In the second century AD Rome could not protect the caravan trade in north‐west Arabia to the south of Dedan with its own military detachments, stationed in Madā’in and al‐’Ulā. Rome seems to have attracted Aksum for the subjugation of the Arab nomads of north‐west Arabia and protection of the ‘Incense Road’. At the end of the second century AD Rome, Aksum and Saba’ shared common interests: Aksum helped Rome to restore peace on the caravan routes, in which Saba’ seemed to have been interested as well, and Rome provided a market for East African and South Arabian products. During the west Arabian campaign, described in the inscription RIÉ 277 (Monumentum Adulitanum II), which is to be dated to the very end of the second century AD, the unnamed Aksumite king, presumably Gadūrat, conquered the lands of Kinaidokolpites and Arrabites. The former name represents a combination of two names, the first of which seems to be derived from the name of Kinda (identification of the entire name with Kinda is taken for ‘somewhat unlikely’ in Retsö 2003: 450, n. 60). The Kinda seem to have been also known in the earlier classical tradition under the name of Kanraitai — the inhabitants of Ghamr dhī‐Kinda — and thus were the most aggressive and dangerous obstacle for the Roman traders on the land routes in north‐west Arabia and in the northern Red Sea in the first–second century AD. The Aksumite invasion forced the resettlement of the Kinda on the other branch of the ‘Incense road’— through modern Qaryat al‐Fāw — and its blockade, consequently followed at the beginning of the third century by the campaigns of the Sabaean king Šā’ir ‘Awtar against them.
Die Existenz eines Weges zwischen dem antiken Gerrha -dem wichtigsten Knotenpunkt auf den ostarabischen Handelsstrassen -und Sü darabien ist sowohl aus schriftlichen (1) als auch aus archäologischen (2) Quellen gut bekannt (Fig. 1). Der hier zu behandelnde Abschnitt fü hrte nach allgemeiner Auffassung von H@ ad@ ramawt und Qatab an ü ber Naǧ r an, Qaryat al-F aw, al-'Afl aǧ und al-H abb and aš-Šud@ ayf.
The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea describes the route of a trade ship in the ancient Erythraean Sea following certain reference points. One of these was called τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς, from which the distance to Ptolemais of the Hunts was given. It was generally understood as the ‘endpoint of return’ and thought to be Berenice. In fact, the phrase is to be understood as ‘the endpoint of sailing/delivery from (Egypt)’ and the place appears to be identifiable with modern Anfile Bay, where the trade ships turned back. The port itself had to be visited on the way back to Egypt. The reason was connected with the primary goal of the establishment of the port: it was much more practical to take elephants aboard on the way back to Egypt. The information on Ptolemais of the Hunts seems to derive from a late Ptolemaic source. The exact route of the ship, referred to by the author of the Periplus, is unknown and even knowledge of the exact distance from the reference point does not allow us to identify a region, where Ptolemais of the Hunts is to be sought.
The administrative structure of the Roman Empire is still not fully understood. Some questions remain unanswered due to the unique nature of historical sources. A number of notions are mentioned only once or in a very unclear context. For example, the notion of “New Arabia” (ἡ νέα (ἐπαρχεία) Ἀραβία) is raised in a several papyri of the 2nd and 4th century AD. The explanation for the earlier documents is clear: the newly created province of Arabia is mentioned there. A letter P. Oxy 50. 3574 (beginning of the 4th century AD) is a much more complicated example of such denomination. Scholars believe that it refers to a province although Roman sources do not mention any province called “Arabia”, except for the one created in 106 AD under Trajan. In fact, “New Arabia” in P. Oxy 50. 3574 does not allude to a newly created province (ἐπαρχία) around Eleutheropolis instead of the former nomos Arabia in Egypt or in Idumaea, as is assumed in contemporary studies. “New Arabia” in this document most likely refers to τοπαρχία (“district”, normally, a part of a nomos). The borders of this τοπαρχία had changed several times, and it moved from Lower to Upper Egypt. The enigmatic notion of “ἀπὸ ὁρίων Ἐλευθεροπόλεως τῆς Νέας Ἀραβείας” maybe interpreted that the “New Arabia” did not refer to the city of Eleutheropolis but rather to its borders: “…from the Eleutheropolis — the border of New Arabia”. Whether Eleutheropolis lay inside or outside this border, remains an open question. “New Arabia” cannot be connected with information of Laterculus Veronensis or Tabula Peutingeriana either.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.