This article examines historical perceptions of the territorial extent of Bod, the Tibetan toponym for ‘Tibet’. In a bid to establish what area second-millennium authors (and audiences) may have pictured when this toponym was invoked, we analyse instructive passages from five historiographical works, mostly dating from between the twelfth and seventeenth centuries. The rough-hewn maps of Bod ‘Tibet’ that emerge from this procedure differ quite radically from one work to the next, and at times even between different passages from a single source. While one work may see ‘Tibet’ as the territory directly centered on the Tibetan Plateau’s south-central river valleys, another source may forward an image of a ‘Tibet’ that is thrice as large. Works may also allow for shifts in its borders from one political period to the next, or incorporate multiple incongruous territorial descriptions. This material helps answer what ‘Tibet’ meant in different periods and places, and to different people—questions that have only poorly been studied outside of modern political history. One relevant finding, among others, is that the notion of a ‘Tibet’ that covers a large part of the Tibetan Plateau, incorporating for instance sites in contemporary eastern Qinghai, was not in fact a modern innovation.

Crossing literary evidence with archaeological data, we discuss the history of a site known as ‘Marsa Djazira’ by following the evolution of its toponym. During the Phoenician-Punic era, this site was described as a city/urban establishment with a harbour known as ‘Gaphara’. In late Roman times its name was most likely changed to ‘Minna Villa Marsi’, as the Marsi family of the aristocracy of Leptis Magna probably built a luxury residence (villa) and exploited the port to export olive products from its estates in the hinterland of Leptis Magna. In the Middle Ages, the site underwent another toponymic change to ‘Ras Chacra’ and became an official maritime station (port) on the shipping lanes. In the late Middle Ages, the ancient toponym ‘Gaphara’ reappeared again with a slight distortion as ‘Gasr Jafara/Djefara’. This last name was known when the site was already ruined and abandoned.

The ancient city of Alexandria was often referred to as Alexandria ad Aegyptum in Roman documentary, epigraphic and literary sources; this phrase was translated in Greek as ἡ Ἀλεξάνδρεια ἡ πρὸς Αἰγύπτῳ. The grammatical phrasing implies that Alexandria was seen as being ‘near’ or ‘next to’ Egypt, not ‘in’ Egypt. This observation has given rise to the scholarly view that Alexandria was not part of Egypt. In this article the function of the designation ad Aegyptum and of similar designations within literary, papyrological and epigraphic sources ranging from 300 b.c.e. to 640 c.e. will be closely examined. This article argues that the expression can be seen as reflecting both the distinction and the close connection between Alexandria and Egypt on the basis of geographical, political and socio-cultural factors.