Early Indians in Egypt

And the graffiti made by Cikkai Korran, in the Valley of the Kings

It should be no surprise to anyone interested in the Indian Ocean trade that there was robust intercourse between India and the various dynasties that ruled Egypt and Rome. As one might guess, it was mainly fostered by trade, though in the ancient past it was more about philosophical discourse, stemming from Alexandrian forays to India and the resulting reverse migration of some Indian gymnophobes. The Ocean trade links stabilized in the early centuries on either side of the Gregorian era and persisted into the medieval period. While I have written many articles on medieval trade, dealing with Jewish traders such as Ben Yiju, and the robust trade with the Yemenis from Hadhramaut, Karimi’s, Mamelukes, etc., we have thus far only dealt with medieval trade. I had not covered the period just before and after the Gregorian calendar's onset. This article will discuss Indians in ancient Egypt, early inscriptions in Tamil Brahmi at some Red Sea ports, and the recently discovered graffiti made by one Cikkai Korran from Tamilakam in the royal tombs at the Valley of the Kings, south-east of Cairo. For me, this was particularly interesting to research, as these people were among the first Indian expats.

Going back a few centuries BC, we can see that Egypt came under Persian, Greek, Roman, and Islamic rule before being annexed by the Ottomans. In the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE, it was a Greek Ptolemaic kingdom, and after the monsoon winds (some historians believe they were discovered even earlier) were harnessed for ocean crossings, a heady trade in spices for gold ensued between Berenike and Myos Hormos on the Egyptian East Coast and a few West Coast ports in India. Documentary evidence, such as the Muziris papyrus, provides clues to a Roman trading settlement in Muziris, but because the entire topography of the area was altered following the 1341 floods, the exact location of Muziris remains disputed, or at the very least, is hotly debated. Following Alexander’s conquest, Egypt was administered by a succession of Ptolemies until Cleopatra's death in 30 BC.

South India, more specifically, Tamilakam, was in the midst of the Sangam age (300BCE-300CE), and the Cheras, Pandyas, and Cholas were emerging as established kingdoms. The Chera empire ruled over the Malabar and Kongu areas of South India, stretching across both sides of the Western Ghats, connected only through the Palghat gap, and now forming part of the modern-day Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Though we do not know the exact political situation of the Cheras or details of their trade links, we can surmise that the relations between Egypt and the trading ports in the Chera Kingdom during or just after Cleopatra’s reign were relatively strong.

Cleopatra VII had a torrid time, first facing dissent from her husband (and younger brother) Ptolemy XIII. After Julius Caesar arrived and she married another younger brother, Ptolemy XIV, Cleopatra and Caesar became lovers and had a child, Caesarion. Their relationship did not last, for Caesar was assassinated. Cleopatra then became the Roman general Mark Antony’s lover and had three more children. Soon enough, Mark Antony, challenged by Octavian, met his death, and Cleopatra, facing execution and humiliation in Rome, chose suicide. To bring this saga to an end, Caesarion, Cleopatra’s son, succeeded her until his supposed execution in the weeks after his mother's death, and Egypt became the Roman province of Aegyptus.

Though there are fantastic myths about Caesarion, such as his flight to Travancore (there is even a book – Cleopatra is a Malayali by Velayudhan Panikkassery), we do know that, during troubled times, Cleopatra decided to escape to India. As the Battle of Actium was being waged, Cleopatra planned an escape to the farthest places Egyptians had traveled to at that time. It could have been Baruch or Muziris, and she planned to escape to either place. For this purpose, she had ships stealthily tugged overland and brought to Egypt. However, the wily Nabateans saw through the ruse and burned the ships, ending the plan to flee.

As Octavian, with his army, marched toward Alexandria, Cleopatra sent Caesarian, then a seventeen- or eighteen-year-old, away to safety, accompanied by his tutor. As the story goes, he sailed up the Nile to Coptos and was to proceed through the desert to a Red Sea port (Myos Hormos or Berenike). Antony tried to negotiate with the Romans, but Octavian paid no heed and brought a swift end to both their lives. One cannot say where he may have been headed, but we can imagine that if the monsoon winds had already been discovered by then, his most probable destination from Myos Hormos would have been Muziris.

Now, why did Cleopatra consider sending her son to a western port in the Hind, perhaps Muziris? India was well known to the Egyptians, and, as we saw, Egypt had close commercial relations with India. There were even special appointments in Egypt, such as those made by Soterichus and Euergetes (Kallimachos served from 74-39BCE as the Overseer of the Erythraean and Indian Seas). For now, suffice it to say that a strong foundation was in place to further a strong trade relationship.

The Roman trade thus connected Rome with Western Indian ports via a Red Sea route and a land route through Egypt to Alexandria. The ports of Berenice and Myos Hormos – the ports used by ships returning from the Hind - were administered by Egypt, and the land route (Wadi Hammat Road) was policed by Egypt, so the Egyptian administration obtained a cut from the trade. Now, let us examine the evidence for the short-term presence of Indian traders in the vicinity of Egypt. That it was required is clear for two reasons. First, traders had to wait for the monsoon winds to return to India, and second, they were possibly left behind as guarantors or agents for Indian traders. A third reason was that some were craftsmen, such as iron- or woodworkers, living in Egypt for trade-related work, such as ship repairs.

In our discussions of the Chariton mime and Udyavara, we noted Indian traders in Alexandria, as attested by Dio Chrysostom (117 AD), who mentions Indians among the traders, a very reputable trading class. In context, one must also note references to Yavana at Muziris (near today’s Kodungallur) and at Kaveripattinam/Arikamedu in Tamil Nadu. Before heading to Alexandria and Memphis, let’s take a few minutes to stop at other locations - Quesir and Berenike (Berenice). We will study what these locations have to offer from the Indian perspective.

Indian presence in Egypt attests to substantial Indo-Roman trade in the early centuries of the Christian era, perhaps even earlier. These traders left inscriptions and trade goods, such as pepper and Indian teak, at some of these locales. An ostracon (a piece of broken pottery or limestone used in antiquity as a writing surface) bearing a cargo and customs list, perhaps dating to the 2nd century, was discovered at Quseir (Myos Hormos) and was written in the Tamil Brahmi script. Inscribed pottery found at Quseir-al-Qadim (Loucos Limne, just north of Quseir, also identified as Myos Hormos by some) provides further proof of Indian presence in Egypt. Pottery shards at Myos Hormos/Quseir Al Qadim matched those found at Arikamedu, indicating a Tamilakam settlement. It appears that the site was abandoned by the 3rd century due to silting at the port, and that all remnants were preserved by the very dry climate.

Excavations also revealed a series of small, poorly constructed rooms and a small iron forge, suggesting a ship-repair shop. The graffiti found here, again in the Tamil-Brahmi style, appear to be two names: Kannan and “C(?)atan” (Chaatan). Though these inscriptions are quite similar to those at Arikkamedu, the port itself flourished from the first century B.C. to the fourth A.D.

Though all this may be considered insufficient, we can assume that Indo-Roman trade was lucrative enough for Indians to constitute a minority in Roman Egypt. Excavations at Berenike have uncovered evidence not only of cargo from the Malabar coast but also of short-term settlers from South India in the vicinity of the port towns and along the stretch from these ports to Alexandria, where the goods again changed hands.

In Berenike, they discovered trade items such as a Nile pot (15 lbs.) of black peppercorns, fine ware, kitchenware, Indian pottery, sailcloth, basketry, matting, etc. In addition, trace amounts of teak wood, black pepper, coconuts, beads made of precious and semi-precious stones, cameo blanks, etc., were unearthed, suggesting that this was perhaps a trade outpost, or even a place where ships were repaired or refurbished using teak. The Tamil Brahmi graffiti include one mentioning ‘korran’, meaning chieftain, and even a rock inscription mentioning a South Indian passing through. Teak wood (endemic to South India) was also found in buildings in Berenike, perhaps reused (from dismantled ships).

A supposed Indian colony in Memphis, just south of Cairo, evidenced by dancing figures and terracotta heads, has been written about extensively, but these date back further in time and are not directly related to the trade aspects we are discussing. However, this testifies that Egypt and Arabian ports were not new to Indians, and people freely moved between ports and settled thereabouts, if only for a few months.

Flinders summarizes: "The contact of India with Europe dates back to the early years of the Persian Empire." Settlements of Indians appear at Nippur in Babylonia as early as 425 B.C., and in the Aswan papyri in Egypt. In view of these connections, there seems to be no difficulty in accepting the Indian colony in Memphis as being due to the Persian intercourse from 525 to 405 B.C.

Charlotte Booth adds - The earliest definite evidence of Indians in Egypt is from a record of the royal procession of Ptolemy II (approx. 250BC), which included Indian women, hunting dogs, cows, and camels. The Indian women included in the procession were likely to have resided in Egypt and may have been the same women who danced for the cult of Harpocrates, giving the procession an element of spirituality. The saloon in the Yacht belonging to Ptolemy II was also lined with Indian stone, indicating that there were trade expeditions at this time to India.

Was the Indian trader in complete trust of the Arab Muslim, Roman, or Arab Jewish trader? To reduce risk, as I had explained (“Hubs of Medieval trade” (Pragati, June 2009)), foreign traders placed an agent from their community at many Malabar ports. Did the Indian trading communities do likewise? You may also recall my introduction to Muziris, where we alluded to the presence of a Roman colony by analyzing the consumption of imported goods such as olive oil amphorae and garum, the Muziris Papyrus, and a possible Augustus temple thereabouts. A voyage between Berenike and Muziris would have lasted over 9 months, including a stay at Muziris for three to four months, a period during which merchandise was collected. Summarizing all this, we can safely assume that, given the substantial trade traffic, there was some kind of South Indian presence in or near the ports, be it Berenike or Qusier al-Qadim.

Also keep in mind that in southern India, Tamil was the primary language during the periods mentioned. The spoken languages were Tamil dialects; the region was known as Tamilakam and was gradually divided into the Chera, Chola, and Pandya dominions. Writing used Tamil Brahmi. So, whether the trader was from a Malabar port belonging to the Chera kingdom, such as Muziris, or from a port on the east coast controlled by the Cholas or Pandyas, they were all broadly classified as South Indian, specifically Tamil. Eastern Chola traders either sailed around Ceylon to the west-coast Chera ports or, as we know from excavations, traveled along the ancient road peruvazhis – trade highways connecting Cheranad through the Palghat gap. I do not want to raise the possibility of Arab and Roman ships sailing to the east coast yet; we will get to that in a separate article covering Arikamedu and Keeladi.

With this background, let us now head to the Valley of the Kings, near Luxor on the West Bank of the Nile in Egypt. Some months ago, when Prof. Ingo Strauch visited the area, he came across many inscriptions, potentially dating to the first and third centuries C.E. He discovered a total of 30 inscriptions, written in four Indian languages (Sanskrit, Prakrit, Tamil Brahmi, and Gandhari-Kharosthi), in six tombs. According to a recent presentation by Strauch and Schmid, graffiti written in the Old Tamil Brahmi script appears eight times across five tombs. This evidence proves that several South Indians visited the area, well beyond the normal ports we discussed thus far. Did they come out of curiosity, as tourists, or as craftsmen for some purpose within the tombs? We do not yet know the reason.

The astonishing fact gleaned from these Tamil inscriptions is that, some 2,000 years ago, a man from South India named Cikkai Korran scratched his name in several places within the tombs in Egypt’s Valley of the Kings! According to Strauch, what was also unique was that Chikkai Korran inscribed his name and the proud fact that he came and saw (something akin to the note you make in a visitor's ledger at famous locations) what was there to see. Koppan Varada Kantan, Peran Thattan (a goldsmith??), Peravan rattan, Pantaya Mattan, etc., were other fellow travelers who inscribed their names on these tombs. Many of these are quite illegible; they are inferences from working hypotheses, and the exact deciphering continues.

Staurch and Schmid narrowed the origin of Chikkai Korran to ‘Tamil Nadu’ rather than the broader Tamilakam. I would, however, conclude only that he was from Tamilakam, spoke Tamil, and wrote or chiseled graffiti in the Tamil Brahmi script. As I mentioned earlier, the entire Tamilakam spoke more or less the same language at the time, and Malayalam had not yet evolved. Most trade delegations at the time sailed from Muziris, so he could very well have been from Cheranadu. Staurch also notes that the inscriptions of Korran stood out not only because there were so many, but also because they were written in hard-to-reach places. In one instance, Staurch reports that the words were located inside the tomb of Ramses IX, 16 to 20 feet above the tomb’s entrance. How did he climb up to that height in an ancient tomb? Was it because he saw a ladder nearby, or was he a craftsman in chief there for a specific purpose, such as expert repairs or lugging around climbing tools? Schmid assumes that Chikkai Korran means Shika (kudumi) Koratan, but other studies have made it clear that Korran means chief, and so the whole term is more likely “Little Chief”.

Strauch also notes that some graffiti messages appear to be in dialogue with one another. In one tomb, Sanskrit and Tamil inscriptions reference a Greek inscription, suggesting cross-cultural engagement. He adds that these new inscriptions show the integration of people of Indian origin from across the subcontinent into Roman Egyptian society, and that additional Indian inscriptions or other Indian artifacts may yet be found in Egypt!

Notwithstanding all the above, there are alternative conclusions, such as that of Rajan Gurukkal, who, after studying the matter, urges historians to be cautious and concludes that this was Roman-sponsored trade, not Indo-Roman trade. His central argument is that an independent evaluation of the latest archaeological data unearthed at ancient port sites of the Egyptian desert and the Indian West Coast, along with other extant sources, confirms that the classical overseas trade, celebrated in ancient Indian historiography as ‘Indo-Roman trade,’ was a Roman–Indian exchange, an exchange of serious imbalance, because it was between an Empire and a region of uneven chiefdoms. The presumption that the Tamil chieftains had a leading role in overseas trade is hardly realistic. Even the presumption that the chieftain had shipped his goods only up to the Red Sea coast and had depended on intermediaries for the remaining jobs is unbelievable for the same reasons.

He adds: The Mediterranean relics recently unearthed at Pattanam, as in the case of Arikamedu, prompt us to presume that contemporary Indian ports were, in fact, foreign merchant camps and their bazaars. Run under the financial support and military protection of the Roman Emperor all along the highly inhospitable camel/caravan routes for the safe transport of the precious goods, it was virtually Roman trade, no less, no more.

A follow-up article will examine the connections among Roman trade, Arikamedu, Muziris, Kaveripattinam, and Keeladi (or Keezhadi, near Madurai). Arikamedu, a.k.a. Poduke, near Pondicherry in present-day Tamil Nadu and mentioned in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, was an early Indian port city. Indirect shipping links between these Eastern locales, the Red Sea ports, and Rome will be discussed in more detail. For now, it suffices to state that we can consider Casson’s conclusion that these Eastern sites were Roman colonies that primarily forwarded goods to Rome through the entrepots of Muziris and Nelcynda. It will be natural if, over time, other sites are discovered in the ancient Tamilakam, encompassing today's Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

References

Tamil Epigraphy conference Feb 2026 – Presentation by Ingo Strauch and Charlotte Schmid

Caesarion in India – NS Ramaswami
Quseir al Qadim 1980 (Preliminary Report) – Donald S. Whitcomb & Janet H. Janson
Memphis I – WM Flinders Petrie / JK Walker
Late Roman Berenike – Steven E. Sidebotham
Role of foreigners in ancient Egypt – Charlotte Booth
The Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia: Himanshu Prabha Ray
Egypt and the Spice Trade: Donald Whitcomb and Janet H. Johnson
Empires Of the Sea – Radhika Seshan
Classical Indo-Roman Trade: A Misnomer in Political Economy – Rajan Gurukkal
Rethinking Classical Indo-Roman Trade – Rajan Gurukkal
Roman footprints at Berenike – Rene T J Cappers
The Periplus Maris Erythraei: Text with introduction, translation, and commentary – Lionel Casson