Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-v2ckm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T12:19:43.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Signed by Valerius: an Early Imperial wall painting from the fort of Deir el-Atrash in the Egyptian Eastern Desert

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2022

Julie Marchand
Affiliation:
Laboratoire HISOMA, CNRS, Lyon
Joachim Le Bomin
Affiliation:
Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, Cairo
Adam Bülow-Jacobsen
Affiliation:
Institut de Papyrologie de la Sorbonne, Paris
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the 2020 excavation campaign of the French Archaeological Mission to the Egyptian Eastern Desert (MAFDO), the team in charge of the excavation of the Roman fort of Deir el-Atrash uncovered a polychrome painting on one of the original entrance tower gates from the late 1st–early 2nd c. CE. The iconographic program includes, in the top register, a horseman genius and a caravan of dromedaries with its driver. In the lower register, a pattern of vine stalks and leaves occupies the space. This discovery is exceptional, as very few Roman paintings have been preserved in a military context. In addition to depicting a scene of everyday desert life, the supply of the fort, the scene also illustrates the power of the Empire and its presence at its borders.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Journal of Roman Archaeology

In early 2020, the French Archaeological Mission to the Egyptian Eastern Desert established its camp in the mining district of Ghozza to excavate and study sites in the area. These consisted of gold mines exploited during the Ptolemaic period (and less intensively during the Early Islamic period), a Ptolemaic mining village, and a Roman fort.Footnote 1 The fort of Deir el-Atrash stands in the eponymous wadi, about 10 km north as the crow flies (Fig. 1).Footnote 2

Fig. 1. Sites along the caravan road from Kaine (modern Qena) to ‘Abu Sha'ar in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. (Map by A. Rabot/MAFDO.)

The fort is built on the road to the quarries at Mons Porphyrites (Gebel Dokhan), the mountains of which can be seen from the site.Footnote 3 This road started in ancient Kaine, modern Qena,Footnote 4 and continued to the quarries, and then from the 4th c. on to the Late Roman fort of ‘Abu Sha'ar on the Red Sea.Footnote 5 The praesidium of Deir el-Atrash (26°56′06′'N/33°04′59″E) stands on a natural terrace in the middle of the wadi between the stations of Bab el-Mukhenig, about 10 km away to the southwest and Qattar,Footnote 6 30 km to the northeast. This hydreuma (watering station) is close to the Porphyrites mountains, which means it was an important and strategic relay on this road. Despite having been surveyed and described several times, it had never been fully studied or excavated.Footnote 7 The archaeological excavations conducted in this praesidium by the French team are the first that have been carried out on a fort located along this caravan route: only the metallon of Umm BaladFootnote 8 and the Porphyrites quarry sites, located near the road, had previously been excavated.

Considering the presence of material from the second half of the 1st c. CE in the fort and the baths area of Ghozza, a few kilometers south, one may suggest a shift of occupation from the latter to Deir el-Atrash between the late second half of the 1st c. and the early 2nd c. CE.Footnote 9 From this, one could then suggest that the Domitianic road initially linked the Nile to the Porphyrites via Ghozza, and then shifted northward to pass through Deir el-Atrash. This renewal could be explained by two factors that are not necessarily contradictory. Deir el-Atrash was located on the shortest route to the Porphyrites from the Nile Valley, along which the material assemblages point to a foundation date towards the turn of the 1st and 2nd c. CE for several of the main structures (the Porphyrites fort, probably the south well, and the southwest village, along with the opening of the Lykabettus quarries). The increasing scale of work in the Porphyrites quarries and all their surrounding infrastructure required a reorganization of the main road to ensure a better exploitation of the raw material and its transport to the Nile and to the Imperial sites where it was worked, such as the “porphyry portico.”Footnote 10 The Romans may have settled first in Ghozza because they knew the site provided water; they probably launched the construction of the fort and well in the Wadi Atrash when they realized that its position would be better. For now, however, without further excavation work in Deir el-Atrash it is still too early to clearly explain the link between Atrash and Ghozza. In a study of place-names at Umm Balad, H. Cuvigny has recently suggested the attribution of Melan Oros (Μέλαν Ὄροc, “Black [Stone] Mountain”) to the Deir el-Atrash praesidium.

The praesidium of Deir el-Atrash follows a standard layout that has been observed in other desert forts (Fig. 2). Built from rough blocks of dark graywacke taken from the mountains surrounding the wadi, it covers an irregular square of 55 m on each side around a large central pit that is 20 m in diameter and ca. 5 m deep, and is equipped with a well. Well-preserved internal structures and rooms are aligned on all four sides around the central depression. The unusual appearance of the fort is due to the extensive use of mud bricks, except in the curtain wall. This material is used everywhere else, including on all the upper parts of the walls, the vaults of the internal spaces, and the towers of the south-oriented entrance system. Against the praesidium's outer eastern side there is an annex structure, usually called “animal lines,” interpreted as stabling. This structure is 56 m x 42 m and was intended to shelter the animals working in the caravans along the porphyry road and pulling carts, and maybe also the animals used locally at the fort.Footnote 11

Fig. 2. Plan of the Deir el-Atrash fort. (Plan by D. Laisney/MAFDO.)

The excavations carried out on the entrance system and the dump located outside, as well as the study of the associated furnishings, show a first, short military occupation dated to the late 1st–early 2nd c. CE, followed by a second one in the late 4th–early 5th c. CE, according to the ceramic evidence.Footnote 12 Between these two periods, given the absence of any kind of material, the fort seems to have been abandoned.Footnote 13 The value of red porphyry and black porphyry, usually employed for luxurious imperial architectural decorations, indicates that the Deir el-Atrash fort was intended to protect, manage, and supply caravans and wagons travelling on the route leading to the Gebel Dokhan quarries.Footnote 14 It has also been suggested that the fort had a military supply role during the Byzantine period (5th–7th c. CE), but this is not yet supported by archaeological evidence.Footnote 15 The archaeological investigation initially aimed to shed light on the organization of this well-preserved military station and to establish as precise a chronology as possible. It also had the aim of complementing our knowledge of the various road networks of the Eastern Desert, and of providing insight into the daily life of the fort's occupants, which would have been punctuated by the passage of the caravans.

This article will focus on the exceptional discovery of a large painting on one of the towers of the entrance system belonging to the first phase of the fort's construction, dated to the late 1st–early 2nd c. CE. (Further research and the results of fieldwork will be published after their verification and completion during future seasons.) Extending across approximately 2.4 m of the surface of the tower and curtain wall, and containing figurative scenes, this painting is a unicum in the sense that until now, across the whole limes, only whitewash and a few red lines have been discovered on the outside of military structures.Footnote 16 The iconographic program is very well preserved and represents a subject rarely found in paintings in Egypt.

The entrance system

The south-facing entrance system to the fort, offset to the east on the façade, was the main focus of the first campaign (Fig. 3). The reason for this was twofold: it was expected that elements linked to the fort's dedication would be found in its foundations and could provide chronological information, and the excellent state of preservation of the 5 m-high mudbrick towers would make it possible to carry out a precise study of the system and its evolution. The presence of a mound of sand and architectural materials in the entrance passage suggested that floor levels were preserved.

Fig. 3. Entrance of the Deir el-Atrash fort. View from the south. (© J. Le Bomin/MAFDO.)

The first architectural phase

The original elements of the entrance system are barely visible but are well preserved thanks to the fact that the Early Roman remains were integrated into the Late Roman redevelopment. The 1.73 m-wide entrance passage is flanked by two horseshoe-shaped towers that project outward from the curtain wall made of rough graywacke blocks. The towers are architecturally bonded to the curtain wall (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Aerial orthophotography of the entrance system of the Deir el-Atrash fort, with a plan of the first phase of the gate. (© G. Pollin/IFAO, J. Le Bomin/MAFDO.)

Only the east tower was excavated, as its later brick lining has fallen down, revealing its original form (Fig. 5). The later lining of the west tower is very well preserved (389.66 masl at its highest point), hiding the earlier one which is only slightly visible in its upper part, at a height of about 4 m. The original east tower, excavated within the later one, is preserved up to about 3 m and has a slope of 6.5° (between 384.7 masl and 387.75 masl).Footnote 17 Only its eastern half remains, as the other half was plundered during the rebuilding. The lower masonry is composed of rough graywacke blocks and rubble, while the upper part is made of fired bricks. The interior of the tower is completely filled with graywacke blocks up to the start of the bricks; a room is located at that level. The remains of a fireplace testify that this room was accessible and therefore suggest it was used as a watchtower.

Fig. 5. View of the south part of the fort and the entrance system. View from the east. (© J. Le Bomin/MAFDO.)

The occupation levels of this first phase have not yet been reached. The only such levels identified were located at the foot of the tower (384.78 masl) and correspond to a floor level formed by an accumulation of straw and organic sediment on which two small fireplaces had been installed.

The second architectural phase

A detailed architectural description of this phase will not be given here. Our aim is simply to show that the original entry system was completely integrated into the second one, which is dated to the late 4th–early 5th c. CE.Footnote 18

After a long period of abandonment of at least two centuries, the resumption of occupation of the Deir el-Atrash fort in the late 4th–early 5th c. CE was accompanied by transformations in parts of the building, in particular the entrance system. The entrance was redesigned through the construction — above the previous towers — of two massive, new, quadrangular towers measuring 4.25 m x 3.85 m (north-south x east-west) and 3.60 m x 3.90 m (north-south x east-west) respectively for the western and the eastern one. Far from being dismantled, the original system was totally integrated into the new one.Footnote 19 The later towers were built against the initial ones and the curtain wall, and they were completely filled, to a height of at least 5 m, with architectural rubble (rough graywacke blocks and mud bricks) and artefacts/ecofacts (textiles, faunal remains, ceramics), which can be precisely dated to the late 4th–early 5th c. CE. The upper parts of these towers were also accessible, judging by the presence of a staircase behind the west tower.

Preserving the original towers saved material and time in filling the towers. However, as far as this article is concerned, what is most important is that this process protected the original tower decoration from the desert's intense sunlight and wind-blown sand.

The entrance paintings

Architectural setting

The exteriors of both the original towers and the curtain wall are entirely covered by a 2 cm-thick plaster layer made of clay with a chaff temper, commonly called muna in Egyptian Arabic (Fig. 6). On the curtain wall, this mud-coating is preserved over a length of almost 1 m and a maximum height of 2 m where it meets the tower. The muna is covered with an irregular whitewash, numerous drips of which are still visible. The figurative scene would have been applied last, both on the tower and on the curtain wall.

Fig. 6. Detail of the tower with its white plaster, inside the late mudbrick tower. View from the east. (© J. Le Bomin/MAFDO.)

Even though the decor is in an exceptional state of preservation, it should be noted that 40 to 80 cm of the whitewashed surface has disappeared from the lower part of the tower, although it is better preserved on the curtain wall. In addition, filling the brick tower with waste materials caused some deterioration, as evidenced by numerous chips across the painted surface. The entire plastered area is no more than 3 m wide and 2.40 m long, that is, it has a maximum surface area of 7.20 m2 (Figs. 7 and 8).

Fig. 7. Orthorectified photo of the paintings on the tower and the curtain wall. (© G. Pollin/IFAO.)

Fig. 8. Orthorectified drawing of the paintings on the tower and the curtain wall. (© J. Marchand/MAFDO.)

Iconographic description – main program

The figurative scene does not cover the entire plastered surface. A whitewash covers most of the wall and contrasts with the painted motifs, which are arranged differently on the tower and the curtain wall. The polychrome patterns have slightly faded colors, including a range of warm colors (from brownish orange to red) and a few touches of dark blue, green, and black.

Two phases of decoration can be identified on the wall: the first has a distinctive iconographic style and bright colors, while the second is a coarser or graffiti style with silhouettes drawn with black charcoal.

The first phase of polychrome decoration is the most significant and the most developed. The scene is divided into two registers by a thick red band that extends over the entire length of the preserved surface. The band is underlined by two red lines between which red geometric patterns, comprising alternate vertical and horizontal dashes, are painted. This motif is at eye level, about 1.60 m above the level of the two fireplaces that were observed during the excavation. The figurative motifs have flat red areas highlighted with a thick black line. Some details are highlighted with black, brownish, or reddish strokes.

In the upper register, in the middle of the tower, a rider (Figs. 9a and 9b) is represented on a prancing horse, whose rear hooves stand just above the thick red band; the image is over 43 cm high and 50 cm wide. The horse, whose body is in profile and whose head is seen in three-quarter view, has a buckskin coat with curvilinear detailing all over the neck and right hind leg. Its mane is dark brown, trimmed short, and depicted by short, vertical brushstrokes. Its long, dark brown tail falls downwards. Only the reins of its bridle seem to be represented in black and are visible at the animal's muzzle. They are held in the rider's left hand. The whole image, the colors of which are slightly faded, is only partially preserved and certain details are no longer visible. The man is also seen in three-quarter view; his face has almost completely disappeared, but the surviving forehead and short black hair show that it was turned toward the passerby. He wears a special outfit. A reddish-checkered cloak, thrown over his shoulders and falling backward onto the horse's rump, is fastened with a large round flat fibula on his left shoulder. He also wears a garment that is not clearly identifiable, held in place by a red belt decorated with a pattern of diagonal lines. His left foot extends below the horse's belly, but it is impossible to say whether he is wearing boots. His outfit is neither military, since he wears no armor, nor Egyptian, since he is wearing trousers. Above the rider, there is a long dark green snake with spotted scales. The snake is 44 cm long and is slightly undulating, with eyes and jaws open as it comes from the left. A straight, slightly oblique line, totally erased and only visible under special light (Fig. 9a, created with LAB color in Adobe Photoshop), which is difficult to discern and interpret, seems to run from the rider's right thigh to the snake.

Fig. 9. (a) Picture of the horseman and the snake, made using LAB color in Adobe Photoshop. (© G. Pollin/IFAO.) (b) Drawing of the horseman and the snake. (© J. Marchand/MAFDO.)

The other scene in the upper register is on the curtain wall, where it meets the tower: this scene measures about 1.17 m long by 0.27 m high. It represents a caravan of at least four dromedaries (Figs. 8 and 10) depicted on the red register band. As the right part of the whitewashed muna is missing, one cannot assess whether or not the caravan is complete. At left, two of the camels are attached with lead ropes and are led to the right by a man on foot holding the rope in his raised right hand. The two other camels are also attached by lead ropes. The three animals farthest to the right are calm, but the one on the left seems more restive and excited: it is throwing its head up and pulling on its lead rope. They are all painted in brown and outlined in black. Their coats are enhanced with yellow stripes. The good state of conservation of this part of the painting allows us to see the detail of the dromedaries’ long lashes, which are drawn in black, as are the hairs of their ears and tails. The animals are saddled but not loaded; each is equipped with a red carpet on its back, the fringes of which are carefully drawn. The man driving them walks ahead but is turning his head back, probably towards the agitated dromedary. He is wearing a short-sleeved yellow tunic with brown clavi. He may also be holding a stick behind his shoulder blades, his hands resting on its ends, with his right hand holding the lead rope.

Fig. 10. Detail of the caravan seen under transformed light. (© G. Pollin/IFAO.)

The lower register consists of a vegetal pattern painted mainly on the curtain wall, with a bit lapping onto the tower, right under the red band dividing the registers. It is a vine trellis (Figs. 8 and 11) represented by a red line that rises up from ground level at the edge of the tower and continues eastward in swooping undulations. To the right, it extends beyond the preserved part of the painting. At the junction of the tower and the curtain wall, the vine stock grows up and develops on each side of the stake to which it is attached at regular intervals. Wavy tendrils escape at several points. A green grape leaf is painted under the first undulation, attached to a twig. Grapes are depicted schematically as black dots encircled by a larger red circle. At the level of the second undulation, the twigs abruptly stop, while the vine arbor continues.Footnote 20

Fig. 11. Detail of the vine leaf pattern seen under transformed light. (© G. Pollin/IFAO.)

A different vegetal pattern is depicted on the rounded part of the tower. Its state of preservation is very poor, and light greenish zones among the red and black motifs can barely be made out (Fig. 8).

Finally, a dipinto with the name Valerius, written in Greek and painted in black, could belong to this phase of decoration. It was inscribed at eye level, on the side of the tower, below and to the right of the rider.Footnote 21

The Valerius inscription (A. Bülow-Jacobsen)

The small inscription can be seen on the lowest red line separating the two registers (Fig. 12). The length of the inscription is ca. 3.5 cm. It is written in a good, firm cursive script. It appears to be the signature of the artist who decorated the wall:

Οὐαλέριοϲ ̣[

τοῦτ[ο] ̣[

Valerius NN (painted?) this.

At the end of line 1, the letter that cannot be read is an upright letter that curves slightly to the right at the bottom, perhaps an omega. This is presumably the beginning of a cognomen. At the end of line 2, the letter that cannot be read is a horizontal letter curving slightly upward. We would expect to find ἔγραφε or ἐποίει or the like, but an epsilon seems impossible.Footnote 22 Since the surface is damaged and several lines have almost the same color as the residual impurities, a supplementary photograph in Adobe Photoshop's LAB color is helpful. Most importantly, it shows that what looks like a letter between του and τ in line 2 was not made in ink.

Iconographic description – late additions

In a second phase, the date of which is not known but which was prior to the rebuilding of the entrance system in the Late Roman period, motifs were added to the iconographic program in the remaining empty spaces. Close contemporaneity of these two phases cannot be excluded, even if it cannot yet be proven. A horse was painted on the side of the tower (Figs. 13a and 13b) as well as two dromedaries linked by a rope on the curtain wall, above the last two in the caravan. Here, the dromedaries are again saddled but not loaded. These three silhouettes, which are sketched in charcoal rather than drawn, are poorly preserved. The galloping or rearing horse was incised before being painted a dark red color; there are splashes of color above and below the animal. It has a thick mane and large round eyes; its long body is detailed with curved vertical stripes.

Fig. 12. The Greek dipinto with its location on the wall indicated. (© A. Bülow-Jacobsen/MAFDO.)

Fig. 13. (a) Detail of the incised and painted horse. (© G. Pollin/IFAO.) (b) Drawing of the incised and painted horse. (© J. Marchand/MAFDO.)

In addition, a few indeterminate and undated graffiti and signs or letters can also be seen here and there at eye level (Fig. 8). Their poor state of preservation combined with the many gaps in the whitewash does not allow us to describe these more precisely. The only element that is clearly visible is a horned altar incised on the curtain wall to the left of the dromedary caravan. The remains of what was probably meant to be another camel are also visible; this dromedary seems to be alone and not in a caravan.

Power over the Eastern Desert and its inhabitants: the strength of the Empire

The fort's supply caravan

On the curtain wall, the painted caravan undoubtedly represents a daily occurrence on this desert road, which was traveled by camels that stopped at strategically sited forts.Footnote 23 The caravan was composed of at least four animals attached to one another. Some have the same carpets with fringes on their backs under the transported goods.Footnote 24 The man on foot leading the last two camels and holding a lead rope in his left hand is a camel driver, an occupation known from written sources.Footnote 25 As he is unarmed, he could be either a dromedarius attached to the auxiliary mounted forces, recruited in the desert provinces of the Roman Empire,Footnote 26 or a factotum dromedarius, employed for instance to supply sites without watering points. Indeed, these camel drivers, who were not necessarily military staff, may have been employed and paid by the army to supply the forts with goods.Footnote 27

A standard-bearer or a Thracian Horseman?

It is worth considering the possible meanings of the horseman and the snake. H. Cuvigny suggests that this could represent what would later be called a draconarius, that is to say, a bearer of the draco military standard, probably taken from the Parthians or the Sarmatians in the late 1st–early 2nd c. CE.Footnote 28 Such an emblema, with a metal head and a fabric body, as is known from archaeological evidence, has a dragon's head with an open jaw displaying its large teeth.Footnote 29 The rider at Deir el-Atrash may be such a standard-bearer, especially when the position of the snake or dragon above the rider is considered. The representation of the snake's head, with its open mouth and teeth, and the undulations of its body echo the head and the soft, fabric body of the draco standard. Despite the damage to the painting, the straight, slightly slanted dark line could be interpreted as the shaft of the draco: it starts from the man's thigh and goes up to the damaged area under the snake. The rider's arm is missing, so we do not know exactly how his right hand held it. In addition, what appears to be the end of a separate, vertical shaft is clearly visible in real light under the horse's belly, but we have no evidence with which to identify this element. The representation of such a figure, marked by the impressive aspect of the snake, could be explained by the idea that this was a symbol protecting the fort and its inhabitants. However, protection is not the primary function of the standard-bearer, so we will suggest another, albeit debatable, interpretation of the rider.

The association of the rider and the snake also led us to the figure of the heros equitans or, as he is often called, the Thracian Horseman.Footnote 30 This protective genius was one of the most revered deities in the regional pantheon of the Balkan Peninsula during Greco-Roman antiquity and particularly in the Roman province of Thracia, where he is found on votive and funerary stelae as well as on monumental reliefs.Footnote 31 His representation, closely inspired by Greek iconography,Footnote 32 underwent a significant development and spread throughout the Empire,Footnote 33 especially during the Imperial period. Sometimes called “Heron” in dedications,Footnote 34 this genius was frequently syncretized with Greco-Roman deities (such as Apollo or Asclepios),Footnote 35 which led to so much figurative diversity that a catalogue of several volumes was devoted to the Thracian Horseman from 1938 onward.Footnote 36

Several attempts to classify the Thracian horseman figure have been proposed and debated, though these are not presented here, and his iconography has been the subject of an abundant literature.Footnote 37 The snake is one of the most common elements in his depiction: as it was a chthonic symbol and deity,Footnote 38 it gives the horseman the apotropaic status of an important and primary god in local religion. When holding a cup, the hero is making offerings to such animals.Footnote 39 He is usually unarmedFootnote 40 and raises his right hand, with three fingers held up: this gesture, taken from the deity Sabazios, has recently been called the benedictio Latina. Footnote 41

Heron and the other Egyptianized heroes equitantes

These elements lead us to see the Deir el-Atrash horseman as a hero equitans.Footnote 42 Represented on horseback, the body in profile, the head and the torso in three-quarter view, and associated only with a snake depicted above, the rider looks like the one sculpted on the Theadelphia stele, identified as Heron. There, a “flying” snake is depicted behind a horseman who is making an offering to the snake.Footnote 43

In Egypt, the appearance of the Thracian rider/Heron is associated with the settling of Thracian troops in Egypt under the Lagids.Footnote 44 Before that, the iconography of the horseman hero never really occurs in the Egyptian repertoire, especially if one considers the image of Horus on horseback, about to stab a crocodile with his spear, as different. In this last representation, the Horus rider symbolizes the victory of good over evil. This motif is inherited from that of Horus on a crocodile, which is well known from a series of pharaonic stelae.Footnote 45

Heron was a provincial god of little fame within the Roman world, but he was, curiously enough, well known and worshipped in Egypt, especially in the Fayyum (Fig. 14).Footnote 46 Evidence of his popularity includes numerous ex-votosFootnote 47 and the fact that many people bore his name during the Early Roman Empire.Footnote 48 His iconography varies from one representation to another,Footnote 49 showing him holding a cup, on horseback, or on foot. He is traditionally represented as either an armored man (with lorica squamata, a gorgoneion on his breastplate, a cape, and black boots) or with bare legs, a tunic, and weapons (lance and sword).Footnote 50 In the case of Deir el-Atrash, the representation is not precise enough and is too damaged to allow us to see the details of his costume. No weapon is visible. Can we see the tip of a spear under the horse's belly as an almost indistinguishable vertical black line? This remains uncertain, because its inclination would not correspond to the position of the rider's arm. Nevertheless, the curved detailing on the horse's body shows some resemblance to representations of the scale armor of cataphract horses. These special, heavily armored riders appear on the Column of Trajan,Footnote 51 and a graffito represents another one in Dura Europos, where cataphract armor for both the rider and the horse has been found by archaeologists.Footnote 52 This interpretation remains fragile here though, given the fact that the horse's head is not protected. These curved elements, both on the horse and on the dromedaries, could just be the painter's idiosyncratic representations of their hair.

Fig. 14. Horseman identified as Heron painted on Theadelphia's temple façade wall (after Breccia Reference Breccia1926, Tav. LIX.)

Heron had an acolyte named Lycurgus,Footnote 53 who is also attested in Egyptian iconography and epigraphy from the 1st c. CE on. The Thracian king Lycurgus, driven mad by Dionysus according to certain traditions, is represented as a prisoner of the tendrils of a vine.Footnote 54 The vine pattern of the lower register of the painting may be an echo of this episode or the much-awaited supply of wine (as confirmed by the many wine Roman amphorae discovered in the forts of the Eastern Desert).Footnote 55 The two heroes may be represented together, as is often the case on wooden panels of the Early Imperial period.Footnote 56

Heron, the propylaios of the armies

All of these elements suggest it is possible to identify the horseman of Atrash as Heron, even if no dedication is present. Another argument in favor of this identification is the fact that the hero equitans was also a propylaios (“who is in front of the door”), a genius whose main function was to protect gates.Footnote 57 Heron was also very much associated with the army and was often said to be god of the garrisons:Footnote 58 his image and its worship were undoubtedly supported and spread by soldiers.Footnote 59 A representation of Heron on the outer wall of the fort better suits the idea of a guardian figure, even if we cannot exclude the possibility that actual worship of the hero happened indoors.Footnote 60 Indeed, if this image had been painted inside the fort, it would have had the role of protecting the fort's inhabitants. Since it is on the exterior, Heron here functioned as part of the desert pantheon, which included Pan, protector of the road.Footnote 61 This raises the question of the meaning of the desert pantheon in this kind of military context.

It is well known that the Roman army included contingents of soldiers of various origins, including Thracian and Dacian men. It could be concluded that our rider (Heron) belonged to one of these ethnicities, considering the general iconography of the image and the trousers the rider appears to be wearing. Thracian mercenaries are attested in Alexandria from the late 3rd c. BCE onFootnote 62 and were implanted as cleruchs in the Fayyum,Footnote 63 something which probably played a role in deeply anchoring Heron in the area. During the Roman period, in the last quarter of the 2nd c. CE, the ala Herculiana, which was made up of Thracians, was stationed in Thebes and Coptos.Footnote 64 Dacian soldiers were also involved in the Eastern Desert, especially at Mons Claudianus,Footnote 65 as evidenced by a centurion's name in the cohors I Aelia Dacorum.Footnote 66 At least five auxiliary groups are known: the ala Apriana, the cohors I Flavia Cilicum equitata (in the Mons Claudianus), the ala Vocontiorum(?) (at Krokodilo), the cohors II Ituraeorum equitata (at Umm Balad), and the cohors I Augusta Praetoria Lusitanorum equitata (in Lower Nubia).Footnote 67 Later in the 2nd c. CE, the presence of military detachments, especially the ala I Thracum Mauretana in 134 and the cohors II Thracum equitata in 167,Footnote 68 logically explains the iconography chosen for the coins struck in the Theban region.Footnote 69 Could the iconographic theme of the Deir el-Atrash Thracian horseman be linked to these auxiliary groups? We will not venture so far as to make this connection, as the figure was common throughout the Early Roman Empire. Obviously, it was not painted specifically for these Dacian or Thracian soldiers, but its widespread presence in the military contingents explains the popularity of such protectors in Egypt and their presence in the Eastern Desert.Footnote 70 Therefore, Deir el-Atrash's paintings might represent a Thracian/Dacian version of Heron or a “Thracian” horseman whose representation was influenced by Heron.Footnote 71

In any case, the Deir el-Atrash horseman clearly belongs to the numerous representations of riders, and especially Thracian ones, that became more popular from Trajan's reign on. The iconography of the “Thracian” or “Dacian” rider or soldier is not completely standardized, and is partly dependent on the medium (carved, molded or painted), but some elements are usually present. The similarities between Heron and Lycurgus are striking: both are depicted on wooden panels wearing the Roman army's military outfit. Their clothing is the same as that worn by the Roman soldiers on the Tropaeum Traiani at Adamklissi (present-day Romania), which represents the victory of Trajan's soldiers over the barbarians and Dacians, as well as the Germans and Sarmatians, who were allies of the Dacians.Footnote 72

Related imagery also appears on coinage produced to commemorate Trajan's victories in the Danube area.Footnote 73 A series of coins with Heron holding a cup out toward a snake coiled in a tree was struck under Trajan. Later, under Hadrian and Antonius Pius, the rider appears on some coins of the Diospolite nome with a snake held in his right hand.Footnote 74

Roman pictorial representations in the Eastern Desert of Egypt

Paintings inside praesidia

The painted iconographic program on the outer parts of Deir el-Atrash and at its main entrance gate is an exceptional find. Nevertheless, paintings have also been discovered inside other Roman military forts. In most cases they have suffered from the ravages of time but, in a few exceptional cases, several phases of redecoration or architectural modifications have led to the preservation of earlier paintings. For instance, in the southern Empire, we can mention the paintings at DidymoiFootnote 75 and Mons Claudianus's insula Fort.W.I,Footnote 76 as well as the human figures of Castellum Dimmidi in the Ouled Naïl Mountains (ancient Numidia),Footnote 77 which brighten up the interiors of these fortifications. In the western part of the limes, in Germania, at least 25 examples are attested, including the mythological program in the private apartments of the centurion at Echzell, probably painted under Commodus.Footnote 78

However, what sets the Deir el-Atrah paintings apart is their location outside the enclosure as well as their exceptional conservation. So far, only whitewashed curtain walls have been uncovered elsewhere, but this find suggests that other forts could also have had elaborate programs not only on their main gates but also along the main entrance's façade. It is unlikely that Deir el-Atrash is a unicum.

Soldier-craftsmen

In the Deir el-Atrash military context, one of the questions raised by the paintings is who created them. Was this a specialist belonging to the legionary contingent or an itinerant craftsman? This issue is all the more important since the paintings appear to be signed by a certain Valerius. The army had a large number of technical staff and professionals involved in military engineering, many of them documented in texts,Footnote 79 including the pictor (“painter”)Footnote 80 and the tector (“stucco maker”).Footnote 81 These workers were in charge of general wall coverings (plasters, muna, etc.) as well as decoration.

Based on observations made by specialists about the awkwardness of the execution of decorations in the Roman military world, it has been proposed that the soldiers themselves were in charge of decorating walls (with paintings) and floors (with mosaics) in private and public spaces. It appears that in some cases, in private spaces, more sophisticated decor may have been the result of a private commission awarded to itinerant specialists or civilian workshops. Notably, this is what has been suggested for the Echzell paintings.Footnote 82 However, these assumptions remain risky insofar as few paintings are preserved and they are rarely signed.

Taking this into account, what hypotheses can we put forward in the case of Deir el-Atrash? The painting on the front gate was in a public space and therefore, according to Schmidt Heidenreich's hypothesis, it would have been made by the pictor in charge of decoration. Admittedly, the horse is slightly impastoed and the caravan's execution is quite simple, even if its many details bring the scene to life: the long lashes, the fringes of the carpets on the animals’ backs, the hairs of their coats marked with yellow strokes, etc. As suggested in a previous study, it is reasonable to assume that the pictor was a soldier who was posted there, in the same way as Ariston, the baker at Mons Claudianus who signed a painting there.Footnote 83 Given the scarcity of artists’ signatures in the Roman world,Footnote 84 it is surprising to find two of them, those of Valerius and Ariston, in the Roman forts of the Eastern Desert. It was usually the collective work of the army that was praised, while individual works remained anonymous.Footnote 85

The role of the horseman of Atrash

Like the painting at Mons Claudianus, Deir el-Atrash's painting is exceptional: Roman decorative schemes have been identified all along the Nile Valley and in the Oases, but most of these are in templesFootnote 86 or private houses.Footnote 87 At Deir el-Atrash, one wonders who these paintings were intended for. The fortress was only visible to its inhabitants, the soldiers of the garrisons, and people in the caravans, as well as workers, specialists, and professionals on their way to the Porphyrites quarries,Footnote 88 and the desert's inhabitants.Footnote 89 Besides, it is worth noting that the painting was only fully visible to viewers facing the gate; except for the later horseman drawn in silhouette with charcoal, nothing was painted on the side of the tower. The whole painting could only be seen from the south. Although high enough to be visible at a distance (about 2.40 m above ground level, with the figures painted above 1.6 m, i.e., above eye level), the painting is too detailed to be seen and understood from far away.

In her study of the room painting at Mons Claudianus, and with the help of several ostraca, H. Cuvigny has suggested that this room may have been especially arranged and decorated for the visit of the prefect of Egypt, Sulpicius Similis, during a tour in the Eastern Desert to inaugurate some wells in 108/109 CE.Footnote 90 The context of an official visit could explain some of the particularities of the Deir el-Atrash painting as well. Its hasty and awkward manner, as well as the many colored drops on the white background, could have resulted from the urgency of the situation, if the order had been given not very long in advance. As the prefect was supposed to stay for a while at the Porphyrites, he may have just passed through Deir el-Atrash without stopping for long; therefore, this exterior decoration had to create a quick impression. It pays tribute to the Imperial presence in the Eastern Desert, which allowed caravans to circulate in safety, while the propylaios figures (probably one on each side) protected the main gate, shielding the fort from the insecure surrounding environment and from local attacks. The camp offered shelter and protection to the soldiers and displayed Rome's power at the edges of the barbarian lands. Far from diminishing the aesthetics of military infrastructure, door decorations give them an imposing appearance. Thus, the main gates of forts are often decorated with capitals, paintings, and stuccoes, which magnify their impact.Footnote 91

Conclusion

The discovery of the painting of Deir el-Atrash is a unique opportunity to glimpse the care that was taken to decorate the exterior of a Roman fort in the Eastern Desert. As we have seen, its preservation was made possible by the Late Roman reoccupation and the new architectural layout of the entrance system. It may come as a surprise that the painting survived for almost two centuries in the open air, but, although it is very faded, the colors remain. However we interpret the first attested painting of a horseman in the Eastern Desert (as a standard bearer or a hero equitans such as Heron), the iconographic program of the entrance marks the presence and domination of the Roman Empire over its Egyptian border. In clear contrast to the inhospitable environment, the bright colors of the decoration reinforced the importance of the praesidium, which was surrounded by greyish mountains and a yellowish wadi.

One of the questions that can be asked is whether Valerius's work is a unique case or not. With the discovery of the paintings at Atrash and Mons Claudianus, two creations that were close in time and space in the Eastern Desert, one wonders if we are looking at a regular Roman practice of occasion-specific decoration. Indeed, judging by the material found at Mons Claudianus, it seems that the infrastructure around the quarry was decorated and inscribed especially for the visit of a representative of the Empire, namely Sulpicius Similis, the prefect of Egypt. Wooden arches and ephemeral structures draped in fabrics were set up during such events and parades. Do these paintings also fit into the framework of decorations made for special events or official visits?

The fact remains that what we interpret as a decorative commission carried out by Valerius fits the general iconographic context of the 2nd c. CE. Unquestionably, the dromedaries offered an image of the everyday passage of caravans along the porphyry road, caravans which stopped at Deir el-Atrash for supply and protection. The horseman, with his somewhat military aspect and foreign origin, visually evoked Rome's strong desire for power even in its remotest territories and its will to control the environment. The Empire also assured the fort's inhabitants of protection through the figure of the mythological rider.

Several hypotheses can be put forward regarding the choice of the corresponding figure on the western tower of the gate. First, this could be Lycurgus, who was already known in the Eastern Desert as another hero as well as Heron's acolyte. In this iconographic scheme, Heron would be on the right (the eastern tower), while Lycurgus would be on the left (the western tower); this composition is found on wooden panels.Footnote 92 Second, this could be another representation of Heron. His figure appears twice in the doorway leading to the main chapel of the Temple of Pnepheros at Theadelphia; he appears standing on one side and on horseback on the other (Fig. 14).Footnote 93 Placing the two figures in parallel on the towers would have created a framed protection of the gate and a special visual effect with its symmetry.Footnote 94 This brings us to V. Rondot's hypothesis concerning an Arab origin for Lycurgus and maybe also for Heron.Footnote 95 Because of the presence of the dromedary in several documents,Footnote 96 this French Egyptologist suggests that the later rider could be an interpretatio of a god of the Arabs. In this case, are we dealing with a connection between the camel caravan, the camel driver, and the hero on horseback of Deir el-Atrash?Footnote 97 Although we are aware of this hypothesis, for the moment we are not able to answer this question.

Acknowledgments

The French Archaeological Mission to the Eastern Desert of Egypt (MAFDO), directed by T. Faucher (CNRS, IREMAT), is sponsored by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MAEE) and IFAO, and kindly authorized by the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities. MAFDO is also supported by the ERC Desert Networks project (ERC-2017-STG, Proposal number 759078), directed by B. Redon (CNRS, HiSoMA): https://desertnetworks.hypotheses.org/. We express our deep gratitude to these institutions for their unwavering support. J. Marchand (ceramics and small finds) is in charge of the study of Deir el-Atrash, with the collaboration of J. Le Bomin (archaeology), M. Crépy (geomorphology), H. Cuvigny and A. Bülow-Jacobsen (papyrology), D. Laisney (topography), G. Pollin (photography), and A. Rabot (GIS). For more about the archaeological mission and recent activities see: https://desorient.hypotheses.org/. The authors wish to warmly thank the people who participated in the writing of this article through their observations and discussions, as well as all of the members of the French Archaeological Mission to the Eastern Desert of Egypt (MAFDO): A. Bülow-Jacobsen, H. Cuvigny, T. Faucher, B. Redon, D. Laisney, G. Pollin, A. Rabot, B. Badin, M.-Fr. Boussac, and V. Rondot.

Footnotes

1 For a synthesis on the Roman fort of Ghozza, see Gates-Foster et al. Reference Gates-Foster, Goncalvès, Redon, Cuvigny, Hepa and Faucher2021.

2 The excavation at Deir el-Atrash is part of a wider program of studies on the Roman praesidia and the roads crossing the desert that has been carried out since 1994 by the French mission (former director H. Cuvigny, CNRS, IRTH), now mainly focusing on the occupation of the desert during the Ptolemaic period. The main publications are Cuvigny Reference Cuvigny2003; Cuvigny Reference Cuvigny2011; Cuvigny Reference Cuvigny2012; Cuvigny Reference Cuvigny2021. For a recent account of the Ptolemaic exploitation of Samut Nord, see Redon and Faucher Reference Redon and Faucher2020.

3 For studies of the quarries, see Maxfield and Peacock Reference Maxfield and Peacock2001; Peacock and Maxfield Reference Peacock and Maxfield2007.

5 For an account on the site, see Sidebotham et al. Reference Sidebotham, Zitterkopf and Riley1991, 584–87.

6 Murray Reference Murray1955; see also the presentation of the site in https://desertnetworks.huma-num.fr/sites/DN_SIT0161 (last accessed 03/03/2021).

7 It was first described by J. Burton (unpublished manuscript) in May 1823, in ca. 1830 by J. G. Wilkinson (Archives papers of Sir John Gardner Wilkinson, Bodleian Library, Oxford), in 1886 by E. A. Floyer (Floyer Reference Floyer1887, 670); by T. Barron and W. F. Hume (Barron and Hume Reference Barron and Hume1902, 25, pl. VIII–IX); by A. E. P. Weigall (Weigall Reference Weigall1909, 98–99); by G. W. Murray (Murray Reference Murray1925, 140, 147, pl. XII; he takes up the previous testimony); by C. H. O. Scaife (Scaife Reference Scaife1935, 72–77, plan V; he resumes Wilkinson's description); in 1952 by D. Meredith (Meredith Reference Meredith1952, 94–111; who gives a rough plan of the building). It is then mentioned by L. A. Tregenza (Tregenza Reference Tregenza1955, 205–6), M. Reddé and J.-C. Golvin (Reddé and Golvin Reference Reddé and Golvin1987, 30, figs. 23–24), and B. Isaac (Isaac Reference Isaac2000, 200, fig. 14) before being visited and more precisely described by S. E. Sidebotham, R. E. Zitterkopf, and J. A. Riley (Sidebotham et al. Reference Sidebotham, Zitterkopf and Riley1991, 584–87, fig. 14). https://desertnetworks.huma-num.fr/sites/DN_SIT0072 and https://www.trismegistos.org/place/56334 (last accessed 15/03/2021) for other accounts.

11 For descriptions and explanations of such structures or stables at Mons Claudianus and Badia, Maxfield Reference Maxfield, Peacock and Maxfield1997, 86–93; Maxfield Reference Maxfield, Maxfield and Peacock2001, 225–29; Maxfield Reference Maxfield, Peacock and Maxfield2007, 26–39.

12 The Early Roman levels are represented by two stratigraphic units in the main rubbish dump (from a test trench of 5 m x 5 m), facing the entrance. They contain Amphores Égyptiennes 3, a few fragments of fine Aswan ware, Eastern Sigillata A, and a few cooking wares. Along with these, a fragment of scale armor (lorica squamata) and another one of ring mail armor (lorica hamata) were found. Both of these items are characteristic of the equipment used by the Roman army in the 1st and 2nd c. CE (Sim and Kaminski Reference Sim and Kaminski2012). These dump layers were then sealed by a thick, muddy layer that was immediately topped by Late Roman material, including many early Late Roman Amphorae 7. For the material of the period, Maxfield et al. Reference Maxfield, Peacock and Tomber2006.

13 The stratigraphy includes no intermediate level between these two phases. Nevertheless, one cannot exclude the possibility that these missing centuries (from the mid-2nd to the mid-4th c. CE) are attested in another dump: a second one likely lies west of the fort.

14 The importance of the roads is suggested by the transit of twelve-wheel wagons: O. Claud. inv. 7334; Bülow-Jacobsen Reference Bülow-Jacobsen, Förster and Riemer2013, 567–70.

15 Sidebotham et al. Reference Sidebotham, Zitterkopf and Riley1991, 587. So far, the latest occupation seems to be dated to the late 4th–early 5th c. CE.

16 For examples of whitewashed military structures, see Schönberger Reference Schönberger1969, 167.

17 The base of the tower's foundation was not reached by the excavation.

18 The same reduction of the entrance passage is observed at Mons Claudianus (not dated, described as occurring “at a later stage” in Peacock Reference Peacock, Maxfield and Peacock2001, 17).

19 Although the data on Late Roman forts are incomplete, it appears that the reinforcement of the defensive system, in particular the towers and the gates, is a characteristic feature (Reddé Reference Reddé and Le Bohec2015, 135).

20 See Brun Reference Brun2003, 35–38, for vine cultivation on supports (such as trees or stakes) in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt.

21 We warmly thank Adam Bülow-Jacobsen for this edition of the inscription.

22 Guarducci Reference Guarducci1974, 433–55 discusses artists’ signatures on mosaics and paintings. As Guarducci remarks (p. 437), there are very few of them. It appears that ἐποίει, ἐποίηϲεν, ἔγραφει, and ἔγραψε are possible. More generally, artists’ signatures are treated in some detail by Eristov Reference Eristov1987, esp. 112–14.

23 For the supply of Deir el-Atrash, see Cuvigny Reference Cuvigny, Brun, Faucher, Redon and Sidebotham2018, 117 (online §159–162) and table 4.

24 See for instance Galliano Reference Galliano, Agut-Labordère and Redon2020 for some similarly loaded camels in terracotta; cf. Boutantin Reference Boutantin2014, 292–321, or the famous terracotta (inv. 89.2.2093) in the Metropolitan Museum of New York (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/245523). For several examples from the ancient Middle East, see also Gatier Reference Gatier, Agut-Labordère and Redon2020.

25 Cuvigny Reference Cuvigny2005, 316. On camels and dromedaries in the Egyptian Eastern Desert more generally, see Chaufray Reference Chaufray, Agut-Labordère and Redon2020 and Cuvigny Reference Cuvigny, Agut-Labordère and Redon2020. For the camel-transport of goods and building materials, see also Adams Reference Adams2007, esp. 196–219.

27 Cuvigny Reference Cuvigny2005, 340 and O.KaLa. inv. 819 (which concerns an exchange between Mons Porphyrites and Umm Balad).

28 Coulston Reference Coulston1991. The word draconarius does not appear in texts before the late 4th c. CE. We warmly thank H. Cuvigny for sharing this interesting hypothesis with us and for all the discussions we had about the painting.

29 Feugère Reference Feugère1993, 190. A magnificent example was found in Niederbieber, Germany (Eiden Reference Eiden1982, 6, Pl. B). See the draconarius represented on the Ludovisi Battle sarcophagus (the man at the right of the central figure, dated 250–260 CE).

30 “Thracian” is incorrect from a geographical point of view: it must be understood within a blurred meaning of region, culture, and the cultural sphere. On the onomastic reality this covers, see Dana Reference Dana, Couvenhes, Crouzet and Péré-Noguès2011; on issues of ethnicity, Clarysse Reference Clarysse and Vandorpe2019.

31 On the origins of the Thracian Horseman, see Will Reference Will1955, 56–66; Oppermann Reference Oppermann and Vermaseren1981; Oppermann Reference Oppermann2006. For some of his many representations: Gočeva Reference Gočeva, Kahil, Augé and Linant de Bellefonds1986; Mendel Reference Mendel1914, cat. no. 1048, 966 and 968; Krandžalov Reference Krandžalov1969.

32 Will Reference Will1955, 66–81.

33 For the Levantine coast, see: Ronzevalle Reference Ronzevalle1904; Heuzey Reference Heuzey1902.

34 For hypotheses about the origins of the name, Seure Reference Seure1912, 139, n. 1; Lefebvre Reference Lefebvre1920; Cumont Reference Cumont1939.

36 First Kazarow Reference Kazarow1938, and then the Corpus cultus equitis Thracii, especially vol. 4 (Hampartumian Reference Hampartumian1979).

37 A huge amount of scholarship deals with different aspects of his iconography: when the horseman is next to a tree and a snake, he is a hunting god (he can also be with a lion or a boar); when given a shield, he has a military aspect. See the previous note for further bibliography.

39 Lefebvre Reference Lefebvre1920; Cumont Reference Cumont1939, 7; Kiss refers to the god's nourishing role for snakes (Kiss Reference Kiss and Bailey1996, 219).

40 Will Reference Will1955, 76–77; Boteva Reference Boteva2000, 114–16.

41 See Berndt Ersöz Reference Berndt Ersöz2018 for the origin of the benedictio gesture, originally Sabazios's hand gesture. Sabazios's cult is linked to the earth and snakes.

42 For this general notion, see Will Reference Will1955, 103–25.

43 Lefebvre Reference Lefebvre1920, Pl. I: the stele comes from the Temple of Heron at Theadelphia, dated from 67 BCE (currently in the Cairo Museum, inv. JE 46970; see also Bernand Reference Bernand1981a, inscription 115).

44 Corteggiani Reference Corteggiani2007, 201–2; Cumont Reference Cumont1939, 6; Kiss Reference Kiss and Bailey1996, 217–18.

45 Moret Reference Moret1915, for the iconography; Gasse Reference Gasse2004 for the pharaonic stelae. Some scholars (e.g., Will Reference Will1955, 122) have explained the wide diffusion of the horseman in Egypt as due to this image. See also Lewis Reference Lewis1973 for the Byzantine iconography of the rider.

46 Theadelphia was one of the places where he could be worshiped: Roman paintings of the 2nd c. CE clearly identify the god (Breccia Reference Breccia1926, 110–14, Pl. LVII–LIX). Inscriptions testify to the existence of Heron's temples in Theadelphia from 131 BCE (Bernand Reference Bernand1981a, inscription 105, dated between 145 and 116 BCE; inscription 115, dated to 67 BCE; inscriptions 126–127, dated from the 2nd c. or first half of the 3rd c. CE), in Magdola in 118 BCE (Jouguet Reference Jouguet1902; Lefebvre Reference Lefebvre1920; Bernand Reference Bernand1981b, inscription 151, dated from 118 BCE), and in Tebtynis in 107/108 BCE (Kiss Reference Kiss and Bailey1996, 218), as well as in Narmouthis (Bernand Reference Bernand1981b, inscription 181, dated to the Early Roman period); see also Bingen Reference Bingen, Berger, Clerc and Grimal1994. For other cults in the Fayyum, Bernand Reference Bernand and Vercoutter1979. See also Mathews Reference Mathews and Muller2016, 33–38 for the wooden panels discovered in a room of a private house in Tebtynis and their archaeological context.

47 See Lefebvre Reference Lefebvre1920 for an Egyptian ex-voto on lead (the horseman is making an offering to a snake), kept in the Greco-Roman Museum of Alexandria; it comes from the surroundings of Alexandria. See Seure Reference Seure1912 for other examples in the Greco-Roman world.

49 In terracotta figurines, when assimilated to Harpocrates, Heron shared some iconographic features with him during the Early Roman period: Kiss Reference Kiss and Bailey1996; Poulin Reference Poulin, Jentel and Deschênes-Wagner1994.

50 Rondot Reference Rondot2013, 290–91.

51 First Dacian War, spiral 6, scene XXXVII: for the column pictures, see Galinier Reference Galinier2007.

52 Sidnell Reference Sidnell2006, 269–70.

53 For Lycurgus's iconography, see the pioneering study of Cumont Reference Cumont1939 and the recent studies by Rondot (Rondot Reference Rondot2001; Rondot Reference Rondot2013, esp. 283–86); Farnoux Reference Farnoux1992; Saragoza Reference Saragoza2011; and Boutantin Reference Boutantin2010. See Rondot Reference Rondot2013, 286–89, for the Hartford Horseman iconography. For Heron's iconography: Will Reference Will1990; Rassart-Debergh Reference Rassart-Debergh1991; Nachtergael Reference Nachtergael1996; Kiss Reference Kiss and Bailey1996; Kiss Reference Kiss2006; Kaper and Worp Reference Kaper and Worp1999, 248, fig. 15; Capovilla Reference Capovilla1923; and Myśliwiec Reference Myśliwiec1977. For discussion of the confusion of Heron and Lycurgus with the Dioscuri, Rondot Reference Rondot2013, 267–68 (see Reddé Reference Reddé, Brun, Faucher, Redon and Sidebotham2018 for a possible representation of one of the Dioscuri).

54 Rondot Reference Rondot2001. For a representation from Mons Claudianus, Parlasca Reference Parlasca2008, correcting Peacock's iconography (Maxfield et al. Reference Maxfield, Peacock and Tomber2006, 284–85).

57 Picard Reference Picard1956, 10; Will Reference Will1990, 394. For further discussion, see also Rondot Reference Rondot2013, 297–98.

58 Daressy Reference Daressy1921, 14.

59 Many of the stelae to heroic horsemen are dedicated by soldiers (Seure Reference Seure1912).

60 At Mons Claudianus and Porphyrites, temples are dedicated to Sarapis and Isis in addition to the official genius of the emperor. See Schmidt Heidenreich Reference Schmidt Heidenreich2019 for the latter.

61 Bernand Reference Bernand1972, 125–35; Bernand Reference Bernand1977. For the Pan inscription at Wadi Umm Wikala, Sidebotham et al. Reference Sidebotham, Barnard, Harrell and Tomber2001, 138–41.

62 Under Ptolemy IV: Dana Reference Dana, Kayser and Medini2017b, 87; Fischer-Bovet Reference Fischer-Bovet, Bowman and Crowther2020; Abd El-Maksoud et al. Reference Abd el-Maksoud, Abd el-Fattah and Carrez-Maratray2014. See also representations of cavalry men found in Alexandria: Cole Reference Cole2019 (dated a bit earlier by the author to the late 4th–early 3rd c. BCE).

63 Legras Reference Legras2015, 393.

64 Lesquier Reference Lesquier1918, 78–79. For the Thracian presence in Egypt within the army and in the Fayyum, see Velkov and Fol Reference Velkov and Fol1977, 98–99 and cat. nos. 34, 69, 203, 231; Speidel Reference Speidel1982; Dana Reference Dana, Kayser and Medini2017b, 69–104.

66 Dana Reference Dana2003, 172; Bülow-Jacobsen et al. Reference Bülow-Jacobsen, Cuvigny, Fournet, Gabolde and Robin1995, 103–6 for a revised reading of the inscription.

67 For the details, Dana Reference Dana2003, 183.

68 Lesquier Reference Lesquier1918, 95–96.

69 Lesquier Reference Lesquier1918, 79–80.

70 The Palmyrene inspiration for the decor at Castellum Dimmidi does not necessarily imply Palmyrene soldiers but more likely soldiers who were stationed in Palmyra or the Palmyrene region for a period of time.

71 This question was already raised by Bingen Reference Bingen, Berger, Clerc and Grimal1994, 49–50.

72 On “barbarians” in Trajanic art, Ferris Reference Ferris, Scott and Webster2003.

73 See Ferris Reference Ferris, Scott and Webster2003 for a summary and Levi Reference Levi1952 for the coins.

76 Bingen and Jensen Reference Bingen and Ole Jensen1993, 24–26. Three layers of paintings have been discovered in this room.

77 Le Bohec Reference Le Bohec1995; Charles-Picard Reference Charles-Picard1962, n. 24.

78 Fuchs Reference Fuchs, Mols and Moormann2017 and Reddé Reference Reddé2006, pls. I–II (cf. pls. III–IV for other paintings in Landenburg).

79 Bardouille Reference Bardouille2010; Kolb Reference Kolb2008, 102–3; Schmidt Heidenreich Reference Schmidt Heidenreich and Wolff2012, 330. See also Veg. Mil. II.11. More generally on camp organization, Campbell Reference Campbell2018.

80 Schmidt Heidenreich Reference Schmidt Heidenreich and Wolff2012, 329.

83 Eristov and Cuvigny Reference Eristov and Cuvigny2021.

84 Kolb Reference Kolb2008, 105; Vollkommer Reference Vollkommer and Marconi2014, 111–18, with appendix 5.1, listing ten signatures of painters and stucco painters in the Greek and Roman world.

85 An example is the poem written by M. Porcius Iasucthan (Schmidt Heidenreich Reference Schmidt Heidenreich and Wolff2012, 336). For the full poem, Adams Reference Adams1999, 111–12, esp. lines 23–24 for the anonymous individual, while the rest of the poem celebrates the merits of “the soldiers.”

86 For the frescoes of Luxor temple, Jones and McFadden Reference Jones and McFadden2015; Breccia Reference Breccia1926, 110–14, pl. LVII–LIX.

87 Examples include the 2nd-c. CE Marina el-Alamein house (Kiss Reference Kiss2006), the 4th-c. CE houses of Ismant el-Kharab, ancient Kellis (Hope and Whitehouse Reference Hope and Whitehouse2006), and Amheida, ancient Trimithis (McFadden Reference McFadden and Zimmermann2014) in the Dakhleh Oasis.

88 See Cuvigny Reference Cuvigny2005 for a detailed list of the professions and the workers, both pagani (“civilians”) and familiares (“imperials”) present in the Mons Porphyrites quarries.

89 For an account of the Bedouin presence in the Egyptian Eastern Desert, Barnard Reference Barnard, Barnard and Starkey2005.

90 Eristov and Cuvigny Reference Eristov and Cuvigny2021.

91 Schmidt Heidenreich Reference Schmidt Heidenreich and Wolff2012, 330.

92 This particular composition is noted in Rondot Reference Rondot2013: see Bruxelles E 7409 (141–45) and Étampes (152–56).

93 Bernand Reference Bernand1981a, inscription 115.

94 See Guimiers-Sorbets et al. Reference Guimiers-Sorbets, Pelle and Seif el-Din2015 for similar effects of visual symmetry in painting and low relief sculpture.

95 Rondot Reference Rondot2013, 336–40; Rondot Reference Rondot2001; Rondot Reference Rondot, Bacqué-Grammont, Pino and Khoury2005; Rondot Reference Rondot, Zivie-Coche and Guermeur2012, 956–57. He developed the idea that the diffusion of the cult of Lycurgus in Egypt, and in the Fayyum in particular, was due to the Arab populations (Rondot Reference Rondot, Bacqué-Grammont, Pino and Khoury2005, 46–47). We thank V. Rondot for sharing this hypothesis.

96 These include a relief in Cairo (Egyptian Museum CG 27569) and a painting in Berlin (Ägyptisches Museum 17957); see Rondot Reference Rondot, Zivie-Coche and Guermeur2012.

97 The question of an Arab origin and the link between camel driver and horseman is also expressed in Arabian iconography by the link between the Arab god Arsu, sometimes represented as a camel cavalryman, and the horseman god Azizos (Rondot Reference Rondot, Zivie-Coche and Guermeur2012: 956, n. 22).

References

Abd el-Maksoud, A., Abd el-Fattah, M., and Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y.. 2014. “Deux inscriptions grecques du Boubasteion.” Ancient Society 44: 149–77. https://doi.org/10.2143/AS.44.0.3044803.Google Scholar
Adams, J. N. 1999. “The poets of Bu Njem: Language, culture and the centurionate.” JRS 89: 109–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/300737.Google Scholar
Adams, C. 2007. Land Transport in Roman Egypt. A Study of Economics and Administration in a Roman Province. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardouille, J. 2010. “L'importance du génie militaire dans l'armée romaine à l’époque impériale.” Revue historique des armées 261: 7987. http://journals.openedition.org/rha/7107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, H. 2005. “Sire, il n'y a pas de Blemmyes. A re-evaluation of historical and archaeological data.” In People of the Red Sea. Proceedings of the Red Sea Project II, Held in the British Museum, October 2004, ed. Barnard, H. and Starkey, J., 2340. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Barron, T., and Hume, W. F.. 1902. Topography and Geology of the Eastern Desert. Cairo: National Printing Department.Google Scholar
Bernand, A. 1972. Le Panéion d'El-Kanaïs: les inscriptions grecques. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernand, A. 1977. Pan du désert. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernand, É. 1979. “Épigraphie et histoire des cultes au Fayoum.” In Hommages à la mémoire de Serge Sauneron. II. Égypte post-pharaonique, ed. Vercoutter, J., 5776. Bibliothèque d’étude 82. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.Google Scholar
Bernand, É. 1981a. Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum, t. II. La “Méris” de Thémistos. Bibliothèque d’étude 79. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.Google Scholar
Bernand, É. 1981b. Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum, t. III. La “Méris” de Polémôn. Bibliothèque d’étude 80. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.Google Scholar
Berndt Ersöz, S. 2018. “The hand gesture and symbols of Sabazios.” Opuscula: Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome 11: 151–68. https://doi.org/10.30549/opathrom-11-08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingen, J. 1994. “Le dieu Hérôn et les Hérôn du Fayoum.” In Hommages à Jean Leclant 3, ed. Berger, C., Clerc, G., and Grimal, N., 4150. Bibliothèque d’étude 106, no. 3. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.Google Scholar
Bingen, J., and Ole Jensen, S.. 1993. “Mons Claudianus. Rapport préliminaire sur les cinquième et sixième campagnes de fouille.” BIFAO 95: 1536. https://www.ifao.egnet.net/bifao/092/02/.Google Scholar
Blanc, N. 1984. “Gardes du corps ou stucateurs? Les tectores dans l'armée romaine.” MÉFR. Antiquité 96, no. 2: 727–37. https://doi.org/10.3406/mefr.1984.1430.Google Scholar
Boteva, D. 2000. “À propos des ‘secrets’ du Cavalier thrace.” Dialogues d'histoire ancienne 26, no. 1: 109–18. https://doi.org/10.3406/dha.2000.2414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutantin, C. 2010. “Les terres cuites d'Héracléopolis Magna.” ChrÉg LXXXV, no. 169–70: 295313. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.CDE.1.102039.Google Scholar
Boutantin, C. 2014. Terres cuites et culte domestique. Bestiaire de l’Égypte gréco-romaine. Leiden and Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breccia, E. 1926. Monuments de l’Égypte gréco-romaine publiés par la Société archéologique d'Alexandrie sous les auspices de S. M. Fouad 1er, roi d’Égypte, t. I. 1. Le rovine e i monumenti di Canopo. 2. Teadelfia e il tempio di Pneferôs. Bergamo: Officine dell'Istituto italiano d'arti grafiche.Google Scholar
Brun, J.-P. 2003. Le vin et l'huile dans la Méditerranée antique. Viticulture, oléiculture et procédés de fabrication. Paris: Errance éditions.Google Scholar
Bülow-Jacobsen, A. 2013. “Communication, travel, and transportation in Egypt's Eastern Desert during Roman times (1st to 3rd century AD).” In Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond, ed. Förster, F. and Riemer, H., 557–74. Cologne: Heinrich Barth Institut.Google Scholar
Bülow-Jacobsen, A. 2019. “The ostraka from Umm Balad.” In Proceedings of the 28th International Congress of Papyrology, Barcelona 2016, ed. Nodar, A. and Torallas Tovar, S., 525–33. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Bülow-Jacobsen, A., Cuvigny, H., Fournet, J.-L., Gabolde, M., and Robin, C.. 1995. “Les inscriptions d'Al-Muwayh.” BIFAO 95: 103–24. https://www.ifao.egnet.net/bifao/095/05/.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. B. 2018. Fortifying a Roman Camp. The Liber de munitionibus castrorum of Hyginus. Glasgow: Bocca della Verità Publishing.Google Scholar
Capovilla, G. 1923. “Il dio Heron in Tracia e in Egitto.” RivFil 51: 424–67.Google Scholar
Charles-Picard, G. 1962. “Influences étrangères et originalité dans l'art de l'Afrique romaine sous les Antonins et les Sévères.” AntK 5, no. 1: 3041. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4131855.Google Scholar
Chaufray, M.-P. 2020. “Les chameaux dans les ostraca démotiques de Bi'r Samut (Égypte, désert Oriental).” In Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l'Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus ), ed. Agut-Labordère, D. and Redon, B., 135–70. Lyon: MOM Éditions. https://books.openedition.org/momeditions/8567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarysse, W. 2019. “Ethnic identity: Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.” In A Companion to Greco-Roman and Late Antique Egypt, ed. Vandorpe, K., 299313. Hoboken (N.J.): Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, S. E. 2019. “Ptolemaic cavalrymen on painted Alexandrian funerary monuments.” Arts 8, no. 2: 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8020058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corteggiani, J.-P. 2007. L’Égypte ancienne et ses dieux. Dictionnaire illustré. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Coulston, J. C. N. 1991. “The ʻdraco' standard.Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2: 101–14.Google Scholar
Cumont, F. 1939. “Un dieu supposé syrien, associé à Hérôn en Égypte.” In Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud, secrétaire perpétuel de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, par ses amis et ses élèves, t. I1–9. Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar
Cuvigny, H., ed. 2003. La route de Myos Hormos: l'armée romaine dans le désert oriental d’Égypte. FIFAO 48. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.Google Scholar
Cuvigny, H. 2005. “L'organigramme du personnel d'une carrière impériale d'après un ostracon du Mons Claudianus.” Chiron 35: 309–53.Google Scholar
Cuvigny, H., ed. 2011. Didymoi: une garnison romaine dans le désert oriental d’Égypte. Praesidia du désert de Bérénice. 1. Les fouilles et le matériel. FIFAO 64. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.Google Scholar
Cuvigny, H., ed. 2012. Didymoi: une garnison romaine dans le désert oriental d’Égypte. Praesidia du désert de Bérénice. 2. Les textes. FIFAO 67. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.Google Scholar
Cuvigny, H. 2018. “A survey of place-names in the Egyptian Eastern Desert during the principate according to the ostraca and the inscriptions.” In The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports, ed. Brun, J.-P., Faucher, T., Redon, B., and Sidebotham, S. E.. Paris: Collège de France. http://books.openedition.org/cdf/5231.Google Scholar
Cuvigny, H. 2020. “L’élevage des chameaux sur la route d'Edfou à Bérénice d'après une lettre trouvée à Bi'r Samut (iiie siècle av. J.-C.).” In Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l'Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus), ed. Agut-Labordère, D. and Redon, B., 171–80. Lyon: MOM Éditions. https://books.openedition.org/momeditions/8572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuvigny, H. 2021. Rome in Egypt's Eastern Desert. New York: New York University Press, Institute for the Study of the Ancient World.Google Scholar
Dabrowa, E. 1991. “Dromedarii in the Roman army: A note.” In Roman Frontier Studies 1989: Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, ed. Maxfield, V. A. and Dobson, M. J., 364–66. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.Google Scholar
Dana, D. 2003. “Les Daces dans les ostraca du désert oriental de l’Égypte. Morphologie des noms daces.” ZPE 143: 166–86.Google Scholar
Dana, D. 2011. “Les Thraces dans les armées hellénistiques.” In Pratiques et identités culturelles des armées hellénistiques du monde méditerranéen. Hellenistic Warfare 3, ed. Couvenhes, J.-C., Crouzet, S., and Péré-Noguès, S., 87115. Scripta Antiqua 38. Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions.Google Scholar
Dana, D. 2017a. “Célébrations de la Victoria Dacica de Trajan à l’échelle de l'Empire.” In Columna Traiani – Traianssäule Siegesmonument und Kriegsbericht in Bildern: Beiträge der Tagung in Wien anlässlich des 1900. Jahrestages der Einweihung, 9.–12. Mai 2013, ed. Mitthof, F. and Schörner, G., 343–53. Tyche 9. Vienna: Verlag Holzhausen.Google Scholar
Dana, D. 2017b. “Les Thraces dans le Fayoum: immigration militaire et évolution en contexte gréco-égyptien.” In Communautés nouvelles en Égypte hellénistique et romaine, ed. Kayser, F. and Medini, L., 69104. Collection Sociétés, Religions, Politiques 40. Chambery: Université Savoie Mont Blanc, Laboratoire LLSETI.Google Scholar
Daressy, G. 1921. “Le dieu Hérôn sur les monnaies du nome Diospolite.” ASAE 21: 716.Google Scholar
Dontcheva, I. 2002. “Le syncrétisme d'Asclépios avec le Cavalier Thrace.” Kernos 15: 317–24. https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.1391.Google Scholar
Eiden, H. 1982. Ausgrabungen an Mittelrhein und Mosel 1963–1976. Trier: Selbstverlag des Rheinischen Landesmuseums Trier.Google Scholar
Eristov, H. 1987. “Peinture romaine et textes antiques: informations et ambiguïtés. À propos du ‘Recueil Milliet’.” RA, n.s. 1: 109–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41736416.Google Scholar
Eristov, H., and Cuvigny, H.. 2021. “Le Faune et le préfet. Une chambre peinte au Mons Claudianus.” BIFAO 121: 183254. https://www.ifao.egnet.net/bifao/121/6/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnoux, A. 1992. “Lycurgue.” In Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae 6/1, 309–19. Zurich-Munich: Artemis Verlag.Google Scholar
Ferris, I. 2003. “The hanged men dance: Barbarians in Trajanic art.” In Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art, ed. Scott, S. and Webster, J., 5368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feugère, M. 1993. Les armes des Romains: de la République à l'Antiquité tardive. Collection des Hespérides. Paris: Errance.Google Scholar
Fischer-Bovet, C. 2020. “Soldiers in the epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt.” In The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt, ed. Bowman, A. and Crowther, C., 127–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyer, E. A. 1887. “Notes on a sketch map of two routes in the Eastern Desert of Egypt.” Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society 9, no. 11: 659–81. https://www.jstor.org/stable/180128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, M. E. 2017. “La peinture d'Echzell: un programme commodien pour une chambre d'officier.” In Context and Meaning: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the Association Internationale pour la Peinture Murale Antique, Athens, September 16–20, 2013, ed. Mols, S. T. A. M. and Moormann, E. M., 483–88. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Galinier, M. 2007. La Colonne Trajane et les forums impériaux. Rome: Publications de l’École française de Rome. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.efr.1671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galliano, G. 2020. “Les chameaux en terre cuite d’époque romaine de Coptos.” In Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l'Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus), ed. Agut-Labordère, D. and Redon, B., 199206. Lyon: MOM Éditions. http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/8582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasse, A. 2004. Les stèles d'Horus sur les crocodiles. Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux.Google Scholar
Gates-Foster, J. E., Goncalvès, I., Redon, B., Cuvigny, H., Hepa, M., and Faucher, T.. 2021. “The Early Imperial fortress of Berkou, Eastern Desert, Egypt.” JRA 34, no. 1: 3074. doi:10.1017/S1047759421000337Google Scholar
Gatier, P.-L. 2020. “Le chameau de transport dans le Proche-Orient antique.” In Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l'Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus), ed. Agut-Labordère, D. and Redon, B., 227–55. Lyon: MOM Éditions. https://books.openedition.org/momeditions/8592.Google Scholar
Gočeva, Z. 1986. “Les traits caractéristiques de l'iconographie du cavalier thrace.” In Iconographie classique et identités régionales: Paris, 26 et 27 mai 1983, ed. Kahil, L., Augé, C., and Linant de Bellefonds, P., 237–43. Suppléments to BCH 14. Athens: École française d'Athènes. https://cefael.efa.gr/detail.php?ce=16kl4r8j4cv1ifg4c0q9ihhnn99dtb8o&site_id=1&actionID=page&serie_id=BCHSuppl&volume_number=14&page_number=237&page_type=1.Google Scholar
Guarducci, M. 1974. Epigrafia Greca III. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato.Google Scholar
Guimiers-Sorbets, A., Pelle, A. and Seif el-Din, M. 2015. Renaître avec Osiris et Perséphone. Alexandrie, les tombes peintes de Kôm el-Chougafa. Alexandria: Centre d’Études Alexandrines.Google Scholar
Hampartumian, N. 1979. Corpus cultus equitis Thracii (C.C.E.T.). 4, Moesia inferior, Romanian section, and Dacia, Collection Études préliminaires aux Religions orientales dans l'Empire romain 74, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Heuzey, L. 1902. “Archéologie orientale.” CRAI 46/2: 190206. https://doi.org/10.3406/crai.1902.17111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hope, C. A., and Whitehouse, H.. 2006. “A painted residence at Ismant El-Kharab (Kellis) in the Dakhleh Oasis.” JRA 19: 312–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759400006413.Google Scholar
Isaac, B. H. 2000. The Limits of Empire. The Roman Army in the East. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jones, M., and McFadden, S.. 2015. Art of Empire: The Roman Frescoes and Imperial Cult Chamber in Luxor Temple. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jouguet, P. 1902. “Rapport sur deux missions au Fayôum.” CRAI 46, no. 3: 346–59. https://doi.org/10.3406/crai.1902.17177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaper, O. E., and Worp, K. A.. 1999. “Dipinti on the temenos wall at Deir el-Haggar (Dakhla Oasis).” BIFAO 99: 233–58. https://www.ifao.egnet.net/bifao/099/12/.Google Scholar
Kazarow, G. I. 1938. Die Denkmaler des thrakischen Reitergottes in Bulgarien. Budapest: Institut fur Munzkunde und Archaologie der Pazmany-Universitsat.Google Scholar
Kiss, Z. 1996. “Harpocrate-Héron. À propos d'une figurine en terre cuite du Musée National de Varsovie.” In Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt. The Proceedings of the Seventeenth Classical Colloquium of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, Held on 1–4 December, 1993, ed. Bailey, D. M., 214–22. JRA Suppl. 19. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology.Google Scholar
Kiss, Z. 2006. “Deux peintures murales de Marina el-Alamein.” BIFAO 106: 163–70. https://www.ifao.egnet.net/bifao/106/08/.Google Scholar
Kolb, A. 2008. “Das Bauhandwerk in den Städten der römischen Provinzen: Strukturen und Bedeutung.” Tyche 23: 101–15. https://doi.org/10.15661/tyche.2008.023.05.Google Scholar
Krandžalov, D. 1969. “Les Reliefs du Cavalier Thrace et la tradition problématique de l'histoire protobulgare.” Byzantion 39: 137–51.Google Scholar
Le Bohec, Y. 1995. “Dimmidi.” Encyclopédie berbère 15: 2345–49. https://doi.org/10.4000/encyclopedieberbere.2261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, G. 1920. “Le dieu Ἥρων d’Égypte.” ASAE 20: 237–49.Google Scholar
Legras, B. 2015. “Les cavaliers-clérouques dans l’économie du Fayoum ptolémaïque.” Studi Ellenistici 29: 391–99. Pisa and Rome: Fabrizio Serra Editore.Google Scholar
Lesquier, J. 1918. L'Armée romaine d’Égypte d'Auguste à Dioclétien. MIFAO 41. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.Google Scholar
Levi, A. C. 1952. Barbarians on Roman Imperial Coins and Sculpture. New York: American Numismatic Society. http://numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark:/53695/nnan69225.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. 1973. “The iconography of the Coptic horseman in Byzantine Egypt.” JARCE 10: 2763. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40001017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, T. F., with Muller, N. E. 2016. The Dawn of Christian Art in Panel Paintings and Icons. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum.Google Scholar
Maxfield, V. A. 1997. “The central complex.” In Survey and Excavations. Mons Claudianus 1987–1993. Volume I Topography & Quarries, ed. Peacock, D. P. S. and Maxfield, V. A., 19138. FIFAO 37. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.Google Scholar
Maxfield, V. A. 2001. “Badia.” In The Roman Imperial Quarries. Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994–1998. Volume 1: Topography and Quarries, ed. Maxfield, V. A. and Peacock, D. P. S., 215–39. Excavation Memoir 67. London: Egypt Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Maxfield, V. A. 2007. “Excavations at Badia.” In The Roman Imperial Quarries. Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994–1998. Volume 2: The Excavations, ed. Peacock, D. P. S. and Maxfield, V. A., 2582. Excavation Memoir 82. London: Egypt Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Maxfield, V. A., and Peacock, D. P. S., eds. 2001. The Roman Imperial Quarries Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994–1998. Volume 1: Topography and Quarries. Excavation Memoirs 67. London: Egypt Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Maxfield, V. A., and Peacock, D. P. S.. 2007. “Discussion and conclusions.” In The Roman Imperial Quarries. Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994–1998. Volume 2: The Excavations, ed. Peacock, D. P. S. and Maxfield, V. A., 414–31. Excavation Memoir 82. London: Egypt Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Maxfield, V. A., Peacock, D. P. S., and Tomber, R., eds. 2006. Mons Claudianus (1987–1993): Survey and Excavation. Volume III, Ceramic Vessels and Related Objects. FIFAO 54. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.Google Scholar
McFadden, S. 2014. “Art on the edge: The Late Roman wall painting of Amheida, Egypt.” In Antike Malerei zwischen Lokalstil und Zeitstil. Akten des XI. Internationalen Kolloquiums der AIPMA, 13.-17. September 2010, ed. Zimmermann, N., 359–70. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1zctswr.44.Google Scholar
Mendel, G. 1914. Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines 3. Constantinople: Musées impériaux ottomans.Google Scholar
Meredith, D. 1952. “The Roman remains in the Eastern Desert of Egypt.” JEA 38: 94111. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3855499Google Scholar
Moret, A. 1915. “Horus Sauveur.” RHR 72: 213–87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23663050.Google Scholar
Murray, G. W. 1925. “The Roman roads and stations in the Eastern Desert of Egypt.” JEA 11, no. 3/4: 138–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3854133.Google Scholar
Murray, G. W. 1955. “The Christian settlement at Qattar.” Bulletin de la Société Royale de Géographie d’Égypte 24: 107–14.Google Scholar
Myśliwiec, K. 1977. “Zur Ιkonographie des Gottes ἭΡΩΝ’.” Studia Aegyptiaca 3: 8997.Google Scholar
Nachtergael, G. 1996. “Trois dédicaces au dieu Hèrôn.” ChrÉg 71, no. 141: 129–42. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.CDE.2.309010.Google Scholar
Nefedkin, A. K. (Нефёдкин, А. К..) 2012. “Дромедарии в римской армии.” Stratum plus 4: 301–9.Google Scholar
Oppermann, M. 1981. “Thrakische und danubische Reitergötter und ihre Beziehung zur orientalischen Kultur.” In Die orientalischen Religionen im Römerreich, ed. Vermaseren, M. J.: 510–36. Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'Empire romain 93. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppermann, M. 2006. Der thrakische Reiter des Ostbalkanraumes im Spannungsfeld von Graecitas, Romanitas und lokalen Traditionen. Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 7. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran.Google Scholar
Parlasca, K. 2008. “Der Tod des mythischen Lykurgos. Zu einer Miniaturgruppe vom Mons Claudianus.” ChrÉg 83, no. 165–166: 318–27. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.CDE.2.309353.Google Scholar
Peacock, D. P. S. 2001. “Excavation of the fort gate.” In The Roman Imperial Quarries. Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994–1998. Volume 1: Topography and Quarries, ed. Maxfield, V. A. and Peacock, D. P. S., 1725. Excavation Memoir 67. London: Egypt Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Peacock, D. P. S., and Maxfield, V. A., eds. 2007. The Roman Imperial Quarries. Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994–1998. Volume 2: The Excavations. Excavation Memoir 82. London: Egypt Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Picard, C. 1956. “Nouvelles observations sur diverses représentations du Héros Cavalier des Balkans.” RHR 150, no. 1: 126. https://doi.org/10.3406/rhr.1956.7141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulin, S. 1994. “Harpocrate-Héron à cheval, dieu de l'abondance.” In Tranquillitas. Mélanges en l'honneur de Tran tam Tinh, ed. Jentel, M.-O. and Deschênes-Wagner, G., 491–94. Québec: Université Laval.Google Scholar
Rassart-Debergh, M. 1991. “Trois icônes romaines du Fayoum.” ChrÉg 66, no. 131–32: 349–55. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.CDE.2.308881.Google Scholar
Reddé, M., ed. 2006. L'architecture de la Gaule romaine. Les fortifications militaires. Paris; Bordeaux: Édition de la Maison des sciences de l'homme; Ausonius.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddé, M. 2015. “Camp.” In The Encyclopedia of The Roman Army, ed. Le Bohec, Y., 126–39. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reddé, M. 2018. “The fortlets of the Eastern Desert of Egypt.” In The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports, ed. Brun, J.-P., Faucher, Th., Redon, B. and Sidebotham, S. E.. Paris: Collège de France. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.cdf.5248.Google Scholar
Reddé, M., and Golvin, J.-C.. 1987. “Du Nil à la mer Rouge: documents anciens et nouveaux sur les routes du désert Oriental d’Égypte.” Karthago 21: 564.Google Scholar
Redon, B., and Faucher, T., eds. 2020. Samut Nord. L'exploitation de l'or du désert Oriental à l’époque ptolémaïque. FIFAO 83. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.Google Scholar
Rondot, V. 2001. “Le Dieu à la bipenne, c'est Lycurgue.” RÉg 52: 219–49. https://doi.org/10.2143/RE.52.0.504257.Google Scholar
Rondot, V. 2005. “La folie de Lycurgue de l'Arabie à l’Égypte ancienne.” In D'un Orient à l'autre. Actes des troisièmes journées de l'Orient. Bordeaux, 2–4 octobre 2002, ed. Bacqué-Grammont, J.-L., Pino, A., and Khoury, S., 4148. Cahiers de la Société asiatique. Nouvelle Série 4. Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Rondot, V. 2012. “Le dieu du relief du Caire CG 27569.” In “Parcourir l’éternité.” Hommages à Jean Yoyotte, ed. Zivie-Coche, C. and Guermeur, I., 947–63. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses 156. Turnhout: Brepols.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rondot, V. 2013. Derniers visages des dieux d’Égypte. Iconographies, panthéons et cultes dans le Fayoum hellénisé des IIe-IIIe siècles de notre ère. Paris: Louvre Éditions.Google Scholar
Ronzevalle, S. 1904. “Dieu cavalier sur un bas-relief syrien.” CRAI 48, no. 1: 812. https://doi.org/10.3406/crai.1904.19577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saragoza, F. 2011. “Des rives du Nil aux murs de Pompéi. Avatars iconographiques d'un dieu à la bipenne.” RÉA 113, no. 1: 6981.Google Scholar
Scaife, C. H. O. 1935. “Two inscriptions at Mons Porphyrites (Gebel Dokhan). Also a description, with plans, of the station between Kainopolis & Myos Hormos together with some other ruins in the neighbourhood of Gebel Dokhan.” Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts Fouad I University 3, no. 2: 58164.Google Scholar
Schmidt Heidenreich, C. 2012. “Les soldats bâtisseurs dans les camps sous le Haut-Empire.” In Le métier de soldat dans le monde romain. Actes du cinquième congrès de Lyon, organisé les 23-25 septembre 2010 par l'université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, ed. Wolff, C., 327–44. Collection du Centre d'études et de recherches sur l'occident romain 42. Lyon and Paris: De Boccard.Google Scholar
Schmidt Heidenreich, C. 2019. “L'armée romaine et le culte impérial.” Pallas 111: 95111. https://doi.org/10.4000/pallas.18414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönberger, H. 1969. “The Roman frontier in Germany: an archaeological survey.” JRS 59, no. 1: 144–97. https://www.jstor.org/stable/299853.Google Scholar
Seure, G. 1912. “Étude sur quelques types curieux du Cavalier Thrace.” RÉA 14, no. 2: 137–66. https://doi.org/10.3406/rea.1912.1710.Google Scholar
Sidebotham, S. E., Zitterkopf, R. E., and Riley, J. A.. 1991. “Survey of the 'Abu Sha'ar–Nile road.” AJA 95, no. 4: 571622. https://doi.org/10.2307/505894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidebotham, S. E., Barnard, H., Harrell, J. A., and Tomber, R. S.. 2001. “The Roman quarry and installations in Wadi Umm Wikala and Wadi Semna.” JEA 87: 135–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3822377.Google Scholar
Sidnell, P. 2006. Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare. London and New York: Hambledon Continuum.Google Scholar
Sim, D., and Kaminski, J.. 2012. Roman Imperial Armour: The Production of Early Imperial Military Armour. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Speidel, M. P. 1982. “Thracian horsemen in Egypt's ala veterana Gallica (P. Lond. 482).” BASP 19, no. 3–4: 167–69. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24518920.Google Scholar
Tomber, R. 2018. “Quarries, ports and praesidia: Supply and exchange in the Eastern Desert.” In The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports, ed. Brun, J.-P., Faucher, Th., Redon, B., and Sidebotham, S. E.. Paris: Collège de France. https://books.openedition.org/cdf/5251.Google Scholar
Tregenza, L. A. 1955. The Red Sea Mountains of Egypt. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press.Google Scholar
Velkov, V., and Fol, A.. 1977. Les thraces en Égypte gréco-romaine. Studia Thracica 4. Sofia: Academia Litterarum Bulgarica.Google Scholar
Vollkommer, R. 2014. “Greek and Roman artists.” In The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture, ed. Marconi, C., 107–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199783304.001.0001.Google Scholar
Weigall, A. E. P. 1909. Travels in the Upper Egyptian Deserts. Edinburgh and London: W. Blackwood and Sons.Google Scholar
Will, E. 1955. Le relief cultuel gréco-romain. Bibliothèques de l’Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome - Série Athènes 183. Athens: French School at Athens.Google Scholar
Will, E. 1990. “Heron.” In Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae 5.1, 391–94. Zurich and Munich: Artemis Verlag.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Sites along the caravan road from Kaine (modern Qena) to ‘Abu Sha'ar in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. (Map by A. Rabot/MAFDO.)

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Plan of the Deir el-Atrash fort. (Plan by D. Laisney/MAFDO.)

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Entrance of the Deir el-Atrash fort. View from the south. (© J. Le Bomin/MAFDO.)

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Aerial orthophotography of the entrance system of the Deir el-Atrash fort, with a plan of the first phase of the gate. (© G. Pollin/IFAO, J. Le Bomin/MAFDO.)

Figure 4

Fig. 5. View of the south part of the fort and the entrance system. View from the east. (© J. Le Bomin/MAFDO.)

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Detail of the tower with its white plaster, inside the late mudbrick tower. View from the east. (© J. Le Bomin/MAFDO.)

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Orthorectified photo of the paintings on the tower and the curtain wall. (© G. Pollin/IFAO.)

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Orthorectified drawing of the paintings on the tower and the curtain wall. (© J. Marchand/MAFDO.)

Figure 8

Fig. 9. (a) Picture of the horseman and the snake, made using LAB color in Adobe Photoshop. (© G. Pollin/IFAO.) (b) Drawing of the horseman and the snake. (© J. Marchand/MAFDO.)

Figure 9

Fig. 10. Detail of the caravan seen under transformed light. (© G. Pollin/IFAO.)

Figure 10

Fig. 11. Detail of the vine leaf pattern seen under transformed light. (© G. Pollin/IFAO.)

Figure 11

Fig. 12. The Greek dipinto with its location on the wall indicated. (© A. Bülow-Jacobsen/MAFDO.)

Figure 12

Fig. 13. (a) Detail of the incised and painted horse. (© G. Pollin/IFAO.) (b) Drawing of the incised and painted horse. (© J. Marchand/MAFDO.)

Figure 13

Fig. 14. Horseman identified as Heron painted on Theadelphia's temple façade wall (after Breccia 1926, Tav. LIX.)