We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The comparison of two small oases of the Kharga and Dakhla depressions, in the Western Desert of Egypt, confirmed that spring-fed oases have been attractive after the onset of aridity, ca 4500 BC, but irrigated agriculture has not been proved yet before the Intermediate Period. Irrigated areas were suject to harsh constraints despite the wealth of underground water during millennia: wind-induced dune shifting and soil erosion in Amheida and El-Deir, while flash floods destroyed most of the El-Deir oasis during the Roman period. Recovery was more difficult because artesian springs, which relied on water stored during the wet phase of the Holocene, were progressively exhausted by irrigation practices and could no longer compensate for the drying up of the oasis environment. If natural factors are not the unique causes of economic decay in the oases, they may have some responsibility in the progressive abandonment of agriculture during the third and fourth centuries. Amheida disappeared to the benefit of El-Kasr fortress, while El-Deir retained some importance for caravan trade between Hibis and the Nile Valley thanks to a well secured by a newly built fortress from 288 to the sixth century AD.
The comparison of two small oases of the Kharga and Dakhla depressions, in the Western Desert of Egypt, confirmed that spring-fed oases have been attractive after the onset of aridity, ca 4500 BC, but irrigated agriculture has not been proved yet before the Intermediate Period. Irrigated areas were suject to harsh constraints despite the wealth of underground water during millennia: wind-induced dune shifting and soil erosion in Amheida and El-Deir, while flash floods destroyed most of the El-Deir oasis during the Roman period. Recovery was more difficult because artesian springs, which relied on water stored during the wet phase of the Holocene, were progressively exhausted by irrigation practices and could no longer compensate for the drying up of the oasis environment. If natural factors are not the unique causes of economic decay in the oases, they may have some responsibility in the progressive abandonment of agriculture during the third and fourth centuries. Amheida disappeared to the benefit of El-Kasr fortress, while El-Deir retained some importance for caravan trade between Hibis and the Nile Valley thanks to a well secured by a newly built fortress from 288 to the sixth century AD.
The history of temple buildings in the Great Oasis shows periods of intense activity alternating with periods of relative quiet. When seen in combination with the varying amounts of archaeological remains over time, this data allows us to chart the development of contacts between the oases and the Nile Valley. In particular, this has consequences for the times of the Libyan conflicts of the 19th Dynasty. This chapter argues that the oases were in Libyan hands during this time, after which the Egyptian army re-established control. Two dated finds from the temple at Amheida, Dakhla, are of particular interest for this discussion. A stela of Seti II marks building works at Amheida shortly after the wars of Merenptah, and a fragment of relief dated to Ramesses IX sheds light on the incursions of Libyans into the Nile Valley at that time.
The history of temple buildings in the Great Oasis shows periods of intense activity alternating with periods of relative quiet. When seen in combination with the varying amounts of archaeological remains over time, this data allows us to chart the development of contacts between the oases and the Nile Valley. In particular, this has consequences for the times of the Libyan conflicts of the 19th Dynasty. This chapter argues that the oases were in Libyan hands during this time, after which the Egyptian army re-established control. Two dated finds from the temple at Amheida, Dakhla, are of particular interest for this discussion. A stela of Seti II marks building works at Amheida shortly after the wars of Merenptah, and a fragment of relief dated to Ramesses IX sheds light on the incursions of Libyans into the Nile Valley at that time.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.