In the scholarly literature on the oases, we find a variety of assertions about the cities of the Kharga and Dakhla oases: that one was the capital at a particular period, that one did or did not have civic status at some date. On close examination, most of these statements turn out to be based on slender or no evidence, and in many cases we find that we know much less than has been supposed about the administrative organization of the Great Oasis. In what follows, we look more closely at the available evidence for both Kharga and Dakhla, tracing the history of Hibis – often supposed to be the capital of the whole oasis – and then of the two major towns of the Dakhla Oasis, Mothis (modern-day Mut) and Trimithis. We will try as well to see what we can of their interrelationship and of the overall administrative structure.

The oases of Kharga and Dakhla have been linked administratively from ancient times into the present. This chapter presents a study of the two main physical routes that connected the two oases: the Darb al-Ghubari and the Darb Ain Amur. Cairns, tracks, rock art, inscriptions, ceramics, and other small finds serve to identify the tracks and stopping points along the way. These paths, particularly the Darb Ain Amur, evolved over time, reflecting the changing environment and modes of transport that were used to make the journey from pharaonic to Roman times.

In the scholarly literature on the oases, we find a variety of assertions about the cities of the Kharga and Dakhla oases: that one was the capital at a particular period, that one did or did not have civic status at some date. On close examination, most of these statements turn out to be based on slender or no evidence, and in many cases we find that we know much less than has been supposed about the administrative organization of the Great Oasis. In what follows, we look more closely at the available evidence for both Kharga and Dakhla, tracing the history of Hibis – often supposed to be the capital of the whole oasis – and then of the two major towns of the Dakhla Oasis, Mothis (modern-day Mut) and Trimithis. We will try as well to see what we can of their interrelationship and of the overall administrative structure.

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 city of Hibis, located at the junction of the caravan roads passing through the northern part of the oasis, is often depicted as the capital city of the Great Oasis. In fact, little is known about the administrative organization of the district, and especially about the history of Hibis. Because areas now under cultivation have not been excavated, the chronology and the topography of the city, apart from the temple, are far from certain: Was there even a city before and independent of the temple? When did it become the capital city of the Great Oasis and what was the status of the oasis of Kharga within the Great Oasis ? The formation of the city of Hibis is studied in relation to the growing importance of the northern part of Kharga Oasis, from the Middle Kingdom onwards, and through the lens of the shifting relationships with the central powers and the political and religious institutions in the Nile Valley. The role played by other oasis metropoleis such as Mothis and Trimithis during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods is also questioned in order to provide a better understanding of the overall administrative structure of the Great Oasis.