Roman Port Berenike

8/7/2019 Roman Port Berenike

1/10

The International Jouvnul of Nautical Archueology (2001) 30.2: 21 1-220doi:l0.1006/ijna.2001.0354

Sails from the Roman port at Berenike, EgyptFelicity C. Wild and John P. Wild30 Princes Road, Heaton Moor, Stockport, Cheshire, SK4 3 N Q, U KA 1st-century A D m idden deposit at Berenike, a major port on the trade route between the Ro man Empire and India, hasproduced cotto n textile fragments reinforced with a rectangular grid-pattern of cotton s trips, interpreted as the remains of sails.Webbing fragments of cotton and linen, in some cases attached to stout cotton or linen cloth, may also have come from sails.The only published example of a Rom an-Period sail is a linen sail of 1st-century BC-AD dat e from Thebes in Egypt, to whichthe Berenike fragments bear a close resemblance. The S-spun linen sails were presumably m anufactured in Egypt. Most of theBerenike material, however, was of Z-spun cotton: an import, it is argued, of Indian origin. The construction ofMediterranean-type sails entirely from Indian materials has implications fo r the presence of Westerners on the Indiansub-continent. 0 2001 The Nautical Archaeology SocietyKey w o v & Berenike, cotton, India, Roman, sails, webbing.

Introduction: the historical backgroundhe site of Berenike lies on the Red Seacoast of Egypt in the lee of the Ras Banaspeninsula (Fig. 1). The author of the ship-ping handbook known as the Periplus MarisErythraei, generally considered to have been w rit-

ten in the middle of the 1st century AD , regardedit as one of the two main ports of trade betweenthe Graeco-Roman world and East Africa, Sou thArabia and India. According to Pliny the Elder(N H 6.33.168), the town was founde d c. 275 BCby Ptolemy I1Philadelphus an d named in honou rof his mother, but it appears to have come intoprominence during the expansion of trade be-tween the Mediterranea n world and the East fromthe time of Augustus, when it acted as a transitport from which goods from the East were trans-ported overland to the Nile Valley and thence tothe Mediterranean (Sidebotham, 1995). Strabo(2.5.12), writing of the year A D 2 6 , notes MyosHormos (Quseir al-Qadim) as the main port forthe India trade, noting elsewhere (17.1.45) thatBerenike had no harbour. By the middle ofthe 1st century AD, however, this had beenrectified: Pliny specifically refers to a harbour(NH6.26.103) and it may be argued that theauthor of the Periplus implies its greater impor-tance by starting his account of the voyage toIndia from Berenike rather than Myos Hormos/

Quseir (Casson, 1989: 143). To the sailor, theadvantage of Berenike over Myos Hormos wasthat, although the journey overland to the Nilewas longer, it obviated the necessity of beatingagainst the no rth wind for the further 230 nauticalmiles up the Red Sea on the return journey.The latest mention of the site, in the MartyriumSancti Arethae, suggests that Berenike was stilla functioning port in the early 6th century(A D 524-5), con tribu ting tw o ships, but onlytwo, to an Ethiopian expedition to South Arabia(Ac t a Sanctorum Octobris X,VII (29)). Soon afterthis, the town must have been abandonedpermanently.Exca vations a t the site since 1994, directed byProf. S. E. Sidebotham of the University ofDelaware and Prof. W. Z. Wendrich of theUniversity of California, Los Angeles, havestarted to reveal more a bou t the history of the siteand the extent of its contacts with India. Thearchaeological evidence confirms the impressiongained from the literary sources that the p ort w asparticularly active in the 1st century A D. After apossible decline in occupation in the 2nd an d 3rdcenturies, when evidence for mercantile activity ismore scanty, the town experienced a renaissancein both occupation and commerce in the late4th century, which appears to have continueduntil the final evacuation, probably in the early6th century AD.

1057-2414/01/020211+ 10 $35.0010 0 2001 The Nautical Archaeology Society


2/10

NAUTICAL A RCH A E O L O G Y , 30.2

Figure 1. Location map of the are a and sites mentioned in the text. (Drawing: J. P. Wild)

Evidence for trade with India and, indeed, forthe presence of Indians on the site, has come inthe form of: a graffito on a 1st-century ADamphora in Tamil-Brzhmi (Mahadevan, 1996);Indian and Sri Lankan beads (Francis, 2000:221-223); pottery of South Indian origin (Begley& Tomber, 1999; Tomber, 2000); and botanicalremains such as coconut and, in particular, largequantities of black peppercorns (Cappers, 1998a:31 1-319; 19986: 80-84). A high proportion of thewood remains from the site was of teak, includingreused planks, possibly from dismantled ships(Vermeeren, 1999: 319).The textiles from the site were, in general, notwell preserved. The proximity of the sea and theneighbouring wadi have led to the disintegrationof the textiles from the lower levels of the site:heavy dews alternating with day-time heat haveattacked those near the surface. A high pro-portion of the textiles recovered came from tworubbish deposits, one dated by the associatedpottery and ostraka to not later than A D 75(Bagnall et al., 2000), the oth er to the late 4th-5thcentury A D. Fragments were small and, in manycases, badly degraded by salt.The textiles from th e earlier deposit, coincidingwith the main period of early Roman activity onthe site, can best be described as utilitarian: am al-gams of wool scraps probably reused as saddlepacking, fragments of medium-weight a nd coarse

linen and cotton tabbies (plain weaves), some-times heavily and repeatedly patched, pieces ofwebbing and sacking. They appear to representrubbish from the docks rather tha n the remains ofclothing and furnishing and their functions arelikely to have been concerned with the packingand tran sport of traded goods. It seems a reason-able supposition, borne out by the presence onsite of the teak planks and of brailing rings, thatat least some of the contents of the deposit are theremains of sails, the almost complete absence ofwhich in the ancient world has been commentedupon by Black and Samuels (1991; 1992). Thepurpose of the present article is to assess theevidence from Berenike for sails and their nature(see also Wild & Wild, 2000).

The textile remainsTh e greater proportion of the material consideredhere is of cotton, a situation without parallel onsites within the R om an Empire. The cottons canbe divided into two distinct groups: the one iswoven exclusively from S- or anticlockwise-spunyarns (S/S), the other from Z - or clockwise-spunyarns (Z/Z). Ancient spinners were highly con-servative and the tradition in Egypt and theneighbouring Roman provinces was for the S-direction. It would be fair to assume that the

212


3/10

F. C. W I L D & J . P. W I L D : S A IL S F R O M T H E R O M A N P O R T A T B E R E N I K E, E G Y P TTable 1. Reinforcing strips,Z-spun cotton, fro m Berenike (E R: Early Roman; L R: L ate Ro man )No. Context Date97.103 16.010 LR

0170 6.004 LR

0169 6.004 LR

97.106 13.002 ER

0724 19.006 ER0758 19.006 ER0827 19.008 E R

2509 33.026 ERPossible reinforcing strips:0829 19.008 ER0895 19.008 ER

Measurem ents Folded width~~ ~~

Fragments of tabby, 7-8 x 7 per cm, max. leng th 710 mm x 380 mm crossed by tw o reinforcingstrips, at right angles, probably of same textile.1. (vertical) 20 mmOverlies 2. (horizontal) 25 mmSail fragment shows patch, carefully aligned with warp.Strip of tabby, probably once blue and undyed check, 7-8 x 6 per cm, max. length40 mm x 250 mm, crossed by two reinforcing strips at right angles, also probably blue check.

Two lengths of strip sewn end to end.

1. (vertical) c.2 5 m m2. (horizontal) c. 25 mmPieces of reinforcing strip, probably from 0170, with traces of blue check where edges turnedunder.1. 1 2 0 m m x 3 0 m m 22 mm2. 150 mm x 30 mrn 22 mni3 pieces c. 70 mm x 20 mm 18 mmTwo strips 1. 285 mm x 65 mm 35 mm2. 300 mm x 60 mm 35 mmtwo lengths sewn end to end300 mm x 40 mmabout 210 mm x 33 mmtwo strips sewn end to end Edges foldedNine strips, 19 x 15, wide spaced, per cm . All pro bab ly sailcloth?1. 265 mm x 70 mm2. 400 mm x 85 mm3. 480 mm x 85 mm4. 250 mm x 65 mm5. 100mm x 60 mm6. 70 mm x 30 mm7. 100mm x 15+ m m8. 100m m x 3 0 m m9. 90 mm x 25 mm240 mm x 56 mm

35 mm (folded)40 mm (folded)

33 mm130 mm x 45 m mTwo strips folded longitudinally, 13 x 8 per cm

1 . 105 mm (lower count ) x 50 mm2. 110 mm x 50 mm

Cotton yarns sewn through it

S-spun cottons were produced within Egypt,where cotton-growing is attested by the 1st cen-tury A D (W ild, 1997: 289-290). The Z -spun cot-tons are best described as intrusive, but theweight of ancient literary and documentary evi-dence indicates India to be the only practicalsource (W ild, 1997; Wild & Wild , 2000: 271-273).All the cotton fragments discussed here wereZ-spun an d presumably imported. The linen frag-ments were uniformly S-spun and presumably ofEgyptian origin.Among th e fragments of Z/Z cotton tabby werea number of strips, up to about 300mm long,often sewn end-to-end with others (Table 1). Theraw edges on the long axis had been folded in toform a band a bou t 35 mm wide. The warp (taking

the denser system as warp) seems to run moreoften widthways than lengthways and there is amarked variability in yarn diameter (a character-istic of the Z/Z c otton s in general). Althou gh mostof the strips came from the Early Roman deposit,the key to understanding their function lay intwo pieces from Late Roman contexts. The first(97.103, Figs 2 & 3) was a large, tattered andpatched fragment which, when stretched out,proved to have strips, torn from the same or anidentical fabric, attached to it at right angles toeach other. The edges had been turned in, sewndown t o the m ain cloth on one side with runningstitches, an d oversewn on the other. Tw o sectionsof the vertical strip were sewn end-to-end. Thestrips concealed nothing: there was no seam in the

213


4/10

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 30.2

Seam

l7---I

0 5cmU

Strip

Ground weaven

Figure 2. Sail fragment from Berenike (97.103). (Photo-graph: J. P. Wild & Berenike Project)Figure 3. Outline of sail fragment from Berenike (97.103).(Drawing: J. P. Wild)

fabric beneath. The other fragment (0170) was astrip of what was probably once a blue andundyed c otton check, 250 mm x 40 mm , to whichhad been sewn, at right angles, strips of the samefaded check (the blue yarn was barely visibleexcept where protected by the turned-in edges).(It is interesting, but perhaps coincidental, thatthe bands are narrower o n these two late examples(20-25 mm) than on the early Roman ones (ap-proximately 35 mm ).) Are these the reinforcingbands for sails?Sails are generally depicted in Mediterraneanart as bearing a grid pattern which has beenvariously interpreted (Casson, 1971: 233-234;Roberts, 1993). Most recently it has been sug-gested, on the grounds th at these dividing lines areportrayed as being of a different colour from thesail itself, that they represent reinforcing bandssewn on separately (Weski, 1997: 89-90). Th eevidence from Berenike appears to confirm thissuggestion.

A relief of a Roman ship from Ostia (Graefe,1979: 121-123, Ab b. 133, Taf.124,2; Darem berg& Saglio, 1877-1919: fig. 5295) (Fig. 4) clearlyshows brailing rings attached to the bands. Anumber of circular brailing rings, of wood andbone, have been found at Berenike, pierced withtwo small holes for attachment to the sail. Al-though none was found attached to a fragmentof sail, they occurred in the same contexts aspotential sail fragments within the early midden.One example still retained Z-spun cotton stringthrough its holes. Similar string was attached tothe reinforcing strips (Fig. 5).The Early Roman deposit also produced piecesof webbing which may have served a similarpurpose to the reinforcing strips. These can bedivided into tw o categories: of S-spun linen (Table2) and of Z-spun cotton (Table 3). The flaxwebbing, uniformly 30-35 mm wide, was in bas-ket weave (paired warp and weft) or half-basket

214


5/10

F. C. WILD & J . P. WILD: SAILS FROM TH E ROMAN PORT AT BERENIKE, EGYPT

Figure 4. Relief of a Roman ship from Ostia. (After Daremberg & Saglio, 1877-1919)

weave (paired warp or weft). One example(97.115) had single warp and paired weft. Theothers had paired warp with a specific number ofsingle warps at each selvedge, generally eithereight or four, a nd either single or paired weft. Thesingles a t the selvedge, no dou bt, provided addedstrength. In four cases, three with paired weft, onewith single, there were the remains of a narrowred pin-stripe within the eight singles to each side,now faded to a pale pink and barely visible exceptwhere protected. It is possible that, originally,other fragments may also have had such stripes.The cotton webbing varied from 3 5 4 3 mm inwidth: all had a plied warp, with either single orpaired weft. In some of the examples with singleweft, there was a coloured pin-stripe to ea ch side.In at least one case, the stripe was blue-green(Fig. 6); in another it appeared as brown, but wasbadly decayed and may once have been red. Athird showed a bare strip to each side where thecoloured yarn had disappeared altogether. Thecotton webbing was less common than the flaxwebbing: the ten pieces listed (Table 3) probably

came from only eight examples. If indeed theseare from sails, their scarcity may be accounted forby the more common use of cotton tabby stripsfor this purpose.It is impossible to be certain that the webbingwas used on sails, but there are three pointerswhich suggest this. Firstly, there is a markedcorrelation in width between the webbing and thereinforcing strips from Early Roman contexts.Secondly, three pieces of linen webbing were sewnfirmly onto pieces of medium weight S/S flaxtabby (12 x 10, 12 x 11, 13 x 9 threads per cmrespectively) and one piece of cotton webbingont o a piece of Z/Z cotton tabby (16 x 16 per c m).One of the linen examples showed a red stripe: thecotton example had also had a stripe. Finally,there is the evidence of the Lyons sail.

The Lyons sailThere is one published parallel to the Berenike sailfragments: fragments of wha t have been argued to

21 5


6/10


7/10

F. C. WILD & J. P. WILD: SAILS F R O M THE R O M A N PORT AT BE RE N IK E , EGYPTTable 2. Flux webbing, S-spun, j i o m BerenikeN o . Context Width Warp Weft Structure97.11507590797079807990838083908690890137214651480150815091511235717881818187518761952195331743238276228022849285I2887290729202921292329903081

13.00219.00619.00819.00819.00819.00819.00819.00819.00819.00929.00229.00629.00629.00629.00633.0173 1.0073 1.00731.0073 1.0073 1.0073 1.00731.cbn31 .cbw48.00548.00548.00848.00848.00848.00848.00948.00948.00948.01948.cbw

30 mm30 mm43 mm30 mm(scrap of30 mm35 mm

damaged30 mm35 mm35 mm35 mm30 mm32 mm30 mm30 mm30+ mm38 mm32 mm30 mm30 mm35 mm40 mmdamaged28 mm38 mmc . 30mm32 mm25+ mm45 mmdamageddamageddamaged30 mmdamaged

singles pairspairs singlespairs singlespairs singlessimilar band to 0798)pairs singlespairs singlespairs singlespairspairspairs andsinglespairspairspairspairspairspairspairspairspairspairsS/Z pairspairspairspairspairspairspairspairs

singlessinglessing1essinglessinglespairspairspairssinglespairspairssinglespairsS/Z pairspairssinglessinglessinglessinglespairspairs

pairs singlespairs singlespairs singlespairs singlespairs singlespairs pairs

about 46 singles in warp8 singles at each selvedge5 singles at each selvedgeabout 6 singles at edge10 singles at each selvedge8 singles at each selvedge. 3 lengths, sewn to S/S flax tabby (12 x 10per cm)traces of singles at edge8 singles at one side, 6+ the other (damaged)4 singles at each selvedgeWa: Z spun pairs? in centre S spun singles at edgesno singles noted in warp8 singles at each selvedgeno singles noted in warp4 singles at each selvedge8 singles at each selvedge4 singles/2 p a i d 4 singled4 pairdl single/8+ pairs2 outer warps single, 3rd thicker single4 singles at each selvedge8 singles at each selvedge8 singles at each selvedge. 4 und./4 red/27-28 p a i d 4 red/4 und.9 S spun singles at each side (thicker than normal)4 singles at each selvedgesingles at selvedge, uncountable8 singles at each selvedge4 singledl p a d 4 singled26 p a i d 4 singledl paid4 singles8 singles at each selvedge. 4 und./2 redl2 und./ . . .no singles noted4 und./4 re d02 p a i d4 red/4 und. Attached to S/S flax tabby (12 x 1 1per cm)4 singles one side, 6 the other6 singles one side, other missing8? singles one side, other missing4 singled1 paid4 singled main pairs8 singles at each selvedge. Attached to S/S flax tabby (13 x 9 per cm)8 singles at selvedge. 4 und./4 red

fragm ents reveal evidence for extensive an d skilledpatching, sometimes several times over. Apartfrom the piece with the crossed reinforcing ban ds(Figs 2-3), which shows a small, nea t patch firmlysewn down with two or more rows of stitching,there is no specific evidence that these heavilypatched pieces are from sails. They m ay have beenused, or reused, as tarpaulins or for wrappinggoods, but the evidence of the Lyons sail raisesthe possibility that sails may indeed have beenpatched to this extent.DiscussionThe Lyons sail was of linen, S-spun, an d presum -ably of local Egyptian manufacture. One would

expect the ocean-going vessels constructed inRoman Egypt also to have had linen sails, ofwhich the pieces of S-spun flax webbing andlargely undiagnostic scraps of medium-weight flaxtabby are all that survive. A surprisingly highproportion of the Berenike evidence, however, hasbeen for sails of Z-spun cotton, a material whichit is argued above was of imported, probablyIndian, origin. The sailcloth, the webbing, therope and sewing thread, even the patchingmaterials, are uniformly Z-spun, indicating manu -facture in India and/or the use of Indian materialsfor running repairs during the voyage.These were not, however, Indian ships, butships of Mediterranean type, with a single mainmast and large, square, reinforced sail, ideal for

217


8/10

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 30.2Table 3. Cotton webbing, Z-spun, from BerenikeNo. Context Width Warp Weft Structure97.107088814141510151215391599168628482988

13.00219.00829.00129.00629.00629.00629.cbn3 1.00648.00848.019

35 mm38 mm32 mm43 mm35 mmdamaged43 mm30 mm33 mm38 mm

pliedpliedpliedpliedpliedpliedpliedpliedpliedplied

singles?(invisible)singlespairspairssinglessinglespairssinglessinglessingles

brown line, ?3 threads wide, now largely missing, 6 warps from oneselvedge, 8 from the otherWa: ?5/ dec. missingt24ldec. missing/ ?5. Sewn to ZIZ cotton tabby,16 x 16 per cmabou t 38 in total warp sheetblue-green stripe. Wa: 4 undyed12 bluet 18 und.12 blue14 und .blue stripe (= 1512)36 in total wa rp sheet (probab ly= 1510)no decoration notedno decoration notedno decoration noted

running before the wind (Pekary, 1999). The shipsportrayed in Indian art (Schlingloff, 1988: 195-207) are vessels with two or three main mastsand no sign of a grid pattern of reinforcement onthe sails. The evidence from Berenike suggestsMediterranean-style ships, or at least sails, con-structed of Indian materials and copying whichextended, in some cases, even to the conventionalcoloured stripe o n the webbing reinforcements.The construction of ships at Berenike, in theEastern desert, cannot have been easy. The rawmaterials would all have had to be brought fromelsewhere: perhaps down the Red Sea from theLevant, certainly by land from the Nile Valley. Anostrakon from Krokodilo, on the road betweenCoptos, on the Nile, an d Myos Horm os, records awagonload of timber for shipbuilding on its wayto Myos Ho rmo s (Biilow-Jacobsen, 1998: 66).Berenike lies almost 320 km (200 miles) south of

Figure 6. Detail of Z / Z cotton webbing (1512) fromBerenike (the faded blue-green stripe is not visible in blackand white). (Photograph: J. P. Wild & Berenike Project)

Myos H ormos ; it is a n estimated 11-12 daysjourney overland from Coptos, as against six-seven for Myos Hormos (Casson, 1989: 13). Bycontrast, along the coasts of India materials musthave been ready to hand.There were Greeks settled in the N ort h of Indiafrom the time of Alexanders expedition, familiarwith Graeco-Roman ships. Tamil literature, re-viewed by De Romanis in 1997 refers to thepresence elsewhere in India, too, of Yavanas,foreigners of Mediterranean origin, a term whichclearly includes the merchants arriving annuallyfrom Egypt (A k a n su y u 149: 7-11) as well asothers, presumably settled, acting as mercenariesfor local rulers (Cila ppa tika ram 14: 66-7). Th ePeutinger Table, a Roman map originally com-piled in the 3rd century A D (Rivet & Smith, 1974:149-150), places a temple of Augustus nearMuziris, the main port of South India. Althoughthe significance-and reliability-of this is in dis-pute, for instance, K artun en (1997: 334) dismissesit, if it had any basis in fact at all, its presencemust imply the work of Westerners. F. Richardssuggestion (pers. comm.) tha t it ma y be connectedwith the cult of the emperor epibaterios, to whomtemples and dedications were made in ports(Richa rd, 1988) rather t han being a chronologicalindicator of Augustan date makes the presence ofsuch a temple more probable, while reinforcingthe idea of the existence of Westerners in the area.In addition, there is the archaeological evidence,best exemplified by Arik ame du, ne ar P ondicherryon the east coast of India, which produced smallquantities of Italian terra sigillata tablewaredating to the early 1st century AD, as well asother items of Mediterranean pottery and glass-ware. Wheeler (Wheeler et al., 1946: 18-22) and,

218


9/10

F. C. WILD & J. P. WILD: SAILS FROM THE ROMAN PORT AT BERENIKE, EGYPTmore recently, Comfort (1991: 144-147) argue forits use by Westerners in what was, effectively, atrading enclave. If there were indeed groups ofWesterners settled all year round in or at theedges of local communities, as Thapar suggests(Thapar, 1991: 21), they would have been ideallyplaced to assist in obtaining local materials torepair or replace worn-out sails or boats for themerchants arriving from Egypt on the south-westmonsoon, before their return on the gentlerNorth-East monsoon in December-January(Pliny, N H 6.26.106).The south-west monsoon of the outward jour-ney was characterized by rough winds and heavyrain. Arrival on the west coast of India beforeSeptember, when the winds slacken, was danger-ous and to be avoided. The ships could well havesuffered from storm damage as well as the depre-dations of pirates, mentioned in both Tamil andClassical literature (Pliny, N H 6.26.101). The fol-lowing weeks in port would have provided a

convenient pause, not just for acquiring and load-ing cargo, but also to make good any damagebefore the less arduous return journey to Egypt.That this may provide a context for the cottonsails from Berenike is not beyond the bounds ofpossibility.AcknowledgementsThe Society of Antiquaries of London, the BritishAcademy, the Pasold Research Fund and theG. A. Wainwright Near Eastern ArchaeologicalFund have all kindly provided travel grants toenable the authors to work at Berenike over fiveseasons. The Directors of the Berenike Project,Professor S. E. Sidebotham and Professor W. Z.Wendrich gave every practical assistance. Theauthors are particularly indebted to Dr DierdreEmmons of the Muskum dHistoire Naturelle deLyon for allowing them to study in detail the sailfragments from the museums collection.

ReferencesBagnall, R. S. , Helms, C. & Verhoogt, A. M . F. W., 2000, Documents from Berenike Volume 1: Greek Ostraka from the1996-1 998 Seasons. Papyrologica Bruxellensia, Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elizabeth. Brussels.Begley, V. & Tomber, R. S., 1999, Indian pottery sherds. In S. E. Sidebotham & W. Z. Wendrich (Eds), Berenike 1997. Reportof th e 1997 Excuvations at Berenike and the Survey o f the Egyptian Eastern Desert, including Excavations ut Shenshef,161-181. Research School CNWS, Leiden.Black, E. & Samuel, D., 1991, What were sails made of? M M , 77: 217-226.Black, E, & Samuel, D., 1992, Ancient sails. Archaeological Textiles Newsletter, 14: 9.Bulow-Jacobsen, A,, 1998, Traffic on the roads between Coptos and the Red Sea. In 0. E. Kaper (Ed.), Life on the Fringe.

Living in the Southern Egyptian Deserts during the Roman and early-Byzantine Periods, 63-77. Research School CNWS,Leiden.Cappers, R. T. J., 1998a, Archaeobotanical remains. In S. E. Sidebotham & W. Z. Wendrich (Eds), Berenike 1996. Report ofthe 1996 E.xcuvutions at Berenike (E gypti an Red Sea Coast) and the Survey of the Eastern Desert,, 289-330. Research SchoolCNWS, Leiden.Cappers, R . T. J., 19986, A botanical contribution to the analysis of subsistence and trade at Berenike (Red Sea Coast, Egypt).In 0. E. Kaper (Ed.), Life on the Fringe. Living in the Southern Egyptian Deserts during the Roman and eurly-ByzantinePeriods, 75-85. Research School CNWS, Leiden.Casson, L. , 1971, Ships und Seumunship in the Ancient World. Princeton.Casson, L. , 1989, The Periplus M uris Erythraei. Princeton.Comfort, H ., 1991, Terra Sigillata at Arikamedu. In V. Begley & R. D. De Puma (Eds),Rom e and India: TheAncient Sea Trade,Daremberg, C. V. & Saglio, M. E., 1877-1919, Dictionnaire des Antiquitis Grecques et Romaines. Paris.De Romanis, F., 1997, Rome and the Nbtia of India: relations between Rome and Southern India from 30 BC to theFlavian Period. In F. De Romanis & A. Tchernia (Eds), Crossings. Early Mediterranean Contacts with India, 80-160.New Delhi.Francis, P., 2000, Human adornments. In S . E. Sidebotham & W. Z. Wendrich (Eds), Berenike 1998. Report of the 1998Excavations at Berenike and the Survey ofthe Eustern Desert, 21 1-225. Research School CNWS, Leiden.Graefe, R., 1979, Vela Erunt: Die Zeltducher der romischen Theater und ahnlicher Anlagen, Mainz.Kartunen, K. , 1997, India and the Hellenistic World. Studiu Orientalia, 83 . Helsinki.Mahadevan, I., 1996, Tamil-BrZhmi Graffito. In S . E. Sidebotham & W. Z. Wendrich (Eds), Berenike 1995. Preliminary Report

of the 1995 Excavations at Berenike (Egy ptia n Red Sea Coa st) and the survey oft he Eastern Desert, 205-208.Research SchoolCNWS, Leiden.

134-150. Wisconsin.

Pekary, I., 1999, Repertorium der hellenistischen und romischen Schiffsdarstellungen. Boreas, Beiheft 8. Miinster.Pferdehirt, B., 1995, Dus Mu seu m fu r An tik e Schcffahrt. Ein Forschungsbereich des Romisch-Germanischen Zentrulmuseum s.Richard, F., 1988, Les Souverains en Theoi Epibaterioi. Cahievs dHistoire, XXXIII, 3 4 441452.Mainz.

219


10/10

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 30.2Rivet, A. L. F. & Smith, C., 1979, The Place-Names of Roman Britain. London.Roberts, 0.T. P., 1993, The sailing rig of Olympias. In T. Shaw (Ed.), The Trireme Project: Operational Experience 1987-90,Rouge, J, 1987, La Momie contenait-elle les fragments dune voile? Nouvelles Archives du M u d u m dHistoire Naturelle de Lyon,Schlingloff, D., 1988, Studies in the Ajanta Paintings: Identifications and Interpretations. Delhi.Schoeffer, M., Cotta , D. & Beentjes, A ., 1987, Les Etoffes de Rembourrage: du Chiffon au VCtement et a la Voile de Bateau.Nouvelles Archives du Mustum dHistoire Naturelle de Lyon, 25: 77-80.Sidebotham, S. E., 1995, Historical Sources. In S. E. Sidebotham & W. Z. Wendrich (Eds), Berenike 1994. Preliminary Reportof the 1994 Excavutions at Berenike (Egy ptian Red Sea Coa st) and the Survey of the Eastern Desert, 5-11. Research SchoolCNWS, Leiden.Thapar, R., 1997, Early Mediterranean Contacts with India: An Overview. In F. De Romanis & A. Tchernia (Eds), Crossings.Early Mediterranean Contacts with India, 11 40 . New Delhi.Tomber, R., 2000, Indo-Roman trade: the ceramic evidence from Egypt. Antiquity, 74 624-631.Vermeeren, C. E., 1999, Wood and charcoal. In S. E. Sidebotham & W. Z. Wendrich (Eds), Berenike 1997. Report of the 1997Excavations at Berenike and the Survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert including Excavations at Shenshef; 307-324. ResearchSchool CNWS, Leiden.

Lessons Learnt, 29-38. Oxford.25: 91-96.

Weski, T., 1997, Review of Pferdehirt (1995). I J N A , 2 6 89-90.Wheeler, R. E. M., Ghosh, A. & Deva, K., 1946, Arikamedu. An Indo-Roman trading station on the east coast of India.Wild, J. P., 1997, Cotton in Roman Egypt: Some problems of origin. Al-RZj&n, 18: 287-298.Wild, J . P. & Wild, F., 2000, The textiles. In S. E. Sidebotham & W. Z. Wendrich (Eds), Berenike 1998, Report of the 1998

Ancient India, 2: 17-124.

Excuvations at Berenike and the survey of the Eastern Desert, 251-274. Research School CNWS, Leiden.

220