An Amphora with a Graeco-Nubian Inscription Found at Dongola

NUBIAN VOICESSTUDIES IN CHRISTIAN NUBIAN CULTURE

EDITED BY

ADAM ¸AJTARJACQUES VAN DER VLIET

WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF

GRZEGORZ OCHA¸AGIOVANNI RUFFINI

WARSAW 2011TH

E

JO

UR

NA

LO

F

JU

RI

ST

IC

PA

PY

RO

LO

GY

Sup

ple

men

t X

V

Nubia_str 9/26/11 2:38 PM 5

Supplements to The Journal of Juristic Papyrology are jointly published by theFaculty of Law and Administration of the University of Warsaw, the Insti-tute of Archaeology of the University of Warsaw, and Fundacja im. RafałaTaubenschlaga, Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28, 00–927 Warszawa 64tel. (+48 22)55 22 815 and (+48 22)55 20 384, fax: (+48 22)55 24 319

e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]: <http://www.taubenschlagfoundation.org>

Cover design by Maryna WiśniewskaComputer design and DTP by Tomasz Derda and Grzegorz Ochała

ProofreaderTomasz Płóciennik

© for the book by Fundacja im. Rafała Taubenschlaga© for the constituting papers by the authors

Warszawa 2011

This publication has been published with financialsupport from the Ministry of Science and Higher

Education of the Republic of Poland.

ISBN 978-83-925919-4-8

Wydanie I.Druk i oprawa: Drukarnia Duo Studio, Warszawa

rz04_redaction:rz04_redaction 11-11-29 12:52 Page IV

CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

NOTE ON THE EDITION OF THE TEXTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Katarzyna Danys-Lasek & Adam ŁajtarAn amphora with a Graeco-Nubian inscription found at Dongola . . . . . 3

Stefan Jakobielski & Jacques van der VlietFrom Aswan to Dongola: The epitaph of Bishop Joseph (died ad 668) . . . 15

Adam Łajtar (with an appendix by Jacques van der Vliet)New finds of Greek epitaphs at Dongola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Adam Łajtar & Tomasz PłóciennikA man from Provence on the Middle Nile: A graffito in the upper church at Banganarti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Adam Łajtar & Giovanni R. RuffiniQasr Ibrim’s last land sale, ad 1463 (ea 90225) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Adam Łajtar & Jacques van der VlietA late Christian ostracon from Dongola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Adam Łajtar & Jacques van der VlietCIG IV 8952 revisited (‘Gebel Maktub’ near Qasr Ibrim) . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Grzegorz OchałaA king of Makuria in Kordofan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

rz05-06_contents:rz05-06 11-11-29 12:52 Page V

CONTENTSVI

Alexandros TsakosSepulchral crosses from Nubia with the f«w-zvÆ acclamation . . . . . . . 157

Jacques van der Vliet‘What is man?’: The Nubian tradition of Coptic funerary inscriptions . . . 171

Vincent W. J. van Gerven OeiThe Old Nubian memorial for King George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

rz05-06_contents:rz05-06 11-11-29 12:52 Page VI

Katarzyna Danys-LasekAdam Łajtar

AN AMPHORA WITH A GRAECO-NUBIAN INSCRIPTION

FOUND AT DONGOLA*

During the 2010 fieldwork season of the Polish ArchaeologicalMission at Dongola, excavations of Building I (the so-called ‘Palace’)

were continued.1 One of the rooms investigated by the Mission was thatlabelled 44, located in the northwestern part of B.I. It was originally con-structed as one unit together with room 24 neighbouring it to the east.The room was accessible from the west, and its southern wall boasteda monumental entrance surmounted with a stone arch, giving access toroom 11. This latter entrance was blocked with regular mud bricks ata later stage. The walls of B.I.44 were rebuilt frequently and a brick cur-tain was added inside the room to strengthen them. Unfortunately, allthese constructions are difficult to stratify and to date precisely. Room

* Katarzyna Danys-Lasek is responsible for the ceramological part of the article andAdam Łajtar for the epigraphic commentary. The authors wish to thank WłodzimierzGodlewski, the Director of the Polish Archaeological Expedition to Dongola, for hisinvitation to publish this interesting find, as well as Jacques van der Vliet and GrzegorzOchała for discussion.

1 For the excavations of Building I, see the reports by Włodzimierz Godlewski pub-lished annually in the journal Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean starting with volume 13(2001). The building under consideration was constructed in the sixth century ad andfunctioned, with some rebuildings, until the thirteenth/fourteenth century.

003-014_danys-lajtar_amphora:003-014 11-11-29 12:02 Page 3

KATARZYNA DANYS-LASEK – ADAM ŁAJTAR

B.I.44 was filled with rubble containing small amounts of pottery frag-ments mixed with destroyed brick pieces.2

The pottery occurring in the fill consisted mainly of tableware vessels.‘White ware’ bowls and plates prevailed among them. Some of the vesselswere decorated with stripes painted orange, red, and black as well as flo-ral motives, and incised concentric grooves on the bottom. In addition,fragments of pilgrim bottles, hand-made bottles, storage vessels, cookingpots, dokas, and amphorae from local workshops were found. All this pot-tery bears characteristics of the Post-Classic Christian Period.3 Severalfragments of small bowls of an earlier date (Early Christian Period)4 werealso discovered. Their presence confirms the rubble character of theB.I.44 fill. Moreover, in the upper and lower strata of the fill two frag-ments of thick-walled plates (field inventory numbers Add.10.117,Add.10.209) covered with turquoise glaze came to light. They areundoubtedly imports from Egypt and can be associated with workshopsof the Mamluk period.5 Their fabric type differs from that observable inearlier, Fatimid and Ayyubid examples of monochromatic glazed pottery.6

According to William Adams, this type of glazed vessel was very commonin Lower Nubia (Group II) in 1100–1200 ad.7

Exploration work in the northeastern corner of room B.I.44 broughtto light an amphora registered as Add.10.214 (figs. 1 and 2). The amphoraoccurred in the lower part of the fill, just above walking level. It was

4

2 Information provided by Włodzimierz Godlewski.3 W. Y. Adams, Ceramic Industries of Medieval Nubia, Lexington, KY 1986, pp. 497–498;

Dobiesława Baginska, ‘Pottery from Banganarti. Season 2006’, Polish Archaeology in theMediterranean 18 (2006), p. 418; Jacke Philips, ‘An overview of the ceramics’, [in:]B. Z

.urawski et alii, Survey and Excavations between Old Dongola and Ez-Zuma [= Nubia II,

Southern Dongola Reach Survey 1], Warsaw 2003, pp. 412–413.4 Philips, ‘An overview’ (cit. n. 3), pp. 410–411. 5 Similar vessels are known from el-Qasaba in Dakhleh Oasis; cf. R. P. Gayroud, ‘La

céramique des fouilles d’al-Qasaba (Oasis de Dahla)’, Annales Islamologiques 20 (1984), p. 145.6 Guillermina Jöel, ‘Céramiques glaçurées d’époque islamique trouvées à Tôd’, Annales

Islamo logiques 26 (1992), p. 6.7 Adams, Ceramic Industries (cit. n. 3), pp. 592–594.



found incomplete, with part of the upper shoulders, neck, and rim lack-ing. The preserved height of the vessel is 37.5 cm, the maximum diameterof the body 37 cm, and the thickness of the walls 0.8 cm. The amphorahas a rather slender body with broad, globular shoulders. The base is plainwith a small, fairly modelled button. The fabric is dense, hard, and well-fired. The colour of the fracture is yellow with grey core. Small (less than1 mm), black and white mineral particles and a few small (less than 3 mm)empty spaces – traces of carbonized organic particles (straw) – are observ-able. The external surface is dark grey, without ribbing. No resin residueon the internal, brown walls was noticed.

Doubtlessly, amphora Add.10.214 was produced in a local potteryworkshop at Dongola. Investigations of pottery kilns on Kom R revealeda developed ceramic production that lasted for almost eight centuries.The filling of the kilns yielded rich material, including amphorae, whichenabled tracing a chronological sequence of the vessels and observingtheir evolution. According to Krzysztof Pluskota’s classification, am -phora Add.10.214 represents Type E. This form should be connected withthe second phase of ceramic production, dating to c. 950–1350 ad on thebasis of the material from pottery kiln R1 F. Those amphorae differ fromearlier examples in size, shape, surface treatment, and perhaps also infunction (vessels for storing rather than transporting liquids).8 Type Eincludes features reminiscent of earlier forms (e.g. a button base), typicalfor types A, B, C (c. 600–950 ad).9 In addition to the finds from Kom R,an amphora of Type E, analogous to Add.10.214, was also discovered inthe fill of room 21 of the Northwestern Annex to the monastery on KomH at Dongola, dated to the twelfth–thirteenth century.10

The amphora carries on its shoulders a two-line inscription executedwith black ink (fig. 3). The perfectly preserved text measures 11 cm in

5

8 K. Pluskota, ‘Amphorae from Old Dongola. Evolution of local products (explorationof Kiln R1 F)’, Gdańsk Archaeological Museum African Reports 3 (2005), pp. 228, 230, figs. 2, 8.

9 Ibidem, p. 230.10 Idem, ‘Old Dongola. Recent pottery finds’, [in:] Actes de la VIIIe Conférence inter nationale

d’études nubiennes (Lille, 11–17 septembre 1994), II: Découvertes archéologiques [= Cahiers derecherche de l’Institut de papyrologie et d ’égyptologie de Lille 17/2], Lille 1997, pp. 235, 237, fig. 1.



width and 2.6 cm in height. The height of letters varies between 0.6 cm(ⲟ at the beginning) and 1 cm (ⲣ). The hand, representing the majusculesof Nubian type, is very nice and careful. The letters are provided withdots at the endings of straight strokes, which resemble to a degree theapices of the classical monumental script. The scribe used a supraliteraldot to mark a vowel in initial position. He also put a dot between the twoⲛ in ⲟⲩⲛⲛⲁ, most probably in order to divide the two syllables.

The inscription can be transcribed as follows:

6

Fig. 1. Amphora Add.10.214 found in room 44 in Building I at Old Dongola(photo by W. Godlewski)



ⲟⲩⳟⲕⲟⲩⲇⲛ ⲕⲉⲣⲁ-ⲙⲉⲩⲥ ⲟⲧⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲛ•ⲛⲁ.

Before we pass to the discussion of the inscription, we have to observethat it most probably came into existence in Dongola as the amphoraitself is certainly a product of Dongolese pottery workshops (see above).Thus the text mirrors the cultural and economic patterns prevailing inthe capital of Makuria.

7

Fig. 2. Amphora Add.10.214 found in room 44 in Building I at Old Dongola(drawing by Katarzyna Danys-Lasek)



The inscription consists of four words or rather elements. Only threeof these (ⲟⲩⳟⲕⲟⲩⲇⲛ, ⲕⲉⲣⲁⲙⲉⲩⲥ, and ⲟⲩⲛⲛⲁ) have a more or less obviousmeaning. The first element, ⲟⲩⳟⲕⲟⲩⲇⲛ, can be recognized as the ‘genitive’because of its -ⲛ ending. The ‘nominative’ probably read ⲟⲩⳟⲕⲟⲩⲇⲁ and islikely to be a proper name. As far as we know, this name is attested forthe first time in this inscription. It belongs to a large group of Nubiancompound names with -ⲕⲟⲩⲇⲁ as the second element.11 The first elementmay be ⲟⲩⲛ-, ‘moon’, hence ‘servant of the moon’. A parallel formationⲙⲁϣⲕⲟⲩⲇⲁ, ‘servant of the sun’, is attested in a wall inscription in theNorthwestern Annex to the monastery on Kom H at Dongola.12

The second element, ⲕⲉⲣⲁⲙⲉⲩⲥ, is a Greek word for ‘potter’ (kera -meÊw), used here without any formal adaptation to the Nubian language.It is interesting to observe that the same word occurs in two Coptic doc-uments from Lower Nubia dating from the eighth/ninth century.13 Itlooks as if the word kerameus was a well established element of the every-day language of the inhabitants of the Middle Nile Valley in Christiantimes, irrespective of linguistic context.

The third element, ⲟⲩⲛⲛⲁ, is most probably a personal name (ofa man). This name is attested twice in wall inscriptions in the church ofRaphael,14 and once in the church of the Angels, both at Tamit.15 It israther improbable that ⲟⲩⲛⲛⲁ is the prepositional expression ‘in the lunar

8

11 For this group of names, see H. Satzinger, ‘Das altnubische Namenselement -ⲕⲟⲩⲇⲁ:«Diener»?’, [in:] U. Luft (ed.), The Intellectual Heritage of Egypt. Studies Presented to LászlóKákosy by Friends and Colleages on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday [= Studia Aegyptiaca 14],Budapest 1992, pp. 519–521.

12 Unpublished. Its publication is being prepared by Adam Łajtar.13 The documents are: J. Krall, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Blemmyer und Nubier [= Denk-

schriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse46/4], Vienna 1898, pp. 15–20, l. 28 (CPR IV 28), and P. Lond. Copt. 452, verso, l. 2.

14 S. Donadoni, ‘Iscrizioni’, [in:] S. Bosticco et alii, Tamit (1964). Missione archeologica inEgitto dell’Università di Roma [= Serie archeologica 14], Rome 1967, p. 66, no. 9, and pp.67–68, no. 15.

15 Ibidem, p. 69, no. 21. It is possible that the person mentioned in this inscription isthe same as that occurring in the inscription from the church of Raphael (ibidem, p. 66,no. 9).



month’: ⲟⲩⲛⲛⲁ = ⲟⲩⲛ-ⲛⲁ < ⲟⲩⲛ-ⲗⲁ, as this expression would totally be outof place in the given context.

The meaning of the fourth element of the inscription, ⲟⲧⲟⲩ, is some-what unclear. In addition to the present text, such a sequence of letters isattested several more times in Christian Nubia. The list of attestationsincludes:

1) a graffito on the eastern wall of Room 11 of the upper church at Ban-ganarti (end of 13th/first half of 14th century): ⲁⲕⲇⲉⲥⲕⲟⲗ bas(ileÁw) ⲟⲧⲟⲩⲡⲟⲥⲏ (unpublished; its publication is being prepared by Adam Łajtar);

2) a graffito on the northeastern support of the upper church at Ban-ganarti (end of 13th/first half of 14th century): §moË ϣⲟⲩⲕⲣⲓ Y(eo)ËN∞sow ⲟⲧⲟⲩ ⲕⲩⲗ( ) (unpublished; its publication is being prepared byAdam Łajtar);

9

Fig. 3 The Old Nubian inscription on amphora Add.10.214(photo by W. Godlewski; drawing by Katarzyna Danys-Lasek)



3) a graffito on the northern wall of the entrance to Room 4 of theupper church at Banganarti (end of 13th/first half of 14th century): §g∆ⲡⲁⲡⲓ ⲟⲧⲟⲩ ofl prÒdroi érx(i)epis[k]( ); (unpublished; its publication isbeing prepared by Adam Łajtar);

4) a graffito on the northern wall of room 13 of the upper church atBanganarti (end of 13th/first half of 14th century): [---] (ka‹) pr(es -bÊterow) ptvx(Úw) ⲟⲧⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲧⲟⲓ (= otoi ?) (unpublished; its publication isbeing prepared by Adam Łajtar);

5) a graffito on the northern wall of the entrance to Room 4 of theupper church at Banganarti (end of 13th/first half of 14th century): ⲟⲧⲟⲩ[ ]; (unpublished; its publication is being prepared by Adam Łajtar);

6) a graffito in the Church of Angels at Tamit, date unknown: m¢ ⲡⲟⲗⲉⲑⲩⲙⲁⲉ ¶xvn ⲧⲏⲙⲧ( ) ⲟⲧⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲗⲓⲣⲉ[ ]ⲛⲟⲃ( )ⲥⲡ[ ]; Monneret de Villard,Nubia I, p. 137; Donadoni, ‘Iscrizioni’ (cit. n. 14), p. 71, no. 29.

It is easy to observe that all attestations of ⲟⲧⲟⲩ known so far (includ-ing the one in the dipinto on the amphora from Dongola studied here)are found in presentations of persons. Whether this is a rule or just a co -incidence is difficult to say, but we incline to the second possibility. Itshould be further observed that ⲟⲧⲟⲩ always occurs in the second part ofthe presentation, after the proper name, where the filiation, informationabout the place of origin and titles are given. Never is it the last elementof the presentation and it is always followed by at least one word or name.This suggests that ⲟⲧⲟⲩ is not an independent piece of information butan introductory formula.

One is tempted to consider ⲟⲧⲟⲩ to be Greek and to analyze it ası toË, ‘the one of ’, expressing the relationship of dependence on some-thing (someone) or descendence from something (someone). In correctGreek, ı toË should be followed by a substantive or a name in the geni-tive singular. As far as our case is concerned, such a situation could haveoccurred only in (2), where the word (a proper name?) following ⲟⲧⲟⲩ iswritten in an abbreviated form. In (1) and the inscription on the amphorafrom Dongola, the word (name) after ⲟⲧⲟⲩ displays a Nubian nominalform, while in (3) and perhaps also in (4) it looks like the nominative plu-ral in Greek. The sequence of letters ⲧⲉⲗⲓⲣⲉ[ ]ⲛⲟⲃ( )ⲥⲡ[ ] following ⲟⲧⲟⲩin (6) is mysterious, escaping any morphological and semantic judgment,

10



while in (5) the text has not been preserved in the crucial place. Theabove remarks show that ⲟⲧⲟⲩ, even if it – as is probable – representsı toË, was not necessarily used according to the rules of the Greek syntaxin Nubian Greek. It was rather a kind of a fossil similar to tÚn doËlon inthe expression énãpauson tØn cuxØn tÚn doËlon occurring in Nubian epi-taphs in Greek.16 It was followed not by a noun in the genitive but bya noun in the nominative that receives its genitival interpretation fromthe immediately preceding element ı toË. Provided this reasoning is cor-rect, the entries in the list compiled above can be edited as follows (leav-ing aside the unclear cases of [5] and [6]):(1) ⲁⲕⲇⲉⲥⲕⲟⲗ bas(ileÁw) ı toË ⲡⲟⲥⲏ, ‘Akdeskol, king, the one of Posi’ (with

Posi being probably a proper name, so perhaps ‘Akdeskol, king, son of Posi’); (2) §moË ϣⲟⲩⲕⲣⲓ Y(eo)Ë N∞sow ı toË ⲕⲩⲗ( ), ‘I Shoukri, of the Island of

God, the one of kyl( )’; note that kyl( ) can be both a common word ora proper name;(3) §g∆ ⲡⲁⲡⲓ ı toË ofl prÒdroi érx(i)epis[k]( ), ‘I Papi, one of the coun-

cellors of the archbishop’;(4) [---] (ka‹) pr(esbÊterow) ptvx(Úw) ı toË otoi (?), ‘[ - - - ] and priest,

the humble one (?), one of these (?)’.17

In the light of these parallels, ı toË ⲟⲩⲛⲛⲁ in the inscription on theamphora from Dongola would mean: ‘the one of Ounna’. Assuming thatOunna is most probably a proper name, the phrase could be understoodas ‘son of Ounna’.

The above reasoning cannot be taken for granted, as ⲟⲧⲟⲩ does notnecessarily have to be ı toË. It could be an Old Nubian word as well, notattested yet and of unknown meaning. In this context, it is worth notingthat -ⲟⲩ is a very common nominal ending in Old Nubian.18

In spite of the fact that the meaning of the individual words in theinscription is more or less clear, the exact meaning of the entire text is

16 For the fossil tÚn doËlon as an attribute after énãpauson tØn cuxÆn, see I. KhartoumGreek, p. xx.

17 We do not know who those referred to as otoi could have been.18 Strangely, it is not discussed by Gerald Michael Browne in ONG.

11



not certain. The difficulty is due to an unclear syntax and to our igno-rance of the context in which the inscription came into existence.

At first glance, the text looks like a nominal sentence with ⲕⲉⲣⲁⲙⲉⲩⲥ asthe subject on which the ‘genitive’ ⲟⲩⳟⲕⲟⲩⲇⲛ depends.19 The translationwould be ‘Oungkouda’s potter, son of Ounna (wrote this/executed this)’. Wedo not think this is a correct understanding of the text, however. In partic-ular, it makes the potter deprived of a name and designates him only asdepending somehow on a certain Oungkouda, whose identity is unknown.Therefore, we are inclined to understand the text as an objective sentencedepending on a putative subject: ‘(Something) of the potter Oungkouda, sonof Ounna’. In this interpretation both ⲟⲩⳟⲕⲟⲩⲇⲛ and ⲕⲉⲣⲁⲙⲉⲩⲥ are ‘geni-tives’, although the latter is deprived of the genitive marker and its syntacti-cal function is solely suggested by the context. When understood in thisway, the text is semantically unproblematic; a grammatical objection arisesconcerning the attachment of the genitival -ⲛ, however. In Old Nubian,when two nouns are neighbouring each other in an objective expression, itis the second noun that should be marked and not the first one.20 Accord-ing to this rule, the inscription should read ⲟⲩⳟⲕⲟⲩⲇⲁ ⲕⲉⲣⲁⲙⲉⲩⲥⲛ and notⲟⲩⳟⲕⲟⲩⲇⲛ ⲕⲉⲣⲁⲙⲉⲩⲥ. This objection is rather vague, however, as the attach-ment of the ‘genitival’ -ⲛ shows numerous irregularities.

If the inscription on the amphora from Dongola should really beunderstood as ‘(Something) of the potter Oungkouda, son of Ounna’, onehas to ask what the putative subject is on which the sentence depends.Two possibilities seem to come to mind:(1) The subject is ‘work’, referring either to the amphora or, less likely,

to the inscription. In this interpretation, the inscription must be regardedas a signature of the potter who produced this amphora and perhaps evena larger set of storage containers, to which this amphora belonged. As thetext is inscribed in a well-trained and nice hand, one is inclined to thinkthat the producer of the amphora did not execute the inscription himselfbut asked a man of letters to do this for him.

12

19 Note that the expression ⲟⲩⳟⲕⲟⲩⲇⲛ ⲕⲉⲣⲁⲙⲉⲩⲥ would have followed the rules of theOld Nubian syntax, in which rectus always precedes regens; cf. ONG, pp. 33–35, § 3.6.2.

20 ONG, p. 39, § 3.6.6.



(2) The subject is not the inscribed container but its contents. If so, theinscription is a titulus pictus indicating the addressee of the consignment orits ownership. As such, it must have been executed by the dispatcher orsomeone working for him. It is true that addresses on ceramic containerswere written in white paint and in a large hand in Christian Nubia, butsometimes they show small and regular letters done in black paint.21

Against this interpretation one can say that a potter is apparently tooinsignificant a person to be a receiver of goods sent in an amphora. Nubiantituli picti on ceramic containers normally name as receivers different insti-tutions, mainly of ecclesiastic character, and (church) dignitaries.

As there are no decisive arguments in favour of either interpretation, wehave to content ourselves with a non liquet. To sum up: a product of theDongolese pottery workshops, the inscribed amphora published in thispaper, acquaintes us with a potter named Oungkouda. He was either theproducer of this amphora or the addressee of goods, most probably wine,transported in it. Thus the amphora contributes to the picture of social andcommercial life in the Makurian capital in the twelfth– fourteenth century.

Katarzyna Danys-Lasekul. W. Żywnego 16/11202-701 [email protected]

Adam ŁajtarDepartment of PapyrologyInstitute of ArchaeologyUniversity of Warsaw00–927 Warsaw [email protected]

21 Such as the addresses on ceramic containers found behind the western wall of theNorthwestern Annex to the monastery on Kom H at Dongola; cf. S. Jakobielski, ‘Old Dongola, Season 2000’, Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 12 (2000), p. 276, fig. 8; seealso Dongola-Studien, pl. lxiii, figs. 3 and 4.

13


An Amphora with a Graeco-Nubian Inscription Found at Dongola

Documents

Transcript of An Amphora with a Graeco-Nubian Inscription Found at Dongola