Post on 11-Mar-2023
Coptica 9 (2010), 25-58.
Archaeology at the White Monastery, 2005–2010
Stephen J. Davis*
with contributions by
Louise Blanke, Elizabeth Bolman,
Darlene Brooks Hedstrom, Michael Burgoyne,
Tomasz Herbich, Bentley Layton, Saad Mohammed,
Gillian Pyke, and Peter Sheehan
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………….…………………………26
A Brief History of the Project:
From the Consortium to YMAP……………………………. 27
A Report on Recent Archaeological Work
at the White Monastery…………………………………….. 30
1. Surveys……………………………………………….. 30
2. Excavations…………………………………………… 32
Area 1 (Units A–C, H–L, N, O) …………………….. 33
Area 2 (Units D, G, Q) ……………………………… 37
Area 3 (Units E, F, M, P)…………………………… 38
3. Church Documentation………………………………… 41
4. Art Conservation and Analysis……………………….. 44
The Triconch Funerary Chapel and Tomb………….. 44
The Main Monastic Church…………………………. 46
Conclusion……………………………………………………. 47
* Stephen J. Davis is Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University and is the
Executive Director of the Yale Monastic Archaeology Project (YMAP).
Stephen J. Davis 26
Introduction
The ground at the White Monastery (Dayr al-Anba Shinūda) is
extremely well-trodden. This fact, perhaps more than any other, has
determinatively shaped contemporary archaeology at the site. Indeed,
since the foundation of the monastery in the fourth century, hundreds
of thousands of persons have set foot on the low desert territory near
the town of Atripe (ancient Athribis).
In late antiquity, monks quietly went about their daily labors,
raising crops, tending livestock, weaving mats and baskets, and
following the rhythmic movements of daily prayer.1 All the while, local builders were commissioned to repair old buildings and to
construct new ones. Even after the monastery fell into disuse
sometime in the late Middle Ages, visitors and pilgrims from places
near and far visited the church and occasionally left behind
inscriptions and graffiti. For a time in the sixteenth century, a group
of Ethiopian monks may have even temporarily reoccupied the site,
and during the early modern period, a steady stream of Western
Europeans paid their own visits.2 At the end of the nineteenth century,
and during the first decade of the twentieth, the Comité de
conservation des monuments de l’art arabe engaged in extensive
conservation, restoration, and reconstruction of the White Monastery
church,3 and in 1908 the British Egyptologist Flinders Petrie briefly conducted excavations outside the church to the south.4
Meanwhile, the old monastic territory north and west of the
church continued to be used by local villagers as areas for the
penning of livestock. This practice began at some point after the
monastery was abandoned and ended only in the late twentieth
century when, beginning in the 1980s, the Egyptian Supreme Council
1 On the social structures and practices at the White Monastery federation, see
Bentley Layton, ―Social Structure and Food Consumption at an Early Christian
Monastery,‖ Le Muséon 115 (2002), 25–55; and ―Rules, Patterns, and the Exercise of
Power in Shenoute’s Monastery: The Problem of World Replacement and Identity
Maintenance,‖ Journal of Early Christian Studies 15.1 (2007), 45–73. 2 René-Georges Coquin and Maurice Martin, S. J., ―Dayr Anba Shinudah: History.‖
The Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. 3 (New York: Macmillan, 1991), 761–6. 3 U. Monneret De Villard, Les couvents près de Sohâg (Deyr el-Abiad et Deyr el-
Ahmar), 2 volumes (Milan: Tip. Pontificia Arcivescovile S. Giuseppe, 1925–1926).
Cedric Meurice, ―L'intervention du Comité de conservation des monuments de l’art
arabe au couvent Blanc de Sohag,‖ in Études coptes XI: treizième journée d'études,
Marseille, 7-9 juin 2007, ed. A. Boud’hors and C. Louis (Cahiers de la bibliothèque
copte XVII; Paris: De Boccard, 2010), 277–88. 4 W. M. Flinders Petrie, Athribis (London: School of Archaeology in Egypt/
University College, 1908), 13–15, pl. XLIII.
Archaeology at the White Monastery 27
of Antiquities (SCA) completely transformed the appearance of the
site in three further ways: first, by clearing out three houses that had
been constructed within the church’s nave; second, through an
ambitious program of excavation that unearthed extensive
architectural remains south and west of the church; and third, by
depositing their spoil in several locations, including an immense elongated heap that cuts across the middle of the site from east to
west.
In 1975 the monastery itself was also renewed by the Coptic
Orthodox Church and in the decades since then the ancient grounds
have been reinhabited by a new generation of monks. This has meant
the construction of numerous new residential, administrative, and
service buildings, as well as the planting of gardens and agricultural
plots, on the southern and western boundaries of the archaeological
zone. It has also meant the cultivation of a booming modern
pilgrimage industry, with buses of visitors frequenting the site on
weekends and thousands more camping out at the monastery for the
month-long feast celebration—the mawlid, or more colloquially, the mūlid—of St. Shenoute in July.
Over the course of seventeen centuries, these various peoples and
events have left marks on the site, only to have those same marks
sometimes obscured, covered over, and even erased by later
interventions. Today, this process continues apace: recent footprints
threaten to stamp out those of previous generations, and in many
cases the traces of those who came earlier have been lost. This is the
challenging problem that the modern archaeologist faces at nearly
every turn in his or her work at the White Monastery—how to
reconstruct the monastic past in and through a terrain that has
experienced so many stages of discontinuity and disruption. My task here is to give a clear account of recent investigations at
the White Monastery, even in the face of this challenging situation on
the ground. First, however, I will begin with a brief history of the
current project.
A Brief History of the Project: From the Consortium to YMAP
In the summer of 2004, Darlene Brooks Hedstrom of Wittenberg
University attended the annual conference held by the St. Shenoute
the Archimandrite Society in Los Angeles, CA, and presented a paper
in which she gave a preview of new archaeological work planned at
Stephen J. Davis 28
the White and Red Monasteries in Upper Egypt.5 These plans had
originated at the International Congress for Coptic Studies held in
Leiden in 2000, where Elizabeth Bolman of Temple University
gathered a group of scholars to found a Consortium for Research and
Conservation at the Monasteries of the Sohag Region. From 2000 to
2004, this Consortium developed plans for three stages of on-site archaeological work.
Stage one consisted of a wall painting conservation project at the
Red Monastery, directed by Elizabeth Bolman and conducted by
Luigi De Cesaris and a team of Italian conservators. From 2002 to the
present, this conservation project has achieved tremendous success
with support from the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE).6
Stages two and three of the Consortium’s plans focused on the
White Monastery. After laying the groundwork in 2002 and 2003
with two seasons of preliminary, on-site documentation,7 the
Consortium began a series of surveys and excavations in 2005.8 This
work received support from the American Research Center in Egypt,
Dumbarton Oaks, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Simpson Endowment for Egyptology at Yale University.
5 This paper was later published as an article in the 2005 volume of Coptica: see
Darlene Brooks Hedstrom, ―An Archaeological Mission for the White Monastery,‖
Coptica 4 (2005), 1–26. 6 With this Red Monastery project now entering its final phases, a multi-contributor
volume is now in preparation, with Elizabeth Bolman as the editor and principal
author. 7 The earliest stage of work by Peter Grossmann, Darlene Brooks Hedstrom, and
Elizabeth Bolman, involved the recording of archaeological remains previously
excavated by the SCA: see Peter Grossmann, Darlene Brooks Hedstrom and Mohamed
Abd el-Rassul, with Elizabeth S. Bolman, ―The Excavation in the Monastery of Apa
Shenute (Dayr Anba Shinuda) at Suhag, with an Appendix on Documentary
Photography at the Monasteries of Anba Shinuda and Anba Bishoi, Suhag,‖
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 58 (2004): 371–82; Darlene Brooks Hedstrom, ―An
Archaeological Mission for the White Monastery,‖ 1–26; and Peter Grossmann,
Darlene Brooks Hedstrom, Saad Mohamad Mohamad Osman, with Hans-Christoph
Noeske, ―Second Report on the Excavation in the Monastery of Apa Shenute (Dayr
Anba Shinuda) at Suhag,‖ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 63 (2009), 167–219. 8 In 2006, members of the Consortium and an assortment of other leading scholars
also participated in a conference on Christianity and monasticism in the Akhmim and
Sohag region, hosted at the White Monastery and sponsored by the Coptic Orthodox
Church, the Saint Mark Foundation, and the St. Shenoute the Archimandrite Society.
The proceedings of this conference were published two years later in a volume edited
by Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla, Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt.
Volume 1: Akhmim and Sohag (Cairo and New York: American University in Cairo
Press, 2006).
Archaeology at the White Monastery 29
From 2005 to 2010, the core project goals of excavation and site
documentation remained largely the same; yet, during this time, there
were also changes to the project’s organization and disciplinary
scope. Originally founded by the Consortium under the executive
direction of Elizabeth Bolman, with Darlene Brooks Hedstrom
working with Peter Grossmann and then Peter Sheehan as directors of excavation, since 2008 the White Monastery Federation initiative has
been administered under the executive direction of Stephen J. Davis
as part of the Yale Monastic Archaeology Project (YMAP). YMAP
currently oversees archaeological work at two different monastic sites
in Egypt: (1) the Monastery of St. John the Little in Wadi al-Natrun,9
and (2) the White Monastery in Sohag, where Gillian Pyke has served
director of excavations since 2008.
In addition to these changes in organization, the work at the
White Monastery has also expanded its scope to include two other
significant areas of focus: (1) the conservation of wall paintings
discovered in situ (under Elizabeth Bolman, director of art
conservation) and (2) the architectural documentation of the White Monastery church (under Bentley Layton, director of church
documentation).10
Before I discuss the details of this diverse archaeological work,
let me first express my deep indebtedness to those who have paved
the way—especially to Peter Grossmann whose professional
9 On this work, see S. J. Davis, D. Brooks Hedstrom, T. Herbich, G. Pyke, and D.
McCormack, ―Yale Monastic Archaeology Project: John the Little, Season 1 (June 7–
June 27, 2006),‖ Mishkah: The Egyptian Journal of Islamic Archeology 3 (2009), 47–
52; idem., ―Yale Monastic Archaeology Project: Pherme (Qusur Higayla and Qusur
`Erayma), Season 1 (May 29–June 8, 2006),‖ Mishkah: The Egyptian Journal of
Islamic Archeology 3 (2009), 53–7; and S. J. Davis, D. Brooks Hedstrom, T. Herbich,
S. Ikram, D. McCormack, M-D. Nenna, and G. Pyke, ―New Archaeology at Ancient
Scetis: Surveys and Initial Excavations at the Monastery of St. John the Little in Wādī
al-Naṭrūn (Yale Monastic Archaeology Project),‖ forthcoming in Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 64 (2011). In 2006, the YMAP also conducted survey work at Pherme, an early
Christian monastic site in the Egyptian Delta: see D. Brooks Hedstrom, S. J. Davis, and
T. Herbich, ―A Geophysical Survey of Ancient Pherme: Magnetic Prospection at an
Early Christian Monastic Site in the Egyptian Delta,‖ Journal of the American
Research Center in Egypt 44 (2007), 129–37. For further information on YMAP’s
previous and ongoing work in the Delta and Wadi al-Natrun, see the Yale
Egyptological Institute in Egypt website at http://www.yale.edu/egyptology/ae_al-
natrun.htm. 10
The excavation and church documentation components of YMAP’s work receive
primary funding through the Simpson Endowment for Egyptology at Yale University.
The art conservation component of the project receives separate funding via the
Antiquities Endowment Fund (AEF) administered through the American Research
Center in Egypt.
Stephen J. Davis 30
documentation of the earlier SCA excavations has established an
exemplary standard for our subsequent work on site; to Elizabeth
Bolman who took her original vision for this project and made it a
reality through her unflagging energy and dedication; and to Darlene
Brooks Hedstrom, Peter Sheehan, and Gillian Pyke whose
archaeological expertise has been crucial to the implementation of this vision. Of course, I also want to thank our SCA colleagues—
especially Mohammed Abd al-Rahim (director of Coptic and Islamic
antiquities from Sohag to Aswan), Saad Mohammed (regional
director of the Sohag office), and their excellent team of inspectors—
for their cooperation and collaboration; and Bishop Yuhannis, Abbot
Abuna Wissa, and the monks of Dayr al-Anba Shinūda for their
warm hospitality and support.
A Report on Recent Archaeological Work at the White Monastery
In this article, I summarize and interpret four kinds of work
conducted since the year 2005.11 First, I will discuss the results of the
first formal surface and subsurface surveys at the White Monastery.
Second, using the archaeological plans produced by those surveys, I
give a cursory orientation to recent excavations conducted at several
locations on site. Third, I will briefly introduce the ongoing work of
recording and documenting the architecture of the White Monastery church. Fourth and finally, I will discuss the conservation and
analysis of wall paintings in two locations: in a triconch funerary
chapel discovered during Supreme Council of Antiquities excavations
in 2002, and in the central monastic church.
1. Surveys
The survey work sponsored by the project falls under two categories:
surface and subsurface. Surface surveys using a Topcon Total Station
theodolite were conducted by Dawn McCormack from 2005 to 2007,
and by Gillian Pyke and Louise Blanke from 2008 to the present.
These surveys have resulted in the production of an archaeological plan of the site, still in progress (Figure 1).12 This plan accomplishes
three important tasks. First, it documents the location of the ancient
White Monastery church and surrounding modern structures. Second,
11
For more information on this ongoing work at the White Monastery, see the Yale
Egyptological Institute in Egypt website at www.yale.edu/egyptology/ae_white.htm. 12
This plan does not include an area of excavations initiated in 2010 by the
Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. These new excavations extend the unit O
further to the east.
Archaeology at the White Monastery 31
it documents the location of areas that have been excavated, either by
the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) or by the
Consortium/YMAP initiative.
The second category of survey work has involved subsurface, or
geophysical, investigation. From 2005 to 2007, three different types
of subsurface surveys were sponsored with the goal of trying to identify the location of extant architectural structures still
unexcavated beneath the surface of the sand (as well as the extent of
the settlement areas). These surveys involved the use of (1)
magnetometry, (2) resistivity, and (3) ground-penetrating radar. Each
of these methods provides unique data, and when used in concert they
provide a more comprehensive and textured reading of the subsurface
evidence.
Magnetometry is a method that detects magnetic changes and
disturbances caused by the presence of mud-brick structures and other
elements beneath the soil. In Egypt, this method has proven
especially effective in identifying the location of fired and mud
bricks, which tend to have strong magnetic properties (in contrast to the surrounding sand fill, which typically does not exhibit such
properties). In 2005, the geophysicist Tomasz Herbich was contracted
to do a series of magnetometric readings at specified locations
throughout the White Monastery archaeological site. Results,
unfortunately, were mixed due to the condition of the terrain itself.
The resulting plans, such as the one included here as Figure 2, show
traces of magnetic interference caused by the presence of modern
constructions (including buildings, iron water pipes and irons gates,
and the poles of power lines) and surface waste (such as bottle caps
discarded by visitors).
In order to obtain more refined results, Herbich conducted a resistivity survey. This method involves passing electric current into
damp ground at regular intervals on a survey grid. Because the
electrical resistance of the soil varies in accordance with subsurface
features such as stone, mud brick, and pottery, the geophysical
surveyor can use resistivity to identify signs of previous habitation
within and beneath the sand fill.13 The plans produced by this process
show areas of high resistivity in black. The resistivity results were
also limited, with scant traces of walls showing in areas already
mapped by magnetic prospection. Once again, surface disturbances
prevented optimal results.
13
A. J. Clark, Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology
(London: B. T. Batsford, 1990).
Stephen J. Davis 32
Finally, the third geophysical technique employed at the site was
ground-penetrating radar. As in the case of the other two methods, the
purpose of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is to delineate subsurface
features, but unlike the other two, GPR involves the transmission of
high-frequency radar pulses into the ground. Data is obtained by
measuring the delay and intensity of those pulses as they are reflected back to the surface. Subterranean architectural features provide a
higher amplitude reflection in the readings recorded by the sensor.14
Jaroslaw Majewski and Anna Groffik from Geo-Radar in Poland
conducted these surveys over eight days in December of 2006. Their
results helped locate the presence of unexcavated architectural
features up to one meter below the surface throughout the site. GPR
surveys in the White Monastery Church also detected the presence of
an underground crypt at its eastern end.
All three of these methods are frequently used in order to
construct an archaeological map before excavation. In the case of the
White Monastery, contemporary monastic and pilgrimage practice at
the site dramatically affected the results of the geophysical surveys. Interference caused by the presence of modern metal piping, power
lines, trash, and debris limited the effectiveness of methods that have
been applied more successfully at unoccupied sites. However, each of
these survey methods in the end helped inform the team’s decision-
making about excavation strategies. And it is to the details of these
excavations that I now turn.
2. Excavations
In summarizing the results of excavations at the White Monastery
over the past five years, I will be orienting the reader to three discrete
areas of work (labeled as Areas 1, 2, and 3 in the site plan, Figure 1). Area 1 consists of a large rectangular zone at the northwest end of the
territory set aside for protection by the SCA. It is bordered on the
west by the modern cemetery, on the north and east by a boundary
wall and the modern village, and on the south by the large SCA spoil
heap. One noteworthy surface feature of this area is a broken granite
inscription in Greek containing the name, Shenoute. Bentley Layton
has made an epigraphic squeeze of this inscription, and Alain Delattre
is preparing it for publication.
14
For a helpful introduction to the archaeological use of ground-penetrating radar
(GPR), see the website maintained by Dr. Lawrence B. Conyers at the University of
Denver: http://mysite.du.edu/~lconyers/SERDP/GPR2.htm (accessed on June 3, 2011).
Archaeology at the White Monastery 33
Area 2 occupies the central portion of the site and is bordered by
the cemetery to the west, the large SCA spoil heap to the north, the
White Monastery church to the east, and a modern guard station and
smaller spoil heap to the south. This central zone has been the subject
of extensive excavation work by the SCA, starting in the late 1980s.
Much of our work in this area has focused on documenting more fully the excavations already carried out by the SCA.
Finally, Area 3 occupies the southeast sector of the site. It is
bordered on the north by the White Monastery church, and by the
guard station between Areas 2 and 3. To the east it is bordered by the
main gate and a road that serves as a boundary between the
monastery and agricultural plots. To the south and west, this area is
bordered by modern monastic buildings and cemeteries.
AREA 1
Since 2005, the bulk of the archaeological work conducted by the
Consortium/YMAP has concentrated on Area 1, to the northwest of the church. Over the course of the first three years (2005–2007), nine
excavation units (A–C, H–L, and O) were opened up, under the
supervision of Brooks Hedstrom. Toward the end of that period,
however, the team’s attention began to shift to a new location slightly
to the south, featuring the remains of a triconch funerary chapel (Unit
N) with a program of wall paintings preserved in situ.
Units A–C and H–L
In 2005, Brooks Hedstrom began her excavations with Units A, B,
and C. These locations were selected on the basis of subsurface
survey results, which indicated the likely presence of walls and/or other architectural structures, which was confirmed in the course of
excavations.
In Unit A, excavators found the remains of a fired brick
foundation wall covered in plaster and the corner of a limestone
paved floor. In Units B and C were found sections of a later mud
brick wall, in poor condition, with a slightly higher foundation level
than the wall in Unit A. In interpreting this relatively meager
preliminary data, Brooks Hedstrom hypothesized three stages of
use/disuse for these structures: (1) a building phase related to the
plastered fired brick wall and limestone pavers in Unit A, (2) a phase
of destruction by fire indicated by the presence of a burn layer in
Stephen J. Davis 34
Units A and B, and (3) a third phase during which the mud brick wall
in Units B and C was constructed.
These disparate findings led Brooks Hedstrom to expand the
scope of the Area 1 excavations in December 2006 by opening up
five more units to the south and east of Unit A. These units were
labeled H–L. Her results showed continuity with the architecture uncovered in that adjacent unit. It was conclusively determined that
the building found in Unit A (the corner with a limestone floor and
plastered wall bases) extended into Units H, I, and J. At a later stage,
a more crudely constructed mud-brick structure was built across
several of the units (H, J, K, and L). The presence of animal fecal
matter suggests that the rooms of this mud-brick structure were at
some point used as pens for animals. This later building was probably
destroyed in a fire: the excavators found signs of burning where the
high temperatures vitrified the mud bricks. Among the finds in Unit
K was an inscribed stone with a Coptic inscription bearing the name
of Apa Mena. Unfortunately, these remains were found in contexts
with modern contamination: the stratigraphy was again jeopardized by alterations in modern times, as the area was used as a rubbish
dump and a place to tether animals.
Unit N (The Triconch Funerary Chapel and Tomb)
In addition to the newly opened Units A–C and H–L, the team has
also devoted time and energy to documenting units in Area 1
previously excavated by the SCA. The first of these units borders the
western edge of the archaeological zone and is labeled N on the plan.
Unit N is the site of the triconch funerary chapel, excavated by
the SCA in 2002 and 2003. Our work in this unit began in December
of 2006, when an effective collaboration with the SCA was established for the purpose of documenting architecture and painted
wall plaster. The funerary chapel became YMAP’s primary focus
from 2006 to 2009, first under the supervision of Peter Sheehan, and
then (beginning in 2008) with excavations under the direction of
Gillian Pyke. This work involved the tasks of cleaning,
photographing, documentation and surveying, and selected
excavation in new areas, and the conservation of a fairly extensive
wall painting program found in situ.15 Here I will first provide an
introduction to the building’s above-ground architecture, including its
15
Alberto Sucato and Emiliano Ricchi also played an instrumental role in the
conservation of these paintings.
Archaeology at the White Monastery 35
program of wall paintings and assorted artifacts. Then, I will turn my
attention to the subterranean funerary chambers.
The Above-Ground Remains: The Triconch Funerary Chapel
The architecture of the above-ground funerary chapel consists of two
main spaces: a south hall and a small church (Figure 3). The south hall served as a gathering space and point of entry into the church
nave. This hall features a large area of preserved limestone pavement,
with traces of an earlier plaster floor below the east end. Fragments of
plaster with evidence of figural paintings have also been found near
the eastern end of the south hall: the reconstruction of one set of these
fragments has revealed an image of saints holding books (Figure 4).
To the north of the hall, the small church is oriented on an east-west
axis. Originally, it had a tri-lobed apse at the eastern end. Today, the
north lobe is no longer in evidence: only portions of the south and
east lobes survive. Wall paintings with floral and geometric designs
have been found intact on these standing walls (Figure 5). Even though the funerary chapel was previously excavated and
cleared by the SCA, the process of cleaning and documenting the
structure has still yielded interesting finds. Papyrus fragments were
discovered during cleaning on the south side of the south hall. These
fragments were conserved by Stephen Emmel in December of 2008
(Figure 6). Two non-joining fragments, both written in a large cursive
hand, probably belong to the same papyrus document. A tiny scroll
with writing was attached at the bottom of the sheet and sealed with a
mud seal. This seal was first photographed and then opened to
facilitate study of the text within. Another set of smaller fragments
derive from at least two separate documents that featured writing on
both sides of the page (recto and verso). These texts will be edited by the papyrologist Alain Delattre.
A new area of excavation to the northwest of the chapel yielded
several Coptic ostraca, including one with three lines of text preceded
by a cross. Finally, part of a marble stele with an incised cross and
Greek letters (ΛΟΥΚΙΑ) was found on the surface, clearly displaced from its original location. Excavators were able to match the cross to
a negative on a mortar surface near the stair block, where it had
apparently been reused.
The architectural phasing of the funerary chapel reveals the
presence of more than one layer of painted plaster, with two distinct
phases of painted decoration. Excavations to the south of Unit N not
only helped define the extent of the exterior walls and southwest
Stephen J. Davis 36
corner of the South Hall; they also confirmed that the building had
undergone multiple stages of reuse after it had fallen out of use as a
chapel. The later insertion of fired- and mud-brick walls, benches,
and a large pot emplacement (along with the presence of mixed debris
deposited outside its western wall) suggests that the building was
adapted for domestic purposes at some point in its history. The dating of this architectural reuse is uncertain. Extensive pitting throughout
the area has severely disrupted its stratigraphy and associated ceramic
evidence.16
The Below-Ground Remains: The Tomb
Beneath the triconch chapel is a series of three small chambers
accessed via a narrow staircase cut into the floor of the nave. (A
portion of the final chamber is located under the place where the altar
table of the church would have been.) On the walls of the chambers
there is a well-preserved painted program. The specific visual
repertoire featured on these walls—gazelles, peacocks, and floral motifs evoking paradise and Christ’s triumph over death—
distinctively marks the function of the below-ground space as a tomb,
as does its architectural organization. Later, in the section of this
article on ―Art Conservation and Analysis,‖ I discuss this painted
program in more detail, focusing especially on epigraphic and artistic
evidence—evidence that connects this tomb with the death of the
monastery’s fifth-century namesake, Shenoute of Atripe.
Unit O
Unit O is another location that was originally excavated by the SCA
inspectorate during its 2001–2002 campaign and has subsequently become a subject of YMAP documentation. Located immediately to
the north of the large spoil heap that bisects the archaeological zone,
Unit O contains a multi-room building with an adjacent complex of
pipes and tanks to the east. In the spring of 2010, the SCA renewed
and expanded its excavations in Unit O, with new squares opened up
to the east. Subsequent cleaning and photography by the YMAP team
allowed Pyke and Blanke to observe that the system of piping and
tank emplacement in this unit resembled certain architectural features
of Unit P (discussed below under Area 3). Ceramic evidence from
16
The ceramic evidence recovered in these squares proved to be a mixed lot, with
most pieces dating to the Byzantine period or later.
Archaeology at the White Monastery 37
these recent SCA excavations covers a date range from late antique to
early medieval (approximately fifth to eighth centuries CE).
AREA 2
Area 2, located in the center of the archaeologically protected zone,
was extensively excavated by the SCA in the 1990s. Much of this work has been documented in publication by Grossmann, Brooks
Hedstrom, and others.17 Since 2005, our project has focused on two
primary locations within Area 2. The first is immediately to the north
of the church (Units D and G on the plan), where new excavations
were conducted in 2005 and 2006. The second (Unit Q) encompasses
the majority of the area west of the church and features numerous
architectural installations related to the daily life of the monastery
during late antiquity and the medieval period. These substantial
remains include a major well.18 As Unit Q was already excavated by
the SCA prior to the beginning of our work in 2005, the Consortium-
YMAP team has restricted itself to surveying and documenting its architectural features.
Units D and G
The excavations conducted in Area 2 were carried out in two adjacent
units over the course of two seasons. Unit D, north of the main
church, was excavated first in December of 2005, under the
archaeological supervision of Sheehan. Prior to the commencement of
work, there were signs that a machine had leveled the area in the
recent past. Excavations revealed the presence of several post- and
stake-holes. This suggests that the surface has been used by pilgrim
encampments relatively recently during the celebration of the mūlid feasts. The clearing of this area revealed a dump of building rubble
and debris containing visible fragments of painted plaster. Initially,
the archaeologists thought that this dump may have been a discard
pile related to the church restoration work conducted by the Comité in
the first decade of the twentieth century; however, this early
hypothesis remains under discussion, pending full analysis of ceramic
materials.
17
For publications of this work, see the articles cited in note 7. 18
The architecture of the well is discussed in Grossmann, et al., ―Excavation,‖
379ff., and fig. E; Grossmann et al., ―Second Report,‖ 186–9, and fig. 21–24; see also
his article, ―Zum Grab des Schenoute,‖ Journal of Coptic Studies 6 (2004), 83–103.
Stephen J. Davis 38
The following year (2006), our archaeological team continued to
explore this location, opening up Unit G to the east of Unit D. In the
process, the excavators extended the trench to the church wall, to
determine the extent of the dump, and to investigate the foundation of
the church. Earlier hypotheses that the church may have been built on
the remains of an earlier Pharaonic structure were dismissed over the course of excavation. Pyke also conducted an analysis of the plaster
in the excavated dump. This analysis was informed by a survey of the
in situ plaster within the church, and benefited from collaboration
with Bolman, Sheehan, Blanke, and Meurice, and Mohammed
Khalifa.
Unit Q
Unit Q is located at the center of the site, immediately to the west of
the main monastic church. The extensive archaeological remains
visible in this area were unearthed by the SCA during excavations
conducted in 1989–1990 and in 2002. On the basis of observations made in 2002 and 2003, Grossmann has published two co-authored
articles in Dumbarton Oaks Papers in which he argues for the
identification of specific buildings as monastic residences and
refectories.19 In 2010, the YMAP team initiated further cleaning and
photography in this unit, before undertaking a more comprehensive
campaign of mapping and documentation, planned for December
2011. This work will entail not only the examination of individual
structures, but also the analysis of intra-site phasing, including the
relationship between buildings and public spaces within the unit.
AREA 3
Let me finally turn my attention to Area 3, located to the south and
southwest of the White Monastery church. Since the renewal of Dayr
al-Anba Shinūda in 1975, the archaeological remains in this area have
been under intensified threat due to several factors. These include
regular vehicle traffic (including cars, buses, farm equipment,
bicycles, etc.), the construction of new monastic buildings (including
a nearby modern toilet facility for visitors, a guest-house, and two
new churches), and patterns of visitation by thousands of pilgrims
each year (including the pitching of tents during the month-long
celebration of the saint’s feast day and the resultant garbage). Our
19
See Peter Grossmann et al, ―Excavation,‖ 371–82; and Grossmann et al., ―Second
Report,‖ 167–202.
Archaeology at the White Monastery 39
work in Area 3 has been negatively impacted by such modern
intrusions.
Units E and F
During our first season of excavation in 2005, two test trenches were
dug at the far southeast end of the site (Units E and F). Area supervisor Louise Blanke encountered problems in both locations. In
the case of Unit E, the excavation was halted when the monks of the
monastery identified the location as part of a modern burial ground.
In the case of Unit F, a mixed yield of late Roman pottery and
modern artifacts suggested that an ancient pottery dump had been
bulldozed in modern times. As a result, these test trenches could not
be used as a basis for subsequent work.
Unit M
In 2006 and subsequent seasons, our team received permission to
work on material remains already excavated by the SCA in Area 3. In the 1980s and 1990s, the SCA had conducted excavations in two
different locations within Area 3. These locations were identified as
Units M and P. The opportunity to reexamine both of these
previously excavated areas has pressed home the importance of
comprehensive documentation for understanding the history of the
site.
From December 2006 to January 2007, our team took on the task
of documenting, photographing, and surveying the exposed mud-
brick architecture in Unit M. This unit is located to the southwest of
the church, near the guest facilities of the current monastery. Seven
different buildings (A–G) were identified and mapped. Stratigraphic analysis showed that each of the structures had undergone two or
three phases of renovation or reconstruction, often with multiple
strata (or sub-phases) in evidence. For example, Building A (at the
southeastern corner of the unit) was modified in three phases (1–3),
with nine separate strata (a–i) identified. The final phase included the
digging of a monk’s grave to the east of the building.
The history of Building G proved to be equally complex,
featuring four building phases with eight separate strata. Located at
the northwestern corner of Unit M, Building G is in fact one of
several architectural structures built against a major wall running in a
north-south direction at the western edge of the unit. At some point,
parts of the wall became damaged by an episode of burning, and there
Stephen J. Davis 40
were subsequent mud-brick repairs to its eastern side and the addition
of three buttresses for support. The construction of this wall and the
episode of burning together constituted the first phase related to the
history of the building and its environs (1a). The second phase (2b)
involved the actual construction of the building itself and its use as an
area for the industrial production of limestone chips.20 The third phase consisted of four separate strata, including the repair of the
boundary wall (3c), the construction of a basement (3d), the
resurfacing of the floor (3e), and the insertion of a large storage jar
into the basement (3f). This third phase was followed by another
episode of burning. Phase four involved the use of the older burned
bricks to resurface the floor again and to reconstruct the building’s
superstructure (4g–h).
The ceramic finds in Building G and throughout Unit M again
primarily date to the late antique and early Islamic periods (ca. fifth to
eighth centuries). However, some later Islamic sherds (ca. tenth to
sixteenth centuries) were also documented.
Unit P
From 2008 to 2010, an important part of our work also entailed
survey and archaeological analysis in Unit P, located immediately to
the south of the main church. This work included a surface cleaning
of the unit and the detailed investigation of selected loci.
As in the case of Unit M, the analysis of archaeological elements
in Unit P has revealed a complex history of renovation and
architectural adaptation connected with industrial production. The
extant remains include a large building in the northern part of the
area, with large circular stone presses to the east, a series of at least
six rectangular tanks to the south, and a substantial network of water pipes and channels.
Excavators have identified eleven phases across seven different
architectural installations. These phases are represented by (1) traces
of mud-brick walls, tanks, and pipes that predate the fired-brick
building, (2) a large square building with an inner courtyard, (3–4)
evidence for new additions including a second story or roof access, a
repaved floor surface, and further modifications at the north end, (5) a
period of disuse and the robbing out of building materials, (6) a
period of reuse (discontinuous with the building’s original function),
20
Such chips were typically laid down as a foundation layer in the construction of
buildings at the monastery.
Archaeology at the White Monastery 41
which is indicated by the repair of walls and the installation of pot
emplacements, (7) a second abandonment of the area with further
robbing out of materials and the deposition of a layer of sand and
rubble, (8) the pitting and marking of a ground surface layer with
post-holes, perhaps associated with pilgrimage practice during
celebrations of the mūlid, (9) a gravel layer deposited for the purpose of leveling the ground during the modern use of the monastery, (10)
the SCA excavations (1986–1987, 1998–1999), and (11) the work of
cleaning and recording performed by the YMAP team (2008–2010).
One archaeological feature of particular note in Unit P is the use
of tanks connected to each other by pipes. This complex water
network includes deep ceramic vessels that functioned as cesspits or
soak-aways. It is yet to be determined for what kind of industrial
usage these tank installations and drainage systems were designed.
3. Church Documentation
Having summarized in brief our investigations of the archaeological
remains to the north, west, and south of the main church at the White
Monastery, I now turn to the church itself (Figure 7). This massive,
partly ruined building stands on the edge of the low desert, above the
cultivated land. It is some 75 meters in length, 37 meters wide, and 13
meters high. A project for documenting the church and analyzing its architectural design and construction was organized in 2006 by
Bentley Layton of Yale University, who has directed the project in
collaboration with architect Michael Burgoyne.21 The goals of their
work include: (1) a detailed recording of the building in its present
condition, (2) an investigation of the relationship between the present
structure and its various visible alterations, especially those that took
place during the twentieth century, (3) an architectural history and
description of significant features of the building, including the
elements now missing from the original construction, such as the
roofs and galleries.
After an exploratory visit to the site by Layton and Burgoyne in April-May 2006, the first phase of this project began later that same
year with a thorough photo-documentation of the entire White
Monastery church structure. In December of 2006, photographer Joe
Rock, in consultation with Layton and Burgoyne, shot 257 black-and-
21
The church survey was initiated under the auspices of the Consortium for
Research and Conservation at the Monasteries of the Sohag Region, and important
early facilitation was provided by Elizabeth Bolman. Funding for the survey comes
from the Simpson Endowment for Egyptology of Yale University.
Stephen J. Davis 42
white rectified photographs of both the interior and the exterior of the
church building, using a plate camera. The results were printed as
black-and-white images on archive-quality paper. Two sets were
produced for archival preservation. In 2007, these original sets of
photographs were supplemented with 160 additional shots taken by
Burgoyne and developed in the same manner. Plans to digitize these archives are currently under discussion.
From 2007 to 2010, the goals of the church documentation
project have expanded to include three additional areas of analysis
and research. First, in December 2007, Sam Price, a consulting
structural engineer with Price & Myers in London, was engaged to
evaluate the structural integrity of the church after the monks reported
concerns about the origin of cracks in the north lobe of the apse. Price
made a thorough visual inspection and structural analysis of the
church. His analysis resulted in a detailed report that was translated
into Arabic and presented to the monastic leadership in December of
2008. The report has also been shared with the local SCA
inspectorate. It concluded that most of the church is presently in a
stable condition (including the cracked north apse), but it also called
attention to a structural problem at the northern end of the west wall
of the nave (the wall that separates the nave from the narthex). In
consideration of safety, this wall will require professional
intervention in the near future.
Second, in December 2008, Burgoyne made considerable
progress in identification and analysis of the various building phases
of the church, with special attention to little known and hardly
accessible rooms in the upper level of the building, which appear to
have survived in more or less unaltered form. A previously
unexamined attic, located at the northwest corner of the present roofed sanctuary, was reached and studied, as was a set of upper
rooms at the south end of the present sanctuary. In March 2009 the
deep well in the southwest corner of the church was examined and
some measurements taken.22
Burgoyne’s on-site research has resulted in a more
comprehensive and integrated reconstruction of the building’s design.
In support of this work, the project surveyor Elisa Lui recorded the
complete ground plan of the church with a Topcon Total Station
theodolite. In 2008, she began recording wall elevations both inside
and outside the church. This work continued in 2010 with a special
focus on the trilobed apse, pastophoria, khūrus, and baptistery
22 This well is protected by a large steel cover that hinders access.
Archaeology at the White Monastery 43
complex. In addition, the hard-to-access southwest staircase was
studied in detail by Burgoyne. The goal of these surveys is to produce
a set of more accurate plans and elevations that will supersede the
earlier drawings of the church made by architects of the Darmstadt
Technische Hochschule in 1962.23
Third and finally, starting in 2008, Layton and Burgoyne began to catalogue the loose sculpted stones that remained from the original
interior of the church (30 original capitals, 68 columns, 75 column
bases, and 48 other types). These were lying about in the narthex and
nave. That year and in subsequent seasons, each sculpted element was
assigned a number, measured, and photographed. The result is a
―Checklist of Loose Sculpted Stones,‖ which systematically identifies
each element and which will allow scholars to keep track of these
individual architectural elements even if they are moved from one
location to another within the church.24 In December 2010, the check-
list numbers were labeled on the stones. Another aspect of this
cataloguing effort has been the documentation of over sixty Pharaonic
reliefs with pre-Coptic Egyptian inscriptions reused in the construction of the White Monastery church. In 2007 and 2009,
Egyptologist David Klotz made two site visits to the White
Monastery in order to complete a record of these Pharaonic spolia. In
his now published findings,25 he demonstrates that at least some of
these elements originally came from the nearby ruined temple of
Athribis (Atripe).
The December 2010 campaign was dedicated to further close
analysis of construction techniques and building phases. Burgoyne
investigated the function of attic and basement spaces, the nature of
the original roofing of the church (now missing), and the possible
functions of galleries over the side aisles of the nave. Grossmann was invited to the site to participate in discussion and analysis. Pyke
conducted a survey of the in situ plaster remains on the church
exterior and discovered some new elements of a painted program. Her
23
Hans-Gebhard Evers and Rolf Romero, ―Rotes und Weisses Kloster bei Sohag:
Probleme der Rekonstruktion,‖ in Christentum am Nil [conference procedings], ed.
Klaus Wessel (Recklinghausen: Bongers, 1964), 175–99. 24
For an earlier record of in situ sculpted elements in the church, see Philippe
Akermann, Décor sculpté du Couvent blanc: Niches et frises (Cairo: Institut franc ̧ais
d’archéologie orientale du Caire, 1976). 25
David Klotz, ―Triphis in the White Monastery: Reused Temple Blocks from
Sohag,‖ Ancient Society 40 (2010), 197–213; see also, idem, ―Two Studies on the Late
Period Temples at Abydos,‖ Bulletin de l'Institut français d’archéologie orientale 110
(2010), 1–37.
Stephen J. Davis 44
analysis confirmed the hypothesis that the exterior was originally
plastered and determined that this plaster would have concealed the
temple spolia built into the fabric of the church. Finally, plaster
samples from various locations within the church were taken under
the supervision of SCA Special Inspector Abdul-Fattah Sayyed
Abdul-Fattah to the laboratories of the Institut français d’archéologie orientale (IFAO) in Cairo for radiocarbon dating.26 The analysis of
these samples awaits the installation of new equipment in the IFAO
laboratories, but we hope that the results will eventually clarify some
of our outstanding questions about the construction sequence of the
church. A monograph on all these aspects of church documentation is
currently in preparation.
4. Art Conservation and Analysis
27
My final area of focus is the ongoing work of art conservation and
painted plaster analysis, which has taken place primarily in two
locations: (1) at the triconch funerary chapel, and (2) in the central
monastic church of the White Monastery.
THE TRICONCH FUNERARY CHAPEL AND TOMB
In the triconch funerary chapel, the painted plaster that survives in
situ is found both above ground on the standing walls and piers of the
funerary chapel proper, and below ground on the wall surfaces in the
three chambers of the tomb. Above ground the funerary chapel
features at least two successive decorative programs featuring non-
figural images. Below ground, the walls of the barrel-vaulted passageway, antechamber, and burial chamber are graced with an
original program of figural images, featuring gemmed crosses,
gazelles, eagles, and peacocks, as well as a painting of St. Shenoute
flanked by two partially preserved figures. The program of paintings
26
We are grateful to Dr. Michel Wuttmann (head of the IFAO laboratory) for his
advice on our steps of preparation before taking samples, to Dr. Mohammed Mahran
(technical manager of the laboratory) and Dr. Nagui Sabri (technical deputy manager
of the laboratory) for their technical assistance, and to the Supreme Council of
Antiquities offices in both Cairo and Sohag for granting us permission to have these
tests performed. 27
This summary of the conservation work and art historical analysis conducted at
the Triconch Funerary Chapel is based in part on the article published by Elizabeth
Bolman, Louise Blanke, Darlene Brooks Hedstrom, Mohammed Khalifa, Cédric
Meurice, Saad Mohammed, Gillian Pyke, and Peter Sheehan, ―Late Antique and
Medieval Painted Decoration at the White Monastery (Dayr al-Abiad), Sohag,‖
Bulletin of the American Research Center in Egypt 192 (Fall-Winter 2007), 5–11.
Archaeology at the White Monastery 45
within the tomb chamber, as well as both plaster layers in the above-
ground chapel, conforms to late ancient patterns: Bolman has drawn
iconographic parallels between the paintings in the subterranean
burial chamber and those in a fourth-century tomb in Nicaea (Iznik,
Turkey).28 In the above-ground chapel, a later phase of plaster
includes fragments featuring figures rendered in bold, dark outlines reminiscent of sixth- and seventh-century paintings from the Red
Monastery, the Monastery of Apa Apollo at Bawit, and the
Monastery of Apa Jeremias at Saqqara.
In January of 2007, all of these paintings surviving in situ
became the subject of a campaign of stabilization and conservation
directed by Elizabeth Bolman and implemented by a team of Italian
conservators led by Luigi De Cesaris, Alberto Sucato, and Emiliano
Ricchi (Figure 8). The team used infiltrations of acrylic resin and
micronized calcium carbonate, sometimes with strips of Japanese
paper, to anchor loose edges in places where areas of plaster had
begun to become detached from the walls. Cracks and missing areas
were filled with material subtly distinguishable from the original wall plaster. The conservators built temporary brick walls 10cm away
from above-ground painted surfaces and filled gap with clean sand to
prevent deterioration due to the influence of the natural element and
human touch. In February of 2009, the entrance to the tomb was
securely sealed to prevent unauthorized intrusion. Father Maximous
al-Anthony supervised the construction of a plastered brick
superstructure with a padlocked door that controls access to that
space.
Further conservation work in the tomb chamber continued in
November and December of 2009, and important new details
emerged in the painting of St. Shenoute on the northern side of the burial chamber vault (Figure 9). A painted Greek inscription (or
dipinto) identifies the figure as Shenoute. It reads: [---]ΟϹ Α[ΒΒ]Α
ϹΙΝΟΥΘΙΟΥ ΑΡΧΙΜΑΝΔ[Ρ]ΙΤΟΥ, or ―The [---] of A[bb]a Shenoute the Archimand[r]ite‖). Shenoute’s clothing consists of a mantle over
a belted tunic. A leather bag or apron hangs at his right hip with its
strap slung over his left shoulder. Over the same shoulder is draped a
long stole with four crosses (two on the upper part near his shoulder,
28
Nezih Firatli, ―An Early Byzantine Hypogeum Discovered at Iznik,‖ Mélanges
Mansel, vol. 2 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimeri, 1974), 919–32; see also S.
Pelekanidis, ―Die Malerei der konstantinischen Zeit,‖ Akten des VII internationalen
Kongresses für christliche Archäologie. Trier, 5–8 September, 1965 (Vatican:
Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1965), 1:215–35, and 2: pl. CXI–CXXX.
Stephen J. Davis 46
and two more on the lower part near the fringe). Standing in a full
frontal posture, the saint raises both of his arms. In his left hand, he
holds a circular object, probably a crown or wreath. Shenoute is
flanked by two figures who are only partially preserved: there are no
surviving inscriptions by which they may be identified.
Shenoute is depicted barefoot, while the figure to his right (the viewer’s left) wears socks on his feet, and the flight feathers of a
wing are visible beneath his left arm. These details make it possible to
identify the two accompanying figures as angels. In early Christian
funerary art, the deceased were often presented in the company of
angelic guardians and shown receiving crowns of victory. Martyrs
and monks were understood to have earned these crowns on account
of their successful endurance of trials and suffering. In this particular
case, Shenoute is notably the only human figure depicted and named
in the tomb. This evidence, in aggregate, has led the YMAP
investigators to conclude that the triconch funerary chapel was most
likely designed as a burial place and functioned as memorial shrine
dedicated to Shenoute. The painted inscription in the subterranean chamber would also
seem to support this interpretation. Shenoute’s name, preserved in the
genitive case, follows a lacuna that ends with the nominative
masculine singular ending –ΟϹ. There are various possibilities for
reconstructing this lacuna, but the most likely option is ΤΟΠΟϹ (―the
place/ monastery/ shrine/ tomb‖), which is commonly attested among the Greco-Egyptian epigraphic corpus, sometimes preceded by the
adjective ΑΓΙΟϹ (―holy‖).29 As reconstructed along these lines, the
dipinto would serve to identify this architectural space as ―[The
(holy) tom]b of A[bb]a Shenoute the Archimand[r]ite,‖ or ―[The (holy) shrin]e of A[bb]a Shenoute the Archimand[r]ite.‖30
THE MAIN MONASTIC CHURCH
This discovery related to the topos of St. Shenoute has not marked the end of the conservation effort at the White Monastery. More recently,
29
PCairoMasp 1.67094, line 18 (553 CE): ed. J. Maspero, Papyrus grecs d’époque
byzantine, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire (Cairo:
L’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1911), 1:135; see also Arietta
Papaconstantinou, Le culte des saints en Égypte des Byzantins aux Abbassides:
L’apport des inscriptions et des papyrus grecs et coptes (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2001),
222–3 and 268–70. 30
For more detailed documentation, see Elizabeth Bolman, Stephen J. Davis, and
Gillian Pyke, ―Shenoute and a Recently Discovered Tomb Chapel at the White
Monastery,‖ Journal of Early Christian Studies 18.3 (2010), 453–62.
Archaeology at the White Monastery 47
the focus of this work has turned to the main monastic church where
traces of painted program remain throughout the building.
In the spring of 2010, De Cesaris and Sucato, assisted by Ricchi,
conducted preliminary test cleanings of wall paintings in the
sanctuary of the White Monastery church. Two medieval paintings
were selected, one on each side of the eastern lobe. To the north, Sucato’s work focused on the painting of the archangel Michael,
where he completed one test square. To the south, De Cesaris and
Ricchi cleaned two sections of the painting of the Virgin and Christ
Child, focusing on the face of the Virgin and the hand and arm of the
Christ Child. The paintings were produced by artists using the secco
technique (the application of pigments to dry plaster). To clean the
paintings, the conservators first had to remove a relatively recent
layer of acrylic resin. They did so by applying acetone and thinner to
the painted surface through protective layers of Japanese paper and
Kleenex tissue. Dust and dirt were removed with water and organic
solvent; cracks in the paint were filled with a specially prepared
plaster that has a composition consistent with the original plaster. The final step involved a patina treatment. The results were striking,
especially in the case of the Virgin’s face where the refinement of the
brushwork reveals the technique of a master (Figure 10).31 The
YMAP team hopes that these successful tests will lay the groundwork
for further conservation work on the church paintings in the near
future.
Conclusion
One can see from this report that the surveys, excavations,
archaeological recording, church documentation, and art conservation
at the White Monastery have benefited from the collaboration of
numerous specialists in a variety of disciplines and areas of expertise,
as well as from the indispensible support of the Egyptian Supreme
Council of Antiquities and of course the monks who now inhabit the
modern monastery. This interdisciplinary and intercultural cooperation has yielded results ranging from the analysis of complex
plumbing systems to the discovery of ―the topos of Saint Shenoute‖
beneath the triconch funerary chapel. In coming years, it also
promises to yield fresh views of paintings in the monastic church. As
the Yale Monastic Archaeology Project enters its next phase of work,
31
On the basis of preliminary art historical analysis, Elizabeth Bolman has dated this
painting circa AD 1300.
Stephen J. Davis 48
we look forward to a similar level of collaboration as we face the
challenges of reconstructing the history of a site that has been so
well-trodden (and yet also so understudied) throughout the centuries.
It is our hope that, as we continue our archaeological, architectural,
and art historical investigations at the White Monastery, we may find
ourselves better and better equipped to answer questions about the social practices and physical environment of the Coptic monks who
have lived within its walls from late antiquity to the present day.
Archaeology at the White Monastery 49
Figure 1: Site plan showing the archaeological zone at the White Monastery. [Plan by Dawn McCormack, Darlene Brooks Hedstrom, Gillian Pyke, and Louise Blanke; adapted by Stephen Davis]
Stephen J. Davis 50
Figure 2: Magnetometric survey plan of a section in area 3, showing indications of interference caused by modern pipes and surface waste.
[Plan by Tomasz Herbich]
Archaeology at the White Monastery 51
Figure 3: Floor plan of the triconch funerary chapel in Unit N. [Plan by Nicholas Warner]
Stephen J. Davis 52
Figure 4: Fragments of painted plaster from the south hall of the triconch funerary chapel, showing images of saints holding books. [Photograph by
Gillian Pyke]
Archaeology at the White Monastery 53
Figure 5: The west side of the south conch of the funerary chapel, showing a painted program of floral and geometric designs. [Photograph by Gillian Pyke]
Stephen J. Davis 54
Figure 6: Stephen Emmel at work conserving the papyrus fragments
recovered from the funerary chapel. [Photograph by Bentley Layton]
Archaeology at the White Monastery 55
Figure 7: The main monastic church at the White Monastery, viewed from the southwest. [Photograph by Stephen Davis]
Stephen J. Davis 56
Figure 8: Emiliano Ricchi [left] and Luigi De Cesaris [right] in the tomb beneath the funerary chapel discussing the conservation of the wall paintings. [Photograph by Elizabeth Bolman]
Archaeology at the White Monastery 57
Figure 9: Wall painting of St. Shenoute with accompanying inscription in the tomb beneath the funerary chapel. [Photograph by Elizabeth Bolman]