, but to understand how they functioned within society to
achieve particular human goals (Preucell and Meskell 2004, 16). We can examine, for
example, how objects were used in the construction and enactment of social roles
within both the family and the wider community, as well as the other various ways in
which they assisted, constrained, or otherwise affected the social lives of the people
to whom they belonged. In order to achieve this, we use a range of interpretative
perspectives that, together, enable us to make connections between the physical fea-
tures of the objects and the social world that they constituted along with their human
users. Importantly, our approaches do not rely on the availability of information
from excavation contexts. This is generally poor for museum artefacts from Egypt
(although occasionally, information relating to archaeological context can be util­
ized). Instead, we focus on the features of the artefacts themselves, including the
physical form, materials, and decoration that constitute their design, and evidence of
wear and repair. We then draw on what is known from historical and visual sources
of the broader social context, to further enhance our understanding. Such sources
form an especially rich resource for Egypt, as many commentators have observed,
because of the survival of numerous fragments of papyrus documents.
The design features of objects can be examined to understand how they were
intended to be used at the point of production (for an exploration of this, defined as
‘proper function’, see Swift 2017, 9–10; and Preston 2013). A consideration of their
subsequent uses, sometimes represented by the extant material changes to the object,
provides some additional evidence, and allows us to examine further changing uses,
values, and meanings for the objects (termed ‘object biography’: see Joy 2009; Gosden
and Marshall 1999; and Kopytoff 1986). A Roman life course perspective (Harlow
and Laurence 2002) is combined with these approaches, enabling us to consider the
features of many of the objects as they relate to different gender and age categories
within society. We are able to show how the properties of objects make them suitable
for use, or constrain their use, by particular groups, and/or within limited social set-
tings, and how the objects functioned in the embodiment of life course stages. Let us
now unpack these ideas, relating to design, object biography, and the life course, a
little more, to provide some background, and show how the intersection between
them allows substantive new insights to be reached from a social archaeology
perspective.

Life Course

The individual life course is a key element of broader social structures, and its inves-
tigation in relation to material culture has been central to research that takes a social
archaeology approach in other periods and/or regions (Gilchrist 2004; Joyce 2004;
Meskell 2000). The ways in which the human life course underpins and potentially
shapes the operation of social and cultural values and practices are a prime example
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

4 A Social Archaeology of Roman and Late Antique Egypt

of the relationships between biology and culture that vary across time and space. The
biological aspects of the life course common to all human populations—birth, pro-
creation, menarche, puberty, fecundity, fertility, menopause, sterility, ageing, death—
are understood, performed, celebrated, or even encouraged, in culturally specific
ways. It is the workings of these cultural markers, values, and processes that form
the focus of studies of the historical life course (see, for instance, and with further
bibliography Hin 2013; Pudsey 2011; Bongaarts and Potter 1983). Individuals, fam­
ilies, and local communities may note or celebrate in particular ways the reaching of
certain points in the life cycle, and record or mark them with symbolic or functional
objects such as jewellery or clothing, as we present throughout this volume. Population-­
wide patterns in mortality and marital fertility rates are impacted by societal trends
in, for instance, average age at first marriage for women and men, and average age at
first maternity (since these will increase or decrease the reproductive ‘window’
for women).
In the Roman and late antique periods, life course identities were structured
around first the socializations of infants, and then the development of social iden­
tities progressing from infant and child, to a more overtly gendered identity after
puberty. For women, an emphasis on nubility and fertility marks adolescence, and
for young men, the importance of entering the public sphere. This is followed by
assumption of fully adult status, then becoming an older adult; and finally death (sig-
nificant studies are Revell 2005; Harlow and Laurence 2002).4 Particular rituals will
have marked life course stages, and textual and some visual evidence for these in
Roman Egypt has been collated in a benchmark study (Montserrat 1996; see also
Nifosi 2019, 31–43, and on votives in particular across the wider Roman world,
Carroll 2018; Carroll and Graham 2014). Rituals at birth could include the accept-
ance of the child by the father and the achievement of the first forty days, and/or first
year of life.5 There is some evidence relating to male circumcision in Egypt, but it is
difficult to assess how widespread this practice may have been beyond male circum-
cision in the Jewish communities of Egypt (Nifosi 2019, 37–40; Montserrat 1996,
41–5). Its occasional occurrence is documented in local cultic contexts in the Fayyum
villages of Tebtynis and Soknopaiou Nesos, and there are only a few known instances
from the urban context, in the Oxyrhynchos papyri (Pudsey 2017, 229–30 with
papyrological references). There is no direct evidence of the practice of female geni-
tal cutting in Egypt of this period, in relation to cultic or religious practice, or other-
wise. It has been suggested (Huebner 2009) that three texts from third-­century
Oxyrhynchos mark such an event and its cultural celebration (P.Oxy. Hels. 50.17;
P.Oxy. LXVI 4542 and 4543), but this interpretation of these texts is a highly specula-
tive reading of a celebration that could refer to any number of age-­related rituals, for
instance hair-­cutting. For women, rituals around menarche and betrothal would

4 Further references with specific focus on individual life course events: Carroll 2011; Scheidel 2007;
Dixon 2001; Saller 1994; Rawson 2003 [1991]; Treggiari 1991; and for Egypt specifically, Nifosi 2019,
31–44; Pudsey 2011a, 2011b, 2013, and 2017; and Montserrat 1996.
5 See, for example, Rowlandson 1998, 296–7, cat. no. 232 (P.Oxy. XXXVI 2791), a second-­century ce
invitation for a celebration to mark a daughter’s first birthday, with discussion by Rowlandson.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

Introduction 5

make manifest the newly fertile body (Nifosi 2019, 34–43 extensively discusses
Egyptian, Greek, and Roman traditions) and those of various firsts, marriage, sex,
pregnancy, and childbirth, would mark the acquisition of a fully adult status which
also brought with it an elevation in social status within the community. As age pro-
gressed, status for women might potentially decline with the onset of menopause,
but be bolstered by the acquisition of grandchildren. Finally, death would be medi-
ated through funerary and burial rites.
It is important to stress that at a micro-­historical level, individuals and families
will have made decisions about life course rituals in line with personal and changing
circumstances and local cultural custom, as well as broader societal expectations.
Insight into some of these micro-­historical reproductive-­strategy decisions has high-
lighted that we cannot simply expect that the concerns and practices of individuals
and families were, necessarily, moving in tandem with those of more widely observed
or expected trends. This is particularly evident in the demographic data from Roman
Egypt for the first three centuries ce, where there are conflicting patterns in, for
instance, decisions for adult women around remarriage after divorce or widowhood,
and the extent and efficacy of deliberate and parity-­dependent birth control, or birth
spacing and breast-­feeding practices, within marriage (Pudsey 2012, 2011, in op­pos­
ition to Bagnall and Frier 2006, who argue for more typicality in such practices; also
Nifosi 2019; Montserrat 1996; more widely, Riley and McCarthy 2003). How in­di­vid­
uals viewed and responded to stages in the biological life course has huge signifi-
cance for the experience, agency, and world-­view of families and communities.

Design

Design theory can make an important contribution to the interpretation of arch­aeo­

logic­al artefacts, and this was explored in some depth in previous research by Swift
on provincial Roman artefacts (Swift 2017, 4–16). The concept of affordances is
important, that is, the perceived properties and qualities of artefacts that make pos-
sible, and incline people towards, specific uses (Swift 2017, 5; Norman 2002 [1988],
9). A study of affordances allows us to understand how objects could and could not
be used, what actions they might foster or enable, and what particular contexts of
use, and/or users, would most suit their specific properties and qualities. It thus
allows an insight into social experience and behaviour. Previous studies by Swift, for
example, of the affordances of reed pens and dice from Roman and late antique Egypt
(Swift 2017, 40–56 and 130–48), were illuminating with regard to the re­cre­ation of
aspects of gaming and gambling, and its diversity among different social groups.
How the changing features of practical tools, such as pens, affected the end-­products
(written texts) that they were used to create, was also explored, enabling insights into
processes of wider cultural change. When studying affordances, it is important to
emphasize a few pertinent factors (for more discussion, see Swift 2017, 5–10). Most
obviously, some of the affordances of objects will relate to the purpose for which an
artefact is made. They result from particular functional features that have been
included in order to facilitate particular uses. An object with a flat blade sharpened
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

6 A Social Archaeology of Roman and Late Antique Egypt

along one edge, for instance, is intended to be used as a cutting tool—it has an ‘affor-
dance’ for cutting. Yet objects also have affordances that do not relate to their principal
intended use, for instance the thin, yet robust, blade of the cutting tool could be
used to prise open a locked box. Affordances, then, can be both intentional and
unintentional from a design point of view. Objects also simultaneously have many
affordances, and these thus represent the potentiality for different uses according to
user perceptions of that object, whether at one time, or during its life­span of use.
Our research is also informed by studies of design assumptions (Swift 2017,
12–13; Preston 2013, 197–207; Whiteley 1993; Cockburn 1985, 28). The people who
make objects think they know how they will be used, and by whom, even if this is not
explicitly considered. The features that are given to the objects then reflect these
assumptions, in a largely unconscious process. A well-­known example from the
modern world is the making of safety features for cars, in which it has been assumed,
as part of the design process, either that the users will be men, or that women’s bod-
ies approximate well enough to men’s bodies to make it unimportant to specifically
consider use by women. This has meant that the resulting safety features do not
ad­equate­ly protect women, whose body shapes and sizes are significantly different
from men’s (Criado Perez 2019; Linder and Svedberg 2018).
As is evident from this particular example, assumptions often have a gender or age
dimension, and so are useful to explore particular attitudes and prejudices within a
society, particularly, who was judged to be an appropriate wearer or user of a certain
type of object. The design of objects can be inclusive for all—features can be included
that suit a wide range of physical attributes and competencies. It can also include
some people, and exclude others, by the assumptions that it makes about possible
users, or in the way that the design of the object is deliberately tailored to particular,
perceived categories of users. If we can establish from the features of an arch­aeo­
logic­al artefact who is included or excluded through its design features, this may
provide insights regarding the specific normative category of people who were felt to
be the appropriate users of that object (Swift 2017, 12–13). We can thus combine the
study of affordances with a consideration of how such affordances constitute design
assumptions about users. This is particularly productive for some of the objects
examined in this book, as it allows us to investigate the objects from a life course
perspective, that is, to examine how they were intended for people in particular gen-
der and age categories. This combination of approaches will be useful not only for
the dress objects studied in Part I, obviously scaled to bodily dimensions that relate
to gender and age, but also with regard to everyday functional objects considered in
Part II, such as sound-­making objects, and artefacts used for play by children.
Throughout this book, our analysis of artefacts of everyday life in Egypt under-
scores the importance of the relationship between biology and culture, across varied
points in the life course. As discussed above (pp. 3–5), cultural practices surrounding
life course events such as the birth of a new baby,6 or arrangements for circumcision

6 For example, SB XVI 12606 (third century ce), P.Mich. VIII 508 (second century ce), private letters
in which siblings and other family members discuss their involvement in an imminent birth; and
Montserrat 1996 for discussion of clothing and swaddling around birth.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

Introduction 7

of an infant,7 and of course preparation for burial of loved ones,8 are pivotal points in
the lives of individuals and families, and they all revolve around the conferral of status
aided by objects or textiles. By considering the life course alongside design perspec-
tives, we can thus embed artefacts within the social lives in which they once played
important roles (for a further example, see Swift 2017, 150–90 on Roman finger-­
rings with decorative motifs). The examination of dress objects in Part I brings to
light the importance of age, marital status, and social status attached to, and rein-
forced by, the production, use, and gifting of dress objects (Chapters 2–5). Much of
this material, though not exclusively, relates to points in the female life course from
childhood through adolescence, marriage, and later social standing, and is examined
in the particular contexts of a late Roman world where Christianity is the primary
cultural change which impacted on people’s lives. In Part II, the life course is a com-
mon thread running through our examination of everyday experience and domestic
life. As well as our consideration of children’s material culture in a specific chapter
(Chapter 9), we also explore the role played by textile-­working equipment in the
construction of the persona of the married woman (Chapter 8), and specific types of
sound-­making objects both as markers of age, and with regard to how they fostered
discrepant experiences for those of different ages (Chapter 10).

Object Biography

As we have already seen, following production, objects have an ongoing life. During
this period, their values, uses, and meanings may change (termed ‘object biography’:
see Kopytoff 1986). Artefacts may, for example, have the status of commodities dur-
ing parts of their meaningful lives but become inalienable objects for other parts.
They can be valued in many different ways: for their material components, their
function, their sentimental associations, and so on, and these values will vary and
take precedence over one another differently during the course of the artefact’s life. It
is important to emphasize that values will relate to how the object has functioned
within the social context. An object biography is not an account of passive meanings
applied to an artefact, but represents moments of social action in which it has been
involved (Stoner 2019, 1; Gosden and Marshall 1999, 170). Drawing on Kopytoff ’s
work, archaeological studies have utilized this approach to reveal new perspectives
on material evidence (for example Stoner 2019; Swift 2012b; Joy 2009; collected
papers in Gosden and Marshall 1999). Archaeological approaches have tended to
focus on production features, or concrete evidence of an artefact’s use-­life such as
wear marks or alterations (Joy 2009, 542). In this regard, studies of use-­wear are
important, though they have received more attention from prehistoric rather than

7 For example, P.Tebt. II 314 (second century ce) in which a woman appeals to the local strategos (the
highest local official) to request permission for the local priest to circumcise her 7-­year-­old son and
11-­year-­old nephew.
8 P.Oxy. VII 1068 (third century ce); P.Haun. II 17 (second century ce); W.Chr. 499 (second century
ce); P.Hamb. 74 (174 ce); P.Grenf. II 77 (third century ce); P.Oxy. VII 1068 (third century ce).
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

8 A Social Archaeology of Roman and Late Antique Egypt

historical archaeologists.9 It is important to note that while changes in use and meaning
may be reflected in modifications to the appearance of the artefact, they can also
occur in apparently unmodified objects (Gosden and Marshall 1999, 170). In this
volume, we take an artefact biography approach in two ways. First, in our documen-
tation and interpretation of evidence for use-­wear, repair, and other modifications to
artefacts, and second, in our wider consideration of the differing values that some
artefacts may have had at different periods within their lives in antiquity. We make
no apology for continuing to employ a well-­established approach that is so richly
productive, and captures so well the multiplicity of uses and meanings that a single
artefact may have enjoyed. Moreover, it is a perspective that has been largely overlooked
with regard to artefacts from Roman and late antique Egypt (for an exception, see
Stoner 2019).

Methodological Issues

In this section we first discuss our choice of object categories for study and then give
an overview of the nature of the collections from which the data set comes. This
includes the quality of information regarding site provenance and dating, and an
account of how we were able to re-­associate contextual information with extant arte-
fact assemblages for one particular site, Qau, in Middle Egypt.

Choice of Object Categories for Study

A wide range of object types were available for study. Since it was not possible to
include all of these within the scope of a funded project of limited duration, we chose
to focus on categories of objects that best enabled us to construct an interpretation of
everyday life from the perspective of social archaeology, and which also reflect the
strengths of the Petrie Museum collection.
In material culture studies, there is a history of division by functional category,
with publications focusing solely on one type of object or on a limited category, such
as dress objects. Clearly, there is a need to move beyond this, to achieve integrated
studies including different object categories. Such studies can potentially examine
social experience across a range of contexts and consider, where possible, how
objects work together within social situations. This is the approach we take in this
book. The two broad categories of objects chosen are dress objects and domestic
artefacts, both of which are important contributors to daily identities and ex­peri­ences.
In our view, it is important to consider them alongside one another as constituent
parts of the overall material culture assemblages through which people lived their
everyday lives. In taking a life course approach, dress objects offer rich potential, as
do the children’s artefacts that form one of the case studies (Chapter 9). How experi-
ence is conditioned by stages in the life course, and the experience of children in

9 Significant studies of use-­wear in Roman period artefacts: Swift 2017, 18–31; 2014; Biddulph 2008;
Peña 2007. Prehistoric studies are surveyed by Grace (1996).
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

Introduction 9

particular, is a strong theme throughout the book. Moreover, considering dress

objects alongside objects from the domestic environment in which they would have
been worn enables us to judge how wearing (or otherwise using) such objects would
affect some of the wider activities and experiences of daily life. There are two principal
sections: Part I, ‘Exploring the Social Functions of Dress Objects’; and Part II, ‘The
Domestic Realm and Everyday Experience’. Each begins with a general overview of a
wide range of relevant material (Chapters 2 and 7), followed by more in-­depth case
studies. In Part I, there are case studies of original string and bead assemblages
(Chapter 3), bracelets and torcs (Chapter 4), and shoes (Chapter 5), and in Part II,
textile tools (Chapter 8), children’s artefacts (Chapter 9), and sound-­making objects
(Chapter 10).10 In our selection of categories of objects for the detailed case studies, a
number of factors have been taken into account, including quality and quantity of
available material (discussed below, pp. 10–12), and our ability to contextualize the
material through surviving records, published data from similar sites, or wider infor-
mation, for instance textual sources. Beyond this, we have been led by the artefact
types that offered the greatest potential for meaningful in-­depth analysis and inter-
pretation of social experience.
Coverage within each part is not designed to be comprehensive. We have made no
attempt, for example, to cover every type of dress object to the same depth, although
there is an overview of the broad range of dress accessories used within the periods
of study in the Introduction to Part I (Chapter 2). This is because the book is inter-
pretative rather than primarily descriptive in its approach—the aim is to go beyond
simply documenting different categories of material and describing their appearance
and physical features. In addition, not all object categories offer the same potential
for analysis, partly because of the nature of the collection, originating as it does
mostly from nineteenth- and early twentieth-­century excavations (discussed below,
pp. 10–13). Our approach is deliberately selective, with comprehensive case studies,
rather than blanket coverage at a more superficial level. The scope we have chosen
permits us to bring together our interpretations within a framework of the social and
cultural history of Roman and late antique Egypt: the everyday life and concerns of
the populations of Egypt in the period.
To reiterate: this book is an interpretation of artefact evidence, rather than a cata-
logue of objects from the Petrie Museum. Although some information about indi-
vidual artefacts is included in the figure captions and in tables, and lists of artefacts are
available in the Appendices, we have generally not included detailed catalogue-­style
descriptions of individual artefacts. A complete, if very basic, catalogue of artefacts is
available as an online resource via the Petrie Museum website. As part of our wider
project, we have provided the Petrie Museum with information to update many of
these individual catalogue entries, as discussed below (pp. 12–13), although the updated
catalogue entries were not yet live at time of writing. Readers who would like more

10 We have chosen not to credit individual authors in the chapter titles, since the book takes an inte-
grated approach, and most chapters have significant contributions from more than one author; however,
the lead author for chapters/sections is as follows: Ellen Swift, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, and 12; Jo
Stoner, Chapters 5, 7, and 8, and section on red thread in Chapter 3; April Pudsey, Chapter 9, and section
‘Egypt in the Roman and Late Antique Periods’ in Chapter 1.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

10 A Social Archaeology of Roman and Late Antique Egypt

detail on individual objects can use the search function of the online catalogue at
http://petriecat.museums.ucl.ac.uk/ to search for the object accession numbers refer-
enced in the text (each beginning with the letters UC), which will bring up further
information including illustrations of each object.11 Additional information about
beads in particular is also available from index cards completed by an early scholar
of the collections, Xia Nai, available at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/digital-­
collections/collections/xianai as well as additional photographs of some bead assem-
blages from online illustrations to Xia Nai’s study, posthumously published (Xia 2014)
at http://extras.springer.com/2014/978-­3-­642-­54867-­3.12

Data Quality Issues in Studying Older Collections

As already noted, the majority of our data comes from the Petrie Museum, supple-
mented by objects from other museums and published data. The general quality of
the data in museums stemming from late nineteenth- and early twentieth-­century
excavations and object collecting in Egypt is, unsurprisingly, not very good.
Recording of contextual information was poor for excavated objects, and even where
it originally existed, it has often subsequently become detached from the artefacts or
lost altogether. Sometimes a site provenance is preserved. Objects that were pur-
chased from antiquities dealers frequently have very little information other than
that they were acquired in Egypt. Although problematic in the same ways as other
collections, the Petrie Museum data is among the best, in terms of the quality avail­
able, because so much of it comes from the excavation of known sites, however
poorly recorded. Moreover, as we will see below, a certain amount of contextual
information can be reconstructed for some artefacts.
The Petrie Museum was founded as a result of the excavations in Egypt of a pi­on­
eer­ing archaeologist and Egyptologist, Flinders Petrie. A large part of the museum
collection consists of objects from his campaigns of excavation.13 These objects stem
either from his own collection (which also included antiquities bought in Egypt from
dealers), or from that of Amelia Edwards, an important sponsor of his work
(Stevenson and Challis 2015, 13–14). Many excavated artefacts were given to private
sponsors by Petrie, on the subscription model, in recognition of their support (often
eventually making their way into museum collections), others were dispersed to
museums worldwide.14 University College London took over the collection in 1915
and artefacts continued to be added to it from further excavations and private collec-
tions (Stevenson and Challis 2015, 15–19). The most important of these subsequent
excavations for the purposes of this book are the excavations by Petrie’s associate,

11 This can also be done for some of the objects from other museums referred to in the text; see list of
websites in the bibliography for relevant online museum collections.
12 Most of this documentation relates to dynastic period beads, but some Roman and late antique
material is included.
13 For an overview of early excavations in Egypt, see Quirke 2010, 19–23.
14 The ‘Artefacts of Excavation’ website of the Griffiths Institute collates information about the dispersal
of the excavation material; see http://egyptartefacts.griffith.ox.ac.uk/.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

Introduction 11

Guy Brunton, at the sites of Qau, Mostagedda, and Matmar.15 As with Petrie’s own
material, the objects from these sites are also now held in collections worldwide, and
only a fraction remains in the Petrie Museum’s holdings.
In the first instance, many of the objects that constituted UCL’s newly formed
Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology were stored without cataloguing, and so
site associations were sometimes lost (Stevenson and Challis 2015, 16). This is espe-
cially unfortunate for the Roman and late antique material in the collection, since
there is very little published concerning the excavations. Although, in principle,
Petrie recognized the importance of recording contextual information, unfortunately,
his overriding interest in dynastic Egyptian sites contributed to poor recording of
Roman and late antique contexts. There are very few references to material from the
latter periods in site reports, even for sites where we know Petrie excavated what he
thought were Roman graves (many were late antique), and from which many Roman
and late antique period finds are extant, such as Lahun and Gurob (Petrie, Brunton,
and Murray 1923; Petrie 1890). The Roman and late antique sites that were excavated
by Brunton were better recorded and published, and so some contextual information
is available, for instance descriptions of grave contents. However, relatively few of
these descriptions can be linked to extant finds.16
All this means that the information available about individual finds in the Petrie
Museum collection is very variable. We can assume that most of the material comes
from grave contexts, since the Roman or late antique sites excavated by Petrie and his
associates were cemeteries. Many objects have a provenance that is the name of an
excavated site, dug either by Petrie or by others who worked in Egypt. We can thus
identify fairly well some of the material that is likely to stem from excavation,
although we need to bear in mind that false attribution to known sites was some-
times practised by dealers in order to make objects more desirable to collectors (see
discussion in Chapter 5). Objects that do not have a site provenance could come
from either excavation or purchase. In some cases, we have been able to successfully
re-­associate objects with no provenance on the online catalogue with a particular
excavated site in Egypt, using information that has been kept with the objects or
which is available from archive documentation.17 This evidence of ‘unprovenanced’
objects actually coming from excavated sites (most of them excavated by Petrie him-
self) makes it more likely that some of the other ‘unprovenanced’ finds also originally
came from the same excavated sites. Some of the objects with no provenance infor-
mation, however, will have come from antiquities dealers or private collections. We
know that Petrie bought objects while in Egypt, and presumably items donated from
other private collections were given to the museum because they were believed to be

15 For information on Brunton, see http://egyptartefacts.griffith.ox.ac.uk/people/guy-­brunton.

16 Brunton 1948, 1937, 1930, 1928, 1927. See n. 13 for examples where objects described in the site
reports could be identified within museum collections.
17 For example, UC51670, a necklace, site provenance of Ghita (‘Gheyta’) specified on Xia card 581;
UC40984, a spindle and whorl, site provenance of Gurob written in pencil on the object; UC2444, stone
bowl fragment, site provenance of Hawara scratched on object; UC34439, UC58614, UC58629, UC58648,
UC58641, UC58650, all combs with site provenance of Wushym (Karanis) written in pencil on the objects.
This information has now been added to the Petrie Museum’s database although these updates were not
yet live at time of writing.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/09/21, SPi

12 A Social Archaeology of Roman and Late Antique Egypt

from Egypt. It is therefore likely, but not certain, that these unprovenanced objects
originated in Egypt.
For some of the object categories that we have chosen to study (see above), suffi-
cient material exists in the Petrie collection that we have been able to use mostly
accessioned finds from known excavated sites. For example, this is the case for the
original string and bead assemblages studied, where only a small proportion have no
site provenance. For most of the object types, however, excluding items without a
site provenance would significantly reduce the quantity of data available for study.
We have chosen, therefore, to include some unprovenanced items, but always along-
side objects that are from known sites, with the latter the focus of our investigation
where possible. In many cases, unprovenanced objects can be assessed as very likely
to have an Egyptian provenance by comparison with other, better-­provenanced finds
from the Petrie collection or elsewhere. A similar process of evaluation was under-
taken with comparative material of questionable provenance from other museums
included in our data studies.
Many, but not all of the objects in the Petrie Museum collection are assigned a
broad date on the online catalogue, largely on the basis of initial attributions on exca-
vation. The relevant period divisions used by the Petrie Museum are:

Early Roman: 30 bce–149 ce

Middle Roman: 150–249 ce
Late Roman: 250–395 ce
Byzantine: 395–641 ce

Although these categories were used in the initial selection of objects for study, and
are broadly correct in identifying objects that belong approximately to the period
between 30 bce and 641 ce, specific date attributions from the online catalogue
have not been taken at face value for individual objects, and where they appear in
our text are placed in quotation marks. For some of the material under study (includ-
ing that from other museums used as a supplement to the Petrie Museum data) we
have been able to establish more accurate date ranges, for instance by reference to
comparable artefacts from other sites with better context information. We have also
been able to suggest dates for some objects which previously had no date range speci-
fied at all. It is evident from this work that the previous dates on the online catalogue
were generally too early, as noted above (some have now been updated with our new
information although this was not yet live at time of writing). Further information is
given on this in the relevant data chapters.
As to further details of archaeological context, we mentioned above (pp. 10–11) that
some of the sites excavated by Guy Brunton have associated publications with infor-
mation about individual grave assemblages. In some cases, the association between
the object and the tomb number had been preserved in museum records, so a few
extant objects had details of their archaeological context.18 For instance, tomb numbers

18 All the assemblages we have studied come from individual grave deposits rather than collective
tombs and so are described as graves; however ‘tomb number’ and ‘tomb card’ are retained in line with the
original publications and archive terminology.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.