The Arabian Gulf in antiquity From Alexander the Great to the coming of Islam [2] 0198143915

Citation preview

DT. POTTS

_ THE ARABIAN GULF IN ANTIQUITY— Volume II — From Alexander the Great to the Coming of Islam

CLARENDON PRESS

W'S : Pees i +

ai ;

q

NUS

|

| TIC

TLLu | MEA

bees

aoe af

‘ag

The Arabian Gulf has, since the early 1970s, been one of the most promising new areas of research in ancient Near Eastern archaeology. Until now, however, there has been no attempt to synthesize the archaeology and history of this region from the beginnings of human settlement to the rise of Islam. Drawing on a wide array of archaeological, epigraphic, and literary sources, Dr Potts presents for the first time a comprehensive study of the area in two volumes. The period from Alexander the Great to the coming of Islam, including full discussion of the history of Christianity in the area, comprises this second volume, in which Potts combines

the literary evidence from Greek, Roman, Syriac and Arab sources with an overview of the relevant archaeological evidence. D. T. Potts is a lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies in

Copenhagen.

THE

ARABIAN

GULF

IN ANTIQUITY,

II

THE ARABIAN GULF IN ANTIQUITY VOLUME

II

From Alexander the Great

to the Coming of Islam Dew teu ROd-d'S a

CLARENDON

PRESS 1990

- OXFORD

Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Petaling Jaya Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University Press Published in the United States by Oxford University Press, New York ©D.

T. Potts 1990

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Potts..D. TThe Arabian Gulf in antiquity. 1. Persian Gulf countries. Antiquities. Archaeological investigation I. Title 935, ISBN 0-19-814391-5

Vol. 2

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Potts, Daniel T. The Arabian Gulf in antiquity/D. T. Potts. Includes bibliographical references. Contents: v. 1. From the Pleistocene to the Achaemenid period— v. 2. From Alexander the Great to the coming of Islam. 1. Persian Gulf Region—Antiquities. 2. Persian Gulf Region— History. I. Title. 939’ .49—dc20

DS211.P68

1990

90-7126

ISBN 0-19-814391-5 (v. 2)

Set by Dobbie Typesetting Limited, Tavistock, Devon Printed in Great Britain by Bookcraft (Bath) Ltd., Midsomer Norton, Avon

Preface The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity was intended, from the outset, to be a comprehensive study of the archaeology and history of the region from prehistoric times to the Islamic conquest. As the work progressed it became clear that the book must be a fairly lengthy one if justice were to be done to the many sub-areas involved, their sites and finds,

and the historical sources which pertained to them. However, a natural division in the manuscript seemed to emerge at the conclusion of the Iron Age and the arrival of Alexander the Great on the Western Asiatic scene. Thus, I began to think of the work in two parts, and when

the final revisions were being made some colleagues suggested that publication in two volumes might be advisable. For despite the fact that my goal had always been to present the entire pre-Islamic past of the Arabian Gulf as a single entity, and indeed encourage readers to take a broad view of the region’s history, it seemed undeniable that there were bound to be some readers whose interests would lie either in the early or in the late periods, and who might only wish to purchase one or the other volume. Thus, the decision was made to publish in two volumes. ’ It would be tedious to repeat here the acknowledgements that are contained in Volume I. I would, however, point out that the epilogue which concludes this volume was written as a conclusion to the work as a whole, and thus makes reference to topics which are treated in both Volumes I and II. Finally, it is only at this advanced stage in the production of this work that I am able to express adequately my sincerest thanks to those members of the Oxford University Press staff who have turned my text from a raw manuscript into a book. Hilary Feldman, Jane Stuart-Smith, and Robert Peden have all been extremely helpful at every turn. I should also like to say how very much I appreciate Peter Momtchiloff's meticulous copy-editing. His attention to details of every conceivable sort has saved me from many inconsistencies, ambiguities, and infelicities of language. Dalek.

.

5) .

Bey

a

a

naira

ee

4

eneiven ear hiad rie pte

— .

oe “4

i

‘ im

vie

te

fe es aA

api Se

3

&

r

,

‘3

a1 wi

:

ve

i

-

ae

°

Serer

mh :

: Caer

rs

y

ars

.

1

aw,

€

ih) ls ‘

i :

ia

a

ie

oa

Taitig

da’

rhs

LS 5 4

}

hy -

i

*

:

oar

°

*

4

pas

-

¥

i 4

j

;

;

ay:

List of Plates General view of the site of Thaj, with building-remains in the foreground, and part of the modern village in the distance The southern section of the city wall of Thaj, taken from the south-western corner looking towards the east

Sherds of Greek black-glazed pottery from Thaj The torso of a female terracotta figurine from Thaj A stele from Tarut with Greek inscription Detail of the inscription

Examples of the indigenous coinage of north-eastern Arabia Imitation Seleucid portrait obverse, seated deity with legend SMS in South

surface find) Debased head

Arabian

of Heracles

characters reverse

obverse,

(Thaj,

seated deity with

horizontal Sin monogram reverse (Jabal Kenzan, surface find)

Head of Heracles obverse, seated deity with vertical Sin monogram reverse (cast purchased in Tehran) Head of Heracles obverse, seated deity with legend Abyata and aleph monogram in South Arabian characters reverse (Thaj, surface find)

Head of Heracles obverse, seated deity with legend Abi'el mar T1Ibs/TISII’) in Aramaic reverse (Thaj, surface find)

Debased copies of the vertical Sim type, showing various stages of geometric stylization, obverse blank (Thaj, surface finds)

Debased head on obverse, eagle with vertical sin monogram reverse (Jabal Kenzan, surface find)

Stylized head of Heracles obverse, seated deity receiving wreath from Nike reverse (Jabal Kenzan, surface find)

A view of Temple A on Failaka Fragment of a draped female terracotta figurine from Failaka

The Soteles inscription from Failaka The Ikaros inscription from Failaka A seated male terracotta figurine from Failaka A tetradrachm of Seleucus II (246-226 BC) minted at Susa, from the hoard discovered on Failaka in 1961

List of Plates A selection of glazed Parthian pottery found in graves on Tarut

A statue from Tarut found by P. B. Cornwall in the Qatif oasis (note the smaller figure affixed to the taller one’s robe)

A hoard of jewellery found at Dhahran (the stone beads are cornelian, garnet, and agate; the large ring in the centre of the bottom row is silver; the rest of the material is gold)

Finger-ring containing a gem with the figure of Nike

The principal coin types found at ed-Dur (these include examples from Groups I to VI (a-f) as defined in the text; an example (g) belonging to a separate group, with blank obverse, various monograms, and a date in exergue on the reverse; and a unique coin (/) with the title BACIAETC (reversed) on the obverse) Xia.

The temple at ed-Dur (Area M), built of beach-rock and

b-e.

faced with plaster Details of the stamps on a pair of Rhodian amphora handles found at Mleiha

Xia.

be.

A Sasanian stamp seal made of garnet, found near Dammam Examples of Sasanian stucco from Darin on Tarut

List of Figures Chapter

2

General map of the area . Plan of Thaj . Selection of diagnostic pottery types from Thaj . Selection of Hasaitic inscriptions . Map of Bahrain nA BWwWNHR . Selection of Hellenistic-Parthian pottery types from Bahrain

. Plan of the Bahrain fort . Plans of Janussan cist-graves . Copy of a Graeco-Babyloniaca text mentioning Dilmun and Magan date-palms . Plans of the Failaka fortress . Plans of the small shrine at B6 and Temple A, on Failaka

. . . .

Selection of BlI-ware pottery types Plan of the Period IV building at Thaj Plan of Ayn Jawan Map showing distribution of Seleucid/Parthian sites in the Eastern Province

. Map

relating to the Sasanian invasions of

eastern Arabia

. . . . .

Plans of the graves excavated at site C, Mleiha Rhodian amphora handles Notable finds from Mleiha Plan of ed-Dur Limestone eagles from ed-Dur, together with an eagle on a South Arabian seal . A bronze wine-set from ed-Dur . Roman glass from ed-Dur . South Arabian graffiti on pottery of Samad type, and a selection of Samad pottery. from Maysar

. Plans of the Jumeirah buildings . Facsimile of Arnoldus Buckinck’s 1478 map of Arabia, based on Ptolemy’s Geography

om

i+ ;

:

iu

a

Bary

¥

yt oS

+ ; itn eee PE

rh lo eet

:

aes

nie

;

La)

rs,

:

a

Si £3 ve , pes

am

*

;

otis

{

bd

or

ide PAR

. an

ie

Shi re

pd ~

Hibe

sh £

Pree aa

SAG

Sr

aide

Aran

RH eae e

: ne

i

Gee

x

rules) das RS ts Of

Syee

uh “USES

4 " ub

dai

oe

ee

Path iP is AE Settesueae he mph e ane rey .

ee a3) pew con eeys ped Aye! os

eee

:

set rl vy

:

Sse

-

>

j

:

ie

mislit best af? =

;

VU

4

«

>

*%tf

§

in :

"chutes ed }

: senih ctstes ss

y

'

,

rae. sper ;

it a

a

as

ut “beuiorh ey)

Hs ide & raed

“wis

eye abeta ¢

pn’ “bay 2 Tame *>

uate

(P=

q

ili

061 prehn :

hep pk

mathe na seat

:

List of Tables . Distribution of Pottery Wares by Level in Deep Sounding at Thaj . Distribution of Pottery Forms by Level in the Deep Sounding at Thaj

41 42

?

e

5

:

&Failaka

Kuwait

=

DB

As Sarrare

i.

aa PQeshm -

a

Roe ee

TNT

=

ae

S\*

en\

OF A

Kumza

nes i

KhasabYi

=

Rag, Ramel f Umm cera : Al-Qaiwaingf _, ¢Ajman

Sharjahg Dubait

Ghanadha.”

Abu mi

7

>

fest.

{Dibba Khor

S

a

4

Dhabig oes

3 Dayd

a

jes

Fakkan «Fujairah

5

ee

Oo é es

eShinas

O

“

Sohar, NN Al Ajine® Buraimi

ae) as

Ss

On o

_ -, Museat Matrah ve gee

Ar Rustaq Ibri

¢

Bahlae

2

izwa

Bisyah

AL LIWA

AN A’

ett

t

y

olZKt e Samad

*Ibra Qalhat

>

o™

ASH SHARQIYAH

sU C

0

ae

°

ev

&”

ee

oe

eeea a9)

100 KM

~

Masirah

Ras

Al-Hadd

oN

“i

a

MEP AeDs,d

hae,

2°) ae ara

ae

ln

a

BS

Mis ny See

by

— *

Pe%

re

‘ ‘i

ca 7

ae

ob

;

;

‘

; o

i

‘ 2

*

: a‘

Ra

yy,

;

‘

te

a

ee

ae

4

oe »

“-

ae

=|

j

ids

a

chat

4 oA

4A

7

~

ada

a

io) le bis uP eke

tee

4

(ce

pa al ate

tdi. Pd~1,

:

tm

eo ‘ Petit

Re

AF a

ba)

“TW ‘

ye

:

‘ek

Sa

‘ pore

x

oF oP |) ae

rit —s

WZ

'

a

}

Se ie

‘oy

r

4

,

“= me ity:

=)

2

*

Ee

r

See

7

Pe

Poy

Dy.

thd

ts

edd

‘

PAP. o-

RYO AAM PSbee 2. m d

‘s

ae %.

'

>i

‘aS

~~

ms +

i

'

7

a

Te

ee

i

|

a

Giclass

:

4

i}

-¢

;

|

A

~

teen

bs

2

;

y

mit

n

pe

7).

H. Schiwek, ‘Der Persische Golf als Schiffahrts- und Seehandelsroute in achamenidenischer Zeit und in der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen’, Bonner Jahrbiicher, 162 (1962), 4-97; P. Briant,

Etat et pasteurs au Moyen-Orient ancien (Cambridge and Paris, 1982), 165. For a summary discussion of this problem, see J.-F. Salles, ‘Les Achéménides dans le golfe’, lecture delivered at the 6th Achaemenid Workshop, Groningen, 30-1 May 1986. * See, inter alia, C. G. Starr, ‘Greeks and Persians in the Fourth Century B.C.’, IrAnt 11 (1975), 39-99, and 12 (1977), 49-115; P. Briant, ‘Des Achéménides aux rois hellénistiques: Continuités et ruptures’, in id., Rois, tributs et paysans (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besancon, 269; Paris, 1982), 305-6 and n. 60. * J. Hofstetter, Die Griechen in Persien: Prosopographie der Griechen im persischen Reich vor Alexander (AMI Suppl. 5; Berlin, 1978), 192. ° G. F. Seibt, Griechische Séldner im Achaimenidenreich (Bonn, 1977), 179-83.

Alexander and the Seleucids

3

one stretch of water with the Persian gulf, and the Hyrcanian Sea with the Indian gulf. And from the Persian gulf our fleet shall sail round to Libya, right up to the Pillars of Heracles; and from the Pillars all Libya that lies within is becoming ours; and all Asia likewise, and the boundaries of the empire in Asia, those boundaries which God set for the whole earth.

In 325 BC Alexander ordered Nearchus to sail with a fleet from the mouth of the Indus, along the Makran coast, and up the Arabian Gulf. As Arrian tells us (Anab. 7. 20. 9-10), Nearchus ‘had not been sent

to navigate the Ocean, but to reconnoitre the coast lying on the Ocean, and the inhabitants of the coast, and its anchorages, and its water supplies, and the manners and customs of the inhabitants, and what

part of the coast was good for growing produce and what part was bad’. Alexander’s fleet was manned by Phoenicians, Cypriots, and Egyptians (8. 18. 1). Nearchus, his admiral,” was Cretan by birth (8.

18. 10). Of the various ship’s captains in the fleet whose names are recorded by Arrian (8. 18), several went on to write accounts of the

journey which became famous in the ancient world. While none of these

works

have

come

down

to us,

accounts

by Nearchus,®

Onesicritus,? and Orthagoras!° are known through the works of later writers (see below). Nearchus followed the Iranian coast.!! Arrian tells us, however,

that Alexander spent a good part of the last year of his life developing 7 On Nearchus, see W. Capelle, ‘Nearchos’, RE xvi (1935), 2132-54; G. Wirth, ‘Nearchos der Flottenchef’, Eirene, 7 (1969), 615-39; E. Badian, “Nearchus the Cretan’, YCS 24 (1975),

147-70. 8 Nearchus

is cited e.g. by Strabo

(16. 3. 5, 7), and was

probably

also used by

Theophrastus and Juba. See W. Spoerri, ‘Nearchos 1’, KP iv (1979), 34.

* Onesicritus’ history of Alexander was used by such writers as Kleitarchos, Aristobulus, and Juba. Strabo was critical of him, and wrote that Onesicritus ‘cannot so properly be called arch-pilot of Alexander as of things that are incredible’ (15. 1. 28). Nevertheless, he also indicates that, particularly in his discussions of India, his work contained great detail (ibid.). See, by way of introduction, H. Gartner, ‘Onesikritos’, KP iv (1979), 302-3. Badian, ‘Nearchus the

Cretan’, 159, after reviewing all of the evidence on the respective roles of Nearchus and Onesicritus, concluded that: ‘Nearchus was in overall command . . . Onesicritus in charge of navigation. I.e., it would be Nearchus’ job to decide where the expedition was going and Onesicritus’ to see that it got there.’ 10 F. Lasserre, ‘Orthagoras 1’, KP iv (1979), 361, suggests that Orthagoras’ work, which

was probably a periplus, sank into oblivion because it contained nothing which could not be found already in the works of Nearchus and Onesicritus. It was not used by any other ancient writers that we know of, although the title is preserved in De Natura Animalium, 16. 35, by the 2nd-cent. AD sophist Claudius Aelianus. 11 The most comprehensive study of Nearchus’ voyage is still W. Tomaschek, Topographische Erlauterungen der Kiistenfahrt Nearchs vom Indus bis zum Euphrat (Sitzungsber. d. Kais. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, phil.-hist. Kl., 121/8; Vienna, 1890), 1-88. See also the

following valuable studies: W. Vincent, The Voyage of Nearchus and the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (Oxford, 1809); H. Berghaus, Geo-Hydrographisches Memoir zur Erkldrung und Erlduterung der reduzierten Karte vom Persischen Golf (Gotha, 1832), 37-49; E. H. Bunbury, A History of Ancient Geography, i (London, 1879), 525-41; Maj. E. Mockler, ‘On

4

Alexander and the Seleucids

his plans for Arabia.!* These can be summarized as follows: (1) creation of a navy for gathering intelligence about and carrying out an eventual invasion of Arabia; (2) dispatching of three naval intelligence missions; and (3) colonization of the Arabian coast. Let us consider each of these in turn.

Alexander’s Navy

Alexander’s creation of a navy is described in some detail by Strabo, who writes, citing Aristobulus: Alexander . . . intended to acquire possession of that country [Arabia], and had already prepared fleets and bases of operations, having built some of his boats in Phoenicia and Cyprus, boats that were constructed with bolts and could be taken to pieces, which were conveyed by a seven days’ journey to Thapsacus!3 and then down the river to Babylon, and having built others in Babylonia, from the cypress-trees in the groves and the parks. (Geog. 16. Labiis

Arrian also records that, upon arriving in Babylon, Alexander found not only the freshly arrived fleet of Nearchus, but ‘the rest’, which ‘had been brought up from Phoenicia’ (Anab. 7. 19. 3). This included fifty ships which, he says, also acknowledging Aristobulus as his source, the Identification of Places on the Makran coast Mentioned by Arrian, Ptolemy, and Marcian’, JRAS 11 (1879), 129-54; Col. T. H. Holdich, ‘Notes on Ancient and Mediaeval Makran’, G] 7 (1896), 388; G. Hiising, ‘Panchaia’, in H. Mzik (ed.), Beitrage zur historischen Geographie, Kulturgeographie, Ethnographie und Kartographie, vornehmlich des Orients (Leipzig and Vienna,

1929), 99-111; A. Berthelot, ‘La Céte méridionale de l’Iran d’aprés les géographes grecs’, in Mélanges offerts a M. Octave Navarre par ses éléves et ses amis (Toulouse, 1935), 11-24; O. Longo, ‘A Trip Among Fish Eaters’, Newsletter of Baluchistan Studies, 4 (1987), 11-17. For

an early 19th-cent. survey of the same coast, see Lt. G. B. Kempthorne, ‘Notes Made on a Survey along the Eastern Shores of the Persian Gulf in 1828’, JRGS 5 (1835), 263-85. 12 See, inter alia, E. Kornemann, ‘Die letzten Ziele der Politik Alexanders des Grossen’, Klio, 16 (1919), 209-33; F. Schachermeyer, ‘Die letzten Plane Alexanders des Grossen’, Osterreichisches Archdologisches Institut in Wien, Jahresheft 41 (1954), 118-40; id., Alexander in Babylon und die Reichsordnung nach seinem Tode (Sitzungsber. d. Osterr. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. K1., 268/3; Vienna, 1970), 187-97; id., Alexander der Grosse (Sitzungsber. d. Osterr. Akad. d.

Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl., 285; Vienna, 1973), 547-56. See now the exhaustive study by P. Hégemann, Alexander der Grosse und Arabien (Zetemata, 82; Munich, 1985), but note also

the penetrating remarks of G. W. Bowersock in his review, Gnomon, 59 (1987), 508-11. ' Forbiger, Handbuch, 646, located Thapsacus around modern Deir ez-Zor. Cf. L. Dillemann, Haute Mésopotamie orientale et pays adjacents (Inst. francais d’arch. de Beyrouth, 72; Paris, 1962), 152 fig. xix. W. Rdllig suggests Qal’at ed-Dibse, c.70 km. west of the mouth

of the Balikh: ‘Thapsakos’, KP v (1979), 650. For other suggestions, see E. Honigmann,

‘Thapsakos’, RE v” (1934), 1278 ff. ‘* For the construction and transportation of ships in section, with specific reference to this passage, see L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Princeton, 1971), app. spansGn

Alexander and the Seleucids

5

had been transported overland via Thapsacus. Quintus Curtius, no doubt exaggerating, puts the number of ships transported overland at 700 (Hist. Alex. 10. i. 19). Arrian also speaks of the shipbuilding that went on in Babylonia, and tells us that ‘Alexander dug a harbour at Babylon, large enough to be a roadstead for a thousand ships of war, and dockyards on the harbour’ (Anab. 7. 19. 4). Finally, in

discussing Alexander’s designs on Arabia, Arrian mentions Alexander’s belief that there were ‘harbours all over the coast, large enough to give anchorage for his fleet’ (7. 20. 2).

Alexander’s great interest in maritime exploration is also illustrated by his sending Heracleides to Hyrcania with instructions to build a fleet and explore the Caspian Sea (7. 16. 1-2). This passage, taken together with those just discussed, led Kornemann to suggest that Alexander must have felt the retention of his newly won eastern empire would only be possible through control of the seas around it.!5 With the necessary naval preparations sufficiently advanced, Alexander sent out three expeditions in 324 BC for the purpose of exploring the Arabian coast and offshore islands, for he ‘had an idea of colonizing the coast along the Persian Gulf, and the islands that lie near: for he thought that it would be just as prosperous a country as Phoenicia’ (Anab. 7. 19. 5-6). As Kornemann has stressed, moreover, Alexander also intended that his fleet should circumnavigate

the entire peninsula,!® a feat not previously accomplished (Anab. 7. 20. 7-9).17 Alexander’s Programme of Exploration

The first expedition was led by Archias of Pella, former commander of one of the triremes in Nearchus’ fleet (Anab. 8. 18. 3). According to Arrian, Archias took his ship as far as Tyrus (7. 20. 7). Tyrus,

a variant of the name Tylos,!8 can be identified with the largest of the Bahrain islands. The second expedition was led by Androsthenes of Thasos, likewise a former trierarch in Nearchus’ fleet. He is said to have gone part way around the Arabian peninsula, and to have 1S Kornemann, ‘Die letzten Ziele’, 223. 16 Ibid. 224. On this subject, see J.-F. Salles, ‘La Circumnavigation de I’Arabie dans PAntiquité classique’, AMB i. 75-102. 17 This point was particularly stressed by W. W. Tarn, ‘Ptolemy II and Arabia’, JEA 15 (1929), 9-10.

18 Recently discussed in depth by G. W. Bowersock, ‘Tylos and Tyre: Bahrain in the GraecoRoman World’, BTA 399-406. For an older discussion of the Tylos/Tyrus problem, cf. A. Herrmann, ‘Irrtiimliche Namensversetzungen: Die Herkunft der Namen Rotes Meer, Agypten und Phonizien aus dem tritonischen Kulturkreis’, in Mzik (ed.), Beitrage, 141-2.

6

Alexander and the Seleucids

visited Tylos and Arados. Moreover, he produced a periplous (Lat. periplus)—a report on the journey intended mainly for seamen—which was widely read in antiquity by such writers as Eratosthenes (c.284-202 BC), and Artemidorus (b. c.100 BC), and cited by

Athenaeus (c.200 AD), Theophrastus, and Strabo.!9 Finally, Hieron of

Soli, we are told, departed from southern Babylonia and reached Herodpolis in Egypt, at which point he turned around and returned to report on the Arabian coast to Alexander. According to Arrian (Anab. 7. 20. 8), Hieron spoke of ‘a projection’ extending far out into

the ocean from the Arabian mainland; this is surely the Ra’s Musandam peninsula, known to Nearchus as a promontory belonging to Arabia called Maketa (8. 32. 7). At the same time as Archias, Androsthenes,

and Hieron were

attempting to sail around the Arabian peninsula from Babylonia, Anaxicrates was striving to do the same, but in the opposite direction. According to Arrian (Anab. 8. 43. 7), Theophrastus (Hist. 9. 4. 2-4), and Strabo (16. 4. 4), Anaxicrates was sent by Alexander from

Herodpolis in Egypt to circumnavigate Arabia.2® Although Anaxicrates did not get beyond the Bab el-Mandab at the bottom of the Red Sea, he did collect valuable information on Arabia which is

preserved by Theophrastus.?! The explorations initiated by Alexander can thus be grouped into three categories. To begin with, we have the expedition of Nearchus, of which accounts by Nearchus, Orthagoras, and Onesicritus are known to have existed. Next, we have the Arabian Gulf expeditions of Archias,

Androsthenes, and Hieron. Finally, we have the Red Sea expedition of Anaxicrates. The written accounts stemming from these expeditions formed the basis of most of the geographical knowledge about the Arabian Gulf and peninsula extant during the Seleucid period. Alexander’s Policy of Colonization

Alexander is credited by V. Tscherikower with having founded or begun the foundation of up to thirty-four cities in his lifetime,22 less '? G. Wirth, ‘Androsthenes

4’, KP i (1979), 350-1.

discussed by Bowersock, ‘Tylos and Tyre’.

Androsthenes’

report on Tylus is

*° Tarn, ‘Ptolemy II’, 13, wrote: ‘This expedition is not noticed in the usual histories of Alexander, but is thrice referred to in Greek sources: Arrian shows it was an expedition, not a merchant’s voyage; the parallel reference in Theophrastus to want of water identifies the voyage he mentions with Arrian’s; Strabo shows it was ordered by Alexander, and gives the name Anaxicrates.’ 21 Tbid. 2 V. Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stédtegriindungen von Alexander dem Grossen bis auf die Romerzeit (Philologus Suppl. 19/1; Leipzig, 1927), 145-6.

Alexander and the Seleucids

7

than half of the seventy new foundations attributed to him by Plutarch

(De Alex. Fort. 1. 5). His death in 323 BC, of course, cut short his plans

_to colonize the coasts of the Arabian Gulf, although we find evidence for one foundation in the north Arabian desert on the borders of Mesopotamia. Both Arrian and Quintus Curtius say that Alexander entered ‘Arabia’ and built a fortified city there, settling it with disabled Greek soldiers: For these reasons he sailed in the direction of Arabia. and fortified it, and settled volunteered, and any who

to the Pallacopas and down, by it, to the lakes There he saw a good site and built a city there there some of the Greek mercenaries, any who through age or wounds were unfit for service.

(Anab. 7. 21. 7)

After this a longing seized the king to sail over the river Pallacopas to the lands of the Arabians; having arrived there and having discovered a suitable site for founding a city, he settled in it those of the Greeks who were disabled by age or by wounds, as well as any who had remained behind of their own volition. (Hist. 10. 4. 3)

The name of this site, as well as its exact location, is unknown.

The most logical suggestion is that it was called Alexandria.” Since the Pallacopas canal** ran parallel to and west of the Euphrates between Babylon and Teredon,?> Ritter proposed a location near modern Kufa.2© Tscherikower, moreover, suggested that the later >» Thid:93. 4 For the definitive treatment of the Pallacopas/Pallacottas canal, with full bibliography of ancient and modern sources, see B. Meissner, ‘Pallacottas’, MVAG

1/4 (1896), 1-13. Cf. the

note in Bunbury, A History of Ancient Geography, i. 524, entitled ‘The Pallacopas’; A. J. Delattre, ‘Les Travaux hydrauliques en Babylonie’, Revue des questions scientifiques (1888), 24, 27, 47; or E. Drouin, ‘Notice historique et géographique sur la Characéne’, Le Muséon, 9 (1890), 140. For a philological discussion of this and other river names in Mesopotamia, see J. Lewy, ‘Der karrum der altassyrisch-kappadokischen Stadte und das altassyrische Grossreich’, ZA 36 (1925), 26 n. 1. Meissner accepted C. Ritter’s view that the Djarri Sade canal represented the ancient Pallacopas. Contrary to Forbiger, Handbuch, 73, who wrote of the Pallacopas: ‘Er ist jetzt so

verstopft und versandet, dass fast gar keine Spur von ihm mehr vorhanden ist’, Ritter noted that the Djarri Sade, ‘wenn schon der “trockne Fluss” heisst, dennoch 9 Monat im Jahre tiberschwemmv’: Die Erdkunde von Asien (Berlin, 1846-7), vii/2. 1026. Cf. G. Long, ‘Reports

on the Navigation of the Euphrates: By Captain Chesney, R.A.’, JRGS 3 (1833), 241-2: ‘By means of this great channel, and the numerous cuts from the Euphrates, the country between Hit and Basra must once have been the most productive spot in the world; and nothing now is wanted but a settled government and a better population, to fill the arid plains of Chaldaea with fertility and happiness. But the present government of this wretched country can effect nothing; the impulse of civilization must come from a foreign force, as civilization always has come.’ 25 On Teredon, see Forbiger, Handbuch, 623; H. C. Rawlinson, ‘Notes on the Ancient Geography of Mohamrah and the Vicinity’, JRGS (1857), 186; Bunbury, A History of Ancient Geography, 550-1; Tomaschek, Topographische Erlauterungen, 79; A. W. Stiffe, ‘Ancient Trading Centres of the Persian Gulf, iii: Pre-Mohammedan Settlements’, GJ 9 (1897), 311-12; D. T. Potts, ‘Thaj and the Location of Gerrha’, PSAS 14 (1984), 87 and n. 1.

26 Ritter, Die Erdkunde, viii/1. 43.

8

Alexander and the Seleucids

Parthian city of Vologesias or the Lahmid capital al-Hira may have been located on the same site.*7 Pliny (NH 6. 138-46) briefly recounts the history of a more important Alexandria in southernmost Babylonia, usually known as Alexandriaon-the-Tigris.28 Following in the footsteps of Nebuchadnezzar who, as discussed in vol. i ch. 9, established the city of Teredon/Diridotis in the same area, Alexander may have had at least three purposes in mind in founding Alexandria. First, he may have sought to establish a defensive outpost against potential Arab incursions; secondly, he probably wanted a new port which might serve as an offensive base for the large navy which, as we have already seen, was being built at Babylon; and thirdly, he may also have wanted the foundation to serve aS a new commercial centre at the head of the Gulf and port of entry for ships carrying luxury goods from the East,?? thereby superseding Teredon.3° It may be, moreover, that through Alexander’s new foundation in southernmost Iraq the seeds were sown of the later Seleucid satrapy of the Erythraean Sea. Certainly his auspicious choice of a site proved to be the ultimate foundation of the city which later became famous as Spasinou Charax, capital of the kingdom of Characene (see below).

In 1857 H. C. Rawlinson assessed the probable location of Alexandria-Charax as follows: ‘I should look for the position about 10 miles above the Mohamrah creek, and there I trust researches will

be made by some of our enterprising young officers during the present expedition[i.e. Chesney’s survey of the Tigris and Euphrates] .”3! Tscherikower, following what Rawlinson had fifty years earlier dismissed as ‘the received geographical identification’, felt that the city must have been located at the confluence of the Eulaios/Karkheh and the Tigris.32 J. Hansman has identified a large mound in this area, *? Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stadtegriindungen, 93.

*8 Ibid. 94. Cf. W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India (Cambridge, 1951), 17; S. A. Nodelman, ‘A Preliminary History of Characene’, Berytus, 13 (1960), 85. I have discussed

the foundation of this city in ‘Arabia and the Kingdom of Characene’, CNIP 7. 137-8. ? Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stadtegriindungen, 151, wrote: ‘kein anderer Ort war

mehr dazu geeignet, die Produkte Mesopotamiens auszufiihren und den Handel von West und Ost zu vermitteln. Mit dem Tode des Kénigs aber brach die politische und wirtschaftliche Einheit des Reiches zusammen. Indien blieb ausserhalb der Interessen der streitenden Parteien liegen, grosse Plane wurden aufgegeben und Alexandreia-Charax gelangte nie zu der Rolle, die es unter anderen Umstanden hitte spielen kénnen.’ This pertains, of course, only to the Seleucid period

proper, and does not take into consideration the role of Spasinou Charax in the Parthian era.

Cf. Nodelman, ‘A Preliminary History’, 84: ‘there seems little doubt that he [Alexander] intended the city as a center of commerce, a link between India and his future capital of Babylon’. © Although Pliny, NH 7. 145, confirms that, according to Juba, Teredon was still frequented by Parthian merchants around the time of Christ. 31 Rawlinson, ‘Notes on the Ancient Geography’, 187. *? Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stddtegriindungen, 94.

Alexander and the Seleucids

9

known as Jabal Khuyabir or Naisan (cf. Maigan/Mesene), with ancient

Charax.33

Before leaving Alexander, we should at least touch on his alleged ‘conquest’ of Arabia. Although Arrian makes it clear that Alexander’s planned invasion of Arabia never took place, we find mention of the subjugation of Arabia in several sources. Pliny (NH 12. 32: 62), Quintus Curtius (Hist. Alex. 1, summ. 7), and Plutarch (Alex. 25. 4f)

all preserve a story according to which Alexander sent a gift of frankincense to his former teacher Leonidas following his conquest of Arabia: He worshipped the gods magnificently from his early youth and used incense so lavishly that Leonidas, who was austere and frugal, exclaimed: ‘Make offerings like these when you have subdued the region where such things grow.’ Mindful of these words, when he had subdued incense-bearing Arabia

he sent many talents’ weight of perfumes to Leonidas with instructions not to be too stingy thereafter in honouring the gods, since he knew that they repaid so generously gifts cheerfully offered. (Hist. Alex. 1, summ. 7) As Alexander the Great threw incense lavishly on the altars his teacher Leonidas once said he should only make offerings in this manner after he had conquered the peoples who supplied it. After Alexander had actually conquered Arabia, he sent him a shipload of incense, with the instructions that he should make offerings from it freely to the gods. (NH 12. 32. 62)

Assuming there is any truth to the story of Alexander’s conquest of Arabia, it is probably to be associated with a brief raid into northwestern Arabia described by Quintus Curtius, made early in Alexander’s Asian campaign while the siege of Tyre was taking place.34 As Quintus Curtius writes, ‘lest he should seem slow in besieging one city, he left Perdiccas and Craterus in charge of that work and himself went to Arabia with a light-armed band’ (Hist. Alex. 4. 3. 1-2). We learn nothing further of this action, but are told a few paragraphs later of Alexander’s return from Arabia (4. 3. 7). Arrian, it should be noted, preserves no record of such an expedition. It may well have been that this raid and the seizure of such large quantities of frankincense quickened Alexander’s desire to invade Arabia just before he died. As Arrian writes, ‘the prosperity of the country incited him, since he heard that in their oases cassia grew, and from the trees came myrrh and frankincense, and from the bushes cinnamon was cut, and from their meadows spikenard grew self-sown’ 33 J, Hansman, ‘Charax and the Karkheh’, IrAnt 7 (1967), 38-45;

id., ‘The Mesopotamian

Delta in the First Millennium, Bc’, GJ 44 (1978), 54-S.

34 A. Sprenger, Die alte Geographie Arabiens (Berne, 1875), § 145, suggested that the frankincense given to Leonidas by Alexander may have been originally seized by Androsthenes during the latter’s visit to Bahrain. This seems to be a groundless speculation.

10

Alexander and the Seleucids

(Anab. 7. 20. 2). Certainly Herodotus preserves a considerable amount

of detail concerning Arabian aromatics (3. 89, 95, 108-9; cf. Pliny,

NH 12. 40. 80), including of 1,000 talents of incense Alexander anticipated that Achaemenid king awaited

the statement that the Arabians sent a gift annually to the Persian king.*° No doubt such wealth as had flowed annually to the him too in Arabia.

Seleucid Policy in the Arabian Gulf

Let us turn now to a consideration of some of the goals of subsequent Seleucid policy in the Arabian Gulf. In 1929 the great British classicist W. W. Tarn wrote: ‘All that the Seleucids did in Arabia was done on the Persian Gulf, though their activity there has hardly received due recognition.’3¢ Since that was written, however, a considerable number of scholars have attempted to piece together some semblance of a picture of Seleucid activity in this region.” The Question of the Seleucid Navy

Seleucid naval policy in the Arabian Gulf was, for the most part, a continuation of that begun by Alexander. Our evidence is in all cases slight, however. Although quite a lot is known about the military seacraft of the Seleucids,3? most of our information on their actual

naval activities pertains to the eastern Mediterranean.?? None the less, it must not be forgotten that by the time Seleucus I died in 281 BC the empire he had built stretched eastward virtually as far as the Indus.4° Even with the loss of eastern Gedrosia, Arachosia, and Paropamisada to the Maurya emperor Chandragupta*! around 303 BC, the need to maintain a fleet on the Gulf for military purposes would not have disappeared. A cryptic passage in Pliny (NH 2. 67. 167) ** This represented, as Herodotus duly noted, c.25.5 tons of frankincense each year. The entire passage is discussed in detail by J. R. Bartlett, ‘From Edomites to Nabataeans: A Study in Continuity’, PEO 111 (1979), 58. Cf. also Briant, Etat et pasteurs, 120, 170; id., ‘Sources grecques et histoire achéménide’, in id., Rois, tributs et paysans, 503. 36 Tarn, ‘Ptolemy II’, 11. 37 Most recently, see J.-F. Salles, ‘The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids’, in A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East (London, 1987), 75-109.

*8 Casson, Ships and Seamanship, 97-140. ? e.g. E. Bikerman, Les Institutions des Séleucides (Paris, 1938), 98-100; E. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323-30 av. J.-C.) (Annales de Est publiées par l’Université de Nancy II, mémoire 30; Nancy, 1979-82), i. 67-74.

* H. H. Schmitt, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos’ des Grossen und seiner Zeit

(Historia Einzelschriften, 6; Wiesbaden, 1964), 32. *! Will, Histoire politique, i. 265; cf. Schmitt, Untersuchungen, 66 n. 4.

Alexander and the Seleucids

11

would seem to reflect that naval presence in the east during the reigns of Seleucus I Nicator and his son Antiochus I Soter. There we read: ‘Likewise in the East the entirety [of the sea] which lies towards the - Caspian was navigated from the Indian Ocean, always under the same constellation, by Macedonian soldiers during the reigns of Seleucus and Antiochos, who wanted to name the sea Seleukis and Antiochis

after their names.’ As this passage is set parallel to a statement to the effect that the entire western Mediterranean, including the coast of Gaul and Spain, was known to sailors of Pliny’s day, it would seem that Pliny is simply saying that the same had applied to the eastern reaches of the oikoumene since the days of the first Seleucids.42 In 220 BC, following the revolt of Molon, Antiochus III named

Tychon, the ‘chief secretary of the army’ to ‘take command of the Persian Gulf province’, or ‘the satrapy of the Erythraean Sea’ (Polyb. 5. 54. 12). This episode will be discussed in greater detail below when we turn to the question of the satrapy of the Erythraean Sea. We mention it here, however, because it has been suggested that Antiochus III transferred the experienced Tychon to the Gulf province in order to create a fleet with which both to oversee the Gulf in general and, more specifically, to keep control over the sea trade with India.* In any case, a Seleucid fleet must have been in existence by 205 BC, the year in which Antiochus III arrived at the east Arabian emporium of Gerrha by sea (Polyb. 13. 9).44 It is important to remember, however, that Antiochus returned from his campaign to the upper satrapies and India by land, just as Alexander had done before him (Polyb. 11. 39. 12-13). The necessity for an overland march is clear when we remember that Antiochus brought with him 150 elephants. According to Pliny (NH 6. 32. 147), Antiochus IV Epiphanes sent out an expedition to explore the coast of Arabia. Although this has sometimes been considered an erroneous reference to the expedition of Antiochus

III, O. M@rkholm,

in his study of Antiochus

IV,

has strongly defended Pliny’s attribution, while criticizing him for thinking that this was the first time such an undertaking had ever been performed.*> 42 D. W. L. van Son, ‘Zur Deutung von Plinius nat. hist. If 167’, Mnemosyne, 4/2 (1962), 146-52. W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilisation, ed. G. T. Griffith (3rd edn.; London, 1952),

240, was no doubt thinking of this passage when he wrote that Seleucus I maintained a fleet in the Gulf. 43 Schmitt, Untersuchungen, 49. Cf. Nodelman, ‘A Preliminary History’, 85, who writes: ‘The function of a Seleucid fleet in the Persian Gulf was obviously to keep open the sea-lanes to India.’ 44 Schmitt, Untersuchungen, 49 n. 1. 45 OQ. M¢@rkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria (Classica et Mediaevalia, 8; Copenhagen, 1966), 169. C. Roueché and S. Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire: The Greek

Alexander and the Seleucids

12

A final piece of direct evidence for Seleucid naval activity in the Erythraean Sea is preserved by Pliny (NH 6. 152). After describing the coast of southern Arabia, he jumps up to the Gulf of Oman, where we read the following: The promontory of the Naumachaei (Naumachorum promontorium) over against Carmania is distant from it fifty miles. A wonderful circumstance is said to have happened here. Numenius, who was made governor of Mesene by King Antiochus, while fighting against the Persians, defeated them at sea, and at low water by land, with an army of cavalry on the same day; in memory of which event he erected a twofold trophy on the same spot, in honour of Jupiter and Neptune.*¢

This passage leaves us in no doubt about the existence of a Seleucid naval force. Three questions must be answered, however. When, where, and why did the engagement take place? The problem of when the episode took place is raised by the fact that, although an Antiochus is named, Pliny gives no indication of which one is meant. The debate, which has been going on since the early days of Hellenistic scholarship, revolves around four candidates: Antiochus I, III, IV, and VII. The arguments put forward in favour of each possibility have necessarily considered why and under what circumstances such an event could have taken place. S. Sherwin-White, who feels that the allusion could be to ‘any Seleucid king named Antiochus’, has pointed out that Antiochus I ‘seems to have faced at his accession unrest in Persis, where

at

Pasargadae the destruction level in the Achaemenid citadel, dated to c.280 B.C., has been associated with disturbances following the death of Seleucus I in 281 B.C.’.4”7 Waddington, however, interpreted Pliny’s use of the term ‘Persians’ as a literal reference to inhabitants of Persis, as distinct from Parthians. He considered the reference an allusion to a campaign by Antiochus III against Alexander, the rebellious satrap of Persis.48 In both Greek and Roman epigraphic sources, however, the term ‘Persians’ long continued in use when referring to Parthians.*? Altheim, moreover, noted that there is no evidence for Inscriptions from Failaka, in the Arabian Gulf’, Chiron, 15 (1985), 9 and n. 21, believe rather

that Pliny was wrong altogether, and that his reference ‘is correctly explained as a confusion with the expedition of Antiochus III’.

‘© Trans. Maj.-Gen. S. B. Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography of the East Coast of Arabia’,

JRAS 10 (1878), 169.

*7 Roueché and Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’, 9. “8 W. H. Waddington, ‘Numismatique et chronologie des rois de la Charactne’, RN 11

(1866), 308.

a V. Gardthausen, ‘Die Parther in griechisch-rémischen Inschriften’, in C. Bezold (ed.), Orientalische Studien Theodor Néldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (2. Marz 1906) gewidmet, ii (Giessen, 1906), 857 (cf. below, ch. 6 n. 219). The alternation between Persae and Parthi in

Alexander and the Seleucids

13

the existence of a satrapy called Mesene in the time of Antiochus III; it is first attested in Strabo.5° The fact that Polybius attributes no acts _of aggression on the part of Antiochus III against Persis has also been stressed by Will.>! There are three pieces of circumstantial evidence in favour of Antiochus IV. To begin with, as R. Stiehl argued, the

refoundation of Alexandria-on-the-Tigris by Antiochus IV as Antiochia (see below) must have provided the circumstances under which Numenius was appointed eparch of Mesene.5? Le Rider has pointed out that Antiochus IV is discussed by Pliny earlier in the same chapter and there is, moreover, a small series of six bronze coins minted by Antiochus IV at Susa which show, on the reverse, the prow of a galley on which the stern-post (acrostolion) is decorated with a bandelette.53

This may, he suggests, commemorate a naval victory in the Gulf.%4 Arguing in favour of Antiochus VII Sidetes (137-129 BC), the French

savant A.-J. Saint-Martin suggested in 1817 that the conflict described by Pliny was occasioned by gains made in Persis by the Parthian king Mithridates.*° As for the circumstances which may have occasioned the battle, we have seen that Sherwin-White tentatively suggested a link with rebellions in Persis faced by Antiochus I. O. Blau felt that Numenius went into battle against Parthian troops which had gained a foothold on the Musandam peninsula.°® Similarly, Altheim suggested that the expedition of Numenius had as its goal the recovery of the Straits of Hormuz, presumably lost to the Parthians, in order to safeguard seatrade with India.*’ This seems to be the opinion held by Nodelman Greek and Latin sources is also discussed by J. E. Atkinson, A Commentary on QO. Curtius Rufus’ Historiae Alexandri Magni Books 3 and 4 (London Studies in Classical Philology, 4; Amsterdam and Uithoorn, 1980), 21-3. For a recent study exploring the image of the Parthians in the Roman imagination, see H. Sonnabend, Fremdenbild und Politik (Europaische Hochschulschriften; Bonn, 1986). 50 F, Altheim, Weltgeschichte Asiens im griechischen Zeitalter (Halle, 1948), 46.

51 Will, Histoire politique, ii. 64. 52 R. Stiehl, ‘Chronologie der fratadara’, in F. Altheim (ed.), Geschichte der Hunnen, i (Berlin, 1959), 377. Will, Histoire politique, ii. 354, wrongly states that Stiehl put the battle

late in the reign of Antiochus III. 53 G. Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes (MDP 38; Paris, 1965), 310. The same point was stressed by Mérkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 168. For the coins, see Le Rider, Suse,

1. v, 63. 1-4. : 54 A. Sprenger,

‘Bemerkungen

zu Dr. Mordtmann’s

Anzeige

von

Glaser’s Skizze der

Geschichte der Araber etc.’, ZDMG 44 (1890), 512, wrote: ‘Es hat ja Numenius, der Admiral des

Antiochus Epiphanes, auch an der Kiste von Bahrein grosse Quantitaten von Weihrauch in den Depots der Gerrhaer vorgefunden.’ The source of Sprenger’s vivid imagination here eludes me. 5S A.-J. Saint-Martin, Recherches sur I’histoire et la géographie de la Méseéne et de la Characéne, ed. F. Lajard (Paris, 1838), 134. Saint-Martin was followed on this point by J. T. Reinaud, Mémoire sur le commencement et la fin du royaume de la Méséne et de la Kharacene (Paris, 1861), 31, and by Drouin, ‘Notice historique’, 142.

56 QO. Blau, ‘Altarabische Sprachstudien: 2. Theil’, ZDMG 27 (1873), 329, where they are described as ‘arsakidische Besatzungen oder Soldner’.

57 Altheim, Weltgeschichte Asiens, 46.

14

Alexander and the Seleucids

as well.°8 Will, without commiting himself to either Antiochus III or IV, calls it nothing more than ‘une opération de police contre des pinatespe she Turning to the location of the battle, numerous opinions have been expressed. A list of regions, ‘Regio Amithoscatta, Damnia,

Mizi

maiores et minores, Drimati’ [‘the region of Amithoscutha, Damnia,

the greater and the lesser Mizi, and the Drimati’], is followed by ‘Naumachaeorum/Naumache horum promunturium contra Carmaniam’.®? Von Gutschmid suggested an emendation of the text, dropping ‘Nau-’ altogether, to read ‘Drimati, Macae: horum .. .’.°! Sprenger suggested a different emendation which yielded a similar result. By supposing that ‘Nau-’ belongs to the aforementioned list, denoting in his opinion a point in the Kuria Muria Bay known as Ras Nus, he suggested the reading ‘Machaeorum promontorium’.® This would denote the Ra’s Musandam peninsula, known to Nearchus as Maketa, and restored as ‘Macae’ by von Gutschmid.®3 More recently,

H. von Wissmann has argued at great length that ‘Naumachaeorum promuntorium’ is the correct reading, and that the toponyms preceding it belong to an interpolated list of places in northern Madagascar (‘Regio Amithoscatta’) and the east African coast.6+ Comparing ‘Naumachaeorum’ with ‘Nabahina’, the name of a tribe located in the

early twentieth century to the south-west of Muscat, von Wissmann identified ‘Naumachaeorum promuntorium’ with the headland of Ra’s al-Hamra or Ra’s al-Hadd.® Finally, one should not neglect the suspicious similarity between naumachia, the Latin term for a mock naval battle,®* and ‘Naumachaeorum’, which might indicate a play on words. °8 Nodelman, ‘A Preliminary History’, 85.

°° Will, Histoire politique, ii. 64. 6° Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 169. $1 A. von Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarlinder von Alexander dem Grossen bis zum Untergang der Arsaciden (Tiibingen, 1888), 40. Von Gutschmid’s correction was accepted by D. Detlefsen, Die geographischen Biicher der Naturalis Historia des C. Plinius Secundus (Berlin, 1904), 161. This reading is followed e.g. by M¢@rkholm, Antiochus IV

a)Syria, 168, and Roueché Te ahd

and Sherwin-White,

‘Some

Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’,

6° Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, §157. ® Drouin, ‘Notice historique’, 142 n. 2: ‘“Naumachaeorum promontorium” le cap Mussandon moderne’. ** H. von Wissmann, ‘Zangenae’, RE Suppl. 11 (1968), cols. 1340 Le Rider, who has discussed the site, has not

ventured a localization.’ Despite its name, it is not clear whether the city was a foundation of Seleucus I Nicator or of his son and immediate successor Antiochus I Soter.’” Antiochia-in-Persis, a foundation of Antiochus I,”8 was populated by Greeks from Magnesia-ad-Maeandrum in Asia Minor, as we know §7 As an introduction to the large field of Seleucid colonization, see G. M. Cohen, The Seleucid Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration and Organization (Historia Einzelschriften, 30; Wiesbaden, 1978). On the difficult problem of the relations between Seleucid colonists and local, Asian groups, see P. Briant, ‘Colonisation hellénistique et populations indigénes: La Phase d’installation’ and ‘Colonisation hellénistique et populations indigenes, ii: Renforts grecs dans les cités hellénistiques d’Orient’, in id., Rois, tributs et paysans, 227-62, 263-79.

68 70 71 =) 72 73 74 7S 76 77 78

Tarn, The Greeks, 66. 6° Cohen, The Seleucid Colonies, 18. Tarn, The Greeks, 66 and n. 2. Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stadtegriindungen, 98. F. Cumont, ‘La Patrie de Séleucus de Séleucie’, Syria, 8 (1927), 83-4. Forbiger, Handbuch, 585. Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stadtegriindungen, 98. Tarn, The Greeks, 43; cf. id., ‘Ptolemy II’, 11. Le Rider, Suse, 270-1 and n. 11. Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stadtegrindungen, 168. Probably on the site of an already existing settlement: ibid. 196.

16

Alexander and the Seleucids

from an inscription recovered at Magnesia, dating to c.205 BC, in

which a request is made by Antiochia to the original source of its inhabitants for more colonists.7? While Tscherikower would only go so far as to admit that the site had to be in Persis,8° Tarn suggested that the city was located at Bushire,’! and this has since been generally accepted.®2 Alexandria-on-the-Tigris, mentioned earlier, probably bore the name of its founder until, following extensive damage by a flood (Pliny, NH 6. 31. 138-9), it was refounded in 166 or 165 BC by Antiochus IV

Epiphanes’3 as Antiochia-Charax.*4 Arethusa, Larisa, and Chalcis are known only from Pliny (NH 6. 32. 159), who says that they had been ‘destroyed in various wars’

(‘deleta variis bellis’). Glaser was of the opinion that this notice pre-dated Pliny’s own lifetime by several centuries, possibly dating to just after the death of Alexander.8’ Tscherikower offered but little commentary on Pliny’s passage, saying only that the names seemed to indicate a Seleucid foundation.®8® Tarn, on the other hand,

was of the opinion that the ‘names belong to one of the first two Seleucids and can belong to no one else’.8” He located them on the Arabian coast, somewhere between the mouth of the Euphrates and the Arabian emporium Gerrha.’8 More recently, however, 7 The text is now conveniently given in a new English translation in M. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest (Cambridge, 1981), §190, pp. 311-13. It has been extensively discussed: cf. Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stadtegriindungen, 196; Schmitt, Untersuchungen, 28 n. 3; Cohen, The Seleucid Colonies, 5, 29.

8° Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stadtegriindungen, 98 and n. 379. 81 Tarn, ‘Ptolemy II’, 11 and n. 4. 8° W. Orth, Kéniglicher Machtanspruch und stadtische Freibeit (Miinchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 71; Munich, 1977), 115 n. 6, writes: ‘Der Lokalisierungsvorschlag Tarns . . . ist, wenn auch mit Vorsicht, allgemein akzeptiert worden.’ Roueché and Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’, 9 and n. 18, also discuss

the possibilities that Antiochia-in-Persis was located at Taoke/ Tawwaj, c.20 miles from Bushire; near Persepolis; or near Istakhr. 8° For the date, cf. Nodelman, ‘A Preliminary History’, 85. On the succession of Antiochus IV, and the virtual certainty that it was he who refounded Alexandria-Charax, cf. Tarn, The Greeks, 185; Mgrkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 168. On the city under the Seleucids, cf. also G. Le Rider, ‘Un atelier monétaire séleucide dans la province de la mer Erythrée?’, RN (1965), 36-43; O. Mg@rkholm, ‘A Greek Coin Hoard from Susiana’, Acta Archaeologica, 36 (1965), 155-6; id., ‘The Seleucid Mint at Antiochia on the Persian Gulf’, American Numismatic Society Museum Notes, 16 (1970), 31-44.

** Cf. also the discussion in Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stadtegriindungen, 178.

85 E. Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens (Berlin, 1890), 157: ‘Wir

stehen offenbar abermals vor einer Wiedergabe alterer Nachrichten, welche dem Plinius vorlagen. Méglich, dass auch diese Stadte am arabischen Ufer des Rothen Meeres lagen und Jahrhunderte vor Plinius zerst6rt worden sind. Sie genauer zu localisiren, ist nicht mehr mdoglich.’ *° Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stadtegriindungen, 81. 87 Tarn, ‘Ptolemy II’, 11. *8 Cf. also the maps accompanying Cohen, The Seleucid Colonies; F. E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism (New York, 1970), 224-S.

Alexander and the Seleucids

17

von Wissmann has posited a location for all three in the area of the lower Tigris.9 Tarn considered the Artemita in Arabia mentioned by Cl. Ptolemy (Geog. 5. 19. 7) to have been a Seleucid foundation on the Arabian Gulf coast. Further, he suggested that, given its name, it must have

been

settled by immigrants

from

the better-known

Artemita??

mentioned by Isidorus of Charax (Mans. Parth. 2), Strabo (16. 1. 17), Pliny (NH 6. 26. 117), and Cl. Ptolemy (Geog. 5. 1) as the first stop

on the road to Ecbatana beyond Seleucia-on-the-Tigris.®! Similarly, Tarn suggested that the Carrhae included in Stephen of Byzantium’s Ethnika was a foundation of colonists from Carrhae/ Harran in northern Mesopotamia.” Sprenger, on the other hand, felt that ‘Carrhae’, the name of a town described by Pliny (NH 12. 40. 79),

was a corruption of ‘Gerrha’,?? and indeed the description of Carrhae’s role as the principal Arabian market for aromatics (see ch. 3 below) makes it likely that Gerrha and Carrhae are one and the same city. Finally we come to Trapezus, a city which is also contained in Stephen of Byzantium’s Ethnika.?4 Whether this settlement, if indeed it is to be located in our area, was founded by colonists from the betterknown Pontic Trapezus (modern Trabzon) is unknown.?5 In conclusion, one is hardly overwhelmed by the ‘energy’ and ‘trouble’ with which Tarn and Cohen claim the Seleucids devoted themselves to the colonization of the Arabian Gulf. Leaving aside the sites of uncertain attribution, we are left with the following: Seleucia-on-the-Erythraean-Sea Seleucus I or Antiochus | Arethusa, Chalcis, Larisa

Seleucus I or Antiochus I

Antiochia-in-Persis Antiochia-Charax

Antiochus I. Antiochus IV

This hardly bespeaks an intensive programme of Seleucid settlement around the Arabian Gulf. Administrative Reorganization at the Head of the Gulf As already noted, Alexander’s foundation of Charax and its renewal by Antiochus IV probably reflected the Greek desire to establish a new 89 H. yon Wissmann, ‘Zamareni’, RE Suppl. 11 (1968), 1335. % Tarn, The Greeks, 12, 66. ° For Artemita, see W. W. Schoff’s edn. of Parthian Stations by Isidorus of Charax (London, 1914; repr. Chicago, 1976), §2 and p. 27. Cf. Cohen, The Seleucid Colonies, 18; * Tarn, The Greeks, 12. Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stadtegriindungen, 97. *4 Tarn, The Greeks, 66. °3 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, §184 p. 136. °° For Trapezus, see Forbiger, Handbuch, 424; M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1926), 390.

Alexander and the Seleucids

18

maritime centre at the head of the Gulf which would service both the capital of the empire and the long-distance trading-vessels, while functioning as a base for the Seleucid fleet. Nothing suggests that the foundation of Alexandria was tied to larger plans for southern Babylonia, however. Alexander,

of course,

inherited

the satrapal

divisions

of the

Achaemenids. At the time of Darius,9° as we know from Herodotus, Mesopotamia, consisting of those areas traditionally known as Babylonia and Assyria, constituted the ninth satrapy,”’ with Babylon as its capital. Later, perhaps under Xerxes, Babylonia was recognized as a separate satrapy, while Assyria was joined administratively to Syria.°8 The satrapies of Mesopotamia and Babylonia were thus

separate entities at the time of Alexander’s death.?? At some time prior to the accession of Antiochus III, however, a

reorganization of both satrapies took place. Paropotamia, a district along the Middle Euphrates, was separated from the rest of Mesopotamia. More importantly for us, however, it would seem that the entirety of southernmost Babylonia, once known to the Assyrians and Babylonians as ‘the Sealand’, and later subsumed under the name of Characene or Mesene, was made a new administrative division called

the satrapy of the Erythraean Sea.!9° Unfortunately, our sources on this satrapy are extremely scanty. It is mentioned three times by Polybius in connection with the revolt of Molon, satrap of Media, which began in 222 BC.!9! In 221 BC we

find Pythiadas, who is called ‘satrap (eparchon) of the Erythraean Sea’, coming to the aid of Xenoetas in his attempt to crush Molon (Polyb. 5.46.7). Molon’s clever deception of Xenoetas, by which he led him

to believe that the rebel army had abandoned their camp in fear, prompted a night of drinking and feasting in Xenoetas’ camp. Polybius °° OQ. Leuze, Die Satrapieneinteilung in Syrien und im Zweistromlande

von 520-320

(Schriften der K6nigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, 11/4; Halle, 1935), 199 ff.

” C. F. Lehmann-Haupt, ‘Eine Crux bei Arrian behoben’, Anzeiger d. phil.-hist. Kl. d. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, 19 (1921), 4. See also E. Haerinck, ‘La Neuviéme Satrapie: Archéologie confronte histoire?’, in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Achaemenid History, i. Sources, Structures and Syntheses (Leiden, 1987), 139-45. _ °8 Lehmann-Haupt, ‘Eine Crux bei Arrian’, 4; but cf. Leuze, Die Satrapieneinteilung, 460:

‘Uberliefert ist von einer solchen Anderung der friiheren Satrapiegrenzen nichts. Die Annahme beruht vielmehr nur auf Schliissen aus zwei Stellen antiker Schriftsteller: [Xenophon] Anab. VII 8, 25 und Arrian Anab. III 8, 6. Aber die Schliisse sind nicht zwingend und beruhen auf sehr anfechtbaren Interpretationen . . . Beide Stellen diirfen fiir die Ermittlung der Satrapieneinteilung und der Satrapiegrenze nicht verwertet werden.’ ® Ibid. 460-5. Cf. F. Schachermeyr, ‘Mesopotamien’, RE xv (1932), 1141; L. Schober, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Babyloniens und der Oberen Satrapien von 323-303 v. Chr. (Europaische Hochschulschriften, 3/147; Frankfurt, 1981), 3-5. 100 Schmitt, Untersuchungen, 34; for the relevant numismatic evidence, see n. 85 above. 101 Tbid. 116 ff.

Alexander and the Seleucids

19

describes in detail how Molon and his army returned at dawn to find the enemy incapable of defending themselves due to the night’s revelry, and how the soldiers of Xenoetas died, some still in their beds and

others while trying to save themselves by diving into the Tigris. We chpwesa presume that Pythiadas did not escape this disaster with is life. Next we hear that Molon advanced on Susa, ‘after making himself master of Babylonia and the coasts of the Persian gulf (5. 48. 13-14). In view of the loss of the satrapy of the Erythraean Sea to Molon and the death of its satrap, it is hardly surprising that Antiochus III, after crushing the revolt in 220 BC, took steps to restore order in the region. To begin with, Antiochus dispatched Tychon, a trusted officer and veteran of the young king’s campaigns, to ‘take the command of the satrapy of the Erythraean Sea’ (5. 54. 8). It seems obvious that Antiochus would have appointed an experienced military administrator to restore order in a territory which had temporarily been lost to an enemy who, moreover, had most certainly killed its satrap. Nevertheless, Tychon’s intended role has been the subject of considerable. discussion. Bouché-Leclercq felt that Tychon was being sent to occupy the coast of the Erythraean Sea militarily,!°2 a suggestion which undoubtedly represents but one of the many tasks which lay before him. Bar-Kochva did not attribute any great significance to the move at all, for in his opinion the office of Tychon had been that of ‘a general administrator, probably the officer in charge of finance, concerned above all with pay’ before his promotion to ‘satrap of “the province of the Red Sea”’.193 Schmitt, as mentioned above, has suggested that Tychon’s

role was to supervise the establishment of a Seleucid navy. Antiochus may have felt the need to build up a navy as one more safeguard against any future rebellions in the south, but considering the undoubted turmoil which must have been caused by the events of the previous two years, it would seem that any designs regarding the establishment of a port of trade with India would have been secondary to the more basic task of restoring order. The Fiscal Policies of the Seleucids in the Arabian Gulf

While direct evidence for the imposition of some kind of taxation in the Gulf region is lacking, it is most probable that tariffs were levied 102 A Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Séleucides (323-64 avant J.-C.) (Paris, 1913), i. 136.

103 B. Bar-Kochva, The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns (Cambridge, 1976), 86.

20

Alexander and the Seleucids

in Babylonia on all imports arriving from the area. To judge from Seleucid practices elsewhere in their empire, any of a number of taxes may have been imposed. These could have included a tax levied on the camels in a caravan, a tax imposed for escort through the desert, port dues collected at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, a tax imposed for the

use of the Euphrates as a waterway, taxes on slaves, a tax on salt,

or a basic 10 per cent ad valorem tax on imported goods.1° In view of the enormous amounts of revenue which the Seleucids stood to gain from such taxes, it is easy to see why the facilitation of all forms of foreign trade would have been in their best interest. If merchants abroad viewed Babylonia as a market and transit point for the export of all manner of goods, it must also be stressed that the Seleucids surely made the best of the situation by levying taxes on the aspiring exporters. In this regard, their interest was surely not to control trade, but rather to ensure that it proceeded unhindered by external disturbances.!9 Any threat to the system must have been viewed as a threat to the very existence of the Seleucid monarchy, and we know enough about the expensive wars of the Seleucids to realize that tax revenue was all important if they were to go on financing them. Viewed in this light, Babylonia’s foreign trade in the Seleucid period takes on an added dimension. This will be an important consideration to bear in mind when we consider Seleucid relations with the individual Gulf polities in the chapters which follow. The Arabian Gulf in the Hellenistic Imagination

In concluding this chapter, we should say a few words about the accumulation of knowledge concerning the Arabian Gulf region during the Seleucid period, as this certainly went hand in hand with whatever navigation, colonization, and campaigning took place. To begin with, under what name was the Arabian Gulf known? Theophrastus (372/1 or 371/0-288/7 or 287/6 BC), who drew on the lost work of '4 For Seleucid taxation, see Bikerman, Les Institutions, 117. W. W. Tarn and G. T. Griffith, Hellenistic Civilisation (New York, 1974), 141-2, warn: ‘Taxation in the Seleucid

empire is an obscure subject. . . . It is more than possible that taxation was not the same in every satrapy of the vast empire; Babylonia may well have differed from the norm.’ On port

dues, slave tax, and salt tax in Babylonia, see R. H. McDowell, Stamped and Inscribed Objects from Seleucia on the Tigris (Univ. of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series, 36; Ann Arbor 1935), 173-98. Taxation in the Babylonian area is also treated now by S. M. Sherwin-White, ‘Seleucid Babylonia: A Case Study for the Installation and Development of Greek Rule’, in Kuhrt and Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East, 27.

'5 T should like to particularly thank J. Teixidor, CNRS, Paris, for enlightening me on the importance of taxation.

Alexander and the Seleucids

21

Androsthenes, as noted earlier, lived until the middle of the reign of Seleucus I. In De Causis Plant. 2. 5. 5 he used the general term ‘Red Sea’ (Erythra thalatta), to refer to the Gulf. In addition, Theophrastus

employed the rarely used ‘Arabian Gulf? (Arabikos kolpos), normally reserved in antiquity for the modern Red Sea, to refer to the Arabian Gulf (Hist. 4. 7. 7). It should be noted that the later Latin designation

Arabicus sinus generally referred to the modern

Red Sea,!% a

distinction explicit in Strabo, who writes: ‘The northern side of Arabia Felix is formed by the above-mentioned desert, the eastern by the Persian Gulf, the western by the Arabian Gulf’ (16. 3. 1). Strabo (c.64/3 BC-+AD 24), who relied heavily on the Hellenistic

geographer Eratosthenes (284-202 BC), used the term ‘Persian Gulf (Persikos kolpos: e.g. 15. 2. 14, 16. 3. 2), as did Arrian (d. c. AD 170) when relating Alexander’s address to his men (Anab. 5. 26. 2).

Much discussion surrounded the actual configuration of the Gulf.197 Strabo (16. 3. 2) thought that the Gulf was roughly the same size as the Black Sea (Pontus Euxinus), and located it directly south of the

Caspian. Following Nearchus, he took the combined lengths of the Persian and Arabian coasts to be 20,000 stadia (c.2,200 miles), as did

Agathemeros, Ptolemy, and Ammianus Marcellinus after him. Pliny (NH 6. 24. 28), following Eratosthenes, used the figures of 2,500 Roman miles (2312.5 miles) as the length of the combined coasts of the Gulf, and 1,125 Roman miles (1040.625 miles) for the straight distance

from the mouth of the Tigris to the Straits of Hormuz. His estimate for the width of the Straits was only 4-5 Roman miles (3.7-4.625 miles), whereas Agathemeros (Geog. 1. 3) gave it a distance of 400 stadia, or roughly 50 Roman miles (46.25 miles), This was more in keeping with Strabo’s statement that one could cross the straits in a day’s sail (and still see from one coast across to the other). In fact, the actual

distance across the Straits of Hormuz is roughly 100 km. or 60 miles.19 Conclusion

Unlike most of Western Asia, the Arabian peninsula was, as we have seen, never actually conquered by either Alexander the Great or his 106 A. Dietrich, ‘Arabicus sinus’, KP i (1979), 485. For older commentaries on this term,

cf. W. Smith (ed.), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, i (London, 1854), 182-3. See

also the excellent study of the terms Persicus sinus and rubrum mare in G. W. Bowersock, “The Greek-Nabataean Bilingual Inscription at Ruwwafa, Saudi Arabia’, in J. Bingen, G. Cambier, and G. Nachtergal (eds.), Le Monde grec: Hommages a Claire Préaux (Brussels, 1975), 518-20. 107 This topic was treated in considerable detail by Forbiger, Handbuch, 7-8. 108 For the most recent historico-geographic treatment of the Straits of Hormuz, see H.-G. Carls, Alt-Hormoz: Ein historischer Hafen an der Strasse von Hormoz (Iran) (Munich, 1982).

22

Alexander and the Seleucids

Seleucid successors. Despite his well-known intention to mount an expedition against eastern Arabia, and to colonize the coast, Alexander’s famous ‘last plans’ never advanced beyond the reconnaissance stage. Nor can the foray of Antiochus III (see ch. 4 below) or the expedition of Antiochus IV be considered to have advanced the spread of Seleucid influence, or more broadly that of Hellenism, amongst the peoples and polities of eastern Arabia. Indeed, it was not until the Augustan era, when Juba of Mauretania compiled the material in De Expeditione Arabica for the planned but unexecuted expedition of Gaius Caesar, that more accurate information on the region was assembled (see chs. 5 and 6 below). But the paucity of extant written sources on eastern Arabia is in part explicable by the fact that, while the area was in touch with the Greek or Seleucid world, it was

outside the boundaries of the Seleucid empire. As a consequence, it was never as strongly Hellenized as regions further north and west, and its material and intellectual culture was first and foremost Arabian,

though of course open to outside influence from countries all around the perimeter of the Arabian Gulf—Indian Ocean-Red Sea belt. In the coming chapters we shall examine the individual regions of the Arabian Gulf in the time of the great empires, looking closely at the archaeological, epigraphic, and literary evidence that is preserved from the local cultures of the Arabian Gulf, as well as at their relations with

their much better-known neighbours.

w) North-Eastern Arabia during the Hellenistic Period Introduction

The region known traditionally as al-Bahrain or al-Hasa, and since the administrative reform of 1953 as the Eastern Provitice of Saudi Arabia,! has been of enduring interest to students of Arabia’s relationship with the Graeco-Roman world ever since the publication of the pioneering works of D’Anville,? Sprenger,* and Glaser.* Unstable, indeed anarchic political conditions prior to the foundation of the present Saudi monarchy precluded most exploration in the region, but several early reports of sites and finds dating to the Hellenistic period should be noted. Inscriptions were noted in the Qatif area, for example, at the beginning of the last century.* A description of the ruins of Thaj survives from 1865. From the second period of Ottoman rule comes an extremely interesting if generally neglected anonymous report, dating to 1899, on archaeological sites in and around al-Hofuf.’ In

' In Arabic, al-mintaqah al-Sarqtyah. F. S. Vidal, The Oasis of al-Hasa (Dhahran, 1955), 4n. 20.

? B. D’Anville, ‘Recherches géographiques sur le golfe persique, et sur les bouches de PEuphrate et du Tigre’, Mémoires . . . de l’Académie royale des inscriptions et belles-lettres,

30 (1764), 132-97.

3 A. Sprenger, Die alte Geographie Arabiens (Berne, 1875). * E. Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens (Berlin, 1890). > A.H.L. Heeren, Ideen tiber die Politik, den Verkehr und den Handel der vornehmsten Volker der alten Welt (Gottingen, 1824), i/2. 232: ‘Hier sollen nach den Berichten eines neueren

Reisenden noch alte Steindenkmahler mit Inschriften seyn.’ As the report on Capt. Sadleir’s 1819 visit to Qatif and Riyadh was not published until 1866, this might refer to information derived from a journey by Reinaud, in 1799, portions of which are related by U. J. Seetzen, ‘Beytrage zur Geographie Arabiens’, Monatliche Correspondenz zur Beforderung der Erd- und HimmelsKunde, 11 (1805), 234 (I have not been able to check this report). ® Lt.-Col. L. Pelly, Report on a Journey to the Wahabee Capital of Riyadh in Central Arabia (Bombay, 1866; repr. Cambridge and Naples, n.d.), 24; discussed below.

7 E. Littmann, ‘Ruinen in Ostarabien’, Der Islam, 8 (1918), 19-34. Recently H.-J. Kornrumpf, ‘Neuere Beschreibungen von al-Hasa in amtlichen osmanischen Ver6ffentlichungen’, Der Islam, 55 (1978), 90-2, published a translation of the same document, apparently unaware of Littmann’s article. Korat attempted to identify several of the sites mentioned in the Turkish document with sites in the Hofuf area noted in 1955 by Vidal, The Oasis of al-Hasa, 201-9, where 16 sites are described.

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

24

1911 Capt. W. H. I. Shakespear was able to visit Thaj, where he copied two epigraphic South Arabian inscriptions,® of a type discussed below, now classified as Hasaitic.? Hoping to find the ancient city of Gerrha, Capt. R. E. Cheesman visited a site near Salwa in 1921 which had been noted in the Persian Gulf Pilot of 1865, but the remains turned out to be Islamic.!° Two years later Cheesman explored the ruins of al-'Uqayr, and pronounced them to be those of Gerrha.!! It was not until the conclusion of an agreement for the exploration and exploitation of the Kingdom’s oil reserves between the Standard Oil Company of California and the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Finance on 29 May 1933,!2 however, that the way was really paved for the discovery and exploration of the archaeological sites of the region. With the initiation of the search for oil in eastern Arabia, American

oilmen and their families gained access to what had been, for all intents § Published posthumously in D. G. Carruthers, ‘Captain Shakespear’s Last Journey’, GJ 59 (1922), 322-3, with translations by D. S. Margoliouth. ® ‘Hasaitic’ will be used here for the inscriptions from al-Hasa, following A. F. L. Beeston. ‘0 Capt. R. E. Cheesman, ‘From Oqair to the Ruins of Salwa’, GJ 62 (1923), 332, described

the site as follows: ‘the ruins . . . were bigger than I expected from recent reports, but certainly did not suggest the remains of a large town such as Gerra might have been. They proved to be the outline of a spacious castle with rectangular walls 95 yards [85.5 m.] by 71 yards [63.9 m.] enclosing a courtyard. The walls were originally 6 feet [1.8 m.] thick, built of slabs of shell covered rock [farush] , well cemented where protected, but mostly strewn helter skelter about the base. The tower and inner castle were plainly traceable, the walls being still 4 feet [1.2 m.] and the tower 12 feet [3.6 m.] high, but a tumbled mound of loose slabs. A well

in the larger courtyard was paved all round with rock, and the sides were cemented masonry in good preservation. A few pieces of pottery, alabaster, and broken shell of an ostrich egg were found, and similar relics were discovered 2 to 3 feet [60-90 cm.] below the surface.’

D. G. Hogarth, to whom the finds were sent, pronounced them to be from ‘a settlement of Post-Islamic Arabs who had commercial relations with the Persian shore of the Gulf’ (apud Cheesman, ibid.).

'' Maj. R. E. Cheesman, ‘The Deserts of Jafura and Jabrin’, GJ 65 (1925), 116: ‘my attention was attracted to some birds in a zizyphus tree in the Amir’s garden at Abu Zahmul . . On arrival at the garden, a series of mounds strewn with a litter of blue pottery reminded me of the ruin fields of Babylonia. A short inspection revealed the fact that I was in the middle of what was once a large city. Mounds of rubble and lines of mounds radiated in all directions, covering an area of about one mile long by half a mile wide. None equalled in size the mounds of Babylon or Susa, the highest being 6 to 8 feet [1.8-2.4 m.], but it was possible to trace

the outline of spacious houses and streets. The brackish well seemed to be in the midst of an open square. The walls had been built of slabs of local coral rock, now lying in tumbled confusion at their bases, and there were remains of what appeared to have been a wall which once enclosed the city. There seemed every reason to believe that I had at last found the site of Gerra.’ Hogarth, apud Cheesman, ‘From Oqair’, 140, wrote: ‘In regard to the Gerra question, I like to believe Major Cheesman has found that ancient city, and until good reason is shown I shall continue so to believe.’ Cf. T. G. Bibby, Preliminary Survey in East Arabia, 1968 (JASP 12; Copenhagen, 1973), 38: ‘The correctness of the identification of Uqair with Gerrha had seemed so overwhelmingly likely that it had been somewhat of a shock to the author to find, on a visit to the site in 1962 . . . that the surface sherds were entirely Islamic.’ '2 I. I. Nawwab, P. C. Speers, and P. F. Hoye (eds.), Aramco and its World (Dhahran, 1980), 188, for a concise history of the concession.

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

25

and purposes, terra incognita.!3 Over the years the finds they made, communicated to scholars in Europe and America, came to represent an important share of the extant archaeological material from the region. Moreover, for many years what little exploration by foreign scholars did take place in the region was facilitated by the oil company. The first such undertaking was made in 1940-1 by P. B. Cornwall through the sponsorship of the Californian Arabian Standard Oil Company (CASOC), as it was then called.!4 It was, in fact, through

the agency of the vice-president of CASOC that H. R. P. and V. P. Dickson were able to visit Thaj in 1942.15 During the 1950s many casual finds were made, and the early 1960s saw a small but steady number of foreign visitors to the archaeological sites in the area. V. P. Dickson visited Thaj in 1961 and again in 1962, at which time she photographed several inscriptions which had been recently found by J. and L. Mandaville and T. C. Barger.!¢ In 1962 'S This is not to say that there had been no non-archaeological exploration of the region whatsoever, but as the discussions at the Royal Geographical Society following the lectures of Philby, Mackie, or Cheesman show, it was still a poorly known area well into the third decade of the present century. For ‘A Schematic History of Exploration in Northeastern Arabia, 1799-1982’, see my ‘Northeastern Arabia in the Later Pre-Islamic Era’, AOMIM 87. To this list should be added the following. 1812: Capt. Hamilton, in the brig Nautilus, visited al-Qatif, see J. Horsburgh, The India Directory, 6th edn., i (London, 1852), 401. 1813: Capt. Biddulph, in the sloop Hesper, on 25 May visited the small islands of Hurqus, Karan, and Kurayn, east

of Manifa, which subsequently became known as ‘Biddulph’s Group’; see ibid. 402. (I should like to thank Mr G. Armitage, Middle East Section, India Office Library and Records, The British Library, for his help in answering my questions concerning Capt. Biddulph’s visit.) 1825: Lt. G. B. Brucks and Lt. Rogers surveyed al-Qatif bay and went as far north as Ras Tanura; see ibid. 401. 1832: Lt. W. H. Wyburd visited Qatif, "Uqayr, Hofuf, and Mubarraz; see P. Tuson, ‘Lieutenant Wyburd’s Journal of an Excursion into Arabia’, ArSt 5 (1979), 21-36. 1839: Lt. T. Edmunds visited Sihat, Qatif, and “Ugayr while Assistant Resident at Bushire; see Lt. A. B. Kemball, ‘Memoranda on the Resources, Localities, and Relations of the Tribes Inhabiting the Arabian Shores of the Persian Gulf’, Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government,

NS 24 (1856), 110-11, for Edmunds’ notes. 1841: Lt. K. Jopp visited Tarut, Qatif, Hofuf, and ‘Uaqayr. For his ‘Route, in November 1841, from Ojair to Hoofoof’ and ‘Route from Hoofoof to Kateef’, see ibid. 111-15. 1896: E. Bakkus, an Armenian missionary from Mardin, journeyed from Basra to Hofuf via “Uqayr. See S. M. Zwemer and J. Cantine, The Golden Milestone: Reminiscences of Pioneer Days Fifty Years Ago in Arabia (New York, 1938), 126-7. 14 P. B. Cornwall, ‘Ancient Arabia: Explorations in Hasa, 1940-41’, GJ 107 (1946), 29: ‘I was the guest of the California-Arabian Standard Oil Company, and through its generosity most of my exploring trips were carried out in two of the Company’s “pick-ups”.’ Cf. id., ‘In Search of Arabia’s Past’, Nat. Geog. 93/4 (1948), 493-4. Cornwall’s application for the funds to carry out his project, entitled ‘A Proposed Archaeological Investigation in East-Central Arabia and Bahrain Island’, dating to 1939, outlines (p. 24) ‘The Offer of the Standard Oil Company’ to ‘provide all possible facilities, including motor transport in Arabia, the use of air photos and geographical reports, general advice, and protection’. 19 H.R. P. and V. P. Dickson, ‘Thaj and Other Sites’, Iraq, 10 (1948), 1-8. Cf. H. R. P. Dickson, Kuwait and her Neighbours (London, 1956), 470.

16 VY. P. Dickson, Forty Years in Kuwait (London, 1971), 255-8. Two of the inscriptions photographed by Mrs Dickson during her 1962 visit to Thaj were forwarded to Prof. G. Ryckmans, who published them in ‘Inscriptions sud-arabes, vingt-et-uniéme série, vii: Inscriptions de Thaj dans le Hasa’, Le Muséon, 76 (1963), 419-23, as Ry 687-8.

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

26

T. G. Bibby, at the invitation of ARAMCO, made a rapid reconnaissance on the mainland which included a visit to Thaj.!” This was followed by visits to Thaj, Tarut, and an important area of relict irrigation canals north-west of al-"Uqayr (see below) in £96415 and 1965.19 R. Stiehl visited a number of sites in the Eastern Province in 1964 and 1966,2° and between 1966 and 1970 A. Jamme published a group of inscriptions from Thaj, Qatif, Ayn Jawan, and Ras Tanura, as well as an imported Rhodian amphora handle from Thaj, and a unique stele from Qatif bearing a Greek inscription.*! The Danish expedition was able to undertake three months of survey and sondage in 1968, at which time excavations were undertaken at several of the

most important sites of Hellenistic date including Thaj, Tarut, and the irrigation area.22 Several small sondages on Tarut by A. H. Masry in 1972 produced material of Hellenistic date.*? In 1976 a team from the Comprehensive Survey programme of the Department of Antiquities explored the areas of Yabrin and Hofuf,**+ while the following year a similar survey was conducted around Ayn Dar, along the coast between Dhahran and Manifa, and in the adjacent hinterland as far west as Ma‘aqala and the as-Summan plateau.*° Survey and excavation were undertaken at Thaj in 1982 and 1983 by the author in co-operation with the Saudi Arabian Department of Antiquities,2® and in the same year graves, some of which date to the Hellenistic period, were excavated in the tumulus field south of Dhahran Airport.2” In 1984 the Department of Antiquities continued working at Thaj and T.

G. Bibby, ‘Arabiens arkzologi (Arabian Gulf Archaeology)’, Kuml 1964 (1965),

18 T. G. Bibby, ‘Arabiens arkeologi (Arabian Gulf Archaeology)’, Kuml 1965 (1966), T. G. Bibby, ‘Arabiens arkzologi (Arabian Gulf Archaeology)’, Kuml 1966 (1967), 95. 20 F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, ‘Neue Funde, 8: Gerrha’, AA W v/1 (1968), 96, mentions visits

by R. Stiehl to eastern Arabia in 1964 and 1966. *1 A. Jamme, Sabaean and Hasaean Inscriptions from Saudi Arabia (Studi Semitici, 23; Rome, 1966); id., ‘New Hasaean and Sabaean Inscriptions from Saudi Arabia’, OrAnt 6 (1967), 181-7; id., ‘New Safaitic and Hasaean Inscriptions from Northern Arabia’, Sumer, 25 (1969), 141-52; id., ‘The Pre-Islamic Inscriptions of the Riyadh Museum’, OrAnt 9 (1970), 115-39.

* Bibby, Preliminary Survey. *> A. H. Masry, Prehistory in Northeastern Arabia: The Problem of Interregional Interaction

(Coconut Grove, Fla., 1974), 143.

** R. McC. Adams et al., ‘Preliminary Report on the First Phase of the Comprehensive Archaeological Survey Program’, Atlal, 1 (1977), 23-31.

** D. T. Potts et al., ‘Preliminary Report on the Second Phase of the Eastern Province Survey

1397/1977", Atlal, 2 (1978), 7-28.

*6 M. Gazdar, D. T. Potts, and A. Livingstone, ‘Excavations at Thaj’, Atlal, 8 (1984), 55-108. Cf. D. T. Potts, ‘Northeastern Arabia, from the Seleucids to the Earliest Caliphs’, Expedition, 26 (1984), 21-30; id., ‘An Urban Center in Pre-Islamic Arabia’, Scientific American

(forthcoming).

* J. Zarins, A. S. Mughannum, and M. Kamal, ‘Excavations at Dhahran South: The Tumuli Field (208-92) 1403 A.H./1983: A Preliminary Report’, Atlal, 8 (1984), 25-54.

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

27

in the Dhahran tumulus field.28 This, in brief, is the history of field research on sites of the Hellenistic period in north-eastern Arabia. We turn now to a consideration of the climate and environment of the region at this time. Environmental Considerations

The image of nomadic bedouin society in the later pre-Islamic era conjured up by the works of the well-known pre-Islamic poets, and of the unsuitability of most of Arabia for agricultural purposes before the implementation of modern irrigation techniques, still tends to distort the popular view of north-eastern Arabia during the period of our concern. The region was most certainly arid. Recent palaeoclimatic studies suggest that the climate during the first millennium BC may have been slightly less so, becoming warmer again in the first centuries AD,?? but the basic situation cannot have been much different than

it is today. Indeed, if we consider the rainfall statistics from the last fifty years, we find some daunting figures. In 1946, for example, the weather station at Dhahran recorded only 5.3 mm. of precipitation, while the high for the last thirty years, measured at Ras Tanura, was only 215.1 mm.#° In fact, the average over the last half-century falls between 72.4 and 93 mm.., a far cry from the minimum level considered necessary to support dry farming in the Near East. If we add to this the fact that no perennial rivers or streams are to be found in the area today, the question naturally arises whether settled life was possible here during the Hellenistic period. In fact, as already noted in vol. i ch. 1, it is not precipitation that is decisive in this region, but rather the phenomenal ground-water resources of eastern Arabia. The entire area from Kuwait through eastern Arabia to Bahrain is underlain by a system of rich aquifers,?! 28 K. M. Eskoubi and S. R. A. al-Aila, ‘Thaj Excavations, Second Season 1404/1984’, Atlal, 9 (1985), 41-53; B. Fr@hlich and A. Mughannum, ‘Excavations of the Dhahran Burial Mounds

1404/1984’, Atlal, 9 (1985), 9-40. 2? C. E. Larsen, Life and Land Use on the Bahrain Islands (Chicago and London, 1983),

149, 170, 204. 30 E. Schyfsma, ‘Climate’, OPSA 37. 31 Tt had long been surmised that such a system of aquifers must exist. See e.g. D. G. Hogarth, The Penetration of Arabia (London, 1904), 342: ‘Doubtless also a certain part of these waters

[of central Arabia] , obeying the main slope of the plateau, percolates under the barring ridges, to reappear through the gravels near the coast and make the rich oases of Hasa and Katif and the under-sea springs of Bahrain.’ The geological basis of this system was suggested 4 years later by G. E. Pilgrim in ‘The Geology of the Persian Gulf and the Adjoining Portions of Persia and Arabia’, Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, 34/4 (1908), 112-25. By 1924 Pilgrim’s hypothesis had been confirmed by the Swiss geologist A. Heim: see ‘Die artesischen Quellen

28

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

the most extensive of which are the Umm er Radhuma and the Khobar.32 These discharge both in the form of natural, bubbling springs and where artificial wells are dug. Hand-dug wells are widely distributed throughout eastern Arabia, and studies show that these need normally be only 10-35 m. deep.3? Moreover, the discharge from such wells is considerable, and in the Qatif oasis alone, studies have shown that thirty-two hand-dug wells there yield a total of 36,000 cu. m. of water per day, the largest well producing 30-50 litres of water per second.34 The exploitation of the east Arabian aquifers is, moreover, attested during the Hellenistic period. Wells lined with cut-limestone ashlars are a feature at a number of sites, including Thaj, al-Hinnah, and Qatif. In the first two cases, their age can be inferred

from their association with other buildings of the period, identically constructed, although the reuse of ancient ashlars in medieval or modern wells is, of course, also attested.5 Water from natural artesian springs was being put to use for agricultural purposes as well, particularly in the area north-east of Hofuf where the remains of a large irrigation system are clearly visible from the air.3° The effluence from the Hofuf area springs and der Bahrein-Inseln im Persischen Golf’, Actes S. helvétique des sc. nat. (1927), 152-3; anda

similarly titled work in Eclogae Geol. Helvetiae, 21 (1928), 1-6. Cf. H.-J. Phillip, ‘Arnold Heims erfolglose Erdélsuche und erfolgreiche Wassersuche 1924 im nordéstlichen Arabien’, Vierteljahresschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Ziirich, 128 (1983), 43-74. I have, unfortunately, been unable to consult the last-named work. 32 Some of the principal works concerning these aquifers, listed in chronological order of appearance, are: K. S. Twitchell, ‘Water Resources of Saudi Arabia’, GR 34 (1944), 365-86; D. D. Crary, ‘Recent Agricultural Developments in Saudi Arabia’, GR 41 (1951), 379-83;

Y. Abul-Haggag, ‘On the Artesian Water of Nejd, Saudi Arabia’, Bulletin de la Société de géographie d’Egypte, 37 (1964), 57-65; A. I. Naimi, ‘The Ground Water of Northeastern Saudi Arabia’, in Fifth Arab Petroleum Congress (Cairo, 1965), 1-23; C. H. V. Ebert, ‘Water Resources and Land Use in the Qatif Oasis of Saudi Arabia’, GR 55 (1965), 496-509; J. H. Stevens, ‘Man and Environment in Eastern Saudi Arabia’, ArSt 1 (1974), 135-45; ARAMCO, ‘Eastern Arabia and Adjacent Areas: Geological Sketch’, in Well Evaluation Conference (Schlumberger, 1975), 9-25; P. Beaumont, ‘Water and Development in Saudi Arabia’, GJ 143 (1977), 42-59. Cf.

J. M. Marsh, I. Sagaby, and R. R. Sooley, ‘A Groundwater Resources Databank in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’, Journal of the Geological Society of London 138 (1981), 599-602. °° C. Job, ‘Hydrochemical Investigations in the Areas of Al Qatif and Al Hasa with Some Remarks on Water Samples from Wadi Al Miyah and Wadi As Sah’ba Near Haradh’, OPSA 94. For an exhaustive study of the well in pre-Islamic Arabia based on literary sources, see E. Braunlich, ‘The Well in Ancient Arabia’, Islamica, 1 (1925), 41-76, 288-343, 454-528.

** Job, ‘Hydrochemical Investigations’, 96-7. *’ Cf. the secondary use of inscribed grave stelae, e.g. Ja 1059, reused in a well at Thaj:

Jamme, Sabaean and Hasaean Inscriptions, p. 80; or Ja 2124, reused in an underground water conduit in the village of al--Awwamiyya, in the Qatif oasis: see Jamme, ‘New Hasaean and Sabaean Inscriptions’. °° Photographs of it were first published by D. Linton in ‘Aerial Aid in Archaeology’, Natural

History, 70 (1961), 24-6. 7 years later it was investigated by the Danish expedition; cf. Bibby, Preliminary Survey, 40-8. G. Burkholder, An Arabian Collection: Artifacts from

the Eastern Province (Boulder City, 1984), 31, has recently published some material from this

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

29

irrigation canals was so great that it took the form of a series of interconnected streams and lakes draining north-eastwards towards the Arabian Gulf above al-‘Uqayr.37 Reports of the existence of this active riverine system can be traced back to the time of Pliny,38 writing in the first century of the Christian era, and as it is known that much of Pliny’s information on Arabia was derived from the Hellenistic-period negotiatores, it is relevant to the present discussion. Pliny mentions ‘the towns of Pallon and Murannimal, on a river through which the Euphrates is believed to discharge itself’ (NH 6. 32. 159). Likewise, al-Hamdani, the well-known Yemeni geographer

of the Arabian peninsula, wrote of a great canalized river in Hofuf which he called the Muhallim, claiming that ‘Muhallim is a great river, and it is for Arabia, what the Oxus is for Balkh.’39 Later, the medieval Arab geographer at the court of Roger of Sicily, al-Idrisi, spoke of a river called the Aftan originating in central Arabia, in the area of alYamama, which drained into the Gulf. Although the existence of this river was later denied by various authorities,*? there now seems little doubt that the ancient riverine system linking Hofuf with the Arabian Gulf, the existence of which has been fully confirmed by recent geomorphological investigations,*! is identical to that first mentioned by Pliny. Geomorphologists suggest that this riverine system ceased flowing in the relatively recent past when the dunes of the Jaffurah sand belt, which separate Hofuf from the sea, began shifting northwards, thereby blocking its effluence into the Gulf. It is clearly visible on aerial photographs taken in 1948, where it appears as ‘a well defined channel’.42 A LANDSAT photograph, taken in 1973, shows it even more clearly*? as a result of its reactivation in 1968 for controlling area. For a new treatment of the region, see P. Lombard, “The Salt Mine Site and the “Hasaean” Period in Northeastern Arabia’, CNIP 7. 117-35.

37 J. G. Hotzl, V. Maurin, and J. G. Zétl, ‘Geologic History of the Al Hasa Area since the Pliocene’, OPSA 74. 38 The entire question of the existence of this riverine system is discussed at length in my ‘Northeastern Arabia in the Later Pre-Islamic Era’, 91-4. 39 For references, see U. Thilo, Die Ortsnamen in der altarabischen Poesie (Schriften der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung, 3; Wiesbaden, 1958), 72. Cf. the discussion in Sprenger,

Die alte Geographie, 129. 40 Hogarth, The Penetration of Arabia, 27-31, specifically compares the tradition preserved by Idrisi and the denial of the river’s existence by Abu'l-Fida. For later attempts to dismiss the river’s existence, see my ‘Northeastern Arabia in the Later Pre-Islamic Era’, 91-2. 41 Cf. Hétzl et al., ‘Geologic History’, 74; Job, ‘Hydrochemical Investigations’, 121. 42 M. Golding, ‘Artefacts from Later Pre-Islamic Occupation in Eastern Arabia’, Adal, 8 (1984), 165. 43 This photograph has been published many times, e.g.: F. Scholz, ‘Erdélfordergebiete und Oasenlandwirtschaft im arabischen Trockenraum: Die Provinz al-Hasa/Saudi-Arabien’, Geographische Rundschau, 32 (1980), 524; Potts, ‘Northeastern Arabia in the Later Pre-Islamic

30

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

more effectively the dissemination of the large amounts of irrigation water used in the area.44 On the basis of a study of aerial photographs, M. Golding posited that the river followed a more easterly course between the Iron Age and the Sasanian period. A joint Austrian Academy of Sciences/ University of Petroleum and Minerals hydrological and geomorphological study has suggested that ‘two drainage patterns have to be distinguished, one of them coming from the northern part of the oasis, the area of Al Muhtaraqah-Al Qarn, the other from the southern area of Al Qarah-At Taraf, both of them running parallel towards the northeast’.45 The important point, however, is that several archaeological sites with pottery of Hellenistic type have been found between Hofuf and Abqaig in association with the riverine system, demonstrating that it was active in the Hellenistic period. One of the largest areas of habitation here was tested in 1968 by a Danish expedition,*® while another was visited in 1976 by a team from the Comprehensive Survey of the National Museum.*7 In conclusion, the extreme aridity of north-eastern Arabia has probably always precluded the practice of agriculture on any scale without the aid of irrigation. By the Hellenistic period, however, the rich aquifer system which underlies the entirety of eastern Arabia was already being tapped to provide the water necessary for intensive farming and gardening. The use of spring water for irrigation at this time is attested in the area north-east of Hofuf, while evidence for the

construction of wells in other areas, such as the Wadi al-Miyah, where Thaj is located, is abundant. An Introduction to Thaj

To date, Thaj, Ayn Jawan, and Tarut are the only stratified sites in north-eastern Arabia at which excavations have revealed a sequence Era’, 125; id., ‘Northeastern Arabia, from the Seleucids to the Earliest Caliphs’, 23; Larsen, Life and Land Use, 126.

“* The project was based on extensive studies of interrelated water, salinity, irrigation, and soil problems conducted by the German consulting-firm WAKUTI in collaboration with the Leichtweiss-Institut fiir Wasserbau und Grundbau of the Technische Hochschule Braunschweig, beginning in 1963. See D. Uhlig, ‘Das Be- und Entwasserungsprojekt der Al Hassa-Oasen in Saudi-

Arabien’, Wasserwirtschaft, 55 (1965), 53-7; A. Saxen, ‘Situation der bewasserten Landwirtschaft

in der Ostprovinz Saudi-Arabiens’, Zeitschrift fiirKulturtechnik und Flurbereinigung, 8 (1967),

321-44. Cf. G. Marotz, ‘Die Oase Al Hassa in Saudi-Arabien’, Wasserwirtschaft, 70 (1980), 353-4; F. S. Vidal, ‘Development of the Eastern Province: A Case Studyof Al-Hasa Oasis’, in W. A. Beling (ed.), King Faisal and the Modernisation ofSaudi Arabia (London, 1980), 90-101.

*S Hétzl et al., ‘Geologic History’, 74. *© Bibby, Preliminary Survey, 43-5. ” Adams et al., ‘Preliminary Report’, 27. Cf. the discussion of the site numbered 208-76

in Larsen, Life and Land Use, 148; Potts, ‘Northeastern Arabia in the Later Pre-Islamic iBirer, By

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

31

of pottery suitable for dating the many smaller surface sites of the later pre-Islamic period in this region. The material from Masry’s soundings on Tarut remains unpublished, while the Ayn Jawan sample dates to the Parthian and probably early Sasanian periods. Thaj (Fig. 1, Plate Ia), by far the largest and most important of these sites, is the type-

site for the Hellenistic period in north-eastern Arabia, and as it offers the only sizeable sample of stratified material, not to mention a wealth of important surface finds, we shall devote considerable space to it here. With an area of roughly 825 m. by 990 m., Thaj is the largest site of any period in the region. It is located in the Wadi al-Miyah,*8 c.90 km. from the port of al-Jubayl on the Gulf coast, to which it is linked by a track known as the Darb al-Kunhuri.49 It is, moreover,

situated on a traditional caravan route which once ran between Hofuf and Basra,°° which is but a segment of the great trans-Arabian route linking southern Arabia with Babylonia.5! This was a route frequented by Yemeni coffee merchants bringing their goods to Basra in the nineteenth century.°* Both al-Hamdani and Ibn Khurdadbih preserve the names of the stopping-points along the route,°? known to the

thirteenth-century geographer Ibn al-Mugawir as the tariq ar-radrad, or ‘Gravel Road’.°* From the Parthian period we have a detailed *8 The best description of the Wadi

al-Miyah,

or ‘Valley of Waters’, is still that of

J. G. Lorimer, GPG 1230-4, s.v. ‘Miyah (Wadi-Al-)’. The wadi was noted for ‘its numerous

wells and springs’; its soil which ‘is dark brown and perfectly cultivable’; and the many ‘sites of deserted towns and villages . . . from which it may be inferred that Wadi al-Miyah was once more populous and politically more important than it is now’. On the Wadi al-Miyah in the works of the medieval Arab geographers and pre-Islamic Arabic poets, see Thilo, Die Ortsnamen, 71. 49 J. P. Mandaville, ‘Thaj: A Pre-Islamic Site in Northeastern Arabia’, BASOR 172 (1963), 10 and n. 8.

°° Pelly, Report on a Journey, app. vi. Cf. GPG 670-1, s.v. ‘Hasa Sanjaq’, for a ‘Route from Hofuf to Kuwait Town’ through the Wadi al-Miyah. 51 Discussed in detail in D. T. Potts, ‘Archaeological Perspectives on the Historical Geography of the Arabian Peninsula’, Minstersche Bettrage zur antiken Handelsgeschichte, 2 (1983), 113-24. Cf. GPG 1345, s.v. ‘Najd’, for ‘an itinerary, from native information, of the journey from Salaiyil in Widyan Dawasir to Hasa’.

52M. Amer, ‘The Ancient Trans-Peninsular Routes of Arabia’, in Compte rendu du Congrés internationale de géographie, v (Cairo, 1925), 131-3. Cf. J. Halévy, ‘Voyage au Nedjran’, BSG 6/13 (1877), 474, for caravans travelling the route between the Hadhramaut, Nagran, and the Wadi Dawasir in 1869-70. D. G. Hogarth, ‘Problems in Exploration, i: Western Asia’, GJ 32 (1908), 551, considered the exploration of this route the ‘biggest feat left for a traveller

to perform in Arabia—perhaps in all Asia’. By 1918 it had been done by H. St J. B. Philby; see his ‘Southern Najd’, GJ 55 (1920), 161-91. Hogarth, ‘Some Recent Arabian Explorations’, GR 11 (1921), 334-7, noted how little modern-day traffic appeared to use the route. Cf., on

Philby’s achievement, L. Massignon, ‘Nouveaux itinéraires en Arabie centrale’, La Géographie, . 39 (1923), 208-10. 53 Cf, the discussion and comparison of both sources in A. Sprenger, ‘Versuch einer Kritik von Hamdanis Beschreibung der arabischen Halbinsel und einige Bemerkungen iiber Professor David Heinrich Miiller’s Ausgabe derselben’, ZDMG

45 (1891), 370 ff.

:

54 Recently discussed by W. W. Miiller, ‘Eine sabaeische Gesandtschaft in Ktesiphon und

Seleukeia’, NESE 2 (1974), 159, and ‘Weihrauch’, RE Suppl. 15 (1978), 723.

32

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC . " Ay

900 E10 11200 N

SS

yee

— —

ean4 ee Sabkha —

10100 E 11200 N i

ae

an

pues sadojs C_]

PIO/IPA, (Aap) anoiuoy aut]jo

Ard [Jem

*“OlF “T

‘fey]

SurMoys ay AID [Tem osye) ur

(uo1das

*p Aq pardnynur useg sey y38ua] 02 1YSI9y Jo ONeI ay} [JEM AID 9yI JO IUT] INOIWOD 94} UY : azON

EET

aouay f=]

(syieuysusq paseq) ODWeIY TE'TS UO

$901] WIEd Fa)

ga spays/sasnoy/ssulpjing

UONPAPIXY

asod je911192]4 (s]

ans

Goma)

Lo jeso7 queydpid

(f:1=H'7)

uInd/punods s]]@™

+

CZ]

00601 4 OSPOI N

Fe xapuy 4n01UOD 911s [O_] UONPALIX” AIq F=3 Aemiayem [—] SadeI] JO s]]eM UO

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC 33

001 W

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

34

account of the route in book 6 (32. 157-69) of Pliny’s Natural History,3> which will be discussed in the following chapter. Finally, during the Hellenistic period it was the high road for caravans laden with incense from southern Arabia, heading north towards the emporium of Gerrha.°° Allusions to Thaj in the works of the pre-Islamic and early Islamic poets and geographers were collected more than twenty years ago by J. P. Mandaville.5”? The most relevant information contained therein has been summarized below. ‘Amr b. Kultum (c.550-600): ‘The flowing wells of Thaj invite

the wild she-asses .. .

Rashid b. Qays b. Shihab al-Yashkuri (late sixth century): ‘I have

built in Thaj a quarried for it Du’r-Rumma Thaj and then

castle of stone . . . built in it are some of the blocks by Iram.’ (d. 719 or 735): ‘He turned his riding-camel towards headed with her for al-‘Aynayn [al-Jubayl].’

Al-Farazdagq (c.641-728): ‘. . . cracks with bottoms so deep, as

though they were Rakiyat Luqman, that is like a dahl’. Al-Asma‘i (740-828): ‘Thaj: in the area of al-Yamama.’ Abu ‘Ubaydah (d. 823): ‘Rakiyat Luqman is at Thaj. It is cased with stones greater than two cubits in size. Thaj is on the outskirts of al-Bahrayn and its taxes are sent to al-Yamamah. It used to belong to Bani Qays ibn Tha‘labah and ‘Anazah ibn Asad, who were there in dispute, each group living separately from the other and meeting in separate mosques.’ ‘. . . and as for Malik [Malik °° As deduced and reconstructed by H. von Wissmann in several articles, e.g. ‘Uranios’, RE Suppl. 11 (1968), 1286-7; ‘Zamareni’, ibid. 1322 ff. I have discussed this at length in ‘TransArabian Routes of the Pre-Islamic Period’, AMB

i. 132-5, 151-2.

5° W. Caskel, ‘Zur Beduinisierung Arabiens’, ZDMG 103 (1953), *30*, stressed the importance of the Nagran-Gerrha route via Qarya [Qaryat al-Fau] , Hagar [Hofuf] , and Thaj. Recently W. C. Brice, ‘The Classical Trade-Routes of Arabia, from the Evidence of Ptolemy, Strabo and Pliny’, in A. R. Al-Ansary (ed.), Second International Symposium on Studies in the

History of Arabia (Riyadh, 1984), has suggested that the route in question did not follow the central Arabian Kharg-Layla/Aflag-Wadi Dawasir—Nagran axis, but rather ran to the east, via Yabrin, skirting the Rub’ al-Khali of western Abu Dhabi and the cities of the Omani interior such as Nizwa and Rustaq, crossing Dhofar, and approaching Hadhramaut from the east. This is the route from ‘Gerrha to the frankincense region’ postulated in 1875 by Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, 172-6. In my opinion, this is insupportable for two reasons. First, there is ample testimony for the use of the route favoured here in all periods, as already indicated. Secondly, recent experience shows that the route proposed by Sprenger has never been used by the inhabitants of the region. Hogarth, ‘Problems in Exploration’, 550-1, citing Van den Berg, a Dutch official in Java writing in 1885 who had interviewed many Arabs from Hadhramaut, Aden, and Yemen, wrote: ‘according to his information, there was no direct communication

at all between the Hadramaut and either the Wahabi country of Nejd or Maskat. Travellers overland from Yemen to Oman make a long détour into south Nejd and thence cut across to Bireima

[Buraimi]

in about fifteen stages, of which eleven are waterless.’

°’ Mandaville, ‘Thaj’, 15-19; cf. Thilo, Die Ortsnamen, 103.

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

Shy

b. Misma‘], he joined Najdah al-Haruri at Thaj, by way of alBahrayn’. Al-Hamdani (d. 945): Thaj mentioned as a watering-place of the Tamim.

Al-Bakri (d. 1094): ‘Thaj: a village in al-Bahrayn.’ Yaqut (d. 1229): ‘. . . a spring several nights’ journey from al-Bahrayn’. Several details in the foregoing accounts deserve special mention. Perhaps most interesting are the references in the works of Rashid b. Qays, al-Farazdaq, and Abu ‘Ubaydah to the stone masonry of Thaj, particularly the stone-lined wells which represent such an important part of the cultural landscape of the site. Note also the references in the works of “Amr b. Kultum, Yaqut, and al-Hamdani to the presence of water at Thaj. As Mandaville has suggested, the statement that the mythical Iram was the quarrier of some of the blocks used in the castle built by Rashid b. Qays probably reflects the great antiquity attributed to the site already in the sixth century. As the references quoted above attest, the name of the site has survived unaltered from the late preIslamic period down to the present day.°8 We first hear of Thaj in a European source at the close of the eighteenth century, when it was the scene of a bloodless confrontation between an Ottoman army under ‘Ali Pasha and a Wahhabi force led by Sa‘ud (1765-1814), son of the amir “Abd al-‘Aziz (1746-1803)

and frequent commander of his father’s forces in the field, in 1799.5? °8 The toponym ‘Tanga’ is mentioned by al-Idrisi (1099-1166) as one of the stations along the route from al-Yamama to Basra: see F. Wiistenfeld, Bahrein und Jemama: Nach Arabischen Geographen beschrieben (Abh. d. Konig]. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, 19; Gottingen, 1874), 191; cf. C. Ritter, Die Erdkunde von Asien (Berlin, 1846-7), viii/1. 294. The existence of this name,

which is attested in other variant forms, probably accounts for the presence of “Tangia’ on a number of 17th- and 18th-cent. European maps of Arabia. It can be found, for example, on Willem Janszoon and Jan Blaeu’s map of the ‘Turcicum Imperium’ (1635), on Nicolas Sanson’s ‘Carte des trois Arabies’ (1654), on Guillaume de I’Isle’s ‘Carte de la Turquie de l’Arabie et de la Perse’ (1701), and on Isaak Tirion’s ‘Nieuwe Kaart van Arabia’ (1731), to name just those maps in the libraries of the British Museum, the Royal Geographical Society, the School of Oriental and African Studies, and Oxford and Cambridge Universities recently edited by G. R. Tibbetts, Arabia in Early Maps (Cambridge, 1978). In view of the fact that ‘Tangia’ is located in north-eastern Arabia, it is tempting to see this as a corruption of Thaj. On the other hand, if the name is derived from the toponym ‘Tanga’, preserved by al-Idrisi, it is unlikely to be the same as Thaj since this, as we have seen, was well known to Arab geographers and poets long before al-Idrisi’s time. 5? By 1798 Wahhabi attacks on Iraq finally prompted Ottoman retaliation in the form of an attack on al-Hasa. A 2-month-long siege of the Wahhabi-held forts in Hofuf and Mubarraz by the Ottoman commander ‘Ali Pasha proved a failure, and in the end it was decided to give up and return to Basra. But, as Lorimer, GPG 1059, writes, ‘His [Ali Pasha’s] way was barred at Thaj in Wadi-

al-Miyah by Sa'ud, son of the Wahhabi Amir, and the armies remained halted opposite to each other for three days, during which neither ventured to attack the other force. A truce for six years between the Wahhabis and the Pashaliq was then arranged, in May 1799.’ On Sa‘ud’s campaigns in eastern Arabia generally, see A. A. Hakima, History of Eastern Arabia, 1750-1800 (Beirut, 1965), 134-44.

36

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

Geographical information gleaned from this campaign found its way into F. Mengin’s 1823 Histoire de Egypte, where “Thadj’ is included in a ‘Liste des villes et villages du Nedjd’.® This is hardly surprising in view of the fact that, as Lorimer put it, Thaj was the scene of ‘the first actual crossing of swords between the Ottoman Porte and the Wahhabi power’.®! It was not until more than forty years later that Thaj was again mentioned in a Western source. While travelling to Riyadh in 1865, Lt.-Col. L. Pelly heard reports of the site, which he described as follows: Our people described to me the ruins of the Fort called Taj lying to the southward and eastward of us at a distance of some three days’ march inland from Kateef. They state that Taj was in former times the chief town of El Ahsa; and was built of large white stones; and they add that its foundation walls are still traceable for a mile or more in length and nearly half a mile in width. Ruins and water are still found in the neighbourhood.*”

Both F. Wiistenfeld®? and A. Sprenger®*+ were familiar with the name of Thaj through their reading of the classical Arab geographers, but neither appears to have known of the works of Mengin and Pelly in which the survival of the toponym into their own era had been confirmed. In 1908 J. G. Lorimer, obviously drawing on information acquired since the publication of Pelly’s report, described Thaj in some detail in his article on the Wadi al-Miyah. Of particular interest is Lorimer’s mention of ‘the site and ruins of a once considerable town;

it is said that the ruins of the houses, which were built of large light coloured stones, cover a space about 1 mile in length by % a mile in breadth. . . . There are said to be underground dwellings and

inscribed stones here-—which Lorimer qualified as ‘non-Arabic’.® Finally, in 1911 the site was visited for the first time by a European, °° F. Mengin, Histoire de l’Egypte sous le gouvernement de Mohammed-Aly, ii (Paris, 1823), 608. I do not think the toponym ‘Thadeq’, which occurs in a table entitled ‘Dénombrement de la population du pays de Nedjd’ (p. 163) as a village with 300 arms-bearing men and 900 women, children, and elderly or infirm inhabitants is the same as Thaj. Mengin’s table of population statistics for Nejd was the basis for Ritter’s ‘Geographisch-statistische Notizen tiber Nedschd’ in Die Erdkunde, viii/1. 522, where ‘Thadeg’ occurs. 6! GPG 947. ® Pelly, Report on a Journey, 24. *> Wistenfeld, Bahrein und Jemama, 185: ‘Der Wadi el-Sitar umfasst mehr als hundert Dérfer. . . . Es gehort dazu auch das Dorf Thag mit einer Quelle, einige Nachtreisen von Hagar’ (citing Yaqut). * Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, 138 §190. The medieval toponym “as-Sitar’ was the name of a region of north-eastern Arabia described by al-Hamdani, al-Bakri, and Yaqut, which Thilo, Die Ortsnamen, 92 and map 2, locates south of Thaj. Sprenger suggested a link between the Arabic ‘as-Sitar’ and the Istriana polis of Cl. Ptolemy. He wrote, however: ‘Da Istriana eine Stadt ist, diirfte Thag oder dessen Hafen gemeint sein. Seine Lage genau zu bestimmen, bin ich nicht im Stande.’ © GPG 1234, 1231, s.v. ‘Miyah (Wadi-Al-)’.

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

37

when Capt. W. H. I. Shakespear, Political Agent in Kuwait, made his annual trip into the desert of northern Arabia for a meeting with Abdul Aziz Ibn Sa‘ud.* Thaj was well described by Mandaville when he wrote that it is built ‘on an exposure, lightly covered with aeolian sand, of what geologists know as the Dam Foundation. This sedimentary formation is of Miocene age and is composed of marls, clays, coquina, and a dominant marly and chalky limestone . . . used for construction purposes by both the ancient and modern inhabitants.’¢7 The site is located just south of a salt flat (Ar. sabkha) known as the Sabkhat Thaj, and is,

in part, overlain by the remnants of ruined houses built by members of Ibn Sa‘ud’s radical Ikhwan movement between c.1912 and 1929,68 and by more modern houses of concrete block. Thaj consists of a walled inner city, and a large expanse of occupied area south of this, where house foundations are visible on the surface in many places. A number of mounds exist to the north-east and south-west of the site, some

of which are ancient midden heaps, but most of which are probably burial mounds. Mandaville was able to count sixty-five such mounds on a low-level aerial photograph taken in 1958, but the most recent mapping of the site, carried out by surveyors from the Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu in the spring of 1983,6? has shown that there are over 500 graves present. Some are marked by simple stone circles, but others are mounds, often distinguished by the presence of a raised ring of earth and stone. 66 According to his field log-books, housed in the library of the Royal Geographical Society, Shakespear arrived at Thaj at 11.15 a.m. on Thursday 9 Mar. 1911, spent all of the following day with Abdul Aziz Ibn Sa‘ud, and departed on Saturday 11 Mar. at 7.30 a.m. I should like to express my warm thanks to Sir Laurence Kirwan for permission to consult Shakespear’s papers in London in July 1983. A brief account of Shakespear’s visit to Thaj is contained in Carruthers, ‘Captain Shakespear’s Last Journey’, 322-3. Note that Thaj is not to be confused with ‘the Thahadj’, north-west of Riyadh, visited by the Danish explorer Barclay Raunkizr in 1912. On Raunkiar’s journeys, see B. Raunkizr, ‘Det kongelige danske geografiske Selskabs Ekspedition til Arabien’, Geografiske Tidsskrift, 21 (1911-12), 215-17; id., ‘Beretning om min Rejse i Central-Arabien’, ibid. 283-9; id., ‘Die Expedition der Kgl. Danischen Geographischen Gesellschaft nach Arabien’, Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 58 (1912), 84-5; id., ‘Auf dem Kamelriicken durch das Land der Wahabiten’, Mitt. d. Geog. Ges. in Hamburg, 30 (1917), 187-243; id., Gennem Wabbabiternes Land paa Kamelryg (Copenhagen, 1913).

67 Mandaville, ‘Thaj’, 12. 68 For a concise outline of the Ikhwan movement, see J. S. Habib, Ibn Sa'ud’s Warriors of

Islam: The Ikhwan of Najd and their Role in the Creation of the Saudi Kingdom, 1910-1930 (Leiden, 1978), esp. ch. 5. The fighting-strength of the ‘Awazim settlement at Thaj was c.1,500-1,600 men: ibid. 179 table 9. This means that the total population must have been at least 3 times this large. 6° | wish to tender my thanks to the surveyors from the Royal Commission for the enormous service rendered in Mar. 1983 through their mapping of Thaj, most particularly to Mr T. M. E. Bowhay.

38

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

The Deep Sounding at Thaj

Surface survey at Thaj in 198279 yielded clear indications of the existence of topographically, and perhaps functionally, distinct areas at the site. These observations formed the basis for the selection of three excavation areas in 1983. The lack of later overburden, combined with the fact that the ancient architecture at Thaj was built entirely of cut-limestone ashlars, made for an ideal situation wherein the

foundations of buildings could, with some cleaning, be easily traced on the surface of the site. One particularly clear area in the inner, walled city area, representing part of a large building, was chosen for extensive horizontal exposure, and is reported on below. At the same time, however, it was realized that top priority must be given to the execution of a deep sounding. Not only was it important to gain at least a rough approximation of the site’s age and periods of occupation, but more importantly it was our intention to acquire a stratigraphic column of ceramics which could serve as a yardstick against which to date more closely, it was hoped, the numerous ‘Hellenistic’ sites found throughout the Eastern Province, and to situate these in a comparative sequence alongside the well-known Hellenistic components on Failaka and Bahrain. Accordingly, a well-defined room, within the building complex in the inner city, walled in on four sides, was chosen as the site of a deep sounding. The surface area of the trench measured 4.6m. by 5m. Within this area, c.3 m. of deposit above virgin soil were excavated, consisting of eleven natural stratigraphic units. These could easily be assigned to four periods of occupation. Period I, the earliest occupation on the site, was represented by levels 9-11. No standing architecture was recovered in the lowest stratum of fill (level 10), but a fireplace in the form of a sunken pit filled with ash, sherds, and bone (level 11) had been dug down from it. Above level 10 it was possible to trace the build-up of approximately twenty thin layers of brown soil alternating with layers of mud (level 9). In Period II two small walls, oriented east-west, were erected along the slope of a layer of fill (level 8b) which probably served as the foundation for a higher floor (level 8a). These walls were sunk into the underlying earlier deposit (level 9); they were preserved to a height of four courses of stone, c.50 cm. tall, and the more southerly of the

two was capped with a layer of pisé 4-5 cm. thick. Part of a gypsum

” D. T. Potts, ‘Some Observations on the Topography of Thaj’ and ‘Some Specific Recommendations Concerning the Excavation of Thaj’, MSS submitted to the Dept. of Antiquities in Mar. 1982.

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

39

floor 12 cm. thick was cleared in the western part of the trench, upon

which numerous layers of ash and earth containing animal bones and sherds had been deposited. Above this were remains of an ash-pit (level 8a), traces of a floor, and some stone rubble which may have been

collapse from a wall located outside the limits of the trench. Built above this in Period III was a wall, 50 cm. high, 70 cm. wide,

which ran across the entire north face of the trench (level 7). Connected to it in the western part of the trench was a narrow curtain wall built

of crude stones which varied in size and shape. Beyond this to the west was a dump containing large quantities of ash, and pottery, but very little bone. The centre of the trench contained a series of ash lenses covering a deposit of red-brown soil, on which a number of large stones, probably fall from a wall located south of the trench, rested. Above this was a series of features including an ash-pit and more waterlaid lenses of sand (level 6), and a series of continuous deposits of red-brown earth separated by narrow ash lenses (levels 5 and 4), all

rich in pottery and bone. Period IV (levels 1-3) falls outside the time-span considered in this

chapter, and will be discussed in Chapter 5 below. Ceramics from the Deep Sounding at Thaj

The ceramics recovered from the Deep Sounding were typed according to both ware and form. To judge from our excavations elsewhere on the site, and from our frequent collections of surface material, it would seem that the deep sounding indeed provided a more or less complete

selection of the ceramics used at Thaj.7! The local pottery of Thaj (Fig. 2) can be broadly characterized as a family of red wares ranging from fine ware, used for cups and bowls, to coarse ware, often found

in the form of hole-mouth cooking-pots. Surface treatment and firing often combine to give these red wares a white or black surface. The various red wares at Thaj were used to manufacture a variety of vessel shapes, of which the commonest include bowls with incurving rim, fine bowls with carinated rim, open bowls with overhanging rim, straight-necked and everted-rim jars, and hole-mouth, ledge-rim cooking-pots. Decoration often takes the form of multiple ridges along 71 Earlier studies of pottery from Thaj include P. W. Lapp, ‘Observations on the Pottery of Thaj’, BASOR 172 (1963), 20-2; P. J. Parr, ‘Objects from Thaj in the British Museum’, BASOR 176 (1964), 20-8; Bibby, Preliminary Survey, 20-4. In addition, L. Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery from Failaka (JASP 16/2: Ikaros: The Hellenistic Settlements, 2/2; Aarhus, 1983),

contains many valuable comparative insights on the Thaj pottery published by Lapp, Parr, and Bibby.

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

40

Cee CE NSO hams

|

(

a)ie

f

|

7

—————

18

f

Faery genio Me

cea

ee KasA tee

Jars

ee Cooking pots

FIG. 2. Diagnostic pottery types from the deep sounding at Thaj

sie

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

41

the shoulders of cooking-pots (reminiscent of City II red-ridged ware)

or beneath the rims of bowls. Where incised decoration occurs, this

most commonly takes the form of a zigzagging sawtooth pattern, which may be either quite wide and open or short and tightly bunched. The only painted decoration found is on small bowls with incurving rim on which either a thinly applied red-brown wash or a thick coat of red paint had been applied to the interior and exterior rim lip. Table 1 indicates the temporal distribution of wares among the ten stratigraphic levels distinguished in the Deep Sounding. As some of these wares continued in use into the latest period of the site’s occupation, the figures for Period IV are included here as well. TABLE

1. Distribution of Pottery Wares by Level in the Deep Sounding at Thaj

Ware

Period IV

Period III

Period II Period I

Level Li

ee

Sa

SS

7

BA

Fine red Plain red Fine white-faced red White-faced red Black-faced red Black/white-faced red White-faced black

Se ees Wet 2 ve 78-424 ieee 2826 lA 8 bot 1 3h lb) SE al)” AS) 6 Sy 36432 218 3 38 SE ee ee be, ae A? eer 6 Seo ele Loe tL 4 6 20 12.3926 S35 2

5 V 2

Plain black

4

6

4

MG

Jag

ie

4

Lae SP Die 7

PANG

1

0

8

Z

18 0 5 2; 6

eb

BY

Ak®)

Doge: 5 ‘il il Sie) Qi = al Cams 0 2 50) 2 ee 0 1 One) il

1

1

Imitation Hellenistic

red-painted

See

White-glazed

3

2

Plain red-brown Crude white-faced red White faced red-brown Plain brown Red-faced brown

eI Oe FS Se | Osa Ope, SLORT See 1 Gio a/ vam, W. W. Tarn,?*6 Antiochus’ journey to Gerrha booty, or gain tribute. In view away from Babylonia, where

and H. H. Schmitt,?97 have interpreted as an attempt to conquer Gerrha, seize of the apparent shift of Gerrha’s trade it had previously been directed (in the

time of Aristobulus), towards the west (in the time of Eratosthenes

and a itself.2

an explanation originally proposed by Rostovtzeff suggests

°3 The identification of the substance called ‘stacte’ is given by Pliny, NH 12. 35, where the gathering of myrrh is described. Following the translation of W. W. Schoff, The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (New York, 1912), 113: ‘The tree spontaneously exudes, before the incision is made, a liquid which bears the name of stacte (stazo, to drop), and to which there is no myrrh

that is superior.’ On ‘stacte’, cf. also J. Pirenne, Le Royaume sud-arabe de Qataban et sa datation (Bibliotheque du Muséon, 47; Louvain, 1961), 169 n. 10.

294 A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Séleucides (323-64 avant J.-C.) (Paris, 1913), 166: “‘Antiochos pensa qu’il était bon de faire sentir sa puissance aux habitants de Gerrha. Un peu de piraterie ne lui déplaisait pas.’ 295 E. Bikerman, Les Institutions des Séleucides (Paris, 1938), 120: ‘Le roi disposait de multiples recettes extraordinaires pour se procurer de l’argent en cas de besoin. Nous trouvons mentionés dans cette catégorie: a) Le butin de guerre . . . Les Gerrhéens sur le Golfe Persique durent donner 4 Antiochos III 500 talents d’argent, mille talents d’encens et 200 talents de parfum.’

296 W7. W. Tarn, ‘Ptolemy II and Arabia’, JEA 15 (1929), 22: ‘Now the great trading power on the Persian Gulf was Gerrha, and it was the wealthy Gerrhaeans who supplied Seleuceia with incense etc.; apparently the Seleucids maintained good relations with them, and even Antiochus III, when he set out to conquer Gerrha, yielded to the people’s prayer that they might keep their ancient freedom.’ 2°7 Schmitt, Untersuchungen, 34 n. 3: ‘Aus dem Bericht des Polyb. (§ 5) tiber die Zahlung eines “Kranzgeldes” an Antiochos lasst sich nicht ablesen, ob es sich um eine einmalige Zahlung handelte oder ob die Gerrhder einen standigen Tribut zahlen mussten, d. h. die Oberhdheit des Antiochos anerkannten.’ 298 Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History’, i. 458: ‘The Seleucids dealt with the Gerrhaeans in much the same way as the Ptolemies with the Nabataeans. In order to prevent the Gerrhaeans from robbing the Seleucid ships that plied between Babylonia and India, they maintained a flotilla in the Persian Gulf. At the same time they endeavoured, by diplomatic action and military intervention, to keep the Gerrhaeans more or less under control and to obtain from them a large proportion of the Arabian and Indian goods held by their merchants. In this light we are better able to understand the account given by Polybius (in the fragmentary form in which we have it) of the expedition of Antiochus III against the Gerrhaeans. It was a military demonstration on a large scale, which did not lead to the conquest of Gerrha, but was imposing enough to frighten the Gerrhaeans and make them increase the quantity of merchandise they sent to Seleucia, at the expense probably of the Nabataeans and the Ptolemies.’

94

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

Rostovtzeff suggested that the purpose of Antiochus’ visit was to persuade the Gerrhaeans, by show of force, to reorient their trade towards Babylonia. Since it was first proposed, RostovtzefP S hypothesis has been favourably accepted by many scholars, including F. Altheim,299 $. Nodelman,?°? O. M¢rkholm,3! G. Le Rider,392 and E. Will.303 Indeed, there is much to recommend it. For if we consider both the real goods and potential tax revenue which was being lost to the Ptolemies, whose treasuries were correspondingly augmented by this trade, it is hardly surprising that Antiochus III finally intervened at Gerrha itself.394 Had it merely been a matter of stopping the caravans from serving Ptolemaic Egypt and Syria, Antiochus might well have destroyed Gerrha. He was not so short-sighted, however. As Polybius tells us, the Seleucid king granted the Gerrhaeans their ‘perpetual peace and freedom’—for, undoubtedly, he did not want to 299 Altheim, Weltgeschichte Asiens, 45: ‘Antiochos III. beabsichtigte nach Abschluss seiner Anabasis, Gerrha unter seine Gewalt zu bringen (205-4). Damit ware nach dem Landweg auch der Seeweg nach Indien in seiner Hand gewesen.’ 300 §, Nodelman, ‘A Preliminary History of Characene’, Berytus, 13 (1960), 85: “His object

in part was simply to exact tribute from the fabulously wealthy city. But perhaps even more it was to gain control over the Indian and Arabian trade, and to divert it from his hereditary enemy, Egypt, which had profited greatly by contact with Gerrha through her Nabataean vassals.’ 301 M@¢rkholm, ‘Graeske mgnter’, 206-7: ‘Antiochus III felt it necessary in 205 BC to make a large-scale military demonstration against the Gerrhaeans, with the object of securing for himself a reasonable proportion of their trade.’

30 Le Rider, Suse, 304: ‘Il est superficiel, semble-t-il, de voir dans cet épisode un simple acte de piraterie. Une interprétation plus vraisemblable en a été donnée par M. Rostovtzeff. Gerrha était un important centre de commerce, ow arrivaient les produits de l’Arabie du Sud-Est et de l’'Inde. Le développement des relations entre Gerrha et Egypte par l’intermédiaire de Pétra aurait provoqué l’intervention d’Antiochos III, qui aurait traité avec les Gerrhéens pour que leur marchandises fussent désormais envoyées de préférence vers le territoire séleucide, a travers lequel seffectuerait leur transport jusqu’a la Méditerranée et |’Asie Mineure.’ 3°3 Will, Histoire politique, i. 193 n. 3: ‘Ainsi, p. ex., lorsque, au terme de son Anabase et alors qu'il ne posséde pas encore la Coélé-Syrie, Antiochos III pousse jusqu’a Gerrha . . . ce n’est sans doute pas seulement pour prélever sur les Gerrhéens le lourd tribut dont nous somme informés, mais encore pour les convaincre d’infléchir leur profitable commerce vers l’empire seleucide.’ Compare this with the hesitancy expressed by Will in the second volume of his work: ‘Que signifie cet appendice arabique qu’Antiochos III ajouta 4 son expédition? Gerrha, port situé en arriére de l’ile de Tylos (Bahrein), était le centre d’un Etat arabe vivant A la fois du commerce maritime sur le golfe Persique (et peut-étre aussi de quelque piraterie) et du commerce caravanier: important relais, par conséquent, entre |’Océan Indien (Arabie méridionale, Inde) dune part et, de l’autre, les Etats hellénistiques. Antiochos III ayant jugé utile d’aller faire acte de présence a Gerrha, on en conclura volontiers que le négoce gerrhéen profitait plus a PEgypte (par la route caravaniére aboutissant a Pétra et dans la région sinaitique) qu’a l’empire séleucide, et qu’l s’agissait de convaincre les Gerrhéens de mieux répartir les profits. On remarquera toutefois que Polybe ne dit rien de tel et qu’il n’y est pas question d’un quelconque traité entre le roi et les Arabes . . .” (Ibid. ii. 63-4.)

ips Perhaps Antiochus III encountered Gerrhaean caravans in Syria and Palestine during the brief period of the Fourth Syrian War (217-214 Bc) in which he controlled the region before his defeat at Raphia? Such a circumstance may have sparked his interest in finally going to Gerrha himself, although the opportunity to do so did not arise until 205. In the intervening period he was probably too preoccupied with the upper satrapies.

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

95

halt Gerrhaean trade altogether. Rather, as Rostovtzeff surmised, he

wanted to redirect it towards Babylonia, which it had served a century

earlier, since free, taxable trade was in the best interest of the Seleucid

treasury. This explanation, moreover, is in accord with the observations of Le Rider on the expansion of trade at Susa during the Seleucid period. In contrast to the 33 bronzes from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris datable to between Seleucus I and Seleucus III, i.e. 310 to 223/2 BC, that have

been found at Susa, 314 appear in the reign of Antiochus II, with another 106 under Seleucus IV.395 Le Rider attributed this to a sudden growth in the number of commercial transactions involving Seleucia and Susa, which can in turn be seen as a result of Antiochus

IPs successful efforts to direct the Gulf trade towards Babylonia. In this case, Le Rider has suggested that goods transported by boat to Susa would have been transferred there onto caravans and taken thence to Seleucia. During the second century changes can be detected in the direction of Gerrha’s foreign trade. Agatharchides’ report of Gerrhaeans at Petra and in Palestine shows us that at some time in the beginning or middle of the century the Gerrhaeans began trading with the Nabataeans. Juba’s remark, preserved by Pliny, that caravans from Carra,?" i.e. Gerrha, ‘used to’ make the journey to Syria-Palestine, may also be an echo of the circumstances described by Agatharchides, although the two need not reflect entirely similar circumstances. The problem here is to determine under what political conditions Gerrha’s western trade was carried out in the second century. Following the Seleucid victory at Panion in 200 BC, Syria fell to the Seleucids and remained in their grip for most of the second century.3°7 If Agatharchides’ statement reflects conditions during his own lifetime (c.200-131 BC), then it was written at a time when Syria, as well as

Palestine proper,*°8 was a Seleucid domain. Thus, trade with Syria and Palestine entailed no loss of revenue for the Seleucids, and was,

in any case, a more direct route to the Mediterranean than the route via Babylonia. Concrete evidence of Gerrhaean traders in the Aegean during this period comes from Delos, and may not be unrelated to 305 Le Rider, Suse, 102. 306 The identity of Carra and Gerrha was recognized long ago by Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 184 p. 135. Cf. Tkaé, ‘Gerrha’, 1272, who agrees. 3°” Bagnall, The Administration, 13. 308 Roschinski, ‘Geschichte’, 11, writes of Antiochus III’s victory over Scopas at Panion:

‘Damit war die Zugeh6rigkeit Palastinas entschieden. Es war nun seleukidisch.’ Cf. Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stédtegriindungen, 175: ‘hier hat der Konig den agyptischen Feldherrn Skopas besiegt, worauf ihm das ganze Land bis an die Grenze Agyptens zufiel’. For Seleucid and Ptolemaic foundations in Palestine, see ibid. 69-81.

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

96

the circumstances just described. Temallatos of Gerrha made several offerings at the Sarapieion, in 146/5 BC, and the Artemision, 141/0 BC, including a silver incense-burner.3° One of his dedications bore 4 solar emblem. A second Arabian merchant, Kasmaios son of Abdaios,

dedicated an altar in Greek to Helios on Cos at some time during the second century.3!0 Although only the first three letters of his ethnic,

‘Ger-’, are preserved, it has been suggested that Kasmaios, too, was

a native of Gerrha.3!! There is nothing to suggest, however, that Seleucid control in the west affected the Nabataean realm.3!2 Thus, while the Seleucids must have had no objections to seeing Gerrhaean caravans going to SyroPalestine, trade with Petra was probably another matter. Most probably, Gerrhaean trade with the Nabataean capital was an offshoot of their trade with Seleucid Syria, but it is possible that this was done illicitly, from the Seleucid point of view. In this regard, it is interesting to reconsider a proposal put forward by Tarn in 1929. Starting out from the Agatharchides fragment cited above, Tarn tried to explain why the Gerrhaeans should have sent caravans to Petra,?!3 when Petra was itself at the head of a direct caravan route to southern Arabia. Rather than a case of sending coals to Newcastle, Tarn suggested that the Nabataeans may have been barred from receiving South Arabian 309 See P. Roussel, Délos, colonie athénienne (Bibliotheque des Ecoles frangaises d’Athénes et de Rome, fasc. 111; Paris, 1916), 88 and n. 6; F. Durrbach, Choix d’inscriptions de Délos, i (Paris, 1921), p. 208; A. Plassart, Les Sanctuaires et les cultes du Mont Cynthe (Exploration archéologique de Délos, 11; Paris, 1928), 23. For the original texts, see Durrbach and Roussel, Inscriptions de Délos, nos. 1439 A bc tt 24 ff.; 1442 A 82, B 57, 58; 1444 A a 45, 51; 1449 A ab 1! 28. 60 ff.; 1450 A 119. On the name Temallatos, as a Graecized ‘Taym-allat’, see Altheim and Stiehl, ‘Omana und Gerrha’, 112; T. Fahd, ‘Gerrhéens et Gurhumites’, in H. R. Roemer and A. Noth (eds.), Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Vorderen Orients: Festschrift fiir Bertold Spuler zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (Leiden, 1981), 69.

310 §. M. Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos: An Historical Study from the Dorian Settlement to the Imperial Period (Hypomnemata,

51; Gottingen, 1978), 246, 370-1.

311 J.T. Milik apud H. Seyrig, ‘Antiquités syriennes’, Syria, 42 (1965), 26 n. 2, contra O. Eissfeldt, Kleine Schriften, ii (Tubingen, 1963), 310, who proposed that Kasmaios was from

Gerasa. Milik considered ‘Kasmaios, son of Abdaios’ an improbable name to find at Gerasa at this early date. Otherwise, there are no certain grounds for attributing Kasmaios to Gerrha. *!2 Roschinski, ‘Geschichte’, 12, writes: ‘Im Niedergang des ptolemaischen wie des seleukidischen K6nigreiches hatte an den Randern beider sich der nabataische Herrscher zu Ko6nigswiirde erhoben.’ F. E. Peters, “The Nabateans in the Hawran’, JAOS 97 (1977), 264, speaks of the ‘dim period of Ptolemaic and Seleucid control’. The situation becomes clearer when we move into the early first century BC, at which time ‘The growth of the Nabataean kingdom ‘ could well have become a source of concern to the increasingly enfeebled Seleucid regime in Soe to the north’, in the words of G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 4.

*3 Tarn, ‘Ptolemy IP’, 22-3. Cf. the spurious thesis of Altheim, Weltgeschichte Asiens, 44: ‘Nach allem gewinnt man den Eindruck, als habe sich die Hafenstadt Gerrha in dem Masse,

wie die Bucht versandete, auf ein Binnendasein umgestellt. Man richtete sich auf den Karawanenverkehr ein, der die Waren Siidarabiens ins Zweistromland oder nach Petra brachte.’

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

97

products by the Ptolemies. It has been suggested that Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC) succeeded in 278/7 in wresting control of the Marib-Petra incense route away from the Nabataeans,3!4 seizing the route below Petra, and founding Ampelone on the coast of the Hejaz as a port to which the caravan wares coming from southern Arabia could be diverted and trans-shipped directly to Myos Hormos in Egypt, thus bypassing the Nabataeans.3!5 Given this state of affairs, it could well have been profitable for the Gerrhaeans to ship merchandise which they had already carried forty days from Hadhramaut to Gerrha (Strabo 16. 4. 4) overland to Petra.3!© Tarn’s

error, however, lay in taking Agatharchides’ report as proof that Gerrha was trading with the Nabataeans in the third century BC. On the contrary, unless it is archaistic, it reflects the situation in the second

century BC.3!7 Finally, the rise of growing commercial explain why, as Juba another reversal and Parthian empire.

Charax in the late second century BC and its importance in the late first century BC may says, the Gerrhaeans at some point made yet began sending their wares to Charax and the

Conclusion

The rich inventory of archaeological sites of Hellenistic date in northeastern Arabia complements the sparse notices in the ancient sources concerning this key area. As the number of Hasaitic inscriptions continues to grow, and excavations are done on a larger scale, it will only be a matter of time before we can see clearly why Alexander the 314 Roschinski, ‘Geschichte’, 9. For the contrary view that Ptolemy II never campaigned in Arabia, but rather in Syro-Palestine (in 276 BC), see D. Lorton, ‘The Supposed Expedition of Ptolemy II to Persia’, JEA 57 (1971), 160-4.

315, Roschinski, ‘Geschichte’, 9. On Ampelone, see Tarn, ‘Ptolemy II’, 21-2. 316 This controversial statement cannot be taken at face value, as most of the extant manuscripts of Strabo say that the Gabaioi reached Chatramotitis (Hadhramaut) in 40 days. The insertion of ‘Gerrhaioi’ is due to an emendation proposed by I. Casaubon (1559-1614), and often followed since. It was, however, questioned by M. Jomard, ‘Notice géographique sur l’A’syr’, in F. Mengin (ed.), Histoire sommaire de l’Egypte sous le gouvernement de Momammed-Aly (Paris, 1839), 377, and more recently again by Beeston, ‘Some Observations’,

8, who identifies Strabo’s Gabaioi with Pliny’s Gebbanitae, in whom the Qatabanians have been recognized (Miiller, ‘Weihrauch’, 726). An objection to this, however, can be raised: it would

hardly have taken 40 days to get from Qataban to Hadhramaut. Nevertheless, Strabo’s muchquoted notice should not be taken uncritically as an allusion to Gerrha. 317 Contra Peters, ‘The Nabateans’, 275 n. 103, who considers the Agatharchides fragment a testimony to ‘the Gerrhaeans as traders with Ptolemaic Syria’. On the assumption that Agatharchides was describing conditions in his own lifetime, his testimony must refer to trade at a time when Syria and Palestine were in Seleucid, not Ptolemaic, hands.

98

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

Great so desired to mount a campaign against the region before he died. Although modern political conditions have conspired to make the region one of the less well-known sub-areas of the Arabian Gulf

littoral, in comparison with Failaka, Bahrain, or the UAE, north-

eastern Arabia, with the large and prosperous city of Gerrha, was probably more important to the Seleucids than any of these other regions. The sheer volume of the gifts brought back by Antiochus III is an indication of this, and now that an increasing number of local monetary issues have become known in the area, one may indeed wonder whether Antiochus received his silver in bullion or in coin.

As Glaser implored in 1890,?!8 the further study of eastern Arabia is a desideratum if we are to better understand ancient Arabia in its entirety. The finds made in the Eastern Province in recent years, many of which were wholly unexpected, illustrate clearly that the archaeological and historical significance of this region for the general study of Arabia’s antiquity and the history of Hellenism in Asia are only now beginning to be appreciated. 318 Glaser, Skizze, 254-5: ‘Ich will abermals betonen, dass es ein dringendes Erforderniss der Wissenschaft ist, Ostarabien zu durchforschen, wenn wir mehr Licht wiinschen tiber die Geschichte der semitischen Volker. . . . Des Ptolemaus Nachrichten tiber Arabien . . . mahnen uns aber

dringend zu weiterer Forschung, nicht nur in Sid- und Westarabien, sondern auch in Ostarabien.’

Appendix 1: Coastal Sites of Hellenistic Date Discovered in 1977 by the Harvard UniversitySaudi Arabian Department of Antiquities Joint Survey Team GROUP Abu Kharuf

I

Site 189 (27°23’N., 49°09’ E.; 75m.

by 150m.):

sparse scatter in a sandy depression Site 192 (27°23’

al-Bukhara

al-Murayr

N4,°49°12"E.2950 mi by 250m:

sparse scatter on a point west of al-Bukhara peninsula Site 195 (27°22’30"N., 49°14’E.; 50m. by 100 m.): scatter of debris in dikaka just north of the base of al-Bukhara peninsula Site 187 (27°06’ N., 49°24’ E.; 150m. by 200m.) scatter of sherds in a sandy depression, rubble Site 181 (27°06’ N., 49°19’ 05”E.; 1 sq. km.): sherd scatter between dunes

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

Ad Dafi

Site 171 heavy Site 170 sherd Site 169

99

(27°09'N., 49°33’ E.; 75m. by 100-m.): scatter of shell and sherds in a flat plain (27°08’N., 49°33’E.; 25m. by 40m.): and shell scatter in a sandy depression (27°07’N., 49°34’ E.; 50m. by 100 m.):

scatter of sherds, shell, and stone on a sandy slope Site 164 (27°07’N., 49°33’ E.; 0.5 sq. km.): light

shell and sherd scatter in sandy depressions Site

163

(27°07’N.,

49°34’E.;

200m.

square):

several mounds of oblong farush blocks, buildings

or graves al-Batinah

Site 168 (27°14’05’N., 49°29’E.; size undetermined): series of low mounds clustered around a hill

in a sandy area Site 167 (27°04’ 05”N., 49°28’ 05”E.; c.0.25 sq. km.):

low mound on coastal flats at north-west end of island Site 166 (27°15’ N., 49°29’ 05”E.; 50 m. by 60 m.): scatter on the side of a low sand hill

GROUP

Jabal Berri

II

site 160 426°53" N., 49°37 150 ms by 500m): scatter of stones and sherds in a depression surrounded by dunes Site 153°(26°55 7-45” N., +49°39’ 20”E.; 100m. by 200 m.): scatter of sherds, stone, and shell in a flat

area among dunes Site 150

Ad Dawsiriyah

(26°54’ 45”N.,

GROUP Ayn Jawan

49°39’ 30”E.;

50m.

by

200 m.): pottery scatter in a sandy depression among dunes Site 149 (26°58’15”N., 49°38’15”E.; 30m. by 50 m.): sand and shell scatter in a sandy depression among dunes Site 147 (26°55’ N., 49°44’ E.; 25 m. square): sparse scatter of sherds in a sandy depression Site 146 (26°54’ 35’N., 49°46’E.; size undetermined): discontinuous scatter of sherds and shell along a beach

III

Site 143 (26°45’ N., 49°56’ E.; 30 m. by 70 m.): shell and sherd scatter on the side of a wide dune

100

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

Site 142 (26°44’ N., 49°56’ E.; 30 m. by 40 m.): shell and sherd scatter in a depression surrounded by dunes Site 140 (26°43’ N., 49°56’ E.; 50m. by 300 m., 50 m. by 125m.):

discontinuous,

dense

sherd

and shell

scatters in a depression between large dunes; remains of a stone building, 17m. by 19m. Site 138 (26°45’ 45”N., 49°54’ 45”E.; 50 m. by 100 m.): sherd scatter between three large dunes Site 137 (26°36’30"N., 49°54’ 40’E.; 10m. by 30 m.): sherd scatter in a shallow depression near sabkha Site 129 (26°42’ N., 49°57’ 36”E.; 150 m. by 200 m.): Ayn Jawan mound, 3.5 m. deposit Site 136 (26°45'35”’N., 49°54’ 20”E.; 30m. by 50m.): sherd scatter in a sandy depression Site 135 (26°44’ 45”N., 49°54’ 30”E.; 40 m. square):

sherd scatter on a sand hill Site 134 (26°45’ 30”N., 49°58’ E.; 50m. by 100 m.): sherd and shell scatter on a high sand hill Site 133 (26°45’ 30’N., 49°58’E.; 50m. square): sherd and shell scatter on a sloping hillside Site 132 (26°40’ 05”N., 49°57’ 45”E.; 100 m. square): low mound south-east of Ayn Jawan covered with debris Sites.1314(26543" 12° Ns .49°54" E.c 252, square): sherd scatter in a sandy area among undulating hills

GROUP Qatif

Site 130 (26°38’ 15”N., 49°56’ 45”E.; 20 m. square): sherd and shell scatter in sand

GROUP Dammam /

Khobar

IV

V

site. 114, (26°277 SO Ne 0 20 Ee mlee 500 m.): diffuse scatter of sherds among sandy hills Site 112 (26°18’ 35”N., 50°12’ 20”E.; 1km. square): heavy sherd scatter with traces of stone, plaster ruins Site 111 (26°18’ 20”N., 50°11’ 30”E.; size undetermined): extensive sherd and flint scatter on of Khobar Site 106 (26°20'15”N., 50°09’ 45”E.; 150 m.): extensive sherd scatter, stone mounds Site 105 (26°22’N., 50°10’ 15”E.; 300 m. sherd scatter in a sandy depression

the outskirts

100m.

by

and rubble

by 500 m.):

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC Dhahran

Site 91 (26°14’15”N.,

50°08’E.;

101 2km.

by 3km.):

large site with many features—building graves, extensive sherd scatter

GROUP Ra’s alQurayyah

remains,

VI

Site 104 (25°35’ 20”N., 50°06’E.; 50m. by 100 m.): low mound, 0.5 m. high, with wider spread of sherds Site 103 (25°55’ 20”N., 50°06’ E.; 40m. by 50m.): shell and sherd scatter on a low rise, 1 km. from shore

Appendix 2: Inland Sites of Hellenistic Date Discovered in 1977 by the Harvard University-Saudi Arabian Department of Antiquities Joint Survey Team GROUP Al Midra

1

Site 219 (27°04’ N., 48°22’ E.; 30 m. by 60 m.): scatter of sherds and several ruined stone structures, with

ash Shamali

traces of plaster, on top of a jabal; only access is via a cave in the side of the jabal, from which a shaft had been cut leading up to the top Site 220 (26°55’ 30”N., 48°34’ E.; 50m. by 75m.): ruined stone building on a low hill overlooking the oasis village of As Sihaf Site 217 (26°55’N., 48°39’ E.; size undetermined): moderate to heavy sherd scatter on top, sides, and base of jabal; stone rubble from a building? Site 215 (26°52'05”N., 48°42’09”E.; 825m. by 990 m.): see the text of this chapter Site 210 (26°53’ 01”N., 48°45’ 02” E.; 40 m. by 50 m.): stone-lined well and building comparable to site 215 Site 204 (26°55’N., 48°45’E.; 60m. by 20m.): surface of jabal with sherd clusters, two graves with ring-walls and central cairns Site 206 (26°52’ N., 48°45’ 45” E.; size undetermined): small collection of sherds on top of this large jabal

al-Batil

Site 207

As Sihaf

Jabal al-Ahass

Thaj

Al Quwaydiyat

al-Batil

al Awsat

(26°50’ 45”N.,

48°46’ 30”E.;

size undeter-

mined): heavy concentration of sherds at south-eastern end of jabal, several cairns on the lower terraces

102

North-Eastern Arabia, 325-100 BC

al-Batil al Janubi

Site 208 (26°48 25”N., 48°46’ 25”E.; size undetermined): a few sherds at south-eastern end of jabal

al-Hinna

Site 203 (size undetermined): an extensive area of ruins like Thaj, ancient ashlars sometimes reused in Ikhwan houses Site 212 (26°40’ N., 48°45’ E.; 1 sq. km.): well in the centre of a wadi with numerous sherd and flint scatters

Rida

GROUP Salasil

Ayn Dar

2

Site 264 (26°04’ 30”N., 49°27’ E.; size undetermined):

series of sandy depressions with ceramic and flint scatter Site 297 (26°03’45”N., 49°31’ 30”E.; 100m. by 200 m.): sandy depression with ceramic scatter Site 249 (26°05’N., 49°25’E.; 50m. by 100 m.): sparse ceramic scatter in an area of undulating sand Site 289 (25°53’ 45”N., 49°28’ 15”E.; 25 m. by 40 m.): sherd, flint, and limestone scatter in a sandy depression Site

(280°

(25° 58" Ni,

“49°27 E37

25 mee

bye

Cae):

shallow sandy depression with ceramic scatter Site 127d.-( 252495 Na ASSLOL SOC Es over dosq. kim): heavy ceramic scatter over three low mounds, stone rubble Site. 250:(25°59" 15" Ne, 49°23°E.2°75 m. by 200 me): discontinuous scatter of sherds in a flat area with scrub and grass vegetation Site 241 (25°59’ 15”N., 49°23’ E.; size undetermined):

small oasis village with houses and gardens; sherds scattered around perimeter

Yaqrub

site 248, (25°S7° N:, 49°29" Ex: SOm.

“by 100m.):

sherd scatter in a large sandy depression

Site 247 (25°57’ 30”N., 49°29’ E.; 100 m. by 300 m.): sherd scatter on sandy hillsides Fuda

Site 246 ,(25°56" 15"N. 3, 49°29" 307°R... /Sumsby 150m.): heavy sherd and flint scatter in a sandy depression Site 24 a 25° 5651S SN Pea O96 30" boat sane 100 m.): sherd and flint scatter in a sandy depression Site 243 (25°54’ 30”N., 49°30’ E.; 30m. by 50m.): sherd scatter in a sandy depression

Site 242 (25°56’ 30”N., 49°29’ 45”E.; 100 m. square): sherd and flint scatter in a sandy area on the outskirts of Fuda village

5 Bahrain from the Hellenistic Era to the Sasanian Period Introduction

Despite their prominence in ancient Greek and Latin botanical sources, the Bahrain islands have been slow to reveal their later pre-Islamic past. Moreover, much of the archaeological work conducted to date on sites of this period has not been published, so that the student of Hellenism in Arabia is at a double disadvantage. Nevertheless, the remains thus far unearthed on Bahrain are not insignificant, and great strides have been made, particularly in the last decade, in refining the ceramic chronology of Bahrain during the centuries between the Achaemenid and Sasanian empires, in locating and excavating an important pre-Islamic fortress, and in exposing the burial patterns of the period.

The Settlement at Ra’s al-Qal'at During the fourth campaign of the Danish expedition’s work on Bahrain, a sherd ‘of biscuit-coloured ware’ bearing the last five letters of a name written in Greek, —ITAIOI, was found in the 85-99 m. trench within the famous ‘Hundred-Metre Section’ at Ra’s al-Qal’at.! This was the first indication of the age of what was then called ‘the glazed-bowl period’ and subsequently became known as City V.* The Qal’at remains the only settlement of the period that has yet been sounded. Unfortunately, publication of the results of this work has been limited. Apart from the original sounding of 1957 which furnished the basis for the identification of a Hellenistic occupation, nine or ten strata (6-13, and perhaps 5) assigned to City V were recorded in ! T. G. Bibby, ‘Bahrains oldtidshovedstad gennem 4000 ar (The Hundred-Meter Section)’, Kuml 1957 (1958), 157 and fig. 11. Cf. J.-F. Salles, ‘The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids’, in A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East (London, 1987), 81, who is tempted to read this as the end of the ethnic ‘Agraioi’ (see ch. 2 above, and the discussion of

Hagar), ‘although it would be premature to restore it thus’. 2 T. G. Bibby, Looking for Dilmun (New York, 1969), 152.

104

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

22

Barbar@ e Diraz

sh ako

Jiddah

ane

@ e

~~

©

far

@Ra sal-Qal’at @Jidd Hafs

( Bu Asheirah

Al-Hajjar

:

g

{ @Sar Isa Town e

@ali @Buri

@ Dumistan @ Karzakan

@Rifa’a

@ Al-Malkiyyah @ Hamad Town

Zellaq

@Umm Jidr Al-Markh @

Ra’s al-Jazayir

Howar

Islands

FIG. 4. Map of Bahrain, showing the principal sites of all periods under discussion

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

105

sondage A, located in the 63-8 m. section of the North Wall Sounding, while in the adjacent sondage B, in the 69-74 m. section, ten strata (7-16) were distinguished,? representing a substantial deposit, roughly 2m. thick.* During the eighth season of Danish excavations, 1961-2, an area of two-roomed private houses was found directly above the western section of the City II city wall.5 The only Hellenistic remains reported from the following season of 1962-3 are a pair of ‘imported Greek sherds’ from a pit,® but in 1964 more substantial remains were uncovered in a strip 13 m. wide against the south face of the northern city wall. By coincidence, the 2m. wide, north-south baulk in the middle of this trench, when removed, was found to have been lying directly over a street of City V date surfaced with a kind of gypsum cement.’ Below street level was ‘a sophisticated drainage system consisting of two rectangular plastered tanks to the north and to the south joined by a long offset drain, accessible from the street and running into the southern tank’.® A group of three rooms, all of which contained diagnostic City V pottery and had probably once been part of a single building, was located just west of the street, while to the east a less well-preserved series of walls hinted at the existence here of yet another Hellenistic-period structure. It appears that the original city wall, built during the early second millennium BC (City II) of stone set in a matrix of green clay, was reinforced in the Hellenistic period with a rampart wall constructed of stone bonded by gypsum mortar.? The street uncovered in 1964 led directly to a gate in the Hellenistic rampart wall complete with its stone portal and gatepost socket still in situ, as investigations in this area during the 1965 season further clarified.1° Exploratory soundings against the eastern face of the Qal’at, carried out during the same campaign in hopes of locating the eastern city wall, revealed traces of Hellenistic occupation, including a nearly intact example of a green-glazed lagynos.!! 3 Bibby, Looking for Dilmun, 105. 4 Ibid. 110; cf. 153, where Bibby speaks of the ‘thick levels of City V remains’. 5 T. G. Bibby, ‘Arabiens arkaeologi (Arabian Gulf Archaeology)’, Kuml 1964 (1965), 103.

SMIbid. 105: 7 T. G. Bibby, ‘Arabiens arkzeologi (Arabian Gulf Archaeology)’, Kuml 1965 (1966), 147.

8 Tbid.

° Ibid. 146.

10 T. G. Bibby, ‘Arabiens arkaologi (Arabian Gulf Archaeology)’, Kuml 1966 (1967), 92. _=

Ibid. 93 fig. 9. P. Lombard and J.-F. Salles (eds.), La Nécropole de Janussan (Bahrain)

(TMO 6; Lyons, 1984), 108, point out the clear preference for this form in the Gulf area. Other

examples are known from Sar and Shakhourah on Bahrain, and from Fariq al-Akrash and Ayn Jawan on the mainland. J. Gachet and J.-F. Salles, ‘Nouvelles remarques sur la céramique hellénistique de Failaka’, unpubl. MS, view the presence of the lagynos here as an example of the ‘introduction directe dans la région du Golfe de formes grecques originales, sans intermédiaire au Levant ou en Mésopotamie, et sans diffusion au-dela des zones immédiatement voisines du Golfe’.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

106

In 1969-70 work again took place along the northern city wall,

this time against its north face. Here, the remains of at least one house,

built against the face of the wall and facing the street as it entered the city, were found. The most important discovery was made when a plaster kerb running along several walls of the house beneath the latest floor-level was removed, revealing a round-bellied jar with narrow neck which contained a hoard of 292 silver coins.!* These will be discussed below. In his longest account of the Hellenistic ceramics from the Qal’at excavations, Bibby focused on eight diagnostic pottery types.!3 These included the following, which may be taken briefly in turn. Bibby’s ‘srey-glazed bowls’, his type 9, have the shape of a classic Hellenistic fossil index found in great numbers in eastern Arabia (see ch. 2 above),

a shallow bowl with a plain, incurving rim, though usually without a ring base.!4 ‘Red-painted bowls’, Bibby’s type 11, are now called ‘Arabian red-washed ware’ by L. Hannestad, who terms ‘black-painted bowls’, Bibby’s type 12, ‘Arabian black-washed ware’.!> It is to the Arabian red-washed category that Bibby’s types 10, ‘bowls with corrugated rims’, and 13, ‘bowls with three lug bases’, also belong. Because the red ware, the distinctive tripod base, and the shaved

polygonal base of the bowls with corrugated rim are well known at Thaj, Ayn Jawan, and other sites on the Arabian mainland, it is probable that these are indigenous products of the region. Whether they were also produced on Bahrain we do not know. Coarse-ware ‘rolled rims’, type 15, and ‘expanded elongated rims’, type 16, most probably belonging to large jars with flaring necks, were also numerous. Other Hellenistic types found in the Qal’at include ‘bowls with flaring sides and offset lip’,!® fish-plates,!” and squat, glazed amphorae with loop handles.!8 Two Greek black-glazed sherds were also recovered in stratum 9 of sondage A.!9 Three recent studies have taken up anew the question of the date of City V. In 1982 J.-F. Salles proposed a tripartite division of Va, Vb, and Vc, in which Va represents the strata excavated by the Danish '2 ©. Mé¢rkholm, ‘En hellenistisk mgntskat fra Bahrain (A Hellenistic Coin Hoard from Bahrain)’, Kuml

1972 (1973), 182-202.

'3 Bibby, Looking for Dilmun, 105, 111. '* For examples from Thaj, see M. Gazdar, D. T. Potts, and A. Livingstone, ‘Excavations at Thaj’, Atlal, 8 (1984), fig. 70. 11-12. This is the ‘bowl with incurving rim’, to use

L. Hannestad’s terminology: see The Hellenistic Pottery from Failaka (JASP 16/2: Ikaros: The Hellenistic Settlements, 2/1; Aarhus, 1983), 17, n. 64, and pl. 1. 1S Ibid. 49

16 Ibid. 25 and n. 238. 8 Thid. 37 and n. 405.

7 Ibid. 31 and n. 324. oy)

'? Bibby, Looking for Dilmun, 112; cf. id., ‘Arabiens arkaeologi’ (1967), 92.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

107

JUISESS ESSA

Fic. 5. A selection of pottery types in use on Bahrain during the Hellenistic and Parthian periods, with examples from Qal’at al-Bahrain (a-c, b,j), Abu Saybi (d), Janussan (e, i), Karranah (f-g, r), Hamala (k, /, o-q, t-u), Umm al-Hassam (m), and Sar (n, s)

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

108

676

expedition on the Qal’at, while Vb corresponds to a Parthian and Vc to a Sasanian chronological horizon on the island, neither of which is clearly attested on the Qal’at, but only in the cemeteries.*? More recently, Salles has refined his periodization further still, resulting in the following sequence:?! Tylus Va: c.300-100 BC (well attested on the Qal’at, less so in the graves, clear Seleucid influence) Tylus Vb1: c.100 BC-AD 100 (absent on the Qal’at, well represented in the graves, = early and middle Parthian) Tylus Vb2: Parthian)

c.AD

100-250

(same

distribution

as Vb1,=late

Tylus Vc: c. AD 250 to the Islamic conquest (absent on the Qal’at and rarely attested in graves, Sasanian influence)

Salles’s observation on the absence of Parthian and Sasanian material on the Qal’at applies, however, only to the pottery published by Bibby, for in 1983 C. Larsen published a brief analysis of the so-called ‘Profile Pit’, already discussed earlier in conjunction with the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods on the island, which was sunk through the floor of the ‘Portuguese’ fort.22 Here, an apparently uninterrupted sequence of occupation extending from the sixteenth century AD to the Neo-Assyrian period was preserved in a deposit consisting broadly of fifteen strata (absolute depth not given). In his analysis of the pottery from this sounding, Larsen distinguished four principal ware groups, comprising cooking-ware, glazed ware, burnished ware, and plain ware, as well as an additional category of miscellaneous forms. The distribution of the diagnostic pottery types singled out by Larsen among the levels of the Profile Pit relevant to the present discussion (i.e. levels J, K1-4, and © (=@Ostkammer, the basal layer)) is as

follows: Thaj type 4: © (Larsen?3 fig. 591, m) Thaj type 2: K4 (Larsen fig. 58g) Grey crackled glaze: K4, K3, K2 Downturned rims: K4, K3 (Larsen fig. 59j), K2

Burnished grey ware: K3 (Larsen fig. 59c) Thaj type 1: K3 Burnished red ware: K3 (Larsen fig. 60d), K2, K1 a J.-F. Salles, ‘Bahrain “Hellénistique”: Données et Problémes’, AOMIM 71 Salles, ‘The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids’, 82.

157.

slesMe E. Larsen, Life and Land Use on the Bahrain Islands (Chicago and London, 1983),

*3 The Larsen work referred to here, in which examples of these types are illustrated, is Life and Land Use.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

109

Dark grey ridged ware: K3, K2, K1, J Everted rim bowls: K3 (Larsen fig. 61i), K2 (Larsen fig. 61g), K1 (Larsen fig. 61k), J (Larsen fig. 61h)

Partho-Sasanian cooking-ware: K2 (Larsen fig. 61e), K1 (Larsen fig. 61c), J (Larsen fig. 61a, b, f) Larsen has proposed a division of these strata into an ‘AchaemenidSeleucid—Parthian Occupation’ (O-K3) and a ‘Late Parthian-Sasanian

Occupation’ (K2-J). In the list above, however, the pottery types have been arranged differently than in Larsen’s original table.74 It is clear that there is no logical division in the stratigraphic column between levels K2 and K3, and an alternative division will be suggested here. Let us begin with ©. This stratum, it should be noted, is considered

transitional between the Neo-Assyrian/ Neo-Babylonian horizon and the period which follows it. Glazed bowls with an interior bevelled rim, such as Larsen’s fig. 59] and m, are thought to be representative of this transition, and are paralleled at Antioch and Nippur in contexts dating to the late fourth and third centuries BC.25 Thereafter no clear breaks can be detected in the distribution of pottery types. No mention whatsoever is made by Larsen of the very diagnostic fish-plate (cf. his fig. 59h-k), except to make the erroneous statement that they are

‘contemporary with Sasanian forms’.2® The only example from the Profile Pit illustrated by Larsen (fig. 59j), comes from stratum K3, but according to Larsen’s fig. 55 the form is also present in K4 and K2. According to L. Hannestad’s recent study of the Hellenistic pottery from Failaka, the fish-plate ‘was a characteristic shape of the Seleucid period in Mesopotamia; on the other hand, finds in for instance Seleucia and Susiana . . . and on Failaka show that the shape continued to be popular far into the Parthian period’.*” Thus, at Seleucia, they were produced as late as the first century AD.2° Eggshell ware, a longlived diagnostic ware of Seleucid and Parthian date, is present in Pit 1, but not in the Profile Pit, and we cannot therefore be certain

of its relative position in this area.3° The continuity of types between K4 and K2, K3 and K1, and K3 andJ is striking. The presence of fish-plates as late as K2 suggests that this stratum is not likely to post-date the first century AD. While e Ibids fig. 55. 5 Tbid. 259-61. 27 Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery, 30. 28 E. Valtz, ‘Pottery from Seleucia on the Tigris’, AOMIM

6 bid. 267. 42, speaking of fish-plates,

writes: ‘many were found in the lowest [Seleucid] layers, but they are extant until the 1st century A.D.’. Cf. ed-Dur (ch. 6 below), where fish-plates are found in association with 1st-cent. AD

Roman glass. 2° Tbid. 43. At Seleucia, eggshell ware is ‘present in all layers, from V [Seleucid] to the late Parthian one’.

30 Larsen, Life and Land Use, fig. 60p-r.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

110

676

it is admittedly hazardous to guess, the fact that all of the types considered diagnostic for the final pre-Islamic stratumJ are also present in K2 suggests that the interval between the two was not very great. In view of these considerations, it appears that only stratumJ falls chronologically in the Sasanian period, and then only at the beginning of the period. We therefore suggest the following tentative reconstruction of the Profile Pit sequence: O K4 K3 K2 K1

4th-3rd 3rd—2nd 2nd-1st Ist cent. 1st-2nd

cents. BC cents. BC cents. BC BC-1st cent. AD cents. AD

J

2nd-3rd cents. AD

This chronological reconstruction differs substantially from another recently suggested by Boucharlat and Salles,*! but agrees in the main with the sequence based on the deep sounding at Thaj carried out in 1983.32 Boucharlat and Salles, concentrating on the pottery from Pit 1 illustrated by Larsen, no stratigraphic details of which have been published, have proposed a date between the sixth and the third centuries BC or later for the entire sounding. However, it should be noted that they have only taken into consideration two sherds from the Profile Pit, an example of Thaj type 4 (Larsen’s fig. 591)°3 and a plain bowl with an indentation running just below the rim (Larsen’s fig. 57c).34 They date the first piece to the third century BC or later, and the second piece to the fifth-fourth centuries BC, noting that it appears to have been inspired by Achaemenid models.3° In so doing, however, they have ignored the fact that the piece which they consider late comes from Kammer 1, a subcontext within © and hence the earliest stratum but one in the Profile Pit,

whereas the sherd considered to be the earlier of the two comes from K3, a context in the middle of the sequence which also contained fish-plates. In more general terms, and with reference also to the material published by Bibby, Boucharlat and Salles point to the appearance of imports in the third and second centuries BC, such as fish-plates, eggshell ware, and the lagynos, while stressing that external ties with eastern Arabia, the Levant, and southern Mesopotamia, although *!_R. Boucharlat and J.-F. Salles, ‘L’Arabie Orientale: D’un bilan 4 un autre’, Mesopotamia, 22 (1987), 283-91.

32 Gazdar et al., ‘Excavations at Thaj’, 60-4. 33 Boucharlat and Salles, ‘L’Arabie Orientale’, fig. Sw.

* Ibid. fig. 5m. 5 Tbid. fig. 5.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

114

perceptible, should not be construed as evidence of ‘Hellenization’. Elsewhere, speaking specifically of those types labelled by Larsen ‘Late Parthian-Sasanian’, Boucharlat has proposed a date in the late Parthian period, which is more in accord with the date suggested here.36 Before leaving the subject of pottery from Qal’at al-Bahrain, we should mention a fluted, hemispherical bow] in the National Museum

of Bahrain (BNM 98), said to come from the Qal’at, which is clearly

an imitation of a terra sigillata (ESA) bowl.37 This vessel can be paralleled closely with a piece found in a grave excavated at Karranah, also on Bahrain,*8 and with examples from the Danish excavations on Failaka.? A date in the late third or second century BC is probable, although the first century BC cannot be excluded as a possibility.4° The Pre-Islamic Fortress

To the north of the Hellenistic settlement at Qal’at al-Bahrain was a second area of habitation closer to the sea.4! The existence here of a rectangular, fortified ‘palace’ with round towers, believed to date to between AD 900 and 1000, had been noted during the first exploratory investigations made by the Danish expedition in 1955 and 1956.42 A sounding made in this area (sondage 1) in 1978 by a French team under the direction of M. Kervran revealed the presence of a late Iron Age, Neo-Babylonian or Achaemenid, occupation (see vol. i ch. 9).43 More importantly, however, excavations conducted here by the French team between 1977 and 1981 showed that the 36 R. Boucharlat, ‘Some Notes about Qal’at al-Bahrain during the Hellenistic Period’, BTA

441-2.

37 Gachet and Salles, ‘Nouvelles remarques’, fig. 7.

38 Ibid. fig. 10. 39 Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery, nos. 35-6. 40 Tbid. 21. Gachet and Salles, ‘Nouvelles remarques’, consider the mid-1st century BC to be

the latest date possible. 41 Note, however, that, as M. Kervran, ‘Qal’at al-Bahrain: A Strategic Position from the Hellenistic Period until Modern Times’, BTA 466 (reproduced in Dilmun, 12 (1984-5), 28), writes, ‘It is known that the height of sea level was appreciably lower during the Hellenistic period, and that the level has continued to rise since then. One might therefore suppose that, when the fort was constructed . . . it was placed well away from the shoreline so as not to be exposed to severe storms or very high tides.’ For changes in sea-level in the Arabian Gulf and their relevance to the north coast of Bahrain, see P. Sanlaville and R. Paskoff, ‘Shoreline

Changes in Bahrain since the Beginning of Human Occupation’, BTA 15-24; P. Sanlaville et al., ‘Modification du tracé littoral sur la céte arabe du golfe Persique en relation avec l’archéologie’, in Déplacements des lignes de rivage en Mediterranée (Paris, 1987), 214-16; R. Dalongeville and P. Sanlaville, ‘Confrontation des datations isotopiques avec les données géomorphologiques et archéologiques: A propos des variations relatives du niveau marin sur la rive arabe du golfe Persique’, in O. Aurenche, J. Evin, and F. Hours (eds.), Chronologies in the Near East (BAR International Series, 379; Oxford, 1987), 567-73 and figs. 4-5.

#2 Bibby, ‘Bahrains oldtidshovedstad’, 154-5, 162 figs. 1-3.

43 Boucharlat, ‘Some Notes’, 438 and fig. 149.

112

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

FIG. 6. The Parthian/early Islamic fort on Bahrain

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

113

fortress had in fact been built in the pre-Islamic era.44 This was demonstrated conclusively when it was recognized that the plaster lining of a silo containing exclusively Hellenistic/Parthian ceramics, discovered in January 1983, ran over part of the base of the west tower of the fortress. As the tower had been constructed at the same timé as the fortress’s north wall, with which it bonded, the conclusion is inescapable that the entire structure is pre-Islamic. Moreover, two

imitation Alexander tetradrachms of local origin*’ found at the base of the east tower confirm this date. The later phases of the building’s use, easily dated to between the tenth and the thirteenth centuries AD on the basis of numismatic and ceramic evidence, thus represented a late reuse of the building and not, as had been originally assumed, the primary period of activity here. The building itself (Fig. 6) is square, measuring 52.5 m. on a side. There are circular towers at each corner, semicircular towers in the middle of the north, east, and south walls, and a pair of quarter-circular

towers flanking the main gate in the west wall. The entire structure is built of limestone. A superior variety of stone, thought to come from the nearby island of Jidda and possibly pillaged from earlier buildings on the site, was most often used for the building’s exterior facing, while a softer, inferior variety, indigenous to Bahrain island, was generally reserved for the interior fill of the walls.*¢ The exterior fortification walls were 2.4 m. wide. Defensibility from attack was given highest priority in the design of the building. This can be seen not only in the orientation of the gateway, which is to the west, reducing vulnerability to a frontal attack from the direction of the shore, but most especially in the presence ‘of arrow slots in all of the towers and walls. Within the main walls themselves were two stations, big enough for a man to stand in, with arrow slots facing in two directions. Furthermore, there were no fewer than six arrow slots

in each tower, making them defensible against attack from any angle. The interior of the fortress had, it is known, been modified in the

medieval period, when the interior was laid out symmetrically following a fairly simple schema. Four sets of three parallel rooms and/or corridors, running into the centre of the building from the mid-wall towers and entrance gate, converged on a small square courtyard paved 44 For preliminary reports on the excavations, see M. Kervran et al., Fouilles a Qal'at al-Bahrein: 1°° partie (1977-1979) (Bahrain, 1982); M. Kervran, ‘Deux forteresses islamiques

de la céte orientale de ’Arabie’, PSAS 13 (1983), 1-17; id., ‘Fouilles 4 Qal’at al-Bahrain’, AOMIM 165-6. For the new date, see id., ‘Qal’at al-Bahrain’, 462.

45 One of these has the head of Heracles on the obverse, and a seated figure of Zeus with

a vertical $in on the reverse (M. Kervran, personal communication).

46 Kervran et al., Fouilles, 65.

114

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

with flagstones. The intervening spaces in each corner of the interior were filled by a series of smaller rooms, possibly used as barracks. It is, however, difficult to assess how the building may originally have been organized internally. The pre-Islamic pottery from four soundings made beneath the floor of the medieval occupation, including sondage 3 in which the allimportant silo was discovered, has been published by R. Boucharlat.*7 He notes a distribution of types generally comparable to that found in the Profile Pit on the Qal’at, and datable roughly to between the third century BC and the second or third century AD. Fish-plates, shallow bowls with incurving rim, tripod bases,4#® and red-washed wares of Arabian type are typical of the earlier part of the sequence. On the other hand, the types which Larsen considers ‘Late Parthian— Sasanian’, and which we have dated above to the second and third

centuries of the Christian era, are said to be present as well.4? Boucharlat considers the pottery a mixture of imitation Hellenistic types of uncertain derivation alongside local and/or Mesopotamian varieties. No Greek imports, such as black-glazed ware, were found. J.-F. Salles has recently stressed the strategic importance for the Seleucids of maintaining a base on Bahrain.*° From here, he suggests, Seleucid policy could have been administered, for example in the direction of Gerrha on the mainland. A solitary Greek garrison within a fortress, however, would have had little or no contact with the local

population, much like the Portuguese forces stationed on Bahrain in the sixteenth century.°! There is, however, a serious obstacle to pushing the date of the construction of the pre-Islamic fortress on Bahrain into the Seleucid era. Hellenistic corner towers are universally square or rectangular,°* and can be seen in the Gulf on, for example,

47 Boucharlat, ‘Some Notes’, 435-44. ‘8 Cf. the comments of Gachet and Salles, ‘Nouvelles remarques’: ‘la présence des pieds est

une tradition de * No specific *° Salles, ‘The for the Seleucid

la céramique arabe locale’. types are mentioned. Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids’, 103: ‘. . . a garrison? a port of call fleet? a surveillance-point for the neighbouring mainland?’

*! Salles, ‘The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids’, 105. The Portuguese occupation of

Bahrain took the form of a single military garrison stationed within the fortress. Eventually the Portuguese appointed a local Arab, Shaikh Hussain bin Said, as governor, and assigned him a Portuguese adviser. See C. D. Belgrave, ‘The Portuguese in the Bahrain Islands, 1521-1602’,

JRCAS 22 (1935), 620-1. For a recent study of Bahrain and the Portuguese, see M. Kervran (ed.), Bahrain in the 16th Century: An Impregnable Island (Bahrain, 1988). For descriptions

of the isolated Portuguese garrisons at Dibba, Khor Fakkan, and Sohar, see C. R. Boxer, ‘Anglo-Portuguese Rivalry in the Persian Gulf, 1615-1635”, in E. Prestage (ed.), Chapters in Anglo-Portuguese Relations (Watford, 1935), 128-9.

* See generally the studies in P. Leriche and H. Treziny (eds.), La Fortification dans l'histoire

du monde grec (Paris, 1986),

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

115

the fortified enclosures at Thaj and on Failaka (see ch. 4 below). The round corner tower, far from being a feature of Hellenistic fortification,

appeared for the first time during the Parthian period,*3 although it continued in use much later. We should place the construction of the Bahrain fortress in the second or third century AD, and link it to historical events discussed below. The Cemeteries of the later Pre-Islamic Period There are three concentrations of cemeteries in northern Bahrain which,

it has been suggested, may reflect the existence of at least three separate ancient settlements in the area.*+ The cemeteries in closest proximity to the settlement and fortress at Ra’s al-Qal’at are those of al-Hajjar, al-Magsha, and Jidd Hafs. A second group, consisting of Bu Asheirah, Umm al-Hassam, and Isa Town, was probably associated with a site which, if extant, lies buried beneath the area of modern Suq al-Khamis.

A third group, composed of Shakhourah, the Budaiyah road, and Janussan, would seem logically to have been linked to a settlement, yet to be discovered, somewhere in the area of Barbar and Diraz. Let us consider these three groups in turn. The best-published graves in the first group are certainly those at Jidd Hafs. The existence of the site was noted during the first season of work on Bahrain by the Danish expedition.°> In 1968 Capt. Higham excavated ten cist graves, all of which were set into one of the mounds at Jidd Hafs. The material from these graves was subsequently published by E. C. L. During Caspers.°° The glazed pottery discovered included such types as squat, two-handled, Mesopotamian amphorae,”’ vertical-handled bottles,°* and a pilgrim flask.>? The last piece, moreover, was found together with a typical example of a purple Roman pillar-moulded glass bowl, a small glass amphoriskos, and 3G. Bergamini, 195-214.

‘Parthian

Fortifications

in Mesopotamia’,

Mesopotamia,

22 (1987),

54 J.-F. Salles, ‘Bahrain: Introduction et état des questions’, AOMIM 161; cf. id., ‘The Janussan Necropolis and Late First Millennium B.C. Burial Customs in Bahrain’, BTA 459-60 and fig. 158. 5ST. G. Bibby, ‘Fem af Bahrains hundrede tusinde gravhgje (Five among Bahrain’s Hundred Thousand Grave-Mounds)’, Kuml 1954 (1954), 137-8 n. 14.

56 EC. L. During Caspers, ‘The Bahrain Tumuli’, Persica, 6 (1972-4), 131-56; ead., The Bahrain Tumuli: An Illustrated Catalogue of Two Important Collections (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 47; Leiden, 1980). ‘7 During Caspers, ‘The Bahrain Tumuli’, figs. 6b, 7c; cf. Hannestad, Pottery, 37.

The Hellenistic

58 During Caspers, ‘The Bahrain Tumuli’, fig. 7e; cf. Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery, 40. 5° During Caspers, ‘The Bahrain Tumuli’, fig. 6c-d; cf. Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery, 42.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

116

676

a simple glass cup.6° The pillar-moulded bowl is representative of a type which is well known throughout Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Near East during the first century AD, more specifically between AD 50 and 100.®! As such, it is a valuable chronological marker for the middle Parthian period in the Gulf (see also ch. 6 below).

The graves at al-Magqsha have been known since 1937, when several were destroyed during the construction of the new road from Manama to Budaiyah. C. D. Belgrave, Adviser to the Government of Bahrain at the time, sent an account of the finds made to The Times, part of which may be quoted here: When the mounds were cut through it was found that each one contained several stone burial chambers which had evidently never been opened or rifled. Inside the chambers were skeletons in a state of perfect preservation, unbroken vases and glazed pottery, a black stone vessel apparently used as a swinging lamp, an alabaster dish and various other metal and glass objects. In one tomb two large earthenware jars were found containing human bones and round the base of the largest tomb, which has not yet been excavated, there was a wall four feet high of large cut stones forming a perfect circle with a circumference of about 100 feet.

Belgrave went on to note that, while only three or four tombs had been opened, the entire group consisted of between twenty and thirty tumuli. Bibby, who later saw some of the pottery from these graves, identified it as ‘of Parthian date’. During the first campaign of Danish excavations on Bahrain, in the winter of 1953-4, three more grave-mounds in this group were excavated.°* Two of these, mounds 36/1 and 36/2, were relatively flat, earthen mounds in which a crude plaster cist, like those at al-

Hajjar and Janussan (see below), capped with a rough lid of stone slabs held the skeleton and grave-goods. The only diagnostic finds were, from the former grave, a gold disc, c.2.75 cm. in diameter, and from the latter, an iron dagger, the hilt of which terminated in a bronze ring. From 1970 to 1974, and again in 1981, the Bahraini Department of Antiquities excavated a number of graves in the mound field at the village of al-Hajjar near the Budaiyah road. To date, only brief °° During Caspers, ‘The Bahrain Tumuli’, fig. Sa-c. *! D. Barag, Catalogue of Western Asiatic Glass in the British Museum, i (British Museum

Publications; London, 1985), 93 no. 116.

* ‘? ** ‘The

C. D. Belgrave, ‘Archaeological Discoveries in Bahrain’, The Times (May 1937). Bibby, ‘Fem af Bahrains’, 138. Ibid. 138-41. I have not been able to consult a MS referred to by During Caspers, entitled Bahrain Tumuli of Seleucid Date’, by B. Kestell and F. al-Tarawneh.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

17,

accounts of this work have been published,® but three unpublished reports have circulated widely amongst specialists.6° Like the mounds at Janussan (see below), those at al-Hajjar contain a variable number

of individual, single graves. In the case of Mound 1, fourteen separate graves ranging in date from the Kassite to the Hellenistic period were excavated. These took the form of rectangular cists, dug into bedrock, lined with plaster, and capped with one or more stone slabs. Given the inadequate state of publication, little can be said about gravefurniture, but iron weaponry, glazed pottery, soft-stone and alabaster vessels, and gold and bronze jewellery were found. It is noteworthy that in at least two cases (graves 11 and 14, Mound

1), bowls

(sometimes glazed) containing ashes were found lying inverted on top of a grave.®7 One final discovery in this area must also be mentioned. Recent excavations at Karranah, just west of Ra’s al-Qal’at, by the Department of Antiquities have revealed jar burials, Parthian-style jewellery, pieces of stone sculpture and, most importantly, a funeral stele inscribed in

Greek.®8 This find is the first of its kind yet made in the Arabian Gulf. Among the ceramics recovered at Karranah are fine red-ware bowls of the sort known at Thaj and Ayn Jawan, as well as the example of an imitation terra sigillata (ESA) bowl mentioned above.®? We turn now to the cemeteries in the proximity of Suq al-Khamis. During the excavations at Isa Town graves of Hellenistic date are said to have been uncovered, but no details have yet been published.”° 65 M. Rice, ‘The Grave Complex at Al-Hajjar Bahrain’, PSAS 2 (1972), 66-75; id., Search for the Paradise Land (London, 1985), 169-72; id., ‘Al Hajjar Revisited: The Grave Complex at Al Hajjar, Bahrain (Report Revised, with Photographs, 1988)’, PSAS 18 (1988), 79-94; T. H.

Carter, ‘The Johns Hopkins University Reconnaissance Expedition to the Arab-Iranian Gulf, BASOR

207 (1972), 29; J. H. D. Belgrave, Welcome to Bahrain (8th edn.; Manama,

1973),

75-87; F. al-Wohaibi, Studio storico-archeologico della costa occidentale del Golfo Arabico in eta ellenistica (Rome, 1980), 72-4; A. Clarke, The Islands of Bahrain (Manama, 1981), 70.

66 F. al-Tarawneh, ‘The Al Hajjar Excavations’, unpubl. MS (Dept. of Antiquities, Bahrain, 1971); id., ‘A Report on Al-Hajjar Excavations: Mound No. (1), Season 1970’, unpubl. MS (Dept. of Antiquities, Bahrain, n.d.); E. Porada, ‘Report on Seven Seals from Hajar (1) Excavations’, unpubl. MS (Dept. of Antiquities, Bahrain, 1970).

67 Al-Tarawneh, ‘A Report on Al-Hajjar Excavations’. 6§ Salles, ‘The Janussan Necropolis’, 461 nn. 3, 5, 7. For the location of the site, cf.

Sanlaville and Paskoff, ‘Shoreline Changes in Bahrain’, 19 fig. 1. Salles, ‘The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids’, 81, gives the name on the stele as ‘Abidistaras’, and suggests this is ‘possibly a hellenised Semitic name, i.e. “Istar’s servant” ’. In this case, ‘Abi’ represents the diminutive of ‘Abd’. A publication of the stele by J. Marcillet-Jaubert was announced before his untimely death. For similarly constructed Semitic names in Greek transcription, see H. Wuthnow, Die semitischen Menschennamen in griechischen Inschriften und Papyri des vorderen Orients (Studien zur Epigraphik und Papyruskunde, 1/4; Leipzig, 1930), 9. My thanks to M. Macdonald for discussing this interesting name with me. 6° Gachet and Salles, ‘Nouvelles remarques’, fig. 7, for the imitation terra sigillata bowl from grave Al4, and fig. 9, for red-ware bowls from tombs M4 and ub1. 70 Salles, ‘Bahrain “hellénistique”’, 154 and n. 3.

118

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

The extension of the city of Manama has resulted in the discovery and excavation of fifty-seven Hellenistic graves at Bu Asheirah, sixty at Umm al-Hassam, and twenty-seven on the site of the Moon Plaza Hotel.71 None of this material has yet been published, but at least one example of a large, round-bodied bowl with three feet was recovered. This is a type which is also attested on Bahrain at Janussan and Abu Saybi,”2 and is also known on Failaka73 and at ed-Dur.’* Finally, we come to the area of Diraz and Barbar. In 1969 the Department of Antiquities investigated three mounds in the Shakhourah group.’> Again we find what appears to be a common feature of the Hellenistic period, multiple burial in large, low mounds. Mound 3 at Shakhourah, for example, one half of which was cleared, contained

no fewer than twenty-five individual graves. These took the form of cists lined with a kind of lime plaster cement and covered with several stone slabs. They averaged c.2 m. in length, and were 30-50 cm. in width and 70cm.-1m. in depth. Glazed pottery was the most commonly found article of grave-furniture. The excavator of Shakhourah, F. al-Tarawneh, noted the repeated presence here of glazed bowls containing ash, one of which was found adhering to the plaster lining of the grave-cist. He suggested these might represent offerings of burnt incense, and pointed to the presence of ash, shell, and animal bone scattered over the graves as well. The skeletons found did not show any particular orientation, but the dead had usually been interred on their backs, and textile remains suggested that they had been buried clothed, or in a shroud. Further excavation by an Australian team took place here in 1980 on behalf of the Department of Antiquities,”° when ‘a series of small circular and rectangular pits with connecting channels’ in a limestone rock outcrop was investigated. No more burials were discovered, but the sizeable amount of pottery, shell, and animal bone recovered, some of which was burnt, suggests that a habitation site may have existed in the vicinity, as well as the cemetery excavated by al-Tarawneh. A number of excavated graves south of Barbar, near the Budaiyah road, have also been attributed to the Hellenistic period by Salles.77 ”! ”° > ’* 75

Salles, ‘Bahrain “hellénistique”’, 154. Gachet and Salles, ‘Nouvelles remarques’, fig. 8. BNM 279. Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery, pl. 14. 175-6. A broken, but nearly complete example was excavated at ed-Dur in 1988. F. al-Tarawneh, ‘Preliminary Report on Shakhoura Excavations, Bahrain, from 1st of

October to 31st of December,

1969’, unpubl. MS (Dept. of Antiquities, Bahrain, 1970).

”° Salles, ‘Bahrain “hellénistique”’, 153; D. Petocz and S. Hart, ‘Report of the Australian Team Working for the Bahrain Department of Antiquities, 1979-1980’, unpubl. MS (Dept. of Archaeology, Bahrain, 1981). ”” Salles, ‘Bahrain “hellénistique”’, 153.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

119

One grave near Barbar excavated by the Department of Antiquities is particularly interesting, although nothing, apparently, remains of it today. According to al-Tarawneh, ‘It was built of worked and neatly cut stones each marked with Greek letters inscribed in the inside of its walls and arranged in alphabetical order to give its builder instruction as to how it should be assembled.’78 The best-investigated mound group in this area, however, is that of Janussan. The first finds of Hellenistic date at the site of which we have any knowledge were discovered by Maj. Clive Kirkpatrick Daly, Political Agent on the island from January 1921 until September 1926,79 when he opened a tomb in 1925.89 Some of the finds reached the British Museum, although most were later sold through Spink & Son.8! As Daly never published an account of his work, the finds he recovered had no impact on the study of this period. In 1969 the Bahrain Historical and Archaeological Society excavated some plaster-lined cist graves in one of the Janussan mounds (Fig. 7),82 and in 1973-4 the British expedition returned to Janussan, identifying the mound opened by Daly and investigating yet another, where several secondary burials containing glazed pottery of Seleucid or Parthian affinity were discovered.%4 The most important work carried out at the site, however, has been

that of the French mission, published in full by P. Lombard and J.-F. Salles.84 These investigations have demonstrated that the mounds consist of drift-sand accumulation atop a second-millennium BC site, upon which graves were built in a random manner, and over which more sand was deliberately placed.8> The types of grave excavated

by the French mission in 1980-1 are as follows:8¢ 78 Al-Tarawneh, ‘Preliminary Report on Shakhoura’; cf. Salles, ‘The Janussan Necropolis’, 450, who also states that ‘a gold ring with a Parthian royal seal’ was found in the same tomb, according to Shaikha Haya Ali A!-Khalifa, the former Director of Antiquities. What is meant

by ‘a Parthian royal seal’ is not at all clear (one is reminded of the Sasanian gayomard seals, which might be considered regal-looking).

79 P. Tuson, The Records of the British Residency and Agencies in the Persian Gulf (India Office Records, Guides to Archive Groups; London, 1979), 185. 80 FE. J. H. Mackay, G. L. Harding, and F. Petrie, Bahrein and Hemamieh (Publications of the British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 47; London, 1929), 29; B. André-Leicknam and

J.-F. Salles, ‘Le Matériel archéologique’, in Lombard and Salles (eds.), La Nécropole de Janussan, 120-2, where it is suggested that this is the French tomb 5. 81 J. E. Reade and R. Burleigh, ‘The “Ali Cemetery: Old Excavations, Ivory, and Radiocarbon Dating’, JOS 4 (1981), 76. 82 A. McNicoll and M. Roaf, ‘Archaeological Investigations in Bahrain 1973-1975’, unpubl. MS (Dept. of Antiquities, Bahrain, n.d.), 29 n. 21. 83 Tbid. 29 n. 21, 23 n. 36, where the site is called ‘Janussan South 2015’. 84 | ombard and Salles (eds.), La Nécropole de Janussan. Cf. Salles’s shorter reports, ‘Bahrain “hellénistique” ’ and ‘The Janussan Necropolis’. 85 Lombard and Salles (eds.), La Nécropole de Janussan, 57-8. 86 D. T. Potts, ‘Reflections on the History and Archaeology of Bahrain’, JAOS 105 (1985), 703 table 7.

120

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

FIG. 7. Cist-graves at Janussan

Type a (dressed-stone chamber): Mounds ITA.1; HIB.30; IIC.11, 17

Type a2 (small variety of type a): Mound IIIB.31 Type b (stone and mortar cist): Mounds IIA.4, 20; IIB.29; IIIC.7-9, 12, 15-16 Type cl (stone and mortar enclosure): Mound IIA.5, 6?

Type c2 (mortar enclosure): Mound IIA.2 Type d (jar burial): Mounds IA.Inv.3-4; IIIB.26, 28, 32-4

Type e (pit burial): Mounds IIA.3; IIIB.22-4; IIIC.18 The ceramics recovered from these graves include many classic Hellenistic or Parthian types with obvious parallels to finds from Failaka, Susa, Seleucia, Nimrud, Uruk, and the Arabian mainland. Small bottles, three-footed bowls, fine red-ware bowls, and a lagynos

were among the finds.8? Fragmentary plaster figurines, probably of Parthian derivation, can be compared with a complete example in *” Lombard and Salles (eds.), La Nécropole de Janussan, figs. 42. 99-100 (bottle) and 106 (3-footed bowl), 45. 59 (lagynos), 46. 62-3, 134-6.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

the British Museum

121

excavated by Daly in 1925.88 Of particular

interest is tomb 1, in which fragments of a scaled cuirass, trilobate and laureate arrowheads, and an iron short-sword were recovered,

leading Lombard and Salles to identify this as the grave of ‘un personnage militaire’.8? The fragments of the cuirass are not only suggestive of a connection with Seleucid or Parthian military regalia, but recall the rich body of references in the works of the pre-Islamic Arab poets regarding the warrior’s armour.?° Before leaving the subject of Hellenistic- or Parthian-period graves on Bahrain, several more unique finds should be mentioned. At Sar, the site of an enormous necropolis principally of late third- and early second-millennium date, the Australian team excavated a cist grave, similar in layout to those we have been discussing, which yielded a nearly complete adult male (?) skeleton adorned with gold jewellery and a very fine specimen of a green-glazed lagynos.?! At the site of Diraz, the British expedition excavated a Kassite grave thought to have been reused in the Hellenistic period.?2 Finally, on the small islands of Nabi Saleh and Umm Nasan, rock-cut graves attributed to the Hellenistic period have been noted.?? The Coin Hoard from Ra’s al-Qalat Mention has already been made of the hoard of 292 silver coins found buried in a jar beneath the floor of one of the houses fronting the City II city wall on the Qal’at.*+ These coins comprise three distinct series, as Mérkholm called them, and belong to the category of local Arabian issues discussed in Chapter 2 above. Series IA was the name given by M@rkholm to three imitation Alexander tetradrachms showing the head of Heracles on the obverse, facing right, wearing the scalp of the Nemean lion. It is bordered by a ring of small dots. The features of Alexander are not visible in the face and head of Heracles, as was sometimes the case in other imitations of Alexander’s coinage, and is certainly clear in the other two coin groups in the Bahrain hoard (see below). The reverse shows a seated,

beardless male deity wearing a diadem, the ribbons of which are clearly 88 Tbid. 43, 120-9.

8° Tbid. 140.

90 F. Schwarzlose, Die Waffen der alten Araber aus ihren Dichtern dargestellt (Leipzig,

1886), 322-48.

1 Petocz and Hart, ‘Report of the Australian Team’, 19 fig. 29. 92 McNicoll and Roaf, ‘Archaeological Investigations’, 20. 93 Tbid. n. 21; cf. Salles, ‘Bahrain “hellénistique”’, 151.

94 Morkholm, ‘En hellenistisk mgntskat’, 183-202.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

122

676

visible. As on the original coinage of Alexander, the deity holds an eagle in his extended right hand, and is supported by the sceptre in his left. The legend ‘Alexandrov’ runs vertically down the right side of the coin, and in front of the deity’s knees is the legend Sms in South Arabian characters. As C. Robin has noted, it is unlikely that this is the name of the king who minted the coins.?5 It appears more likely that the name was written, rather, for the purpose of identifying the seated deity, who differs in several respects from the figure of Zeus traditionally found on the issues of Alexander after which this series was modelled, with the pre-Islamic Semitic solar deity Sams.”° On the basis of both stylistic criteria and the chronology of related coins from Failaka and Gordion, M¢rkholm suggested a date of c.240 BC for Series IA,?”? while Robin

has dated these coins to

anywhere between 240 and 130 BC.%8 Palaeographically, there is little that can be said of the style of the script on these coins, except to point to the closed m, which appertains to the most archaic stage of the Hasaitic inscriptions, datable roughly therefore to between 300 and

160 BC.?? A fourth example of this type in the Bibliotheque nationale in Paris has also been published by Robin,!° and, as noted in Chapter 2, comparable obols are known from Thaj and Jabal Kenzan, but the Bahrain hoard remains the only excavated find of this coin type to date. As for the ultimate source of these coins, the reader is referred

to the discussion in Chapter 2. Series IB is represented by 212 silver tetradrachms weighing between

16.43 and 16.75 g.!9! At the time of their publication, 67 of the coins in this group had not been cleaned, but M¢érkholm was able to determine that fifteen obverse dies had been used to strike the remaining 145 coins.!9? These coins are generally similar to those of Series IA, but should be distinguished from them in several respects. To begin with, the head on the obverse approximates more closely a portrait of Alexander than that of Heracles. On the reverse, the head of the

seated deity is depicted variously, sometimes wearing the diadem,!3 C. Robin, ‘Monnaies provenant de l’Arabie du nord-est’, Semitica, 24 (1974), 95 n. 1. M@grkholm, ‘En hellenistisk mgntskat’, 196; Robin, ‘Monnaies’, 95. Mérkholm, ‘En hellenistisk mgntskat’, 199.

°8 Robin, ‘Monnaies’, 102. Ibid. 117, 118. Robin writes: ‘Quant aux monnaies au nom de Sams, les lettres du mot Sams ne sont pas assez caractérisées pour pouvoir formuler un avis.’

'©° Robin, ‘Monnaies’, pl. 1. 8. 0! These obviously correspond to the standard of 17.2 g. introduced by Alexander the Great for the tetradrachm; cf. Mgrkholm, ‘En hellenistisk mgntskat’, 196. The same applies to the 3rd group of coins discussed here. ' Mé¢rkholm, ‘En hellenistisk mgntskat’, 196.

193 Thid: fie 2.42, 27.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

123

sometimes not,!°4 and once in what appears to be a cavalry helmet.!95 More importantly, however, the legend Sms has been replaced by the vertical Sin monogram. The date of this series is difficult to establish. Mérkholm, pointing to the fact that one of the Bahrain exemplars! was struck on-a Seleucid coin which can hardly pre-date the reign of Antiochus I, has assigned a date of c.240-230 BC to the series.!°7 Robin, on the other hand, has stressed that four coins of this type are also known from Hoard S at Susa,!°8 where the deposit post-dates 140 BC. He proposes a date of c.130 BC for the burial of the Bahrain hoard, suggesting that coins with the vertical Sin were minted up to this time.!99 As this group is thought to derive ultimately from the Series IA coins in which the name Sams was written out in full, it is probable that they were first minted sometime after c.240 BC. The third and final coin type in the Bahrain hoard, Series II, is represented by seventy-seven coins weighing between 16.52 and 16.68 g. These differ from Series IA and IB in several fundamental respects. Once again, the obverse head appears to be a representation of Alexander rather than Heracles. As M¢rkholm noted, the open jaw of the scalp of the Nemean lion has been transformed into a pelt with a ram’s horn, and this ‘puts one in mind of Ammon’s ram horn, which Alexander the Great in certain portrayals bears as a sign of his descent from that divinity’.!!° On the reverse, the seated deity supports a horse.!!! In place of the legend ‘Sams’ or the monogram Sin is.a stylized palm which harks back to the original coinage of Alexander, where a wheat sprig was present. The head no longer wears a diadem or hat, and the hair is clearly visible. The identifying marks of the mint supervisors (?) may be represented below the palm by an Aramaic Sin (in one case!!2), an Aramaic aleph (on fourteen examples!!3), a bull or ox head en face (in six cases!!*), or the same head accompanied by a South Arabian aleph.'!5 The principal use of Aramaic, however, is in the legend ‘Abi’el, son of Tlb8/TIsII(")’ on

the right side of the coin. As noted in Chapter 2, other examples of this type are known from Hoard 5 at Susa and Thaj. In addition, unprovenanced Abi’el coins

104 Thid, fie, 2.111.

105 Ibid. fig. 2. 53.

106 Ibid. 196.

107 Thid. 199.

108 G. Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes (MDP 38; Paris, 1965), 201. 109 Robin, ‘Monnaies’, 101. 110 Mgrkholm, ‘En hellenistisk mgntskat’, 198. 111 Robin, ‘Monnaies’, 88, suggested a horse protome, whereas M¢rkholm, ‘En hellenistisk m¢ntskat’, 198, proposed a rhyton. More recently discovered examples show that it is simply 113 Tbid. nos. 218-31. 112 Tbid. 197 no. 216. a complete horse. 1S Tbid. nos. 232-3. 114 Tbid. nos. 234-9.

124

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

exist in the British Museum!!¢ and the Seyrig collection.!!” Robin has suggested that Abi’el was a king of HGR (see ch. 6 below) on the Arabian mainland, and proposed a date of c.150-140 BC for his coinage,!!8 whereas M¢rkholm dated him to c.245-215 BC.119 A

related series of issues, bearing the name Abi’el, is also attested at ed-Dur (cf. ch. 6 below).

The date of deposit of the Bahrain hoard cannot be determined with certainty. Mérkholm favoured the period between roughly 245 and

215 BC,!29 while Robin, who dates the coins of Abi’el a century later

than Mérkholm, and allows for the possibility of a similar date for the coins with the vertical Sin monogram, prefers a date of c.130 Bc.!! Given this degree of uncertainty, it is impossible to suggest the concrete historical circumstances which necessitated the removal of such a sizeable amount of silver from circulation. Bahrain in the Sasanian Period

At the beginning of this chapter we noted the sparse indications of late Parthian and/or early Sasanian ceramics in the Profile Pit at Qal’at al-Bahrain. Aside from this material, as Salles has noted, recognizably Sasanian finds are indeed rare in graves on Bahrain,!2* although he and Lombard have hesitantly assigned some of the surface pottery from Janussan!?3 to this period. A small ‘Sasanian’ building has also been excavated,!24 but details are not yet available. Apart from these finds there are, however, toponymic indications of at least two settlements datable to the Sasanian period. Samahi§, a village on the north coast of Muharraq, preserves the name of the Nestorian bishopric Masmahig, attested in the acts of the Nestorian synods in 410 and 576 (see below). In 1914 ‘old foundations’ were

noted here.!*5 Further west on Muharragq is the village of Dayr, the Aramaic name of which means ‘cloister’, ‘monastery’.!26 Thus, Dayr "6 Robin, ‘Monnaies’, 89 pl. 1. 4a. '7 J. Teixidor, ‘Bulletin d’épigraphie sémitique, 1970’, Syria, 47 (1970), 336. 118 Robin, ‘Monnaies’, 99. Mérkholm, ‘En hellenistisk m@ntskat’, 200.

ON bids 21 Robin, ‘Monnaies’, 101. Salles, ‘The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids’, 82. Lombard and Salles (eds.), La Nécropole de Janussan, 135, where the sherds are described as late Parthian or Sasanian. '4 R. Boucharlat, personal communication. "> E. Sachau, Die Chronik von Arbela (Abh. d. Kénigl. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. K1., 6; Berlin, 1915), 27. 6 For Aramaic dayr, see S. Frankel, Die aramdischen Fremdworter im Arabischen (Leiden, 1886), 275. For a discussion of Christian clerical terms in Arabic, cf. C. Hechaimé,

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

125

is almost certainly the site of one of the numerous Nestorian monasteries known to have existed in the region. These names, together with the literary evidence attesting to a substantial Nestorian population on Bahrain in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, suggest that it is only a matter of time before more archaeological material of comparable date is discovered there.

Tylos and Arados At the time of Alexander’s death, several reports of inhabited islands off the coast of Arabia were circulating. Some scholars have attributed the earliest of these to the veterans of Alexander’s eastern campaigns. Tomaschek suggested that a fragment of Onesicritus concerning the voyage of Nearchus, quoted second-hand by Pliny (NH 6. 99) from

Juba,!?7 in which an insula Athrotradus is mentioned, may contain the earliest reference to Arados,!28 the name given to an island below Gerrha in the Arabian Gulf by Strabo (16. 3. 4), Cl. Ptolemy (Geog. 6. 7. 47), and Stephen of Byzantium (Ethnika, p.664 Meinicke).

O. Stein, moreover, suggested that Aristobulus was the source of Alexander’s information on the distance between the mouth of the

Euphrates and the island of Tylos.!?? In any case, by the spring of 323 Alexander was in possession of information gathered first-hand by his admirals Archias, Androsthenes,

and Hieron, the leaders of his three expeditions for the circumnavigation of Arabia (Anab. 7. 20. 7). According to Arrian, Archias’ reconnaissance brought him only as far as Tylos, whereas Androsthenes and Hieron managed to sail further, the latter reaching the Red Sea. Arrian says that Alexander was informed, ‘partly by Archias’, of an ‘island . . . reported to be distant from the mouth of the Euphrates about a day and night’s sail for a ship running before the wind; it was called Tylos, and it was large, and neither rough nor Louis Cheikho et son livre ‘Le Christianisme et la littérature chrétienne en Arabie avant I'Islam

?

(Beirut, 1967), 107. 27 EB. H. Bunbury, A History of Ancient Geography, i (London, 1879), 542, noted, apropos the voyage of Nearchus, that Pliny ‘appears to have followed exclusively the authority of Onesicritus, without comparing it with the more authentic narrative of Nearchus: but even that of Onesicritus he in reality quotes only at second hand, from the work of Juba the Mauritanian, who had doubtless given a mere compendium or abridgement of the original’. 128 W. Tomaschek, Topographische Erlauterung der Kiistenfabrt Nearchs vom Indus bis zum Euphrat (Sitzungsber. d. Kais. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, phil.-hist. K]., 121/8; Vienna, 1890), 51; cf. H. Schiwek, ‘Der Persische Golf als Schiffahrts- und Seehandelsroute in achamenidischer Zeit und in der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen’, Bonner Jahrbiicher, 162 (1962),

65, n. 493. 129 ©, Stein, ‘Tylos’, RE xiv (1948), 1732.

126

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

wooded for the most part, but the sort which bore garden fruits and all things in due season’ (Anab. 7. 20. 6). However, although Archias

certainly reached Tylos, it was Androsthenes who drafted a periplous, entitled ‘Voyage along the Indian Coast’, which was surely the single

most important primary source on Tylos in antiquity. It is no longer

extant, but it was widely read, quoted, and excerpted by such writers as Theophrastus, Eratosthenes, Artemidorus, Pliny, and Athenaeus.'%°

An unequivocal toponymic basis for the identification of modern Muharraq with ancient Arados has been preserved down to our own time. When Carsten Niebuhr passed through the Arabian Gulf on his return journey in 1765,!3! Muharraq was still known as Arad, a name now retained only by a village on the southern coast of the island.!32 Thus recorded on Niebuhr’s map of the Gulf,!33 it was at once and without hesitation identified with ancient Arados. We find the identification in popular works,!34 manuals of ancient history ,!° and most of the fundamental works of nineteenth-century historical geography.!3¢ Basing himself on Juba,!3” Pliny preserves another yet 130 On the impact of this work upon later writers, see H. Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen des Alexanderzuges (Leipzig, 1903), 115 ff.; G. W. Bowersock, ‘Tylos and Tyre: Bahrain in the Graeco-Roman

World’, BTA 399.

'31 On Carsten Niebuhr’s passage up the Arabian Gulf, see H. H. Hansen, ‘Carsten Niebuhr i Den persiske Golf, Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark (1962), 135-48. 132 Tn ‘Reflections’, 704 n. 244, I noted that early accounts of Bahrain are confused on the

question of ‘Arad as the name of the small island attached to Muharraq, and Arad, the site of a Portuguese fort on Muharraq proper’. J. G. Lorimer, GPG 165, says that c.1905 Arad was ‘an old disused name for the whole of Muharraq island’. For a general discussion of the name Muharraq, see my ‘Awal and Muharraq’, Dilmun, 13 (1985/6), 17-27. Note that although Niebuhr seems to have been the first to identify the island by the name Arad, he was by no means the first European to mark it on a map of the region. Under the name Samaka, which obviously derives from the village known as Samahig mentioned above in connection with the Nestorian bishopric, the island appears on earlier 18th-cent. maps of Arabia by H. Moll (1712), I, Tirion (1731), and J. Bourguignon d’Anville (1755). See G. R. Tibbetts, Arabia in Early Maps (Naples, New York, and Cambridge, 1978), 130, 148, 165.

'33C. Niebuhr, Beschryving van Arabie (Amsterdam, 1774), tab. xix. In 1832 the name was incorrectly transcribed by Lt. Wyburd as ‘Arab’; see P. Tuson, ‘Lieutenant Wyburd’s Journal of an Excursion into Arabia’, ArSt 5 (1979), 33.

'4 J. §. Buckingham, Travels in Assyria, Media, and Persia (London, 1829), 452. 85 A. H.L. Heeren, Ideen iiber die Politik, den Verkehr und den Handel der vornehmsten Volker der alten Welt (Gottingen, 1824), i/2. 234. 86 A. Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, ii (Leipzig, 1844), 762, wrote: ‘In Aradus

nun erkennen wir sehr leicht das heut. Arad, die kleinste der Bahrein-Inseln (vgl. Niebuhr’s Arabien

S. 321. ..), u. so diirfte denn Tylos wohl die grésste Insel dieser Gruppe sein.’ Cf. C. Ritter,

Die Erdkunde von Asien (Berlin, 1846-7), viii/1. 423; A. Sprenger, Die alte Geographie Arabiens

(Berne, 1875), § 155; Maj.-Gen. S. B. Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography of the East Coast of Arabia’, JRAS 10 (1878), 161-2; E. Drouin, ‘Notice historique et géographique sur la Characéne’, Le Muséon, 9 (1890), 134. '57 Bowersock, ‘Tylos and Tyre’, 403: ‘Juba’s designation of Muharragq as Tylos minor

instead of Arados is notable. It points to a source, written or even oral, quite distinct from Androsthenes.’

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

127

equally appropriate name for Muharraq, Tylos minor (NH 12. 22. 39). By its association with Arados, identifiable with modern Muharraq, Tylos must therefore be modern Bahrain. As for the obvious similarity between Greek Tylos and Akkadian Tilmun, this transformation has recently been explained by W. Eilers, who points to a common pattern in the disappearance of the Akkadian labial m via w, positing an original ‘* Tylwos’.!38 The m/w labial substitution in Aramaic names derived from Akkadian is also apparent in the Syriac form of the name, TLWN, and in the Greek ethnic ‘Thilouanoi attested at Palmyra (see below).

In spite of the accuracy and attention to detail by which the extant descriptions of Tylos and Arados are characterized, there was some confusion in antiquity as to the exact location of the islands.!39 Whether or not Aristobulus was his source, Arrian was surely mis-

informed when he placed Tylos at a distance of one day and one night’s sail from the mouth of the Euphrates. In contrast, Strabo put Tylos at a distance of ten days’ sail from Teredon, and in this he was obviously well informed. In 1903 H. Burchardt made the virtually identical journey from Basra, in the neighbourhood of which Teredon must lie,!4° to Bahrain on a traditional Arab bum. The journey required twelve days of actual sailing.!41 When Strabo places Tylos one day’s sail from ‘the promontory near the mouth of the gulf at Macae’ (Ra’s Musandam), however, this is simply wrong. A southerly

exaggeration of Tylos’s position is also found in Ptolemy’s calculation, which put Tylos at 90°0’, 24°40’.142 As for the position of Tylos vis-a-vis the Arabian coast, Pliny was in possession of perfectly accurate information: Fifty miles from the coast, lying in the interior, is the region of Attene, and opposite to Gerrha is the island of Tylos, as many miles distant from the shore; it is famous for the vast number of its pearls, and has a town of the same name; in its vicinity there is a smaller island distant from a promontory on the larger one 12% miles. They say that beyond this, large islands may 138 W7. Eilers, ‘Das Volk der Maka vor und nach den Achameniden’, in H. Koch and D. N. Mackenzie (eds.), Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte der Achamenidenzeit und ihr Fortleben (AMI Suppl. 10; Berlin, 1983), 103.

‘39 Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, ii. 762: ‘Freilich aber weichen die Alten in Bestimmung der Lage von Tylus sehr von einander ab.’

140 See the discussion in my ‘Thaj and the Location of Gerrha’, PSAS 14 (1984), 87. 141 H. Burchardt, ‘Ost-Arabien von Basra bis Maskat auf Grund eigener Reisen’, Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft fur Erdkunde zu Berlin (1906), 305-7 (stopping 2 days in Kuwait). The duration of the journey, of course, depends on weather and sailing-conditions, as well as on the competence of the pilot. It took Lt. Wyburd, e.g., 17 days just to get from Kharg to Basra in 1832, thanks to an incompetent pilot who ‘grounded us on every bank in the river’. See Tuson, ‘Lieutenant Wyburd’s Journal’, 25. 142 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 153.

128

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

be seen upon which no one has ever landed; the circumference of the smaller island is 1121 miles, and it is more than that distance from the Persian coast,

being accessible by only one narrow channel. (NH 6. 28. 147)!

Sprenger dismissed Pliny’s report of the distance between Tylos and

the mainland as 50 Roman miles, c.75 km., claiming that the distance to the mainland coast nowhere exceeded 40 miles,!44 c.64km.!* In

fact, such an objection is irrelevant. It is true that the southern tip of Bahrain is only 38.4 km. distant from al-‘Uqayr,!*° traditionally the gateway to al-Hasa. Yet, as all of the important towns and villages on Bahrain have always been in the northern part of the island, this figure has no bearing on the actual length of the journey from Bahrain to the mainland. By far the most common connection between Bahrain and the mainland has been the link between Manama and al-‘Uqayr.147 In 1845 Lt. A. B. Kemball put the distance between Manama and al-‘Uqayr at 45 miles, or 72 km.,!48 while in 1924 the same journey by jalbhut!*9 was estimated at roughly 60 miles, or 96km., by J. B. Mackie.!5° Another alternative, Manama to Qatif, was estimated at 64km. by Kemball in 184515! and at 72 km. by Lt. R. W. Whish in 1861.152 Finally, Kemball estimated the distance between northern Bahrain and Sayhat, a town situated between Dammam and Qatif, to be 56 km.!53 When considering these figures, however, it should be remembered that variation in distance can easily be accounted for by the choice of route and sailing-conditions.!54 All things considered, Pliny’s information compares favourably with the more recent figures cited here, and was no doubt taken from a first-hand ‘43 The translation is after Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 161. \4 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 153. '4S For the conversion of Roman miles to kilometres (1 Rom. mile=c.1.5 km.), see H. Chantraine, ‘Stadion 1’, KP v (1979), 337. 6 Lorimer, GPG 1454, gives the distance as 24 miles. Cf. Lt. A. B. Kemball, ‘Memoranda on the Resources, Localities, and Relations of the Tribes Inhabiting the Arabian Shores of the

Persian Gulf, Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government, Ns 24 (1856), 111, who put the distance at 14 miles, or 22.4 km.

'"7 Many travellers have made this journey by boat. Some of those who have written about

it include L. P. Dame, ‘Four Months in Nejd’, The Moslem World, 14 (1924), 361, and ‘From

Bahrain to Taif: A Missionary Journey Across Arabia’, The Moslem World, 23 (1933), 164; and Maj. R. E. Cheesman, “The Deserts of Jafura and Jabrin’, GJ 65 (1925), 115. '48 Kemball, ‘Memoranda on the Resources’, 111. '° The jalbhut is described by R. LeB. Bowen, Jr., ‘Arab Dhows of Eastern Arabia’, The

American Neptune, 9 (1949), 102-4.

J.

B. Mackie, ‘Hasa: An Arabian Oasis’, G] 63 (1924), 190; cf. Kemball, ‘Memoranda

on the Resources’, 111, who puts it at 45 miles, or 72 km. Peal bide llOs

'? Lt. R. W. Whish, ‘Memoir on Bahreyn’, TBGS 16 (1862), 41. ‘SS’ Kemball, ‘Memoranda on the Resources’, 111.

'S* Cf, Dame, ‘Four months in Nejd’, 361; id., ‘From Bahrain to Taif, 164; Cheesman, Deserts of Jafura and Jabrin’, 115; Tuson, ‘Lieutenant Wyburd’s Journal’, 28.

‘The

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

129

account, such as that of Juba or one of the reports of ‘negotiatores nostri’ on whom he often relied. Theophrastus on Tylos

Perhaps more than anyone else, it was the philosopher Theophrastus who took the greatest scientific interest in Androsthenes’ observations, and it is to him that thanks must go for transmitting those precious portions of the admiral’s periplous that addressed the natural history of Tylos. Let us begin by quoting the three relevant passages from Theophrastus’ Historia Plantarum and De Causis Plantarum. In the island of Tylos, which is situated in the Arabian gulf, they say that on the east side there is such a number of trees when the tide goes out that they make a regular fence. All these are in size as large as a fig-tree, the flower is exceedingly fragrant, and the fruit, which is not edible, is like in appearance

to the lupin. They say that the island also produces the ‘wool-bearing’ tree [cotton-plant] in abundance. This has a leaf like that of the vine, but small,

and bears no fruit; but the vessel in which the ‘wool’ is contained is as large as a spring apple, and closed, but when it is ripe, it unfolds and puts forth the ‘wool’, of which they weave their fabrics, some of which are cheap and some very expensive. This tree is also found, as was said, in India, as well as in Arabia. They

say that there are other trees with a flower like the gilliflower, but scentless and in size four times as large as that flower. And that there is another tree with many leaves like the rose, and that this closes at night, but opens at sunrise, and by noon is completely unfolded; and at evening again it closes by degrees and remains shut at night, and the natives say that it goes to sleep. Also that there are date-palms on the island and vines and other fruit-trees including evergreen figs. Also that there is water from heaven, but that they do not use it for the fruits, but that there are many springs on the island, from which they water everything, and that this is more beneficial to the corn and the trees. Wherefore, even when it rains, they let this water over the fields, as though they were washing away the rain-water. (Hist. 4. 7. 7-8) In the island of Tylos off the Arabian coast they say that there is a kind of wood of which they build their ships, and that in sea-water this is almost proof against decay; for it lasts more than 200 years if it is kept under water, while, if it is kept out of water, it decays sooner, though not for some time. They also tell of another strange thing, chough it has nothing to do with the question of decay: they say that there is a certain tree of which they cut their staves, and that these are very handsome, having a variegated appearance like the tiger’s skin; and that this wood is exceedingly heavy, yet when one throws it down on hard ground it breaks in pieces like pottery. Moreover, the wood of the tamarisk is not weak there, as it is in our country,

but is as strong as kermes-oak or any other strong wood. (Hist. 5. 4. 7-8)

130

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

If Androsthenes’ report about the island of Tylos in the Red Sea is true—that the spring-water, although saline, is better than rain not only for the trees but for all the other crops as well, and this is why, after a rain, the natives rinse the rain-water off with spring-water—one would give habituation as the reason, habit having turned into nature; and it so happens that rain is there infrequent, so that not only the trees but also cereals and the rest are reared on springwater (which is why the natives sow them at all seasons). This explanation is to be taken as given on the assumption that the report is true. (Caus. 2. 5. 5)

At the beginning of this century the Alsatian botanist H. Bretzl discussed Theophrastus’ account of Tylos in extenso in a work which has remained largely unknown to scholars working in the Arabian Gulf.155 Even today Bretzl’s work retains its importance, and has yet to find an equal. Let us consider the information on Tylos in the work of Theophrastus point by point, together with the suggestions of Bretzl and the insights to be drawn from more recent travel literature as well as modern marine biological research in the region. Theophrastus begins with a description of trees on the eastern side of Tylos which, when the tide recedes, ‘make a regular fence’. Bretzl acutely identified the tree in question as the mangrove, and found documentation for its presence on the north coast of Bahrain in the British Admiralty chart of ‘Bahrein Harbour and Persian Gulf, Western Sheet’, which included a profile drawing of the north coast of Bahrain labelled thus: “Coast very low intersected by many creeks and swamps with mangrove bushes.’!>© Five years after Bretzl’s work appeared, J. G. Lorimer noted generally that on Bahrain ‘There is almost no natural vegetation; mangroves in the creeks and a few ber trees in other places appear to be the only exceptions.”!57 More importantly, he pointed to ‘a stretch of mud covered with stumpy mangroves’, called Khor-al-Maqta’ Tubli, ‘on the east side of Bahrain Island’,!58 i.e. just where Androsthenes had seen them. When Bretzl’s study appeared, the recognition of mangrove on Bahrain was an important botanical revelation, particularly in view of the fact that a respected botanical authority had stated as late as 1891 that the mangrove was not present anywhere in the Arabian Gulf.!>? Bretzl seems only to have gone astray in one respect, namely with regard to the exact variety of mangrove on Bahrain. Following A. H. W. Schimper’s study of the coastal flora of the Indo-Malayan area, he identified the Gulf mangrove as Avicennia officinalis L.160 nh ieee ee 'SS Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen. ig

LPM Ibid. toytale 29, 36.

Ne! GPE 237,

'S? Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 320. The most up-to-date work on mangrove at that time was A. H. W. Schimper, Die indo-malayische Strandflora (Botanische Mitteilungen aus den Tropen, 3; Jena, 1891). 160 Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 39.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

131

In fact, black mangrove, Avicennia marina, appears to be the dominant variety in the Gulf. It is well known, for example, in the area of Qurm in Oman!°! and on Tarut in eastern Saudi Arabia.!62 Elsewhere in the Gulf, mangrove creeks are also located along the southern coast between Abu Dhabi and Ras al-Khaimah,!® and on the Batinah coast between Sib and Muscat,!6* not to mention those found on the Iranian side of the Gulf along the coasts of Baluchistan, Kerman, and

the Straits of Hormuz.!65 Moreover, as Bretzl convincingly demonstrates, it is arguably mangrove to which Theophrastus returns in Hist. 5. 4. 7, quoted above, when describing a kind of wood which was remarkably resistant to decay in sea-water. This passage has often been dismissed as a reference to imported Indian teak, Tectona grandis L.,'% yet it is apparent that Androsthenes was describing a tree which he had seen growing on Tylos. It is true that, in the recent past, mangrove poles have been imported from Kenya and Tanzania by dhow to Bahrain

‘8! R. Daly apud K. Smythe, Seashells of the Sultan Qaboos Nature Reserve at Qurm (Singapore, 1983), 6. In fact, qurm is nothing other than the Arabic word for mangrove. Cf. the discussion of qurm in Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 76. For the toponym Umm al-Qurm, or ‘mother of the mangrove’, given to a small sandbank opposite Ra’s Mutaf on the Iranian coast south of Bushire, see Tomaschek, Topographische Erlauterungen, 59; S. Genthe, Der Persische Meerbusen: Geschichte und Morphologie, Inauguraldiss. (Marburg, 1896), 95; Bretzl,

Botanische Forschungen, 36. 162 P| W. Basson et al., Biotopes

* of the Western

Arabian

Gulf: Marine

Life and

Environments of Saudi Arabia (2nd edn.; Dhahran, 1977), 53-5. In 1903 Bretzl, Botanische

Forschungen, 67, believed that Bahrain marked the most northerly occurrence of Avicennia. 163 For Abu Dhabi, see Genthe, Der Persische Meerbusen, fig. 2; Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 32; for Sharjah, see A. Prieur, ‘Preliminary Remarks about Mollusc Fauna Collected on the North Coast of the Sharjah Emirate in 1985’, in R. Boucharlat (ed.), Archaeological

Surveys and Excavations in the Sharjah Emirate, 1986: A Third Preliminary Report (Lyons, 1986), 12; for Umm

al-Qaiwain and Ras al-Khaimah, personal observation.

164 T). Vesey-Fitzgerald, ‘From Hasa to Oman by Car’, GR 41 (1951), 558. 165 Genthe, Der Persische Meerbusen, fig. 2; Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 32-3; GPG 356, 1077; and now G. Tilia, ‘Appendice fotografica’, in V. F. Piacentini (ed.), Gruppi sociotecnici e strutture politico-amministrative della fascia costiera meridionale iranica (Biblioteca della ‘Nuova Rivista Storica’, 37; Rome, 1988), fig. 11. The mangroves of the Iranian coast

are described by Strabo (16. 3. 6), drawing on Eratosthenes, in turn based on Nearchus. He writes: ‘Along the whole of the coast of the Red Sea, down in the deep, grow trees like the laurel and the olive, which at the ebb tides are wholly visible above the water but at the full tide are sometimes wholly covered; and while this is the case, the land that lies above

the sea has no trees, and therefore the peculiarity is all the greater. Such are the statements of Eratosthenes concerning the Persian Sea, which, as I was saying, forms the eastern side of Arabia Felix.’ 166 e.g. Schiwek, ‘Der Persische Golf, 68, considered Tylos a market for woods imported from India. Y. Calvet, ‘Tylos and Arados’, AOMIM 344, assumes that it was ‘ce bois de teck auquel fait allusion le second passage de I’Histoire des plantes’. J.-F. Salles, ‘Le Golfe entre le Proche et l’Extréme Orient a l’époque Hellénistique’, unpubl. MS, writes: ‘Il s’agit sans doute du teck, qui ne semble jamais avoir poussé a Bahrain.’ Cf. the discussion of this problem in M. Stol, On Trees, Mountains, and Millstones in the Ancient Near East (Leiden, 1979), 36 n. 135.

132

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

and other Gulf countries,!67 where they have been used as rafters in traditional houses,!68 but this may not always have been the case. In a statement reminiscent of Theophrastus,!6? G. Schweinfurth stressed mangrove wood’s great resistance to fouling in the Red Sea.170 Furthermore, this same resistant quality was also emphasized by the thirteenth-century naturalist Ibn al-Beithar, citing Ibn Hassan, in his discussion of the mangroves that grew along the shores of the Sea of Oman2@ What of the other descriptive details given here by Theophrastus? Bretzl suggested that the trees which ‘make a regular fence’ at low tide were not the same as those with a marked fragrance and inedible fruit ‘as large as a fig-tree’.172 Instead of Avicennia, he felt the latter description referred to Myrsinee Aegiceras majus Gaertn., a bush growing in amongst the mangroves. A recent work on the marine biology of the western Arabian Gulf, however, makes no mention of '67 A. H. J. Prins, ‘The Persian Gulf Dhows: Two Variants in Maritime Enterprise’, Persica, 2 (1966), 6-11; H. H. Hansen, Investigations in a Shia Village in Bahrain (Publications of the National Museum, Ethnog. Ser., 12; Copenhagen, 1968), 55. Clarke, The Islands of Bahrain, 278, lists mangrove as an import from India. 168 GPG 246; Hansen, Investigations, 55. R. H. Daggy, ‘Malaria in Oases of Eastern Saudi Arabia’, American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 8 (1959), 229, writing of houses

in Hofuf and al-Mubarraz, says ‘ceilings are generally high, of black-painted mangrove, palm, or ithl [tamarisk] rafters’. G. King, ‘Bayt al-Mu‘ayyad: A Late Nineteenth-Century House of al-Bahrayn’, ArSt 4 (1978), 29, writes: ‘mangrove, sandalwood and teak have all been imported

for building in ‘Uman’. C. P. Winterhalter, Indigenous Housing Patterns and Design Principles in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, diss. submitted to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Zurich, 1981), 50, writes that ‘imported materials like mangrove beams’ were ‘used all over the Gulf, from Kuwait to the Emirates and Oman’; cf. ibid. 52-3 for the use of mangrove

poles as roof beams. ‘69 G. Schweinfurth,

‘Pflanzengeographische

Skizze

des gesamten

Nilgebiets

und

der

Ueferlander des Roten Meeres’, Petermanns Mitteilungen (1868), 247, wrote: ‘Das Holz der Schora [Avicennia] ist fiir die Uferlander des Rothen Meeres von hoher 6konomischer

Bedeutung’; but although he cites its use for tent poles, house construction, and firewood, he never mentions its use for boat construction. Schweinfurth continues, however: ‘eine Eigentiimlichkeit des durch sonderbaren Faserverlauf ausgezeichneten Holzes ist auch seine Widerstandsfahigkeit gegen Faulnis und Zersetzung im Meereswasser’, which may mean that Avicennia was used for some kind of water craft. 170 Bowen, ‘Arab Dhows’, 108, writes that ‘in Arabia a boat a hundred years old is considered young’, and mentions (p. 109) the use of imported teak and Persian hardwoods for the traditional boats used in the Gulf. Lorimer, GPG 245, says that the timber used for boat-

building on Bahrain at the turn of the century was mainly imported from India. Cf. A. Germain, ‘Quelques mots sur l’Oman et le Sultan de Maskate’, BSG 5/16 (1868), 342: ‘La province de

Batinah produit aussi quelques arbres forestiers précieux pour la construction des bateaux et

des maisons: ce sont la chéne [oak], le platane [plane], et le nabak [Zizyphus spina Christi, Christ’s thorn]; mais le teck, trés-employé, est apporté de I’Inde.’ 1 Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 72, gives a translation of Ibn al-Beithar which includes

the following: ‘l’eau de mer est contraire 4 toute espéce de bois excepté au qourm et au kendela [Rhizophora mucronata Lam.]’; ibid. 75-6: ‘Il est tr8s commun sur les bords de la mer d’Oman. Tandis que l’eau de la mer est nuisible aux autres arbres, il n’en est rien pour le kendela et le

qourm; tous les deux prospérent dans cette eau.’

172 Tbid. 61.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

133

Aegiceras in the mangrove thickets there,!73 whereas modern descriptions of Avicennia marina on the coast of Tarut accord generally _ with the ancient testimony under discussion. Just as Theophrastus calls the trees in question ‘as large as a fig-tree’, the individual mangrove bushes on Tarut are said to stand ‘one or two metres high’.!74 The fruit, which Theophrastus likens ‘in appearance to the lupin’, is ‘about the size and shape of small plums’ on Tarut.!75 We turn now to the ‘wool-bearing tree’, discussed at length by Theophrastus, to which Pliny gives the Latin name gossypinus (NH 12. 22. 39). Several recent writers have found it difficult to accept

the evidence for the cultivation of cotton on Bahrain, preferring to see in Androsthenes’ testimony a confusion with imported cotton. Y. Calvet!’® and J.-F. Salles!77 both doubt that cotton was ever grown on Bahrain, while C. E. Larsen does not even mention cotton in his discussion of land use on Bahrain in the Hellenistic period.!78 Already in 1875, however, Sprenger had pointed to evidence in Yaqut’s geographical dictionary which suggested that cotton had been cultivated on Bahrain in the past. According to Yaqut, the capital of Awal (the name by which Bahrain was known in most late pre-Islamic and early Islamic sources!7?) was Tarm. Yaqut also knew of a second town by that name near Qazvin, in Iran (3. 533), and he presumed that it was

after one of these two places that a superior kind of cotton known as “Tarmi’ was named. As Sprenger noted, however, cotton would not grow in a mountainous area like Qazvin, and thus the appellative ‘Tarmi’ can only have come from the association of Tarm on Awal with a particularly fine sort of cotton.!8° This is surely a valid conclusion, but it does not entirely solve the problem of the ultimate origin of Tarmi, or by association Tylian, cotton. As with the exports of Dilmun, the cotton known as Tarmi could have originated elsewhere and still received its name from the town where it was woven into cloth, or from which it was ultimately exported. If the testimony of Yaqut is inconclusive on this point, that of Ibn Batutta, writing of the period c.1325-50, is not. Speaking of Bahrain, he says: ‘In this place are palm enclosures, and pomegranates, lemons, and cotton are cultivated.’!8! There seems, then, to be no

reason to doubt either that the cotton known as Tarmi was a product 173 Basson et al., Biotopes, 53-4. YE

Did

AST bid. 655s

wos

176 Calvet, ‘Tylos et Arados’, 344. 177 Salles, ‘Le Golfe entre le Proche et |’Extréme Orient’. 178 Larsen, Life and Land Use; cf. my review, ‘Reflections’, 704.

179 Potts, ‘Awal and Muharraq’. 180 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 153. This is followed by Stein, ‘Tylos’, 1733.

181 Quoted after Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. Wilson, The Persian Gulf (Oxford, 1928), 91.

134

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

of Bahrain, or that its cultivation there went back at least to the days of Alexander. It has been suggested that cotton was introduced to Tylos from India,!82 where its occurrence was discussed by both Theophrastus

(Hist. 4. 4. 8) and Herodotus (3. 106). Nor would cotton be the only

plant of Indian origin on Tylos, as we shall see below. We do not know how early cotton was introduced into Bahrain, but it is interesting to consider its presence there in light of the Assyrian evidence for cotton cultivation. On his cylinder of 694 BC, Sennacherib speaks of . cultivating ‘trees bearing wool’ (Akk. naS Sipati) at Nineveh!83 states: he capital, his in nts introduced improveme many Discussing the ‘The wool-bearing trees they sheared, and wove into garments.”!54 It is noteworthy that Sennacherib, like Theophrastus, speaks of cotton trees rather than cotton plants, and for this reason L. W. King identified the species in question with Gossypium arboreum, not with the betterknown G. herbaceum.'85 The source of Sennacherib’s cotton is generally considered to have been India,!8° where it is attested at least as early as the Harappan period.!87 But it is equally possible, given the fact that Sennacherib had relations with Tilmun at this time (see vol. ich. 9), that he transplanted his cotton from Bahrain, even if the ultimate source of the cotton there was India. Elsewhere in the Gulf, 182 Heeren, Ideen iiber die Politik, 245; Tomaschek, Schiwek, ‘Der Persische Golf, 68.

Topographische

Erlauterung,

29;

183 For the text, see L. W. King, CT 26 (1909), pl. 30, col. vit. 56; cf. D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (OIP 2; Chicago, 1924), 111 1. 56.

184 CT 26, pl. 36, col. vu. 64; cf. Luckenbill, The Annals, 116 1. 64. 185 L. W. King, ‘An Early Mention of Cotton: The Cultivation of Gossypium Arboreum, or Tree-Cotton, in Assyria in the Seventh Century B.C.’, PSBA 31 (1909), 341, wrote: ‘It is

true that the various species of cotton, which are cultivated for fibre at the present day, must be classified as plants, not trees, but the tree-cotton, Gossypium arboreum, is still met with

in gardens in Egypt, Africa, Arabia, and India, and less abundantly in China, Japan, Java and Malaya.’ Sir G. Watt, The Wild and Cultivated Cotton Plants of the World (London, 1907),

11, called attention to Theophrastus’ remark that the cotton plant on Tylos had ‘a leaf like that of the vine’, and suggested: ‘the comparison to the vine might be viewed as indicative of G. Nanking’. On Sennacherib’s cotton, cf. B. Meissner, ‘Akklimatisationsversuche mesopotamischer Firsten’, MVAG 15 (1910), 25; A. L. Oppenheim, ‘Essay on Overland Trade in the First Millennium B.C.’, JCS 21 (1967), 251-2; P. Talon, ‘Le Coton et la soie en Mesopotamie’, Akkadica, 47 (1986), 76.

'86 B. Meissner, Assyrien und Babylonien, i (Heidelberg, 1920), 209. '*7 See Sir J. Marshall, Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization (London, 1931), ii. 585;

E. J. H. Mackay, Further Excavations at Mohenjo-Daro (New Delhi, 1938), i. 591-4, for a discussion of early cotton fragments found there. For literary attestations of cotton in India, see Watt, The Wild and Cultivated Cotton Plants, 9, citing F. W. Thomas, who wrote: ‘the earliest mention appears to be in the Asvalayana Srauta Sutra (say 800 B.C.), where the material

is contrasted with silk and hemp as that of which was made the sacred thread of the Brahman’, Cf.

King, ‘An Early Mention’, 341; D. Schlingloff, ‘Cotton-Manufacture in Ancient India’, JESHO 17 (1973), 81-90, esp. for later Jain and Buddhist sources on cotton in India. On Indian cotton in the Roman period, cf. W. H. Schoff, The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (New Niraoul ed): vawe

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

135

cotton cultivation is attested before the modern period in Oman,!88 the Hofuf oasis,!8° and in the area of Riyadh.!%

Theophrastus follows his description of cotton on Tylos with a detailed treatment of ‘trees with a flower like the gillyflower, but scentless and in size four times as large’. He then proceeds to identify a further plant, which is in reality the same. It is further characterized by a specific pattern of opening and closing its leaves in the early morning and evening. As has long been recognized,!?! this is the tamarind, Tamarindus indica L., the description of which was so precise that it remained a botanical standard into the twentieth century.!92 The Indian origin of the tamarind on Bahrain, assumed by most authorities,!°3 can be considered a botanical certainty.194 Lorimer mentions tamarind among the fruits cultivated on Bahrain at the beginning of the century, noting its presence in the villages of Barbar and Karbabad,!* and in 1921 Capt. R. E. Cheesman, a keen naturalist who made a number of important floral and faunal discoveries in Arabia,!?° noted, in speaking of Bahrain, that there ‘the tamarisk and tamarind trees grow to perfection’.!97 Yet another sign of close contact with the Indian subcontinent is given later by Theophrastus (Hist. 5. 5. 7) when he describes the tree with markings like tiger skin from which the inhabitants of Tylos fashioned their walking-sticks. According to Bretzl, this can only refer to Calamus Rotang, imported from India, more specifically perhaps from Bengal.!%8 This is particularly interesting in view of the later '88 Germain, ‘Quelques mots sur l’Oman’, 342; A. Zehme, Arabien und die Araber seit hundert Jahren (Halle, 1875), 186, 201; Baron R. C. Keun de Hoogerwoerd, ‘Die Hafen und

Handelsverhaltnisse des Persischen Golfs und des Golfs von Oman’, Annalen der Hydrographie und maritimen Meteorologie, 17 (1889), 201; GPG 679, citing its cultivation at Ja‘alan, 56 km. south-west of Sur; and Lt.-Col. S. B. Miles, ‘On the Border of the Great Desert: A Journey in

Oman’, GJ 36 (1910), 176. 189 Zehme, Arabien und die Araber, 215; Burchardt, ‘Ost-Arabien’, 310. 190 Capt. G. F. Sadleir, Diary of a Journey across Arabia, from El Khatif in the Persian Gulf to Yanbo in the Red Sea, during the Year 1819 (1866; repr. Cambridge, 1977), 80, with mention

of cotton grown at Munfooah near Riyadh. 91 Accepted e.g. by Sir A. Hort in his Loeb translation of Theophrastus (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1958), i. 485. 12 Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 121. 193 e.g, Schiwek, ‘Der Persische Golf, 68. 94 Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 131. WIRGPG MUS 23" 241. 196 Cf. the high evaluation of his work in E. Braunlich’s review of Cheesman’s In Unknown Arabia, OLZ 31 (1928), col. 1111.

197 Capt. R. E. Cheesman, ‘From Ogair to the Ruins of Salwa’, GJ 62 (1923), 324; for tamarind in Oman in 1886, see Keun de Hoogerwoerd, ‘Die Hafen und Handelsverhaltnisse’, 201; GPG 1920 (at Wafi in the Ja‘alan district). For tamarind in al-Hasa, see GPG 644.

18 Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 133-5. On the terminological classification of various types of Calamus in Theophrastus, see R. Stromberg, Theophrastea: Studien zur botanischen Begriffsbildung (Géteborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-Samhalles Handlinger, Femte Féljden, Ser. A, 6/4; Goteborg, 1937), 100 ff.

136

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

pre-Islamic testimony for the importation of lance stocks to eastern Arabia from India for the manufacture of the famous lances of al-Hatt.19?

In discussing Tylos Theophrastus glosses over the obvious, only briefly mentioning date-palms, vines,?°° wheat, and other fruit trees. The ‘evergreen figs’ have been identified as Ficus laccifera,?! and were probably so called because Androsthenes’ visit to Tylos fell in the winter (see below), at which time a Greek would not have expected to find

figs ripening.2°2 Whitelock listed figs among the fruits grown on Bahrain c.1836-38,293 while Lorimer mentions ‘a good many figs’ at the village of Zinj, c.1.6km. south-west of Manama.*% The final plant species on Tylos mentioned by Theophrastus is the tamarisk, Tamarix articulata Vahl.2°5 Lacking any authoritative information, Bretzl was uncertain whether tamarisk grew on Bahrain

or was brought in from the Arabian mainland.2°° Cheesman, however, as noted above, observed it growing ‘to perfection’ on Bahrain img 92 120% We turn finally to Theophrastus’ account of the water resources of Tylos. There are two points here which deserve mention. To begin with, the picture of ‘many springs on the island’ accords perfectly with the actual situation on Bahrain. At the beginning of the century Lorimer listed twenty springs on the main island of Bahrain alone, and described their water as ‘beautifully clear and but slightly brackish’.2% In Hist. 4. 7. 8 Theophrastus says that at Tylos ‘there is water from heaven’, while in Caus. 2. 5. 5 he is more circumspect, noting that ‘rain is there infrequent’. By the time we get to Pliny’s account of Tylos (see below), exaggeration has crept in, and the island is said to have ‘a considerable rainfall’. Bretzl suggested quite logically that any references to rain could only mean that Androsthenes’ visit to Tylos took place in the middle of winter when rain could be expected to have '99 Schwarzlose, Die Waffen der alten Araber, 217-18. For vines in the village of Janussan c.1905, see GPG 221. Theophrastus, Enquiry, trans. Hort, ii. 485. Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 141, 144. Lt. H. W. Whitelock, ‘An Account of the Arabs who Inhabit the Coast between Ras-elBeh: and Abothubee in the Gulf of Persia, generally Called the Pirate Coast’, TBGS 1 (1844),

204 GPG 229. For figs seen in Hofuf in Dec. 1903, see Burchardt, ‘Ost-Arabien’, 311; for

figs in Qatif c.1905, see GPG

1543.

*5 Theophrastus, Enquiry, trans. Hort, ii. 465. 06 Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 135. 207 Cheesman, ‘From Ogair’, 324. For tamarisk in Kuwait, see GPG 19 and 896; at Jiri in

Ras al-Khaimah, GPG 941; in Hofuf, Daggy, ‘Malaria in Oases of Eastern Arabia’, 229; between Sib and Muscat on the Batinah coast, Vesey-Fitzgerald, ‘From Hasa to Oman by Car’, 558; and in the mountains of Oman, S. M. Zwemer, ‘Oman and Eastern Arabia’, BAGS 39 (1907), 601.

208" GPG 230-2, 235:

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

137

occurred.*°? More precisely, he placed the visit in the months of December or January 324/3 BC. According to Lorimer, Bahrain’s

‘rainy season is considered to begin at the middle of October and to end at the middle of May’, and while ‘the rainy days . . . are ordinarily 3 to 6 only’, these usually occur in January or February.2!9 Although rainfall on Bahrain averaged only 81.25 mm. between 1902 and 1906, Lorimer writes, ‘in exceptionally wet years grass is said to grow knee-

deep all over the central depression of the main island’.2!! Thus, if Androsthenes’ visit was paid during an unusually wet winter, it is easy to see how he could have received the impression that Tylos was blessed with substantial rainfall. The disquisition in De Causis Plantarum on the effects of saline spring-water versus rain-water on the vegetation of Tylos, and of the trouble taken by its inhabitants to ‘rinse the rain-water off with springwater’, is paralleled in Hist. 4. 7. 8 by the observation that ‘even when it rains, they let this [spring] water over the fields, as though they were washing away the rain-water’. Bretzl mistook this for a simple allusion to well-irrigation in times of scant rainfall,2!2 but the translators of the recent Loeb edition of De Causis Plantarum have pointed

to

the exact

same

practice

amongst

twentieth-century

agriculturalists on Bahrain, as related by J. H. D. Belgrave, who writes: The soil is thin and salty, the water is somewhat brackish . . . All gardens are irrigated as the rainfall is very small. Rain, when it does fall, often does more harm than good, it splashes’the salty surface soil on to the stems of plants, shrubs and sometimes trees which causes small plants to die and often damages trees and shrubs. It is to prevent this damage that gardeners irrigate the ground immediately after a rain, a labour which appears rather superfluous to people who do not appreciate the reason.*!3 209 210 only huts

Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 144. Lorimer, GPG 236, offers an unexpected perspective on rain when he writes: ‘In Bahrain the Shaikhs, who own flocks and herds, welcome rain; to the poorer classes in their frail of date fronds it causes serious discomfort.’

211 GPG 236 (cf. 242).

12 Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 143: ‘Allzuoft trat indes der Regen nicht ein, und die

Pflanzenwelt hatte sich auf der Insel ganz an das etwas salzige, reichliche Quellwasser gewohnt, wie den Griechen so auffiel.’ J. H. Ahmed and J. C. Doornkamp, “The Farmer’s Perception of Soil for Agriculture in Bahrain’, Third World Planning Review, 3 (1981), 282, write of Bahrain as follows: ‘irrigation water samples were taken from each farm and tested for salinity (measured in ppm of total dissolved salts). . . . None of the tests showed less than 2000 ppm, while 58.6 per cent fell in the range 2000-4000 ppm; the rest were as follows: 22.4 per cent in the range 4001-6000 ppm, 15.6 per cent in the range 6001-8000 ppm, and 3.5 per cent over 8000 ppm. It is normal for the irrigation waters with lower salinity values to be applied to vegetables and alfalfa, and for the more saline water only to be used on alfalfa and date palms.’ Cf. Lorimer, GPG 1543, writing of Qatif: ‘Dates are the staple crop in Qatif, no village being without its date grove; the water irrigating the plantations is in some places brackish, but this does not . appear to affect the trees injuriously.’ 213 Belgrave, Welcome to Bahrain, 120, cited after B. Einarson and G. K. K. Link in their Loeb edn. of Theophrastus, De Causis Plantarum, i (Cambridge, 1976), 242-3 n. b.

138

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

In conclusion, as stressed by Bretzl and noted above, Theophrastus’ account of the vegetation of Tylos was written with a view to disseminating new observations of significant botanical interest for his readership.2!4 Morphological and physiological traits were emphasized,?!5 and no time was spent on addressing those topics which would have already been very familiar to a Greek reader, such as Tylos’ date-palms, viticulture, cereals, and fruit. Nor was an Enquiry into Plants the proper place for a review of the history of Tylos, and so we find nothing of a historical, cultural, or ethnographic nature. As a document of scientific observation, however, Theophrastus’ work

is unique among all pre-modern sources on Bahrain in its wealth of detail and unclouded description of botanical realia. Before leaving Theophrastus, it is relevant to mention one further

work of his, De Lapidibus [‘On Stones’]» There he devoted a short

paragraph (§ 36) to the pearl:!6 The so-called ‘pearl’, which is transparent in nature and is made into costly necklaces, also ranks as a precious stone. It grows in an oyster which is comparable to the pinna, but smaller. The dimensions of the pearl are those of a fish’s eye of large size, and it is produced off the coast of India and certain islands in the Red Sea.

Most commentators agree that ‘certain islands in the Red Sea’ refers

to Bahrain.2!7

Strabo on Tylos Strabo has already been cited because of his information on the location of Tylos, but aside from this his account differs entirely from those of Theophrastus and Pliny. It is concerned chiefly with the Phoenicians, and runs as follows: On sailing further, one comes to other islands, I mean Tyros and Arados, which have temples like those of the Phoenicians. It is asserted, at least by the inhabitants of the islands, that the islands and cities of the Phoenicians which bear the same name are their own colonies. (Geog. 16. 3. 4) 24 Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen,

162. D. R. Dudley, in the Penguin Companion to

Classical, Oriental and African Literature (Harmondsworth, 1969), 165, felt rather that, in view

of the ‘dry and technical’ style of Theophrastus’ botanical works, ‘they may well be lecture notes’. *15 Cf. the detailed discussion of the terminology of plant morphol d physiol i Stromberg, Theophrastea. eae sin rae cp htt! *16 Theophrastus, De Lapidibus, ed. D. E. Eichholz (Oxford, 1965), 71. 717 Theophrastus, On Stones, ed. E. R. Caley and J. F. C. Richards (C ;

cf. Eichholz’s edn., 113.

}

Sno

ee2 ea

CIESACIPLENS

a.

General view of the

site of Thaj

b.

The southern section

of the city wall of Thaj

PEATE

a.

Sherds of Greek black-glazed pottery from Thay

b.

The torso of a female terracotta

figurine from Thaj

Pie vav yn as)vo

a

=

i is°)Hw=} rs)

.

1 ae ©)

vo vo

uw

keie)

4


ass. bee cec obey

Por

ewbet 0. ee

UY LL LO PO neLO Toooo ji SE 2 be Oe. VG 6 a.

>.

TTT 8’ cS See

A hoard of jewellery found at Dhahran

Finger-ring containing a gem

with the figure of Victory

er SG

yyy =

HAG NE 9G

PUA IES

h

The principal coin types found at ed-Dur

PEATE X!

a.

The Temple at ed-Dur

b-c. Details of the stamps ona Mletha

pair of Rhodian amphora handles found at

PILI, SAUL

A Sasan ian stamp seal made of garnet, found near Dammam

pee,

Examples of Sasan ian stucco from Darin on Tarut

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

139

By introducing a variant of the name Tylos in the form of ‘Tyros’, and allegedly drawing on local testimony, Strabo raised the question of the relationship between the Phoenician settlements of Tyre and Arados in the Mediterranean, and Tyros/Tylos and Arados in the Gulf.2!8 In so doing, he revived a problem already broached by Herodotus, according to whom the Phoenicians alleged their own origins to have been in the Erythraean Sea, before their migration via Syria to the Mediterranean (Hist. 7. 89).

These passages have long attracted the attention of travellers, antiquarians,

archaeologists,

and

historians.

While

it would

be

pointless to review all of the many opinions expressed over the last century on the alleged connection between the Phoenicians and the Gulf, it would be remiss to bypass the problem entirely. Those who have accepted the possibility of a connection have been of two minds as to the nature of that link. Some, such as S. B. Miles2!9 and C. D.

Belgrave,**° have suggested that the Phoenicians visited the Gulf and set up trading-posts here from their base in the eastern Mediterranean. Others, such as H. C. Rawlinson,?2! the Bents,222 and T. H. Holdich,**3 have accepted Herodotus and proposed that the original homeland of the Phoenicians was in the Arabian Gulf. The keystone 218 We could add two more Phoenician’ toponyms in the Gulf to this: Sur (= Tyre) in Oman, and Jubayl (= Byblos) in eastern Saudi Arabia. 219 Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 162: ‘Strabo tells us that these islands had temples resembling those of the Phoenicians, and that, according to the inhabitants, the islands and cities, bearing the same name as those of the Phoenicians, are their own colonies. The Phoenicians,

there is no question, must have had several colonies or trading stations in the Persian and Oman Gulfs for the furtherance of their commercial operations, the real extent of which has perhaps not yet been fully appreciated.’

220 Belgrave, ‘Archaeological Discoveries in Bahrain’, describing finds made in tombs opened on the Budaiyah road: ‘The nature of the pottery indicates that it is most probably Phoenician and if this proves to be the case it will establish the fact, which until now has been doubtful, that the Phoenicians frequented the Persian Gulf.’

221 Maj.-Gen. Sir H. C. Rawlinson, ‘Notes on Capt. Durand’s Report upon the Islands of Bahrein’, JRAS 12 (1880), 35: ‘I see no reason for doubting the testimony of Androsthenes,

that the temples on the island were similar to those of the Phoenicians—a fact of which he, an inhabitant of Thasos, which was a Graeco-Phoenician colony, must have been a fully competent judge,—nor that the inhabitants preserved a tradition up to that time of their ancestors in remote antiquity having sent forth a colony to the Mediterranean.’ 222 T. and Mrs Bent, Southern Arabia (London, 1900), 21-2, writing of the burial mounds on Bahrain: ‘Complete uncertainty existed as to the origin of these mounds, and the people who constructed them, but, from classical references and the result of our own work, there can now be no doubt that they are of Phoenician origin. . . . As we ourselves, during the course of our excavations, brought to light objects of distinctly Phoenician origin, there would appear to be no longer any room for doubt that the mounds which lay before us were a vast necropolis of this mercantile race.’ 223 Holdich, in ‘Arabia and the Persian Gulf (review of S. B. Miles, Countries and Tribes of the Persian Gulf), GJ] 55 (1920), 316, wrote of ‘the now well-known Phoenician tombs on the Bahrein Islands’, and in ‘Stone Circles in Arabia’, GJ 55 (1920), 485, of ‘the existence of the Phoenician tumuli, or tombs, in the Bahrein Islands’.

140

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

of this argument was the allegedly Phoenician character of the burial mounds on Bahrain and their contents. Philby went one step further and reasoned that, if the Bahrain tumuli were genuinely Phoenician, and if this was true also of their alleged mainland counterparts around Khar), as Holdich suggested, then the original homeland of the Phoenicians may have been in the ‘buried cities’ of the Rub’ al-Khali.??4 Scepticism was, however, expressed early on. S. Genthe rejected the veracity of the ancient sources,?*5 while Hogarth, addressing Philby in the discussion following a lecture by the latter to the Royal Geographical Society in 1920, flatly stated: ‘I am afraid the evidence for calling the Bahrain mounds Phoenician is worth practically nothing.’226 He was followed in 1928 by Sir A. T. Wilson in his influential study The Persian Gulf.??’ A more sophisticated interpretation was suggested in the same year by E. J. Burrows, who proposed that Herodotus may have been relating a native Phoenician tradition linking human (and by association specifically Phoenician) origins, with Dilmun.728 Yet it is notable that the discussion of the possible Gulf origin of the Phoenicians found little resonance amongst scholars working on the archaeology and history of the Phoenicians in the eastern Mediterranean. To cite but a few works, it is absent from several of Albright’s best-known treatments,22? Kenyon’s 1963 Schweich lectures,?39 Ap-Thomas’s 24H, St J. B. Philby, ‘Across Arabia: From the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea’, GJ 56 (1920), 447: ‘Another point, to which I should like to refer briefly, concerns the stone circles I found at various localities in the provinces of Kharj and Aflaj. Commander Hogarth thought at the time that they were tombs, and so doubtless they are, but an interesting suggestion has recently been made by Sir Thomas Holdich, who, remarking their resemblance to similar stone circles excavated in the island of Bahrain and described in a paper read before this Society in 1890 by Theodore Bent, suggests for the ruins in question the same Phoenician origin as has been ascribed on good authority to the latter. If this is indeed so it would seem not improbable that the buried cities of the Empty Quarter are of the same origin, and it may be that we have stumbled, as it were by accident, on the original home of the Phoenicians.’ *° Genthe, Der Persische Meerbusen, 6: ‘Wenn wir heute auch die vieldeutigen Angaben von Herodotos und Justinus iiber die Urheimath der Phénizier nicht mehr mit Sicherheit auf das Persermeer beziehen diirfen . . .’.

26 TD. G. Hogarth apud Philby, ‘Across Arabia’, 464. **7 Wilson, The Persian Gulf, 32: ‘It results from the foregoing remarks, that the extent to

which the Phoenicians were, if at all, engaged in trade, or resident in the Persian Gulf, is unknown

or doubtful.’ 8 E. J. Burrows, Tilmun, Babrain, Paradise (Scriptura Sacra et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui, 2; Rome, 1928), 15, speaking of the Phoenician belief, quoted by Herodotus, that their origins were on the Erythraean sea: ‘This may be a genuine tradition of a Semitic migration, but it could also be a misunderstanding of a Phoenician tradition that in Bahrain was the first home of man, or (more probably) a genuine tradition of the Phoenicians assimilating their own particular origins to those of humanity.’ °° e.g. W. F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine (Harmondsworth, 1949); id., ‘Syria, the Philistines, and Phoenicia’, CAH ii/2 (1975), 507-36. 30K. M. Kenyon, Amorites and Canaanites (Oxford, 1966).

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

141

synthesis of 1973,?! Trump’s study of the archaeology and history of the Mediterranean basin,?32 and Garbini’s monograph on the history and religion of the Phoenicians.233 In 1926 G. Conteneau addressed the Greek and Latin as well as the North-West Semitic and cuneiform sources, together with the archaeological remains, but, given the state of knowledge at the time, found little in the Gulf sphere to support Strabo and Herodotus, beyond suggesting a general reflex of the Semitic element in the Phoenicians’ background.234 More recently G. W. Bowersock has revived the debate, writing: ‘There is nothing inherently improbable about a colonial emigration from the mercantile center of Bahrain to the eastern coast of the Mediterranean . . . and there is the remarkable unanimity of the traditions in the two parts of the world in so-called classical times to support it.’235 While the Canaanite background of later Phoenician culture is hardly clear, the discovery of points of contact between Ebla and Dilmun c.2500 BC?° is intriguing, as this is just a few centuries after the date around which, according to Herodotus, the Phoenicians

emigrated from the Erythraean Sea to the Mediterranean. Certainly the occurrence of the names Sur (= Tyre) in Oman, Arados in the

Bahrain archipelago, and Jubayl (= Byblos) in eastern Saudi Arabia must excite speculation on the Phoenician problem, even if we are far from reaching an adequate solution. Other related passages in Strabo (16. 3. 6-7) concern the mangrove

found ‘along the whole of the coast of the Red Sea’, pearls found near ‘an island at the beginning of the Persian Gulf, and ‘trees which smell like frankincense’ on ‘the islands off the mouth of the Euphrates’, all of which derive from Nearchus and have sometimes been thought to relate to Tylos; but there is no evidence for this

whatsoever.?37 331 PD. R. Ap-Thomas, ‘The Phoenicians’, in D. J. Wiseman (ed.), Peoples of Old Testament Times (Oxford, 1973), 259-86. 232: DH. Trump, The Prehistory of the Mediterranean (New Haven and London, 1980), 240-50. 233 G_ Garbini, I Fenici: Storia e religione (Istituto universitario orientale, Seminario di studi asiatici, Series Minor, 11; Naples, 1980). 234 G_ Conteneau, La Civilisation phénicienne (Paris, 1926), 351-63.

235 Bowersock, ‘Tylos and Tyre’, 402. 236 G_ Pettinato, ‘Dilmun nella documentazione epigrafica di Ebla’, BBVO 2. 75-82. Cf., for the early mention in the Ebla texts of some well-known Phoenician toponyms (e.g. Arwad, Sumur, Batruna, Byblos, Sarepta, Akziv, Beirut, Tyre, and Sidon), id., ‘Le citta fenicie e Byblos

in particolare nella documentazione epigrafica di Ebla’, in Atti del I congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici, i (Rome, 1983), 107-18.

237 Contra H. Strasburger, ‘Alexanders Zug durch die gedrosische Wiiste’, Hermes, 80 (1952), 464, who interprets all of these statements as allusions to Tylos. However, as Strasburger himself admits (p. 462) that ‘Nearch Tylos nicht gesehen hat’, it is difficult to believe that the references can apply to Tylos.

142

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

Pliny on Tylos

Pliny’s passage on the location of Tylos, discussed above, occurs in book 6 of his Natural History in the context of a description of the east coast of Arabia.238 Aside from the geographical information found here, he also notes that Tylos ‘is famous for the vast number of its pearls’, on which we are better informed from a fragment of Isidorus

of Charax preserved by Athenaeus (see below). Later, in book 12,

Pliny returns to Tylos when discussing trees. His account of the vegetation of Tylos is, in essence, a paraphrase of Theophrastus, with certain additions presumed to have come from works by Aristobulus or Onesicritus to which he referred for additional information.*7? The text is as follows:

In the same gulf is the island of Tylos, which is-covered with forests in the part facing east, where it also is flooded by the sea at high tide. Each of the trees is the size of a fig-tree; they have a flower with an indescribably sweet scent, and the fruit resembles a lupin and is so prickly that no animal can touch it. On a more elevated plateau in the same island there are trees that bear wool, but in a different manner to those of the Chinese, as the leaves

of these trees have no growth on them, and might be thought to be vineleaves were it not that they are smaller; but they bear gourds of the size of a quince, which when they ripen burst open and disclose balls of down from which an expensive linen for clothing is made. Their name for this tree is the gossypinum; it also grows in greater abundance on the smaller island of Tylos, which is ten miles distant from the other. Juba says that this shrub has a woolly down growing round it, the fabric made from which is superior to the linen of India. He also says that there is an Arabian tree called the cynas from which cloth is made, which has foliage resembling a palm-leaf. Similarly the natives of India are provided with clothes by their own trees. But in the Tylos islands there is also another tree with a blossom like a white violet but four times as large; it has no scent, which may well surprise us in that region of the world. There is also another tree which resembles this one but has more foliage and a rose-coloured blossom, which it closes at nightfall and begins to open at sunrise, unfolding it fully at noon: the natives speak of it as going to sleep. The same island also produces palm-trees, olives, and vines, as well as figs and all the other kinds of fruit-trees. None of the trees there sheds its leaves; and the island is watered by cold springs, and has a considerable rainfall. (NH 12, 21. 38-23. 40)

We have no difficulty in recognizing the Theophrastus in Pliny. A few examples here from the description of the mangrove will suffice to demonstrate this: 8 Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 157-72. *% Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 90, 93, 94.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

143

Theophrastus: Pliny: Theophrastus: Pliny: Theophrastus: Pliny:

‘on the east side there is such a number of trees’ ‘covered with forests in the part facing east’ ‘all these are in size as large as a fig-tree’ ‘each of the trees is the size of a fig-tree’ ‘the flower is exceedingly fragrant’ ‘they have a flower with an indescribably sweet

Theophrastus:

scent” ‘the fruit, which is not edible, is like in appearance to the lupin’

Pliny:

‘the fruit resembles a lupin’

The prickly character of the fruit of the mangrove is added by Pliny, who, however, mentions only that the eastern part of Tylos where the trees grow ‘is flooded by the sea at high tide’, neglecting to include Theophrastus’ remark on the exposed roots which is so essential for the identification of the tree. Pliny then moves on to the cotton of Tylos, and here cites Juba as his authority for some of the information given.**° This is important, as it demonstrates that the cultivation of cotton on Tylos, observed by Androsthenes in the late fourth century, was still practised around the time of Christ.24! Juba’s precise naming of gossypinum is equally important, and is the source of the modern botanical name for cotton.** It is also possible that Juba was the source of the distinctive nomenclature for the islands used by Pliny,243 for no other writer speaks of the Tylos islands and Tylos minor. Pliny’s account of the tamarind is abbreviated, and lacking in detail, conjuring up visions of a magnolia-tree with its rose-coloured blossoms.**4 Bretzl considered his reference to the presence of the olive-tree on Bahrain to be pure fantasy, pointing to the fact that the Greeks were impressed enough by the lack of olea in this region?*> to remark on its absence along the coast of Karmania, for example.2*® Theophrastus, however, was 40 On Juba as an important source for Pliny, see F. Miinzer, Beitrage zur Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des Plinius (Berlin, 1897), esp. 411-22.

41 Not to mention later, e.g. in Yaqut’s lifetime or in the early 14th cent. when Ibn Batutta saw it. 242 Watt, The Wild and Cultivated Cotton Plants, 11. 243 Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen, 153. 244 Bretzl, ibid. 154, writes: ‘Mit Plinius’ Vorstellung einer vielblattrigen Rosenbliite, die sich 6ffnet und schliesst (was so auffallig gar nicht ist), wird die ganze in ihren einzelnen Stadien so exakte Darstellung der Tamarindus-Fiederchen bis zur Unkenntlichkeit verwischt . . . Wie

grundverschieden das Bild nun geworden, zeigt am besten ein Vergleich. Plinius’ Rosenbaum sahe so aus wie einer der grossbliitigen, rosenroten Magnolien-Baume, die im Frihjahr unsere Anlagen zieren.’ A ibidaitsse 246 Arrian, Anab. 8. 32. 5. The only reference to olives in the Gulf region that I have come across is GPG 1920, where Lorimer mentions them growing at Wafi, in Oman.

144

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

FIG. 8. A Graeco-Babyloniaca text (in Greek on a clay tablet) mentioning the Dilmun and Magan date-palms

certainly the source of his perfunctory allusions to the palms, vines, figs, and ‘other fruits’ and to the springs and rainfall of Tylos. In book 16 Pliny returns to Tylos with a paragraph devoted to the woods of the island, once again based on Theophrastus. The text is as follows: The companions of Alexander the Great stated that on the island of Tylos in the Red Sea there are trees used for building ships, the timbers of which have been found continuing free from rot for 200 years even though they were under water. They further reported that the same island contains a shrub growing only thick enough for a walking-stick, marked with stripes like a tiger skin, heavy and liable to break like glass when it falls on to things of harder substance. (NH 16. 80. 221)

Here we find mention of the non-fouling character of that tree which Bretzl identifies as mangrove, as well as the characteristics of the Calamus Rotang, from which the inhabitants of Tylos fashioned their walking-sticks. Pliny, however, departs from Theophrastus in omitting all reference to tamarisk. Graeco-Babyloniaca

Thus far, we have been speaking almost exclusively of Greek and Latin sources on Tylos, but it is interesting to note that during the late second and early first centuries BC Greek students or scribes learning Sumerian and Akkadian in Babylonia were still copying lexical texts247 in which *” The first examples of texts of this sort were published by T. G. Pinches, ‘Greek

Transcriptions of Babylonian Tablets’, PSBA 24 (1902), 108-25. Cf. W. G. Schileico, ‘Ein babylonischer Weihtext in griechischer Schrift’, AfO 5 (1928-9), 11-13; G. K. Sarkisian, ‘Greek

Personal Names in Uruk and the Graeco-Babyloniaca Problem’, in J. Harmatta and G. Komoréczy (eds.), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im alten Vorderasien (Acta Antiqua Acad. Scient. Hung.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

145

Dilmun and Magan are mentioned. A fragment in the British Museum, possibly from Babylon, preserves part of a list of dates written as

follows:248

284: TICIMAP A[I] AION OlAp[ 285: TICIMAP A[I] AION ACANQ 286: TICIMAP MAT'A MAXANw

This exercise is interesting in many respects. Each line begins with the Greek transliteration of the Sumerian word GISIMMAR, meaning ‘date-palm’. In lines 284 and 285 the scribe has rendered ‘Dilmun’ with a delta as ‘Dilion’, but whereas in line 285 this is followed by the Greek version of Akkadian asmu, meaning ‘date’, line 284 preserves a fragment of a variant spelling for Dilmun, beginning @IA-, which recalls the Palmyrene Aramaic ‘Thiloua/os’ which began with the same three letters (see below).

Thiloua/os in the Second Century AD As we

have seen, Androsthenes’

information

on Tylos, and by

extension that of Theophrastus, can be dated to the lifetime of Alexander. Some of Pliny’s material, such as the parts drawn from Juba, can be dated roughly to the time of Christ, around the middle of the Parthian period. When we move into the second century AD, an altogether different perspective on Bahrain is afforded by an important inscription discovered during the 1939-40 season of excavations at Palmyra. The text belongs to a group of Palmyrene texts known as ‘caravan inscriptions’, in which a prominent citizen was honoured by his compatriots for services rendered in the caravan trade between Palmyra and Babylonia.?4? In this case, the text records that in AD 131 the Palmyrene merchants of Spasinou Charax erected a statue at Palmyra in honour of Iarhai son of Nebozabad.75° What makes this text so important, however, is the added fact that Iarhai is said to have served as ‘satrap of the Thilouanoi for Meredat, king 22; Budapest, 1976), 495-503; M. Geller, ‘More Graeco-Babyloniaca’, ZA 73 (1983), 114-20;

J. A. Black and S. M. Sherwin-White, ‘A Clay Tablet with Greek Letters in the Ashmolean Museum and the “Graeco-Babyloniaca” Texts’, Iraq, 46 (1984), 131-40. 248 E. Sollberger, ‘Graeco-Babyloniaca’, Iraq, 24 (1962), 66, citing Hh iii. 284-6 (MSL S. 147). 249 MI. Rostovtzeff, ‘Les Inscriptions caravaniéres de Palmyre’, in Mélanges Gustave Glotz, ii (Paris, 1932), 793-811; E. Will, ‘Marchands et chefs de caravanes a Palmyre’, Syria, 34 (1957), 262-77. 250 H. Seyrig, ‘Antiquités syriennes, 38: Inscriptions grecques de l’agora de Palmyre’, Syria, 22 (1941), 254-S.

146

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

of Spasinou Charax’. Spasinou Charax, a city located near modern Basra in the southernmost Babylonian province of Mesene, was the capital of the small but important kingdom of Characene.?5! Situated in the shadow of Parthia, this kingdom enjoyed commercial success and attendant fame out of all proportion to its size, since Spasinou Charax was the most important Babylonian port of call for ships arriving laden with luxury goods from the East during the first century BC and the first two centuries AD. Palmyrene traders, as purveyors of these Eastern goods to Roman Syria and ultimately to the wider Mediterranean world, had established permanent colonies at Babylon, Vologesias, and, most importantly, Spasinou Charax.

The Palmyrene caravan inscriptions leave us in no doubt that Palmyrene commerce with the kingdom of Characene was a great success. Given the close commercial ties between Charax and the Palmyrene community, therefore, it is hardly surprising that the king of Charax should have employed a citizen of Palmyra in a political capacity, as satrap of the Thilouanoi. For many years, however, scholars did not recognize the significance of the satrapal name implied here. It was not until 1968, when a collection of notes completed by E. Herzfeld in 1948 was published posthumously, that the meaning became clear.252 The Thilouanoi were the inhabitants of Thiloua or Thilouos, which name is clearly an Aramaicized form of ‘Tylos’. Thus, by the early second century AD Bahrain was a satrapy of the kingdom of Characene.~*> Meredat will be dealt with in greater detail in Chapter 6 below, but it is important to note here that, as we now know from a GraecoParthian inscription recently discovered at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, he was a member of a high-ranking Parthian family. Thus, as a Parthian on the Characene throne, his rule represented an extension of Parthian influence over Charax and the Gulf. That he came into conflict with other branches of the Parthian nobility, however, is likely, and twenty years after he was mentioned in the inscription from Palmyra, he was driven off the Characene throne by the Parthian king Vologases IV and heard of no more. From this time on, a more purely Parthian political presence was established in the central Arabian Gulf, but as *5! For bibliographical orientation, see my ‘Arabia and the Kingdom of Characene’, CNIP 7. 157-8. Some of the basic works include Drouin, ‘Notice historique’, 129-50; F. H. Weissbach, ‘Charakene’ and ‘Charax 10’, RE iii (1899), 2116-19, 2122; S. A. Nodelman, ‘A Preliminary History of Characene’, Berytus, 13 (1960), 83-121.

*52 E. Herzfeld, ‘Tilmun, the Bahrain Islands in the Sargon Itinerary’, in G. Walser (ed.)

The Persian Empire (Wiesbaden, 1968), 62; cf. R. Zadok, ‘Iranian and Babylonian Notes, ee Thilouana’, AfO 28 (1981-2), 139; Bowersock, ‘Tylos and Tyre’. *’3 During Caspers, ‘The Bahrain Tumuli’, 148, thought that this might have been the case

but was apparently unaware of the Palmyrene inscription which proved it conclusively.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

147

our sources for this concern the mainland, this topic will be dealt with in later chapters. One is tempted, of course, to look for archaeological evidence of this episode on Bahrain. The French expedition at Janussan recovered three fragments of stone column capitals which bear a general resemblance to the Parthian repertoire from Assur and Hatra, without,

however, evincing any exact parallels.254 One might tentatively suggest, therefore, that the style of these capitals is Characene. But there is a more compelling example of possibly Characene construction which comes to mind. The pre-Islamic fortress described above, with parallels amongst Parthian fortifications in Mesopotamia, could represent an installation built by Meredat, perhaps the residence of his satrap.*°° Alternatively, if Parthian supremacy over Thiloua/os survived Meredat’s reign, it could be suggested that the fortress was built by Vologases IV or one of his successors. At present, however, the former suggestion seems more likely. Yet another point to be borne in mind is the fact that we are dealing with small numbers at least of Palmyrene citizens in the service of Charax residing on Bahrain. One might also ask whether the ‘personnage militaire’ (discussed above) who was buried at Janussan was a high functionary of Palmyrene or Characene origin or descent. In this light, it is also interesting to reconsider the well-known Palmyrene tombs on Kharg island, off the southern coast of Fars.75° Pre-Islamic antiquities were noticed here as early as 1765 when C. Niebuhr was returning from India,?°” but when R. Ghirshman conducted a short season of survey and excavation on Kharg in 1958 it came as no small surprise that two of the nearly ninety rock-cut tombs there exhibited definite Palmyrene characteristics.*°* Since most of the tombs are not Palmyrene in design, it seems unlikely that a Palmyrene fonduq, or trading-colony, lived on the island. Nor does this seem very plausible in itself, since one would expect to find some reference to such a station in the caravan inscriptions, but this is entirely lacking. A more likely alternative is that small numbers of Palmyrenes 254 R. Boulos, ‘Un chapiteau de Janussan’, in Lombard and Salles (eds.), La Nécropole de Janussan, 159-61.

255 T). T. Potts, ‘The Parthian Presence in the Arabian Gulf, in J. E. Reade (ed.), The Indian Ocean in Antiquity (London, forthcoming).

256 Cf. most recently E. Haerinck, ‘Quelques monuments funéraires de Dile de Kharg dans le golfe Persique’, IrAnt 11 (1975), 138-45, with earlier bibliog. 257 Cf. Hansen, ‘Carsten Niebuhr’, 135-48.

,

258 R. Ghirshman, ‘L’ile de Kharg dans le golfe Persique’, CRAIBL (1958), 266-7; id., ‘Lile de Kharg (Ikaros) dans le golfe Persique’, Revue archéologique (1959), 75-6; id., ‘Ile de Kharg dans le golfe Persique’, Arts asiatiques, 6 (1959), 113-15; id., The Island of Kharg (Tehran, 1960), 7-11.

148

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

were on Kharg, possibly, on analogy with the situation on Thiloua/os, serving Charax in a political capacity. If this is so, then it may be that, during the reign of Meredat, if not before, the kingdom of Characene enjoyed a position of supremacy in the Gulf, to an extent that Parthia never did. As we shall see in Chapter 6, there is contemporary evidence of Characene hegemony in the lower Gulf as well, specifically along the west coast of the Oman peninsula. Characene control over Bahrain left a small, but important, intellectual legacy. In his Deipnosophistai [‘The Sophists at Dinner’] , Athenaeus, who lived in the second century AD, cites a long and very detailed passage from a description of Parthia set down by the wellknown Characene writer Isidorus of Charax. In it, Isidorus describes

pearling in the waters of Thiloua/os or Tylos. We quote it here in full: Isidorus of Charax in his description of Parthia says there is a certain island in the Persian Gulf where many pearls are found; and that round about the island there are rafts made of reeds, from which men dive into the sea to

a depth of 20 fathoms and bring up double-shelled oysters. They say that when there are frequent thunderstorms and heavy rains, the oyster produces the most young, and they get the most, the best, and the largest pearls; and in the winter the shells are accustomed to sink into holes in the bottom, while in the summer they swim about all night with their shells open, but close in the daytime. And when they cling to stones and rocks in the waves they take root and then, remaining fixed, produce the pearls. These are engendered and nourished by something that adheres to their flesh. It grows in the mouth of the oyster and has claws and brings in food. It is like a small crab and is called ‘Guardian of the Oyster’. Its flesh penetrates through the centre of the shell like a root; the pearl, being engendered close to it, grows through the solid portion of the shell and then, when the pearl is surrounded by flesh, it is no longer nourished in such manner as to grow further, but the flesh makes it smoother, more transparent, and more pure. And when the oyster lives at the bottom, it produces the clearest and largest pearls; but those that float on the surface, because they are affected by the rays of the sun, produce smaller pearls, of poorer colour. The pearl-divers run into danger when they thrust their hands straight into the open oyster, for it closes up and their fingers are often cut off, and sometimes they perish on the spot; but those who take them by thrusting their hands under from one side easily pull the shells off from the rocks. (Deipnos. 3. 146)

Several details here deserve comment. Once again, we find reference to appreciable rainfall, and it is interesting to note that the belief in the beneficial effects of rainfall on pearl production preserved by Athenaeus is perfectly mirrored in the beliefs of Arab divers in our own century. In 1951 R. LeBaron Bowen wrote: ‘Arab lore in the Gulf relates that the young shell-less oysters come to the surface when it is raining, or when the moon is full. The raindrop is the father of

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

149

a good pearl and the oyster the mother, while the moon produces luster. A poor season is attributed by many to a shortage of rain.’259 Isidorus’ belief that ‘when the oyster lives at the bottom, it produces the clearest and largest pearls’ is also substantiated by local modern tradition. Bowen noted: ‘Arab experts believe that the largest, most dense, and whitest pearls come from deep water, while shallow water yields only low density pearls tinted with some color.’260 Isidorus confused the depth to which divers will go, however, with the greatest depth at which good pearl-banks are found. This is universally considered to be 20 fathoms,?¢! whereas divers rarely work below 12 fathoms.?62 Before leaving the topic of pearling in antiquity, it is interesting to consider another, more fanciful description of pearling in the Indian Ocean preserved by Philostratus.23 The Indian alights beside the oyster and proceeds to allure it with a bait of myrrh. The shellfish opens and becomes intoxicated with the spicy influence. It is then perforated with a spike, and discharges its fluid, which the diver catches on the iron plate. The iron is grooved in a pattern, and the fluid presently petrifies upon it according to the mould, and is just like a natural pearl. The pearl is a white blood from the Erythraean Sdat The Arabians of the opposite shore are also said to practise this fishery. (In Honour of Apollonius of Tyana, 3. 57)

259 R. LeB. Bowen, Jr., ‘The Pearl Fisheries of the Persian Gulf, MEJ 5 (1951), 165. Cf. the more fanciful but probably not unrelated observations of Rabbi.Benjamin of Tudela during his visit to Qatif in 1173: ‘In this vicinity the pearls are found: about the 24th of Nisan [i.e. in April] large drops of rain are observed upon the surface of the water, which are swallowed by the reptiles, after this they close their shells and fall upon the bottom of the sea; about the middle of the month of Thishri [i.e. in October] , some people dive with the assistance of ropes, collect these reptiles from the bottom and bring them up with them, after which they are opened and the pearls taken out’ (quoted after Sir A. T. Wilson, ‘Some Early Travellers in Persia and the Persian Gulf, JRCAS 12 (1925), 73).

‘

269 Bowen, ‘The Pearl Fisheries’, 166. 261 GN. Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question (London, 1892), ii. 456, writes: ‘The soundings vary considerably, from four to twenty fathoms.’ Cf. Bowen, “The Pearl Fisheries’, 166: ‘from just below low tide to 20 fathoms’; id., ‘Marine Industries of Eastern Arabia’, GR 41 (1951), 396: ‘from low-tide level to 20 fathoms’.

262 Thid. 397: ‘The maximum depth at which the divers work is about 12 fathoms.’ Curzon, Persia, 456, writes: ‘the men as a rule decline to dive in deeper water than seven fathoms’. In 1757 Baron von Kniphausen observed: ‘They are able to dive to depths of 3 to 8 fathoms. Very few among them dare to dive till depths of 12 to 18 fathoms’; see W. Floor, ‘Pearl Fishing in the Persian Gulf in 1757’, Persica, 10 (1982), 214. 263 Philostratus, In Honour of Apollonius of Tyana, ed. J. S. Phillimore (Oxford, 1912), 141. My sincere thanks to Dr Michael Vickers of the Ashmolean Museum for bringing this interesting reference to my attention. Cf., on this source, G. Anderson, Philostratus: Biography and Belles-Lettres in the Third Century A.D. (London, 1986), 121-53, with earlier bibliog.

150

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

Bahrain in the Sasanian Period

Much of the written information available on Bahrain during the Sasanian period is contained in Syriac ecclesiastical texts which record events in the history of the Nestorian church. The local Nestorian bishopric was situated at MaSmahig which, as noted already, can be identified with the village of Samahig on Muharraq.?* In a letter of 584/5, however, ISo‘yahb I made reference to TLWN, or ‘Talun’.265

The early scholar of Nestorian Christianity, J. S. Assemani, suggested in 1725 that Talun should be identified with Tylos.7°° This was later

disputed by Sir H. C. Rawlinson who, however, linked Akkadian

Tilmun with Talun,26’ as did B. Meissner nearly forty years later.7°8 It seems undeniable, however, that as Eilers has shown, Greek “Tylos’ can be derived from Akkadian ‘Tilmun’ (discussed above), and the

same appears to be true of TLWN. All three names denote the largest of the Bahrain islands. The history of the Nestorian bishopric of MaSmahig will be reviewed in Chapter 5 within the context of a general treatment of the ecclesiastical province of Bet Qatraye. Here, it may suffice merely to note some of the salient facts. MasSmahig is attested in the Babylonian Talmud as a port where pearls are found, a reference which could have been compiled anytime between c. AD 250 and 550.26? In Nestorian sources MaSmahig is mentioned for the first time in the year 410, when Batai, bishop of MaSmahig, was excommunicated by Mar Isaac, and Elias was put in his place. Although Sergius, bishop of Ma&smahig, was present at the synod of 576, Masmahig seems always to have been a centre of heresy and revolt. Bishop Abraham of Ma&mahig was the target of a diatribe by the catholicos ISo‘yahb III against the rebellious church of Bet Qatraye. Thereafter, nothing more is heard of the bishopric of Masmahig, although in 676 Sergius, bishop of Trihan, attended the synod of Darin. O. Braun suggested that ‘Trihan’ was a scribal error, and that ‘Talun’ should be read in

its place. This makes sense in that all of the other bishops present at

*6* Sachau, Die Chronik von Arbela, 25-6. Cf. J. Beaucamp and C. Robin, ‘L’Evéché nestorien de Masmahig dans l’archipel d’Al-Bahrayn’, BBVO 2. 171-96, for detailed documentation. *°* Q. Braun, Das Buch der Synhados (Stuttgart and Vienna, 1900), 237. *6° J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, iv (Rome, 1725) 0736.

67 Rawlinson, ‘Notes on Capt. Durand’s Report’, 34; but Rawlinson confused ‘Darin’ with

the variant ‘Tyros’, and identified TLWN with Dohat Zalum/Dalum/Thalum, the bay south of Dhahran. Cf. the critique of this position by B. Alster, ‘Dilmun, Bahrain, and the Alleged Paradise in Sumerian Myth and Literature’, BBVO 2. 68 n. 41. *68 B. Meissner, ‘Geographica, 2: Tilmun’, OLZ 20 (E917) 202% °°? The references in the Babylonian Talmud are Yoma, 77°, and Rosh Hashanah, 23°.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD

676

151

Darin came from the Bet Qatraye bishoprics, whereas Trihan is located between Samarra and Takrit.270 While these sources reveal a great deal about the history of the Christian church and population of the Bahrain islands, they tell us nothing about the great secular power of the period, the Sasanians. Tabari provides a reference to MaSmahig/Samahig which is the earliest extant, and which incidentally throws light on the politics of the early fourth century. In discussing Sapur II’s famous Arabian campaign (see ch. 5 below), Tabari described the deportation of captured members of the Banu Taghlib thus: ‘He [Sapur II] settled some of the Taghlib in Bahrain,

namely in Darin, which

is also called Haig, and in

Khatt.’2”7! The name Bahrain, as used here, refers to the mainland, and we have no trouble identifying Darin, the principal town on Tarut. The mention of Haig, however, was long considered obscure, until

J. Beaucamp and C. Robin suggested an emendation, so that the passage reads: “Darin and SMHaHiG’.272 Thus, some of the Banu Taghlib were deported to Samahig. This statement implies that the Sasanians had the authority to treat Bahrain as they liked, and is incidentally yet another illustration of the way in which Bahrain served as an ethnic melting-pot in antiquity. The settlement of the Banu Taghlib on Masmahig is also of considerable interest in light of the name by which the largest of the Bahrain islands has traditionally been known. From the time of the pre-Islamic poet ‘Amr b. Qami’a (d. c.530-40) up until the beginning of this century, the island known today as Bahrain was called Awal.*73 Awal is also the name of a pre-Islamic deity worshipped by the Bakr b. Wa‘il and the Banu Taghlib.2”* W. Robertson Smith suggested in the last century that ‘Awal’ is related to the Arabian verb meaning ‘to take refuge’, and to the noun W/ al, in the sense of ‘asylum’.*7° It is tempting to suggest that those Banu Taghlib who reached Samahig, having been saved from the bloody slaughter which had been the lot of so many of their Arabian brethren at the hands of Sapur’s army, looked on Bahrain as a place of refuge, and thus called it Awal.?76 270 J. B. Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale, ou recueil de synodes nestoriens’, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothéque nationale, 37 (1902), 482. The correction was suggested by O. Braun in his review of Chabot’s volume, and was published in OLZ 6 (1903), 338. 271 T. Néldeke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari (Leiden, 1879), 57.

272 Beaucamp and Robin, ‘L’Evéché nestorien’, 174. 273 Potts, ‘Awal and Muharraq’, 17-18. 274 W7. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (Cambridge, 1885), 194;

J. Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums (Berlin, 1887), 64; T. Fahd, Le Panthéon de l’Arabie Centrale a la veille de ’'Hégire (Paris, 1968), 47.

275 Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage, 194. 276 Potts, ‘Awal and Muharraq’, 22.

152

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

This, moreover, throws light on an entry drawn from the no longer extant Arabika Archaiologika by Glaukos in Stephen of Byzantium’s Ethnika. As long ago as 1873 O. Blau had suggested that the Eualenoi mentioned by Glaukos should be identified with the inhabitants of Awal.277 The Eualenoi, moreover, were said to be located near Omana polis, a city which we shall discuss in Chapter 6, and which we should locate on the southern Gulf coast. While the Ethnika was compiled around 530,278 the date of Glaukos has never been clear. If the association between the Eualenoi and the inhabitants of Awal is correct, then it implies that Glaukos wrote at some time between c.325 and c.530. Whether the Bahrain islands were considered de facto a part of the Sasanian empire from the time of ArdaSir’s Arabian campaign (see ch. 5) or that of Sapur II we do not know. The Geography of Moses of Khorene, which preserves a list of the provinces of the Sasanian empire generally considered to reflect conditions in the late empire, names MeSmahik as one of the southern provinces.?7? This is the only literary attestation of Sasanian sovereignty over Bahrain found to date.

Conclusion

The natural history of Tylos is far better-represented in the sources available to us than the political history, but nothing suggests that Tylos was ever a dependency of the Seleucid empire. The fact that Antiochus III visited Tylos on his return from Gerrha is hardly conclusive, and the written sources give no indication, when speaking

of Tylos, that it formed part of the Greek dominion at any time.289 It would appear that the archaeological material of Hellenistic type 77 ©. Blau, ‘Altarabische Sprachstudien: 2. Theil’, ZDMG 278 H. Gartner, ‘Stephanos 6’, KP v (1979), 359.

27 (1873), 322 n. 9.

*” J. Marquart, Eransahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses Xorenac'i (Abh. d. Kénigl. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. Kl., Ns 3/2; Berlin, 1901), 43.

*80 G. Le Rider, ‘Un atelier monétaire séleucide dans la Province de la mer Erythrée’, RN (1965), 38-9, has pointed to the absence of all reference to the satrapy of the Erythraean Sea in the Adulis inscription (cf. A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides, i (Paris, 1903), 251-4) a text in which Ptolemy III enumerates the eastern territories conquered in his victorious campaign of 245 BC against Seleucus II. These included Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Susiana, Persis, and Media. The same sort of reasoning could be applied in the case of Tylos which, if it had been an important element in the Seleucid empire, would probably have been mentioned in the ancient sources dealing with military history. F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford, 1967), ii. 422, suggests that Antiochus’ crossing to Tylos after his famous visit to

Gerrha (see ch. 2 above) ‘probably implies the presence of a Seleucid fleet in these waters’.

Bahrain, 325 BC-AD 676

153

found both in the excavations at Ra’s al-Qal’at and in a variety of graves should be interpreted as a sign of Bahrain’s membership in the general, culturally Hellenistic Roine of western Asia, but not in the Seleucid empire per se. The Palmyrene inscription of AD 131 discussed above attests to Bahrain’s inclusion in the domain of Meredat, a fact

which may help explain the presence of the small fortress near the northern shore of the island. On the other hand, the obvious Parthian

ceramics found both on the Qal’at and in hundreds of graves are probably best understood as indications of membership in a Parthianperiod koine uniting the peoples of the Arabian Gulf islands and littoral with those of southern Babylonia, Mesene, Susiana, Elymais, and, to

a lesser extent, Karmania. That the peoples of the island also interacted constantly with those of the mainland is indicated by those Arabian wares found on Bahrain. Archaeological indications of contact with the Sasanian world are fewer, yet the acts of the Nestorian synods and the letters of ISo‘yahb III leave no doubt that the bishopric of MaSmahig and Talun belonged to the ecclesiastical province of Bet Qatraye, a fact which necessitated constant contact with the seat of the metropolitan at Rev-ArdaSir on the southern coast of Iran, while the Geography of Moses of Khorene attests to the inclusion of Bahrain in the Sasanian empire, at least by the end of Sasanian hegemony in greater Mesopotamia and Iran.

4 The Hellenistic Period on Failaka Introduction

The Danish expedition commenced work in Kuwait in February 1958. While a survey was being conducted on the mainland by P. V. Glob and T. G. Bibby, a group under the direction of the late A. Roussell began investigations on Failaka, the best-known of the several Kuwaiti islands in the Arabian Gulf.! The area of greatest interest was found to be a cluster of low mounds spread over an area measuring roughly 2.5 km. square in the south-west corner of the island, where work continued through 1962-3. Since that time, work has been conducted on the island by a number of organizations. The Kuwaiti Department of Antiquities sounded the remains of what later turned out to be a small temple by the sea (see below) in 1964. T. Howard-Carter opened several small

soundings in 1974-5, while an Italian mission from the University of Venice worked briefly in 1976. A brief electromagnetic investigation was conducted in 1982 by T. Howard-Carter and B. Fr¢hlich, and finally, in 1983, a new programme of annual excavations was initiated by a French team under the direction of J.-F. Salles. Despite the work that has taken place on Failaka over the last quarter of a century, an understanding of the general layout of settlement in the Seleucid period is still lacking. We have no complex of clearly defined, functionally different yet complementary areas, such as one would expect to find if this were a completely exposed Hellenistic settlement. Rather, we have three separate building complexes within a confined area, and these can hardly be considered demonstrative of all functional zones in a normal settlement. The excavated areas include a fortified enclosure containing two temples and a number of rubble houses (FS), a building which probably represents two private dwelling-units, designated a ‘terracotta workshop’ (F4), and a small shrine to Artemis on the south coast of the island (B6). The Danish

excavations on FS have recently been reviewed by both K. Jeppesen

' P. V. Glob, ‘Unders¢gelser i Kuwait (Investigations in Kuwait)’, Kuml 1958 (1959); 170. > K. Jeppesen, ‘General Introduction’, in H. E. Mathiesen, The Terracotta Figurines (JASP 16/1: Ikaros: The Hellenistic Settlements, 1; Copenhagen, 1982), 9-11. Cf. his recent

popular article, ‘Ikaros — kongstankernes ¢’, Sfinx, 8 (1985), 136-43. The final report on the

architecture and stratigraphy by K. Jeppesen is in press at the time of writing (May 1989)

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

155

and L. Hannestad,? and the main points of architectural interest can

be summarized

as follows, with the addition of new information

gained by the French expedition during their work on FS since 1985. The Original Settlement F5, known locally as Tell Sa‘id, is

alow mound no more than c.3.5 m.

high and 125-50 m. wide.* The original settlement here may date back to the second millennium, for in a sounding 10m. by 15m. in area dug by the French mission in 1985, two Dilmun seals and a fragment of a cuneiform text were recovered.° It is, of course, equally possible, as Salles has pointed out, that these finds were brought to the site through the gathering of building-materials for use in the first Hellenistic settlement. Nevertheless, floors were found in at least two

places (H7 and H8) which pre-date the construction of the enclosure wall (see below). These, moreover, were associated with domestic debris, including baked mud-bricks, a hearth, a trash-pit, oyster shells,

animal bones, and pottery. Thus, it would seem that this particular area was already occupied at the time of the first major phase of architectural activity, associated with the construction of the enclosure wall. This inference is also supported by the fact that the Danish excavators discovered a pit with associated staircase, presumably a well, which was apparently already in disuse by the time the fortress described below was founded.’ The Enclosure

Wall

When Danish archaeologists first explored F5 in 1958, they noticed on the surface of the mound four long, low rises, each roughly 60-70 m. in length. The excavation of these features revealed the existence of what has variously been called a ‘fortified town’, a ‘fort’,® 3 L. Hannestad, ‘Danish Archaeological Excavations on Failaka’, AOMIM 59-66. 4 E. Albrechtsen, ‘Aleksander den Stores visitkort (Alexander the Great’s Visiting Card)’,

Kuml 1958 (1959), 186. 5 D. Beyer, ‘Les Sceaux’, FFF 84-5, 89 n.1, and fig. 43. 172-3; Y. Calvet and J.-J. Glassner, ‘Un Fragment de vase inscrit’, FFF 84-5, 105-6.

6 J.-F, Salles, ‘Excavations in Failaka, 1985’, provisional note presented to the Dept. of Antiquities and Museums, Kuwait, 10 April 1985, p. 12.

7 O. Callot, J. Gachet, and J.-F. Salles, ‘Some Notes About Hellenistic Failaka’, PSAS 17 (1987), 37. 8 Albrechtsen, ‘Aleksander’, 187.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

156

100

Moat 0

100 M

———S Se

FIG. 9. The Seleucid fortress on Failaka, as it appeared originally (a), and after modifications (b)

an ‘acropolis’,? a ‘temenos’,!° and a ‘fortress’!! (Fig. 9). This consisted of a small, square enclosure measuring c.58.6m. on a side. The structure was built of locally available limestone, and was preserved to a height of c.1.75 m., although L. Hannestad suggests that originally

the stone walls may have stood to c.7m., with a further cap of mud brick.!2 It was built without foundation, directly on the sand.!3 Entrance to the enclosure was achieved either via a small, square gate-room located just to the east of the centre of the south wall, or else through a narrow doorway flanked by two square towers in the centre of the north wall. The sides of the enclosure were c.2.10-2.25 m. thick. At the corners of the enclosure were square towers. Of these, the north-east tower was perhaps best-preserved, measuring 6.65 m. by 7 m. on the exterior, and 3.6 m. by 3.85 m. along the interior.!4 A staircase leading up to the north-west corner tower was found along the interior of the west wall, and it is presumed that another was located in the ” P. V. Glob, ‘Arkaologiske undersggelser i fire arabiske stater (Archaeological Investigations in Four Arab States)’, Kuml 1959 (1959), 238. '° F, Altheim and R. Stiehl, ‘Die Seleukideninschrift aus Failaka’, Klio, 46 (1965), 274. '' Hannestad, ‘Danish Archaeological Excavations’. Cf. J.-F. Salles, ‘Failaka, une ile des dieux au large de Koweit’, CRAIBL (1985), 577, who uses the term forteresse, noting: ‘méme

si le terme peut paraitre exagéré pour une construction de cette taille modeste, on préféra conserver le terme anglo-saxon, unanimement adopté sur place et dans la littérature archéologique’.

'? Hannestad, ‘Danish Archaeological Excavations’, 59. '3 Salles, ‘Excavations 1983’, 8. '* Hannestad, ‘Danish Archaeological Excavations’, 59.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

157

south-east corner.!5 Small buildings, bonded to the interior of the

enclosure wall, were associated with the staircases. On the basis of

numismatic evidence, it is suggested that the fortress was founded early in the third century BC, during the reign of Seleucus I.!¢ Temple A

In 1959, a section trench through the walled enclosure exposed the base and lowest drum of a column, as well as an acroterion.!7 This

was enough to identify the first of two temples which had originally stood here. The entirety of Temple A (Plate Va), as it became known,

was subsequently cleared in 1960,!8 and still represents perhaps the finest example of Hellenistic masonry known in the Arabian Gulf. It is contemporary with the construction of the original fortified

enclosure.!? Temple A is oriented almost exactly east-west, and is situated just to the east of the centre of the enclosure. In plan, it is a typical Greek temple, albeit on a modest scale. Its exterior width is no more than 7.5m., while its length is only 11.5 m. The temple was approached through a doorway framed by two columns in antis, which led into a small entrance hall c.4 m. long, backed by another doorway leading into the cella, a room some 5.6m. square. While the floor of the entrance hall was probably made of simple beaten clay, that of the cella was constructed of carefully cut and set flagstones of varying sizes. Part of a stepped base, 1.96 m. by 1.79 m. in size, uncovered in the rear of the cella no doubt served as the support for the cult statue which must have once stood in this dark, probably windowless room. It is thought that fragments of a moulded cornice found in the temple may have adorned this statue base. The foundations of both the main hall and the columns were preserved to a height of two courses of stone, while the walls of the cella stood three courses high. The stone used for the construction of the temple was a local soft 1S Callot et al., ‘Some Notes’, 39. SS bidg371” Glob, ‘Arkzologiske unders¢gelser’, 236 fig. 4. 18 The account of Temple A which follows is based on K. Jeppesen, ‘Et Kongebud til Ikaros (A Royal Message to Ikaros)’, Kuml 1960 (1960), 188-91; id., ‘General Introduction’, 9-11, and Hannestad, ‘Danish Archaeological Excavations’, 61-4. It should be noted that the work

of the French mission in 1985 within the walled enclosure has already helped to clarify the stratigraphic relationships between Temple A and its surroundings. See most recently O. Callot, ‘Failaka a l’époque hellénistique’, in T. Fahd (ed.), L’Arabie preéislamique et son environnement

historique et culturel (Université des sciences humaines de Strasbourg, Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Gréce antiques, 10; Leiden, 1989), 127-43.

19 Callot et al., ‘Some Notes’, 39; Salles, ‘Failaka, une ile des dieux’, 578.

158

Failaka, 325 BC-AD 100 cs ee * b

0

=

ee

10M

limestone, cut into blocks c.43.5-44.5 cm. high, c.25 cm. wide, and

of variable length. The columns which originally flanked the doorway were a pastiche of oriental and Greek elements, which could perhaps be labelled ‘IonicAchaemenid’. The flat, square support of each column, measuring 55.5 cm. ona side, is similar to the support beneath an Ionic column. Moreover, the capitals are Ionic. Yet the column bases show the leaf design known on such Achaemenid sites as Persepolis and Susa, and Jeppesen noted that the stone of the column bases differed from that of the drums. Hence, he suggested that the column bases had been taken from the ruins of a building of Achaemenid date somewhere else on the island, and reused by the builders of Temple A. Moreover, while the building gives, in most respects, the impression of being Greek, the masonry techniques used point to the work of local craftsmen. The pointed chisels used to draft the stone of the Failaka temple were probably not very different from those employed on Bahrain roughly two millenniums earlier in the construction of the Barbar temples.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

159

Uli

SSS HOHQHQyag5g PDA SSSSEAAqAMAMMAAqaOqo_d_

(LLM =

'

Ns

Ye

6g

Note: The hatched walls in the B6 shrine represent conjectural reconstructions

FiG. 10. Plans of the small shrine at B6 (a) and Temple A (b) on Failaka, with illustrations of associated architectural elements (a cornice angle block (c), an Ionic capital (d), two lateral acroteria (e, g), a central acroterion (f), two ornamented gables from the altar (h, /), and the large stele (7) which bears the Ikaros inscription) and _ their

findspots

Both the central and corner acroteria which once stood atop the temple’s gabled front were recovered as well, but the absence of any roof tiles, and the deposit of clay 1m. thick found within the temple during excavation, suggest to Jeppesen that the actual roof may have been a simple, flat affair of beams, palm fronds, and clay. In that case, the gabled front would have merely been a decorative facade imitating a proper Greek saddle-back roof. Traces of red paint on one of the acroteria give a hint of the colourful aspect which the front of the temple must have presented in antiquity. Five metres to the east of and directly opposite the columned entrance to the temple was a stepped altar measuring 4.5 m. by 2.48 m. at the

160

base. The altar was

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

built of drafted stone slabs,

57-9 cm.

tall,

around a core of mixed stone debris and clay, and was decorated with palmette gables on the sides. An altar table must have originally topped it. Seven to eight metres south of the temple was found an important inscribed stele (see below) measuring 1.16 m. by 61.3-62 cm. by 16 cm. That this originally stood on the south side of the temple is proved by the fact that a mortised stone block was found in situ on the lowest step of the temple. The size of the narrow tongue at the base of the stele corresponds perfectly to that of the hole in what must have been its original stand.2° Temple B

Early in the 1960 campaign, fragments of two Doric capitals were found behind Temple A and outside the walled enclosure.*! It was not until the close of the season, however, that the step foundation

of a second building was located c.3 m. south of Temple A, offset from it slightly to the east. This proved to belong to the foundations of Temple B, a poorly preserved building which was excavated further during the 1961 season.** It appears to be contemporary with

Temple A and the fortification wall.?3 Little can be said about this structure, except that it is a simple, roughly square building (no dimensions have been published). The remains of the lowest foundation step were completely preserved, while parts of the second step, on which the walls of the building would have stood, were only partially preserved, as was the eastern stylobate. The Doric column capitals, one of which was nearly complete and the other fragmentary, had the modest diameter of 30cm. The identification of the building as a temple is suggested by the existence of a stone altar located c.5m. to the east of it, south and slightly east of the Temple A altar. The altar, of

which two steps were preserved, was round. The lower and larger step measured 1.6m. in diameter, while the upper one measured *° Jeppesen, ‘Et Kongebud’, 194. Cf, Altheim and Stiehl, ‘Die Seleukideninschrift’, 274:

‘D. Felber und einer der Verfasser . . . besichtigten die Fundstelle auf Failaka selbst. Dabei erwies sich, dass vor der (von vorn gesehen) linken Ante des Tempeleingangs auf der ersten Stufe sich ein rechteckiger Block gefunden hat, in dessen Hohlung der untere Zapfen des Inschriftsteines genau hineinpasst.’ *! Jeppesen, ‘Et Kongebud’, 191. 2 Jeppesen, ‘General Introduction’, 9. *> Callot et al., ‘Some Notes’, 39; Salles, ‘Failaka, une tle des dieux’, 578.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

161

1.1m. in diameter. No traces were found of whatever once sat upon this two-tiered base.

Alterations

Not long after the initial construction of the fortification wall and two temples just described, several simple stone houses were erected, seemingly at random, within the fortified enclosure.*4 At an as yet undetermined, but significantly later point in the settlement’s history, however, more important changes were made, both to the fortification wall and to the interior space within it.?5 To begin with, the southern entrance to the fortress was blocked off. The north wall of the enclosure was largely demolished, an extension was added on, and a new gateway was created. This was accomplished as follows. A narrow doorway in the north wall, no more than 85 cm. wide, was framed by two short wall stubs. A door socket was found in situ behind the east corner of the doorway. Albrechtsen believed that the actual door itself must have been made of wood mounted with iron hardware, for traces of iron rust could be seen in the centre of the door socket, and two iron nails were found

nearby. The doorway led into a passageway some 10 m. long. This was narrowed at its southern end by a pair of cross-walls. A fragment of ornamented stone measuring 79cm. by 59cm. was discovered within the doorway itself, and must have originally adorned it in some way. This piece, which shows a garland hanging in flat, half-circle loops along one face, also bore traces of decoration on the two flanking sides. Thus, it is unlikely to have been embedded in the north wall as a simple lintel, but must have been visible from three sides, perhaps as a small roof projecting out over the actual entrance. A rampart of stone rubble and mud brick was also added to each of the towers in the fortification wall at this time. Salles estimates that these may have been half as high as the entire tower. It has also been suggested by Salles that the ground-floor rooms in the corner towers were filled in at this time as well,2© while Hannestad states that the

north-eastern corner tower was used as a house.?” Most of these modifications had already been observed by the Danish team, particularly in the northern and western parts of the enclosure. 24 25 26 27

Callot et al., ‘Some Notes’, 39. Albrechtsen, ‘Aleksander’, 186-7. Salles, ‘Excavations 1985’, 9. Hannestad, ‘Danish Archaeological Excavations’, 64.

162

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

To the east of the entrance the wall, c.1m. wide, jutted out slightly and was set at an oblique angle to the original north face of the building. To the north of and parallel to it ran a ramp, measuring c.1.5-2 m. across and extending down below the surface for at least 1.3-1.7m. This was capped with a mantle of unbaked mud bricks and was, in turn, built upon a rough stone foundation which protruded slightly in the form of a kerb running along the base of the ramp. Behind the enclosure wall itself were wall stubs suggesting that rooms of some kind had been built adjacent to it. To the west of the entrance we find a different situation. Here the wall was in fact a pair of walls built adjacent to one another, but not apparently bonded, with a combined width of 2.10 m. Whether the ramp on the west side of the enclosure, similar to that seen in the northeast, was also a late modification, we do not know. It seems likely, however. The entire course of the wall was not straight, moreover, but went in and out in the form of broad niches, not unlike the exterior

wall construction techniques used in certain south Arabian city walls.28 According to both Hannestad and Salles, it is likely that a moat 4-5 m. wide, at a distance of c.9 m. from the enclosure, was dug at the same time as the northern extension and ramparts were built. Significant additions were also made at this time in the interior of the enclosure, which appears originally to have been largely empty apart from the two temples just discussed and several poorly preserved rubble and mud-brick houses excavated by the Danish and French missions. To begin with, several of the original houses in the interior were razed, while others were repaired.2? More importantly, the area was filled up with what appear to be private houses built of locally available farush (beach-rock) set in clay mortar. The walls of these dwellings, preserved to a height of c.0.5-1 m., gradually impinged on the two sanctuaries, and indeed some houses were built up against them, just as they were built against the main enclosure walls. The plan of the enclosure shows a dense concentration of these dwellings in the southeastern corner, with the only open space left in front of Temple A. Nor were the temples exempt from alterations. A passageway paved with beach-rock was constructed between two rubble walls running from the south wall of Temple A to the north wall of Temple B. One would presume that doorways were opened up in these walls as well

in order to permit access between the two sanctuaries. However, it is

*8 e.g. at ancient YTL, modern Baraqis. See A. Grohmann, Altertumswissenschaft, 3/1/3; Munich, 1963), fig. v.

? Callot et al., ‘Some Notes’, 41.

Arabien

(Handbuch

d.

Faitlaka, 325 BC-AD

100

163

possible that Temple B, at least, had ceased to function as a temple. Salles notes that, in an alteration associated with the rather chaotic

building-activity of the period, the altar of Temple B was covered over

by a floor.?° As for Temple A, its lower front step was now covered with soil. Yet at apparently the same time as these changes were taking place, a small sanctuary was being built on the beach to the southeast of the fortress (see below).

Hannestad has suggested that the alterations just described were made ‘for security reasons’ as a result of ‘the cessation of Seleucid power in the region, leaving the inhabitants of the island to take care of and protect themselves as best they could’.3! This implies a date after c.140 Bc. The recovery of a coin hoard from a rubble-built house west of Temple B, and the preponderance of coins from the reign of Antiochus III within the fortress (see below), suggest to O. Callot, on the other hand, that the reorganization of the community may date to the reign of that monarch.32 The date of 203/2BC recently proposed for the long inscription found by the Danish team south of Temple A (see below), in which changes in a sanctuary are mentioned,

would, if correct, lend credence to this proposal. In conclusion, the phases of the fortress can be summarized as follows, according to the most recent French excavations:*3 Stage I covers the initial construction and use of the fortress, at which time Temples A and B, and several houses adjacent to the interior of the southern enclosure wall, were built.

Stage II witnessed the repair of the enclosure wall, the reinforcement of all but the south-west corner tower, and the addition of a few more

houses in the interior. Stage III is dated to the reign of Antiochus III by the deposition of two coin hoards (see below). It is marked by the major reorganization of the fortress, which included the closure of doorways, the northern extension of the ramparts, and the addition of a moat. More houses were built in the enclosure as well, and it was at this

time that the large stele was buried. This marks the approximate boundary between the ‘lower’ and ‘upper’ levels distinguished by L. Hannestad in her study of the pottery from the Danish excavations (see below).

Stage IV is marked by the more complete exploitation of the enclosure. Partition walls were put up, the original northern defensive 30 we 1 32 33

Salles, ‘Excavations 1985’, 10. Cf. Callot et al., ‘Some Notes’, 41. Hannestad, ‘Danish Archaeological Excavations’, 64. Callot et al., ‘Some Notes’, 39. J. Gachet and J.-F. Salles, ‘Chantier 5: Rapport préliminaire, 1985’, FFF 84-5, 317-21.

164

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

wall, supplanted in Stage III, was now dismantled, and Temple A fell into disuse. Stage V covers the final, domestic occupation of the fortress, characterized by crude stone houses. A reoccupation of the fortress following a period of abandonment has been suggested by L. Hannestad on the basis of her study of the pottery. Comparable evidence has not yet been found by the French excavators, and her Period II would seem to be still later than the French Stage V. This subject, however, is best discussed after the ceramic evidence has been reviewed. The Small Shrine to Artemis

While working on Failaka, the Danish expedition had made surface finds just by the water’s edge to the south-east of the FS enclosure. In 1964 a short sounding was carried out here by the Kuwaiti Department of Antiquities, and in 1982 the French mission returned

to the same spot, where their excavations revealed the existence of a small temple (Fig. 10).34 As noted above, it is related by the French archaeologists to the period which saw the reorganization of the F5 fortress. The sanctuary, known as ‘Bé’ after the quadrant in which it is located according to the French plan of the site area, was only partly preserved, most of the presumed southern side having been destroyed by the sea. It was built entirely of rough, rubble stone set in a kind of mud mortar,

obviously a far different structure from Temple A in the main enclosure. The original shrine was a small, two-roomed structure, consisting

of a naos and pronaos. The western naos measured 3.5m. by 4.5 m. on the interior, and had walls c.70-80 cm. thick, preserved to a height of c.50cm. A rough stone platform, approximately 1 m. square, was situated towards the back of the room. A semi-dividing wall separated this room from the larger pronaos to the east. This room, which measured c.6.5m. by 3.7m., and may originally have been c.8 m. wide, was entered through a doorway 1.2m. wide marked by two flat, square column supports made of stone. Whether coincidentally or not, these measured 55cm. on a side, just like their counterparts

in Temple A. Each support bore the traces of a circular depression 30cm. wide in the centre, presumably where the shaft of a column, ** For a preliminary account of the excavation, see Y. Calvet, A. Caubet, and J.-F. Salles,

‘French excavations at Failaka, 1983’, PSAS 14 (1984), 10-12. The full account is now available in A. Caubet and J.-F. Salles, ‘Le Sanctuaire hellénistique, B6’, FFF 83, 73-156.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

165

perhaps made of wood, would have stood. Just inside the entrance to the pronaos were found two crude, trapezoidal sandstone altars, _ one of which was decorated with a human figure in relief. A poorly preserved stone platform (1.2 m. by c.2 m.) to the west of the building may represent the base of an altar which once stood here. At some point an addition was made to the original structure by building an extension 13.5 m. long to the east. As this was so poorly preserved, it is not completely clear whether the extension was a room or an open courtyard. In any case, a stone rubble platform (1m. by 1.5 m.) topped with pisé was situated in the centre of the area, most probably representing an altar base. At the same time, changes were effected within the original sanctuary. Interior walls were erected in the pronaos, possibly to create storage compartments. The stone base of a stele, measuring 43 cm. by 69 cm. with a mortise depression 16 cm. by 21 cm., was also found here, as were two more crude sandstone altars. One of the altars (no. 201) bore traces of a dedication to Artemis painted in red (see below). It is for this reason that the building has

been referred to here as a shrine to Artemis. In addition to quantities of local pottery, imports from eastern Arabia, southern Babylonia, and probably also Iran can be recognized in the ceramic repertoire. The date of this material will be discussed below. Smallfinds included fishing-weights, agate beads, terracotta and soft-stone spindle whorls, terracotta and bronze lamps, bronze rings and bracelets, and numerous coins.

The ‘Terracotta

Workshop”

The only other building identified outside the enclosure by the Danish expedition was

on F4, a low mound

virtually on the shoreline,

excavated by A. Roussell in 1958.%° The building, which had no foundation trenches but stood directly on the hard sand, was constructed largely cf unbaked mud brick. Only the stone foundations for the mud-brick superstructure remained, however. One room (no. 7)

was equipped with an oven, but otherwise no significant functional details could be detected. Although Roussell described the building as a ten-room house with two courtyards, an examination of the published plan suggests that in fact the unit consisted of two adjacent houses separated by a shared wall. Certainly there is no access from 35 The only report on this excavation is A. Roussell, ‘Et hellenistisk terrakottavaerksted i

den persiske Golf (A Hellenistic Terracotta Workshop in the Persian Gulf)’, Kuml 1958 (1958), 191-200.

166

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

the eastern half of the ‘house’ to the western half, if indeed this

is a single residence. The sharing of a wall, however, is common enough in the Near East to warrant our calling this a two-house a unit. The recovery of fourteen moulds and three figurines*° of Hellenistic and oriental type prompted Roussell to call this a ‘terracotta workshop’. Certainly this is nearly five times as many moulds as were recovered in the fortified enclosure, where only three were found.” With the

exception of the oven, however, the function of which is not certain, there were no signs of production on an industrial scale at F4, nor

had any of the figurines found been manufactured in the moulds recovered here. The Ceramic Assemblage

L. Hannestad has published a complete study of a ‘representative selection’38 of the ceramics found during the Danish excavations on F5, with the very occasional addition of pieces from F4. The absence of a full report on the stratigraphy makes it impossible to sort the types present by level, so as to gain a good impression of the sequence of ceramic development at the site through time. Hannestad has, however, made an arbitrary, but sensible, division in the material by

distinguishing sherds found above or below a certain group of levels, and thereby marking out two principal periods of occupation. These can be considered roughly equivalent to the primary occupation associated with the fortified enclosure and its temples in their original state, and the secondary occupation marked by the densely packed private houses which were built within the enclosure at a later date. Thus far, this broad division has proved workable, although the final publication of the architecture and stratigraphy will no doubt permit the recognition of finer subdivisions in the ceramic repertoire. Already, moreover, the French excavations have yielded a considerable

body of stratified material associated with the various structural phases of the fortress which can, in some measure, be used as a stratigraphic

check against the Danish corpus. In the discussion which follows,

36 The moulds are listed as nos. 91, 93-103, and 106-7, the figurines as nos. 39-40 and 69, in Mathiesen, The Terracotta Figurines, 90-2.

37 Tbid. nos. 104-5, 107. ** L. Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery from Failaka (JASP 16/1-2: Ikaros: The Hellenistic

Settlements, 2/1-2; 1983), summarized in ead., ‘The Pottery from the Hellenistic Settlements on Failaka’, AOMIM 67-84.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

167

L. Hannestad’s study forms the foundation, supplemented where appropriate by new information from the French soundings.39 The ceramics fall, in broad terms, into two categories, which may be called ‘Hellenistic’ and ‘oriental’. The Hellenistic types were certainly based on well-known Greek prototypes, but they may well have been made at any of a number of known, or for that matter unknown,

Hellenistic manufacturing-centres from the eastern Mediterranean to Iran. They include both wheel-turned and moulded lamps (nos. 690-706), cooking-pots similar to the Greek lopas and chytra (nos. 615-44), Greek-inspired amphorae (e.g. no. 497), glazed fishplates (nos. 199-207), glazed bowls with incurving rim (nos. 1-15) or angular profile and out-turned rim (nos. 30-1), rounded, pseudoMegarian or pseudo-Eastern sigillata glazed bowls (nos. 35-6), glazed drinking-cups, with or without a handle (nos. 189-92) (which can be compared to Greek and Roman metal or glass skyphot), glazed plates with a flat, offset rim and ring base (nos. 255-65), the squatbodied askos with a ring handle, or guttus (nos. 323-6), the small

juglet or Jagynos (no: 327), and finally one example of a Greek-style incense-burner or thymiaterion (no. 328).

Among the pieces from Failaka which must have been of actual Greek origin, we can mention wine amphorae, most of which were of Rhodian manufacture to judge by their stamped handles (nos. 680-9); an amphoriskos (no. 502), possibly also of Rhodian origin; and so-called ‘Greek black-glazed ware’ (nos. 427-31), in this

case ‘probably all of Attic origin’. The ‘oriental’ or native Near Eastern ceramics can be divided according to the region of origin. From eastern Arabia, we find a small quantity of coarse red-ware storage jars, cooking-pots, and open bowls comparable to types well-known at Thaj, Ayn Jawan, and other sites on the mainland (nos. 372-418,

645-54, 661-79); from western

Arabia or Palestine come a small number of plain and rouletted

Nabataean sherds (nos. 419-26). Of Mesopotamian or Susian origin are a small group of husking-trays, which Hannestad calls ‘mortars’ (nos. 655-60); storage jars with folded rim, including some with circular stamped decoration, a typical feature of northern Babylonia in the Seleucid to Sasanian periods (e.g. nos. 559, 563); painted ‘festoon

ware’, a type most probably originating in the Zagros or Susiana (nos. 432-5); ‘eggshell ware’, a type of fine ware at home on many sites in Mesopotamia, as well as in Susiana (nos. 335-71); glazed straight-sided, carinated bowls (nos. 62-167); large, round glazed 39 This information is taken from J. Gachet and J.-F. Salles, ‘Nouvelles remarques sur la céramique hellénistique de Failaka’, unpubl. MS.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

168

100

bowls (nos. 175-6); simple glazed or unglazed beakers (nos. 187-8); squat-bodied, glazed amphorae with round handles (nos. 288-300);

glazed, loop-handled bottles with globular body (nos. 301-8); glazed so-called ‘pilgrim flasks’ (nos. 310-22); and glazed cosmetic pots (nos. 329-31).

The recent French excavations in the F5 fortress have highlighted the changing proportions of different wares in the repertoire on Failaka during the Hellenistic period. Generally speaking, there are no dramatic swings. Thus, glazed pottery varies between 40 and 55 per cent approximately of the total assemblage throughout the five architectural /stratigraphic stages now recognized within the fortress, although after Stage III there is a gradual decrease in its presence. Unglazed ware and local jars, on the other hand, show, with some

ups and downs, a general gain in popularity, while the proportion of Mesopotamian eggshell ware hovers consistently around 15-20 per cent in all phases. The so-called ‘Arabian wares’, presumably imported from the Arabian mainland or Bahrain,*° generally represent between 3 and 7 per cent of the total assemblage. They rise to 15 per cent, however, in Stage II, a time when a large number of coins of Arabian manufacture appear (see below). This seems more than just coincidental. Hannestad’s exhaustive study of the ceramics has demonstrated convincingly that many of the types just mentioned can be dated variably on the numerous

Iranian, Mesopotamian,

Arabian,

and

eastern Mediterranean sites where they are also attested. Thus, while their identification and attribution are secure, their chronology is often difficult to determine, except within a bracket of several centuries,

too great for our purposes. Nevertheless, several ceramic types can be dated more closely. The sherds of Greek black-glazed pottery, for example, have been dated to c.285-250 BC through comparisons with the well-stratified material from the Athenian Agora. As all of the Failaka examples of this type come from the lowest levels of the fortified enclosure, they provide a useful chronological datum for the foundation of the fortress.4! The legible stamped Rhodian amphora handles found by the Danish expedition all date to a five-year period, c.225-220BC.

One

of these (no. 681) was

found

in the ‘same

level as the lowest step of Temple A’.42 Although several others (nos. 680, 682-3) were found in relatively late contexts, they could *° Gachet and Salles, ibid. 9, note that the Failaka Arabian wares are much more similar

to finds from Bahrain than they are to finds from the mainland. They rightly wonder whether the Failaka pieces come specifically from Bahrain. ‘! Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery, 77. bide 7.8:

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

169

well have been brought up during the construction of the later

houses.*3

Three chronologically diagnostic wares were found in the later occupation. The imitation Eastern sigillata bowls should probably be dated to the first century BC. The so-called ‘Nabataean bowls’ have been dated to the late first century BC and/or the first century AD on the basis of parallels with material from Petra.44 A subgroup of the glazed wares, known as the BI-group after the level in which it was first found, was ‘characterized by a pale yellow clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/4-8/2) and a heavy, dark green glaze’.45 This ware is known in a wide

variety of shapes,

including

fish-plates,

shallow

bowls,

deep, three-footed bowls, two-handled, pedestal-footed drinking-cups, amphorae, and pilgrim flasks (Fig. 11). In his recent study of the Parthian pottery of Iran, E. Haerinck attributes this sort of pottery in Susiana to the late Parthian period, c. AD 1-225.46 Although the French excavators have failed to recover any Bl-ware in their recent excavations,*” a large amount of it has recently appeared at ed-Dur in the UAE (see ch. 6 below), where it is datable to the first century AD

on the basis of associated Roman glass. This, then, must be the date of the final occupation of the F5 fortress. In sum, the ceramic evidence has led Hannestad to date the primary occupation of F5 to between the middle of the third century and the very late second or early first century BC, and the secondary occupation from probably the very late first century BC into the first century AD.*8 The epigraphic and literary evidence from the site suggests that the date for the beginning of the Failaka sequence should be earlier.

Before

considering

this, however, let us turn to the

terracottas and numismatics. 43 Hannestad,

The Hellenistic Pottery, no. 680, e.g., ‘was found in a massive layer of

pot sherds in grid square I/e near the NW below the surface.

Cat. nos.

angle of the fortress . . . only 60-80 cm.

682 and 683 were

found between

the surface and 390

[a

late floor]. Probably some of these jars remained in use much longer than others, but disturbed stratification in parts of the site may also account for this.’ See also Gachet and Salles, ‘Nouvelles remarques’, fig. 3. F87-H2172, for an amphora handle from the recent French excavations. 44 Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery, 51. The ‘Nabataean bowls’ have been discussed by Gachet and Salles, ‘Nouvelles remarques’, 22. 45 Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery, 14. 46 BE. Haerinck, La Céramique en Iran pendant la période parthe (Ghent, 1983), 51-6; cf. Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery, 78. 47 Gachet and Salles, ‘Nouvelles remarques’, 10-17, question the late date given by Hannestad and Haerinck to Bl-ware. Cf. Salles in his review of Hannestad’s study, Syria, 64 (1987), 163. In view of its context at ed-Dur, where we have been fortunate enough to

find it in association with classic Roman glass, there can be no doubt about its 1st-cent. AD date.

48 Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery, 78.

170

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

SSSS—FCF7ehFBQSg SS

SS

F1G. 11. Examples of BI-ware forms found on Failaka, including fish-plates (a, c, e, g), large rounded bowls (b, k, n, p, gq), rounded bowls (d,f, h, s), bowls with flaring sides and offset lip (i, 7), amphorae (/, r), bowls with angular profile and everted rim (m), beakers (0), and drinking-cups (t)

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

174

The Terracottas

Roughly 129 terracottas were found during the Danish excavations of the FS fortress, while over 280 pieces, some of which were discussed

in Chapter 8 of Volume I, were recovered by the French at Tell Khazneh. In many respects, the impression gained from an examination of this material is similar to that gleaned from an examination of the pottery. Broadly speaking, we can distinguish classic, ‘Hellenistic’ material from ‘oriental’ specimens. The more noteworthy Hellenistic types include a male head, presumed to be that of ‘a youthful unbearded Heracles’ (no. 71); several female-headed incense-burners or thymiateria, in which the kalathos worn by the woman was used as the bow] for burning incense (nos. 72-3); and draped female figures (nos. 77-85: Plate Vb). Moulds were recovered for the manufacture of Alexander portraits (nos. 91-2), Nike (no. 93) and draped male (no. 94) and female (nos. 95-7) figures, and satyrs (no. 107,

F85-H485). The repertoire of Near Eastern types includes moulded female figurines (nos. 1-24), the so-called ‘Persian riders’ (e.g. no. 42), other horsemen (nos. 25-36, 40-2) and horses (nos. 37-9, 43-6), and boats

(nos. 47-63). One of the most interesting pieces, a hybrid of Hellenistic and oriental types, is a seated male (no. 67: Plate VIIa), which H. E. Mathiesen suggested might be a representation of the Parthian king Mithridates II.4? Whether or not this identification is correct, part of the interest of this piece lies in the fact that the head of the figure is actually that of a female, perhaps made in the same mould used to manufacture another piece (no. 77) from F5. A crown and beard were then attached to the head, and these as well as the entire

body with its baggy ‘Parthian’ trousers and tunic, and the throne on which the figure sits, were moulded by hand. As for the incidence of oriental types on Failaka, such as Persian riders and nude females, there seems to be a steady decrease in their number, and a corresponding increase in Hellenistic types. Whereas in the lowest levels of the French excavations at Tell Khazneh oriental figurines are the sole type present, Hellenistic types appear in small numbers in the middle levels, and finally amount to over 25 per cent of the corpus in the latest levels.°° 49 Mathiesen, The Terracotta Figurines, 36. 50 J.-F, Salles, ‘Tell Khazneh: Les Figurines en terre cuite’, FFF 84-5, 178 fig. 70. For a recent study of the Greek figurines from Failaka, see J. B. Connelly, ‘Votive Offerings from Hellenistic Failaka: Evidence for Herakles Cult’, in Fahd (ed.), L’Arabie préislamique, 145-58.

172

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

Likewise, in the Danish excavations, oriental figurines outnumbered Hellenistic ones by a ratio of roughly 2:1.°! One further observation on the oriental figurines should not be omitted. As Mathiesen has shown, all of the pieces with Persian and Parthian affinity find their closest counterparts at sites in Mesopotamia and south-western Iran. None of them belong to the large class of male, female, and animal figurines so common at Thaj and other sites in

north-eastern Saudi Arabia, and found to a limited extent also on

Bahrain and at ed-Dur. In view of the fact that both Arabian imitations of Alexander’s coinage and imported ceramics of Arabian provenance have been discovered on Failaka, the absence of Arabian figurines comes as somewhat of a surprise. In discussing the F4 excavation above, we noted A. Roussell’s suggestion that the building excavated there had been used for the manufacture of terracottas. Despite the fact that fourteen moulds were recovered there, it is equally true, as Mathiesen has noted, that not a single figurine recovered in either F4 or F5 was made in any of the moulds found. While some of the coarser, hand-made terracottas could

well have been made locally, the majority must, therefore, be considered imports. The large number of parallels which exist between the Failaka terracottas and finds from any number of Near Eastern sites clearly suggest possible points of origin, although they do not, in most cases, offer definite answers to the question of where particular pieces might have come from. Mathiesen is inclined, however, to see a particularly close connection between the collections from Failaka, Susa, and

Masjid-i Solaiman, although Babylon, Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, and even Egypt could have been the sources of some of the Failaka pieces. Chronologically, all of the terracottas from the Danish excavations appear to fall in Period I as defined by Hannestad. The Tell Khazneh material, as we have seen, probably begins in the Achaemenid period, and extends to the earlier part of the Hellenistic occupation of Failaka.°> Mathiesen has, with one exception, dated the Hellenistic types to ‘the whole of the Hellenistic period, with perhaps a certain

preponderance in the late third and the second centuries B.C.’.54 While the oriental types are more difficult to date, it should be noted

that one of the horsemen figurines (no. 29) was found on a floor just above a coin hoard (see below) datable to c.210-200 Bc. *! Mathiesen, The Terracotta Figurines, cat. nos. 1-70 are oriental, and 71-108 are of “Greek type’. . Ibid. 72. 3 Salles, ‘Tell Khazneh’, 178. Mathiesen, The Terracotta Figurines, 73.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

iz

The Numismatic Evidence

There is no evidence to suggest that coins were minted on Failaka during the Hellenistic period. However, two hoards were found by the Danish expedition, a third was discovered by the French team, and a sizeable number of random coins have been found during excavations by both teams. The coins can be divided broadly into three categories: Seleucid, Arabian, and Characene. The first hoard, discovered in 1960, consisted of twelve east Arabian

Alexander imitations with the horizontal Sin monogram, of the type discussed in Chapter 2 above, as well as one tetradrachm of Antiochus III minted at Susa.*° A second hoard, recovered in 1961, but not cleaned until 1978, was composed of one Seleucus II tetradrachm (Plate VIIb-c), minted at Susa, three tetradrachms of

Antiochus III, also minted at Susa, eight coins minted by the east Arabian king Abyata, and four east Arabian issues with the horizontal Sin monogram.°® A third hoard, discovered at Tell Khazneh in 1984,

consists of twenty-six silver tetradrachms of Alexander type, and one of Seleucus I. At least fifteen mints are represented, extending from Amphipolis and Corinth in the west to Ecbatana in the

east.>7 The Seleucid issues represented in these hoards are as follows, listed after the mint at which they were produced, arranged by monarch in chronological order. Alexander

Therma? (336-330 BC)

Bronze unit (4.32 g.)58

Salamis? (332-320 BC)

Bronze unit (2.90 g.)>?

Amphipolis (c.310 BC)

3 silver tetradrachms (16.32g., 16.32 g., 16.47 g.)®°

Corinth

Silver tetradrachm (16.01 g.)

(c.300-295 BC) 55 Q. Mérkholm, ‘Greske mgnter fra Failaka (Greek Coins from Failaka)’, Kuml 1960 (1960), 199-207. Cf. the review of this article by W. Schwabacher in the Schweizer Miinzblatter,

42 (1961), 42.

56 OQ. M¢rkholm, ‘Nye m¢@ntfund fra Failaka (New Coin Finds from Failaka)’, Kuml 1980 (1981), 219-36.

57 QO. Callot, ‘Trouvailles monétaires de Tell Khazneh’, FFF 84-5, 291. For the final publication of the hoard, see now M. Amandry and O. Callot, ‘Le Trésor de Failaka 1984 (Koweit)’, RN 6/30 (1988), 64-74.

58 Callot, ‘Trouvailles monétaires’, 292-3. 69 Amandry and Callot, ‘Le Trésor de Failaka’, 66-71.

°° Tbid.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

174

Miletus (c.300-294 BC) Sardis (late 4th cent. BC)

100

Silver tetradrachm (16.20 g.) Silver tetradrachm (15.99 g.)

Cappadocia or Northern Syria? (c.299-294 BC) Marathos (2:317--BG)

Silver tetradrachm (16.56 g.)

Byblos (c.318 BC)

3 silver tetradrachms (15.87 ¢., 16.05 g., 16.59 g.)

Tyre (c.306 BC) ‘Phoenicia’

Silver tetradrachm (16.40 g.)

Silver tetradrachm (16.62 g.)

2 silver tetradrachms (16.10g., 16.28 g.)

Syro-Phoenician mint Babylon

Silver tetradrachm (16.16 g.) Silver tetradrachm (16.38 g.) 3 silver tetradrachms (16.04 g.,

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

Silver tetradrachm (16.30 g.)

Damascus

16.42 ¢., 16.44¢.) (early 3rd cent. BC) Susa

Ecbatana (early 3rd cent., after

4 silver tetradrachms (16.02 g., 16.34¢., 16.38¢., 16.55 ¢g.)

2 silver tetradrachms (15.89 g., 15.91,2;)

292 BC)

Alexander or later Mint unknown (c.336-300 BC)

Bronze coin,®! 3 bronze units (2253 ipo.1 2. ees

bronze quarter-unit (0.83 g.)®2 Seleucus I Susa or

Bronze coin,®? silver tetradrachm

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris? (c.310-300, 292-280 BC) Seleucia-in-Pieria (c.285-280 BC)

(16.13 g.)64

Bronze unit (1.55 g.)®

‘! Mérkholm, ‘Nye mgntfund’, 227. 1. “ Callot, ‘Trouvailles monétaires’, 293-4.

® Morkholm, ‘Graeske m@nter’, 207.

Amandry and Callot, ‘Le Trésor de Failaka’, 68-9. Callot, ‘Trouvailles monétaires’, 294.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

78

Antiochus II

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

| Bronze coin®

(261-246 BC)

Seleucus II Susa

Silver tetradrachm (15.20 g.)§7

(246-226 BC)

Antiochus III (All 223-187 Bc) Susa Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

4 silver tetradrachms (14.90 ¢., 19.27 2.5 1ac6y 2., 15:39 85,°5 bronze coin®? 4 bronze units (1.90g., 1.79 ¢., 3.17 g., unknown), bronze double-

Antiochia-Charax Susa or Seleucia-on-the-Tigris? Mint unknown Seleucus IV Susa

(187-175 BC)

unit (4.25 g.)79 4 bronze coins”! 2 bronze coins72 Bronze double/triple unit (7.90 g.)73 Bronze coin,’* 2 bronze units

(3.25 ¢., 4.04¢.)75

Antiochus IV

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

‘Bronze unit (2.45 g.),76

(175-164 Bc)

4 bronze coins’’

In addition to these finds, Callot lists another four bronze coins which may be Seleucid, but which are too poorly preserved to allow identification.78 He suggests Susa or Seleucia-on-the-Tigris as the probable mints, and Antiochus III or IV as the kings under whom these pieces were probably minted. Furthermore, twenty-three illegible bronzes are also recorded from the 1983 and 1984 seasons of French excavations. 66 Mogrkholm, ‘Nye mgntfund’, 233, 221. 1-4. §7 Tbid.

68 Tbid.; M¢rkholm, ‘Graeske mgnter’, 202. 1. 6° Meérkholm, ‘Nye mgntfund’, 227. 4. 70 Callot, ‘Trouvailles monétaires’, 157. 1, 158. 2-S.

71 Mégrkholm, ‘Nye mgntfund’, 227. 7, 8. 72 Meorkholm, ‘Graeske mgnter’, 207. 73 Callot, ‘Les Monnaies’, FFF 83, 159. 6.

74 Morkholm, ‘Nye mgntfund’, 227. 6. 75 Callot, ‘Les Monnaies’, 159. 7, 160. 8-9.

76 Tbid. 77 Mérkholm, ‘Nye mgntfund’, 233. 78 Callot, ‘Les Monnaies’, 161-2 nos. 10-13.

176

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

Another important subgroup within the Failaka corpus isrepresented by twenty-five coins of east Arabian origin. These include two tetradrachms of Abyata,?? seven drachms minted by the same king,8° and sixteen imitation Alexander tetradrachms with the horizontal 3in monogram.?! To date, three bronze coins of Characene origin have been found on Failaka. The first was minted by Hyspaosines:8* Mérkholm suggested a date of c.140-110 BC, and assumed that the mint was Charax itself. No findspot has been given for this coin. The second is attributed to Attambelos I; the attribution of the third is uncertain.

Both of these are from F5.83 In connection with these, it is interesting to note that coins of two other Characene kings, Attambelos II and Theonisios II, have recently been found on the small Kuwaiti islands of al-Ukaz and Umm al-Namal.*4 These finds are of considerable value in establishing the absolute chronology of the Hellenistic settlement on Failaka, and in shedding light on the commercial patterns of the period. Taken as a whole, the Seleucid issues show a time range from the late fourth to the mid-second century BC, but it is important to remember that the deposition of the hoards can be much later than the date of their earliest issues. The hoards discovered in 1960 and 1961 have been used by Jeppesen, Mathiesen, and Hannestad to date particular elements of architecture, types of terracottas, and types of pottery respectively. Let us examine the results and implications of their dating. We begin with the 1960 hoard. It will be remembered that the hoard is dated through the presence of a tetradrachm of Antiochus III. Mérkholm places the particular issue between 223 and 212 BC, which provides a terminus a quo for the deposit in which it was found. Jeppesen wrote of the hoard: It was found concealed in the floor levels of a house which was clearly built somewhat—but not much—later than Temple A and its altar . . . The walls of the house rest on the thin plaster layer which formed the first surfacing ” Morkholm, ‘Nye mgntfund’, 221. 9-10 (13.75 g. and 15.40 g.). 8° Morkholm, ‘Graeske m¢nter’, 204. 1 (weight not given); id., ‘Nye mgntfund’, 221. 11-16 (3.65 g.5 3.45 g.,.3.50.g.5, 2.85 &.,.3.6% paca 81 Thid. 221. 5-8 (14.09 g., 14.51 g., 15.20 g., 14.70 g.); id., ‘Graeske m@gnter’, 202. 2-13

(14.64 g., 15.19 g., 15.63 g., 15.19 g., 14.78 g., 15.30 g., 15.36 g., 15.46 g., 14.80 g., 14.86 g., 15.67 g., 15.02 g.). *° Mérkholm, ‘Nye m¢ntfund’, 227, 233. 10. *} Callot et al., ‘Some Notes’, 41.

** Callot et al., ‘Some Notes’, 41; D. T. Potts, ‘Arabia and the Kingd ingdom o f Ch aracene’,; CNIP 7. 140.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

177.

of the open area between the temple and the altar, and which is at a level corresponding to the lowest foundation step of both structures.%5

This is an extremely important observation, for it means that the major, primary phase of construction on FS, which saw the building of the fortified enclosure along with Temples A and B, cannot post-date 212 BC. The hoard discovered in 1961 is no less significant from a chronological point of view. It comes from ‘a room immediately west of Temple B . . . on the lower of two clearly different floor levels’ ,86 and was found in association with one of the equestrian figurines in oriental style8” and a wide variety of pottery types, including virtually all major types associated with the first phase of occupation.88 Mérkholm dated this hoard to 210-200 Bc. The Characene finds are also significant, and range in date from the late second century BC to the middle of the first century AD.89 The latest coins of Attambelos II and Theonisios II date precisely to the time of the reoccupation of the fortress, for the BI-ware which marks this event, as noted above, must be dated to the first century AD on the basis of the evidence from ed-Dur. The mints represented among the coins in the 1960 and 1961 hoards and those found loose in both the Danish and French excavations are relatively limited in number, and their locations are not at all surprising when viewed within the context of Arabian Gulf maritime traffic during the Hellenistic period. From the north, coins issued at Susa, Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, and probably Antiochia-Charax are present. From the south, there are issues from the mintof the east Arabian

monarch Abyata. The Tell Khazneh hoard, however, is altogether more heterogeneous, with its issues from Greece, Asia Minor, Phoenicia, Syria, Babylonia, Susiana, and Media. Clearly, this hoard was amassed

in circumstances very different from those which governed normal 85 Jeppesen, ‘Et Kongebud’, 193. 86 Mathiesen, The Terracotta Figurines, 73. Cf. Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery, 75: ‘Most important for the chronology of the pottery found in the Hellenistic fortress is room

137-138-166-167-168-139

in trench I-K. Here two floor levels were discerned, an

upper at 351 and a lower at 330. The habitation represented by the lower floor was evidently given up rather suddenly, most of the things for daily use being left behind, including the loom, from which 39 loom weights were found, where they had fallen on the floor . . . Under a stone lay a hoard . . . of 16 silver coins, a silver bracelet and two objects of metal.’ 87 Mathiesen, The Terracotta Figurines, 73 no. 29. 88 Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery, 76-7. 89 Monetary issues of Hyspaosines are attested between the years 124/3 and 121/0 Bc, and those of Attambelos II between 17/16 Bc and aD 8/9, while a single issue from the reign of Theonisios II, dated to AD 46/7, is preserved. See G. Le Rider, ‘Monnaies de Characéne’, Syria, 36 (1959), 251-2.

178

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

monetary circulation in the area. It was, moreover, deposited some

sixty to seventy years before the two hoards found by the Danish expedition, probably around 285 BC,?° on a site which dates back to the Neo-Babylonian or Achaemenid period. Tell Khazneh was thus inhabited before the arrival of the Greeks, and probably had Greeks among its populace before the construction of the F5 fortress and temples. What likely explanation can be offered for the composition of the Tell Khazneh hoard? J.-F. Salles has pointed to the presence of three coins from Amphipolis, and underlined the fact that Alexander’s admiral, Nearchus, came from that city.?! He further suggests that Nearchus himself, while returning from India, may have been the discoverer of Failaka, and that a soldier in his service who settled on

the island (see below) after ‘a long peregrination throughout the Hellenized Middle East’, as evidenced by the diverse mints represented in the hoard, may have deposited this hoard as a votive offering to the by then Hellenized cult centred on the little site. Amandry and Callot, on the other hand, have stressed that the coin hoard was found close to the remains of a silver bowl, bronze spoon, and lead (?) stand

which clearly represent a kind of makeshift wine-set.?2 This suggests that both the coin hoard and the wine-set were deliberately deposited, and certainly not lost. Amandry and Callot thus believe that these finds may represent a votive offering or foundation deposit associated with a rebuilding of the ancient sanctuary of Tell Khazneh (see vol. i ch. 9) early in the Seleucid period.”3 As mentioned in Chapter 2 above, Le Rider has indicated that the reigns of Antiochus III and, to a lesser extent, Seleucus IV were high points in Seleucid commerce with the east, and this has recently been emphasized again by Salles.?* This was a development, he suggests, which stemmed directly from Antiochus III’s eastern campaign and subsequent visit to Gerrha. The list above of Seleucid coins found on Failaka shows that the reign of Antiochus III is indeed well represented, while that of Antiochus IV, whom we know to have been active in

the Gulf as well, surpasses that of his predecessor Seleucus IV. When it is remembered, moreover, that the reign of Abyata, King of HGR *° Amandry and Callot, ‘Le Trésor de Failaka’, 71, note that the tetradrachm from Seleucia does not pre-date 292 Bc, while the exemplar from Corinth was probably minted shortly before 287 Bc. They therefore suggest that the Tell Khazneh hoard was deposited c.285 Bc.

*1 ‘J.-F. Salles, ‘Les Fouilles de Tell Khazneh’, FFF 84-5, 131-2. ni a Lombard, ‘Une coupe a boire en argent et ses accessoires a Tell Khazneh’, FFF 84-5, *3 Amandry and Callot, ‘Le Trésor de Failaka’, 74.

*! J.-F. Salles, ‘The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids’, in A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White

(eds.), Hellenism in the East (London, 1987), 91-2 and figs. 2a—-d.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

179

and presumably Gerrha c.210-200 BC, nine of whose coins are present on Failaka, overlapped with that of Antiochus III, then the decades around the turn of the second century BC appear all the more active in commercial terms. Tkaros

The island of Ikaros figures in a number of ancient sources.?5 In his discussion of Alexander’s designs on Arabia, Arrian tells us that Alexander was informed of ‘several islands adjacent’ to the coast of Arabia, including ‘two islands in the sea near the mouth of the Euphrates’ (Anab. 7. 20. 2-3). Arrian continues: The first was not far from its [i.e. the Euphrates’] outlet, being about a hundred and twenty stadia from the shore, and from the river mouth; this one was smaller, and covered all over with thick wood; there was in it also

a shrine of Artemis, and the dwellers about the shrine themselves performed the daily services; it pastured wild goats and chamois, and these were reserved as sacred to Artemis, and no one was allowed to hunt them save any who desired to sacrifice to the goddess: on this excuse only might anyone hunt, and for this purpose hunting was not forbidden. This island, according to Aristobulus, Alexander commanded to be called Ikaros, after the island Ikaros ur the Acpean Sea...

The equally early testimony of Androsthenes, preserved by Strabo, tells us that when sailing down the coast of Arabia from the mouth of the Euphrates ‘with the continent on the right, one sees next after Teredon the island Ikaros and a temple sacred to Apollo in it and an oracle of [Artemis] Tauropolos’ (Geog. 16. 3. 2). A brief reference to Ikaros in the work of the second-century AD writer Dionysius also notes that ‘the altars of the divinity Tauropolos, sweetly smelling of grilled meat, exhale an acrid smoke’ (Periegesis, 608-11). Finally, Avienus noted that frankincense was burnt by Sabaeans on Ikaros.”6 °5 For a complete list of the sources, see J. Tka¢, ‘Ichara’, RE xvii (1914), 821-9. Cf. F. H. Weissbach, ‘Ikaros’, ibid. 989. The relevant passages are given in translation and discussed by Y. Calvet, ‘Ikaros: Testimonia’, FFF 83, 21-9. % P. van de Woestijne, La Descriptio Orbis Terrae d’Avienus (Bruges, 1961), 50 Il. 800-2: ‘Icarus aerio consurgit uertice in auras | Icarus ignicomo Soli sacra: namque Sabaei |Turis ibi semper uaga fumum nubila uoluunt.’ Cf. Tkaé, ‘Ichara’, 822. W. W. Miiller, ‘Weihrauch’, RE Suppl. 15 (1978), 749, writes: ‘Die Vorstellung dass Sabaer auf der Insel Icarus im Persischen Golf dem Sonnengott W. Opfer darbrachten (Avien. descr. 801 f.), ist in diesem Zusammenhang belanglos, da auf dieser Insel, die nach neueren archaologischen Untersuchungen mit der Kuwait vorgelagerten Insel Failaka gleichzusetzen ist, sicherlich keine Sabaer siedelten.’ In view of a recently discovered fragment of an inscription in epigraphic South Arabian (see below), the possibility that some Sabaeans, or at least North Arabian users of the South Arabian script, were on Failaka at some time can no longer be discounted.

180

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

Other Greek and Latin authors writing about Ikaros only repeat, in the main, what the sources just cited tell us.?7 As many scholars have noted, the island of Ikaros in the Aegean was sacred to Artemis Tauropolos.9* Hence, it has been suggested that the Greek discovery of a shrine to an oriental deity which could be assimilated to Artemis might have prompted Alexander to rename the Gulf island ‘Ikaros’.2? Salles, on the other hand, as noted already, has suggested that Nearchus himself discovered Failaka and named it Ikaros.!09 This possibility, however, has been ruled out by other scholars.!0! Regardless of which Greek first gave the name Ikaros to Failaka, it should be remembered that, as J. Teixidor has shown (see

vol. ich. 9), it was apparently the presence of a temple there known in Assyrian and Aramaic sources as the é-kara which prompted assimilation with the Greek name Ichara (as Cl. Ptolemy called the island) or Ikaros.!9 While the Greek and Latin notices on Ikaros sufficed for many years to suggest that it must have been located at the head of the Gulf, they were not precise enough to allow its unequivocal identification, and considerable debate long surrounded its correct location. The following table summarizes the suggestions put forward by a series of distinguished scholars during the past two centuries:

7 See Calvet, ‘Ikaros: Testimonia’, 22-8, for the notices on Ikaros (not quoted here) in the

works of Pliny, Nicephorus of Blemmydes, Eustathius, the scholia to Eustathius, Stephen of Byzantium, and Aelian. 8 A. Sprenger, Die alte Geographie Arabiens (Berne, 1875), 117 § 151: ‘Um die Aehnlichkeit dieser mit der griechischen Insel Ikaros zu vervollstandigen, behauptet die Legende, es sei auch hier ein Orakel der Tauropolos und ein Tempel des Apollo gewesen.’ Cf. the remarks of Tkaé, ‘Ichara’, 828-9; L. Lerat, Les Locriens de l’Ouest, ii (Paris, 1952), 164.

Altheim and Stiehl, ‘Die Seleukideninschrift’, 276. On the assimilation of the Semitic goddess Atargatis as Artemis in northern Arabia during the Hellenistic period, see M. Héfner, ‘Die Stammesgruppen Nord- und Zentralarabiens in vorislamischer Zeit’, in H. W. Haussig (ed.), Worterbuch der Mythologie, i/1 (Stuttgart, 1965), 426. On the assimilation of the central Arabian

Quzah as Apollo, cf. T. Fahd, Le Panthéon de l’Arabie Centrale a la veille de l’Hégire (Institut francais d’archéologie de Beyrouth, Bibl. arch. et hist., 88; Paris, 1968), 139. '%° Salles, ‘Failaka, une ile des dieux’, 579: ‘L’ile fut sans doute abordée par Néarque luiméme, lors de son périple de retour de I’Inde’; ibid. 576: ‘baptisé Ikaros par les explorateurs d’Alexandre méme si c’est au Macédonien que la tradition attribue la paternité du nom’. Cf. id., ‘Les Fouilles de Tell Khazneh’, 131: ‘All these presumptions converge to accredit the discovery of Failaka to Nearchus himself.’ ‘©! C, Roueché and S. Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire: The Greek Inscriptions from Failaka, in the Arabian Gulf, Chiron, 15 (1985), 6, refuting the idea that

the Soteles inscription (see below) could have had anything to do with a visit to the island by Nearchus: ‘But Nearchus’ expedition should be ruled out, because the westernmost point which he reached at the head of the Gulf, coasting up from Carmania, was Babylonian Diridotis, where the coast, after turning west, met the mouth of the Euphrates.’ at? “Tkaés ‘Iehara®, 821:

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

B. D’Anville (1764):

Kharg!93

W. Vincent (1799):

Failaka =Ikaros; one of the

J. McD. Kinneir (1813):

Kharg!95

A. J. C. C.

Bubiyan!0% Ukhar/ Qaru!°7 Abu ‘Ali!98 Failaka10? Failaka!10 Abu ‘Ali!!! Abu ‘Ali112

H. L. Heeren (1824): S. Buckingham (1829): Forster (1844): Ritter (1846):

K. Miller (1853):

A. Sprenger (1875): S. B. Miles (1878): H. C. Rawlinson (1880): H. Kiepert (1880):

181

Bahrain islands = Ichara!4

Bubiyan!!3 Failaka= Ikaros; Abu ‘Ali=

_ Ichara!!4 E. Glaser (1890): Sirara = Ichara!!5 E. Drouin (1890): Bubiyan = Ichara!!6 Capt. A. W. Stiffe (1897): Failakal!7 Mr and Mrs Bent (1900): — Failaka!18 F, H. Weissbach (1914): Failakal!9

J. Tkaé (1914):

Karu/Qaru!29

F. Stark (1937):

Failaka??1

103 B. D’Anville, ‘Recherches géographiques sur le golfe Persique, et sur les bouches de YEuphrate et du Tigre’, Mémoires . . . de l’Académie royale des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 30 (1764), 164, 192.

104 W. Vincent, The Commerce and Navigation of the Ancients, i (Oxford, 1799), 522, cited by Maj.-Gen. Sir H. C. Rawlinson, “Notes on Capt. Durand’s Report upon the Islands of Bahrain’, JRAS 12 (1880), 19. I have not been able to check Vincent’s original work. 105 J. McD. Kinneir, A Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire (London, 1813), 18. 106 A_H.L. Heeren, Ideen tiber die Politik, den Verkehr und den Handel der vornehmsten

Volker der alten Welt, i/2 (Gottingen, 1824), 236.

107 108 109 10 111 112

J. S. Buckingham, Travels in Assyria, Media, and Persia (London, 1829), 464-6. C. Forster, The Historical Geography of Arabia, ii (London, 1844), 214. C_ Ritter, Die Erdkunde von Asien (Berlin, 1846-7), viii/1, 39. K. Miiller, Strabonis Geographica (Paris, 1853), 830. Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, 117 § 151. Maj.-Gen. S. B. Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography of the East Coast of Arabia’, JRAS 10

(1878), 160.

113 Rawlinson, ‘Notes on Capt. Durand’s Report’, 19.

14H. Kiepert, Atlas Antiquus (Berlin, 1880), fig. 11. 1S E. Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens (Berlin, 1890), 76. 116 FE. Drouin, ‘Notice historique et géographique sur la Characéne’, Le Muséon, 9 (1890), 140. 17 Capt. A. W. Stiffe, ‘Ancient Trading Centres of the Persian Gulf, iii: Pre-Mohammedan Settlements’, GJ 9 (1897), 311. 118 J.T. Bent and Mrs Bent, Southern Arabia (London, 1900), 22. 119 Weissbach, ‘Ikaros’, 989. 120" Tkaé, ‘Ichara’, 826: 121 F. Stark, Baghdad Sketches (London, 1937), 199.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

182

M. N. Tod (1943): J. and LRobert!(1944): E. Albrechtsen (1958): C. Picard (1958): R. Ghirshman (1959):

100

Failaka?122 Failaka?123 Failaka!24 Kharg!25 Kharg!26

Several of these suggestions are worthy of brief comment. D’Anville believed that Kharg island preserved many of the characteristics attributed to Ikaros by ancient authors. While admitting that he had equated the two on his maps, he did not, however, hesitate to express his doubts, for he was rightly bothered by the fact that, according to Aristobulus, Ikaros was said to be on the right as one sailed out of the Shatt al-Arab, and this was clearly not true of Kharg.!?7 Interestingly, he pointed to the existence of a small island in the northern Gulf called Peluche, i.e. Failaka,-but concluded that it was

too far from the mouth of the Euphrates to be ancient Ikaros. J. S. Buckingham, who discussed the Ikaros question in considerable depth, also came very close to identifying it correctly. He singled out the three northernmost islands off Kuwait as potential candidates: Moochan, modern Maskan; Feliche, i.e. Failaka; and Ukhar, modern

Qaru. Buckingham, however, was led astray by the apparent phonetic similarity of Ukhar and Ikaros. The same thesis, moreover, was put forward independently in 1914 by J. Tkaé, who believed that Alexander’s order to call the island Ikaros was an attempt to replace the local, Semitic name with a Greek homonym. In his 1844 study of the historical geography of Arabia, C. Forster identified Failaka with Apphana,!28 an island which Cl. Ptolemy placed at the head of the Gulf.!2? Thirty years later, Sprenger followed suit,!3° unaware of the fact that in 1857 H. C. Rawlinson

had shown that Apphana could be identified with Abadan via the variant ‘Appadan’ given by the late antique geographer Marcianus '22M.N. Tod, ‘A Greek Inscription from the Persian Gulf, JHS 63 (1945), 113 and n. 18.

'3- J. and L. Robert, ‘Bulletin épigraphique’, Revue des études grecques, 57 (1944), 237 no. 190.

124 Albrechtsen, ‘Aleksander’, 188. '*° C. Picard, ‘Les Marins de Néarque et le relais de l’expédition d’Alexandre dans le golfe Persique’, Rev. arch. 53 (1961), 64. Here Picard says that he proposed identifying Ikaros with

Kharg in 1958. 6

R. Ghirshman, ‘L’fle de Kharg (Ikaros) dans le golfe Persique’, Rev. arch. 51 (1959), 70-7.

'*” Scholars who have in the recent past identified Kharg with Ikaros have failed to acknowledge the fact that W. Tomaschek, Topographische Erléuterung der Kiistenfahrt Nearchs vom Indus bis zum Euphrat (Sitzungsber. d. Kais. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, phil.-hist. Kl., 121/8; Vienna, 1890), 66, convincingly identified Kharg with Arakia, mentioned in Pliny, NH 6. 11. "8 Forster, The Historical Geography of Arabia, ii. 214. re Cf. the discussion in A. Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, ii (Leipzig, 1844), 762. °° Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, 116 § 150. Glaser, Skizze, 76, rejected Sprenger’s view.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

183

of Herakleia.!3! Forster, Sprenger, and later Kiepert, moreover, all considered Ikaros and Ichara to be two different islands,!32 whereas

most scholars today consider them variants of one and the same name. If J. Teixidor is correct in deriving Ichara from é-kara, then Ikaros can perhaps be explained as a yet more Graecized version of thé original. This excursus into the history of attempts to identify ancient Ikaros can be brought to a close by noting that, in 1960, Vincent’s 1799 identification of Failaka with ancient Ikaros received unequivocal confirmation when a forty-four-line inscription addressed to the

inhabitants of Ikaros (see below) was discovered on Failaka by the

Danish expedition.!33 Since that time, speculation has ceased, and the identification of Ikaros with modern Failaka has never again been called into question. The Failaka Inscriptions

We turn now to the epigraphic finds made to date on Failaka, as

these

contain

important

clues

to

the

nature

and

function

of the settlement. Almost certainly the elder of the two principal finds is the so-called ‘Soteles inscription’ (Plate VIa), discovered

in 1937.134 After its initial appearance, the inscription was shown to Freya Stark, who photographed it, and sent a copy of her photograph to B. Ashmole. In late 1938 the photograph reached M. N. Tod, who published a note on it five years later.!35 In her letter to Tod, Stark wrote:

‘the stone was

uncovered

while

ploughing and taken from its site, but the site was shown to me and looked as if more might be discovered by digging. As far as I know, my description in my book is the only published reference.’!3° The ‘published reference’, however, in Stark’s Baghdad Sketches, is to ‘an inscription discovered years ago and carried off by the Royal Navy’ at the ‘buried sites of Sa’d and Sa’id’,!3” two of the main mounds on Failaka. ‘31 Apud Stephen of Byzantium. See H. C. Rawlinson, ‘Notes on the Ancient Geography of Mohamrah and the Vicinity’, JRGS (1857), 188. For Marcianus, cf. F. Lasserre, ‘Marcianus 9°, KP iii (1979), 997, with literature.

132 This is also the position of H. Treidler, ‘Ichara’, KP ii (1979), 1332, but not that of E. Meyer, ‘Ikaros’, ibid. 1360.

133 Jeppesen, ‘Et Kongebud’, 194-8.

134 See now J.-F. Salles, ‘Ou a été trouvée la pierre de Sotéles?’, FFF 84-5, 133-S.

135 Tod, ‘A Greek Inscription’. oN

bide 1122

‘37 Stark, Baghdad Sketches, 205.

184

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

In 1947, at which time the inscription was housed in the Political Agency in Kuwait,!38 L. Lockhart provided a rather different description of its discovery: ‘In 1937 a stone bearing a Greek inscription was found in the wall of a small building of dressed stone standing 700 yards to the south-east of the village of az-Zur, on the northwest coast of Failaka Island, when the building in question was being demolished.’!39 C. Picard, on the other hand, noted in 1961 that the inscription had been found near the ‘north fortification’,!*° a description which accords with information given to Danish archaeologists at the beginning of their expedition.!*! J.-F. Salles, on the other hand, has said that the stone was found at Tell Khazneh.!42 Following the most recent translation by C. Roueché and S. Sherwin-White,!43 the text reads as follows: ‘Soteles |the son of Athenaios [or ‘Soteles |Athenaios’, or ‘Soteles |the Athenian’] |and the soldiers |to Zeus Soter |Poseidon |Artemis |Soteira’. Tod was of the belief that the dedicant of this inscription, Soteles, was an Athenian who could not, however, be identified with any of the persons

known by this name from other epigraphic or literary sources.!*4 J. Marcillet-Jaubert, upon re-examining the stone, has raised the question of whether ‘Athenaios’ is an ethnic, as Tod assumed, or a patronymic.!*> Roueché and Sherwin-White are unwilling to commit themselves to either alternative, and additionally note a third possibility, that the names of two dedicants, Soteles and Athenaios, are to be understood.!46 Whatever the case may be, the inscription is obviously a thanks-offering, as shown by the epithets ‘Soter’ and ‘Soteira’, ‘saviour’ and ‘saviouress’, given to Zeus and Artemis. Zeus’ protection was often sought by travellers, while Artemis was the ‘58 No mention is made of it e.g. in the records of the Kuwait Political Agency. See P. Tuson, The Records of the British Residency and Agencies in the Persian Gulf (India Office Records, Guides to Archive Groups; London,

1979). But see V. P. Dickson, Forty Years in Kuwait

(London, 1971), 312, who notes that it ‘was presented to the Political Agency by the Late Shaykh Salim al-Hamud of Kuwait’. '° L. Lockhart, ‘Outline of the History of Kuwait’, JRCAS 34 (1947), 262. '40 Picard, ‘Les Marins’, 64. ‘4! T. G. Bibby, Looking for Dilmun (New York, 1969), 209, who says he was taken to

a point near the northern rampart of FS where the stone was said to have been found. '#2 J.-F. Salles, ‘Introduction’, FFF 83, 18, and FFF 84-5, 135. "3 Roueché and Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’, 4, with a bibliog. of earlier treatments of the text. Yet another study of the text has been published: F. Piejko, ‘The Inscriptions of Icarus-Failaka’, Classica et Mediaevalia, 39 (1988), 89-92.

'44 Tod, ‘A Greek Inscription’, 112. ' J. Marcillet-Jaubert, ‘A Preliminary Note on the Greek Inscriptions of Failaka’, in J.-F. Salles, ‘French Excavations at Failaka, 1984 (Second Season): Provisional Note’, unpubl. MS, p. 11. Note, however, that J. and L. Robert, ‘Bulletin épigraphique’, 237, considered ‘Athenaios’ ‘sans doute pas de patronymique’. '46 Roueché and Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’, 5.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

185

protectress of navigation and, as Arrian records (Anab. 7.20. 3-4), venerated on Ikaros. The mention of Poseidon as well, and the fact

that the inscription was found on an island in the Arabian Gulf, led Tod to suggest that the inscription was an expression of thanksgiving ‘from some peril of the sea, perhaps from actual shipwreck’.!47 M. Launey later suggested that Soteles was perhaps the officer in command of a small company of soldiers, who together dedicated the stele to the deities named.!48 More recently, however, F. Piejko has

stressed that, while Artemis Soteira was an acknowledged patroness of soldiers, ‘it is impossible to say whether they are expressing an ordinary piety to gods and good fellowship among themselves, gratefully fulfilling a vow made during their long and perilous journey, or pe nes orstiag a successful engagement in their profession of arms’. Palaeographically, the inscription is difficult to date, although the fourth or early third century is considered most plausible.!5° This being the case, a number of conjectures are possible to explain the context of the inscription. If it is dated to the early or mid-fourth century BC, the inscription could have been dedicated by a Greek mercenary in the service of one of the Achaemenid emperors. Alternatively, it may date to the era of Alexander himself. Tod suggested it was written by or for a shipwrecked sailor returning from India with Nearchus’ fleet.!5! Moreover, he and Picard both noted

that at Anab. 6.19.5 Alexander is said by Arrian to have sacrificed to Poseidon for the safety of Nearchus and his fleet, while at 8. 36. 3 he is said to have sacrificed to Zeus Soter, Heracles, Apollo, Poseidon,

‘and all the gods of the sea’. Nearchus is also reported to have sacrificed to Zeus Soter following his brief reunion with Alexander in Karmania (8. 36. 6). Whether the dedications to Poseidon and Zeus Soter in both

the Soteles inscription and Arrian’s account of the voyage of Nearchus are significant or not is uncertain. It would seem that these were such logical choices that one should not necessarily see any direct connection between the two cases. A third alternative, advocated by Lockhart, is that the shipwrecked sailors under the command of Soteles were taking part in one of the 147 Tod, ‘A Greek Inscription’, 112; but cf. Roueché and Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’, 6, noting that the epithets soter and soteira continued in general use on Failaka in late times, as shown by the letter of Ikadion discussed below. 148 M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (Paris, 1950), 915.

'49 Piejko, ‘The Inscriptions of Icarus-Failaka’, 92. 150 Tod, ‘A Greek Inscription’, 112; Roueché and Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’, 5; Piejko, ‘The Inscriptions of Icarus-Failaka’, 91. 151 Tod, ‘A Greek Inscription’, 13. This is criticized by Roueché and Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’, 6.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

186

100

three expeditions to the Arabian Gulf sent out by Alexander that were discussed in Chapter 1 above.15? Finally, E. Albrechtsen suggested that Ikaros may have been the site of the city founded by Alexander

in Arabia (Anab. 7.21.7; Quint. Curt. Hist. Alex. 10.4. 3), also

discussed in Chapter 1.153 In this case, Soteles and his soldiers may have been among those Greeks in Alexander’s army who ‘through age or wounds were unfit for service’, and hence volunteered to join the new settlement. Certainly if this is who they were, it is easy to understand the dedication of a votive inscription to their ‘saviour’ and ‘saviouress’. Roueché and Sherwin-White are more circumspect in their analysis of the possibilities, and while they place the dedication in a period prior to the reign of Antiochus III, they believe it could stem from any of the expeditions sent out by Alexander the Great for the exploration of Arabia, or from the colonizing activities of the Seleucids!54 (see ch. 1 above). They conclude: ‘The most probable interpretation . . . is perhaps that it derives from a Seleucid garrison stationed on Ikaros in the first phase of Seleucid occupation.’!5° The second major inscription from Failaka may be substantially younger than the Soteles inscription. Forty-four lines of Greek are inscribed on a limestone stele c.1.16 m. tall, 61.3-62 cm. wide, and 16cm. thick (Plate VIb), found, as mentioned above, just south of

Temple A. Because of its fairly poor state of preservation when discovered, coupled with the progressive deterioration it has suffered over the last three decades, the reading of the inscription has been the subject of considerable discussion. Before embarking on a review of this debate, however, we should begin with the editio princeps, published in 1960 by K. Jeppesen,!°© for his reading was made at a pia when the inscription was in better condition than it is today:

‘82 Lockhart, ‘Outline of the History of Kuwait’, 262. 'S Albrechtsen, ‘Aleksander’, 189, strongly criticized by Roueché and Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’, 8. 'S4 Tbid. 9. Piejko, ‘The Inscriptions of Icarus-Failaka’, 91, has noted that the crude engraving of the letters in the inscription could ‘be assigned anywhere in the first half of the third century. But since the letters are rather untypical one should not be dogmatic even within these limits.’ Obviously, with such uncertainty, any attempt to relate the text to concrete historical circumstances must remain highly speculative.

'®® Roueché and Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’, 10. Amandry and Callot, ‘Le Trésor de Failaka’, 73, suggest that Soteles may have been an officer who ae

under Seleucus

I, and perhaps even

‘le véritable fondateur

de l’établissement grec

aros’. '86 Jeppesen, ‘Et Kongebud’, 194-8. In the transcription of the text as reproduced here parentheses are used for words supplied to complete the sense of the text in English, while square brackets are used to mark restorations of damaged words and for editorial comment.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

187

Anaxarchos to the inhabitants [of Ikaros], greetings. Below [we have reproduced for you] a copy of the letter [which] Ikadion [sent] us. As soon as [you have received] the letter, [5] inscribe it [on a stele] and leave this standing in the sanctuary. [Year 73] [2]7th Artemisios. Farewell. Ikadion to Anaxarchos, greeting. The King concerns himself with the island of Ikaros, [10] for his ancestors bore in mind to consecrate . . . and to further (the plans concerning?) the sanctuary of The Saviouress. And they wrote to the officers to promote [?] (them). But the latter failed to do so [?], either because they were not permitted to, [15] or [for some other] reason. But after the King has written to us, we have [promptly] taken action [?], and we have fixed . . . gymnastic games, and [appointed 10 priests] to make dispositions [20] in accordance with the wishes of the King and his ancestors and as regards both the temple guardians (living) in the island and the other (inhabitants). Sacri[fices shall be performed?] on... of the Saviour and the . . . of the island shall [25] settle [around the precinct? ] of the latter. One must by no means press forward [?] ... but the... shall take care that people . . . and obtain redress, if they are wronged in . ing, and that they are not [30] driven away [?], [if perhaps] some of them want to [cultivate the] soil of the island by tilling and planting garden-plots [for themselves] held on hereditary rental. There shall be [guarantee against seizure of property and] tax-exemption to the same extent as that granted [35] by the ancestors [of the] King to [everybody] setting out for the island and for the [opposite part of?] Arabia. Do not permit, and do not [tolerate?] any further [exemptions], if [40] . . . [some of]

the embarking [?] ... [monop]oly[?],

in order to prevent (people) [from

committing the abovementioned] offences. [They shall receive] the letter [by direct route?] and inscribe it [on a stele] in the sanctuary . . . Year 73, 17th Artemisios. Farewell.

Jeppesen originally read the year in the date as 73 which, converted from the Seleucid era to our own

calendar, is 239BC.

This falls

squarely in the middle of the reign of Seleucus II Callinicus (246-226 BC). Jeppesen suggested that the Ikadion named in this text was

one Ikadion of Antioch, ‘one of the influential nobles . .

supporting the cause of Laodike and of her son Seleukos II against Berenike, the second wife of Antiochos II’.!°7 In his opinion, Ikadion may have been granted the satrapy of Susiana in his later years as a reward for his faithfulness, and thus he would have been writing his letter to Anaxarchos, passing on the instructions of the king, in his capacity as satrap. The implication of this interpretation is, therefore, that Ikaros fell within the bounds of the satrapy of Susiana. Following an examination of the stele and the taking of a new squeeze in 1964 by D. Felber and R. Stiehl, F. Altheim and R. Stiehl 157 Jeppesen, ‘Et Kongebud’, 197.

188

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

published a new edition of the text in which they suggested dating it to 145 in the Seleucid era, or 167/6BC. Their assignation of the text to the reign of Antiochus IV!58 and indeed their entire edition came under strong attack two years later by J. and L. Robert, however, and has never been taken seriously.!°? More recently C. Roueché and S$. Sherwin-White have proposed reading 109 in the Seleucid era, or 203 BC, a date which would make the king mentioned in the text Antiochus III. While this eliminates from consideration Jeppesen’s identification of Ikadion as the noble supporter of Seleucus II, it places the text in the reign of a ruler whose expedition up the Gulf and activities in southern Babylonia, more specifically in connection with the ‘satrapy of the Erythraean Sea’ (see ch. 1 above), are well known. Ikaros, in this case, may have fallen

within the administrative purview of the satrap of the Erythraean Sea, an office which Roueché and Sherwin-White suggest was held by Ikadion, while Anaxarchos was his governor (epistates) on Ikaros.!©0

Roueché and Sherwin-White have argued that Antiochus III sought to achieve that conquest of eastern Arabia and domination of commercial routes to India and Saba which had eluded Alexander the Great, and they view his involvement in the affairs of Ikaros, two years after his visit to Gerrha (see ch. 2 above) in light of those aims.!®! According to the late J. Marcillet-Jaubert, only the name of the month in the Ikadion inscription was still legible when he collated the text in 1984.12 Nevertheless, in his recent study of the text, F. Piejko asserts that ‘both characters are still quite distinct’ and that therefore ‘it is possible to determine beyond reasonable doubt that the two letters designating the date are. . . OX’, i.e. year 69 in the Seleucid era, or 243 BC.!6 Piejko retains Jeppesen’s original identification of Ikadion ‘88 Altheim and Stiehl, ‘Die Seleukideninschrift’, 280: ‘Wenn nicht alles tauscht, besitzt man in der Inschrift aus Ikaros ein bedeutsames Zeugnis fiir Antiochos IV. Epiphanes’ Religionspolitik. Es zeigt einen Herrscher, der bestrebt ist, auch am Satt el-‘arab seine Vorliebe fiir Zeus und

die griechischen Gotter walten zu lassen, in deren Verehrung er, so scheint es, sein vielgestaltiges Reich zu einigen gedachte. Da er in Ikaros keinen Widerstand fand, aussert sich das kénigliche Streben weniger gewaltsam als in Jerusalem und auf dem Berge Garizin. Aber die einheimische Géttin, die sich hinter Artemis verbirgt, wird auch in Ikaros zugunsten des Olympiers zuriickgedrangt.’ This interpretation of the background of the Ikaros inscription seems to exceed the bounds of reasonable speculation.

'? J. and L. Robert, ‘651: Ikaros’, Bulletin épigraphique, 5 (1964-7), 557. On the emendations and restorations proposed by Altheim and Stiehl, they wrote: ‘La plupart sont arbitraires ou inacceptables parce qu’ils ne sont guére grecs.’ Piejko, ‘The Inscriptions of IcarusFailaka’, 95 n. 14, feels that the Altheim and Stiehl study ‘does not strictly speaking belong to the history of serious scholarship’. ‘ a and Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’, 30-1. ite, ey ‘62 Marcillet-Jaubert, ‘A Preliminary Note’, 11. '® Piejko, ‘The Inscriptions of Icarus-Failaka’, 99, 114.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

189

with the historical personage known to have aided Seleucus II, but whereas Jeppesen suggested that Ikadion may have been serving as satrap of Susiana when the letter was written, Piejko prefers to see him as governor of the satrapy of the Erythraean Sea. Jeppesen originally summarized his interpretation of the text as follows:164 The ancestors of the King wanted to consecrate a sanctuary to the Saviouress. They wrote to their officers about this, but nothing resulted either because the officers were ‘not allowed to’, or ‘for some other reason’. However, after having received the King’s letter, Ikadion has promptly taken action, and he has fixed gymnastic games and appointed priests (?) to arrange them in accordance with the wishes of the King and of his ancestors. Presumably the games in question are connected with the sacrifices and other rites preceding the foundation of the temple of the Saviouress. L. 23 ff. deal briefly with what may be some particulars of these ceremonies, then follows |. 25 a series of orders regarding the rights of ‘people’, which are perhaps issued with a special view to the participants in the religious festivals. The clause |. 30 ff. defends the hereditary tenants of the island against removal (it may be conjectured that the island belonged to the ‘Royal Territory’ (KQPA BALIAIKH) and that the tenants referred to were disliked by the aborigines of Ikaros, because they paid their rents to the King). The privileges of foreign visitors are fixed in brief terms |. 33 ff., and some restrictions are mentioned (in order to protect

a Royal monopoly?).

J. and L. Robert published’a brief commentary one year later in which they agreed with the main points in Jeppesen’s interpretation, while noting the considerable difficulties posed by the text.!® Several years later they proposed some emendations themselves, and reported that, according to a personal communication from Jeppesen, the poorly preserved word at the end of line 10 should be read as &ovdov. This has recently been confirmed by J. Marcillet-Jaubert, who suggested that ‘the island is consecrated as an asylum land’.!° Despite the harsh critique of the Altheim-Stiehl edition of the inscription, G. M. Cohen used it as the basis of his 1978 discussion of the text.!67 Cohen summarized his views as follows: The king (no name given) wanted to move the sanctuary of Artemis Soteira (to which goddess the island was sacred). In this he was following the lead of his predecessors who also intended to make the island asylos. The predecessors had sent out written instructions to the pertinent authorities 164 Jeppesen, ‘Et Kongebud’, 197. 165 J. and L. Robert, ‘819: Ile d’Ikaros’, Bulletin épigraphique, 4 (1959-63), 255. 166 Marcillet-Jaubert, ‘A Preliminary Note’, 11.

167 G. M. Cohen, ‘Appendix: The Inscriptions from Failaka’, in id., The Seleucid Colonies

(Historia Einzelschriften, 30; Wiesbaden, 1978), 42-4.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

190

100

for moving the sanctuary, but nothing was ever done. Icadion says that, having received a similar order from the king, he had already moved the sanctuary. Furthermore he arranged for the establishment of a gymnastic agon and had dispatched ten priests, as both the king and his ancestors wished. He also arranged for the neokoroi and the other inhabitants on the island to offer sacrifices before the altar (?) of Zeus Soter. Finally he had arranged for the islanders to be resettled in the area of the temenos. Icadion cautions that the well-being of the Icarians should be safe-guarded. Then in a fragmentary section he promises that certain persons are to be given land for cultivation on hereditary tenure. In addition, and following the intent of the king’s ancestors, Icadion promises ateleia for those (priests) who came over to the island. He does however add that they will forfeit this if they return to the mainland. The document concludes with a warning to the priests (?) not to mis-use their power and finally, instructions for setting up the stone on the island.

A re-examination of the Ikadion letter is now warranted by the many new readings proposed by Roueché and Sherwin-White and by Piejko. In all, the new translations differ so greatly from previous ones that it is necessary to reproduce them here in full. We begin with the text as restored by Roueché and Sherwin-White.!68 Anaxarchos

[to the] inhabitants of Ikaros. Of the letter [which]

Ikadion

[wrote] to us we have written a copy [for you] below. As [soon as you receive the] letter, inscribe [it on a stele and] place [this] in the temple. [(Year) 109] Artemision [2] 7. Farewell.

Ikadion to Anaxarchos. Greetings. The king is concerned about the island of Ikaros because his progonoi also consecrated land and decided to move the temple of the Saviour Goddess. And they wrote to the officials in charge of administration (instructing them) to move it. But they, either, [perhaps] because they were prevented or indeed for some [other] reason did not move

it. But we, when the king wrote to us, moved [it? promptly], and we established [. . .] an agon, both sporting and [cultural,] wishing to carry out the policy of the king and of his progonoi. As to the people settled in the island—both the neokoroi and the others Saviour God, [?] and those [. . . ? when] the included in the settlement [. . .?] they should in any way but are to leave alone [. . .]. So let

[. . .]? around [. . .] of the island [? was . . .] they were not encroach on this [. . .] it be your concern [to ensure

that] men obtain their rights and are not wronged [by anyone] or moved. [And if] some of these wish to [? acquire property] on the island, designate

land [which,] when they have cultivated and planted (it) [they will own]

as a hereditary possession. Let [them also have] freedom from taxation just

as the progonoi [of the king] granted [?] them [for whatever (goods) ] they export to the island; but [? to the region of Ar] abia do not allow [? anyone to export corn or] anything else. If [. . . of what is due [.. . ?] sales, in '®* Roueché and Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’, 16.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

191

order that they should not fall [? into ill-health . . . Order] (them) therefore to inscribe [this] letter and [to set it up] in the temple (Year) 109, Artemision 17. Farewell.

_We come now to the newest translation of the Ikadion letter, by

Piejko,'©? based on photographs and a facsimile drawing by Jeppesen. Piejko reads as follows: Anaxarchos to the inhabitants of Ikaros greetings. Hereafter we are conveying to you the transcript of the letter Ikadion gave us. When you then receive this letter, having engraved it on a stele expose it in the sanctuary. The year 69th, the 27th of Artemisios. Farewell.

Ikadion to Anaxarchos greetings. The king is concerned about the land of Ikaros because his ancestors already used to consecrate asyla and they had intended to move the temple of Soteira and had (in fact) written to the officials in charge to move it. Those, however, whether on account that the task exceeded their ability to carry it out, or for some other reason, failed to do so. (Now) since the king had written to us we have diligently effected the moving and established a fund for a gymnastic competition and have sent orders to carry everything out in conformity with the king’s and his ancestors’ wishes. (The king wrote us also) about the temple attendants still remaining in residence, and of others who had been brought thither back in the reign of the deified Soter, and that those (for the island is good) are to be resettled, you taking care of this. There will be no encroachments against any of them by any means, but individuals who farm contracts for tax collection must be careful not to attempt any clever devices for their own gain, and the people should enjoy their rights and be importuned by no one, nor may they be removed. Should any of them desire to bring under cultivation land in the island you will allot to such of them fields, which having worked out and planted they may hold on hereditary basis. Let them also enjoy a tax exemption, (just) as the king’s ancestors had granted both to them and to those who export to the island. Do not permit anyone to collect tax for exportation to the adjacent mainland of Arabia, nor on anything else, since they are exempt from all imposts on selling of their own produce, lest it happen that he who disobeys fall under charges. Therefore direct them to set up this letter engraved in a stele at the temple, that the tax exemption has been granted. The year 69th, the 17th of Artemisios. Farewell.

In approaching the contents of this letter, it may be useful to paraphrase it, section by section: Lines 1-6: Anaxarchos addresses the Ikarians, forwards a copy of Ikadion’s letter, and orders an inscribed version to be made and set

up in the temple as soon as it has been received.

169 Piejko, ‘The Inscriptions of Icarus-Failaka’, 97.

192

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

Lines 7-19: Ikadion explains to Anaxarchos his reasons for writing. He is acting upon concern for the temple of the Saviour Goddess expressed by the king. The king’s ancestors (progonot) had ordered the temple officials to move the sanctuary, but this was, for some

reason, never done. Ikadion, however, has now done so, at the behest

of the reigning monarch, and has additionally established games (agon), or a fund for them, thereby fulfilling the wishes of the king and his ancestors. Lines 20-41: Ikadion gives a series of instructions concerning the welfare of the Ikarians. The new inhabitants (neokoroz) are not to

encroach on the old (?). Men’s rights should be respected, and they should be neither wronged nor moved. Those desiring land should be assigned plots which, if cultivated, they can possess by hereditary right. As in the days of the king’s ancestors, the Ikarians should be given tax exemptions, but these should not be abused. Lines 41-4: Anaxarchos is to issue an order so that the letter will be transferred to stone and set up in the temple. Date and salutation. Earlier treatments of this text by Jeppesen, Altheim and Stiehl, and Cohen paid particular attention to the religious affairs mentioned in the beginning of the letter. References are made to the ‘Saviour Goddess’ and ‘Saviour God’, which, in the light of the Soteles inscription and the sacrifices of Alexander and Nearchus discussed above, would seem

most likely to refer to Artemis Soteira and Zeus Soter. The first concern expressed by the king was for the transfer of the sanctuary of the Saviour Goddess, which had been ordered at some time in the past but never effected. One is immediately led to ask, What could have necessitated the relocation of Soteira’s sanctuary? In this connection, one can hardly avoid thinking of the B6 sanctuary on the very edge of Failaka’s south coast, discussed above. The precise cultic nature of the shrine was revealed by the recovery there of an altar offered ex voto with the Greek inscription: ‘For the salvation of Theokudres, . . . —as to Artemis.’!79 The probability that the shoreline was further away in antiquity is raised by the excavators, but it is certainly possible that the dangerous proximity of the sanctuary to the water warranted the transfer of the sanctuary to a more secure location. The garbled reference in the Ikadion letter to people settled ‘around’ the precinct (?) of the Saviour God (Zeus Soter?) recalls the houses

crowded in around the two temples within the F5 fortress. As for the temple personnel found in the readings of Jeppesen and Altheim and he Caubet and Salles, ‘Le Sanctuaire hellénistique’, 125, 138. Note that Marcillet-Jaubert, ‘A Preliminary Note’, 11, reads the name of the saved man as Theokydes rather than Theokudres.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

193

Stiehl, these have disappeared. Following his recent collation of the inscription, J. Marcillet-Jaubert questioned the reading ‘10 priests’ suggested by Jeppesen, proposing rather that the passage in question concerns ten animals for sacrifice.!7! Roueché and Sherwin-White, however, have eliminated any such reading in lines 17-19, as has

Piejko.

Difficult as it may be, it is, however, the second half of the letter that is in many ways the more intriguing. The moves to protect the rights of the inhabitants, to allow them to cultivate land and acquire hereditary title to it, and to exempt them from taxes on certain goods exported, represent aspects of the Seleucid policy to encourage colonial settlement and protect the colonies’ fragile economies. That this mixed Graeco-oriental settlement was not a full-fledged polis, however, has

been stressed by Sherwin-White.!72 One final allusion in the text also deserves brief comment: the reference to exports to Arabia. That contacts did exist between Failaka and the Arabian mainland is suggested by some of the numismatic and ceramic evidence reviewed above. On the Kuwaiti mainland itself,

such archaeological explorations as there have been have not yet located sites contemporary with the Hellenistic settlement of Ikaros. A notice preserved by J. G. Lorimer, however, suggests that they were there. At the beginning of the century Lorimer recorded the existence of plaster-lined stone cist-graves on the Kuwaiti mainland!73 which, from his description, sound very much like Hellenistic-period graves at Janussan on Bahrain above).

(see ch. 3 above) and at Thaj (see ch. 2

Several additional short or fragmentary inscriptions have also been found on Failaka. An inscribed stone fragment illustrated without comment by Jeppesen!’* is thought to come from an altar set up by some soldiers or sailors.!7° A certain amount of confusion has surrounded the dedicants’ place of origin, which Jeppesen restored as é& ’

Iy[dov ‘from India’. Altheim and Stiehl described this restoration

™ Marcillet-Jaubert, ‘A Preliminary Note’, 11. 172 §_ Sherwin-White, review of Cohen, The Seleucid Colonies, JHS 100 (1980), 259, wrote of Cohen’s query whether Ikaros had the status of a polis: ‘His desire (p. 44) to know if the Greek-Macedonian foundation on Failaka (Ikaros) on the Persian Gulf (SEG XX 411) became

a polis is answered by reading the excavation reports . . . Built as a small walled settlement only 60 metres by 60 metres, a size that it remained over about two generations until destruction, the installation was certainly never a polis but (equally interesting) a tiny, not very well protected

post on the Gulf trade route.’ 173, GPG 23, s.v. ‘Kuwait’, where he speaks of ‘sarcophagi’. Contra, Salles, ‘The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids’, 100: ‘no Hellenistic archaeological evidence has ever been found in this region’.

174 Jeppesen, ‘Et Kongebud’, fig. 26. 5

Marcillet-Jaubert, ‘A Preliminary Note’, 11.

194

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

as uncertain.!76 Cohen expressed similar reservations, noting that ‘Even if the reading were clear, we still could not be sure if we are dealing with veterans of Alexander’s Indian campaign or [that] of Antiochus III.’!77 Nevertheless, he did not hesitate to suggest that this short text, like the Soteles inscription, should be dated earlier than the Ikadion text, and that ‘possibly the groups mentioned in them were two army units which comprised part, or all, of the original colony at Failaka’. More recently, Marcillet-Jaubert has suggested a different resIy[dov he reads €& “Ix [GQov ‘from toration altogether. Instead of é& ” Ikaros’.!78 Thus, the sailors or soldiers who dedicated the altar would

simply have been Greeks living on the island. The same reading has also been suggested by Roueché and Sherwin-White, who offer the following translation, incorporating the restoration:!’? ‘To [the Gods] |those from Ika[ros] |dedicated |the altar.’ Piejko has arrived at a similar restoration of the name Ikaros as the origin of the dedicants, but unlike Cohen, he would date the altar dedication to the reign of Seleucus II, making it either contemporary with or else ‘some years later’ than the Ikadion letter.!8° Finally, the recent French excavations have added several graffiti to the corpus of Ikaros inscriptions. These include three inscribed sherds, two of which contain parts of proper names. One sherd, from Tell Khazneh, bears an inscription commemorating a sacrifice performed by a number of people, including an official (hegemon) whose name ends in “-teles’.!8! This is most probably not Soteles, though, if the date proposed on palaeographic grounds in the late third or second century BC is correct.182 Traces of Epigraphic South Arabian on Failaka The reference in Avienus to Sabaeans burning incense on Ikaros may find a reflex in two recently discovered inscribed stone '76 Altheim and Stiehl, ‘Die Seleukideninschrift’, 274; cf. Piejko, “The Inscriptions of IcarusFailaka’, 92.

“7 Cohen, ‘Appendix’, 43. Marcillet-Jaubert, ‘A Preliminary Note’, 11. Roueché and Sherwin-White, ‘Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire’, 10.

Piejko, “The Inscriptions of Icarus-Failaka’, 93. J. Marcillet-Jaubert, ‘Une inscription grecque de Tell Khazneh’, FFF 84-5,

265-7.

Salles, ‘Failaka, une ile des dieux’, 488, dates it to the 2nd cent. BC, while Marcillet-Jaubert

‘Une inscription grecque’, 267, writes: ‘The script cannot be dated accurately, but there is no reason not to place it in the second half of the 3rd cent. B.C.’ However, if the Soteles inscription did, in fact, come from Tell Khazneh, the source of this graffito, and if the palaeography of such a simple inscription incised on a sherd is not accorded too much weight, then it indeed seems perfectly plausible, in my opinion, that the piece comes from a vessel dedicated by Soteles himself.

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

195

fragments.!83 Although one fragment bears nothing more than a part of what appears to be a South Arabian alif, and the other contains three signs the values of which are uncertain, these discoveries are none the less important in the context of the spread of the South Arabian alphabet throughout eastern Arabia during the third and second centuries BC. When it is remembered that numerous Hasaitic inscriptions, written in South Arabian letters, are known from the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and even from Uruk (see ch. 2 above), then it should come as

no surprise to find the same alphabet, if not necessarily the same dialect, in use among some of the indigenous, non-Greek inhabitants of Failaka. Conclusion

Ikaros was advantageously situated at the head of the Arabian Gulf: ships passing between Susa, Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, or AntiochiaCharax and the lower regions of the Gulf or even India could conveniently call in. This is well illustrated by the coinage and ceramics found on the island, which reflect ties to Susiana, Babylonia, Bahrain, eastern Arabia, and the southern Gulf coast. When it was discovered by the Greeks, it already had an indigenous, Aramaic-speaking population (see vol.i ch. 9), and when a small Seleucid garrison was installed,

perhaps early in the third century BC, the two groups seem to have lived side by side, as the complete mixture of locally produced and imported ceramics, along with both Greek and oriental terracottas, attests. The late O. M@rkholm believed that the Seleucid settlement on Failaka was ‘probably a naval station’,!*4 a theory recently revived by J.-F. Salles, who suggests that the foundation and eventual dissolution of the settlement were directly linked to the creation and eventual

disappearance of a Seleucid navy in the Gulf.!8° Students of Hellenistic fortifications, however, have stressed the feeble nature of the Failaka

fortress,!8¢ and suggested that its primary function may have been that of an enclosure for the temples inside, rather than defence.!87 183 C. Robin, ‘Les “Inscriptions” en écriture sud-arabique’, FFF 84-5, 269-72. 184 OQ. Mégrkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria (Classica et Mediaevalia, Dissertationes, 8; Copenhagen, 1966), 168. 185 Salles, ‘Failaka, une ile des dieux’, 580; id., ‘The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids’, 98, 109. 186 A W. Lawrence, Greek Aims in Fortification (Oxford, 1979), 179, in discussing ‘Country Fortifi zations’, called the Failaka structure ‘the weakest true fort yet discovered’. 187 P. Lerich , ‘Fortifications grecques: Bilan de la recherche au Proche et Moyen Orient’, in P. Leriche and H. Treziny (eds.), La Fortification dans I’histoire du monde grec (Paris, 1986), 46, speaking of Failaka, wrote: ‘Il s’agit 1a d’un ouvrage léger dont la fonction devait étre autant religieuse que militaire. Le plan et la conception sont nettement d’esprit grec, mais le mode de construction est plus propre a la région qu’a la Gréce.’

196

Failaka, 325 BC-AD

100

While it is not impossible that Failaka played a role in provisioning Seleucid ships, the Hellenistic settlement would appear to have been more than just a depot, as the instructions in Ikadion’s letter concerning the cultivation and inheritance of land and the granting of tax exemptions attest. Nevertheless, it may well be that the initial settlement suffered with the demise of Seleucid supremacy in the east. In this case, the second, less well-attested period of occupation, with

its Bl-ware, may reflect a much less dense Parthian and/or Characene use of the fortress. By that time the ethnic Greek element on the island may have been so intermarried with the local population as to be no longer distinguishable from them. On the other hand, Greek inscriptions from the first centuries BC and AD found at Susa attest to the longevity of the Greek language and institutions there after the Parthians had come to power.188 '88 e.g. F. Cumont, ‘Nouvelles inscriptions grecques de Suse’, CRAIBL (1930), 211-13; id., ‘Inscriptions grecques de Suse’, CRAIBL (1931), 240-1.

5 North-Eastern Arabia during the Parthian and Sasanian Periods Introduction

To a great extent, the local archaeological assemblages that characterize the Hellenistic period in north-eastern Arabia would appear to have persisted through the Parthian era as well, and even into early Sasanian times. Certainly this is true in the case of the indigenous ceramic industry, and it may also be true with regard to some of the debased variants of the local coinage discussed above. Nevertheless, significant social, demographic, technological, and religious changes occurred following the Hellenistic period. As we shall see, by the first century AD the northward displacement of some of the older, sedentary population of the region by nomadic Arabs from the south must have begun. At the same time, contacts with the Iranian world intensified as north-eastern Arabia first fell under Parthian suzerainty, and later

became a province of the Sasanian empire. The introduction of Nestorian Christianity strengthened the already existing links between Sasanian Persia and north-eastern Arabia, for the bishops of Bet Qatraye, as the region was called in Syriac ecclesiastical sources, were under the administrative authority of the metropolitan of Rev-ArdaSir on the Iranian coast near Bushire. As could well be expected, all of these factors together resulted in the spread of distinctively Parthian and Sasanian material culture to the region. We shall begin this chapter with a review of the archaeological material, before proceeding to a consideration of the main historical issues of the period. The major sites and regions (see Fig. 14) will be treated in turn, beginning with Thaj in the north. Thaj

Over the years the duration of the occupation at Thaj has been a subject of continued debate. As early as 1922 D. S. Margoliouth expressed the opinion that the texts found there by Capt. Shakespear were ‘at least earlier than our era’,! an opinion which has since been upheld, 1 Apud D. Carruthers, ‘Captain Shakespear’s Last Journey’, GJ 59 (1922), 323.

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

198

as discussed in Chapter 2 above. In 1937, however, G. Ryckmans

suggested that the form of some of the letters in RES 4685 ‘se rapproche d’un type sabéen d’époque récente’.? Similarly, in 1946 F. V. Winnett pointed out that nfs, the word used for ‘tombstone’ in the Hasaitic inscriptions, was known in late South Arabian texts of the fifth and sixth centuries AD. ‘Thus’, he wrote, ‘the employment of the expression fs wqbr at the beginning of the ‘Ain Jawan inscription [Winnett 1] . . . dates it to the same period.’3 Presumably, Winnett

would have applied the same date to all inscriptions beginning with this formula, one of which—Ja 2125—was found at Thaj. Following Winnett on this point, P. B. Cornwall adopted the same date in his discussion of the two inscriptions (Cornwall 1 and 2) which he found in Qatif in 1941.4 In 1948 H. R. P. and V. P. Dickson cited S. Smith, who dated RES 4685 ‘anywhere between the third and sixth centuries A.D.’.5 Smith himself, writing in 1954, saw

a link between

the

geographical distribution of the Hasaitic texts, which at the time extended from Warka to al-Qatif, and the political unification of the region under the Lahmids, a phenomenon which he felt began around 531 during the reign of al-Mundhir III and lasted until the Islamic conquest. Smith even went so far as to state that ‘unified terms for burials and similar customs are, in these regions, before the rise of

Islam, a symptom of political unity’.© Archaeologists have not, in general, paid much attention to any of these arguments, nor has a date in the later Sasanian period for the Hasaitic inscriptions from Thaj or elsewhere been upheld by more recent palaeographical analysis. In 1950 a debate over the presence of a Nabataean sherd among those published by the Dicksons began when R. LeB. Bowen cited W. F. Albright’s opinion that ‘the sherd shown in the center of [the

Dicksons’] Plate II. . . is Nabatean from the period 50 B.C. to 200 A.D.’.” P. W. Lapp, commenting in 1963 on the same sherd, wrote: ‘The Nabataean painted sherd is an enigma. Persons well-acquainted with the site report that painted Nabataean pottery has not been found at the site within their memory.’® Nevertheless, assuming it to be authentic, he cited C. Bennett’s view that ‘a late first or early second > G. Ryckmans, ‘Inscriptions sud-arabes, quatriéme série, xv: Stele funéraire de Thay [sic]’, Le Muséon, 50 (1937), 240.

; ie V. Winnett, ‘A Himyaritic Inscription from the Persian Gulf Region’, BASOR 1

NASI

102

* P. B. Cornwall, ‘Ancient Arabia: Explorations in Hasa, 1940-41’, GJ 107 (1946), 44.

* H.R. P. and V. P. Dickson, ‘Thaj and Other Sites’, Traq, 10 (1948), 1. ® §. Smith, ‘Events in Arabia in the 6th Century A.D.’, BSOAS 16 (1954), 442. ” R. LeB. Bowen, Jr., The Early Arabian Necropolis of Ain Jawan (BASOR Suppl. Studies

7-9; New Haven, 1950), 55.

* P. W. Lapp, ‘Observations on the Pottery of Thaj’, BASOR

172 (1963), 21-2.

North-Eastern Arabia,

100 BC-AD 676

199

century date for the sherd is quite satisfactory’. This opinion supported his own feeling that the fine red-ware bowls from Thaj compared favourably with Palestinian types of the first and second centuries. In summarizing his views, Lapp put ‘Thaj’s day of glory’ at the late first to mid-third centuries AD. P. J. Parr, however, was troubled both by the isolated occurrence of a Nabataean sherd ‘many miles outside Nabataean territory’, and by its atypical appearance.? Upon examining the sherd in the British Museum, Parr’s doubts were confirmed when

it was discovered that the sherd was in fact underpainted, glazed, and obviously Islamic. The ‘Nabataean problem’ at Thaj did not, however, end here. In

1968 T. G. Bibby made his sounding at Thaj, and in his report on that work stressed that, among the 4,565 sherds from the sondage

examined, ‘no sherds were found resembling Nabataean painted ware’.!° On the basis of this observation, Bibby argued that ‘the conspicuous absence of Roman or Nabataean wares’ made a terminal date for the Thaj sequence of 100 BC likely.!! In fact, level 2 in the Danish sounding contained an example of what P. J. Parr has called ‘Early Nabataean Painted’, dating roughly to between 75 BC and the time of Christ.!2 For the time being, this is the only physical testimony of a link between Thaj and the Nabataean area. It does not, however, define

the terminal date of occupation at Thaj. As noted in Chapter 2 above, the 1983 deep sounding at Thaj revealed the existence of four architectural phases, the lowest three of which date to the Seleucid or Hellenistic period. Period III witnessed the city’s greatest expansion, with the construction of the city wall and the first substantial architecture in the inner town.! Period IV, however, post-dated the Hellenistic period, and will be treated here. ? P. J. Parr, ‘Objects from Thaj in the British Museum’, BASOR

176 (1964), 22.

10 T. G. Bibby, Preliminary Survey in East Arabia, 1968 (JASP 12; Copenhagen, 1973), 24. Ibide25.

2 In 1982, while studying the pottery in Riyadh from Bibby’s 1968 sounding in preparation for the new programme of excavations at Thaj, the author opened a box of sherds from level 2 and was confronted by an obvious example of painted Nabataean pottery, complete with the original Danish registration number 474/41; see D. T. Potts, ‘Northeastern Arabia in the Later Pre-Islamic Era’, AOMIM 104. There is no doubt in my mind that Bibby never saw this sherd, for if he had he would certainly have recognized it as a typical example of painted Nabataean fine ware. 13 —. T. Potts, ‘An Urban Center in Pre-Islamic Arabia’, Scientific American (forthcoming),

contra N. Groom, ‘Eastern Arabia in Ptolemy’s Map’, PSAS 16 (1986), 71, where it is incorrectly stated that ‘the 2nd century A.D. . . . appears to be the time when the most substantial building works at Thaj commenced’. Correct also ibid. 68, where Groom claims that ‘Faj . . . has emerged from an inscription as the ancient name for Thaj’; this assertion is totally unfounded.

200

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

; 2

:

14 t 3

bs Gus

a

C

}

CATE PA ie)eho

= |{1193.05 n= SE

NG

RR : Sale ho AERA EER Ngee (JORDON re

OO]

«851.30 755.0 y

and Dirt WZ fill stone fp] Elevation F! these dialects were distinct in many ways—a conclusion reached not only by modern philologists, but by early Arab grammarians. The differences between the dialects of Tamim and Qays, for example, were commented upon by Gahiz,!52 while those of Tamim and Bakr were distinguished by al-Tha‘alibi.153 For Abu ‘Amr, the most eloquent Arabs were the Tamimi highlanders and the Qays lowlanders.!°4 Indeed, the Tamim were renowned for their excellence in poetry.!°° And yet, in view of this, one may well wonder why it was that Omar is said to have prohibited the dictation of the Qu’ran by members of such eastern and, by all accounts, eloquent groups as the Bakr, Abd al-Qays, and Azd Oman.!°® An explicit answer is given by Ibn Khaldun 147 The Omani cited by Pliny in the area around Charax may bespeak the very beginnings of this migratory pattern.

48 149 150 151.

Vollers, Volkssprache, 4 ff. Corriente, ‘From Old Arabic to Classical Arabic’, 89. AF, L. Beeston, ‘Languages of Pre-Islamic Arabia’, Arabica, 28 (1981), 185. J. Blau, ‘The Role of the Bedouins as Arbiters in Linguistic Questions and the Mas‘ala az-

Tatnbaree ISS A 962),:42=3.

182 ©. T. Harley Walker, ‘Jahiz of Basra to al-Fath Ibn Khaqan on the “Exploits of the Turks and the Army of the Khalifate in General”’, JRAS (1915), 638; Corriente, ‘From Old Arabic to Classical Arabic’, 67 n. 3; Beeston, ‘Languages of Pre-Islamic Arabia’, 185.

183 Corriente, ‘From Old Arabic to Classical Arabic’, 74 n. 1.

154 Cited ibid. 67.

f

155 Vollers, Volkssprache, 7; Levi della Vida, ‘Tamim’, 645. 156 Corriente, ‘From Old Arabic to Classical Arabic’, 74 n. 1.

228

North-Eastern Arabia,

100 BC-AD 676

and Abu Nasr al-Farabi, who wrote that the language of the Qu’ran could not have come ‘from the Bakr because of the proximity of the “Nabataeans” and Persians; and not from the Abd al-Qays and Azd Oman, because they were influenced by Indians and Persians in alBahrain’.!57 The factors responsible for the Persian admixture in the Arabic spoken in north-eastern Arabia, noted by the early Arab authorities, must be sought in the history of the region’s relationship with Parthian and Sasanian Iran. We turn now to a consideration of this subject. The Beginnings of Sasanian and Lahmid Governance

The decline of Gerrha and the waning of eastern Arabia’s fortunes

in general after the Seleucid era have sometimes been attributed to Characene and Parthian usurpation of the Gulf trade route between India and the west.!58 The exact role of the Parthians in eastern Arabia itself, however,

has never been clear. The archaeological

evidence for contact between north-eastern Arabia and the Parthian world has been reviewed above. Early authorities were divided on the question of the nature and extent of Parthian political influence in the area. Noldeke, for example, who emphasized the extent of contact between the Persian and Arabian sides of the Gulf, considered it

unlikely that the Parthians actually controlled the region,!5? whereas Glaser was convinced that they did.!©° O. Blau believed that the 'S7 Cited by Blau, ‘Arabien im sechsten Jahrhundert’, 592; cf. H. K6fler, ‘Reste altarabischer

Dialekte’, WZKM 47 (1940), 65 n. 2. 158 e.g. §. A. Cook et al., ‘The Roman

Republic’, CAH

ix (1932), 578 ff.; cf. S. A.

Nodelman, ‘A Preliminary History of Characene’, Berytus, 13 (1960), 86; or E. J. Keall, ‘Parthian

Nippur and Vologases’ Southern Strategy: A Hypothesis’, JAOS 95 (1975), 624. See chs. 3 above and 6 below for discussion of the extension of the Characene king Meredat’s power to Bahrain and Oman. , 159 Indeed, in a note to his translation of Tabari, Geschichte, 18 n. 2, he wrote: ‘Die beiden Seiten des persischen Golfes bilden ein Gebiet. So oft sich die Perser aufschwangen und ihre Kiste in feste Hand nahmen (z.B. noch unter den Sefiden), haben sie auch nach der arab. Kiiste

hintibergegriffen. Gewohnlich waren freilich umgekehrt ihre eignen Kiisten in den Handen von Arabern, welche in der dortigen Gluth besser leben kénnen und viel mehr Geschick zum Seewesen haben als die Perser.’ On the other hand, in his article ‘Uber Mommsen’s Darstellung der romischen Herrschaft und rémischen Politik im Orient’, ZDMG 39 (1885), 347, he wrote: ‘Am Nordost-

Ufer des persischen Meerbusens hatten die Arsaciden kaum etwas zu sagen, da es in Handen mehr oder weniger unabhangiger Kénige war, und dass sie die arabische Seite des Busens beherrscht hatten ist recht unwahrscheinlich . . . selbst die Sasaniden hielten nur einzelne Stellen des nordéstlichen Arabiens besetzt.’ 160 E. Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens, ii (Berlin, 1890), 192, suggested that ‘nicht nur die Kiiste von Ostarabien gehorte zu Persis, sondern auch weite Gebiete

im Innern der arabischen Halbinsel’. Further, he wrote (ibid. 193): ‘Wir konnen also getrost behaupten, dass im ersten christlichen Jahrhundert die Parther — ich halte mich nicht ohne Absicht

an diese allgemeinere Bezeichnung des im Osten hervorragendsten Elements — nicht nur ganz ‘Oman besassen, sondern dass ihnen auch ganz Jemama und das westlich und siidwestlich daran

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

229

Dariya>

FIG. 15. Some of the principal places mentioned in connection with the Sasanian occupation of north-eastern Arabia

Azd Oman, in particular, put considerable pressure on the region of Mesene and Charax,!¢! and that this resulted in the establishment of a Parthian political presence in the area. In any case, nothing suggests that Parthian political or commercial influence extended to eastern Arabia before the reign of Meredat who, as we have seen (ch. 3 above), had a satrap on Thiloua/os (Tylos) in AD 131. It could be that, following Meredat’s expulsion from Mesene in AD 151, Vologases IV inherited his opponent’s former Gulf possessions, although this is pure speculation. If this did take place, it would help explain a much disputed tradition preserved by Tabari (838-923), al-Dinawari (c.895), the author of the anonymous stossende Gebirgsland des Nir, also der ganze Mittel- und Unterlauf des Wadi ed Dawasir samt seinen Zufliissen gehérte.’ All of the above was based on Glaser’s interpretation of the Periplus, and his identification of Omana with the entirety of eastern Arabia. For conflicting opinions on the location of Omana, see the following chapter.

161 Blau, ‘Altarabische Sprachstudien; 2. Theil’, 325-7.

230

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

Nihayatu’l-irab ftahbari'l-furs wa’l-arab (c.1000-50), and Ibn alAtir (1160-1234), which attests to a formal Parthian political

presence in the area at the end of the Parthian period. The information is contained in the accounts of Arda%ir’s famous campaign against eastern Arabia c.240.162 The relevant sources are these:1°

Then Ardagir marched from Gur to al-Bahrain and laid siege to its king Sanatruk, until he in the direst straits threw himself from the wall of the fortress and perished. (Tabari) Then he turned back and started to make expeditions and marched forward to Oman and al-Bahrain and al-Yamama. And Sanatrugq, the king of alBahrain, came forth against him and fought against him, but Ardaiir killed him and ordered his city to be destroyed. (Al-Dinawari) Then he . . . marched with his troops and soldiers to the country of what lies between Oman and al-Bahrain and al-Yamama and Hagar. . . . and they fought a violent fight and there were killed on both sides a great number. And Sanatruk the king of al-Bahrain, and ‘Amr ibn Wagqid al-Himyari, the king of Oman, were killed. (Nihayat)

Then he marched from Gur to al-Bahrain and forced its king to throw himself down from his fortress, so that he perished. (Ibn al-Atir)

These reports suggest that the Parthians were in control of northeastern Arabia at the time of ArdaSir’s invasion, for ‘Sanatruq’ (SNTRWQ) is a distinctively Parthian name.!6+ The presence of this name in Tabari’s account has aroused considerable discussion over the years, however. Whereas Noldeke!® and J. Markwart!® accepted the occurrence of ‘Sanatruq’ in Tabari, and recognized it as a Parthian name, several recent commentators have tended to discount its presence in the account of ArdaSir’s Arabian campaign as the result of a copyist’s confusion. Altheim and Stiehl, for example, contend that (a) the name

Sanatruq was principally bound to the city of Hatra, and (b) the last king of Hatra, besieged for two years and finally conquered by Arda&ir ‘62 V. F. Piacentini, ‘La presa di potere sassanide sul Golfo Persico fra leggenda e realta’, Clio, 20 (1984), 209; ead., ‘Ardashir i Papakan and the Wars against the Arabs: Working Hypothesis on the Sasanian Hold of the Gulf, PSAS 15 (1985), 58. '® Translations after G. Widengren, ‘The Establishment of the Sasanian Dynasty in the Light of New Evidence’, in La Persia nel Medioevo (Rome, 1971), 763-73.

'** For the name, cf. F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch (Marburg, 1895), 282-3; E. Herzfeld,

‘Hlatra’, ZDMG 68 (1914), 660-1; A. Maricq, ‘Hatra de Sanatrouq’, Syria, 32 (1955), 289; F. Vattioni, Le iscrizioni di Hatra (AION Suppl. 28; Naples, 1981), 116; S. Abbadi, Die Personennamen der Inschriften aus Hatra (Hildesheim 1983), 31-2, 133. '°5 In Geschichte, 18 n. 3, Noldeke wrote: ‘Der Name kommt mehrfach bei den Parthern

vor. Es war also vielleicht ein parthisches Neben- oder Vasallenreich.’ While this would appear

to contradict his opinion cited in n. 159 above, one must assume that he did not consider a Neben- or Vasallenreich the equivalent of full Parthian dominance in eastern Arabia.

"66 J. Markwart, A Catalogue of the Provincial Capitals of Eranshahr (Pahlavi Text, Version

and Commentary), ed. G. Messina (AnOr 3; Rome, 1931), 103.

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

231

and his son Sapur in 240,!67 was also called Sanatruq.!68 Further,

they have suggested that the - by the Arab historians took G. Widengren, taking the confusion could easily have on a Syriac manuscript, since

story of the defeat of Sanatruq recounted place at Hatra, and not in al-Bahrain. 169 same position, has suggested that the arisen if a copyist of the tale had drawn ‘Hatra’ could easily have been mistaken for

‘Hatta’, the name of one of the principal regions of al-Bahrain.17°

None of these arguments, however, is completely satisfying.!7! To begin with, despite what Altheim and Stiehl have claimed, the name Sanatruq is not tied exclusively to Hatra. It is also attested among the

royal families of Parthia, Armenia, and Adiabene.!72 Furthermore, Arabic sources suggest that the name of the last king of Hatra was Daizan, not Satirun (i.e. Arabicized ‘Sanatruq’). According to the famous biographer Ibn Kallikan (1211-82), ‘Satirun’ came to be used

as a title, synonymous with ‘king’, and it is for this reason that the last monarch of Hatra was sometimes referred to both as Daizan and as Satirun.!73 Moreover, Widengren’s assertion that the fame of the last king of Hatra could have contributed to scribal confusion is implausible. As A. Maricq noted, it is not likely that the city, which is known in Syriac sources as ‘Hatra of Sanatruq’ and in Arabic sources as ‘Hatra of Satirun’, owed its fame to the king who was vanquished by the Sasanians. It is much more likely that the eponymous Sanatruq was Sanatruq I, who ruled in the middle of the second century AD.174 ‘67 For the date, see E. Henrichs and L. Koenen, ‘Ein griechischer Mani-Codex’, Zeitschrift fir Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 5 (1970), 125-6; cf. W. Felix, Antike literarische Quellen zur

Aussenpolitik des Sasanidenstaates, I (224-309) (Sitzungsber. d. Osterr. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.hist. Kl., 456; (= Ver6ffentlichungen der iranischen Kommission, 18; Vienna, 1985), 40-2. 168 FE Altheim and R. Stiehl, ‘Hatra und Nisa’, AAW ii (1965), 228; cf. R. Ghirshman, ‘Chapour I, “Roi des Rois” sans couronne’, Acta Iranica, 2/1 (1975), 260-1 n. 6.

169 FB. Altheim and R. Stiehl, ‘Forschungen zur Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts N. Chr.’, AAW ii (1965), 238: ‘Der bei Tabari genannte ist nicht K6nig Bahrain’s, wie es nach dem Text scheinen kénnte, sondern der zweite des Namens iiber Hatra.’

170 Wyidengren, ‘The Establishment’, 755, writes: ‘we may perhaps assume that the confusion in question may have been due to a graphical error in a Syriac “Vorlage”, for a coastal landscape in the neighbourhood of al-Bahrain in Syriac is actually SLOT, Hatta, while Hatra is written $7) {9P7 . It stands to reason that such a scribal mistake could easily occur, and may have contributed to the confusion in this point, if not actually occasioned it.’ ‘71 Counter-arguments have been discussed at length by Piacentini in her articles ‘La presa di potere’ and ‘Ardashir i Papakan’. 172 Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 282-3. See also Herzfeld, ‘Hatra’, 660-1, for additional occurrences. 73 Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 283. Maricq, ‘Hatra de Sanatrouq’, 284, wrote: ‘si certains textes arabes l’appellent Sanatrouq (Satirun), d’autres, plus dignes de foi, le nomment

Dayzan’. Cf. A. Dietrich, Geschichte Arabiens vor dem Islam (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1/2/4/2; Munich, 1966), 318-19, citing Hisam b. al-Kalbi, where ‘Daizan’ is attested. Altheim and Stiehl, ‘Hatra und Nisa’, 228, contend that ‘Daizan’ is an error. 174 Maricq, ‘Hatra de Sanatrouq’, 284. The absolute dates of the reign of Sanatruq I are not

232

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

Further, it is difficult to believe that the attestation of a ruler named Sanatruq in eastern Arabia, known from three sources, is in every case

due to a scribal error. That an error could have occurred once is not unlikely, but the suggestion that it permeated all the sources we have on Ardagir’s battle with Sanatruq is not convincing.!7> Nor do the

Arabic sources ever mention al-Hatt, the Arabic equivalent of Syriac ‘Hatta’, as the scene of the contest between ArdaSir and Sanatruq.

If Eastern Arabia was governed by a Parthian marzban, it is not at all inconceivable that he bore the name Sanatruq and, in view of Ibn Kallikan’s mention of Daizan as the last king of Hatra, that the third-century king called Sanatruq lived in north-eastern Arabia, not at Hatra.!76 Nor is this by any means the only Iranian name attested in eastern Arabia in the pre-Islamic era, as we shall see below.!””7 The presence of a Parthian governor or vassal monarch in eastern Arabia would, moreover, explain why Ardaiir launched a campaign against the region.!78 If this had been an unimportant area, posing no threat to‘his new regime, it is unlikely that he would have attacked it. But if indeed a Parthian governor ruled in what was perhaps, from the time of Meredat onwards, a kind of de facto satrapy of Parthia, ArdaSir’s actions can be explained as motivated by a desire to secure the southern flank of Mesopotamia as well as the coast of Fars from attack by potential enemies. In any case, there is no doubt that Sasanian political control over eastern Arabia followed directly upon the heels of ArdaSir’s campaign. In the eyes of Qatada (d. AD 739), one of the early commentators on

the Qu’ran, the population of Arabia, in the centuries prior to the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, was ‘confined on the top of a rock between Faris and Rum’,!79 that is, Persia and Rome, or Byzantium; certain; see Vattioni, Le iscrizioni di Hatra, 5, 9. On the geographical extent of Sanatruq’s realm, see B. Aggoula, ‘Remarques sur les inscriptions hatréennes, iii’, Syria, 52 (1975), 200-3.

1S Widengren, ‘The Establishment’, 724-32, has himself made a careful comparison of the different versions of the Arabian episode in Arda&ir’s campaign. 6 Cf. Felix, Antike literarische Quellen, 41: ‘der Name des dortigen Kénigs Sanatruq bzw. — bei Néldeke — Satirun der arabisch-persischen Tradition entsprang einer Konfusion dieses Feldzuges mit der Expedition Arda’irs gegen Bahrain, dessen Kénig als Sanatruk erscheint’. The implication here is that Felix considers ‘Sanatruq’ the name of the king of Bahrain defeated by Ardasir, while the king of Hatra whom he defeated was Daizan. In other words, the ‘scribal confusion’ of Hatta/Hatra resulted in the transposition of the name Sanatruq from eastern Arabia to Hatra, not vice versa as Widengren and Altheim and Stiehl argued. In this regard, it is interesting to note that G. Hoffmann, Ausziige aus syrischen Akten persischer Martyrer (Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 7/3; Leipzig, 1880), 185, had already

suggested: ‘dass ein arsakidischer Sanatruk mit dem sasanidischen al-Daizan, den Sabhor besiegte, confundiert ist’. ; '"7 Evidence pertaining to south-eastern Arabia is reviewed in ch. 6 below. 8 Piacentini has suggested that this may have been done together with Sapur I during the brief co-regency of ArdaSir and his son: ‘Ardashir i Papakan’, 58. '79 Kister, ‘Al-Hira’, 143.

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

233

and indeed from the time of Ardafir’s invasion until the Islamic conquest, the area was never exempt from the effects of the confrontation between the Sasanians and their western neighbours which dominated the later pre-Islamic period. We learn from two sources that Ardafir quickly established a Sasanian political presence in north-eastern Arabia following his conquest of the region. The Sahriha t Eran, a work probably composed between 754 and 775, tells us that ArdaSir appointed one Oak as ‘marzban of Hagar, of the two armies, on the lake of the Arabs’.189 Markwart linked the name OSak

with Arabic ‘Aus’. This, however, seems unlikely. We should rather compare “OSak’ with Avestan ‘HaoSiianha’,!8! known also in variants such as ‘OSank/q’.!8? If the name is Iranian, then it clearly suggests that Ardasir appointed an Iranian to serve as marzban in north-eastern Arabia!83 rather than an Arab, which would seem only logical. Although Tabari mentions nothing of Arda&ir’s installation of a marzban in al-Hagar, he does say that of the eight new cities founded by Arda&ir during his career, the seventh was located on the site of al-Hatt in al-Bahrain.!84+ This is surely to be linked with the toponym Chattenia, belonging to one of the districts of the Gerrhaeans, according to Polybius (13. 9. 1), with the regio Attene mentioned by Pliny (NH 5. 158), and with Ptolemy’s Atta. According to Yaqut,

al-Hatt was the name given to the coastal district in which the towns of al-Qatif, al-"Uqayr, and Qatar were located.!85 In Syriac sources al-Hatt was known as Hatta, and was the location of a Nestorian bishopric (see below). In the late pre-Islamic period, the region was famous for the battle-lances made there, the shafts of which were

imported from India, according to al-Qazwini.18° The name of the 180 See Markwart, A Catalogue, § 52. For the translation of this passage, however, I follow P. Gignoux, ‘L’Organisation administrative sasanide: Le Cas du marzban’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 4 (1984), 14, which supersedes both Markwart and the more radical reading suggested by H. S. Nyberg, ‘Die sassanidische Westgrenze und ihre Verteidigung’, in Septentrionalia et Orientalia: Studia Bernhardo Karlgren . . . Dedicata (Kung]. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademiens Handlingar, 91; Stockholm, 1959), 318. 181 M. Mayrhofer, Iranisches Personnamenbuch, i. Die altiranischen Namen, Faszikel 1: Die

avestischen Namen (Vienna, 1977), 50.

182 Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 126. 183 Tt is interesting to note that, almost 4 centuries later, at the time of the Islamic conquest, the Sasanian officer in charge of Hagar bore both a good Persian name (Seboxt) and the Persian title marzban; see the discussion below, and n. 370.

184 Ndldeke, Geschichte, 20. 185 This name has been extensively discussed by Altheim and Stiehl in ‘Bahrain und der Untergang Gerrha’s’, 164-9; cf. Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, 130; Thilo, Die Ortsnamen, 59.

186 The lament of the poet Mouhathil on the death of his brother Kulayb shows that Indian materials were used along with local resources in al-Bahrain to produce the famous weapons: ‘the lances, which the children of Taghlib brandish, are (made) of good shafts from India, the good kind, the ash grey, which are made in Hatt, with blue iron points. When they go to taverns (where there are so often fights) the tips are shining, when they return home they are

234

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

east Arabian city founded by Arda%ir has been variously read as Pasa(?)-Ardaser,!87 Paniat-R&ir,!88 Péroz-ArdaSer,'®? Pit Ardair,17° and Batn-Ardashir.!9!1

Péroz-Ardasir,

which

means

‘victorious

1s

Ardaéir’, is perhaps most plausible.? ArdaSir’s incursion into eastern Arabia marked the beginning of roughly four centuries of Sasanian domination in the area. Al-Baladhuri (c.892) says that al-Bahrain, i.e. north-eastern Arabia, was a province

of the Sasanian empire,!93 but in the strictest sense of the word this appears to have been true only at the beginning and the end of the Sasanian period. According to Ibn Qotaiba (c.880) the area was a satrapy of al-Hira, and indeed for most of this period eastern Arabia was under the jurisdiction not of a Sasanian marzban, but rather of Lahmid officials, members of the client Arab dynasty in al-Hira which functioned as vassals of the Sasanians, just as the Ghassanids did for the Byzantines, and the Kinda came to for the Himyarites.!74 That this was a family dynasty, comparable to the Kinda of antiquity or the house of Sa‘ud today, rather than a tribe, is certain. The Sahriha i Eran describes the beginnings of the Lahmid dynasty in one sentence: ‘The capital of Hert [al-Hira] was built by Sapur the son of Ardagir, and he appointed Mihrzad marzban of Hert on the Lake of the Arabs.’!?5 Rothstein, after examining all the sources,

agreed with Noldeke that the elevation of the house of Lahm to its favoured position asvassal of the Sasanian king probably took place during the reign of Sapur I.196 Hamza (d. 960) says explicitly that the inhabitants of al-Hira themselves considered ‘Amr b. ‘Adi the first coloured red with blood’ (after Ritter, Die Erdkunde, viii/1. 90. Cf. also the discussion of these famous lances in F. W. Schwarzlose, Die Waffen der alten Araber aus ihren Dichtern dargestellt

(Leipzig, 1886), 217-19; and G. Jacob, Altarabisches Beduinenleben nach den Quellen geschildert

(Berlin, 1897), 134.

'87 Noldeke, Geschichte, 20. '88 J. Marquart, EranSahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses Xorenac'i (Abh. d. Kénigl. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. K]., Ns 3/2; Berlin, 1901), 42.

‘8? Altheim and Stiehl, ‘Bahrain und der Untergang Gerrha’s’, 167. Fiey, ‘Dioceses syriens orientaux’, 218.

D. Whitehouse and A. Williamson, ‘Sasanian Maritime Trade’, Iran, 11 (1973), 32.

R. N. Frye, ‘Bahrain under the Sasanians’, BBVO 2. 167 and n. 3. For a translation of al-Baladhuri’s Kitab Futuh al-Buldan, see P. K. Hitti, The Origins of the Islamic State (Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, 68;

New York, 1916), 120. Cf. Ndldeke, Geschichte, 446. '°* Tbn Qotaiba cited after Ritter, Die Erdkunde, viii/1. 90. This was the view of the older authorities like Néldeke, Geschichte, 204 n. 2, and Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 87 n. 3. It is accepted by more recent authorities as well; cf. R. Aigrain, ‘Arabie’, in Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie eccleésiastique, iii (Paris, 1924), 1219 ff.; I. Shahid, ‘Pre-Islamic Arabia’, in P. M.

Holt et al. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Islam, ia (Cambridge, 1970), 22.

'°S Marquart, A Catalogue, § 25. Cf. Gignoux, ‘L’Organisation administrative sasanide’, 14. '°6 Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 44; cf. Ndldeke, Geschichte, 25 n. 1. ‘

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

235

Lahmid ruler, as does Tabari, who, however, begins “Amr’s rule in

the Parthian period.197 The

exact

origins of the Lahmids,

however,

are less certain.

Conflicting genealogical traditions attribute them to either northern or southern Arabia.!98 The epigraphic evidence, however, indicates a north Arabian origin. The Graeco-Nabataean funerary inscription from Umm al-Jimal in Syria calls Jadima al-Abrash ‘king of the Tanukh’.!9? Jadima, who was murdered by Zenobia, queen of Palmyra,

was

succeeded

by “Amr b. ‘Adi, the son of his sister,

traditionally considered the first Lahmid monarch. Thus, the family of Jadima

and, by extension,

“Amr

b. ‘Adi, can

be considered

Tanukhid.?° I. Shahid, however, has recently suggested that ‘Amr b. “Adi was descended from the Abgarids of Edessa.29! This is based on his interpretation of the Paikuli inscription, in which ‘*Amru king of the Lahmids’ is followed by ‘‘Amru king of the Abgars’. Such a view requires that the two lines be collapsed into one. Although this was suggested long ago by E. Herzfeld in his original edition of the text, it is no longer considered likely.2° The relationship of the Lahmids to the Sasanian state has been discussed in great detail by Rothstein, Kister, Shahid, Caskel, and

others, and only a few points need be mentioned here. The fact that Lahmid leaders were recognized by the Sasanians as mlk [‘king’] or malachus as Ammianus Marcellinus calls them (24. 2-4), should not

lead us to overestimate their power. As Shahid has discussed at length, the Sasanian concept of their own king as shahanshah, ‘king of kings’ ,2°3 made it natural to call even their clients by the exalted title of ‘king’, the grandiosity of which Abu al-Baqa’ attributed to the Bedouin fondness for exaggeration.2°* In his subordinate role, the 197 Ibid. In the Sahriba, one is tempted to see the obviously Iranian name which Marquart transcribed as Mihrzad, as a corrupt version of the Arabic name ‘Amr b. ‘Adi. 198 Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 38 ff., came to the conclusion that the sources simply do not admit of a final determination. ‘Eins ist aber jedenfalls zweifellos’, he wrote, ‘Sicheres haben die Araber selber nicht gewusst.’ f 199 Cf. the discussions in M.-L. Chaumont, ‘Etats vassaux dans l’empire des premiers Sassanides’, Acta Iranica, 4 (1975), 95; G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 133 n. 44. 200 Tbid. 133-5, for the flight of the Tanukh from north-eastern Arabia towards al-Hira, al-Anbar, and Palmyra following Arda‘ir’s conquest of the region. 201 |, Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century (Wash. DC, 1984), 34 and n. 110. For 2 recently discovered papyri from Dura Europus mentioning the last of the Abgarids, see now J. Teixidor, ‘Les Derniers Rois d’Edesse d’aprés deux nouveaux documents syriaques’, Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 76 (1989), 219-22. 202 Chaumont, ‘Etats vassaux’, 96 n. 31. 203 I. Kawar (Shahid), ‘Arethas, Son of Jabalah’, JAOS 75 (1955), 212; id., ‘The Arabs in the Peace Treaty of A.D. 561’, Arabica, 3 (1957), 206-7. 204 Kister, ‘Al-Hira’, 151.

236

North-Eastern Arabia,

100 BC-AD 676

Lahmid king was expected to perform a variety of military, political, and fiscal functions, virtually all of which drew the northern and eastern Arab tribes into a web of relationships mirroring that which obtained between the Lahmids and Sasanians themselves. Just as the Lahmids served the Sasanians as governors of the Arab

tribes within their realm, so too did the Lahmids keep control over those tribes by building up a network of friendly sheikhs, rewarding them with favours. At al-Hira itself the loyal tribal sheikhs, or ridafa, are said by al-Baladhuri and others to have sat at the right hand of the Lahmid king, ridden with him, and taken a quarter of all war spoils won by him.2% In addition, they were rewarded with fiefs, given appointments as tax-collectors, and put in charge of the king’s military units.2°6 When we remember that the Lahmids were a dynasty and not a tribe, then the importance of the loyal tribal elements becomes even clearer, for these filled the ranks of the various military-social groups which made up an important part of Hiran society. Moreover, a significant number of these men came from the tribes in eastern Arabia. According to al-Mubarrad (826-98), for example, the al-Sana@ i‘, whom Kister considers to have been those men in closest

service to the king, were largely drawn from the Bakr b. Wa’il.2°7 According to Ahmad b. ‘Ubayd, the al- Wada", troops stationed in the border garrisons, were made up of 100 men from each tribal group loyal to the king.29® Another important group was the al-Rah@in, a body of 500 youths from the various dependent tribes who were held as hostages at al-Hira for six-month periods, according to Abu alBaqa’, in order to guarantee against attacks by the supposedly friendly tribes from which they came.?° In the tribal districts outside al-Hira, loyal sheikhs were appointed governors, ‘amil, over their own territories, and it was by delegating responsibility to tribal leaders in this way that the Lahmids exercised control over eastern Arabia. As Abu al-Baqa’ wrote, the Lahmids ‘had governors on the borders of the country from al-‘Iraq till al-Bahrain. Each of these governors ruled the Bedouins under his protection in the same way.’2!0 If what has just been said describes in a general way the relationship between Sasanian Persia and her Lahmid vassal, and in turn between the Lahmids and their east Arabian clients, it must also be stressed that over the course of time the system did not always function smoothly. For this reason it is important not to look at north-eastern Arabia as having had a completely stable relationship with the Lahmids 205 Kister, ‘Al-Hira’, 149. 208 Ibid. 166.

206 Ibid. 150, 159. 209 Ibid. 167.

207 Ibid. 165. 410 Sibid Al53x

North-Eastern Arabia,

100 BC-AD 676

237

and Sasanians, but rather to consider the extant information on that

relationship chronologically from the foundation of the Lahmid state to the coming of Islam. Of ‘Amr b. ‘Adi’s involvement with north-eastern Arabia we know

nothing.

It may,

however,

have been late in his lifetime

that a Himyaritic diplomatic mission to Ctesiphon and Seleucia was sent by Sammar Yuhar'iS, probably to establish direct relations between the Himyarites and Sasanians. The account of this embassy is preserved in an inscription (Sarafaddin 31) from Mahram Bilgis,7!! mentioned briefly several times already. Such a mission, as Miller has pointed out, would most probably have followed the well-known route from Marib to Nagran, proceeding on to the Khamasin-Sulayyil area, Layla-Aflaj, and Kharj, where it would have turned east, crossing the Dahna sands, and making its way from Hofuf north, probably via Thaj, on to Kuwait and SeleuciaCtesiphon.?! This route, known to Ibn al-Mugawir as the Tariq ar-radrad,

or ‘Gravel

Road’,

is replete with

archaeological

sites

which attest to its use in the pre-Islamic era.*!3 The important point here is that the route, and this particular mission, would have cut right across the area of our concern at the end of the third century. It is possible that the mission occurred before Diocletian’s successful campaign against Narseh late in 297/82!4 and subsequent annexation of northern Mesopotamia. On the other hand, the areas lost by the Sasanians were all in the north Mesopotamian/ Armenian area,*!5 and one could equally argue that, fearing a repeat of Aelius Gallus’ attempt to invade and subdue southern Arabia more than two centuries earlier, Sammar Yuhar‘is tried to forge a potentially useful alliance with what he may have considered the lesser of two evils. According to Tabari, ‘Amr b. ‘Adi was succeeded by his son, Imru

al-Qays (d. 328), who was recognized by the Persians as ‘amil of the Rabi‘a, Mudar, and other Arabs living in the deserts of Iraq, Hejaz,

211 Recently discussed by W. W. Miiller in ‘Eine sabaeische Gesandtschaft’, 155-65, which now, due to corrected readings, supersedes J. Ryckmans’s treatment of the text in an appendix to H. von Wissmann’s ‘Zur Kenntnis von Ostarabien, besonders al-Qatif, im Altertum’, Le Muséon, 80 (1967), 508-12.

212 Miiller, ‘Eine sabaeische Gesandtschaft’, 159. 213 On which, see my ‘Archaeological Perspectives’, 113-24. 214 W. W. Miiller, personal communication. For the date of this campaign, see Felix, Antike literarische Quellen, 114 and § 170, 118 and § 177. For the campaign in general, see W. Ensslin, Zur Ostpolitik des Kaisers Diokletian (Sitzungsber. d. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Abt., 1942/1; Munich, 1942), 35-54.

215 On the territories lost, cf. Felix, Antike literarische Quellen, 124 and § 189.

238

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

and Mesopotamia.*!¢ It seems hardly coincidental that Imru al-Qays appears to have been recognized by the Persians as governor of the northern Arab tribes just as Upper Mesopotamia was being lost to the Romans.2!7 In Imru al-Qays’ famous funerary inscription from

Nemara, he is called ‘king of all the Arabs’,218 including the two Azd (i.e. Azd Oman and Azd Sanua)2!9 and Nizar.??° The significance of

this has been discussed by many scholars.??! It is of interest in the

present context for several reasons. Before proceeding, however, it

may be helpful to provide the text of the inscription:???

This is the monument of Imru al-Qays b.“Amr, king of all the Arabs; who sent his troops to Thaj, and ruled both sections of al-Azd, and Nizar, and their kings; and chastised Madhig, so that he successfully smote, in the

irrigated land of Nagran, the realm of Sammar; and ruled Ma‘add; and handed over to his sons the settled communities, when he had been given authority over the latter on behalf of Persia and of Rome. And no king had matched his achievements up to the time when he died, in prosperity, in the year 233, the seventh day of Kislul . . .2*8

216 Néldeke, Geschichte, 46; cf. Bowersock, Roman Arabia, 141-2, for a discussion of the question of Imru al-Qays’ allegiance. 717 A. F. L. Beeston, ‘Nemara and Faw’, BSOAS 62 (1979), 5, writes: ‘According to al-Tabari (de Goeje, I, 845-6), Umru’ al-Qays b. ‘Amr was recognized by the Sasanians as their “governor” (‘amil) over the Mudar and Rabrah, and al-Tabari seems also to say that his governorship lasted 30 years. If, as is normally believed, the Nemara text is dated according to the era of Bostra, the date of the king’s death was A.D. 328; and the beginning of his governorship would be A.D. 298, and thus almost immediately after the peace treaty of 297 (which lasted uninterrupted for 40 years) between Rome and Persia, in which the Sasanian king Narses was forced to cede large portions of territory to Rome, particularly the great strategic frontier fortresses in northern Mesopotamia. With their northern frontier thus dangerously exposed, the Sasanians may well have been anxious to gain additional security further south by bestowing the title of “governor” on a highly influential Bedouin chieftain, with authority over both nomads and some settled groups (Rabi'ah include some sedentaries, in contrast to the wholly nomad Mudar). Certainly Umru’ al-Qays must have been in friendly relations with the Romans as well, since Nemara itself is within the Roman limes; and it was presumably the fact of the peace treaty which enabled him to enter into parallel relationships with both sides.’ 718 Cf. the discussion of this in F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, ‘Die Araber zwischen Alexander und Mohammed’, Das Altertum, 8 (1962), 111. *19 For the interpretation of this, see Miiller, ‘Eine sabaeische Gesandtschaft’, 160-1; cf. Shahid, ‘Philological Observations’, 36-7; Beeston, ‘Languages’, 183-4. Shahid, Byzantium and

the Arabs, 37-8, now suggests that this refers not to Azd Oman and Azd Sanua, but to the western Azd Sarat. J. Bellamy, ‘A New Reading of the Namarah Inscription’, JAOS 105 (1985), 37, 46; and W. Caskel, ‘Zur Beduinisierung Arabiens’, ZDMG

103 (1953), *33* retain

the old reading of ‘Asad’ rather than ‘Asd’, but this seems unlikely. 20 On Nizar, see J. Henninger, ‘Altarabische Genealogie (zu einem neuerschienen Werk) ’ Anthropos, 61 (1966), 859. ' *21 Cf. most recently Bowersock, Roman Arabia, 138-47; Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, 5-47. 22 Following Beeston, ‘Nemara and Faw’, 6.

ze Note the conflicting translation recently published by Bellamy, ‘A New Reading’, 47, with extensive discussion of earlier alternative readings.

>

North-Eastern Arabia,

100 BC-AD 676

239

If one takes the view that, at the time of Imru al-Qays’ activities in Arabia and his rule over the Azd Oman and Rabi'a—among which the north-eastern tribes Abd al-Qays and Bakr b. Wa’il must be counted??4—he was acting in his capacity as a Lahmid vassal of Persia, then this represents the first period of active Lahmid involvement in eastern Arabia. I. Shahid, moreover, has even proposed linking the campaign of Imru al-Qays with that of Sapur II, discussed below.225 Alternatively, it may also be suggested that Imru al-Qays’ Arabian campaign, which took him as far south as Nagran, was undertaken

as a vassal of Rome, following the campaign of Diocletian.22¢ It must, however, be recognized that A. F. L. Beeston has recently proposed a new reading of a crucial phrase in line 1. It is generally thought that ‘asara l-tag means that Imru al-Qays ‘assumed the diadem’.

Beeston, however,

reads ‘asra ‘ila tag,2*7 which would

mean that he ‘sent a military expedition (sariyyah) to Thaj’.228 The difficulty of the Arabic, and the poor state of the stone, however, must

render any conclusions on this point tentative at best. That the power of Persian or Lahmid control over eastern Arabia waned during the first two decades of the fourth century??? can be gleaned from Tabari’s account of the youth of Sapur II (b. 309).23° Here we read that Arabs from the territories of the Abd al-Qays, alBahrain, and Kiazma (i.e. Kazima, modern Kuwait) crossed the Gulf

in bands to ReSahr,?*! driven by hunger, to plunder the Persian coastal 224 Ashkenazi, ‘Social and Historical Problems’, 95. 225 Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, 34 n. 13. Ibid sag a7 46 227 Beeston, ‘Nemara and Faw’, 3. 228 See Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, 35-7, with a résumé of the traditional literature on the tag, or ‘crown’, of Imru al-Qays. 229 What relation, if any, this has to the campaign of Imru al-Qays, is unclear. Cf. Shahid, ibid. 34, for a discussion of some possibilities. 230 Néldeke, Geschichte, 53-6. Tabari writes: ‘Nun waren aber die Lander der Araber am nachsten bei Persien, und dazu waren diese mehr als andre Volker darauf angewiesen, sich anderswoher Lebensmittel und Wohnsitze zu verschaffen, da ihr Zustand elend und ihre Nahrung diirftig war. So kamen sie denn Schaarenweise aus dem Gebiet der “Abdalqais, aus Bahrain und Kiazama [Kazima, i.e. Kuwait] tiber die See nach RéSahr, dem Kistengebiet von ArdasirChurra und den iibrigen Gestaden Persiens, nahmen den Bewohnern ihr Vieh, ihr Getreide und

ihre sonstigen Lebensmittel weg und trieben argen Unfug im Lande.’ 231 On the location of Arab. ReSahr/Pers.

Rev Arda&’ir, the seat of the Nestorian metro-

politan of Fars, see the extensive discussion by Fiey, ‘Diocéses syriens orientaux’, 179-92, who distinguishes 3 localities all bearing the same name: (1) a town in Mesene, near modern Basra, which Hamza says was a foundation of ArdaSir; (2) a town near modern Bushire, which may be indicated in a text by Mustawfi (cf. Markwart, Eransahr, 147 n. 17, where the same site is identified with ReSir-i Pahrsan); and (3) a town said by al-Istakhri, al-Muqaddasi, and

al-Baladhuri to have been a day’s journey from Arragan, watered by the river Tab, listed by Tabari as Ardafir’s third foundation, and restored by Roman prisoners of war brought there by Sapur I. Some authorities, e.g. N. Pigulevskaja, Les Villes de l’Etat iranien aux époques parthe et sassanide (Paris, 1963), 123; E. Sachau, Vom Christentum in der Persis (Sitzungsber. d.

240

North-Eastern Arabia,

100 BC-AD 676

region, taking cattle, grain, and other foodstuffs. Tabari, al-Tha‘alibi,

and Ibn al-Atir all record a major campaign against Arabia by Sapur II aimed at retaliating against the Arabs ‘who looked on Pars as their pastureland’.232 Upon reaching the age of sixteen (i.e. in 325), Sapur crossed the Gulf and, landing at al-Hatt, went through

al-Bahrain and on to al-Hagar, where, as noted above, he encountered the Tamim, Bakr b. Wa’il, and Abd al-Qays, slaughtering them, Tabari

says, so that their blood ran like a rain-swollen stream. He proceeded to al-Yamama, destroying every well and water source, before heading to Medina, and from there turning north to the Roman-Sasanian frontier. It was here that he captured members of the Taghlib and Bakr tribes; he

resettled some of the former in Darin and al-Hatt, while the Abd al-

Qays and some of the Tamin were resettled in al-Hagar, and other Tamim were deported to Ahwaz and Kerman.?33 As a result of his ordering the piercing and binding of the shoulder-blades of his prisoners, Sapur earned the nickname du’l-aktaf (Pers. hobah-sumba), according to Hamza,

Mefatih, al-Biruni, and Mugmil, meaning ‘lord of the shoulders’.*34 It is interesting to note that, according to al-Tha‘alibi, Sapur did not press on to Yemen ‘because the kings of this country were his

clients’.235 It is not inconceivable that the embassy sent by Sammar Yuhar‘is to Seleucia and Ctesiphon in the late third century, described in Sarafaddin 31 as noted earlier, may have been responsible for the establishment of diplomatic ties between the kingdom of Saba and Du Raydan and the Sasanians which caused al-Tha‘alibi to consider the kings of Yemen as Sapur’s ‘clients’. The long-lasting effects of this campaign on north-eastern Arabia are difficult to determine. Al-Baladhuri mentions a town in eastern Arabia called Sabur,*36 which Néldeke suggested may have been Konig]. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl., 39; Berlin, 1916), 9-10; id., Zur Ausbreitung des Christentums in Asien (Abh. d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl., 1; Berlin, 1919),

58, place this city at the border between Khuzistan and Fars, between Behbehan and Bandar-e Ma’shur. Whitehouse and Williamson, ‘Sasanian Maritime Trade’, 41, however, on the basis

of archaeological reconnaissance, suggest that the site on the Bushire peninsula was the ReSahr or Rey-Ardasir of Tabari, and the seat of the Nestorian metropolitan. °32 Noldeke, Geschichte, 53. But note Smith, ‘Events in Arabia’, 442: ‘Though Shapur’s campaign in Arabia was attributed by HiSam to the desire to punish poverty-stricken raiders into ‘Iraq, it is clear that a major Persian interest could be served. By the 4th century the western shore of the Gulf provided disembarkation points from which goods could be transported to Mesopotamia and Syria without incurring Persian taxes. Shapur stopped that.’ 33 Néldeke, Geschichte, 56-7. **4 This was misinterpreted by Néldeke, ibid. 52 n. 1, as a positive reference to ‘broad shoulders’ able to bear the weight of governmental responsibility. It was discussed from both an etymological and historical point of view by A. Christensen, L’Iran sous les Sassanides (repr. Osnabriick, 1971), 235 n. 2, who showed that the Persian form means precisely ‘he who pierces

the shoulders’.

°35 Widengren, ‘The Establishment’, 731.

236 Néldeke, Geschichte, 57 n. 2.

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

241

founded (or rebuilt?) at the time of Sapur II’s campaign. A more important result of the campaign, however, also related by al-

_ Baladhuri, seems to have been the establishment of the Sasanian limes,

a string of wells and garrisons designed to protect the Sasanians’ Mesopotamian frontier from any further incursions by Arab tribes.237

There is a gap of over two centuries in our sources on Persian and

Lahmid political relations with eastern Arabia, from the period following Sapur II’s intervention, c.325, until 531, when Lahmid power over the area was restored by the Sasanian shahanshah Khusraw I. In the interval, however, Persian influence grew through the medium

of the Nestorian Church. Nestorian Christianity The exact origins of Christianity in eastern Arabia are unknown. According to the Chronicle of Arbela, Christians were already present in the region by 224.738 This text, however, is generally considered a forgery and should be discounted.?3? Although a bishop Abraham is attested at Seleucia as early as 159249 it would, none the less, be surprising to find Christian communities already established in the Gulf at this early date, given the fact that it was only after Sapur I’s 237 F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, ‘Sapur II. und die Araber’, AAW ii (1965), 349; cf. R. N. Frye, ‘The Sasanian System of Walls for Defense’, in M. Rosen-Ayalon (ed.), Studies in Memory of Gaston Wiet (Jerusalem, 1977), 7-15. But note that Gignoux, ‘L’Organisation administrative

sasanide’, 14 n. 58, 15, is strongly critical of Frye’s arguments, and in his new translation of § 52 in the Sahriha 1 Eran has re-interpreted the word which Frye thought referred to a fortress, thus liquidating one of the most important pieces of evidence adduced by Frye. 238 Sachau, Die Chronik von Arbela, 22. 239 Inconsistencies, errors, and contradictions Peeters, ‘Le “Passionaire d’Adiabéne” ’, AnBol 43 les Sassanides, 80; Pigulevskaja, Les Villes de ‘Discussione’, in La Persia nel Medioevo, 783.

in the text have long been recognized; see P. (1925), 263, 302. Cf. Christensen, L’Iran sous l’Etat iranien, 114; J. Duchesne-Guillemin, J.-M. Fiey has, to the satisfaction of several

authorities, shown the manuscript to have been a falsification by its original editor, A. Mingana. See his ‘Auteur et date de la Chronique d’Arbéles’, L’Orient syrien, 12 (1967), 265-302. Cf.

J. Neusner, ‘Babylonian Jewry and Shapur II’s Persecution of Christianity from 339 to 379 A.D.’, HUCA 43 (1972), 100: ‘In all, Fiey raises such serious doubts about the authenticity of the Chronicle of Arbela and about the accuracy of its attribution to a sixth-century authority that one can no longer make use of it as evidence of the period of which it claims to give testimony, but rather as a piquant document in the history of modern Syriac scholarship.’ Cf. also C. Robin, ‘Monnaies provenant de I’Arabie du Nord-Est’, Semitica, 24 (1974), 108 n. 2; and Keall, ‘Parthian Nippur’, 630 n. 36, where the document is also rejected as a falsification. In view of this testimony,

it is nothing less than amazing that P. Kawerau, Die Chronik von Arbela (CSCO 467 (= Scriptores Syri, 199); Louvain, 1985), has recently re-edited the text, claiming its authenticity, without refuting any of Fiey’s arguments. s :

240 J.-M. Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, iii. Bét Garmai, Bét Aramayé et Maisan Nestoriens (Recherches publiées sous la direction de l'Institut de lettres orientales de Beyrouth, 3/42; Beirut,

1968), 152. For the evangelization of Iraq, cf. id., Jalons pour une histoire de l’Eglise en Iraq (CSCO 310 (=Subsidia, 36); Louvain, 1970), 32-43.

242

North-Eastern Arabia,

100 BC-AD

676

deportation of large numbers of Christian Roman prisoners of war from Antioch to Mesopotamia and Iran in 256 and 260 that a sizeable influx of Christians into the region first occurred.**! Various reasons have been cited to account for the spread of Christianity to the Arabian Gulf, although the actual source, whether southernmost Iraq, i.e. Mesene, or Fars, is unknown.?4? O. Braun, for example, suggested that a major influx of Christians into the Gulf occurred after Sapur II’s celebrated persecution of Christians in Mesopotamia and Iran in 339.243 A. Ricker, while agreeing with this view, also suggested that Christianity may have been spread by Christian traders coming to the area for pearls and textiles.744 Whatever the original mechanism by which Christianity first reached the eastern shores of Arabia, it seems clear that there were at least

two main streams of Christian influence operative in the area. On the one hand, Christianity amongst the tribes is at least in part attributable to their contacts with al-Hira, where a significant proportion of the population was Christian.*4° The majority of the Abd al-Qays followed the Christian faith,2+® although a minority seems to have been either Jewish or Zoroastrian.247 The Tamim are sometimes considered to have been pagan,?*8 but certain sections that came into contact with the Christian ‘Ibad in al-Hira were certainly Christian,2*? 41 Cf, Sachau, Vom Christentum, 7. Cf. P. Peeters, ‘S. Démétrianus, Evéque d’Antioche?’, AnBol 42 (1924), 288-314; and more recently B. Spuler, ‘Die nestorianische Kirche’, in B. Spuler

(ed.), Handbuch der Orientalistik, i/8/2 (Munich, 1961), 122. The Chronicle of Seert, a Nestorian document written in Arabic and composed shortly after 1036 (date according to C. F. Seybold in his review of A. Scher’s Histoire nestorienne (Chronique de Séert), ZDMG 66 (1912), 743) which relates events during the years 250-442 and 484-650, speaks of the

numbers of Christians among the Roman prisoners, of the priests from Antioch among them, of the monasteries and churches they built, of the bishops they elected, and of the spread of their faith throughout the Sasanian empire. This is not to say that no Christians at all lived in Mesopotamia before the Roman arrival, however. Cf. n. 240 above. ?42 Sachau, Die Chronik von Arbela, 25. 43 O. Braun, Das Buch der Synhados (Stuttgart and Vienna, 1900), 331, speaking of the Christian population of eastern Arabia, wrote: ‘Immerhin mag d. Verfolgung Sapur II d. frithe Ausbreitung des Christentums dortselbst begiinstigt haben.’ Cf. J. B. Aufhauser, ‘Die orientalischen christlichen Zweigkirchen und der Missionsgedanke’, BZ 30 (1929-30), 503: ‘Nestorianische

persische Kauf leute brachten als Fliichtlinge vor dem Christensturm unter Schapur II. wohl spatestens um die Mitte des IV. Jahr. das Christentum auch zur malabarischen Westkiiste SiidIndiens, vielleicht auch bereits nach Ceylon.’ *#4 A. Riicker, Die Canones des Simeon von RévardeSir, Inaug.-Diss., Konigl. Univ. zu

Breslau (Leipzig, 1908), 14. *45 Charles, Le Christianisme, 55-61. Cf. F. Nau, Les Arabes chrétiens de Mésopotamie et de Syrie du VII’ au VIII’ siécle (Cahiers de la Société asiatique, 1/1; Paris, 1933), 36-49; R. Devreese, ‘Arabes-Perses et Arabes-Romains: Lakhmides et Ghassanides’, Vivre et penser,

21942273 tf, 46 Caskel, ‘Abd al-Kays’, 74. 247 Graf, Geschichte, 26. 49 Graf, Geschichte, 26.

*48 Levi della Vida, ‘Tamim’, 644.

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

243

as attested by Ibn HiSam.25° The Bakr b. Wa’il seems to have contained a considerable number of Christians.25! Only a small number of Kinda are thought to have been Christian;252 of these, the most famous was certainly Hind, daughter of al-Harit b. ‘Amr and wife of al-Mundhir III. The monastery which she built at al-Hira was known as Dayr Hind al-Koubra, and the dedication inscription on it was still extant when Yaqut was alive.253 While contact with al-Hira must have accounted in part for the Christianization of the principal tribes of north-eastern Arabia, it must also be surmised that relations between the tribes and the Nestorian centres of eastern Arabia itself played a comparable, if not even greater role. The relevant historical details pertaining to the beginnings of the Nestorian presence in the area can be summed up briefly. Following a series of persecutions, the Nestorians were finally granted permission by Yazdigird I in 399 to hold a synod.*5+ The synod, convened by Mar Isaac, catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, was finally held in 410,

and it must be considered among the most important in Nestorian history, for it was here that the major principles governing the organization of the Church were established.255 The pyramidal authority of the Church can be sketched out as follows.2°° At the head of the Church stood the catholicos, whose actual title was ‘Catholicos of all Christians of the Orient’.257 In this case, ‘the Orient’ meant the Sasanian empire, divided into large ecclesiastical

provinces corresponding to the miajor territorial divisions of the empire, 250 Cf. the discussion in J. Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums (3rd edn.; Berlin, 1961), 231; Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 20.

251 Caskel, ‘Bakr b. Wa’il’, 964. 252 Graf, Geschichte, 27. 253 L. Massignon, Mission en Mésopotamie (1907-1908) (Mémoires . . . de l'Institut francais d’archéologie orientale du Caire, 28; Cairo, 1910), 40; Olinder, ‘The Kings of Kinda’, 46, 62; Charles, Le Christianisme, 59; Graf, Geschichte, 19; Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs,

355 and n. 20. 54 The literature on the persecutions is considerable; see e.g. Hoffmann, Ausziige aus syrischen Akten persischer Martyrer,; P. Devos, ‘Les Martyrs persans a travers leurs Actes syriaques’, in La Persia e il mondo greco-romano (Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Quaderno

76; Rome, 1966), 213-25; G. Wiessner, Zur Mdartyrertiberlieferung aus der Christenverfolgung Schapurs II. (Abh. d. Akad. d. Wiss. in Gottingen, phil.-hist. Kl., 3/67; Gottingen, 1967).

For the acts of the synod, see Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, 5-35; J. B. Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale ou recueil de synodes nestoriens’, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque nationale, 37 (1902), 253-75. For an analysis of the internal composition of the participating

clerical factions present at the synod, see G. Wiessner, ‘Zu den Subskriptionslisten der altesten christlichen Synoden in Iran’, in G. Wiessner (ed.), Festschrift fir Wilhelm Eilers (Wiesbaden, 1967), 288-98. 255 Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 387; J. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans l’Empire perse sous la dynastie sassanide (224-632) (Paris, 1904), 92. 256 Following principally the outline given by Labourt, ibid. 328-38. 257 Graf, Geschichte, 68.

244

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

and smaller episcopal units reflecting lower-level state administrative and judicial divisions.258 Below the catholicos, and at the head of each ecclesiastical province, were the metropolitans. These men, personally consecrated by the catholicos, were in charge of all clergy within their province. Twice yearly the metropolitans held assemblies which all the bishops in their province were meant to attend. In 410 only five ecclesiastical provinces are mentioned in the acts of the synod of Mar Isaac, but by 424, when the synod of Dadiso was convened, Nestorianism had effectively become the national Christian Church of the Sasanian empire,25? and Rev-Arda’ir, located near modern

Bushire in southern Fars,2°9 was added as a sixth province. Decisive for our appreciation of the extent of Persian influence in eastern Arabia, and the organization of its Church, is the fact that Bet Qatraye, as north-eastern Arabia was known in Syriac Nestorian sources, was considered part of the province of Rev-Ardasir.*°! Thus, semi-annual movement back and forth between the two sides of the Gulf was institutionalized through the medium of the Church, and was not merely random or occasional. This contact with Iran, along with commercial and social exchanges which we can only infer, must have been largely responsible for the Persian admixture noted by early grammarians in the Arabic spoken in eastern Arabia, as mentioned above. As is well known, the written

language of the Church,?°2 and possibly the language used in religious services,” was Syriac, while Arabic remained the vernacular spoken in the region.*64 Nevertheless, the fact that the bishops of eastern Arabia were subordinate to the metropolitan of Fars meant that Persian was as well known in Bet Qatraye as Syriac.265 Three examples illustrate this fact well. First, Ma‘na II, a Persian-born metropolitan of Rev-Arda&ir present at the synod of Acace in 486,7°° is said in the Chronicle of Seert*®’ to have made a translation of ‘religious odes, poems, and hymns to be sung in Church’ from Syriac into Persian, not Arabic, which he sent to the Christians of Bet Qatraye. Secondly, al-Numan III (579-601), the last independent king of the 288 Labourt, Le Christianisme, 326. *59 Graf, Geschichte, 68. Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 285; Labourt, Le Christianisme, 326. On this relationship, see E. Sachau, Syrische Rechtsbiicher, iti. Erbrecht oder Canones des persischen Erzbischofs Simeon (Berlin, 1914), p. xviii. 26? Néldeke, Geschichte, 313 n. 1. Cf. S. Frankel, Die aramdischen Fremdworter im Arabischen (Hildesheim, 1886), 268 ff. 63 Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 26. 26S Ibiduey, *6° Sachau, Syrische Rechtsbiicher, iii, p. xviii. Ngee 266 Sachau, Vom Christentum, 14. °°” A. se Pea Scher, WeHistoire nestorienne (Chronique qd de Séert) ) (Patrologia (Patrologia OriOrientalis; is; Paris, i

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

245

Lahmid dynasty in al-Hira and naturally an Arabic-speaker, had as his personal interpreter for Persian a native of Darin on Tarut, named Ma‘ne, according to the Anonymous Syriac Chronicle.268 And thirdly, we know that an important collection of legal canons compiled around 77526? by Simeon of Rev-ArdaSir27° was translated from the original Persian into Syriac by an anonymous monk from Bet Qatraye. What should be stressed here is the fact that it was not only the clergy of Bet Qatraye, best exemplified by the unknown translator of Simeon’s canons, who were fluent in Persian. Rather, the fact that Persian translations of hymns were sent to Bet Qatraye to be sung during church services, and that al-Numan III’s interpreter is never said to have been a clergyman, suggest that Persian was widely known throughout the ordinary Christian population. Thus, we must reckon with considerably more than just Persian influence in the spoken Arabic of eastern Arabia during the late pre-Islamic era: we must acknowledge that Persian was an important and widely spoken vernacular in the area. Leaving aside the falsified Chronicle of Arbela, there are two traditions concerning the earliest Nestorian foundations in eastern Arabia which date to the middle of the fourth century. The Vita

Ionae,?’! a work which describes the life of a monk who lived during the catholicate of Barb‘aSemin (343-6),272 records that a monastery

of the Rabban Thomas existed in Bet Qatraye under the authority of Mar Zadoe. According to the Chronicle of Seert, AbdiSo went to an ‘island of Yamama and ‘Bahrain’ called Ramat, where he baptized the inhabitants and built a monastery.2’3 A pupil of the great propagator of Syrian monasticism, Mar ‘Abda, AbdiSo is known as the founder of many monasteries during the reign of the catholicos Tomarsa (363-71).274 The island is said to have been 68 parsangs (= 348 km.) from Obolla.275 Certainly there is no reason to doubt the 268 T. Noéldeke, Die’ von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik (Sitzungsber. d. Konig]. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl., 128/1; Vienna, 1893), 14.

269 Sachau, Syrische Rechtsbiicher, iii, pp. xix-xx. 270 Riicker, Die Canones; Sachau, Syrische Rechtsbiicher, iii. 271 Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, 321 n. 1. Cf. Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, iii. 237 n. 4. 272 A. Védbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, i (CSCO 184 (=Subsidia, 14); Louvain, 1958).

273 Scher, Histoire nestorienne, i/2. 311-12. Cf. the discussion in Nau, Les Arabes chrétiens, 392 274 V6dbus, History of Asceticism, 266, 269. For the date, see Fiey, ‘Diocéses syriens orientaux’, 215. Védbus, p. 261, denied the historicity of Tomarsa, arguing that he was ‘a fictitious catholicos belatedly added to the lists’, but G. Westphal, Untersuchungen uber die Quellen und die Glaubwiirdigkeit der Patriarchenchroniken des Mart Ibn Sulaiman, ‘Amr Ibn Matai und Saliba Ibn Johannan,

Inauguraldiss.

(Strasburg,

1901),

115-22,

has assembled

and

evaluated all the sources on his life and it would seem that he indeed lived. 275 Fiey, ‘Diocéses syriens orientaux’, 215. Measured from Basra, this would put Ramat roughly in the vicinity of Abu ‘Ali island, just north of al-Jubayl.

246

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

truth of these traditions, particularly in view of the fact that by the time of the synod of 410 Nestorian Christianity was well established in the area. The evidence for this is as follows. In Canon XXI of the synod acts Mar Isaac declared that the ‘bishops of distant dioceses’, such as Persis and ‘the Isles’, as Bet Qatraye

was sometimes called, would accept the points adopted by the synod.276 He then appointed Paul to be bishop for the ‘islands of Ardai and Todourou’, in which we can easily recognize the names Darai/Darin and Tarut. This was followed by no less than a full page (out of thirty-five) devoted to the excommunication

of Batai of

Ma’mahig, and of Daniel, a ‘bishop’ present at the synod who had been falsely ordained by him.2”7”7 Masmahig, as discussed in Chapter 3, can be identified with the island of Muharraq in the Bahrain archipelago. Finally, as a co-signatory of the acts we find one Elias, bishop of MaSmahig.278 Elias was obviously the properly ordained bishop, recognized by Mar Isaac, from whom Batai may have been striving to seize authority. Before proceeding with the history of the Nestorian communities in eastern Arabia it may be useful to provide some information on the organization of the Nestorian Church in general.*’? We have already mentioned that eastern Arabia was under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Rev-ArdaSir, to whom its bishops reported twice yearly. Bishops were ordained by the catholicos, and were the highest authorities within their own dioceses. There was only one bishop per town or city, but he was assisted by a large body of clergy. This included a suffragan bishop (Fr. chorévéque; Ger. Weihbischof ), who served as his representative on occasions when he could not be present; the visitors, who helped in rural parishes and monasteries; archdeacons,

who were the highest-ranking officials under the bishop; deacons and priests; subdeacons

or exorcists, who functioned like ushers and

acolytes in church; ‘sanctified ones’, who were laymen helping in the offices of the Church; and last but not least the bursar, a layman entrusted with the finances of the Church. Built around each church,

moreover, were schools, libraries, hospitals, and monasteries.289 We must expect some, if not all, of this personnel and these facilities to have been present in eastern Arabia. Following the synod of 410 there is a gap in our sources on the Nestorian communities of the region. Only Yohannan, a bishop of *76 Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 273. *”7 Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, 33; Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 273; Labourt, Le Christianisme, 99.

at: Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 275. 279 Tabourt, Le Christianisme, 328-38.

280 Thid. 393=4.

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

247

Mazun, i.e. Oman, was present at Dadi&o’s synod of 424.28! There-

after, we hear nothing until c.490, when Ma‘na, metropolitan of

Rev-Ardaéir, sent his Persian translations of Syriac hymns, poems, and religious odes to ‘the maritime Isles’,?82 as the Gulf bishoprics were sometimes called.*83 The reasons for the prolonged absence of the east Arabian bishops from the important synods in Seleucia-Ctesiphon is nowhere mentioned, but it is tempting to suggest that the rise of a new and potent political force in central Arabia was responsible for this disruption. The Kinda

Politically, the period from c.450 to c.530 must be seen as one in which the Lahmids, for all intents and purposes, lost control of al-Bahrain to the vassals of Himyar, the Kinda.284 The Arab sources are brief in their accounts of the Kinda’s rise to power, saying only that one Hugr Akil al-Murar, whose greatest period of activity has been dated to c.450-475, was given control over the tribes of Ma‘add by the king of Himyar.?85 That Hugr was most assuredly a historical personage has been proved recently by the discovery of a graffito of his at the important south-central Arabian site of Qaryat al-Fau.2°° Qaryat alFau has been identified with the Qryt™ dt-Khl™ of South Arabian inscriptions,*8” one of which, Ja 635, mentions two raids by Sa‘ar Awtar, king of Saba’ and Du-Raydan, against the city and its king ‘Rabra, of the lineage of Tawr, king of Kinda and of Qahtan’, at

some time around 210-30.288 This strongly suggests that Qaryat alFau was already at this date capital of the Kinda. Of particular interest for the history of north-eastern Arabia are the following facts. According to the Kitab al-Agani, Hugr campaigned with the tribes of the Rabi‘a group against al-Bahrain. This is important since, as both Abd al-Qays and Bakr b. Wa’il belonged to the Rabi‘a,?°? it may 281 Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 285. 282 Scher, Histoire nestorienne, i/2. 117. 283 Fiey, ‘Diocéses syriens orientaux’, 209. 284 Olinder, ‘The Kings of Kinda’, 22, 32.

285 Ibid. 38-9; Henninger, ‘Altarabische Genealogie’, 859. 286 |. Shahid, review of M. J. Zwettler, The Oral Tradition of Arabic Poetry: Its Character and Implications, JAOS 100 (1980), 32, notes that ‘the appearance of the name of Hujr, Imru’ al-Qays’s great great grandfather, in a graffito’, was announced by A. R. Al-Ansary in Riyadh, Apr. 1979, at the 2nd International Symposium on Studies in the History of Arabia. __ 287 On the identification of the site, see C. Robin, ‘Two Inscriptions from Qaryat al-Faw mentioning Women’, CNIP 7. 169.

288 Cf. the discussion in C. Robin’s review of A. R. Al-Ansary, Qaryat al-Fau: A Portrait

of Pre-Islamic Civilisation in Saudi Arabia, Annales Islamologiques, 21 (1985), 304-5.

289 Ashkenazi, ‘Social and Historical Problems’, 95.

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

248

imply that these tribes had ceased to acknowledge the authority of the Lahmids, which would help account for the lack of references to Lahmid contact with eastern Arabia for such a long period of time. Another factor to be considered is the so-called Basus War, which raged off and on between the Bakr and the Taghlib between c.490 and c.530.299 This tribal conflict could well have made it difficult for the Lahmids to maintain their influence over the tribes of Nagd and al-Bahrain. Huégr had two sons, ‘Amr al-Magsur, who succeeded him as king of Kinda, ruling most probably in the south,??! and Muawija alGaun, to whom he granted al-Yamama and al-Hagar.*?* The Kindite presence in al-Hagar at this time is confirmed by the tradition preserved by Muhammad b. Habib that Hugr’s youngest son, the famous Kindite poet Imru al-Qays (b. c.500), spent part of his early life there in the fortress of al-MuSaqqar.2? It is around this date, too, that the Kinda seem to have established an alliance with the Byzantines.?74 ‘Amr al-Magsur’s son and successor was al-Harit b. ‘Amr. All of the Arabic sources, including Yaqut, Ibn Khaldun, al-Ya‘qubi, al-Dinawari, and Ibn al-Kalbi, while differing in some details, agree

that al-Harit delegated control over the north-central and northeastern tribes to his sons.*?> According to the reconstruction by G. Olinder, Surahbil gained leadership over Bakr b. Wa’il, parts of the Tamim, and ar-Ribab, who ranged over the area between al-

Bahrain, Dariya, and the Euphrates; Salama controlled Taghlib b. Wail, an-Namir, Sa‘d b. Zayd Manat, and Darim b. Malik, tribes

which belonged to the Rabi‘a, Mudar, and Tamim groups, in that part of north-eastern Arabia closest to Sasanian territory; and finally, “Abd-allah was given control of the Abd al-Qays in al-Bahrain.29° We thus see that, in the late fifth century, virtually all of the groups that had formerly been loyal to al-Hira were now on the side of the Kinda. It is hardly surprising, then, to find no mention of eastern Arabia in the contemporary annals of the Lahmid dynasty. According to Joshua the Stylite, al-Harit carried out a raid on alHira in 503.297 Whether this was the occasion on which the celebrated ey Kindermann, “Taghlib’, 223; Olinder, ‘The Kings of Kinda’, 90; E. Meyer, Der historische Gehalt der Aiyam al-Arab (Schriften der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung, 7;

Wiesbaden, 1970), 12, for the sources.

*! Olinder, ‘The Kings of Kinda’, 50. **? Caskel, ‘Die einheimischen Quellen’, 340; Olinder, ‘The Kings of Kinda’, 47. oS:

2

bid

4

Ibid. 52; Shahid (Kawar), ‘Arethas, Son of Jabalah’, 215.

5 Olinder, ‘The Kings of Kinda’, 70-5. PEN Tbide 74: 4 W. Wright, The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite (Cambridge, 1882), 45-6; Olinder, ‘The Kings of Kinda’, 52.

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

249

three-year seizure of al-Hira by the Kinda occurred, or whether that event took place two decades later, as Néldeke,298 Rothstein,2%

Olinder,3°° and most recently Bosworth3°! have suggested, must

remain undecided. What is important for us, however, is the fact that,

according to Imru al-Qays, al-Harit was acknowledged by the Kinda as king of the entire region from Iraq to Oman.302 The view that the interregnum took place late in al-Harit’s life, c.525-8, is made plausible by four facts. First, the Kitab al-Agani tells us that Kawadh I, angered at the refusal of his Lahmid vassal alMundhir III to accept the Mazdakite doctrine, approached al-Harit, offering him the rule of al-Hira instead.39 Secondly, according to John Malalas, al-Harit was killed in 528 at the hands of al-Mundhir I]I.394 Thirdly, we find that when Khusraw I AnoSirwan came to power c.531 he named al-Mundhir III ‘king of the area of Oman, al-Bahrain, al-Yamama

as far as Taif and the rest of the Hejaz’,

according to Tabari.3°> Finally, it was at just this time, following the collapse of the Kinda realm upon the death of al-Harit, in order, as Procopius tells us, to create a counterpoise to the threat posed by al-Mundir III, that the Ghassanid leader al-Harit b. Jabala was elevated from phylarch to king by Justinian.3 All of these facts would tend to support the following reconstruction. Late in his life, al-Harit briefly wrested control of al-Hira away from al-Mundhir III, possibly with the aid or encouragement of Kawadh I. Acting on his own, al-Mundhir was eventually able to challenge al-Harit, defeating and killing him in battle in 528. Upon the accession of Khusraw I, al-Mundhir III was reinstated, and given

express control over those tribal regions which had formerly been under the jurisdiction of al-Harit’s sons. Recognizing the threat posed by these developments, and having lost a vassal upon the collapse of 298 299 300 301

Noldeke, Geschichte, 171 n. 1. Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 89-92. Olinder, ‘The Kings of Kinda’, 65. ©, E. Bosworth, ‘Iran and the Arabs before Islam’, in E. Yarshater (ed.), Cambridge

History of Iran, iii/1 (Cambridge, 1983), 602.

302 Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 88; Olinder, ‘The Kings of Kinda’, 66. 393 Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 89; Olinder, ‘The Kings of Kinda’, 63-4. 304 bid. 54. For a useful bio-bibliography of al-Harit, giving all relevant Byzantine sources, see J. R. Martindale,

The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, ii. A.D. 395-527 (Cambridge, 1980), 139-40. An English translation of the original text is now available: see E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and R. Scott, The Chronicle of John Malalas (Byzantina Australiensia, 4; Melbourne,i986), 252: ‘Alamoundaros, the Persian Saracen, attacked the Roman phylarch [al-Harit], captured him and killed him, for he had 30,000 men with him.’

305 Néldeke, Geschichte, 238. 306 Shahid (Kawar), ‘Arethas, Son of Jabalah’, 207; id., “The Arabs in the Peace Treaty’, 186.

North-Eastern Arabia,

250

100 BC-AD 676

the Kinda, the Byzantines immediately took steps to create a counterbalance to al-Mundhir III by installing al-Harit b. Jabala as king over the Ghassanids. At about this time al-Bahrain reappears in the Nestorian sources: it is mentioned in passing in the context of an ecclesiastical conflict which broke out during the years 524-37 over the rightful succession to the catholicate following the death of Schila in 524. According to

the Chronicle of Seert,3°7 Narsai, bishop of al-Hira, and a group of

adherents refused to acknowledge Elisa, the personally chosen successor of Schila, as the new catholicos.3°8 Both were consecrated, and there ensued a battle for supremacy which was taken to the provinces. Elisa, who eventually succeeded in imprisoning Narsai, is said to have journeyed as far as Merv to restore order in the church. In so doing he went to Fars, Khuzistan, and al-Bahrain, where he ‘consecrated

metropolitans and bishops and dismissed those who resisted him’.3°? In 544, when Mar Aba I convened his synod, the only clergyman present from a Gulf bishopric was David, bishop of Mazun, who is mentioned as a witness.3!° As mentioned above, the gap in attendance of synods at Seleucia-Ctesiphon by bishops from eastern Arabia may have been caused by Kinda domination in al-Bahrain at this time. Later Lahmid and Sasanian Relations with North-Eastern Arabia

Following Khusraw I’s reinstatement of al-Mundhir III, we have no further reports of any actions taken against his east Arabian dominions prior to his death in 544. There are, however, several pieces of evidence

which suggest that, following the collapse of the Kinda, at least some of the eastern groups may once again have transferred their loyalties to al-Hira. The Yarbu' clan of the Tamim, for example, are known

to have received the lucrative entitlements of ridafa from al-Mundhir III, and to have sat as ardaf, or chamberlains, at his court.3!!1 The loyalty of the Tamim and Rabi‘a to al-Mundhir III is also reflected in a story recorded by Muhammad b. Habib. Al-Mundhir is said to have posed the following question to two independent sheikhs visiting him in al-Hira: ‘What prevents you from yielding to my obedience

and defending me like the Tamim and Rabra?’3!2 Finally, in the 307 Scher, Histoire nestorienne, ii/1. 147-52. °°8 According to the chronicler ‘Amr Ibn Matai, Liber Turris, cited by Aigrain, ‘Arabie’,

1226.

310 Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 328.

309 Fiey, y, ‘Diocé i orient ‘Dioceses syriens i

*

Levi della Vida, ‘Tamim’, 645; Kister, ‘Al-Hira’, 149.

2

Thidal64:

7210: ay

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

264

Nagaid of al-Garir we read: ‘Bakr were under the control of Kisra

and the Persians. They used to strengthen them and equip them.’3!3 Al-Mundhir III was succeeded at al-Hira by his son, ‘Amr b. alMundhir.3!4 His relations with the Tamim seem to have been good. According to al-Riyaéi, all of the Tamim paid the required tax, or al-itawa, of sheep and cattle, to the tax-collector appointed by ‘Amr b. Hind, one Wa’il b. Suraym.3!5 Moreover, Tamim’s loyalty in the sixth century entitled them to lucrative economic privileges. Al-Marzuki described the policy of allotting the control of individual markets to tribal leaders as follows: ‘And the nobles used to frequent these markets with the merchants, because the kings used to allot to every leader [sharif] a share of the profits. The leader of every area used to attend the market of this district . . .’.3!© According to Ibn Habib, the market at al-MuSaqqar in what is now the Hofuf oasis was under Tamimi

control.3!7

Moreover,

the Tamim’s

alliances

were

far-

ranging, and they were able to forge advantageous ties, not only with the Lahmids, but with the Kalb and with Mecca, which gave them

an unparalleled influence over peninsular caravan traffic.318 Considering the close ties between the Tamim and al-Hira, it is hardly surprising that when the poet Tarafa b. al-‘Abd al-Bakri!? was sent by “Amr b. al-Mundhir to his governor, Rabi‘a b. al-Harit al-‘Abdi

(i.e. of the Abd

al-Qays),

in al-Bahrain

in 565,329 he

described the inhabitants there as ‘slaves of Isbad’.32! According to Frye, this derogatory description has its origin in the Persian title aspabad, used of a military governor? or, according to Justi, rather of a top-ranking general or field-marshal.3?3 Tarafa’s verse thus provides us with the first testimony for the presence of a Persian official in al-Bahrain since the days of ArdaSir. This would also be confirmed by the testimony of Hamza, according to whom a Persian governor named Ano§’azadh, son of Guénaspdeh, ruled in Arabia during the reigns of Khusraw I and Hormizd IV.374 It would seem that, following the apparent recovery of al-Bahrain from the control of 313 Kister, ‘Mecca and Tamim’, 114 n. 2.

314 Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 94 ff. 315 Kister, ‘Al-Hira’, 161. 316 Kister, ‘Mecca and Tamim’, 156. SE

oT eibid 130)

ibidud28,, 0302

319 For a brief biography, see C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur (Leiden, 1943), i. 14. 320 Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 95, 132-3.

321 322 n. 4, been 323 324

Noldeke, Geschichte, 260 n. 1. Frye, ‘Bahrain under the Sasanians’, 169. Cf. Sperber, ‘Die Schreiben Muhammads’, 22-3 who followed an etymology recorded by Yaqut and considered such governors to have named after the city of Asbad. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 306. Noldeke, Geschichte, 263 n. 2.

252

North-Eastern Arabia, b100sBG2ADNG76

the Kinda, the Sasanians thought it wisest to have a Persian military governor in the region alongside the Lahmid-appointed tribal governor. According to the Chronicle of Seert, Khusraw I sometimes sent the catholicos Joseph to al-Bahrain and al-Yamama. The purpose of these journeys is not stated,325 but we are told that Joseph was much favoured by Khusraw, and that he brought back pearls for the Sasanian ruler. The east Arabian bishoprics were once again represented when the synod of Ezechiel convened in February 576. Attending for bishop

Isaac of Hagar and Pit Ardagir (i.e. Peroz-ArdaSir) was one of his

deacons, named Sergius; present for bishop Sergius of MaSmahig was a priest named Simeon.326 Whatever the significance may be, the only Gulf-area bishop actually in attendance was once again the bishop of Mazun, in this case Samuel.327 If ‘Amr b. al-Mundhir’s relations with Tamim were apparently smooth, the same cannot be said for those of his successor, al- Numan

III, the last Lahmid king of al-Hira. He is said to have been raised by a Christian family of Tamim,32° and indeed, Yaqut says that he made a land grant to the Tamimi Sawad b. ‘Adiyy.32? According to a story related by al-Mubarrad, Abu |-Farag, and al-Baladhuri, al-Numan III sent his brother on a raid against some sections of the Tamim, apparently for refusing to pay their taxes.34° It is interesting to note, furthermore, that the troops involved in the raid on the Tamim are said to have been mainly from Bakr b. Wa’il. Al-Numan is also said to have carried out raids on the Shann and Lukayz sections of Abd al-Qays.??! Despite the impression one might get from his difficulties with the Tamim and Abd al-Qays, al-Numan is said by al-Dinawari to have incurred the wrath of Khusraw II, finally leading to his death and the fall of his dynasty, by allying himself too closely with the tribes332 and thereby steering a course of independence which was unacceptable to the Sasanians.333 The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle cites various reasons for the conflict which broke out between the two, including al-Numan’s reluctance to part with a very valuable horse desired by Khusraw,?4 and his added refusal to give him one of his daughters

a

y

Scher, Histoire nestorienne, ii/1. 192. Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, 188; Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 387.

Ibid. 368. ae Kister, ‘Al-Hira’, 168. 3! Caskel, ‘Abd al-Kays’, 73.

328 Graf, Geschichte, 20. 330 Tbhid. 162-4

Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 116-17; Kister, ‘Mecca and Tamim’, 115.

333 Noldeke, Geschichte, 332 n. 1. ** Tt is interesting to note that, as recently as the Ist half of the 20th cent., the bedouin of northern Arabia still retained the memory of the name of the favourite horse of Khusraw Il, Sub-diz. See C. R. Raswan, ‘Vocabulary of Bedouin Words Concerning H tN:

(1945), 109, 127 n. 907.

ko

alae

North-Eastern Arabia,

100 BC-AD

676

253

in marriage.*35 Another factor which one could assume to have caused conflict with Khusraw was al-Numan’s famous conversion to Christianity in 593;33¢ on the other hand, his Sasanian-appointed successor, Ijas, was Christian as well.337 When Khusraw demanded that al-Numan come to him, he fled, first to the Taij, who would not

aid him; next to the Rawaha b. Sa‘d, whom he left so as not to bring Khusraw down on them; and finally to the Banu Shayban, near Dhu Qar.°38 According to the Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, it was his interpreter Man‘e, from Darin, who eventually convinced him to turn himself in to Khusraw.*3? Viewed against the backdrop of al-Numan’s conversion, it is interesting to note that, again according to the Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, his interpreter ‘swore on the gospel’ as he exhorted his monarch to give himself up to Khusraw.349 Various accounts exist of al-Numan’s subsequent death at the hands of Khusraw.34! The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle tells us that he was poisoned, while according to a verse by the poet Sihah, cited by Ibn Qotaiba, he was trampled by elephants.342 One of the more important documents pertaining to the Nestorian communities in eastern Arabia at this time is a letter written in 584/5343 by the catholicos [so'yahb I to Jacob, bishop of Darai,344 i.e. Darin, which is said to be in the neighbourhood of TLWN/Talun (Bahrain island) and another, unidentified island called Ruha Yatba.

The letter was in response to one from Jacob containing a number of questions. As the Chronicle of Seert says, the reply, in the form of a series of twenty canons, ‘contained that which he needs for the administration of his diocese’.34° The letter is thus of tremendous significance for understanding the actual functioning of the church in eastern Arabia. Only a few details will be mentioned here. In Canon XV, passing reference is made to the holy buildings, churches, and

monasteries of the area, and it is worth noting that the very name 335 N6ldeke, Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik, 13-14. 336 337 338 339

Scher, Histoire nestorienne, ii/2, §§ LX, LXV; cf. Graf, Geschichte, 20. Aigrain, ‘Arabie’, 1230. Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 117. Noldeke, Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik, 14.

340 Thid.

341 Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 116-18. 342 Noldeke, Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik, 15 n. 2; cf. the tradition reported in the martyr acts and by Hamza of Sapur II having Susa trampled by 300 elephants as punishment for a rebellion, discussed by Néldeke, Geschichte, 58 n. 1. 343 Scher, Histoire nestorienne, ii/2. 439. 344 P. Cersoy, ‘Les Manuscrits orientaux de Monseigneur David au Musée Borgia, de Rome’, ZA 9 (1894), 371; Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, 237-72; Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 424-51. The actual letter in question is missing from the Paris MS edited by Chabot, but it is present in the Rome MS published by Braun. Cf. Braun’s review of Chabot, OLZ 6 (1903), 336.

345 Scher, Histoire nestorienne, ii/2. 439.

254

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

Darin34¢ like that of the village of ad-Dayr on Muharraq, points to the existence of a monastery there at one time. Reference is also made to the many Christians who neglected to give offerings to the church in the town where they received the sacrament.347 Finally, we hear in Canon XIX348 of the pearl-fishers within the diocese of Jacob, and can assume therefore that pearling was actively pursued off the Arabian coast at this time, and not just around Bahrain. A new element was introduced into the area in 595 when, according to the Chronicle of Seert, the Jacobite (Monophysite) bishop of al-

Hira, Anastasius, became patriarch of his Church and reorganized it

into ten new bishoprics. The ninth of these encompassed Mesopotamia and Bahrain,349 and it is interesting to note that, as late as the ninth century, the Jacobite community of al-Bahrain is attested by a letter to them from the bishop of Takrit, Abu Ra’ita.35° After the death of al-Numan III there was no longer any question of a quasi-independent Arab dynasty in Hira, for alongside the newly installed Arab client Ijas was a Persian deputy, called an-NachWeran by Tabari.35! From this time onwards a Persian also sat alongside his Arab counterpart in eastern Arabia;>52 this is demonstrated by the accounts of the famous Yaum al-Musaqqar, or ‘Day of al-MuSaqqar’, described in detail by Tabari, Hamza, al-Bakri, Ibn Doraid, Yaqut, and Abu |-Farag.353 Tabari attributes it to Khusraw I, whereas all the

other sources are in agreement that it was Khusraw II who perpetrated this bloody massacre of the Tamim. Furthermore, this view is supported by the names of several of the protagonists in the action, individuals attested at the time of Muhammad who could not have been in office during the reign of Khusraw I. Briefly stated, the story is that a Himyar king named Wahriz (the commander of Khusraw I’s invasion of Yemen?—see ch. 6 below) sent

a caravan laden with money and precious gifts to Khusraw II. Upon reaching the territory of the Tamim in north-eastern Arabia, one Sa‘sa‘a b. Nagija b. ‘Iqal ordered his tribe, the Mugasi, a group belonging to the Tamim, to attack the caravan. They refused, and the caravan

moved on to the territory of the Yarbu’, another Tamimi group. Sa‘sa‘a exhorted the Yarbu’ to attack, arguing that their enemies, the Bakr b. Wa’il, regularly did so and used the booty thereby gained to °° Cf. Syriac dayr, meaning monastery. For literature, see above, ch. 3 n. 126.

**7 Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, 259, 262. *48 Tbid. 268; Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 448. Scher, Histoire nestorienne, ii/2. 597. 350 Graf, Geschichte, 71 Noldeke, Geschichte, 152 n. 2; Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 219. ahs Néldeke, Geschichte, 332 n. 1; cf. Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 116. Perhaps this had been the case since Anogazadh was in the area during the reign of Khusraw I and Hormizd IV. *8 Néldeke, Geschichte, 257-63; cf. Meyer, Der historische Gehalt der Aiyam al-‘Arab, 19.

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

255

finance wars against the Tamim. Thereupon the Yarbu‘ plundered the caravan, The Himyarite survivors made their way to Hauda b. ‘Ali of the Hanifa tribe in al-Yamama, a group at that time friendly with the Persians. In some sources, Hauda himself is said to have fought on the side of Persian troops against the Tamim.354 The victims of the raid were clothed and provisioned by Hauda, and eventually brought to Seleucia-Ctesiphon. For his service, Hauda was richly rewarded by Khusraw II, who sent him with an envoy bearing a letter to his Persian

military governor

in al-Bahrain,

Azadhafroz

(i.e.

Azadferoz), son of GuSnasp.355 The letter called upon Azadhafroz to invite the Tamim to al-Hagar in order to receive gifts of food and grain from Khusraw II. Once inside his fortress of al-MuSaqqar, most of the men of Tamim were slaughtered by Azadhafroz’s troops (according to Ibn al-Atir they were burned);35¢ the young boys were spared and sent to Fars. Hauda requested mercy for 100 of the Tamim men, a request which was granted him by Azadhafroz as an Easter gift. Among the details of this story are several which deserve mention. Tabari tells us that in al-Hagar there were two fortresses, alMusSaqgar and Safa,*°’ facing each other on opposite sides of the river Muhallim. Further, he writes that al-Musaqqar was built by one of

Khusraw’s

knights named

Basak,358

son

of Mahbodh.*°?

This

undoubtedly should be understood as a rebuilding, since the fortress is already attested a century or more earlier, during the rule of the Kinda in al-Hagar, when, for example, Ibn Qotaiba and Muhammad b. Habib

tell us that al-Harit b. “Amr and Imru al-Qays lived there.3°? We have no specific indication of when this episode took place. It would seem likely, however, that it occurred after al-Numan III had been deposed. The vacuum created by his removal is thought by Noldeke?®! to have invited Arab attacks on Iraq, of which the defeat of the Sasanian forces at Dhu Qar c.6043% is the most striking example, and it may not be incorrect to see the Tamim raid on Wahriz’s caravan in a similar light. Furthermore, the fact that neither Lahmids 354 Noéldeke, Geschichte, 258 n. 5. 355 Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 53, 354. These names are suspiciously similar to those of

Khusraw I’s governor and his father (see p. 251 above). 356 |. Lichtenstadter, Women in the Aiyam al- Arab: A Study of Female Life during Warfare in Pre-Islamic Arabia (Royal Asiatic Society Prize Publication Fund, 14; London, 1935), 21.

357 Cf. Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, §§ 169, 178, 351. 358 Probably a variant of ‘Wasaka’: Néldeke, Geschichte, 260 n. 3; Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 65, 357-8. 359 Tbid. 185. 360 Olinder, ‘The Kings of Kinda’, 57, 95. ‘ 361 Ndldeke, Geschichte, 332 n. 1; cf. Kister, ‘Mecca and Tamim’, 115.

362 Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 123.

256

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

nor a Lahmid-appointed governor (‘amil) are mentioned in connection with the raid and subsequent reprisal suggests this was an action taken by Khusraw after he had eliminated the Lahmid dynasty. One further event of Khusraw II’s reign which is of some interest for us is the capture by his forces of Alexandria c.615-16.°° According to the Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, the Persians were shown the way into the city by a man named Peter, a Christian from Bet Qatraye who had gone there to study philosophy.>* An important document which may reflect the political organization of north-eastern Arabia following the suppression of the Lahmid dynasty is the geographical description of the Sasanian empire contained in the History of Armenia by Moses of Khorene. The date of this work is probably to be put between 750 and 800.36 It is principally of interest for us because of the provinces said to belong to the southern part of the empire. There we find ‘Hagar’ (7), ‘PaniatR&ir’ (8), ‘Der, which is an island in the sea’ (18), ‘MesSmahik (this

too is an island)’ (19), and ‘Mazun’ (20).36° Thus, we seem to have here firm testimony for the inclusion of al-Hagar, Peroz-Arda&ir, Darin, Masmahig, and Mazun among the provinces of the late Sasanian empire, which may help explain why al-Baladhuri considered alBahrain a Sasanian province rather than a dominion of al-Hira. Several authorities, such as Rothstein and Caskel,3°7 have likened the Persian and Lahmid military rule over al-Bahrain to that of the later Ottomans around the turn of the twentieth century: garrisons of soldiers under military governors serving among mutually hostile tribes, with little significant influence on the local population. Nevertheless, as we have seen, certain characteristics of the eastern

Arab dialects show that Persian influence in speech was noted already by early grammarians. But Rothstein and Caskel were probably correct in assuming that a few garrisons of Lahmid or Sasanian soldiers, if living a life relatively isolated from the bulk of the population like their later Ottoman counterparts, can have exerted little real influence in the area. As the evidence gathered here should have demonstrated, 363 Néldeke, Geschichte, 292 n. 1. *°4 Néldeke, Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik, 25; cf. Labourt, Le Christianisme, 233. Cf. the story of the Arab conquest of Susa, in which it was also a native of Qatar who helped the Arabs break the siege and gain victory: Néldeke, op. cit. 44. Noldeke asks (ibid. n. 2): ‘Wiinderlich, dass sowohl der Verrather Alexandria’s (oben S. 25) wie der Siister’s aus Qatar gewesen sein soll! Hat am Ende bloss die auch hier gebrauchte Redensart qtar razé “geheime Anschlage machen” dazu gefihrt?’ °65 Moses Khorenats‘i, History of the Armenians, ed. R. W. Thomson (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies,4;Cambridge, Mass., 1978)

366 Marquart, Eransabr, 16. °°? Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 127 n. 1; Caskel, ‘Die einheimischen Quellen’, 339-40.

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

257,

the most potent source of Persian influence in eastern Arabia was the Church, for the Church in Bet Qatraye was effectively a branch of the Church of Rev-Arda’ir, where the Persian language was used as much as Syriac. The Coming of Islam The details of the Islamic conversion and conquest of eastern Arabia have been dealt with by many scholars, and only the salient points need be discussed here.*°8 Sasanian rule in al-Bahrain during the life of the Prophet was in the hands of an Arab ‘amil named al-Mundhir b. Sawa, whom Ibn Higam called a member of Abd al-Qays, and Yaqut assigned to the Darimit, while Ibn Habib, al-Baladhuri, and Tabari

say he was from Tamim.3°? Alongside him, as was typical at this date, sat a Persian marzban, whom Yaqut, Ibn Higam, and al-Baladhuri

name as Seboxt.379 In 627 or 629 Muhammad sent al-‘Ala’ b. ‘Abdullah b. Imad alHadrami to al-Mundhir and Seboxt with letters inviting them either to convert to Islam or to pay the gizya, or tax on non-believers,?7! equal to one-half of one’s production of dates and grain. According to al-Baladhuri, both leaders accepted Islam, as did some of the Arab and Persian inhabitants of eastern Arabia. Ibn Sa‘d and al-Baladhuri also preserve letters sent by the Prophet to an otherwise unknown tribal leader named Hilal, inhabitants of Hagar, the Magians (Zoroastrians),

and a sub-tribe of Abd al-Qays called al-Akbar. The Magians, Jews, and Christians concluded a treaty with al-‘Ala’, according to which they would concentrate on agriculture, sharing the date harvest with the Islamic regime. It was further agreed that they would pay the polltax in the measure of one dinar per adult annually.372 368 For the events as related by al-Baladhuri, see Hitti’s translation in The Origins of the Islamic State; or Sperber, ‘Die Schreiben Muhammads’, 22-3. Cf. the extensive discussion in Shoufani, Al-Riddah, 35-7, 85-9, 131-4.

369 Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 132 n. 1. Cf. Levi della Vida, ‘Tamim’, 644; Shoufani, AlRiddah, 36 n. 101; Smith, ‘Events in Arabia’, who considered him a Lahmid because of his name. 370 Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 132; cf. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 293. Seboxt is mentioned

by Yaqut, Ibn HiSam, and al-Baladhuri. For the name, cf. P. Gignoux, ‘Les Noms propres en moyen-perse épigraphique’, in Pad Nam 1 Yazdan (Travaux de l'Institut d’études iraniennes de l'Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle, 9; Paris, 1979), 92; id., ‘L’Organisation administrative

sasanide’, 15 n. 59, where the author etymologizes Se-boxt with some hesitation as ‘sauvé par les Trois’.

371 Sperber, ‘Die Schreiben Muhammads’, 23-30. Cf. Sachau, Vom Christentum, 19; Abdal Aziz Duri, ‘Notes on Taxation in Early Islam’, JESHO 17 (1974), 137.

372 AJ-Baladhuri relates that, initially, ‘The Magians and Jews [of al-Bahrain] . . . refused Islam and preferred the payment of poll-tax’; see Hitti, The Origins of the Islamic State, 121. Later (p. 123) al-Baladhuri says that, according to Al-Husain from al-Hasan ibn Muhammad,

258

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

This multiplicity of appeals to the population of eastern Arabia attests to the difficulty encountered by Muhammad in effecting conversion to Islam in the region, even though the two principal temporal leaders

there had adopted the new faith.373 There is also a political dimension

here, however, which should not pass unnoticed. The fact that Muhammad sent letters to a number of different groups in the region suggests that neither the authority of al-Mundhir nor that of Seboxt was considered particularly great, and that the people were not to be won over by their titular leaders. It is also noteworthy that the Abd al-Qays and possibly the inhabitants of Hagar sent delegations to the Prophet.374 Among the twenty-man delegation from the Abd al-Qays was one known as al-Garud whose conversations with Muhammad are given great attention by Ibn Ishaq,375 and who later remained loyal to the new Muslim regime when all around: him were in revolt.37° As for the fiscal administration of the converts, al-Mundhir was

meant to collect the gizya from the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians in his territory. Muhammad, however, sent out two representatives, Kudama and Abu Huraira, to collect the zakat or sadaka, the almstax, from the Muslims. All of the revenue from both taxes was meant

to be brought back to Muhammad. In a letter, the Prophet informed al-‘Ala’ of the mission of his representatives, and asked him to hurry al-Mundhir in his tax collection, and to give all of the zakat which had accrued to them.377 It has plausibly been suggested that al-Mundhir and Seboxt converted so willingly because of the weakness of their own positions vis-a-vis the majority of the inhabitants of eastern Arabia, over whom they exerted little influence. By allying themselves with Muhammad, they may have hoped to strengthen their own hold over eastern Arabia and benefit from the success which they predicted for the new Muslim regime.?’8 That conversion to Islam had not been popular in the area, however, is shown by the fact that most of the northern and eastern Arabian tribes, with the exception of the Abd al-Qays, entered into ‘The Prophet wrote to the Magians of Hajar, inviting them to Islam and providing that if they are converted, they will have the rights we have, and be under the obligations we are under; but those who refuse Islam will have to pay the tax’; and subsequently, according to Al-Husain from Sa‘id ibn al-Musaiyib, ‘The prophet exacted tax from the Magians of Hajar’. Cf. the discussion in Néldeke, Geschichte, 263 n. 1. The Christians and Jews of eastern Arabia had

probably been paying the poll-tax already to the Sasanian authorities. On the taxation of Jews and Christians under the Sasanians, see G. Widengren, ‘The Status of the Jews in the Sasanian

Empire’, IrAnt 1 (1961), 150-2; and, esp. on the 3rd-cent. sources, D. M. Goodblatt, ‘The Poll Tax in Sasanian Babylonia: The Talmudic Evidence’, JESHO 22 (1979), 233-95.

73 Sperber, ‘Die Schreiben Muhammads’, 24. 379) Thid). 26928)

22s Ihidaa2ve

*”” Sperber, ‘Die Schreiben Muhammads’, 31. *78 Tbid. 33; cf. Shoufani, Al-Riddah, 37.

376 Shoufani, Al-Riddah,

132.

North-Eastern Arabia,

100 BC-AD

676

259

open rebellion upon the death of the Prophet in a movement rejecting Islam which is known as ridda, a word usually translated as ‘apostasy’.3’? Many members of the tribes had probably remained Christian and it is noteworthy that, in the teachings of the so-called false prophets who appeared at this time, such as Musaylima,38° there is a strong Christian accent in what purported to be their alternative brands of Islam.38! Arabic sources present many variant accounts of the ridda movement in north-eastern Arabia. According to the lengthiest report, by Sayf b. Umar,?8? preserved by Tabari among others, the Bakr b. Wa’il, led by al-Hutam b. Dubay’ah, revolted against al-Mundhir shortly after Muhammad’s death. The rebels captured Qatif and Hagar and made many allies generally amongst the people of al-Hatt. There was even a move to install a Lahmid, al-Mundhir b. an-Numan, or al-Garur, ‘the bedazzler’, as the new king of al-Bahrain.383 At some point al-Mundhir b. Sawa died, and his Muslim adherents, along with

their allies, the Abd al-Qays, sought aid from Abu Bakr. It is said that the people of al-Bahrain (obviously only the loyalists) asked Abu Bakr to send al-“Ala’ back to the area, and this was apparently done once Abu Bakr had established himself and begun his reconquest of the Nagd. According to al-Baladhuri, al-‘Ala’ and his forces marched against the rebels and were defeated. Thereupon they fled to the fortress of Guwaytha in what is now the Hofuf oasis. Although under siege nearly to the point of starvation, al-‘Ala’s forces succeeded in launching a surprise attack against their enemies in 633.384 According to some traditionists, the rebels were led by al-Hutam of the Bakr b. Wa’il,

and such was the difficulty of the Muslim position that al-‘Ala’ sent Abu Bakr a request for the dispatch of Khalid, who had been successful in several key battles against rebel forces in central Arabia. Khalid is said to have joined al-‘Ala’ in the siege of al-Hatt, before advancing to Iraq. Whether or not this tradition is true,*® the battle of Guwaytha signalled the imminent end of the ridda movement in the region. The Persian garrison of Zara

(Dhahran?)

surrendered

a year later in

634,386 and with this we come to the end of Persian and Lahmid military control over al-Bahrain. 379 See Shoufani, Al-Riddah, for a comprehensive study of the movement. 380 T). Eickelman, ‘Musaylima: An Approach to the Social Anthropology of Seventh Century Arabia’, JESHO 10 (1967), 17-52.

381 383 384 385 386

382 Shoufani, Al-Riddah, 86. Aigrain, ‘Arabie’, 1286. Néldeke, Geschichte, 348 n. 1; Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 124. Shoufani, Al-Riddah, 132-3. Shoufani, ibid. 134, doubts it. Caskel, ‘ “Abd al-Kays’, 73.

260

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

The Islamic conquest of north-eastern Arabia, however, did not

amount to the wholesale conversion of the population. However expensive the gizya was, some Christians and Jews certainly preferred to pay it. But in 640 Omar, pretending to carry out the last orders of the Prophet before his death, called for the expulsion of all Christians and Jews from the peninsula.38” Omar himself died only four years later, and it does not appear that, in eastern Arabia at least, his desire to purge all Christians and Jews from the area was realized. The subsequent years witnessed the development of a modus operandi in relations between Christians and Muslims in the Mesopotamian and Persian areas which was amenable to both sides.28 Indeed, the catholicos Iso'yahb III (647-58) of Adiabene, wrote in 647 to Simeon

of Rev-ArdaSir praising the Muslim Arabs lavishly.38? At this time, however, Simeon and his followers were pursuing a policy of independence from the catholicos which, frequent throughout their relations,?9° involved the unlawful investiture of more than twenty bishops and two metropolitans. ISo‘yahb desired, at the minimum, an exchange of letters between Rev-Ardaéir and himself to demonstrate that Rev-Ardaéir was still a willing member of the Church, but he spoke of the ‘perverse habit’ which the metropolitan there had of not answering his letters. Before long the situation worsened, for the bishops of Fars convened a synod announcing their secession from the Church.39! A further plea for reconciliation failed, at which point Iso‘yahb sent two bishops from Khuzistan, Theodore of Hormizd Ardasir, i.e. Ahwaz, and George of SuStar, to seek a rapprochement.

The bishops of Persis responded by informing the Muslim authorities of the resolutions they had made, and soliciting their support against the visiting bishops. The revolt then spread to Bet Qatraye, at which point ISo‘yahb began sending a series of letters to the bishops, monks, and people 387 Aigrain, ‘Arabie’, 1303. °88 See M. G. Morony, ‘Religious Communities in Late Sasanian and Early Muslim Iraq’, JESHO 17 (1974), 113 ff. °° Aigrain, ‘Arabie’, 1307, quotes from a letter written by ISo'yahb to Simeon of RevArdafir, in which he says: ‘These Arabs, to whom God has for the time being given the empire of the world, are also, as you know, very close to us; and not just because they do not attack the Christian religion, but they praise our faith, honour the priests and the saints of the Lord, and award benefits to the churches and monasteries.’ For a detailed study of the life of Iso‘yahb, see J. M. Fiey, ‘I8o'yaw le Grand: Vie du catholicos nestorien Iso'yaw III d’Adiabéne (580-659), OCP 35 (1969), 305-33, and 36 (1970), 5-46. °° Fiey, ‘Dioceses syriens orientaux’, 184, notes that, according to the annalist Mari the seat of the metropolitan of Rev-Ardagir had never submitted to the authority of the cath. olicos from the time of its creation (c.415) until the eventual reconciliation between Simeon and Iso‘yahb. 31 Tbid. 188.

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

261

of that area, in which he berated them for separating themselves from the rest of the Christian world, as if they didn’t require their fellow Christians’ help; for unlawfully ordaining priests and bishops without the authority of the catholicos; and for converting to Islam for the sake of worldly gain.392 Repeated threats of excommunication fell on deaf ears, and this prompted I8o‘yahb to send two bishops to Bet Qatraye to try to settle the problem. They returned thence, however, with news that the bishops there had actually submitted written and sealed acts of apostasy to their Muslim overlords announcing their independence from the patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon and asking for the help of these authorities in ensuring that their wishes be carried out despite the ‘pretensions’ of the patriarch.3%3 Meanwhile Abraham,??4 bishop of Ma’mahig, is said to have expelled his best monks from the area, while Nimparug, a loyal Christian of Hatta, refused to pass on the letters of ISo‘yahb to his fellow members of the Church out of fear of reprisal.295 Finally, a personal visit by ISo‘yahb to Rev-ArdaSir succeeded in placating Simeon, and the resulting compromises, while granting Rev-Ardasir certain privileges, succeeded in reuniting it with the Church.>% Bet Qatraye was not a party to this settlement, however; its reconciliation with the Nestorian Church did not take place until May of 676 when, as Thomas of Marga (c.840) put it, the catholicos George I (661-80),

ISo‘yahb’s successor, ‘went down to Bet Qatraye to reconcile the inhabitants who had seceded from the obedience of the episcopal seat of Rev-ArdaSir’.297 By this time the heretics of eastern Arabia had gone so far as to name one of their own bishops, Thomas, metropolitan of Bet Qatraye, a title otherwise never conferred on an official of 32 For the original texts, with Latin translations, see R. Duval, Iso'yahb III Patriarchae Liber Epistularum (CSCO 64 (Scriptores Syri, Series II); Paris, 1905), iii: no. xvul (“Ad Episcopos Qatarenses’), pp. 188-9; no. xvi (‘Ad Qatarenses’), pp. 189-96; no. xIx (‘Epistula Altera ad Qatarenses’), pp. 196-7; no. xx (‘Ad Monachos Provinciae Qatarensium’), pp. 198-200; and

no. XxI (‘Ad Eosdem Monachos Provinciae Qatarensium’), pp. 201-4. For discussions of these letters, cf. Riicker, Die Canones, 18-19; E. A. Wallis Budge, The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas Bishop of Marga A.D. 840, ii (London, 1893), 154 ff.

393 Fiey, ‘Diocéses syriens orientaux’, 217. 394 Although Abraham was said to be the most praiseworthy and eminent of all the bishops in Bet Qatraye, Iso'yahb called him ‘the prince of evil who reigns in Masmahig’: see ibid. 213 and n. 225.

395 Thid. 219 and n. 265. 396 According to Mari; see Maris,

Amri

et Slibae, De Patriarchis Nestorianorum,

Commentaria, ed. H. Gismondi (Rome, 1896), 62/55; cf. Riicker, Die Canones, 19 n. 2; Fiey, ‘Diocéses syriens orientaux’, 189. '

397 Budge, The Book of Governors, ii. 188; Fiey, ‘Diocéses syriens orientaux’, 211. By this time, of course, Persis was back in the community of the Nestorian Church, and the province

of Bet Qatraye fell under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Rev-Ardasir. Why George, and not Simeon himself, made the journey is not clear, however.

262

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD

676

the Church in this ecclesiastical province. The synod held by George

brought together the bishops of Darin (ISo'yahb), Mazunaye, 1.e. Oman (Stephen), Hagar (Pusai), and Hatta (Sahin), and took place at Darin itself, i.e. on Tarut. The proceedings of the synod, which consisted

of general clarifications of basic precepts of the Church as well as specific answers to legal questions, were then translated from Persian into Syriac by a monk who calls himself a ‘foreign brother’ from Bet Qatraye!??> Several details concerning this event are of interest. First of all, the rebellious Abraham of Masmahig who had given ISo‘yahb such trouble is nowhere in evidence. Further, we learn that Christians still held

administrative positions under the Muslim regime, for the synod reminded the tax-collectors who were Christians that they were not permitted to collect poll-tax or tribute of any kind from bishops.37? Moreover, we can surmise that the textiles of the area were of especially high quality, for George returned to Adiabene with a large altar-piece for his former monastery of B. Awé.*° Finally, we learn that Jews were still present in eastern Arabia, for George complained that, after taking the sacrament, Christians would then retire to taverns run by Jews to drink wine. Drinking wine was not the problem here, but rather the fact that Christian taverns, of which there was apparently no shortage, were not being patronized, whereas Jewish ones were.*°! Following the synod of 676, however, attendance by bishops from Bet Qatraye at Nestorian synods ceased. With the exception of those indirect hints of the survival of Christianity in the area noted above, direct sources are lacking, and we can do little more than speculate on the subsequent fate of this Nestorian province. 38 For the acts of the synod, see Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 480-90; Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, 331-48.

3 Fiey, ‘Diocéses syriens orientaux’, 214; cf. Morony, ‘Religious Communities’, 21, who notes that ‘by the time of Mu‘awiya the Nestorian Arabs (Ibad) of Hira were employed as tax collectors by the Muslims’. The problem of whether or not bishops and other Nestorian clergy were subject to tax continued to be discussed by Muslim jurists in later times. 400 Fiey, ‘Diocéses syriens orientaux’, 214. 491 Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 225, 489. Cf. the discussion in Morony, ‘Religious Communities’, 135. Rothstein (Die Dynastie, 26), Wellhausen (Reste arabischen Heidentums,

231), and others have stressed the importance of wine and the wine trade in pre-Islamic Arabia. The taverns were in the hands of Christians and Jews for the most part, and were points of transmission of Judaeo-Christian thought into early Muslim society. The traditional Hamrijjat of pre-Islamic poets like Al-A’Sa (d. 629) praise wine, and according to the Kitab al-Agani AlA’Sa’s religious views had much to do with his contact with the Christian wine-sellers of Hira, who spoke to him of Christianity. Rothstein notes that certain monasteries in Hira were especially known for the quality of their wine. So it should come as no surprise to find wine in general, and Christian and Jewish taverns in specific, a topic of discussion at the Synod of Darin. For a long lexical discussion of wine, wine-vessels, etc., see Frankel, Die aramdischen Fremdworter,

154-73. Cf. Jacob, Altarabisches Beduinenleben, 96-109.

North-Eastern Arabia, 100 BC-AD 676

263

Before leaving this chapter in eastern Arabian history, we should mention a final non-Nestorian, yet Christian geographical source from Italy which is also pertinent. It is the Cosmographia of the Anonymous Geographer of Ravenna. According to Schnetz, it dates to c.700,42 while F. Lasserre places it in the seventh century.493 The information of interest for us here is limited, but we do find reference to three eastern Arabian towns: Carcha, Gera, and Taboca. ‘Gera’ reminds one

immediately of ancient Gerrha, or of al-Ger‘a, the early Islamic marketplace of al-Hasa (see ch. 2 above). ‘Carcha’, according to Schnetz,

comes from Aramaic into Arabic as ‘Karh’, meaning ‘fortified city’. He would identify this town with al-Safa in Hofuf, a fortress which lay on the opposite side of the Muhallim river facing MuSaqqar, and link it more generally with the name Hagar, meaning ‘town’ or ‘city’, used to identify Hofuf in pre-Islamic and early Islamic times. Finally, ‘Taboca’ can be rendered as ‘Chotar’, i.e. Qatar, according to the principles of letter-correction which Schnetz devised to amend corrupted names in the Cosmographia.+°+ As these toponyms show, however, the original source(s) used must have been Hellenistic or

Roman rather than late antique in date. Conclusion

While the interests of most archaeologists working in the Gulf region have led them to concentrate on the earlier periods, the review of evidence just presented testifies to the fact that the period of Parthian and Sasanian domination in Mesopotamia and Iran generally is one of immense interest in the Gulf region as well. The archaeological finds are, admittedly, by no means abundant, but this dearth of material evidence is more than made up for by the fascinating glimpses into the history of the region afforded by a variety of contemporary Syriac and later Arabic sources. The role of the Lahmids in the region, the part played by the Nestorian church, the ethnic and linguistic admixture attested in the area, and the rise of the fledgeling Islamic state at the expense of the Sasanian empire, are all topics worthy of our attention. These provide the backdrop against which the extant archaeological finds can be intelligently interpreted. 402 J. Schnetz, Arabien beim Geographen von Ravenna, Inauguraldiss. ( = Philologus, Ns 31 (1920), 380-412), Wurzburg (Tubingen, 1920), 380. Cf. also Schnetz’s later edition of the complete work in Ravennas Anonymus: Cosmographia, eine Erdbeschreibung um das Jahr 700 (Nomina Germanica; Uppsala, 1951). 403 F. Lasserre, ‘Ravennas Geographus’, KP iv (1972), 1343. 404 Schnetz, Arabien, 381-2, discusses the details of his method of text-amendment, noting that, of 60 names assigned to Arabia felix, only 1—Leuce come—was immediately recognizable,

while 3 were somewhat similar to their original forms, and-the rest were fully unreadable,

Latinized versions of Arabic or Semitic names.

6 South-Eastern Arabia from the Hellenistic to the Sasanian Period Introduction

It has long been recognized by students of Cl. Ptolemy’s geography of Arabia that the toponyms and tribal names assignable to the area between the Qatar peninsula and the Hadhramaut bespeak the existence there of a sizeable population by the second century AD.! Nevertheless, the recovery of the material complement to the information which can be gleaned from the available historical sources has only begun to take place in the past few years. We shall now examine the archaeological evidence from those sites in the UAE and the Sultanate of Oman where finds dating to the Seleucid, Parthian,

and Sasanian periods have been made. Sites of the Seleucid Period

The most important site of this period in the United Arab Emirates is Mleiha. The site is located on a well-watered inland plain just west of the lower ranges of the Hajar mountains in an area traditionally known as az-Zahirah.? It lies some 20 km. south of the modern town of Dayd and 50 km. east of the city of Sharjah. The plain on which Mleiha is located is one of the most important areas of inland settlement in the northern Emirates. It is bounded on the west by a belt of deep sand, where modern settlement is sporadic, which separates it from the southern Gulf coast. To the east, the mountains of Oman likewise " See e.g. F. Nau, Les Arabes chrétiens de Mésopotamie et de Syrie du VII° au VIII? siécle (Cahiers de la Société asiatique, 1/1; Paris, 1933), 10: ‘La carte d’Arabie, telle que Ptolémée

la connaissait, montre aussi que c’était un pays suffisamment habité, lorsque les hommes travaillaient et commergaient, conditions qui étaient encore vérifiées au début de l’islam’; or A. Berthelot, ‘L’Arabie antique, d’aprés Ptolémée’, in Mélanges offerts a A.-M. Desrousseaux par ses amis et ses éléves (Paris, 1937), 8: ‘Le contraste entre les dénominations xap7 et rods pourrait faire conjecturer un développement urbain plus accentué sur le golfe Persique ou prévaut la seconde appellation.’ > For the traditional names of the subregions of the Oman peninsula, see Salil-Ibn-Razik, History of the Imams and Seyyids of "Oman, ed. G. P. Badger (London, 1871), p.v.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

=

1

265

Mud-brick tower

Fi “3 4

/~Original burial pit Traces of robber pit Funerary chamber

Fic.

16. Plans of the graves excavated at site C, Mleiha (a), with a reconstruction (b) of how these may have originally been built

shield it from the northern extension of the Batinah coastal plain. Nevertheless, access to the most significant ports on both coasts, as

well as to the Buraimi/AlI Ain area to the south, is afforded by a number of natural passages, generally wadis, and it would surely be mistaken to assume that Mleiha was isolated from its neighbours. In 1973 an Iraqi expedition working in the UAE conducted a threemonth season at Mleiha,* and since 1985 the French Archaeological Mission in Sharjah has been excavating the site annually.4 The Iraqi 3 The season lasted from 21 Jan. to 28 Apr. 1973, according to M. Taha, ‘Pottery from United Arab Emirates’, Sumer, 30 (1974), 159. Cf. in general T. Madhloom, ‘Excavations of the Iraqi Mission at Mleha, Sharjah, U.A.E.’, Sumer, 30 (1974), 149-58. Arabic versions of both articles appeared one year earlier in Sumer, 29 (1973), 171-96.

* R. Boucharlat (ed.), Second Archaeological Survey in the Sharjah Emirate,

1985: A

Preliminary Report (Sharjah and Lyons, 1985); id. (ed.), Archaeological Surveys and Excavations in the Sharjah Emirate, 1986: A Third Preliminary Report (Sharjah and Lyons, 1986); id., ‘From

266

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

excavations revealed parts of two interesting structures. The first was a large, multi-roomed building in ‘Area 4 with an apparently large interior courtyard.5 The building, which had plastered floors, has been called a ‘palace’.® Fire marks on the mud-brick walls bear witness to the destruction of the building, as do the carbonized remains of various organic materials, including bread, dates, grain, wood, textiles, and reed baskets. A second, nearly square building (3.65 m. on a side)

built of mud-brick was interpreted as a tomb.’ The floor here was also paved with gypsum plaster. Among the most important finds made

in the chamber were two Rhodian amphora-handle fragments (Fig. 17, Plate XIb-c). One of these bears the maker’s name Iasonos (Jason),

and is datable to the early second century BC. The other has both the name of the maker and the month of manufacture, panamou Antigonou, as well as the stamped impression of the-rose of Rhodes. It is datable to between 220 and 180 Bc.’ A pit dug through the floor in the centre of the room contained a number of important objects, including an elaborate bronze cup, a glass vessel made of millefiori glass of late first-century BC or early first-century AD date (Syrian or Egyptian manufacture?),? and several copper spear points. In 1977 J. C. Wilkinson reported on a stele with South Arabian inscription from Mleiha (see ch. 2 above) which he had been shown

seven years earlier. Although neither a copy nor a photograph of the inscription has yet been published, A. F. L. Beeston has given the content of the inscription as: nafs wa-qabr dhariyyat fata l-muluk [‘gravestone and grave of Dhariyyat, servant of the kings’] .!° Beeston has compared it to the Hasaitic inscriptions, and suggested a date in

the Iron Age to the “Hellenistic” Period: Some Evidence from Mleiha (United Arab Emirates)’, paper presented in Géttingen, June 1987; id., ‘Documents arabes provenant des sites

“hellénistiques” de la péninsule d’Oman’, in T. Fahd (ed.), L’Arabie préislamique et son environnement historique et culturel (Université des sciences humaines de Strasbourg, Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Gréce antiques, 10; Leiden, 1989)

109-26. * Madhloom, ‘Excavations’, plan 3.

>

Sribids i524

7 Madhloom, ibid. 151, considered the tomb ‘characteristic of the greek [sic] period’, and

speculated: ‘Such tombs were built for important personages who died far away from home, as their ashes could not be taken back to their home-places for burial. They were built by orders of the military garrison or the families to whom the deceased belonged.’ There is absolutely no support for this flight of fancy. * Originally published ibid. pl. 13. For the date, see J.-F. Salles, ‘Notes on the Archaeology of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods in the United Arab Emirates’, AUAE 2-3 (1980), 79. The ae base shown in Taha, ‘Pottery’, pl. 3. 3, probably comes from a Rhodian amphora as well. * Tllustrated in Salles, ‘Notes on the archaeology’, 81. eve oe J. C. Wilkinson, Water and Tribal Settlement in South-East Arabia (Oxford, 1977), nas

6

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

268

the fifth century on palaeographic grounds, calling it ‘the first authentic ne proof of South Arabian penetration to the east codsten mission French the by Mleiha In 1985 an electromagnetic survey of located a number of anomalies which proved to be mud-brick buildings.!2 The survey was continued in 1986,! when full-scale excavations were resumed at the site.!4 One of the results of the season was the confirmation of the Iraqi interpretation of the square mud-brick structure as a tomb. Four more structures of this type were identified in an east-west alignment, as were several more rows of graves. The graves themselves were pits dug into a layer of white marl approximately 80cm. below ground-level. A gravel layer above the marl would have been removed in digging down to create this pit, after which it was back-filled with gravel and sand. Finally, a square (2.75-4.25 m. on a side) mud-brick tower or platform, at least

3m. in height, was erected as a marker above the burial site.!° Unfortunately, all of the Mleiha graves showed signs of having been looted in the past, and while scattered remnants of grave-goods could in some cases be recovered, skeletal material was lacking. Finds associated with the graves included fragments of glass, bronze, and alabaster vessels, stone and gold beads, and iron arrowheads and

spear points. The arrowheads find parallels amongst the graves in the Wadi Samad discussed below, and on Failaka.!© Several alabaster lids (Fig. 18d-e) for small unguent jars (Fig. 18a—b)!’ recall examples ‘1 See the discussion below of South Arabian penetration and the tradition that a branch of the Azd emigrated to Oman from their original homeland in Yemen. Cf., however, W.W. Miler, ‘Ein Grabmonument aus Nagran als Zeugnis fiir das Friihnordarabische’, NESE 3 (1978), 150: ‘Ob es sich bei der 1970 in Tawi Milayha (in Sharja) gefundenen Grabinschrift . . um einen hasaitischen oder um einen nicht nur der Schrift, sondern auch der Sprache nach altstidarabischen Text handelt, kann wohl erst nach der Ver6ffentlichung entschieden werden. Der Fundort der Inschrift liegt zwar abseits der bisherigen Fundstatten hasaitischer Texte, aber die Entdeckung einer hasaitischen Inschrift an einer solchen Stelle ware noch lange nicht so ungewohnlich wie die einer altsiidarabischen Inschrift. Auch der Beginn des Textes, nfs/wqbr, ist fiir das Hasaitische gut bezeugt (CIH 699, 1-2; Ja 1044, 1; Ja 1048, 1; Ja 2125, 1).’ In fact, it is not difficult to imagine an influence coming to Mleiha from either north-eastern or south-western Arabia (see below). '2 A.

Hesse,

‘Electromagnetic

Survey

on

Mleiha

Site’, in Boucharlat

(ed.), Second

Archaeological Survey, 62. 'S A. Boucher and A. Hesse, ‘Geophysical Survey in Mleiha Area’, in Boucharlat (ed.) ?

Archaeological Surveys and Excavations (1986), 31-43.

'* R. Boucharlat and M. Mouton, ‘Excavations at Mleiha Site: A Preliminary Report’, in

Boucharlat (ed.), Archaeological Surveys and Excavations (1986), 49-68. 'S Ibid. 53. Cf. Boucharlat, ‘Documents arabes’, 114-20.

ees j

-20.

citing A. Caubet and J.-F. Salles, ‘Le Sanctuaire hellénistique (B6)’, FFF 83, fig.

‘7 Boucharlat, ‘Documents arabes’, fig. 5. Pliny, NH 36. 59, wrote of onyx marble or

‘oriental alabaster’, as follows: ‘This stone is sometimes called “alabastrites”, for it is hollowed out

to be used also as unguent jars because it is said to be the best means of keeping unguents fresh.’ On

(

a‘p v azuosg syoy-yeys azuoiq asroy

pue Tayispy]

AYAWS

“Ised

=Iead IULINSY qusuIseIy ‘(J) ue pasiour 9zZU0Iq[MO autojo1d (3) Woy eYlaI

\SWY

Jaiseqetyuan3un sze{‘v) (q ‘(/) pure e

\G

“DIq“81

JUSUISeI

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676 269

)

270

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

found at Qaryat al-Fau!8 and Thaj.!? A fragment of a hollow bronze horse (Fig. 18g) is nearly identical to ones from Jabal Kenzan, northeast of Hofuf, Sumail, ed-Dur, and a recently excavated grave in the Wadi Samad (see below). The surface of the area also yielded several interesting objects. These included fragments of several fine bronze bowls, one of which bears an incised scene (Fig. 18f) showing a lion facing a man who wields a shield and being attacked from behind by a second man who holds a dagger. The head of a horse is also visible, as is the name Mara’sams in South Arabian letters. This has been dated palaeographically, with all due caution, to the third century BC.*° Another find of note is a small bronze figurine (Fig. 18c), picked up by chance on the surface of the site by a local inhabitant. The individual shown is male and wears a kilt. He is naked from the waist up except for a headband, and supports a bird on his outstretched right hand. It is difficult, at this point, to give an accurate evaluation of the ceramics from Mleiha. A variety of plain, red/brown-slipped, grey, coarse, and glazed wares was recovered. The slipped wares clearly perpetuate the Iron Age tradition. Some of the plain-ware carinated bowls with flaring rims recall Hellenistic types from eastern Saudi Arabia, as do yellow-glazed, round-rimmed, ring-based bowls. A third stamped Rhodian amphora handle, picked up on the surface of the site in 1986, bears the magistrate’s name ‘Aristonos’ along with that of the Rhodian month of manufacture, ‘Theomphorios’. A Rhodian magistrate by the name of Ariston is attested in office for one year some time between 182 and 176 BC.! Besides the stamped amphora handles that have been found at Mleiha thus far, one must also note

the large number of fine, pink body-sherds picked up on the site which, this stone, cf. K. C. Bailey, The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on Chemical Subjects, ii (London, 1932), 266, 277; E. R. Caley and J. F. C. Richards, Theophrastus on Stones (Columbus, 1956), 72-3. 18 A. R. al-Ansary, Qaryat al-Fau: A Portrait of Pre-Islamic Civilisation in Saudi Arabia (London, 1982), 62, 74-5. For examples from Southern Arabia, see e.g. R. L. Cleveland, An Ancient South Arabian Necropolis: Objects from the Second Campaign (1951) in the Timna’ Cemetery (Publications of the American Foundation for the Study of Man, 4; Baltimore, 1965),

111 and pl. 89 (TC 1951). ' T. G. Bibby, ‘Arabiens arkzologi (Arabian Gulf Archaeology)’, Kuml 1965 (1966), 143 fig. 5. An example was also discovered in 1987 by J.-F. Salles on Bahrain during his excavations at Karranah. 0 C. Robin, ‘Inscriptions from the Mleiha Region’, in Boucharlat (ed.), Archaeological

Surveys and Excavations (1986), 77. Note that J. Pirenne dates the same inscription to the 6th/ 5th cent. BC and considers it ‘Proto-Arabic’ (apud Boucharlat, ‘Documents arabesmel2. leme27)e

Robin considers this out of the question. Excavations in 1988 yielded several more bronze bowl

fragments, with scenes of men in a row, and of two warriors mounted on a camel and a horse, respectively. Both appear to be uninscribed, although further cleaning and X-raying might reveal inscriptions invisible at present to the naked eye. 41 -Y. Calvet, ‘A Rhodian Stamped Amphora Handle from Mleiha, 1986’, in Boucharlat (ed.), Archaeological Surveys and Excavations (1986), 76 n. 2.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

271

it is believed, are amphora fragments. Moreover, in 1989 sherds of

Greek black-glazed pottery were found there. Obviously the recovery of imported pottery, alabaster jars, and South Arabian or Hasaitic inscriptions attests to the fact that contacts were maintained with other parts of the Arabian peninsula. Elsewhere in the United Arab Emirates little has been found that can be securely dated to the Seleucid period. The French survey of coastal Sharjah recorded only one site, a shell-mound, considered to be Hellenistic.2* The lack of sites of this period is attributed to the movement of dunes and subsequent infilling of the coastal lagoons after the Iron Age.?3 Moving north to the emirate of Umm alQaiwain, we come to the site of ed-Dur, the post-Iron Age occupation of which dates principally to the Parthian and early Sasanian periods (see below). A silver tetradrachm of Seleucus III or IV, weighing 14.52 g., was, however, found on the surface of the site. The obverse

shows the diademed and short-bearded head of the king, facing right. On the reverse we see the figure of Apollo, seated on the omphalos,

‘the sacred stone of his shrine at Delphi, which marked the centre of the earth’, examining his arrow and holding his bow at his side.2* In Ras al-Khaimah, sherds found at several of the well-known Wadi Suqperiod and Iron Age sites, such as Ghalilah*> and Shimal,?® have tentatively been compared with late and post-Achaemenid finds from Pasargadae. While the bulk of the material from these sites is earlier, it is hardly conceivable that the region was uninhabited during the last centuries BC. Moving inland, we find that a ‘heavy cordoned hand-made ware’ found at al-Khatt has been dated to the second half of the first millennium BC,?’ although this belongs clearly in the local Iron Age tradition of the Oman peninsula.

22 R. Boucharlat, ‘Observations’, in id. (ed.), Second Archaeological Survey, 40 fig. 11, showing the location of site 47. 23 P. Sanlaville et al., ‘Modification du tracé littoral sur la céte arabe du golfe Persique en relation avec l’archéologie’, Déplacements des lignes de rivage en Méditerranée (Paris, 1987),

218: ‘Pendant un certain temps, la superficie des lagunes a tendance a s’agrandir par érosion des rives et aux périodes du Fer et de |’Hellénistique, les hommes sont établis assez loin a l’intérieur, sur la rive interne des lagunes. Des oscillations du niveau marin ont pu favoriser l’érosion des rives.’ 24 N. Davis and C. M. Kraay, The Hellenistic Kingdoms: Portrait Coins and History (London, 1973), caption to pls. 54, 55, and 60.

25 _B. de Cardi, ‘Further Archaeological Survey in Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E., 1977’, OrAnt 24 (1985), 194, referring to her site 37b. 26 De Cardi, ibid. 176, 199, referring to her site 40b. 27 De Cardi, ibid. 193, referring to her site 16b, and drawing parallels with sites in Oman

found by the Harvard Survey, such as BB 4, BB 15, and SH 11. For this material, see J. H. Humphries, ‘Harvard Archaeological Survey in Oman, ii: Some Later Prehistoric Sites in the Sultanate of Oman’, PSAS 4 (1974), 49-77. It should, however, be stressed that when Humphries

wrote this article, little or nothing was known of the Iron Age in the Oman peninsula, and

A

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

272

No remains of Hellenistic or Seleucid affiliation have yet been positively identified on the Batinah coast,?® and the recently excavated pre-Islamic levels at Sohar do not appear to pre-date the Parthian aa period. in the innovation l technologica Undoubtedly the most important iron, of adoption the was period Oman peninsula during the Seleucid regions. g neighbourin in common centuries after its use had become Throughout history much of the iron used in the Gulf region has been imported. An account written in 1790 of commerce in the Gulf lists iron as one of the many categories of imports at Muscat from the Indian subcontinent.2? In 1835/6 iron reached the ports of the lower Gulf (e.g. Ras al-Khaimah, Umm al-Qaiwain, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi) from

Bombay and the Makran coast,?° and by the early twentieth century iron ore and tools were being imported in sizeable amounts by the Gulf countries from various European producers.*! The existence of iron sources in the region has, however, long been

recognized. H. Berghaus reported the presence of iron as early as 1832.32 H. J. Carter found iron on Masirah and at Marbat?? while serving on the Palinurus (see vol.

ich. 1).

C. G. Constable discovered

specular iron ore on the Tumb islands during the Indian Navy’s survey of the Gulf.34 The presence of iron in the mountains of inner Oman was noted by A. Germain in 1868,*° and this was confirmed by there can be little doubt that the bulk of the material which he illustrates is earlier than the period with which we are concerned here. The only sherd from al-Khatt illustrated by de Cardi which looks Hellenistic is the slipped bow! with incurving rim, fig. 12. 129. *8 This statement does not except the material from Zahra, site 2, published in P. M. Costa and T. J. Wilkinson, ‘The Hinterland of Sohar: Archaeological Surveys and Excavations within the Region of an Omani Seafaring City’, JOS 9 (1987), figs. 87-91, some of which has been

compared with sherds of Hellenistic or Parthian date from ed-Dur. The sherds in question from both sites are clearly Iron Age types.

*? §. Manesty and H. Jones, ‘Report on the Commerce of Arabia and Persia’, app. F in J. Saldanha (ed.), The Persian Gulf Precis, i. Selections from State Papers, Bombay, Regarding the East India Company’s Connections with.the Persian Gulf, with a Summary of Events, 1600-1800 (Calcutta, 1908; repr. London, 1986), 406.

0 Lt. H. H. Whitelock, IN, ‘An Account of the Arabs who Inhabit the Coast between Ras-el Kheimah and Abothubee in the Gulf of Persia, Generally Called the Pirate Coast’, TBGS, NS

1 (1844), 48. _*| D.

T.

E.

Osterreichische

von

Sorinj,

‘Handelsverhaltnisse

Monatsschrift fiir den

Orient,

41

in Oman (1915),

und 208.

im

persischen

Belgium

was

Golf,

then

the

oe exporter of iron to the Gulf, followed by Britain, India, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and France. *° H. Berghaus, Geo-hydrographisches Memoir zur Erklarung und Erlauterung der reduzirten Karte vom Persischen Golf (Gotha, 1832), 6.

*’ H. J. Carter, ‘Memoir on the Geology of the South-East Coast of Arabia’, JBBRAS 4

(1852), 35, 56.

4H. J. Carter, ‘Report on Geological Specimens from the Persian Gulf Collected by Lieut.

C. G. Constable IN’, JASB 28 (1859), 44.

* A. Germain, ‘Quelques mots sur (Oman et le Sultan de Maskate’, BSG 5/16 (1868), 342.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

273

S. B. Miles in 1876 during a visit to the Jabal Akhdar.3¢ Iron in the mountains around Muscat was noted in 1889 by the Dutch ConsulGeneral at Bushire, Baron R. C. Keun de Hoogerwoerd.27 Iron oxide deposits on Abu Musa, off the coast of Sharjah, were worked briefly in 1906-7 by the Wénckhaus firm.38 Oman’s iron sources were mentioned in the same year by L. Griessbauer in a politico-economic study of the balance of power on the coasts of Arabia.39 Iron oxide on Dalma island, off the coast of Abu Dhabi, was recorded by J. G. Lorimer in 1908.49 Finally, the Foreign Office Handbook on Arabia reports that iron was mined commercially in Ras al-Khaimah in 1916-17.41 The badly preserved state of most of the iron recovered at Mleiha and later sites such as ed-Dur does not often permit stylistic comparisons with finds from other areas. As a result, it is difficult if not impossible to say, in most cases, whether a particular object was imported or locally produced; clearly, both possibilities were open. A more fundamental

question, however, is that of why iron was

adopted at such a late date when the local bronze industry had been so dominant for so long. P. Lombard has recently suggested that the arrival of the Macedonian and Seleucid powers may have acted as a catalyst towards technological innovation, bringing about the local adoption of iron on a large scale.4? Iron may have been seen as a superior metal for weaponry, either for its real advantages in warfare or because of its status associations with the armies and navies of the Greeks and their Seleucid successors. The fact that iron has not always been employed in areas where it was readily available*? and where 36 Col. S. B. Miles, ‘Across the Green Mountains of Oman’, GJ 18 (1901), 483.

37 Baron R. C. Keun de Hoogerwoerd, ‘Die Hafen und Handelsverhaltnisse des Persischen Golfs und des Golfs von Oman’, Annalen der Hydrographie und maritimen Meteorologie, 17

(1889), 203. 38 E. Staley, ‘Business and Politics in the Persian Gulf: The Story of the Wénckhaus Firm’, Political Science Quarterly, 48 (1933), 380. Iron oxide deposits were also being worked at this

time on Hormuz by the British firm F. C. Strick and Co. 39 |. Griessbauer, Die internationalen Verkehrs- und Machtfragen an den Kusten Arabiens (Schriften der Deutsch-Asiatischen Gesellschaft, 4; Berlin, 1907), 10; cf. id., ‘Arabische Wirtschafts- und Verkehrsprobleme’, Weltverkehr und Weltwirtschaft, 12 (1913), 537.

40 GPG 363, s.v. ‘Dalmah’. Cf. §. B. Miles, The Countries and Tribes of the Persian Gulf (London, 1919), ii. 440.

41 G. W. Prothero (ed.), Arabia (Foreign Office Handbook 61; London, 1920), 84. 42 P. Lombard, ‘L’Arabie orientale a l’Age du fer’, thése de doctorat (Paris, 1985), 266. Cf. id., ‘Age du fer sans fer: Le Cas de la péninsule d’?Oman au I* millénaire avant J.-C.’, in Fahd (ed.), L’Arabie préislamique, 25-37. 43 J. B. Fraser, Travels and Adventures in the Persian Provinces on the Southern Banks of the Caspian Sea (London, 1826), 370, noted that: ‘The steel of India is greatly preferred to any other. Iron is made in several parts of Persia, but foreign metal is much preferred. It is to be remembered that iron is a metal comparatively but little used in these countries.’

274

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

the metallurgical knowledge required for its exploitation was present, however, should warn against making facile assumptions about the mechanisms by which the change from bronze to iron metallurgy took place.

Ed-Dur

So far, very few sites dating to the Parthian period have been located south of Bahrain. Of these, by far the largest is ed-Dur in the emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain. Ed-Dur is located just beside the modern highway linking Sharjah with Ras al-Khaimah. It overlooks a shallow lagoon; this may in fact have been dry during the first century AD,*4 but roughly 1 km. to the north is the sheltered bay of Khor el-Baidha which undoubtedly served the site in antiquity. A discontinuous line of shell mounds and scatters just to the west of the highway probably marks the original shoreline, and thus ed-Dur, although not located directly on the water, should none the less be considered a coastal site. Unlike

most large settlements in the Near East, ed-Dur does not exhibit a concentration of building-remains within a fairly restricted area, nor does it have any blocks of houses separated by streets, alleys, or open areas. Rather, it has the character of an extensive, sandy area of isolated building-ruins set amidst a more or less continuous surface scatter of shell, sherds, and stone rubble. The site is roughly 1 km. wide, but it is difficult to determine its exact north-south extent. An area in the far south shows a scatter of Umm an-Nar sherds, while the northern part of the site appears to have a higher concentration of Iron Age pottery. The centre of the site, however, appears to have been occupied principally between the first and the third or fourth centuries AD. At an estimate, the remains of human settlement seem to range over an area c.3-4km. long. In 1973 the Iraqi expedition to the UAE conducted a brief investigation of ed-Dur.*> They excavated a small mound on the site, ** P. Sanlaville and R. Dalongeville, personal communication. Cf. R. Dalongeville and V. Medwecki, 1988 Geomorphological Survey: First Report on UAQ Lagoon (Lyons, n.d.), 2-3; R. Boucharlat et al., ‘The European Archaeological Expedition to ed-Dur, Umm al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.): An Interim Report on the 1987 and 1988 Seasons’, Mesopotamia, 24 (1989), figs. 1 and A. ‘S I. Salman, ‘Foreword’, Sumer, 30 (1974), pp. m-n; Dept. of Antiquities and Tourism, Al-Athar (Al Ain, 1975); R. al-Qaisy, ‘Archaeological Investigations and Excavations at a rk of the United Arab Emerites [sic] —Arabian Gulf, Sumer, 31 (1975), 75-156 (in rabic).

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

275

F mal lly 11) Fee

“any,

‘\

Note: The letters indicate a selection of the areas of excavation (almost fifty in number) opened to date.

F1G. 19. Plan of the central portion of ed-Dur

revealing the remains of a modest rectangular building of dry-stone construction. In addition, they excavated a larger mound which proved to contain the ruins of a roughly square fort, c.20 m. on a side, with walls c.70 cm. wide, and circular towers c.4m. in diameter at each

corner. Like all of the architecture at the site, the fort is built of crudely

276

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

cut, locally available limestone, often containing a high percentage

of undecomposed shell. In the interior, the fort contained a small, free-

standing, roughly square, two-roomed building, c.6m. ona side. In addition, a second enclosure had been built against the interior of the fortress’s east wall. We shall return to the dating and possible significance of this structure below. The most important finds made by the Iraqi expedition were eight coins,46 two of which are Characene and four of which are indigenous Arabian issues, the other two being illegible. Unfortunately, none of the coins was found in association with the fortress; rather, all were

surface finds. These, together with coins found more recently on the site, are discussed separately below. In 1980 and 1981 J.-F. Salles made several surface collections of pottery at the site,*” resulting in a preliminary typology of the wares present. His exhaustive study of this material revealed a number of indigenous or otherwise unparalleled wares, but it also pointed up the presence of certain imported diagnostics, such as Eastern terra sigillata and a wide range of typical Parthian glazed wares, including numerous

fish-plates.*8 In 1985 the author began work on a private collection of nearly 300 pre-Islamic coins from ed-Dur.*? The following winter, while surveying in Sharjah, R. Boucharlat became aware of a potential development threat to this important site, and it was decided to form a European expedition to investigate it. In the autumn of 1986 a preliminary survey was carried out, along with E. Haerinck and C. S. Phillips, at which time more diagnostic finds were made, including sherds of Eastern sigillata C and fragments of Roman glass. Since then, the European expedition has conducted three seasons*? of excavation at ed-Dur (1987, 1988, 1989). The new programme of excavations at ed-Dur has revealed a variety of public and private buildings, as well as funerary monuments, all “6 J.-F. Salles, ‘Monnaies d’Arabie orientale: Eléments pour histoire des Emirats arabes unis a l’époque historique’, PSAS 10 (1980), 87-109. ‘7 J.-F. Salles, ‘Céramiques de surface 4 ed-Dour, Emirats arabes unis’, AOMIM 241.

se Nbids fiesael aaaoe * I should like to acknowledge the kindness of the late Mr Nicholas M. Lowick, as well as that of Dr Martin J. Price, Dept. of Coins and Medals, British Museum, for all their help in my work, It was Mr Lowick, in particular, who first informed me of the existence of the collection. Their owner, who wishes to remain anonymous, has been extremely encouraging and co-operativeat every turn. I owe a great debt of gratitude to all of these gentlemen. °° The excavation is being carried out by teams from the Universities of Copenhagen, Lyons, Edinburgh, and Ghent, each working for successive periods of 6 weeks each year. For the results

of the 1986 survey, see R. Boucharlat et al., ‘Archaeological Reconnaissance at ed-Dur, Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.’, Akkadica, 58 (1988), 1-26; and for the 1987 and 1988 seasons of

excavation, see Boucharlat et al., ‘The European Archaeological Expedition’.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

237

built of cut, locally available beach-rock. Houses vary in size from

small, one- or two-room dwellings (e.g. Areas B, O, P) to substantial buildings of four rooms or more (Areas E, F, Z). All of these, with the exception of F (see below), can be dated to the first century AD

primarily on the basis of the many fragments of Roman pillar-moulded glass bowls recovered.5! Ceramics associated with these buildings include a variety of local and imported wares. Storage jars made of a heavy, black-ridged fabric are common, as are bitumen-coated yellow-buff jars. A thin, coarse grey ware, and various pink to brown common wares are also attested in a variety of bowl and jar shapes. Imported ceramics include Roman terra sigillata (rare), Indian Red Polished Ware (rare), Mesopotamian eggshell ware (rare), glazed BIware (common), and standard green-glazed Parthian vessels (common, often in the form of a small amphora, a shallow bowl, or a fish-plate).

Among the smallfinds from the houses are items such as moulded terracotta female figurines, iron tools and hardware, especially nails (from doors?), and quantities of shells. Minor epigraphic finds from domestic dwellings include a fragment of an Aramaic inscription, a Greek alpha, and the letters ‘LNV’, in Latin, incised on sherds.52 At least one building (Area C), while apparently for domestic use, may represent a more élite type of dwelling. The structure consists of four rooms, one of which contained a square mud-brick platform which occupied nearly all of the available floor-space. White gypsum plaster was found preserved along part of one of the interior walls, and presumably had been used throughout the building. Walls projected to the north and east from the north-western and southeastern corners of the structure, terminating in square tower bases (?). The western, southern, and eastern walls, furthermore, had semicircular buttresses attached to the exterior, not unlike some of the later buildings at Jumeirah, in Dubai (see below).

One building (Area M) is without any question a temple (Plate XIa). It is a large, nearly square structure (8.00 m. by 8.30 m.) with entrances in the middle of the western and eastern walls. It was preserved to a height of more than 2m., and covered on the outside with a finely worked facade of white gypsum plaster modelled to look like 5! Boucharlat et al., ‘The European Archaeological Expedition’, figs. 7 and J. 1, 3. Cf. D. Barag, Catalogue of Western Asiatic Glass in the British Museum (London, 1985), 91 and

no. 116. 52 T should like to thank J. Teixidor for examining the Aramaic graffito. I should also like to thank H. I. MacAdam for his help in identifying the sherd with Latin letters (illustrated in Boucharlat et al., ‘The European Archaeological Expedition’, fig. AA), which can be compared with incised amphorae from North Africa. See F. Zevi and A. Tchernia, ‘Amphores de Byzacéne au bas-empire’, Antiquités africaines, 3 (1969), figs. 14, 16. Examples have also been found in 1st-cent. AD levels in the Athenian Agora (MacAdam, personal communication).

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

278

semi-dressed and pecked stone masonry. Decorative elements added in plaster include moulding along the sides of the west doorway and a running-swastika frieze flanking the east entrance, both vertically orientated. The finds from within the building include a large limestone ashlar with a central depression, found in the middle of the room on the floor, which

may

have

functioned

as an altar.

This came,

presumably, from a plundered Umm an-Nar-period tomb, a possibility made not unlikely by the proximity of at least two concentrations of Umm an-Nar settlement in the southern areas of ed-Dur and an Umm an-Nar tomb several kilometres away at Tell Abraq. Two bronze statue bases or altars were also found on the floor of the building. One of these, with a round base and top, was undecorated, while the second, with a square base, small feet, and flat sides, was adorned with the

draped bust of a male, separately cast and soldered in place. A bronze Roman lamp with a lunate handle was found stuck into the east wall of the building; a small, crude limestone statue of a bird and a fragment

of an Aramaic inscription were recorded as well. Excavations in 1988 outside the temple revealed the presence of three altars, built of the typical beach-rock slabs used everywhere on the site. In addition, a stone-lined well was discovered several metres from

the building. An inscribed stone incense-burner was also found bearing nine lines of Aramaic. Although it is badly preserved and difficult to read, J. Teixidor compares the writing with the Aramaic used at Hatra, in northern Mesopotamia, and has been able to identify the name of the solar deity Sams. It is not unlikely therefore that the sanctuary was a shrine dedicated to Sams. The largest building at ed-Dur is a multi-roomed structure (Area F) covering more than 600 sq. m. The building’s history can be broken up into three main periods, all of which seem to post-date the main period of occupation at the site. In the first period of its use (c. AD 225-300) the building was not an ordinary dwelling, for there is an almost total lack of what could be called normal domestic debris (animal bones, pottery, etc.). Rather, the period is distinguished by the burial of a male in one of the interior rooms, and by the ritual slaughter and burial of a

camel. The skeleton of the animal was found intact, an iron sword still in its scabbard lying next to it. As the excavator, O. Lecomte, notes, it

is tempting to consider the slaughter of the camel as a sacrifice performed at the burial of the male found in the building. Camel burials of roughly

the same date have also been found in one of the Dhahran graves,53

ni J. Zarins, A. S. Mughannum, and M. Kamal, ‘Excavations at Dhahran South: The mere Field (208-92), 1403 A.H./1983: A Preliminary Report’, Atlal, 8 (1984), 42 and

pl.

26.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

279

in Qatar,°* on Bahrain,S5 and at Bat5® and Samad ash-Shan in Oman.°” Literary parallels for camel sacrifice in pre-Islamic Arabia _ may reflect similar practices, albeit several centuries later.58 Contemporary with the camel burial are a large number of burnt

offerings outside the building. These take the form of shallow pits containing glass and ceramic vessels, along with joints of sheep and goat, as well as fish and shellfish. These remains, along with the camel

burial, suggest that the building was a focus of ritual activity, perhaps functioning as funerary temple. One of the burnt ceramic vessels which is readily identifiable is a fine black-on-orange beaker,5? comparable

to a vessel found in a cairn burial near Tepe Yahya, a beaker from the Bushire peninsula,®! and fragments from Jazirat al-Ghanam off the coast of the Musandam peninsula.®2 The glass vessels from the burnt deposits are equally diagnostic, and find close parallels in contexts dating from the third to the fifth century AD at sites in Mesopotamia, most particularly Choche.®3 In 1987, just outside the Area F building, two sculpted limestone eagles, both headless and measuring c.45cm. in height, were discovered. These, too, date to the first period of the building’s use,

although the fact that one of the eagles was used as a door socket implies that they were probably brought there from somewhere else, such as the temple in Area M. The two eagles differ significantly in appearance. One is rather plain and naturalistic, the feathers of the wings and back clearly incised. The other has a pseudo-military appearance. The breast, legs, and wings are so incised as to imitate armour. Furthermore, it stands upon a frontally depicted, short-horned bucranium. 54K. Frifelt, ‘Further Evidence of the Third Millennium Bc Town at Bat in Oman’, JOS 7 (1985), 102. ‘ST. G. Bibby, ‘Fem af Bahrains hundrede tusinde gravhgje (Five among Bahrain’s Hundred Thousand Grave-Mounds)’, Kuml 1954 (1954), 140-1 and fig. 10.

6 Frifelt, ‘Further Evidence’, 101-3. 57 H.-P. Uerpmann, personal communication. 58 For the sacrifice of camels at the grave of a deceased person, or in memory of the deceased of a given year, in pre-Islamic Arabia, see 1. Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, i (Halle, 1889), 240, 242. For the riding camel which was tethered to the grave of its master and left

to starve in pre-Islamic Arabia, see G. Jacob, Altarabisches Beduinenleben nach den Quellen geschildert (Berlin, 1897), 141.

59 Boucharlat et al., ‘The European Archaeological Expedition’, fig. AH. 4. 6° C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967-1969: Progress Report

1 (American School of Prehistoric Research, Bulletin 27; Cambridge, Mass., 1970), fig. 4 A, E, I. 61 PD, Whitehouse and A. Williamson, ‘Sasanian Maritime Trade’, Iran, 11 (1973), fig. 5 A. 62 B. de Cardi, ‘A Sasanian Outpost in Northern Oman’, Antiquity, 46 (1972), fig. 2. 1-2,

6-8. 63 Boucharlat et al., ‘The European Archaeological Expedition’, figs. AH. 6-8, AI. 8; cf.

M. M. Negro Ponzi, ‘Glassware from Choche (Central Mesopotamia)’, AOMIM,

figs. 1-4.

280

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

FIG. 20. Two limestone eagles (a—b) excavated in 1987 in Area F at ed-Dur: the eagle standing on a frontal bull’s head (b) can be compared with the iconography of a South Arabian seal (c) from Zafar

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

281

The most obvious parallels for statuary of this kind come from the rear portico of the temple of the sun at Hatra.°4 This well-known site, located c.90 km. south-west of Mosul, served as the capital of an important Arab dynasty during the second and third centuries AD, and a postulated link with Hatra appears all the more likely in view of the Hatran affinities of the Aramaic inscription from the Area M temple mentioned above. The stylistic, sculptural similarities between the edDur and Hatra eagles, are not so very striking, however, and in order to understand the ed-Dur statues it is necessary to examine the significance of the eagle in pre-Islamic Arabia, and more generally in the wider pre-Islamic Semitic cultural context. This brings us immediately to an examination of the sources concerning the preIslamic deity Nasr, whose physical form was that of an eagle. The Talmud mentions a temple to Nasr, or Nigra, in Arabia.®> At Hatra,

where he was known as Nair, the deity’s name was the second most frequently attested theophoric element in personal names, after ‘Sams’, the name of the pan-Semitic solar deity.6© The worship of Nasr in Syria is attested in the Syriac Doctrine of Addai.®’ In Sura 71: 22-3 of the Qu’ran, moreover, those who resisted the proclamation of a

single god defended the traditional polytheism of pre-Islamic Arabia by replying: ‘Do not abandon your gods; do not leave Wadd, or Suwa’,

or Yaghuth, Ya‘uq, or Nasr.’®’ The god Nasr is also attested in southern Arabia as NSRM or NSWR.°? In the Kitab al-asnam, or ‘Book 64 This is the view expressed by, e.g. Boucharlat, ‘Documents arabes’, 124. The eagles are illustrated in ibid., figs. 7-8, and Boucharlat et al., ‘The European Archaeological Expedition’, figs. 15-16, 26-9, and AO-P. The eagles from Hatra are illustrated, inter alia, in F. Safar and M. A. Mustafa, Al-Hadr, madinath al-Sams (Baghdad, 1974), pls. 137-8; H. von Gall, ‘Zur figuralen Architekturplastik des grossen Tempels von Hatra’, BaM 5 (1970), fig. 2. 1; V. G. Lukonin, Persia, ii (Geneva, Paris, and Munich, 1967), pl. 12. Cf. H. Ingholt, ‘Parthian Sculptures from Hatra’, Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 12 (1954),

29-30. 65 §. Krauss, ‘Talmudische Nachrichten iiber Arabien’, ZDMG

70 (1916), 349; cf. A.

Neubauer, La Géographie du Talmud (Paris, 1868), 384.

66 S. Abbadi,

Die Personennamen

der Inschriften aus Hatra

(Texte und Studien zur

Orientalistik, 1; Hildesheim, 1983), p. xxiii. Cf. R. Dussaud, La Pénétration des Arabes en

Syrie avant l'Islam (Institut frangais d’archéologie de Beyrouth, Bibliotheque archéologique et historique, 59; Paris, 1955), 158.

87 G. Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai, the Apostle (London, 1876), 24: ‘Behold, there are those among you who adore . . . the eagle, as the Arabians.’ Cf. G. Howard, The Teaching of Addai (Texts and Translations, 16 (=Early Christian Literature Series, 4); Chico, Galif,, 1981), 49. 68 Cf. J. Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums (3rd edn.; Berlin, 1961), 23; M. H6fner, ‘Die Stammesgruppen Nord- und Zentralarabiens in vorislamischer Zeit’, in H. W. Haussig (ed.), Gétter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient (Worterbuch der Mythologie, 1/1; Stuttgart, 1965), 457. 6° Héfner, ‘Siidarabien’, in Haussig, Gotter und Mythen, 519. For a discussion of more recent evidence from Yemen which doubtless has its origins in the pre-Islamic era, see R. B. Serjeant, South Arabian Hunt (Luzac, 1976), 9-13.

282

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

of Idols’,”° Ibn al-Kalbi says specifically that Nasr was venerated in Himyar.”! According to the Tag al-Arus, citing al-Gawhari, Nasr was worshipped by a Himyaritic tribe called Dhu ‘I-kala’, and Yaqut says that the Himyarites continued to worship Nasr right up until their conversion to Judaism by Dhu Nawas in the sixth century.’ It is, in this connection, particularly interesting that one of the edDur eagles stands upon a bucranium, one of the most common features on South Arabian offering-tables and a frequent element in architectural ornamentation. The repeated association of the bucranium with inscriptions containing dedications to the South Arabian moon-god, Athtar, strongly suggests that it was used as a symbol of that deity.” Eagles, on the other hand, occur but rarely in the art of southern Arabia. Perhaps more significant than this is a stamp seal from the Himyaritic capital Zafar on which an eagle is shown with its claws resting on the horns of a bucranium.’”* This association of eagle and bucranium may also be compared with a number of South Arabian inscriptions’> in which Nasr and Athtar appear together, sometimes identified as ‘the two lords’ of a particular temple.”© Obviously, the topic is a complex one, and it would be imprudent to draw any conclusions too quickly. There can, however, be no doubt that the

eagle-bucranium association at ed-Dur deserves further study in the broadest possible context of pre-Islamic religion. We turn now to the funerary monuments of ed-Dur. Thus far, more than a dozen simple subterranean stone chamber-graves have been excavated. These consist of a dry stone wall, usually four to six courses high, topped by one or more capstones, containing a single inhumation. A larger and apparently more élite type of tomb has also been recorded in Areas A, K, N, and Q. These are large, rectangular chambers with

well-built walls, up to 1.5 m. thick, and floors paved with flagstones 70.N. A. Faris, The Book of Idols (Princeton, 1952); cf. F. Stummer, ‘Bemerkungen zum Gétzenbuch des Ibn al-Kalbi’, ZDMG 98 (1944), 386-7.

” Cf. the discussion in T. Fahd, Le Panthéon de l’Arabie centrale a la veille de l'Hégire cans francais d’archéologie de Beyrouth, Biblioth¢que archéologique et historique, 88; Paris, 1968), 133.

” E. Osiander, ‘Studien tiber die vorislamische Religion der Araber’, ZDMG 7 (1853), 473. > A. Grohmann, Géttersymbole und Symboltiere auf stidarabischen Denkmédlern (Denkschriften d. kais. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, phil.-hist. KI., 58/1; Vienna, 1914), 67. Héfner, ‘Stidarabien’, 501, 541. ’* Corpus des antiquités et inscriptions sud-arabes, i/2 (Louvain, 1977), I. 601. 7° C, Robin, Les Hautes-Terres du Nord-Yemen avant lIslam, i (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 50; Leiden, 1982), 59, 61, citing Gl 1208, in which a dedication is made to the 2 deities, and Robin-Bayt al-Galid 2, invoking both deities together in a text commemorating the construction of a house. ra ne ‘Siidarabien’, 519 (citing the Sabaean inscription Ry 196 and the Qatabanian text

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

283

covered with grey gypsum plaster. Entrance to the chamber had been via a shaft leading to a threshold which had often subsequently been blocked up. In one case, the threshold entrance was vaulted; in another

case, the tomb chamber itself was roofed with a barrel vault. It appears that the entrances to these tombs may have originally been at or slightly below ground-level. The floor of the main burial chamber itself was below ground, while its walls and roof stood above ground like a small mausoleum. In plan and construction these tombs are not unlike some of the large Parthian graves at Assur.77 When not completely robbed, the large tombs were found to contain important and luxurious finds. One tomb (Area A), in which a male

and female were buried, contained a complete moulded-blown, almond-bossed Roman glass beaker,’8 an iron sword fitted with an ivory disc and bronze rivet at the hilt, bone cosmetic applicators and comb, and a bronze wine-set. The bow] of the wine-set was fitted with

a separately cast spout in the form of a bull’s head. The handle of the ladle terminated in a snake’s head, while the double handles of

the strainer were in fact the upper and lower body of a snake, decorated with incised chevrons.7? A second grave belonging to this category contained two complete Roman glass vessels, a pillar-moulded bowl and a pear-shaped flask,8° as well as two gold beads. Other graves contained a unique series of small ivory or bone plaques with crudely incised human and animal figures. One further building complex (Area T) may also have been the location of a funerary cult. Three square stone platforms, apparently solid, had originally been erected here. Eventually two of these were enclosed by a perimeter wall, and finally a larger solid square structure was built over part of the same area. The remains of at least two decorated ceramic containers were recovered here. One of these, with

small feet, was decorated with incised arrows and hatching, and appeared to be the hindquarters of an animal. Both had been thrown 77 W. Andrae and H. Lenzen, Die Partherstadt Assur (Leipzig, 1933), fig. 50a. 78 C. Isings, Roman Glass from Dated Finds (Groningen, 1957), 45 form 31. Comparable

pieces can be found e.g. in J. Morin, La Verrerie en Gaule sous l’Empire romain (Paris, 1913), 139 fig. 186 form 104, ‘verre 4 nodosités’; Glass at the Fitzwilliam Museum (Cambridge, 1978), 33 no. 56; A. von Saldern, Glas von der Antike bis zum Jugendstil (Mainz, 1980), 51 no. 44. 79 For comparable ladles, or simpula, showing swans, wolves, or duck heads, see M. H. P. Den Boesterd, The Bronze Vessels in the Rijksmuseum G. M. Kam at Nijmegen (Nijmegen, 1956), no. 96 (and note the similar cauldron, no. 160); S$. Tassinari, La Vaisselle de bronze romaine et provenciale au Musée des antiquités nationale (Paris, 1975), pls. x. 41-2, x1. 46; J. W. Hayes, Greek, Roman, and Related Metalware in the Royal Ontario Museum (Toronto, 1984), nos. 55-61, 91-2. 80 Cf., for the pillar-moulded bowl, D. B. Harden, Glass of the Caesars (Milan, 1987), 51

no. 27; and for the pear-shaped flask, Barag, Catalogue of Western Asiatic Glass, nos. 124, 126-7. Many more parallels could be cited.

284

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

2 909900000 00 a000 000000, °.

2 9205609000009 ° 009000000

O00 00 oo 00

00 400 408 «©6008

006 0 “00 98 «2980_—ooe 20 0

90 a0 20

Boog 3990. aSSectPooeSeqoonyy 2 PSSS tod

FBooiD oD AOip Oe

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

285

FIG. 21. A bronze wine-set excavated in 1987 in a tomb in Area A at ed-Dur: a cauldron (a) with built-in strainer, over which a bull’s head (b) was affixed as a spout; a two-handled strainer (c); and a ladle or simpulum (d)

on a wheel and subsequently modelled. These are reminiscent of ostothéques in the Zoroastrian tradition, known from sites in Iran8!

and Central Asia.°2 A small ceramic altar in the form of a temple®? was also recovered here, and the large number of semiprecious stone beads, usually encountered only in the graves, also suggests that the area had a funerary function. 51 See, inter alia, L. C. Casartelli, ‘Astodans, and the Avestic Funeral Prescriptions’, Babylonian and Oriental Record, 4/7 (1890), 145-52; E. E. Herzfeld, Archaeological History of Iran (London, 1932), 39; or L. Triimpelmann, ‘Sasanian Graves and Burial Customs’, AOMIM

Sil 82 F. Grenet, Les Pratiques funéraires dans l’Asie Centrale sédentaire de la conquéte grecque a lislamisation (Paris, 1984), 347, for extensive references, and pl. XXxII. 5, for a similar vessel.

83 Cf. the ones in alabaster from Hatra illustrated in Safar and Mustafa, Al-Hadr, pl. 302; and D. Homés-Fredericq, Hatra et ses sculptures parthes: Etude stylistique et iconographique (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 15; Leiden, 1963), pl. vi. 5.

padeys-read yseyy(f)

S[MOq papfnouw-serjid Jo Aja1eA & SuIpNypout ‘InQ-pa WIOJ sse[s URWIOY *7Z “OL

rayxeaq ‘(a) puee

‘(p-p) e

“uMmo[q-pap[noul passoq-puowy

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676 286

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

287

The appearance of iron metallurgy in the Oman peninsula during the Seleucid period was noted above, and at ed-Dur iron was used for a wide variety of objects, including nails, rivets, weapons (swords and daggers), and tools (e.g. chisels). Bronze, however,

continued in use, as attested by some of the finds noted above. In addition, however, lead appears in limited quantities for the first time in the history of the region. A whole series of small lead weights, roughly rectangular in shape with a perforation at one end, have been recovered from the surface of the site, as well as a large lead ingot. Excavation in Area Z has also recovered a bell-shaped weight of lead with an iron ring attachment at the top. This bears a marked resemblance to stone weights used until recently by pearl-divers in the region,®4 and it is tempting to infer a similar function for the ed-Dur weight. Lead weights, moreover, were in use amongst pearl-divers working out of Bahrain at the beginning of this century.°> Lead sources in the Oman peninsula have long been known,°° and may have been among those that produced lead found ; at ed-Dur. At this point, little can be said concerning ancient subsistence at ed-Dur. Due to the encroachment of dunes, it is nearly impossible to detect areas of former cultivation near the site, although two stonelined wells have now been found on the site and ground water can be obtained in the area at relatively shallow depths. Remains of cereals have not been encountered in excavation thus far, although the recovery of a burnt basket containing hundreds of date stones in Area Z during the 1989 season confirms the importance of the date-palm in the local economy. Animal bones have not been abundant, but the camel skeleton from Area F confirms the use of this important domesticate. Fishing and shellfish-gathering provide obvious sources of protein,

84 A very similar weight of stone is on display in the ethnographic section of the Ras alKhaimah National Museum. For the use of stone weights by pearl-divers in the Gulf, cf. Whitelock, ‘An Account of the Arabs’, 43; Lt.-Col. L. Pelly, ‘Remarks on the Pearl Oyster Beds in the Persian Gulf, TBGS 18 (1867), 34; R. LeB. Bowen, Jr., ‘The Pearl Fisheries of the Persian

Gulf, MEJ 5 (1951), 171; id., ‘Marine Industries of Eastern Arabia’, GR 41 (1951), 397, who

also mentions the use of iron weights. 85 For the use of lead weights in this century, see G. Rentz, ‘Pearling in the Persian Gulf, in W. J. Fischel (ed.), Semitic and Oriental Studies: A Volume Presented to William Popper (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1951), 398, 401.

86 C. Niebuhr, Beschreibung von Arabien (Copenhagen, 1772), 197, where a lead mine is mentioned at Langsof; W. G. Palgrave, Narrative of a Year’s Journey through Central and Eastern Arabia (London, 1865), ii. 362, where lead ore is listed as an export of Matrah; Germain, ‘Quelques mots sur l’?Oman’, 342; Keun de Hoogerwoerd, ‘Die Hafen’, 203; Griessbauer, Die internationalen

probleme’, 537.

Verkehrs- und Machtfragen, 10; id., ‘Arabische Wirtschafts- und Verkehrs-

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD

288

676

and although fish bones have not been found in abundance, except

for fish vertebrae reused as beads, shells are strewn all over the

site and

are

occasionally

encountered

in large concentrations.

Thus, for example, individual rooms in the buildings excavated in Areas E and Z contained thick layers of shell, mainly bivalves,

such as clam. Large oyster shells were also recovered in association with burials, and in many of the smaller houses. The absence of terebralia, so common at Shimal during the second millennium, suggests that the coast near ed-Dur did not support dense stands of mangrove. As noted above, ed-Dur is the largest site dating to the first centuries AD in the lower Gulf. Its occupation was thus contemporary with the flourishing of the Parthian empire in the east, and the centuries of Roman expansion in the west. The wide range of imported goods attests to the maintenanceof commercial ties with other regions of the ancient world, such as the Indian subcontinent, Parthian Iran, southern Arabia, and the Roman West. The erection

of buildings and the payment of artisans must have occasioned the need for currency, and it is therefore not surprising to find a welldeveloped monetary tradition at the site. We turn now to the indigenous coinage of ed-Dur.

Coins from the Surface of ed-Dur In recent years at least three hoards have been discovered at ed-Dur, as well as a large number of stray surface finds. To these may be added perhaps two dozen coins from the new excavations at the site. There are very few non-Arabian issues in the collection, which now numbers over 350. A very worn silver tetradrachm of Seleucus III, weighing 16.07g., a gold denarius of Tiberius of the Pontif Maxim type, weighing 7.526 g., a poorly preserved square Indian base-metal coin, and five Characene coins, discussed below, are the only ones which

were minted outside of Arabia. Approximately twenty-two coins belong to two of the categories described in Chapter 3 above, and were presumably minted in north-eastern Arabia. These include two drachms with the vertical Sin, weighing approximately 2.36g., along with twenty debased vertical-sin tetradrachms and obols of the more geometrical sort. Most of the coins, however, belong to types previously unattested. Like most of the other Arabian issues discussed already, the ed-Dur coinage is based on that of Alexander, showing a debased head of

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

289

Heracles on the obverse, and a seated deity on the reverse. Stylistic variation, as well as the presence or absence of certain monograms, makes it possible to distinguish six main groups which, by virtue of their iconographic coherence, were presumably minted at or near the site. In each case, the seated figure on the reverse supports a horse in his outstretched right hand. A palm-tree is shown in front of his knees, and the name Abi’el, written in either cursive or lapidary Aramaic, runs vertically down the right side of the field in place of the Greek legend ‘Alexandrou’. The seven groups within the corpus may be distinguished as follows. In Group I (Plate Xa) the seated figure, facing left, and the horse

are both depicted in a naturalistic manner, with clear modelling of the musculature. A monogram resembling a trident or Seleucid anchor is shown beneath the outstretched arm of the figure, pointing towards his chest. Tetradrachms (13.25-15.94¢g.), drachms (3.33-3.86 g.),

and obols (0.76-0.85 g.) of this sort are known. The iconography of Group II coins (Plate Xb) is the same, but their style is very different. The seated figure, who faces right, is very flat, with no modelling, and the palm-tree is virtually a stickfigure. Additionally, there is an extra bar added beneath the trident/ anchor. Tetradrachms (12.11-16.59 g.) are the only monetary unit recorded. Group III (Plate Xc) shares the iconographic elements of Groups I and II, but differs from them stylistically. The torso of the seated figure, facing left, is triangular, with pronounced drill-holes at the shoulders and navel. The palm-tree is shown in a great number of variations, nearly always with two vertical stalks shooting upward. Several other fieldmarks, such as a closed or open dot, are attested, and the Aramaic legend is cursive, while in the other

groups it is lapidary, i.e. geometric. Only tetradrachms are known (15.09-16.50g.). Group

IV (Plate Xd) is a geometric

abstraction

of the same

iconographic theme, in which the arms of the seated figure are shown as a single, continuous line, and his torso is represented by two parallel, vertical lines. The hair of the figure is spiky, like a sunburst. The horse is a stick-figure, as is the palm. This type is found in tetradrachms (12.59-16.06 g.), drachms (3.14-3.92 g.), and obols (0.65-0.96 g.).

With Group V (Plate Xe) a new monogram, resembling a Greek lambda, is introduced. This is placed in front of the seated figure, while

the trident/ anchor is placed vertically behind his back. The horse and figure are shown in a realistic style, with a close resemblance to the coins of Group I. This group is represented by both tetradrachms

(14.26-16.31 g.) and drachms (2.99 g.).

290

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

Group VI (Plate Xf) resembles Group II stylistically, although in this case the figure may face either left or right. A large, cone-like object is seen in front of the seated figure, however, while the anchor/trident is shown vertically behind him. Very few examples of this type are

known, but both tetradrachms (15.46-16.35 g.) and drachms (3.62 g.)

are attested. Until recently, coins of the sorts just described were known only from ed-Dur. Not long ago, however, excavations at Shabwa by the French mission discovered a single tetradrachm belonging to Group IV, and surface reconnaissance at Mleiha in 1988 revealed the presence of more than twenty obols of the same type. Nevertheless, it is clear that the types described above did not circulate widely, and in view of their preponderance at ed-Dur, we assume that it was the coinage of that region. Abi’el, therefore, was presumably a ruler in south-eastern Arabia, as distinct from Abyata and Haritat, who most probably reigned in north-eastern Arabia (see ch. 3 above). The debasement of the legend ‘Abi’el’, however,

makes it not unlikely that the name was merely copied from series to series, just like the name of Alexander on the north-east Arabian issues. While it is probable that Abi’el was an historical personage, datable to the late third or the second century BC,°’ it seems impossible to assign the various debased issues just discussed to individual kings bearing the same name. Although none of the series is dated, it is assumed that they were in circulation when ed-Dur was occupied, between the first and the third or fourth centuries AD.

We come finally to the last Arabian group represented at the site. Included in one of the hoards were twenty-five silver tetradrachms (15.86-16.71 g.) with a blank obverse and a seated figure holding an eagle in his outstretched right hand on the reverse (Plate Xg). To the right of the figure is a fragment of ‘[Alexa]ndrouw’ followed by the monogram m. In front of the figure’s knees is a vertical Sin, above which is a third monogram composed of several Greek letters which appears thus: Z\ . An open or closed circle is seen between the figure’s face and the eagle, and beneath a ground line are two Greek letters,

*” At a recent meeting on the pre-Islamic coinage of the Arabian Gulf held in Lyons in Apr. 1988, the consensus of opinion tended to support a late 3rd-cent. BC date for Abi'el, as originally suggested by Mgrkholm, rather than the 2nd-cent. date proposed by Robin (see ch. 3 above). A short note about this meeting is being published by G. Le Rider, ‘Le Golfe Persique a l’époque hellénistique: Exploration archéologique et trouvailles monétaires’, RN (forthcoming).

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

291

zeta and lambda. This is presumably the date 37, but it is unclear which era is meant, whether a local or an international one. In every respect, this issue stands out from the rest attested at ed-Dur, and the presence of the vertical sin monogram makes it plausible that the source of the issue was north-eastern Arabia. At the present time, coins of this type are not known anywhere outside ed-Dur. Before leaving the Arabian issues, there is one unique coin (Plate Xh) from ed-Dur which deserves mention. Like most of the presumably local coins discussed here, the obverse shows an extremely crude, debased head of Heracles. On the reverse the seated figure is clear, but his throne is unusual and looks like two thin sticks with two pairs of extruding lines each. Where the horse on his outstretched arm should be, there are signs of an over-strike and no horse can be seen. The legend on the right was incorrectly cut on the die, so that it reads in reverse; it bears the title BAC IAETC. Beneath the throne are three barely legible Greek letters, which may be either a date or an abbreviated ruler’s name. The idea of writing BACIAETC on this issue was probably inspired by Seleucid coinage, on which it commonly occurs. In addition to the coins just discussed, five Characene coins are included in the surface collection from ed-Dur.®® All show, on the obverse, the bearded and diademed head of the ruler, facing right. The reverse is adorned with the seated figure of Heracles, as well as a legend and date in Greek. ‘The ed-Dur coins include a bronze tetradrachm (15.34 g.) of Attambelos III, dated to 349 Sel. (AD 38/9), two bronze tetradrachms (15.4g., 15.08g.) of Attambelos IV, dated to 370 Sel. (AD 59/60), a silver tetradrachm (14.83 g.) of Attambelos VI, dated to 415 Sel. (AD 104/5), and a bronze drachm

(9.71 g.) which is too corroded to permit identification. To these coins should be added a second silver tetradrachm (12.9g.) of Attambelos VI, found by the Iraqi expedition®? and later republished by J.-F. Salles.7° The possible historical significance of the presence of Characene coins at ed-Dur will be discussed below when we turn to a consideration of the historical sources pertaining to the Oman peninsula during the Parthian period.

88 These have been published in my ‘Arabia and the Kingdom of Characene’, CNIP 7. 141-3 and fig. 2. ' 89 Al-Qaisy, ‘Archaeological Investigations’, 155 (in Arabic). 90 Salles, ‘Notes on the Archaeology’, 85; id., ‘Monnaies d’Arabie orientale’, 99.

292

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

Other Sites of the Parthian Period in the Oman Peninsula Only two other sites in the UAE have produced material comparable to that from ed-Dur. A secondary burial in a Wadi Suq-period grave excavated in Fujairah by W. Y. al-Tikriti contained a glazed ceramic skyphos (two-handled drinking-cup) which can be paralleled with fragments from Failaka?! and the handles of one found in Area E at ed-Dur. Ceramics identical to finds from ed-Dur were discovered at Mleiha during the 1988 and 1989 seasons of excavations, and over twenty obols of ed-Dur Group IV have been picked up on the surface as well.92 Thus, it is now clear that in addition to an early, Iron Age occupation in the Mleiha area, and the major occupation contemporary with the Seleucid period discussed above, there is a later period of settlement that is contemporary with ed-Dur. This is an important discovery, in that it confirms what could only be expected, namely that there is no gap in the sequence of the interior of the UAE between the Seleucid and the early Islamic periods. Further, with the discovery of contemporary material on both the east and west coasts at Fujairah and ed-Dur, and at Mleiha in the interior, we can see that settlement

was more or less continuous, even if attested only in isolated areas so far, across the northern Oman peninsula. When we move further south to the Batinah coast of Oman we come to the famous Sasanian and early Islamic port of Sohar (see below). Recent excavations there by M. Kervran have recovered c.6.5 metres of deposit, the lowest metre of which probably dates to the Parthian era. Sherds of Indian Red Polished Ware found there provide a chronological link to ed-Dur, and suggest that the foundation of the site dates back to the beginning of the Christian era. This date, moreover, would be confirmed by a remarkable find made at the beginning of the seventeenth century. In his Livro do Estado da India Oriental, published in 1632, the Portuguese chronicler Antonio Bocarro says that a ‘great number’ of gold coins minted by Tiberius Caesar (AD 14-37) were discovered at Sohar in 1601.93 Whether these coins are still extant is unknown, but it is not unlikely that they were melted down and either turned into bullion or restruck. In any case, it seems most unlikely that such a story would have been fabricated. Given *! My thanks to Dr al-Tikriti for showing me the material from Qidfa. For comparable The Hellenistic Pottery from Failaka (JASP 16/2: Ikaros: The

vessels, see L. Hannestad,

Hellenistic Settlements, 2/2; Aarhus, 1983), no. 190.

°° R. Boucharlat, personal communication. * C. R. Boxer, ‘Anglo-Portuguese Rivalry in the Persian Gulf, 1615-1635’, in E. Prestage

(ed.), Chapters in Anglo-Portuguese Relations (Watford, 1935), 129. Cf. M. Kervran, ‘A la recherche du Suhar: Etat de la question’, AOMIM 287.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD

676

293

that a group of Roman coins was found at Sohar, it is particularly interesting that they, like the single Roman coin from ed-Dur, are said to date to the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus (Ann. 3. 53) preserved a letter from Tiberius to the Roman senate in AD 22 in which he complained bitterly about the drain of Roman currency to pay for foreign luxury goods from the East. Tiberius is recorded as saying: If a reform is in truth intended, where must it begin? and how am I to restore the simplicity of ancient times? . . . How shall we reform the taste for dress? . . . How are we to deal with the peculiar articles of feminine vanity, and in particular with that rage for jewels and precious trinkets, which drains the empire of its wealth, and sends, in exchange for baubles, the money of the commonwealth to foreign nations, and even to the enemies of Rome?

In the interior of Oman, our main point of reference is the Wadi Samad, where much of the remains of the so-called ‘Samad Culture’ can

be dated to the Parthian period. Thus far the German expedition has identified settlements (Maysar 43, Samad ash-Shan 1), a small hillfort (Maysar 34), and several thousand graves clustered in numerous cemeteries (Maysar 8, 9a (= Samad ash-Shan 10), 45; Samad ash-Shan 19, 20, and 21 (= Maysar 9b-south), 23, 24 (= Maysar 9b-north), 28, 30), some of which were constructed in the Wadi Suq period or

the Iron Age and later reused.”4 The settlement called Maysar 43 consisted of a series of mounds containing the ruins of houses which were distributed along both sides of the falag which today provides water for the village of al-Maysar.?° The small hill-fort, Maysar 34, situated atop a nearby jabal, was probably used by the inhabitants of the village as a refuge in times of danger. Excavations there disclosed an outer ring-wall of dry stone, to which were attached small cross-walls. The lack of a well, though, must have rendered the fortress useful only for limited periods of time. The cemeteries of Samad ash-Shan have yielded a large quantity of important finds. In Samad ash-Shan 10 all of the graves contained single, flexed inhumations. The grave-structure itself took the form of a rectangular, subterranean cist built of locally available, unworked

stone. These were typically c.1.2-2.05 m. in length, 45-75 cm. in width, and 55cm.-1m. in depth. They were sealed with slab capstones, and oriented east-west or south-east-north-west.”° The % G. Weisgerber, ‘“. . . und Kupfer in Oman”: Das Oman-Projekt des Deutschen BergbauMuseums’, Der Anschnitt, 32 (1980), 98; B. Vogt, ‘1st Mill. B.C. Graves and Burial Customs

in the Samad Area (Oman)’, AOMIM 271; Weisgerber, ‘Mehr als Kupfer in Oman: Ergebnisse der Expedition 1981’, Der Anschnitt, 33 (1981), 225-6, grave 10. Cf. P. Yule and Weisgerber, Samad ash-Shan: Preliminary Report 1988 (Bochum, 1988), 8-13. > Tbid. 234.

°6 Vogt, ‘1st Mill. B.C. Graves’, 275.

294

i

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

Ri.

ee

FIG. 23. South Arabian graffiti on pottery of Samad type (a-c), along with the South Arabian letters which they represent, and a selection of Samad pottery from Maysar 9 (7), 34 (d-f, h), and 43 (g)

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

295

grave-inventories included a wide variety of shell and stone beads,

bronze attachments, stone spindle whorls, pottery, and weaponry. Of

_ these, the iron arrowheads”’ are noteworthy, particularly as they can be

related

to

finds

from

Mleiha,

Failaka,

and

Persepolis.%8

Excavations in 1987 also recovered a cast-bronze horse protome,”? virtually identical to the pieces already mentioned from Jebel Kenzan and Mleiha. A double-edged iron sword, 75cm. long, with a riveted hilt and traces of an iron or leather scabbard, recovered at Samad ash-Shan 10, is particularly important. Its most diagnostic feature is its pommel,

which is cast in the shape of a bird’s head. This has no affinities with other Arabian material, but it can be paralleled with Roman swords,!0° and there seems little doubt that the sword in question is a Roman import. In this regard, it is interesting to consider a passage in Pliny’s Natural

History (12. 31. 55) apropos the campaign of Aelius Gallus to southern Arabia in 25 BC. Pliny writes: ‘We have carried on operations in Arabia, and the arms of Rome have penetrated into a large part of it.’ It is reasonable to assume that the penetration of ‘the arms of Rome’ referred to the advance of the Roman army deep into Arabian territory. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Roman military presence, however brief, must have acquainted Arabian warriors for the first time with some of the most sophisticated weaponry of the day. One way or another, Roman swords, either abandoned or sold,

found their way into various parts of Arabia, including Oman. Whether this occurred via southern Arabia in the aftermath of Aelius Gallus’ campaign, or whether a trade in arms with the interior via, for example, ed-Dur took place, we cannot say. That a Roman sword would have been looked upon as a status symbol in Arabia, however, seems hardly in doubt. The pottery recovered in the cemetery is particularly interesting. Aesthetically, it hardly ranks among the finer products of ancient Oman. The fabric is a coarse, straw- or grit-tempered, poorly fired, 97 Weisgerber, ‘Mehr als Kupfer in Oman’, 241 fig. 84. 8 For parallels, see ibid. 243 and nn.; Vogt, ‘Ist Mill. B.C. Graves’, fig. 5.

9° Yule and Weisgerber, Samad ash-Shan, fig. 8. 6. A second horse protome from an unpublished grave at Sumail, also in Oman, is mentioned, ibid. 85, and is illustrated on the

cover of the report. 100 As demonstrated by B. Vogt in an unpublished lecture delivered in Turin, June 1985. Yule and Weisgerber, Samad ash-Shan, 26-7, prefer to date this piece, as well as fragments of a simpulum and several complete simpula from Sumail and Rustaq, to the Sasanian period. In my opinion, there can be no doubt that the simpula, which are in all respects comparable to the example from ed-Dur, are Roman. As the horse-protomes from Samad ash-Shan and Sumail also find a close parallel at ed-Dur, I should be very surprised if the sword were not also Roman.

296

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

hand-made red/orange ware. Typical shapes include squat, straphandled pitchers, round-bellied, narrow-necked jars, slender, torpedoshaped flasks, imitation loop-handled amphorae; and large, ribbed storage jars. Decoration is limited to incised hatch marks, pairs or groups of wavy lines, and bands of cross-hatching. Two jars from graves 1102 and 1104 at Maysar 9, as well as one from the site of

Batin, however, bear crudely incised Old South Arabian letters. In two cases only a single letter, d (Grave 1102) and / (Batin), occurs. On

the third example (Grave 1104) the word whs can be read. This could either be related to a known verbal root with the possible meaning of ‘gift’, ‘loan’, ‘pledge’/‘deposit’, or it could be a previously unattested Semitic personal name.!°! In any case, the use of the South Arabian script both here and at Mleiha is of extreme interest, in view of the Omani and more general Arab tradition concerning the emigration of the Azd tribe from Yemen to Oman in remote antiquity (see below).

Sites of the Sasanian Period Very few sites dating to this period have been positively identified in south-eastern Arabia, despite the relative wealth of historical documentation on Sasanian political involvement in the area. The principal site on the Batinah coast is Sohar, mentioned in early Islamic sources as one of the most important towns of the later preIslamic period.!°2 The recent excavations there by M. Kervran have revealed almost 2 m. of Sasanian-era deposit.!93 Jabal Gharabeh, also known as Hawrat Bargha, is a fortified rock outcrop in the Wadi Jizzi, one of the principal wadis linking the interior to the Batinah coast. S. B. Miles suggested as early as 1877 that the site was part of 10! W. W. Miiller, ‘Zu den altsiidarabischen Schriftzeichen auf Gefassen aus Maysar-9’, in Weisgerber, ‘Mehr als Kupfer in Oman’, 245. 102 Much has been written about Sohar. See, in general, A. Grohmann, ‘Suhar’, Enzyklopadie des Islam, iv' (1934), 544-7; A. Williamson, Sohar and Omani Seafaring in the Indian Ocean (Muscat, 1973); J. C. Wilkinson, ‘Suhar (Sohar) in the Early Islamic Period: The Written Evidence’, in M. Taddei (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1977 (Istituto universitario orientale, seminario di studi asiatici, Series Minor, 6/2; Naples, 1979), 887-907; D. Whitehouse, “Maritime Trade in the Arabian Sea: The 9th and 10th centuries AD’, in Taddei (ed.), South

Asian Archaeology 1977, 874-5; P. M. Costa, ‘Aspetti dell’insediamento urbano antico nella penisola araba’, in R. Traini (ed.), Studi in onore di Francesco Gabrieli nel suo ottantesimo compleanno, i (Rome, 1984), 258-9.

'©3' Kervran, ‘A la recherche du Suhar’, 288, has summarized the results of an unpublished sounding by P. Farries in which a fragment of sculpted bone or ivory, illustrated in her fig. 5, was found. Farries identified this as ‘almost certainly a fragment of a Coptic casket of the 6th7th centuries A.D.’, but if it is pre-Islamic, as seems likely, then a more likely attribution would be to a Sasanian, or possibly Nestorian object.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

297

a Sasanian network of defence,!°4 but recent soundings there by M. Kervran have shown that it dates to the thirteenth century AD.!9 In the area of the “Arja copper-mines, two radio-carbon dates of 1,470 +70 (=AD 480 uncorrected, AD 570 with MASCA correction applied) and 1,520 +100 (=AD 430 uncorrected, AD 530 or 510

MASCA correction applied) suggest that ore deposits were indeed being worked during the fifth and/or sixth centuries, referred to there as

“Arja Period IV.1%%

In 1979 a coin hoard was found in a green-glazed jar of ‘SasanianIslamic’ type near the village of Sinaw, in the interior of eastern Oman, south-west of Ra’s al-Hadd. Although the hoard of more than 900 coins was largely early Islamic and had probably been deposited sometime shortly after AD 840/1, it contained seven Sasanian drachms. These included one from the twelfth year of Hormizd IV (589) and five from the reign of Khusraw II, dating to his third (592), tenth (599), twenty-eighth (617, two examples), and thirty-first (620) or thirty-third (623) years.1°7

Moving further north to the region of the Musandam peninsula we come to several isolated sites, such as Jazirat al-Ghanam and Ghubb “Ali, where sherds paralleled in the Sasanian levels at Siraf (noted above)

and in the Parthian-Sasanian levels at Tepe Yahya were found in association with the remains of stone house-foundations.!°8 Neither site, however, is likely to represent more than a modest village or outpost. Similar green-blue ‘glazed pottery, often referred to ambiguously as ‘Sasanian-Islamic’, has also been found at Jazirat al-

Huwaylah in northern Ras al-Khaimah.! Similar sherds have been 104 Tt.-Col. S. B. Miles, ‘On the Route between Sohar and el-Bereymi in “Oman, with a Note on the Zatt, or Gipsies in Arabia’, JASB 46 (1877), 48-9. Miles’ Omani companion on his journey told him that the site represented ‘the ruins of the citadel of "Oman, the pristine name of Sohar’. Miles described them as ‘fortifications extending perhaps for half a mile’, noting that

‘The wall still stands in places, from two to six feet high . . . Along the line of fortification at intervals were small circular towers . . . The thickness of the walls was uniformly three feet.’ According to local tradition it had been ‘founded by Julanda-bin-Karkar . . . but there is no doubt that both the ruins of al-Gharabeh and the city are much anterior to the time of the Julandaites’. 105 M. Kervran, ‘La Citadelle de Hawrat Bargha, dans le sultanat d’Oman’, Arts asiatiques, 42 (1987), 5-18. Cf. Costa and Wilkinson, ‘The Hinterland of Sohar’, 211-13.

106 G. Weisgerber, ‘Archaeological Evidence of Copper Exploitation at ‘Arja’, JOS 9 (1987), 148-9.

107 N. M. Lowick, ‘The Sinaw Hoard of Early Islamic Coins’, JOS 6/2 (1983), 211 and pl.

3: 1s SEuGe

j

108 De Cardi, ‘A Sasanian Outpost’, 305-10. Cf. de Cardi’s discussion of the material found at these sites in N. Falcon, ‘The Musandam (Northern Oman) Expedition 1971/1972’, GJ 139 (1973), 15-16 and app. 1.

109 The pottery from Jazirat al-Huwaylah is on display in the Ras al-Khaimah Museum. | should like to thank Dr B. Vogt for showing me the site in Feb. 1988.

298

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

picked up both at Shimal,!1° near the coast, and inland at al-Khatt.111 Further south, approximately half a dozen Sasanian coins have been found on the island of Siniyye, off the coast of Umm al-Qaiwain. One of these is a billon tetradrachm of Ardafir I, weighing 15.3 g. Another is a silver obol of Sapur II, weighing 2.71 g. Each shows a portrait of the king facing right on the obverse, and a fire altar on the reverse.!12 The rest are badly effaced bronzes which cannot be

identified. At ed-Dur, as noted above, most of the smaller graves in

Area F date to the early Sasanian period, to judge by the typical Sasanian glassware found in them. We come finally to Dubai, where three building complexes were excavated in 1975 at a site located in the Dubai suburb of Jumeirah.

The late D. C. Baramki, who conducted the excavations, called the site ‘a caravan station’ and dated it to the late Sasanian (fifth to sixth

centuries) and Umayyad periods.!13 The buildings were identified as a ‘governor’s residence’, a ‘market-place’ and a ‘hunting-lodge’. The so-called ‘governor’s residence’ was a large building with an eastern entrance flanked by two quarter-circular towers. This led into an interior courtyard flanked on the north, east, and south sides by small rooms. A passageway in the western side of the courtyard led into an L-shaped area, with more rooms to the south and a staircase to the north. Beyond this, to the west, was an area interpreted as a walled garden. Semicircular buttresses (as at ed-Dur) were found on the north

and east sides, and several corners had circular towers. Roughly 30 m. to the north of this building was the so-called market-place. This consisted of two rows of rooms opening up onto a walkway or street. The northern of the two was divided into three rooms and fronted by a bench, while the southern building had four small rooms in front, and

a long ‘store-room’, nearly Baramki considered the so-called ‘hunting-lodge’, Ghassanid and Umayyad

the width of two of the ‘shops’, behind it. most important part of the site to be the which obviously reminded him of the badiya.!!4 This was a large, rectangular

De Cardi, ‘Further Archaeological Survey’, 179, referring to her Site 40e.

"1! Tbid. 182, referring to her Site 45a. My thanks to the late N. M. Lowick, who made these identifications. D. C. Baramki, ‘An Ancient Caravan Station in Dubai’, Illustrated London News, 2903 (1975); see also the xeroxed hand-out available from the Dubai Museum entitled ‘Jumairah

Digs’, with plans of all 3 buildings. "4 On the badiya, see H. Lammens, ‘Le BADIA et la HIRA sous les Omaiyades: Un mot a propos de MSatta’, Mélanges de la Faculté orientale de l'Université Saint- Joseph (1910), 91-112; E. Herzfeld, ‘Mschatta, Hira und Badiya: Die Mittellander des Islam und ihre Baukunst’, Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen (1921), 104-46; J. Sauvaget, ‘Chateaux umayyades de Syrie: Contribution a l’étude de la colonisation arabe aux I et II siécles de PHégire’, Revue des études islamiques 1967 (1968), 1-49; O. Grabar, ‘The Date and Meaning of Mshatta’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 41 (1987), 243-7.

“OIF “b7 ay]

pay[es-os

1OUIIAOS s ,aoeyed ‘() ay}

aoe]d-jay ‘(q) xIeUr pure oy)

a8po]-su (9) ye rjuny

yesroumM gfeds) f

(UMOUYUN

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676 299

300

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD

676

building with a series of rooms running around the perimeter. Each had a doorway fronting on an open, interior courtyard. Five small rooms were identified as ‘fox-traps’ because of their small, arched openings leading to the outside of the building, and sets of steps built against them on the inside of the rooms, from which a hunter could enjoy the sport of spearing whatever unwitting prey entered the room. This impressive structure, too, had a number of semicircular buttresses and round corner-towers, as well as quarter-circular pilasters facing the main entrance. Sasanian pottery, with no further specification, is said to have been found in the building, which was dated by the excavator exclusively to the Sasanian period. Stucco was said to have been found in two rooms on the eastern side of the building. This was compared with the material recovered in the Sasanian building at Tepe Hissar.!15 In fact the resemblance between the plan of this building and that of the Sasanian fortress excavated at Siraf is striking.!!© The use of semicircular buttresses and quarter-circular pilasters in both the ‘gsovernor’s palace’ and the ‘hunting-lodge’ at Jumeirah, moreover, also recalls the presence of similar features in the much earlier building excavated at ed-Dur in Area C. It would thus seem that this general style of building was known in the area from the time of Christ to the Sasanian and possibly even Umayyad periods. South-Eastern Arabia in the Historical Sources of the Period

In 1929 the great ancient historian W. W. Tarn flatly declared: ‘the entire south-eastern part of Arabia was unknown to the Greek world . . . prior to the first century B.C.”!!7 He went on to qualify this, however, by noting several exceptions to his assertion. Nearchus (Anab. 8. 32. 7), while proceeding along the coast of Karmania,

had sighted a point of land projecting from the opposite shore which he identified as ‘Maketa’. This has long been identified with the Musandam peninsula.!!8 Against the urging of Onesicritus, however, "SE. F. Schmidt, ‘The Sasanian Palace of Tepe Hissar’, in id., Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Damghan (Publications of the Iranian Section of the University Museum; Philadelphia, 1937),

pls. LXiI-LXxIx. Cf., in general, D. Thompson, Stucco from Chal Tarkhan-Eshqabad Near Rayy

(Warminster, 1976); J. Kroger, Sasanidische Stiickdekor (Baghdader Forschungen, 5; Mainz, 1982), on the material from Ctesiphon. "6 Whitehouse and Williamson, ‘Sasanian Maritime Trade’, 33-5 , fig. 3, and pl. 1a-b; D. Whitehouse, ‘Excavations at Siraf: Sixth Interim Report’, Iran, 12 (1974), 5-7, esp. 5 =

9, with bibliographical references to earlier, preliminary reports, and fig. 3, pl. Ia-b 4? W. W. Tarn, ‘Ptolemy II and Arabia’, JEA 15 (1929), 10. nt Among the older authorities see e.g. B. D’Anville, ‘Recherches géographiques sur le golfe Persique, et sur les bouches de IEuphrate et du Tigre’, Mémoires . . . de l’Académie royale des inscriptions et belles lettres, 30 (1764), 143; J. R. Wellsted, Reisen in Arabien, i (Halle 1842), 163; or A. Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, ii (Leipzig, 1844), 739. ;

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

301

Nearchus did not cross over to the Arabian peninsula and thus gained little information about the region.!!9 His report does, however,

contain the information that from Maketa cinnamon and other spices were shipped to Assyria.!2° The same promontory is used as a point of reference several times by Strabo. Citing Eratosthenes, he accurately described the Straits of Hormuz as ‘so narrow that from Harmozi, the promontory of Karmania, one can see the promontory at Macae in Arabia’ (16. 3. 2).

Later, he incorrectly gave the position of Tylos as ‘a single day’s sail from the promontory near the mouth of the gulf at Macae’ (16. 3. 4). In his account of the voyage of Nearchus, Strabo noted that, after their inland detour to visit Alexander in Karmania, Nearchus says that they were met by Mithropastes, in company with Mazenes; that Mazenes was ruler of an island in the Persian Gulf; that the island was called Oaracta; that Mithropastes took refuge, and obtained hospitality, in this island upon his departure from Ogyris; that, furthermore, Mithropastes had a conference with Mazenes for the purpose of being recommended by him to the Macedonians in the fleet; and that Mazenes became guide in their voyage. (16. 3. 7)

While this account concerns the island Oaracta off the coast of Iran,

long identified with Qeshm,!2! it is of interest because of the mention 11? Cf. the discussion in E. H. Bunbury, A History of Ancient Geography, i (London, 1879), 535-6; E. Badian, ‘Nearchus the Cretan’,,YCS 24 (1975), 159-60.

120 Cf, the discussion in A. Grohmann, ‘Makai’, RE xiv (1928), 615. This is a statement which reminds us of Muscat’s connection with nutmeg, which is still known e.g. in Germany as Muskatnuss. Miles, ‘Across the Green Mountains’, 481, however, noted: ‘I need hardly say

that the assumption as to the nutmeg growing in these hills is erroneous, Wellsted’s mistake having probably arisen from the name this spice bears in some European languages. Mace, the arillus or covering of the nutmeg, is another word indicating the belief prevalent in old times that Oman was the habitat of the spice, it being derived from Maceta, the appellation given to Cape Mussendom by the Greek geographers.’ 121 D’Anville, ‘Recherches géographiques’, 149, and the map accompanying the article, gives the name in his time as ‘Vroct’, suitably similar to ‘Oaracta’. Cf. J. Gossellin, ‘Uber die geographischen Kenntnisse der Alten vom arabischen Meerbusen’, in G. G. Bredow (ed.), Untersuchungen iiber einzelne Gegenstande der alten Geschichte, Geographie und Chronologie, ii (Altona, 1802), 123; A. Sprenger, Die alte Geographie Arabiens (Berne, 1875), § 156; Bunbury, A History of Ancient Geography, i. 537; W. Tomaschek, Topographische Erlauterung der Kiistenfabrt Nearchs vom Indus bis zum Euphrat (Sitzungsber. d. Kais. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, phil.-hist. K]., 121/8; Vienna, 1890), 46 (who noted ‘Broco’, ‘Boroch’, ‘Beroho’, ‘Brocto’, and ‘Broct’ as variants of the island’s name in the Portuguese sources); G. N. Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question, ii (London, 1892), 140 (who wrote of Qeshm: ‘In its centre is the village

of Brukth or Urukth, the Oaracta of Nearchus and Arrian’); A. W. Stiffe, ‘Ancient Trading Centres of the Persian Gulf, iii: PreeMohammedan Settlements’, GJ 9 (1897), 310; H. Bretzl, Botanische Forschungen des Alexanderzuges (Leipzig, 1903), 25; finally, cf. the long discussion of the island in G. Hiising, ‘Panchaia’, in H. Mik (ed.), Beitrage zur historischen Geographie, Kulturgeographie, Ethnographie und Kartographie, vornehmlich des Orients (Leipzig and Vienna, 1929), 103. More recently, see H. Schiwek, ‘Der Persische Golf als Schiffahrts- und Seehandelsroute in achamenidischer Zeit und in der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen’, Bonner Jahrbiicher, 162 (1962), 75, following Tomaschek.

302

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD

676

of Mazenes, whom O. Blau identified with the legendary Mazin b. Azd.122 Pliny, NH 6. 32. 149-152 It is not until the first century AD, in fact, that we have a source of

any length on which to draw. Pliny, citing Juba in part, recorded a long list of ethnic names and toponyms following his description of Tylos. Tarn was of the opinion that Pliny ‘preserved some valuable

Hellenistic information’ including ‘a statement, of unknown date, which

represents the first hearsay, in Hellenistic times, that such a place as Oman existed’.!23 To be sure, the statement in Pliny is not particularly clear. He writes: ‘They say that beyond this [Tylos] large islands may be seen upon which no one has ever landed: the circumference of the smaller island is 112.5 miles, and it is more than that distance from

the Persian coast, being accessible by only one narrow channel.’!+4 Tarn pointed out ‘that the first hearsay regarding the Indian peninsula came to Nearchus and Onesicritus as a dim report of “islands” south of the India they knew [Strabo 16. 69], that the first hearsay regarding Somaliland appears in Theophrastus as “islands” [Hist. 9.4.10; cf. Pliny, NH 12. 60], and that China was once an “island”

[Pausanias 6. 26. 8].’125 Following this piece of information comes a long account of the peoples and places of south-eastern Arabia, which we excerpt here in full. Then the island of Asciliae, tribes named Nochaeti, Zurazi, Borgodi, and the nomad Catharrei, and the river Cynos. According to Juba the voyage

beyond on that side has not been explored, because of the rocks—Juba omits to mention Batrasavave, the town of the Omani, and the town of Omana

which previous writers have made out to be a famous port of Carmania, and also Homna and Attana, towns said by our traders to be now the most frequented ports in the Persian Gulf. After the Dog’s River [Cynos], according to Juba, there is a mountain looking as if it had been burnt; the Epimaranitae tribes, then the Fish-Eaters, an uninhabited island, the Bathymi tribes, the Eblythaean Mountains, the island of Omoemus, Port Mochorbae, the islands of Etaxalos and Inchobrichae, the Cadaei tribe; a number of islands without names, and the well-known islands of Isura and Rhinnea, and the '22 ©, Blau, ‘Altarabische Sprachstudien: 2. Theil’, ZDMG 27 (1873), 321: ‘dem die himjarische Sage als Eroberer ‘Omans ein Andenken bewahrt hat’. Cf., for Mazin b. Azd, Miles The Countries and Tribes, i. 4, 8.

123 Tarn, ‘Ptolemy II’, 10. ‘4 The translation is Riley’s, apud Maj.-Gen. S. B. Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography of

the East Coast of Arabia’, JRAS 10 (1878), 161.

125 Tarn, ‘Ptolemy II’, 9-10.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

303

adjacent island on which there are some stone pillars bearing inscriptions written in an unknown alphabet; Port Coboea, the uninhabited Bragae islands, the Taludaei tribe, the Dabanegoris district, Mount Orsa with its harbour, Duatas Bay, a number of islands, Mount Three Peaks, the Chardaleon district, the Solonades and Cachinna, also islands belonging to the Fish-Eaters. Then Clari, the Mamaean coast with its gold-mines, the Canauna district, the Apiami and Casani tribes, Devade Island, the spring Coralis, the Carphati, the islands of Alaea and Amnamethus, the Darae tribe; Chelonitis Island and a number of islands of the Fish-Eaters, the uninhabited

Odanda, Basa, a number of islands belonging to the Sabaei. The rivers Thanar and Amnum, the Doric Islands, the Daulotos and Dora springs, the islands of Pteros, Labatanis, Coboris, and Sambrachate, with the town of the same

name on the mainland. Many islands to the south, the largest of which is Camari, the river Musecros, Port Laupas; the Sabaei, a tribe of Scenitae,

owning many islands and a trading-station at Acila which is a port of embarkation for India; the district of Amithoscatta, Damnia, the Greater

and Lesser Mizi, Drimatina, the Macae; a cape in their territory points toward Carmania, 50 miles away. (NH 6. 32. 149-52)

Tarn, always the sceptic, wrote: Knowledge

[of south-eastern Arabia]

from the western side never went

beyond the Mahra coast, and even so it was merely hearsay for what lay east of Saba; knowledge from the eastern side never extended south of the promontory of Ras Mussendam, which Alexander had known, and effective knowledge (as regards the Arabian coast) was probably confined to the inner Persian Gulf north of Al Qatar. . .“. Juba, in his collections for his monograph on Arabia, found nothing about the S.E. coast, and could only say of it ultra (beyond Ras Mussendam) navigationem incompertam ab eo latere propter scopulos

[NH 6. 32. 149].'6

:

In view of this caveat, it may seem exceedingly hazardous to attempt any precise identifications of the names preserved by Pliny. On the other hand, Pliny’s extensive list must have been compiled from the observations of seamen who had travelled the waters and therefore knew the peoples and places of the coast well,!*” and even if one embraces the view that groups of toponyms from various sources have been thrown together by Pliny in the guise of a running enumeration

of east Arabian place-names,!8 it must still be admitted that the oe SibidasliOe 127 Thus Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 140: ‘Plinius besass einen Kistenbericht vom jetzigen ‘Oman’. # 128 H, yon Wissmann, Das Weihrauchland Sa’ kalan, Samarum und Mos-cha (Sitzungsber. d.

Oster. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. K]., 324; Vienna, 1977), 40 n. 60, stressed the confusion in

Pliny’s report. He noted: ‘In der Beschreibung Arabiens von Plinius VI 147 bis VI 159 wurden viele exzerpierte Berichte zusammengewirfelt, die zu einer Liste von Ortsnamen geschrumpft sind. So springt Plinius in § 149 unvermittelt vom Persischen Golf zum nérdlichen Roten Meer uber und folgt

304

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

attempts of scholars such as A. Forbiger, O. Blau, A. Sprenger,

S. B. Miles, J. B. Bunbury, W. Tomaschek, and E. Glaser to identify

the many names recorded by Pliny have not been entirely fruitless. These were based on an intimate familiarity with local toponymy, both historical and modern, and will now be considered, proceeding in the order in which Pliny describes the coast. Leaving Tylos, Pliny first cites the ‘insula Asclie’ or ‘Asgilia’. Miles noted ‘a village called “Asker”’ on the eastern side of Bahrain, but admitted that Pliny may have used a poor source in which this toponym was mistaken for that of another island.!2? Next, Pliny lists four tribes, ‘gentes Nochaeti, Zurazi, Borgodi, Catharrei nomades’, followed by the ‘flumen Cynos’. Neither Miles nor Blau could offer an identification for the Nochaeti. Miles, however, followed Blau in linking the Zurazi/Zurachi and the Borgodi with Yaqut’s ‘Zurak’ and ‘Borgod’, the former a part of the Dahna on the border between alBahrain and al-Yamama, and the latter a stretch of land between al-

Yamama and al-Bahrain.!3° Neither Blau nor Miles saw any difficulty in identifying the Catharrei as the ancient inhabitants of Qatar.!3! Of the rivers mentioned by Pliny, certainly it is the Cynos that has received most attention. At the end of the eighteenth century Konrad Mannert equated this with the Lar river listed by Ptolemy.!32 Blau suggested that the Lar was the river along which the Nareitae (see below) lived, and located its mouth at Regma (see below), near the

border between Oman and al-Bahrain, just below modern Qatar.!33 Sprenger considered the Lar a bay rather than a true river, and identified it with the bay of Abu Dhabi,!34 while Miles identified it der arabischen Ktiste bis zum Bab al-Mandab (§ 151). Dann (§ 152) folgt ein Satz uber Ortsnamen an der Aquatorialen ostafrikanischen Kiiste. Es folgen Massangaben zwischen Karmanien, Masira (Ogyris), dem Syagrus und Sogotra. Dann (§ 153 f.) folgen “Satze” vom westlichen Hadramaut und éstlichen Qataban. . . . Unvermittelt folgt der hier behandelte Abschnitt (§ 154 f.). Dann springt Plinius nach Nordwestarabien iiber (§ 155-157), dann nach Innerarabien, von wo er nach Himyar an der Siidkiiste “zieht” und tiber das Hochland des

heutigen Jemen und durch Zentralarabien in Richtung auf die Tigrismiindung. . . . Diese Durchquerung Arabiens (§ 157-159) ist an einer Stelle unterbrochen durch die Nennung zweier griechischer Kolonien in Mesopotamien. Das Ganze endet mit drei weiteren griechischen Kolonien in Mesopotamien, “deleta variis bellis”. Es sind 9 Bruchstiicke hintereinandergestellt. Wohl nirgends sonst hat sich die Arbeitsweise des Plinius so schlimm ausgewirkt wie hier.’ '29 Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 163-4. '° Blau, ‘Altarabische Sprachstudien: 2. Theil’, 322 nn. 2 and 3. Cf. Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 164. ‘5! Blau, ‘Altarabische Sprachstudien: 2. Theil’, 322 n. 4; Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 164. '* Forbiger, Handbuch, ii. 738, attributes this suggestion to Mannert’s Geographie der Griechen und Romer, vi/1 (Leipzig, 1831), 125.

'3 QO. Blau, ‘Die Wanderung der sabaischen Vélkerstamme im 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr., nach

arabischen Sagen und Ptolemaus’, ZDMG

22 (1868), 666.

'34 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 165.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

305

with the Wadi As Sahba.!35 It was later identified with the Wadi Dawasir by E. Glaser!3¢ and B. Moritz,!37 but this was rejected by E. Braunlich!38 who, on the basis of Maj. R. E. Cheesman’s visit to the Wadi As Sahba,!39 favoured identification with the latter. Cheesman, ‘the first European to see Wadi as Sahba’,!49 found no evidence that it drained into the Gulf at Khor ed-Duan, however, as Miles had been led to believe by local informants. Nothing confirms

the identification of the Wadi As Sahba with the Cynos/Lar, even if this large wadi must be considered a candidate. Pliny next tells us that: ‘According to Juba the voyage beyond on that [i.e. the Arabian]

side has not been explored, because of the

rocks.’ This is an example of accurate intelligence, and has been confirmed by many modern observers. All directions for sailing along this coast warn of the dangers of the frequent reefs and shoals.141 At this point, Juba is upbraided by Pliny for neglecting to mention Batrasavave, ‘the town of the Omani’, and Omana, ‘which previous

writers have made out to be a famous port of Carmania’, as well as Homna and Attana, ‘towns said by our traders to be now the most frequented ports in the Persian Gulf. Both Sprenger and Miles identified Batrasavave/Batrasavaves/Batrasabbes with Sib, the well-known town

located north of Muscat. Sprenger understood the prefix ‘Batra-’ as either Arabic bathr, meaning a volcanic area, or a misunderstanding of batn.142 Miles, on the other hand, suggested that ‘Batrasavave’ was a corruption of batha Sib, meaning ‘the river-bed [or watercourse in a sandy country] of Sib’.!43 Glaser located Batrasavave generally in the area south-east of the Qatar peninsula, and suggested the word 135 Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 164. 136 FE. Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens (Berlin, 1890), 76, 192,

222, 137 B. Moritz, Arabien: Studien zur physikalischen und historischen Geographie des Landes (Hanover, 1923), 21:

138 E. Braunlich, review of R. E. Cheesman, In Unknown Arabia, OLZ 31 (1928), 1114.

139 Maj. R. E. Cheesman, ‘The Deserts of Jafura and Jabrin’, GJ 65 (1925), 117. £30) Ibid. 126: 441 J. Horsburgh, The India Directory, 6th edn., i (London, 1852), 381-98; Lt. A. B. Kemball, ‘Memoranda on the Resources, Localities, and Relations of the Tribes Inhabiting the Arabian Shores of the Persian Gulf, Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government, Ns 24 (1856), 99; or more recently, Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut, Handbuch des Persischen Golfes, 5th edn. (Hamburg, 1976), 201-18, all refer to the presence of many dangerous reefs along the entire coast. 142 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 160. J. G. Wetzstein, ‘Nordarabien und die syrische Wiiste nach den Angaben der Eingeborenen’, Zeitschrift fiir allgemeine Erdkunde, 18 (1865), 256 n. 1, defines Arabic batn as follows: (wortlich “der Bauch”) ist ein tiefes und weites Thal

mit oder ohne torrens’.

143, Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 164. Cf. Capt. G. J. Eccles, ‘The Sultanate of Muscat and ‘Oman: With a Description of a Journey into the Interior Undertaken in 1925’, JRCAS 14 (1927), 36, who defines Arabic bathah as a ‘wide torrent bed’.

306

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

may have originated in a toponym such as Bet Rasaba/ Rasafa.1*4 A. T. Wilson wrote only that it was ‘considered to be close to Musandam’.!45 More recently, J. C. Wilkinson has suggested that ‘Batrasavave’ may be a corruption of a compound name such as Petra Sabae, i.e. ‘rock of the Sabaeans’, and therefore proposed a location at Julfar, old Ras al-Khaimah, because of the nearby ruined hill-fort known locally as ‘the Queen of Sheba’s Palace’.14¢ The location of Omana has long occupied ancient historians concerned with the historical geography of south-eastern Arabia. It is hardly possible to offer a full account of this scholarly debate, since so many opinions have been expressed over the years. Nevertheless, some of the principal ones should at least be acknowledged. Before evaluating the various alternatives, the first question to be addressed is whether Omana lay on the Iranian or the’Arabian coast. The problem arises out of the ambiguity of the ancient sources. Pliny, as we have seen, is explicit in locating Omana, ‘which previous writers have made out to be a famous port of Carmania’, on the Arabian coast, while the Periplus states (§ 36) that ‘Sailing through the mouth of the Gulf, after a six-days’ course there is another market town of Persia called Ommana.’ Pliny makes it clear that the position of Omana was disputed, while the testimony of the Pertplus can be interpreted in two ways: Omana was in Arabia but was under ‘Persian’ control, or Omana was physically in ‘Persia’. Either possibility is plausible. The following list summarizes the suggestions of some of the scholars who have entered into this debate during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. W. Vincent (1809): A. Forbiger (1844): O. Blau (1873): A. Sprenger (1875): S. B. Miles (1878):

Schaer (= Bushire?)147 coast of Gedrosia!+8 Arabian coast, not far from Bahrain!4? Sohar15° Sohar!5!

E. Mockler (1879):

Rapchabandin (Makran coast)!52

144 Glaser, Skizze, 80. 8 Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. Wilson, The Persian Gulf (Oxford, 1928), 51 n. 4. "46 J. C. Wilkinson, ‘A Sketch of the Historical Geography of the Trucial Oman down to ae oe os sonatas ae G] 130 (1964), 348 n. 6. On the ruined hill-fort, cf. oS apt. Seep T. Ash, An Introduction to the Archaeology, ology, Ethnography and History 7 -alof Ras-al-Khaimah j 47 W. Vincent, The Voyage of Nearchus (Oxford, 1809), 88 n. T, 94n.N. '48 Forbiger, Handbuch, 757. ’ Blau, ‘Altarabische Sprachstudien: 2. Theil’, 319. Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 160. Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 164. Maj. E. Mockler, ‘On the Identification of Places on the Makran Coast Mentioned b

Arrian, Ptolemy, and Marcian’, JRAS 11 (1879), 148.

:

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

E. W. D. K.

307

Glaser (1890): Tomaschek (1890): H. Miller (1895): Vollers (1895): J. Marquart (1901): W. Schoff (1912):

somewhere on the Pirate Coast!53 Sohar!54 Ras Hasik1!55 Sohar!5¢ Sohar!57

W. A. A. A. U. W. A.

on the Pirate Coast!59 Jask160

W. Tarn (1929): Berthelot (1935): Herrmann (1942): Grohmann (1942): Kahrstedt (1950): W. Tarn (1951): Maricq (1958):

J. C. Wilkinson (1964): F. Altheim, R. Stiehl (1964): R. R. di Meglio (1964):

W. W. Miller (1978): G. W. B. Huntingford (1980): J.-F. Salles (1980): A..F.-L. Beeston (1981):

D. T. Potts (1988): 153 Glaser, Skizze, 79-80.

on the coast below Qatar!58 Shahirnao, coast of Karmania!®!

coast of Karmania!®2 Hormuz!63 Hormuz!64 Sohar!65 north end of the Batinah coast!6® Hormuz!¢7 Sohar!68 Sohar!6?

Makran coast!79 Sadij, coast of Karmania!7! somewhere on the coast near Bahrain, or if on the Makran coast, then

Chah Bahar Bay, west of Gwadur!72 ed-Dur, Umm al-Qaiwain!73 154 Tomaschek, Topographische Erlauterung, 38.

185 TD. H. Miiller, ‘Arabia’, RE iii (1895), 350.

*

86 K. Vollers, review of C. Reinhardt, Ein arabischer Dialekt, gesprochen in ‘Oman und Zanzibar, ZDMG 49 (1895), 485.

157 J. Marquart, Eransahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses Xorenac’i (Abh. d. Konig]. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. K]., Ns 3/2; Berlin, 1901), 307.

158 W7. Schoff (ed.), The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (New York, 1912), 150. 189 Tarn, ‘Ptolemy II’, 10. 160 A. Berthelot, ‘La Céte méridionale de |’Iran d’aprés les géographes grecs’, in Mélanges offerts a M. Octave Navarre par ses éléves et ses amis (Toulouse, 1935), 18; id., ‘L’Arabie 161 A. Herrmann, ‘Omana’, RE xviii (1942), 343. antique’, 9.

162 163 164 165 166 167 168

A. Grohmann, ‘Omani’, RE xviii (1942), 344. UY. Kahrstedt, Artabanos III. und seine Erben (Berne, 1950), 15. WW. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India (Cambridge, 1951), 492. A. Maricq, ‘Res Gestae Divi Saporis (Classica et Orientalia, 5)’, Syria, 35 (1958), 337. Wilkinson, ‘A Sketch’, 348. F, Altheim and R. Stiehl, ‘Omana und Gerrha’, AAW i (1964), 108. R. R. di Meglio, ‘Il commercio arabo con la Cina dalla Gahiliyya al X secolo’, AION 169 W7. W. Miiller, ‘Weihrauch’, RE Suppl. 15 (1978), 728. 14 (1964), 524. 170 G. W. B. Huntingford (ed.), The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, by an Unknown Author 171 Salles, ‘Monnaies d’Arabie orientale’, 102 ff. (London, 1980), 106. 172 A. F. L. Beeston, review of Huntingford (ed.), The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, 173 Potts, ‘Arabia and the Kingdom of Characene’, 155. BSOAS 44 (1981), 357.

308

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

The alternatives suggested over the last century break down into four groups, favouring a location on the Iranian side, on the Makran

coast of ancient Gedrosia; on the coast of Kerman, ancient Karmania;

on the Batinah coast of the Oman peninsula; or on the southern coast of the Arabian Gulf, somewhere between Ra’s Musandam and the Qatar peninsula. Of these, the suggestion of a Makran/ Gedrosian location (Forbiger, Mockler, Berthelot, Beeston) appears least suitable,

since Pliny makes it clear that the dispute over the correct location

of Omana was between the Arabian and Karmanian coasts, never

mentioning Gedrosia. None of the Kerman-based proposals, however, is satisfying. Some of the authorities who reject Pliny’s position in favour of what ‘previous writers’ had said favour a location at Hormuz (Tarn, Altheim

and Stiehl). Here, however,

despite considerable

exploration, no material earlier than the middle ages has been recovered.!74 Hermann and Salles have simply proposed locations which seemed cartographically suitable, while Grohmann did not try to specify where on the Karmanian coast he thought Omana was situated. Most scholars who favour a location on the Batinah coast have chosen Sohar as the most likely site for ancient Omana (Sprenger, Miles, Tomaschek, Vollers, Marquart, and Maricq). As the recent

Sohar excavations have shown, there is indeed a considerable deposit of pre-Islamic date here. The acceptance of this possibility, however, depends on how one reads Periplus § 36, which places Omana a six days’ sail after ‘sailing through the mouth of the Gulf. J. C. Wilkinson has pointed out that, for some of the classical Arab geographers, for example, the Arabian Gulf began with the Gulf of Oman rather than the Straits of Hormuz.!75 In this case, however, it would seem that a literal reading of the Periplus is preferable, for the specificity with which its author describes ‘sailing through the mouth of the Gulf could hardly apply to a ship rounding Ra’s al-Hadd and entering the Gulf of Oman. Moreover, Omana is mentioned by Pliny specifically in order to fill in the unexplored southern coast of the Arabian Gulf below Qatar. Finally, as Blau noted in 1873,!76 Omana is named as a city in the neighbourhood of the Eualenoi, i.e. the inhabitants of Awal, or ‘74 See the extensive discussion of the archaeological remains of the area in H.-G. Carls, Alt-

Hormoz—ein historischer Hafen an der Strasse von Hormoz (Iran) (Munich, 1982), 78-129.

"75 Wilkinson, ‘A Sketch’, 348 n. 6. G. R. Tibbetts, Pre-Islamic Arabia and South-East Asia’,

JMBRAS 29 (1956), 199, proposed a novel interpretation of this passage. Since the Periplus

jumps in § 35 from Asabon, traditionally identified with Ra’s Musandam, to Apologus, the port of Charax, Tibbetts suggested that the account of Ommana in § 36 be read as if one were moving south from the head of the Gulf, sailing through the Straits of Hormuz and down the Batinah coast. Tibbetts’ proposal has been largely overlooked by scholars studying this question. ‘76 Blau, ‘Altarabische Sprachstudien: 2. Theil’, 322 and nn. 85:93

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

309

Bahrain (see ch. 3 above), in a fragment of the Arabika Archaiologika

preserved by Stephen of Byzantium around AD 530 in his Ethnika.177 In the light of this evidence a location for Omana on the southern Gulf coast appears more likely than on the Iranian coast. Lack of familiarity with the antiquities of the region has meant, however, that until recently, a specific location was never proposed (Blau, Glaser, Shoff, and Tarn). Indeed, so long as no archaeological

sites of the period were known along this stretch of coast, the possibility could be ruled out by an argumentum e silentio.'78 This, however, is always a dangerous pastime, and the current excavations at ed-Dur, discussed above, demonstrate the existence of a large site dating precisely to the period of the Periplus. Several years ago, in considering the candidacy of ed-Dur for the port of Omana, J.-F. Salles dismissed it on the grounds that it was located far less than a six-day sail from the Straits of Hormuz.!7? The apparent objection disappears, however, as soon as we consult the relevant literature on traditional

sailing in this part of the Arabian Gulf. The dangers of sailing along this coast, because of both the shoals!8° and the winds,!8! have

already been mentioned, and must be reckoned with in any estimates of travel-time here. In 1904, for example, it took the German traveller

H. Burchardt, under rough conditions in a traditional bum with a local crew, eight days to sail from Dubai to Kumzar, the northernmost

mainland section of Ra’s Musandam.!82 This suggests that ed-Dur can hardly be ruled out as a candidate for the site of ancient Omana. 77 | have discussed this at some length in ‘Awal and Muharraq’, Dilmun 13 (1985/6), 20. Cf. F. Jacoby, ‘Glaukos 37’, RE vii (1910), 1420. 178 Wilkinson, ‘A Sketch’, 348: ‘The idea of its being at Abu Dhabi, or for that matter

anywhere on the Trucial Coast which the editor of the Periplus [i.e. Schoff] suggests, is ruled out by the very nature of the country and the lack of any archaeological evidence to support the hypothesis.’ 179 Salles, ‘Monnaies d’Arabie orientale’, 104: ‘Mais on ne peut pas proposer ed-Dhoor pour identifier Ommana: outre que les ruines du site ne semblent pas étre celles d’un grand port “de la Perse”, la durée de six jours de navigation 4 partir de Ras Musandam implique que la cité était plus éloignée du détroit.’ 180 On the shoals, cf. Horsburgh, The India Directory, i. 391: “The coast from Amulgawein [Umm al-Qaiwain] to Debay [Dubai] being very foul and rocky, no ship should anchor near the shore, or she will be liable to lose her anchor. The surveying vessels [conducting the survey of Capt. Brucks, Bombay Marine], in a few days, lost three, by hooking the rocks.’

181 On the winds, cf. Whitelock, ‘An Account of the Arabs’, 39: ‘The whole line of this coast presents a bold approach, but it is a dangerous lee-shore in a north-west wind, which blows certainly two-thirds of the year; and in the winter months heavy gales come on without further warning than a thick dense atmosphere, and rolling sea setting on shore, which generally precedes the wind a few hours. It is extremely dangerous to remain at anchor on such occasions, and I never experienced a narrower escape from shipwreck than in the Discovery, during the survey in February 1822.’ 182 TY]. Burchardt, ‘Ost-Arabien von Basra bis Maskat auf Grund eigener Reisen’, Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft fiir Erdkunde zu Berlin (1906), 319-20.

310

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

On the contrary, we must remember that mechanized modern sailing bears no relation to ancient and traditional modes.!8 In view of its distance from the mouth of the Gulf, the character of its architecture, and signs of links to India and the Roman world, ed-Dur must be considered a good candidate for the site of ancient Omana. After Omana, Pliny names ‘Homna’ and ‘Attana’. These, however,

have generally been considered repetitions of ‘Omana’ and “‘Attene’ respectively.!84 Next, Pliny notes ‘a mountain looking as if it had been burnt’ (‘mons adustus’) to the south of the ‘flumen Cynos’.18° Sprenger sought to identify this with the coastal promontory today known as Jabal az Zannah/Dhanna, presumably because of its description as a ‘volcanic hill’.18¢ This identification, however, is hardly compelling. From here Pliny proceeds by listing a mixture of peoples, islands, and mountains. He begins with the ‘gentes Epimaranitae’. These were identified by Forbiger with the Anaritae/Nareitae of Ptolemy,!8” a view held by Sprenger!88 as well, who compared the name with that of the island west of Dubai and north of Abu Dhabi today called Sir Abu Neyr, i.e. “water source (sir) of the Abu Neyr’.18? In this case, Sprenger understood the prefix “Epi-’ as a Latinized ‘Abu’, and ‘Neyr’/‘Nareitae’/‘Maranitae’ as variants of the same name. Several years earlier Blau suggested that the name Nareitae was to be understood as a Graecized form of the Arabic for ‘inhabitants of the river’, obviously thinking of Arabic nahr (more commonly used for a canal), and proposed that these were the people who lived along the Lar.!?° Miles, on the other hand, tentatively

proposed

an identification

with

the Al Murra

tribe.!9!

The

Epimaranitae are followed by the Ichthyophagi, whose name is a '83 Cf. e.g. C. D. Belgrave, ‘The Overland Route to the Persian Gulf, JRCAS 18 (1931), 562, which gives the time for a passage on the British-India Line from Basra to Karachi via Bushire as 5 days. '84 Blau, ‘Altarabische Sprachstudien: 2. Theil’, 323 nn. 3, 4; Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 165; Glaser, Skizze, 81-2; Salles, ‘Monnaies d’Arabie orientale’, 103.

'8 This section of Pliny’s account, as far as § 152, is considered an enumeration of placenames between the Gulf of Aqaba and the Bab al-Mandab by H. von Wissmann, ‘Die Siidgrenze der Terra Cognita von Juba und Plinius bis Ptolemaus’, in H. Paschinger (ed.), Geographische Forschungen: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Hans Kinz (Schlern-Schriften, 190; Innsbruck, 1958), 318; cf. von Wissmann, ‘Zaabram’, RE Suppl. 11 (1968), 1308; id., “Zangenae’, ibid. 1340-2. While it is clear that a list of Red Sea toponyms interrupts Pliny’s description of the east coast of Arabia, we do not believe it begins until slightly later in the text, and will therefore proceed with an account of the toponyms listed in § 149-50.

'86 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 160. '87 Forbiger, Handbuch, 758. '88 Die alte Geographie, § 160. Ay For the position of Sir Abu Neyr, cf. Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut, Handbuch des Persischen Golfes, 207, s.v. ‘Jazirat Sir Abu Nuayr’.

'° Blau, ‘Die Wanderung’, 666. '"! Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 165.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD

676

$11

generic term applied widely in Greek literature to various primitive coastal peoples in Asia and Africa who subsisted largely on fish.192 While the term could well have been applied to almost any fishing communities in the lower Gulf,!93 Sprenger believed that Pliny had the inhabitants of Ra’s Musandam in mind.!%4 The Ichthyophagi are followed by an ‘insula deserta’, after which the ‘gentes Bathymi’ are mentioned. Sprenger, believing Pliny to have rounded Ra’s Musandam by this point, identified this group as the inhabitants of the Batinah coast.!?> Miles, citing the similarity with the common corruption ‘Buthabee’/‘Abuthabee’, identified them with the ancient population of Abu Dhabi.1%6 Next, Pliny mentions the ‘Eblythaei montes’, followed by the ‘insula Omoemus’. The Eblythaean mountains were taken unhesitatingly by Miles to be identical with ‘the most remarkable geographical feature on the eastern coast of Arabia, Ra’s Musandam’.!97 The island of

Omoemus was equated by Miles with Umm al-Qaiwain, although the grounds for this seem to be nothing more than an apparent resemblance in orthography. Pliny continues by enumerating ‘portus Mochorbae’, a toponym for which Miles could offer no identification,!8 and the ‘insulae Etaxalos, Inchobrichae’, identified by Miles with et Tawakkal,

off Ra’s Musandam, and Ras Kabr Hindi (Pliny’s version being a corruption

of the inverted

form

‘Hindi

Kabr

Ras’), one

of the

easternmost points of the peninsula.!?? The islands are then followed by the ‘gens K/Cadaei’, whom Miles proposed linking either with the inhabitants of Kadeh, a village near Khasab in the Musandam peninsula, or else with ‘the Makadeheh, one of the subtribes of the

Shihiyin [Shihu]’.2°° We now know (see vol. i ch. 10), as Miles could not, that the Akkadian name for Oman in Neo-Assyrian and Old Persian sources was Qade.?°! This being the case, the reference to ‘gens Cadaei’ can be seen as a late survival of this more ancient name. 192 H Treidler, ‘Ichthyophagen’, KP ii (1979), 1333-4. 193 J. C. Wilkinson, ‘Bayasirah and Bayadir’, ArSt 1 (1974), 79-80, describes the bayasirah, a sort of rejected, inferior ‘clan’ in modern Oman, as follows: ‘In the view of the writer the

bayasirah are the vestigial souche of peoples who lived in the general area of the Gulf before the arrival of the Semitic and Indo-Aryan groups who came to dominate them. Perhaps they are to be identified with the Icthyophagi who, from reports in Pliny, Strabo, Ptolemy and the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea, formed one of the three major ethnic groupings of southern and eastern Arabia. . . . the bayasirah of Oman are the earliest inhabitants of the area who have been more or less rejected by later settlers; retaining something of their own clan organisation they represent a numerically important part of the population.’

194 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 160. 196 Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 165.

7 Ibid. "7 Tbid. 166.

PEM id=

200S Ibid. 167.

167.

199 Tbid. 168.

201 See my ‘From Qadé to Maziin: Four Notes on Oman, c.’700 Bc to 700 ap’, JOS 8 (1985), 81-3; and ‘The Location of Iz-ki-e’, RA 79 (1985), 75-6.

312

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

Following ‘a number of islands without names’, Pliny mentions the well-known’ islands of Isura and Rhinnea, as well as a neighbouring island with ‘some stone pillars bearing inscriptions written in an unknown alphabet’. Miles identified the ‘well-known’ pair with two of the three islets formerly called ‘the Quoins’ by British seamen,7? Selamah and Benatha by name. The island with inscriptions was identified by Miles with an unnamed island containing ruins attributed by the local Arabs to the mythical tribe of Ad, always an attribution of great antiquity in Arabic lore. At this point, if not before, Pliny appears to have inserted a long list of names which belong in the area of the lower Red Sea and Indian Ocean.2°4 Sprenger felt that it was not until § 152 that Pliny was again on east Arabian territory.2°5 Miles took a different view, and saw the proprietorship of the Scenitae Sabaei over the emporium at Acila, a point of embarkation for trade with India, as the beginning of the second east Arabian section. This, however, was based on his

identification of Acila with Qalhat, a coastal town located north of

Sur.2°6 Both Forbiger2°” and Sprenger ,*°8 however, have convincingly demonstrated the identity of Acila and Okelis, near the Bab al Mandab,?? and this is surely more plausible as a Sabaean tradingstation than Qalhat in Oman. More recently, von Wissmann has discussed this point in extenso, and proposed that the indication of Sabaean control at the Bab al Mandab is a sign that this portion of the text must have originated around 50 Bc.2!9 The next passage, beginning with the ‘regio Amithoscatta’, appears to be a list of toponyms in east Africa. Amithoscatta was identified by Miles with Muscat,*!! although this was later questioned by K. Vollers.2! Von Wissmann has since convincingly associated the entire group of ‘Amithoscatta, Damnia, Mizi maiores et minores, 20 Horsburgh, The India Directory, 351. 203 Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 168. *°4 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 382; von

Wissmann,

‘Die Siidgrenze’, 319; id.,

‘Zaabram’, 1308; id., ‘Zangenae’, 1340-1.

205 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 157. 206 Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 169. Note that Marco Polo mentions ‘Kalatu’ as a port at which many ships from India called. Cf. the discussion in A. W. Stiffe, ‘Ancient Trading Centres of the Persian Gulf, iv: Maskat’, GJ 10 (1897), 615. 207 Handbuch, 753 n. 4. 208 Die alte Geographie, § 68. *® Cf. von Wissmann, ‘Zaabram’, 1309; J. Ryckmans, ‘Petits royaumes sud-arabes, d’aprés

les auteurs classiques’, Le Muséon, 70 (1957), 79: ‘Pline attribue Acila (Ocelis) 4 des Sabéens Scénites (c’est-a-dire non sédentaires).’

719 Von Wissmann, ‘Zangenae’, 1342. *I1 Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 169.

*!2 Vollers, review of Reinhardt,

Ein arabischer Dialekt gesprochen

‘unsicher ist die Vergleichung mit dem Amithoscuta des Plinius’.

in ‘Oman,

485:

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

Drimati’

with

east

Africa,

locating

Amithoscatta

313

in northern

Madagascar, Damnia on the modern island of Damuni, Mizi at Wa-Mizi, a small island off the coast south of Kilwa, and Drimati

on the mainland.2!3 What follows is the very interesting story of Numenius’ sea and land victories over the Persians, discussed in Chapter 1 above. With this we come to the end of Pliny’s description of the east coast of Arabia. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea Although the date of the Periplus has long been one of the most controversial issues in ancient history, the evidence favouring the period AD 40-70 seems most convincing, and is adopted here.2!4 While most of the text is without direct relevance to our subject,2!5 §§ 33-6 contain information of great interest and are therefore reproduced below, following Schoff’s translation.2!6

33. Beyond the harbour of Moscha for about 1,500 stadia as far as Asich, a mountain range runs along the shore; at the end of which, in a row, lie

seven islands, called Zenobian. Beyond these there is a barbarous region which is no longer of the same kingdom, but now belongs to Persia. Sailing along this coast well out at sea for 2,000 stadia from the Zenobian islands, there meets you an island called Sarapis, about 120 stadia from the mainland. It is about 200 stadia wide and 600 long, inhabited by three settlements of FishEaters, a villainous lot, who use the Arabian language and wear girdles of palm leaves. The island produces considerable tortoiseshell of fine quality, and small sail-boats and cargo-ships are sent there regularly from Cana. 34. Sailing along the coast, which trends northward toward the entrance of the Persian Sea, there are many islands, known as the Calaei, after about

2,000 stadia, extending along the shore. The inhabitants are a treacherous lot, very little civilized. 35. At the upper end of these Calaei islands is a range of mountains called Calon, and there follows not far beyond the mouth of the Persian Gulf, where there is much diving for the pearl-mussel. To the left of the straits are great mountains called Asabon, and to the right there rises in full view another round and high mountain called Semiramis; between them the passage across the strait is about 600 stadia; beyond which that very great and broad sea, 213 Yon Wissmann, ‘Die Siidgrenze’, 319 ff., map 1; cf. id., ‘Zangenae’, 1340-5 and the map at 1343-4.

214 Cf. M. Raschke, ‘New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East’, Aufstieg und

Niedergang der Romischen Welt, 2/9/2 (1978), 549, 659; Beeston, review of Huntingford (ed.), The Periplus, 353; G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 70.

215 See, generally, E. Kornemann, ‘Die historischen Nachrichten des Periplus maris Erythraei tiber Arabien’, in K. Regling and H. Reich (eds.), Festschrift zu C. F. Lehmann-Haupts sechszigstem Geburtstage (Janus, 1; Vienna and Leipzig, 1921), 55-72. 216 Schoff (ed.), The Periplus, 35-6.

314

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

the Persian Gulf, reaches far into the interior. At the upper end of this Gulf there is a market town designated by law, called Apologus, situated near Charax Spasini and the River Euphrates. 36. Sailing through the mouth of the Gulf, after a six-days’ course there market town of Persia called Ommana. To both of these market another is towns large vessels are regularly sent from Barygaza, loaded with copper and sandalwood and timbers of teak-wood and logs of blackwood and ebony. To Ommana frankincense is also brought from Cana, and from Ommana to Arabia boats sewed together after the fashion of the place; these are known as madarata. From each of these market towns there are exported to Barygaza, and also to Arabia, many pearls, but inferior to those of India; purple, clothing after the fashion of the place, wine, a great quantity of dates, gold, and slaves.

From here the author of the Pertplus jumps over to the Iranian coast, beginning with a description of the bay of Gedrosia, on the modern Makran coast. But let us examine the paragraphs just cited. Passing the harbour of Moscha, identified with modern Khor Rhuri,*!” and

the Zenobian islands, usually considered the Khuria Muria group, we are led into a region which ‘now belongs to Persia’. This is one of the few attestations of early Persian rule in eastern Arabia, albeit a controversial one.2!8 The use of the designations ‘Persia’/ ‘Persian’ for ‘Parthia’/‘Parthian’ is well attested in Greek inscriptions (see ch. 1 above),2!? and in this case, considering the date of the Periplus, the

reference to Persia must be understood as denoting Parthia. Nor is this the only indication of a Parthian presence in south-eastern Arabia, as will be shown below. Both Schoff and von Wissmann have suggested that Persian control over this part of south-eastern Arabia may have accounted for the fact that, after noting the island of Sarapis, modern 217 e.g. by Schoff, ibid. 140, and von Wissmann, Das Weihrauchland Sa’kalan, 42. 718 Beeston, review of Huntingford (ed.), The Periplus, 357: ‘We need not, I believe assume that Persis exercised any real control over the Arabian mainland, but merely that the principal

ports of eastern Arabia were mercantile settlements of Persis, like Portuguese Goa and Damao on the Indian coast.’ *1°-V. Gardthausen, ‘Die Parther in griechisch-rémischen Inschriften’, in C. Bezold (ed.), Orientalische Studien Theodor Néldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (2. Marz 1906) gewidmet, ui (Giessen, 1906), 856: ‘So wie der Name der Parther einst den der Perser verdrangt hatte, so

ist dieser nach der Griindung des Neupersischen Reiches wieder in sein altes Recht getreten; es gab eine Zeit des Schwankens und des Uberganges, aber schliesslich verschwindet der Parthername. Auffallend ist nur, dass der Persername schon vor der Griindung des Neupersischen Reiches fiir die Parther angewendet wurde.’ Gardthausen discussed several inscriptions in which this was the case, and noted: ‘Auf allen drei Inschriften werden die Parther offiziell als Perser

bezeichnet; dieser Name ist durchaus nicht proleptisch im Sinne der spateren Zeit aufzufassen, sondern als eine Huldigung fiir die glorreichsten Erinnerungen von Hellas und Macedonien.’ Cf. F. Rundgren, ‘Uber einige iranische Lehnwérter im Lateinischen und Griechischen’, Orientalia Suecana, 6 (1957), 31, who noted, speaking of Horace’s Odes: ‘Die Medi und zuweilen auch die Persae stellen in den Oden bekanntlich die allgemeineren Bezeichnungen des rémischen Erbfeindes zu dieser Zeit dar, d.h. die Parthi.’

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

315

Masirah, the author of the Periplus stays well out to sea, skirting the promontory of Ra’s al-Hadd, and mentions very few landmarks along

the Omani coast.22°

Proceeding northward from Sarapis for another 2,000 stadia, the

author notes the Calaei islands and Calon mountain. By reckoning this distance from Masirah, Schoff suggested that the ‘many’ islands so named must have been the Ad Daymaniyat group north-west of Muscat,**! to which should perhaps be added the nearby Jazirat Jun and the Suwaidi group as well.222 Schoff identified the Calon mountains, said to be at the ‘upper end’ of the Calaei islands, with the Jabal Akhdar.??3 In this regard it is interesting to note modern reports of the visibility of the mountains behind As Suwaiq when viewed from the sea.?*4 Schoff suggested that both the islands and the mountain took their names from that of an indigenous tribe which was preserved in the name of the modern town of Qalhat.225 We now come to Asabon, the Musandam peninsula, where Wellsted found a

Shihuh group in the nineteenth century called the Banu Assab.226 The 20 Schoff (ed.), The Periplus, 147: ‘The Arabian coast beyond the Kuria Muria Islands, being now recently conquered by the Parthian Empire, at war with Rome, was inaccessible to the author of the Periplus and is described by him briefly and apparently from hearsay. His own sailing-course carried him “well out at sea” from Kuria Muria to Masira, and thence direct to the mouth of the Indus.’ Cf. von Wissmann, Das Weihrauchland Sa’ kalan, 52-3: ‘Hinter

den sieben Zenobischen Inseln beginnt nach,dem Periplus der Bereich des persischen K6nigreichs. So musste sich ein agyptischer Segler wohl fern der Ktste halten. Daher kommt es wohl auch, dass der Periplus den Namen des Ras al-Hadd nicht erwahnt. Es heisst nur, dass sich die Kiiste “nach Norden” wendet, in Richtung auf den Eingang des Persischen Meeres. Dass es “nach Norden” heisst und nicht “nach Nordwesten”, zeugt dafiir, dass diese Ktiste nicht von Schiffen

des Rémerreichs befahren wurde und dass man nur die Karte kannte, die auf der Grundlage der Forschungen Nearchs und vielleicht der Seleukiden weitergegeben wurde.’ 221 Schoff (ed.), The Periplus, 147. 222 Thus, Miles, ‘Note on Pliny’s Geography’, 169, speaks of ‘the three groups off the Batinah coast which are called in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, the islands of Kalaios’. Horsburgh, The India Directory, 378-9, noted that ‘Between Seib [Sib] and Burkha, about

8 miles off and parallel with the coast, lie the three groups of rocky islets called Damaniatte, or Damisetto Rocks, Jezerat Jenne, and Burkha Islands. . . . There are six or seven isles in each group.’ The islands are described in Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut, Handbuch des Persischen Golfes, 110-11. Cf. also the extremely precise account of the islands in Jacob Vogel’s 1666 account of his voyage along this coast, now available in W. Floor, ‘First Contacts between the Netherlands and Masqat, or A Report on the Discovery of the Coast of “Oman in 1666: Translation and Introduction’, ZDMG 132 (1982), 305-6.

223 Schoff (ed.), The Periplus, 148. 224 Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut, Handbuch des Persischen Golfes, 112, s.v. ‘As Suwayq’: ‘Etwa 16 sm SW-lich der Stadt heben sich zwei auffalliger 213 und 305 m hohe hellgelbe Berge bei Sonnenstrahlung gut von den umliegenden dunklen Bergen ab’, labelled ‘Jabal Akhdar’ in the accompanying ‘Ansicht 9’. 225 Schoff (ed.), The Periplus, 147. 226 J. R. Wellsted, Travels in Arabia (London, 1838), i. 239-42, cited by Schoff (ed.), The Periplus, 148. Cf. the modern toponym ‘Khasab’ on the west coast of the Musandam peninsula.

316

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

width of the ‘passage across the strait’ is put at 600 stadia,2?” and this

is indeed a very accurate description of the Straits of Hormuz, which,

at their widest point, measure almost 100 km. across.*78

It has long been recognized that the author of the Periplus had no

firsthand knowledge of the Arabian Gulf itself,*?? his principal interest

being the sea-route from Roman Egypt to India. However, it is noteworthy that the two principal ports known to him, and therefore two of the most important first-century AD Gulf ports involved in international commerce, were Apologos, near Spasinou Charax, and Omana. We have already discussed the problem of the location of Omana. The Periplus considers it ‘another market town of Persia’, and in this case the qualification ‘another’ must be taken as an indication that Apologos, too, was under ‘Persian’, i.e. Parthian,

control when the Periplus was written. If the years AD 40-70 are taken as the most likely period for this control, then the Characene kings Attambelos III, Theonisios II and III, and Attambelos IV, whose reigns

spanned the years 38/9-64/5, may be taken into consideration.*>° Nodelman assumed that Attambelos III?! was in power when the Periplus was written, but if this was the case, then it becomes difficult to reconcile the description of Apologos as a ‘market town of Persia’ with Nodelman’s view of Characene expansion at the expense of Parthia at this time.*34 The role of Omana as a transit-point for goods coming both from southern

Arabia,

for example

Cana,

and

India,

is particularly

emphasized in the Periplus, and the fact that it is the only emporium in the lower Gulf known to its author suggests that it must have been the main point for transhipping these goods on to Apologos in Mesene. 27 See, generally, $. Oppermann, ‘Stadion’, KP iv (1979), 336-8, and the discussion of the stadium in Schoff (ed.), The Periplus, 54-5.

228 Carls, Alt-Hormoz, 31. Cf. S. Genthe, Der Persische Meerbusen: Geschichte und Morphologie, Inauguraldiss. (Marburg, 1896), 35, gives the distance as 83.5 km. *2° Marquart, Eransahr, 307, wrote of the author of the Periplus: ‘Dass er tiber den Handelsplatz Apologos und den persischen Golf sowie iiber die ostafrikanische Kiiste nur Nachrichten aus zweiter Hand hat, ist allgemein anerkannt.’ Cf., more recently, Sir L. Kirwan,

‘The Periplus and Maritime Trade in the Bahrain Region’, unpubl. MS circulated at the Bahrain Through the Ages Conference, Manama, 1983, p. 6: ‘the author of the Periplus never reached Apologou and . . . such information as he provides about that port was obtained at secondhand, possibly from Persian merchants encountered at the south Arabian port of Kane’. By way of comparison it is interesting to read what has been written of 15th-cent. Arabic maritime sources: ‘Very little is given by the navigators on the Gulf coast of Arabia. No coastal navigational detail is given at all—only the mention of isolated places’ (G. R. Tibbetts, ‘Arabia in the FifteenthCentury Navigational Texts’, ArSt 1 (1974), 95).

. eae the Characene king-list, we follow G. Le Rider, ‘Monnaies de Characéne’, Syria, 36 *3! Or Attambelos IV, following Le Rider, ibid. 252, who distinguished 2 rulers of this period, a point not grasped by Nodelman. *%? §. Nodelman, ‘A Preliminary History of Characene’, Berytus, 13 (1960), 104.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

Sly

This being the case, the possibility that ancient Omana may be the site of ed-Dur increases the interest of this, the largest site of the period anywhere in the southern Arabian Gulf, and the only one south of Kuwait at which Characene coins have been found. Cl. Ptolemy

The Geographia of Cl. Ptolemy was completed sometime after AD 141, probably between c.147/8 and 180,233 and while there are some later additions to it, these did not alter the section on Arabia. The

basic study of the Arabian place names mentioned by Ptolemy is still A. Sprenger’s work of 1875.734 Although subsequent attempts have been made to tackle the east Arabian toponyms listed by Ptolemy, of which E. Glaser’s 1890 study235 is perhaps the most thorough, no substantial work on the subject has appeared in the century since Sprenger took up the problem, nor can any of the later commentators claim a fraction of the success achieved by him. Despite the welldeserved criticisms levelled at Sprenger,*3° and several recent attempts to revise some of the positions,” it is with Sprenger’s work that any serious study of Arabia in the work of Cl. Ptolemy must begin. The procedures and sources used by Cl. Ptolemy have been studied in detail by classical philologists and historians and need not concern us here.?3° That part of the Gulf coast of interest here is delimited on the north by Kadara polis; which can be taken to be a town in Qatar.?3? A town called Sarkoe polis was amended by Sprenger to Sabkoe, and taken to be a Graecized form of the Arabic word sabkha, 233 Cf. yon Wissmann, ‘Die Siidgrenze’, 313 n. 13, referring to the basic study by J. Fischer, De Cl. Ptolomaei Vita Operibus Geographia praesertim eiusque Faxis (Leiden, 1932). See, in general, F. Lasserre, ‘Ptolemaios’, KP iv (1979), 1229-32.

234 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie. 335 Skizze, 210-309. See also now N. St J. Groom, ‘Eastern Arabia in Ptolemy’s Map’, PSAS 16 (1986), 65-75. 36 Berthelot, ‘L’Arabie antique’, 9-10: ‘Ce n’est pas ici le lieu de reprendre le grand travail ou Sprenger a tenté d’identifier la généralité des positions de l’Arabie en les répartissant sur des itinéraires. Nous en avons dit assez pour montrer les erreurs fondamentales qui ont vicié cet ouvrage; il serait a refaire avec la collaboration d’un arabisant.’

37 e.g. by W. C. Brice, ‘The Classical Trade-Routes of Arabia, from the Evidence of Ptolemy, Strabo and Pliny’, in A. R. al-Ansary (ed.), Studies in the History of Arabia: Pre-Islamic Arabia (Riyadh, 1984); and Groom, ‘Eastern Arabia’.

238 Cf. K. Kraus, ‘Uber die Grundlagen

der Terminologie in der “Geographie” des

Ptolemaeus’, in H. Miik (ed.), Beitrdge zur historischen Geographie, Kulturgeographie, Ethnographie und Kartographie, vornehmlich des Orients (Leipzig and Vienna, 1929), 144-56; Berthelot, ‘L’Arabie antique’, 1-5; L. Bagrow, ‘The Origin of Ptolemy’s Geographia’, Geografiska Annaler, 27 (1945), 318-87; G. R. Tibbetts, ‘Early Western Cartography and the Arabian Peninsula’, Malayan Journal of Tropical Geography, 3 (1954), 17-20; W. C. Brice, “The Construction of Ptolemy’s Map of South Arabia’, PSAS 4 (1974), 5-9.

239 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 175, suggests Zubara.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

318

eae NS¥S.0450¥S0 RoNGieyman iesCORTINET. MULAN 5B

) 3

ee

SARABIAF DESERTAE+PARS« Ess

AZ

a

ae

OmaDrAMa
7! There remains one further issue in the journey of Theophilus Indus to discuss here. Philostorgius twice mentions Dibous in connection with the ambassador. He says that, at a very young age, Theophilus was sent to Constantine as a hostage from Dibes/Dibos by the Dibeni, whence he was called ‘Indus’ (Hist. Eccl. 3. 4); and later that, after

founding the three new churches, Theophilus went by sea to the island

of Dibes, which was known to have been his homeland, before moving

on to the other regions of suggested that ‘the island of the Persian Gulf, stressing between ‘Dibes’ and the name

India (3. 5). I. Shahid has recently Dibos was one of the islands in or near ‘the striking phonetic correspondence’ of the important coastal oasis settlement

of Dibba.323 Yet Shahid’s argumentation is difficult to accept, and in an encyclopaedic study of this problem G. Fiaccadori, after examining all the alternatives, has made a convincing case for identifying the island of Dibes with Dhibat al-Mahal, the modern Maldive islands,324 known in many sources as Diba/Diva.325 Whether or not the site of Theophilus’ third church was somewhere in the Oman

peninsula,

as seems

probable,

it is clear that the

ecclesiastical power of the Arian church, in this case used as an 319 See e.g. Grohmann, ‘Suhar’; or Wilkinson, ‘Suhar (Sohar)’. It could of course be that, without actually being named as such, Sohar was the seat of the later Nestorian bishops of Bet Mazunaye (see below) and the town in which Theophilus founded his 3rd church. 20 For a summary of exploration at Sohar, see Kervran, ‘A la recherche du Suhar’, 288-93. 321 Cf. A. Védbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, i (CSCO 184 (=Subsidia, 14); Louvain, 1958), 307-8: ‘There is every reason to postulate that many monasteries have

emanated from the missionary enterprise of monks, monasteries of which we know nothing. Only seldom do we find a casual reference resuscitating this or that monastery from the grave of oblivion or an immortalization by a local name of something about the process by which a bishopric came into existence.’ °°? Fiaccadori, ‘Teofilo Indiano’, 300, for Italian translations. J. Bird, ‘Hamaiyaric Inscriptions from Aden and Saba, Translated into English: With Observations on the Establishment of the Christian Faith in Arabia’, JBBRAS 2 (1848), 39, noted that, according

to a different tradition originating with Nicephorus and cited by Beronius and Assemani, Theophilus was a native of Adiabene. Bird mistakenly believed that Theophilus founded his 3 churches in Aria, i.e. Khorasan, rather than Arabia. 23 Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, 98. According to Muhammad b. Habib’s Kitab al-Muhabbar, Indian as well as Chinese merchants were present at Dibba in the early Islamic period (see below), considered one of the two principal ports of Arabia. Cf. the discussion in di Meglio, ‘Il commercio arabo’, 527 and nn. 27-8. 324 On which, see H. A. R. Gibb, Ibn Battuta: Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-1354 (London, 1929), 241.

°° See the extensive discussion in Fiaccadori, ‘Teofilo Indiano’, 313 ff. By contrast, cf. the superficial treatment of this problem in J. S. Trimingham, Christianity among the Arabs in PreIslamic Times (London, 1979), 291.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

333

instrument of Byzantine foreign policy, was of no later consequence. As we have seen in the case of Bet Qatraye, the evangelization and subsequent florescence of Christianity in the Gulf region was a Nestorian phenomenon, and the same applies to Mazun. Indeed it is interesting to observe that at almost exactly the same time as Theophilus was undertaking his mission, the Vita Ionae mentions the existence of a monastery south of Bet Qatraye, ‘on the borders of the black island’.326 Véébus sought the island ‘among the small islands south of Bet Qatraye towards Oman’,327 and one is indeed reminded of Sprenger’s suggestion that Cl. Ptolemy’s Asabon, identified with Ra’s Musandam, derives its name from Arabic aswad, meaning

black, an apt description for the craggy peaks there.328 Whether Abdiso’s slightly later efforts (c.363-71) in Bet Qatraye (see ch. 5 above) had any repercussions further south, we do not know.32? In tracing the history of Christianity in Oman, we move now to the fourth year of the reign of Bahram Gur, i.e. 423/4, when the

important synod of Mar Dadiso was held at Markabta de Tayyae. There the Nestorian church proclaimed its independence from Antioch.7° In attendance was Yohannon, bishop of Mazun, and the acts of this synod contain the earliest attestation of the ecclesiastical province of Mazun, generally known in Syriac sources as Bet Mazunaye.33! There is, however, a marked gap of over a century between Yohannon’s appearance in 423/4 and the next visit by a 326 For some earlier discussions, see G. Hoffmann, Ausziige aus syrischen Akten persischer Ma4rtyrer (Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 7/3; Leipzig, 1880), 4; J. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans l’Empire perse sous la dynastie sassanide, 224-632 (Paris, 1904), 306;

Vo6dbus, History of Asceticism, 308-9. For a biography of Jonah, see A. Scher, Histoire nestorienne (Chronique de Séert) (Patrologia Orientalis, 5/7/13; Paris, 1907), 246-50. It will be recalled that Jonah lived during the catholicate of Barb'aSmin (343-6), while the mission of Theophilus is dated to sometime before 344 (see n. 312 above).

327 Véobus, History of Asceticism, 309. Vodbus, ibid. n. 99, attributed to A. Mingana, The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East (Manchester, 1925), 20 ff., the

speculation that ‘this has been the island called the “Kawan island” or “Lafit island”, between Oman and Bahrain’. Unfortunately, the reference given is incorrect. Mingana made no such statement, and I have not yet been able to track down the true origin of this suggestion. This problem aside, the somewhat cryptic reference to an island called Kawan or Lafit applies to the large Iranian island of Qeshm in the Straits of Hormuz. Variants of ‘Kawan’ include ‘Abarkavan’, ‘Ibn Kawan’, and even ‘Banu Kawan’. See J. Sauvaget, “Abbar as-Sin wa |-Hind: Relation de la Chine et de I’Inde rédigée en 851 (Paris, 1948), 42 n. 5, with bibliog. ‘Lafit’ is probably a corruption of ‘Laft’, the name of a point on the northern side of the island.

328 Sprenger, Die alte Geographie, § 142. 329 The name of the site of the monastery founded by Abdiso, ‘Ramat’, may remind one of the toponyms ‘Regma’/‘Ra‘ma’ discussed above. ' 330 Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, 45: ‘Die wichtigste Tat dieser Synode war die Abschaffung des Rechtes der Appellation an den Stuhl v. Antiochien, womit die Lossagung vom Abendland factisch vollzogen war.’ 331 Tbid. 47; Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 482. This does not, however, justify Nau, Les Arabes chrétiens, 111, in his assertion that all Arabs in Mazun were Christian.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

334

bishop of Bet Mazunaye at a major synod. During the interval several important episodes took place in the political history of the area. According to al-Tha’alibi, Bahram Gur (421-39) named al-Mundhir I b. al-Numan king of the area between al-Hira and the Hejaz.9? On the basis of this statement, Fiey has unreservedly declared that around

430, i.e. shortly after Bahram Gur acceded to the Sasanian throne,

Oman came under the jurisdiction of the Lahmids.+%? This inference

is, in our opinion, unwarranted, and in view of the fact that war with

Rome erupted shortly after Bahram Gur’s accession?34 and Mundhir came to the Sasanian king’s aid,335 a declaration by Bahram of Mundhir’s powers over the Arabs bordering Rome expressed in the literal sense by al-Tha‘alibi is not surprising. Bal‘ami preserves a report that ‘the countries neighbouring Oman’ were ceded to Persia during the reign of Bahram Gur,??° and this is clearly a reflection of the story of Bahram Gur’s expedition to India, as told in detail by, for example, Tabari and al-Tha‘alibi.73” The sources are explicit, however, in locating the areas given to Bahram Gur on the Indo-Iranian side of the Gulf of Oman. There, we learn,

the Persian monarch defeated the enemy of an Indian king, whom alTha‘alibi calls Schankalat, and in return for this was rewarded with

the gift of the city ‘Daibul, Makran, and the neighbouring stretch of Sind’, accompanied by a written deed making these regions Persian and allotting all taxes from the area to Bahram Gur.338 Later, Tabari reports that Bahram invaded the ‘land of the blacks, which lies close to Yemen’, where he slaughtered and captured many,?3? but nothing is ever said of a more specific nature which could link Bahram Gur or the Lahmid rulers who lived during his reign with Oman. It is not, in fact, until the early sixth century that we hear anything more about Lahmid rule over Oman. During the reign of Kawadh I (499-531), the great Lahmid king al-Mundhir III b. al-Numan (505-54)

was installed at al-Hira.349 Early in his reign Mundhir came into 2-H,

Zotenberg, Histoire des rois des Perses par Abou

Mohammad

Mansour ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn

Ibn Isma‘il al-Tha‘alibi (Paris, 1900), 555.

333 Fiey, ‘Diocéses syriens orientaux’, 215. 334 No6ldeke, Geschichte, 108 n. 2. 336

G. Rothstein, Die Dynastie der Labmiden in al-Hira (Berlin, 1899), 69. Cited after A. Christensen, L’Iran sous les Sassanides (Copenhagen, 1936), 368 n. 4:

‘Chez quelques auteurs orientaux on trouve des relations concernant une expédition de Khusro I contre “le roi de ’Inde”, qui se soumit sans coup férir et abandonna a Khusro “les contrées voisines de ?Oman (!) qui avaient déja été cedées a I’Iran du temps de Vahram Gor’”.’ Néldeke, Geschichte, 106-8; Zotenberg, Histoire des rois des Perses, 560-4.

Ee Ibid 56 ff 339 Néldeke, Geschichte, 112. : a Cf. the long discussion of this episode in my ‘From Qadé to Maziin’, 90-1, and in ch. above.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

335

conflict with his father-in-law, al-Harit b. “Amr, the king of the Kinda of central Arabia. Al-Harit threatened the stability of the Lahmids on more than one occasion, and even succeeded in over-

running the capital al-Hira. As discussed in Chapter 5, opinion is divided over whether this occurred early in Mundhir’s reign, c.505/6, or shortly after 524.34! The pre-Islamic poet Imru al-Qays, who died c.540, says that al-Harit ‘ruled over al-‘Iraq as far as ‘Uman’.342 It does not appear likely that al-Harit himself won these regions by campaigning there. Rather, it is more probable that he acquired de facto control of dominions in eastern Arabia formerly under Lahmid jurisdiction through his conquest and occupation of al-Hira. In 528, however, Mundhir unseated and killed al-Harit. Thus, when Khusraw AnoSsirwan, who acceded to the Sasanian throne around 531, named Mundhir ‘king over the area of Oman, Bahrain, Yamama as

far as Taif and the rest of the Higaz, and of the Arabs’,343 this probably marked the official reinstatement of the Lahmid king to a position of power following the end of the brief Kindite interregnum. In 575344 Khusraw Anoéirwan sent an expeditionary force of 800 men under the command of Wahriz to conquer Yemen. According to the classical accounts of this expedition,?*+ eight ships embarked on the journey, and of these, six landed safely on the coast of Hadhramaut.34¢ Although neither Tabari and al-Tha‘alibi nor the available Omani written sources mention any aggressive acts against Oman,°*’ S. B. Miles, basing himself on local Omani oral tradition, suggested that a Persian garrison was installed in the country, en passant as it were, while Khusraw’s forces were heading for Yemen.34° This 341 Potts, ‘From Qadé to Maztin’, 90-1, with references. 342 Rothstein, Die Dynastie, 88. For the English translation, see G. Olinder, ‘The Kings of Kinda of the Family of Akil al-Murar’, Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, NS 1/23/6 (1927), 66.

343, Néldeke, Geschichte, 238. Cf. the discussion in S$. Smith, ‘Events in Arabia in the 6th Century A.D.’, BSOAS 16 (1954), 442: ‘This was apparently a re-assertion of the rule of the

Persian client in that region.’ 344 For the date, see the extensive discussion in W. Fell, ‘Die Christenverfolgung im Siidarabien und die himjarisch-athiopischen Kriege nach abessinischer Uberlieferung’, ZDMG 35 (1881), 46.

345 Néldeke, Geschichte, 227-37, for the Yemen episode according to Tabari; for alTha’‘alibi’s version, see Zotenberg, Histoire des rois des Perses, 616-19. 346 Nldeke, Geschichte, 230. It is interesting to recall that more than 300 years earlier

Ardaéir had settled elements of the Azd at Shihr, the main port of Hadhramaut and quite possibly the point of embarkation for Wahriz’s force. 347 Klein, Kapitel XXXIII, 21, noted ‘in Kasf. . . und Tubfa . . . verlautet allerdings von einer Eroberung “Oman’s durch die Sasaniden ausdriicklich nichts’. 348 T t.-Col. $. B. Miles, ‘On the Border of the Great Desert: A Journey in Oman’, GJ 36 (1910), 423-4: ‘The command of this expedition was entrusted to a Persian noble named Khuzrad Narsis, generally known by his title Wahraz, who, on his way down the Persian gulf from Obolla, detached a force of four thousand men, probably about one-fifth of his whole army, to invade and occupy Oman. The Persians landed at Sohar, and were so far successful that they were able to subdue the Batineh coast as far as Rostak.’ The view is repeated in id., The Countries and Tribes, 26-7.

336

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD

676

hypothesis, moreover, has been accepted unquestioningly by a number of scholars.342 There does seem, however, to be a veiled link between Tabari’s account and the Khashf al-Gumma. According to the Khashf, ‘The Persian monarchs used to send persons who had incurred their displeasure or whom they feared to their army in “Oman. So it continued until God caused el-Isl4m to be manifested.’3°° This may find a reflex in the classical tradition that the 800 men involved in the initial conquest of Yemen were all prisoners who had previously been condemned to death.3>! Despite the silence of the written sources on the means by which Sasanian influence was extended to Oman during Khusraw’s reign, the fact that it did take place cannot at all be doubted. In his Kitab Ansab al-'Arab,352 the eleventh-century Omani writer al-’Awtabi preserves details of a treaty between Khusraw AnoSirwan and the Azd Oman. J. C. Wilkinson has discussed the agreement at length, and it can be characterized as follows. A Persian sphere of influence was recognized along the central and southern Batinah coast.3°> In the interior, a subsidiary Sasanian outpost was established at alRustaq,254 where the fort still bears the name Qal’at al-Kisra (i.e. ‘of Khusraw’).255 An indigenous order of ‘maraziba, frontier lords

probably operating from a set of forts in the principal settlements, and asawira, a military élite who probably had fiefs allocated to them from which they were responsible for raising levies’, was established, while ‘power in the villages was exercised by the hanaqira . . . whose 349 Acceptance was implied by Klein, Kapitel XX XIII, 21, when she wrote: ‘seitdem die Sasaniden neben anderen stidarabischen Gebieten ‘Oman erobert hatten’. A conquest of Oman coupled with the Yemen expedition is accepted by Fiey, ‘Diocéses syriens orientaux’, 215; and by Kervran, ‘A la recherche du Suhar’, 286. 359 Ross, ‘Annals of ‘Oman’, 118. Cf. Sachau, ‘Uber eine arabische Chronik’, 19. 351 Néldeke, Geschichte, 230. 352 On this work, see J. C. Wilkinson, ‘Bio-Bibliographical Background to the Crisis Period in the Ibadi Imamate of Oman (End of 9th to End of 14th Century)’, ArSt 3 (1976), 153; cf. id., ‘The Origins of the Omani State’, in D. Hopwood (ed.), The Arabian Peninsula (London, 1972), 71, 86-8; id., ‘Suhar (Sohar)’, 887 n. 1; id., ‘The Origins of the Aflaj of Oman’, 190. *®> See the discussion in J. C. Wilkinson, ‘The Julanda of Oman’, JOS 1 (1975), 99. *54 Note that this is an Arabicized Persian name. See Vollers, review of Reinhardt, Ein arabischer Dialekt, 486, for this and other Omani toponyms of Persian origin. *S Wilkinson, ‘The Origins of the Aflaj of Oman’, 190. S. B. Miles visited Rustaq in 1885; describing the fortress, he wrote (‘On the Border of the Great Desert’, 423-4): ‘The most ancient

part of this stronghold, which bears a close resemblance to an old Anglo-Norman castle, is probably that part with its turret known as Burj Kesra ibn Shirwan, and the erection of which is ascribed to the period of the great Sassanian monarch Noushirwan, or, as some say, Khosru Parviz. . . . The erection of the castle is due, according to Arab tradition, to the governor left in Oman by Wahraz. . . . it is locally traditioned that this castle of Rostak was ordered to be built by the king, who caused an iron chain to be suspended therein connected in some mysterious way with his palace at Ctesiphon. Any of his Arab subjects who had reason to complain of injustice or oppression were at liberty to come to the fort and shake the chain, the immediate consequence of which was investigation and severe punishment of the offender by Noushirwan.’

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

337

role seems to have been more that of a capitalist land-colonizing class’.35° Wilkinson has termed this tripartite division ‘a semi-feudal, _ semi-bureaucratic hierarchy’.357 The Azd were united under the aegis

of the head of the Ma‘awil clan of the Awlad Sams, who was called ‘Julanda’ by the Sasanians,358 and recognized as the Omanis’ leader, just as the Lahmids were recognized as lords of the northern Arabs, and powerful, individual sheikhs were recognized by the Lahmids as leaders of individual regions or tribes. The Julanda governed the Arab tribes and levied taxes outside the strictly Persian-dominated areas, such as those in the northern port of Dibba, and around the important interior oasis of Tuwam, modern Buraimi,?59 while reporting to the Sasanian marzban at al-Rustaq. Although it does not allude to a treaty as such, the Khashf al-Gumma clearly refers at the close of book I to the situation just outlined. Moreover, it characterizes the Omani relationship with the Sasanians as an amicable one: ‘There was peace between them and el-Julanda in “Oman,

and the Persians

kept a force of 4,000 warriors

in

‘Oman°° and a deputy with the kings of the el-Azd. The Persians abode on the sea coast,?! and the el-Azd ruled in the interior plains and hills and districts of ‘Oman, the direction of affairs being entirely with them.’ Whereas the Khashf says that peace was established between the Sasanians and the king al-Julanda b. al-Mustatir, the late (c.1913) compilation of native Omani sources by A. Muhammad ‘Abdullah b. Humayd al-Salimi known as the Tubfat al-a’ yan bi-sirat ahl ‘Uman3®2 speaks of an agreement with the family of al-Julanda.363 Perhaps the source of this confusion is to be found in the tradition, recorded by Abu’l-Fida, according to which all Omani kings of the family Banu al-Julanda were known by the epithet ‘al-Julanda’.364 356 Wilkinson, ‘The Origins of the Aflaj of Oman’, 190; cf. id., ‘Bayasirah and Bayadir’, 81, for a long discussion of the functions of the office and the etymology of the term. 357 Wilkinson, ‘Suhar (Sohar)’, 888. 358 Wilkinson, ‘The Julanda of Oman’, 97. 359 Thid. 99; id., ‘Suhar (Sohar)’, 889. On the name Tuwan,, cf. id., ‘A Sketch’, 344.

360 One wonders whether the allusion to 4,000 Persian soldiers kept in Oman has anything to do with the story of the force of 4,000 Persian soldiers sent by Khusraw to Yemen after the Sasanians’ vassal king there, Saif, installed by Wahriz, was

murdered

by his Abyssinian

bodyguards. For this episode, see Néldeke, Geschichte, 236. 361 Cf. the situation during the 16th cent., when the Portuguese held enclaves on the coast, while the Omanis ruled the interior. See, inter alia, R. D. Bathurst, ‘Maritime Trade and Imamate Government: Two Principal Themes in the History of Oman to 1728’, in Hopwood (ed.), The Arabian Peninsula, 95. See also, generally, C. F. Beckingham, ‘Some Notes on the Portuguese in Oman’, JOS 6/1 (1983), 13-19; C. R. Boxer, ‘New Light on the Relations between the Portuguese and the Omanis, 1613-1633’, JOS 6/1 (1983), 35-9.

362 Wilkinson, ‘Bio-Bibliographical Background’, 141-2. 363 Cf. Klein, Kapitel XXXIII, 21, who calls it a ‘Friedensvertrag’. SE Sibidee2 28

338

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

Initially, the Khashf does not specify where in Oman the 4,000-strong Sasanian force was quartered, nor whether it was kept in one or more garrisons. In book II, an account is given of the embassy of ‘Amr b. al-‘As with a letter from the Prophet to the sons of al-Julanda inviting them to adopt Islam.3® There it is said that “Amr ‘alighted at a place near Sohar named Damsetjerd, which had been built by the

Persians’.36° According to the Tuhfat, moreover, the Persians built

the town during the period of peace with al-Julanda.°°” The name

itself was common in the Sasanian empire, and Yaqut’s geographical

dictionary lists ten instances, although none in Oman.3°8 Miles located the town at Jabal Gharabeh/Hawrat Bargha, some 17 km.

west-north-west of Sohar, but as noted above, the ruined fortification

which he discovered there in 1875 dates to the medieval period.

Wilkinson, on the other hand, considers Damsetjerd the ‘fortified

quarter’ of Sohar itself.36? Several sparse notices reflect on the Christian presence in Oman at this period as well. In 544 we see the first recorded attendance of a bishop of Mazun at a Nestorian synod since 424. Mar David is listed as one of the signatories of the acts of the synod of Mar Aba I.37° Thereafter, bishop Samuel attended the synod of Mar Ezechiel in February 576.371 The presence of monasteries in Oman is also implied in some of the accounts of the famous Dahis war, a conflict which

broke out in central Arabia between roughly 575 and 595.372 Part of the trouble stemmed from an attack by Qais b. Zuhair of “Abs against the Yarbu’. One result of the conflict, according to several sources, was that Qais b. Zuhair retired to Oman,373 where he is said to have become a monk.374 365 Ross, ‘Annals of ‘Oman’, 118. 66 Cf. al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan, who says that the brothers ‘were at Suhar on the sea-coast’. See P. K. Hitti, The Origins of the Islamic State, i (Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, 68; Columbia University, New York, 1916), 116. Elsewhere the Khashf,

describing an attack by the Azd on the Persians, says that they were driven ‘into their town of Damsetjerd’.

367 Klein, Kapitel XX XIII, 23. °68 Ibid. 38; Wilkinson, ‘Suhar (Sohar)’, 888 and n. 2. Cf. A. A. Duri, ‘Daskara’, El? ii (1961), 166, which simply says: ‘Arabicized form of the Persian Dastagard, the name of a number

of towns in the Sasanian empire.’ For names of this type, cf. H. Hiibschmann, ‘Iranisch-armenische Namen auf karta, kert, gird’, ZDMG 30 (1876), 138-41; O. Blau, ‘Uber -karta, -kerta in Ortsnamen’, ZDMG 31 (1877), 495-505; T. Néldeke, ‘Uber iranische Ortsnamen auf kert und andere Endungen’, ZDMG 33 (1879), 143-56.

36? Wilkinson, ‘Suhar (Sohar)’, 888. 7° Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, 113; Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 328. Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, 165; Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 368. E. Meyer, Der historische Gehalt der Aiyam al-'Arab (Wiesbaden, 1970), 50-64.

Ibid. $3 n. 22, citing the Naqaid of al-Garir and ZamabSari.

Miles, ‘Across the Green Mountains’, 494; Fiey, ‘Diocéses syriens orientaux’, 215.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

339

Several extant sources reflect the political situation in Oman as it was during the early years of Islam and as it must have been in the final years of Sasanian rule. The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, for example,

written c.670-80,37> closes with a brief description of Arabia (see above) which notes the size and location of Mazun.376 Another-source

of great interest is the Armenian ‘list of provinces’ by Ps.-Moses of Khorene, probably written shortly after 737.377 This catalogue of the provinces of the Sasanian empire, discussed in Chapter 5 above, lists Mazun among the provinces of the south, immediately after Hagar (Hofuf), Paniat-Rsir, Der (Darin), and MeSmahik (Muharragq).378 Periodic markets were an important feature of economic life in preIslamic Arabia.3’? During the late Sasanian period several important markets took place on the Batinah coast, as a passage from Ibn Habib’s al-Muhabbar shows. After discussing the fairs at Dumat al-Gandal,

located in the northern Nafud oasis of Jauf, and al-MuSaqqar, in modern Hofuf, Ibn Habib writes: Another fair was that of Suhar and ‘Uman. It was usually held on the first

day of Ragab and lasted for five nights. Al-Julanda b. al-Mustakbir used to levy the tithe from the merchants there. Another fair was that of Dabba. Dabba is one of the two ports of the Arabs; merchants from Sind, India,

China, people of the East and West came to it. This fair was held on the last day of Ragab. Merchants traded here by bargaining. Al-Julanda b. alMustakbir levied the tithe in this fair as in Suhar. He used to behave in it like other kings elsewhere. Another fair was that of al-Shihr—Shihr of

Mahrah. It took place at the foot of the mountain on which the grave of the prophet Hud is located. At this fair no tithes were levied because Mahrah was not a realm of a kingdom.38°

This important passage contains many details of interest. To begin with, the testimony can be dated to the reign of al-Julanda b. Mustakbir b. Mas‘ud b. al-Harar b. “Abd ‘Izz,38! who, according to the Khashf, 375 T. Néldeke, Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik (Sitzungsber. d. Konigl. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. KI., 128/1; Vienna, 1893), 3.

376 Thid. 47. E. Sachau, Die Chronik von Arbela (Abh. d. Konigl. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. K]., 6; Berlin, 1915), 23-4, noted: ‘Es ist nicht zu ersehen, ob Mazun wirklich nur

das heutige Oman bezeichnet oder auch die nordwarts angrenzende Piratenkiiste bis in die Bahraingegend einbegriffen hatte. Auch wird nicht tiberliefert, wo der Sitz dieses Bistums gewesen ist, ob z.B. in Maskat oder in Matra oder in Suhar.’ Cf. the discussion above on the uses of the names Mazun and Oman. For the parsang, see W. Hinz, ‘Farsakh’, El’, ii (1965), 813. 377 For the date, see Marquart, Eransahr, 6. S78 bidadiét

379 See generally F. Krenkow, ‘The Annual Fairs of the Pagan Arabs’, Islamic Culture, 21

(1947), 111-13.

380 After E. Shoufani, AL-Riddah and the Muslim Conquest of Arabia (Toronto, 1972), 156. 381 Wilkinson, ‘The Julanda of Oman’, op. cit., p. 99.

340

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

‘had died a short time before’ the embassy of ‘Amr b. al-‘As,?8?

traditionally dated to AH 8 (AD 630).383 Thus, the conditions described can be considered those which obtained at the very end of the Sasanian period. Sohar and Dibba were the two most prominent market towns on the Batinah coast, and it is of interest to note that,

in mentioning Sohar, nothing is said of the presumed Persian presence there.384 It is also important to point out that Shihr, once the recipient of Azd Oman sailors transplanted there by ArdaSir himself, is not considered part of al-Julanda’s kingdom. It is, in fact, particularly noteworthy that al-Julanda, whom Wilkinson has tended to view as a Sasanian client, is spoken of as having a kingdom. This, his jurisdiction over Sohar, and the absence of any reference to the Persians, may indicate that Sasanian authority in the early seventh century was not particularly strong. This impression is strengthened, moreover, when one reads the account given by the Khashf (see below) of the expulsion of the Persians by the Azd following the Persian refusal to embrace Islam.385 Another detail of interest in Ibn Habib’s account is, of course, his

reference to the presence of traders from China at the market in Dibba. This must make one sceptical of G. F. Hourani’s denial that direct sailing ever took place between China and the Arabian Gulf in the

pre-Islamic period.3°¢ The Islamic. Conversion of Oman

In contrast to al-Bahrain and al-Yamama, Oman is treated only briefly in the standard accounts of the Islamic conquest of Arabia.387 Two variant traditions, however, are preserved, and these in turn differ sub-

stantially from the accounts given in the indigenous Omani sources that can be consulted.388 Each of these traditions will be examined briefly. 382 Ross, ‘Annals of ‘Oman’, 118. 383 Shoufani, Al-Riddah, 36, with references. *** Cf. the discussion above about the 4,000-man force which Miles thought was garrisoned at Damsetjerd. 385 Ross, ‘Annals of ‘Oman’, 119. 386 G. F. Hourani, ‘Direct Sailing between the Persian Gulf and China in Pre-Islamic Times’,

JRAS (1947), 157-60. For the pre-Islamic evidence denied by Hourani, see T. Lewicki, ‘Les Premiers Commercants arabes en Chine’, Rocznik Orjentalistyczny, 11 (1936), 173 ff.; di Meglio,

‘llcommercio arabo’, 523-8; Zhang Jun-yan, ‘Relations between China and the Arabs in Early Times’, JOS 6/1 (1983), 91-3; and note esp. that the Tang geographer Jia Dan (730-805), in an account of the route between Canton and the West, refers to ‘Mo-xun’, which Zhang

plausibly identified as ‘the transliteration of Mazun’. is See generally L. Caetani, Annali dell’Islam (Milan, 1907), ii/1. 206-10, for the mission. °° Such as the Khashf. See Wilkinson, ‘Bio-Bibliographical Background’, 161-3 for sources.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

341

We begin first with the account as related by Wakidi. A short version of Wakidi’s testimony is preserved in the Tarikh al-rusul wa-al-muluk by Tabari (838-923).389 In the year AH 8 (AD 630) Muhammad sent an envoy, ‘Amr b. al-‘As, to the two sons of the recently deceased?” ruler of the Azd, al-Julanda. The brothers, called Gaifar and ‘Amr, pledged their allegiance to Muhammad, and allowed ‘Amr

b. al-'As to collect the zakat, or alms-tax.3%! It was additionally noted that this was collected from the rich and redistributed amongst the poor of Oman. The gizya (see ch. 5 above) was collected from all Magi, i.e. Zoroastrians.

A longer version of Wakidi’s account is preserved in al-Tabaqat al-kubra by Muhammad Ibn Sa‘d (d. 845).392 There it is specified that “Amr b. al-‘As came with a sealed letter addressed to the brothers Gaifar and “Abd (not ‘Amr) in which Muhammad exhorted

them to accept Islam. Although Gaifar was considered king, “Amr b. al-"As handed over his letter to ‘Abd, thought to be the wiser and more approachable of the two. ‘Abd, however, passed the letter on to his brother and promised ‘Amr to introduce him to Gaifar. Gaifar read the letter and then gave it to “Abd to read, on whom it seemed to make a greater impression. « The texts of two letters to “Abd and Gaifar are, in fact, preserved.

In his letter to the two brothers, Muhammad offered to grant them power if they accepted Islam; at the same time, he warned them that if they refused to submit, their power would vanish, his cavalry would encircle them, and his prophecy would triumph in their kingdom.3?3 A second letter, addressed to the ‘Asbadhites, servants of God, princes

of ‘Oman’, promised safety to all who ‘celebrate the offices, discharge the zakat, obey God and his Messenger, give their due to the Prophet, and follow the way of the Muslims’.3%4 Further, the Asbadhites could retain possession of all that they owned at the time of Islamization, 389 T am drawing here on the discussion in J. Sperber, ‘Die Schreiben Muhammads an die Stamme Arabiens’, MSOS

19 (1916), 35.

399 Ross, ‘Annals of ‘Oman’, 118.

391 Translated as the ‘poor rate’ by F. L¢kkegaard, Islamic Taxation in the Classic Period (Copenhagen, 1950), 15. A. Fattal, Le Statut légal des non-musulmans en pays d’Islam (Beirut,

1958), 264 n. 1, writes: ‘La zakat (du grec deka) qui est également appelée sadaqa ou ‘usr, n’est autre que le ma‘aser ou dime aumonitre des Juifs. Chez les Musulmans elle consiste en un prélévement annuel en nature sur la fortune des Musulmans, qui doit étre dépensé a des fins humanitaires déterminées (Cor. IX 60). A l’époque préislamique, les Arabes l’acquittaient déja.’ F. McG. Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton, 1981), 73, translates zakat as ‘alms-tax’. Cf., in general, A. A. Duri, ‘Notes on Taxation in Early Islam’, JESHO 17 (1974), 136-44. 392 Sperber, ‘Die Schreiben Muhammads’, 35. 393 See M. Hamidullah, Corpus des traités et lettres diplomatiques de I’Islam a l’époque du Prophéte et des khalifes orthodoxes (Paris, 1935), § 63, for the complete text of the letter.

394 Thid. § 54.

342

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

except for the treasury of the fire temple which would revert to God and his Messenger. A tithe (literally ‘one-tenth’ tax) would be collected on fruits, and a half-tithe on cereals. It is especially interesting to note that special mention was made of mills, which were to be allowed to grind as much as the inhabitants wished.3?° After reading Muhammad?’s letter, Gaifar asked ‘Amr b. al-'As to return the following day. According to Wakidi, Gaifar said: ‘I have reflected on what you have demanded, but I should be the greatest weakling of all the Arabs if I were to give another man the rule over that which I possess.’ On hearing this, “Amr b. al-‘As announced his intention to depart, presumably for Mecca, but when Gaifar saw that he was serious, he had him called and, together with his brother,

accepted Islam. They gave him a free hand in collecting the alms-tax, and the right to settle juridical disputes,and supported him against the opponents of Islam. “Amr b. al-‘As collected the tax from the rich and distributed it amongst the poor, and remained in Oman until the news of Muhammad’s death arrived. A different account of the conversion of Oman is found in the Futuh al-Buldan by al-Baladhuri (d. 892).3° There it is recorded that the majority of the inhabitants of Oman consisted of the Azd, while in addition many people lived in the steppe. In the year AH 8 (AD 630) Muhammad dispatched Abu Zaid and ‘Amr b. al-‘As??7 with a letter to ‘Abd and Gaifar, the sons of al-Julanda, exhorting them to embrace Islam. If the people of Oman converted, then ‘Amr was to be their temporal leader, or emir, and Abu Zaid was to instruct them in

religious matters, including prayer, study of the Qu’ran, and Sunna. The two messengers found ‘Abd and Gaifar at Sohar and there gave them Muhammad’s letter. Both brothers accepted Islam and encouraged the local Arabs to follow their example, which they did. The envoys then remained in Oman until Muhammad’s death.398

*°5 §. B. Miles, in 1876, seems to have been the first European to notice the flour-mills of Oman; see ‘Across the Green Mountains’, 470, where he writes of finding ‘a flour-mill turned

by water-power’ at Nakhl: ‘It was rather a primitive and diminutive affair, but it was the first thing of the kind I had then seen in Arabia, though I have since noticed similar ones near Rostak.’ Cf. the mills on the Batinah coast near Sohar, discussed by T. J. Wilkinson, ‘Water Mills of

the Batinah Coast of Oman’, PSAS 10 (1980), 127-32, and P. Costa, ‘Notes on Traditional

Hydraulics and Agriculture in Oman’, World Archaeology, 14/3 (1983), 280-5. One of these

mills has been dated by associated ceramics to the 9th and 10th cents. °° T have used the translation in Hitti, The Origins of the Islamic State, 116-17. *”” Elsewhere, al-Baladhuri says that Abu Zaid was sent in AH 6 and ‘Amr b. al-‘As in AH 8. Abu Zaid was told to take the zakat from the Muslims and the gizya from the Magi. Cf. Sperber, ‘Die Schreiben Muhammads’, 36 n. 1. *°8 According to another tradition preserved by al-Baladhuri, Abu Zaid returned to Medina before the death of Muhammad.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

343

The Khashf al-Gumma gives a much more embellished account of the Islamic conversion of Oman, including many details not found in Wakidi or al-Baladhuri.3%? Because it is little known we quote it here in full. There is a tradition that the first man of ‘Oman to embrace el-Islam was one Mazin-bin-Ghadhubah, who visited the Prophet and asked him to pray for him and the people of ‘Oman. Afterwards the Apostle of God wrote to the people of ‘Oman, inviting them to adopt the religion of Islam. He wrote amongst others to ‘Abd and Gaifar, the sons of el-Julanda (who had died a short time before), to the effect that

if they would accept el-Islam, he would confirm them as Governors; otherwise they would be deposed. He sent this letter by ‘Amr-bin el-‘As, who alighted at a place near Sohar named Damsetjerd, which had been built by the Persians. Thence he sent a message to the sons of Juland4, who were the foremost and most influential chiefs of “Oman. The first who met the messenger was “Abd, who was the most discerning and sensible of the two brothers. He sent on ‘Amr to his brother Gaifar with the sealed letter, and Gaifar broke the

seal and read it, and then passed it to ‘Abd who also read it. The latter then told ‘Amr that this was no trifling matter he had come about, and that he would reflect on it, and afterwards give a reply. He then assembled a council of the el-Azd, and sent to Ka‘b-bin Barshah el-‘U di. They all became converts to el-Islam, and sent to all their kinsmen who vowed obedience to the Prophet,

and agreed to offer the proper religious alms. Gaifar sent messengers to Maheyreh [Mahra],

and Shihr in the south, and to Daba [Dibba],

and the

furthest limits of “Oman to the north; and at his invitation all the people accepted el-Islam, save the Persians who dweltin “Oman. When the Persians rejected el-Islam, the el-Azd assembled round Gaifar, and all agreed to expel the Persian deputy Maskan and his followers from the country. As the Persians refused either to join el-Islam or to leave the country quietly, the el-Azd attacked them, killed their leader Maskan and many more, and drove the remainder into their town of Damsetjerd, when they besieged them rigorously, until they sued for terms. The el-Azd granted them quarter on condition that they left all their gold and silver and other property behind and quitted “Oman, which they did. “Amr continued to reside with and direct the el-Azd, until the death of the Prophet.

Several details in the classical accounts of the conversion of Oman must be underlined before comparing these with the description given in the Khashf. Wakidi’s long account preserves Gaifar’s hesitation in accepting Islam, a reaction which has been interpreted as a sign of

fear that his people would rebel and not follow him.*°? Caetani*?! 399 Ross, ‘Annals of ‘Oman’, 118-19. 409 Sperber, ‘Die Schreiben Muhammads’, 36.

401 Caetani, Annali dell’Islam, 208.

344

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

and others402 since have depicted Gaifar as a weak ruler who seized on the opportunity of conversion in order to strengthen his unpopular rule. Certainly we know from the testimony of Sayf b. “Umar that another leader, called Laqit b. Malik Dhu at-Ta§, i.e. ‘the crowned’,

was as powerful in Oman as the Julanda before the coming of Islam.403 According to another tradition, preserved by Tabari and Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, tribes from Oman, al-Yamama, and Yemen contacted the

Prophet in the same year as the embassy to Oman took place, because of which it is sometimes referred to as the ‘Year of Delegations’.4 Whether some of these delegations were dispatched by rulers who felt threatened in their own countries and therefore sought out the support of Muhammad is unknown, but this is certainly possible. Another line of reasoning is, however, opened up by the tradition preserved in the Khashf. Rather than embracing Islam because his power over his own people was weak, Gaifar may have done so in order to rally popular support for a rebellion against the Sasanian presence. Knowing that the Zoroastrian Persians were unlikely to convert, he may have used this as a pretext for launching a campaign against them and driving them out of Oman, as related in the Khashf. The idea of such a plan, or perhaps support for it, may even have come from ‘Amr b. al-‘As. Thus, Islam may have been the catalyst previously lacking for a revolutionary movement in which a sizeable number of the Azd were united under Gaifar. We have already noted, however, that Gaifar had at least one strong

local rival in Laqit b. Malik Dhu at-Tag. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that, following the death of the Prophet, a faction of the

Azd are said to have apostatized under Lagit’s leadership.4°5 One could well imagine that this was aimed more at deposing Gaifar than rejecting Islam. Al-Baladhuri says that Abu Bakr dispatched Hudhaifah b. Mihsan al-Makhzumi to Oman to deal with Laqit. Hudhaifah found Laqit at Dibba, killed him in battle, and captured many of the local inhabitants, who were then sent to Abu Bakr. The Azd then returned

to Islam, while the revolt spread to Shihr, where it had to be put down by ‘Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl.496 The account of events following the Prophet’s death in the Omani sources diverges substantially from the classical versions, and contains

402 Shoufani, Al-Riddah, 37, called ‘Abd and Gaifar ‘troubled agents of the Persians’ who ‘had lost their power and prestige as a consequence of the lack of support they were getting from their confusion-stricken old master, Persia’. 102 sbid.. 88.

“* Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests, 63. Hitti, The Origins of the Islamic State, 117. “06 Shoufani, Al-Riddah, 134-6; cf. Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests, 86-7.

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

345

many important details. According to Salil Ibn Razik,4°7 ‘Abd and Gaifar took refuge in the mountains at the rising of Laqit. Abu

Bakr sent a force to Oman under ‘Ikrimah, after the latter had subdued al-Yamama. ‘Ikrimah joined up with a Himyarite named ‘Arfajah b. Harthamah, and a local Azdite named Hudhaifah b. Muhsin. They

advanced towards Rijam, which Badger located at Jabal Akhdar 408 and sent word of their presence to ‘Abd and Gaifar. Thereupon the two brothers moved their forces to Sohar, where they were soon joined by ‘Ikrimah’s army. Lagit retired with his forces to Dibba, where he was attacked by the joint caliphal-Azdite army supported by the Banu Najiah, another tribe of al-Azd, and some ‘Abd al-Qays from northeastern Arabia. Ten thousand rebels are said to have died, and after

the battle “Arfajah departed for Mecca with the caliphal share of onefifth of the 4,000 prisoners taken plus the same amount of booty. Hudhaifah, on the other hand, is said to have remained in Oman to

eradicate any lingering elements of rebellion in the country. The Khashf contains no mention of the ridda movement in Oman. It is not unlikely, however, that an account of the rebellion of Laqit was, at some later date, deleted from the Khashf. Certainly other cases

are known in which early anti-Islamic acts were removed from later historical records.*°? If such was the case here, moreover, it would help explain the following passage in the Khashf,*1° which comes directly after the death of Muhammad is mentioned: ‘Abd-bin-el-Juland4 and many of the el-Azd proceeded to visit Abu Bakr the Just who praised the conduct of the people of “Oman in accepting the message of the Prophet willingly and spontaneously. It is said too that “Abd served the Khalifeh in an expedition against the Al-Jifneh. Abu Bakr then wrote to the people of “Oman thanking them and confirming Gaifar and ‘Abd in the government. The virtues of these two cannot be fully described, but much might be written of them. They continued pre-eminent in ‘Oman until they died.

The entire tone of this account suggests that ‘Abd and Gaifar were rewarded by Abu Bakr for services rendered, and it is difficult to imagine Abu Bakr having written to thank the people of Oman for merely converting to Islam. This, after all, had taken place during the lifetime of the Prophet. A more plausible explanation is that the thanks tendered by Abu Bakr came after the successful repression of Laqit, in which the sons of al-Julanda had played a substantial role. 407 G. P. Badger, History of the Imams and Seyyids of “Oman (London, 1871), pp. xi-xii.

408 Ibid. p. xi.

409 Sperber, ‘Die Schreiben Muhammads’, 36, suggesting also that al-Baladhuri’s account of

the conversion of Oman was an expurgated version compared to the more authentic version of Wakidi. 410 Ross, ‘Annals of ‘Oman’, 119.

346

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

The Apostasy of Bet Mazunaye

The Islamic conversion of Oman naturally posed a major problem for the Nestorian Church. In Chapter 5 above we dealt at length with the schism that affected Persis and Bet Qatraye in the seventh century. Here it remains only to examine the position of Bet Mazunaye in the same period. Bet Mazunaye is never mentioned as having been a party to the schism which temporarily split the Nestorian Church. Indeed, the letters of Mar ISo'yahb to the separatists in Arabia were addressed exclusively to the bishops of Bet Qatraye (Ad Episcopos Qatarenses), the people of Bet Qatraye (Ad Qatarenses), the monks of Bet Qatraye (Ad Monachos Provinciae Qatarensium), and the pretender to the

‘episcopate’ of Ma’mahig (Ad Eosdem Monachos).*! On the other

hand, in a letter to the heretic Simeon. of Rev-ArdaSir,

ISo‘yahb

strenuously lamented the conversions of ‘your people of Mazun’, 1.e. Christians under the charge of the Metropolitan of Rev-Arda&ir, to Islam.*12 ISo‘'yahb asked Simeon why it was that ‘your Mazunaye’ had abandoned their faith. Surely not, as they pretended, because they were forced to do so by the Muslims; but rather because they were unwilling to give up half of their property for the right to retain their faith. In so doing, he argued, they abandoned that which they could have had for eternity, for the goods of this ephemeral world.413 411 Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, iii/2. 133, 143. The letters have also been.published in E. A. Wallis Budge, The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas, Bishop of Marga A.D. 840, ii (London, 1893), 161-74, and discussed briefly by P. Scott-Moncrieff, The

Book of Consolations, or The Pastoral Epistles of Ishé-Yahbh of Kiiphlana in Adiabene (London, 1904), pp. xxvii-xxviii. The standard edition of the Syriac texts with Latin translations is R. Duval, [so°yahb Patriarchae III Liber Epistularum (CSCO 64 (Scriptores Syri, Series II); Paris, 1905). S =

12 J. M. Fiey, ‘Iso'yaw le Grand: Vie du catholicos nestorien Iso’yaw III d’Adiabene (580-659), OCP 35 (1969), 33. 13 Sachau, Vom Christentum, 19, interprets this as an allusion to the fact that the same

economic conditions which al-Baladhuri says obtained in al-Bahrain must then have applied in Oman as well. Sachau wrote: ‘Auch uber die wirtschaftlichen Verhaltnisse, welche beim

Ubertritt vom Christentum zum Islam eine Rolle spielten, geben die Briefe Jesujabhs einige Andeutungen. Er macht den Christen in Oman, den Mazin den Vorwurf, dass sie den Islam angenommen hatten, ohne von den Muslims dazu gezwungen worden zu sein, lediglich um die Halfte ihres Vermégens zu retten. Ihr Christentum sei ihnen nicht mal die Halfte ihrer Habe wert gewesen. Diese Angaben harmonieren mit denjenigen der arabischen Historiker tiber die erste Eroberung jener Lander. Auch diese wissen, dass die Maztin ohne Schwertschlag den Islam angenommen haben und als El‘ala’ Ibn Elhadrami in Bahrain eindrang, stellte er die Einheimischen vor die Wahl, entweder den Islam anzunehmen oder aber ihre Religion zu behalten und in diesem Fall die Halfte ihres Getreides und ihrer Datteln an den Islam abzutreten sowie die Kopfsteuer von einem Denar fiir die Person zu zahlen. Wo Beladhori dies Detail erwahnt . . . spricht er allerdings von den Bewohnern von Bahrain: wir diirfen aber annehmen, dass die Bedingungen, welche die Muslims den Bewohnern von Oman und der Persis gestellt haben, von den in Bahrain gestellten kaum wesentlich verschieden gewesen sein werden.’

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

347

It is obvious that ISo‘'yahb held Simeon in some measure responsible for the deplorable conversions in Bet Mazunaye;*!4 but the apostasy of Oman should also be seen, at least in part, as a problem related to the secession of Bet Qatraye from the Church.4!5 In his first letter to the inhabitants of Bet Qatraye, Iso'yahb deplored the illegitimate consecration of bishops there, and the loss of all virtue, particularly in the conduct of monastic life. Moreover, he specifically cited the apostasy of Bet Mazunaye as the first visible consequence of this situation.4!6 The synod of Mar George I held in May 676, on Darin, succeeded in reconciling Bet Qatraye and the catholicate.417 At the same time, the presence of Stephen, bishop of Mazunaye,*18 was most probably occasioned by the, in many ways, graver problem of rampant conversion to Islam in Oman. The fact that Stephen is the last bishop of Bet Mazunaye attested in the acts of the Nestorian synods, however, suggests that, in the spiritual battle for Mazun, Islam was decidedly the victor.

Conclusion

During the past decade, the history and archaeology of south-eastern Arabia have begun to emerge from a position of relative obscurity thanks to the attentions of a growing body of scholars. The centuries that saw the floruit of the Parthian and Sasanian empires are particularly interesting ones, as we hope this review of the available evidence has demonstrated, and although much work remains to be done at sites like ed-Dur, Sohar, Mleiha, al-Rustaq, and others,

considerable advances have been made in retrieving the material evidence of late pre-Islamic Oman. The tribal history of Mazun, the Nestorian communities of Bet Mazunaye, the Omani tradingemporia mentioned in the Periplus and by Pliny, the relations of the 414 We have already mentioned that Nau considered all Arabs in Mazun to have been Christians. Likewise, when speaking of the Islamic conversion, he unreservedly assumed that all Christians in Oman, i.e. all Arabs, converted. See Les Arabes chretiens, 107. 415 Cf. E. Tisserant, ‘Nestorienne (Eglise)’, in Dictionnaire de théologie.catholique, 189-90, Fiey, ‘Iso'yaw le Grand’, 34 n. 1. 416 Thid. 39. Sachau, Vom Christentum, 18, did not accept this as the whole story and asked: ‘Gern erfiihre man von Jesujabh, unter welchen Umstanden und aus welchen Griinden die Christen in der Persis, in Ostarabien und Oman zum Islam abgefallen sind, ob sie etwa in Muhammed ein neuen Messias, im Islam ein neues Reich Gottes auf Erden gesehen haben, aber hiertiber geben seine Briefe kein Auskunft.’ 417 Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 483-4. Note that in canon II it is specifically stated that all new bishops must be approved by the patriarch, i.e. the catholicos, thus re-establishing the primacy of the catholicate over Persis. 418 Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, 335; Chabot, ‘Synodicon orientale’, 482.

348

South-Eastern Arabia, 325 BC-AD 676

region to the ‘great powers’ of the wider Indian Ocean—Arabian GulfRed Sea belt: these are but some of the topics of research requiring further work. By combining the information from the written sources, however, with that gleaned from future archaeological excavations in the region, it should be possible to form an even better impression of the region’s late pre-Islamic past in the coming years.

Conclusion In concluding this work, I do not intend to write a summary of what has already been said. Throughout the text, questions have been raised, problems discussed, and answers ventured wherever possible, and on these I have no more to add at the present time. Rather, in bringing this work to a close, I should like to discuss certain general issues which have not been addressed in the main body of the text but which are nevertheless worthy of some consideration. It seems appropriate to begin by recalling a notion expressed in the Introduction in Volume I, that of the task of understanding the archaeology and history of the Arabian Gulf on its own terms. No doubt this may strike some readers as a self-evident, even trivial requirement, the very least that can be expected from a conscientious student of the subject. Yet it is a fact that the task of understanding cultures other than one’s own, whether living or dead, has troubled thoughtful minds since antiquity.! Amongst students of the ancient Near East, none was

more explicit in emphasizing the necessity of pursuing this task than the late Benno Landsberger,* and although he was himself concerned with Babylonia, his notion of the Eigenbegrifflichkeit of an ancient civilization can be applied equally anywhere in the world, the Arabian Gulf included. With specific regard to the Gulf region, the task of considering the area on its own terms implies, among other things, that although we must never ignore the ties which bound the area to its neighbours throughout history, it cannot be viewed as a mere appendage of, for example, Mesopotamia or Iran. True, the history and archaeology of the area are unlikely to be recognized for some time, outside the Gulf states themselves, as areas of academic specialization with their own curricula. Nevertheless, the sheer bulk of the evidence marshalled here should, if nothing else, convince the reader that the area can no longer be relegated to that of an exotic grey zone on the borders of the better-known 1 Cf. K. E. Miller, Geschichte der antiken Ethnographie und ethnologischen Theoriebildung, 2 vols. (Wiesbaden, 1972 and 1980); E. C. L. Van der Vliet, ‘L’Ethnographie de Strabon: Idéologie ou tradition?’, in F. Pontera (ed.), Strabone: Contributi allo studia della personalita e dell’opera, i (Perugia, 1984), 29-86; E. Rawson, Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic

(London, 1985), 251-66. 2 B. Landsberger, ‘Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt’, Islamica, 2 (1926), 355-72.

Conclusion

350

regions of the ancient Near East. Nowadays over a dozen archaeological

missions are at work annually from Kuwait to Oman; conferences are

held on topics concerned exclusively with Gulf archaeology; and articles, books, and journals are published each year which treat this material in a serious, scholarly fashion. The subject has indeed arrived, whether or not it has yet attained the status of a sub-discipline within Near Eastern archaeology, like the older fields of Mesopotamian, Iranian, Anatolian, or Syro-Palestinian archaeology. But it is not merely the quantity of archaeological remains and relevant historical sources that precludes our considering the area as part of one of the already known sub-areas of the ancient Near East. It is much more the fact that, from a very early date, the region has had an identity which was as apparent to its neighbours as it was to its inhabitants. A report on pearling by the British Resident in the Gulf, published in 1867, illustrates this well. There we read: The beds along the Arabian Coast are held to be the property of the Arabs in common; for instance, an Arab of Koweit may dive along the Bahrein or Rass-ool-Khaimah coast and vice versa. But no person other than the Coast Arabs is considered to have any right of diving. And it is probable that any intrusion on the part of foreigners would create a general ferment along the Coast line.?

Nor was there ever any doubt in more remote antiquity that the Lower Sea, as it was often called, bordered on lands which were quite

separate from Sumer, Akkad, and Elam. From a Mesopotamian point of view, two major cultural provinces were recognized in the area:* north-eastern

Arabia,

Kuwait,

Bahrain,

and Qatar were

viewed

separately from the Oman peninsula. At a very basic archaeological level these two major sub-areas of the Arabian Gulf can be easily distinguished from each other and from their neighbours. Ceramically, the regions are characterized by different traditions with only rare evidence of an overlap between the two. Recall the very marked division between the chain-ridged/red-ridged Barbar tradition of the north and the painted Umm an-Nar and Wadi Sug traditions of the south; or that between the pseudo-Barbar and Mesopotamian-influenced pottery

of Kuwait, eastern Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain during the earlier first

millennium BC and the Rumeilah and Lizq Iron Age traditions in the Oman peninsula. From the Old Akkadian to the Middle Assyrian

ne Lt.-Col. L. Pelly, ‘Remarks on the Pearl Oyster Beds in the Persian Gulf, TBGS 18 (1867),

Et Os D. T. Potts, ‘Eastern Arabia and the Oman Peninsula during the Late Fourth and

Early Third Millennium B.C.’, in U. Finkbeiner and W. Rollig (eds.), Gamdat Nasr: Period or Regional Style? (TAVO Suppl. B 62; Wiesbaden, 1986), 18.

Conclusion

351

period, these two major sub-areas of the Gulf region were known as Dilmun and Magan/Makkan; during the Neo-Assyrian period, as Tilmun and Qade. We know little of the political institutions which prevailed there, but the two regions were, at times, viewed as sovereign domains by their Babylonian neighbours to the north. This is demonstrated in several cases where rulers in these regions are designated by Sumerian or Akkadian titles of political authority. Thus, as we have seen, ManiStuSu battled the lords (EN) of Magan. Later, Naram-Sin took one of them, named Manium/ Manitan/Mannu-dannu,

prisoner. As we have seen, a lugal-M4-gan is mentioned in a text from the reign of Sulgi, while oil was disbursed to the king (lugal) of Dilmun at Mari during the Old Babylonian period. On several occasions, of course, these regions did lose some measure

of their independence. This did not always entail a loss of political sovereignty, however. In some cases the ancient inhabitants of the Gulf suffered the direct appropriation of their natural resources by their neighbours. The earliest example of such foreign infringement seems to be Ubaid-period fishing by southern Mesopotamian fishermen off the coast of Arabia, which left pottery and remains of seasonal camps up and down the coast from Kuwait to Ras al-Khaimah. Much later, Manistusu boasted of having quarried black stone on the ‘other side’ of the Lower Sea following his defeat of a local force there. Notwithstanding their clearly belligerent campaigns in the area, however, neither Manistusu nor Naram-Sin held any part of southeastern Arabia, so far as we know. During the Kassite period, of course,

Dilmun was ruled by a series of Kassite governors. That Sargon II actually campaigned against Dilmun seems unlikely, for if he had, it seems certain that he would have boasted of it in his own royal inscriptions, and we would have more than just the testimony of the Sargon Legend and the Sargon Geography. Indeed, despite the threatening tone which Assurbanipal took towards Hundaru, and the fact that Pade of Qade brought him tribute, there is no evidence that Assyrian control ever extended this far south. It is more probable, though, that Nebuchadnezzar held Failaka as a kind of southern outpost, while his Persian successors seem to have exerted some control in Oman. The fall of the Achaemenid empire, however, brought an end to foreign domination in the area for several centuries. Alexander’s

dreams of conquest remained unfulfilled, and the Gulf area maintained its autonomy until the second century AD. Meredat of Characene may have been responsible for the expansion of Parthian influence—witness his control over the satrapy of Thiloua/os and his use of the title basileus Oman—which was still, to some extent, intact during the early Sasanian period when Arda’ir found Sanatruq in power in Hagar.

352

Conclusion

The Sasanians were unquestionably more successful in exerting at least nominal control over more of the area for a greater period of time, and while they delegated most of the responsibility of government in north-eastern Arabia to their Lahmid vassals in al-Hira, they were directly involved at times in both Hagar and Mazun, where troops were stationed. It would, nevertheless, appear that lawful commerce between the regions of the Gulf and neighbouring lands was far more common than subservience or loss of natural resources to a foreign power. Commercial ties may have begun as early as the Jamdat Nasr period, when signs of Mesopotamian contact appear in Hafit graves in the Oman peninsula. Certainly during the Early Dynastic period there is much material which suggests that contacts were maintained between Mesopotamia and the Arabian coast. Copper, soft-stone, timber, and

diorite are just a few of the goods which changed hands. By the Old Babylonian period, caravans handled the movement of copper from Dilmun up the Euphrates to Mari, establishing a route and a pattern of trade which were, almost 2,000 years later, to bring goods from the Gulf to Palmyra via Spasinou Charax. In this regard, it is interesting to note a characteristic of long standing in Mesopotamian commercial relations with the Gulf region. This is the existence of a principal port in southern Babylonia through which most of the contact with the Gulf region was maintained. During the Late Uruk and Jamdat Nasr periods it was perhaps Uruk which had the most important connection with the region; in the Early Dynastic era it may have been Lagas; during the Old Akkadian period it is difficult to say, as written sources point equally to Agade, Umma, and Lagas. Ur-Nammu was certainly responsible for making Ur the principal point of contact with Magan, as attested in a number of his royal inscriptions, and in the Lu-Enlilla texts as well. This position was apparently maintained throughout the Isin-Larsa and early Old Babylonian periods. During the Kassite period Nippur was in close contact with Dilmun, albeit due to personal ties between the governors of the two regions. When we move into the later periods it is interesting to recall the tradition preserved by Eusebius, if unattested in cuneiform sources, according to which Nebuchadnezzar II established a city in southernmost Mesopotamia called Teredon (or Diridotis, by Arrian),

to serve as a new port of trade with the Gulf region. Nearchus, for example, according to Arrian, noted that ‘here the merchants gather together frankincense from the neighbouring country and all other sweet-smelling spices which Arabia produces’ (Anab. 8. 41. 6-8). Alexander, moreover, followed suit with the foundation of

Alexandria-on-the-Tigris which, under Seleucus II or III, became the

Conclusion

353

capital of the ‘satrapy of the Erythraean Sea’. Under Antiochus IV it was refounded as Antiochia, and after it was restored by his satrap Spaosines (Pliny, NH 6. 31. 138) it was renamed Spasinou Charax,

by which name it gained fame as the gateway for the goods of the East and an important trading-partner of Palmyra. During the Parthian period Charax and another port, Apologos, saw heavy traffic, and eventually, after the Arab conquest, Apologos was refounded as al-Ubulla, today known as the port of Basra. Thus, over the course of several millenniums a series of cities in southern Mesopotamia enjoyed a kind of special status vis-a-vis the Gulf trade. On many grounds one can see that free trade was preferable, from a Mesopotamian point of view, to outright conquest of the area. For it must be remembered that it was not only the products of the area that were sought after in Elam or Babylonia; the goods which came from further afield were just as important, if not more so. To that extent, it was clearly to the advantage of those societies which consumed goods brought up from the Gulf that the Gulf regions be able to engage in free, unhindered trade. This would have been even more attractive to the authorities in southern Babylonia, whether Seleucid satraps or Old Babylonian temples, in times when they were capable of levying taxes on the trading-expeditions which arrived from the south. In this sense, the Gulf trade conferred a double benefit on

the societies of southern Mesopotamia. Exotic goods flowed into the area, satisfying consumer desires, while taxes or tithes flowed into the treasuries of the cities and temples. In antiquity the Arabian Gulf possessed highly developed spiritual as well as commercial traditions. Recent studies have highlighted the religious significance of Dilmun and its deities in Mesopotamian literature. A Dilmun temple at Ur, built by Warad-Sin, and a temple and walkway at Susa, dedicated to Inzak, confirm what can otherwise be gleaned from literary sources. Much later, Failaka was accorded high regard as an isle of cult sanctuaries by the Greeks who accompanied Alexander and reconnoitred the Gulf, and throughout the entire east Arabian area Sams was venerated in the Seleucid and Parthian periods. By the same token, the region was susceptible to religious influences from abroad. Marduk, Enki, and Adad are all

named on second-millennium BC stamp and cylinder seals found on Failaka, and both Zoroastrianism and Judaism were practised throughout the area during the Sasanian period. But as an integrating force, it was Nestorian Christianity that eventually brought the inhabitants of eastern Arabia, Mesopotamia, and south-western Iran

into what were arguably the closest relations they had ever experienced. Administered by the metropolitan of Rev-Arda’ir, while challenging

354

Conclusion

the ultimate authority of the catholicos in Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, the Christian populations of Bet Qatraye and Bet Mazunaye were large, perhaps even dominant in this region up until the Islamic conquest. It is not incorrect to say that, in one sense, the Nestorian Church,

for the space of over three centuries, united a region which secular rulers from Sargon to Sapur had never mastered so completely. As we have seen, Christianity was widespread both amongst the tribes of northern Arabia and in the settled communities along the coast. To the extent that it exerted a unifying influence on the region’s population, Nestorian Christianity may have unwittingly helped to lay the groundwork for the conversion of the area to Islam, which, although beset by a certain amount of divisive sectarianism, has unquestionably helped to maintain the unity of the area while at the same time integrating it into a wider international community.

Acknowledgements for the Figures As in Volume I, the references below constitute the only acknowledgements given here for the origin of the illustrations, plans, and maps. The figure captions themselves contain only brief identifications. The general map of the area is based on the ‘Geographic Map of the Arabian Peninsula’ made by the US Geological Survey and the Arabian American Oil Company for the Deputy Ministry for Mineral Resources, Jedda, 1984 (original scale 1 : 2,000,000).

Fig. 1, published here for the first time, was drawn by Dipl.-Ing. J. Fanelli for the joint expedition to Thaj by the Freie Universitat Berlin and the Saudi Arabian Department of Antiquities in 1983. In Fig. 3, a—b are after A. Jamme, Sabaean and Hasaean Inscriptions from Saudi Arabia (Studi Semitici, 23; Rome, 1966), fig. 18; c is after id., ‘New Safaitic and Hasaean Inscriptions from Northern Arabia’, Sumer, 25 (1969), pl. 3; dis after W. K. Loftus, Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana

(London, 1857), 233. In Fig. 5, a-j, m, n, r—-s are after J. Gachet and J.-F. Salles, ‘Nouvelles

remarques sur la céramique hellénistique de Failaka’, unpubl. MS, figs. 6, 8,9; k-l, o-q, t-u are after E. C. L. During Caspers, ‘The Bahrain Tumuli’, Persica, 6 (1972-4), figs. 7b (k), 6c—d (1), 6a (0), 7d (p), Ze (q), 7c (t), 6b (u).

Fig. 6 is adapted from R. Boucharlat and J.-F. Salles, ‘L’Arabie orientale: D’un bilan a un autre’, Mesopotamia, 22 (1987), fig. D. Fig. 7 is adapted from P. Lombard and J.-F. Salles (eds.), La Nécropole de Janussan (Bahrain) (TMO 6; Lyons, 1984), figs. 11, 10, 7. Fig. 8 is redrawn from E. Sollberger, ‘Graeco-Babyloniaca’, Iraq, 24 (1962), pl. Xxv. A4. Fig. 9 is adapted from O. Callot, J. Gachet, and J.-F. Salles, ‘Some Notes about Hellenistic Failaka’, PSAS 17 (1987), figs. 1-2. Fig. 10a is adapted from A. Caubet and J.-F. Salles, ‘Le Sanctuaire hellénistique (B 6)’, FFF 83, fig. 34; Fig. 10b is after K. Jeppesen, ‘Et Kongebud til Ikaros (A Royal Message to Ikaros: The Hellenistic Temples of Failaka)’, Kuml 1960 (1960), figs. 3, 7, 11-13, 16-17. Fig. 11 is after L. Hannestad, The Hellenistic Pottery from Failaka (JASP 16/2: Ikaros: The Hellenistic Settlements; Aarhus, 1983), nos. 207 (a), 177 (b),

205 (c), 54 (d), 204 (e), 53 (f), 206 (g), 56 (h), 125 (2), 141 (7), 176 (k), 287 (1), 31 (m), 175 (n), 187 (0), 179 (p), 178 (q), 291 (r), 35 (s), and 189 (t). Fig. 12, published here for the first time, was drawn by Dipl.-Ing. J. Fanelli (cf. Fig. 1), and dated 3 Mar. 1983. In Fig. 13, ais after R. LeB. Bowen, Jr., The Early Arabian Necropolis of Ain Jawan (BASOR Suppl. Studies, 7-9; New Haven, 1950), fig. 16; b is after a photograph in I. I. Nawwab, P. C. Speers, and P. F. Hoye (eds.), Aramco and its World (Dhahran, 1980), 32; c is after D. T. Potts et al.,

‘Preliminary Report on the Second Phase of the Eastern Province Survey 1397/1977’, Atlal, 2 (1978), pl. 7.

356

Acknowledgements for the Figures

Fig. 14 is adapted from D. T. Potts, ‘Northeastern Arabia in the Later Pre-Islamic Era’, AOMIM, map 4. Fig. 16 is adapted from R. Boucharlat (ed.), Archaeological Surveys and Excavations in the Sharjah Emirate, 1986: A Third Preliminary Report (Sharjah and Lyons, 1986), fig. 19; and id., ‘Documents arabes provenant des sites “hellénistiques” de la péninsule d’Oman’, in T. Fahd (ed.), L’Arabie préislamique et son environnement historique et culturel (Univ. des sciences humaines de Strasbourg, Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Gréce antiques, 10; Leiden, 1989), fig. 3. In Fig. 17, a is after Boucharlat (ed.), Archaeological Survey and Excavations (1986), fig. 37. 4; b-c are after J.-F. Salles, ‘Notes on the Archaeology of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods in the United Arab Emirates’, AUAE 2-3 (1980), pl. 1. In Fig. 18, a—g are adapted from Boucharlat (ed.), Archaeological Survey and Excavations (1986), figs. 33. 3 (a), 33.4 (b), 32. 5 (c), 33. 2 (d), 33. 1 (e), 32. 1 (f), 34. 2 (g). The redrawing was done by H. B. Potts.

Figs. 19-22 incorporate material from the archives of the International Expedition to ed-Dur, to appear in a preliminary report on the seasons of 1987 and 1988 by R. Boucharlat, E. Haerinck, O. Lecomte, and D. T. Potts

in Mesopotamia, 24 (1989). Figs. 19 and 20a-b are adapted from the work of J.-M. Culas, while Figs. 21-2 were drawn by H. B. Potts. Fig. 20c shows a seal published by J. Pirenne in the Corpus des inscriptions et antiquités sud-arabes, i/2 (Louvain, 1977), photo on p. I. 601, drawing on the title page. In Fig. 23, a-i are after G. Weisgerber, ‘Mehr als Kupfer in Oman: Ergebnisse der Expedition 1981’, Der Anschnitt, 33 (1981), figs. 90 (a),

87,4B)5;89 (¢),.7 7-6 bd) 7723: (@)- File 8 if) 78.56 (2), 2 ae Be 8612). Fig. 24 is based on plans in an anonymous photocopied hand-out available at the Dubai Museum entitled ‘Jumairah Digs’. Fig. 25 shows the map of Arabia based on Claudius Ptolemy’s Cosmographia, as prepared for the 1478 edition and reprinted in the 1490 edition of Arnoldus Buckinck’s Claudii Ptholemei Alexandrini philosophi Cosmographia (Rome). The reproduction shown here was kindly prepared by the cartographic department of the Kongelige Bibliothek, Copenhagen, after A. E. Nordenskiold, Facsimile-Atlas till Kartografiens Aldsta Historia (Stockholm, 1889).

Acknowledgements for the Plates The photographs published here as Pls. I, Ila, [Vb and k-/, and X were taken by the author. Pls. V-VII and XIb-c were taken by Hans Burkard. Pls. IIb, III, and VIIIa were taken by the late Thomas Barger, and are published through the courtesy of his children. Pls. [Vc-j and XIIb-c were taken by R. Jameson, Pl. [Va by R. W. Morris, and Pl. XIIa by P. Arnot. The photographs in PI. IX were taken by the owner of the jewellery shown, who wishes to remain anonymous. Pl. XIa was taken by E. Smekens. Finally, PI. VIIIb was taken by the late P. B. Cornwall. The print was found amongst a batch of photographs given by Prof. F. V. Winnett to M. C. A. Macdonald, who kindly passed it on to the author.

Tk ;

D tg

ae

Sgt

git * wikia. -

¥

"

:

or

caiebiise

if

de

7"

"

*¢

}

Lp

ic

‘5

a ja ; 2.

,

a

Fi iy JP Buide

.

“

“

7. y

‘

2

7> Va

Fe Pe

320720 a

ee, 8

Ss

ede

Lt

7 xe

POs /790 Yee.

| NATE

|

NS

NE

320710) US P21TeePese eona

ome

Potts, Daniel T, The Arabian Gulf in antiquity “DATE a

a6

“Es

MADELEINE

{SSUED

CLARK

| e

es

TO

WALLACE

LIBRARY WHEATON COLLEGE

NORTON, MA 02766 (508) 285-7722 OEMCO

| | |

WHEATON COLLEGE -- NORTON, MA 02766 WHEE DS211.P68 1990 v.2 a Beh Gulf in antiquity/

307 00234523

6 aa

ALSO PUBLISHED BY OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

A Constitutional History R.&. Allen The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church Second Edition Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone

The Cities of Seleukid Syria J. D. Grainger

The Limits of Empire The Roman Army in the East Benjamin Isaac The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian A. H. M. Jones paper covers

Islam from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople Volume I. Politics and War Volume II. Religion and Society Edited and translated by Bernard Lewis Hellenistic Religions An Introduction Luther H. Martin

paper covers The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (3 volumes) M. Rostovtzeff

Hellenistic Royal Portraits R. R. R. Smith Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology

Clarendon Press is the academic imprint of

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Aj

eae eo Ae oe ERS a aye

BerSaarAve ; OBE

be

I

“

A

OPIN PBI

PLD

Sn PING

So

srs! |

6d