Sasanian Pottery in Southern Iran and Eastern Arabia

Abstract

Very few archaeological sites of the Sasanian period have been identified from Southern Iran and Eastern Arabia. In part this is because a securely-dated Sasanian ceramic assemblage has not yet been isolated in this region, making it impossible to recognise with confidence the ceramic wares upon which the identification of archaeological sites normally depends. The problem is exemplified by Eastern Arabia, where considerably more systematic archaeological survey has been published than from Southern Iran.' The Eastern Province Survey (Potts et al. 1978), the al-Hasi Survey (Adams et al. 1977; Whitcomb 1978), and Larsen's survey of Bahrain (Larsen 1983) were expected to produce evidence of the Sasanian-period activity that is attested by historical sources.2 However, each of the surveys had difficulty in establishing a distinct pottery corpus with which to do this. Whitcomb flatly admitted that at al-Has? he was completely unable to isolate a corpus of Sasanian material from the survey collection (1978: 99). In Bahrain Larsen attempted to establish a set of six Late Parthian/Sasanian type fossils (Larsen 1983: 252-53, fig. 55), but Potts has since reviewed these, pointing out that they are, in fact, more typical of the Seleucid and Parthian periods (Potts 1990ii: 108-10). For the Eastern Province Survey Potts proposed a number of Sasanian wares, but acknowledged that it was difficult, if not impossible, to identify Sasanian pottery with confidence (Potts et al. 1978: 12). Of course it is possible that there was very little Sasanian-period occupation in the areas covered by these surveys, but only once the ceramic assemblage is properly understood can we be certain of this. Similar problems would be faced by archaeological survey in Southern Iran.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 41 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.