Dayr Muṣṭafā Kāšif (also known as Qaṣr ʿAyn Muṣṭafā Kāšif) occupies the south-west cliff of Ǧabal al-Ṭayr, overlooking the Darb al-Arbaʿīn and the valley floor to the west. The complex lies immediately north of the al-Baǧawāt necropolis and in visual and functional proximity to the monastic settlement of Dayr al-Baǧawāt (Ghica 2012: 199). In topographic terms, it is situated ca. 620 m north of the northernmost chapel at al-Baǧawāt, and only a short distance east of Dayr al-Baǧawāt itself. 

The monument is a multi-storey mudbrick structure measuring roughly 27.5 × 23.5 m, with enclosing walls reaching c. 9.8 m in preserved height; several annexed spaces extend to the north and west. From the exterior, the high perimeter walls can appear “fortified”—an impression already noted in early accounts (Lythgoe 1908: 86)—but the internal organisation is characteristic of a large, compartmentalised communal complex, including stacked residential units and circulation corridors. One of its most distinctive features is the second-storey church in the south-east corner, a rare (and presently unique) case in Egypt of a late antique church preserved on an upper level.

Architectural articulation and longer-term development

Earlier interpretations proposed that the standing complex developed around an initial, relatively small structure thought to be a Ptolemaic temple (Ghica 2016: 202), followed by a substantially larger addition under the Principate—often described as having an administrative or military function—immediately to the east, possibly sharing a wall with the earlier building (Ghica 2012: 202; 2019: 132 & fig. 9). These hypotheses remain important for understanding the architectural palimpsest, especially because the “nucleus” identified by Müller-Wiener—an east-west succession of vaulted spaces including a room partly cut into the substratum—still appears to preserve an earlier core around which later construction accreted (Müller-Wiener 1963). Recent fieldwork continues to recognise this western vaulted unit as structurally central to the monument’s growth. 

At the same time, the most recent excavation evidence substantially refines the site’s functional and chronological reading. Rather than a late conversion of an earlier secular building into a monastic space, the main building’s principal occupation is now securely monastic already in the fourth century, and the core architectural programme—including liturgical space—belongs to an early stage in the life of the complex.

Monastic function and fourth-century phasing (new excavation evidence)

Excavations in and beneath the church sector demonstrate that the church and its immediate substructures were integral to early use of the complex. The 2022 season, focused on the second-storey church and the corridor bordering it to the west, revealed a stratigraphy affected by collapse and substantial reworking, yet still sufficiently coherent to isolate early occupational horizons and reconstruct major events. The first attested occupation of the church (“church phase 1”) is associated with contexts and finds that include documentary material (ostraca and wooden tablets; Ghica et al. 2025), and it ended with a fire that caused the collapse of the church’s initial wooden floor. 

On the basis of the excavation sequence and associated chronological modelling, recent work places the construction of the main building (as presently understood in the excavated sector) in the range 360–373 CE and dates the fire/collapse event to 360–382 CE.  This fire is not merely inferred from deposits: it is also consistent with visible burning traces on walls and with partially burnt archaeological material.

Importantly, the post-fire history of the complex is now more nuanced than earlier summaries allowed. New excavations indicate an interval of pastoral reuse after the fire, implying at least a temporary interruption (or transformation) of monastic life. In room R21—interpreted in its primary phase as an oratory beneath the church—two later-built trough installations, raised thresholds, and a dung layer across the floor point to conversion into a stable.  A comparable horizon appears in the large hall R25, where deposits of dung/straw and small fire/charcoal concentrations indicate animal husbandry in a later, temporary occupation following collapse but prior to further major structural failures.

Subsequently, the church underwent a restoration episode (“church phase 2”), including a new floor and wall painting, dated (on present evidence) to 420–533 CE (2σ), indicating a return of the building to a clearly religious/monastic function after the post-fire pastoral episode. 

Communal spaces and internal organisation (new evidence)

Recent work also clarifies the internal zoning of the monastery. The large room R25—second in scale only to the church—was initially targeted as a possible refectory, but excavation and architectural reading now favour its identification as an assembly (synaxis) hall, chiefly on account of benches running along the north, south, and west walls.  The same space exhibits pronounced rubefaction on the inner faces of standing walls, plausibly connected to the same fire event that affected the church sector and other parts of the building; the fire horizon is associated with the 360–382 window established for that destructive episode.

Material recovered from collapse layers related to the upper storeys above R25 further implies that at least one higher level contained kitchen and/or dining activity and possibly storage, given the concentration of cooking vessels, containers, wine amphorae, and associated assemblages.

Texts, community, and regional integration

The documentary finds from the church sector (ostraca and wooden tablets; Ghica et al. 2025) represent the first published elements of what is interpreted as a developing monastic archive. The texts include evidence for internal hierarchy (e.g., figures presented as leaders/superiors) and administrative concerns such as taxation, strengthening the interpretation of Dayr Muṣṭafā Kāšif as an organised fourth-century monastic community rather than a loosely religious reuse of older buildings. They also display a prosopographic and administrative links with the documentary landscape of nearby Dūš, reinforcing the idea that the monastery participated in broader oasis networks.

Later development, pilgrimage hypothesis, and “fortification” debate (retained with updated context)

Beyond the securely documented fourth-century monastic horizon, the site’s longer development still requires refinement. The earlier hypothesis that modifications to the older core (the putative Ptolemaic structure) in the third–fourth centuries reflect hermitic occupation—argued especially from crosses and from the seemingly self-contained functioning of the nucleus—remains relevant as one possible strand within a more complex sequence (Ghica 2016: 202; 2019: 132). The idea that the monastery later transformed into a pilgrimage locus focused on a founding hermit, inferred partly from annexation patterns near the western entrance and from seventh-century radiocarbon ages obtained in earlier study, remains tentative and still calls for targeted archaeological corroboration (Ghica 2012: 200, 202; 2019 fig. 9). What is no longer in doubt, however, is that the main building was already functioning as a monastery by the fourth century, with one of the earliest archaeologically attested churches in Egypt.

Finally, the impression of fortification—created by the monument’s unusually high external walls—continues to shape debate. Wagner’s proposal that the complex should be understood as a Byzantine fortress rather than a monastic site, specifically the kastron of Hibis (κάστρα Ἳβεως of O. Douch 220, 3; Wagner 1987: 171, 362), has been refuted, with the kastron more convincingly associated with Umm al-Ġanā’im (Ghica 2012: 201). The defensive appearance of the walls may instead be read as part of a broader late antique repertoire of protective or dissuasive architecture in response to insecurity and incursions (Reddé 1999: 379, 383; Grossmann 2002: 352; Ghica 2012: 200), without negating the building’s overwhelmingly religious and monastic character.