# Absolute dates of fourth-century Christian monuments from the oasis of Kharga and preliminary chronological modelling of church construction in fourth-century Egypt

Victor Ghica

► To cite this version:

Victor Ghica. Absolute dates of fourth-century Christian monuments from the oasis of Kharga and preliminary chronological modelling of church construction in fourth-century Egypt. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Christian Archaeology, Belgrade 2024, Vujadin Ivanišević, Sep 2024, Belgrade (Serbia), Serbia. **hal-05308848**

HAL Id: hal-05308848

https://hal.science/hal-05308848v1

Submitted on 10 Oct 2025

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire **HAL**, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Absolute dates of fourth-century Christian monuments from the oasis of Kharga and preliminary chronological modelling of church construction in fourth-century Egypt

Victor Ghica

(Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, Oslo)

This paper has two objectives: to discuss the dating of several Christian sites studied by the DEChriM project<fnref n="1" /> in the oasis of Kharga and to propose a first, and very preliminary chronological model for the church-building process in fourth-century Egypt based on monuments that are extant and datable.

Kharga is the pivotal point of this paper. This oasis offers an excellent case study since it is home to the largest concentration of fourth-century Christian archaeological sites in the Eastern part of the Empire (Fig. 1), but also because lately it has been extensively investigated by DEChriM. These last years, DEChriM's team has been running excavations on four sites and surveying a large number of other archaeological areas throughout the oasis. At the same time, DEChriM took over and extended the South-Kharga Oasis Survey.<fnref n="2" />

To avoid repeating information given elsewhere, I refer the reader to descriptions and bibliographies of sites published in DEChriM's database 4CARE ("Fourth-Century Christian Archaeological Record of Egypt").<fnref n="3" /> In the following, I will only summarise the most salient features and problematic aspects of a select number of sites located around ancient Hibis, nowadays Madīnat al-Ḥāriġa. Due to the word limit, I will not dwell on the dating of the other monuments included in the kernel density estimation (KDE) model that forms the second part of the paper, providing only the BP radiocarbon ages included in the model.

Unless otherwise specified, ¹⁴C ages derive from straw sampled in bricks or coatings and relate to building stratigraphy. In the case of calibration intervals obtained through Bayesian modelling, several charcoal samples were also included for deposit layers following stratigraphies explained in Harris matrices that I published elsewhere. The reason for privileging straw lies in the fact that, incorporated as binding material in the composition of mudbricks and having a very short “shelf life”, the dry stalks of cereal plants (in Kharga, essentially wheat and barley) are by far the safest repositories of radiocarbon chronologically linked to a specific building phase.

<footnote n="1">¹ A brief presentation of ERC-CoG project DEChriM (“Deconstructing Early Christian Metanarratives: Fourth-Century Egyptian Christianity in the Light of Material Evidence”; grant agreement no. 819368 – ERC-2018-COG) can be found on the website of the project: https://4care-skos.mf.no/.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² The gazetteer side of the publication can be accessed at https://4care-skos.mf.no/skos-database/.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ https://4care-skos.mf.no/search-4caresites/.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** – Map of Kharga Oasis, showing the most important settlements in the fourth century; in italics are toponyms of sites with documented Christian communities in the fourth century (V. Ghica).</figcaption></figure>
Al-Bağawāt

Perhaps the most iconic of the archaeological sites of Kharga, the cemetery of al-Bağawāt (Fig. 2) is one of the three best preserved late antique funerary areas throughout the Empire, next to the Portus necropolis, on the Isola Sacra, and the one in Pécs, ancient Sopianae. Moreover, the al-Bağawāt and Pécs cemeteries account for the vast majority of Christian mausolea datable to the fourth century. Its exceptional state of preservation remains to be explained; a much smaller, although typologically similar, funerary area recently excavated by DEChriM at ‘Ayn Ḩalīl, the Christian funerary area of Dūš,<fnref n="4" /> in the same oasis of Kharga and belonging to the same chronological horizon, displays much more eroded mausolea.

The dating of the funerary use of this cemetery has been a matter of debate since the first digs on the site, run by the Metropolitan Museum in 1907. The reason for this lies largely in the very limited amount of published archaeological material associated with the mausolea, whilst the information related to the excavation of the pit-graves is virtually non-existent.<fnref n="5" /> Although this cannot be ascertained without further excavations, it is likely that the cemetery was created in the 3rd century AD.<fnref n="6" /> When it ceased being used as a burial ground is, however, even less clear. Two dates have been put forward and then circulated in scholarship: mid-5th century<fnref n="7" /> and 6th-7th century.<fnref n="8" />

Giuseppina Cipriano, who authored the most careful and detailed study of the necropolis, situates the end of the cemeterial function of the site between mid-5th century and the beginning of the 6th.<fnref n="9" /> She categorised the 263 mausolea mapped by Fakhry into three groups and construction phases: phase 1 (ca. 250 to Constantine),<fnref n="10" /> phase 2 (Constantine to mid-5th century),<fnref n="11" /> and phase 3 (mid- to end of 5th century or even until the beginning of 6th century).<fnref n="12" /> Built on a variety of arguments, this chrono-typology<fnref n="13" /> is at the moment the most advanced attempt<fnref n="14" /> at dating the construction of these mausolea (the funerary pits are a separate matter). Nevertheless, it remains – because of obvious limitations – a relative chronology.

<footnote n="4">⁴ See GHICA *et al.* 2025b.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ For a recent critical overview of the bibliography on al-Bağawāt, see ROQUET, GHICA 2025, pp. XI-XV.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ See HAUSER 1932, p. 50; GHICA 2012, p. 192.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ WILKINSON 1928, p. 37; WINLOCK 1941, p. 49; PENSABENE 2001, p. 92; GROSSMANN 2002, p. 318.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ FAKHRY 1951, p. 1; WESSEL 1967, col. 77; TORP 1973, p. 131.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ CIPRIANO 2008, p. 112.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ CIPRIANO 2008, p. 87.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ CIPRIANO 2008, pp. 94-95.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² CIPRIANO 2008, p. 112.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ CIPRIANO 2008, pp. 85-124.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ The only other study that addressed this matter with credible arguments is that of PENSABENE 2001.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** – Map of the necropolis of al-Bağawāt, showing mausolea and areas containing pit graves visible on the ground now; a colour code marks each mausoleum according to Cipriano’s phasing (D. Laisney, V. Ghica).</figcaption></figure>
Presented below are some elements of absolute dating for the construction of the mausolea, which are meant to both anchor Cipriano's work in radiometric evidence and to test her phasing model. The ages of the construction are assumed to be directly related to the funerary activities at al-Bağawāt, which, in the absence of further excavations and organic artefacts retrieved from secure funerary contexts, can only be assessed in this manner. It is useful to recall at this point that the chronology of the visitational use of the cemetery, which continued after it ceased functioning as such, relies now, after the loss of the stratigraphy inside the mausolea, exclusively on the hundreds of graffiti, mostly Coptic and Arabic, inscribed on the walls of the mausolea.<fnref n="15" />

Ten straw samples were extracted from mudbricks of nine mausolea in order to date phases II (more exactly its sub-phases II.1 and II.2) and III of Cipriano's chrono-typology: mausolea N⁰s 23, 30 (so-called “Chapel of Exodus”), 145 and 172, for phase II.1; N° 25, 80 (so-called “Chapel of Peace”), 159 and 200, for phase II.2; N° 66, for phase III. The sampling strategy targeted constantly walls belonging to the earliest phase of construction of each mausoleum.

The calibrated ¹⁴C ages obtained from straw were included in various Bayesian chronological models,<fnref n="16" /> some more stable than others. I am presenting here (Fig. 3) the most robust of these. It was built as a phase model with the 10 calibrated ages organised in 4 phases named after Cipriano’s grouping. Its overall index of agreement (Aoverall) is 77.5.

Generally, the model confirms Cipriano's grouping of mausolea in phases II.1, II.2 and III. However, mausoleum N° 200 cannot fit into Cipriano's group II.2,<fnref n="17" /> and can only be associated with the group I. The extent to which the entirety of Cipriano's grouping is consistent with radiometric ages can obviously not be extrapolated from the calibration intervals published here. However, tweaked with mausoleum N° 200 moved into group I, the model remains coherent and allows for constraining Cipriano's construction phases/groups. The Bayesian posterior age ranges obtained are striking and in partial disagreement with the dates proposed by Cipriano. Summarised, calibration intervals for each group look as follows:<fnref n="18" /> group I – 173-329 (2σ) / 220-250 (1σ); group II.1 – 221-350 (2σ) / 240-279 (1σ); group II.2 – 250-365 (2σ) / 256-299 (1σ); group III – 270-375 (2σ) / 277-318 (1σ).

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ On these, see ROQUET, GHICA 2025 and GHICA 2013.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ All calibrations and Bayesian chronological models published here were produced with the online version of OxCal 4.4 (https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal.html) and the IntCal20 calibration curve.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ CIPRIANO 2008, pp. 109, 283.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ All probability ranges are modelled. Unmodelled ranges of phases are not included here. Years are expressed as AD.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** – Sequence model of Cipriano’s phases I, II.1, II.2 and III, showing the probability distributions for each phase (both 1σ and 2σ), their boundaries, agreement (A) and convergence (C) indices, and the estimated medians for each calibration range (V. Ghica).</figcaption></figure>

The implications of these date ranges are numerous. It is worth underlining succinctly some of them. First, the onset of the construction phase I appears potentially older than expected. The calibrated range for the construction of this group of mausolea, which now includes mausoleum N° 200, obliges also to reconsider the date of the funerary inscription
IGChrEg 355,<fnref n="19" /> likely the epitaph of a Syrian soldier from Bostra, which impacts the chronology of the presence of Roman troops stationed in Kharga. Very importantly, too, the modelled intervals of groups II.1 and II.2 date the famous painted domes of the “Chapel of Exodus” (Nº 30, group II.1) and the “Chapel of Peace” (Nº 80, group II.2), putting an end to a long series of speculations in this regard. Finally, the *terminus ante quem* of group III might suggest, if confirmed by future dates associated with other mausolea from the same group, that at least the construction of tombs with superstructure – if not the funerary activity altogether – ceased at al-Bağawāt before 375 (2σ). This would be consistent with the conclusion reached by the DEChriM project about the withdrawal of Roman troops stationed in Kharga around the year 381/382.<fnref n="20" />

Before moving on, it is important to call for caution with respect to the received idea that al-Bağawāt was both a “pagan” and a Christian necropolis.<fnref n="21" /> The evidence available suggests that it was essentially a Christian cemetery<fnref n="22" /> and that the demonstrably non-Christian mausolea are extremely few, with their number overblown by inference. In fact, distinguishing pagan from Christian mausolea based solely of their architecture is impossible,<fnref n="23" /> except for the mausolea fitted with sanctuaries, which can be termed “funerary chapels”. However, missing relevant data for many of the mausolea remains the most salient feature in this regard, hence the *argumenta ex silentio* fuelling the debate. The calibrated age range for mausoleum N° 200 demonstrates also an early onset of the Christian inhumations on the site, which might suggest that several other mausolea of Cipriano’s group I were Christian, although, if we follow her grouping, only N°s 71 and 77 bear visible Christian indicators.

Around al-Bağawāt lies a cluster of five monasteries, the *koinobia* of Dayr Muștafā Kāšif, Dayr al-Bağawāt, ‘Ayn Sa’af East and ‘Ayn Ğallāl, as well as the recently discovered *laura* of Ğabal al-Ṭayr. This constellation of monastic settlements, spread in a radius of 2.6 km, is the only one known in the fourth century. It was established on the periphery and outside the ancient metropolis of Hibis and along a north-south running ancient road.<fnref n="24" /> In what follows, I will discuss the dating of the first four monasteries, the last one being still under study.

### Dayr Muștafā Kāšif

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ = *I.Oasis* p. 65-66 (Nº 6) = *SB XX 14852* = *SEG XXXVIII 1696*; see also SCHRAM, GHICA 2021, 2025.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ See GHICA *et al.* 2024b, particularly p. 203; GHICA *et al.* 2025a, p. 98.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ Disseminated, among others, by GROSSMANN 2002.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² For the same assessment, see CIPRIANO 2008, pp. 112-113.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ CIPRIANO 2008, p. 86.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ On these sites, see GHICA 2012, pp. 199-210, 222-224; GHICA 2019, pp. 131-135; and their respective 4CARE pages. On the *laura* of Ğabal al-Ṭayr, see the brief notes in the field report GHICA *et al.* 2025b.</footnote>
Dayr Muștafâ Kăšif is a cenobitic monastery and the largest extant one securely dated to the fourth century. Currently preserved to a height of over 9m in certain areas, the main building of the site comprised once three stories and was erected around, and incorporating two preexisting buildings, the oldest of which was originally a two-chambers funerary mausoleum constructed, according to the modelling of the ages obtained for two of its walls, between 336 and 57 BCE.<fnref n="25" /> The site has a complex history, the details of which change at the pace of each excavation season. DEChriM spent so far four seasons on this site, excavating and running conservation work. In the form in which it is known today, the site served as a monastery and pilgrimage centre, as well as, possibly, as episcopal residence. Its probable name appears in a Coptic ostracoon evoking a hermitage at “the monastery of the martyr Kyriakos”.<fnref n="26" />

I have discussed the complex stratigraphy of the main building elsewhere.<fnref n="27" /> The latest Bayesian chronological model (Fig. 4) situates the construction of the monastic building – including the church of the complex (phase 3 and sequences 3 and 4 in the latest published version of our Harris matrix)<fnref n="28" /> – in the calendar window 348-375 (modelled 2σ). Comprising of 19 radiocarbon ages, this model replaces the latest one published,<fnref n="29" /> to which it brings several correctives thanks to four new ¹⁴C measurements. It is an *Outlier Model* ("General", T(5), U(0,4), "t") with an outlier probability of 0.05, which reconstructs four successive occupational phases at a site using ¹⁴C dates grouped in *Sequences* and *Phases*, with transitions constrained by *Boundaries*, *KDE_Plot* visualisations, and a *Tau_Boundary* enforcing a probabilistic start for Phase 3 after 300 AD.

What this recent version brings new are the better constrained posterior density estimates for the foundation of the monastery: 348-375 (modelled 2σ) and 357-372 (modelled 1σ). New is also the date obtained for an annex located to the northeast of the main building, which had been dated by its Egyptian excavators to the Mamluk period (1250-1517). This building was actually the kitchen of the monastery and is contemporaneous with it (phase 3).<fnref n="30" /> Finally, an additional phase (preliminarily marked as 3.1 in Fig. 4) dates the modification of the wall separating rooms R7 and R8 and is, thus, associated with the hermitic occupation of the former funerary mausoleum (253-359, modelled 2σ). This phase has been left unconstrained,

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Including an additional ¹⁴C date, this Bayesian posterior age range replaces the one published in GHICA et al. 2024b, pp. 235, 239.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ *O.DouchCopt.* 13, 5-6: ΠΗΛ | ΠΠΗΔΡΤΥΡΟΣ κ(γ)ρ(ιακ)ος; GHICA et al. forthcoming.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ GHICA et al. 2024b; GHICA 2025.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ GHICA et al. 2024b, p. 237; GHICA 2025.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ GHICA et al. 2024b, pp. 232-241.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ FTMC-UG90-9: 1715 ± 29 BP – (69.6%) 313-414; (25.9%) 250-295 cal AD (2σ).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** – Outlier model of the sequence of phases 1, 2, 3.1, 3 and 6 of the Dayr Mușțafă Kăšif building complex, showing the probability distributions for each phase and their boundaries (V. Ghica).</figcaption></figure>

with no mitigation of the 3rd century plateau sensitivity, which explains the substantial 3rd century segment of the calibration interval. Despite the distortion created by what is likely 3rd century noise, the overfitting is deliberate, and leaves open a pre-Constantinian horizon for the mausoleum-turned-hermitage.

## Dayr al-Bağawāt

Located 250m west of Dayr Mușțafă Kăšif and undeniably related to it, Dayr al-Bağawāt shelters another well preserved cenobitic monastery. Excavated by the local SCA inspectorate, with digs never published and very little archaeological material associated with it, this site remains difficult to date. After discarding three misfits that yielded radiocarbon ages impossible to reconcile with the prior archaeological information,<fnref n="31" /> only two ¹⁴C measurements

<footnote n="31">³¹ Given the word limit, I will discuss these probability ranges elsewhere. One of them is a clear case of old-wood effect.</footnote>
can be used to estimate the construction date. I discussed one of them elsewhere.<fnref n="32" /> The key sample, however, is another one, which comes from a safer context (the large northern niche of the sanctuary of the church) and yielded the 2σ calibration ranges (51.5%) 277-338 and (43.9%) 209-261.<fnref n="33" /> As the second interval must be discarded for obvious historical reasons, the construction of the church of this monastery should be situated in the former interval, before 338.<fnref n="34" /> The analysis of the wall joints suggests that this *terminus ante quem* should be applied to the whole building. In addition, this Constantinian foundation date offers the only chronological anchor for the mausoleum-turned-hermitage (and, later, maybe also shrine) around which was constructed Dayr Muşţafā Kāšif.<fnref n="35" /> Indeed, the calibrated calendar date range discussed above indicates that this hermitage, which had very likely become a pilgrimage centre,<fnref n="36" /> was active in Constantinian times, although the period when it was first established – either as a hermitage or as a shrine – remains unknown. The resulting relative chronology between the two sites of Dayr Muşţafā Kāšif and Dayr al-Bağawāt and the way they coexisted and interrelated, all matters of debate, become clear: Dayr al-Bağawāt was the first monastery built in the proximity of, and in relation to the religious centre constituted by this “tomb hermitage” (a type of hermitic dwelling well known in the early monastic literature), whilst Dayr Muşţafā Kāšif was erected some years or decades later, between 348 and 375.

## ‘Ayn Sa‘af East

Part of the same monastic cluster as Dayr Muşţafā Kāšif and Dayr al-Bağawāt is the site of ‘Ayn Sa‘af East, located 1.5km north of Dayr Muşţafā Kāšif, on the foothills of the Ğabal al-Ṭayr.

The ground plan of this site, which was excavated by the local inspectorate of the Supreme Council of Antiquities but never published, points rather in the direction of a small hamlet.<fnref n="37" /> However, four Greek ostraca found during these digs,<fnref n="38" /> still unedited, contain orders of distribution of wheat or barley to a certain father Makarios, who is said to be a *monachos*,

<footnote n="32">³² GHICA 2012, p. 203 and n. 68.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ FTMC-WU51-9: 1797 ± 26 BP.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ Because of a well-known plateau in the radiocarbon calibration curve, ¹⁴C measurements yielding 2σ calibrated ranges that include dates in the first third of the 4th century AD will also necessarily include calendar dates from the late 3rd century AD, typically the range from ca. 260-299 AD, within the same 2σ confidence interval. Here and elsewhere in this paper, I discarded these late 3rd-century tails.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ For a brief discussion on the relation between the two sites, see GHICA 2012, p. 203 and notes.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ A detailed discussion of these spaces inside Dayr Muşţafā Kāšif and their architectural evolution can be found in GHICA *et al.* 2024a, pp. 163-168.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ See GHICA 2012, p. 222.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ Ayn al-Za’af inv. 5, 6 and 22.</footnote>
while two other orders of distribution are addressed to a father Nepheros<fnref n="39" /> and a deacon Paulos.<fnref n="40" /> In addition, some of these ostraca<fnref n="41" /> mention clearly “the house of father Makarios”, using the monastic technical term οἰκία, which designates, in Pachomian environments, a group of monastics depending on a large monastery.<fnref n="42" /> The fact that ‘Ayn Sa‘af (East) was occupied by a monastic community is further confirmed by a *dipinto* painted inside the apse of the church listing the names of 19 monks, although its date cannot be established.<fnref n="43" /> Although limited, the available evidence strongly suggests that ‘Ayn Sa‘af East is a small monastic settlement installed in an abandoned village. This settlement strategy is well-known from literary texts, which describe monastic habitations in or next to abandoned villages as well as on the edge of cultivated land,<fnref n="44" /> although it has not been attested archaeologically so far. The topographic profile of ‘Ayn Sa‘af East is precisely that: a monastic settlement occupying an abandoned village and located on the margin of ancient agricultural plots, next to a well.

The foundation date of the church could be only recently established thanks to two ¹⁴C dates aggregated with the *R_Combine* function of OxCal (χ² test: df=1, T=0.0 (5% 3.8)). The two estimates are those of two straw samples collected from the apse of the church. The *R_Combine* function, which pools the uncalibrated dates into a single radiocarbon measurement that is then calibrated,<fnref n="45" /> yields the calendar ranges 236-343 (2σ), 246-327 (1σ).<fnref n="46" /> The horizon obtained is very similar to the one reached for Dayr al-Bağawāt, which indicates that this monastic colony established around the city of Hibis and composed of several monasteries emerges in the Constantinian period. It is also worth noting that this *R_Combine* probability range is compatible with the occupation phase of the monastery to which are associated the Greek ostraca mentioned previously, which are dated between 372 and 378.<fnref n="47" /> Another, younger radiocarbon age range had been obtained in the past<fnref n="48" /> for the wall of the *hūrus*, which was added later on (5th-6th c.) in front of the sanctuary the church. Interestingly

<footnote n="39">³⁹ Ayn al-Za’af inv. 7.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ Ayn al-Za’af inv. 9.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ Ayn al-Za’af inv. 6, but also inv. 5 and 22.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² See WIPSZYCKA 2009, pp. 507-513.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ I. Ayn al-Za’af 9, unedited.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ On these settlements, see, for example, WIPSZYCKA 1994 and GOEHRING 1996.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ See BRONK RAMSEY 2009, p. 341.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ FTMC-WU51-10: 1777 ± 25 BP; FTMC-MU27-1: 1771 ± 28 BP.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ These dates are based on two facts: the overlap between rare personal names present both in the ‘Ayn Sa‘af ostraca and the *O.Douch / O.Waqfa / Graff. Chams el Din* corpus (Eupatôr, Euprepis, Panisnêu) and the period during which the latter corpus was produced (364/365-381/382; LEMAIRE forthcoming; GHICA et al. forthcoming). This implies that the indictional dates mentioned in the ostraca from ‘Ayn Sa‘af belong to the same indictional cycles. Thus, Ayn al-Za’af inv. 7 is dated to 372/373 (1st ind.), inv. 10 to 376/377 (5th ind.) and inv. 9 and 15 to 377/378 (6th ind.).</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ IFAO279: 1554 ± 48 BP (recalibrated with IntCal20) – 418-600 cal AD (2σ); GHICA 2012, p. 222, n. 184.</footnote>
enough, the parapet atop the roof of the same church is referred to in the dipinto mentioned above, which was written on the wall of the *hūrus*.<fnref n="49" />

It is too early to speculate about the *topos* to which this “house of Makarios” was attached. The dating interval obtained for the church would suggest that the mother monastery was Dayr al-Bağawāt, located only 1.4 km south of ‘Ayn Sa‘af East, which is the closest contemporaneous monastery, although we shall see below that another one, ‘Ayn Ğallāl, situated a little further south, could also be a candidate. However, whether the church of ‘Ayn Sa‘af East was built as a village church – in which case its construction date predates that of the beginning of the monastic phase of the site – or as the church of this monastic *oikia*, cannot be established without further study.

## ‘Ayn Ğallāl

Situated 1.6 km south of Dayr al-Bağawāt and literally on the edge of the western spur of ancient Hibis, the two buildings that are part of the archaeological area of ‘Ayn Ğallāl form an intriguing bipartite monastic complex. The southern sector, with its church, *hïṣn*, cells, kitchens and inner court and corridors, is a well-defined and self-contained *koinobion* built during at least three construction phases. The function of the northern sector, however, is less clear, and no documentation or archaeological material related to the excavations on the site is available. I had proposed in the past the hypotheses of a *xenodochion*<fnref n="50" /> or even an *oikia* of the southern sector,<fnref n="51" /> and DEChriM’s current work in the area and the recently emerging evidence of the pilgrimage centre at Dayr Mușțafā Kāšif orient the interpretation in favour of the former. The planimetry of this northern sector hints to a unitary building constructed in one single phase.

Two radiocarbon-derived calendar ranges provide for the time an absolute chronological anchoring for these two complexes. Both derive from samples collected in bricks of the churches of the southern and northern sectors. The calibration intervals are, for the southern sector, 245-402 (2σ),<fnref n="52" /> and, for the northern one, (75.5%) 323-419, (19.9%) 254-288 (2σ).<fnref n="53" /> The former range dates also the crypt that DEChriM re-excavated in December 2022 below the *pastophorion* located to the south of the sanctuary, and probably also the funerary

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ I. Ayn al-Za’af 9, l. 6-7, πλωφωβ | [n]τεκκλγci[α], “the parapet of the church”.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ GHICA 2012, pp. 206-208.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ GHICA 2019, pp. 134-135.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² Beta-586882: 1740 ± 30 BP.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ Beta-586880: 1700 ± 30 BP.</footnote>
context therein, including two ceramic sarcophagi and the human remains associated with them.

The best-fit range of the 1σ confidence interval related to the southern sector – (37.5%) 311-365 cal AD – situates the foundation of this monastic complex in a similar calendar window as Dayr Muṣṭafā Kāšif, with both monasteries possibly marking the expansion and zenithal phase of the ascetic colony around ancient Hibis. This would, thus, correspond to the enlargement of the hypothetical initial monastic kernel formed by the Dayr al-Bağawāt *topos*, the ‘Ayn Sa‘af East *oikia* of Makarios and the mausoleum-turned-hermitage that constitutes the proto-monastic phase of Dayr Muṣṭafā Kāšif. This general chronology remains to be verified by future studies.

## ‘Ayn al-Ṭurba

The archaeological area of ‘Ayn al-Ṭurba is all that remains of *Hibitôn polis*, the ancient city of Hibis evoked several times so far, with the rest of it lying mostly under palm groves below the northern part of modern Madīnat al-Ḥāriğa. ‘Ayn al-Ṭurba covers a mere 3.6% of the estimated total area of Hibis (ca. 27 km² out of the 740 km²).

The two churches uncovered in this northernmost lobe of Hibis, only 300 m from al-Bağawāt, are tightly knit into a complex urban fabric that is yet to be studied.<fnref n="54" /> With unpublished and ongoing excavations on the site, the general urban setting of the two churches is not clear. Among the multi-period and presumably functionally eclectic spaces visible on the site, stand out several funerary spaces that beg various questions. The most conspicuous of these are four buildings roughly oriented north-south, reminiscent of those excavated in the necropolis of Bi'r Šāġġāla, in Dakhla Oasis, dated between the 1st and the 3rd centuries AD.<fnref n="55" /> Their funerary function is clearly indicated by the northernmost one, which features an underground vaulted chamber on the northern wall of which is represented the triad Osiris, Isis, Nephthys. Other unusual burials were discovered in 2024 in the eastern part of the site, in subfloor contexts in what seems to be housing units.

The larger, basilical church<fnref n="56" /> cannot be radiocarbon-dated because of the total lack of organic inclusions in the bricks. The second one, however, which is smaller and built atop a

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ As for all the other archaeological sites mentioned in this paper, the page of the 4CARE database referred to contains also maps and photogrammetric models of the sites, and sometimes 3D reconstructions of certain monuments.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ See IBRAHIM, ASHOUR 2019.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ See GHICA 2012, pp. 197-199 and fig. 2; GHICA 2019, pp. 242-243, 248-249 and fig. 9b.</footnote>
preexisting columnated building adjacent to the larger church and is still unpublished, yielded
the calibrated ¹⁴C interval 206-353 cal AD (2σ).<fnref n="57" />

*Bayesian modelling of temple construction or restoration and church construction*

The Bayesian chronological model presented below (Fig. 5) synthesises all available
chronological data associated with the construction or restoration of temples and to the
construction of churches. These datasets were grouped into two independent sequences in
OxCal, each bounded by start and end boundaries, without any a priori chronological
relationship imposed between them. To visualise the temporal distribution of events non-
parametrically, the dates were placed within *KDE_Plot* blocks rather than *Phase* blocks. This
approach enables the kernel density estimation (KDE) function to generate probability
distributions based on the input priors, rather than posteriors derived from internal temporal
structure or constraints. No duration constraints, internal ordering, or sub-boundaries were
applied within these *KDE_Plot* blocks. As such, the KDE distributions span the two boundaries
of each sequence but reflect only the aggregated priors – typically uniform distributions –
associated with the defined date ranges of each event. These KDE plots should therefore be
interpreted not as posterior distributions from a fully modelled phase, but as smoothed
representations of the input data, giving a probabilistic overview of the assumed date densities
across the two sequences. In the sequence of church construction, the uniform prior structure
assumes that each church was built at some point within its designated date range. The KDE
reflects the weighted sum of these prior ranges and should be read as an aggregate density
function representing the probability distribution of construction activity, based solely on the
chronological assumptions entered into the model.

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ Beta-586881: 1790 ± 30 BP.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** – Two-phase Bayesian chronological model showing the temporal distribution of temple construction/restoration and church construction; colours associated to churches mark the origin of date ranges: orange – ¹⁴C; green – epigraphy; purple – coinage; blue – ceramic (V. Ghica).</figcaption></figure>
The church sequence contains mostly radiocarbon-dated churches. In addition to the sites previously discussed, *R_Date* or *R_Combine* entries were included for Qaşr Nisīma,<fnref n="58" /> Ğabal Tārif<fnref n="59" /> and Dayr Abū Maṭṭā.<fnref n="60" /> For Šams al-Dīn and the two earliest churches at Tall Ğanūb Qaşr al-‘Ağūz (GQA1 and GQA6), posterior date ranges were derived from six bespoke Bayesian models developed for these sites and their sub-sites.<fnref n="61" /> One church, Bi’r Naqāṭ, was incorporated based on a foundation inscription that offers a bounded absolute date range (325-339).<fnref n="62" /> Besides these more securely dated cases, the model also includes churches dated by coin finds (the two eastern churches of Ismant al-Ḥarāb<fnref n="63" /> and the one at ‘Ayn al-Sabīl)<fnref n="64" /> as well as others dated by associated pottery (oratory of Tall al-Faramā, South church of Tall al-Maḥzan<fnref n="65" /> and church of Amḥayda).<fnref n="66" /> Churches lacking such robust dating criteria were excluded, though future additions to the corpus remain possible.

As for the dates associated with temples, they pertain to episodes of construction, rebuilding, or restoration.<fnref n="67" /> The intervals assigned are maximal: they begin with the accession year of a given emperor and end with his death or deposition. These ranges are intended to capture the broad window within which intervention may have occurred, rather than to provide precise dating. They, thus, serve as indicators of chronological trends in temple activity rather than definitive statements on specific interventions.

The KDE-based density distributions produced by the model reveal a marked chronological discontinuity in large-scale religious building activity (Fig. 6). The KDE for temples shows a concentration of construction and restoration events between ca. 50 BC and 180 AD, with notable density peaks around the turn of the era and again in the mid-2nd century. The density then declines sharply, with negligible probability beyond 190. In contrast, the KDE for churches indicates no activity before ca. 310, followed by a rapid and steep rise peaking between 335 and 355. The absence of overlap between the two KDE distributions suggests a

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ Beta-618626: 1740 ± 30 BP – (95.4%) 245-402 cal AD (2σ); straw; brick; apse.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ Beta-588280: 1670 ± 30 BP – (80.8%) 329-435; (10.3%) 257-282; (2.1%) 516-530; (1.3%) 465-474; (0.9%) 500-508 cal AD (2σ); straw; mud plaster; building N-W of the church (for the position of the structure, see IKRAM *et al.* 2021, p. 129, fig. 9), contemporaneous with the church.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ Eight non-calibrated ¹⁴C ages associated with various spaces in and around this church were presented at the DOP conference in London, in September 2023. I used two of them, both sampled in the south wall of the church, to obtain a statistically consistent interval (χ² test: df=1, T=0.0 (5% 3.8)) *R_Combine* calibration interval – (25.6%) 255-285, (69.9%) 326-407 cal AD (2σ) – and included the latter in the *KDE_Plot*.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ For Šams al-Dīn, see GHICA 2025. The models for Tall Ğanūb Qaşr al-‘Ağūz will be published in the forthcoming monograph on DEChriM’s excavation on this site.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² See GHICA 2016, pp. 244-245; GHICA 2019, p. 128.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ See BOWEN 2024, pp. 15-266.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ See BOWEN 2019, p. 371.</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ For references, see https://4care-skos.mf.no/4care-sites/46/.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ See ARAVECCHIA 2024, pp. 380-384.</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ The list of temples and their dates are those provided in GRENIER 1997 and KAPER 1998.</footnote>
gap in construction activity of 140-150 years, spanning the late 2nd to early 4th century AD. This apparent gap cannot be attributed solely to radiocarbon calibration issues – such as the known IntCal20 plateau (ca. 165-260 AD), which may reduce chronological precision in this interval – but more likely reflects a real historical discontinuity in state-supported religious construction.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6** – Two-phase KDE_Plot showing the temporal distribution of temple construction/restoration (light grey) and church construction (dark grey); the y-axis indicates the likelihood of the construction/restoration events occurring at specific time points; the curves represent the smoothed KDE combining the posteriors (V. Ghica).</figcaption></figure>

As temples were, at least partly, state-funded,<fnref n="68" /> the decline in activity implies the withdrawal of imperial subsidies. This marks a stark contrast with the campaigns of temple construction financed by the state – the first one, in Lower Nubia, initiated under Augustus and continued by Tiberius, and the second one, in the Theban area, carried out under Antoninus.<fnref n="69" /> One temple<fnref n="70" /> stands out and nuances this initial conclusion, that of Šams al-Dīn, built between 250 and 350⁷¹ and currently the latest temple erected in Egypt, to which one can add the works carried out in the temple of Esna under Decius (249-251),<fnref n="72" /> the small relief fragments from Kom Ombo dated to Macrinus and Diadumenianus (217-218),<fnref n="73" /> and a relief fragment of unknown origin that mentions Trebonianus Gallus (251-253).<fnref n="74" /> In the current state of the sources, these appear as outliers.

The KDE for church construction displays a sharply defined and temporally compact building horizon. Its ascent begins around 310, rises steeply, and reaches a bimodal peak between 335 and 355, closely aligned with the reigns of Constantine I – mostly the end of it – and Constantius II. After 360, the density declines, with residual activity continuing into the

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ See KAPER 1998, pp. 140-141.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ See GRENIER 1997, p. 177.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ The one in Tahta, purportedly built under Maximinus Daia (310-313), is to be ascribed to the reign of Commodus (see BARBAGLI 2023, pp. 235-237).</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ See GHICA *et al.* 2023, pp. 161-163.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷² See DERCHAIN-URTEL 1991.</footnote>

<footnote n="73">⁷³ See GRENIER 1989, p. 103.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴ See GRENIER 1988, pp. 66-69.</footnote>
later 4th century. This profile suggests that the emergence of church architecture in Egypt was sudden, intense, and occurred largely within the space of a single generation.

Admittedly, these conclusions rest on a relatively limited dataset. Moreover, the corpus is skewed geographically, with most securely dated churches situated on the fringes of Egypt – and it is so because of this irony of fate that preserved exceptionally well the margins of 4th century Egypt while obscuring its centres. Therefore, the representativeness of the dataset remains open to question, although the internal consistency of the patterns observed lends them credibility.

The inferred 140-150-year gap calls for some brief comments. It obviously pertains specifically to interventions in temple architecture and reflects solely a cessation of public funding for traditional cult sites. This pattern does not necessarily suggest the end of temple use, but rather the halt of state-supported monumental activity. For how long temples remained active is, in most cases, impossible to determine. The very few sources available give a patchy picture, in which several exceptions catch the eye,<fnref n="75" /> likely proving the rule. Generalising statements such as “le monde des temples fait mieux que survivre … il va durer jusqu’à l’avènement du christianisme qui marquera son déclin”<fnref n="76" /> are difficult to reconcile with the current chronological evidence and may reflect base-rate fallacies. The archaeological picture supports instead a scenario of prolonged attrition. The “slow starving to death”<fnref n="77" /> of temples coincided with the silent and ineluctable rise of Christianity. The scissor’s movement that must have characterised the 3rd century and the beginning of the 4th, whereby the descending curve of traditional cults’ public practice – as we can assess it from the surviving material culture – intersects the ascending one of Christianity, is uniquely visible at Šams al-Dīn, one of the very few sites featuring a temple and a church that can both be archaeometrically dated. Whether this dynamic implies that, during this gaping gap of one and half centuries, Christians engulfed themselves in the free “religious marketplace” vacated by traditional cults is a broader interpretive question, but the temporal gap leaves that possibility strikingly open.

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵ We know, for example, that the local cult at the temple of Akoris was still being performed under Diocletian (BERNAND 1988, no. 39) and that of the Buchis bull at Armant until 340 (GRENIER 1983, pp. 204-205).</footnote>

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶ VOLOKHINE 2018, p. 75.</footnote>

<footnote n="77">⁷⁷ BAGNALL 1993, p. 257.</footnote>
**Bibliography**

ARAVECCHIA 2024 = N. ARAVECCHIA, *Early Christianity at Amheida (Egypt's Dakhla Oasis)*. *A Fourth-Century Church*, vol. 1 (The Excavations), New York 2024.

BAGNALL 1993 = R.S. BAGNALL, *Egypt in Late Antiquity*, Princeton 1993.

BARBAGLI, N. 2023 = N. BARBAGLI, "The last pharaohs: The Egyptian reception of late Roman emperors", in F. CARLÀ-UHINK, C. ROLLINGER (ed.), *The Tetrarchy as Ideology: Reconfigurations and Representations of an Imperial Power*, Stuttgart 2023, pp. 221-246.

BERNAND 1988 = É. BERNAND, *Inscriptions grecques et latines d'Akôris*, Cairo 1988.

BOWEN 2019 = G.E. BOWEN, "Christianity in Dakhleh Oasis: An Archaeological Overview", in G.E. BOWEN, C.A. HOPE, B.E. PARR (ed.), *The Oasis Papers 9. A tribute to Anthony J. Mills after Forty Years of Research in Dakhleh Oasis. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project*, Oxford-Philadelphia 2019, pp. 367-380.

BOWEN 2024 = G.E. BOWEN, *The Excavations at Ismant al-Kharab II. The Christian Monuments of Kellis: The Churches and Cemeteries*, Oxford-Philadelphia 2024.

BRONK RAMSEY 2009 = C. BRONK RAMSEY, "Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates", Radiocarbon 51/1 (2009), pp. 337-360.

CIPRIANO 2008 = G. CIPRIANO, *El-Bagawat. Un cimitero paleocristiano nell'alto Egitto*, Todi 2008.

DERCHAIN-URTEL 1991 = M.-T. DERCHAIN-URTEL, "Die Bild- und Textgestaltung in Esna - eine 'Rettungsaktion'", in U. VERHOEVEN, E. GRAEFE (ed.), *Religion und Philosophie im alten Ägypten: Festgabe für Philippe Derchain*, Leuven 1991, pp. 107-121.

FAKHRY 1951 = A. FAKHRY, *The Necropolis of el-Bagawāt in Kharga Oasis*, Cairo 1951.

GHICA 2012 = V. GHICA, "Pour une histoire du christianisme dans le désert Occidental d'Égypte", *JSav July-December 2012*, pp. 189-280.

GHICA 2013 = V. GHICA, "Les graffites arabes de la nécropole d'al-Bağawāt et l'oasis d'al-Ḥāriğa entre les époques fatimide et ottomane", *Journal of Coptic Studies* 15 (2013), pp. 29-42.

GHICA 2016 = V. GHICA, 2016. "Vecteurs de la christianisation de l'Égypte au IVe siècle à la lumière des sources archéologiques", in O. BRANDT, G. CASTIGLIA (ed.), *Acta XVI Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae, Romae 22-28.9.2013*, Vatican City 2016, pp. 237-263.

GHICA 2019 = V. GHICA, "L'archéologie du monachisme égyptien du IVe siècle: état de la question", in E. CREGHEUR, L. PAINCHAUD, T. RASIMUS (ed.), *Nag Hammadi à 70 ans. Qu'avons nous appris ? Nag Hammadi at 70: What Have We Learned?* (Colloque
international, *Québec, Université Laval*, 29-31 mai 2015), Leuven-Paris-Bristol 2019, pp. 121-154.

GHICA 2025 = V. GHICA, “Christian archaeology in Kharga Oasis: Recent fieldwork”, in C.A. Hope, P.L. Polkowski, J. Anderson, L. Kilroe (ed.), *The Oasis Papers 10: The Land Where the Sun Goes Down – the Archaeology of Egypt’s Western Desert. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project*, Oxford 2025.

GHICA et al. 2023 = V. GHICA, R. WILLIAMS, B. GEHAD, M. ELEFANTE, R. DAVID, N. MORAND, “The 2021 Excavation Season at Šams al-Dīn (Kharga Oasis)”, *AnalP* 36 (2023), pp. 149-202.

GHICA et al. 2024a = V. GHICA, R. WILLIAMS, B. GEHAD, M. ELEFANTE, “The 2021 Excavation Season at Dayr Mușțafā Kāšif (Kharga Oasis)”, *AnalP* 37 (2024), pp. 149-182.

GHICA et al. 2024b = V. GHICA, M. ELEFANTE, R. WILLIAMS, B. GEHAD, “The 2022 and 2023 Field Seasons at Dayr Mușțafā Kāšif (Kharga Oasis)”, *AnalP* 38 (2024), pp. 189-248.

GHICA et al. 2025a = V. GHICA, F. LEMAIRE, M. MÜLLER, “Some Pieces of a Fourth-Century Monastic Archive of Coptic and Greek Ostraca and Wooden Tablets from Dayr Mușțafā Kāšif”, *AnalP* 39/1 (2024), pp. 91-121.

GHICA et al. 2025b = V. GHICA, M. ELEFANTE, M. ADEL, S. BOANGE, H. SHALASH, 2025, “The 2024 Excavation Season in the Cemetery of Ayn Khalil at Dush, Kharga Oasis”, *Bulletin archéologique des Écoles françaises à l'étranger*.

GHICA et al. forthcoming = V. GHICA, F. LEMAIRE, M. MÜLLER, *Coptic Ostraca from the 1976-1993 Excavations at Dūš (O.DouchCopt. 1-61) and from ‘Ayn al-Wāqifa (O.WaqfaCopt. 1-6)*, Cairo, forthcoming.

GOEHRING 1996 = J.E. GOEHRING, “Withdrawing from the Desert: Pachomius and the Development of Village Monasticism in Upper Egypt”, *HarvTheolR* 89 (1996), pp 267-285.

GRENIER 1983 = J.-C. GRENIER, “La stèle funéraire du dernier taureau Bouchis”, *BIFAO* 38 (1983), pp. 197-208.

GRENIER 1989 = J.-C. GRENIER, *Les titulatures des empereurs romains dans les documents en langue égyptienne*, Brussels 1989.

GRENIER 1997 = J.-C. GRENIER, “La religion traditionnelle: temples et clergé”, in *Égypte romaine: l'autre Égypte*, Marseille 1997, pp. 175-177.

GROSSMANN 2002 = P. GROSSMANN, *Christliche Architektur in Ägypten*, Leiden-Boston-Cologne 2002.

IBRAHIM, ASHOUR 2019 = M. IBRAHIM, S. ASHOUR, “The Bir al-Shaghala Necropolis: An Architectural Overview”, in G.E. BOWEN, C.A. HOPE, B.E. PARR (ed.), *The Oasis Papers*
9. *A tribute to Anthony J. Mills after Forty Years of Research in Dakhleh Oasis. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project*, Oxford-Philadelphia 2019, pp. 313-330.

IKRAM et al. 2021 = S. Ikram, N. Werner, N. Lazaridis, L.A. Warden, R. Cook, C. Boyer, J. Bunbury, “A ‘Late Antique’ Mining Community in the North Kharga Oasis (Egypt)”, *JARCE* 57 (2021), pp. 123-153.

KAPER 1998 = O.E. KAPER, “Temple Building in the Egyptian Desert During the Roman Period”, in O.E. KAPER (ed.), *Life on the Fringe. Living in the Southern Egyptian Deserts during the Roman and Early-Byzantine Periods. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Netherlands Institute for Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo* 9-12 December 1996, Leiden 1998, pp. 139-158.

LEMAIRE forthcoming = F. LEMAIRE, *Les ostraca grecs de Douch (O. Douch)*, fasc. VI, Cairo, forthcoming.

PENSABENE 2001 = P. PENSABENE, “Nota sugli archi in facciata delle cappelle funerarie di El-Bagawat nell’Oasi di Kharga”, in *The Culture of the Oasis from the Antiquity to the Modern Age: El Kharga, 22-27 October 1998*, Cairo 2001, pp. 85-104.

ROQUET, GHICA 2025 = G. ROQUET, V. GHICA 2025, *Bagawat. Inscriptions pariétales et graffites coptes et copto-grecs*, Cairo 2025.

SCHRAM, GHICA 2021, 2025 = V. SCHRAM, V. GHICA, 2021, 2025, “Artefact ID 695”, in 4CARE database – Fourth-Century Christian Archaeological Record of Egypt, https://4care-skos.mf.no/artefacts/695.

TORP 1973 = H. TORP 1973, “El-Bagawat”, in R. Bianchi Bandinelli (ed.), *Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica Classica e Orientale*, Supplemento 1970, Rome 1973, pp. 131-133.

VOLOKHINE 2018 = Y. VOLOKHINE, “Prêtres et temples en Égypte gréco-romaine”, in L. COULON, P.-L. GATIER (ed.), *Le clergé dans les sociétés antiques. Statut et recrutement*, Paris 2018, p. 59-76.

WESSEL 1967 = K. WESSEL, “El-Bagawat”, in K. WESSEL, M. RESTLE (ed.), *RBK 2*, Stuttgart 1967, col. 76-90.

WILKINSON 1928 = C.K. WILKINSON, “Early Christian Paintings in the Oasis of Khargeh”, *BMetrMus* 23/2 (1928), pp. 29-36.

WINLOCK 1941 = H.E. WINLOCK, *The Temple of Hibis in El Khārgeh Oasis, part I (The Excavations)*, New York 1941.

WIPSZYCKA 1994 = E. WIPSZYCKA, “Le monachisme égyptien et les villes”, *TravMem* 12 (1994), pp. 1-44.
WIPSZYCKA 2009 = E. WIPSZYCKA, *Moines et communautés monastiques en Égypte (IVᵉ-VIIIᵉ siècles)*, Warsaw 2009.