Arab. arch. epig.

2007: 18: 824 (2007)

Printed in Singapore. All rights reserved

The Roman fine wares of ed-Dur (Umm

al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) and their distribution
in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean
Excavations and surveys at ed-Dur have produced a small amount of Roman Katrien Rutten
fine ware sherds of varied Mediterranean origin. This article aims to offer a Ghent University, Belgium
full description and analysis of this material and to assess the distribution of
these wares from their region of production to their final destination at
ed-Dur. These wares reveal a local Arabian exchange system of Mediterra-
nean goods and provide evidence for a link between the two major sea routes Correspondence: Katrien Rutten,
through the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Department of Near Eastern Art and
Archaeology, St. Pietersplein 6, B-
9000 Ghent, Belgium.
e-mail: katrienrutten@yahoo.com/
katrien.rutten@ugent.be

Introduction region of provenance. In particular, their rareness

A major feature of Roman ceramics is the very wide
distribution of relatively small amounts of fine
wares throughout the Mediterranean world. The
circulation of these wares was not restricted to the
Mediterranean markets, however, and small quan-
tities of fine wares are sometimes discovered in
regions beyond the southeastern border of the
Roman Empire. For these regions these objects offer
not only excellent indications for dating, separately
or in addition to the chronological clues coming
from the local material, but also evidence of mutual
contacts, elements in the reconstruction of the routes
and organisation of trade, and a means to measure
or explain the impact of imports on the communities
that received them.
A re-evaluation of written sources and older finds,
and most importantly, new data from recent exca-
vations on the Egyptian coast of the Red Sea, the
coast and hinterland of South Arabia, East Africa,
India, and the Persian Gulf, have thoroughly
changed our views on the distribution, role, and
importance of these Roman fine wares beyond their
and the way they are distributed in varying or
uniformly small quantities over several regions have
altered our interpretation of their presence. Never-
theless, these views still show discrepancies caused
by incomplete data, which will hopefully be
explained by new finds. This article will show that,
with a detailed study of a small amount of these fine
wares recovered from ed-Dur, we can generate new
insights, different to those resulting from the study
of other Roman goods such as glass and coins,
concerning the existence, organisation, and import-
ance of the trade routes along the southern coast of
the Arabian Peninsula, and the role of the South
Arabian ports as major redistribution centres of
Roman goods in the direction of ed-Dur and the
Persian Gulf.
As the number of examples of Roman fine wares
recovered in excavation or survey in the regions
around the Persian Gulf is very limited, and the few
references made to them are found exclusively in
relation to the finds from ed-Dur (1), this article aims
in the first place to offer a full presentation and

8

analysis of this material. This analysis comprises an
identification of the origins of the wares, their date,
and a comparative study with contemporary pottery
attested on sites to the southeast of the Roman
border, i.e. on the one hand Mesopotamia and the
Gulf region, and on the other the Egyptian, South
Arabian, East African, and Indian coasts. On the
basis of these results, we include an examination of
the distribution and the trade routes of these fine
wares and a consideration of the role these imports
might have played at ed-Dur.
The Roman fine wares of ed-Dur
The data for our discussion are mainly based on the
Roman fine ware fragments from the Belgian exca-
vations at ed-Dur. Added to these are several sherds
from the British and Danish excavations, and the
surveys of Salles and the European consortium,
prior to the excavations.
With the exception of one rim found in the filling
of a disturbed grave during the British excavations
in Area K, all of the Roman fine ware sherds came
from domestic deposits. Of a total of thirty-six
identifiable sherds, twenty-nine different vessels
could be recognised, twenty-seven of which are
illustrated here. A quantification of the pottery from
the Belgian excavations indicated that the Roman
fine wares represent only 0.21% of the complete
pottery assemblage (17 sherds out of a total of
8,685) and constitute but a fraction of the imports
that formed the bulk of the pottery excavated at
ed-Dur.
Based on their technological and physical charac-
teristics we were able to distinguish several wares. A
comparative study and identification of their prov-
enance revealed that these comprise Eastern Sigillata
A from Syria and the Levant, Eastern Sigillata B1
and Eastern Sigillata C from Asia Minor, Italian
Sigillata, Roman lamps from the Levant and Egypt,
and green lead-glazed ware from Asia Minor
(Table 1).
Eastern Sigillata A (ESA)
This red-gloss ware appears in the assemblage in
several shades of yellow, buff, and pale orange (2.5
Y 8/45 YR 6/6). None of the sherds contains visible
inclusions. The surface is covered with a fine, matte
to lustrous, but slightly flaky slip, which varies in
THE ROMAN FINE WARES OF ED-DUR
colour from light red to reddish brown (2.5 YR 4/4
4/8). The fragments originate from several types of
small and large open plates. Decoration in the shape
of a double concentric roulette impression can be
noted on the interior of a base fragment (Figs 1.6,
2.1).
Although the exact provenance of ESA remains
unknown, recent research suggests that it was
probably produced at several centres on the Syr-
ian-Lebanese coast or in the Syrian interior. It is
typified by its lustrous, ferriferous orange to reddish
brown slip on a hard, slightly granular yellow to
pale orange fabric. The shapes are characterised by
smooth surfaces and sharp angular profiles and
comprise mainly plates in which the influence of
metal ware can easily be recognised. It was formerly
known as Pergamene ware, Late Hellenistic Red,
and Hellenistic and Roman Pergamene Pottery (2).
ESA appeared on the oriental Hellenistic market
around the middle of the second century BC and
quickly dominated the production of fine, red-
slipped wares in the Levant until the end of its
manufacture around the middle of the second
century AD. ESA is found in large quantities
on sites in the eastern Mediterranean from the
first century BC to the beginning of the second
century AD and, as will be discussed below, enjoyed
wide distribution outside the Mediterranean world
(3).
Good parallels for the shapes from the Belgian
excavations in ed-Dur (Table 1, Fig. 1.1, 4, 68) can
be found in assemblages from several Levantine
sites such as Antiochia (4), Hama (5), Samaria/
Sebaste (6), and Tel Anafa (7). In Hayess recent
study of ESA, we can find similar shapes belonging
to his Late Hellenistic and Roman Imperial series,
especially Forma 7, 12, 20, 29, 34 and 53 (8). These
comparanda point to a date for the ESA fragments
from ed-Dur between 25 BC one vessel may be as
early as 40 BC to 60/70 AD.
In addition to the sherds in the Belgian assem-
blage, we were able to identify several fragments
coming from two surveys and the British excava-
tions at ed-Dur (Table 1, Fig. 1.23, 5). A rim sherd
of a plate with incurving rim (Fig. 1.2), recovered in
the fill of a disturbed grave by the British team,
clearly fits into the ESA repertory (9). Its shape can
be found amongst the late Hellenistic plates of
Antiochia (10) and Samaria/Sebaste (11) (Hayess
9
K. RUTTEN

Table 1. List of Roman fine ware sherds recovered at ed-Dur.

Category Field number Fragm. Origin Previously published Illustration
Eastern Sigillata A BQ 2008 Rim Belgian excavations / Fig. 1.1
K 0120 Rim British excavations Ward, 1990: Fig. 18 Fig. 1.2
ED.79.45 Rim Survey J.-F. Salles Salles, 1984: Fig. 16.196 Fig. 1.3
BS 3406 Rim Belgian excavations / Fig. 1.4
/ Rim Survey European Boucharlat et al., 1988: Fig. 4.8 Fig. 1.5
consortium
BR 0234 Base Belgian excavations / Fig. 1.6, 2.1
BS 4050 Base / Fig. 1.7
ED 0080 Base / Fig.1.8
BQ 1801 Body / /
AV 0151 Body / /
Eastern Sigillata B1 BQ 0435 Rim / Fig. 1.9
BO 0316 Rim Haerinck, 1994: Fig. 21; Fig. 1.10, 2.2
Haerinck, 2003: Fig. 9
BQ 1461 Rim Fig. 1.11,
BQ 1462 Base 2.34
BQ 1463 Body / /
BQ 1464 Body / /
BQ 0781 Body / /
BS 0453 Base / Fig. 1.12
BQ 1090 Body / /
Eastern Sigillata C ED 0081 Rim / Fig. 3.1
M 0105 Body / /
BR 0858 Body / /
Italian Sigillata Area C (unsp.) Base Danish excavations Potts, 1989: Fig. K Fig. 3.2
Italian, Pontic or Z 0529 Rim Potts, 1993: Fig. 16 Fig. 3.3
Indian imitation?
Unidentified Sigillata Several sherds Body Danish excavations Potts, 1989: 1820 /
Five sherds Body Survey J.-F. Salles Salles, 1984: 250 /
Two sherds Body Survey European Boucharlat et al., 1988: 6 /
consortium
Roman lamps ED 0082 Rim Belgian excavations / Fig. 3.4
BO 0317 Rim / Fig. 3.5
L 0258 Rim Haerinck & Stevens, 1989: Fig. AP.4 Fig. 3.6, 4.1
BS 1466 Rim / Fig. 3.7
BS 4366 Handle / Fig. 3.8, 4.2
BS 3277 Handle / Fig. 3.9, 4.3
Lead-glazed ware BQ 0039 Rim / Fig. 3.10, 4.4
BQ 0143 Rim / Fig. 3.11, 4.5
BS 2356 Rim / Fig. 3.12, 4.6
BR 0397 Rim / Fig. 3.13

Forma 4AB) dating from the end of the second
century to 10/20 BC, with the late variant B
produced during the reign of Augustus (12).
Within the material from his survey, Salles makes
reference to five body sherds, which he describes as
ESA and/or ESB, but further details about these
fragments are lacking, while one rim sherd (Fig. 1.3)
is compared by the author to shapes in Pergamene
ware from Tarsus and Samian A ware excavated at
the Athenian Agora (13). Nowadays, Pergamene
ware equals ESA from Syria and Palestine, while
Samian A can be classified as Eastern Sigillata B2
from the region of Tralles in Asia Minor. The shape
of the fragment can be found in both wares, but the
description of the fabric by Salles does not agree
with the texture of ESB2, while the smooth and
rather convex execution of the rim points without
doubt to ESA imitations of Italian Sigillata shapes.

10

1
6 7
9
10
Fig. 1.
Roman fine wares of ed-Dur. 18. ESA; 912. ESB1.
2 equally be dated from the Augustan period to 20/30
1 AD.
3 4
Fig. 2.
Decorated ESA (1) and ESB1 (24) fragments.
Good parallels can be found under Hayess ESA
Forma 47, datable to between 10 and 60/70 AD (14).
Two body sherds and one rim (Fig. 1.5) are
mentioned in the collection from the European
consortium survey (15). The rim is categorised
as Eastern Sigillata C from Pergamon, but the
composition and colouring of this sherd differ
THE ROMAN FINE WARES OF ED-DUR
3
12
0 5 10 cm
11
from the typical fabric of this ware. Moreover, the
shape represents a smaller variant of a plate from
the Belgian excavations (Fig. 1.4). In our opinion this
rim sherd should be assigned to ESA and can
Outside the Mediterranean region small quantities
of ESA can be noted on Mesopotamian sites such as
Dura Europos (16), Nineveh (17), Seleucia-on-the-
Tigris (18), Babylon (19), and Uruk/Warka (20).
Most of these fragments nevertheless belong to the
Hellenistic series of the second and first century BC,
with the exception of a small number of sherds from
Parthian Dura Europos and Levels IIII (second half
of the first century BCsecond century AD) at
Seleucia.
To date, not a single fragment of ESA has been
reported from sites in the regions around the Persian
Gulf, with the exception of the examples from
ed-Dur and one sherd from Mleiha in Sharjah. This
base fragment, which comes from a survey, was
identified as ESA or ESB by Mouton (21). The shape
11
K. RUTTEN

2
1

4 3

6 7 8 9

0 5 10 cm
10

12

11 13
Fig. 3.
Roman fine wares and lamps of ed-Dur. 1. ESC; 2. Italian sigillata; 3. Indian imitation (?); 47. Levantine lamps; 89. Egyptian lamps; 10
13. Lead-glazed ware from Asia Minor.

excavations at Sumhuram/Khor-Rori in Dhofar.

Although marked as ESA, the fabric description
and shapes support this identification in the case of
only two sherds (23).
Excavations in the Lower/Early Period levels at
the South Arabian Hadrami port of Qana/Bir Ali
2
3 yielded a considerable number of sherds of different
1
kinds of sigillata, including ESA. Although a quan-
tification of the Qana pottery is not available for the
moment, five fragments were classified as ESA in the
preliminary report on this material (24). Three are
rim sherds (cf. Hayess Forma 38/39, 46 and 49) of
4
5 the Early Roman series, datable to between 40 and
6
100 AD (25). The Roman pottery from Timna/Hajar
Kohlan in the kingdom of Qataban includes one
Fig. 4.
Decorated lamps (13) and lead-glazed ware (46).
Roman Pergamene or ESA fragment, dated on the
basis of the fabric to between 10 and 25 AD or later
(26).
resembles the base of a large ESA plate (Hayess Excavations in Salwayn and Heis on the East
Forma 2B3) of Hayess Early Hellenistic series African coast yielded a small number of Roman
(22). Thus, ed-Dur is the only site in the Gulf with wares, the composition and origin of which is
Roman ESA. unfortunately still unknown. Amongst the few
Outside the Gulf region we were able to identify published sherds of Eastern Sigillata from Heis, no
several ESA fragments from the surveys and ESA fragments were attested (27).

12

Fig. 5.
Sites mentioned in the text showing the distribution of the Roman fine wares from Italy to India.
Large amounts of ESA can be found in the ports on
the Egyptian coast of the Red Sea. The study of the
sigillata from the excavations at Myos Hormos/
Quseir al-Qadim showed that ESA represented about
two thirds of all the sigillata recovered there. This
varied assemblage is dated from the beginning of the
reign of Augustus to the end of the first century AD,
with most of the pieces dating to the first half of the
first century (28). Seven ESA fragments from
Berenike/Bernis have been published. These are
dated to between 15/20 and 60/70 AD. Although
the precise, quantified percentages of the different
wares in the Berenike assemblage are not yet
available, sigillata appears to be present in the same
diversity and ratio of Italian, ESA, and ESB1 as at
Myos Hormos, with the exception of an absence of
Cypriot sigillata. Considering Egypt as a whole, ESA
follows Italian Sigillata closely as the second largest
group of imported fine red-slipped ware (29).
On the Indian subcontinent we came across two
fragments of ESA from the recent excavations of
Arikamedu on the southeastern Coromandel Coast.
THE ROMAN FINE WARES OF ED-DUR
Both fragments can be dated to between the last
quarter of the first century BC and the first quarter of
the first century AD (30).
Eastern Sigillata B1 (ESB1)
The fabric of the fragments in this fine ware mainly
displays an orange to pale red colour (5 YR 6/62.5
YR 5/8), but several are reddish brown (10 YR 6/4)
and appear to be somewhat over-fired. The slightly
laminar clay matrix contains a fair amount of mica,
sometimes combined with a small amount of fine
white lime particles. The highly lustrous slip is red
to reddish brown (2.5 YR 4/65 YR 4/3) and has a
soapy feel to it, while one cup displays a double
dipping streak on the carinated shoulder. The
ed-Dur fragments all come from small cups or
bowls, sometimes decorated with several horizontal,
linear incisions or oblique and vertical roulette
impressions on the rim and shoulder (Figs 1.1011,
2.34).
Although archaeological confirmation is still lack-
ing for the precise identification of the origin of
13
K. RUTTEN
ESB1, current data point to the region of Tralles/
Caesarea in western Asia Minor. ESB appears in
earlier pottery studies under the name Samian, on
the assumption that it originated on the island of
Samos. Nowadays, ESB1 has replaced the term
Samian B, while the somewhat coarser and chro-
nologically younger ESB2 supersedes the term Sa-
mian A (31). Besides the typical colour and texture
of its fabric and slip, ESB1 was from the beginning of
its production greatly influenced in its quality,
shapes, and decoration by Italian Sigillata. This
influence can be seen clearly in the ed-Dur speci-
mens, all of which are imitations of Italian Sigillata
shapes. Examples of the more recent ESB2, which
made its debut around 70/75 AD, were not attested
at ed-Dur.
Notwithstanding its high quality, the distribution
of ESB1 is largely restricted to the Aegean region and
Egypt. In comparison with sites in Syria and the
Levant, relatively large amounts of this fine ware
were recovered in excavations at the Egyptian port of
Alexandria (32). Rarely attested in Italy and the
eastern Mediterranean region, according to Hayes
the few ESB1 fragments found in Ethiopia, Sudan,
and South Arabia may have reached their destina-
tions by way of shipping through Alexandria and the
Red Sea ports. Our analysis of recent finds beyond the
Red Sea and the Persian Gulf confirms this theory.
Good parallels for the shapes in the ed-Dur
assemblage (Table. 1, Fig. 1.912) can be found
amongst the ESB1 of Groups I and II (450 AD)
from the Roman basilica of Ephesos (33), in the early
Roman houses at Priene (34), and in recent excava-
tions on Miletos, where it is dated to between 25 and
75 AD (35). The ed-Dur vessels belong to Hayess
ESB1 Forma 22, 32, and 58/70, belonging to the early
series of this ware (36). The comparanda suggest a
date between 25 BC and 75 AD, the oldest being cup
BQ 0435 (Fig. 1.9) and the youngest BQ 1461 (Figs
1.11, 2.34).
The distribution of ESB1 beyond the eastern
Mediterranean into Parthian Mesopotamia was very
limited. Three fragments were identified amongst
the sigillata from Nineveh (37). Of these, two rims
can be compared to Hayess Forma 1 and 7 of his
early series dating to between the last quarter of the
first century BC and the second quarter of the first
century AD (38). No other examples have been
identified elsewhere in or around the Persian Gulf.
14
On the other hand, ESB1 is found regularly on
sites on the South Arabian and east African coasts.
One of the sigillata vessels from the excavations at
Sumhuram/Khor Rori labelled Samian B or ESB1
resembles Hayess Forma 7 and can be dated to
between 25 and 50 AD (39). Sigillata fragments from
the Lower/Early Period of Qana/Bir Ali include
one ESB1 rim sherd, most likely of Hayess Forma 8,
from the middle of the first century AD (40). Further
inland, excavations and surveys at sites like Shabwa
and Timna/Hajar Kohlan have yielded various
kinds of sigillata, most of which has been identified
as Western or Italian Sigillata. One rim sherd
without clearly cited parallels, and dated to the first
decades of the first century, finds no parallels in the
Italian repertoire, and belongs to Hayess Forma 68
in his early series of ESB1 (41). A definitive identi-
fication as ESB1 must, however, await confirmation
by fabric analysis. The Timna assemblage includes
one Samian base fragment, dated to the first half of
the first century AD (42).
Petrographic analysis of two sigillata rims from
Heis on the Somali coast have indicated an origin of
these vessels in Asia Minor or Cyprus, while their
shapes resemble Hayess ESB1 Forma 30 and 31,
dated to the first half of the first century AD (43).
Due to their direct link with Alexandria through
the Nile valley, the ports on the Egyptian coast of the
Red Sea contain relatively large amounts of ESB1. In
Myos Hormos ESB1 represents 10% of all sigillata
recovered in excavations. These fragments, which
are mainly dated from 25 to 50 AD, display a variety
of shapes and are sometimes provided with Greeks
stamps (44). Up until now, seven fragments of ESB1
have been published from the excavations at Bere-
nike. These have been dated to between 15/20 and
60/70 AD (45).
At Arikamedu in southeastern India, four ESB1
fragments have been noted along with Italian and
other sigillata. These include a rim and base,
probably from Hayess Forma 6/7, manufactured
between 25 and 50 AD; a base with an empty stamp
from the second quarter of the first century; and a
body sherd without indication of shape or dating
(46).
Eastern Sigillata C (ESC)
The few fragments that could be assigned to this
group are light red (2.5 YR 6/6) in colour. They

contain small amounts of fine mica and are coated
with a lustrous dark reddish brown slip (2.5 YR 4/
4). The only rim sherd recovered belongs to a plate
with angular profile (Table. 1, Fig. 3.1).
ESC originated in the region of Pergamon in Asia
Minor. Although Pliny mentioned Pergamon as a
centre for the manufacture of fine slipped ware in
his time (Nat. Hist. XXXV.12.46.160), actual kilns
have not yet been discovered. It is mainly the finds
from nearby sites like Pitane (modern C andarl),
which point in this direction. As its provenance is
basically known, ESC is also referred to as (Local)
Pergamene or C andarl sigillata. As in the case of
the ESB1, this sigillata tried to imitate Italian
products. This is not surprising given the fact that
some of the workshops in the region were owned by
Italians. The typical composition and colour of the
fabric and slip dates mainly from the last third of the
first century BC onwards, and is characteristic of
the Augustan series, produced up to the second
century AD. Our rim probably belongs to a plate
with incurving rim (Hayess ESC Forma L 6),
imitating Italian shapes and dating from the middle
to the end of the first century AD (47).
The geographical distribution of ESC is restricted
to the Aegean region and Asia Minor, with occa-
sional finds in Italy, Cyprus, and southern Russia.
ESC production and distribution both flourished in
the second half of the second century AD with the
late series of Late Roman C or Classical C andarl,
no examples of which were found in ed-Dur (48).
Examples of ESC outside the Mediterranean
world are extremely rare. On the basis of its shape,
one rim from the survey of Sumhuram by Weisger-
ber and al-Shanfari has been compared to ESC
vessels from Pergamon (49). This shape, however, is
very common within the sigillata so that comparan-
da with vessels in Italian Sigillata, ESA, and ESB1
are equally valid. Finally, a rim from the excavations
of J.-M. Casal at Arikamedu, recently classified by
Comfort as ESC, can be compared to Hayess Forma
A7 of Augustan date from Pergamon (50).
Italian and other sigillata
Two sigillata fragments (Table 1, Fig. 3.23) from the
Danish excavations in Areas C and Z at ed-Dur
belong under this heading. Detailed data on the
colour and composition of their fabric is lacking, but
the shapes and decoration permit an identification
THE ROMAN FINE WARES OF ED-DUR
and comparison with vessels in their region of
origin.
The first fragment can be described as the
flattened base of a deep, finely decorated, mould-
made beaker (51). The shape and the decoration can
be compared to the north Italian Sigillata beakers
with Kommaregen decoration, which are also
known as Forma ID-Tipo B-Magdalensberg I in a
recent overview of this ware by Mazzeo Saracino
(52). The closest parallel in her presentation to the
ed-Dur fragment is signed with the name of the
manufacturer (NORB)ANI and belongs to the beak-
ers of the tipo ACO, which were manufactured
from the late Republican period to the end of the
reign of Augustus. Nevertheless, imitations of these
Italian beakers with a similar Kommaregen decor-
ation can also be found in ESC during the first half of
the first century AD (53). The possibility that the
ed-Dur fragment could be assigned to this eastern
production area is, however, very unlikely as the
typical finish with a vegetal motif both above and
below the central, drop-like decoration, as found on
the ed-Dur base, is not attested on the ESC imita-
tions and appears to be restricted to the genuine
Italian vessels. The ed-Dur fragment is therefore
most likely of north Italian origin.
The second fragment belongs to a small cup with
carinated rim, the general shape and simple style of
which give the impression of an eastern copy of an
Italian original (54). Convincing parallels are lacking
in the ESA and ESB repertoires and the closest
comparanda can be found amongst Pontic sigillata,
such as Hayess Pontic Forma V of the second half of
the first century AD, where this shape, like neigh-
bouring ESC shapes, imitates Italian originals (55).
However, although this particular cup type is very
common in Pontic sigillata, its distribution is restric-
ted to the region around the Black Sea. A few
exceptional fragments of this ware, recovered in
Athens, Corinth, Bengazi, and Ostia show us that the
presence of an example of this ware at ed-Dur is
nevertheless not impossible. Another possible east-
ern identification for this vessel is ESC, where a
similar cup, but with a more heavily pronounced
shoulder, can be noted in Group 3 at Pergamon,
dated to between 50 and 75 AD (56). The most
similar Italian vessels are north Italian, where the
shape is dated to between 10 and 54 AD (57), but
although the rim of this cup also inclines towards
15
K. RUTTEN
the interior, the finish of the lip and shoulder is
nonetheless heavier and firmly defined with hori-
zontal linear incisions. We find it therefore prefer-
able to consider the ed-Dur vessel an imitation
rather than an original Italian import.
Finally we must mention the possibility that this
piece might be an Indian copy of an Italian
Sigillata cup. Several copies of different sigillata
shapes are known from Arikamedu, Sumhuram,
and ed-Dur (58). The shape of the ed-Dur cup
points, without doubt, to a sigillata vessel, but its
softer, linear style is very characteristic of the south
Indian imitations of Roman Mediterranean shapes.
In our opinion, the origin of this vessel lies in these
southern production centres, but without a detailed
analysis of the fabric and slip of this fragment, its
exact provenance remains impossible to determine
(59).
Although very common throughout the whole of
the Mediterranean region, Italian Sigillata of the late
first century BC and first century AD is completely
absent at sites in Mesopotamia and the Gulf with the
exception of ed-Dur. Sigillata from various regions
in Italy are, however, present in small quantities in
South Arabia at Sumhuram, Qana, Shabwa, and
Timna, where the examples have been given a
general date of between 15 BC and 50 AD. Of the
sigillata sherds from Timna, one particularly nota-
ble piece is a beaker in ACO-ware, also linked in
shape and decoration to the north Italian manufac-
turer Norbani (60). The pottery from Salwayn and
Heis on the east African coast also includes several
fragments of Italian Sigillata, dated to between the
beginning of the first century and 35 AD (61). Italian
Sigillata is very common at Myos Hormos and
Berenike on the Red Sea coast, where this ware
represent the second largest group (30%) within the
sigillata corpus. These vessels are dated to between
the beginning of the century and 60/70 AD and are,
both in composition and origin, clearly linked to the
Italian Sigillata recovered in Alexandria (62). Both
the older and recent excavations at Arikamedu
yielded a small amount of Italian Sigillata of varied
provenance, dated to between 10 BC and 25/30 AD
(63). Although regularly claimed to form part of
pottery collections at other south Indian sites besides
Arikamedu, recent studies have shown that, with
the exception of a few fragments from the Early
Roman Imperial period in Mantai on Sri Lanka (64),
16
none of the other alleged Italian Sigillata in south
India is genuine.
Roman lamps
The colour of the fabric of these lamps is buff to pale
orange (10 YR 7/37/4, 5 YR 7/6). In general it
contains small amounts of black, grey and red sand,
some white lime particles, and fine mica. Two
fragments are distinguished by a slightly coarser
texture than the rest. The surface is covered with a
thin pale red or black slip (5 YR 5/6, 2.5 YR 5/6, 10
YR 3/1) and varies from well-preserved matte to
lustrous, with only flaky remains for the two coarser
fragments.
On the basis of their fabric, four fragments of
mould-made lamps may be assigned to production
centres in the Levant (Table 1, Figs 3.47, 4.1). The
shape of the shoulder and the style of the remains of
a volute on the side of the nozzle of one of the
fragments points to Broneer Type XXII (Loeschcke
Type I). We can compare the shoulder profiles of the
ed-Dur examples with Broneers profiles 1 and 3,
which are typical for the early lamps of the Augu-
stan period and the first half of the first century AD
(65). The only remains of decoration on the discus
probably represented a rosette or shell motif (Figs
3.6, 4.1). Both motifs were very common and
widespread (66).
The two remaining handles (Figs 3.89, 4.23) also
belong to Broneer Type XXII, but the composition of
the paste suggests that these lamps came either from
the Levant or Egypt, the latter region being more
likely (67). The profile of the first example closely
resembles Broneers profile 1, while the shoulder of
the second lamp is related to profiles 5 and 6. Both
represent a later evolution within Type XXII dating
to the second half of the first century AD. These
profiles resemble Loeschckes shoulders IIaIIb
which, according to Bailey, still date to the first half
of the first century AD (68).
Lead-glazed ware
This ware is represented at ed-Dur by a small
number of buff to pale pink sherds (10 YR 7/48/4,
5 YR 8/4) covered with a thin, highly lustrous and
well-preserved lead-glaze (Table. 1, Figs 3.1013,
4.46). The fabric contains no visible inclusions,
while the glaze varies in colour from light olive
green to yellowish brown on the interior (5 Y 6/4, 10

YR 6/6) and a dark yellowish green on the exterior
surface (5 G 3/2, 10 GY 3/2, 4/4). The vessels are
partly mould-made with elements such as rims,
handles, and bases formed separately and added
after initial forming. Relief decoration is either
mould-made or applied by way of a barbotine just
before glazing.
The ed-Dur sherds are examples of so-called
Roman lead-glazed ware, which was produced in
small quantities from the late first century BC
onwards at different centres in Asia Minor, such as
Mytilene in the northwest, Perge and Tarsus in the
southeast, and Smyrna and several other workshops
in the southwest. Imitations of this ware were
manufactured at several centres in Italy and possibly
southern Gaul, the precise locations of which are still
undetermined. The composition of the fabric, the
characteristics of the glaze, the shapes, and the
decoration of the ed-Dur fragments all point to a
southeastern Asia Minor provenance, perhaps at
Tarsus and/or Perge (69). Three of the fragments
belong to small skyphoi or drinking vessels (Fig. 3.10
13), a very common shape in Roman lead-glaze
ware, which imitate Hellenistic metal cups. These
can be compared with the Ringhenkelskyphos type
1a (Forms 12) and the Ringhenkelkantharos seleucid times ESA was distributed to the southeast
(Form 3) from Tarsus and Perge in Hochuli-Gysels
extensive study of this ware. A fourth rim (Fig. 3.13)
could possibly be a fragment of Hochuli-Gysels
Kelche type 1 (Form 6). These types can be found
at Tarsus and Perge from the last quarter of the first
century BC to the middle of the first century AD,
with diminished production continuing into the
second half of the first century (70). Parallels for
the moulded decoration motifs include Hochuli-
Gysels circular filling ornaments types S.82 47 and
ribbon type S.96 11, applied above the figurative or
floral decoration on the body of the skyphoi. Both
forms of decoration are typical of the workshops in
Asia Minor and are very common on vessels from
Tarsus and Perge. Dotted barbotine decoration
appears occasionally on their vessels and is attested
throughout the whole period of lead-glaze produc-
tion at both sites (71).
Of all the workshops in Asia Minor, those at
Tarsus and Perge enjoyed the largest and most
widespread distribution of their products through-
out the Roman Empire during the first century AD
(72). Two fragments from Asia Minor even reached
THE ROMAN FINE WARES OF ED-DUR
Timna in South Arabia, where they are dated by
Comfort between the late first century BC and 10 AD
(73). Several brown-glazed sherds were mentioned
in the study of the pottery from the stratigraphic
sounding at Shabwa and compared with lead-glazed
vessels from Tarsus (74). This identification is,
however, incorrect. The Shabwa shapes unquestion-
ably resemble southern Mesopotamian wares, while
the brownish colour of the glaze is probably due to
the corrosion of their green alkali-glaze. The finds at
Timna can perhaps be related to the presence of
lead-glazed wares at Myos Hormos on the Egyptian
coast of the Red Sea, where three fragments were
recovered in first century contexts (75). Based on the
currently available data, however, it is unclear
whether these vessels were imported from Italy or
from Asia Minor.
Distribution and trade
We can distinguish two main groups of Roman fine
wares at ed-Dur (Fig. 5). The first comprises the ESA
vessels from Syria and Palestine. ESA was the
predominant fine ware in this region during the
Seleucid and Early Roman imperial periods. During
and is the only sigillata unequivocally present on
Mesopotamian sites as far south as Uruk/Warka.
Early Roman ESA vessels have been found only at
Parthian Dura Europos and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris,
which suggests a movement of this pottery from its
region of production along routes through Zeugma
or Palmyra in the direction of southern Mesopota-
mia. The distribution of this ware within the Persian
Gulf is unclear as we are on the one hand confronted
with an archaeological vacuum in the southernmost
region of Mesopotamia (Mesene/Characene), where
sites critical to our understanding of the further
shipment of ESA, such as Charax Spasinou and
Apologos, are yet to be excarated. On the other
hand, with the exception of Mleiha and ed-Dur, ESA
is absent in the rest of the Gulf region. The
connection between Characene and southeastern
Arabia is, nevertheless, well attested and we may
hypothesise that the Roman ESA examples from
ed-Dur, or at least some of them, could have been
shipped via southern Mesopotamia.
ESA, however, also enjoyed wide distribution and
circulation in the eastern Mediterranean. During the
17
K. RUTTEN
Seleucid and Early Roman period large quantities of
ESA were shipped to Alexandria, where Early
Imperial ESA represents the second most common
kind of sigillata attested. This is also true at the Red
Sea ports of Berenike and Myos Hormos, which had
close contact with Alexandria and facilitated the
trade of goods between the Mediterranean world,
South Arabia, and the Indian subcontinent from the
reign of Augustus onward. Consequently, ESA
vessels are regularly discovered in the assemblages
of sites like Sumhuram and Qana. It is very possible
that ESA was also distributed via this western sea
route to ed-Dur. For this first group of Roman fine
wares, therefore, we can reconstruct two trajectories
leading to ed-Dur: one by land and river through
Parthian Mesopotamia and Characene, thence by
ship down the Gulf, and another by sea to Alexan-
dria, via Koptos to the ports on the Egyptian coast,
through the Red Sea to the South Arabian ports,
and most likely along the South Arabian coast to
ed-Dur.
The second group of fine wares, which includes
ESB1, ESC, Italian Sigillata, and lead-glazed ware,
displays a different and more specific pattern of
circulation, beginning in the reign of Augustus and
reaching its greatest extent during the first century
AD. With the exception of a few ESB1 fragments at
Nineveh, none of these fine wares has been found at
sites in Parthian Mesopotamian or in the Persian
Gulf. Large amounts of this pottery are, however,
present in Alexandria and the Red Sea ports. Given
the fact that ESB1 is only ever present in very small
amounts, if at all, in Syria and the Levant, the direct
shipment of ESB1 to Alexandria (where it was the
third most common sigillata found) bypassing any
middlemen, is most likely. Just as one believes that
large quantities of Cypriot sigillata were exported
together with ESA to Egypt, we can also suggest that
small numbers of ESC and lead-glazed ware vessels
found their way together with ESB1 to Alexandria.
The great quantities of Italian Sigillata found
together with large numbers of Italian amphorae
bespeak close ties between Ostia and Puteoli in Italy,
and Alexandria, whether these goods were intended
for local, Egyptian use or destined for onward
shipment through the Red Sea ports. A mix of
different provenances and frequencies of Mediterra-
nean pottery (mainly amphorae, but also fine wares
such as ESA, ESB1, ESC, Italian Sigillata, Levantine
18
and Egyptian Roman lamps, and lead-glazed ves-
sels) can consequently be seen at sites on the coasts
of South Arabia, east Africa, and southeast India.
The examples from ed-Dur probably arrived by way
of a subsidiary link with the AlexandriaIndia route.
The study of the Roman glass from ed-Dur also
highlighted the same two routes for the distribution
and exchange of this commodity (76). However, this
material did not lend itself to determining whether
both routes were used or whether one was preferred
for the import of glass. On the basis of the large
amounts of pottery and other artefacts from south-
ern Mesopotamia at ed-Dur, E. Haerinck favoured
the CharaxIndia sea route through the Persian Gulf
as the major supply route for the Roman glass at
ed-Dur, rather than the RomeIndia sea route and a
possible redistribution of glass vessels via the
northwest Indian ports of Barbarikon and Barygaza,
as suggested by J.-F. Salles (77). The distinctive
provenance and geographical distribution of the
Roman fine wares of ed-Dur, on the other hand,
clearly indicate that the largest part of this material
probably arrived via the Indian Ocean, but the
available archaeological evidence points not to the
northwest Indian but to the South Arabian ports as
the main purveyors of this kind of Roman pottery to
ed-Dur.
On the basis of the data contained in the most
important historical source concerning trade
between the West and India during the first century
AD the Periplus Maris Erythraei (PME) it is
generally agreed that the Roman-Egyptian ships
carrying goods to South Arabia and India did not
enter the Persian Gulf (78). The archaeological finds
in the regions around the Gulf confirm this. The
composition of the imported pottery corpus at
ed-Dur therefore differs from e.g. the first century
pottery assemblages of Qana or Sumhuram, both of
which were directly connected to the RomeIndia
route (79). Their assemblages are typified by large
amounts of Mediterranean pottery, the bulk of
which constitute amphorae, and display a similar
ratio between amphorae and fine wares as the ports
on the Egyptian coast of the Red Sea do. These
differences clearly suggest the indirect exchange of
small numbers of amphorae and fine ware vessels
between these ports and ed-Dur, along local sea
routes following the southern coast of South Arabia
in the direction of the Persian Gulf. The indirect

import of Roman fine wares from sites in northwest
India cannot be absolutely excluded but is less
likely, especially in the case of the fine wares, which
are as our discussion showed are, with the exception
of small amounts in Arikamedu and Mantai on Sri
Lanka, generally absent in India.
The number of Roman fine ware vessels is low at
ed-Dur, but varied in provenance and date, sug-
gesting perhaps the arrival of multiple, most likely
very small, shipments. Such a pattern of supply is
typically the result of so-called piggy-back or
parasitical trade, in which small amounts of pottery
vessels are transported along with other, more bulky
goods. It is most likely that the Roman fine wares
that reached ed-Dur can be explained in this man-
ner.
Although the South Arabian ports of Qana and
Sumhuram appear to have played an essential
role in the spread of Roman fine wares towards
ed-Dur and the Persian Gulf, we find no refer-
ences to the exchange of this pottery in the list of
goods traded by the local Arabian and Indian
seamen through these ports in the Periplus (80).
The author nevertheless describes the close con-
tact of these sites with Omana and Apologos in
the Persian Gulf (PME 27: 9.412, 28: 9.1819, 32:
10.3011.17, 36: 12.310) in connection with the
trade of South Arabian frankincense and other
Mesopotamian, Roman, and southeast Arabian
commodities (81). Most of these products are,
however, unlikely to have left traces in the
archaeological record and the evidence of this
local exchange system is rather slim. Besides
several stone vessels, a few pellets of myrrh or
frankincense, a number of coins minted in Qana
and/or Shabwa, we can now add a few Hadrami
pottery recipients to the list of South Arabian
objects recovered at ed-Dur (82). The excavations
of the South Arabian ports, on the other hand,
have yielded vessels of southern Mesopotamian
glazed ware and southeast Arabian black ware,
most probably imported from ed-Dur. These
wares and other southern Mesopotamian and
Iranian Early Namord ware have also been found
at the Hadrami capital of Shabwa, several east
African coastal sites, and the Roman-Egyptian
ports on the Red Sea. The wider diffusion of this
Gulf material very probably occurred indirectly,
via Qana and Sumhuram (83).
THE ROMAN FINE WARES OF ED-DUR
The dating of the fine wares
On the basis of the parallels in their region of
production, the Roman fine wares from ed-Dur
reflect a broad date from the Augustan period to the
end of the first century AD. The vessels in ESA from
Syria and the Levant situate themselves mainly
between 25 BC with one recipient possibly
produced as early as 40 BC and 60/70 AD. The
ESB1 fragments from the region of Tralles in Asia
Minor are to be dated between 25 BC and 75 AD,
while the ESC recipients from Pergamon were
manufactured somewhat later, between 50 and 100
AD. The small fragment of North Italian Sigillata is
to be dated between 25 BC and 14 AD. The four
vessels in lead-glazed ware from Asia Minor prob-
ably all belong to the period between 25 BC and the
middle of the first century AD. A similar date can be
suggested for five of the six lamps, while one is most
probably somewhat later.
The dating of the ed-Dur recipients largely agrees
with the dating of finds outside the Roman Empire.
Vessels in ESA are generally dated from the reign of
Augustus to the end of the first century AD (84).
Fragments of ESB1 equally belong to shapes that
were produced from 25 BC to 75 AD, with the
majority situated between 25 and 60 AD. The few
identified ESC examples show a broader dating
range extending throughout the entire first century,
but at ed-Dur we can only rely on one identifiable
shape for our dating. The Italian Sigillata vessels are
mainly situated between 15 BC and 25 AD, taking
into account the presence of several later vessels
from the middle of the first century. The ed-Dur
fragment from the Danish excavations can be fitted
without any problem in this early phase of distri-
bution. The dating of the lead-glazed ware from sites
along the Red Sea and Indian Ocean is also very
similar to the dating of ed-Dur finds.
Based on the currently available archaeological
evidence therefore, the exchange of Roman fine
wares in the regions along the RomeIndia sea route
occurred between the last quarter of the first century
BC to the end of the first century AD. During this
period an extended but regular contact with sites in
these regions through local traders and seamen
resulted in the arrival of small amounts of these
products at ed-Dur. Between the last quarter and the
end of the first century AD, however, the Roman
fine wares and possibly also the amphorae stopped
19
K. RUTTEN
reaching ed-Dur. The same chronological assess-
ment applies to the imported Roman glass and
coins, which cease between 75 AD and the end of the
first century (85). As has been mentioned in the
discussion of the dating of the parallels, the Roman
fine wares recovered in regions around the Indian
Ocean also disappeared completely or were greatly
reduced in quantity around this same time at sites
where they were originally attested on a more
regular basis. Apart from the fact that these very
rare wares are likely not to be represented in the
much-reduced pottery collection of ed-Dur dated to
the early second century AD, their absence on the
site after the first century is without a doubt related
to the broader phenomenon of the general disap-
pearance of Roman pottery in the circulation of
goods between the Mediterranean and the Indian
Ocean.
Interpretation of the Roman fine wares
The Roman pottery recovered at sites beyond the
Roman Empire has been interpreted in different
ways in different regions. With respect to the
amphorae, most scholars agree that these contain-
ers were exchanged for their contents, but the fine
wares have been interpreted in various ways. For
example, the Mediterranean ware at Arikamedu
was originally thought to have been imported for
locally resident Roman traders and their families
(86). Recent excavations and study of this material,
however, has led to the conviction that the impor-
ted sigillata only represents a small and isolated
amount of goods, consisting of mainly similar
shapes from different workshops, and appears to
have been brought in over a very short period of
time. It is consequently believed now that these
vessels were selected in Alexandria and most
probably formed part of one specific shipload. For
this reason, it has been suggested that these vessels
should most likely be understood as the personal
property, souvenirs, or gifts of a Roman trader or
as a singular trade experiment in southeastern
India (87).
The fine wares on east African and South Arabian
sites, on the other hand, are simply seen as part of
the active exchange of local goods for Mediterranean
products that were meant for local use and/or
further trade (88). Indications that these vessels were
20
intended for Western (e.g. Roman) citizens who had
settled on the Arabian coast are completely lacking
in both ancient texts and the archaeological record
(89).
The same can be said of the Roman vessels
recovered at ed-Dur. As mentioned above, all of
the Roman sherds from the Belgian excavations
came from domestic contexts and could have been
simply for daily use. One fragment from the British
excavations apparently originated in the fill of a
disturbed grave, but there is no certainty that Roman
pottery was otherwise chosen for inclusion as a
burial gift. Unlike glass vessels, which were regu-
larly included amongst the funeral goods (90) at ed-
Dur, pottery was rarely attested in the graves. The
scarcity of Roman fine wares on the site nevertheless
tell us that they were not specifically sought after, as
was the case with Roman glass vessels. Rather, the
Roman ceramic fine wares are more likely to be
interpreted as residual objects, accompanying other,
more important goods obtained from the South
Arabian ports, that were then incorporated into the
local household pottery repertoire at ed-Dur.
Conclusions
Although rare at ed-Dur, the Roman fine wares have
provided us with detailed and precise data about
two major trade routes at the time of the occupation
of the site. A small number of vessels were most
probably transported by ship from southern Meso-
potamia by Characenian tradesmen through the
Persian Gulf, while the remainder reached ed-Dur
through contact with Arabian and Indian seamen
trading with the South Arabian ports of Qana and
Sumhuram, which were connected to the Rome
India sea route through the Indian Ocean. Sailing
along the southern coast of the Arabian Peninsula
and as a result connecting both major routes, these
local traders were responsible for the distribution of
South Arabian goods and Mediterranean imports to
the Gulf, as well as the diffusion of Mesopotamian,
southeast Arabian, and other Gulf commodities to
sites around the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. The
Roman fine wares highlight the important role of
these South Arabian ports as places of exchange and
redistribution of imported merchandise alongside
local Hadrami goods, and underscore the crucial
geographical position of ed-Dur near the southern

entrance to the Persian Gulf. This location allowed
ed-Durs inhabitants to benefit from both major sea
routes and to supply themselves with products from
References
1. Salles J-F. Ceramiques de surface a`
ed-Dour, Emirats Arabes Unis. AO-
MIM: 250, Fig. 16.196; Boucharlat R,
Haerinck E, Phillips CS & Potts DT.
Archaeological Reconnaissance at
Ed-Dur, Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.
Akkadica 58: 1988: 126; Potts DT. The
Danish Excavations. In: Boucharlat R,
Haerinck E, Lecomte O, Potts DT &
Stevens KG. The European Archaeo-
logical Expedition to ed-Dur, Umm
al-Qaiwayn (U.A.E.). An Interim
Report on the 1987 and 1988 Seasons.
Mesopotamia 24: 1989: 18, 20, Fig. K;
Haerinck E & Stevens KG. The Belgian
Excavations in 1987. In: Boucharlat et
al., The European Archaeological
Expedition to ed-Dur: 60, Fig. AP.5;
Potts DT. The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity
II. From Alexander the Great to the
Coming of Islam. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1990: 277; Potts DT. The
Sequence and Chronology of Thaj. In:
Finkbeiner U, ed. Materialien zur
Archaologie der Seleukiden- und Parther-
zeit im sudlichen Babylonien und im
Golfgebiet. Tubingen: Wasmuth, 1993:
9293, Fig. 16; Potts DT. The Roman
Relationship with the Persicus sinus
from the Rise of Spasinou Charax (127
BC) to the Reign of Shapur II (AD 309
379). In: Alcock SE, ed. The Early Roman
Empire in the East. Oxford: Oxbow
Monographs, 95: 1997: 98; Haerinck E.
Excavations at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qai-
wain, U.A.E.) Preliminary Report on
the Sixth Belgian Season (1992). AAE 4:
1994: 193, Fig. 21; Salles J-F. The Peri-
plus of the Erythraean Sea and the
Arab-Persian Gulf. In: Boussac M-F &
Salles J-F, eds. Athens, Aden, Arikamedu.
Essays on the interrelations between India,
Arabia and the Eastern Mediterranean.
New Delhi: Manohar, 1995: 124; Salles
J-F. Adaptation culturelle des cerami-
ques hellenistiques? Importations et
imitations de produits occidentaux en
Inde. In: Blonde F, Ballet P & Salles J-F,
eds. Ceramiques hellenistiques et ro-
maines. Productions et diffusion en Med-
iterranee orientale (Chypre, Egypte et cote
Syro-Palestinienne). Lyon: TMO, 35:
THE ROMAN FINE WARES OF ED-DUR
both trade systems, even though direct contact with
the manufacturers of most of those objects probably
never took place.
2002: 195; Haerinck E. Internationali-
sation and Business in Southeast Ara-
bia during the Late 1st Century B.C./
1st Century A.D.: Archaeological Evi-
dence from Ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain,
U.A.E.). In: Potts DT, Al-Naboodah H
& Hellyer P, eds. Archaeology of the
United Arab Emirates. London: Trident
Press, 2003: 202203, Fig. 9.
I would like to thank Paul Roberts and
Don Bailey of the Department of Greek
and Roman Antiquities, British Mu-
seum, London, and Hugo Thoen of the
Department of Archaeology, Ghent
University, for their assistance and
kind advice in the identification of the
wares; Ernie Haerinck for his invita-
tion to study and publish this material;
and Erik Smekens for his assistance
and everlasting optimism in the
organisation of the illustrations.
Falles J.F. Ceramiques de surface a`
ed-Dare, Emirer Qrabes Umis. In:
Bauchailat R & Fallos J-F. eds. AOMM.
Paris: 1984: 250, Fig. 16.196.
2. Hayes JW. Sigillata Orientali. In: Ban-
dinelli RB, ed. Atlante delle forme cera-
michi II. Ceramica fine Romana nel Bacino
Mediterraneo. Roma: Enciclopedia dell
Arte Antica Classica e Orientale, Insti-
tuto delle Enciclopedia Italiana, 1985:
9; Hayes JW. Les sigillees orientales. In:
Leveque P, Morel J-P & Geny E, eds.
Ceramiques hellenistiques et romaines III.
Paris: Publications du Centre Camille
Jullian, 28: 2001: 145.
3. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 1013;
Hayes, Les sigillees orientales: 145151;
Malfitana D. Eastern Terra Sigillata
Wares in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Notes on an initial quantification ana-
lysis. In: Blonde F, Ballet P & Salles J-F,
eds. Ceramiques hellenistiques et ro-
maines: 147149.
4. Waage FO. Antioch on the Orontes
IV.i. Ceramic and Islamic Coins.
Princeton: Publications of the Com-
mittee for the excavations of Antioch
and its vicinity, Princeton University
Press, 1948: 1341, Pl. IIIII.76a79a/
157, III.105, 115116, IV.143, V.415, 417,
VI.620.
5. Christensen AP & Johansen CF. Hama
3/2. Les poteries hellenistiques et les terres
sigillees orientales. Fouilles et Recherches
de la Fondation Carlsberg 19311938.
Copenhagen: National Museets Skrif-
ter, Storre Beretninger, 8: 1972: 88113,
Figs 36.10.14b, d, 45.16.1.
6. Kenyon KM. Roman and Later Wares,
I. Terra Sigillata, II. Stratified Groups.
In: Crowfoot JW, Crowfoot GW &
Kenyon KM, eds. The Objects from
Samaria-Sebaste. London: Palestine Ex-
ploration Fund 19381957, Reports on
the Work of the Joint Expedition in
193133 and of the British Expedition
in 1935, 3: 1957: 289297, Figs 65.1,
67.10, 68.3, 9; Crowfoot GM. Terra
Sigillata General List. In: Crowfoot,
Crowfoot & Kenyon, The Objects from
Samaria-Sebaste: 306334, Figs 77.4,
79.24, 89, 80.18.
7. Warner Slane K. The Fine Wares. In:
Herbert SC, ed. Tel Anafa II, i. The
Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Ann
Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology,
Suppl. Series, 10/II/i: 1997: 261262,
301302, Pl. 15.FW 149/TA Type 18,
154157/TA Type 19.
8. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 1842, Pls
II.5, 10, III.8, IV.13, V.67, VI.20, VII.2,
VIII.3; Hayes, Les sigillees orientales:
147, Fig. 2.1, 7.
9. Ward F. The First-Second Century AD
Graves at ed-Dur U.A.E. Unpublished
MA dissertation submitted to the Uni-
versity of Edinburgh, 1990: 50, Table
4b, Fig. 18.K 120.
10. Waage, Antioch: 23, 27, Pls III.125f,
IV.126g, k.
11. Crowfoot, Terra Sigillata General List:
315, Fig. 73.12.
12. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 1516, Pl.
I.1012.
13. Salles, Ceramiques de surface: 250, Fig.
16.196.
14. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 35, Pl. VI.15;
Hayes JW. Handbook of Mediterra-
nean Roman Pottery. London: British
Museum Press, 1997: 5259, Fig. 20.6;
Hayes, Les sigillees orientales: 147, Fig.
2.4.
21
K. RUTTEN
15. Boucharlat et al., Archaeological
Reconnaissance at Ed-Dur: 6, 11, Fig.
4.8.
16. Cox DH. The Greek and Roman Pottery.
New Haven: Excavations at Dura Euro-
pos, Final Report, 4/1: 1949: 67, 25, no.
39.
17. British Museum London, Department
of the Ancient Near East, BM N.
1792AB; Bu 1889426, 182; 193212
12, 30.BI, 19321212, 1368 139770.O.
18. Debevoise NC. Parthian Pottery from
Seleucia on the Tigris. Ann Arbor: Uni-
versity of Michigan Studies, Human-
istic Series, 32: 1934: 22, Fig. 349; Valtz
E. New Observations on the Hellenistic
Pottery from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. In:
Schippmann K, Herling A & Salles J-F,
eds. Golf-Archaologie. Buch am Erlbach:
Internationale Archaologie, 6: 1991:
174176, Fig. 4.1626.
19. Deubner O. Die Griechischen Scherben
von Babylon. In: Wetzel F, Schmidt E &
Mallwitz A, eds. Das Babylon der
Spatzeit. Leipzig: WVDOG, 62: 1957: 57,
nos 8285.
20. Strommenger E. Gefasse aus Uruk von
der Neubabylonischen Zeit bis zu den
Sasaniden. Berlin: Ausgrabungen der
Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in
Uruk-Warka, 7: 1967: 16, Pl. 10:13;
Finkbeiner U. Keramik der seleukidis-
chen und parthischen Zeit aus den
Grabungen in Uruk-Warka. I. Teil.
BaM 22: 1991: 545, no. 193.
21. Mouton M. La Peninsule dOman de la
fin de lAge du Fer au debut de la periode
sassanide (250 av.350 ap. J.C.). Unpub-
lished PhD dissertation submitted to
the University of Paris I (Pantheon-
Sorbonne), 1992: 106, Fig. 86.5.
22. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 1415, Pl.
I.68; Hayes, Les sigillees orientales:
147, Fig. 1.23.
23. Sedov AV & Benvenutti C. The Pottery
of Sumhuram: General typology. In:
Avanzini A, ed. Khor Rori Report, I.
Universita` di Pisa: Arabia Antica, 2002:
185, Pl. 25.6; Comfort H. Some Impor-
ted Pottery at Khor Rori (Dhofar).
BASOR 160: 1960: 19, Fig. 1.2, 5; Yule P
& Kazenwadel B. Toward a Chronol-
ogy of the Late Iron Age in the
Sultanate of Oman. In: Finkbeiner,
Materialien zur Archaologie: 258, Fig.
6.13.
24. Sedov AV. New Archaeological and
Epigraphical Material from Qana
22
(South Arabia). AAE 3: 1992: 120, Fig.
3.8; Qana (Yemen) and the Indian
Ocean. The Archaeological Evidence.
In: Ray HP & Salles J-F, eds. Tradition
and Archaeology, Early Maritime Con-
tacts in the Indian Ocean. Lyon/New
Delhi: Manohar, 1996: 16, Fig. 4.5, 12,
1517; Sea-Trade of the Hadramawt
Kingdom from the 1st to the 6th
centuries A.D. In: Avanzini A, ed.
Profumi dArabia. Roma: Saggi di Storia
Antica, 11: 1997: 371.
25. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 312, 34, 36,
Pls V.1516, VI.14, 17.
26. Comfort H. Imported pottery and glass
from Timna. In: Bowen RL & Albright
FP, eds. Archaeological Discoveries in
South Arabia. Baltimore: PAFSM, 2:
1958: 200, 203, Pls 133134.
27. Horton MC. Early Maritime Trade and
Settlement along the Coasts of Eastern
Africa. In: Reade J, ed. The Indian Ocean
in Antiquity. London: Kegan Paul
International, 1996: 450; Ballet P.
Ceramiques, faences et vase en pierre
du fonds Revoil. In: Desanges J, Stern
EM & Ballet P, eds. Sur les routes
antiques de lAzanie et de lInde. Paris:
Memoires de lAcademie des Inscrip-
tions et Belles-Lettres, N.S., 13: 1993:
6465.
28. Whitcomb DS & Johnson JH. Quseir
al-Qadim 1978, Preliminary Report. Mal-
ibu: American Research Center in
Egypt Reports, 1: 1979: 67, Pls 20:j (?),
21:a (?), bd, k, 26:m, f; Quseir al-Qadim
1980, Preliminary Report. Malibu:
American Research Center in Egypt
Reports, 7: 1982: 6466, Pls 29:ai, mo,
qy, 30:c, f, j, mn, u.
29. Hayes JW. The Pottery. In: Sidebotham
SE & Wendrich WZ, eds. Berenike 1995,
Preliminary Report of the 1995 Excava-
tions at Berenike (Egyptian Sea Coast) and
the Survey of the Eastern Desert. Leiden:
Research School CNWS Publications,
2: 1996: 149150, Fig. 616:17, 1920;
Tomber RS. The Pottery. In: Sidebot-
ham SE & Wendrich WZ, eds. Berenike
97. Report on the 1997 Excavations at
Berenike and the Survey of the Egyptian
Eastern Desert, including Excavations at
Shenshef. Leiden: Research School
CNWS Publications, 4: 1999: 124, Fig.
51:14; Malfitana, Eastern Terra Sigil-
lata: 151, Fig. 9ac.
30. Warner Slane K. Other Ancient
Ceramics Imported from the Mediter-
ranean. In: Begley V, ed. The Ancient
Port of Arikamedu, New Excavations and
Researches 19891992, 1. Pondicherry:
Ecole Francaise dExtreme-Orient,
Centre dHistoire et dArcheologie,
Memoires Archeologiques, 22: 1996:
361, Fig. 7.2324.
31. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 4951;
Hayes, Les sigillees orientales: 148149,
Fig. 3:16; Mitsopolous Leon V. Die
Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos
Kleinfunde 1, Keramik hellenistischer und
romischer Zeit. Wien: Forschungen in
Ephesos, 9/2/2: 1991: 9495.
32. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 52; Malfi-
tana, Eastern Terra Sigillata Wares:
147, 149, 151, Figs 6ac, 8ac, 9ac.
33. Mitsopolous Leon, Die Basilika: 95, 104,
Pls 152.H145, 153.H147148.
34. Zahn R. Die Einzelfunde aus den
Privathausern, Thongeschirr. In:
Wiegand T & Schrader H, eds. Priene,
Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Unter-
suchungen in der Jahren 18951898. Ber-
lin: Reimer, 1904: 434436, 446, Fig.
550:138, 140141.
35. Pulz S. Kaizerzeitliche Keramik aus
dem Heroon III. Istanbuler Mitteilungen
35: 1985: 7980, 84, Fig. 2.1011; Zwei
Keramik Komplexe aus dem Heroon
III. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 37: 1987: 35,
Fig. 9.16.
36. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 5767, Pls
XII.16, XIII.3, XIV.19; Hayes, Les sig-
illees orientales: 148149, Fig. 3.6.
37. British Museum, Department of the
Ancient Near East, BM 19321212,
30.A; 19321212, 1368 139770.IJ.
38. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 53, 55, Pl.
XI.8, 17; Hayes, Les sigillees orientales:
148149, Fig. 3.1, 45.
39. Comfort, Some Imported Pottery:
1617, Fig. 1.3, 24; Yule & Kazenwa-
del, Toward a Chronology: 258, Fig.
6.12; Sedov & Benvenutti, The Pottery
of Sumhuram: 185; Hayes, Sigillata
Orientali: 55, Pl. XI.1718; Hayes, Les
sigillees orientales: 148149, Fig. 3.5.
40. Sedov, Qana (Yemen): 16, Fig. 4.10;
Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 55, Pl. XI.19.
41. Calvet Y. Fouilles francaises de Shab-
wa (R.D.P. Yemen). La ceramique
importee. Raydan 5: 1988: 5363, Pls
III; Badre L. Le sondage stratigraph-
ique de Shabwa 19761981. Syria 68:
1991: 245264, Fig. 33.288294; Hayes,
Sigillata Orientali: 66, Pl. XIV.18.

42. Comfort, Imported pottery and glass
from Timna: 200203, Pls 135136.
43. Ballet, Ceramiques, faences et vase en
pierre: 6465, nos 34; Hayes, Sigillata
Orientali: 2829, Pls XII.28, XIII.1.
44. Whitcomb & Johnson, Quseir al-
Qadim 1978: 67, Pl. 34.kl, gh; Quseir
al-Qadim 1980: 6465, Pls 29.bb, cc, 30.a,
v; Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 54, Pl.
XI.14, 16; Hayes, Les sigillees orien-
tales: 148149, Fig. 3.4.
45. Hayes, The Pottery: 149150, Fig.
616.1, 10, 12, 1516, 18, 22.
46. Wheeler REM, Ghosh A & Deva K.
Arikamedu: an Indo-Roman Trading
Station on the East Coast of India.
Ancient India 2: 1946: Figs 5.19, 6.23a;
Comfort H. Terra Sigillata at Arikam-
edu. In: Begley V & De Puma RD, eds.
Rome and India, The Ancient Sea Trade.
Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1991: 134150, Fig. 8.56; Warner
Slane, K. Observations on Mediterra-
nean Amphoras and Tablewares
Found in India. In: Begley & De Puma,
Rome and India: 207; Warner Slane,
Other Ancient Ceramics: 363, Fig.
77.2627; Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 54
55, Pl. XI.1618; Hayes, Les sigillees
orientales: 148149, Fig. 3.5.
47. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 75, Pl.
XVII.1; Hayes, Les sigillees orientales:
149150, Fig. 5.1, 6.
48. Meyer-Schlichtmann C. Die Pergameni-
sche Sigillata aus der Stadtgrabung von
Pergamon, Mitte 2.JH. v. Chr.-Mitte 2.JH.
n. Chr. Berlin/New York: Pergameni-
scher Forschungen, 6, 1988: 1416, 206
207; Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 71;
Hayes, Handbook of Mediterranean: 52;
Hayes, Les sigillees orientales: 151;
Malfitana, Eastern Terra Sigillata
Wares: 155.
49. Yule & Kazenwadel, Toward a
Chronology: 260, Fig. 6.15; Sedov &
Benvenutti, The Pottery of Sumhuram:
185.
50. Comfort, Terra Sigillata at Arikamedu:
148, Fig. 8.1920; Hayes, Sigillata Ori-
entali: 74, Pl. XVI.9.
51. Potts, The Danish Excavations: 18, Fig.
K. Incorrectly published as a rim.
52. Mazzeo Saracino L. Terra Sigillata
Nord-Italica. In: Bandinelli, Atlante
delle forme ceramichi II: 188212, Pl.
LXIX.5.
53. Meyer-Schlichtmann, Die Pergameni-
sche Sigillata: 83, Pl. 4.10.38.
THE ROMAN FINE WARES OF ED-DUR
54. Potts, The Sequence: 9293, Fig. 16.
55. Hayes, Sigillata Orientali: 9394, Pl.
XXIII.6; Hayes, Les sigillees orientales:
150, Fig. 5.910.
56. Meyer-Schlichtmann, Die Pergameni-
sche Sigillata: 110, Pl. 13, 175, N35.
57. Mazzeo Saracino, Terra Sigillata Nord-
Italica: 197, Pl. LVIII.5.
58. Wheeler, Ghosh & Deva, Arikamedu:
4041, Fig. 8.4445; Comfort, Some
Imported Pottery at Khor Rori: 1920,
Fig. 1.1, 6; Comfort, Terra Sigillata at
Arikamedu: 146147, Fig. 8.1718; Yule
& Kazenwadel, Toward a Chronology:
258, Fig. 6.14.
59. The identification of this fragment as
an Indian imitation does not in the
least affect the conclusions made by
Potts in his discussion of the close
relation in shape and dating between
the so-called Ayn Jawan cups with
rouletting from Period IV of Thaj and
Roman sigillata of the first century AD.
Other sigillata fragments with an as-
sured origin are present in ed-Dur.
Potts, The Sequence: 9394.
60. Sedov & Benvenutti, The Pottery of
Sumhuram: 184185, Pl. 25.15, 7; Cal-
vet, Fouilles francaises de Shabwa: 53,
5963, Pls I.3, 4 (?), 57, II.811; Badre,
Le sondage stratigraphique: 245264,
Figs 20.4, 33.288294; Comfort, Impor-
ted pottery and glass from Timna:
200203, Pls 121132; Sedov, New
Archaeological: 120, Fig. 3.911; Qana
(Yemen): 16, Fig. 4.14, 69, 11, 1314,
18; Sea-Trade of the Hadramawt
Kingdom: 371; Davidde B, Petriaggi R
& Williams DF. New Data on the
Commercial Trade of the Harbour of
Kane through the Typological and
Petrographic Study of the Pottery.
PSAS 34: 2004: 88, Fig. 3.103/1.
61. Ballet, Ceramiques, faences et vase en
pierre: 6365, nos 12, 5; Horton, Early
Maritime Trade: 450.
62. Whitcomb & Johnson, Quseir al-
Qadim 1978: 67, Pls 20.ai, k, 21.fg,
mr, 25.i, 26.d, op, 28.h, 33.i, 34.ce, j;
Quseir al-Qadim 1980: 6465, Pls 29.jk,
p, aa, dd, ee, 30.e, h, kl, os, w; Hayes,
The Pottery: 149150, Fig. 616.29, 11,
1314, 21; Tomber, The Pottery: 124,
Fig. 51.5.
63. Wheeler, Ghosh & Deva, Arikamedu:
3439, Figs 5.118, 2022, 6.2331, 7.33
40; Comfort, Terra Sigillata at Ari-
kamedu: 134149, Fig. 8.116; Warner
Slane, Other Ancient Ceramics:
351366, Fig. 7.1027.
64. Several red-slipped fragments from
Chandravalli, Kodumanal, Vasava-
samudram, Karur, Korkai, Alaganku-
lam, Uraiyur, and Kanchipuram were
described as sigillata, but recent re-
evaluation by Stern and Warner Slane
has identified these as local Indian
wares. Stern EM. Early Roman Export
Glass in India. In: Begley & De Puma,
Rome and India: 118, note 41; Warner
Slane: Observations on Mediterranean
Amphoras: 205, note 18; Silva R. Man-
tai A second Arikamedu? Antiquity
59: 1985: 46.
65. Broneer O. Corinth, Results of Excava-
tions IV, II. Terracotta Lamps. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press,
1930: 74, 7677, Fig. 34.1, 3, Pl.
XXV.433.
66. Bailey DM. A Catalogue of the Lamps in
the British Museum, 3. Roman Provincial
Lamps. London: British Museum Press,
1988: 8588.
67. For most of the lamps collected in the
BM catalogue of provincial Roman
lamps a precise location of production
in Egypt cannot be determined. As
most lamps originate from the Delta,
Bailey suggests Alexandria as the most
possible provenance for these vessels.
See Bailey, A Catalogue of the Lamps:
217218.
68. Broneer, Corinth: 78, Fig. 34.56; Bailey,
A Catalogue of the Lamps: 217, Fig. I.
69. Hayes, Handbook of Mediterranean:
6466; Hochuli-Gysel A. Kleinasiatische,
glasierte Reliefkeramik und ihre oberitalis-
chen Nachanmungen (50 v. Chr. Bis 50 n.
Chr.). Bern: Acta Bernensia, 7: 1977: 43,
108; La ceramique a` glacure plombife`re
dAsie Mineure et du Bassin Mediter-
raneen Oriental. In: Blonde, Ballet &
Salles, Ceramiques hellenistiques et ro-
maines: 304305; Atik N. Die Keramik
aus den Sudtermen von Perge. Tubingen:
Istanbuler Mitteilungen Beiheft, 40:
1995: 57.
70. Jones FF. The Pottery. In: Goldman H,
ed. Excavations at Gozlu Kule, Tarsus,
III. The Hellenistic and Roman Periods.
Princeton: Publications of the Institute
for Advanced Study, 1950: 191196,
nos 639, 669; Hochuli-Gysel, Kleinasia-
tische, glasierte Reliefkeramik: 22119,
Fig. 15, Pl. 1.T.12, 77, 87, Pl. 8.T.176, Pl.
12.S.94; La ceramique a` glacure plo-
23
K. RUTTEN
mbife`re: 304310, Fig. 4.13, 6; Atik, Die
Keramik aus den Sudtermen: 3057, nos
1819, 2123, 3233, Figs 1617, 19, 22.
71. Jones, The Pottery: 192193, nos 633,
660; Hochuli-Gysel, Kleinasiatische,
glasierte Reliefkeramik: 82, 9596; Atik,
Die Keramik aus den Sudtermen: 37, 52,
nos 23, 58.
72. Hochuli-Gysel, Kleinasiatische, glasierte
Reliefkeramik: 108, Fig. 31.
73. Comfort, Imported pottery and glass
from Timna: 206207, Pls 139143.
Only fragments 14 and 15 can be
identified as lead-glazed ware from
Asia Minor. On the basis of the fabric
and the execution of the decoration in
the glaze, fragment 16 comes without
doubt from an Egyptian sgraffiato
vessel of the tenth to twelfth centuries
(D. Kennet, pers. comm.).
74. Badre, Le sondage stratigraphique:
254, 259, Fig. 33.273274, 279.
75. Whitcomb & Johnson, Quseir al-Qadim
1980: 5960, Pl. 21.n, rs.
76. Whitehouse D. Excavations at ed-Dur
(Umm al-Qaiwain, United Arab Emir-
ates), I. The Glass Vessels. Leuven:
Peeters, 1998: 6667.
77. Haerinck E. International Contacts in
the Southern Persian Gulf in the Late
1st Century B.C./1st Century A.D.:
Numismatic Evidence from ed-Dur
(Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.).
Iranica Antiqua 33: 1998: 292; Haerinck,
Internationalisation and Business: 203
204; Salles, The Periplus of the Ery-
thraean Sea: 138139.
78. Casson L. The Periplus Maris Erythraei.
Text with Introduction, Translation, and
Commentary. Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1989: 1819; Salles, The
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea: 120,
24
128129; Young GK. Romes Eastern
Trade. International commerce and
imperial policy, 31 BCAD 305. London:
Routledge, 2001: 142143.
79. Sedov, New Archaeological: 12; Qana
(Yemen): 112; Sedov & Benvenutti, The
Pottery from Sumhuram: 179191, 195.
80. Casson, The Periplus: 3943.
81. Salles, The Periplus of the Erythraean
Sea: 133134; Casson, The Periplus:
1819, 6773; Sedov, Qana (Yemen):
24; Sea-Trade of the Hadramawt
Kingdom: 370372.
82. Haerinck, Internationalisation and
Business: 205; Haerinck E. Excavations
at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, United Arab
Emirates), II. The Tombs. Leuven: Pe-
eters, 2001: 44, 47, Pls 104.114115,
135.114115, 141.228; Haerinck, Inter-
national Contacts: 284286; De Paepe
P, Rutten K, Vrydahs L & Haerinck E.
A Petrographic, Chemical and Phyto-
lith Analysis of Late Pre-Islamic Cera-
mics from ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain,
U.A.E.). In: Potts, Al-Naboodah &
Hellyer, Archaeology of the United Arab
Emirates: 212, Fig. 4.12.
83. Sedov, New Archaeological: 126127;
Qana (Yemen): 16; Sedov & Benve-
nutti, The Pottery from Sumhuram:
193; Rutten, K. Het aardewerk van ed-
Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, V.A.E.) uit de late
1ste eeuw v. tot de vroege 2de eeuw n.
Chr. Technologische, typologische en
vergelijkende studie met een analyse
van de ruimtelijke verspreiding en
handel in en voorbij de Perzische Golf.
Unpublished PhD thesis submitted to
the University of Ghent, 2006: 123124,
186, 196197, 205, 313, Map 3, 6.
84. Older fragments of ESA, dated to the
Seleucid period, are attested on several
Mesopotamian sites and probably also
at Mleiha, but these earlier vessels are
not relevant here.
85. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 59,
64; Whitehouse D. Ancient Glass from
ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) 2.
Glass excavated by the Danish exped-
ition. AAE 11: 2000: 119; Haerinck,
International Contacts: 297.
86. Wheeler, Ghosh & Deva, Arikamedu:
1721; Comfort, Terra Sigillata at Ari-
kamedu: 145146.
87. Warner Slane, Observations on Medi-
terranean Amphoras: 204; Warner
Slane, Other Ancient Ceramics: 366
367; Stern, Early Roman Export Glass
in India: 118; Salles, Adaptation cultu-
relle des ceramiques hellenistiques:
193195.
88. The west and main sites of Opone/Ras
Hafun are considered to be exceptions.
These sites, on the basis of the com-
position of the pottery and their
implantation, are regarded as the tem-
porary camping sites of seamen, who
moored and awaited the turning of the
monsoon wind for the return journey
to India; Smith M & Wright HT. The
Ceramics from Ras Hafun in Somalia.
Azania 22: 1988: 124125, 138140.
89. Comfort, Imported pottery and glass
from Timna: 199; Calvet, Fouilles
francaises de Shabwa: 5556; Sedov,
Qana (Yemen): 2326; Sea-Trade of the
Hadramawt Kingdom: 366372; Sedov
& Benvenutti, The Pottery of Sumhur-
am: 192; Salles, Adaptation culturelle
des ceramiques hellenistiques: 195.
90. Potts, The Roman Relationship with
the Persicus sinus: 102103; Haerinck,
Excavations at ed-Dur: 9; Rutten, Het
aardewerk van ed-Dur: 7778, Pl. 8.