Questioning the BI-Ware - article ; n°1 ; vol.18, pg 303-334

Jean-François Salles

Description

Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient - Année 1990 - Volume 18 - Numéro 1 - Pages 303-334
32 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

• Publié par: TRAVAUX_DE_LA_MAISON_DE_L-ORIENT
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1990
• Nombre de lectures: 28
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 3 Mo

Extrait

Jean-Francois Salles
Questioning the BI-Ware
In: Failaka, fouilles françaises 1986-1988. Sous la direction de Yves Calvet et Jeacqueline Gachet. Lyon : Maison de
l'Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, 1990. pp. 303-334. (Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient)
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Salles Jean-Francois. Questioning the BI-Ware. In: Failaka, fouilles françaises 1986-1988. Sous la direction de Yves Calvet et
Jeacqueline Gachet. Lyon : Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, 1990. pp. 303-334. (Travaux de la Maison
de l'Orient)
http://www.persee.fr/web/ouvrages/home/prescript/article/mom_0766-0510_1990_rpm_18_1_1769:
QUESTIONING THE BI-WARE
Jean-François SALLES
In the very beginning of her book about the Hellenistic pottery from Failaka, Lise
Hannestad refers to the BI-Group which she defines as follows :
« a special group, characterized by a pale yellow clay (Munsell 2.5 Y8/4.8/2) and a heavy,
dark green glaze which decays into a dark brownish-yellow. To a large extent the group
uses other shapes than those seen in the majority of glazed ware, and very characteristic
are also the more elaborate forms with pronounced ring feet and richly profiled runs »
(1983: 14).
The various pots and sherds which belong to this group are described and discussed
at length in each section of L. Hannestad's study, and the conclusions are stated :
« The BI-Group of glazed ware, which clearly represents a late and limited habitation on
the site, has so far been reported only from Susiana where it is supposed by Haerinck
to belong to the late Parthian period (1st cent. A.D. to ca 225 A.D.). On Failaka, a date
no earlier than the later part of the Ist' cent. B.C. and probably in the Is' cent. A.D. is
confirmed by the find of Nabataean bowls together with this ware, whereas the two
imitations of ESA bowls form 19 (cat. nos 36-36) found together with the BI-Group rather
point towards the Ist cent. B.C. than later. A dating about the beginning of our era is
thus the most probable.
Period II : probably very late Is' cent. B.C. into the first cent. A.D. » (ibid. : 78).
After three seasons of excavation on about 450 m2, which are nearly a third of the
surface excavated by the Danes, the French archaeological mission was unable to identify
a single sherd of the BI-Group pottery. We discussed the problem several times with
Lise Hannestad who kindly provided us with some samples of BI-Ware in order to get
true and physical references1. However, our investigations proved fruitless. On the other
1. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Lise Hannestad, University of Aarhus, for her
tireless encouragements in my approach of the BI-Ware. We have been discussing the question (and many
others, too !) lor several years ; she kindly allowed me to use all the drawings of her publication. Overall,
she corrected and commented at length the first version of this paper, letting me avoid a lot of mistakes
and misunderstanding. I have thought useful to introduce most of her recent remarks in the present paper;
they are being referred to by her initials, L.H. I am pleased to dedicate this paper to Lise Hannestad as
a token of friendly regard.
During a meeting organized by Professor Uwe Finkbeiner in Tübingen in June 1987, a preliminary
account of the present paper was presented and discussed with several colleagues working in the Gulf
area R. Boucharlat, K. Ciuk, J. Gachet, E. Haerinck, E. Keall, M. Kervran, O. Lecomte, B. and T. Leisten,
D. Potts and E. Valtz, and Lise Hannestad as well. Although it benefited very much of various interventions,
the present paper does not present the final results of the meeting on this special subject, and reflects
my own assumptions only ; therefore, possible mistakes or misinterpretations are under my unique
responsability.
M. Kervran and D.T. Potts were kind enough in allowing me to publish drawings of some of their
unpublished material : my warm thanks to both of them. R. Boucharlat, Y. Calvet and P. Lombard read
the first version of this paper and enriched it with their comments, as well as D.T. Potts and E. Valtz who
corrected some of my misinterpretations.
Failaka: 1986-1988
TMO 18, Lyon, 1990 304 J.-F. SALLES
Figure 1. Catalogue of the Bl-group, after Hannestad 1983 : A. The Glazed BI-Ware.
Cat. Shape Glazed Usual glazed References
BI-Ware ware in of location
BI-Group
31 bowl with angular X WE 62-70
profile and BI and BJ
outturned rim
rounded bowl X 35 AC LP
36 id. X WE 82-90, BY + WE, 62-
70 FN, C
53 id. X WE 62-70 BI
54 id. X WE 62-70 BI and BX,
WE 82-90 BY
55 id. X WE 62-70 BI
56 id. X WE 62-70 BI and DF, WE
82-90 BY
57 id. X WE 62-70 BI + WE 82-90
BY
58 id. X WE 82-90 BY
125 bowl with X WE 64, 38 AV
flaring rim
and offset lip,
variant 2
126 id. X WE 52-60 FE
Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion 141 X id., variant 3 0 AIP
175 large rounded X WE 62-65 BI
bowl
176 id. X WE 62-70 BI + C
177 id. X WE 62-70 BI
179 id. X WE 62-70 BI
180 id. X WE 62-70 BI
181 id. X WE 62-70 BI + D
182 id. X WE 62-70 Β I
183 id. X WE 62-70 BI
184 id. X WE 62-70 BI
185 bowl X WE 52-60 DN,
WE 82-90 BY,
WE 62-70 BX
187 beaker X D-F ext. s.
189 X WE 65, 90-70 BK + C + A-C drinking cup
190 id. X ? A-C + C + C ext. n.
204 X fish-plate C
205 id. X WE 62-70 BI
206 id. X WE 65 QUESTIONING THE BI-WARE 305
Figure 1. Catalogue of the BI-Group, after Hannestad 1983
WE 62-70 BI-BX, WE 82- 207 id. X
90 BY
X C + F5K BI 272 amphora
287 id. X C
X C + C ext. n. 290 id.
WE 82-90 BY + WE 62- 291 id. X
70 BX + AC + C
X WE 62-70 BI 315 pilgrim flask
handle ? X C 333
vol. 1, p. 44
X heavy foot
vol. 1, p. 26
B. Related
Wares
400 Arabian WE 62-70 BI
Red-Washed
WE 62-70 BI 419 Nabatean
Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion Ware
WE 62-70 BI 420 id.
421 id. WE 62-70 BI
422 id. J
id. C ext. n. 423
424 id.
425 id. Q
426 id. Q
499 WE 62-70 BI Commonware,
closed shapes
WE 62-70 BI 510 storage jar
WE 82-90 BY + C 537 glazed
cooking-ware
WE 82-90 BY + AC 538 id.
red WE 82-90 BY 553
cooking-ware J.-F. SALLES 306
hand, the new stratigraphie sequence described in the previous chapter by Jacqueline
Gachet shows a late level (Period 4 /Stage V) during which a scattered re-occupation
of the site was found on the abandoned ruins of the earlier levels : it may well be the
« limited settlement set up in front and in the pronaos of Temple A, which was by now in
ruins » (ibid. : 78), which is characterized by the BI-Ware. It might as well be something
different, since the pottery from our Period 4 is similar in all its aspects to the corpus
of the earlier levels, without any BI-Ware, and although no stratified finds could help
us in dating this late level, two Characenian coins point to a date in the second half
of the 1st cent. B.C. The question, thus, can be formulated as follows :
- a) our Period 4 is not L. Hannestad's Period II2, and the stratigraphy of the site includes :
Hannestad's Period I (our 1 to 3)
our Period 4, late 1st cent. B.C. Period II, end of 1st cent. B.C. into 1st cent. A.D.
- b) our Period 4 is L. Hannestad's Period II, and we have to slightly revise the datation
proposed for the BI-Group of glazed ware, which cannot exceed the beginning of our
era. It may also imply a revision of its interpretation (origin, comparisons, etc.), especially
in the light of new research at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris3. It is the purpose of this paper.
L.H. rightly comments on this perhaps 'fallacious alternative. In case a), our Period 4
could well fall into her Period I, since the pottery is identical in both. If so, the end of
Period I, which L.H. assigned to the early 1st cent. B.C. on the basis of a Hyspaosines
n° 67), coin and the terracotta figurines of so-called Parthian kings (Mathiesen 1982,
should be redated to the end of the 1st cent. B.C., in accordance with the abovementioned
Characenian coins - which, I should stress it, are not stratified. Consequently, L.H.'s
Period II should be definitely pushed into the 1st cent. A.D. In case b), why should our 4 be identical with L.H.'s Period II since pottery types are different, the BI-Ware
being absent from our Period 4 ?
Without. developing counter-arguments, I would like to schematically sum up the two
stratigraphies :
French excavations Danish excavations
Period I (mid-3rd cent. Period 1 to 3 (early 3rd cent.
early 1st cent.) B.C. mid-2nd cent. B.C.)
hiatus hiatus
Period II (late 1st cent. B.C. Period 4 (probably second half
into the 1st cent. A.D.) of 1st cent. B.C.)
I would be tempted to identify both hiatus as a single period. However, I understand
L.H.'s arguments, and we could suggest the following sequence :
Period I (more or less Periods 1 to 3)
hiatus
Period 4
hiatus
Period II
Actually, the elucidation of this puzzle needs further investigation, both in archaeological
and histo