When it comes to the architecture of Graeco-Roman Egypt, just as with artistic and artisan production, we encounter a cohabitation of different styles, ‘‘classical’’ and Egyptian. The former tends to be typical of building types that did not exist in the Pharaonic period, such as piazzas, porticoed streets, public baths, fountains, hippodromes, perhaps gymnasia, and temples dedicated to non-Egyptian deities and to the imperial cult. Egyptian style dominates temple architecture. From the second century bc there developed a third architectural style that one might characterize as ‘‘Graeco-Alexandrian,’’ in which certain aspects of the Egyptian tradition were fused with aspects of the classical tradition (Pensabene 1991: 44). This third style was employed particularly in funerary contexts and in sanctuaries dedicated to Serapis. Surviving buildings of ‘‘classical’’ style are few in number, although their former presence throughout all Egypt is shown by surviving stone architectural fragments and columns, largely re-used in buildings of the Byzantine and Islamic Periods (Bailey 1990: 134-5; Pensabene 1993). A survey and history of non-Egyptian style temple architecture in Egypt remain to be written.
According to Bailey (1990: 121), the archaeological remains from the Roman Period demonstrate the extent to which the architecture of that period was similar to that of other provinces. In particular one notes the introduction of decorative forms from Asia Minor from the second century ad, leading one to hypothesize that there were non-Egyptian craftsmen active in the province. This is also a period that sees the use of imported marble from the Proconnesian quarries. Buildings of ‘‘classical’’ style were certainly concentrated in the poleis and the nome capitals, settlements that had the highest proportion of occupants with Greek cultural backgrounds. Even in these places the archaeological remains are few, and one has to trust in reconstruction drawings to gain an appreciation of the likely appearance of such edifices, or to written documents that attest to their existence. Study of the architectural orders (Ionic, Doric, and Corinthian) employed is almost entirely limited to analysis of remaining architectural fragments, a fact that limits any comprehensive evaluation of the styles of the buildings in question. The nature of architectural decoration in funerary contexts suggests that different styles might be combined in the same structure (Pensabene 1993: 57).
Our reconstruction of Alexandria reveals a city built according to criteria, and in architectural styles, that were ‘‘classical.’’ To a great extent this image is the result of descriptions passed down by ancient authors and of discoveries that have been made at various times and in different parts of the modern city. However, the idea that, because Alexandria was inhabited by non-Egyptians, it reflected only Hellenistic culture in its styles and symbols of royal power and religion, is one that must be reconsidered in the light of the recent underwater investigations in the Grand Harbor, as noted above (Empereur 1998: 64-80; Goddio and Clauss 2006: 82-4).
Little survives of the Serapeum, one of the most important cult places of Alexandria, founded by Ptolemy III and subsequently reconstructed and extended in the Roman Period. It was located near the so-called ‘‘Pompey’s Pillar,’’ a column dedicated to the emperor Diocletian. A reconstruction of the Serapeum has been proposed (McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes 2004) based on the foundations and the few extant fragments. The surviving elements show a porticoed enclosure that contained not only the peripteral temple itself but also other buildings. Doric friezes, Corinthian capitals, and possible Ionic elements provide evidence for a complex of buildings of‘‘classical’’ style, but with Egyptian influence. The latter is attested by the foundation deposits of the temple, the Nilometer, two obelisks, sphinxes, and statues in Egyptian style. The statues depict both Ptolemaic rulers and a variety of Pharaohs, the latter having been brought from Heliopolis.
Decorative elements from the Lageion, the stadium, show that it was located south-west of the Serapeum. It was founded by Ptolemy I and used through the Roman Period as a hippodrome as well as an athletics venue. A hippodrome was also built at Antinoopolis outside the city walls. As a Roman city, Antinoopolis too appears to have had public buildings of‘‘classical’’ style, and some of their remains still existed in the Napoleonic period. Like Alexandria, Antinoopolis was traversed by a colonnaded street, leading to the theatre which today is destroyed. It also had a triumphal arch near the port. Oxyrhynchos had a colonnaded street too and a Roman Period theatre (Petrie estimated it had a capacity of 11,000 people) with columns of the Corinthian order (Bailey 1990: 122-3).
The komasterion of Hermopolis was sub-divided into 8 naves, with 54 Aswan granite columns with Corinthian capitals. Its facade had 14 columns and a staircase for access (Bailey 1991: 56-9). Such structures were the buildings from which religious processions would depart, and so they were located on or near the dromos and the temple. Other buildings connected with temples were deipneteria, meeting rooms for religious associations, opening onto the dromos. Members would gather in them to eat and drink when religious festivals and processions were being held. A row of deipneteria was established on each side of the dromos at Tebtynis in the second century ad (Rondot 2004: 144-6) and in front of the south temple at Karanis (Davoli 1998: 79). These structures are characterized by a rectangular or square plan and masonry benches that run the length of the walls. However, little is known of the appearance of the elevation of such buildings.
A stoa with porticoes of the Corinthian order on three sides is still preserved at Narmouthis (Medinet Madi), built in the Roman Period in front of the contra temple (or temple B), dedicated to Hermouthis and dating to the second century bc (Giammarusti 2006a: 58). A paved square, surrounded by a first century ad colonnaded portico and rebuilt in the late Roman Period, was discovered at Marina el-Alamein. Gymnasia and palaestrae are only attested in inscriptions (for example, at Alexandria, Antinoopolis, Pharbaithos, Philadelphia, Sebennytos, Thebes, and Theadelphia), and so we know nothing of their architectural character. Monumental gates located at the ends of the main streets at Alexandria, Antinoopolis, and Hermopolis are also only known from written sources. Triple triumphal arches occurred both at Antinoopolis and Philae, the latter decorated with pilasters topped by Doric capitals. An arch with a single passageway, now partly buried, existed at Qasr, in the Bahria oasis (Pensabene 1993: 32-4).
Tetrastyla and honorific columns seem to been relatively common in cities of the Roman Period. However, like the other monuments discussed, there are few of them that survive even partially complete. One example is the column of Diocletian at Alexandria mentioned above. This is 28 m high and was topped with a statue of the emperor, perhaps the porphyry example now in the Graeco-Roman Museum at Alexandria (Empereur 1998: 100-9). There were another two tetrastyla of the late Roman Period inside the Roman fortress at Luxor. The great tetrastylon at Hermopolis Magna was 24 m tall, also with Corinthian capitals, and is the oldest example known to date (Bailey 1990: 130). Papyri and inscriptions mention an honorific column and a tetrastyle at Oxyrhynchos, but only the base of a column with deep foundations is visible there today.
Figure 19.5 A tholos of the public bath at Qasr el-Banat/Euhemeria, Fayum. Courtesy Paola Davoli.
Baths are among the best-preserved public buildings (Pensabene 1993: 19-25) and were used in even small provincial cities from the Hellenistic Period onwards. Nevertheless, a systematic study of these buildings remains to be written. The Greek tholos-type was very common, often double, for men and women. Many bath buildings of this type are known from the small towns of the Fayum and the Delta (as examples: Buto, Kom el-Ahmar, Krokodilopolis, Dionysias, Euhemeria, Marina el-Alamein, Sakha, Theadelphia). The floors, with pebble mosaics, are often preserved. In the Roman Period, besides the tholos-type baths, bath buildings with rooms heated by hypocaust were also built (Karanis, Tell Sirsina, Trimithis). The example known at Alexandria is particularly impressive, constructed in baked brick to an axially symmetrical plan (Kolataj 1992).
Just as there is no fixed typology of Graeco and Roman cities in Egypt, so there is no uniform typology of domestic architecture. This too varies regionally. Many types of house are attested in written documents (Husson 1983), from artistic depictions and from archaeological evidence. Such variety must have its origins in local traditions as well as in house forms that are not entirely Egyptian. Houses in Graeco-Roman settlements were built as separate individual structures, unlike urban houses of the Pharaonic period, which often share outer walls, particularly in the case of row houses. The construction of separate houses meant that they were more stable and thus often able to have multiple storeys. These houses tended to have a very compact square or rectangular plan and to taper towards the top to such an extent that they might be described as ‘‘tower houses.’’ They have internal staircases, built around a central pillar and typically located in a corner. This type of house is widespread in the Fayum (Davoli 1998: 355-8; Hadji-Minaglou 2007: 179-82). It is laid out on multiple levels, one of them a basement or semi-basement divided into small barrel-vaulted rooms used for storing food. The ceilings of the other floors typically are flat, with wooden beams made of palm trunks covered with palm mats. The existence of three floors above the basement level is attested at Karanis, the top floor perhaps being an open terrace (Husselman 1979: 67-73). There was no internal courtyard in houses of this type, and the windows were small openings with embrasures to diffuse the light on their inner side. These were houses adapted to suit desert environments, where protection from heat, sand, and wind are necessary. Kitchens were usually located outside in open courtyards protected by enclosure walls. Such a typology predominates in the settlements of the Fayum from the Hellenistic through the Roman Period, and, in my opinion, represents the evolution of a type of urban house known as early as the New Kingdom (see the chapter by G. Mumford in this volume). The construction techniques used are local, deeply rooted in Egyptian tradition, but sometimes decorative elements made of stone, stucco or paint, are found that reflect a Hellenistic culture (Husselman 1979: 47-8, pls. 72-3).
Another type of house can be defined on the basis of its plan, typically more articulate, and by structural characteristics that imply that it was built with a single storey of rooms, with a roof terrace that could be accessed by a staircase inside the house. Buildings of this sort generally lack basement rooms/storerooms. Examples of such houses dating to the Roman Period were found at Dionysias, Theadelphia, and Narmouthis in the Fayum. Their interior decoration is of Hellenistic type, and another distinctive feature is the large central room with pilasters topped with Alexandrian-style stone capitals. These rooms can, perhaps, be interpreted as triclinia (Davoli 1998: 355).
Rescue excavations in Alexandria have revealed houses of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods. These have plans and decor that derive from Greek and Roman traditions, with internal peristyle courtyards surrounded by rooms richly decorated with mosaic pavements (some of Macedonian style) and wall paintings. The mosaics found in the triclinia of Alexandrian houses of the Roman Period are distinctive in that they have a plain, undecorated, band that forms a border around three walls of the room. Couches would have been placed over these bands, so their decoration was unnecessary (Majcherek 2003). The triclinia were the largest rooms in houses of this kind, and access from the internal court was through a tripartite monumental entrance.
Houses with peristyle or pseudo-peristyle courts are also known from Marina el-Alamein. These were built entirely of limestone blocks, with limestone floors too. The interior walls were plastered with lime and often painted. There were niches and architraves also richly decorated in Alexandrian style. The column capitals of the peristyles were of the Ionic and Corinthian orders, the former often painted. These houses also had basement storerooms roofed with barrel vaults and perfect thermal insulation made up of layers of sand and amphorae laid horizontally. A system for collecting rain water filled underground cisterns and a series of small channels connecting to a latrine allowed waste water to be flushed away. The presence of steps implies the existence of a second storey (Daszewski 1995: 20-4).
Houses of the fourth century with an articulate plan and a large external courtyard have been discovered at Kellis (Dakhla oasis). They appear to have been single-storey structures without basement (Hope 1997). The public and private architecture of the fourth century at urban sites in the Dakhla oasis such as Kellis and Trimithis is particularly rich, both in purely architectural terms and in its decoration. These are buildings made of mud-brick, often with interior decoration of polychrome paintings on a thin layer of stucco, and with appliques of gilded gesso. A private house at Trimithis had four painted rooms, one of them with superimposed rows of figures including Greek mythological motifs (Bagnall, Davoli, Kaper, and Whitehouse 2006: 26-8). Great residential complexes of the second-third century, with more than twenty rooms, have been identified and partially excavated at Kellis. It is not possible to evaluate fully their plans and functions, but they are made up of large rooms painted in bright colors with plant motifs and geometric figures imitating alabaster and opus sectile veneers, with figures depicted on tiles and panels (Hope & Whitehouse 2006). There are also painted columns. One of these vast building complexes, only partly excavated, had more than 200 rooms on two levels. The civil and funerary architecture of Dakhla and Kharga make little use of wood, in contrast to the situation in the Fayum, where it is used in walls and ceilings. The roof forms used most often are vaults and domes, with heavy use of pot-sherds for chinking between mudbricks.
Archaeological excavation on the trade and communication routes of the Eastern Desert and the Red Sea ports shows that the architecture of this area was poor, with forts the only monumental architecture. Construction materials used in Egypt vary throughout Egypt for practical reasons, according to availability and, above all, climate. Mud-brick predominates in public and private architecture of the oases and Nile Valley, while in the Delta and on the Mediterranean coast, extensive use was made of squared blocks of local limestone fitted together with lime plaster or mortar. In the settlements of the Eastern Desert unworked stone was the principal material, laid dry or with a little mortar made of mud. Baked brick is found throughout all of Egypt but it was never used in great quantity because of the large amounts of wood needed to fire it.
Thus, to conclude: the territory of Egypt was extensively occupied and cultivated in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, and areas such as the western and eastern deserts and the Red Sea and Mediterranean coasts, which had been subjected to little or no systematic exploitation in earlier periods, were organized by the opening of new routes of communication, and urbanized. Large-scale regional land-reclamation projects were begun early in the Ptolemaic Period and continued into the Roman Period, allowing maximum agricultural exploitation of the countryside, with the consequent foundation of new settlements. Egypt’s entry into a greater, Mediterranean-focused trade system provided a new impulse for the development of marginal territories through which international commerce passed. The administration of Egyptian territory on a regional basis, with settlements organized hierarchically, continued the ancient Pharaonic tradition in conceptual terms. That tradition survived in the layouts of old and new settlements and of temples and houses, just as it did in the building materials and thecniques used. On the other hand, many innovations were brought to Egypt from other areas and from provinces of the empire in fields such as the planning of settlements, the design of houses and also their decoration. It is only
In recent years, due to recent archaeological excavation of post-Pharaonic settlements, that we have been able to confirm that the urbanism and architecture of Egypt in the Roman Period were very similar to those of other eastern provinces of the Roman empire. Nevertheless, much remains to be studied in greater depth.
FURTHER READING
Bagnall, and Rathbone (2004) provides a useful archaeological guide to the major sites of Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Egypt. It is well documented and takes account of new discoveries and recent bibliography. The most important monuments and discoveries are well illustrated with plans and photos. Boxes on documentary sources enrich the picture of areas and sites. Bailey (1990) is a survey-article on Roman Period monuments and buildings in Egypt, containing, in particular, a useful detailed synthesis of the public buildings found recently at Hermopolis Magna by the British Museum expedition, of which the author published the final reports. Cuvigny (2003) produces the final report of the archaeological excavations and surveys on the eastern desert roads between Koptos and the Red Sea. It is an excellent example of multidisciplinary research with specialists in different sectors. The archaeological sites are carefully examined from architectural and functional point of views as parts of a regional system. The analysis and study of the written sources complete the archaeological picture. Davoli (1998) is dedicated to the study of urban sites of the Graeco-Roman Fayum through a critical analysis of a wide range of bibliography and a good knowledge of the archaeological remains. It is the only monograph dedicated exclusively to the Fayum, a region particularly rich in archaeological remains of the Graeco-Roman Period. Mueller (2006) delivers an exhaustive study of urbanism in the Ptolemaic Empire mainly based on written sources. The extraordinary abundance of documents from Egypt allows a detailed study of the distribution, demography, and toponymy of the settlements as well as of regional systems. Finally, Pensabene (1993) brings together hundreds of architectural fragments from all over Egypt in a monumental catalogue richly illustrated with drawings and photographs. Finally we should mention McKenzie 2007, an invaluable compendium on the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine architecture of Egypt.
World History
