Page 294 - Life & Land Use on the Bahrain Islands (Curtis E Larsen)

-270-

Other Temporal Markers

The preceding pottery types point to the Sasanian period, and others reinforce this
interpretation. Figure 62c, for example, exhibits a bowl with a rim form common
in the Roman period occupation at Antioch (Waage 1948, Plate 8, nos. 817k, 818, and
825); Waage dates the bowl to the fourth century A.D. or the Early Sasanian period.
Two glazed pottery types are shown in Figure 62i and j. Both of these have been
listed as Parthian types at Seleucia on Tigris by Debevoise (1934). Oates, however,
shows a vessel similar to Figure 62i as Hellenistic (Oates 1968, fig. 19, no. 117).
TTius, this form may have a broader range. Green and white glazes make an
appearance in these levels. Samples from the Qalat show a deliberate separate
application of green and white glazes which later flow together during firing.
TTie forms shown have a close relation with those from Tell Abu Sarifa,
but none of Adams’ other types seem to be present here. Much is still unknown
about Sasanian pottery in the gulf region. Beatrice De Cardi (1975), for example,
shows a variety of what she considers to be Sasanian pottery forms from the
Musandam Peninsula. A Sasanian assemblage has also been described by Lamberg-
Karlovsky (1970) from Tepe Yahya. Whitehouse and Willamson (1973) show a variety
of imported late Sasanian period Indian vessels at Siraf and elsewhere on the
Persian shore of the Gulf. No parallels were observed between the ceramic forms
discussed here and these Indian vessels. Further, no parallels could be found that
linked any of the surface collections made by myself or the Danish Expedition with
these other regional collections. Dark green-glazed buff ware with applied plastic
designs illustrated as Sasano-Islamic at Siraf by Whitehouse (1972) is conspicuously
absent from this sounding, However, this has never been convincingly
demonstrated to be Sasanian (H. T. Wright, personal communication).
One interpretation for a lack of correlation may lie in the absence of a
broad sample of published analyses of Sasanian pottery. TTiere may simply be few
possibilities for comparing collections. Another may be that the full Sasanian
range is not represented in these soundings at the qalat. Still another may be local
differences among the other Sasanian sites in the region. Bahrain may have its own
distinct local pottery assemblage during this interval.