280

REviews JEA 96
have added little to the interpretation of long distance trade in the archaic period. While some scholars
are calling for augmenting the datasets, it should be remembered that these are partially destructive
processes. Would it be better to suspend further study until the techniques have been developed?
There is little attempt to quantify the results or to move to a common methodology for interpreting the
finds. One of the few attempts to present charts of finds (not from Naukratis) only gives percentages
rather than raw figures. Nevertheless this volume gives a summary of work in progress and we can
look forward to more detailed studies to interpret this site that is so crucial for our understanding of
the Greeks in Saite and Late Period Egypt.

David W. J. Gill

Les objets en cuir de Didymoi: Praesidium de la route caravanire Coptos-Brnice. Praesidia du dsert de
Brnice, III. By Martine Leguilloux. Fouilles de lInstitut franais darchologie orientale 53. Pp.
260. Cairo, Institut franais darchologie orientale, 2006. ISBN 2 7247 0409 6. Price 48.

The Roman fort Didymoi is situated on the CoptosBerenike route in Egypts Eastern desert and was
investigated during the years 19972000 by a team of French scientists. The excellent preservational
circumstances resulted in numerous finds, organic in nature, including textiles and leatherwork. Les
objets en cuir de Didymoi by Martine Leguilloux deals with the latter.
Detailed research within a theoretical framework on Egyptian leatherwork is long overdue, and,
although an increased interest can be detected in the last two decades and several research projects
are currently in progress,1 our knowledge on leatherwork is still frustratingly scanty. For this reason
alone, this book is of great value as it presents the corpus from one well-dated and well-excavated site
by means of description, photographs, line drawings, and construction drawings. The material is not
only described but the author discusses, among other things, the distribution of size, and develops a
typology looking at development over time.
Although Roman period leatherwork from Ancient Egypt is among the best understood, which
is due not least to the large corpus of adequately published material from European sites allowing
for detailed comparison, only a handful of publications have appeared dealing with finds from other
Roman sites in Egypt,2 indicating the immaturity of our knowledge about this important finds category.
This means that comparison is severely limited, and placing the finds in a broader perspective is,
therefore, difficult. However, future publications of the aforementioned projects will only increase the
value of Leguillouxs excellent book, as it will provide a better understanding of the development of
leatherwork especially during and after the Roman era. I will pick out some issues to discuss in greater
detail that will serve as examples.
The book is divided into two parts: text and catalogue. The text part consists of a presentation
of the context, the processing of skin into leather, and a detailed account of the objects themselves.
The text part is finished with the conclusion. The quality of the photographs and drawings is very
high but it is a drawback that in most photographs, a scale bar is lacking. Although in the beautiful
shaded drawings an indication of size is given in terms of, for example, of the original size etc., an
indication by means of a scale bar would have made it easier for the reader to imagine the size. But this
is only a minor issue and might be regarded as a personal preference of the reviewer. Drawing objects
of soft, flexible material is different from drawing objects of inorganic material with an unchangeable
shape, but sometimes differences between the object in a photograph and the same object in a drawing
seems a bit too large, for example Cf-001 in fig. 42 and pl. xxviii top; S-106 in fig. 31 and pl. xiv (note
that the figure text erroneously refers to the top one as S-103 unless the reference to this object in pl.
xiv is erroneous) and S-037 in fig. 19 and pl. vi.

1
For example on Amarna leatherwork, as part of the Ancient Egyptian Leatherwork Project; see A. J.
Veldmeijer, Amarnas Leatherwork, I: Preliminary Analysis and Catalogue (Norg, 2010).
2
Mons Claudianus: S. Winterbottom, Leather, in V. A. Maxfield and D. P. S. Peacock (eds), Survey and
Excavation: Mons Claudianus, 19871993, II. Excavations, I (Cairo, 2001), 31353; Berenike: A. J. Veldmeijer,
Preliminary Report on the Leatherwork from Roman Berenike, Egyptian Red Sea Coast (19942000), PJAEE
1/1 (2007), 136; Qasr Ibrim: A. J. Veldmeijer and C. van Driel-Murray, Leatherwork from Qasr Ibrim, II: The
Pharaonic Period to the Age of Christianity (in preparation). Note that several sites have produced leather finds,
which have not (yet) been studied, among which are finds from Elephantine and the Dakhleh Oasis.
2010 reviews 281
Skin processing procedures are difficult to demonstrate, and actual proof can only be obtained
by chemical analyses.3 A field test has been developed,4 and, even though not without problems,5 it
gives an indication of whether the leather is vegetable tanned or not. Undoubtedly, the difficulty of
sampling and analysis in field laboratories is one of the reasons for this working method.
The reconstructions of the sandals are not as reliable as one would wish. As the photographs and
drawings show, most of the sandals are preserved without straps or, in best cases, with only fragments
of the strap complex. The reconstruction, however, shows shapes of strap complexes that cannot be
deduced from the remains. For example, in figs 19 and 20, 1a type sandals are shown, both of which
are preserved without the front and back strap (the pre-strap is still there). In fig. 21, however, the
entire strap complex is shown running between the first/second and third/fourth toes, back to the pre-
strap by crossing at the instep. Most surprisingly, the strap runs around the ankle and is knotted at the
anterior, shortly above the ankle. A comparable situation is seen with the 2c type shown in figs 312
and fig. 33. In fig. 312, the double front holes can clearly be seen, but the reconstruction shows only
one hole. Moreover, it shows a front strap that is cut lengthwise, which results in two smaller strips
running towards the pre-strap.
Reconstructing a strap complex is not as easy as one might think, and two- and three-dimensional
representations are only useful to a certain extent. It is even more questionable whether Roman
images from Europe can be used in reconstructing material from such a far away and remote place
as Didymoi in Egypts Eastern Desert. Currently, we lack sufficient insight into the development of
Roman footwear in the provincial areas, and how it is influenced by the native traditions, to be sure
about the strap complexes. However, a strap complex that includes an element around the ankle does
not occur in the cases in which a strap complex is preserved in examples from Qasr Ibrim.6
Another problem is the comparison with two-dimensional art from pharaonic times. The tomb of
Rekhmira contains one of the most detailed scenes of a leather workshop, including the manufacturing
of sandals. Detailed as it is, the scenes are not complete and certain parts of the manufacturing
process are missing.7 Moreover, there are indications that sandals in these manufacturing scenes are
characterized, that is to say they are portrayed as characteristically as possible in order to be recognised
as a sandal, not as a specific type of sandal.8 Sandals as shown in these scenes are known from the
archaeological record, but are relatively rare,9 and differ distinctly from the sandals referred to by
Leguilloux as type 1a. Type 1a, however, is in itself a diverse group ranging from sandals with a
sole consisting of one single layer (for example, fig. 13) to sandals with soles that consists of several
layers, stitched together with leather thong stitches (fig. 17).10 The only thing these sandals have in
common with the sandals as depicted in the Rekhmira scene is that the pre-straps are cut from the
same sheet of leather as the sole, but this is seen in several types of sandals.11 Moreover, the overall
shape is different: the Roman sandals are curved after the shape of the foot whereas the pharaonic two-
dimensional sandals are uniform in shape. The Roman sandals increase in width from the heel toward
the front, without a clear heel or constricted waist. These elements are clearly distinct in the Rekhmira

3
For example C. van Driel-Murray, Leatherwork and Skin Products, in P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds.),
Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Cambridge, 2000), 30304; C. van Driel-Murray, Practical Evaluation
of a Field Test for the Identification of Ancient Vegetable Tanned Leathers, Journal of Archaeological Science
29 (2002), 17.
4
See especially B. Leach, Tanning Tests for Two Documents Written on Animal Skin, JEA 81 (1995),
2413; van Driel-Murray, Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 1721.
5
van Driel-Murray, Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 1920; A. J. Veldmeijer and S. M. van Roode, Leather
from Qasr Ibrim: Preliminary Notes of the First Season, in S. M. van Roode (ed.), The PalArch Foundations
Proceedings of the Annual FlemishNetherlands Egyptologists Meeting 2004 (Amsterdam, 2005), 45.
6
See A. J. Veldmeijer, Leatherwork from Qasr Ibrim, I (in preparation); A. J. Veldmeijer and C. van Driel-
Murray, Leatherwork from Qasr Ibrim, II (in preparation).
7
van Driel-Murray, in Nicholson and Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, 3023; A. J.
Veldmeijer, Tutankhamuns Footwear: Studies of Ancient Egyptian Footwear (Norg, 2010), 206.
8
Veldmeijer, Tutankhamuns Footwear, 2067.
9
Veldmeijer, Amarnas Leatherwork I, e.g. 44.
10
Other types seem less varied, but in some cases I wonder how certain one can be in the classification of
small fragments. For example, could S-012 be part of a type 2a sandal (cf. pl. 4.21 vs. pl. 11.39)? A more detailed
discussion will be provided in Veldmeijer, Leatherwork from Qasr Ibrim I.
11
For example in composite sandals, see A. J. Veldmeijer, Studies of Ancient Egyptian Footwear: Technological
Aspects, X: Leather Composite Sandals, PJAEE 6/9 (forthcoming).
282 REviews JEA 96
examples. Finally, the pre-straps in the Roman sandals are situated at the heels edge, rather than at
the waist as seen in the pharaonic two-dimensional image.
A relatively large number of sandals referred to by Leguilloux as type 1c is housed in several
collections. In all cases of which the context/date is known, a Nubian origin is indicated (e.g. E20176
and E20252a and b, from the X-group in Qustul, housed in the Oriental Institute Museum Chicago; QI
82.2.3/40 from early Christian Qasr Ibrim; cam-3091 [QI 78.2.8/92] from Qasr Ibrims late Christian
layers, housed in the British Museum). Moreover, the double front strap has been interpreted as a
Nubian feature as well.12 They seem to be unknown from Roman Europe,13 and hence the finds seem
again to suggest local influence. Although in most cases construction drawings and cutting patterns
of shoes are provided, this is not universal (see for example Cf-001, a type of calceus). This is very
unfortunate as one way of following the technological (and stylistic) evolution of footwear is by
looking at cutting patterns.14 This, in its turn, can help in the identification of fragments of leather. It
is notable that the shoes show features also seen in Christian and Ottoman footwear from Qasr Ibrim,
but which interestingly are also present in the so-called Persian footwear from Elephantine.
What is clear from Les objets en cuir de Didymoi is that the Roman leatherwork is clearly distinct from
pharaonic leatherwork. Romans brought their own leatherworking craft with them to Egypt: current
scholarly opinion holds that vegetable tanning was introduced to Egypt in the Roman period (or
possibly slightly earlier in the Ptolemaic period). However, the Didymoi finds also show local influence,
apparent when comparing the finds with material from European sites and from, for example, Qasr
Ibrim. Although I do not agree with the author on several points, the book is indispensible for the
study of leather in Egypt because of its detail, dating, and the way the author deals with the acquired
information. The additional publication of material from other sites will only increase the importance
of the book.

Andr J. Veldmeijer

Adoration of the Ram: Five Hymns to Amun-Re from Hibis Temple. By David Klotz. Yale Egyptological
Studies 6. Pp. xiii + 285, pls 49. New Haven, Connecticut, Yale Egyptological Seminar, 2006. ISBN
0 9740025 2 6. Price $55.

The religious and theological texts recorded in the Amun temple of Khargeh Oasis form, from various
perspectives, a noteworthy, unique group of sources. They constitute the largest monumental corpus
of Egyptian texts from outside the Nile Valley; furthermore, they are housed in the best preserved
Egyptian temple from between the end of the New Kingdom and the advent of the Hellenistic era.
Erected during the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, the temple walls received their decoration during the First
Persian Dominion, in the reign of king Dareios I. Besides the texts and images inherent significance
in terms of literary and religious history, the temple itself also bridges the architectural historical gap
between the New Kingdom and the Ptolemaic period. The records bear testimony to a period of thus
far unknown intense intellectual exchange with neighbouring cultures.
Within the last two decades, a few studies dedicated to aspects of the Hibis temple decoration,
especially the iconography of the reliefs depicting deities, have appeared,1 as has a translation of all
12
See the short discussion and references in A. J. Veldmeijer, Studies of Ancient Egyptian Footwear.
Technological Aspects, III: Leather- or String-Reinforced Plaited Sandals from Qasr Ibrim, JEOL 41 (2007
2008), 107. Single sole sandals with a double front strap and pre-straps cut from the sole are still being worn in
the Ethiopia; see S. Epple, Weiche Fe oder harte Sohlen? Fubekleiding, Fuschmuck und barfu laufen in
thiopien, in H. Roder (ed.), Schuhtick: Von kalten Fen und heien Sohlen (Mainz, 2008), 141.
13
S. Winterbottom, pers. comm. Compare, for example, S. Winterbottom, in Maxfield and Peacock (eds),
Survey and Excavation: Mons Claudianus II, 31353; not noted in the overview on European Roman footwear
by C. van Driel-Murray, Footwear in the North-Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, in O. Goubitz,
C.van Driel-Murray, and W. Groenman-van Waateringe, Stepping Through Time: Archaeological Footwear from
Prehistoric Times until 1800 (Zwolle, 2001), 3558.
14
Goubitz et al., Stepping Through Time, 31.
1
H. Sternberg-el Hotabi, Die Gtterliste des Sanktuars im Hibis-Tempel von El-Chargeh: berlegungen
zur Tradierung und Kodifizierung religisen und kulttopographischen Gedankengutes, in M. Minas and
J.Zeidler (eds), Aspekte sptgyptischer Kultur: Festschrift Erich Winter zum 65. Geburtstag (AegTrev 7; Mainz,
1994), 23954; id., Der Raum M im Hibistempel von El-Chargeh: Dekorationsprogramm und Vorlagen, in
G. Moers, H. Behlmer, K. Demu, and K. Widmaier (eds), Jn.t Dr.w: Festschrift fr Friedrich Junge (Gttingen,