Numismatic Evidence from Ed-Dur (Emirate of Umm Al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.)

Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIII, 1998

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.)

BY Ernie HAERINCK

For David, In gratitude for guiding my first steps in the archaeology of the Parthian period.

The Persian Gulf was always a major route by which goods from different origins could travel to reach distant regions. Commercial activity in this sea contributed without doubt to international contacts and exchange of commodities between different populations and nations. All local cultures along this sea-lane benefited from these contacts in one way or another. Not only goods and people can travel, but ideas as well. Ed-Dur (Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) is the largest and most likely the only coastal site between Qatar and the Straits of Hormuz for the last decades of the 1st c. B.C. and the 1st c. A.D. (Stevens & Haerinck, 1996, pp. 72-74: a complete bibliography of the excavations). It is located on the SE Arabian coast of the Persian Gulf roughly 120 kms from the Straits of Hormuz. Although different periods occur at the site, as evidenced by prehistoric flints, Umm an-Nar 3rd mill. painted pottery and Iron Age pottery and soft-stone vessels, the major occupation belongs to the beginning of the Christian era. At that time, there was likely some 2 to 3 square km of occupation. This occupation is represented mainly by one layer, although sometimes it was obvious that two levels had to be distinguished. How- ever there was no difference in the material at all. During the Iron Age, or at the end of this phase, the site was deserted. There has no material been found which can be dated from the 5th to the 2nd c./middle of the 1st c. B.C. In the 2nd half of the 1st c. B.C. the site was reoccupied, and this was a deliberate choice. As we will show, this was most likely the result of a change in trade-routes and mode of transport. 274 E. HAERINCK

The numerous excavation seasons at ed-Dur indicate that only a limited number of beach-rock buildings did exist there, but that the majority of the living quarters consisted most likely of barasti/palmbranch dwellings. More attention was paid to the dead who were buried in individual stone built graves, although large tombs with a dromos or shaft entrance for multiple burials existed as well and occured all over the site. The major site of ed-Dur, well located, close to the sea was probably involved in international trade and contacts. But, we do not know yet — if ever — if this site is to be interpreted as a marketplace, or has to be seen as a port of transhipment. The site could only be seen as a terminus, where no real trade took place but from where goods were further distributed in the hinterland, within a local commercial system. In any case, the vast amount of foreign objects found on the site shows that the local population was rather wealthy and could acquire foreign goods from different sources and regions. How were they able to acquire this wealth? In the Periplus it is mentioned in §35 that “…a little further on it is the mouth of the Persian Gulf, where there is much diving for pearl oysters” (Casson, 1989, p. 71). Pliny also (NH 9, 53) informs us that the best pearls come from the Ara- bian side of the Persian Gulf. The Parthians, the Mediterranean world, the Arabs and the Indians alike all demanded such exotic goods. There was also enough fresh water available on the site, which is evidenced by several wells which we excavated. The water could have been important for the merchants of the ships sailing in the Persian Gulf and beyond. The site was maybe a major stop between Characene and NW-India, to bunker fresh water and other supplies. Another supply-point was most likely to be found on Bahrain. Besides, people lived at the site, were buried there and the sungod Shams/ Shamash was worshipped in a temple. This settlement was well sheltered behind a high sand-dune located on a large but shallow lagoon with several islands, some with mangroves. Although the open sea could be reached quite easily the site was so well protected by the environmental conditions that it was impossible to see it from the sea and any trader or visitor would have to know its exact location. Other ports mentionned in e.g. the Periplus were difficult to reach as well (Groom, 1995, pp. 181- 182). Could the very well choosen location indicate that the locals and foreign visitors had to protect themselves against enemies and bandits? Or were the people from ed-Dur involved in piracy? We must also wonder if people from ed-Dur actively participated in seaborne trade with their own INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 275 ships and if so, if they went themselves to the different markets. No question should be overlooked in order to try to understand the real function of this major site. After many excavation seasons the site’s ancient name remains unknown. We don’t know if this site can be identified with one of the very few names mentioned in Classical sources. The name Omana has been brought forward as a possible candidate, although this remains a matter of discus- sion amongst different scholars (Boucharlat & Salles, 1981, pp. 67-68; Potts, 1990, pp. 305-309; Salles, 1992a, pp. 204-213, 232-234; Groom, 1995, pp. 187-188). The difficulties in interpretation make it possible to locate Omana in different regions: a location on the Iranian side, on the Makran coast of ancient Gedrosia; on the coast of Kerman (ancient Car- mania); on the Batinah coast of the Oman peninsula; or on the Arabian coast of the Persian Gulf, between Qatar and the Straits of Hormuz. The texts of Pliny (NH 6) (23/4-79 A.D.) and the anonymous author of the “Periplus Maris Erythraei” (written ca. 40-70 A.D.) are difficult to inter- pret due to the limited and vague amount of information which they provide. Pliny also made use of older information and relies much on Juba II (died in 19 A.D.), the king and historian from Mauretania. The text of Juba, contemporary of August, was compiled prior to the very end of the 1st century B.C., in preparation of the Arabian campaign in year 1 of the 1st century A.D. (Salles, 1992, pp. 204-213). Seemingly the Persian Gulf was not really known to Western traders and we don’t really know if Graeco-Egyptian or Roman merchants ever sailed in the Gulf, even occasionally. This probably indicates that the traffic on this sea-route was in hands of other nations and organisations. Maybe the political situation did not allow such an enterprise. In the Periplus (§33) it is stated that “Beyond Moscha Limen … lie seven islands in a row called the Isles of Zenobios, beyond which stretches another country, inhabited by an indigenous people, which is no longer in the same kingdom (= Hadramawt) but already in that of Persis”. These islands can be identified with the Kuria Muria Islands, some 150 km North of Khor Rori, in Dhofar (Casson, 1989, p. 71, 174). This indicates that the whole of Oman and the entrance to the Persian Gulf was under Persian control. Pliny, describing only very briefly the Persian Gulf, informs us in §NH 6.32.149 (see also Salles 1988, pp. 89-91), after mentionning the nomad Catharrei (= Qatar?) and the river Cynos, that “According to Juba the 276 E. HAERINCK voyage beyond on that side has not been explored because of the rocks — Juba omits to mention Batrasavave, the town of the Omani, and the town of Omana, which previous writers have made out to be a famous port of Carmania, and also Homna and Attana, towns said by our traders to be now the most frequented ports in the Persian Gulf”. In this passage Pliny is clearly correcting Juba. If indeed one accepts the possibility that Omana has to be equated with ed-Dur, then Juba could not have known the site when he was writing at the end of the 1st century B.C. Ed-Dur was at that time not very important and likely small. Its heyday was in the 1st century A.D., when Pliny was writing. The fact that Pliny writes that “nostri nego- tiatores dicunt” does not necessarly imply that actually Graeco-Egyptian or Romans sailed in the Gulf (Salles, 1988, pp. 95-98; 1992a, pp. 211- 213). Hearsay is also a major source of information and they could have learned about these locations from Arabs, Persians or Indians. The Periplus (§36: Casson, 1989, p. 73, 180) also mentions Omana: “After sailing by the mouth of the gulf, six runs further on you come to another port of trade of Persis called Omana. Customarily the merchants of Barygaza (in NW-India: see coins nos. 21-24) deal with it, sending out big vessels to both of Persis’s ports of trade (= Apologos, near Spasinou Charax and Omana), with supplies of copper, teakwood, and beams, saplings, and logs of sissoo and ebony; Omana also takes in frankinsence from Kanê (= in Hadramawt) and sends out to Arabia its local sewn boats, the kind called madarate. Both ports of trade export to Barygaza and Arabia pearls in quantity but inferior to the Indian; purple cloth; native clothing; wine; dates in quantity; gold; slaves”. The interpretation of the passage “sailing by” is here of prime importance. This could either be understood as entering the Gulf or as sailing along the Oman coast in northerly direction and not entering the Gulf, but taking an easterly course, along the Persian coast. In the first interpretation, the six runs (more or less six days) could also be interpreted in a different way and depends where one locates the entrance of the Persian Gulf, whether on the Straits of Hormuz, between the Musandam and the Iranian coast, or further to the south, between the east coast of the Omani peninsula and the area of Jask, on the Iranian coast. N. Groom (1994, p. 199 and 1995, pp. 188-189) suggests those six runs are to be interpreted as sailing from the Kuria Muria islands. The statement by Pliny that Omana is a town in Carmania could also give support to locating the site on the Persian shore. Equally, the Periplus states that Omana is another port of trade of Persis INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 277 and “After the country to which Omana belongs comes the country of the Parsidae, part of another kingdom.” (§37) (Salles, 1995, pp. 130-132). How- ever, once again, both statements could equally be interpreted in a different way. The Periplus does not say that the site is located in Persis, but that it is controlled by, or belongs to, Persis and that almost the whole of Oman belongs to Persis (as it already did during the Achaemenid period). A similar interpretation could be given to the text of Pliny, if one agrees that Carmania is not only to be seen as being located in SE-Iran, but that its influence extended also on the Arabian shores of the Persian Gulf. Even if this hypothesis is accepted, there still remains the question whether the Persians actually controlled the Arabian side of the Gulf in a political sense during the 1st century A.D. or was it merely a loose control with mainly mercantile objectives? On the other hand, we should not forget the Characenean interest in that area (see coins nos. 1-5) (Boucharlat & Salles, 1987, pp. 301-302; Potts, 1988 & 1996; Dabrowa, 1991, Haerinck, 1998). The existence of local coins minted in SE-Arabia (Ed-Dur & Mleiha) likely indicates that they represented a local kingdom and a political entity, which however does not exlude an external, even loose, control. In the 2nd century A.D. Ptolemy gives a number of placenames on the Arabian peninsular, for which recently N. Groom (1986, p. 70, 1995, p. 203) has brought forward several suggestions. e.g. Sarcoa could maybe be linked with actual Sharjah and Cauana with actual Umm-al Qaiwain. Cauana could even be understood as a scribal error for Omana. In any case, the sites mentioned in the Periplus are not found in Ptolemy, who made his map ca. 150 A.D. By that time, ed-Dur -and also Mleiha in the Dhaid plain- had most likely ceased to be centres of importance. For ed-Dur, and for Mleiha also, the decline started probably in the late 1st century A.D. or early 2nd c. A.D., with an already reduced occupation. In the 2nd half of the 2nd c. A.D. the site might have been largely deserted, but underwent a renewed occupation in the 3rd/4th c. A.D., on a much more limited scale. There is also evidence of occupation in that period at Mleiha. Ptolemy mentions an “Omanum Emporium” in inland Oman. N. Groom (1994, p. 206) suggests it to be identified with Izki, to the SW of Muscat, although he does not exclude Nizwa which lies close by. We should like to point to the fact that in the Periplus §32 (Casson, 1989, p. 69, 170) another Omana is mentioned, immediately after Syagros (= Ras Fartak), which may cor- respond with the site mentioned by Ptolemy. We should also not forget that Ptolemy also mentions a “Kommana” in Carmania (=Makran coast) 278 E. HAERINCK

(Boucharlat & Salles, 1981, p. 67)! Is this “Kommana” the O(m)mana of the Periplus and Pliny? If Omana ‘s identification with ed-Dur can be disputed, it is not impossible neither and it can not be excluded as a possible candidate. There also remains the possibility that it was Batrasavave, the town of the Omani, or Homna or Attana. However the last two names mentioned by Pliny might be repetitions from a previous chapter (Potts, 1990, p. 310; Salles, 1992a, p. 212; 1992b, p. 90). In any case the location of the sites mentioned by the Classical authors will remain debated and this problem of historical geography can perhaps only be solved by a thorough prospection of the Persian coast between Bandar Abbas and the Pakistani border and beyond, since that region remains almost completely unexplored. Excavations at ed-Dur, Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E., by a Bel- gian, British, Danish and French team between 1986 and 1995 revealed besides local products numerous objects of different origins, such as Roman/ Mediterranean glass, bronzes and intaglios, S-Mesopotamian Parthian period pottery, painted SE-Iranian ware, as well as Indian/Pakistani pottery and S-Arabian stonevessels. Eight foreign coins presented here (indicated by an * and an excavation number; all on scale 2/1: coins nos. 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 22) were found by the Belgian team from the University of Ghent during its nine seasons of work on the site. In total 117 coins were found by our team. The other coins are all local issues. It should be mentioned that the foreign coins, as well the others, were not associated with burials, but were found loose in the trenches. Three foreign coins (nos. 6, 19 and 22) were found in the vicinity of the temple in Area M, one in area BO (no. 20), while three come from the large exposure in area BS (nos. 9, 14 and 18). One coin (no. 10) is a surface find. All drawings and photographs during the nine seasons were made by Mr. Erik Smekens, photographer-draftsman at the University of Ghent. The other 16 foreign coins (not on scale) come from several private collections which were assembled in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s by several ex- patriates working in the UAE. The material includes not only coins (some 250), but also fingerrings, needles, arrowheads, statuettes and beads. These items were collected by ex-patriates, often during their Friday outings. Some objects were actual surface finds, while others, we have been informed, were found with metal detectors. Different collectors offered their loot for INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 279 sale a couple of years ago to Mr. Robert C. Senior, a coin-dealer and coin- collector in Butleigh, Somerset. Since he was informed, most likely by the sellers themselves, that a Belgian team was working in that area, he con- tacted me for information on the local issues, which were totally unknown to him and to many others as well. Realising that some important information might be lost on the sites of ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain) and Mleiha (Sharjah), where regular excavations were by that time going on by the different teams, I requested Mr. R. Senior to provide me with whatever information he could get from the sellers. I asked him to send me any information he could ascertain from them as well as photographs and slides of all coins or other material that were presented to him for sale. Since he also realised that the available information on SE-Arabia was very limited at that time and that each bit of information might be important, he kindly accepted my request and took his precious time to comply with my request, for which I’m very thankful. The information reached me in several mail- ings in the span of more than three years. Sometimes it was rather a puzzle to sort out the information, but with some patience we were able to gather a quite interesting collection of pictures, which were however not always of the best quality and made on different scales. A combination of black and white photographs and prints of slides made it possible to work on the different collections and to gain a picture on the coinage and coin circulation in SE-Arabia in the late 1st millennium and the first two centuries of our era. The different collections (from at least four individuals) were most likely constituted prior to the beginning of official excavations, although once on a Friday we came across two persons who were wander- ing over ed-Dur with a metal detector. Indeed the site was not protected and there was no law to prevent these activities. Later on police-control at ed-Dur and Mleiha put largely an end to the treasure-search, although some people were arrested for a short while. The word spread that a law had made these activities illegal, and as far as we know they came to an end. A large part of this collection was also the subject of an MA-thesis at the University of Ghent, by Mr. Gilbert De Wilde (Zuid-Oost Arabische numismatiek. Van ca. de 3de eeuw v. Chr. tot ca. de 3de eeuw na Chr. Een typologische, iconografische en chronologische studie, Gent, 1994, 310 p.). Some of the coins, the only ones that I have actually seen, have been acquired by the National Museum of Sharjah, where they are on display. The majority, however, probably ended up worldwide in several private 280 E. HAERINCK INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 281 collections. In 1994, Mr. R.C. Senior composed a booklet “Coinage and trade in Eastern Arabia c. 100 BC-100 AD”, which was distributed on a very limited scale. Almost all foreign coins from the different collections which are presented here, are also to be found in his booklet, but without indication from which site they come, nor with information on their weight. Therefore it seemed usefull to present the material in a different way and at the same time to publish the foreign coins which where found by our team. The other three teams working at ed-Dur have found only very few coins, and none of them are foreign. Previously, only a limited number of foreign coins from ed-Dur were known (6 Characene coins, a very worn silver tetradrachm of Seleucus III: 16.07 g., an aureus of Tiberius of the Pontif Maxim type, of 7.526 g. and a poorly preserved square Indian base-metal coin) (Potts, 1990, p. 288). To these, we add now several coins from Characene, South Arabia, Parthia, Nabataea, India and Rome, which provide a fascinating picture of long distance trade and contacts, which are also clearly evidenced by the objects found during excavations. The main aim of this article is not so much to provide a study of the coins themselves, but to consider their contribution to the recon- struction of the past in SE-Arabia.

Characene The coins published here show on the obverse the diademed kings head facing right (except coin no. 1). On the reverse figures the throned, naked Heracles with his mace, facing left. Four also have a legend. The dated coins have the Seleucid era date in Greek numerals. 1. Anonymous, lead, half chalcous?: ca. 12 mm.; 0°; 2.46 g. Obv.: a thickening is visible; rev. seated Heracles. Besides this coin several other small lead coins are mentioned, without further specification. At Susa, a huge number of these lead coins have been found. A few have a partial Greek inscription mentioning the king’s name Attambelos or Theonesios. Although they have no date, they are likely to belong to the 1st c. A.D. (Cfr. Le Rider, 1965, p. 188, pl. XXXVII no 436-443.4) 2. Attambelos IV (dates: 53/4 to 63/4 A.D.), bronze, tetradrachm: 26 mm; 0°; 15.31 g. Obv. young beardless king; rev. monogram below and above outstretched arm of Heracles. Inscription: Bas(ileoos) Attamb(elou) (right); Sote(ros) 282 E. HAERINCK

1 2 3

4 5

ka(i euergetou) (left); in exergue the date in Greek letters: 367 (Seleucid era = 367-312= 55/56 A.D.) which allows this coin to be identified with Attambelos IV, of whom exists dated coins for all the years between 53/4 and 63/4 (Le Rider, 1965, p. 188, pl. XXXVII no. 433, 1). Nodelman (1960, pl. XXVIII nos. 2-3) wrongly attributes this cointype to Attambelos III. INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 283

Although Le Rider (1965, p. 188) states that no date is visible on the coin he published from Susa, a closer examination shows that at least part of the first two numbers are preserved. 3. Attambelos IV (dates: 53/4 to 63/4 A.D.), bronze, tetradrachm: 26.5 mm.; 0°; 17.74 g. Obv. bearded king with palmtwig in front; rev. two monograms below and above outstretched arm of Heracles. Monogram above the arm: (cfr. Dobbins, 1996, pp. 87-89). Inscription: Basi(leoos) Attambe(lou) (right); Soter(os) ka(i euergetou) (left). No clear date, but small stroke of the first number T is visible (cfr. Le Rider, 1965, pl. XXXVII nos. 434-435). 4. Attambelos VI (?) (known dates: 103/4 and 104/5), bronze, tetradrachm: 26 mm.; 0°;? g. Obv. star in front of face of bearded king; rev. two monograms below and above outstretched arm of Heracles. Inscription: (Basileoos) Attam(belou) (right); Sot(eros kai euergetou) (left). No date. The many strands of hair rather seem to point to Attambelos VI (Potts, 1988, p. 139 no. 9-10, p. 142; see also Hill, 1965b, p. 299, pl. XLIV, 6). 5. Copper/bronze coin, chalcous?: 17 mm.; 90°; 3.72 g. Obv. jugate bust of bearded king and queen; rev. prow of ship; three line Greek inscription: top is almost illigible (deyo… or demo…?); in the two bottom lines one reads: kai basili(..) (…?)amatr(…). Could this be an unknown king? A letter is faintly visible at the back of the prow. Seemingly this is a coin of unknown type. However Le Rider published a Characene copper coin of Apodacos (ca. 110-105 B.C.), with on the reverse a very similar prow (Le Rider, 1965, p. 183, pl. XXXVI, no. 411). Also the bearded head of the king seems to suggest a Characene issue.

As noted already, there were 6 bronze Characenian coins known from ed-Dur (Potts, 1988, pp. 141-143, fig. 2). One is of uncertain attribution, another is a tetradrachm of Attambelos III, and there were two other tetradrachms: one of Attambelos IV and one of Attambelos VI. One coin was found on the surface during the Iraqi expedition in 1973/4 at ed-Dur; the other five belonged to a collector who quite often picnicked at the site. Here we add five others (there are probably more, but I don’t how many more lead coins were found), which belonged to different private collections, and which are all said to have been found at ed-Dur. None were 284 E. HAERINCK found during our excavations. Four other Characenian coins are said to come from Mleiha and were published in another article (Haerinck, 1998, nos. 4-7). The coins from Characene undoubtedly also influenced the coinage from SE-Arabia, such as the Heracles-issues (Haerinck, 1994a). Monograms figuring on another type of coin and on other objects as well (such as rings and pottery vessels) (Haerinck, 1996a) are very similar — if not identical — to issues attributable to Attambelos III and IV (Hill, 1965b, p. 291; Le Rider, 1965, p. 187; Dobbins, 1996, pp. 88-90), at which period the site of ed-Dur must have been at its heydays. Contacts between ed-Dur and Characene must have been very pronounced, which is also evidenced by the very vast amount of glazed pottery, but other wares as well, from south Iraq which was found at the site. The glazed pottery represents some 40% of the total diagnostic pottery assemblage which has been found during the University of Ghent expedition. Although there are sufficient archaeological proofs that ed-Dur had very strong ties with the Characene kingdom, it is not clear if there was a strong political impact or control from the Characenian kings on SE-Arabia. The numerous local coin issues point rather to an independent local political entity, who had, however, strong commercial ties not only with Characene, but with other regions as well. The idea and initiative though to re-occupy the site of ed-Dur has probably been stimulated by Characene. It should be repeated here again that ed-Dur is the only coastal site which was located between Bahrain/Qatar and the Musandam. No other sites are known. The Characenean merchants might have wanted to by-pass the NE-Arabian middlemen by opening up a direct tradelink with SE-Arabia. In the previous centuries foreign commodoties could reach SE-Arabia only through trans-Arabian caravan trade (Haerinck, 1998). By establishing a port-of-trade they could at the same time extend their influence and trade further to the East. One could even say, that by having a station on Bahrain and one on ed-Dur they had control of shipping and traffic in the whole Persian Gulf, or at least of the Arabian littoral.

South Arabia (Hadramawt) 6* Bronze coin (M 81): 2.1 mm./ 20.0 mm.; 190°; 3.9 g. Obv. schematic, radiating bust facing right; rev. standing bull facing right with 3 south-Arabian letters: ShQR = Shaqir, the royal palace at Shabwa. This coin, as well as the two other coins 19 and 22, were found outside the INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 285

temple in area M, on the ancient floorlevel. This square temple, with fine plaster decoration on the outside walls, most likely ceased to exist in the middle of the 2nd c. A.D., if not earlier. All material points to a 1st c. A.D. date for its occupation. After it being deserted the structure was sealed in a sand dune, but we don’t how long this process took. Identical coins were found at Qana in the so-called “middle” period, where they are dated between the late 2nd and late 4th centuries A.D. (Sedov & Aydarus, 1995, pp. 23-31, ill.: type 6). However, we have to take in consideration that this dating will maybe revised in the future, when more information from new excavations in the Hadramawt are available. We think that this coin type came into circulation at a much earlier date. 7. Bronze coin: ca. 10.5 mm.; 0°;? g. Obv. schematic, radiating bust facing right; rev. is identified as a winged caduceus (Sedov & Aydarus, 1995, pp. 17-19, ill.: type 2; dated between the early 1st and late 4th c. A.D.). We think, however, that it could as well 286 E. HAERINCK represent a stylised bird. A finger ring found at ed-Dur (Object N6 from grave area N) shows an identical decoration and could have been imported from the Hadramawt as well. On the right side of the coin some faint letters are to be seen which most likely have to be read as ShQR (Shaqir), the name of the royal palace at Shabwa, capital of the Hadramawt. One other coin from Shabwa was found during our excavations (see no. 6) and four at least are reported from Mleiha (Haerinck, 1998, nos. 9-11). Commercial ties between SE-Arabia and South Arabia certainly existed, as is evidenced by bell-shaped calcite vessels found at ed-Dur (Haerinck, 1992, p. 200 and fig. 27 and an unpublished fragment of banded stone) and Mleiha (Boucharlat, 1988, fig. 25, nos. 10-11). Several of these coins were also found at Qana, the ancient South Arabian port of the kingdom of Hadramawt on the Indian Ocean and at Sumhuram in Dhofar (Sedov & Aydarus, 1995). At Qana they were found in levels dating from the 1st to the 4th c. A.D. This site is also mentioned in the Periplus Maris Erythraei (Casson, 1989, p. 67 & 161) where is stated that “all the frankincense grown in the land is brought into Kanê, as if to a warehouse” from where it was shipped. The port “carries on trade with the ports across the water — Barygaza, Skythia, Omana — and with its neigh- bor, Persis”. Some pellets of myrhh or francincense were found in grave AV at ed-Dur (Haerinck, 1994b, pl. Vd).

Persis In this article the term “Persis” has to be understood as the South Persian local and virtually independent kingdom in Fars province during the Parthian period. It is thus more restricted in interpretation then the word which is used in the Periplus (see previous paragraph; and Casson, 1989, p. 174) where it has most likely to be understood in a much more general sence as Persian or Parthian. 8. Autophradates II (ca. 80 B.C.), silver, obol: ca. 10 mm; 0°; 0.6 g. Obv. bearded king facing right; a little moon crescent on the right temple; rev. stylised firetemple with two vertical divisions and with standing king to the left and on the right side a bird on a standard. Aramaic legend: Vata- phradat (Hill, 1965b, p. 215 nos. 19 & 20, Pl. XXXII, 3 & 4); wtprdt MLK’ (Sellwood, 1983, p. 304). INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 287

8 9* 10*

9* Artaxerxes II (2nd half of the 1st c. B.C.), silver, obol: 0.9 mm.; 12.4 mm.; 270°; 0.6 g. (perforation in coin) (BS 278) Obv. bearded head of king with battlemented crown. Rev. unclear Aramaic legend and unidentifiable representation (altar?) (de Morgan, 1936, p. 282, fig. 354; p. 283, fig. 358; Hill, 1965b, pl. XXXIII nos. 9-21 and pl. XXXIV nos. 1-5, 6-17; Sellwood, 1983, pp. 304-305, pl. 11 nos. 2-3).

10* Artaxerxes II (2nd half of the 1st c. B.C.), billon, obol: 2 mm.; 12 mm.; 180°; 0.64 g. (surface). Obv. bearded head of king with battlemented crown. Rev. king, facing left, standing in front of altar; Aramaic legend (de Morgan, 1936, p. 282, fig. 354; p. 283, fig. 358; Hill, 1965b, pl. XXXIII nos. 9-21 and pl. XXXIV nos. 1-5, 6-17; Sellwood, 1983, pp. 304-305, pl. 11 nos. 2-3).

Two coins (nos. 9 & 10) from Persis were found during our excavations at ed-Dur, and one belongs to a private collection (no. 8). From Mleiha only one Persis coin of the 2nd half of the 1st c. B.C./early 1st century A.D. has been reported. Contacts must have existed across the sea, since at Qasr-i Abu Nasr, east of Shiraz, a fragment of a bronze spout in the shape of a horse was found. There it is probably an imported piece, since this kind of vessel was common in NE and SE-Arabia (Haerinck, 1994b, p. 405, pl. IV & Vc). There remains the question as to whether or not these vessels were produced in Arabia or if they came there from somewhere else. As yet there 288 E. HAERINCK is insufficient proof. No coins from Elymaïs, SW-Iran, have been reported from SE-Arabia. However at Jebel Kenzan, near Hofuf in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia four Elymaean bronze coins have been found. Plinius reports that wood from Elymais was shipped to Gerrha (=Carrhae), which functioned as the port of entry for the Arabian market (Potts, 1996, pp. 276-277).

Parthia

11. Early 1st c. A.D., silver, drachme: 17 mm; 0°; 3.61 g. Obv. bust of king with squarish beard; rev. seated Arsaces; debased inscription, most probably to be understood as: basileoos basileioon arsakou dikaiou euergetou epiphanous philhellenos. A little moon crescent before his head. The coin has probabaly to be dated in the first half of the first century A.D. It is maybe a coin of Artabanos II (10/1-ca. 38 A.D.) or Gotarzes II (40-51 A.D.) (Le Rider, 1965, pl. XIX-XX; Sellwood, 1980, p. 203, 215).

In our excavations we did not find a single Parthian coin; also from Mleiha there have no Parthian coins been reported sofar. The problem of evidence for Parthian political presence on the Ara- bian shores of the Persian Gulf and the interpretation of classical sources is difficult and debated (see e.g. Dabrowa, 1991; Salles, 1995, pp. 130- 131; Potts, 1996, pp. 277-282). In any case contacts must have existed with the Iranian side of the Gulf, as is evidenced by the coins from Per- sis, but also by a quite substantial amount of identical painted wares found at ed-Dur and in SE-Iran (in ancient Carmania: T. Yahya and other sur- veyed sites in Baluchistan: Haerinck, 1983, pp. 226-227; Haerinck, e.a., 1993, p. 187, fig. 5; Potts, 1996, p. 277, fig. 11) which appears to be Iran- ian in origin. INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 289

14*

Nabataea

12. Aretas IV (ca. 9 B.C. - ca. 40 A.D.), silver, drachme: 13.5 mm.; 0°; 4.12 g. Obv.: diademed head of Aretas IV, king of the Nabataeans, the lover of his people, as the inscription says facing right; rev.: the jugate bust of the king and his second wife Shaqilat facing right. He married her after the death of his first wife Huldu, who died ca. the 24th year of his reign. The coin dates therefore ca. 20-40 A.D. Partial Aramaic inscription on obv. and rev. (Hill, 1965b, p. 6, nos. 7-11, pl. I nos. 15-19; Meshorer, 1975, pl. 4 & 5).

13. Aretas IV (ca. 9 B.C. - ca. 40 A.D.), bronze, obol: 14 mm.; 0°; ca. 2.5 g. Obv.: king Aretas facing right; rev.: two cornucopiae with Aramaic monogram; a second monogram (Hill, 1965b, p. 10, nos. 28-31 en pl. II no. 9; Meshorer, 1975, pl. 5).

14* Aretas IV (ca. 9 B.C. - ca. 40 A.D.), bronze: 25 mm.; 19.1 mm.; 0°; 4.3 g. (BS 72) Obv.: head of king Aretas facing right; rev. two crossed cornucopiae and inscription (Meshorer, 1975, pl. 5 nos. 64, 67-78). 290 E. HAERINCK

At least one coin of Nabataean origin was found during our excavations (no. 14). No such coins have been reported from Mleiha, although there has been found a Jewish coin of King Antigonus Mattathias (40-37 B.C.). The Nabataeans were actively involved in international trade, particularly during the reign of king Aretas IV (long reign of 49 years), when economy and international trade reached a peak. Transarabian contacts might have existed, but so far the archaeological evidence is very limited. The most eastern Nabataean coins so far reported were three coins found in NE-Ara- bia. Two were found at Thaj (Aretas IV) together with a Nabataean sherd during the Danish excavations (Potts, 1991b) and one was recovered at Qatif (Malichus I: 27/28th year=34/32 B.C.). The coins from ed-Dur are the most eastern examples yet recovered.

Roman

15. Augustus (30 B.C.-14 A.D.), silver, denarius: 18 mm.; 0°; 3.84 g.; ca. 2 B.C.-11 A.D. Obv.: Bust of Augustus facing right and inscription “CAESAR AVGUS- TUS DIVI F. PATER PATRIAE”; rev.: the caesares Caius and Lucius between shields and lances. Inscription: “AVGVSTI F. COS D >ESIG. PRINC. IVV

16. Tiberius (14-37 A.D.), gold, aureus: 18 mm.; 0°; 7.56 g. RIC 352; Lugdunum (= Lyons); Obv. Caesar Tiberius son of the Divine Augustus: TI CAESAR DIVI AVG. F. AVGVSTVS. Rev. seated female (Livia; mother of Tiberius) in profile; facing right; a sceptre in the right hand and in the left a branch. Great Pontif type. Inscription: PONTIF (right); MAXIM (left) (Mattingly & Sydenham, 1923, p. 90 no. 352, p. 98, pl. III no. 48; Mattingly, 1923, pl. 22).

17. Tiberius (14-37 A.D.), copper, as: ca. 28 mm.; 180°; ca. 14 g. Minted during the reign of Augustus: ca. 10-11 A.D.; Rome (senatorial) type RIC 220 (Mattingly & Sydenham, 1923, p. 82). Obv. >TI. CERAT.V Rev. >PONT

15 16 17

No Roman coins were found during our excavations at ed-Dur, but J.J. Howgego and D. Potts (1992, p. 188, fig. 17-18) reported already on an aureus of Tiberius from ed-Dur (belonging to another collection) and which is very similar to coin no. 16. For Mleiha we have information on one aureus of Augustus, of the Pergamon mint, struck in 19/18 B.C. cele- brating the victory over Armenia (Haerinck, 1998, no. 1). From SE-Arabia there is also the 17th century report by the Portuguese chronicler Antonio Bocarro that a “great number” of gold coins minted by Tiberius Caesar were discovered at Sohar, in Oman, in 1601 (Potts, 1990, p. 292). Presence of Roman coins in the East are the result of trade. A large number, mainly coins of Augustus and Tiberius occur in India. They represent 80% of the silver and around 20% of the Roman gold coins found there (Turner, 1989, pp. 6-10, 17-18; Deo, 1991, p. 40; Ray, 1995, p. 111; Turner & Cribb, 1996). In the Periplus §49 (chapter dealing with the port of Barygaza, in NW-India) it is stated that “Roman money, gold and silver, which commands an exchange at some profit against the local currency”. The export of Roman coins led authors like Plinius (NH 6. 26 §102) to complain by stating that “it is an important subject, in view of the fact that in no year does India absorb less than fifty million sesterces of our empire’s wealth, sending back merchandise to be sold with us at a hundred times its prime cost”. In 22 A.D. Tiberius even wrote a letter to the Roman senate in which he complained about the fact that hard Roman currency was used to obtain exotic goods from the East. His complaints were 292 E. HAERINCK recorded by Tacitus (Ann. 3.53). He cites Tiberius, who said: “If a reform is in truth intended, where must it begin? and how am I to restore the sim- plicity of ancient times?…How shall we reform the taste for dress?…How are we to deal with the peculiar articles of feminine vanity, and in particular with that rage for jewels and precious trinkets, which drains the empire of its wealth, and sends, in exchange for baubles, the money of the common- wealth to foreign nations, and even to the enemies of Rome?”. A few coins occur also on Sri Lanka (Bopearachchi, 1993, p. 72). Not only coins did travel, but Roman objects reached far regions, such as Central Asia (Staviskij, 1995) and India (Deo, 1991; De Puma, 1991; Stern, 1991). Roman/Mediterranean glass even ended up in China (Taniichi, 1983). Also at ed-Dur there were several Roman objects excavated (see also Papadopoulos, 1994). Glass is particulary well represented; bronzes do occur but are rare, and two intaglios have been found. The question arises as to how these objects got there. J.-F. Salles (1995, p. 140) has recently suggested that “The true nature of the international trade in the Gulf area as clearly evidenced by archaeological finds at ed-Dur, Bahrain and other places can be described as Arabo-Indian exchanges, even though Roman items were sometimes carried from the Indian markets along this local and independent channel; in one way, the Arab-Persian Gulf was fed with western products by India”. Of course this is a possibility, but in view of the large quantity of pottery at ed-Dur which has been imported from Characene, it seems more likely that Mediterranean objects, brought over land by caravans or by boats and rafts on the Euphrates to S-Mesopotamia, were re-exported from there to several places in the Gulf. In any case, it is clear that objects from different sources could end up somewhere through different routes and merchants. Business and the people involved are very inventive and flexible and even borders or particular political situations are often no obstacle.

Other Mediterranean coins 18* Gaza (1st/3rd c. A.D.?), bronze: 22,2 mm, 0°, 6.9 g. (BS 70). Badly preserved coin. Obv. laureate bust facing right; rev. standing goddess (Tyche) probably holding a cornucopia. On the right side a big Phoenician letter M, typical for the coins of Gaza (Hill, 1965a, p. 71, pl. XVII). This coin ressembles also the coinage of Bostra, in the Hauran (Piccirillo, 1978, pp. 68-69, Pl. 12 no. 5). INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 293

18* 19* 20*

19* Imperial Greek?, bronze: 20.2 mm., °?, 6.9 g. (M 80). Badly preserved coin; obv.?; rev. a standing man with one arm outstretched. 20* Ascalon? (1st-2nd c. A.D.?), bronze & lead?: 11,6 mm., °?; 1.9 g. (BO 56). Badly preserved coin made of bronze and likely covered with lead; obv. head?; rev. probably prow of a ship (Hill, 1965a, pp. 112-113, pl. XIII, 1-4).

Indian 21. Agnimitra (ca. 151-143 B.C.)? and later Sunga (ca. 151-75 B.C.), copper kharshapana: 12 ≈ 10 mm; 0°; ca. 3 g. Maybe originally silver plated; punchmarked coin; coinhouse Vidisa (Madya Pradesh); Sunga ruler. Four punched symbols: a sun; a 6-arm design and a standing figure (Mitchiner, 1976, p. 790; type 1178). 294 E. HAERINCK

21 22*

24 INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 295

22* Ujjain (ca. 150-75 B.C.), copper: 15.7 ≈ 15.5 mm.; 3.5 g. (M 82). Local issue from West Malwa (Ujjain), located in Madya Pradesh. Obv. some punched symbols; rev. swastika? (Mitchiner, 1976, p. 793; type 1192). This coin was found at floorlevel, outside the temple in area M.

23. Abhiraka/Aubhiraka (late 1st c. B.C.?), copper: ca. 20 mm.; 40°; ca. 6.6 g. Obv. a standing winged Nikè holding a wreath; rev. a lion (?) and wheelstandard. For long the date and the name of the king has been disputed but with this coin and another aswell the name of the king can be read as Abhiraka/Aubhiraka (previously identified as Aghudaka). The coin from ed-Dur gave the first clear reading of the king’s title — victorious (Senior, 1994). On the obv. one reads in Greek “….aratou satrapou a…” which seems to be the equivalent of “(Ksha)haratasa Kshatrapasa A(..)”. On the rev. figures a Brahmi inscription “Khaharatasa Khatrapasa Jayatasa…kasa”. The word Jayatasa means victorious, which can be used as a title or per- sonal name. By letter R.C. Senior informed me in jan. ‘94 that since writing his article he had “found another coin which has the Greek legend complete — it is AYBIRAKIOY — and the Brahmi name is Abhiraka(sa)”. Abhiraka is founder of the Kshaharata Satraps of Saurashtra. The coins of this king were usually dated to ca. 78-ca. 90 A.D. Senior dates this king now in the last decades B.C., although we do not exclude an early 1st A.D. date. This dating looks very acceptable, particularly in view of the fact that his successor is Bhumaka (see coin no. 24), whom himself preceeded to Nahapana. The latter has probably to be equated with Mambanos, mentioned in the Periplus (§41) (Casson, 1989, pp. 197-198; Turner & Cribb, 1996). The Periplus is now generally accepted as dating from 40-70 A.D. (Casson, 1989, pp. 6-7). Nahapana’s court was at Minnagara and the important harbour of Barygaza (see further) belonged to his territory (Mitchiner, 1976, p. 823; type 1249).

24. Bhumaka (early 1 st c. A.D.?), copper: ca. 15 mm.; 40°; 3.48 g. Fragmentary coin, but identifiable. Obv. lion and wheelstandard?; Brahmi legend: “Kshaharatasa Kshatrapasa Bhumakasa”; rev. left an arrow and right a thunderbolt. Kharoshti legend: “Charatasa Chatrapasa Bhumaka”. As mentioned above (see coin no. 23) Bhumaka is successor of Abhiraka/ Aubhiraka and he was succeeded by Nahapana. (Mitchener, 1976, p. 823; type 1250). 296 E. HAERINCK

That Indian coins reached the Gulf should not surprise us. J.-F. Salles in a recent article (1994) drew attention to these contacts.We should not forget that relations between Mesopotamia, Dilmun (area of Bahrain and NE- Arabia), Magan (SE-Iran and SE-Arabia) and Meluhha (Indus-valley) go back to at least the 3rd millennium. Therefore it should not surprise us that Indian sailors always participated in international activities in the Persian Gulf. The Periplus also informs us on these contacts. In §38 there is mention of “the port of trade Barbarikon”, which lies on the coast, at the Indus river. In §41 the harbour of Barygaza (modern Broach) in the Gulf of Barygaza is mentioned, the modern Gulf of Cambay, in Gujerat (Casson, 1989, pp. 77-81, 197-200). Barygaza is by far the most important of the foreign ports cited in the Periplus. It is mentioned in 19 of the 66§. In §36 the merchants from Barygaza are said “sending out big vessels to both of Persis’s ports of trade” (sc. Apologos = lying near Charax Spasinou and the site of Omana: see above). For these activities there is thus not only textual evidence, but archaeological as well. We should also mention here that some pottery found at ed-Dur is certainly of Pakistani/Indian origin. In concluding, we show here also a circular lead knob (diam. 1.6 cm) with the representation of a Roman emperor and which we excavated at ed-Dur (Haerinck, 1996b, p. 70, fig. 6). These objects were made in India, in pottery and in metal and copy mostly coins of Augustus and Tiberius (Deo, 1991, pp. 40-41, fig. 3.1 & 3.2). They occur at numerous sites in the Deccan and North India. Finally we should also mention several etched carnelian beads which we found at ed-Dur and which are also likely imports from India.

Other foreign goods at ed-Dur Besides the coins and other objects there are also numerous beads which point to import of foreign objects at ed-Dur. Suffice to mention the vast amount of stone, glass and frit beads all of which was surely imported. As we stated already there are also etched carnelian beads which originate from India aswell. We were allowed by the Government of Umm al-Qaiwain to export all stone beads for study at the Geology Dept., University of Ghent, by Prof. Dr. P. De Paepe. Several beads deserve here special mention. Some garnets were identified as coming from Sri Lanka (the Taprobane in the Periplus, Pliny and others: Casson, 1989, pp. 230-231), others come from INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 297

Tanzania where they likely were exported through the port of Rhapta (= Dar es Salaam, Tanzania), on the coast of Azania, an ancient city which was controlled by the people from Muza (Moccha), in S-Arabia (Periplus: Casson, 1989, pp. 141-142). Of course, besides the objects coming in from distant regions, there are the invisible imports/exports as well. At ed-Dur there was a surprising find of a carp-bone. This freshwater fish does not occur in Arabia and has to come thus from another region (Van Neer & Gautier, 1993, p. 113).

Final remarks We prepared here a table which shows that sofar 32 foreign coins are known from ed-Dur, and that 17 have been reported from Mleiha. The coins found at both sites show a very similar picture. More Characenean, Persis/Parthian and Indian ones are known from ed-Dur, but more S-Ara- bian coins are said to come from Mleiha. If this slight difference has a meaning, one could advance the suggestion that this is the result of the location of both sites, one being coastal, the second an inland oasis.

Origin ed-Dur Mleiha Seleucia – 1 Characene 11 4 S-Arabian 2 7 Persis/Parthian 4 1 Nabatean/Palestine/Other Mediterranean 6 1 Roman 4 1 Indian 5 2 Total 32 17

The bulk of the foreign coins found at ed-Dur date mainly to the late 1st c. B.C. and the 1st c. A.D. This is corroborated by the other objects found at the site. The majority of these foreign coins are bronze. Silver, lead and gold coins do occur but are rare. There is of course also the question if these foreign coins were used there in commercial transactions with foreigners or if they had a value to the locals too? Were these coins only curiosities? Probably business was done in a different way. The fact that the local Abi’el issues with the full horse (Potts, 1991a, pp. 79-96; 1994, 298 E. HAERINCK pp. 62-76) were found only at ed-Dur and Mleiha and were not found yet on other Near Eastern sites might indicate that they only were used for internal trade within SE-Arabia. The heterogeneous origin of the foreign coins makes it likely that they were not used, either in local or international trade. We suggest that commercial transactions with foreigners did happen in a different way. Barter with e.g. pearls or other local commodities is probably the most likely answer. The picture which emerges from the coin distribution and circulation at ed-Dur is equally reflected in the assemblage from Mleiha, on which we reported already elsewere (Haerinck, 1998). In that article we brought forward the suggestion that for the last centuries of the 1st mill. B.C. and the first centuries A.D. there are three stages to be discerned in trade-relations in E-Arabia. The first period is characterised by caravan-trade, by which NE-Arabian merchants acted as middlemen. The numerous prospections along the southern part of the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf have not brought to light a single coastal site which belongs to the 4th-2nd century B.C. The foreign goods which reached Mleiha came through different channels and most likely not through seaborne trade via the Gulf. In the late 1st century B.C., but particularly during the 1st century A.D. and maybe the first half of the 2nd century A.D. (= second period) foreign goods reached Mleiha through ed-Dur, which was then really at its heydays. Somewhere by the middle or in the second half of the 1st c. B.C. the site of ed-Dur was reoccupied, after it had been deserted during the Iron Age. During this 2nd period we can observe that SE-Arabia got rid of the NE-Arabian middlemen and that it organised now its own trade, or that seaborn trade came to there. The idea and initiative did not necessarely originate in SE-Arabia, since it could well have been stimulated by Chara- cene, in S-Mesopotamia. The latter maybe wanted to bypass NE-Arabia and at the same time saw the opportunity to extend its influence and trade further to the East. This could be seen in the light of and as the result of increase in traffic in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, linked to a higher demand from the West to obtain more exotic goods from the East. Finally we ought to mention that probably in the 1st half of the 2nd c. A.D. the site of ed-Dur declined, as a result of ecological or more likely economical/political reasons. The site was maybe deserted, or, perhaps, a squatter occupation. The pattern of trade changed again and trans-Arabian commerce was re-installed. This is probably best evidenced by the very debased coins (Potts, 1991a, pp. 45-76; 1994, pp. 25-37) which appeared INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 299 in SE-and NE-Arabia. From the 3rd c. onwards the Persian Sasanians made their power felt on the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf and Sasan- ian coins are known from both regions (Potts & Cribb, 1995). The picture which emerges from ed-Dur and Mleiha, two major sites in the southern Gulf, show a very flexible and complicated pattern of long distance interactions through different means and channels. The Persian Gulf was, and still remains, a major route for international contacts and exchange of commodities. Ancient coins, other goods and some scanty written sources reveal only a frozen and unfortunately fragmentary picture of booming activity in this area at the turn and beginning of our era.

Bibliography

BOPEARACHCHI, O., 1993: La circulation des monnaies d’origine étrangère dans l’antique Sri Lanka, Res Orientales V (= Circulation des monnaies, des mar- chandises et des biens), pp. 63-87, ill. BOUCHARLAT, R. & SALLES, J.-F., 1981: The history and archaeology of the Gulf from the fifth century B.C. to the seventh century A.D.: a review of the evidence, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies vol. 11, 1981, pp. 65- 94, 9 fig. BOUCHARLAT, R. & SALLES, J.-F., 1987: L’Arabie Orientale: d’un bilan à un autre, Mesopotamia, vol. XXII, pp. 277-309, ill. BOUCHARLAT, R., 1989: Entre la Méditerranée et l’Inde. Etablissements du Golfe Persique à l’époque gréco-romaine, Revue Archéologique, XXI, pp. 214-220, 3 fig. CASSON, L., 1989: The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with introduction, transla- tion and commentary, Princeton. DABROWA, E., 1991: Die Politik der Arsakiden auf dem Gebiet des südlichen Mesopotamiens und im Becken des Persischen Meerbusens in der zweiten Hälfte des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., Mesopotamia, vol. XXVI, pp. 141-153. DE MORGAN, J., 1936: Manuel de Numismatique Orientale, Paris. DEO, S.B., 1991: Roman Trade: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Western India, Rome and India. The Ancient Sea Trade (Eds. Begley, V. & De Puma, R.D.), Wisconsin, pp. 39-45, fig. DE PUMA, R.D., 1991: The Roman Bronzes from Kolhapur, Rome and India. The Ancient Sea Trade (Eds. Begley, V. & De Puma, R.D.), Wisconsin, pp. 82-112, ill. DOBBINS, E., 1996: Countermarked Characene Tetradrachms of Attambelos IV, American Journal of Numismatics, Second Series 7-8, 1995-96, pp. 83-112, ill. GROOM, N., 1986: Eastern Arabia in Ptolemy’s map, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, vol. 16, pp. 65-75, ill. 300 E. HAERINCK

GROOM, N., 1994: Oman and the Emirates in Ptolemy’s map, Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, vol. 5, pp. 198-214, 2 maps. GROOM, N., 1995: The Periplus, Pliny and Arabia, Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, vol. 6, pp. 180-195. HAERINCK, E., 1983: La céramique en Iran pendant la période parthe (ca. 250 av. J.C. à ca. 225 après J.C.): typologie, chronologie et distribution, Gent. HAERINCK, E., 1992: Excavations at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.)-preliminary report on the fourth Belgian season (1990), Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, vol. 3, pp. 190-208, 35 fig. HAERINCK, E., 1994a: Héraclès dans l’iconographie des monnaies arabes pré-islamiques d’Arabie du Sud-est?, Akkadica, vol. 89-90, pp. 9-13, ill. HAERINCK, E., 1994b: Un service à boire décoré. A propos d’iconographie ara- bique préislamique, Mesopotamian History and Environment. Occasional Publi- cations vol. III. Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le Proche-Orient Ancien offertes en hommage à Leon De Meyer (Eds. H. Gasche & M. Tanret), Gent, pp. 401- 426, VIII Pl. HAERINCK, E., 1996a: Quelques monnaies pré-islamiques à monogramme prove- nant d’Arabie du sud-est, Collectanea Orientalia. Histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre. Etudes offertes en hommage à Agnès Spycket (Textes réu- nis par H. Gasche et B. Hrouda) (= Civilisations du Proche-Orient. Serie I. Archéologie et Environnement 3), Neuchâtel-Paris, pp. 113-117, 9 fig. HAERINCK, E., 1996b: The seventh and eighth Belgian archaeological expeditions to ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, UAE), Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, vol. 7, pp. 69-74, 11 fig. HAERINCK, E., 1998: The shifting pattern of overland and seaborne trade in SE- Arabia: foreign pre-islamic coins from Mleiha, Akkadica, vol. 106, pp. 22-40. HAERINCK, E., PHILLIPS, C.S., POTTS, D.T. & STEVENS, K.G., 1993: Ed-Dur, Umm al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.), Materialien zur Archäologie der Seleukiden- und Parther- zeit im südlichen Babylonien und im Golfgebiet (Hrsg. Uwe Finkbeiner), Tübingen, pp. 183-193, 5 fig. HILL, G.F., 1965a: Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Palestine (Galilee, Samaria, and Judaea), Bologna. HILL, G.F., 1965b: Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia (Nabataea, Arabia Provincia, S. Arabia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Alexandrine Empire of the East, Persis, Elymais, Characene), Bologna. HOWGEGO, C.J. & POTTS, D.T., 1992: Greek and Roman coins from Eastern Ara- bia, Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, vol. 3 no 3, pp. 183-189, 18 fig. LE RIDER, G., 1965: Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes. Les trouvailles moné- taires et l’histoire de la ville (= Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique en Iran, Tome XXXVIII), Paris. MATTINGLY, H., 1923: Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. I, Augustus to Vitellius, London. MATTINGLY, H. & SYDENHAM, E.A., 1923: The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. I, Augustus-Vitellius, London. INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS IN THE SOUTHERN PERSIAN GULF 301

MESHORER, Y., 1975: Nabataean Coins (= Qedem 3), Jerusalem. MITCHINER, M., 1976: Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage. Vol. 9. Greeks, Sakas and their contemporaries in Central and Southern India, London. NODELMANN, S.A., 1960: A preliminary history of Characene, Berytus XIII, fasc. 2, pp. 83-121, Pl. XXVII-XXVIII. PAPADOPOULOS, J.K., 1994: A Western Mediterranean amphora fragment from ed-Dur, Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, vol. 5, pp. 276-279, 2 fig. PICCIRILLO, M., 1978: The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia (Studi Biblici Franciscani Collectio Maior 25), Jerusalem. POTTS, D.T., 1988: Arabia and the Kingdom of Characene, Araby the Blest. Stud- ies in Arabian Archaeology (Ed. Potts, D.T.) (= The Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 7), Copenhagen, pp. 137-167, 2 fig. POTTS, D.T., 1990: The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity II. Alexander the Great to the Coming of Islam, Oxford. POTTS, D.T., 1991a: The Pre-Islamic Coinage of Eastern Arabia, (= The Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 14), Copenhagen. POTTS, D.T., 1991b: Nabataean finds from Thaj and Qatif, Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, vol. 2 no 2, pp. 138-144, 7 fig. POTTS, D.T., 1994: Supplement to The Pre-Islamic Coinage of Eastern Arabia, (= The Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 16), Copenhagen. POTTS, D.T., 1996: The Parthian Presence in the Arabian Gulf, The Indian Ocean in Antiquity (Ed. Reade, J.), London, pp. 269-285, 13 fig. POTTS, D.T. & CRIBB, J., 1995: Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian Coins from eastern Arabia, Iranica Antiqua vol. XXX (= Festschrift K. Schippmann II), pp. 123- 139, pl. RACKMAN, H., 1942: Pliny Natural History (The Loeb Classical Library), Lon- don, Cambridge. RAY, H.P., 1995: A Resurvey of Roman Contacts with the East, Athens, Aden, Arikamedu. Essays on the interrelations between India, Arabia and the East- ern Mediterranean (Ed. Boussac, M.F & Salles, J.-F.), New Delhi, pp. 97-114 (= reprinted from Topoi, vol. 3/2, 1993, pp. 479-492). SALLES, J.-F., 1988: La circumnavigation de l’Arabie dans l’Antiquité Classique, L’Arabie et ses Mers bordières. I. Itiniraires et voisinages (Ed. J.-F. Salles), (= Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient no 16), pp. 75-102, 1 fig. SALLES, J.-F., 1992a: Review of D.T. Potts, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, vol. II, Topoi 2, pp. 201-235. SALLES, J.-F., 1992b: Découvertes du Golfe Arabo-Persique aux époques grecque et romaine, Revue des Etudes anciennes, Tome 94 no 1-2, pp. 79-97. SALLES, J.-F., 1994: India and the Near East: the bridge of Arabia, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Hum. vol. 39, no 1, pp. 41-58. SALLES, J.-F., 1995: The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea and the Arab-Persian Gulf, Athens, Aden, Arikamedu. Essays on the interrelations between India, Arabia and the Eastern Mediterranean (Ed. Boussac, M.F. & Salles, J.-F.), New Delhi, pp. 115-146 (= reprinted from Topoi, vol. 3/2, 1993, pp. 493- 523). 302 E. HAERINCK

SEDOV, A.V. & AYDARUS, U., 1995: The coinage of ancient Hadramawt. The Pre- Islamic coins in the al-Mûkalla Museum, Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, vol. 6, pp. 15-60, ill. SELLWOOD, D.G., 1980: An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia (2nd. ed.), London. SELLWOOD, D.G., 1983: Minor States in Southern Iran, The Cambridge History of Iran, vol 3 (1). The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Cambridge, pp. 299-317, ill. SENIOR, R.C., 1993: Aghudaka? A new discovery gives a clearer reading, Numis- matic Studies, vol. 3, New Delhi, pp. 35-38, ill. SENIOR, R.C., 1994: Coinage and trade in Eastern Arabia c. 100 BC-100 AD, Butleigh, 20 p. (own distribution). STERN, E.M., 1991: Early Roman Export Glass in India, Rome and India. The Ancient Sea trade (Eds. Begley, V. & De Puma, R.D.), Wisconsin, pp. 113-124, ill. STAVISKIJ, B.J., 1995: Central Asian Mesopotamia and the Roman world. Evidence of contacts, In the Land of the Gryphons. Papers on Central Asian archaeology in antiquity (ed. A. Invernizzi) (= Monografie di Mesopotamia V), Firenze, pp. 191- 202, 7 fig. STEVENS, K.G. & HAERINCK, E., 1996: Pre-Islamic Archaeology of Kuwait, North- eastern Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman: A Bibliogra- phy. First Supplement (1985-1995), Leuven. TANIICHI, T., 1983, Pre-Roman and Roman Glass Recently Excavated in China, Bulletin of the Okayama Orient Museum, vol. 3, pp. 83-105, ill. TURNER, P.J., 1989: Roman Coins from India (Institute of Archaeology. Occasional Publication no 12 / Royal Numismatic Society. Special Publication no 22), London. TURNER, P.J. & CRIBB, J., 1996: Numismatic Evidence for the Roman Trade with Ancient India, The Indian Ocean in Antiquity (Ed. J. Reade), London, pp. 309- 319, ill. VAN NEER, W. & GAUTIER, A., 1993: Preliminary report on the faunal remains from the coastal site of ed-Dur, 1st-4th century A.D, Archaeozoology of the Near East. Proceedings of the first international symposium on the archaeozoology of southwestern Asia and adjacent areas (Eds. Buitenhuis, H. & Clason, A.T), Leiden, pp. 110-118.