Realities of Life on Elephantine: archaeobotanical database

Introduction

Between 2013 and 2018 an international team of archaeologists undertook the multidisciplinary project “Realities of Life” on Elephantine Island, Egypt (see Island plan). The goals were to implement as many scientific methods as was possible at the time in Egypt, in order to investigate activities within a sequence of houses in the northwest area of the ancient settlement close to a small 3 ^rd dynasty pyramid. The primary focus was on House 169, a late Middle Kingdom dwelling (1850-1650 BCE) (see house plan), but remains of younger buildings (up to c. 1295 B.C.) constructed on the ruins of House 169 were also investigated, alongside the remnants of adjacent buildings contemporary with House 169 which had been excavated previously.

Excavations were conducted on a stratigraphic basis, and strict protocols were implemented for recovery of all samples (micromorphology, and phytoliths, as well as plant macro-remains and insects). The research focus for archaeobotany was the identification of routine practises in the houses: Which plants were regularly present in the buildings? Was it possible to identify the uses of the plants? Could we identify any cereal processing activities in the different spaces? Were spaces kept clean, or did plant detritus accumulate in certain areas?

Preservation of organic remains on Elephantine Island is exceptional due to both the fact that the archaeological remains lie well-above the highest river level, and the extremely arid climate of this region of Egypt. As a result, desiccated plant remains are preserved abundantly, alongside charred remains, making this assemblage highly valuable.

Archaeobotanical Methods

Archaeobotanical samples were collected from every single excavated deposit, following a blanket sampling policy. After samples for various specialists (including the archaeobotanist) had been extracted, 100% of the remaining deposit from 100% of the excavated features was bulk sieved through 4mm mesh on-site to ensure a high level of recovery of artefacts and ecofacts. Non-woody plant remains from these samples (grains, fruits, halfa grass tufts etc.) were all studied. These samples were classified as “hand” samples (because they were hand collected). Some features either contained no plant materials, or contained only woody items such as twigs, or small pieces of wood / bark / charcoal: these (non-seed / grain / fruit) materials are awaiting study.

In order to obtain a representative sample of smaller plant items, every feature (deposit) excavated had one sample (c.500ml - 10 litres) taken specifically for archaeobotanical analysis. Almost all samples had one litre extracted for fine dry-sieving by the technician (designated as “dry” samples), and the remaining sediment was processed via machine flotation (designated as “flot” / “heavy fraction” samples). Some samples were one litre or less due to the fact that the features themselves were small, these were reserved for dry-sieving only. Due to the fact that desiccated remains are abundant in deposits on Elephantine, the focus of archaeobotanical work was on analysis of the “dry” samples. Just a small number of flots were studied, but the heavy fractions from all float samples were sorted by staff in the workrooms, and all plant remains were recorded: N.B. The results from the flot / heavy fraction samples are NOT included in this database.

Time constraints meant that it was impossible to examine all the samples; the process of selecting samples for study was done as blindly as possible in order not to cause any bias. The feature coding on Elephantine makes it possible to identify which features are related to each other stratigraphically (to a certain extent), so samples were selected based on feature code, without knowing what the features were. This ensured a selection of samples from across the house, from all feature types, and through all phases.

The volumes of all “dry” samples were checked and then processed through a geological sieve stack, using 2mm, 1mm, 500μm and 250μm aperture mesh. Following the initial assessment in 2016 when it was ascertained that there was remarkably little diversity of plant remains smaller than 1mm a strategy of processing just 10% of the <1mm material through the sieve stack for sorting was adopted in order to maximise the number of samples we could sort. The total count of items from the <1mm material was multiplied by ten. The 10% sub-sample was obtained by extracting part of the sample from the top, middle, and bottom of a graduated cylinder to overcome the problem of natural sorting, in the absence of a sample splitter. The diversity in the smallest fraction (<500 / >250μm) was so low that in order to maximise efficiency, the decision was taken to simply scan that fraction and estimate the abundance of any plants present. Invariably the only items present in this fraction (<500μm / >250μm) (other than tiny fragments of culms) are what appear to be the immature fruits of Ficus sycomorus. For almost every sample, the abundance of heavily fragmented cereal culms as well as lemmas/palaeas and awns of Hordeum vulgare subsp. vulgare was overwhelming. Very early in the process it was therefore decided to simply estimate the abundance of these remains, working on a scale of “present” (=10 in the database), “Present” (=50), “abundant” (=100), “Abundant” (=250), “dominant” (=500), to “Dominant” (=1000). This approach to quantification provided a reliable reflection of the composition of each sample. Some rarer items were likely missed due to the sub-sampling, but as the goal of the research was to identify routine activities, this was not seen to be a problem.

Format of data

The archaeobotanical data can be downloaded in an Excel file format here.

• Feature code: alphanumerical code, individual to each feature
• Building and Room (see plans)
• Phase (see phasing descriptions below)
• Feature type A: project archaeologists’ classifications
• Feature type B: feature category designated by archaeobotanist, based on archaeologists feature types and feature descriptions
• Recovery method: H = “Hand” sample (4mm mesh), D = “Dry” sample (250μm mesh). In the excel sheet, “hand” samples are shown in grey columns and “dry” samples are shown in white columns.
• Charred / Desiccated: condition of specimens. In the excel sheet, charred remains are shown in columns with bold font, desiccated remains are shown in columns with normal font.
• In main database full information showing fragmented vs. complete items is provided, in the excel sheet these items are summed.

Phasing

• A: remnants of earlier excavations. Date: New Kingdom.
• B: remnants of earlier excavations. Date: SIP/New Kingdom.
• C1-C2: remnants of earlier excavations. Date: SIP.
• C-D: These features could not be accurately assigned to a stratum because Stratum D was almost completely cleared and so the building horizon of Stratum C might be right on top of the one of stratum C. Or the building horizon of stratum D has also been cleared, then the one of stratum C would be directly on the walls of stratum E.
• D: Single wall and three beehive shaped cellars. The rest of the building was probably destroyed during the construction of the houses of SIP. Additionally, many mortar pits. Date: late 13th dynasty.
• E1-E2-E3-E?: Houses 73, 166 and 169. H73 and H166 preserved quite fragmentarily in east trench. House 169 in the west trench is well preserved, with ash room, fireplaces and some storage devices in the central court. Houses 73 and 166 used in the second half of the 12th dynasty / early 13th dynasty, broken down in middle 13th dynasty. H169 was refurbished in the middle 13th dynasty.
• F1-F3: building not occupied (or occupation features not preserved). Dating: late 12th dynasty.
• G: Houses 167-168 of the early to middle 12th dynasty.
• H1-H2: Three houses 170-172 of the 11th dynasty.
• I: Working area of the late 6th dynasty.

Project publications

Attia E, Malleson C, Fritzsch D, Mutri G, Collet P, Sigl J (2021) An interdisciplinary study of groundstone tools at Elephantine, Aswan, Egypt, Metalla 1:77-79.

Kopp P (2020) Die Keramikformationen der 1. Zwischenzeit und des Mittleren Reiches auf Elephantine. Bulletin de liaison de la céramique égyptienne 29:243-304

Kopp P (2022) Jewellery Workshops on Elephantine. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 108.1-2:249-261

Sählhof M, Abdellatif E, Bader B, et al (2020) Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from autumn 2019 to summer 2020

Sählhof M, Buławka S, Eschenbrenner-Diemer G, et al (2022) Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from autumn 2021 to summer 2022

Sählhof M, Aston D, Attia E, et al (2023) Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute Cairo 51st Season

Seidlmayer S, Arnold F, Bicker R, et al (2016) Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from autumn 2015 to summer 2016

Sigl J (2014/2015) Lebenswirklichkeiten. Ein Neuansatz für die Ausgrabungsarbeiten des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo auf Elephantine/Assuan. MDAIK 70/71:405-409

Sigl J (2017) Elephantine, Ägypten. Gesamtprojekt Elephantine und Teilprojekt Lebenswirklichkeiten (Realities of Life). Die Arbeiten des Jahres 2016 bis Sommer 2017. e-Forschungsberichte des DAI 2017.2:46–51

Sigl J (2018) Elephantine, Ägypten. Gesamtprojekt Elephantine und Teilprojekt Lebenswirklichkeiten (Realities of Life). Die Arbeiten von Oktober 2017 bis Mai 2018. e-Forschungsberichte des DAI 2018:34–38

Sigl J (2019) Elephantine, Ägypten. Gesamtprojekt Elephantine und Teilprojekt Lebenswirklichkeiten (Realities of Life). e-Forschungsberichte des DAI 2019:42–50

Sigl J (2020) Elephantine, Ägypten. Neues zu Lebenswirklichkeiten (Projekt »Realities of Life«) im späten Mittleren Reich am ersten Nilkatarakt. Weitere Forschungsergebnisse der Jahre 2019 und 2020. e-Forschungsberichte des DAI 2020.3:1–11

Sigl J (2022) Of bugs and beads. Realities of Life in the late Middle Kingdom northwestern town of Elephantine. In: Bussman R, Hafemann I, Schiestl R, Werning D (eds) Spuren der altägyptischen Gesellschaft. De Gruter, Berlin, pp 87–106

Sigl J, Bader B, Engel E-M, et al (2019) Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from autumn 2018 to summer 2019

Sigl J, Bader B, Fielauf M, et al (2018) Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from autumn 2017 to summer 2018

Sigl J, Budka J, Laskowska-Krustal E, et al (2017) Report on the Excavations at Elephantine by the German Archaeological Institute and the Swiss Institute from autumn 2016 to summer 2017

Sigl J, Kopp P (2017) Elephantine, Ägypten. Project Lebenswirklichkeiten (Realities of Life). Die Arbeiten der Jahre 2013 bis 2015. e-Forschungsberichte des DAI 2017:42–47

Sigl J, Kopp P (2020) Working from home - Middle Kingdom daily life on Elephantine Island, Egypt. In: Hodgkinson A, Tvetmarken CL (eds) Approaches in the analysis of production activity at archaeological sites. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 8–24

Sigl J, Kopp P (2022) Made on Elephantine Island. Interdisciplinary research on production activities in Middle Kingdom House 169. In: Sigl J (ed) Daily Life in Ancient Egyptian Settlements. Harrassowitz, Weisbaden, pp 57–74

Sigl J, Kopp P, Fritzsch D (2018), Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Methodological approach to the project “Realities of Life” (Lebenswirklichkeiten) and its first application during the 43rd and 44th excavation campaign on Elephantine Island. MDAIK 74:161-175

Warden LA, Khalifa E, Gait J, et al (2018), Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Pottery studies in course of the project "Realities of Life" (Lebenswirklichkeiten) - a methodological summary and pilot project. MDAIK 74:193-195

Warden LA (2019) Tying technology to Social Economic and Political Change: The case of bread molds at Elephantine, Egypt. American Journal of Archaeology 123:1–17

Warden LA (2022) Interpreting rubbish in the archaeological record: A case study study of floor and fill deposits in House 169 on Elephantine Island, Egypt. Journal of Urban Archaeology 6:71–86

Banner Credit:

Aswan (Egypt): Elephantine Island by Marc Ryckaert on Wikimedia Commons (Creative Commons Attribution license)