Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports

 | 
Jean-Pierre Brun
, 
Thomas Faucher
, 
Bérangère Redon
, 
et al.

Quarries, Ports and Praesidia: Supply and Exchange in the Eastern Desert

Roberta Tomber

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 As explained by H. Cuvigny in this volume, the term “Mons Porphyrites” is never attested in ancient (...)

1This paper provides an overview of the ceramic evidence from four key sites in the Eastern Desert: the quarries of Mons Claudianus and of Porphyrites,1 and the ports of Myos Hormos (Qusayr al-Qadim) and Berenike. Other sites are referred to peripherally and provide valuable comparanda. Assemblage comparison will question how site function influences pottery supply and, from this, examine how pottery from the Eastern Desert can be used to separate and better understand internal and external trade and exchange networks.

The construction of a dated typology for the Eastern Desert: key deposits

2Fundamental to the use of pottery to investigate supply and trade was the construction of a dated ceramic typology for the Eastern Desert that was initiated by the work at Mons Claudianus and developed through selected key deposits at the other sites.

Mons Claudianus (Conducted by the Institut français d’archéologie orientale under the direction of J. Bingen, 1987-1993)

3Mons Claudianus was exceptional, even within standards of Egyptian archaeology, for its large number of ostraka. Of the over 9000 retrieved, c. 220 (J. Bingen, H. Cuvigny and V. Maxfield, personal communication) included a regnal date so that their occurrence in conjunction with occasional coins and inscriptions provided a framework for constructing a dated pottery sequence. Mons Claudianus and the nearby Hydreuma were occupied between the mid-1st and early 3rd centuries AD, the evidence for which is outlined in detail by Maxfield and Peacock (2001, pp. 423-455) and Tomber (2006, pp. 194-196) with particular deposits strategic for characterising changes in ceramic typology. The deposits mentioned in the paragraph below do not include all the excavated areas for each period, but the most homogeneous ones for which quantification was published (Tomber 2006, pp. 218-236; for a description of the deposits see Maxfield and Peacock 2001, passim).

  • 2 Coins of Probus (276-282) and Aurelian (269-275) found in Passage IX of Fort South-East provided th (...)

4A horizon starting in the mid-1st century was established from two sebakh: the North-West (dated by an ostrakon of AD 68) and South-West ones at the nearby Hydreuma, while from the main fort site, deposits of the Trajanic, Late Hadrianic, Antonine and Severan could be isolated. The Trajanic period is represented by the lower levels of the largest excavated feature, the South Sebakh. Its exceptional preservation, including organic finds, but extending to the pottery, resulted in a good understanding of Trajanic pottery forms. The upper levels of this sebakh, however, were reworked during the Antonine period; these layers seemed to contain primarily Trajanic pottery with the addition of some vessels that were identified as Antonine in date. The pottery from the reworked layers was, therefore, separated as Trajanic+. Late Hadrianic pottery types were characterised from a number of deposits, including Annexe South I Room 1; Antonine ones from Fort West I Room 1, Fort South-East Room 1, and Fort North-East Sebakh with another sebakh from the satellite site at Barud. Early Severan levels were characterised by the sebakh from Fort South-East Room 4. The latest of the Severan dates –AD 222/235– came from a single ostrakon at the main gate (Maxfield and Peacock 2001, p. 433).2 In practise, there are many similarities between the Late Hadrianic through Severan deposits and when generalising beyond Mons Claudianus a ceramic horizon that encompasses the mid/late 2nd through early 3rd century has wider application.

Porphyrites (Conducted by the Universities of Southampton and Exeter under the direction of D.P.S. Peacock and V.A. Maxfield, 1994-1998)

5Deposits from Porphyrites spanned the period between the early 1st and the early 5th centuries AD (Tomber 2001, pp. 242-243) and, thus, extended the sequence established at Mons Claudianus in both directions. A Pan-Min inscription from Bradford Village dated to AD 18 (Van Rengen 1995, 2001, pp. 60-62) allowed the identification of early 1st century pottery types (Tomber 2005) that could be paralleled to types found at Foot Village. The pottery of many sebakh and other deposits surrounding the main fort complex contained ceramic markers of the second half of the 2nd century (Tomber 2007). These deposits included the East Sebakh, interpreted as the discard from a bakery that contained 211 generally complete ostraka relating to the supply of bread to the villages and quarry outposts. The palaeography of these ostraka indicates a date of the late first half of the 3rd century (Van Rengen 2007, pp. 409-411). Extending slightly beyond the Severan deposits from Mons Claudianus, it suggests that many later 2nd century ceramic types represented in the East Sebakh and more widely at Porphyrites continued into the 3rd century. An additional horizon, the characterisation of late 4th/early 5th century pottery deposits, relied primarily on well-known imported Mediterranean types.

Myos Hormos/Qusayr al-Qadim (Conducted by the University of Southampton under the direction of D.P.S. Peacock and L. Blue, 1999-2003)

6The excavated site sequence from Myos Hormos ranged from the late 1st century BC into the c. mid-3rd century AD (Peacock and Blue 2006, p. 174). Several Ptolemaic coins (Peacock 2011 [3]; Sidebotham 2011 [1]) and rare ceramic pieces suggest that the site was founded earlier, but Ptolemaic levels were most likely located beneath the water table adjacent to the wharf where excavation was not possible. Above the water table, extensive excavation took place on the wharf and quay-side area that produced large deposits of the late Augustan period (late 1st century BC/early 1st century AD). In addition, a sequence of sebakh deposits (Tomber 2000, p. 54) provided ceramic assemblages for the early 1st century (Trenches 6A, 6B, 6C, Van Rengen and Thomas 2006, p. 147), late 1st/early 2nd century (Trenches 6D, 6E, Van Rengen and Thomas 2006, p. 147) and from the mid-2nd into the 3rd century AD (Trenches 6G, 6H, 6J, Van Rengen and Thomas 2006, p. 149). A date at least to the mid-3rd century was further indicated by the presence of flat-bottomed amphorae/Dressel 30 from North Africa (Tunisia) (Tomber 2005, p. 154; see also Tomber 2007, p. 178 for additional discussion) that date generally to the 3rd and 4th centuries (Bonifay 2004, pp. 148-151). The 3rd century date is reinforced by a corresponding lack of 4th century pottery at Myos Hormos, and the mid-3rd century date indicated by the lack of Dressel 30 at Mons Claudianus.

Berenike (Conducted by the Universities of Delaware, Leiden, UCLA and Warsaw/Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology under the direction of S. Sidebotham, W. Wendrich and I. Zych, 1994-2015)

7Of the two ports, Berenike had the longer sequence, with deposits ranging between the 3rd century BC and the early 6th century AD. The complexity of the 112 excavated trenches makes it difficult to summarise those most significant for the pottery chronology. However, an extensive Early Roman sebakh, covering much of the area to the north-west of the so-called “Serapis” (now called “Great”) temple (Barnard and Wendrich 2007, p. 15) produced rich assemblages of ostraka (Bagnall et al. 2000, 2005; Ast and Bagnall 2016), ceramics and all categories of finds dating into the third quarter of the 1st century AD. Late Roman sebakh were also present, although more limited in extent than the early Roman one: Trench 21 (Sidebotham 2000, pp. 120-134) and Trench 59 (Sidebotham and Zych 2012, p. 140) both provided important 5th century deposits. Other assemblages from Berenike related to buildings, on occasion producing well-dated in-situ groups, with the “Harbor temple” exceptional for occupation spanning throughout the Late Roman period (Ibid., pp. 141-144).

A selection of key ceramic markers for the Eastern Desert

8The study of pottery within its stratigraphic context has allowed the dating of numerous ceramic types from all ware groups. Inevitably, and particularly amongst Egyptian ceramics, where tradition was very long-lived, many types are current for decades and centuries. Others, however, are typical of a specific period with their initial occurrence particularly diagnostic. Certain moments in the sequence exhibit a cluster of diagnostic markers and these are: between the early and late 1st century; between the early and mid-2nd century and from the late 4th century onwards.

9Spouted strainers (Fig. 1) are a typically Egyptian form. The earliest Roman ones identified from the Eastern Desert are characterised by a ledge-rim and occur from the early 1st century AD; by the late 1st century AD/Trajanic period, the ledge has evolved to a strainer covering the entire aperture (Tomber 2006, p. 64), although since the strainer has frequently been chipped away, it suggests that it was not fit for purpose. The strainer is used throughout the Late Roman period, when a funnel neck is most common (e.g. Tomber 2001, p. 250, Fig. 6.2, no. 22).

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Spouted strainers from Mons Claudianus (Tomber 2006, Fig. 1.24).

© R. Tomber

10Costrels (Fig. 2) are particularly useful as they first appear in the Antonine period at Mons Claudianus (Tomber 2006, p. 67), a trend that is repeated at Porphyrites, Myos Hormos and Berenike, as well as on the Myos Hormos-Coptos road (Brun 2003, p. 504). Their significance extends beyond their utility as chronological markers, for these vessels were clearly used as small transport containers. Like amphorae, many originally had stoppers and/or a dark lining inside that may derive from either plants or minerals (Fig. 3). In the case of amphorae a lined interior is normally associated with wine, the very limited evidence from costrels also associates them with fish products, although this could be a secondary use.

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Costrels from Porphyrites (Tomber 2007b, Fig. 6.5).

© R. Tomber

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Costrels from Myos Hormos with intact stoppers.

© R. Tomber

11One lined costrel from Mons Claudianus was found with Nilotic fish used to make salsamentum (Van Neer et al. 2006, Fig. 2 where the images are inverted; Tomber 2006, p. 67), while at Myos Hormos a similar deposit of fish bones, apparently discarded from a container, was identified (Van Neer et al. 2006; Tomber 2006, p. 67). A third Nilotic fish bone assemblage, for a fish product but not necessarily salsamentum, was found in a fragment of lined Nile clay amphora, also from Mons Claudianus (Van Neer et al. 2006). Although the correlation between the Nilotic fish bones and the costrel is tenuous at Mons Claudianus, a well-documented example comes from Petra where a late 4th/early 5th century costrel contained Red Sea fish sauce –either garum or hallec (Studer 1994).

12Rarely, costrels, like amphorae, had an inscription on their shoulder. Examples from Myos Hormos are shown on Fig. 4, left: O.636 ΤΝθ reading the number 359; middle: O.578 with a fragmentary Κ under the handle and an illegible dipinto on the shoulder; right: (no registration number) ΛΜ, possibly the name Am(monios) or a variant (W. Van Rengen, personal communication).

Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Costrels from Myos Hormos with shoulder inscriptions.

© R. Tomber

13Aswan Thin-walled wares occur at Mons Claudianus throughout the entire sequence, but their decoration varies within this period. The earlier examples, most common through the Trajanic period, are characterised by barbotine decoration (Fig. 5), while painted decoration, on a different range of forms, is first present from the late Hadrianic period (Fig. 6; Tomber 2006, pp. 25-26).

Fig. 5

Fig. 5

Aswan Thin-walled wares from Mons Claudianus with barbotine decoration (Tomber 2006, Fig. 1.7).

© R. Tomber

Fig. 6

Fig. 6

Aswan Thin-walled wares from Porphyrites with painted decoration (Tomber 2007b, Fig. 6.1).

© R. Tomber

14Many cooking ware cooking pot and casserole forms are long-lived, but from the mid-2nd century onwards ribbed vessels predominate; thin walls are also characteristic (Fig. 7; Tomber 2006, pp. 203-204). This tendency for ribbing continues throughout the Late Roman period and while more precision is needed regarding their end date, the types shown on Fig. 7 may well continue at least into the 4th century (Tomber 2001, p. 243).

Fig. 7

Fig. 7

Second century cooking pots and casseroles from Porphyrites (Tomber 2007b, from Figs 6.7 and 6.10).

© R. Tomber

15Ribbed marl dishes (Fig. 8), sometimes thin enough to fall into a thin-walled category, were first identified at Porphyrites where they were sparse, but a mid-2nd century and later date is proposed (Tomber 2007, p. 195). The occurrence in Late Roman deposits at Berenike may indicate that they continued in use, or alternatively they are residual in Late Roman deposits.

Fig. 8

Fig. 8
  • 3 Ψεν[ is definitely the beginning of an Egyptian personal name. One does not expect the preposition (...)

Ribbed marl dishes from Porphyrites (Tomber 2007b, from Fig. 6.9). The red-painted inscription on no. 101 reads ]εις Ψεν[ (]eis Psen[).3

© R. Tomber

16The evolution of Amphore Égyptienne 3 (AE3) has been discussed elsewhere (Tomber 2007a). Of the AE3, the distinction between those with plain and ribbed walls is significant –for although those with ribbing may occur from the earliest 1st century, they increase substantially from the Antonine period (Fig. 9; Tomber 2006, p. 205 and table 1.15). The lack of ribbed AE3 amphorae and other classic 2nd century types from Berenike, in contrast to Myos Hormos, suggests that this port was more active than Berenike during the 2nd century. Elsewhere in the Eastern Desert, a good assemblage of 2nd/3rd century pottery, and particularly the African Dressel 30 (Fig. 10; also see above), has been recognised at the emerald working site of Kab Marfu’a (Mons Smaragdus region) (Figs 11-12). From the late 4th century onwards, smaller Nile clay amphorae are characteristic (Fig. 13).

Fig. 9

Fig. 9

Second century Nile clay amphorae from Mons Claudianus and Myos Hormos (Tomber 2007a, Fig. 3).

© R. Tomber

Fig. 10

Fig. 10

Dressel 30 amphorae from Myos Hormos and Kab Marfu’a (Tomber 2009, Fig. 2).

© R. Tomber

Fig. 11

Fig. 11

Dressel 30 rim fragments from Kab Marfu’a.

© R. Tomber

Fig. 12

Fig. 12

Dressel 30 handle fragments from Kab Marfu’a.

© R. Tomber

Fig. 13

Fig. 13

Late Roman Nile clay amphorae from Porphyrites (Tomber 2007b, Fig. 6.13).

© R. Tomber

17There is still much to learn about mid-3rd to mid-4th century assemblages, which appear to be only sparsely represented at Berenike. Some types continue from the late 2nd early/3rd century horizon, such as the tall Egyptian amphora base, and imported amphorae, including African forms and the hollow-foot vessel (Kapitän 2). Another possible marker for the later 3rd century or early 4th century may be Sasanian turquoise glazed wares from Mesopotamia (Kennet 2004, pp. 21-31). From the late 4th century onwards deposits are frequently well-dated by their imports. Of the four sites, only Berenike was occupied after the early 5th century and the absence of Late Roman Amphora 2 and Phocean Red Slip ware, and later forms of African Red Slip and Cypriot Red Slip wares, all indicate that occupation did not extend beyond the early 6th century.

Assemblage comparison

  • 4 Relative percentages vary somewhat depending on whether the pottery was measured by weight or count (...)

18At Mons Claudianus amphorae represent 40%, 68%, 70%, 73% and 76% (x2) of the total ceramic assemblage respectively for the six dated horizons (Tomber 2006, table 1.4). This is expected given that most liquids would have reached the site in amphorae, supplemented by other small vessels, such as costrels and, likely, leather containers. The relatively low percentage of 40% derives from the Hydreuma assemblage and may relate to the short-lived occupation at that site. Elsewhere, at the ports (Hayes 1996, tables 6-1, 6-5, 6-6; Tomber 1999, table 5-1; Tomber in press b; Tomber unpublished), on the Coptos-Myos Hormos (Krokodilô/al-Muwayh, Maximianon/al-Zarqâ) and the Coptos-Berenike (Didymoi/Khashm al-Minayh) roads (Brun 2003, 2007) amphorae account for similarly high, or sometimes higher, percentage of the total assemblage.4

19Most amphorae belong to Egyptian types with imported ones comprising a much smaller portion of the amphora assemblage. Imported ones may represent goods of higher quality and status, although Brun (2007, p. 522), quoting Athenaeus of Naukratis, argues that some Egyptian wines warrant praise (in addition to the Mareotic ones that are accepted as being valued). It is amongst imported amphorae that the greatest differences can be noted between ports, quarries and roadside sites (table 1).

20At Mons Claudianus a wide range of types is present, not dissimilar to the variety found at Mediterranean ports of the same period (Fig. 14; Tomber 1996), yet they occur very sparsely, accounting for only between 1.0-2.5% (Tomber 2006, table 1.14). Fewer imported amphora types were recorded from Porphyrites –partly due to the lack of excavated 1st century deposits, but a range was present, especially during the Late Roman period when LR Amphora 1 (Cilicia/Cyprus) and LR Amphora 4 (Gaza) were present (Tomber 2001, p. 244). At the praesidia similarly small assemblages are present with 1-2% imported (Brun 2007).

Fig. 14

Fig. 14

Imported amphorae at Mons Claudianus (Tomber 1996, pp. 43-45, Fig. 3, annotated by V.A. Maxfield).

© R. Tomber

  • 5 The large percentages of imported amphorae recorded during the Late Roman period are not explored i (...)

21Not surprisingly, the ports of Berenike and Myos Hormos, situated to facilitate trade with the East, have a much more extensive range of types, in part reflecting their chronologically extended sequences, but also occurring in greater quantity (table 1). Although in certain deposits imports account for only c. 4-5% of the assemblage, it is not unusual to see them in greater quantities, up to 15%, or during the Late Roman period, as high as 45%.5 The wide variability between deposits, although always greater than for other site types, emphasises the importance of also evaluating function on a deposit by deposit basis.

22Overall, however, the higher amounts from the ports reflect site function where amphorae served for both consumption and export, in contrast to the quarries where supply was entirely for consumption. Amphorae discarded at the praesidia would also have contained commodities consumed there, although the goods destined for Myos Hormos and Berenike would have travelled through them.

  • 6 Deposit R1 (27% imported amphorae), dating to the mid-1st century BC, is earlier than roughly simil (...)

23Coptos was the river port and principal node for all transactions moving across the Eastern Desert and to the Red Sea throughout much of the Roman period, yet its amphora assemblages contrast with those from the Red Sea ports. Varying throughout its long sequence, the total amphorae from Roman deposits reaches only c. 32% (Herbert and Berlin 2003, p. 134), while imports comprise between 1% and 27% of the total amphorae in the Roman phases R1a (27%), R1b (11%), R2 (2%), R3 (1%), R4 (2%) (Lawall 2003, p. 159, table 1).6 As Lawall has already argued, discrepancies between Coptos and Berenike reflect their different functions within the commerce of Egypt and the lack of exact chronological equivalencies, particularly relevant for R1b (late 1st BC/1st c. AD) (Lawall 2003, pp. 159-160).

24The regularity of supply is a significant factor that can influence relative percentages of different ware types, yet is extremely difficult to assess. Shortage of supply, amongst other factors, is one explanation for the presence of reworked pottery at Mons Claudianus and, to a lesser extent, Porphyrites (Tomber 2011) and the way stations (J.-P. Brun, personal communication), but absent at the ports. It suggests that the supply of table and cooking wares to the quarries was limited, particularly at Mons Claudianus from the 2nd century onwards. Amphorae, as the containers of foodstuffs, continued to be regularly supplied and, therefore, were plentiful and could be resized to serve other vessel functions. By their nature, the ports received a regular supply of all types of ceramics.

25Amphorae from the Red Sea ports catered for both consumption and export. The on-site consumption of amphora-borne products is forcibly demonstrated by the amphora quay at Myos Hormos (Peacock and Blue 2006; Blue 2018), where hundreds of empty vessels, mostly intact, were used to consolidate the wharf area. Amphora types in this feature are primarily Egyptian AE3 vessels and Campanian Dressel 2-4 wine amphorae. The latter most likely correspond to Italika, referred to in trade documents, including the Periplus Maris Erythraei (Casson 1989) and the Berenike ostraka (Bagnall et al. 2000) and were distributed eastwards from Egypt to India (Fig. 15).

Fig. 15

Fig. 15

Distribution of Italika at main sites across the Indian Ocean.

© R. Tomber, A. Simpson

26Another Dressel 2-4 wine amphora mentioned in these same documents and the Nicanor archive (Fuks 1951), is the Ladikena, probably linked to vessels produced in eastern Cilicia and exported through Laodicea ad Mare (Tomber 1998). A Dressel 2-4 from Myos Hormos, in an eastern Cilician fabric, has a label to Publius from Herakleitos and also includes the mention of Miresis, who was a son of Nicanor (Fig. 16). Miresis was active in trade between AD 41 and 62 (Van Rengen 2003, O. 0741).

Fig. 16

Fig. 16

Dressel 2-4 amphora with Miresis inscription from Myos Hormos (Left: R. Tomber; Right: W. Van Rengen).

© R. Tomber, W. Van Rengen

Table 1

Site

Site Function

% Imported amphorae

Reference

Mons Claudianus

Quarry

1.0-2.5%

Tomber 2006, tab. 1.4**

Myos Hormos

Sea port

5-15%

Tomber, unpublished

(4 deposits)*

Berenike

Sea port

4-13%

Hayes 1996, tab. 6-1*. Hayes 1996, tab. 6-5**. Tomber 1999, tab. 5-1*

Krokodilô

Praesidium

2%

Brun 2007, pp. 516-517*

Maximianon

Praesidium

1%

Brun 2007, pp. 517-519*

Didymoi

Praesidium

1.5%

Brun 2007, p. 507*

Coptos

River port

1-11%

Lawall 2003, tab. 1*

Relative quantities of imported amphorae as a percentage of the total amphora assemblage. *= by count; **= by weight.

27Fewer statistics are available for fine ware assemblages, but they comprise a relatively smaller percentage of the total assemblage in comparison to amphorae. For example, at Claudianus they range between 2-4% of the assemblage (Tomber 2006, table 1-4; see also Hayes 1996, table 6-3; Tomber 1999, table 5-1). Additional data are needed, therefore, before further generalisations can be made. What is clear, though, is that the range of fine wares from the ports is much broader than from the quarries or praesidia. At Coptos, fine wares account for between 0% and 11% of the total Roman assemblage (Herbert and Berlin 2003, p. 134).

  • 7 Faience appears to be absent from the deposits published by Berlin from Coptos (Herbert and Berlin (...)
  • 8 A few glazed vessels of uncertain origin are recorded from Xeron on the Berenike-Coptos road (J.-P. (...)

28Egyptian faience and thin-walled ware, and imported sigillata, are present at almost all sites.7 In contrast, very small numbers of Nabataean and other imported thin-walled wares are restricted to Berenike, Myos Hormos and Didymoi (Brun 2011, p. 119, Fig. 202, no. 1). Roman glazed wares belonging to the Tarsus tradition (Fig. 17; Hochuli-Gysel 2002) and Partho-Sasanian glazed wares (Fig. 18) are diagnostic of the sea ports8 and the latter probably arrived via the South Arabian ports of Kanê/Qana and Moscha Limên/Khor Rori (Tomber in press a).

Fig. 17

Fig. 17

Tarsus glazed ware from Berenike (Left: R. Tomber; Right: T. Witkowska).

© R. Tomber, T. Witkowska

Fig. 18

Fig. 18

Sasanian glazed ware from Berenike (Left: R. Tomber; Right: T. Witkowska).

© R. Tomber, T. Witkowska

29Other non-Roman wares are particularly characteristic of the sea ports where a range of fine wares, cooking wares and storage jars from India, South Arabia and East Africa are represented in some numbers. For instance, at Berenike, Indian cooking pots in some deposits comprise up to 9% of the coarse ware assemblage during the 1st century AD (pp. 19-21; Begley and Tomber 1999, p. 180).

Fig. 19

Fig. 19

Indian cooking wares found at Myos Hormos and Berenike (Tomber 2008, Fig. 6).

© R. Tomber

Fig. 20

Fig. 20

Indian coarse wares from Myos Hormos.

© R. Tomber

Fig. 21

Fig. 21

Indian cooking wares from Arikamedu, India (R. Tomber, courtesy of Pondicherry Museum).

© R. Tomber

30These wares can occasionally be found along the roads and at Coptos, but do not typify those assemblages. Travelling from Berenike, at the first way station, both an Indian cooking pot and South Arabian storage jars (Fort 5, Sidebotham and Gates in press 2018) have been recorded from Vetus Hydreuma/Wâdi Abu Greiya; from Didymoi, near Coptos on the Coptos-Berenike road comes a surface find of an Aksumite pot (Brun 2015) and an Indian cooking pot (J.-P. Brun, personal communication); while from Coptos itself, Indian rouletted ware is known (Elaigne 1999). Finally, an Indian (Chera) coin has been identified on the Coptos-Berenike road from Dios/Abu Greiya (H. Cuvigny, personal communication: the Chera coin has been identified by O. Bopearachchi). Importantly these rare occurrences are uniformly from trade routes that link to the ports, yet no non-Roman ceramics have, to date, been recognised as far afield as Alexandria. Quarries such as Mons Claudianus and Porphyrites, situated on a different set of road networks, although also converging at Coptos, apparently lack non-Roman ceramic finds.

31The movement of transport vessels, such as amphorae and storage jars, can be readily understood as reflecting trade in commodities, but other ware types, for instance Indian cooking vessels, may have been personal possessions –particularly for the use of foreign diaspora communities on the Red Sea, enabling merchants and sailors to maintain familiar culinary traditions both on-board ships and in the port. It is for this reason that such an abrupt fall-off is noted in their occurrence after leaving the ports.

32Looking beyond the ceramic finds, parallel trends can be identified, particularly in the archaeobotanical remains. As an example, black pepper from India is most common at the sea ports: it occurs abundantly and in numerous in-situ contexts at Berenike (Cappers 2006, pp. 114-116; see also Van der Veen 2011, pp. 41-46 for the absolute smaller amounts from Myos Hormos) that clearly demonstrate it was consumed in the port. Conversely, pepper was rare at Claudianus (2 peppercorns – Van der Veen 2001, p. 199) and absent from Porphyrites (Van der Veen 2007, p. 96). Although absent from both the Myos Hormos-Coptos and Berenike-Coptos roads (M. Van der Veen, personal communication; Van der Veen 2018), four ostraka confirm pepper was consumed at Didymoi (O.Did. 327, 328, 364, 399) and that it was requested via personal letters and supplied to individuals (Bülow-Jacobsen 2012).

Desert routes and desert supplies

33The extensive scholarly work of the last decades has shown that supply networks existed across the Eastern Desert for provisioning the sites, for the export of Egyptian/Mediterranean goods travelling eastwards to and onwards from the Red Sea ports, and for the importation of goods from the East that travelled westwards to Coptos. Throughout the desert the passage of goods and peoples on these networks was strictly controlled and passes and receipts indicate that the selling of goods before their ultimate destination was forbidden, although it is likely that some exceptions, legal or not, were made (Tomber 2006, p. 214).

34The provision of foodstuffs and other essentials (including pottery) to the quarries comprised official rations supplemented by personal requests for items, generally from the Nile Valley. Similar mechanisms existed to supply the praesidia and ostraka from them indicate that provisioning differed for military personnel and civilians, and also that goods circulated between the praesidia (Cuvigny 2012, p. 6). The sea ports also required provisioning and it appears that this was separate from the supply of items for import and export (Ibid., pp. 6-7). The most informative Eastern Desert texts regarding the items and organisation of goods intended for export come from the Nicanor archive (Fuks 1951) and more recently from the Berenike ostraka (Bagnall et al. 2000, 2005).

35In the context of this paper, amphora-borne products and other smaller vessels containing foodstuffs or oil for non-culinary purposes are most relevant. Rations would have mostly comprised Egyptian products and, indeed, the bulk of the amphorae found in the Eastern Desert were produced in the Nile Valley. Based on a model where imported goods were of greater value than Egyptian ones, the smaller number of imported vessels could represent special purchases or requisitions from military personnel or inhabitants of some status. The small but similar quantities of imported amphorae from Mons Claudianus and the praesidia are notable in their diverse range. Overall this diversity may reflect the intensive activity in the region generated from both the overseas trade and mineral exploitation as well as the demand created by the military presence at desert sites (Tomber 2006, pp. 212-215).

36In contrast the consistently greater quantities of imported amphorae at Myos Hormos and Berenike must have reached there because of the overseas trade, but as noted above, were also regularly consumed there. The flow of goods from both East and West would have provided ready access to imported goods. Comparative trends from Coptos are variable, but most assemblages are more in keeping with the praesidia and quarries than the sea ports, reinforcing that the larger quantities of imported amphorae at the sea ports were first and foremost for export. That specific wine containers, Italika and Ladikena, are frequently mentioned in trade documents (e.g. Bagnall et al. 2000, pp. 16-18) lends further support for this. Additionally, in the private letters wine is only rarely mentioned (e.g. O.Did. 334, 364) and even less frequently by type (e.g. O.Did. 419 for Laodicean wine, Bülow-Jacobsen 2012).

37Goods imported from the East, and travelling west to Coptos and ultimately to Alexandria, present clearer patterns. Using pepper as a proxy, sizeable amounts were consumed at Myos Hormos and Berenike with very rare quantities recorded from the praesidia and the quarries. This makes obvious that despite the tetarte (25% tax) that was levied on goods from the East it was possible to consume eastern goods in the ports themselves, but it may have been more difficult after leaving the ports.

38A recent inscription from Berenike indicating that there was a storage facility there (in this case for spices), has strengthened the argument put forth by Cuvigny, that some taxation may have taken place at Berenike to facilitate local markets for eastern goods (Ast and Bagnall 2015, p. 182; Cuvigny 2005, p. 15). Ast and Bagnall further speculate that rare goods on the desert road might already have been taxed at Berenike or represent “leakage” (Ast and Bagnall 2015, pp. 182-183; Bülow-Jacobsen 2012: O.Did. 323, n. 10). It may be that similar systems were in operation at Coptos, accounting for goods that travelled in the opposite direction across the desert.

39This survey has drawn attention to consistent differences between the imported amphorae at river and sea ports, quarries and roadside sites that complement what we know from the ostraka about supply in the Eastern Desert. The compilation and publication of additional ceramic data, enabling an assessment of individual deposit function, has much to offer in unravelling archaeologically the different supply networks active in the region.

Acknowledgements

40Valerie Maxfield and Hélène Cuvigny kindly read a draft of this paper and I am grateful for their extremely useful comments. Warm thanks also go to Wilfried Van Rengen for information on the costrels and the Miresis amphora from Myos Hormos; to J.-P. Brun for providing unpublished data from the praesidia; to Marijke Van der Veen for unpublished information on the archaebotanical evidence; and Hélène Cuvigny for her reading of the inscription on Fig. 8, no. 101. Many of the illustrations are republished from earlier publications and are the work of Graham Reed, Seán Goddard, Penny Copeland and Julian Whitewright, acknowledged in the original publications. Here they were prepared for digital presentation by Antony Simpson. This work of synthesis was possible only due to my participation in projects at Mons Claudianus, Mons Porphyrites, Myos Hormos-Qusayr al-Qadim and Berenike. I thank all the project directors and teams, but, above all, David Peacock, for his invitation to join the team at Mons Claudianus, that first took me to the Eastern Desert.

Bibliographie

  

Ast R. and Bagnall R.S. 2015. “The receivers of Berenike. New inscriptions from the 2015 season”. Chiron, 45, pp. 171-185.

Ast R. and Bagnall R.S. 2016. Documents from Berenike III: Greek and Latin Texts from the 2009-2013 Seasons, Papyrologica Bruxellensia, 36.

Bagnall R.S., Helms C. and Verhoogt A.M.F.W. 2000. Documents from Berenike I: Greek Ostraca from the 1996-1998 Seasons, Papyrologica Bruxellensia, 31.

Bagnall R.S., Helms C. and Verhoogt A.M.F.W. 2005. Documents from Berenike II: Texts from the 1999-2001 Seasons, Papyrologica Bruxellensia, 33.

Barnard H. and Wendrich W.Z. 2007. “Survey of Berenike”. In Berenike 1999/2000 Report on the Excavations at Berenike, including Excavations in Wâdi Kalalat and Siket, and the Survey of the Mons Smaragdus Region. S.E. Sidebotham and W.Z. Wendrich (eds.), Los Angeles, CA., Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, pp. 4-21.

Begley V. and Tomber R. 1999. “Indian pottery sherds from Berenike”. In Berenike '97. Report of the 1997 Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Eastern Desert, including Excavations at Shenshef (Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies, CNWS, Spec. Ser. 4). S.E. Sidebotham and W.Z. Wendrich (eds.), Leiden, Leiden University, pp. 161-181.

Blue L. 2018. “The Port of Myos Hormos and its Relation to Indo-Roman Trade”. In The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports. J.-P. Brun, T. Faucher, B. Redon and S. Sidebotham (ed.). On line: https://books.openedition.org/cdf/5235.

Bonifay M. 2004. Études sur la céramique romaine tardive d’Afrique (BAR S1301), Oxford, Archaeopress.

Brun J.P. 2003. “Typologie de la céramique: un apercu”. In La route de Myos Hormos. L’armée romaine dans le désert Oriental d’Égypte. Vol 2 (FIFAO 48/2). H. Cuvigny (ed.), Cairo, Institut français d’archéologie orientale, pp. 503-512.

Brun J.P. 2007. “Amphores égyptiennes et importées dans les praesidia romains des routes de Myos Hormos et de Bérénice”. CCE, 8, pp. 505-523.

Brun J.P. 2011. “Le dépotoir”. In Didymoi. Une garnison romaine dans le désert Oriental d’Egypte. Vol. 1. Les fouilles et le materiel (FIFAO 67/1). H. Cuvigny (ed.), Cairo, Institut français d’archéologie orientale, pp. 105-155.

Brun J.P. 2015. “Une vase fabriqué à Aksoum découvert dans le praesidium de Didymoi (Désert oriental d’Égypte)”. Bulletin de Liaison de la Céramique Égyptienne, 25, pp. 323-329.

Bülow-Jacobsen A. 2012. “Private letters”. In Didymoi. Une garnison romaine dans le désert Oriental d’Égypte. Vol. 2. Les textes (FIFAO 67/2). H. Cuvigny (ed.), Cairo, Institut français d’archéologie orientale, pp. 233-399.

Cappers R.T.J. 2006. Roman Foodprints at Berenike. Archaeobotanical Evidence of Subsistence and Trade in the Eastern Desert of Egypt (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 55), Los Angeles, CA., Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.

Casson L. 1989. The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.

Cuvigny H. 2005. Ostraca de Krokodilô. La correspondance militaire et sa circulation. (O. Krok. 1-151). Praesidia du désert de Bérénice II (FIFAO 51), Cairo, Institut français d'archéologie orientale.

Cuvigny H. 2012. Didymoi. Une garnison romaine dans le désert Oriental d’Égypte. Vol 2. Les textes (FIFAO 67/2), Cairo, Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Cuvigny H. 2018. “A Survey of Place-Names in the Egyptian Eastern Desert during the Principate according to the Ostraca and the Inscriptions”. In The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports. J.-P. Brun, T. Faucher, B. Redon and S. Sidebotham (ed.). On line: https://books.openedition.org/cdf/5231.

Elaigne S. 1999. “Northern Black Polished Ware from Coptos”. poster presented at the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, Leiden.

Fuks A. 1951. “Notes on the archive of Nicanor”. Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 5, pp. 207-216.

Hayes J.W. 1996. “The pottery”. In Berenike 1995. Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Berenike (Egyptian Red Sea Coast) and the Survey of the Eastern Desert (Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies, CNWS, Spec. Ser. 2). S.E. Sidebotham and W.Z. Wendrich (eds.), Leiden, Leiden University, pp. 147-178.

Herbert S.C. and Berlin A. 2003. Excavations at Coptos (Qift) in Upper Egypt, 1987-1992 (JRA Suppl. Ser. 53), Portsmouth, R.I., Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Hochuli-Gysel A. 2002. “La céramique à glaçure plombifère d’Asie Mineure et du bassin méditerranéen oriental (du ier s. av. J.-C. au ier s. ap. J.-C.)”. In Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines. Productions et diffusion en Méditerranée orientale (Chypre, Égypte et côte syro-palestinienne) (TMO 35). F. Blondé, P. Ballet and J.-F. Salles (eds.), Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, pp. 303-319.

Kennet D. 2004. Sasanian and Islamic Pottery from Ras al-Khaimah: Classification, Chronology, and Analysis of Trade in the Western Indian Ocean (BAR S1248), Oxford, Archaeopress.

Lawall M. 2003. “Egyptian and imported transport amphoras”. In Excavations at Coptos (Qift) in Upper Egypt, 1987-1992 (JRA Suppl. Ser. 53). S.C. Herbert and A. Berlin, Portsmouth, R.I., Journal of Roman Archaeology, pp. 157-191.

Maxfield V.A. and Peacock D.P.S. 2001. Mons Claudianus 1987-1993. Survey and Excavations. Vol. II. Excavations Part 1 (FIFAO 43), Cairo, Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Peacock D.P.S. 2011. “Ptolemaic and Roman coins”. In Myos Hormos – Quseir al-Qadim. Roman and Islamic Ports on the Red Sea. Vol. 2. Finds from the Excavations 1999-2003 (University of Southampton Series in Archaeology 6, BAR S2286). D.P.S. Peacock and L. Blue (eds.), Oxford, Archaeopress, pp. 85-87.

Peacock D.P.S. and Blue L. (eds.). 2006. Myos Hormos – Quseir al-Qadim. Roman and Islamic Ports on the Red Sea. Vol. 1. Survey and Excavations 1999-2003, Oxford, Oxbow.

Sidebotham S.E. 2000. “The excavations”. In Berenike 1998. Report of the 1998 Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, including Excavations in Wâdi Kalalat (Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies, CNWS, Spec. Ser. 4). S.E. Sidebotham and W.Z. Wendrich (eds.), Leiden, Leiden University, pp. 3-147.

Sidebotham S.E. 2011. “Ancient coins from Quseir al-Qadim: the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago excavations 1978, 1980 and 1982”. In Myos Hormos – Quseir al-Qadim. Roman and Islamic Ports on the Red Sea. Vol.2. Finds from the Excavations 1999-2003 (University of Southampton Series in Archaeology 6, BAR S2286). D.P.S. Peacock and L. Blue (eds), Oxford, Archaeopress, pp. 353-360.

Sidebotham S.E. and Gates-Foster J. (eds.). In press 2018. The Archaeological Survey of the Desert Roads between Berenike and the Nile Valley: Expeditions by the University of Michigan and the University of Delaware to the Eastern Desert of Egypt, 1988-2015 (Archaeological Reports Series, American Schools of Oriental Research 26), Boston, MA., ASOR.

Sidebotham S.E. and Zych I. 2012. “Results of fieldwork at Berenike: a Ptolemaic-Roman port on the Red Sea coast of Egypt, 2008-2010”. In Autour du Périple de la mer Érythrée (Topoi, Suppl. 11). M.-Fr. Boussac, J.-Fr. Salles and J.B. Yon (eds.), pp. 133-157.

Studer J. 1994. “Roman fish sauce in Petra, Jordan”. In Fish Exploitation in the Past. Proceedings of the 7th meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group (Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques 274). W. Van Neer (ed.), Tervuren, Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, pp. 191-196.

Tomber R. 1996. “Provisioning the desert: pottery supply to Mons Claudianus”. In Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt (JRA Suppl. Ser. 19). D.M. Bailey (ed.), Ann Arbor, MI., Journal of Roman Archaeology, pp. 39-49.

Tomber R. 1998. “'Laodicean' wine containers in Roman Egypt”. In Life on the Fringe. Living in the Southern Egyptian Deserts during the Roman and Early Byzantine Periods. O. Kaper (ed.), Leiden, School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS), pp. 213-219.

Tomber R. 1999. “The pottery”. In Berenike '97. Report of the 1997 Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Eastern Desert, including Excavations at Shenshef (Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies, CNWS, Spec. Ser. 4). S.E. Sidebotham and W.Z. Wendrich (eds.), Leiden, Leiden University, pp. 123-159.

Tomber R. 2000. “The Roman pottery”. In Myos Hormos – Quseir al-Qadim: A Roman and Islamic Port Site on the Red Sea Coast of Egypt. Interim Report, 2000. D.P.S. Peacock, L. Blue, N. Bradford and S. Moser, Southampton, Department of Archaeology, pp. 53-56.

Tomber R. 2001. “Pottery”. In The Roman Imperial Quarries. Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994-1998. Vol. 1. Topography and Quarries, (EES Sixty-Seventh Excavation Memoir). V.A. Maxfield and D.P.S. Peacock, London, Egyptian Exploration Society, pp. 242-303.

Tomber R. 2005. “Living in the desert: mess kits from Mons Porphyrites”. In Image, Craft and the Classical World. Essays in Honour of Donald Bailey and Catherine Johns (Monographies Instrumentum 29). N. Crummy (ed.), Montagnac, Éditions Monique Mergoil, pp. 55-60.

Tomber R. 2006. “The pottery”. In Mons Claudianus 1987-1993. Survey and Excavations. Vol. III. Ceramic Vessels & Related Objects from Mons Claudianus (FIFAO 54). V.A. Maxfield and D.P.S. Peacock (eds.), Cairo, Institut français d’archéologie orientale, pp. 1-236.

Tomber R. 2007a. “Early Roman Egyptian amphorae from the Eastern Desert of Egypt: a chronological sequence. CCE, 8, pp. 525-536.

Tomber R. 2007b. “Pottery from the excavated deposits”. In The Roman Imperial Quarries. Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994-1998. Vol. 2. Excavations (EES Eighty-Second Excavation Memoir). D.P.S. Peacock and V.A. Maxfield, London, Egyptian Exploration Society, pp. 177-208.

Tomber R. 2008. Indo-Roman Trade: from Pots to Pepper, London, Duckworth.

Tomber R. 2009. “Imitation and diffusion – the case of Dressel 30 in Egypt”. In Studies on Roman Pottery of the Provinces of Africa Proconsularis and Byzacena (Tunisia). Hommage à Michel Bonifay (JRA Suppl. Ser. 76). J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Portsmouth, R.I., Journal of Roman Archaeology, pp. 151-156.

Tomber R. 2011. “Reusing pottery in the Eastern Desert of Egypt”. In Pottery in the Archaeological Record: Greece and Beyond (Gösta Enbom Monograph 1). M.L. Lawall and J. Lund (eds.), Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, pp. 107-116.

Tomber R. In press a. “Beyond the boundaries of the Periplus: the Persian Gulf route in the supply to Myos Hormos and Berenike”. In Proceedings of the Red Sea Conference VII. C. Zazzaro and A. Manzo (eds.), Leiden, E.J. Brill.

Tomber R. In press b. “The late Roman dump from Trench 59”. In Berenike 2010-2011. Report on Two Seasons of Excavations at Berenike, including Survey in the Eastern Desert and Reports on Earlier Work (Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology Excavation Series 4). S.E. Sidebotham and I. Zych (eds.), Warsaw, PCMA.

Van der Veen M. 2001. “The botanical evidence”. In Mons Claudianus 1987-1993. Survey and Excavations. Vol. II. Excavations Part 1 (FIFAO 43). V.A. Maxfield and D.P.S. Peacock, Cairo, Institut français d’archéologie orientale, pp. 175-246

Van der Veen M. 2011. Consumption, Trade and Innovation. Exploring the Botanical Remains from the Roman and Islamic Ports at Qusayr al-Qadim, Egypt (Journal of African Archaeology Mono. Ser. 6), Frankfurt, Africa Magna Verlag.

Van der Veen M. and Tabinor H. 2007. “Food, fodder and fuel at Mons Porphyrites: the botanical evidence”. In The Roman Imperial Quarries. Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994-1998. Vol. 2. Excavations (EES Eighty-Second Excavation Memoir). D.P.S. Peacock and V.A. Maxfield, London, Egyptian Exploration Society, pp. 83-142.

Van der Veen M., Bouchaud C., Cappers R. et Newton C. 2018. “Roman Life in the Eastern Desert of Egypt: Food, Imperial Power and Geopolitic. In The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports. J.-P. Brun, T. Faucher, B. Redon and S. Sidebotham (ed.). On line: https://books.openedition.org/cdf/5252.

Van Neer W., Hamilton-Dyer S., Cappers R., Desender K. and Ervycnk A. 2006. “The Roman trade in salted Nilotic fish products: some examples from Egypt”. Documenta Archaeobiologiae, 4, pp. 173-188.

Van Rengen W. 1995. A new Paneion at Mons Porphyrites”, Chronique d’Égypte, 70, pp. 240-245.

Van Rengen W. 2001. “The inscription (from Bradford Village)”. In The Roman Imperial Quarries. Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994-1998. Vol. 1. Topography and Quarries (EES Sixty-Seventh Excavation Memoir). V.A. Maxfield and D.P.S. Peacock, London, Egyptian Exploration Society, pp. 60-62.

Van Rengen W. 2003. “The written material”. In Myos Hormos – Quseir al-Qadim. A Roman and Islamic Port Site. Interim Report. D.P.S. Peacock, L. Blue and S. Moser, Southampton, Department of Archaeology, pp. 43-44.

Van Rengen W. 2007. “The written evidence: inscriptions and ostraka”. In The Roman Imperial Quarries. Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994-1998. Vol. 2. Excavations (EES Eighty-Second Excavation Memoir). D.P.S. Peacock and V.A. Maxfield, London, Egyptian Exploration Society, pp. 397-411.

Van Rengen W. and Thomas R. 2006. “The sebakh excavations”. In Myos Hormos – Quseir al-Qadim. Roman and Islamic Ports on the Red Sea. Vol. 1. Survey and Excavations 1999-2003. D.P.S. Peacock and L. Blue (eds.), Oxford, Oxbow, pp. 146-154.

Notes

1 As explained by H. Cuvigny in this volume, the term “Mons Porphyrites” is never attested in ancient sources, which only mention “Porphyrites” (see Cuvigny 2018).

2 Coins of Probus (276-282) and Aurelian (269-275) found in Passage IX of Fort South-East provided the latest dating evidence (Maxfield and Peacock 2001, p. 464). Two stray sherds of Late Roman African Red Slip ware were also found on the surface of the fort and environs but are not considered to relate to occupation of the fort (Tomber 2006, pp. 196-197).

3 Ψεν[ is definitely the beginning of an Egyptian personal name. One does not expect the preposition εἰς (“to”, meaning toward a place) before a personal name; nor does one expect a verb in the indicative second person singular on a bowl. ]εις must be the end of another name (a misspelling of ]ις) and therefore Ψεν[ was the patronymic (H. Cuvigny, personal communication).

4 Relative percentages vary somewhat depending on whether the pottery was measured by weight or count, but the results are fairly comparable, and in both cases the percentages are high.

5 The large percentages of imported amphorae recorded during the Late Roman period are not explored in detail here, where the focus is on Early Roman assemblages.

6 Deposit R1 (27% imported amphorae), dating to the mid-1st century BC, is earlier than roughly similar dated deposits from Myos Hormos and Berenike and, therefore, should not be included in the comparisons.

7 Faience appears to be absent from the deposits published by Berlin from Coptos (Herbert and Berlin 2003). For information on the faience and imported sigillata from the praesidia I thank J.-P. Brun.

8 A few glazed vessels of uncertain origin are recorded from Xeron on the Berenike-Coptos road (J.-P. Brun, personal communication).

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1
Légende Spouted strainers from Mons Claudianus (Tomber 2006, Fig. 1.24).
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/, 208k
Titre Fig. 2
Légende Costrels from Porphyrites (Tomber 2007b, Fig. 6.5).
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/, 172k
Titre Fig. 3
Légende Costrels from Myos Hormos with intact stoppers.
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/, 440k
Titre Fig. 4
Légende Costrels from Myos Hormos with shoulder inscriptions.
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/, 212k
Titre Fig. 5
Légende Aswan Thin-walled wares from Mons Claudianus with barbotine decoration (Tomber 2006, Fig. 1.7).
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/, 128k
Titre Fig. 6
Légende Aswan Thin-walled wares from Porphyrites with painted decoration (Tomber 2007b, Fig. 6.1).
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/, 148k
Titre Fig. 7
Légende Second century cooking pots and casseroles from Porphyrites (Tomber 2007b, from Figs 6.7 and 6.10).
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/, 156k
Titre Fig. 8
Légende Ribbed marl dishes from Porphyrites (Tomber 2007b, from Fig. 6.9). The red-painted inscription on no. 101 reads ]εις Ψεν[ (]eis Psen[).3
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/, 80k
Titre Fig. 9
Légende Second century Nile clay amphorae from Mons Claudianus and Myos Hormos (Tomber 2007a, Fig. 3).
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/, 184k
Titre Fig. 10
Légende Dressel 30 amphorae from Myos Hormos and Kab Marfu’a (Tomber 2009, Fig. 2).
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/, 100k
Titre Fig. 11
Légende Dressel 30 rim fragments from Kab Marfu’a.
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/, 756k
Titre Fig. 12
Légende Dressel 30 handle fragments from Kab Marfu’a.
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/, 880k
Titre Fig. 13
Légende Late Roman Nile clay amphorae from Porphyrites (Tomber 2007b, Fig. 6.13).
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/, 108k
Titre Fig. 14
Légende Imported amphorae at Mons Claudianus (Tomber 1996, pp. 43-45, Fig. 3, annotated by V.A. Maxfield).
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/, 256k
Titre Fig. 15
Légende Distribution of Italika at main sites across the Indian Ocean.
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/, 416k
Titre Fig. 16
Légende Dressel 2-4 amphora with Miresis inscription from Myos Hormos (Left: R. Tomber; Right: W. Van Rengen).
Crédits © R. Tomber, W. Van Rengen
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/, 628k
Titre Fig. 17
Légende Tarsus glazed ware from Berenike (Left: R. Tomber; Right: T. Witkowska).
Crédits © R. Tomber, T. Witkowska
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/, 144k
Titre Fig. 18
Légende Sasanian glazed ware from Berenike (Left: R. Tomber; Right: T. Witkowska).
Crédits © R. Tomber, T. Witkowska
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/, 212k
Titre Fig. 19
Légende Indian cooking wares found at Myos Hormos and Berenike (Tomber 2008, Fig. 6).
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/, 44k
Titre Fig. 20
Légende Indian coarse wares from Myos Hormos.
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/, 612k
Titre Fig. 21
Légende Indian cooking wares from Arikamedu, India (R. Tomber, courtesy of Pondicherry Museum).
Crédits © R. Tomber
URL http://books.openedition.org/cdf/docannexe/image/5251/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/, 101k

Auteur

Researcher, Department of Ceramics, British Museum (Great Britain)

© Collège de France, 2018

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540