"Archaeology at the White Monastery, 2005–2010" (co-authored with L. Blanke, E. Bolman, et al.)....

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.

http://openlibrary.org/search?publisher_facet=Tip.%20Pontificia%20Arcivescovile%20S.%20Giuseppe

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).


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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]


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]


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]


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]


Figure 9: Wall painting of St. Shenoute with accompanying inscription in the tomb beneath the funerary chapel. [Photograph by Elizabeth Bolman]

Stephen J. Davis 58

Figure 10: Painting of the Virgin Mary in the main church after the preliminary test cleaning. [Photograph by Elizabeth Bolman]

"Archaeology at the White Monastery, 2005–2010" (co-authored with L. Blanke, E. Bolman, et al.)....

Documents

Transcript of "Archaeology at the White Monastery, 2005–2010" (co-authored with L. Blanke, E. Bolman, et al.)....