Networked spaces
| , , ,Islands and insularity
The integration of the island of Ikaros into “international” and regional networks
Résumé
Nos recherches récentes sur l’établissement d’Ikaros dans le golfe Arabo-Persique apportent une nouvelle contribution à la connaissance des réseaux auxquels l’île a appartenu, de la période hellénistique à la période parthe : réseaux séleucide, régional ou « international ». En particulier, l’étude des fortifications, qui confirme la fondation de la forteresse par les Séleucides, a mis en évidence l’existence de phases d’abandon qui montrent que l’île devait alors être exclue du royaume séleucide. Parallèlement, l’élevage et la consommation pérennes de porcs, une pratique que nous pensons avoir été introduite sur l’île par les Séleucides, ne s’est pas interrompue, y compris pendant les phases d’absence de ce pouvoir politique. La céramique quant à elle indique clairement une coexistence de pratiques liées à des influences à la fois « grecque » et régionale.
Entrées d'index
Mots clés :
île de Failaka, Tell Said, golfe Arabo-Persique, séleucide, fortification, céramique, faune, phasage chronologiqueTexte intégral
- 1 The uncovered archaeological sites that compose the settlement are located on the south-western pa (...)
- 2 The dated chronology has been established by the researchers belonging to the former missions, who (...)
1The settlement of Ikaros (Failaka Island, Kuwait), composed of several establishments,1 was founded in the Hellenistic period around the 3rd century BC, and lasted to the 1st century AD, in the Parthian period. These dates were mainly established through the comparisons of artefacts (pottery, figurines), inscriptions in Greek language, and coins (hoards and stray finds).2
- 3 Also named F5 by the archaeologists, after the first grid set up on the area.
2On the site today known as Tell Said,3 at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, a fortified establishment was built on a square plan, including domestic buildings like dwellings and a well, as well as religious constructions: two temples occupy a central place in the site, temple A built on a characteristic Greek plan (naos, pronaos, distyle in antis), and temple B on a square plan with one room (fig. 1).
Fig. 1 – Aerial view of the Hellenistic settlement, with numbering of the towers; north is on top (H. Al Mutairi/DAMK [Department of Antiquities and Museums – Kuwait]/NCCAL [National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters]).
![Fig. 1 – Aerial view of the Hellenistic settlement, with numbering of the towers; north is on top (H. Al Mutairi/DAMK [Department of Antiquities and Museums – Kuwait]/NCCAL [National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters]).](docannexe/image/16386/img-1-small517.jpg)
- 4 E.g. Gachet, Salles 1993; Kosmin 2013; Hannestad 2020.
- 5 Salles 1987, pp. 88, 108‑109.
- 6 On the Characenian kingdom, see Kosmin 2013; Schuol 2000.
- 7 We include the lands reachable through the rivers flowing into the Gulf (until Mesopotamia, Persid (...)
- 8 Salles 2012.
3The question of the insertion of the settlement of Ikaros into regional networks has been discussed before.4 The networks existing in the Gulf from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD were mainly based on the control of trade routes transporting precious products. They followed complex and shifting ramifications, some set up at the Achaemenid period,5 some new. The new ones were set up by great kingdoms such as the Seleucid and then the Parthian, or by local powers such as the Gerrhean and the Characenian.6 In this article, by “international” we mean networks that were connecting distant places (India, eastern Mediterranean) and that depended on authorities established outside the Arab/Persian Gulf, distinct from the Seleucids; by “regional” we mean networks from closer regions (South and East Arabia, Mesopotamia, Susiana)7 and that were independent of the Seleucid power.8
- 9 We will provide a detailed and complete final publication: Gelin forthcoming.
- 10 Research led from 2007 to 2009 with the former French mission, then from 2011 to 2018 with the Fre (...)
- 11 To date, we have no element that allow us to suggest other dates.
4Our purpose here is to contribute to this question for Ikaros, presenting some of our preliminary results based on our recent archaeological observations.9 Since 2011, our new research10 redefines the different phases of the site of Tell Said and highlights several important elements, some of which are described in the present article. So far we do not question the dates established by our predecessors,11 but our phasing and its interpretations differ in part.
The fortifications
- 12 Other elements must of course be considered, which exceed the limits of this short presentation.
5According to the archaeological evidence, the fortifications of the Tell Said establishment, and sometimes even the entire site, experienced alternating periods of use and abandonment. This aspect is the main element that we consider here,12 to determine whether a strong military power had authority over the island and to propose a relative chronology of six periods, from the foundation to the final abandonment of the establishment.
First period
- 13 The phasing presented in this article fits to the archaeological evidence. It cancels and replaces (...)
- 14 Our work on the well allows us to associate it to the very first foundation of the Greek stronghol (...)
6The first Hellenistic foundation at the location of Tell Said was a stronghold.13 The defensive aspect of the establishment is not in doubt and was pre-eminent, as it has been demonstrated by the archaeological evidence. Moreover, the possibility of facing a siege was anticipated by the occupants, as they took care to dig at least one well – probably two – (fig. 2)14 inside the walls by the time they had built the stronghold.
- 15 Gelin 2012, pp. 14‑18.
- 16 Jeppesen 1989.
- 17 Ginouvès 1998, pp. 20‑21; Callot 1991; Gelin 2012.
- 18 By us or by the previous archaeologists.
7The fortifications, carefully built,15 follow a square plan and the defence system is typical of Greek military constructions, with two fortified gates and four angle towers astride the ramparts (fig. 3). During the 3rd century BC, the only “Greek” military presence in the region was the Seleucid kingdom and, like the previous archaeologists, we attribute the construction of the establishment to the Seleucids. Even if the religious aspect has been important inside the walls (temples A and B), this establishment cannot be understood as a temenos, and we assume that it cannot be considered as a “sacred enclosure”.16 According to R. Ginouvès, the site could not be named “fort” or “fortress”,17 because these appellations would imply that the occupation was essentially a military one. However, despite the fact that the first establishment was a combination of military and religious occupations, its main function was the defence of a territory (including its religious buildings), and we consider that the term “fortress” is the most appropriate to name the establishment. For this first period, the other constructions that have been found inside the fortress18 are too fragmentary to provide complete plans, making it impossible to determine their real function.
Fig. 3 – South-western tower (tower 7), view to north-east; against the outside faces, reinforcements of the period 1, in mud bricks then later in rubble stones (H. Al Mutairi/DAMK/NCCAL).

8For the second phase, after a while, a general reinforcement of the fortifications was undertaken. A supplementary glacis was built against the towers and the south gate, the north gate was carefully protected by two towers flanking it and by a chicane entrance, and two more towers were built against the ramparts on both east and west curtains. This reinforcement operation can be interpreted according to two hypotheses: either the Seleucid occupants feared an external threat and decided to build up their defence; or it was a normal step in the construction of the fortifications.
- 19 The north passage was presented by O. Callot as a small postern (Callot 1991, p. 123). This point (...)
9Finally, the protection of the north passage could have been realised either with two towers flanking it, or with a chicane. The fact that both of these defence systems were deemed necessary could reflect frequent use, which then make it appear as a true gate and not a postern.19
Second period
- 20 For this term, see Ginouvès 1992, p. 28.
- 21 Which was the first interpretation (Callot 1991, p. 127). The new excavations of tower 8 and J.‑M. (...)
10During this period, the fortifications underwent a major decline, while the presence of domestic buildings increased. In a first stage, the fortifications suffered erosion which impacted the mud-brick elevations that melted (for instance, observed for tower 8 and the west curtains, and probable for the chicane). Then, the stone wall socles of the towers 5, 7 and 8 were partly robbed and, probably at the same time, the tower 3 was entirely dismantled and the chicane almost totally; finally, the west curtains underwent degradations. The kind of dilapidation20 of the wall socles shows that their destruction was not due to the shocks of an artillery attack,21 but does correspond to a robbing: it should rather be put in parallel with the development of housing, for the construction of which stones were needed and probably taken from the socles. The growth of domestic constructions inside the limits of the former stronghold is shown by the multiplication of walls and the accumulation of layers inside the rooms close to the north rampart; a room with regular layers of ashes also suggests a possible artisan workshop. The well was closed by that time and walls were built over it. The passage inside the south gate (tower 6) was reduced and the tower probably lost its military function. Finally, in a last stage, on the north the chicane was rebuilt.
- 22 Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005, p. 68.
- 23 Callot 1991, p. 127.
11Because of the absence of attention to the defensive aspect until the abandonment of the ramparts, this second period gives evidence that the Seleucid authority was not in charge of the establishment anymore. The Seleucids would, at least, have maintained in a good state the fortifications of a stronghold established on the margins of the kingdom. We are not going to discuss the exact reason for this disengagement, which has been interpreted by the previous archaeologists as a retreat of the Seleucid forces to the western provinces of the kingdom.22 The partial destruction of the fortifications for the construction of housing questions the theory that attributes this damage to the use of artillery during a siege conducted by the Seleucids to retake the settlement at the beginning of the third period.23 We do not reconsider here if this recapture could have been violent, however it now appears that the destruction of the fortifications occurred from the beginning of the second period.
Third period
12In the first phase, this period began with a complete restoration of the defensive system: reconstruction of the destroyed or damaged towers, reinforcement of the curtains, extension of the stronghold further to the north with a new rampart to protect domestic constructions which occupied the space outside the first rampart, digging of a moat surrounding the entire stronghold and extension of the north-south street to the north. The space between the two north ramparts continued to be occupied, as attested by the dense accumulation alternating soils and occupation layers.
13The second phase is characterised by a large excavation dug in the north-western corner of the stronghold, between the north part of the north-south street, the tower 9 and the second north rampart, with a south limit corresponding to tower 2 (fig. 4). It destroyed part of the previous constructions, down to the virgin soil. It was filled with mud bricks taken from the elevation of the first north rampart and thrown haphazardly together, forming a quite dense and resistant mass, with a horizontal surface. The reason for the set-up of this huge mass is unknown; could it have been deemed necessary to create a solid platform for the needs of military machines?
Fig. 4 – The stronghold in the period 3‑2, north is on top; in red, fortifications of the period 1-1; in orange from period 1-2; in green, period 3; on the north, the rectangle in dark green corresponds to the great “platform” (drawing: M. Gelin; map: O. Callot, J. Humbert/MAFKF).

- 24 Mørkholm 1960, p. 205; Callot 1991, p. 126; Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005, p. 69.
14The study alone of the restoration of the fortifications cannot assert the Seleucids re-established authority, but the discovery, by the former Danish and French missions, of coins of Seleucid kings dated from the end of the 3rd century, goes in this direction.24
Fourth period
15Several elements show an abandonment of the fortress in this period, characterised by an erosion of the fortifications in several places and destruction inside the stronghold. South of the first north rampart, the walls of several rooms collapsed on complete ceramic assemblages, that the owners did not have the time to take away.
Fifth period
- 25 The site is not a stronghold anymore.
- 26 In 2018 we collected pottery that protruded on the surface of the southern part of the site. In 20 (...)
16On a large part of the surface of the tell,25 a civilian occupation occurred: numerous buildings were constructed above the previous remains.26
- 27 Callot, Gachet, Salles 1987, p. 71; Hannestad 2020, p. 321; Kosmin 2013.
17It is very probable that this last period corresponds to an occupation related with the Characenian kingdom.27
Sixth period
18Final abandonment.
The pottery
- 28 Salles 1993, p. 73; Boucharlat 1993, pp. 64‑66.
- 29 Oates 1959, p. 138.
- 30 Toll 1943.
- 31 Fleming 1989; Salles 1986a, pp. 201‑205.
- 32 Hannestad 1990, pp. 5‑6.
- 33 Hannestad 1990, pp. 2‑3; Valtz 2002, p. 334.
- 34 Callot, Gachet, Salles 1987, p. 46; Bernard, Gachet, Salles 1990, p. 255.
- 35 Inside the settlement, several indications suggest the presence of a craft workshop linked to the (...)
- 36 Monerie 2017, p. 207.
19The pottery collected in the settlement of Ikaros island reflects several influences which combine both shapes adapted from Greek models, and traditions mainly from Mesopotamia and the Arab/Persian Gulf. Some authors28 highlighted that, since the 4th century BC, the Hellenistic corpus adopted techniques which pre-existed since the Neo-Babylonian period, especially the use of glaze.29 This technological and morphological association concerned the entirety of the Hellenistic repertoire (both tableware and small closed forms) and lasted until the Parthian period (e.g. in Dura Europos on the Euphrates, 2nd century BC – 2nd century AD).30 The eggshell ware, which existed since the Neo-Assyrian and Achaemenid periods,31 persisted as well. It was quite different for the black-glazed imports which were scarce, as they were in Susa, Nimrud32 or Seleucia-on-the-Tigris33 at the same periods. The origin of the pottery present in Failaka remains unclear. J. Gachet, V. Bernard and J.‑F. Salles hypothesized that a local production facility may have existed in Ikaros.34 As no workshop linked to the production of Hellenistic pottery has been hitherto found on Failaka,35 we can also assume that workshops probably located elsewhere (southern Mesopotamia?) could have supplied the island with average quality productions.36
- 37 This category was so named by L. Hannestad to mention black washed and especially red washed vesse (...)
- 38 Hannestad 1983, p. 89.
- 39 A detailed study of the fabrics of the pottery is in progress by J.‑B. Houal.
20Considering the Ikaros corpus that we examined, the “Arabian” wares37 mainly compose the tableware (fig. 5). However, it is not surprising to distinguish, in parallel with coarse fabric production, grey ware coming from Qalaat al‑Bahrain, as well as fine ware covered with black and red slip.38 Previous excavations have also highlighted the presence of fine pottery with beige-pink fabric and whitish slip. This evidence allows us to suggest that there may have been several workshops, the locations of which are still to be determined. This requires a broader study even if the number of fragments found remains very limited, taking into account the stratigraphic levels of the different phases.39
- 40 Lecomte 1993, fig. 10; Boucharlat 1993, tab. 11.
- 41 Durand 2019, p. 580.
- 42 Gachet 1990, pp. 176‑180; Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005, p. 70.
- 43 We uncovered fragments of pottery with a thick coat of bitumen which overflowed the limits of the (...)
- 44 Boucharlat 1993; Finkbeiner 1993; Lecomte 1987; Lombard, Kervran 1993; Toll 1943.
- 45 From this typology, the pottery does not give enough evidence to understand how the arrival of new (...)
21Bitumen-coated ovoid jars, allowing the transportation of liquids and other food, have the same shapes as those found in Larsa or Susa.40 Very standardised (containing around 40 litres), it could be adapted to small boats sailing between Seleucia and Bahrain.41 We still do not know if such a production existed in Ikaros, but structures42 and specific tools used for the manipulation of bitumen have been found in the establishment of Tell Said,43 suggesting the existence of a workshop (fig. 6). Finally, a few sherds from Rhodian amphorae have been uncovered which show, through the consumption of wine, the existence of exchanges with the Mediterranean. But we cannot estimate their volume nor whether these were direct contacts. In general, the vessel in Failaka is similar to those of other sites in Mesopotamia, Susiana and Arab Gulf (Dura Europos, Babylon, Larsa, Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, Susa, Qalaat al‑Bahrain),44 where a majority of profiles belonging to Greek tableware were found: plates, cups, bowls. The different imports of coarse Arabian wares are linked to types of production used for small-scale storage, like pots.45
22Finally, in Ikaros, the chronological phases from the pre-Hellenistic period evidenced in Tell Khazneh, to the end of the settlement, do not cover a sufficiently broad chronological range to point out significant evolutions of the Failaka corpus. But we can consider that the number of shapes tended to be more limited and the diameters became larger, especially for jars necks and for plates, which is similar to the pottery found on several Parthian sites which succeeded Hellenistic installations.
The faunal remains
- 46 Fishes and seashells were sorted and are abundant but not analysed yet, a specific identification (...)
23The study of the faunal remains can help understand if the inhabitants of the settlement of Ikaros had special food practices, and if these practices can be linked to particular influences. Our excavations have delivered numerous remains of mammals, birds, fishes and seashells in quite good condition of preservation (tab. 1).46 Several present traces of cutting up, showing their use for food consumption.
Tab. 1 – Species identification in number of bones remains in the settlement of Ikaros; results of the excavations of the French and French-Kuwaiti missions (Desse, Desse-Berset 1990; Tomé 2003).
Desse, Desse-Berset 1990 | Tomé 2003 | 2007‑2008 | 2011‑2016 | TOTAL | ||
Goat/Sheep | Capra hircus/Ovis aries | 291 | 3,250 | 806 | 1,031 | 5,378 |
Pig | Sus scrofa domesticus | 54 | 788 | 174 | 370 | 1,386 |
Cattle | Bos taurus | 3 | 23 | 18 | 1 | 45 |
Camel | Camelus dromedarius | 1 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 14 |
Donkey | Equus asinus | 42 | 28 | 70 | ||
Equidae | Equus sp. | 172 | 25 | 81 | 278 | |
Gazelle | Gazella sp. | 5 | 56 | 4 | 15 | 80 |
Cape hare | Lepus capensis | 1 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 16 |
Dolphin | Delphinus sp. | 1 | 1 | |||
Sea cow | Dugong dugon | 4 | 80 | 84 | ||
Marine mammals | 6 | 136 | 23 | 43 | 208 | |
Gerbil | Meriones sp. | 31 | 31 | |||
Short-tailed bandicoot rat | Nesokia indica | 3 | 3 | |||
Rodent indeterminate | 4 | 18 | 124 | 146 | ||
Bird indeterminate | 40 | 344 | 79 | 104 | 567 | |
Chicken | Gallus gallus | 41 | 56 | 39 | 136 | |
Great cormorant | Phalacrocorax carbo | 223 | 223 | |||
Socotra cormorant | Phalacrocorax nicrogularis | 5 | 5 | |||
Cormorant | Phalacrocorax sp. | 21 | 19 | 22 | 62 | |
Domestic goose | Anser anser | 10 | 10 | |||
Laridae | Larus sp. | 5 | 5 | |||
Lesser black-backed gull | Larus fuscus | 2 | ||||
Phasianinae | Partridge or pheasant | 52 | 3 | 55 | ||
Great crested grebe | Podiceps cristatus | 8 | 8 | |||
Little egret | Egretta garzetta | 1 | 1 | |||
White stork | Ciconia ciconia | 2 | 2 | |||
House sparrow | Passer domesticus | 2 | 2 | |||
Lizard | 2 | 2 | ||||
Turtle | Chelonia mydas | 160 | 15 | 2 | 177 | |
Cuttlefish | Sepia sp. | 93 | 21 | 114 | ||
Blue swimming crab | Portunus pelagicus | 98 | 144 | 242 | ||
Small herbivores | 7,920 | 710 | 617 | 9,247 | ||
Large herbivores | 134 | 47 | 68 | 249 | ||
Indeterminate | 365 | 492 | 3,180 | 5,301 | 9,338 | |
Total | 813 | 13,994 | 5,373 | 8,005 | 28,185 |
- 47 Payne 1973.
24As it is obvious on an island, the collected remains highlight a strong exploitation of the surrounding marine environment (i.e. fishes, seashells, birds like cormorants, and marine mammals). But the subsistence economy did not depend only on marine resources, as evidenced by the numerous remains of domestic mammals, and more specifically caprines (sheep and goat) and pigs. Caprines are represented by 5,378 specimens (teeth and bone fragments). It is not surprising to find many sheep/goat individuals, given the important role played by these animals in the diet of the inhabitants of the island (tab. 2). The presence of many young individuals among the domestic species like lambs, kids and piglets, and to a lesser extent among the poultry, attests to perennial breeding and a farmyard. The predominance of adult individuals for the caprines47 represents animals that, rather than being slaughtered at their optimum meat stage, were retained until they were old enough to exploit their important secondary products, milk and wool.
Tab. 2 – Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) for the domestic triad from some archaeological sites from the Arab/Persian Gulf (Tell Akkaz and Qalaat al-Bahrain 519: Tomé 2003; Failaka, Tell F6: Yeomans 2016; Failaka, Al Khidr: Miklíková 2010; Failaka, Al Qusur: Monchot, Wouters, Van Neer forthcoming; Barbar well: Bangsgaard 2001; Barbar temple: Bangsgaard 2003; Siraf: Driesch, Dockner 2002).
Site | Country | Period | Sheep/Goat | Cattle | Pig |
Failaka, Hellenistic set | Kuwait | Hellenistic | 5,378 (79%) | 45 (0.7%) | 1,386 (20.3%) |
Failaka, Tell F6 | Kuwait | Dilmun | 1,450 (87.7%) | 203 (12.3%) | 0 |
Failaka, Al Qusur | Kuwait | 8th century BC | 441 (100%) | 0 | 0 |
Failaka, Al Khidr | Kuwait | Dilmun | present | present | absent |
Tell Akkaz | Kuwait | 1st century BC –1st century AD | 2,696 (100%) | 0 | 0 |
Barbar well | Bahrain | Islamic | 2,444 (96.3%) | 94 (3.7%) | 0 |
Barbar temple | Bahrain | Bronze Age | 248 (43.1%) | 328 (56.9%) | 0 |
Qalaat al‑Bahrain 519 | Bahrain | Dilmun | 2,151 (86.3%) | 340 (13.6%) | 2 (0.1%) |
Siraf | Iran | Islamic | 12,282 (96.1%) | 346 (2.7%) | 158 (1.2%) |
25For the classic triad of domestic animals (caprine/cattle/pig), we uncovered in the settlement a high percentage of pig remains (fig. 7), more than 20% (for all periods in the Hellenistic times). This rate is very important and unusual for the island and, more broadly, for archaeological sites of the Arab/Persian Gulf, regardless of the chronological period (tab. 2). In Failaka Island, no pig bones have been found in the sites of the pre- (Tell F6) and post- (Al‑Qusur) Hellenistic periods. They first appeared in the Hellenistic settlement, and from the beginning of its existence. It can be deduced that its first inhabitants, the Seleucid occupants, came with their pig herds to exploit them for meat. The consumption of pigs was successfully adopted throughout the following periods if we consider the quantities of bones present in the settlement during the totality of its occupation, whether the dominant population was of Greek-Macedonian origin or not.
- 48 Frémondeau et al. 2017.
- 49 King 1999; Horwitz, Studer 2005.
26If the precise provenance of pig is still to be determined, we know for instance that since the beginning of its domestication and up to the Seljuk conquest, this animal played an important role in Anatolian human subsistence systems as an efficient meat and fat provider.48 In the Roman world and classical Near East, there are few sites with more than 5% pig remains; here, the researchers think that the increase in consumption of pork would appear as a substitute for cattle.49
Conclusion
27Throughout the different phases of its existence, the settlement of Ikaros, founded in the Hellenistic period, was included in different networks, depending on the influence of the political entities controlling, or not, the island.
- 50 For a general overview of the settlement artefacts, see Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005, pp. (...)
- 51 The Soteles inscriptions, found by the former archaeologists (F. Stark in 1937, then by the French (...)
- 52 This is particularly noticeable with the absence of Seleucid coins, replaced by others reflecting (...)
- 53 Hannestad 1983, pp. 53, 71‑72; Gelin 2014, fig. 2; Gachet, Salles 1991, p. 156.
28On the one hand, for the first and third periods, the behaviour and everyday practices of the inhabitants speak for a strong Greek influence. It is visible through the architecture (military, religious), the pottery repertoire, some food practices, and also in artefacts such as the figurines and coins originated from the entire Seleucid kingdom, and finally in the inscriptions in Greek language.50 Particularly, the Soteles inscriptions from the first period show the presence of a Greek garrison; later, even if the date is not assured, the Ikadion inscription brings the evidence that Ikaros had been under Seleucid authority.51 From all these elements, it is possible to say that during these periods Ikaros belonged to the Seleucid kingdom’s networks. During the second and fifth periods, obviously the Seleucid influence appears to have been less important, as evidenced by the state of the defence system and the decrease of artefacts of Greek influence in favour of regional influences.52 In addition, some imported ceramics found in the fortress testify to long-distance contacts, in particular with the Mediterranean (Attic and Rhodian pottery).53
- 54 Connan, Carter 2007, p. 176; Van de Velde 2016, pp. 217‑219.
- 55 Most of the literature mentioning the trade between Mesopotamia and the Arab/Persian Gulf concerns (...)
- 56 Originating from Bahrain: Dilmun 1983‑2014; Højlund, Abu‑Laban 2016; Calvet, Pic 1986.
29On the other hand, the settlement kept links with regional networks (from Mesopotamia, the Gulf and Susiana when they were outside the Seleucid kingdom, and from the Arabian Peninsula) during the whole span of its occupation, including the first and third periods. This is visible through the pottery (the eggshell, the glazed pottery, different fabrics pointing to a probable regional origin) and the common use of bitumen on many jars. This bitumen was mainly imported from Mesopotamia, while in the Bronze Age it was instead imported from Susiana (or nearby),54 which can lead one to wonder if this preference reflected a greater use of the Euphrates and Tigris trade routes during the Hellenistic period.55 Regional influences on the island existed long before the Seleucid presence, as the role of Dilmun shows in the millennia preceding the Hellenistic period.56 At the same time, Greek influences persisted during the second and fifth periods, as the typology of the pottery and the food practices remained nearly the same throughout the whole periods.
- 57 In the excavated surface of the site (around 50%), no other well has been found that could be asso (...)
30For the first period, we have clearly established that the fortress had a strong defence system and was supplied with fresh water (well) and imported animals, which allows us to formulate the hypothesis of an organisation of self-sufficiency in case of a siege. Indeed, from the well(s) inside the walls, it is obvious that the occupants wanted to have a safe supply of fresh water, which did not last in the second period.57 Regarding the animals, the presence of many young individuals among the domestic species (including pigs), attests to perennial breeding and a farmyard ensuring a certain food self-sufficiency for the inhabitants. Certainly, whole animals may have been brought to the island for subsequent slaughter and consumption. From these two observations, it can be said that the military imperatives have largely presided over the socio-economic organisation of the settlement.
- 58 This question will be further discussed in Gelin forthcoming.
- 59 The Danish mission uncovered BI ware pottery from the last period, that the former French mission (...)
31Our research allows us to determine that, in the second period, the site of Tell Said evolved towards another kind of establishment, like a village. This means that it lost its strategic interest, and probably that Ikaros was no longer integrated into the Seleucid networks. The abandonment of the stronghold in the fourth period, which is visible on the entire site, is also noteworthy, even if it is difficult to determine its duration.58 In the fifth period, it is also a village that was established on the tell; our predecessors hypothesised that the pottery they found for this last period could be linked to the Characenian kingdom.59
- 60 Kosmin 2013. Tylos is the Greek name of Bahrain island.
- 61 Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005, p. 66.
32Ikaros is a good example of a Seleucid military foundation in a more or less hostile territory, during the first period, and probably during the third. After the Tylos inscription, the Seleucids were present in the Gulf and Ikaros was probably one of the islands mentioned by this inscription, even if the importance of its exact role is not easy to estimate.60 According to the previous French archaeological expedition, the Seleucid presence on the island was justified by a supervisory role: control of the southern border of the kingdom, of the sea routes used by the Seleucid fleet and its trading partners, and of the local population.61 The imported ceramic originating from the Mediterranean, whether it arrived directly or through various intermediaries, attests to Ikaros’ integration into long-distance “international” networks, even if they were not predominant.
33Finally, we can say that during the Seleucid domination Ikaros was integrated into the kingdom’s networks, while being a zone of contact with other territories. This situation favoured “international” exchanges, which is reflected in the diversity of influences described above. In contrast, when Ikaros no longer belonged to the Seleucid kingdom, it seems that the island lost its character as a contact zone between Seleucid territories and those of regional powers, and that regional influences then predominated. In any case, Ikaros was probably a stopover on the sea routes of the Gulf itself, and also between Mesopotamia, southern Arabia, and other continents, and thus entered into regional and “international” trade networks.
Bibliographie
Amandry, Callot 1988: M. Amandry, O. Callot, “Le trésor de Failaka 1984 (Koweit)”, Revue numismatique 30, 1988, pp. 64‑74, https://www.persee.fr/doc/numi_0484-8942_1988_num_6_30_1919 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Bangsgaard 2001: P. Bangsgaard, “Animal bones from the Barbar well”, in K. Frifelt (ed.), Islamic remains in Bahrain, Højbjerg, Jutland Archaeological Society, 2001, pp. 183‑200.
Bangsgaard 2003: P. Bangsgaard, “Animal bones from the Barbar temples”, in H.H. Andersen, F. Højlund (ed.), The Barbar temples 2. Appendices, Højbjerg, Jutland Archaeological Society, 2003, pp. 7‑16.
Bernard, Gachet, Salles 1990: V. Bernard, J. Gachet, J.‑F. Salles, “Apostilles en marge de la céramique des États IV et V de la forteresse”, in Y. Calvet, J. Gachet (ed.), Failaka, fouilles françaises 1986‑1988, Lyon, MOM Éditions, 1990, pp. 241‑284, https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_0766-0510_1990_rpm_18_1_1767 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Boucharlat 1993: R. Boucharlat, “Pottery in Susa during the Seleucid, Parthian and Early Sasanian periods”, in U. Finkbeiner (ed.), Materialien zur Archäologie der Seleukiden- und Partherzeit im südlichen Babylonien und im Golfgebiet, Tübingen, E. Wasmuth, 1993, pp. 41‑57.
Callot 1990: O. Callot, “Les monnaies dites ‘arabes’ dans le nord du Golfe arabo-persique à la fin du iiie siècle avant notre ère”, in Y. Calvet, J. Gachet (ed.), Failaka, fouilles françaises 1986-1988, Lyon, MOM Éditions, 1990, pp. 221‑240, https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_0766-0510_1990_rpm_18_1_1766 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Callot 1991: O. Callot, “La forteresse hellénistique de Faïlaka”, in K. Schipmann, A. Herling, J.‑F. Salles (ed.), Internationale Archäologie 6. Golf-Archäologie. Mesopotamien, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrein, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate und Oman, Buch am Erlbach, Leidorf, 1991, pp. 121‑132.
Callot, Gachet, Salles 1987: O. Callot, J. Gachet, J.‑F. Salles, “Some notes about Hellenistic Failaka”, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 17, 1987, pp. 37‑51.
Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005: O. Callot, J. Gachet‑Bizollon, J.‑F. Salles, “Ikaros, de la conquête d’Alexandre au ier siècle après J.‑C.”, in G. Galiano (ed.), L’île de Failaka. Archéologie du Koweït, Lyon, Musée des Beaux-Arts, 2005, pp. 63‑93.
Calvet, Pic 1986: Y. Calvet, G. Pic, “Un nouveau bâtiment de l’Âge du Bronze sur le Tell F6”, in Y. Calvet, J.‑F. Salles (ed.), Failaka, fouilles françaises 1984‑1985, Lyon, MOM Éditions, 1986, pp. 13‑87, https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_0766-0510_1986_rpm_12_1_1664 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Connan, Carter 2007: J. Connan, R. Carter, “A geochemical study of bituminous mixtures from Failaka and Umm an‑Namel (Kuwait), from the Early Dilmun to the Early Islamic period”, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 18/2, 2007, pp. 139‑181.
Desse, Desse‑Berset 1990: J. Desse, N. Desse‑Berset, “La faune: les mammifères et les poissons”, in Y. Calvet, J. Gachet (ed.), Failaka, fouilles françaises 1986‑1988, Lyon, MOM Éditions, 1990, pp. 51‑70, https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_0766-0510_1990_rpm_18_1_1751 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Dilmun 1983‑2014: Failaka-Dilmun: the second millennium settlements, vol. I‑IV, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 1983‑2014.
Driesch, Dockner 2002: A. von den Driesch, A. Dockner, “Animal exploitation in medieval Siraf, Iran, based on the faunal remains from the excavations at the Great Mosque (seasons 1966‑1973)”, Bonner zoologische Beiträge 50/3, 2002, pp. 227‑247.
Durand 2019: C. Durand, “A glimpse of daily life in a Hellenistic fortress of the Arab-Persian Gulf. A pottery assemblage from Failaka/Ikaros (Kuwait)”, in A. Peignard Giros (ed.), Daily life in a cosmopolitan world: pottery and culture during the Hellenistic period, Vienna, Phoibos Verlag, 2019, pp. 573‑582.
Finkbeiner 1993: U. Finkbeiner (ed.), Materialien zur Archäologie der Seleukiden- und Partherzeit im südlichen Babylonien und im Golfgebiet, Tübingen, E. Wasmuth, 1993.
Fleming 1989: D. Fleming, “Eggshell ware pottery in Achaemenid Mesopotamia”, Iraq 51, 1989, pp. 165‑185.
Frémondeau et al. 2017: D. Frémondeau, B. De Cupere, A. Evin, W. Van Neer, “Diversity in pig husbandry from the Classical-Hellenistic to the Byzantine periods: an integrated dental analysis of Düzen Tepe and Sagalassos assemblages (Turkey)”, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11, 2017, pp. 38‑52.
Gachet 1990: J. Gachet, “Un habitat du iie siècle av. J.‑C. dans la forteresse de Failaka”, in Y. Calvet, J. Gachet (ed.), Failaka, fouilles françaises 1986‑1988, Lyon, MOM Éditions, 1990, pp. 167‑191, https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_0766-0510_1990_rpm_18_1_1762 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Gachet, Salles 1991: J. Gachet, J.‑F. Salles, “Nouvelles remarques sur la céramique hellénistique de Failaka”, in K. Schipmann, A. Herling, J.‑F. Salles (ed.), Internationale Archäologie 6. Golf-Archäologie. Mesopotamien, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrein, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate und Oman, Buch am Erlbach, Leidorf, 1991, pp. 145-158.
Gachet, Salles 1993: J. Gachet, J.‑F. Salles, “Failaka, Koweït”, in U. Finkbeiner (ed.), Materialien zur Archäologie der Seleukiden- und Partherzeit im südlichen Babylonien und im Golfgebiet, Tübingen, E. Wasmuth, 1993, pp. 59‑85.
Gatier 2007: P.‑L. Gatier, “Sôtélès l’Athénien”, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 18/1, 2007, pp. 75‑79.
Gelin 2012: M. Gelin (ed.), Kuwaiti-French expedition in Failaka. The Hellenistic fortress (Tell Saïd). Preliminary Scientific report 2009, Kuwait City, NCCAL, 2012, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03139002v2 (accessed 21/04/2022).
Gelin 2014: M. Gelin, “De retour de mission… Faïlaka au Koweït (3). La forteresse hellénistique”, Les Carnets de l’Ifpo. La recherche en train de se faire à l’Institut français du Proche-Orient (Hypotheses.org), 16 juillet 2014, http://ifpo.hypotheses.org/6123 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Gelin forthcoming: M. Gelin (ed.), The Hellenistic settlement of Ikaros. Kuwaiti-French Archaeological Mission in Failaka-Tell Said, 2011‑2018, Kuwait City, NCCAL, forthcoming.
Ginouvès 1992: R. Ginouvès, Dictionnaire méthodique de l’architecture grecque et romaine 2. Eléments constructifs: supports, couvertures, aménagements intérieurs, Athens/Rome, EFA/EFR, 1992, https://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0000-0000_1992_dic_84_2 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Ginouvès 1998: R. Ginouvès, Dictionnaire méthodique de l’architecture grecque et romaine 3. Espaces architecturaux, bâtiments et ensembles, Athens/Rome, EFA/EFR, 1998, https://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0000-0000_1998_dic_84_3 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Hannestad 1983: L. Hannestad, Ikaros. The Hellenistic settlements 2. The Hellenistic pottery, 2 vol., Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 1983.
Hannestad 1990: L. Hannestad, “Change and conservatism. Hellenistic pottery in Mesopotamia and Iran”, in Akten des XIII internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988, Mainz am Rhein, P. von Zabern, 1990, pp. 179‑186.
Hannestad 2012: L. Hannestad, “The Seleucid Kingdom”, in D.T. Potts (ed.), A companion to the archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Chichester/Malden, Wiley Blackwell, 2012, pp. 984‑1000.
Hannestad 2020: L. Hannestad, “On the periphery of the Seleucid kingdom: Failaka revisited”, in R. Oetjen (ed.), New perspectives in Seleucid history, archaeology and numismatics. Studies in honor of Getzel M. Cohen, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 2020, pp. 312‑332.
Højlund, Abu‑Laban 2016: F. Højlund, A. Abu‑Laban (ed.), Tell F6 on Failaka Island. Kuwaiti-Danish excavations 2008‑2012, Kuwait City/Aarhus, NCCAL/Moesgaard Museum/Jutland Archaeological Society, 2016.
Horwitz, Studer 2005: L.K. Horwitz, J. Studer, “Pig production and exploitation during the classical periods in the southern Levant”, in H. Buitenhuis, A.M. Choyke, L. Martin, L. Bartosiewicz, M. Mashkour (ed.), Archaeozoology in the Near East VI. Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on the archaeozoology of southwestern Asia and adjacent areas, Groningen, ARC, 2005, pp. 222‑239.
Jeppesen 1989: K. Jeppesen, Ikaros. The hellenistic Settlements 3. The sacred enclosure in the Early Hellenistic period, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 1989.
King 1999: A. King, “Diet in the Roman world: a regional inter-site comparison of the mammal bones”, JRA 12, 1999, pp. 168‑202.
Kosmin 2013: P. Kosmin, “The Hellenistic Gulf: the new Greek inscription from Bahrain”, JHS 133, 2013, pp. 61‑79.
Lecomte 1987: O. Lecomte, “Un problème d’interprétation: l’E. Babbar de Larsa aux époques hellénistique et séleuco-parthe, approches archéologique, économique et culturelle”, in J.‑L. Huot (ed.), Larsa (10e campagne, 1983) et ’Oueili (4e campagne, 1983). Rapport préliminaire, Paris, Recherche sur les civilisations, 1987, pp. 225‑246.
Lecomte 1993: O. Lecomte, “Stratigraphical analysis and ceramic assemblages of 4th-1st centuries B.C. E.babbar of Larsa (southern Iraq)”, in U. Finkbeiner (ed.), Materialien zur Archäologie der Seleukiden- und Partherzeit im südlichen Babylonien und im Golfgebiet, Tübingen, E. Wasmuth, 1993, pp. 17‑39.
Lombard, Kervran 1993: P. Lombard, M. Kervran, “Les niveaux ‘hellénistiques’ du Tell de Qal’at al‑Bahrain. Données préliminaires”, in U. Finkbeiner (ed.), Materialien zur Archäologie der Seleukiden- und Partherzeit im südlichen Babylonien und im Golfgebiet, Tübingen, E. Wasmuth, 1993, pp. 127‑160.
Mathiesen 1982: H.E. Mathiesen, Ikaros. The Hellenistic settlements 1. The terracotta figurines, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 1982.
Miklíková 2010: Z. Miklíková, “Animal bones from Al‑Khidr”, in L. Benediková (ed.), Al-Khidr 2004‑2009. Primary scientific report on the activities of the Kuwaiti-Slovak Archaeological Mission, Kuwait City, NCCAL/Archeologický ústav Slovenskej akadémie Vied, 2010, pp. 266‑274.
Monchot, Wouters, Van Neer, forthcoming: H. Monchot, W. Wouters, W. Van Neer, “The vertebrate remains from Al-Qusur (Failaka Island, Kuwait)”, in J. Bonnéric (ed.), Al‑Qusur, a Christian settlement from Early Islam off Kuwait Bay. Final publication of the French-Kuwaiti Archaeological Mission in Failaka (2011-2018), Kuwait, NCCAL-IFPO, forthcoming.
Monerie 2017: J. Monerie, L’économie de la Babylonie à l’époque hellénistique (ive‑iie siècle avant J.‑C.), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2018.
Mørkholm 1960: O. Mørkholm, “Græske mønter fra Failaka”, Kuml 10/10, 1960, pp. 199‑207 (English summary pp. 205‑207), https://tidsskrift.dk/kuml/article/view/103115 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Mørkholm 1979: O. Mørkholm, “Nye møntfund fra Failaka”, Kuml 28/28, 1979, pp. 219‑235 (English summary pp. 230‑235), https://tidsskrift.dk/kuml/article/view/106966 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Oates 1959: J. Oates, “Late Assyrian pottery from Fort Shalmaneser”, Iraq 21/2, 1959, pp. 130‑146.
Payne 1973: S. Payne, “Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: the mandibles from Asvan Kale”, AS 23. Aşvan 1968-1972: an interim report, 1973, pp. 281‑303.
Petrie 2002: C.A. Petrie, “Seleucid Uruk: an analysis of ceramic distribution”, Iraq 64, 2002, pp. 85‑123.
Potts 1990: D.T. Potts, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity 2. From Alexander the Great to the coming of Islam, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990 (reed. 2004).
Salles 1986a: J.‑F. Salles, “La céramique de Tell Khazneh”, in Y. Calvet, J.‑F. Salles (ed.), Failaka, fouilles françaises 1984‑1985, Lyon, MOM Éditions, 1986, pp. 201‑244, https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_0766-0510_1986_rpm_12_1_1670 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Salles 1986b: J.‑F. Salles, “Tell Khazneh: les figurines en terre cuite”, in Y. Calvet, J.‑F. Salles (ed.), Failaka, fouilles françaises 1984‑1985, Lyon, MOM Éditions, 1986, pp. 143‑200, https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_0766-0510_1986_rpm_12_1_1669 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Salles 1987: J.‑F. Salles, “The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids”, in A. Kuhrt, S. Sherwin‑White (ed.), Hellenism in the East. The interaction of Greek and non-Greek civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, London, Duckworth, 1987, pp. 75‑109.
Salles 1990: J.‑F. Salles, “Questionning the BI-Ware”, in Y. Calvet, J. Gachet (ed.), Failaka, fouilles françaises 1986‑1988, Lyon, MOM Éditions, 1990, pp. 303‑334, https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_0766-0510_1990_rpm_18_1_1769 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Salles 1993: J.‑F. Salles, “Hellénisme et traditions orientales à Faïlaka”, in A. Invernizzi, J.‑F. Salles (ed.), Arabia Antiqua: Hellenistic centres around Arabia, Rome, Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1993, pp. 223‑255.
Salles 2012: J.‑F. Salles, “Le Golfe persique dans le Périple de la mer Erythrée: connaissances fondées et ignorances réelles?”, in M.‑F. Boussac, J.‑F. Salles, J.‑B. Yon (ed.), Autour du Périple de la mer Érythrée, published in Topoi Supplément 11, 2012, pp. 293‑328, https://www.persee.fr/doc/topoi_1764-0733_2012_act_11_1_2689 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Schuol 2000: M. Schuol, Die Charakene. Ein mesopotamischer Königreich in hellenistisch-parthischer Zeit, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2000.
Toll 1943: N. Toll, The excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report IV. Part I/1. The green glazed pottery, New Haven/London, Yale University Press/Oxford University Press, 1943.
Tomé 2003: C. Tomé, Les mammifères et les oiseaux dans l’économie des sociétés protohistoriques et historiques du golfe Arabo-Persique (IIIe millénaire avant J.‑C. - viie siècle après J.‑C.), PhD dissertation, Aix-Marseille 1 University, 2003 (unpublished), https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/CEPAM/tel-03104535v1 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Valtz 2002: E. Valtz, “Ceramica invetriata: caratteristiche ed evoluzione della produzione di Seleucia ad Tigrim”, in F. Blondé, P. Ballet, J.‑F. Salles (ed.), Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines, productions et diffusion en Méditerranée orientale (Chypre, Égypte et côte syro-palestinienne), Lyon, MOM Éditions, 2002, pp. 331‑337, https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_1274-6525_2002_act_35_1_1142 (accessed 27/01/2021).
Van de Velde 2016: T. Van de Velde, “Bitumen provenience”, in F. Højlund, A. Abu‑Laban (ed.), Tell F6 on Failaka Island. Kuwaiti-Danish excavations 2008‑2012, Kuwait City/Aarhus, NCCAL/Moesgaard Museum/Jutland Archaeological Society, 2016, pp. 215‑220.
Yeomans 2016: L. Yeomans, “Animal bones”, in F. Højlund, A. Abu‑Laban (ed.), Tell F6 on Failaka Island. Kuwaiti-Danish excavations 2008‑2012, Kuwait City/Aarhus, NCCAL/Moesgaard Museum/Jutland Archaeological Society, 2016, pp. 228‑238.
Notes
1 The uncovered archaeological sites that compose the settlement are located on the south-western part of the island. They include a sanctuary and a “terracotta workshop” located on the coast, and the main site, Tell Said, close to the coast. Further to the north, another sanctuary was pre-existing at Tell Khazneh and had been used during the Hellenistic period (see Salles 1986a).
2 The dated chronology has been established by the researchers belonging to the former missions, who partly excavated the site: Danish in the 1950s‑1960s (Mathiesen 1982; Hannestad 1983; Jeppesen 1989; Mørkholm 1979), French in the 1980s‑2000s (Amandry, Callot 1988; Callot 1991; Salles 1986b; Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005). The date proposed by O. Callot and the French archaeologists for the foundation of the settlement (end of the 4th or beginning of the 3rd century BC), is questioned by L. Hannestad, who postpones it by about 50 years, around 250 BC (Callot 1991, p. 121; Gachet, Salles 1993, p. 64; Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005, pp. 63‑94; Hannestad 2012, p. 996; Hannestad 2020, p. 326 sq.).
3 Also named F5 by the archaeologists, after the first grid set up on the area.
4 E.g. Gachet, Salles 1993; Kosmin 2013; Hannestad 2020.
5 Salles 1987, pp. 88, 108‑109.
6 On the Characenian kingdom, see Kosmin 2013; Schuol 2000.
7 We include the lands reachable through the rivers flowing into the Gulf (until Mesopotamia, Perside), and the islands.
8 Salles 2012.
9 We will provide a detailed and complete final publication: Gelin forthcoming.
10 Research led from 2007 to 2009 with the former French mission, then from 2011 to 2018 with the French-Kuwaiti archaeological mission. The MAFKF (Mission archéologique franco-koweïtienne de Faïlaka) team currently working on the Hellenistic and Parthian periods in Failaka comprises the authors of this article and J. Humbert, draughtsman for the fieldwork, H. David‑Cuny, draughtsman and photographer of the objects, H. Al Mutairi (Director of Archaeological sites and survey, Department of Antiquities and Museums – Kuwait) for the aerial pictures.
11 To date, we have no element that allow us to suggest other dates.
12 Other elements must of course be considered, which exceed the limits of this short presentation.
13 The phasing presented in this article fits to the archaeological evidence. It cancels and replaces any previous one that we published because, depending on our ongoing field research, it is necessarily subject to some modification. See our forthcoming final publication (Gelin forthcoming).
14 Our work on the well allows us to associate it to the very first foundation of the Greek stronghold (Gelin forthcoming).
15 Gelin 2012, pp. 14‑18.
16 Jeppesen 1989.
17 Ginouvès 1998, pp. 20‑21; Callot 1991; Gelin 2012.
18 By us or by the previous archaeologists.
19 The north passage was presented by O. Callot as a small postern (Callot 1991, p. 123). This point will be discussed in Gelin forthcoming.
20 For this term, see Ginouvès 1992, p. 28.
21 Which was the first interpretation (Callot 1991, p. 127). The new excavations of tower 8 and J.‑M. Gelin’s study determined that the elevation eroded with time; it also showed that artillery would not have been of much use against the already partly dismantled socles of the ramparts. This point will be discussed in Gelin forthcoming.
22 Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005, p. 68.
23 Callot 1991, p. 127.
24 Mørkholm 1960, p. 205; Callot 1991, p. 126; Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005, p. 69.
25 The site is not a stronghold anymore.
26 In 2018 we collected pottery that protruded on the surface of the southern part of the site. In 2017, J.‑M. Gelin uncovered walls built above the destroyed west rampart and running to the east. In 2007 and 2009, the Greek archaeological mission unearthed many walls on the surface of the entire southwestern quarter. And in the 1980s, the previous Danish mission excavated some walls above the east rampart and the moat.
27 Callot, Gachet, Salles 1987, p. 71; Hannestad 2020, p. 321; Kosmin 2013.
28 Salles 1993, p. 73; Boucharlat 1993, pp. 64‑66.
29 Oates 1959, p. 138.
30 Toll 1943.
31 Fleming 1989; Salles 1986a, pp. 201‑205.
32 Hannestad 1990, pp. 5‑6.
33 Hannestad 1990, pp. 2‑3; Valtz 2002, p. 334.
34 Callot, Gachet, Salles 1987, p. 46; Bernard, Gachet, Salles 1990, p. 255.
35 Inside the settlement, several indications suggest the presence of a craft workshop linked to the use of fire but, as its excavation is unfortunately delayed to a yet uncertain time, we cannot define if it was for pottery, coins, bitumen…
36 Monerie 2017, p. 207.
37 This category was so named by L. Hannestad to mention black washed and especially red washed vessels existing in Failaka, eastern Arabian Peninsula and Bahrain. Hannestad 1983, pp. 49‑50.
38 Hannestad 1983, p. 89.
39 A detailed study of the fabrics of the pottery is in progress by J.‑B. Houal.
40 Lecomte 1993, fig. 10; Boucharlat 1993, tab. 11.
41 Durand 2019, p. 580.
42 Gachet 1990, pp. 176‑180; Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005, p. 70.
43 We uncovered fragments of pottery with a thick coat of bitumen which overflowed the limits of the sherds, used, obviously, as tools. The previous French mission also found such tools, see Callot, Gachet, Salles 1987, p. 47.
44 Boucharlat 1993; Finkbeiner 1993; Lecomte 1987; Lombard, Kervran 1993; Toll 1943.
45 From this typology, the pottery does not give enough evidence to understand how the arrival of new shapes could have changed dietary patterns.
46 Fishes and seashells were sorted and are abundant but not analysed yet, a specific identification will be made later. The zooarchaeological analyses will aim to better understand the development dynamics of the management and exploitation of animal resources during each period of occupation of the settlement.
47 Payne 1973.
48 Frémondeau et al. 2017.
49 King 1999; Horwitz, Studer 2005.
50 For a general overview of the settlement artefacts, see Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005, pp. 63‑93.
51 The Soteles inscriptions, found by the former archaeologists (F. Stark in 1937, then by the French mission), explicitly mention soldiers and their Greek officer; see Gatier 2007 and the bibliography given in his article. The Ikadion inscription, found by the Danish mission, is a letter to the inhabitants of Ikaros that mentions instructions from a Seleucid king for the island. The specialists have not found a consensus on its exact date, with discussions leading to a chronological range between 243 and 203 BC, even 167 BC; they are well summarized in Potts 1990, pp. 186‑194.
52 This is particularly noticeable with the absence of Seleucid coins, replaced by others reflecting regional origins. See the description of regional coins by O. Callot, in Callot 1990; Callot 1991, p. 126 and in Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005, pp. 90‑92.
53 Hannestad 1983, pp. 53, 71‑72; Gelin 2014, fig. 2; Gachet, Salles 1991, p. 156.
54 Connan, Carter 2007, p. 176; Van de Velde 2016, pp. 217‑219.
55 Most of the literature mentioning the trade between Mesopotamia and the Arab/Persian Gulf concerns the great excavations that occurred until the 1980s: Petrie 2002; Lecomte 1987.
56 Originating from Bahrain: Dilmun 1983‑2014; Højlund, Abu‑Laban 2016; Calvet, Pic 1986.
57 In the excavated surface of the site (around 50%), no other well has been found that could be associated to the second period. This could indicate that, at that moment, the inhabitants probably did not fear any danger to get fresh water outside the village.
58 This question will be further discussed in Gelin forthcoming.
59 The Danish mission uncovered BI ware pottery from the last period, that the former French mission has associated to the Characenians. Salles 1990, p. 306, dates this pottery to the 1st century BC/beginning of Christian era.
60 Kosmin 2013. Tylos is the Greek name of Bahrain island.
61 Callot, Gachet‑Bizollon, Salles 2005, p. 66.
Table des illustrations
![]() | |
---|---|
Titre | Fig. 1 – Aerial view of the Hellenistic settlement, with numbering of the towers; north is on top (H. Al Mutairi/DAMK [Department of Antiquities and Museums – Kuwait]/NCCAL [National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters]). |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/16386/img-1.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 518k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 2 – The well (H. Al Mutairi/DAMK/NCCAL). |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/16386/img-2.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 153k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 3 – South-western tower (tower 7), view to north-east; against the outside faces, reinforcements of the period 1, in mud bricks then later in rubble stones (H. Al Mutairi/DAMK/NCCAL). |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/16386/img-3.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 226k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 4 – The stronghold in the period 3‑2, north is on top; in red, fortifications of the period 1-1; in orange from period 1-2; in green, period 3; on the north, the rectangle in dark green corresponds to the great “platform” (drawing: M. Gelin; map: O. Callot, J. Humbert/MAFKF). |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/16386/img-4.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 152k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 5 – Examples of imported “Arabian” ware (J.‑B. Houal/MAFKF). |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/16386/img-5.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 118k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 6 – Examples of tools used to handle and work with bitumen (J.‑B. Houal/MAFKF). |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/16386/img-6.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 204k |
![]() | |
Titre | Fig. 7 – Pig mandible (H. David‑Cuny/MAFKF). |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/16386/img-7.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 142k |
© MOM Éditions, 2022