Anfile Bay
Publication date: 02.06.2025
- Region:
- Northeastern Africa
ANFILE BAY — a bay of the Red Sea off the coast of Eritrea. Anfile bay was mentioned in ancient geographical sources as the location of τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς (‘turning-around point’) in the first centuries AD.
ANFILE BAY — a bay of the Red Sea off the coast of Eritrea. Anfile bay was mentioned in ancient geographical sources, particularly in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (3: 1. 13), as the location of τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς (‘turning-around point’) in the first centuries AD.
.png)
Fig.1. Map of the Red Sea Region with the Main Sites Mentioned in the Article
%20(1).jpg)
Fig.2. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (Cod.Pal. graec. 398). A Fragment Mentioning τὸπέρας τῆςἀνακομιδῆς (3: 1. 13).
© Heidelberg UniversityLibrary
Historical Significance
Identifying τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς is of crucial importance for determining the location of Ptolemais Thêrôn (Ptolemais of the Hunts) and for reconstructing the network of routes in the modern Red Sea during the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods (Fig. 1). Also significant is clarifying the meaning of ancient geographical terminology: τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς can be interpreted as ‘point of turning around’, or ‘final point of return’. Each interpretation raises new questions about the history of navigation and trade in the Red Sea basin.
Main Sources
The main source for analysing the evolution of trade routes in the water area of the modern Red Sea is the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (circa 40–70 AD), a significant portion of the information in which dates back to the Ptolemaic era.
As the author of the Periplus states, Ptolemais of the Hunts is located 4,000 stades (about 740 km; the equivalence is approximate, as the stade mentioned in the Periplus does not have a clear correspondence with modern units of length) from τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς (Fig. 2); 3,000 stades (about 555 km) from Ptolemais lies Adulis (4: 1. 20), which in turn is located in a ‘deep bay’ stretching to the south. This bay likely refers to the modern Zula Bay. Across from Adulis are the islands of Alalaiu. These islands are mentioned by Pliny the Elder under the name Aliaeu: ‘…insulae quae Aliaeu vocantur’ — ‘…the islands which are called Aliaeus’ (HN. VI, 173). These islands likely equate to the modern Dahlak Archipelago [Schoff 1912: 66; Huntingford 1980: 90].
Located 200 stades (about 40 km) from the ‘deep bay’ where Adulis is situated lies the Island of Oreinê (Ὀρεινή; ‘Mountainous’) (PME 4: 1. 21), where ships moor. Earlier, according to the author of the Periplus, they moored at the Didôrous Island (Διδώρου), which, as stated in the text in the edition of L. Casson, is located ‘on the outer side’ of the bay. This place in the manuscript was subjected to editorial interventions, thus making it difficult to interpret.
The next navigational landmark is a certain unnamed ‘another deeper bay’ (κόλπος ἕτερος βαθύτατος), located 800 stades (about 150 km) from the previous landmark (PME 5: 2, 16). The Periplus mentions that at its entrance a large amount of sand had accumulated, from under which obsidian was extracted. Trade was very active in these areas — traders from both the Red Sea basin and India converged there.
In total, these figures give the aforementioned 4,000 stades: 3,000 stades from Ptolemais of the Hunts to Adulis, plus 200 stades from Adulis to the Island of Oreinê, plus 800 stades from Oreinê to the ‘another deeper bay’. In other words, τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς must have been located south of Adulis, in the ‘another deeper bay.’
Next, as the author of the Periplus states, the Arabian Gulf turns to the east, and the first place on this route is the port of trade of Avalitês, located at the point where the gulf is narrowest, i.e., at the modern Bab al-Mandeb Strait. The further description concerns ports of trade located outside the borders of the modern Red Sea.
There are many uncertainties in this description. It is unclear the location of Ptolemais of the Hunts, which was defined in relation to a point marked as τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς, the location of which itself is not defined by the text. The listing of the ports is out of order: the distance to the point following Berenice is given in stades, not from Berenice but from the aforementioned undetermined τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς. The identification of Didôrous and Oreinê islands is also unclear, and it is uncertain which modern bay is referred to when ‘another deep bay’ is mentioned.
Key among these questions is determining why the listing of the coastal ports of trade is out of order and where τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς is located.
Location of τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς
How the interpretation of the phrase τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς as the ‘final point of return’ evolved can be presented as follows.
In publications from the 19th to early 20th centuries, the term τὸ πέρας referred to ‘that shore’, i.e., the eastern African coast of the modern Gulf of Aden. Accordingly, since goods from ‘that shore’ were delivered to Berenice, the ‘final point of return’ was, following this logic, understood to be Berenice itself [Vincent 1800: 84, n. 43; Bredow 1802: 746, Anm. a.]. Attempts to correct the text in this direction were also made by C. Müller [Müller 1855: 258], later reproduced by J. W. McCrindle [McCrindle 1879: 43‒44] and several other researchers [Fabricius 1883: 38; Schoff 1912: 22].
E. Streubel calculated that a distance of 4,000 stades from Ptolemais of the Hunts would reach Arsinoe, which therefore should be considered as τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς [Streubel 1861: 10, Anm. 6].
H. Frisk, like his predecessors (C. Müller, B. Fabricius), considered the analysed fragment of the Periplus to be corrupted. He leaned toward the idea that the phrase τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς was a gloss added to Βερνίκη, inserted either by an Egyptian reader for whom Berenice was the southernmost point of Egypt, or by a later glossator who, like B. Fabricius, incorrectly interpreted ἀνακομιδῆς as referring to movement to the north, and thus intended to mark the point of departure of the author of the Periplus [Frisk 1927: 104]. In fact, Frisk also followed the tendency of placing the phrase in question in Berenice.
This same point of view was held by G. M. Bauer, who proposed his own translation of the analysed fragment of the Periplus: “Beyond the Moschophagi, by the sea, there is a small port of trade, located approximately 4,000 stades from the [ ... ] final point of import going upwards” [Bauer 1990: 100]. In his commentary, he pointed out that the manuscript text was corrupted and added, without citing H. Frisk, that although ‘upwards’ in the Periplus usually means ‘southward’, in this case it should be understood to be Berenice [Bauer 1990: 108, note 9]. Bauer’s translation cannot be accepted, as it implies that the ‘final point of import’ is ‘going upwards’, which is obviously nonsensical.
G. W. B. Huntingford, in his translation, followed the reasoning of H. Frisk: the phrase τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς he considered a gloss and excluded it from the text, which gave his translation the necessary coherence: “After the Moskhophagoi there is beside the sea a small mart, distant about 4000 stades, called Ptolemais of the Huntings” [Huntingford 1980: 19‒20]. Following the author, it should be acknowledged that Ptolemais of the Hunts is located 4,000 stades (about 740 km) south of Berenice, which is obviously impossible, since according to the Periplus (4: 1. 19‒20), 3,000 stades from Ptolemais already lies Adulis, and it is impossible to ‘stretch’ the coastline from Berenice to Adulis over 7,000 stades (about 1,295 km), even if we take into account possible distortions in measurements.
L. Casson, in his commentary on the text, also considered the phrase τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς to be a gloss referring to Berenice. After removing it from the translation and indicating, following H. Frisk, the corruption of the text, he provided the following translation, which closely mirrors Huntingford’s: “Beyond the Moschophagoi, about 4,000 stades distant... on the sea is a small port of trade called Ptolemais Thêrôn [‘Ptolemais of the Hunts’]” [Casson 1989: 51]. This version, although at first glance free of the shortcomings of the previous versions, suffers, however, from a different flaw: the author of the Periplus precisely indicates the distances between ports along the entire African coastline, but the versions of Huntingford and Casson omit this, which clearly could not have been the case in the original text. There is an indication of the distance to Ptolemais of the Hunts from the Moschophagoi, as though the latter merely represented a point on the map.
Outcome of the Discussion
The reference by the author of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea to the fact that Ptolemais of the Hunts is 4,000 stades away from the ‘final point of return’ has been interpreted by all previous editors and scholars of the Periplus and its historical data as being a result of a corruption in the manuscript. However, there are no signs of intrusion in this fragment. With the exception of two cases (Arsinoe and Myos Hormos), editors and interpreters of the text understood Berenice to be the ‘final point of return’.
Indeed, when looking at the Periplus text, it is entirely unclear what is meant by the phrase τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς. When indicating the distance to various ports, the author either relies on the port mentioned earlier (from point A to point B is X stades; from point B to point C is Y stades) or on the starting point of reference, which for the author of the Periplus was Berenice. However, in the case of the location of Ptolemais of the Hunts — the third port on the imagined route along the African coast of the Erythraean Sea (Myos Hormos — Berenice — Ptolemais of the Hunts) — the author of the Periplus bases his reference not on the point of departure but instead refers to a certain τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς.
This is all the more surprising since the distance between Berenice and Ptolemais of the Hunts was well known in ancient geography. According to Pliny the Elder, the distance between Berenice and Ptolemais of the Hunts is 4,820 stades (HN. II. LXXV/183). According to other sources, it is 5,000 stades (Str. II, 5, 7. 35). Since such information is not present in the Periplus, one can conclude that the author of the Periplus (or his informants) did not travel directly from Berenice to Ptolemais, and Pliny the Elder’s calculations might have been purely theoretical. Taking into account that both of these locations were at the latitudes of Syene (Aswan) and Meroë, which served as key reference points in ancient geography, it can be suggested that the source that the compiler of the Periplus or his informants may have used lacked a degree grid (it was most likely some kind of map). Otherwise, he would have certainly indicated the distance between Berenice and Ptolemais of the Hunts.
%20(1).jpg)
Fig.3. The Island of Dissei.
Photo: © Nemir2000 / Shutterstock.com
%20(2).jpg)
Fig.4. Henry Salt (1780–1827). Sketch of the Rocky Coast of one of the Islands of Amphila. In: Salt H. A voyage to Abyssinia, and travels into the interior of that country... London, 1814. P. 169.
Photo: © wikimedia.org
‘Another deep bay’
The description of the African route in the Periplus ends with a reference to the conduct of trade from Adulis to ‘another deep bay’ (5: 2. 16). The author mentions that 3,000 stades beyond Ptolemais of the Hunts lies Adulis (4: 1. 19–20). Then in 200 stades there is the Island of Oreinê (Ὀρεινή), which is identified with the Dissei Island (Fig. 3), “which lies at the mouth… from the bottom of the [Zula] bay” [Casson 1989: 102–103], and in another 800 stades lies ‘another deep bay’, traditionally identified with the Bay of Huwākil (4: 1. 21–22) [Schoff 1912: 66; Casson 1989: 109 (L. Casson notes that in reality the distance between Massawa or Zula and this bay is closer to 500 stades than 800); Wendrich et al. 2003: 59]. As the author of the Periplus states, it is only in this bay that obsidian can be found, and it is produced there naturally: “...καθ’ ἧς ἐν βάθει κεχωσμένος εὑρίσκεται ὁ ὀψιανὸς λίθος, ἐν ἐκείνῃ μόνῃ τοπικῶς γεννώμενος” (5: 2. 17–19). On the one hand, this statement can be interpreted as confirming that the southern part of the Red Sea, i.e., the coast of modern Eritrea and Djibouti, is rich in obsidian (see maps: [Zarins 1989: 346, fig. 44; 1996: 90]); on the other hand, it may indicate that during the time of the Periplus, the bay was the only place where obsidian was mined. The closest obsidian source to this region is in Dubbi (Eritrea), where the eponymous composite stratovolcano is located.
By adding the distances from Ptolemais of the Hunts to Adulis (3,000 stades), from Adulis to the Island of Oreinê (200 stades), and from Oreinê to ‘another deep bay’ (800 stades), we get the 4,000 stades that is the distance from Ptolemais of the Hunts to τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς. Thus, this ‘another deep bay’ is some sort of final point, but not the point of return — rather, it is the turning-around point where traders, limiting their operations to the Red Sea, turned back. The distance of 4,000 stades to Ptolemais of the Hunts should therefore be measured not from Berenice, but from ‘another deep bay’.
The identification of ‘another deep bay’ with the Bay of Huwākil, which L. Casson sees as unproblematic [Casson 1989: 109], is actually quite questionable. The author of the Periplus states that Adulis lies in a ‘deep’ bay that stretches to the south (ἐν κόλπῳ βαθεῖ κατ’ αὐτὸν τὸν νότον: 4: 1. 19–21). The ‘other’ bay should also be ‘deep’, meaning in the terminology of the Periplus, narrow and elongated, with a pronounced entrance, which, according to the author, was shallow and filled with sand (5: 2. 17). None of these characteristics apply to the Bay of Huwākil. First, it lies so close (about 65 km) to Zula Bay and Dissei Island that the distance of 800 stades mentioned in the Periplus (5: 2. 16) as separating Oreinê Island from ‘another deep bay’ is too large for this identification to be accepted, even with potential distortions. Secondly, this bay has no pronounced entrance that could be filled with sand, nor can it be called narrow or elongated. It is worth noting that the Red Sea stretches for over 300 km until it reaches the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. Therefore, the Bay of Huwākil cannot be identified with ‘another deep bay’, or with any other bay mentioned in the Periplus.
It seems that the author of the Periplus had in mind the Anfile Bay, which is enclosed by a group of five islands (Fig. 4). These islands form the outer contour of the bay, the shape of which may indeed be associated with depth as understood in the Periplus, though, of course, the bay was not deep in the literal sense. This bay, well protected from the open sea, had a high sandy bottom. The distance from Dissei Island to Anfile Bay (about 150 km) exactly matches what is indicated in the Periplus — 800 stades, or approximately 148 km.
The ‘Turning-around Point’ and Red Sea Trade
Adulis was not the final point of navigation within the Red Sea as L. Casson had assumed [Casson 1989: 15]. The reference in the Periplus to the import of goods ‘to these places’ (Προχωρεῖ δὲ εἰς τοὺς τόπους τούτους: 6: 2 .23) refers to the entire region between the two ‘deep’ bays, which was under the control of the king of Aksum. However, it was in the second deep bay that τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς was located. Traders did not stop at Adulis but continued their journey to the modern Anfile Bay, where they made a 180° turn. The main reason that might have compelled some merchants to continue their journey 800 stades further south, instead of turning back immediately at the port of Adulis, could have been the need to load obsidian, and it was from them that the information about the ‘final turning-around point’ came.
The interpretation of the phrase τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς as meaning ‘turning around’ rather than ‘the final point’ suggests that not all Roman traders, as described in the Periplus, risked venturing beyond the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. Some were content to trade within the modern Red Sea. This conclusion refines L. Casson’s earlier statement that, although the author of the Periplus describes two main trade routes from Egypt along the African coast and from Egypt to India, his scattered remarks suggest that not all traders went along the entire route. Some stopped at Adulis, Muza, or Kanê [Casson 1989: 15].
Among the Red Sea routes, L. Casson did not distinguish those leading along the Arabian coast of the Red Sea from East Africa, although the Periplus itself refers to the transport of goods by ‘barbarians’ from the African shore to the Arabian ports Muza and Okêlis (8: 3. 19–20) and ‘to Arabia’ (8: 3. 31) and mentions that the Nabataean port of Leukê Kômê was intended for receiving goods ‘from Arabia’ (19: 6. 30). Neither did he distinguish the route from the African shore to Arabia — from Berenice to Leukê Kômê (19: 6. 26–27). Interpreting the phrase τὸ πέρας τῆς ἀνακομιδῆς as ‘turning around’ reveals another route — from Myos Hormos to the modern Anfile Bay.
Further, as the author of the Periplus states (7: 3. 8), the Arabian Gulf (i.e., the modern Red Sea) turns east. Here ends the description of ports of trade within the modern Red Sea, and the imaginary route of trading ships moves beyond the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. Of course, there are still about 450 km left from the last bay described in the Periplus to the exit from the Red Sea. However, because the last trade operations on the African coast took place in the area stretching from the bay where Adulis lies (i.e., the modern Zula Bay) to ‘another deep bay’ (i.e., the Anfile Bay), the author of the Periplus was not interested in any further journey within the Red Sea: beyond this point was the exit from the Red Sea and then a turn eastward.
Conclusion
Given that the distance to Ptolemais of the Hunts is indicated by the compiler of the Periplus from the ‘turning-around point’, it should be recognised that traders visited this point not on their way south, but on their return journey, after turning back north. The reason for this may have been the desire to take on board bulky cargo — such as elephants — which would have only hindered their movement to the southern ports. This seems to be an anachronism and likely refers to an earlier Hellenistic Period. Later, the decline of elephant hunting led to Ptolemais of the Hunts losing its former importance. In the Periplus, it is already referred to as ‘a small port’, where even ivory is found only in small quantities. Likely, due to a lack of demand, no docks were built for ships in the port, and the author of the Periplus mentions that it is only suitable for boats (3: 1. 16–18).
Bibliography
Bauer 1990 — Bauer, G. M. “Neizvestnogo avtora ‘Peripl Ėritreĭskogo Moria’ (§ 1–18) [‘The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea’ by an Unknown Author (§ 1–18)].” Istoriia Afriki v drevnikh i srednevekovykh istochnikakh. Khrestomatiia [History of Africa in Ancient and Medieval Sources. Anthology], edited by O. K. Dreĭer. 2nd edition, Moscow: Nauka, 1990, pp. 99–110 (in Russian). Bredow 1802 — Bredow, G. G. Gossellin über die Kenntniss der Alten von der West- und Ostküste Afrikas, und über die Umschiffung dieses Erdteils; Rennels System der Geographie Herodots. Vincent über den Handelsverkehr der Alten mit Indien, und über ihre Kenntniss von der Ostküste Afrikas. Altona: Hammerich, 1802. Casson 1989 — Casson, L. The Periplus Maris Erythraei: Text with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. Fabricius 1883 — Fabricius, B. Der Periplus des Erythräischen Meeres von einem Unbekannten. Leipzig: Veit & Comp, 1883. Frisk1927 — Frisk, H. Périple de la Mer Érythrée suivi d’une étude sur la tradition et langue. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag, 1927. Publications — Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift; Bd. 33. Huntingford 1980 — Huntingford, G. W. B. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea by an Unknown Author. With Some Extracts from Agatharkhides “On the Erythraean Sea”. London: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1980. Publications — Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society. Second Series; vol. 151. McCrindle 1879 — McCrindle, J. W. The Commerce and Navigation of the Erythraean Sea: Being Translations of the “Periplus maris Erythraei” by an Anonymous Writer and Partly from Arrian’s Account of the Voyage of Nearkhos; Followed by Ancient India as Described by Ktesias the Knidian: Being a Translation of the Abridgement of His “Indika” by Photios and of the Fragments of that Work Preserved in Other Writers. Edited, with Historical Introductions, Commentary, Critical Notes, and Indexes. London; Bombay; Calcutta: Trübner & Co., 1879. Müller 1855 — Müller, C. “ΑΝΩΝΥΜΟΥ [αρριανου, ως φερεται] ΠΕΡΙΠΛΟΥΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΡΥΘΡΑΣ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΗΣ = Anonymi [Arriani, ut fertur] Periplus Maris Erythraei.” Geographi Graeci Minores. E codicibus recognovit, prolegomenis, annotatione, indicibus instuxit, tabulis aeri incicis illustravit Carolus Müllerus. Vol. 1. Parisiis: Firmin-Didot et Socii, 1855, pp. 257‒305. Schoff 1912 —Schoff, W. H. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. Travel and Trade in the Indian Ocean, by a Merchant of the First Century. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912. Streubel 1861 — Streubel, E. Des Pseudo-Arrians Umschiffung des Erythräischen Meeres — die ersten neun Kapitel vollständig, die übrigen in Ausgaben. Berlin: Druck von Hickethier, 1861. Publications — Jahres-Bericht über die Stralauer höhere Bürger-Schule für das Schuljahr von Michaelis 1860 bis Michaelis 1861, womit einladet C. Hartung. Wendrich et al. 2003 — Wendrich, W. Z., and R. S. Tomber, S. E. Sidebotham, R. T. J. Cappers, R. S. Bagnall. “Berenike Crossroads: The Integration of Information.” Journal of the Economic & Social History of the Orient, vol. 46, no. 1, 2003, pp. 46–87. Vincent 1800 — Vincent, W. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. Part the First. Containing an Account of the Navigation of the Ancients from the Sea of Suez to the Coast of Zanguebar. London: A. Strahan for T. Cadell jun. and W. Davies,1800. Zarins 1989 — Zarins, Yu. “Ancient Egypt and the Red Sea Trade: The Case Obsidian in the Predynastic and Archaic Periods.” Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J Kantor, edited by A. Leonard, B. B. Williams, Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1989, pp. 339–369. Publications — Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization; vol. 47. Zarins 1996 — Zarins, Yu. “Obsidian in the Larger Context of Predynastic: Archaic Egyptian Red Sea Trade.” The Indian Ocean in Antiquity, edited by J. Reade, London: Routledge, 1996, pp. 89–107.