Roman Penetration into the Southern Red Sea

and the Aksumite Campaign in West Arabia

(Reconsideration of The Latin Dedicatory Inscription from The Farasān Archipelago)
Part II
— Dr. Mikhail D. Bukharin

No one of the ive publications of the Latin inscription from the Farasān islands ZPE-163-298 =
CRAI-2004-422, probably commemorating the dedication of a castrum, by F. Villeneuve can be
considered conident; they differ in reading of the survived parts of the text, the latest reading is
certainly wrong. The publication of this inscription by M.A. Speidel is fully correct neither. The
interpretation of geographic context of this inscription by F. Villeneuve is untenable. The recently
discovered Latin inscription from Madā’in Ṣāliḥ (ZPE-163-296 = AE 2004, 01620 = AE 2007,
01639) is also published by F. Villeneuve with numerous mistakes. The irst part of this article
(Bukharin 2009–2010) was dedicated mostly to the objections of F. Villeneuve’s interpretation
(Villeneuve 2005–2006) of the inscription from the Farasān islands (ZPE-163-298 = CRAI-
2004-422). This, second, part treats readings of the inscriptions and gives some additional light
to the general context of Roman policy in the Red Sea region in the 1st–2nd centuries A.D.

T he principal point of debate,

exposed in the irst part of this
article, was interpretation of one
of the Latin inscriptions, discovered on the
Farasān islands. Here follows the Latin text,
Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) Tito Ael(io) Hadr(iano)/
Antonino Aug(usto) Pio Pont(iici)/
Maxim(o) trib(unicia) pot(estate) VII co(n)s(uli) III,/
P(atri) (Patriae), vexill(atio) Leg(ionis) II Tr(aianae)
Fortis/
et auxil(ia) eius castrenses/
q(ue) sub praef(ecto) Ferresani portus/
et Pont(i? or Pontis?) Herculis fec(erunt) et d[ed(icaverunt)].
as published by F. Villeneuve, which is now
referred to as ZPE-163-298 = CRAI-2004-
422 = AE 2004, 01643 = AE 2005, +01638
= AE 2005, 01639:
For the Emperor Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus,
Augustus, Pious,
Great priest, in his 7th year of tribunal authority, three times consul,
Father of the Country, this detachment of the 2nd Legion Traiana
Fortis
and its auxiliary troops and the “people of the camp” (?),
under the prefect of the port of Ferresan
and of the Sea (? or Bridge?) of Hercules, have made and dedicated
(this monument)1.

1. Villeneuve 2005–2006, 290–291, in the other publications (Villeneuve 2004, 422) the object of dedication (“ce monument”) was also
taken into the round brackets, however in Villeneuve, Phillips, Facey 2004b, 148 it was indicated without brackets as if it was directly
referred to in the inscription.

Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011 | 1

READING oF THE INSCRIPTIoN
F. VILLENEuVE ET ALII
F. Villeneuve has edited this inscription
alone or with the colleagues in a series of ive
publications2. In one of them the text of the
inscription was given in quite different way.
The matter is not the reading of the survived
parts of the text. It is noteworthy to look, how
F. Villeneuve (and possibly his coauthors)
changed the completion of the abbreviations.
Initially the text was proposed for readers in
the following way:
Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) Tito Ael(io)
Hadr(iano) / Antonino Aug(usto) Pio
Pont(iici) / Maxim(o) trib(unicia) pot(estate)
VII co(n)s(uli) III, P(atri) P(atriae)…3.
F. Villeneuve as the principal editor and
his coauthors completed the abbreviated
words with the endings of dative case. However
in the following publication4 F. Villeneuve has
“corrected” reading of some of these names
and titles. The forms Impereratori, Caesari
and Pontiici were read in another way and
put in ablative (Impereratore, Caesare and
Pontiice), while the forms consuli and patri
remained the same. Either they were left
in dative, while the other connected forms
for unknown reason were put in ablative, or
they were also put in ablative with the wrong
endings as if the words consul and pater
belonged to Declinatio Tertia vocalis with -i
2. Villeneuve 2004, 419–429; 2005–2006, 289–296; 2007, 13–27; Villeneuve, Phillips, Facey 2004a, 239–250; 2004b, 143–192.
3. Villeneuve 2004, 422; Villeneuve, Phillips, Facey 2004b, 148 ; Villeneuve 2005–2006, 290.
4. Villeneuve 2007, 20.
5. Speidel 2007, 298.
6. Speidel 2007, 298.
7. Villeneuve, Phillips, Facey 2004b, 231, Fig. 66.
2 | Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011
in ablative, while these imparisyllaba words
belong to Declinatio Tertia Consentaneus
and have in ablative the ending -e. In any case,
the changes in the reading of the inscription
in the latest publication by Villeneuve let the
readers suppose that the earlier reading was
doubted and rejected.
M. A. SPEIDEL
These mistakes have been “avoided” by M.A.
Speidel, who put all the names and titles of
the Emperors in the lines 1–4 in ablative.
However, Speidel himself has given the
wrong sequence of the signs of the form c(o)
s(ule)5, as if its abbreviated form was CS6,
and not CoS, as one in fact may read on the
photograph, reproduced in “Arabia”7. From
the other side the reasons of putting the
names and titles of the Emperor in ablative
remain unclear. The dative case (“For the
Emperor, Caesar, Titus Aelius Adrianus…”)
makes much better sense than the ablative
one (Through the Emperor, Caesar, Titus
Aelius Adrianus…) and can be conirmed
by a lot of examples. The formula fecerunt
et dedicaverunt, requires dative case for the
names and titles of the person, for which
dedication was made, or nominative, if the
inscription opens with the names of the
dedicators.
In his discussion of the reading and
understanding of the text of the inscription
Speidel omits the whole controversy
in “Arabia” 8 . He has proposed certain
emendations to the reading of the Farasān
inscription, given by F. Villeneuve in 2004.
It is interesting to note that Villeneuve
and his co-authors have also introduced
emendations to the reading of practically the
same fragment of the Latin text (the name
of Roman oficial) in the publication, issued
in “Arabia” for 2005–2006. Since both the
publications were being practically prepared
at the same time, they remained unknown to
their authors.
Quoting the first publication of the
Farasān inscription by F. Villeneuve9, M.A.
Speidel also makes some errors: there is
no punctuation marks in the lines 2–3 as
reproduced by Speidel, the Latin form consuli
has been given by Villeneuve as co(n)s(uli)
in both publications, quoted by Speidel 10,
while Speidel himself erroneously quotes it
after Villeneuve as c(o)s(uli) – another sign
is taken into the brackets and the sign n is
omitted11.
oBjECT oF DEDICATIoN
one may ask, what was “made and dedicated”,
if the reading and interpretation of F.
Villeneuve is accepted; is it possible that the
object of dedication was not directly referred
to, but was simply presumed?
The idea of M.A. Speidel12 to read at the
8. Villeneuve, Phillips, Facey 2004b, 143–192; Bukharin 2005–2006, 135–140; Villeneuve 2005–2006, 289–296.
9. Villeneuve 2004, 423.
10. Villeneuve 2004, 419; Villeneuve 2007, 20.
11. Speidel 2007, 298.
12. Speidel 2007, 298.
end of the line 5 castra instead of castrenses
looks better: the object of dedication becomes
clear. The question is the number of such
objects: if the inscription commemorates the
dedication of one fort, the supposed reading
would be castram (in accusative), if the editor
prefers to read castra, one needs to suppose
that there have been dedicated more than
one fort.
“CLAuSS-SLABy”
The editors of the database “Clauss-Slaby”
preferred to read lines 1–4 after F. Villeneuve
and the second parts of the inscription – after
M. Speidel with auxiliares instead of auxilia
and castra sub Avito – for castrensesque:
Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) Tito Ael(io)
Hadr(iano) / Antonino Aug(usto) Pio
pont(iici) / maxim(o) trib(unicia) pot(estate)
VII co(n)s(uli) III / p(atri) p(atriae)
vexill(atio) leg(ionis) II Tr(aianae) Fortis /
et auxil(iares) eius castr[a sub 3] / Avito q(ue)
sub praef(ecto) Ferresani portus / et Pont(i)
Hercul(is) fec(erunt) et d[ed(icaverunt)].
CoNCLuSIoN
No one of the previous editions of this
Latin inscription from Farasān (of which
ive are by F. Villeneuve!) can be regarded
conident. The inscription requires a careful
republication.
Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011 | 3
INSCRIPTIoN ZPE-163-300 erroneously read FERRA.
The exact dating of the inscription is not
In the edition of the inscription ZPE-163-
possible; however this inscription is elder than
300 F. Villeneuve has demonstrated again
ZPE-163-298 = CRAI-2004-42216.
lack of care while working with the epigraphic
This inscription contains abbreviation
material. Before having given the “tentative”
PRPR, which in Villeneuve’s view is to be
reading, he proposed to read the survived
understood as reference to legatus Augusti
part of the inscription in the following way:
pro praetore. F. Villeneuve says that “since
…LEGV[IFERR]13: the survived part of the
the governor of Roman Egypt was not a
inscription has been taken into the square
legatus Augusti pro praetore but a prefectus,
brackets, which is normally being done with
the governor mentioned in this text cannot
what is not survived, while the lost part is
be governor of Egypt. The other Roman
given as if namely these signs were perfectly
province nearest to Farasān is Arabia, whose
readable.
governor was a legatus pro praetore. Thus, by
Later the survived parts of the inscription
the time this inscription was written, either
were read by Villeneuve in a little bit different
Farasān was included in provincia Arabia
way:
or, at least, its garrison was placed under
……FERR/…..PRPR.
the authority of the governor of provincia
Before FERR he reads either I or T,
Arabia”17.
before that – V or N14. So, this later reading
would be: LATIN INSCRIPTIoN FRoM MADā’IN ṢāLIḥ
V/NI/T FERR/…..PRPR.
In one of the recent studies18 the Latin
M.A. Speidel in his turn has chosen the
inscriptions from the Farasān islands
following reading:
appeared to have been connected with the
[---]VI FERR/[---]PR PR15.
Greek, Latin and Nabataean inscriptions
The text of the inscription ZPE-163-300
from North Western Arabia, which is a part
in the database “Clauss-Slaby” differs a little
of what one might generally call “The Red Sea
from the readings of F. Villeneuve and M.
Basin”, and in particular with the inscription
Speidel:
from Madā’in Ṣāliḥ, discovered in 2003, which
leg(ionis?)] VI Ferra(atae) / [3] pr(o)
possibly commemorates the restoration of a
pr(aetore):
vallum (ZPE–163–296 = AE 2004, 01620 =
instead of reading FERR, the editors

13. Villeneuve 2005–2006, 290.

14. Villeneuve 2007, 23.
15. Speidel 2007, 300.
16. Speidel 2007, 301.
17. Villeneuve 2005–2006, 290.
18. Speidel 2007, 296–306.

4 | Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011

AE 2007, 01639). This inscription has been
already published twice in the articles19 and
once – as a catalogue entry by F. Villeneuve20.
It is dated at 175–18021 or more precisely at
175–177 A.D.22
Here is the Latin text according to the
epigraphic database “Clauss – Slaby”:
Pro salute Imp(eratoris) Caesaris M(arci)
Aureli / Antonini Aug(usti) Armeniaci
Parth[ic]i Me/dici Germanici Sarmatici
maxim[i] v[al]/lum vetustate dilabsum
civitas He/grenorum suis impendi[is re]
stituit sub / Iulio Firmano leg(ato) Aug(usti)
pr(o) pr(aetore) instan[tib(us)] / operi
Pomponio Victore |(centurione) leg(ionis)
III Cyr(enaicae) et N[u]/misio Clemente
collega{e} eius cur[am] / agente operarum
Amro Haianis pri/mo civitatis eorum.
The republication of the text and photo
of the inscription in question in the catalogue
of the exhibition “Les routes d’Arabie” was a
perfect idea: this monument is exceptionally
interesting. From the other side, F. Villeneuve,
whom the publication was trusted, could not
even simply reproduce the reading of the
previous editors without mistakes. Villeneuve
reads one of the titles of the Emperor as
Sarmitici in the line 3, while reading Sarmatici
is absolutely clear. Another error in reading
has been done in line 6: Villeneuve reads
Au(gusti) , while the abbreviated text is
AuG and it is to be completed and read as
Aug(usti).
19. Al-Talhi, Al-Daire 2005: 205–217; Speidel 2007: 296–306.
20. Nehmé, Al-Talhi, Villeneuve 2010: 304–305
21. Nehmé 2004, 671.
22. Nehmé, Al-Talhi, Villeneuve 2010: 304–305.
There are some other minor deiciencies
in reading of the inscription. F. Villeneuve
(as earlier M.A. Speidel) reads in line 1
Ca{esaris}. There is no ground to put the
brackets in this very way: the third and the
forth signs are very well seen. one is expected
to read Caes{aris}. At least for some other
signs, which are much less seen, the editor
puts no bracket.
As to the inscription from Madā’in
Ṣāliḥ, F. Villeneuve has pointed out two
orthographic peculiarities of its Latin text:
dilabsum instead of dilapsum (which is
not in fact a rare case at all) and collegae
instead of college. The latter is not the case
of orthography: genitive was used instead of
ablative, while the word itself was written in
a perfectly correct way. Another point to be
marked out is the reading Hegrenorum. The
normal Latin form of the name of ḥegrā is
Haegra (e.g. Plin. NH. VI. 157). Another
matter is the completing of the abbreviations.
Sometimes the simplest ones are being left in
their abbreviated form, such as M in the line
1. The approach of the editors of the database
“Clauss – Slaby” is more consistent: all the
abbreviations, including the simplest ones
(e.g. IMP, M, AuG), are to be disclosed.
one could also pay some more attention
to the titles of the Emperor. The form maximi
is put after Sarmatici, so, as if the Emperor was
given the title “Great” or “Great conqueror of
the Sarmatians”, if Sarmatici and maximi are
Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011 | 5
connected. The actual title “Great Conqueror
(of a People)” – i.e. built as ethnic name +
maximus, of Macrus Aurelius was Parthicus
maximus. It is also noteworthy that there is no
mention of the Marcus Aurelius’ other titles:
Imperator – he was acclaimed Imperator 10
times23, consul, etc. Thus, the authors of the
inscriptions did not render the true titles of
the Emperor.
There is no need to discuss all the details
of the publication of this very interesting, in
some cases unique, inscription on two pages’
catalogue entry. However, the mistakes in
reading, pointed out above, give enough
impression that the publications of the
inscriptions by F. Villeneuve, prepared
without due care, are of low level and can’t be
taken for serious. Hopefully, the publishers
of the other versions of the catalogue “Les
routes d’Arabie”, e.g. those of the Russian
one, prepared in the State Hermitage
Museum24, were cautious enough to abstain
from using Velleneuve’s edition.
THE CoNTExT
Neither the name of the Roman oficial,
nor even the type of “building”, erected on
the Farasān islands and commemorated in the
inscription, are important for our purpose.
In any case, one may not discuss the reading
without having seen the inscription itself de
visu, and not only on the photograph. The
most important among the peculiarities of the
text was the understanding of the abbreviation
PoNT HERCVL25. No less important was
drawing of true conclusions concerning the
broader context of the inscription, irst of all,
the reason of the establishment of the Roman
garrison of the Farasān islands.
NABATAEANS IN SouTH ARABIA
As to the historical context of the appearance
of the Latin inscriptions on the Farasān
islands, M.A. Speidel pretends to have shown
practically the same, what was supposed by F.
Villeneuve concerning the second Farasān
inscription, which presumably mentions the
presence of the Legio VI Ferrata on these
islands. Speidel intended to show namely
that the Southern part of the Red Sea stood
possibly under the direct Nabataean inluence
(if not was a part of Nabataean state). For this
reason Rome, having incorporated Nabataea
as Provincia Arabia in 106 A.D., had all
grounds to consider the Farasān islands as its
own possession. This is expected to be proven,
in Speidel’s opinion, by the future inds of the
traces of the Nabataean fort, inscriptions,
etc. on the Farasān archipelago. Since the
Romans pretended on incorporation of
the rests of the Ptolemaic and Nabataean
possessions on the both sides of the Red Sea,

23. Birley 1987, 207.

24. Piotrovsky 2011, 128–129, Fig. 122.
25. M.A. Speidel takes this interpretation for serious and uses it without any doubt (Speidel 2007, 299–300). Instead of looking for the traces
of Heracles’ presence in South West Arabia, e.g. the “columns”, and those of Heracles’ crossing of modern Bāb al-Mandab from Africa
to Arabia, F. Villeneuve could pay some more attention to the islands Pseudopulae and Pylae (Plin. NH. VI. 174), which are connected
with the column of Sesostris (not Heracles), localized by Strabo at Deire (see for more details Desanges 1978a, 91, 95). Following the
logic of Villeneuve the Southern part of modern Red Sea had to be called “Sea of Sesostris” rather than “Sea of Heracles”.

6 | Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011

they considered Farasān from 106 A.D. as
their own land26. A number of the arguments
have been put forward in support of this idea.
From the other hand, Speidel himself refers
to the prefecture of the Farasān islands, ixed
in a later inscription, and regards it as a part
of the provincia of the governor of Egypt27, to
which it later passed28.
M. Speidel refers to the opinion of K.
Schippmann29, according to which the realm
of Nabataean influence could stretch to
Najrān in South Arabia; mentions of the
Nabataeans in two grafiti from Najrān have
to conirm this idea30.
Two grafiti from Najrān really say that
the Nabataeans took part in the siege of this
point:
ḥyrt / ʾbršn / bkn / qdmw / nbṭm (Ph
103)31;
ḥyrt / whbʾl / bn / srwm / dbʿn / bkn / dʿṭ /
hgrn / ngrn / wysḥtw / nbṭ (Ph 135a)32.
unfortunately the dating of these grafiti,
even an approximate one, is hardly possible.
In any case, the terminus ante quem for it
seems to be the end of the 1st cent. A.D. – the
last dated Nabataean inscription from the
Najrān region (PRL Nab) is dated to 87–88
A.D.33
The idea, that the Nabataean inluence
covered entire West Arabia to Najrān, seems
improbable. First of all, if Najrān stood under
the Nabataean inluence and this had to be
conirmed by the inscriptions, one needed
the Nabataean inscriptions themselves.
Presence of the Nabataeans in the military
operations at Najrān, recorded by non-
Nabataean grafiti, does not mean at all that
this region was under the political inluence
of the Nabataeans.
Second, as far as we know from the
“Periplus of the Erythraean Sea”, the central
part of West Arabia was the realm of certain
Κανραῗται (20: 7. 11–12)34, who represented
danger as for the sea-traders, as well as for the

26. E.g.: “Mit der Einrichtung der provincia ArabiagingendannauchalleehemaligenBesitzungen des nabatäischenKönigsreiches in die
direkterömischeHerrschaftüber” (Speidel 2007, 305).
27. “Im unserem Fall muß die Präfektur deshalb als Teil der provincia des Statthalters von Ägypten verstanden werden” (Speidel 2007,
300).
28. “Wenn aber in dieser Zeit Soldaten des arabischen Provinzheeres auf Farasan Baumaßnamen durchführten und deshalb wohl auch dort
stationiert waren, so kann das Archipel erst danach in die Zuständigkeit des praefectusAegypti gekommen sei” (Speidel 2007, 301).
29. Schippmann 1998, 63.
30. “Die südlicheGrenze des nabatäischenEinlußgebietes mag auf demFestlandbis an die StadtNajrangereichthaben, die nabatäischenSol-
daten, wieinschriftlichüberliefertist, beieinerunbekanntenGelegenheitbelagerthatten” (Speidel 2007, 305).
31. (This was) the encampment of ‘Abrašan (or the BRŠites), when the Nabataeans were making a razzia (tr. from Beeston 1954, 313).
32. (This was) the encampment of Wahaba’īl son of Sirwamdb‘n when he attacked the town of Naǧrān, so that the Nabataeans in consequence
took to light (tr. from Beeston 1954, 312).
33. Macdonald 1994, 134.
34. There is no need to analyze the name itself in details here. For some information see: Bukharin 2009: 64–80; 2009–2010, 119; 2010, 127,
n. 46, where this Greek ethnic name was connected with Ġamrḏī-Kinda. This possibility can be also completed with the connection of the
name Κανραῗται with the place-name jār. The consonant *g in the ḥijāzī place-names, rendered into Greek, was given as κ. The name
jār was reproduced by Ptolemy in his Geography as Κóπαρ (20; 6. 7. 5), where π (*p) relects *(from jār< *jawar> *Qawar>Κóπαρ)
as in some other cases of rendering of the Semitic names into Greek and Latin. (See for details Bukharin 2010: 124).
The irst part of the name Κανραῗται may also go back to this place name, while *n (ν) may relect nasalization of a long vowel with
semivowel, like in the in the name of the capital of Ma‘īnQarnāw – (Καρμὰν) βασίλειον on Ptolemy’s map (226; 6. 7. 34). In any case,
only a people, living in Southern ḥijāz, could be meant under the Κανραῗται.

Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011 | 7

main-land travelers and traders. Local kings
and chiefs had to combat against them. If the
lands between Hejra and Najrān really were
under the real Nabataean inluence, their
description in the “Periplus of the Erythraean
Sea” would have been given in another way.
In the 2 nd century A.D. the central
part of entire West Arabia was under the
control of certain Κιναιδοκολπίται35, who
had their capital at Ζαβρὰμ Βασίλειον,
which is to be identified with modern
Mastūra (23°06›27”N (23.1076); 38°50›00”E
(38.8334)). The reading Ζαδράμη in the
Ethnica of Stephan of Byzance36 points to the
philological and topographical possibilities
to such an identiication the capital of the
Κιναιδοκολπίται. The change s > z is one of
the peculiarities of the West Arabian dialects,
e.g. that of the dialect of Kalb37; ma- is a preix,
used for building nomina loci.
As far as we know, the army of Aelius
Gallus included a detachment of 500 jews
and 1000 Nabataeans38. It would be very
tempting to connect the events, recorded
in the grafiti from Najrān, with the siege of
Najrān by Aelius Gallus himself (and to date
them consequently to 26–25 B.C.) and those
Nabataeans who took part in this campaign.
As far as we know from Strabo’s Geography,
the king of Najrān run away, when the Roman
army approached, and after the siege the city
surrendered39.
This connection cannot be confirmed
with full conidence. However it gives certain
ground for the recorded the Nabataean
military presence on South Arabia on the
latitude of Farasān archipelago as not
meaning the independent control, but as an
auxiliary part of the Roman army.
M. Speidel also refers to the publications,
in which the inds of the “Nabataean pottery”
on Farasān have been referred to. These
inds and the inscriptions from South Arabia,
left by the Nabataeans or mentioning them,
let Speidel hope to the future ind of the
Nabataean military post on the Farasān
islands40.
one needs to remark that the ceramic
finds from Ġarrayn settlement on one of
the Farasān islands41 does not mean that
the islands were under any inluence. The
finds of Nabataean pottery are reported
from different sites in South Arabia: e.g.
from Qana’42 and possibly from Najrān 43.

35. See for some details on their ethnic identiication: Bukharin 2009–2010, 106.
36. Ζαδράμη, βασίλειοντῶνΚιναιδοκολπιτῶν (372. 14).ThereadingΖαδράμηwas also given by Herodian in his De prosodiacatholica (3. 1.
325).
37. Rabin 1951: 195.
38. ...πεζοὺς τῶν ἐκ τῆς Αἰγύπτου Ῥωμαίων καὶ τῶν συμμάχων, ὧν ἦσαν Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν πεντακόσιοι Ναβαταῖοι δὲ χίλιοι μετὰ τοῦΣυλλαίου
[…consisting of Romans in Aegypt, as also of Roman allies, among whom were ive hundred jews and one thousand Nabataeans under
Syllaeus (16. 4. 23) – tr. from jones 1930, 357].
39. Ὁ μὲν οὖν βασιλεὺς ἔφυγεν, ἡ δὲ πόλις ἐξ ἐφόδου κατελήφθη [Now the king had led and the city was taken at the irst onset(16. 4. 24)
– tr. from jones 1930, 361 with corrections].
40. Speidel 2007, 305.
41. See publication: Zarins, Murad, al-yaish 1981, 27, Pl. 28, No 6.
42. See: Sedov 1992, 120, 122 (Fig. 5).
43. Zarins, Kabawi, Murad 1983, 32.

8 | Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011

Presence of the Nabataean pottery in Qana’
does not mean that the Nabataeans were
there themselves (which is not excluded
either): this would rather mean that the
pottery was used for delivery of the goods
– either from Nabataea or that of the goods
of Nabataean origin. At least the Nabataean
inscription from the Najrān region (PRL Nab
from Ša‘īb Ṣammā’44) has in all probability
purely commercial meaning45. The Sabaean-
Nabataean inscription from Ṣirwāḥ (7/6
B.C.) – the suthernmost known Nabataean
inscription – is also to be set in the context of
the trade contacts between North-West and
South Arabia46.
F. Villeneuve refers to the author of
latter inscription as “Taymw ils de Kwshay”;
he says that this inscription means that the
Nabataean caravans continued their activity
between ḥijāz and Saba’ and thus prospered47.
If F. Villeneuve decided to give a vocalized
transcription of the name of the author of the
inscription, he had to vocalize it fully: Taymu,
son of Kushay, son of Taymu. From the other
side, there is no sign of the presence of the
Nabataean caravans in South Arabia. In the
2nd part of the Ist millennium B.C. the caravan
trade in perfumes and incenses from South
Arabia to Egypt, Mesopotamia and Eastern
44. Possibly dated to August-September 87–88 A.D. (Macdonald 1994, 132). The place of ind lies some 20 km from Bi’r ḥimā (18°20›N;
44°36›E).
45. Macdonald 1994, 137.
46. Nebes 2006, 10; 2009, 52.
47. “…les acaravanes nabatéennes continuent leurs activité et prosperent, entre Hejaz et Saba...” (Villeneuve 2007, 16).
48. Speidel 2007, 301, Anm.24–25.
49. Speidel 2007, 301 (n. 25).
Mediterranean was controlled by the Ma‘īn
traders and caravans. The “continuation” of
the caravan activity means that that it took
place earlier. However, nothing is known
about the Nabataean caravans in South
Arabia. The presumed presence of the
Nabataean traders in South Arabia does not
mean that the caravans were also Nabataean
ones. The “continuation” of their activity is a
pure fantasy of F. Villeneuve.
THE DESTRuCTIoN oF EuDAIMoN ARABIA
In search for the signs of Roman political
domination over South Arabia M. Speidel
refers to the “destruction” of Eudaimon
Arabia, reported in the “Periplus of the
Erythraean Sea” and finds it possible to
speak about the leet of Aelius Gallus as if
it survived after the Arabian campaign48. He
also says that as a consequence of the Gallus’
campaign “the Roman fleet has arisen in
the Red Sea”. However in a footnote to this
statement, Speidel says that “nothing speaks
against the supposition that the leet arranged
by Gallus existed after the undertaking”49.
The only reference given by Speidel is Strabo
xVI. 4. 23f. The only thing said there is that
the combat fleet remained at Cleopatris,
while Gallus used cargo ships for crossing to
Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011 | 9
Arabia. one may equally suppose that this
combat leet was never used in the Red Sea
– at least nothing is known about it.
The “Periplus” reports: “Νῦν δὲ οὐ
πρὸ πολλοῦ τῶν ἡμετέρων χρόνων Καῖσαρ
αὐτὴν κατεστρέψατο” (26: 8. 31‒32). The
most considerable Roman action in the 1st
cent. B.C. in Arabia was the campaign of
the Romans against West and South Arabia
continued from spring–summer 26 till
August 25 B.C. under command of Aelius
Gallus50. It is described in the sources quite
in detail51. Namely with these combat actions
is being connected the “destruction” of the
port of Eudaimon Arabia in the relevant
studies, “described” in the “Periplus of the
Erythraean Sea”52.
According to other views, this fragment
of the “Periplus” relects the campaign of a
local ruler against ‘Aden (ΕΛΙΣΑΡ – possibly
pretending that Καῖσαρ is distortion of the
majuscule writing of the local name 53 or
Charibael54 or any of them55) or as that of
the campaign of certain Roman emperor.
The following names are referred to in
this connection: Caius Caesar in 1 A.D.56;
Augustus57, Claudius58, Nero59, Claudius or
Nero60. It was also supposed to have relected
the campaign of Caracalla under Septimius
Severus in 196–198 A.D.61
The port of Arabia Eudaimon was
said to have been destructed by the fleet
of Aelius Gallus in the Southern Red Sea,
aimed at the seeking of the power of the
‘adanī pirates already a century ago62 or that
of South Arabian monopolist traders, who
had to control the trade routes to India63.
However no source mentions use of leet by
Aelius Gallus to the south of Leuke Kome.
The traditional treatment of the description
of this port in the “Periplus” as “sea-side
village, which earlier was a town” is reduced

50. jameson 1968, 77; according to another point of view, the campaign took place in winter 25–24 B.C. (Glaser 1890, 44, 233; Luther
1999, 164, 167).
51. Strabo. xVI. 4. 22–24; Res Gestae 5.26; Plin. VI. xxxII/160; Dio. Cass. 53. 29. 3–8; Ios. Fl. Antt. 15. 317.
52. Wellesley 1954, 401–405; Ryckmans 1957, 81; Schwartz 1960, 24; Wagner 1976, 280; Raschke 1978, 647, 872–873. n. 909–912.
53. Müller 1855, 277; Bunbury 1879, 478; Fabricius 1883, 64; Groom 1995, 183–184.
54. Glaser 1890, 171; Schoff 1912, 115–116; Bowen 1958, 38.
55. Sidebotham 1986, 130–131 (three names are proposed: Charibael, Eleazus/Elisar).
56. Mommsen 1885, 611–612 (n. 2); Thorley 1969, 213 (n. 1): operations of the leet of Caius Caesar (from the other side, the author is
ready to support reading ΕΛΙΣΑΡ instead of KAΙΣΑΡ); Eggermont 1988, 361.
57. Krüger 1862, passim; Glaser 1890, 43–61; Warmington 1928, 15; Lamotte 1953, 101 (in 25 and 1 B.C.); Dihle 1965, 22–24; Miller 1969,
15.
58. Rostovtzew 1908, 309; Leider 1934, 54; Hourani 1951, 31.
59. Kornemann 1921, 61 (n. 4), 63; Schur 1923, 46; Schur 1926, 222; Altheim, Stiehl 1961, 247.
60. Kennedy 1916, 834.
61. Reinaud 1864, 241; Altheim, Stiehl 1964, 44; this theory was sharply critizised by A. Dihle (Dihle 1965, 23–24) and especially by M.G.
Raschke (Raschke 1978, 873 (n. 912)).
62. Kennedy 1916, 834.
63. Rostovtzeff 1926, 66; Sarasin 1930, 17; Leider 1934, 54; Schwartz 1960, 23–24; von Wissmann 1964, 74–75 (“So bleibt, wenn man wirklich
das Wort καῖσαρ des Periplus auf einen Herrscher des Römerreiches bezieht und nicht an eine Verballhornung denkt, wie man oft
getan hat […], nur die Möglichkeit eines Strafüberfalls einer im Indischen ozean fahrenden römischen Flotte, die merkwürdigerweise
vom “καῖσαρ” geführt wurde, auf ‘Aden. […] Der Sinn des καῖσαρ-Satzes bleibt weiterhin dunkel); jameson 1968, 80; Luther 1999,
168.

10 | Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011

to the following: the port suffered period of
decline after the destruction, and its place
in the system of trade relations was taken
by Muza. The state of village and former
town is explained by its recent destruction
by “Caesar”.
It seems that it was Augustus who had to
be seen in unnamed “Caesar”, mentioned in
the “Periplus”. The Augustus’ Res Gestae
say in favor of that64. At least this is the only
source, whose information could be directly
connected with the fragment of the “Periplus
of the Erythraean Sea” in question: Augustus
himself mentioned sending of the troops
against Arabia Felix and the defeat of the
enemies. The campaign of Augustus against
the Sabaeans (the campaign of Aelius Gallus
is evidently meant) was mentioned by Virgil
(Aeneis. 7. 605) and Horace (I. 29. 1–3).
However, the sources, which describe this
campaign (unsuccessful in general for the
Romans), do not mention Arabia Eudaimon
among the places, taken by the Romans.
Another military campaign against Arabia
during the Augustus’ reign is mention in the
inscriptions from Pisa65 and Messena66 as well
as by Pliny the Elder (ΝΗ. VI. xxxI/141;
xII. xxxI/55). Basing on these quotations
some thought that namely Caius Caesar was
the ield commander who led the Romans
against Arabia. However these sources do
not give exact place of the combat actions
and Pliny the Elder says that Caius Caesar
looked at Arabia “from the far”67. Absolutely
nothing is known about the leet68 under his
command. So, there can’t be any connection
between the information of the “Periplus”
on the supposed “destruction” of Eudaimon
Arabia and the campaign of Caius Caesar, as
is sometimes proposed69.
It is worth pointing out that the notion
Arabia in the Roman geography designated
not the South of the Arabian Peninsula,
but its North-West and West. From the
other side Strabo designated as Ἀραβία
Εὐδαίμων not a single port, but that of entire
Southern part of Arabia70. In the same way
Augustus and Pliny the Elder meant under
the territory, conquered by Aelius Gallus,
Ἀραβία Εὐδαίμων as a region – the Southern
part of Arabian Peninsula71.
In this connection the following

64. Meoiussuetauspicioductisuntexercituseodemfere tempore in Aethiopiam et in Arabiam quae apellaturEudaemon [At my command

and under my auspices two armies were led almost at the same time into Ethiopia and Arabia Felix (Res Gestae 5. 26) – translation
from Brunt, Moore 1969, 33].
65. C. Caesaremquem ultra inis extremaspopuli Romani bellum gerens… [Caius Caesar, who waged war beyond the most remote frontiers
of the Roman people … (CIL xI. 1421= ILS 140/9–10)]
66. Γάϊον […] τοῖς βαρβάροις μαχόμενονὑγιαίνειν τε καὶ κινδύνουςἐκφυγόντα ἀντιτετιμωρῆσθαι τοὺς πολεμίους [Gaius […] remained
safe and sound, struggling with the Barbarians, and, having excaped the dangers, took vengeance on the enemies (SEG 23 1968 Nr.
206 = AE 1967 Nr. 458)].
67. …nam C. Caesar AugustiiliusprospexittantumArabiam […for Caius Cæsar son of Augustus only had a glimpse of Arabia (NH. VI.
xxxII/160) – tr. from Rackham 1961: 459]; cf. the view that expeditio Arabica of Caius Caesar was a punitive action against the in-
habitants of the shore of Northern Arabia (Luther 1999, 175).
68. As supposed in Sirago 2000, 241–242.
69. Villeneuve 2007, 13.
70. 15. 2. 14; 16. 1. 28, 2. 20, 3.1, 6, 4.21, 25; 17. 1. 53.
71. Retsö 2000, 191; according to another view, Strabo meant under “Arabia Felix” not the entire Arabian Peninsula, but the part of it,
which lied to the south of the nomads (Macadam 1989, 298).

Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011 | 11

explanation of the appearance of the legend
about the destruction of the port of Εὐδαίμων
Ἀραβία by certain Ceasar in the “Periplus
of the Erythraean Sea” could be proposed.
The campaign of Aelius Gallus, as follows
from Res Gestae (whose copies were sent
to different parts of the Empire after 14
A.D.), could hardly be perceived in Rome as
misfortune72. The author of the “Periplus”
surely heard of such a campaign and of its
aim (Εὐδαίμων Ἀραβία), may be from the
sources similar to Res Gestae. However,
he knew from his personal experience
Εὐδαίμων Ἀραβία not the region but a port
on the shore of modern Bay of ‘Aden. He
applied his information about the campaign
of Aelius Gallus against Εὐδαίμων Ἀραβία
to a single port. That is why the translations,
based on the idea of destruction of Εὐδαίμων
Ἀραβία73, are not correct.
So, the information of the “destruction”
of Arabia Eudaimon in the “Periplus of the
Erythraean Sea” is to be connected with
the inaccurate transmission of the data
from the Res Gestae about the claims of
the Roman Emperors on the conquest of
Arabian Peninsula74. one might conclude
that the author of the “Periplus” was quite
an informed person, who had access to the
royal propaganda. From the other hand, the
information, taken from this propaganda, has
72. Bowersock 1997, 551–553.
73. I.e. not a simple subjugation, e.g.: “… but not long before our own time Charibael destroyed the place” (Schoff 1912, 32); “not long
before our time Caesar destroyed it” (Huntingford 1980, 35); “… not long before our time Caesar sacked it” (Casson 1989, 65); “énig-
matique destruction d’Aden” (Villeneuve 2007, 13).
74. Mordtmann 1890, 180; in more details: Seland 2005, 65‒62; Bukharin 2007, 112‒115; Bukharin 2009, 66‒69.
75. Bowersock 1971, 230.
12 | Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011
been misapplied: instead of the region, it was
referred to as a single coastal settlement.
FARASāN AS A PART oF PRoVINCIA ARABIA
M. Speidel inds support for his general
conclusions in some works, which were aimed
at showing that, irst of all, Roman provincia
Arabia included all the possessions of the
former Nabataean kingdom and that the
latter included the entire region of ḥijāz.
Since the conclusions of Speidel are based on
only a few of the works, in which this approach
has been worked out, one needs to give the
state of question in a fuller form for the last
40 years (the works of G.W. Bowersock are
the most important in this respect), than M.
Speidel does.
G.W. Bowersock came to the conclusion
that the new Roman province Arabia
replaced the annexed Nabataean kingdom
as a whole and stretched out to the south
to modern Madā’in Ṣāliḥ (ancient ḥegrā)75.
The annexation of all former Nabataean
possessions and their transformation into
provinia Arabia is a foundation of Roman
policy in the Southern Red Sea for M.A.
Speidel.
A. al-Wohaibi has suggested that the
Arabic term Qurā ‘Arabiyya (“Arabian
villages”), applied to the region to the
northwest of Ḫaybar extending to Wādī al-
Qurā can be with full conidence compared
and practically identiied with Roman term
provincia Arabia . Al-Wohaibi thought it
would have been too strange for the Arabs
to designate their own villages as “Arabian”
– since that this term had to be adopted
from the foreign administrative terminology,
evidently Roman. The word qurā had to be
borrowed then from the Latin term curia (or
Greek χώρα)76. Basing on this conclusion M.
Sartre agreed that the ḥijāz was an integral
part of the Roman provincia Arabia77.
As to the inclusion of the ḥijāz into the
Roman provincia Arabia, G.W. Bowersock
found the bilingual inscription from Ruwwāfa
to put “beyond all doubt the incorporation of
this region in the province as a whole”78.
As D.F. Graf has pointed out in his report
in 1985 and in a subsequent publication,
“…according to recent studies of Roman
Arabia, the ḥijāz is to be considered part of
the Roman province… The new evidence
has also helped support Seyrig’s original
contention that the territorial extent of the
Roman province was approximately the same
as the Nabataean realm, including the frontier
settlements in the far south of the ḥijāz at
Madā’in Ṣāliḥ”79.
one may raise the following question: if
the Nabataean army was under the strong
Roman influence even long before the
annexation of Nabataea, as adoption of the
Roman military terminology in the Nabataean
shows80, and if the Nabataean detachments
were active in Roman military operations
throughout the Near East in the 2nd cent.
A.D. and built a part of Roman militaria81,
why the Nabataeans were not sent to the
Farasān island (or left on them) to ensure
Roman power in the Southern Red Sea, if it
was a part of Nabataean sphere of political
influence (if not a part of the kingdom
itself)? Is it enough to have the traces of the
Roman military presence somewhere and
interference of Roman oficials into the local
tribal queries to suppose that there regions
were an integral part of the Empire under
direct Roman rule82?
D.F. Graf himself came to the conclusion
that, irst, “the state of question concerning
the Roman Southern frontier remains where
it was when … Musil contented that the
southern slope of the al-Sherā range formed
the boundary of the defensive system”83,
then that the term qurā ‘arabiyya was
hardly a relection of Roman administrative

76. Al-Wohaibi 1973, 190–219. The borrowing from the Greek has been supposed by G.W. Bowersock (1983, 157).
77. Sartre 1982, 77–92.
78. Bowersock 1983, 97.
79. Graf 1988, 171–172.
80. Graf 1994, 274–290.
81. Graf 1004, 296–305.
82. Cf. the summary of the recent studies, i.e. the general consensus on the state of question: “Indeed, the presence of such oficials along
with that of detachments of legionary and auxiliary units at the southern frontier of the old Nabataean kingdom has been considered
conclusive proof that the ḥijāz was incorporated into the Roman province. As a result, it has been postulated that a far-lung string of
road stations extended deep into the ḥijāz, beyond the terminus of the limes at Aila” (Graf 1994, 172).
83. Graf 1978, 4.

Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011 | 13

terminology in the ḥijāz (to complete his
argumentation, one needs to remark that
Greek χ was never rendered into the Semitic
languages as *q), that the readings of the
inscriptions (especially that of the term
beneficiarius ), whose data were used as
foundation for inclusion of the ḥijāz region
into provincia Arabia, is doubtful; that the
majority of the Nabataean inscriptions from
Qubur al-jundi in all probability are earlier
than “the Greek graffiti mentioning ala
dromedariorum”, that the “cavalrymen”,
mentioned in the Nabataean inscriptions
from Qubur al-jundi were not at all Roman
military auxiliary units and that “garrisoning
of Roman troops at distant outposts deep
within barbaricum and extra provinciam
is known to have existed elsewhere on the
frontiers of the Empire” – a number of such
cases was mentioned.
Close friendly relations with the Ṯamūd
(the friendly connections with the desert
tribes were developed by the time of Marcus
Aurelius84) cannot be considered either as an
indication of their being under direct Roman
political rule: the nature of these relations is
not clear at all85. The establishment of the
friendly relations with the nomads on the
frontiers of the Empire was normal practice
in Rome’s intention to secure peace on its
weakest borders. Such was Roman policy in
Central and Eastern Europe, where the Goths
84. Graf 1978, 12.
85. Graf 1988, 175–180.
86. Graf 1988, 182.
87. Graf 1978, 4.
14 | Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011
and other tribes threatened the Empire. Such
was, in all probability, Rome’s policy in the
extreme Southeast of its possessions: Rome
tried to gain sympathies of the desert tribes,
which could guarantee peace in the frontier
regions.
D.F. Graf inally concludes that “recent
arguments for the inclusion of the ḥijāz
into the Roman province appear equally
unconvincing”86. From the other side, this
conclusion does not contradict that the
Nabataeans shared control over ḥijāz with
the local tribes87.
The arguments used by D.F. Graf and
his conclusions are of crucial importance
for the case of the Farasān islands, which
were ascribed by M.A. Speidel to the Roman
provincia Arabia on some of the earlier
foundations, disproven by Graf. until entire
reconsideration of Graf’s arguments is not
done, there would be no ground to suppose
that either South Arabian mainland or the
islands in the Southern Red Sea (or both)
stood under political inluence of Nabataean
kingdom. At least for this very reason they
could not be incorporated into the Roman
Empire.
THE PREFECT oF THE FARASāN ISLANDS
No editor of the Latin Fasarān inscriptions
paid attention to the important parallel,
concerning the title of praefectus Ferresani
portus. Pliny the Elder (NH. VI. xxxIV/169)
reports of the islands along the southern part
of the African shore of the Red Sea, which
were governed by a prefect: “Trogodytice,
quam prisci Midoen, alii Midioen dixere,
mons Pentedactylos, insulae Stenae Dirae
aliquot, Halonesi non pauciores, Cardamine,
Topazos, quae gemmae nomen dedit. sinus
insulis refertus: ex his quae Matreu vocantur,
aquosae, quae Eratonos, sitientes; regum his
praefecti fuere”88.
Some of these place-names can be
identiied, at least compared with the similar
names from the other sources:
mons Pentedactylos – is the same as
Πενταδάκτυλον ὄρος of Ptolemy (IV. 5. 15), it
is placed immediately to the south of Berenice
(Rās Banas);
insulae Stenae Dirae – mean the Sawabī
(Seba) islands in the straits of Bāb al-Mandab:
the Latin place name Dirae (Greek Δειρή) is
to be identiied with Rās Siyyān89;
Halonesi non pauciores – “The Tortoise
Islands” are mentioned by Pliny the
Elder twice: as Insulae Chelonitis (NH.
VI. xxxII/151) and as Halonesi (VI.
xxxIV/169). Here, as the difference in
writing points to, Pliny obviously used two
different sources. These islands are referred
to by Strabo and Ptolemy too.
Strabo mentions the “tortoise-eaters”
χελωνοφάγοι (xVI. 4. 14). They occupy
the territory near the African shore on the
latitude of three islands: τῶν δὲ νήσων τινὲς
τρεῖς ἐφεξῆς κεῖνται, ἡ μὲν χελωνῶν ἡ δὲ
φωκῶν ἡ δ’ ἱεράκων λεγομένη. The last
ones render the Greek translation of the
local name Farasān. Ptolemy (IV. 8. 37)
also gives the name of the Tortoise islands
(Χελωνίτιδες), located at the African shore
of the Erythraean Sea, a little to the north
of the islands Βάκχου καὶ Ἀντιβάκχου (IV.
8. 38), i.e. modern islands Huwākil and the
Birds’ island ‒ Ὀρνέων νῆσος (Ptol. IV. 8.
37). However he does not give a more exact
hint for locating them.
Insulae Chelonitis – are located by Pliny
in VI. xxxII/151 near gentes … Casani,
… insulae Alaea… insulae Pteros, insulae
multae, maxima Camari, Scenitae Sabaei,
… emporium eorum Acila. The last place-
name corresponds to okelis ‒ the coastal
settlement lying at the modern straits of Bāb
al-Mandab. It makes the southern frontier
of this fragment, the northern one passed
through the territory of the tribe ĠSN
(Casani) and Camarān archipelago (Camari)
at the Arabian coast and the islands Huwākil
(insulae Alaea)90 near the African one.
Cardamine – is identical to Καρδαμίνη
on Ptolemy’s map (281; 6. 7. 44);
Topazos – is being usually identiied with

88. “Cave-dwellers’ country, called in former times Midoё and by other people Midioё, Mount Five-ingers, some islands called the Nar-
row Neck, the Halonesi about the same in number, Cardamine, and Topazos, which has given its name to the precious stone. A bay
crowded with islands, of which the ones called the Islands of Matreos have springs on them and those called Erato’s Islands are dry;
these islands formerly had governors appointed by the kings” (tr. from Rackham 1960, 465).
89. Desanges 1978a, 95, 100
90. See about this identiication: Bukharin 2009, 191.

Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011 | 15

St.john or Seberget island91;
Matreu – no possible identiication of
this name can be proposed; there could be
supposed a corruption of the text or that of
the name during the rendering by Pliny’s
informant. Tentatively a connection with
Δήμητρος σκοπιᾶς ἄκρον of Ptolemy (IV. 7.
5) can be proposed: any local name containing
initial *ḏ and interpreted as Δήμητρος (like
*ḎMTR) could be rendered by Pliny without
this particle. Ptolemy localized Δήμητρος
σκοπιᾶς ἄκρον to the north of Ptolemais of
the Hunts.
Eratonos – this name (“The Island of
Erato”) can probably correspond to the
modern name of the Harat island (Ḫorod
‘Ale) – one of the “Seven Islands” group near
the shore of Djibouti.
So, the islands, listed by Pliny here, are
stretched along the African coast of the
Red Sea approximately from the latitude
of Berenice till its southern extremity. one
may not say for sure that all the islands along
the Arabian coast were governed by this
prefect as well. From the other side, as M.I.
Rostovtzeff supposed92, these prefects obeyed
to the oficial referred to as ἐπιστράτηγος καὶ
στρατηγὸς τῆς Ἰνδικῆς καὶ Ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσης
(Philae 52 = oGIS 186; 62 B.C.), or as
στρατηγὸς καὶ ἐπιστρατηγὸς καὶ θηβάρχος
τῆς Θη[β]αΐδος [καὶ] ἐπὶ τῆς Ἰνδικ[ῆς κ]αὶ
Ἐρυθρᾶς [θαλ]άσσης (oGIS 190; 51 B.C.).
Pliny refers to the islands along the African
91. Desanges 1978b, 248 (n. 40).
92. Rostowzew 1908, 305.
93. Desanges 1978b, 249.
94. See for details: Gkoutzioukostas 2008, 109–118.
16 | Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011
shore of the Red Sea to the South of Berenice;
there was no need to cross the Red Sea to deal
with them. However, as the title of “Strategos
of the Indian and Erythraean Seas” presumes,
all the islands in this basin were under his
control.
one of the prefects was mentioned by
Pliny the Elder by name in connection with
Topazos island – Philon (NH. xxxVII.
108). He was active on the Red Sea islands
to the south of the Egyptian frontiers
in the 3 rd cent. B.C. under Ptolemy II
Philadelphos. According to j. Desanges, his
title was not identical to praefectus classis,
but “undoubtedly” – to praefectus insularum.
This oficial exercised control under all or, at
least, a part of the islands in the Red Sea and
namely this title was referred to in NH. VI.
xxxIV/16993.
The title referred to by j. Desanges
is known in form of praefectus insularum
Baliarum or praefectus pro legato insularum
Baliarum from three inscriptions from Etruria
(AE 1992, 00577 = AE 2000, +00251, CIL
11, 01331 (p 1254) = D 00233 = InsBaliares
00069 = AE 2000, +00251 and CIL 11, 06955
= D 08902 = InsBaliares 00068 = AE 1904,
00227 = AE 1989, 00312 = AE 1991, 00652
= AE 2000, +00251). In form praefectus
insularum this title is attested only under
justinian94. From the other side, a similar
title – στρατηγὸς Τύλου καὶ τῶν νήσων – was
known in the Seleucid administration of the
Persian Gulf95 and the existence of the title
στρατηγός or ἐπάρχος τῶν νήσων under
the Ptolemies cannot be excluded either.
Another inscription (Philae 12bis; 148–149
B.C.) mentions certain “eparchos of the
Ethiopians” (τῶν Αἰθιόπων ἐπάρχοντα).
All these references are much elder than
the indices of the presumed Roman control
over South Arabia and East Africa and in
contrast to the logic of M. Speidel, they
do not mean that the Lagides pretended
on the control over the Southern Red
Sea region both on the sea and on the
mainland or over entire basin if one takes
into consideration the realm of activity of
ἐπιστράτηγος καὶ στρατηγὸς τῆς Ἰνδικῆς
καὶ Ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσης. The bearers of the
title of “eparchos of the Ethiopians” were
responsible for the affairs with the Ethiopians
and not for the administrative control over
their lands, those of strategos of Indian and
Erythraean seas – for the activity in the Red
Sea. In the same way, the presumed “prefect
of the islands” was most probably responsible
for the affairs of the Ptolemies concerning
the islands in the Southern Red basin (or in
its entire basin). Even the existence of these
titles cannot prove that the Southern part of
the African coast of modern Red Sea and
the adjacent islands were part of Ptolemaic
possessions and as such could be the object
of Roman pretensions.
95. See for the publication of the inscription: Gatier, Lombard, al-Sindi 2002, 223–226.
96. “Zu welchem Zweck die Präfektur im Süden des Roten Meeres eingerichtet wurde, ist dem Text selbst nicht zu entnehmen” (Speidel
2007, 300).
97. Rostowzew 1908, 305–306.
98. Bukharin 2005–2006, 135–140; Speidel 2007, 299 (n. 14), 305–306; Bukharin 2009–2010, 117–127.
So, there is no need to imagine any
“creation” of the prefecture on the Farasān
islands in the 2nd cent. A.D. as sometimes
is being done96. Here the conclusion of M.I.
Rostovtzeff needs to be quoted: “Man
sieht, ein Rückgang ist nicht eingetreten
und die Römer nahmen bei ihrer Tätigkeit
nur die Fäden der ptolemäischen Politik
in ihre Hände”97. Rome had to inherit the
prefecture on the Farasān islands; it is rather
to be regarded as a continuation of the
former Prolemaic prefecture. However this
does not mean that Rome pretended on the
control over these islands as a part of former
possessions of the Nabataeans or somebody
else.
THE SouTHERN RED SEA IN THE 1ST–2ND
CENTuRy
The Latin inscriptions from Farasān are
not connected with the presumed war of
Rome against piracy in the Red Sea, as was
supposed by F. Villeneuve and independently
contested in different publications98. The
interference of Rome in the local affairs had
to be the ground of the appearance of the
Romans on the islands so far to the south of
their frontiers. Though the conclusion of M.
Speidel that this region of the Red Sea basin
had to be a part of the former Nabataean
kingdom and, if so, was duly annexed by
Rome as all the possessions of the Ptolemies
Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011 | 17
and Nabataeans on both sides of the Red Sea
had to be annexed with Egypt and Nabataea,
Speidel’s inal conclusion sounds reasonable99
and corresponds in general to other, more
particular, proposals. M. Speidel was quite
correct to point out that from the middle
of the 2nd century A.D. the South Arabian
kingdoms waged inner wars. However, in
spite of Speidel’s confidence100 the inner
wars themselves could hardly “require” any
Roman interference.
The appearance of the Roman military
units and the strengthening of their positions
in the South of the modern Red Sea could be
connected with the changes in the political
situation on the both sides of the Southern
Red Sea. Some sources let us suppose that
Rome in fact pretended to at least a nominal
political supremacy over the king of Saba’
and ḏū-Raydān in the 1 st century A.D.
As “The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea”
reports (23: 7. 29), the king of the Sabaeans
and Homerites (which is identical the ASA
mlk/sbʾ/wḏrydn) was considered “ἔνθεσμος
βασιλεύς” (“legal king”, i.e. approved by
Rome) and “φίλος τῶν αὐτοκρατόρων” (“the
Emperors’ friend”) due to the “συνεχέσι
πρεσβείαις καὶ δώροις” (“constant embassies
and donations”). The origin of the “title”
“φίλος τῶν αὐτοκρατόρων” must go back
to the very beginnings of the Hellenistic
history, when some of the court elite bore
the title “φίλος τοῦ βασιλέως”. There is an
interesting parallel to the “title” “φίλος τῶν
αὐτοκρατόρων”: when Pontius Pilatus wanted
to set free jesus, the jewish elders doubted
if he remained “φίλος τοῦ Καίσαρος”
(john. 19. 12). Pliny the Elder gives direct
references to the embassies from Arabia to
Rome101. However, even the reference to the
branches of the frankincense, delivered by
them to Rome, can’t make it absolutely sure
that they were coming namely from South
Arabia Phlegon reports that these donations
were being sent even in the middle of the 2nd
cent. (FGrHist. 257 F 36. 545–557). These
donations are nothing more than banal
tribute paid by South Arabian kings (or
king) to Rome. There is no ground to deny
this nominal, formal dependence of ḥimyār
from Rome, as sometimes is done102. That is
why the issues of the coins with the portrait of
Augustus (Ṣan‘ā’-Class-B) by the predecessor
or the follower of Karib’īl Watar yuhan‘im I
(ca. 50–80)103 are not surprising at all.
The situation had to change radically
in the 2nd cent. A.D. in contrast to the 1st
cent. A.D., when Saba’ had to remain under
political domination of ḥimyar. There was
no real annexation, as Chr. Robin points out,

99. “Die Präfektur am Farasan ist aber kaum als isolierte Einrichtung weit außerhalb des Römischen Reiches zu verstehen, sondern viel-
mehr als Teil des beschriebenen politischen und militärischen Gelechtes, das in diesem Teil der alten Welt das Imperium Romanum
ausmachte” (Speidel 2007, 305–306).
100. Speidel 2007, 305.
101. Procerissimum hominum aetas nostra Divo Claudio principe Gabbaram nomine ex Arabia advectum … vidit (NH. VII. 75)]; Qui mea
aetate legati ex Arabia venerant…, virgis etiam turis ad nos commeantibus…(xII. 57)]. Legati Arabum are mentioned also in VI. 140.
102. Simon 2002, 310.
103. Potts 1994, 212–222.

18 | Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011

rather – a uniication of both the states under
one crown, while Saba’ kept its own political
and religious organization104. At the end of
the 1st century A.D. under the king ‘Amdān
Bayyān yuhaqbid Saba’ gained its own
independence from ḥimyar. The Sabaean
kings newly bore the title “king of Saba’ and
ḏū-Raydān”. The “new” kingdom of Saba’,
that from the beginning of the 2nd cent. A.D.
enjoyed real renaissance and differed from
the “previous” “caravan-state”: the political
center shifted from Mārib to the highlands –
to Ṣan‘ā’. This Sabaean renaissance provoked
the chain of wars of the South Arabian
kingdoms till the period 146/147 – 159/160,
when all the principle powers were involved
into the war of all against all105.
These changes – the new rise of Saba’
and consequent loss of influence in local
political affairs could mean the changes in
the positions of Rome in South Arabia and
could be the reason for sending military units
to the Southern Red Sea. The misadventures
of Aelius Gallus required another ways of
delivery of troops and another type of their
presence in the region: the sea-way was much
simpler and much cheaper. The more or
less constant base on the isolated island was
also more advantageous in comparison with
unorganized “ield camps” on the unfriendly
territory.
104. Robin 1996, 1133–134; 1999, 265.
105. Robin 1996, 1134–1137.
106. Cuvigny, Robin 1996, 698.
107. Cuvigny, Robin 1996, 699, Fig. 1.
108. Bukharin 2010, 118.
109. For the editions see: Seyrig 1957, 260 (SEG 19: 899); Bowersock 1975, 514–515.
An interesting find of an ostracon
(o.Max. 81) of ca. 150 A.D. in oriental
Desert in Egypt reports of the danger of
Kinaidokolpitai (the editors 106 read the
ethnic name as Χινεδοκολπιτῶν, while the
correct one is Χινεδακολπιτῶν, with alpha,
which is perfectly seen on the photo107). The
Kinaidokolpitai possessed entire central
part of the West Arabian sea-shore and thus
threatened Roman possessions even on the
opposite shore in Egypt. In 144 one of the
Latin inscriptions reports of Roman military
installation on the Farasān islands. From the
Greek inscription of an unknown Aksumite
king one may learn of his campaign against
Arrabitai and Kinaidokolpitai (Inscription
MA-II = oGIS-199 = RIÉ 277 is to be dated
to the irst years of reign of ‘Alhan Nahfān108).
The latter ones were the source of danger for
Roman Egypt and obviously controlled the
mainland routes in West Arabia.
The possible commemoration of the
restoration of a vallum in the inscription from
Madā’in Ṣāliḥ would mean that the situation
in the 70-es of the 2nd cent. A.D. was neither
peaceful and it has changed again if compared
with the situation, fixed in the Ruwwāfa
inscriptions109. A vallum was needed to defend
the settlement and, in the more general
perspective, – entire southern frontier from
the attacks of the desert nomads. Destruction
Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011 | 19
of the vallum because of its age would mean
that the peaceful relations with the Ṯamūd
tribes were maintained in previous decade(s),
but this did not help a lot: dangers from the
desert have arisen again.
The renaissance of Saba’, rise of the danger
from the Kinadokolpitai, the appearance of
the Roman detachment on the Farasān in the
middle of the 2nd cent. A.D. and the Aksumite
campaign against Kinaidokolpitai seem to be
logically connected. Rome could not suppress
them by its own means. For that the allied
forces had to be used.
References
Altheim F., Stiehl R.
1964 Die Araber in der Alten Welt. Bd. I. Bis zum Beginn
der Kaiserzeit. Berlin.
Birley A.R.
1987 Marcus Aurelius. A Biography. New york.
Beeston A.F.L.
1954 “Notes on old South Arabian Lexicography VI”, in:
Le Muséon 67, 311–322.
Bowen LeBaron, jr. R.
1958 “Ancient Trade Routes in South Arabia”, in:
F.P.Albright, R.LeBaron Bowen (Eds.). Archaeological
Discoveries in South Arabia. Baltimore (Publications
of the American Foundation for the Study of Man. II),
35–42.
20 | Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011
As to the editions of the recently
discovered inscriptions from Saudi Arabia
(from the Farasān islands and Madā’in
Ṣāliḥ), it’s a great pity that these monuments
had to be published and commented by F.
Villeneuve. As each novice in the epigraphy,
Villeneuve needs to gain certain experience
in this ield and to work out more culture of
scientiic discussion. Endless republications
of such interesting monuments and their
misinterpretations by Villeneuve – aggressive
and incompetent dilettante – give us the
occasion to remind him the appeal of painter
Apelles of Kos as rendered by Pliny the
Elder (NH. xxxV. xxxVI/85): Ne supra
crepidam sutor !
Bowersock G.W.
1971 “A Report on Arabia Provincia”, in: journal of Roman
Studies 61, 219–242.
1975 “The Greek-Nabataean Bilingual Inscription at
Ruwwafa, Saudi Arabia”, in: j. Bingen, G. Cambier,
G. Nachtergael (Eds.). Le monde grec: pensée,
littérature, histoire, documents. Hommages à Claire
Préaux. Bruxelles (université libre Bruxelles. Faculté
de philosophie et lettres ; 62), 513–522.
1983 Roman Arabia. Cambridge, Mass.
1997 “Perfumes and Power”, in: A. Avanzini (Ed.). Profumi
d’Arabia. Atti del Convegno (Saggi di Storia Antica.
11). Roma, 543–556.
Brunt P. A., Moore j. M.
1969 The Deeds of the Divine Augustus. oxford.
Bukharin M.D.
2005–2006 “Romans in the Southern Red Sea”, in: Arabia
3, 135–140.
2007 Neizvestnogo avtota “Peripl Eritreisko morya”: tekst,
perevod, kommentariy, issledovaniya [The “Periple
of the Erythraean Sea” of unknown Author: Text,
Translation, Comments, Studies]. St.-Petersburg (in
Russian).
2009 “Towards the Earliest History of Kinda”, in: Arabian
Archaeology and Epigraphy 20, 64–80.
2009–2010“Roman Penetration into the Southern Red
Sea and the Aksumite Campaign in West Arabia
(Reconsideration of the Latin Dedicatory Inscription
from the Farasān Archipelago). Part I”, in: journal of
Indian ocean Archaeology 6–7, 88–132.
2010 “Mecca on the Caravan Routes in pre-Islamic
Antiquity”, in: A. Neuwirth, N. Sinai, M. Marx (Eds.).
The Qur’ān in Context. Historical and Literary
Investigations into the Qur’ānic Milieu . Leiden;
Boston, 115–134.
Bunbury E.H.
1879 A History of Ancient Geography among the Greeks
and Romans from the Earliest Ages till the Fall of the
Roman Empire. Vol. II. London.
Casson L.
1989 The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with Introduction,
Translation and Commentary. Princeton.
Cuvigny H., Robin Chr.
1996 “Des Kinaidokolpites dans un ostracon grec du désert
oriental (Égypte)”, in: Topoi. orient-occident 6/2,
697–720.
Desanges j.
1978a “Le littoral africain du Bab el-Mandeb d’après les
sources grecques et latines”, in: Annales d’Éthiopie
11, 83–101.
1978b Recherches sur l’activité des Méditerranéens aux
conins de l’Afrique (VIe siècle avant j.-C. – IVe siècle
après j.-C.). Rome (Publications de l’École française
de Rome. 38).
Dihle A.
1965 “Das Datum des Periplus des Roten Meeres”, in: Dihle
A. umstrittene Daten. untersuchungen zum Auftreten
der Griechen am Roten Meer. Köln, 9–35.
Eggermont P.H.L.
1988 “Hippalus and the Discovery of the Monsoons”, in: A.
Théodoridès, P. Naster, j. Ries (Eds.). Humour, travail
et science en orient. Leuven, 343–364.
Fabricius B.
1883 Der Periplus des Erythraeischen Meeres von einem
unbekannten. Leipzig.
Glaser E.
1890 Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens von
den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Propheten Muḥammad,
nebst einem Anhange zur Beleuchtung de Geschichte
Abessyniens im 3. und 4. jahrh. N. Chr. Auf Grund der
Inschriften, der Angaben der alten Autoren und der
Bibel. Bd. II. Berlin.
Gatier P.-L., Lombard P., al-Sindi Kh.M.
2002 “Greek Inscriptions from Bahrain”, in: Arabian
Archaeology and Epigraphy 13, 223–233.
Gkoutzioukostas A.
2008 “Published Lead Seals Concerning Quaestura
Exercitus”, in: Proceedings of the International
Symposium, Dedicated to the Centennial of the Dr.
Vassil Haralanov, Held in Shumen in September the
13th–15th 2007. Shumen, 109–118.
Graf D.F.
1978 “The Saracens and the Defense of the Arabian
Frontier”, in: Bulletin of the American School of
oriental Research 229, 1–26.
1988 “Qura ‘Arabiyya and Provincia Arabia”, in: P.-L.
Gatier, B. Helly, j.-P. Rey-Coquais (Eds.) Géographie
historique au Proche orient. Actes de la Table Ronde
de Valbonne, 16–18 Septembre 1985 . (Notes et
Monographies Techniques. 23). Paris, 171–211.
1994 “The Nabataean Army and the Cohortes ulpiae
Petraeorum”, in: E. Dabrowa (Ed.) The Roman and
Byzantine Army in the East. Kraków, 265–311.
Groom N.
1995 “The Periplus, Pliny and Arabia”, in Arabian
Archaeology and Epigraphy 6/3, 180–195.
Hourani G.F.
1951 Arab Seafaring in the Indian ocean in Ancient and
Early Medieval Times. Princeton (Princeton oriental
Studies. 13).
Huntingford G.W.B.
1980 The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea by an unknown
Author. With Some Traces from Agatharkhides “on
the Erythraean Sea” (Works Issued by the Hakluyt
Society. Second Series. 151. Issued for 1976). London.
Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011 | 21
jameson Sh.
1968 “Chronology of the Campaigns of Aelius Gallus and
C. Petronius”, in: journal of Roman Studies, 71–84.
jones H.L. (Tr.)
1930 The Geography of Strabo. In Eight Volumes. VII.
London; New york (The Loeb Classical Library. 241).
Kennedy j.
1916 “Some Notes on the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea”,
in: journal of Royal Asiatic Society 36/4, 829–837.
Kornemann E.
1921 Die historischen Nachrichten des so genannten
Periplus Maris Erythraei über Arabien – ein Beitrag
zur neronischen orientpolitik, in: janus 1. Festschrift
zu C. F. Lehmann-Haupts sechzigstem Geburtstage.
Wien–Leipzig 1921, 55–72.
Krüger H.
1862 Der Feldzug des Aelius Gallus nach dem glücklichen
Arabien unter Keider August. Wismar.
Lamotte É.
1953 “Les premières relations entre l’Inde et l’occident”, in :
Nouvelle Clio 5. Travaux de la société «Théogonie».
III. Mélanges A. Carnoy, 83–118.
Leider E.
1934 Der Handel von Alexandria. Hamburg.
Luther A.
1999 “Medo nectis catenas? Die Expedition des Aelius
Gallus im Rahmen der augusteischen Partherpolitik”,
in orbis Terrarum 5, 157–181.
Macadam H.I.
1989 “Strabo, Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy of Alexandria:
Three Views of Ancient Arabia and its Peoples”,
in: L’Arabie préislamique et son environnement
historique et culturel. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg
24‒27 juin 1987. Leiden, 289–319.
Macdonald M.C.A.
1994 “A Dated Nabataean Inscription from Southern
Arabia”, in: Nebes N. (Ed.) Arabia Felix. Beiträge
zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien.
Festschrift Walter W. Müller. Wiesbaden, 132–141.
Mommsen Th.
1885 Römische Geschichte. 4. Aulage. Bd. V. Berlin.
Mordtmann j.H.
1890 “Anzeige, Glaser’s Skizze der Geschchte Arabiens”,
in: Zeitschrift der Dutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft 44, 173–195.
22 | Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011
Müller C.
1855 “ΑΝΩΝΥΜΟΥ [αρριανου, ως φερεται] ΠΕΡΙΠΛΟΥΣ
ΤΗΣ ΕΡΥΘΡΑΣ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΗΣ. Anonymi [Arriani, ut
fertur] Periplus Maris Erythraei”, in: Geographi Graeci
Minores. E codocibus recognovit, prolegomenis,
annotatione, indicibus instuxeit, tabulis aeri indicis
illustravit Carolus Mullerus . Volumen Primum.
Parisiis, 257–305.
Nebes N.
2006 “Eine datierte nabatäisch-sabäische Bilingue aus
Sirwāh”, in: jemen-Report37/1, 10.
2009 “Die Nabatäer in Südarabien. Eine datierte nabatäisch-
sabäische Inschrift (Biligue) aus Sirwāh/jemen”, in:
Antike Welt 40/1, 52.
Nehmé L.
2004 “Explorations récentes et nouvelles pistes de
recherche dans l’ancienne Hégra des Nabatéens,
moderne Al-Hijr/Madā’in Sālih (Arabie du Nord-
ouest) », in: Comptes-rendus des séances de
l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 148/2,
631–682.
Nehmé L., Al-Talhi D., Villeneuve F.
2010 “Hégra d’Arabie Heureuse”, in: Routes d’Arabie.
Archéologie et histoire du Royaume d’Arabie
Saoudite. Ed. by Ali Ibrahim al-Habban, B. André-
Salvini, F. Demange, C. juvin et M. Cotty. Paris,
287–307.
Piotrovsky M.B. (Ed.).
2011 Puti Aravii. Arkheologicheskie sokrovishtsha
Saudovskoy Aravii. Saint-Peterburg, [The Roads of
Arabia. Archaeological Treasures of Saudi Arabia; in
Russian].
Potts D.T.
1994 “Augustus, Aelius Gallus and the Periplus: A Re-
interpretation of the Coinage of Ṣana‘ā’ Class B”, in:
N. Nebes (Ed.) Arabia Felix. Beiträge zur Sprache und
Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien. Festschrift Walter
W. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden, 212–222.
Rabin Сh.
1951 Ancient West-Arabian. London.
Rackhum H. (Ed. and tr.)
1960 Pliny. Natural History. II. Libri III–VII. Cambridge;
London (The Loeb Classical Library. 352).
Raschke M.G.
1978 “New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East”, in:
Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II 9/2,
604‒1361.
Reinaud M.-T.
1864 “Mémoire sur le Périple de la Mer Érythrée et sur
la navigation des mers orientales au milieu du III e
siècle de l’ère chrétienne, d’après les témoignages
grecs, latins, arabes, persans, indiens et chinois”, in:
Mémoires de l’Institut Impérial de France, Académie
des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 24/2, 225‒277.
Retsö j.
2000 “Where and What was Arabia Felix?”, in: Proceedings
of the Seminar of Arabian Studies 30, 189–192.
Robin Chr.
1999 “Die streitenden Königreiche in Zeiten politischer
Instabilität”, in: W. Seipel (Ed.) jemen. Kunst und
Archäologie im Land der Königin von Saba’. Wien,
261–269.
2006 Sheba. II, in: j. Briend, É. Cothenet (Eds.). Dictionnaire
de la Bible. xII. Satan – Songe. Paris, 1047–1254.
Rostovtzew M.I.
1908 “Zur Geschichte des ost- und Südhandels im
ptolemäisch-römischen Ägypten”, in: Archiv für
Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 4, 298–315.
1926 The Social and Economic History of the Roman
Empire. oxford.
Ryckmans j.
1957 “Petits royaumes sud-arabes d’après les auteurs
classiques”, in: Le Muséon 70, 75–96.
Sarasin A.
1930 Der Handel zwischen Indien und Rom zur Zeit der
römischen Kaiser. Basel.
Sartre M.
1982 “La frontière méridionale de l’Arabie romaine”, in:
Géographie administrative et politique d’Alexandre
à Mahomet. Actes du Colloque de Strassburg, 14–16
juin 1979. Leiden (Travaux du Centre de Recherches
sur le Proche-orient et la Grèce antique. 6), 77–92.
Schippmann K.
1998 Geschichte der alt-südarabischen Reiche. Darmstadt.
Schoff W.H.
1912 The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. Travel and
Trade in the Indian ocean, by a Merchant of the First
Century. New york.
Schur W.
1923 Die orientpolitik des Kaisers Nero von Dr. Werner
Schur. Leipzig (Klio. Beiheft 15. Neue Folge. Heft 2).
1926 “Zur neronischen orientpolitik”, in: Klio 20, 215–222.
Schwartz j.
1960 “L’empire romain, l’Egypte, et le commerce oriental”,
in: Annales. Economie. Société. Culture 15, 18–44.
Sedov A.V.
1992 “New Archaeological and Epigraphical Material from
Qana (South Arabia)”, in: Arabian Archaeology and
Epigraphy 3, 110–137.
Seland E.H.
2005 “The Periplus’ Report of a Roman Attack on Aden:
An unintended Result of Successful Propaganda?”,
in: Symbolae osloenses 80, 60‒67.
Seyrig H.
1957 “Antiquités syriennes”, in: Syria 34/3–4, 249–261.
Sidebotham S.E.
1986 Roman Economic Policy in the Erythra Thalassa,
30 B.C.–A.D. 217. Leiden (Mnemosyne. Bibliotheca
Classica Batava. Supplementum Nonagesimum
Primum).
Simon R.
2002 “Aelius Gallus’ Campaign and the Arab Trade in
the Augustan Age”, in: Acta orientalia Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 55/4, 309–318.
Sirago V.A.
2000 “Roma e la via oceanica per l’India”, in: M. Khanoussi,
P. Ruggeri, C. Vismara (Ed.). L’Africa Romana. Atti
del xIII convegno di studio Djerba, 10–13 dicembre
1998. Vol. I. Roma, 2000, 237–248.
Speidel M.
2007 “Ausserhalb des Reiches? Zu neuen lateinischen
Inschriften aus Saudi-Arabien und zur Ausdehnung der
römischen Herrschaft am Roten Meer”, in: Zeitschrift
für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 163, 296–306.
Al-Talhi D., Daire M.
2005 “Roman Presence in the Desert: a New Inscription
from Hegra”, in: Chiron 35, 205–217.
Thorley j.
1969 “The Development of Trade between the Roman
Empire and the East under Augutus”, in: Greece and
Rome 2/16, 209–223.
Villeneuve F.
2004 “une inscription latine sur l’archipel Farasân, Arabie
Séoudite, sud de la mer Rouge (note d’information)”,
in: Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 148/1, 419–429.
2005–2006 “Réponse aux propositions de Mikhaïl Bukharin
– (dans cette même livraison). Farasān inscription
and Bukharin’s ideas: no pontifex Herculis! and other
comments”, in: Arabia 3, 289–296.
Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011 | 23
2007 “L’armée romaine en mer Rouge et autour de la mer
Rouge aux IIème et IIIème siècles apr. j. C.: à propos de
deux inscriptions latines decouvertes sur l’archipel
Farasan”, in: A. Lewin, P. Pellegrini, P. Pellegrini,
Z.T. Fiema (Eds.). Late Roman Army in the Near East
from Diolcletian to the Arab Conquest: Proceedings of
a colloquium held at Potenza, Acernenza and Matera,
Italy (May 2005). oxford(British Archaeological
Reports. 1717), 13–27.
Villeneuve F., Phillips C., Facey W.
2004a “A Latin inscription from South Arabia”, in:
Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 34,
239–250.
2004b “une inscription latine de l’archipel Farasān (sud
de la mer Rouge) et son contexte archéologique et
historique”, in: Arabia 2 (2004), 143–192.
Wagner G.
1976 “une dédicace à Isis et à Héra de la part d’un
négociant d’Aden”, in: Bulletin de l’Institut Français
d’Archéologie orientale 76, 277–281.
24 | Journal of IndIan ocean archaeology no.7, 2011
Warmington E.H.
1928 The Commerce between the Roman Empire and India.
Cambridge.
Wellesley K.
1954 “The Fable of a Roman Attack on Aden”, in: La Parola
dell’Passato. Rivista di studi antichi 9, 401–405.
von Wissmann H.
1964 Zur Geschichte und Landeskunde von Alt-Südarabien.
Wien.
Al-Wohaibi A.
1973 The Northern Hijaz in the Writings of the Arab
Geographers, 800–1500. Beirut.
Zarins j., Kabawi A., Murad A.
1983 “Preliminary Report on the Najrān/ukhdūd Survey
and Excavations (1402/1982), in: Atlal 7, 22–40.
Zarins j., Murad A., al-yaish Kh.
1981 “The Second Preliminary Report on the Southwestern
Province”, in: Atlal 5, 9–43.