G.

Cornelius Gallus, Praefectus Aegypti, and Aethiopia: a self propagandist(*) (**)

Dr. Mohamed Solieman

E-mail: mohamedclassics@gmail.com
Classical historians clearly pay little attention to the long and complicated
history of relations between Graeco-Roman Egypt and its southern neighbor, the
kingdom of Meroe. Yet that history is of considerable interest. Thanks to the
peculiar geography of the Nile Valley, one of the constants of the history of
Graeco-Roman Egypt was the existence deep in the Sudan of a strong state with
claims to territory historically ruled by Egypt and a record of trying to exploit
Egyptian weakness to further those claims.(1)

In 30 B.C. Octavian (later Augustus) added Egypt to the Roman Empire, as

he said himself in Res Gestae [Aegyptum imperio populi Romani adieci / I added
Egypt to the empire of the Roman people].(2)

Even at this early date, Augustus knew well that the southern frontier of
Egypt was also the southern frontier of the Roman Empire. Indeed, as pointed out
by Dio Cassius,(3) the attempt by Caesarion to reach a hideaway in Meroitic
territory might be getting his attention to the prospect danger of this area. Since
Augustus was aware of the unsettled history of relations between the Egypt and
Aethiopia,(4) when he took control of Egypt in 30 BC Therefore, he began to
establish a policy to deal with this territory.

In 29 BC, only a year after the Roman conquest, Egypt rebelled against the
Roman rule and Roman taxes, causing G.Cornelius Gallus, first prefect of
Egypt,(5) to lead Roman forces south in order to deal with it.
In referring to this rebellion, Strabo simply stated that “a revolt was raised in
the Thebaid because of taxes, shortly after Cornelius Gallus became a
praefectus”.(6) Fortunately, further information about the rebellion is provided by
the survival of a remarkable document IPhilae 128 (Anass Alwogood). Discovered
at Philae in 1896, this trilingual inscription in Egyptian, Latin and Greek was set
up on 29th April 29BC by Cornelius Gallus to commemorate his achievements
during his first year of his position as prefect of Egypt.
IPhilae 128 consists of the two halves of a red granite stela, about one and a
half meters in height and one meter in width. It had been separated down the centre
when used as construction material for the temple of Augustus at Philae, built by
the later prefect of Egypt Pulbius Rubrius Barbarus in 13/12 B.C.(7)

The overtones of Ptolemaic royalty exemplified by Cornelius Gallus stela

inscription resembles previous royal stelae such as the Rosetta Stone, and may
have been one of the reasons, or indeed the prime reason, for his recall to Rome
and subsequent suicide,(8) Gallus’ stela features two columns of hieroglyphs, each
containing statements by three gods, then follows the trilingual inscription:

1- A poorly preserved ten line hieroglyphic inscription that occupies almost

half the stele.(9)
2- A Latin text in the form of a thanks giving offering by Cornelius Gallus to
the ancestral gods and to the Nile for their assistance to him.
3- A Greek translation of Cornelius Gallus’ Latin dedication,(10) added a long
the bottom and about half the size of the Latin text.

C.Cornelius Cn.f.Gaius eques Romanus post reges a

Caesare deivi f. devictos praefectus Alexandreae et Aegypti
primus, defectionis Thebaidis intra dies XV quibus hostem
vicit, bis acie victor, V urbium expurgnator Boreseos Copti
Ceramices Diospoleos megales Ophieu, ducibus earum
defectionum interceptis, exercitu ultra Nili catarhacten
transdueto, in quem locum neque populo Romano neque
regibus Aegypti arma ante sunt prolata, Thebaide,
communi omnium regum formidine, subaeta legatisqe
Regis Aethiopum ad Philas auditis coque piae constituto,
dieis patrieis et Nilo adiutori.

Praefectus Aegypti Cornelius Gallus says to pride

oneself on his victory he achieved: "Gaius Cornelius Gallus
son of Gnaius, the Roman cavalryman, first prefect of
Alexandria and Egypt after the defeat of kings by Caesar
son of the divine, and the vanquisher of Thebaid's
revolution in fifteen days, defeated the enemies twice
during it in a general battle, and took over five cites by
 force: Boreses, Coptos, Ceramici, Diospolis Megaly, and
Ophion, and having captured the leaders of these
revolutions. having led his army beyond the cataract of the
Nile, where neither the armies of the Romans nor those of
the kings of Egypt had gone before, and subjugated
Thebaid, the source of dread for all kings, and given
listening to the ambassadors of the king of Aethiopia and
taken that king into protection, and appointed a tyrannus
(ruler) for the Tiracontoschoenus. . .in (?) Aethiopia, he (sc.
Gallus) presented this dedication and gave thanks to the
ancestral gods and the Nile, his helper."

This document needs some explanation. Its writer is Cornelius

Gallus,(11) one of the key officers Octavian who captured Parætonium
(Mersa Matruh) and stopped the attacks of Mark Antony upon the city by
both in land and sea. (12) Indeed, he was sufficently trusted by Octavian to
be sent as one of his envoys to Cleopatra in her final days.(13) He had been
rewarded after the conquest of Egypt and became prefect of Egypt (August
30 - 27/26BC)(14).

Yet the first reaction of scholars was to see in Cornelius Gallus’

inscription as a traditional royal form of trilingual inscription, confirming the
validity of one of the charges brought against him at the time of his discredit
and suicide in 27 BC; namely, that he set up such monuments to himself in
Egypt.(15)

Equally important, however, is the evidence it provides for Gallus’ activities

in Lower Nubia in late 30 or early 29 B.C. After recounting his appointment as
prefect of Egypt and conquest of a number of rebellious cities in the Thebaid, the
Latin text continues as follows (lines 5-9): “having led his army beyond the
cataract of the Nile, where neither the armies of the Romans nor those of the kings
of Egypt had gone before. . .and given audience to the ambassadors of the king of
Aethiopia and taken that king into protection, and appointed a tyrannus for the
Tiracontoschoenus. . .in (?) Aethiopia,(16) he (sc. Gallus) gave thanks to the
ancestral gods and the Nile, his helper.” In the main time, he said that he led his
army beyond the cataract of the Nile, i.e. the first cataract, an area which had not
approached by any Roman armies before him, but also aledging no Ptolemaic
forces had gone before, and his hyperbole continuing description of the Thebaid as
the “common terror of all the kings” (lines 6-7).
 Obviously, much has been left unsaid concerning these events in this
dedication, but its claims seem clear. Cornelius Gallus states that he received the
king of Meroe into Roman protection,(17) and converted territory traditionally
claimed by the kingdom of Meroe, the Triacontaschoenus (18) into a client state
(19) by imposing a Roman nominee as its tyrannos or district chieftain. (20)
IPhilae 128 implies that Meroe became virtually a client kingdom of Rome subject
to Roman interference like any other such kingdom. Equally clearly, IPhilae 128
suggests that Octavian in 30 B.C. intended not only to insure the security of
Egypt’s southern frontier but also to extend Roman influence beyond the territories
traditionally ruled by the Ptolemies.

This reconstruction is based primarily on the Latin version of Gallus’

inscription which was presumably the original on which the Hieroglyphic and
Greek versions were based. Recently, however, a more modest interpretation of
this passage has become current according to which the chief result of Gallus’
activities at Philae was the establishment of friendly relations between Rome and
Meroe.(21) This new interpretation is based on differences in the wording of the
Latin and Greek accounts of the results of Gallus’ interview with the envoys of the
king of Meroe at Philae. Thus, it assumed that the new translation should be “he
(sc. Gallus) accepted a proxy from the king.” Proponents of the new interpretation,
however, point out that the difference between the two texts’ characterization of
the status of the king of Meroe is not isolated, but is one of several such
discrepancies, all of which seem deliberately calculated to undercut the more
positive assessment of Roman activities implied by the Latin text. Thus, the author
of the Greek text suppressed the Latin version’s reference to the role of Octavian
(line 2) in ending the rule of the Ptolemies as well as Gallus’ erroneous claim to
have been the first to lead an army south of Syene (lines 5-6) and his hyperbolic
description of the Thebaid as the “common terror of all the kings” (lines 6-7).

Despite its considerable attractiveness, not least because of the insight it

purports to give into the attitudes of lower echelon Ptolemaic officials to their new
Roman masters, this revisionist interpretation of Gallus’ intervention in Nubian
affairs is unconvincing for two reasons. First, the phrase in question actually
implies that what was established at Philae was not friendship between Meroe and
Rome but a personal tie between the king of Meroe and Gallus. (22) Second and
more important, however, is the fact that the new interpretation of IPhilae 128
cannot be reconciled with the status of Meroe implied by the evidence concerning
the Nubian campaigns of C. Petronius later in the decade.
 It is known that the Triacontaschoenus was at times under the Ptolemaic
control and might be extended from the First cataract to the Second near Wadi
Halfa, from the Egyptian frontiers to the original Nubian frontiers. (23)

We therefore have two points regarding Cornelius Gallus and Aethiopia:

1- The kingdom of Meroe became positively a client kingdom of Rome subject

to Roman intervention like any other such kingdom.(24)
2- In 30 BC, Octavian intended ensure not only the security of Egypt’s
southern frontier but also to extend Roman influence beyond the territories
previously ruled by the Ptolemies.(25)

Yet there may also be something more, as considered in the two following points:

1- Cornelius Gallus’ inscription is consider a kind of propaganda. It resembles

military notifications which tend to exaggeration,(26) since Cornelius
Gallus’ campaign did succeeded in stopping the revolution in Thebaid, but
failed to secure the southern frontiers of Egypt, as we will see below. The
status of the kingdom of Meroe changed after Cornelius Gallus’ time,
especially during the Nubian campaigns of Gaius Petronius later in the
decade.

As for Gaius Petronius’ campaigns, the Aethiopians took the opportunity of

the withdrawal of Roman troops from the Egyptian garrisons in 26 BC to help
in the Roman campaign in Arabia under the prefect Aelius Gallus.(27) The
Aethiopians, under their queen Kanadake, broke their agreement with Cornelius
Gallus and made a successful raid on the Roman garrison in southern most part
of the Nile valley in Syene, Elephantine and Philae, carrying off numerous
prisoners into captivity and a number of statues of Augustus.(28)

These incursions disturbed Augustus who gave his orders to Gaius

Petronius, the third prefect, (24-21 BC) to take a reprisal raid deep into the Sudan
in late 25 or early 24 BC, with 10.000 infantry soldiers and 800 cavalry. Petronius’
attacks resulted in the capture of the fortified towns of Pselchis (modern Eldekah) ,
Premnis (modern Qasr Ibrim) and the sack of the old Nubian capital of Napata
(Gebel Barkal),(29) near the Fourth Cataract of the Nile. Kandake then asked
Gaius Petronius for an armistice and an agreement. Petronius deciding it would be
prudent to agree, and garrisoning Premnis with 400 soldiers , 10,000 pedestrians
and provisions for two years.(30) It is clear from the modest size of garrison that
Gaius Petronius did not intend to stay there permanently, returning to Alexandria
with his prisoners, loot, and the statues of Augustus.

However, after only two years, a Meroitic attempt to knock out the Premnis
garrison caused Gaius Petronius to return to Nubia in 22 BC with new forces who
retook Premnis and strengthened its fortresses.(31)

From now on, all outstanding disputes between Meroe and Rome would be
submitted to Augustus for his personal decision. Of the negotiations between
Augustus and the Meroitic ambassadors on Samos, Strabo reports only that the
ambassadors “got all they had requested and that Augustus also reduced the
tributes which he had enjoined.”

For Augustus accepted to withdraw the Roman garrisons from the

Triacontaschoenus, and maybe even agreed to the neutralization of the
northernmost part of lower Nubia, the Dodechaschoenus (about seventy miles
immediately south of the first cataract) , since he confirmed its traditional status as
the estate of Isis of Philae. (32)

Strabo mentioned the absolution of the tributes (17.1.54, C821) imposed by

Augustus, and this means that this absolution implying an acceptance of Roman
sovereignty over Meroe, unlikely that this could not have occurred during
Petronius’ campaigns over it.(33)

Strabo also mentioned three encounters between Gaius Petronius and

Meroitic ambassadors. Two of which occurred during his first campaign. The first
encounter was prior to Petronius’ attack on Pselchis (Eldekah) when he asked for
an explanation of the Meroitic incursion. The second encounter was at Napata
(Gebel Barkal) when he attacked and pillaged the city after refusing an offer by
Meroitic queen Kandake to establish friendship with Rome and return the captured
statues of Augustus. The last encounter took place at Premnis Qasr Ibrim in 22
B.C. when the Nubians had again attacked the Roman garrison behind its frontier.
Petronius had intended to come back and lead a new campaign to retake Premnis,
as we mentioned above. In a fragment papyrus from Milan collection, mentioned
to this campaign against Aethiopia. The papyrus did not mention to the name of the
praefectus but to two soldiers of his assistants. One of them called Rofus, the
pedestrians commandant, the other called Trogus, the horsemen commandant.(34)
Hence Kandake stopped fighting and asked for peace. Therefore Petronius sent her
request along with her ambassadors to the emperor in Samos (winter 21-20 BC).
Beside the absolution of the tributes, the agreement mentioned as well to the
Roman control the zone known since Ptolemaic times as the Dodeka-schoinos the
area extends between Seyne (Aswan) and Hiera Sykaminos (Maharraqah).(35) The
Roman added it to Elephantine in southern Egypt, and established many armed
centres in Pselchis (Eldekah), Talmis ( kalabsha), and Tzitzis (Qertassi). By this
strong hand upon the area and the loyalty of Isis priests in Philae, peace settled for
long time in the northern part of Nubia. In an inscription from Pselchis (13 BC) we
find some Nubian ambassadors with Greek names make- after their return (from
Augustus?) to the queen Kendake- the religion duties to one of the local deity.(36)

We can now say that when Gaius Petronius refused another Meroitic offer
for negotiation, he insisted on referring the whole matter of dispute between Meroe
and Rome to the emperor Augustus for his decision. Thus, the burden of tribute
and the claim of Roman supremacy it represented must have occurred prior to
Petronius’ campaigns.

On the other hand, these facts indicate that it is more likely that the
Aethiopians intended to celebrate a victory over Rome in general and Augustus in
particular. The Meroitic incursion into Syene and its precincts, therefore, therefore
merely a response to oppression by Egyptian nomarchs as the Meroitic officials
disingenuously claimed when interviewed by at Pselchis. Quite the contrary, as the
appropriation of Augustus’ statues it represented the rejection of an already
existing claim of Roman suzerainty, such as that implied by the text of IPhilae
128.

This conclusion also renders less surprising the generosity of the terms
Augustus accepted at Samos in 20 B.C. Earlier in the decade, Augustus had had
enterprising plans to extend Roman influence in the southern Egypt. Horace’s
Odes (1.29) reveal the interest generated by plans to follow up Cornelius Gallus’
success in dealing with Meroe with a military expedition to Arabia. Augustus, like
the Ptolemies before him, then saw that before planned to transfer Red Sea trade
routes to the Egypt’s Red Sea harbours Berenike and Myos Hormos. (37)

By 20 BC, however, all these plans were in ruins after the failure of Aelius
Gallus’ Arabian expedition.(38) As Augustus himself pointed out in his Res
Gestae:

Meo iussu et auspicio ducti sunt due exercitus codem fere

tempore in Aethiopiam et in Arabiam, quue appellatur
 Eudaemon, maximaeque hostium gentis utriusque copiae
caesae sunt in acie et complura oppida capta. In
Aethiopiam usque ad oppidum Nabata perventum est,
cui proxima est Meroe; in Arabiuia usque in fines
Sabaeorum ptocessit exercitus ad oppidum Mariba.

By my order and auspices two armies were led at about

the same time into Ethiopia and into that part of Arabia
which is called Happy, and the troops of each nation of
enemies were slaughtered in battle and many towns
captured. They penetrated into Ethiopia all the way to
the town Nabata, which is near to Meroe; and into
Arabia all the way to the border of the Sabaei, advancing
to the town Mariba.

Not only had Gaius Petronius’ two Nubian campaigns had exposed the
emptiness of Cornelius Gallus’ claimed achievements at Philae, and the serious
problems involved in maintaining a Roman presence in such a southerly region
(Sudan), the campaigns had also revealed the impracticality of Augustus’ hopes of
gaining great wealth through conquest of these parts.(39) Better then to withdraw
to a position that Ptolemaic experience had shown to be defendable, but that still
assured Roman control of the important gold mines and deposits of semi-precious
stones in the deserts east of the Nile in lower Nubia.

As at the end of his long reign, so at the beginning it was bitter experience
that taught Augustus the merit of the advice he in turn left Tiberius- not to expand
the borders of the empire.(40)

Secondly, the inscription seems to imply that what was established at Philae
was not a friendship between the kingdom of Meroe and Rome but a personal tie,
made and developed, between the king of Meroe and Cornelius Gallus.(41)

We can therefore conclude that Cornelius Gallus made his own propaganda
once in Aethiopia, He confirmed that the king of Nubia accepted being under the
protection of Rome, placing him as a governor of the Triacontaschoenus. He then
ended the record of his victories by presenting as a gift his stela to the Nile, the
great god who helped him during in his campaigns.

Another factor which reveals the nature of Gallus’ self- promotion is his
ultimate fate. After Augustus denounced what Cornelius Gallus had done, no doubt
concerned about his growing power, he isolated him.(42) Dio Cassius(43) reported
that he Senate unanimously voted for his condemnation – more probably with
maiestas – and confiscated his property to add to that of Augustus.

Accordingly, I think that the main result of Cornelius Gallus’ activities at

Philae was the establishment of friendly relations, between himself and Meroe, or
as can be said a propaganda for him self rather than for Rome.
Notes
* This paper was presented in 6th African Archaeology Research Day,
University of Liverpool, 10 October 2009, United Kingdom.

** First and foremost I wish to thanks Dr. Joann Fletcher in Department of

Archaeology, University of York for all the help I received from her.

(1) So that we find in the fourth century, a Meroitic king called Harsiotef
temporarily annexed the whole of lower Nubia.
Wallis Budge, E.A. , Annals of Nubian Kings, London 1912, pp. 130-131;
while in the late third century Meroitic kings wanted to achieve the same
goal by supporting the Egyptian rebels in the Thebaid;
M. Alliot, “La Thébaïde en lutte contre les rois d’Alexandrie sous
Philopator et Épiphane (216-184),” Revue Belge de Philologie et
d’Histoire 29 (1951) pp. 421-443.

(2) Cooley,A. E., Rres Gestae Divi Augusti: text, translation, and
commentary, Cambridge. (2009) p.92 and p.229.

(3) Dio Cassius 51.15.

(4) The region known in antiquity as Aethiopia is less secluded than the
modern country Ethiopia: it was the region to the south of Egypt identical
to modern northern Sudan.
Cooley , Rres Gestae Divi Augusti, p. 225.

(5) On the origin of Cornelius Gallus see:

Syme, R., “The Origin of Cornelius Gallus” Class. Quart 32. 1: ( 1938)
pp.39-44.

(6) Strabo ( XVII, 53).

(7) Bernand, E., Les Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de Philae, Vol. 2 . Paris.
(1969) vol. 2, 127; Gordon, (1983) p.97.

(8) The hieroglyphic text dated by 20 Pharmouthi of the first year of

Caesar = April15, 29B.C. (http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/egyptian-
calendar.html) but has never been translated, only a tentative paraphrase
 being offered in the original publication by Adolf Erman, “Zu der
hieroglyphischen Inschrift,” SB Berlin (1896) pp.474-78.

(9) Lewis, N., “ The Demise of the Demotic Document: When and Why”
JEA 79 (1993) p.278, n.11.

(10) For the Greek and Latin text: = CIL 14447a = ILS 8995= Barrow, A., A
Selection of Latin Inscriptions, Oxford, No. 7= Ehrenberg- Jones,
Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus & Tiberius, Oxford No.
24; Bernand, Les Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de Philae, Vol. 2 .128;
For the Greek text with commentary and the Latin text on footnote: = OGIS
II 654; For the Hieroglyphic, Latin and Greek text: Erman, “Zu der
hieroglyphischen Inschrift,” (1896) 469-482);
For revision and important discussion of Cornelius Gallus' trilingual at
Philae: F. Costabile, Minima Epigraphica 4 (2001), 297-330.

(11) Syme , “The Origin of Cornelius Gallus” pp. 459-470.

(12) Dio Cassius, LI, 9, 1-4.

(13) Shero, L. R., “Augustus and His Associates”, The Classical Journal, Vol.
37 (1941) p.89.

(14) Shero , “Augustus and His Associates”, p. 90.

(15) Dio Cassius LIII.23.

(16) Mazzarino,S., “L’Iscrizione Latina nella Trilingue di Philae e i Carmi

di Gallus Scoperti a Qasr Ibrim,” RhM 125 (1982) 315-320.

(17) This king may be Tireteqas husband of Kandake, the famous Queen, who
ruled Nubia after him. Cf. Jouguet , P., La Domination romaine en
Égypte, Brussels (1947) p.31.

(18) Greek ward means 30 shoino = 60 stadion, the last one = 180 meter, usually
understood as being the approximately 333 kilometer = about 240 miles
between the first and second cataracts of the Nile.
Kees,H., “Triakontaschoinos,” RE 2, 6 (1937) cols. 2377-2378.
(19) Lesquier, M., L’Armée Romaine d’Égypte d’Auguste à Dioclétien, Cairo
(1918) p.465.

(20) For this meaning of tyrannos see Dihle, A., Umstrittene Daten:
Untersuchungen zum Auftreten der Griechen am Roten Meer, Colonge
(1965) pp.52-53.

(21) Étienne Bernand, Les Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de Philae, Vol. 2

(Paris 1969) p.44;
Arthur E. Gordon, Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy (Berkeley
and Los Angeles 1983) p.99.

(22) Lesquier, Jean M., L’Armée Romaine d’Égypte d’Auguste à Dioclétien , p.

465 n.2.

(23) Anderson, CAH, X, p.241.

(24) IPhilae 128.

(25) IPhilae 128.

(26) For the propaganda based on political thought see: Cole, R., Propaganda,
censorship and Irish neutrality in the Second World War, Edinburgh :
Edinburgh University Press (2006).

(27) The sources for Petronius’ campaigns are conveniently collected in many
important recent studies , some of these events are: Shelagh Jameson,
“Chronology of the Campaigns of Aelius Gallus and C. Petronius,” JRS
58 (1968) pp.71-84, whose chronology is followed in this article;
Anna Maria Demicheli, Rapporti di pace e di guerra dell’Egitto romano
con le popolazioni dei deserti africani ,Milan 1976, pp.66-72;
Inge Hofmann, “Der Feldzug des C. Petronius nach Nubien und seine
Bedeutung für die meroitische Chronologie,” Ägypten und Kusch, edited
by E. Endesfelder et al. , Berlin 1977, pp. 189-205; and
Jehan Desanges, Recherches sur l’Activité des Méditerranéens aux
Confins de l’Afrique , Rome 1978, pp.307-316.
On Aelius Gallus’ Arabian expedition see: Sidebotham, S.E., “Aelius
Gallus and Arabia,” Latomus 45 (1986) pp.590-602. ;
 Millar, M., “Emperors, Frontiers and Foreign Relations, 31 B. C. to A.
D. 378”, Britannia 13 (1982) p.18.

(28) Ali, A., Egypt and Roman Empire in the light of papyri, Cairo. (in Arabic)
(1988) p.67.

(29) It was a city-state on the west bank of the Nile River, some 400 km north
of Khartoum, the present capital of Sudan. It was built around 1345 BC by
the Nubians) (http://en.wikipedia.orgs.v. Napata).

(30) Ali , Egypt and Roman Empire in the light of papyri, p. 67.

(31) Dio Cassius LIV, 5; Pliny, Nat. Hist. VI, 29,181-82; Strabo XVII, 1, 54.
Cf. Leibovitch, M., “A propos de l'expédition militaire en Ethiopie par
Petronius sous le règne d'Auguste", BSRGE 19 (1937) pp.270-7.

(32) Sethe, K., “Dodekaschoinos: das Zwölfmeilenland an Grenze von

Ägypten und Nubien,” Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und
Altertumskunde Ägypten 3, Leipzig (1905) p.3.
For archaeological evidence suggesting possible continued Roman
garrisoning of Qasr Ibrim after 21 B.C. see :
Adams, W.Y., “Primis and the ‘Aethiopian’ Frontier,” Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt 20 (1983) pp.93-104.

(33) Jameson, S., “Chronology of the Campaigns of Aelius Gallus and C.

Petronius,” JRS 58. (1968) pp.71-84.

(34) P.Mil.40 = Vogliano, A., Un raptro storica della racotta Milanese e le

campagne del Romani in Eitopia, Rome (1941) .

(35) Kirwan , L.P., “Rome beyond The Southern Egyptian Frontier”, The
Geographical Journal 123.1 (1957)p.15.

(36) W.Christ.4.

(37) Strabo 17.1.54.

(38) On Aelius Gallus campaign to Arabia, see:

Marek, R., “Die Expedition des Aelius Gallus nach Arabien”, Chiron 23
 (I993) pp.I21-56.

(39) Cf. Strabo 16.4.22 for the importance of this consideration in the plans for
Aelius Gallus’ Arabian campaign.

(40) Dio Cassius LIV.8

(41) As was pointed out by M. Jean Lesquier , L’Armée Romaine d’Égypte

d’Auguste à Dioclétien , p. 465 n.2.

See also for more reading on Meroe :

John Garstang, “Second Interim Report on the Excavations at

Meroe in Ethiopia,” Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and
Anthropology 4 (1912) p.51;

E. L. Haynes, “The Date of the Bronze Head of Augustus from

Meroe,” Alessandria e il Mondo Ellenistico-Romano: Studi in
Onore di Achille Adriani, Studi e Materialia, 4 (Rome 1983)
pp.177-181;

Ulrich Hausmann, “Zur Typologie und Ideologie des

Augustusporträts,” ANRW 12,2 (Berlin 1981) pp.573-576;

E. Marianne Stern, “Rev. of Inge Hofmann, Beiträge zur

meroitischen Chronologie,” Gnomon 56 (1984) 234-237.

(42) On the recall of the prefect by emperors , as the recall of Cornelius Gallus
by Augustus, see:
Leest , J., “The Prefect of Egypt on an Inscription from Luxor (AE
1952, 159)”, ZPE 59.

(43) Dio Cassius LIII, 23; Cf. Amm. Marcell. XVII, 4; Suetonius, Div. Aug.
LXVI, 2.