1
Archaeology of Indo-Gulf Relations in the
Early Historic Period: The Ceramic Evidence
ANJANA L. REDDY
INTRODUCTION
The countries connected with the Indian Ocean form a series of relationships
based on sea communication. These are reflected above all in trade. The Indian
Ocean is one of the world’s most ancient trading systems. Its existence as a
cultural entity was first defined by K.N. Chaudhuri in his book titled Trade
and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of
Islam to 1750. He recognized that the Indian Ocean has a unity of civilization
that is equivalent to that perceived of the Mediterranean by Fernand Braudel
(Chaudhuri, 1985). Of all the seas, the Indian Ocean is perhaps a late entrant
in historical studies. One reason for this may be the complexity of the subject,
owing to the diversity of cultures prevailing in the Indian Ocean, which would
make it a subject of study for many lives of many historians (Kejariwal, 2006).
This is what Chaudhuri (1990: 11) explains has led to
. . . the specialist historians of Asia, each examining his own narrow chronology and field,
are often unable to see the structural totality of economic and social life and are inclined
to treat the experience of their own regions as unique or special . . . historians of Asia,
whether working on the Middle East, India, China, or Japan, seem to be much more
interested in comparing the course of their history with that of Western Europe rather
than with other regions of Asia.
Subsequently, Indian Ocean studies relating to the Early Historic period
have focused on the Early Roman ‘India Trade’ with emphasis particularly on
the role of the Red Sea, East African and South Arabian ports. Studies so far
tend to ignore the Arabian Gulf extension of the Indian Ocean area, or rather
previous research has had the propensity to focus on these trading sites in
isolation and seldom made the effort to include them in the Indian Ocean
trading network. It is striking that no attempt has been made to conduct a
detailed study of possible Indian material particularly the ceramics found in
the sites within the Gulf arm of the Indian Ocean (Reddy, 2014: 16). The
anonymous Periplus Maris Erythraei or the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea is
the most explicit text to describe the ports of the Indian Ocean in the first
54
ANJANA L. REDDY
century . The Periplus, however, has several omissions, particularly in that
the ports and market towns of the Arabian Gulf are barely mentioned in the
text (see also Salles, 2005: 121). However, what this book lacks in detail and
clarity especially with reference to the Arabian Gulf and its commercial ties
with India can be fulfilled through a multidisciplinary approach combining
historical data with archaeological evidence. The present paper seeks to
corroborate the evidence of Indian pottery in the Arabian Gulf to explore
inter-regional, international and assessment of trade networks, to define key
source/provenance areas for particular vessels types from the subcontinent as
well as to establish the position of the Arabian Gulf as more than an
intermediary of Indo-Roman trade.
Geographical Parameters of Research
The limits of the Indian Ocean are most clearly defined on its western and
northern shores where it runs up against the coasts of East Africa, Arabia and
Iran with extensions running deep into the Middle East formed by the Red
Sea and the Arabian Gulf (Plate 1.1). As Tomber points out (2008: 109), of
all the regions involved in Indo-Roman trade, the Gulf was the most separate,
both geographically and politically, and only two ports are mentioned:
Apologos, at the head of the Gulf (PME 35) near modern Basra (Iraq), and
Omana (PME 36-7), on the Arabian side. The location of Omana has been
much debated between the sites of the Arabian Gulf: Ed-Dur in Umm al
Qaiwain (Potts, 1990: 309; Haerinck, 1998: 275) and Dibba al-Hisn in
Sharjah (Jasim, 2006). According to the Periplus both ports (i.e. Apologos
and Omana) carried out trade in pearls, purple cloth, dates, wine, gold and
slaves (PME 36) with Barygaza in western India. From this perspective, both
Ed-Dur and Dibba have been included in this paper, notwithstanding the
numerous quantities of Indian pottery unearthed during excavations at the
two sites. The geographical parameters of study are not simply bound by the
Arabian Gulf littoral, and ports in general are dependent on their hinterland
to varying degrees (Power, 2010: 25). In this case, the site of Mleiha, located
inland in the emirate of Sharjah, known archaeologically from the third century
, has been included. In south-eastern Arabia, by the fourth century even
the limited areas of occupation at Ed-Dur and Mleiha had disappeared and
the two sites had been completely deserted. Occupation dating to the late
Sassanian period has so far has been identified in the UAE and Oman. Kush,
a small coastal tell in the modern Emirate of Ras al Khaimah (Kennet, 1997)
has been included in the parameters of this study pertaining to its material
evidence of ‘India trade’ in the early historic period as well as medieval trade
links.
From the earliest times, South Arabia had closer ties with East Africa than
the Roman world (Singer, 2007: 10-13). For the sea trade, the Periplus Maris
ARCHAEOLOGY OF INDOGULF RELATIONS
55
Erythraei (Casson, 1989) names Muza (PME 21), Okelis (PME 25), Eudaimon
Arabia or Aden (PME 26), Kane/Qana or Bir Ali (PME 28), Syagros or Socotra
(PME 30) and Moscha Limen or Khor Rori (PME 32). Of these only Muza,
Qana and Moscha are described as ports and only Qana and Khor Rori,
established when the incense trade began to shift from overland to seaborne
routes, are known archaeologically. Qana and Khor Rori form an integral part
of this study concerning Indian pottery data from South Arabia.
In the east, the Indian Ocean’s limits are far more imprecise, for beyond
India it runs against the coasts of the island complex south and east of the
Malay Peninsula and in the south-east against the coast of Australia (Geoffrey
King, personal communication). The parameters of this study, however, have
their geographical limits set predominantly within peninsular India, although
mention is made of sites in Sri Lanka (Plate 1.1). As a region, India presents
the greatest challenge because of its geographical diversity and in this case the
ambiguity of Early Historic Indian pottery spread across the varied regions.
The present paper will focus on the three main regions of peninsular India,
which follow Roberta Tomber’s description of the geographical parameters
(Tomber, 2008: 124-32). These includes Gujarat and the Konkan coast, which
is the main area of the Western Kshatrapas ( 35-405) in the modern states
of Gujarat and the coastal area of Maharashtra, incorporating foci of the
western coast such as the Indus delta, Saurashtra and the Konkan (Thapar,
PLATE 1.1: LOCATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN ARABIA AND INDIA IN THE EARLY
HISTORIC PERIOD MENTIONED IN THIS STUDY ESRI ARCGIS 10.2.2/BASEMAP
ARCGIS ONLINE_WORLD LIGHT GRAY CANVAS
56
ANJANA L. REDDY
2002: 46); the Deccan, including the area between the Krishna and Godavari
rivers and encompassed the Satavahana Empire (200 - 250); and
Tamilakam, which comprised the three chiefdoms of Chola, Pandya and
Chera.
Chronological Parameters of Research
The chronological extent of Indo-Arab relations in the Early Historic period
begins with the third century which marks the Indian campaign of Alexander
the Great (c. 327-325 ) and the exploration of the Red Sea route to India
by the Ptolemies. Further the backdating of several important trading sites in
the Red Sea region (Berenike), Africa (Adulis), South Arabia (Khor Rori), Sri
Lanka (Tissamaharama) and India (Arikamedu) to the third century
indicates their founding at least four centuries earlier than the heyday of
Roman trade (Pavan and Schenk, 2012: 191) (Table 1.1). The evidence from
Khor Rori in South Arabia as well as sites in the Arabian Gulf and the Red
Sea of Indian pottery dating indisputably to the centuries further
corroborates the early trade relations between Arabia and India (Pavan, 2011:
102-3). This period also saw the rise of important sites in south-eastern Arabia;
Mleiha (c. third century -mid third century ), Ed-Dur (c. first century
/-third century ) and Dibba (c. first century -mid third century )
(dating based on Mouton and Cuny, 2012), in what is commonly referred to
TABLE 1.1: CHRONOLOGICAL TERMS AND TENTATIVE PERIODIZATION OF SITES
IN THE EARLY HISTORIC PERIOD
Chronological Terms
Late Pre-Islamic (PIR A)
Late Pre-Islamic (PIR B)
Late Pre-Islamic (PIR C)
Late Pre-Islamic (PIR D)
Hellenistic
Graeco-Roman period
Early Roman
Late Roman Civilization
Date (circa)
3rd-mid 2nd cent
Mid 2nd-1st cent
1st-end 2nd cent
2nd-mid 3rd cent
3rd cent -1st cent
3rd cent -7th cent
1st cent -mid 3rd cent
4th cent -mid 6th/7th
cent
Early Byzantine
4th/5th centuries
Long Late Antiquity
c. 300-830
Islamic period
8th cent -16th/17th cent
onwards
Early Historic (north India) 5th cent -3rd cent
Early Historic (south India) terminated in 500
Early Medieval/Early
6th/early 7th cent
Islamic
Examples of Sites
Mleiha, Ed-Dur & Dibba
Mleiha, Ed-Dur, Dibba, Khor
Rori, Qana, Suhar, Quseir,
Berenike, Ras Hafun,
Tissamaharama
Kush, Suhar, Berenike, Ras
Hafun
Kush, Suhar, Manda, Kilwa,
Pate, Shanga
Ter, Nasik, Kamrej, Bet Dwarka
Pattanam, Arikamedu
Akota, Vadnagar, Timbarva
ARCHAEOLOGY OF INDOGULF RELATIONS
57
as the Late Pre-Islamic period by archaeologists in the UAE. The end of this
era in south-eastern Arabia is placed during the Sassanian period that marks
the decline of the three main sites in south-eastern Arabia (around c. third/
fourth century ) and the rise of Kush in the fourth/fifth century until
the medieval period (c. thirteenth century ), with evidence of Indian pottery
and continuing trade/contact with the subcontinent (Kennet, 2004).
For the subcontinent, the period of Roman contact is subsumed mostly
within the Early Historic period in India, whose parameters vary as a result
of different cultural developments (Tomber, 2008: 118). During the third
century , most of north and south India belonged to the Mauryan Empire
(c. 325-184 ). In the south, the early historic period marked the transition
from the megalithic to a more urbanized society as a result of inter-regional
trade (Champakalakshmi, 1996: 92). The Early Historic period in the north
was terminated between 300 and 500 during the time of the Gupta Empire
and based on the end of Roman contact with India, while in southern India,
the Early Historic Period ends by c. 500 (Selvakumar and Darshana, 2008,
cited in Tomber, 2008: 120). However, as Tomber (2008: 120) points out,
Roman finds continue into the sixth- early seventh century or early medieval
period. So whether Roman contact with India ended in 300 or whether
this is an appropriate measure to define the Early Historic period must be
considered, and requires ongoing review.
ARCHAEOLOGY OF INDOGULF TRADE:
THE CERAMIC EVIDENCE
The archaeological evidence that we are dealing with in terms of Indo-Arab
trade of the Early Historic period does not involve an elaborate list of artefacts.
But it is the question of integrating this evidence to create a coherent narration
of the broader Indian Ocean networks, which makes the study all the more
challenging. Foreign and local pottery comprises the largest body of evidence,
followed by coinage. Then, epigraphic evidence forms a large part of the
archaeological data, particularly from South Arabia and India. And finally,
archaeo-botanical remains indicate a culinary change and introduction of new
food items from India into Arabia. The focus of this paper however will be
the data derived from pottery and archaeo-botanical evidence of trade.
Pottery provides tangible archaeological evidence for the study of trade and
contact in the Indian Ocean world. A large amount of imported ceramics
have been found during the excavations of several important Indian Ocean
trade sites in the Red Sea region, East Africa, Arabia and India, that have been
the subject of documentation and analysis. Roberta Tomber’s recent study
Indo-Roman Trade: From Pots to Pepper (2008) includes a rare synthesis of the
late Roman Red Sea ‘India trade’ based largely on the ceramic evidence (Power,
58
ANJANA L. REDDY
2010: 12). The issue of Indian pottery is complex and problematic, beginning
with its definition. The term ‘Indian pottery’ is used for materials of great
diversification in fabric and form and is widespread in the Indian subcontinent
as well as in different sites along the coasts of the Indian Ocean and the Red
Sea. Less attention had been reserved, therefore, for a comprehensive study
of Indian material. As the key focus in the present paper, the Indian assemblage
discovered in the various sites in the Indian Ocean has already formed the
subject of investigation.
The detailed study of Early Roman Indian pottery in the Red Sea region
was first undertaken in 1997 by R. Tomber and V. Begley at Berenike by
classifying and illustrating both fine and coarse wares and citing parallels
primarily from the site of Arikamedu in south India (Begley and Tomber,
1999). Tomber consequently undertook preliminary sourcing studies of the
Indian ceramics found at Roman Berenike in 2000 (Tomber, 2000a; 2002).
In the same year, Indian pottery vessels were amongst the collection of ‘nonRoman wares’ recorded and published at Quseir al-Qadim (Tomber, 2000b).
The presence of Indian pottery as far as the Red Sea garnered interest in
the assemblages closer to home. From south-eastern Arabia, Indian pottery
forms have been identified and recorded briefly from excavations at Ed-Dur
(Rutten, 2006; Haerinck, 2001 and 2003), Mleiha (Mouton, 1992; Mouton
and Cuny, 2012; Mouton et al., 2012) and Dibba (Mouton and Cuny, 2012;
Jasim, 2006). Late Roman- and Islamic-period Indian wares dating from the
fourth/fifth to sixteenth/seventeenth centuries were identified and documented
into different classes at Kush by D. Kennet and quantitative comparisons were
drawn with Indian assemblages from Shanga and Pate in Kenya (Kennet,
2004: 88-96). From South Arabia, imported ‘RPW’ was the first Indian
ceramic to be identified and reported from Khor Rori (Yule and Kevran, 1993:
91; Zarins, 1997; 2001). A reassessment of the Indian pottery from Khor
Rori was undertaken in the following years through the publication of Khor
Rori reports 1 and 2 (Sedov and Benvenuti, 2002; Avanzini (ed.), 2002a;
2008).
The evidence of Indian ceramics from the eastern Arabian seaboard and
the Red Sea indicates the trade of not merely the pottery itself but in the
contents of these vessels. Botanical commodities of trade are of particular
interest in this study as it is likely that these were transported or stored in
pottery vessels. Historical sources such as the Periplus and Alexandrian Tariff
was issued by the emperor Marcus Aurelius between 176-80. The document
enumerates a vast number of imports and exports to and from Berenike
including a wide variety of plant parts: root, wood, bark; plant secretions such
as resins, gums, oils and wine as well as leaves, flower, seeds, fruits and whole
plants (Cappers, 2006: 3 quoted in Reddy, 2014: 269). Given the lack of an
extensive archaeo-botanical record in the Arabian context, the aspect of culinary
change, i.e. the adoption of new foodstuffs and new forms of food preparation/
ARCHAEOLOGY OF INDOGULF RELATIONS
59
consumption is indicated in part by the Indian ceramic evidence and changes
in the range of vessel forms (and usage of trade ceramics) through time (see
Fuller, 2005 quoted in ibid.: 277).
RECORDING PROTOCOL OF INDIAN POTTERY:
CLASSIFICATION OF FORMS AND FABRIC ANALYSIS
The recording protocol for Indian forms varies slightly based on the individual
sites in Arabia. On the whole the information that was recorded includes
sherd number, context, description, rim diameter, munsell colour, decoration,
etc. Additional recording procedures included pottery drawing, photographic
documentation and cross-referencing with ceramics from Indian sites through
examination of excavation reports and actual pottery collections (Reddy, 2014:
21-2; 2015: 254).
Next, the methodology involving fabric study was given particular
importance. This study was especially essential in the case of Indian fabric
due to the use of generalized terms to define ware classes in India. For example,
the nomenclature used in Indian site contexts is based on the colour and
texture of the fabric – red, black, grey, coarse, fine, etc. – which is not scientific
and is highly subjective. In addition, the type of surface treatment is often
used to describe the fabric, e.g. red slipped wares, black burnished wares, etc.,
without identifying variations in the fabric (see Nanji, 2011). The fabric study
involved an examination of the core and surface of several pottery samples
using the hand-held Dino-lite microscope (AM 4113ZT) with a magnification
range of 10x-200x. Photographic images of the fabric were recorded using
Dino-capture software with a resolution of 1.3M pixels. Inclusions and other
particles in the fabric were measured in mm or microns. Based on the fabric
variations, sub-groups or sub-classes of fabric were created (Reddy, 2015: 254).
These variations are based on the visual identification of principal inclusions
(naturally occurring in clay or added temper, voids, etc.), texture, sorting
parameters, size of the inclusions, frequency, grain-size classifications, etc. In
terms of additional evidence to prove its import or imitation status, results
from petrographic analysis were used to provide more precise indicators of
the geographical origin of the wares and more particularly the geological
provenance of the raw material (Reddy et al., 2012).
INDIAN POTTERY IN ARABIA:
IMPORTED VS. IMITATION WARES
The present paper constitutes a major part of the author’s own doctoral research
on the subject (Reddy, 2014). The overall research looked into the examination
of Indian ceramic assemblages from three archaeological sites located in the
south-eastern part of the Arabian Gulf within modern-day UAE (Mleiha,
60
ANJANA L. REDDY
Ed-Dur and Kush) and one site in South Arabia (Khor Rori) in the Dhofar
region of Oman. One of the objectives of the research thesis was to document
this pottery evidence including description and classifications of vessel
morphologies as well as the results from the visual examination of various
fabric types and petrographic analysis. Though form parallels are a significant
aspect of studying the cross-cultural influx of pottery types, Begley and Tomber
(1999) were right in observing that fabric is the more important criterion for
determining the source of the pottery.
The documentation process revealed two categories of Indian pottery
identified from the Arabian context: Actual imports, relating to source or
production centres from India, and secondly, local imitations of Indian pottery
that employ the same techniques as attested in the subcontinent, but using
locally available raw materials or clay (Reddy, 2015: 253). Several vessel forms
and fabric types were identified in the course of the study that fit into the
categories of actual imports and local imitations of Indian vessels. For the
purpose of this paper however, the focus will be on two case studies or examples
of imported and imitation wares:
Case Study 1: Imported Indian Pottery – Indian Micaceous Ware (Fabric 2)
Indian micaceous ware or Indienne micassée is a red ware with a dark grey or
black core (indicative of ill-firing) and tempered with mica particles. This
fabric is mostly recorded in forms representing carinated handi vessels as well
as a few examples of storage jars, cooking pots and flasks at Mleiha and EdDur. The exterior is often covered with a thick red slip in a majority of these
wares and the surface is often ‘strip burnished’ with a series of streaks seen on
the slipped surface. Decoration usually comprises a number of incised lines
recorded on carinated handis immediately above the point of carination (Reddy,
2014: 42).
The fabric is hard with a hackly fracture and rough texture indicating that
it is a type of coarse ware. The principal inclusions in the fabric are dominated
by an abundance of white mica particles (muscovite) dotted with occasional
medium-sized particles of dark mica (biotite) (ibid.: 43). Several variations
can be noted in these wares based on the fabric and principal inclusions
(Plate 1.2)
In terms of its import status, it is gathered that mica is often present in the
original clay source, especially from sites in western India. The Indian micaceous
ware from Mleiha, however, appears to have been intentionally tempered with
mica indicative of glistening flakes visible on the surface and in the core of
the samples. Micaceous ware or mica-tempered pottery is part of a long
tradition of pottery technique from Gujarat since the Chalcolithic period and
continues into the Late Pre-Islamic. Additionally the surface treatment is
represented by specific techniques of ‘strip burnishing’ visible on the external
PLATE 1.2: INDIAN MICACEOUS WARE FABRIC 2 FROM MLEIHA WITH VARIATIONS SAMPLES
COURTESY: FRENCH ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION AT MLEIHA/PHOTOGRAPH:
ANJANA REDDY.
62
ANJANA L. REDDY
slip of the vessels similar to pottery traditions in parts of western India. Working
techniques recorded on particular vessels from Mleiha are known even today
to potters in north India and Kerala and involve the use of bamboo tools to
hollow the inside and define the rim and neck of the vessel which is beaten
internally to achieve the desired thickness (Saraswati and Behura, 1966 quoted
by Tomber, 2008: 47). These bamboo marks are still visible on the interior
of the vessel from Mleiha. Carinated handis or Wheeler-type 24s have been
recorded from the Red Sea area that demonstrates a similar technique (ibid.).
It is therefore likely that many of the carinated handis and slipped cooking
pots/storage jars from the Arabian Gulf could signify their origin from western
India (Reddy, 2014: 43-4).
Sourcing Indian Ceramics in Arabia: Petrographic Analysis
In order to further prove its import status, seven samples of Indian pottery
from Mleiha (including fragments of cooking pots in Indian micaceous ware)
were compared and analysed with 21 samples from key sites in the Gujarat
and Maharashra regions of western India (Ter, Nevasa, Junnar, Padri, Dwarka,
etc.) using X-Ray flourescence (CRF) spectrometry analysis (Reddy et al.,
2012). The results indicated that two (out of seven) sherds from Mleiha had
strong correlations in chemical/elemental composition with thirteen sherds
from sites in western India (Graph 1.1), signifying more than a 90 per cent
GRAPH 1.1: EXAMPLES OF XEF SPECTRA PLOTS OF PHOTON COUNTS LOG VERSUS
PHOTON ENERGY KEV THAT SHOW HOW WELL INDIAN POTTERY SAMPLES
5 & 6 CORRELATE WITH MLEIHA POTTERY SAMPLES 19 & 23 ANALYSIS BY:
GAFFAR ATTAELMANAN/ UNIV. OF SHARJAH
ARCHAEOLOGY OF INDOGULF RELATIONS
63
probability that they are from the same environment/clay source (ibid.: 4).
This scientific evidence further corroborates the position of western India as
a key source of Indian pottery in Arabia.
Case Study 2: Imitation Indian Pottery – Shell-tempered Ware
(Fabric 3) and Fine Indian Red Ware (FIRW).
This category of coarse ware fabric has quantities of roughly crushed shell
fragments in the clay. The fabric ranges from buff to reddish-brown and
occasionally grey, while the shell inclusions are identified by their flat/lamellar
(plate-like) or curved features (Reddy, 2015: 265) (Plate 1.3). Shell-tempered
ware is well attested as a local fabric from several sites in the Dhofar region
of Oman, including at Khor Rori (Avanzini (ed.), 2008; Pallecchi and Pavan,
2011: 84-5), from south-eastern Arabia at Mleiha (Reddy 2014: 45-6) and
from Ras Hafun (Somalia) where ‘quantities of coarsely crushed shell fragments
in the clay’ have been reported (Smith and Wright, 1988: 122).
In terms of identifying the source of shell-tempered wares, this ware group
could be designated as part of the Dhofari tradition of pottery, which are
characterized by pottery with reddish/buff fabrics, never wheel-made and that
usually employ crushed shells as temper (Pallecchi and Pavan, 2011: 85). The
recent work by the Italian Mission to Oman (IMTO) researched the local raw
materials used in the manufacture of pottery indicated that samples of locally
made Dhofari pottery besides comprised microfossil calcareous fragments and
shells as its main components (ibid.).
Although the Dhofar region of Oman may seem to be the most likely
source of this ware group, the question of possible local Arabian imitations
of typical Indian cooking vessels by utilizing this locally available fabric is
more complex. The forerunner in this category are a group of carinated handi
vessels from Mleiha manufactured using this shell-tempered clay (Plate 1.3).
Although shell is occasionally present in natural clay sources from coastal/
riverine sites in India, so far there is no pottery industry known in India that
employs the addition of medium to large fragments of crushed shell as a
tempering agent to the clay (Reddy 2015: 258). It may be safe to speculate
that this vessel type of shell-tempered Indian-inspired handis with everted
rims may have been manufactured for Indian residents/traders within Arabia
who for cultural reasons perhaps preferred to use their own familiar cooking
vessel forms (see Kennet, 2004: 96).
A detailed study of pottery fabric has essential merits in not only defining
the source of the ceramic, but in identifying certain wares often mistaken to
represent a different pottery group. An example of this is a category of fine
red wares nearly identical to Indian red polished wares (RPW), but for the
quality of the pieces, especially the weak treatment of surfaces and poor firing.
These were referred to instead as Indian-style table jars at Khor Rori (Sedov
64
ANJANA L. REDDY
PLATE 1.3: LOCAL IMITATIONS OF INDIAN POTTERY: SHELL TEMPERED
‘HANDITYPE’ VESSELS FROM MLEIHA AND SHELLTEMPERED
FABRIC SAMPLES FROM KHOR RORI
and Benvenuti, 2002: 187) and at Ed-Dur as ‘fine red slipped’ and ‘fine reddish
brown and grey slipped’ wares (Rutten 2006). The term Fine Indian Red Ware
or FIRW was coined by Kennet (2004: 90) based on evidence from the site
of Kush, where it was classified as a separate class of wares from RPW.
To corroborate this, samples of FIRW and RPW from Kush were examined
microscopically (Reddy, 2014: 80). What is interesting is that the RPW from
Kush, as Kennet points out, is from securely dated levels of the seventh-eighth
centuries when it was thought to have ceased production in India (Kennet
2004: 89). The microscopic examination of samples from both wares revealed
ARCHAEOLOGY OF INDOGULF RELATIONS
65
that RPW from Kush was coarser with a greater range of inclusions than FIRE
which had smaller mineral inclusions and a fine clay matrix. The external
slip and burnishing of RPW was of superior quality (Reddy, 2014: 226-7)
(Plate 1.4). This fine red ware category could represent either imitations from
the Gulf itself or actual imports from India. To determine this, a detailed study
is required from the Indian excavations in order to classify ‘fine red wares’ as
a separate category from Indian Red Polished Wares (Reddy, 2015: 265).
ARCHAEOBOTANICAL EVIDENCE OF INDOARAB TRADE
The evidence of Indian ceramics from the eastern Arabian seaboard and the
Red Sea indicates the trade of not merely the pottery itself but in the contents
of these vessels. Botanical commodities of trade are of particular interest in
this study as it is likely that these were transported or stored in pottery vessels.
Historical sources such as the Periplus and Alexandrian Tariff enumerate
evidence of archaeo-botanical remains and research from Berenike and Quseir
al Qadim that are of exceptional international importance owing to the
excellent preservation condition of most specimens as well as the size of the
data set and the high species diversity (Cappers, 2006; van der Veen, 2011a;
van der Veen et al., 2011b). On the other hand, the evidence of botanical
remains is mostly absent in the archaeological records from the Arabian context
and in this case, the study relies on historical sources and ceramic data to
envisage the various commodities of trade. This ceramic evidence also indicates
changes in the range of vessel forms through time, suggesting the development
or adoption of new forms of food preparation and consumption (see e.g.
Fuller, 2005) resulting from trade with peninsular India.
A comparison between the Alexandrian Tariff and the Periplus shows that
they have a small quantity of commodities of botanical origin in common.
Together, they mention 45 different trade items, of which only 9 are mutual
trade items ranging from sources in Arabia and India. Exports from the Arabian
harbours to Berenike concerned aloe, frankincense and myrrh, while items
traded from India to Berenike were indigo, long and black pepper, lykion,
costus, nard, bdellium and malabathron. In terms of the commodities exported
from the south-west India, the Periplus mentions, ‘ships in these ports of trade
(Muziris and Nelkynda) carry full loads because of the volume and quantity
of pepper and malabathron . . .’ (PME 56; Casson, 1989: 85). The route to
India required big and strong ships, which according to the author of the
Periplus was the rationale behind such uncommon dimensions of the ships
that sailed from Egypt to the Malabar coast to accommodate the exceptional
quantities of pepper and malabathron being transported to Egypt (De Romanis,
2012: 75). Similarly a closer examination of the ‘Muziris papyrus’, although
fragmentary, can identify three cargo items from India (Gangetic nard, black
pepper and malabathron) as part of the unidentified cargo on the Hermapollon
PLATE 1.4: COMPARISONS OF FIRW AND RPW POTTERY SAMPLES FROM KUSH WITH SAMPLES OF RPW FROM INDIA
ARCHAEOLOGY OF INDOGULF RELATIONS
67
(name of the shipping vessel). Theoretically, black pepper could be measured
either by some container unit (such as sacks) or by actual weight and nearly
87 per cent of the cargo on the Hermapollon was pepper (ibid.: 75-101).
Pepper was understandably an important eastern commodity of export from
India and excavations at the Red Sea port of Berenike revealed nearly 7.5 kg
of black peppercorns in an Indian dolium (storage jar) recovered from a late
first century or early first century courtyard in the Serapis temple at
the site (Cappers, 2006: 114-15) (Plate 1.5). In the Arabian Gulf context, an
PLATE 1.5: INDIAN STORAGE JAR FROM BERENIKE
THAT CONTAINED 7.5 KG OF PEPPER AFTER
CAPPERS 2006: FIG. 4.58/ TOMBER 2008:
FIG. 14.
68
ANJANA L. REDDY
exception to the case is the site of Mleiha where the food remains are generally
well preserved because they were charred as a result of fire in the final phase
of the site. In several rooms and in the courtyard, the concentrations of
carbonized grain most probably resulted from the storage of food in bags or
baskets and likely to have been cultivated locally in the al-Madam plain
(Mouton et al., 2012: 214).
The Periplus mentions important food items imported from India into
Arabia: grain (PME 14, 31, 32), rice (PME 14, 31), sesame oil (PME 14,
32), cotton cloth, ghee and cane sugar (PME 14). The rice mentioned in the
Periplus is reported as being exported from the Gulf of Cambay in north-west
India and near modern-day Karachi in Pakistan (PME 41) and from these
regions, rice was brought to the ports at the entrance of the Red Sea, on the
northern coast of Somalia and on Socotra, with Roman ships directly collecting
rice from these ports (van der Veen, 2011a: 47). The import of rice could also
be interpreted as evidence for the presence of South Asians/Indians at the sites
in Arabia, who preferred to eat this commodity even when away from their
home country. Additionally rice is well known for its good preservation
conditions and could be easily transported over long distances. Whether the
local Arabian population consumed rice is still questionable, although it is
clear that by the Islamic period it was being cultivated locally in Egypt and
was well inducted into the Arab cuisine (ibid.: 80). Other food items mentioned
in the Periplus such as ghee and sesame oil could easily be stored for long
periods during transportation and at the port of destination. Also ghee as a
commodity solidifies when left for a time and was therefore not prone to
spillage when transshipped.
Distinct forms of Indian pottery vessels entered the archaeological record
of the Arabia in the Early Historic period. These could be connected either
to the adoption of new food items or to the elaboration of ways of preparing
those already present (see Fuller, 2005: 767). As Kennet (2004: 96) explains,
‘. . . a notable aspect of the Indian pottery from all of these sites (in Arabia)
are not high-quality wares which might be traded for their own value but
traded for use as cooking pots by communities of South Asians in the Gulf
who, perhaps for cultural reasons, used vessels manufactured in South Asia.’
Cooking pots are generally used to prepare boiled food, especially rice and
occasionally lentils in India. Strabo (Geography, 15.1.53) states that most of
the Indian food consisted of rice porridge and that Indians made a beverage
from rice that is known as arak (cited in Cappers, 2006: 105). Evidence from
Mleiha suggests large Indian cooking and storage vessels with soot remains
and probable food residue (Plate 1.6). This could indicate the preparation of
food or community-style cooking at the site. Furthermore, the site located in
the fertile Al-Madam plain has produced preliminary archaeo-botanical
evidence of large quantities of hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare) and freethreshing wheat of the bread wheat type (Triticum aestivum), lentils (Lens
ARCHAEOLOGY OF INDOGULF RELATIONS
69
PLATE 1.6: FOOD RESIDUE AND SOOT REMAINS INSIDE A LARGE INDIAN COOKING POT
FROM MLEIHA IMAGE COURTESY: FRENCH ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION
AT MLEIHA
culinaris), etc., cultivated locally. It is not implausible to assume therefore that
introduced varieties of food grains/seeds from the Indian subcontinent were
also perhaps cultivated locally at Mleiha to compensate for the rising food
demands made by the ever-increasing population of traders/visitors to the
site. Further archaeo-botanical studies are required to corroborate this.
INDIAN CERAMICS IN ARABIA: KEY PROVENANCE
AREAS AND PATTERNS OF TRADE
From the available evidence of Indian pottery, four key areas or zones from
the Indian subcontinent were identified in the present research (Reddy, 2014:
316-22) that indicate possible source areas as well as transit/transportation
centres for these particular vessel groups found in the Arabian contexts:
Key Area 1 (Western India)
Gujarat and Maharashtra regions in western India are now accepted in this
study as the two main sources for the Indian vessels regularly discovered in
70
ANJANA L. REDDY
the assemblages of sites like Mleiha, Ed-Dur Khor Rori and further at Red
Sea sites like Berenike and Quseir.
Key Area 2 (North-Western Frontier)
The north-western part of India including the Indus region as well as the
Pakistan-Baluchistan areas.The Indus-region is a likely source of some of the
fine Indian red wares found in Ed-Dur (see De Paepe et al., 2003) and Indian
black-and-grey wares discovered at Mleiha (M. Mouton, personal communication).
Key Area 3 (South-Western Coast)
Along south-western or Malabar coast, a source from the site of Pattanam in
Kerala can be attributed to some Indian cooking and storage vessels from Red
Sea ports of Berenike and Quseir that display working techniques like ‘internal
wiping’ and ‘scooping’ using bamboo/organic tools (Tomber and Begley,
2000). Similar vessels were also documented in Arabia including at Khor Rori
and Mleiha.
Key Area 4 (Eastern and Southern India including Sri Lanka)
Two types of Indian pottery in the South Arabian port of Khor Rori suggest
a source from eastern and southern India: Rouletted Ware (RW) and Paddleimpressed Ware. A source in eastern India particularly Bengal may be attributed
to the RW from Egypt, Arikamedu and other sites based on a personal
examination of the fabric by Roberta Tomber (see Tomber, 2008: 44). Also
recent research by Magee (2010) identified two distinct workshops for RW,
i.e. Group A produced somewhere in south-eastern India (c. 500 300) and Group B produced somewhere in Sri Lanka, probably in the
northern part of the island (c. after 200 - 300).
Reconstructing Indian Ocean trade routes is an important aspect in the
archaeo-historical analysis. Trade goods of course do not necessarily travel a
straight course or take the shortest route (Salles, 2005). The distribution
pattern for Indian vessels in Arabia (and Red Sea region) suggests the following
seaborne routes from India:
Route A: India-South Arabia
As part of Route A, ships made their way from Bengal and south India by
way of Sri Lanka or via Pattanam (Kerala) to Khor Rori in South Arabia. Then
they proceeded to the Red Sea port sites of Berenike and Quseir, when the
winds were favourable. According to Pavan and Schenk (2012: 200),
ARCHAEOLOGY OF INDOGULF RELATIONS
71
distribution pattern of rouletted ware, paddle impressed ware and cooking
pots (Wheeler Type 24) reflects the trade routes that traversed India, but the
principal route ran along the eastern coast from Bengal down to the island of
Sri Lanka. Rice-tempered wares, along with RPW, could have reached South
Arabia directly from the Gujarat region.
Route B: India-Gulf
Route B includes trade routes starting from Gujarat or western India and
circumnavigating the Arabian Gulf. The Indian material first reached Suhar
or Dibba port in the eastern Arabian Gulf. It was then re-exported from either
south Mesopotamia or Iran to Ed-Dur and Mleiha in the UAE. From southern
Mesopotamia the Indian material also reached the Mediterranean via the
camel caravan route through Syria.
Route C: Overland Arabia
Frankincense routes form a very important component of overland routes
traversing the Arabian peninsula. Kennet (2007: 109) indicates four possible
overland routes with Gerrha (Thaj Oasis, Saudi Arabia) acting as the conduit:
(i) South Arabia to Petra via Gerrha, carrying South Arabian incense, (ii)
South Arabia to Palymra, carrying South Arabian incense overland to Gerrha
and then by sea and river, (iii) Gerrha to Petra, carrying Indian goods brought
to Gerrha by sea, and (iv) South Arabia to Persia via Gerrha, carrying South
Arabian incense.
These overland routes may also have been used to supply Gulf sites with
Indian material from South Arabia.
So how did this Indian material reach the Gulf? Depictions of sailing ships
have been identified in epigraphic records and archaeological remains of
shipwrecks. In the Red Sea area, there is archaeological evidence from sites
like Berenike and Quseir including hull planks, wooden and horn brail-rings,
deadeyes, block sheaves, wooden toggles and fragments of sail-cloth of Indian
origin (Blue et al., 2011). The data also includes examples from Arabia
comprising sailing vessels inscribed at a number of Dhofar hill sites (Zarins,
2001: 134) and from the Brahmi inscriptions/ship graffito at the Hoq cave
on the island of Socotra (Yemen) pointing towards the presence of Indian
sailors in Arabia from the end of the second-fourth centuries (Strauch and
Bukharin, 2004). Pottery and plaster also serve as a medium and a particular
example is the ship graffito at Khor Rori (Sumhuram) carved into wall plaster
near the gate and represents an ancient sailing vessel with two masts, engaged
in what appears to be whaling (Plate 1.7). The depiction is similar to that
of two-masted ships found stamped on coins minted by the Satavahana/
Andhra dynasty sometime between the second/first century and the second
PLATE 1.7: PLASTER WALL INSCRIPTION OF INDIAN
EARLY HISTORIC SHIP AND TAMILBRAHMI
OSTRACA FROM KHOR RORI
ARCHAEOLOGY OF INDOGULF RELATIONS
73
century (Ray, 1986; Avanzini, 2007: 27; Fig. 4). With regard to TamilBrahmi ostraca in South Arabia, a potsherd was found in the residential area
of Sumhuram (Khor Rori). The sherd itself was part of a lid made by reusing
the shoulder of an amphora. Soot traces visible along the external ridge suggest
the use of the lid for a cooking pot, found in the first century context or
earlier. The ostraca is inscribed with ‘nantaikiran’, signifying a personal name
with two components. The first part ‘[n] antai’ is an honorific suffix to the
name of an elderly person. The second component ‘kiran’ stands for a personal
name. More than 20 poets of the Tamil Sangam age (c. third century to
third century ) have ‘kiran’ as part of their personal names. The broken
piece of the pot probably carried the personal name of an important trader
who commanded high regard in the community (Rajan, 2012) (Plate 1.7).
CONCLUSION
The archaeological evidence of trade routes could be further enhanced by the
theoretical approach proposed by Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997) and Hall and
Chase-Dunn (1999) as a ‘comparative world-systems perspective’ wherein
‘important networks of interaction impinge upon a local society and condition
social reproduction and social change’. Accordingly, in most inter-societal
systems there are several important networks of interaction:
1. Information Networks (INs) – Information is light and it travels a long
way, even in systems based on down-the-line interaction.
2. Prestige Goods Networks (PGNs) – A smaller interaction network is
based on the exchange of prestige goods or luxuries that have a high
value/weight ratio.
3. Political/Military Networks (PMNs) – The largest interaction net
composed of polities that are allying or making war with one another.
4. Bulk Goods Networks (BGNs) – A network based on production and
trade of basic everyday necessities such a food and raw materials.
To apply this theory within the Indian Ocean sphere, prestige or elite goods
networks involved various partners in the Indian Ocean, particularly Rome
and India. It is this direct interest in prestige goods that led the Romans to
establish political or military networks in South Arabia, in order to control
this trade and the trade in aromatics. As historic records show, this was
attempted through the invasion of South Arabia and the adjacent Arabian
Gulf by the Roman governor of Egypt, Aelius Gallus in 25-24 . This military
mission proved to be a failure, attributed partly to an over-extension of supply
lines from Egypt. Large quantities of food and water to sustain the Roman
troops in Arabia were unavailable owing to poor guides that led the army
through long circuitous routes that avoided wells and provisions (Ball, 2000:
110-12). Moreover this disastrous Roman mission shows that local food
74
ANJANA L. REDDY
production in Arabia by the first century - had to be supplemented by
an influx of food items from India and Roman Egypt. This was to cater to
the growing demands from the increased number of visiting traders. Food
and bulk goods networks (BGNs) were therefore more important to IndoArab trade than so-called prestige goods.
The collation of large quantities of Indian pottery data from the Arabian
sites as part of the present research indicates two main points: (a) these were
not just residual containers that belonged to traders on their way to Rome or
back to India, suggesting that these were probably transported and used by
Indian or South Asian residents in Arabia during the early centuries , and
(b) the trade in bulk essentials (rice, grain, cloth, ghee, sesame oil, etc.) from
India to Arabia was probably more important for the sustenance of local
residents and visiting traders than prestige goods from Rome or the Indian
subcontinent. This goes to show, as Avanzini (2002b: 23) had previously
indicated that as far as the Indian route is concerned, the role played by Rome
though important, is overestimated. Particular preferences of specific forms
like cooking and storage vessels could indicate a small South Asian population
in Arabia. This led to the small-scale manufacture of imitation Indian vessels
in Arabia as a means of the local economy adapting to the needs of the visiting
traders. Moreover, there is a marked increase in the size of Indian cooking
vessels during this period, indicating communal cooking practices of a perhaps
small Indian merchant population in Arabia. These Indian merchants brought
with them not only material goods, but also information networks. This
includes introduction of new pottery styles, food items or bringing a variety
of cultural influences into Arabia. The study therefore concludes that the
Arabian Gulf was more than an intermediary of Indo-Roman trade and was
a direct participant in the Indian Ocean trade networks.
POSSIBLE FUTURE GOALS AND RESEARCH
ACTIVITIES IN INDOARAB STUDIES
In terms of possible future goals and objectives, the current research on IndoArab trade could be integrated into the conceptual framework of ‘Project
Mausam’ and other such macro-level projects (Ray, 2014). Second, the aspect
of Indo-Arab or Indo-Gulf trade should go beyond the focus on the Harappan
or Indus connection, and successfully link the third millennium with the
maritime trade of the early historic period. This could be achieved by addressing
gaps in the present research on trade routes and historical exchange between
India and the Gulf. Moreover, maritime-related industries like traditional
ship-building and related products must be revived or enhanced by research
scholars and government organizations alike.
It is essential at this stage to first establish strict documentation and research
ARCHAEOLOGY OF INDOGULF RELATIONS
75
methods. This is particularly due to the disparity in the methodology used to
document trade mechanisms across the Indian Ocean. This then creates
difficulties in compiling and relating the evidence for a coherent narration of
trade relations. Once these research standards are established, they could lead
to more successful international collaborations. Finally of course, one has to
remember that it is not possible to create such cosmopolitan links if important
data is not published. So publication must be an essential part of all future
research activities.
REFERENCES
Avanzini, Alessandra (ed.). 2002a. ‘Khor Rori Report 1’, Arabia Antica, vol. 1. Pisa:
Edizioni Plus.
Avanzini, Alessandra. 2002b. ‘Incense Routes and Pre-Islamic South Arabian Kingdoms’,
Journal of Oman Studies 12: 17-24.
———. 2007. ‘Sumhuram: A Hadrami Port on the Indian Ocean’. In Eivind Heldaas
Seland (ed.), The Indian Ocean in the Ancient Period: Definite Places, Translocal
Exchange, BAR International Series 1593. Oxford: Archaeopress, 23-31.
Avanzini, A. (ed.). 2008. A Port in Arabia between Rome and the Indian Ocean (3rd
c. BC-5th c. AD). Khor Rori Report 2. Roma.
Ball, W. 2000. Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire, London: Routledge.
Begley, Vimla and Roberta Tomber. 1999. ‘Indian Pottery Sherds’. In Steven E. Sidebotham
and W.Z. Wendrich (eds.), Berenike ’97. Report of the 1997 Excavations at Berenike
and the Survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, Including Excavations at Shenshef. Leiden:
Centre for Non-Western Studies, 161-82.
Blue, Lucy, Julien Whitewright and R. Thomas. 2011. ‘Ships and Ships’ Fittings’. In D.P.S.
Peacock and Lucy Blue (eds.), Myos Hormos – Quseir al-Qadim Roman and Islamic
Ports on the Red Sea. Volume 2: Finds from the Excavations 1999-2003, BAR
International Series 2286. Oxford: Archaeopress, 179-209.
Cappers, R.T.J. 2006. Roman Food Prints at Berenike: Archaeobotanical Evidence of Subsistence
and Trade in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. Los Angeles: Cotsen Monograph Series 55.
Casson, Lionel. 1989. The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with introduction, translation
and commentary. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Champakalakshmi, R. 1996. Trade, Ideology and Urbanisation: South India 300 BC to
AD 300. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chase-Dunn, C. and T.D. Hall. 1997. Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Chaudhuri, K.N. 1985. Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History
from the Rise of Islam to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1990. Asia before Europe: Economy and Civilisation of the Indian Ocean from the
Rise of Islam to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Paepe P., Rutten K., L. Vrydaghs and E. Haerinck. 2003. ‘Petrographic, Chemical and
Phytolith Analysis of Late Pre-islamic Ceramic from ed-Dur, Umel-Kawein (U.A.E.)’.
In D. Potts, Hasan Al Naboodah H., P. Hellyer (eds.), Archaeology of the United Arab
Emirates, Trident Press: 207-29.
De Romanis, F. 2012. ‘Playing Sudoku on the Verso of the “Muziris Papyrus”: Pepper,
76
ANJANA L. REDDY
Malabathron and Tortoise Shell in the Cargo of the Hermapollon’, Journal of Ancient
Indian History, 27: 75-101.
Fuller, D.Q. 2005. ‘Ceramics, Seeds and Culinary Change in Prehistoric India’, Antiquity,
79: 761-77.
Haerinck, Ernie. 1998. ‘International Contacts in the Southern Persian Gulf in the late
1st century /1st century : Numismatic Evidence from Ed-Dur (Emirate of Umm
al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.)’, Iranica Antiqua, 33: 273-302.
———. 2001. Excavations at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, United Arab Emirates), Vol. II:
The Tombs. Leuven: Peeters.
———. 2003. ‘Internationalisation and Business in Southeastern Arabia during the Late
First Century /First Century : Archaeological Evidence from Ed-Dur (Umm
al-Qaiwain, UAE)’. In Daniel T. Potts, Hassan al-Naboodah and Peter Hellyer (eds.),
Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of the United Arab
Emirates. London: Trident Press, 195-206.
Hall, T.D. and C. Chase-Dunn. 1999. The Chesapeake World-System: Complexity, Hierarchy
and Pulsations of Long-Range Interaction in Prehistory. A paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, 10 August 1999. [Online].
Available at: https://wsarch.ucr.edu/archive/papers/c-d&hall/asa99b/asa99b.htm
Jasim, Sabah. 2006. ‘Trade Centres and Commercial Routes in the Arabian Gulf: PostHellenistic Discoveries at Dibba, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates’, Arabian Archaeology
and Epigraphy, 17: 214-37.
Kejariwal, O.P. 2006. ‘Foreword’. In Himanshu P. Ray and Edward A. Alpers (eds.), Cross
Currents and Community Networks: The History of the Indian Ocean World. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Kennet, Derek. 1997. ‘Kush: A Sasanian and Islamic-period Archaeological Tell in Ras
al-Khaimah (U.A.E.)’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 8: 284-302.
———. 2004. Sasanian and Islamic Pottery from Ras al-Khaimah: Classification, Chronology
and Analysis of Trade in the Western Indian Ocean. Society for Arabian Studies
Monographs No. 1. BAR International Series 1248. Oxford: Archaeopress.
———. 2007. ‘The Decline of Eastern Arabia in the Sasanian Period’, Arabian Archaeology
and Epigraphy, 18: 86-122.
Magee, Peter. 2010. ‘Revisiting Indian Rouletted Ware and the Impact of Indian Ocean
Trade in Early Historic South Asia’, Antiquity, 84: 1043-54.
Mouton, Michel. 1992. ‘La Peninsule d’Oman de la fin de l’âge du fer au début de la
période Sassanide (250av. - 350 ap. JC)’. PhD thesis, Université de Paris I (PantheonSorbonne).
Mouton, Michel and Julien Cuny. 2012. ‘The Oman Peninsula at the Beginning of the
Sasanian Period’. In Daniel T. Potts and Peter Hellyer (eds.), Fifty Years of Emirates
Archaeology: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Archaeology of
the United Arab Emirates. Abu Dhabi: Ministry of Culture, Youth and Community
Development, 171-85.
Mouton, Michel, Margarethe Tengberg, Sterenn Le Maguer, Anjana Reddy, Soulié
Delphine, Bernard Vincent, Mallika Le Grand, and J. Goy. 2012. ‘Building H at
Mleiha: New Evidences on the Late PIR.D Phase in the Oman Peninsula (2nd-mid.
3rd c. )’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 42: 205-22.
Pallecchi, P. and Alexia Pavan. 2011. ‘Local Raw Materials Used by Craftsmen and in the
Development of the City of Sumhuram’. In Alessandra Avanzini (ed.), Along the
Aroma and Spice Routes: The Harbour of Sumhuram, its Territory and the Trade between
the Mediterranean, Arabia and India. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 81-95.
ARCHAEOLOGY OF INDOGULF RELATIONS
77
Pavan, Alexia. 2011. ‘Sumhuram as International Centre: The Imported Pottery’. In
Alessandra Avanzini (ed.), Along the Aroma and Spice Routes: The Harbour of Sumhuram,
its Territory and the Trade Between the Mediterranean, Arabia and India. Roma: L’Erma
di Bretschneider, 99-112.
Pavan, Alexia and Heidrun Schenk. 2012. ‘Crossing the Indian Ocean before the Periplus:
A Comparison of Pottery Assemblages at the Sites of Sumhuram (Oman) and
Tissamaharama (Sri Lanka)’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 23: 191-202.
Potts, Daniel. 1990. The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity. Vol. 2: From Alexander the Great to
the Coming of Islam. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Power, Timothy. 2010. ‘The Red Sea Region During the “Long” Late Antiquity ( 5001000)’. PhD thesis, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford.
Rajan, K. 2012. ‘Potsherd with Tamil Brahmi Script found in Oman’, The Hindu,
28 October 2012 [Online]. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/
potsherd-with-tamilbrahmi-script-found-in oman/article4038866.ece [accessed on
13 March 2013].
Ray, Himanshu Prabha. 1986. Monastery and Guild: Commerce Under the Satavahanas.
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Ray, Himanshu Prabha (ed.). 2014. Mausam: Maritime Cultural Landscapes Across the
Indian Ocean, National Monuments Authority and Aryan Books.
Reddy, Anjana, Attaelmanan, A. Gaffar and Michel Mouton. 2012. ‘Pots, Plates and
Provenance: Sourcing Indian Coarse Wares from Mleiha using X-ray Fluorescence
(XRF) Spectrometry Analysis’. Paper presented at the International Conference on
the Use of X-ray (and related) Techniques in Arts and Cultural Heritage (7-8 December
2011), Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, IOP Material Science and Engineering (MSE)
Conference proceeding series 3. [Online]. Available at: https://iopscience.iop.org/1757899X/37/1/012010.
Reddy, Anjana. 2014. ‘Looking from Arabia to India: Analysis of the Early Roman “India
Trade” in the Indian Ocean during the Late Pre-Islamic Period (3rd century -6th
century )’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research
Institute, Pune, India.
———. 2015. ‘Sourcing Indian Ceramics in Arabia: Actual Imports and Local Imitations’,
Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 45: 253-71.
Rutten, Katrien. 2006. ‘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
vergelijkendestudie met een analyse van de ruimtelijkeverspreiding en handel in en
voorbij de Perzische Golf tijdens de laat Pre-islamitische periode (3rd eeuw v. - 6th
eeuw n Chr.)’. Unpublished PhD thesis. Ghent University.
Salles, J.F. 2005. ‘The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea and the Arab-Persian Gulf ’. In M-F
Boussac and J-F Salles (eds.), Athens, Aden, Arikamedu: Essays on the Interrelations
Between India, Arabia and the Eastern Mediterranean. Delhi: Manohar (rpt.), (1st
pub. in Topoi 3/2: 493-523), 115-46,
Sedov, A.V. and C.H. Benvenuti. 2002. ‘The Pottery of Sumhuram: General Typology’.
In Alessandra Avanzini (ed.), ‘Khor Rori Report 1’, Arabia Antica, vol. 1. Pisa: Edizioni
Plus, 177-248.
Singer, Caroline. 2007. ‘The Incense Kingdoms of Yemen: An Outline History of the
South Arabian Incense Trade’. In D.P.S. Peacock and David Williams (eds.), Food for
the Gods: New Light on the Ancient Incense Trade. Oxford: Oxbow, 4-29.
Smith, M.C. and H.T. Wright. 1988. ‘The Ceramics from Ras Hafun in Somalia: Notes
on a Classical Maritime Site’, Azania, 23: 115-41.
78
ANJANA L. REDDY
Strauch, I. and M.D. Bukharin. 2004. ‘Indian Inscriptions from the Cave Hoq on Suqutra
(Yemen)’, Annali, 64: 121-38.
Thapar, Romila. 2002. The Penguin History of Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300.
London: Penguin Books.
Tomber, Roberta. 2000a. ‘Indo-Roman Trade: The Ceramic Evidence from Egypt’,
Antiquity, 74: 624-31.
———. 2000b. ‘The Pottery’, In D.P.S. Peacock, L. Blue, N. Bradford and S. Moser,
(eds.), Myos Hormos – Quseir al-Qadim: A Roman and Islamic Port Site on the Red Sea
Coast of Egypt Interim Report. Southampton: University of Southampton.
———. 2002. ‘Indian Fine Wares from the Red Sea Coast of Egypt’, Man and Environment,
28 (1): 25-31.
———. 2008. Indo-Roman Trade: From Pots to Pepper. London: Duckworth.
Tomber, Roberta and Vimla Begley. 2000. ‘Indian Pottery Sherds’. In Steven E. Sidebotham
and W.Z Wendrich (eds.), Berenike 1998: Report of the 1998 Excavations at Berenike
(Egyptian Red Sea Coast) and the Survey of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, including
Excavations in Wadi Kalalat. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian
Studies (CNWS), 149-67.
van der Veen, M. 2011a. Consumption, Trade and Innovation: Exploring the Botanical
Remains from the Roman and Islamic Ports at Quseir al-Qadim, Egypt. FrankfurtamMain: Africa Magna Verlag.
van der Veen, M.A. Cox and J. Morales 2011b. ‘The Plant Remains – Evidence for Trade
and Cuisine’. In D.P.S. Peacock and Lucy Blue (eds.), Myos Hormos – Quseir al-Qadim.
Roman and Islamic Ports on the Red Sea. Vol. 2: Finds from the Excavations 1999-2003.
University of Southampton Series in Archaeology No. 6, Oxford: Archaeopress,
227-34.
Yule, Paul and Monique Kervran. 1993. ‘More than Samad in Oman: Iron Age Pottery
from Suhar and Khor Rori’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 4(2): 69-106.
Zarins, Juris. 1997. ‘Persia and Dhofar: Aspects of Iron Age International Politics and
Trade’. In G.H. Young, M.W. Chavalas and R.E. Averbeck (eds.), Crossing Boundaries
and Linking Horizons, Bethesda: CDL Press, 615-89.
Zarins, Juris. 2001. The Land of Incense: Archaeological Work in the Governorate of Dhofar,
Sultanate of Oman 1990-1995. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Series, vol. 1.
Oman: Sultan Qaboos University Publications.