Settlement and Trade in the Red Sea in Late Antiquity: an Archaeological Perspective*

doi: 10.2143/AWE.9.0.2056308 AWE 9 (2010) 193-220 SETTLEMENT AND TRADE IN THE RED SEA IN LATE ANTIQUITY: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE* MICHAEL DECKER Abstract Recent archaeological work at sites that engaged in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean trade reveals that the ports of Myos Hormos, Berenike, Clysma, Aila, Adulis and Qana’ experi- enced broadly similar settlement peaks and troughs between the 1st and 7th centuries AD. The material remains of these settlements indicate that trade was at its peak in the 1st– 2nd centuries AD, declined in the 3rd century, and revived again in the 4th–5th centuries. Four of the sites were abandoned in the 6th or 7th centuries, which signals probable shifts in the pattern of commerce and may well indicate transformations in the nature and scale of trade in the Red Sea and India. Roman trade in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean has been the subject of numerous studies and it is now generally agreed that by the 1st century AD the Romans carried on a steady trade via the Red Sea with the Horn of Africa and parts further east. This was a lucrative commerce, conducted by a relatively sophisticated mer- chant network that employed large vessels and traded in a wide array of goods, including precious commodities such as spices and ivory. Given that scholars have until the last few decades viewed the later Roman empire as one of economic stag- nation or decline, it is unsurprising that the nature and scale of Red Sea trade has received relatively little attention. Yet the issue of Red Sea trade is an enlivening one, touching as it does on so many other questions about life in late antiquity. Foremost among these issues are those of connectivity, economic resilience and cultural change.1 There is a vast literature on Roman era trade in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, and its sheer scope and scale prevents a thorough overview of the contribution of archaeology to the ongoing discussion of Rome’s Eastern trade. Despite its consid- erable breadth, this scholarship still has significant gaps. Scholarly interests have * I wish to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments which greatly improved this work, and Dr William Murray, whose insights aided me greatly. I also wish to thank Mr Nick Maroulis, who provided the funding that made this research possible. 1 Miller 1969; Raschke 1978; Sidebotham 1986; G. Parker 2002; Tomber 2004; Starkey 2005; Blue 2007; Peacock and Williams 2007. 993510_AWE9_2010_11.indd3510_AWE9_2010_11.indd 119393 22/12/10/12/10 113:263:26 194 M. DECKER tended to focus on the Eastern trade during the first two centuries AD, which is completely understandable considering that this was the time of peak trading activity, and the height of Roman power. By contrast, relatively little attention has focused on the Red Sea region (Fig. 1) and its trade in late antiquity (4th–7th centuries AD) and major studies end with a discussion of the 6th century.2 To date, there has been no synthetic comparison of the seaports involved in the Red Sea trade of the Roman empire during late antiquity. Nor has there been any sys- tematic scholarly effort to examine the possible relationship between port settlement and economic activity in the Red Sea in the same period. In this brief article the goals are to examine the material evidence for the ports of the Red Sea trade in the Roman and late Roman periods, and to outline changes that transpired in the ports and their networks. This paper also surveys the data for the 1st–7th centuries AD in order that such a broad chronological horizon will permit us to detect and compare evidence from a series of discreet material case- studies. Moreover, this work assesses the material evidence for trade in the 7th century AD and addresses the question of transformation in exchange during the end of antiquity. It is argued here that the settlement history of these ports indicates something of the routes that were followed. Furthermore, it is taken as a given that the comparative size and material culture of ports also reflects on the volume of trade that passed through them and allows us some insight into the nature of later exchange relative to the Augustan era peak. In order to understand the patterns and context of the later trade, an overview of the major harbour installations and their associated settlements of the early Roman period is required. Although other ports are known, I include in the present study those major settlements where recent archaeological work has been done. An exception to these criteria is Clysma (Suez), which I include here because it has witnessed some modern excavation, but also because it is prominently discussed in several written sources. On the whole, the ports of the Red Sea trade are increas- ingly well known to us, thanks to recent archaeological projects that have examined two of the most important harbour towns of the Red Sea: Myos Hormos (Quseir el-Qadim) and Berenike. Myos Hormos lies on the coast of the Red Sea, 8 km north of the modern town of Quseir, about 500 km south of Suez (ancient Clysma), 2 Studies over recent decades have tended to focus on the early Roman trade (see Dihle 1980; Sidebotham 1986; Young 2001). While Miller’s work (Miller 1969) purports to describe eastern trade generally, there is almost nothing in the work that touches on material as late as the 6th century. Raschke (1978, 1068, n. 1, 744) finds little evidence that the Red Sea trade continued in the 6th century. Studies such as Lunde and Porter 2004 and Starkey 2005 offer little discussion of the later trade of the Red Sea. Those interested in recent work on contacts with East Africa should consult Chami and Msemwa 1997. 993510_AWE9_2010_11.indd3510_AWE9_2010_11.indd 119494 22/12/10/12/10 113:263:26 SETTLEMENT AND TRADE IN THE RED SEA 195 Fig. 1: Map of the Red Sea Region (after Tomber 2005, map 5). 300 km north of Berenike and approximately 200 km east of the ancient Nile valley settlement of Qift (ancient Coptos/Apollonopolis Parva). This relative proxim- ity to the Nile valley, through which the precious goods offloaded at Myos Hormos were shipped to Alexandria, probably explains why the site was chosen. It was apparently a suitable Red Sea anchorage closer to the Nile than Berenike and the savings in overland transport effort presumably made up for the extra days of rough sailing into the prevailing northerly winds.3 Equally crucial was the availability of water, though most in the immediate vicinity is both scarce and brackish, and the landscape around the former port was hyperarid in antiquity as it is today. The brackish perennial spring Bi’r al-‘Ambaji, high in sulphur and barely potable in the recent past, could have served the bold or the desperate. Peacock identifies this site, which he notes is the ‘greenest, wettest, and most luxuriant place in the Eastern Desert’ as the Fons Tadnos mentioned by Pliny. If correct, this probably indicates 3 Rosser and Imray 1867, 219. 4 Peacock and Blue 2006, 12. 5 Prickett 1979, 270. 993510_AWE9_2010_11.indd3510_AWE9_2010_11.indd 119595 22/12/10/12/10 113:263:26 196 M. DECKER that ancients made more regular use of the drinking water of Bi’r al-‘Ambaji, since it lies only about 10 km distant from the ancient seaport.4 Fresh drinking water is found only at Bi’r Kareim, nearly 50 km inland; presumably water from there was carried to the settlement in antiquity.5 The site of Myos Hormos (Fig. 2) occupies an area of approximately 10 ha, as evidenced by a scatter of decaying mud brick and surface artefacts. From 1978 to 1982, Whitcomb and Johnson led excavations there sponsored by the University of Chicago that unearthed Roman, Early Islamic and Mamluk period finds. Most of the archaeological remains found by the Chicago excavations are Roman. Whit- comb and Johnson proposed a regular Hippodamian grid for the unwalled Roman period settlement. They also identified structural remains on the site as belonging to a warehouse horreum and a castellum.6 The raison d’être of these port settlement in the Roman period was the Red Sea trade. This view is supported by their lacking any sort of fertile hinterland that could have provided a steady supply of agricultural products. It is further demon- strated by the ceramic and coin assemblages revealed by excavation which broadly parallel the Roman finds at Arikamedu, an ancient seaport engaged in the long- distance trade with the Roman empire. Fragmentary Tamil-Brahmi graffiti datable to the 1st or 2nd century AD also indicate that Quseir had trading links with South Asia. In addition, analysis of wood remains shows that most samples belong to species indigenous to India and Iran.7 Finally pepper, the dried and ground fruit of the trailing vine Piper nigrum, a native of southern India, was found in Roman levels at Quseir, further attesting to contacts between Rome and India.8 South of the major ruin fields excavated by the Chicago team is an area of sabkha (mud flats) which Whitcomb identified as the former site of the Roman port. It was further proposed that a mound, now embedded within the sabkha, but for- merly an island before the lagoon was silted in, was formed largely by Roman dredging efforts.9 The precise location of the anchorage and the nature of the phys- ical remains are disputed by Peacock and Blue, who have published findings from the work of the University of Southampton team of 1999–2003.10 They locate the main Roman harbour west of the area proposed by the Chicago team along the crescent sweep of the lagoon.

Load more