The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Relations between Ancient Egypt and South Arabia through the Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence
Open accessAbstract
In the middle of the first millennium B. C., South Arabian kingdoms flourished, not only as a major source of frankincense and myrrh but also as an entrepot of various incense from the eastern coast of Africa and the countries beyond the Indian Ocean. Egypt was one of the most important consumers of the incense throughout antiquity, and how the long-distance trade between South Arabia and Egypt was done actually is of much note. In this article, the relations between ancient Egypt and South Arabia will be considered by using archaeological and epigraphical sources from both Egypt and Yemen.Except the coffin of a Minaean, all South Arabic inscriptions from Egypt were found in the Eastern Desert, on the ancient route either between Qift (Coptos) and Qusayr (Myos Hormos) or between Qift and Berenike. Though it is impossible to date three inscriptions from the former route, one of them is supposed to be incised after the third century A. D. One from the latter route was incised by a Minaean. Himyarite symbols from the same route suggest that it was used by the Himyarites around the fourth century A. D. From Qusayr al-Qadim, a pottery sherd with a South Arabic graffito was excavated and it mostly belongs to the first century A. D.Greek inscriptions from Egypt show the existence of a Greek-Egyptian who returned from South Arabia to Idfu (Apollinopolis Magna) via Berenike in the Hellenistic period, and also that of a merchant of Aden who was active in Berenike and Qift between 54 and 70 A. D.As for South Arabic inscriptions referring to Egypt (Msr), the texts date back from the fifth century B. C. to the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period, and are all Minaean. Together with Msr, they exhibit the names of the caravan cities (Didan, Yathrib, Ghazza etc.) which Minaeans visited on their way to Egypt.Summing up the information from those materials, the following conclusions can be drawn.1. Before the Ptolemaic Period, the Minaean merchants came to Egypt via the inland route of Arabia which ran along the Red Sea coast, and most probably they entered Egypt by way of Ghazza.2. After the foundations of the Egyptian Red Sea ports by Ptolemy II, it seems that Minaeans used the Berenike-Coptos route as well as the Arabian inland route to enter Egypt. A route to Idfu was also available from Berenike. Until this period, it seems that a considerable number of Minaeans were staying in Egypt.3. In the Roman Period, the main transportation route between South Arabia and Egypt was the seaway. Among the Egyptian ports, Berenike and Qusayr were the most utilized for loading and unloading the merchandise from South Arabia, and for other purpose.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This article assembles South Arabian and Egyptian epigraphic and archaeological evidence to reconstruct relations between ancient Egypt and South Arabia, arguing for direct contact from at least the 5th century B.C. through the Roman period. It shows Minaean merchants dominated the earlier overland route via Gaza, while sea routes and the Eastern Desert roads were used in Ptolemaic and Roman times.
Key findings
- All South Arabic inscriptions found in Egypt, except a Minaean coffin, come from the Eastern Desert on the Qift–Qusayr or Qift–Berenike routes; one from the latter was incised by a Minaean, and Himyarite symbols on the same route suggest use around the 4th century A.D.
- A pottery sherd with a South Arabic graffito from Qusayr al-Qadim (reading Ydm or Zydm) came from a deposit "strictly belonging to the Roman period (probably the 1st century A.D.)."
- Greek inscriptions attest a Greek-Egyptian who returned from South Arabia to Idfu via Berenike in the Hellenistic period, and a merchant of Aden active in Berenike and Qift between 54 and 70 A.D. (the Hermeros dedication, dated to 70 A.D., and the same man in the Nikanor archive of 57 A.D.).
- South Arabic inscriptions referring to Egypt (Msr) date from the 5th century B.C. to the beginning of the Ptolemaic period and are all Minaean; in the Ma'in 93–98 marriage lists, of 77 readable foreign wives' origins, 8 were Egyptian, alongside 30 (of 31) from Gaza and 9 from Dedan.
Methods
- Epigraphic and archaeological synthesis: South Arabic inscriptions in Egypt, other Egyptian-side evidence (Greek/Latin texts), and South Arabian inscriptions and objects referring to Egypt, examined together.
- Sources include the Minaean wooden coffin in Cairo Museum (M338 = RES 3427), the Bi'r Manih inscription (RES 3571), graffiti at Qusayr al-Banat and Wadi Manih, the Ma'in 93–98 stelae, a bilingual Latin-Greek tombstone from Baraqish, and a steatite tablet from Kamna.
- Chronology is established by cross-referencing royal names (e.g., Ptolemy son of Ptolemy), associated place names (Tyre destroyed 332 B.C.; Dedan replaced by Lihyan c. 330 B.C.), and dated comparanda such as the Nikanor ostraca.
Limitations
- The paper states that the dates of the four Qusayr al-Banat inscriptions are poorly known apart from inscription ③, which is vaguely 3rd–4th century, and that they may be surprisingly late; it also declines to date them by script.
- It notes that South Arabic epigraphic sources alone lack information, especially on dating, so the picture of trade from the 5th century B.C. onward remains only a glimpse.
- The paper states that Egyptian-side sources on relations with South Arabia are extremely few, and that no pre-Ptolemaic Egyptian-language sources exist; the coffin's findspot is uncertain (Fayyum, Suez–Isma'iliya, or Saqqara variously reported).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
6 No basis given · 3 Own interpretation
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and also that of a merchant of Aden who was active in Berenike and Qift between 54 and 70 A. D.”
§ Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence > Abstract
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Greek inscriptions from Egypt show the existence of a Greek-Egyptian who returned from South Arabia to Idfu (Apollinopolis Magna) via Berenike in the Hellenistic period”
§ Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence > Abstract
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One from the latter route was incised by a Minaean.”
§ Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence > Abstract
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Except the coffin of a Minaean, all South Arabic inscriptions from Egypt were found in the Eastern Desert, on the ancient route either between Qift (Coptos) and Qusayr (Myos Hormos) or between Qift and Berenike.”
§ Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From Qusayr al-Qadim, a pottery sherd with a South Arabic graffito was excavated and it mostly belongs to the first century A. D.”
§ Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence > Abstract
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Himyarite symbols from the same route suggest that it was used by the Himyarites around the fourth century A. D.”
§ Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together with Msr, they exhibit the names of the caravan cities (Didan, Yathrib, Ghazza etc.) which Minaeans visited on their way to Egypt.”
§ Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 1
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As for South Arabic inscriptions referring to Egypt (Msr), the texts date back from the fifth century B. C. to the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period, and are all Minaean.”
§ Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Though it is impossible to date three inscriptions from the former route, one of them is supposed to be incised after the third century A. D.”
§ Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Citations
Cites
Handbuch der Altarabischen Altertumskunde
Macdonald, D. B., Nielsen, D., Hommel, G. F., Rhodokanakis, N., Grohmann, A., & Littmann, E. (1927) · The American Historical Review · doi:10.1086/ahr/33.1.91 · Cited by 48
Stations and Towers on the Quseir-Nile Road
Zitterkopf, R. E., & Sidebotham, S. E. (1989) · The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology · doi:10.1177/030751338907500113 · Cited by 24
Inscriptions rupestres vues et revues dans le désert de Bérénice
Cuvigny, H., & Bülow-Jacobsen, A. (1999) · Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) · Cited by 8
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- W. Green, "Notes on some inscriptions in the Etbai District," Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology OT F PSBA) 31(1909) , 253, PL. XXXV-26;
- Ch. Robin, "La fin du royaume de Ma`in," in Parfums d'Orient (Res Orientales, Vol.11),Bures-sur-Yvette,1998,177-188を 参 照 。
- Id., "L'inscription Ir 40 de Bayt Dab`an et la tribu Dmry," in Ch. Robin and M. Bafaqih(eds.),Sayhadica,Paris,1987,124参 照 。
- P. M. Costa, "A Latin-Greek Inscription from the Jawf of the Yemen," PSAS 7 (1977), 69-72;
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Qaryat al‐Fāw/Qaryatum dhāt Kāhilim: On the identity of the god Kahl
de Lara, J. (2024) · Arabian archaeology and epigraphy · doi:10.1111/aae.12249 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- TOKUNAGA, R.
- Affiliations
- Keio University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- TOKUNAGA, Risa
- Venue
- Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 96-119
- ISSN
- 0030-5219 (ISSN-L)
- 1884-1406
- OpenAlex
- W2322324862
- Semantic Scholar
- 25e60b88d332020d54f697ac8a31629dc32d87a6
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- ja
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Archaeology and Historical Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Global Maritime and Colonial Histories
- Keywords
- South Arabian inscriptions, frankincense trade, incense trade, Berenice, Coptos, Ptolemaic period, Greek inscriptions, Aden, Eastern Desert, Hellenistic period
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
