First, with respect to the number of churches in the oases: While it is true that we know a great deal more about churches in Dakhla than we did up to only a few years ago, Dr. Bowen’s claim that there are more known churches in Dakhla (9) than in Kharga (5) is incorrect. The following Early Christian churches are known from Kharga: Bagawat (the exact nature of the large building at the center of the cemetery is still debated because of its unusual layout, but it is certain that it had a cultic purpose in the context of a Christian necropolis); Hibis; Deir Mostafa Kashef (a church in the upper level and at least one chapel in the complex located in the plain below); Ain Zaaf; Kysis; Shams ed-Din; Ain Umm Dabadid (east of the fort); Ed-Deir (west of the fort); Ain el-Tarakwa (“Miners’ Church”).

Second, with respect to illustration. Dr. Bowen criticizes the choice to use Peter Grossmann’s plan of the church of Deir el-Moulouk. Dr. Grossmann published the most important and comprehensive work on Early Christian architecture in Egypt. The plan we used comes from this publication and we decided to use it because we judged it to be an accurate drawing, based on his observations in the field and more detailed than the one produced following the original survey.

No doubt the illustration of the book could have been improved. Dr. Bowen does not, however, acknowledge that some illustrations we intended to use could not be included because of the refusal of permission to use photos from her own previous publication of the churches at Kellis, a refusal that came from her colleague in the Kellis team, Colin Hope, the director of that excavation. A scholar with a stronger sense of propriety might have recused herself from reviewing the book, under those circumstances.

Third, Dr. Bowen remarks that we might have made more of comparisons with Kellis. Perhaps so; but the refusal to allow the reproduction even of already published images of Kellis, as just mentioned, was hardly an encouragement. And we cannot help observing that after thirty years of work the Kellis excavations have not published a single volume of final reports on the archaeology of the site. That also does not help. We look forward to those publications and to the collegial coooperation that will enable us to improve future editions of our book.

Finally, Dr. Bowen says “For instance, the precise date for the occupation of House B1 (ca. 330–365 C.E.) is based on the ostraka found in the upper floor levels and the latest coins to be retrieved, dating to 355; no consideration is given to the process of abandonment or the longevity of coins.” This is untrue. The date given to the House of Serenos depends not only on the numerous ostraka and coins in the occupation debris but on the full stratigraphic record, which includes the study of all objects and pottery both in the house (including the post abandonment phase) and below the house, in the strata that preceded the construction of the building.

Roger Bagnall and Paola Davoli