Material Evidence of the Early Christian Occupation in the Great Temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak.

 evaporation, but also in order to filter the liquid, which was re- plete with sand and silt, as it was taken mainly from the Nile. The in situ examples of jar stands highlight their central position in the house, providing, as they did, constant access to drinkable water. In a region where domes- tic architecture was generally built in raw materials such as dried mud bricks, it was para- mount not to let this dripping water spread onto surrounding structures. During the Byzantine pe- riod, two types of jar stands were used, both with the abil- ity to hold several ceramic ves- sels. The first kind was made of stone (Strzygowski 1904: 88–93, nos. 7374–7387; Bénazeth and Rutschowscaya 2000: 39, no. 3), and can be considered charac- teristic of later Egyptian mate- rial culture generally, as it was Figure 1. Byzantine remains in the temenos of the Ptah Temple. The locations of the two complete in situ jar stands are highlighted. used from the Ptolemaic to the Arabic periods (Badawy 1967: NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 82.4 (2019) 211  Figure 2. Jar stand 179.8674-0202. Photograph © CNRS-CFEETK, A. Rubi. Figure 3. Jar stand 179.8903-01. Photograph © CNRS-CFEETK, E. Saubestre. 58–61; Strzygowski 1904: 88). Nevertheless, it is important to (Strzygowski 1904: 240–41, num. Inv. 9034, 9035, 9036). While point out that such stone stands were also used as libation tables the stone stands received mainly floral decoration, sometimes during the Graeco-Roman period. These have their origins in covering the whole surface, the terracotta variety showed diver- Pharaonic offering tables. Such libation tables broadly had the sity in artistic motifs. The four stands here under consideration shape of a temple roof with its tori, cornices, and gargoyles—this are of this latter, ceramic type. last addition enabling the evacuation of flowing water (Badawy As very few example of this type of object are known, it is dif- 1978: 190). ficult to assert it was a regular piece of furniture in the contem- The second type of stand was modeled in clay and then fired. porary Egyptian house. Nevertheless, one can observe that the It shows a quadrangular form punctuated at the top by two or four jar stands discovered around the Ptah temple are relatively three cavities intended to hold the water jars. If these stone and important considering the six units found in this sector. Fur- terracotta types share functional similarity, their overall shape thermore, the high number of jar stands discovered also points and style of decoration are clearly different. Indeed, the decora- to the fact that it was not highly regarded as a precious piece of tive complexity of the stone stands differs strongly from the sim- furniture, such that inhabitants were not averse to leaving them plicity and rusticity of the decoration in terracotta. However, it behind when abandoning their houses. Their size and fragility is important to notice the greater variety of symbols on the latter must also have been a reason not to relocate with them. Finally, 212 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 82.4 (2019)  The central symbol represented is a fish (a symbol so far not seen on the other stands) accompanied by a grape and a palm branch. Like the majority of symbols recorded so far, the fish has its origins in traditional Graeco-Roman iconography. Nev- ertheless, as a Christian symbol, it has to be considered as one of the oldest. A comparison is found on the stelae of Licinia Amias dating to the beginning of the third century CE (Spier 2007: 70, fig. 51). Another example comes from the catacomb Domitilla in Rome, where the two fish there depicted are associated with an anchor (Mancinelli 1999: 27, fig. 52). The origin of the use of the fish as a symbol for Christ is sub- ject to several hypotheses. One of them proposes that it arose from an acrostic, which is explained by St. Augustine: “But if you join the initial letters of these five Greek words, ᾿Ιησοῦς Χρίστος Θεοῦ υἰὸς σωτήρ, which means, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Sav- ior, they will make the word ἰχθὺς, that is, fish, in which word Christ is mystically understood, because He was able to live, that is, to exist, without sin in the abyss of this mortality as in the depth of waters” (St. Augustine, The City of God, 18.23).1 Never- theless, amongst the researchers who agree with this hypothesis, it is hotly debated whether the acrostic fed into the symbol or Figure 6. Jar stand 179.8612-10. Photograph © CNRS-CFEETK, E. Saubestre. vice versa (Marthaler 2003: 747). While it is not within the scope of this work to contemplate the topic, the debate highlights the complexity of the study of these symbols and their origins. parallel in contemporary ‘pagan’ imagery calls for a less distinct separation between ‘Christian’ and ‘Pagan’ in the 3rd to early 4th Jar Stand no. 179.8612-10 centuries AD” (Jensen 2000: 62). We also have to keep in mind that the Christian believer probably did not abandon all beliefs This jar stand (fig. 6) is the least complete. Due to the lack and symbols that we could define as “pagan” (Dunand, Zivie- of matching joints with scattered fragments found in the neigh- Coche 2006: 422–27). For example, magic was a vital part of his/ boring room, we cannot say with certainty that these fragments her spiritual world. What could be described as superstition and represent a single individual object. So, only a fragment of its might seem paradoxical to our modern eyes is well documented frontal part can be discussed here. The length is 23 cm, the thick- by ostraca bearing magical texts (Bénazeth and Rutschowscaya ness 2.5 cm, and the height 28 cm. The semicircular frontal aper- 2000: figs. 91–95). ture is also persevered here, as mentioned for both 179.8674-02 Taking this into account, it is less surprising to encounter and 179.8832-01. On the surface appear grapes and a palm tree Pharaonic symbols on a Christian object. Moreover, although it branch as seen on all the other jar stands. As already noted, these is so far impossible to have any certainty as to the exact meaning two symbols stem from classical symbolism, which was appro- of the use of these patterns, one can advance a hypothesis. Based priated by Christian iconography. on the well-attested concept that Christians during that time had not abandoned certain parts of their traditional beliefs, they may Discussion have used such symbols in order to gain the benefit of its magi- cal powers, thus combining Christian and traditional symbols As has already been highlighted, one of the main peculiari- for more efficiency. Placed on a stand dedicated to bearing water ties of the jar stands presented here is their decoration. If there jars, we may then propose that these symbols served a prophy- is supposedly no doubt as to the Christian conviction of their lactic purpose, the diversity of symbols illustrating the variety of owners, it can be surprising to find the Pharaonic symbol of belief, especially if we consider the idea that the decoration re- a sun disk with two uraei associated with the Christian cross. sults from a special request to the potter. If this everyday life ob- The former symbol can be considered as “pagan,” but this word ject is never mentioned in any text, it seems quite logical that all has a strong connection to a specific religious belief. At this means to keep the water source healthy were brought into play. point, the endless debate about the use of the word “pagan” is In this sense, some protection may have come from the decora- evoked, but also about the relationship between “traditional/ tion on the stand. classical culture” and Christianity. While hagiographers and Finally, the discovery of New Kingdom stelae dedicated to the coeval Christian literature from this period describe this rela- sacred animal of Amun around one of the jar stands presented tionship as confrontational (Emmel 2008), after a closer look at here may reflect the same idea. This very rare discovery of con- the documentation, one could assume that the situation was far textualized objects is subsequently highlighting aspects of reli- more nuanced (Bagnall 1988: 285). And indeed, “the fact that gious beliefs in a time of transition scarcely known through tex- many of the most popular early Christian images have a clear tual documentation. More than any other evidence, the objects 214 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 82.4 (2019)  David, Romain. 2013. La céramique d’un habitat du Ve siècle à Karnak. presented here bear witness to the complexity of the evolution Cahiers de Karnak 14: 287–97. of beliefs, melding new religious practice with old, but not yet ———. 2017. Karnak au début de la période byzantine: caractérisation rejecting traditional habits. d’une production locale. Pp. 963–74 in LCRW 5–2, Late Ro- man Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Medi- Acknowledgments terranean, ed. Delphine Dixneuf. ÉtAlex 43. Alexandria: Cen- tre d’études alexandrines. The author would like to thank the Minister of Antiquities Dijkstra, Jitse H. F., ed. 2008. Philae and the End of the Ancient Egyptian Khaled el-Enany, his colleagues Mohamed Abd el-Aziz, general Religion. OLA 173. Leuven: Peeters. director of Upper Egypt Antiquities, Badri Abd al-Sattar, co- Dinkler, Erich. 1951. Zur Geschichte des Kreuzsymbols. Zeitschrift für director of the CFEETK, Mostafa es-Saghir, general manager Theologie und Kirche 48.2: 148–72. of the Karnak temples, the directors of the temples of Karnak, Dunand Françoise, and Christiane Zivie-Coche, ed. 2006. Homme et and the MoA inspectors for their daily support and help. He dieux en Égypte 3000 av. J.C.–395 apr. J.C. Paris: Colin. would also like to thank Christophe Thiers, co-director of the Durand, Benjamin. in press. Un lot de stèles dédiées aux animaux sacrés CFEETK, and Guillaume Charloux, CNRS, for their scientific d’Amon dans le secteur du temple de Ptah à Karnak. Chro- support and supervision. He would like to thank the specialists nique d’Égypte 94.187. involved in the study: Mona Ali Abady, Lucie Antoine, Marie Emmel, Stephen. 2008. Shenoute of Atripe and the Christian Destruc- Antoine, Camille Bourse, Louis Dautais, Romain David, Anto- tion of Temples in Egypt: Rhetoric and Reality. Pp. 161–201 nin Durand, Ahmed Mohamed Sayed Elnasseh, Kevin Guadag- in From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local nini, Amandine Madelpèche, Paul Megard, Florie Pirou, Rim Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, ed. Johannes Hahn, Ste- Saleh, and Émilie Saubestre. He would like to thank Barbora phen Emmel, and Ulrich Gotter. Leiden: Brill. Janulikova for her precious help to improve the English writing. Grégoire, Henry. 1932. La statue de Constantin et le signe de la croix. The archaeological project of the Ptah temple operates under the L’Antiquité Classique 1.1–2: 135–43. auspices of the CNRS, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jensen, Margaret R., ed. 2000. Understanding Early Christian Art. Lon- the MoA, attached researcher at UMR 5140 “Archéologie des so- don: Routledge. ciétés méditerranéennes” (Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3) Mancinelli, Fabrizio, ed. 1999. The Catacombs of Rome and the Origins and the University of Montpellier 3-Labex Archimede IA-ANR- of Christianity. Florence: Scala. II-LABX-0032-01. Website: www.cfeetk.cnrs.fr/ Marthaler, Berard L., ed. 2003. The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Wash- ington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. Note Meunier, Henri, and Maurice. Pillet. 1929. Les édifices chrétiens de Kar- 1. New Advent (website), The City of God, book 18: http://www.newad- nak. REA 2: 58–88. vent.org/fathers/120118.htm. Shier, Louise A., ed. 1978. Terracotta Lamps from Karanis, Egypt. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology Studies 3. Ann Arbor: University of References Michigan Press. Spier, Jeffrey. 2007. Picturing the Bible: The Earliest Christian Art. New Anus, Pierre, and Ramadan Sa’ad. 1969. Fouille aux abords de l’enceinte Haven: Yale University Press. occidentale à Karnak. Kêmi 19: 219–39. Strzygowski, Josef, ed. 1904. Catalogue Général des Antiquités égypti- Badawy, Alexandre. 1967. The Prototype of the Coptic Water-Jug Stand. ennes du musée du Caire, Koptische Kunst. Vienna. Archaeology 20: 56–61. Thiers, Christophe, and Pierre Zignani. 2013. Le domaine du temple ———, ed. 1978. Coptic Art and Archaeology: The Art of the Christian de Ptah à Karnak, premières données de terrain. Cahiers de Egyptians from the Late Antique to the Middle Ages. Cam- Karnak 14: 493–513. bridge, MA: MIT Press. Bagnall, Roger. 1988. Combat ou vide: Christianisme et paganisme dans l’Égypte romaine tardive. Ktèma 13: 285–96. Bénazeth, Dominique, and Marie-Hélène Rutschowscaya, eds. 2000. Benjamin Durand is a PhD researcher at L’art copte en Égypte, 2000 ans de christianisme: exposition the University Paul-Valéry Montpellier présentée à l’Institut du monde arabe, Paris, du 15 mai au 3 III (France), specializing in Near Eastern septembre 2000 et au Musée de l’Ephèbe au Cap d’Agde, du 30 archaeology. Working on a large geo- septembre 2000 au 7 janvier 2001. Paris: Gallimard. graphical area and favoring diachronic Charloux, Guillaume, Benjamin Durand, Mona Abadi, and Ahmed approach, his study has lead him to Nasseh. 2017. Le domaine du temple de Ptah à Karnak. Nou- work in the Amun temple in Karnak and velles données de terrain. Cahiers de Karnak 16: 93–120. the Amenhotep III temple (site of the so Chrzanovsky, Laurent, ed. 2015. Ex Oriente Lux: Des lampes phéni- called “Memnon colossus”) in Egypt, as ciennes aux lumières de l’Islam. Catalogue d’exposition, Uni- well as in the oasis of al-Bad‘ (ancient versité de Genève, 3–27 novembre 2015. Geneva: Université de Madian) in Saudi Arabia. Genève. NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 82.4 (2019) 215