schenk datinghistoricalvalueroulettedware

8/12/2019 Schenk DatingHistoricalValueRoulettedWare

1/30

Heidrun Schenk

The Dating and Historical Value of Rouletted Ware

Old myths die hard .

H. P. Ray drew this conclusion when describingthe surviving conceptions on the part of

scholars for Indo-Roman trade (H. P. Ray 1999:317)1. She refers especially to all attempts beingmade to keep the linkage with Indo-Romantrade alive .

Roule tted ware, in the following called R W,is the subject of many articles which deal withearly historic trade and contacts; many excavation sites have been dated by means of thisdistinctive form. And to this day many scholarsstill regard Arikamedu and RW as well as proofof Indo-Roman trade during the early firstcenturies A.D., as reflected in the Periplus maris

erythrcae despite new divergent results whichhave come forth within the last 20 years 2 Theuncritical reliance on half a century old publications and/or the non-observance of recentinvestigations 3 often leads to a perpetuation ofobsolete classic conceptions. S. Suresh recently complains about the non-availability of datapertaining t the precise stratigraphical contextof each of the RW sherds on a site-by-site basis(2004: 95 .

The present study confirms Ray's above

mentioned criticism and points to the need fora greater awareness of the revised significanceof Arikamedu and R W in particular whichV. Begley has revealed since 1983. The following remarks rest on the results of the excavations at Tissamaharama, Sri Lanka, and its mainfocus lies on the R W (Fig. 1a, b). I would like

to point out, that the already largely acceptedearlier beginning of this distinctive potteryshould have consequences for most of thestudies on the Early Historic Period and its

maritime trade. Moreover, thestudy of

thepottery from Tissamaharama provides clearindication that the production of RW ceaseswithin the 1 century B.C. A continuity for itas late as the 4' century A.D. has often beensuggested (N agaswamy 1995: 78). But, finds inlater contexts arc taken to be residual heirlooms,which occur inevitably on sites with long settlement sequences 4 A riveted RW vessel foundin the campaign of 2004 at Tissamaharama alsosuggests a certain esteem for a piece in this ware(Fig. 1 c). Apparently such vessels were kept

long after their production. Altogether, thisreduces the value of RW as a key type for the

This article is an updated and revised version of an articlepublished in German (Schenk 2001c). - I would like tothank Roberta Tombcr, London, and Paul Yule, Heidelberg, for comments and going over y text.Sec also Ray 1993: 575.Nagaswamy 1995: csp. 78; Nath 1 J95a: 158; Ball 2001:123-133, esp. 128. - Accepting the new reception c. g.:Raman 1992: 127; Gupta 1995/96; Rahman 1999: 121-

131; Basa/Behera 1999: 18; Suresh 2004: 98.

Sec the dating of Kaveripattinam according to theadvent of Roman Rouletted Ware and imitation of it :

Soundara Rajan/Raman 1994: 133; in an appendix hevery strictly defends Wheeler's dating of RW andArikamcdu being an Indo-Roman site versus Begley:Soundara Rajan/Raman 1994: 149.Schenk 200la: 63; Sallcs/Boussac/Brcuil 2002: 540. - Secalso at Arikamedu: Begley 1996: 30.

Zeitschrift fur Archaologie AuBereuropaischer Kulturen 1 (2006): 123-152


2/30

g 1 l i ssama har am a -Rou lette d Wa re (R \:/ .a, b recon st ruc tion o f th etyp ica l d ish w irh fr g-me nt s from di ffere nt lo ci,c rim r ~ c n t wi thbro n z;e r ivet o n the in -side and iron riv et o n rheour sid c. Sca le l : 2, sec -tion n or ro sca le.

c


3/30

The D ating an d H istorical Value of Ro uletted are 125

dating of s ites with a long lif espa n startin gbef ore Chr ist. Evi den ce for an exclusive ly preC h ris tian antiquity for RW exists , but it mustbe tak en g in ge rly . Thus , sites w hi ch yiel d RWrath er belong to the settleme nt pa tte rn ascribedt the Maur y an expans ion, o f ten termed the

Se cond Urbanizat io n .A d atin g for t he man ufactur e an d distribu

tion o f RW in the 3'J/2' 1 centu ry B.C. endingat the lat es t in the 1 centu ry B.C . wo uld alsoresolve sore dating que s tions wh ic h arc exacerbat ed by th e a bsence of R W at some sites w ithsu pp osed ly e videnced Roman contact (Soundara Raj an /Raman 1994 : 44; S ures h 2 004: 97).f o llow in g t his line of th oug h t, such sites ma ynot yet hav e exis ted in t he 1 century B.C.Theref ore, o nly a thorou gh study of stratigraph y and all findings can r en d er valid results forth e datin g of a given site.

Exca vati on report s in o ur r egio n u nf o r tunatel y s eldom go b eyo nd the m ere list ing andcounting of wa re s. But the mere listi ng of lon glivin g wares such as Black -and-Red Ware (HRW),for exa mpl e, is of littl e h elp toward a potter ysequence. At T issamahar am a, th e ev aluat ion ofpo tt ery s tarted fro m the prin c ipl e that changesand i mprove m ents are always to be ex pe ctedespec ially amo ng da y- t o-d ay potte r y. Be itcha n ges e g of form or co lour du e to the eve rhu man co m petit ion amon g tr ad ers to attra ctcustomers or be it te chnol og ica l innovation s,d evelo pm en ts are always recog ni sable. T he refore, su ch n o velties serve as key types and th eirfir st emergence w it hin find assemb lages in interr ela tio n betwe en th eir st ratigrap hica l p os ition s is significant in order to define phases. T oachi eve th is, th e eval u ation of wares f ir s t mu s timply the definit ion of accordin g vess el form sbelongin g to eac h ware.

As a r esu lt , the estab lish men t of an a t fir s trela tive chro no logy leads to ph ases, w hich may ,but need not cor res pond w ith archit ecturalpha ses of a res pec tive site or w ith histo rica llyknown trans ition s.

In light of the above , di st inctive modific ation s over the co urse of time among all wareswere clear at T issa mahar ama, not to menti onth o se wa res t hat ne w ly emerg ed and as su ch are

ke y types the ms elves . This is especiall y strikingfor Bla ck Wa r e which is present among thepo ttery assemblag e through all p er iods. Itsdetai led stud y reveals a distinctive cha nge ofvess el for m s and alte ra t ions in detail s of it sfabrication ' .

At Ti ssamah aram a, the stu dy of pott ery leadto the recon s truction of contemp or a neo uscrocke ry sets fo r each phase, th us p rov iding

a too l for d at ing purposes relevant at least forthe si te i t s l f~

Arikamedu

The res ults of the excava tions at Arikam edu onth e Coromandd coast of southern Indi a appeared 60 yea rs ago (W heder/Gho sh / Krish

na 1946 ). Th is sit e bec ame one of the mo strenow ned s ites o f the ea rly histor ica l period inIn d ia due to th e surpri sing discov ery of It alicArretine Sigi llata , st ill unique in So uth Asia .Es pecially the finds of the well-kn ow n Sigi llatase emed t pr ovi d e an anc horing point to dat eth e s ite's strati graphy.

Thu s, \Xfheelcr co nsid ered Arikamedu to beo ne of t he Ind o -Ro m an trad in g ce nt r es desc ri be d in th e P eri pl us M a re rythr aei an d asa sin gle-perio d sit e w hich flo ur ished lar gelywith in the first two centur ies of th e C hr i st ianera. Given the exe mpla ry compreh ensive publication of its f inds, th is m aterial hencef or thserve d for compar a tive dating esp ecia lly w ithre gar d t o the Ind o -Roman trade w ithin th e lastth r ee ce ntu ries A. D . acco rd ing t o W heeler 'scon ce ption

A det ailed r ep o rt o n rare o r im p orted wares fromT issa m ahar am a is in prepara tio n.

~ See a lso Sc henk 2000; Sch enk 200 1a with th e fir st resu ltson the p o tter y h o o o ~ yat T issa m ahara ma in d etail.In the fo llow ing the pott er y se q uence could be imp roved . E. g. ph a se d is now di vid ed in t o t he p ha ses dl (1 cen tu ry A.D. ) and d2 (2 ' ' cent ury A.D. ). An upd ate o ft he pottery chro nology of T issa m aharama is in p re p a-rati on.Beg ley 1996: 30: U nt il now it was held th at Arikame duw as ess entiall y a on e- peri od si te w hi ch fel l i nto d isuset owa rd s the end of the sec on d c en tu ry o r s li ghtl y la ter .


4/30

26 H eidrun Schenk

The disco very and definiti on of RW seemedto supp ort th is interp retatio n du e to the epony mou s d ecorat ion on the insid e of the bott omof th is flat dish with its cha racte ristic be akedri m. Th e usually two concent ric ro w s o f in den

tation s rese mbl e closely the d ecor atio n of theArretin e ware . In ad diti on , RW is ma de of anexcellent qu ality of paste, outstanding withinthe cont emporary pottery not only of Arikamedu and also that of South i ndia and SriLanka i n gene ral. T herefore, most believed R Wto be a Ro man import . Samples of so- calledcoars er q ual it y w ith a sur f ac e less gloss y, orrat h er ro ughly made rou lettin g we r e taken tobe loc al co pies.

In 1972 S. B. Deo and J.P. Jos h i hinted thatR W on th e wh o le could be of loca l o rigin apart

from the dec oration tha t ind eed was externallyinspi re d (Deo/ Joshi 1972: 76). Prio r to this,R. Subrahm anya m m en t ion ed c on f lict s w iththe d at ing w ith regard to inscription s onsherds dated as early as 2 d century B.C. ( 1964:8; 43). H e also sugges ted an indi geno us originfor RW. In spir e of all this, ho w eve r, in the endhe stuck to the po sition for da t ing R W usualat th at t ime to date the site of Salihun dam.

In t h e ea rly 1980s Begley too k up the topi cin a m ore detail ed fashion (1983: 461 .). He ranalysis re sts o n a reconsiderat io n of the s t ratig

raphy and finds of Arikam edu. She d ated thebegin n in g o f the first settlement act iviti es at thesite and the em ergence of R W into the 3 d/ 2 "d

centu ry B.C. (sec also Begle y 19 86; Begley 1988) .To conf inn thi s, Begle y resum ed excava tion atthe site from 1989 to 1992 (1996 ). Begle yrealized that th e site wa s exploi ted by gene rations of occupants . t was reoccupied , intermitt en tl y, from the third century B.C. up tomodern times (Begley 1996: 8; 30). Therefore,sh e emended the fo r mer exca va ti on res ul ts fromArikam edu fo r da t in g pu r po ses. Th is ne w as

sess ment app lies also t o vessel ty pes whic husuall y arc qu ote d as eviden ce for t rad e duri ngthe fir st cent uries A.D. b etw ee n th e Red Searegion and India with regard to Wheeler'sinterpretat ion of Arikamedu 8 Begley determined espe cially those vessels to be medieval(1996: 33; 32, fig. 1: 19; 128, fig. 4: 13-14 .

A new awar eness sh ould also app ly, by th eway, to the find s of Medit e rranean amp ho raeaccepted until now unan imous ly as evid ence forthe tr ade de scri bed in the Periplus just as in thecase of RW. A review of those vessels excav


5/30

he Dating an llis to ri cal Value of Rou letted Wme 27

of the Periplus Additio na ll y, it serves as a keychara cte ristic fo r the datin g of exca vati o n s it es .The refor e an exac t definiti o n of th i s potter y aswell as a de ter mination of the duration of itsproduction and its orig in itse lf is crucial fo r theimpact on a historical in t erp r et a t ion of thisvesseL M ost charac te ri stic of di s ti n c ti ve RWfragment s found in exca va tio ns are bases wi t hthe eponym ou s decoration. This part of the dishsurface commonly is black en ed with a grey coresimila r to N BP (N o r t he rn Black Poli shed Ware),w he r eas rim and w all sh enl s d isp lay a BR Wfiring tec hn iq ue (F ig. 1 a, b) . Yet their sec tionsalso reveal th e gr ey-fire d pas te at least visibleo n the bl ac ken e d in t e ri o r zo ne (F ig. 2 k) 1c.D ifferin g qu a liti es, as ev id e nced at Ti ss amaharama (sec below), prob abl y led to the mi sunders tandin g o f an alle ge d local pr oducti o n inop p osite to so - ca lled "tru e Ro m an" RW , probably repr es en t ed on l y b y black ba ses o f highq u ali t y. Su c h mi sc oncep t io ns persi st 11 Th e recent excav a tion re port o f Bana vas i d esc ribeseve n de corated bases of RW as imitatio nRo u lett ed Ware". It is furth er quoted , "it is aw e ll known fact that durin g the ea r ly hi s to r icpe r iod alm os t all th e cultu ra l ce ntre s o f SouthIndia , w he reve r Ro m an co nt a ct w as in ex isten ce, produ ce d imitation of the Roman ro ul etted w are" (Narasi mh a M ur th y et al 199 7: 120).Addit iona lly, the u nfortun a te n otio n of thema nu f acture o f RW in So uth In d ia p ersist s inthe rel eva nt literature de sp it e t he ev id e nt d iff e rence s in th e fab ric compar ed to the lo c a l pott eryin Sou th In dia and de sp ite en tire se ri es ofm ateria l anal yses w hi ch co unter thi s pe r ce pt io n .

A s Be g ley aI ea d y p lead ed ( 1988: 428) it hasto be stres sed agai n that an exact defini tion ofthe char ac ter ist ics of RW is cr u c ial for itsunder s tandin g. I n In dia alo ne mor e th an 100s ites sup p ose d ly y ield R W (Fi g. 3 and app endi x ), but unfortunately th ose sherd s a re o ftenon ly casuall y me n ti oned an d not publi shed ina su ffici ent st r ingenc y th at wo uld revea l th eirtr u e nature. T o judge fr o m the p ubli sh ed reports, the am o unt of sher ds fo und on th ese s it e sis r a ther sma ll (sec also Ray 199 4: 60--61 ). Thisby the wa y also holds tru e for NBP found in

pe nin s ular In d ia. For exampl e the excavationreport for Nevasa lists o nl y o ne b ase w ithro ul ette d d eco rat io n under R W . H o wever , atleast one of the tw o rim sh e rd s listed for NBPshou ld be ca t ego rise d as R W as we ll becau se th ep ubli sh ed illu st ratio n show s th e ty pical beake d rim . Moreover, t h e fabric of bo t h rim s herds isde scr i bed as re ddish on t he o ut sid e, as it is

characteristic of RW n . All in all, t his account sfor an in d eed s mall occurr ence of R W atN cvasa

Regarding t he orig in , Sa ta nikota (A ndhraPradesh) is m ent i on ed from time to tim e asev id ence for a loc a l South Indian manu factureof RW (at las t Sures h 2004: 96). Accordi ng toa laborator y a nal ys is of two ce r amic samp lesf rom th is site, BRW and RW fr o m Sa ta ni k o tawe r e "exac tl y si milar in mi n er alogy and structu r e (TAR 1978-79 : 35). F or t un ately, th e potte r y of thi s si te is well-pub lish ed (Gho sh 1986:l 02- 1 52 ) . Li s ted as RW arc ty pi ca ll y b eake d ri ms herds as we ll as f ragment s of bases w ith th echarac te r isti c d ecoratio n. N one of them sh o wev iden ce of b ein g able to b e fitted together. AsGhosh state s, complete dis h es ha ve ye t t o befound . Th e ri m s herds ar e d esc ribe d as resembling BRW, yet th e y also occu r in Red W a re.On the other ha nd, he stres ses the ex traord inarysimilarity of t he wo r km ans hip to Black Warew ith regard to the base s. Acco rdingl y, th ey

10 Sarkar 1966: 63: "c o re is i nva ri abl y gr ey ".' 1 E. g Sound ara Rajan / Ram


6/30

Fig 2. Tissamaharama - a-k Fine Grey Pottery : a NBP, b RW with Graffito, c-g Wheeler type 18h Plain Grey ware, i Wheeler type 10 j paddle-stamped dish, k RW; lloc l imitation in BRW. Scale 1:2,sections not to scale.


7/30

The Dating and Historical Value o Rouletted Ware 29

seem to be completely different from the rimsherds. As only two pottery samples have beenanalysed from Satanikota, it may well be possible that unfortunately both belonged to localBR W. Such local imitation of R W dishes definitely do occur at Tissamaharama and Ari

kamedu (see below). Therefore Satanikota cannot disprove with certainty the various materialanalyses of R W made in recent years alwaysshowing a uniformity of paste combined withan obvious difference to BR W. Also the one rimsherd of Brahmagiri defined as R W could wellbe a local imitation of BRW. It has beencompared by Begley with those from Arikamedu and she found the latter quite different (1988: 428).

At Mahasthan in present-day Bangladesh, anindependent production centre for NBP is saidto occur (Salles/Boussac/Breuil: 2002). There,fragments with typical R W decora tion are denominated as NBP (Salles/Boussac/Breuil 2002:555, fig. 11). The indentations are sometimeseven placed both the inside and outside surfacesof the base. This is similar to other publishedfragments from Mahasthan, yet there said to beR W, but showing decoration with wavy lines(Alam/ Alam 2001: 345, fig. 3; Salles/Boussac/Breuil: 555, fig. 10 there again with NBP denomination). Decoration on both sides as wellas wavy lines is unknown for common RW 14 Altogether, the pottery production of Mahasthanwould have a dating-range from the early ydcentury B.C. to the late 1 c century B.C. (Salles/Boussac/Breuil 2002: 542), as proposed here aswell for RW.

As a conclusion, a secured definition of R Wfollowing a comprehensive study of this potteryfrom all known sites is a precondition forfurther historical interpretations based on thispottery 15

Characteristics of Rouletted Ware dishes andtheir local imitation made of BRW at Tissamaha-ram a

Up to 2005 some 650 fragments of RW alonehave occurred at the sites investigated in Tis-

samaharama. There, RW is categorised to FineGrey Pottery , a group of different vessel formsthat all have in common a very dense andextremely fine grey clay (Munsell 2YR N6).This high quality paste is eye-catching andcompletely different among contemporaneoussouthern Indian and Sri Lankan pottery assemblages and should be regarded as determinablefor the classification (Fig. 2 k). Besides R W,NBP and small cups such as Wheeler type 10and type 18 as well as a plain grey ware withstreak-polished surface and a flat, rather coarsedish with paddle-stamped bottom also belongto this group (Fig. 2 a-k) 16

In addition to the fine and grey paste, theparticular form of a flat dish with the so-calledbeaked rim is significant for RW 17 A simplefeatureless rim also occurs 18 Both shapes havebeen found in Tissamaharama without anychronological difference up to no w 19 The decoration consists of two bands of rouletted orbetter-called chattered indentations applied onthe inside the base of the wheel-thrown dish 20 Reconstructable shapes of rim sherds fitted todecorated bases are known at Tissamaharama(Fig. 1 a, b).

Due to varying states of preservation of thesherds, however, a proper classification is some-

14 Only two sites seem to yield this variety bearing wavylines: Manigramam (Soundara Rajan/Raman 1994: pl.XIX: B ; Wari-Bateshwar (Haque/Rahman/Ahsa n 2001:17, pl. 1: 10 there also called NBP.

15 Also Begley 1992: 181: But it is becoming increasinglyapp are nt that the Indian R W must be treated on a siteby-s ite basis and the sites should be dated independent-]

16 Schenk 2000; 2001a.- A detailed report on all fine waresfrom Tissamaharama is in preparation.

17 Wheeler/Ghosh/Krishna 1946: 45-49: Wheeler type 1and rouletted fragments: Pl. XXV-XXVI; 47, fig. 12;Pl. XXX: B: 6; 55 Wheeler type 3a.c.d.f also invariablygrey , but inferior .

18 Wheeler/Ghosh/Krishna 1946: 55 (local ware, but identical in fabric to Wheel er type 1 : Wh eeler type 2:fig. 14, 2-2c.

19 Variety 1 and 2 (Schenk 2001a: 72 . - For Arikamedusee Begley 1996: 226.

2 For the technique of rouletting/ chattering see Begle y1986.


8/30

13 Heidrun Schenk

Fig 3 Distribution of Rouletted Ware m Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka for site numbers sec appendix).

times difficult. Most of the fragments have wornsurfaces Fig. 1 b, c . There seems to be nochronological difference regarding the thicknessor the gloss. Yet one can easily sec that thepotters of W as well as of Wheeler types 10and 18 intended to use the BRW firing tech-

nique, one which is typical for the local potterytradition of peninsular India and Sri Lankaduring the second half of the last millenniumB.C. Rather often this seems to have failed. Thepotters somehow were not very familiar withthis technique and therefore most sherds of R W


9/30

The ating and H istorical Value o Rouletted are 3

Fig 4 Di str ibu tion o f Roulet ted Ware in th e Red Sea reg ion and So utheas t Asia (for site numbers see appendix) .

y ield a mott led appearance despite th e otherwisehigh quality (Fig . c) . Some fra gments evenbring to mind Sigillata wares when misfir edto an alm os t en tire red (Fig. 2 b). NBP, Plaingrey ware o r paddle-stamped di shes of th e

Fine G rey Pottery , on th e o ther hand , h avebee n well-flrcd, either pl ai n grey or w ith a bl ackglossy slip on th e outside.

But th en, RW-Imitations fro m Tissamaharama always sho w the p otters' expe ri ence withBRW manufacture (Fig. 2 I . Such dishes withbeaked rim are classified among Form G of thelocal pottery typ o logy of Ti s samah arama . FormG, a car inat ed di sh be l on gs to the bas ic vesseltypes of BRW (Schenk 2001a). The rim of FormG is u sua lly featur eless and simpl e. Therefor ethe appe arance of that pe culia r novelty as thischa r ac teri stic be aked rim o n fo r m G wa s striking. At A r ikam edu, th i s di s h wi th a beaked r imcan be found am o ng the local wares as wel l

(W heeler / Gh os h /K rishn a 1946: 55 type 3 an d3e). However, it must b e bourn in mind thatthis imitation strictly lac ks the rouletted decoration1I .

Th e outer zones at wa ll- and rim sect io ns ofBR W imit a tion s of R W at Tissamah arama arelargel y fired to a reddish hu e , w hi ch is co mmonto BRW vessels on the who le. O n th e ot h erhand , secti o ns of R W f ra gm e nt s a re almosten tirel y grey wi t h a ra ther thin b and of redtowards the outside at the sam e a re as (Fig . 2 k,1 . Co m mon to both is a sharp bo rd erli ne o ntop of th e ri m dividing the b lackis h firing o nthe insi de and the oxidise d outer part. T hisfeature diff er s from co mm on BRW vesse ls wi th

21 h c l e r G h o h K r i~ h n a1946: 55 : Wheel er type 3 islik e the major ity of the loca l types of in f eri or and

coarser fa bric; in var iab ly devo id of rouletted decorat n .


10/30

3 eidrun Schenk

wh ere the reduced kiln atmosphere usually h asreached over the rim t o the outside . The ancientcusto mer co uld no t readily disting ui sh we llfir ed examples of RW and imitati o n BRW whenstill co mp lete, aside from the mi ss in g decor at ion

on the latter (Fig. 2 k, I).This BR W -imitation of RW belon gs to th e

final development status of BR W in phas e c2(1" ce ntury B.C.) at Tissamaharama. A quitethick shiny slip is a common feature for thi slate stag e of BRW. Additionally , the reddi shcolour is more di st inc tive than can b e seen onthe pr eced ing BRW o f the 3 / 2 > ~centu ry B.C.At that time, the slip was coal esce d w ith thesurf ace an d h ardl y can be recognized , s imil ar toRW . On later specimen s of BRW the slip oftenflake s off . Th e se ar c distincti ve fea tu r es for the

lat est BRW .

Di st r ibuti o n

The distributional pattern of R W sh ows aco n cent r ation along the east ern coa st of peninsular India and Bangladesh and includ es sitesalongside rivers such as Kri shna, Godavari andKa ve r i u sed as natura l transportation rou tes(Fi g. 3; Ra y 1996: 352, fig. 1 . For the Malab arco ast ev idence was lackin g. R ecent in ves tiga

tions at Pattanam near th e Peri ya r River revealed th e fir st fragments of RW o n th e westcoas t (Shajan Tomb er / Selvakumar /C heri an 2004:317). Thi s s ite cou ld have been eas ily re ac hedfrom the cast coast via Kodumanal on th e ro utealong the Kaveri river (Ray 1994: 16, fig . 2;Rajan 1998: 67, fig. 2). Only two sites, A yo dhyaand Raj ghat, are noted in north ern Indi a fromw h ence NBP supposedly originat ed. Severa lother sites cover the Ganges Delta, facing th eBa y of Bengal (F ig. 3 and appe ndi x).

Four su ch sites in Sri Lank a arc pub lished

(Fi g. 3 and app e n dix), easil y to be re ac hed fromth e so uth ern tip of India (Begley 1996: fig. 1.1 ).Some fr agment s have been report ed from theRed Sea coas t of Egypt 22 , Oman and Yemc n 23 Occurrence in Southea st Asia is reported fr o mM alaysia, Thailand, Ind ones ia and Vi etnam 2\but it was only t o be verified fo r both the lat ter

(Fig. 4 and appendix) . At Bukit Te ngku L embuin M alaysia one can at lea st trace a fra gm ent ofa probable Wheeler type 18 cup (Sieve kin g 1962:25-26, fig. 1). Beik t hano in Burm a is also repeatedl y mentioned as a furth er find spot. T he

sh er ds referred to , h owever, a rc totally diffe rentfr o m RW in decoration and especially in termsof shape (Aung Thaw 1968: 199, pl. XLVb;Stargardt 1990: 265-266 and figs. 86a-b, esp.subtypes 79, 80, 117).

Wheeler types 10 (Fig . 2 i) a nd 18 (Fig . 2 c-g) have a dist rib uti o n pat t ern simil ar to RW,th is app lies especia lly to th e fir st mentioned.

Wheeler first de scr ibed his ty pe 10 stamp edcup from Arikamedu 25 Since the n it has appeared also at Vadd amanu 2\ A1agankulam (Nagaswamy 1991: 249), Karaikadu (Begley 1996:

25; 2 31) and Adam (Nath 1995a: 161 f andfig. ll: 7) in so ut hern Indi a a nd from Chandraketugarh in Banglade sh (IAR 1957- 58 : pl.LXXII: 6, 7). In addition, it has turned u p atthre e sites at Sri Lanka 17 and at Scmbiran in Bali

22 Bcren ike and Myos Horm os: Tombc r 2002 wi thin datedcontex ts of late- A ug ustan as the earl iest. She alsoment ions Cop tos as a proba ble further s ite.

2' Qana, Yemen: Sedov 1996: 17, fig. 4: 19; Kh or Rori(anc ient Sumhuram ), O man : Sedov /Benvenut i 2002: p l.10: 3: the pub lished piece recalls Wh eeler ty pe 2 wi ththe simple rim . Th e descript io n of t he pa ste incl ude sinclus io ns, whic h are neve r visib le in actu al RW: Sedo v/Benve nuti 2002: 186. It co uld therefore we ll be animit iati on made in BR W. - Meanwhi le the o ccu rr en ceof actu al RW at Kho r Rori is conf irm ed and datedw ithin 3'" to 1" cent ury B.C . (pe rs. com ment A. Sedo v .Surcsh 2004: 92 also refers to an occur r ence in EastAfri ca and on the Maldives.

2 It was found in layer 6 at Tra Kieu, Vietnam, da ted by"C to cal. 380-0 B.C.: Glovcr/Yamagata 1994: 157;Glove r 2005: 17, fig. 3a. - Also found in Go Cam,Vietnam: Glov er 2005: 17, fig. 3b. - For con tact toSouth east Asia see also: Glover 1996; Basa 1999; Smith1999; Ardika 1999.

" Wheeler/G hosh K rishn a 1946: 59 f. and figs. 17- 18;Be gley 1992; Begley 1996: 229 For m 5.

26 Sa.m i/Kastu ribai V ccren dcr 1992: 109 list of de cora tedshcrds n. 2.1 7.18 and pl. LXI II with a first app earan cein period l (300 B.C . - 100 B.C .); see also p. 97 and pl.I X: I : a frab Tilent listed und er Red Po lished W ar c, couldpo ssibly be part o f th e bo tt o m area of th is cup . Thi s s iteha., yield ed so me find s of NBP and RW a s well.

2 Kan taroda i: Begley 1996: 25; A nu rad hapu ra : Schen k200 la , 131 n. 306; Tis samahar ama: Schen k 200 \a : 129,fig. 107: 1-9.


11/30

The Dating and H istorica l Value of Rouletted Ware 33

(G lover 1996: 152, pl. II : c; Ardik a 1999: 83)and at Bcrenike, Myos H o rm os and Co ptos atthe Red Sea (Tomber 2000: 630; T om ber 2002 :27 a nd fi g. 4.7), thus confi rmin g a di stributionpattern indee d iden t ical t o RW.

The occurre nce of W h eeler type 18 2 a

car inated small bowl, till now has mainly occur r ed in Sri Lanka and Arikamedu (Sche nk200la: 301 n. 307) and Sembir an, Ba li (Ard ika1999 : 83 ). Another fragment probably is pu blished from Buk it T e ngk u Lembu, Malaysia(Sieve king 1962: 2 5 ~ 2 6fig. 1). This last site hasbee n frequ en tl y mentio ned as a fin dspot for

9 apparen tly referring to a first report by

Wi lliams -Hunt in 1952 where K, acco rdi ng toSieve ki ng," at the tim e of di scovery inter es tco nce nt rate d on so me fragments of very th in,hard, hi ghly bu rni shed or poli shed black po t

tery". H owever , furth er fr agme nt s found af terthe first publication ap pea red made the reconstruc ti on of a small cup possible with, " ... a closeresemblance t o the highl y characterist ic Greekblack glaz ed wares of the late 4 h cent ur y B.C.".Sieveking found the clos es t pa r allels for thi svessel among the Indian NBP. No furtherrefer ence t o actual finds of RW at thi s sit eappears in her articl e.

Co mp lete, re con stru ctablc s hapes of Wheelertype 18 at Arikamedu a nd Ti ssa mahar ama showa base on stan d-ring (F ig. 2 f, g). Stand - ring sm ent i on ed for other sites lik e Vaddaman u orAn u radhapura probably bel o ng t o this vesseP 1 Such stand-rings arc pub lis hed for Mahasthanas well , where t hey are sub sumed under NBPin loca l product ion (A lam/ A lam 2001: 343 andfig. 1 . At Ti ssamaharam a, th e surface of thebase is of t en fired to a b lacki sh sh ade, as it istypical for the R W -dish es (Fig. 2 g . Yet, ratherreddis h varieties are also known, being fi redalm ost e ntirel y red on all pa r ts of th e vessel(Fig. 2 c . But more often a mot tled appea r anceof bo th forms, Wheeler types 10 and 18, aga inindicate th e po tter 's rath er unsu ccessfu l intent ionof using the BRW-firin g techni que (Fig. 2 d, e .

NBP is the o th er mo s t p rominent potterybelong ing to th e gro up of Fine Grey Pott er yof Ti ssama h aram a (F ig. 2 a). Ana logou s to RWas suppo sed ly indi cative of " Ind o-Roman trade",

the simpl e occ urrence of a few NBP sherdsoften leads to an aut omatic dating of sites toth e Mauryan period and as being un d er itsinflue nce, w hi ch A. D atta finds quest io nable(1999 : 102) . There fo re the identific ation and useas a key t ype in so ut hern India and Sri Lank a

sho uld also b e treated as carefully as is due toR W. Its main d istribution see ms t o b e theNorthern part of Ind ia, yet a lso occurr ing atSouthern Indi an sites (Sharma 1990/9 1: fig. 1 ,but ther e m os tly ra re in quantity just lik e RW.

As opposed t o th e South , w he re th e BRWtra dition h as a longer lifespan, NBP form amajo r po ttery industry associa ted with greyware and a simpl e p lain r ed ware in n orthe rnIndia during the Ma ur ya n Peri od . O nl y in th emiddle Ganges plain do es BRW co ntinu e alongwith NBP (A. Ray 1999: 96) 32 Site s as Son pur,Ra jghat , Rajgir, Pataliputra seem to representthe N BP core reg ion or n ucleus zo ne" 33 However, grey -fi red wares a re indeed mo reco mmon in this re gio n than in pen insu lar India.As with RW, the occurrence and definition ofNBP on site s seems to need a r eview 34 Thistradition probabl y also spread to Benga l. At

" Wheele r/ Gh o sh/ Kr ishna 1946: 60 and fig. 18; Be g ley1996: 23 1 and figs. 4.296-4 .299.

29 G love r 1996: 136 refer s to high-fired po lish ed blac k

pottery which ha s bee n various y bo:en described asGree kn , and In d o -R o m an R o ulet te d Ware ; Gogte

1997: 7; Jahan 20 04: 94 .' 3 W illi am s - Hunt 1962: 186 refe r s to two sherd s o f Greek

Origin . Fu rt he r descr ipt i o n sec p . 187 - 1HR." Va ddam anu: Sastr i/Kas turi bai / Vecrendc r 1992 : pl. LX

list ed u nder Re d Polished Ware; p. 93 : the sectio n isf ine and grey in co lo u r; an imitation variety"; Anurad hapura: Bo u zek/Dcraniyaga la 1985: 5lJ2- 593. - An o therfragment is pu b lished from Adam: Nath 1995a : 159,fig . 10: 4. It is no t further descr ib ed.

" To t h e opposite, Sharma 1997: 112 states : "The RedWares . form th e m a jor bulk of cerami c at all th eNorrhe rn Rlack Po lished W are sites .

" M ishra 1989 : 90; Sinha 1997: 100- 108; Datta 1999: 104;103: ma inl y in the a lluv ial" tr ac t western U t t arPradesh and Bi har " . - Sec also A . Ray 1999 wh e ndiscussing excava ted Maur ya n Sites in nort hern andeastern India.

" Sinha 1997: 86: Howev e r, in t he co n text of it s w id eall- India d ist r ibuti on , the name Northern .Blac k Poli s hedWare see m s to be ra t her redund ant .


12/30

34 eid run Schenk

least more than 5000 fragment s of NBP andrelated wares are r eg istered at Mahasthan whicharc said t o be lo ca lly produced (Sa lles/Bo ussac /Breuil 2002: 540). Chandraketu ga rh appare nt l yalso co ntain ed extensive remain s" of NBP

(A . Ra y 1999: 95).

Origin

In 1993 , an attempt to under sta nd the o ri g in ofRW appeared (Ar dika / Bellw ood/Egg leton Ellis 1993; Ardika 1999: 83-86). The author s'laboratory ana lyses rested on samp les fromAnuradhapura , Arikamedu and Bali whichproved to be mineralogically identical. Thus theauthors proposed a single sourc e, most prob

ably at Arikamedu. Further analyses were conducted ba sed on sam ples from Anuradhapura.

t included RW, other fine grey wa re s such asWheeler type 10, "Hellenistic" sh erds and localBR W (Krishnan/Coningham 1997). The authorsalso pointed to a South Indi an orig in. The localsamples differed comp letel y from RW and thegroup of f ine grey wa re s.

In 1997, V. Gogte publi sh ed an analysisusing sample s of RW of Arikamedu , A lagank ulam, Kottapatnam, Manikpatna , Sisupalgar h,N asik and Tra Kicu in Vietnam. And fo r the

first time he included sampl es from outs idepeninsular India , from Chandrakctugarh inBangladesh. His study included Wheeler type10 and Roman amphorae from Arika med u aswel l as so-ca lled African Red Wa re from Alag an u an d NB P from Nasik. He alsoad ded fired loca l days from Arikamedu, C handraketugarh, Na s ik, Sisupalgarh, Kottapatnaman d Manikpatn a. The analysis s howed that thecla y used for R W from all sites as well as forWheeler type 10 and for NBP were identical.How ever, a m ong the local potteries o nl y the

clay of C handrak etuga rh matched in terms ofmineralogical co nt en t R W and t he o th er finegrey wares (Gogte 1997). Gogt e therefore proposed an origin in the G anges Delta.

Gogte repeated x-ra y diff rac ti o n (XRD)analysis on sa mples from Tissamaharama including all m embers of " F ine G r ey Pott ery" and

sherds of local, cont emporaneous BR W. H eselected specimens from C handraketugarh , Sisup algar h, Nasik , Ar i kamedu, Tra Kieu, thelat ter in Vietnam. H e included she rd s fromMahasthan, Bangl ad es h . Unfo rt unatel y, agai n

only sa mples from Chandrakctugarh of lo ca ll yobtained clay repre sente d the northern reg ionof the Indian subcontin en t . Gogtc's new studyconfirms his result s from 1997. The specimensof BR W from Tissamaharama proved entirelydifferent, but the "Fine Gre y Potter y" and theother sa mples matched the clay from Chandraketugarh (Gogte 2001).

Recently, a British team also carried outfurther geochemical ana lysi s on samples fr omt he exca vations at Anuradhapura 36 The sampleincluded "Grey ware", Wheeler types 10 and 18

and so -c alled "ompha los ware . Different fro mthe ea rli er mention ed anal ys is at Anuradh a pura,t he n ew s tu d y now included material fromKantarodai and Mant ai in Sri Lanka as we ll asfrom Arikamedu, Alagankulam, Vaddamanu andKopbal in peninsula r Indi a. Our colleagues alsoconclude a single geo lo gical source" for therelevant pott ery.

Besides Gogte 's s tu d y, all other ma t eri a lana lyses are ba sed solely o n samples frompenins u lar India and Sri Lanka, despite t heresu lts that lo cal clays do not match with RW

and its relatives from a " sing le geological source".Unfortunately, the scien tists never consideredNBP despite its eas ily vis ibl e closeness to RWand the other memb ers of its pottery group .I t s North Indian origin wo uld ha ve g iven a clueto the whereabouts of th e single geologicalsource". The inclusions of samples of localorigi n (o p timally contemporaneous to RW) fromth e northern regio n in t o further analysis series

lS Some m i s f i r e d~ pieces ind eed rese mb le Sigill ata wa res(F ig. 2 b . Sec her e the comments o n firing tec hni queof RW.

Jr Ford/l 1 ollard/Coningha m/Stern 2005; Ford/ Co nin gham2005: 394 .

l 7 Already 1997 th is relationship to NBP led w t h~

propo sa l o f an o rigin of the en tir e gro up of Fi ne G reyPott ery" somew he re in No rth ern In d ia: Sche nk 2000.


13/30

The Dating and istori cal Value of Roulette d Ware 135

would be a desideratum . However, it i s indeednot imperative to connect the source of RW toChan draketurgarh , but Gogte's fir st tests w hichinclud ed sa mple s from a nor th ern regio n see mto co me close to the prob able or igin.

Furthe r laboratory analy ses ha ve been car

ried out (Das / Panja /M ukhopadh yay/Chak rabart i2002 ), apparently in order t o challenge Gogte'ssugges tio ns of a similarity of loca l clay fro mC handrak etugarh to RW, NBP, Wheel er type s10 and 18. This stud y uses chemical anal ysis aswe ll as scanning elect ron micro scopic study andalso X- r ay diffraction (XRD ) analys is. Theyinclud ed Black-Slipped Ware 3ij and recen t localclays fro m Chandraketugarh itself .

The resea rch outlined above leads to th econclusion that we ur gentl y need a separatestud y o n RW thus pr o vidin g a firm definitionfo r th is po tt ery . The se same authors cl aim th atGogte co ncentrated, on a ce rtain typ e ofRouletted Ware" and did no t co nsider " th evaria tion of the pottery itself " (Das/ P anja/Mukhopadhyay/Chakrabarti 2002: 430). This"va riation" comprises the clas sification of R Winto diff erent groups describ ed only as " thin "and hi ghl y polished on one hand and "coars e"an d l ess shiny and o ne group of "in betwe en "),as the on ly differentiation withi n bot h ana lysedancie nt pott ery groups o f RW and Black Slipp edWare w ith reg ard to the samples hav in g used(D as/ Panja / Mukhopadhyay /C hakr abar ti 2002:430) . Strangel y, the experts menti on n othin gabo ut the paste and its c o lour altho ugh this isthe cru cial difference b etwe en e g Bla ck War e,Black -slipp ed ware, Black polished wa re andNBP in this respect as at least experienced inTissamaharama. There the Black Ware is completely fire d black in section with a either rathermatte su rface or is polished t o a gloss . We alsohave sherds here with a reddi sh fired sectioncove red by a black slip and thu s to be ca lledBlack- slipped ware. Additionally, all have incom mon a more or less coar se paste and thu sentirel y differ ent compared to N BP wi th thety pical very dense and gre y pa ste of "Fi ne G reyPo tt ery".

To date m or e than 600 pieces of RW havebeen r eg istered from Tissamaharama and all are

identi ca l in t er ms of paste. No chr onolo gicaldifferences a re visible amo ng wo rn, dull orpolished samples or on thin or thick sherds. Theonly dev iation is either a rather blackish orgreyish co lour on the inte rio r or a mottledappearance ins te ad of plain red o n the ou tside

of the sherd. Some arc worn to such an extentthat only tiny spe ckle s of th e slip remain;sometimes even thi s co mpl etely go ne. Most ofthese worn sher ds are hold overs. The onlyactual and indeed i mportant varia tion to b e seenis the evidence of diffe rent tools for maki ng thedec o ration which cou ld hopefull y r eveal differen t work sho p s (F ig. 1 a)l9 T his hom og eneityalso applie s to R W sher d s from Arikamedu aso bserved durin g a v isit to th e site . t also seemsvalid for all pieces publi shed i n a ph oto forsouthern Indi a, Sri Lank a and abr oad that arehere ackn owledged as RW .

However, this above -mentioned rece nt laboratory study revea ls t hat th e chemical composition of all "varieties" of bot h wa r es (R W andBlack Ware) arc "more o r less " co mparablebesides the amount of potash (that is supposedto be added separately) . Yet, th e XRD analysisshows no real similarity of either va rie ty (Das/Panja /Mukhopadhy ay/Cha kr abarti 2002: 439).Local clays collected in a radius of 10 kms proveto be " similar in natur e" but appare ntl y no t sowhen compared to RW and Black- slipp ed W are.As to nishin gly , XRD-anal ysis used by Gogtesho w ed a similari ty of RW and l oca l cla y. Thisindicates that the o ut come of lab or atory analyses depend s on th e quality of samples w hichare submitted and needs the su itable preparatory studies to veri fy the co nt emp oraneousnessof the samples.

However, Chand rakct ugarh need not be theproduction site, and it see ms d oubtful that it

" There is a termi no log ical m edle y fo r on e and the samepo t tery that has been analysed: it is e ith er d esc r ibed as"the fine r variety of wh ich has been identified asNo nhero Black Po lished Ware or named Bla ck Wa re,Black-s lipped wa re o r Blac k pol ished: Da s/ Pan ja/Mu khopadhy ay/Ch akraba ni 2002: 426 , 429 , 430 , 439 (Blackslipped and Black p o lished) ; 44 0 (Black W are).

,. A study on th e RW and other fine and / or impo rtedpo t tery fro m T issama harama is und er pr eparat ion.


14/30

M W 3U f I R~ ' r ? ' l " , _ ~ ~

36 eidrun Schenk

can answer qu estions about origin from recentclays, mor e than 2000 years lat er, with regardto ancient pottery. Samples of locally pro ducedpotter y fro m Ti ssa maharama use d by Gogtc forhis anal ysis co mp rised BR W shcrds whic h wereclearly contempo raneou s with the analysedsamples of RW and belong to th e bulk of ailday pottery of that period according to thepottery studi es on the site. On ce aga in we seethe need for independent site-by- site studies, aproper definition of wa res and the discovery ofa kiln site before further efforts o n pr o venancestudies are d one.

Kilns that actuall y would give evide nce forthe place of manufacture of Fi ne Grey Pottery have not been discovered yet . Without, anexact locali sat ion may prove difficult if sediment from o ne o f the num ero us rivers innorthern Indi a was used. Th i s provenance is atleast the most pr o bable with regard to thecorrelation of NBP to its relatives from the

Fine Gre y Pottery . However, a large varietyof alluvial sand transported by rivers overco nsiderabl e di sta nces a re a doubtful source forpr o venan ce s tudie s. The produ ction may havetaken place nc ar C handrak etu garh o r nearRajghat or some other pla ce e g alo ng theGanges. On the oth er hand, the clay migh t havebeen collected and then pro cessed somew hereelse, although not too far away and thereforemo st probabl y ex cluding site s a t pen insul arlndia As long as th e discu ssio n of either Southor North Indi an o rigin continu es, it rema ins forthe m oment of m inor import ance w hether asingle kiln or decentralized pr oduct ion somewhere in northern India were responsib le forthe manufacture of this specific Fine GreyPottery .

Remark s o n the dating of RW according t theresults at T issama harama

As mentioned above, Begley redated the appearance of RW from th e 1 cent. A.D. back to the3 dJ2 n centur y B.C. Begle y 1992 : 176 and 193n. 58; Begley 1996: 12). The excava tions atTis samah aram a co nfirm thi s earlier dating

Sc henk 2001a). At A nuradhapura, RW is saidto have been f ou nd even as ea rly as 400-300B.C. However, thi s dating rests on the firstemergence of RW in period I with a 14 Creference ran ging from 380 to 190 B.C. {at l atestFord/Co ningham 2 005: 393 -3 9 4) .

At Tissamaharam a, the eval uation of the da yto - day pottery, repr esen t ing the main bulk ofthe pottery assembl age, with regard to th estrat igraphy pro vide s the basis for th e potterychro nology . Rad iocar b on dating sub stant iat ethe chronology . RW as well as other finds ofcom parat ively rare occ ur r ence are not u sed asev idence for datin g, their positions arc so lelydefined by the context in where the y have beenfound (Schenk 20Dla). Relevant and secured iso nly the date of their fir st appearance. Regarding the first appearance of F ine Grey P o tt ery ,vessels of Plain grey ware prov ed to be thefirst o ut of thi s group to reach Tissamah aram a(F ig. 2 h) 41 A further importa nt question i s theproduction period which gives answers for therele vance of RW as a key type. At Ti ssama hara ma, indi cations for a definition of thi s produ ction peri od seems to be possible for RW.However, Tissamaharama in this case being therecipient of po t s/s herd s that reach there f romsome distance can only tr y to give an answer.

In the followin g, the latest result s on thedating of RW will be summarized embedd edwit hin a sh ort summary of the excavations atT issa mah aram a (until 2005). The excavat ion s atT issamaharama have bee n carried out since 1992f W eiss haar/ Roth/Wi jeyapa la 2001 ). At first, th einvestiga tions took place at T issa 1 n ca r theeastern s lope of the sha llow c itadel m ound.Most of the upper strata are ero sion layers ofdating to about the 6 h to 8 h/9 h centur y A.D.Below th ese levels date as early as the 1 ce ntur yA.D ., th e feature s of w hich arc also not very

Kramer 1997: 54: thi s ~ t no r p h i c lstu d y at Jod hp urand U d aipu r reco r d ed 100 km as greatest distan ce forclay to be transported f o r pottery production. B etwe en60 to 80 pe rc ent were located in a rad ius of about 10 km.Re garding trade, 230 km was the most di stan t exportp lace for finis hed p ro du cts: Kramer 199 7: 153_Also at A nuradhapur a: Fo rd / Coningham 2005: 394.


15/30

The Dating and Historical Value o Roulett ed Ware 37

distinctive and often disturbed by pits origina ting from the superimpo sed layers. Sometimesthe intrusions reached even deeper int o preChristian period features. The habitational ar easwh ich postdate the 1 century A.D. appare ntlywere situat ed so mew here else. For the preC hri stian period the excavat io ns at Tissa 1 reveale d a largely undisturbed in-situ situatio n ofa workmen 's quarter reaching down to thebedrock. The earliest settlement phase dates toabout the beginning of the 4 'h century B.C.(Weisshaar / Schenk /Wij eyapa la 20 01; Schenk2001a).

194 fragments of R W are known from Tissa 1 Thirt y of them were found in contex tsfrom pha se b (3' d cent . B.C.) to phase dl (1''cent. A.D. ). T he remaining sherds fr om thefillings of the later pits are in a worn condit ionand presum ed ly were du g up anciently from theearlier periods. Extensive re -depositing is co mmon on long -existing settleme nt si tes a nd intensively experience d at Tis sa 1 as mentionedabove . This vertic al di stributio n patte rn changesat Tiss a 3 as it is described be low .

After reaching bedrock in T issa 1, we sta rt edfu rther investig ation s at an area of th e citadelw hich is situated near the shore of the nearbylake. Th ere, the situation was completely different regarding the strata of the early centuriesA.D. More or less undis tu rb ed features from the6 ' century A.D. do wnward s were discoveredalready directly under the surfa ce . Expectedlayers of younge r age were obviously washedaway by eros ion . This app lies to the area o fTissa 2 (ex cavated 1995 - 96) a nd to the since1998 ongoing excavatio ns in Ti ssa 3.

At Tissa 2, fo r RW the di scovery of sevenpieces is recorded. Further investigations stoppe dbefore reaching the level s of phase dl due tothe constru ction of a new district co urt buildingon the site.

234 fragments ha ve been counted in theneighbouring Tissa 3 up to 200 4 . 161 thereo fdate from the 1 century B.C. to th e 1 cen tu r yA.D. (pha ses c2 -d1). Th o se phases have beenfurther inv estigate d on a lar ger sca le in therece nt season of 2005 again bringing to lightabou t 225 pieces of RW. The dating evaluatio n

fo r the 2005 season is not yet completelyfinished but man y sherd s belong in the 1 'cent ur y B.C. (p hase c2). Their state of preservation was very goo d and quite a few could bejoined to larger pieces. Thi s app lies also to 39fragments of W hee ler type 10 and 32 sherds ofWheeler typ e 18 found this year alone. On theother ha nd only 8 s herds of NBP have appearedthis season. About 150 fragments from thisyear's campaign are considered to be localimitations of RW.

It is s up p os ed here, that a rather rare appearance of fragments compared to the frequencyin phases c2 -d2 is assum ed for Fi n e GreyPottery in the next campaigns when reachinglevels belo w pha se c2. This proposed highesteem for Fine Grey Pottery may owe t otheir distant origi n. Theref ore on e ma y expecta caref ul handlin g of such vessels. They are mostprobab ly not used as day-to-day crockery wh ichhave a short er life-expectency. As a consequence, in opposite to the latter , Fine GreyPottery and othe r finds of va lue ma y bedelayed before reaching the soi l after thei ractual use. Hence s hcrd s in strata of phase c2may belong to vess els produced and import edt Tissamaharama in earlier phases. On e canimagine that it usua lly needs a few generationsto change th e attitu de towards goods of someva lue. Moreover, this could apply fo r productsassociated with a par ticu lar conno tation as willbe desc rib ed below. All in all, it ma y exp lainthe phenomenon of such a sudden increase ofRW-finds at least in phase c2 co mp ared toearlier phase s. ln 2005, w e already continuedinvestigation on o lder l evels of phase cl andphase b in a li mited area of only two trenchesand indeed on ly few sherds have been found .This has to be verifie d w ithin the next few yearsfor th e complete exca vat io n area. The alreadymentioned riveted vessel (Fig. 1 c), found in astructu re of the early 1 century A.D. alsopoints to a longer usage of R W dishes postdating their or igin 42

42 Further riveted fr ag ments of RW and ma inly NBP:Sark ar 1966: 43 (Kesarapalle); IAR 1957-58: 13 ff.; IAR1959-60: 19 (Broac h); S a s t r i K a ~ t u r b a i e c r c n dc r 1992 :


16/30

138 Hr idrun Schenk

At Tissamaharama the conditions for stratigraphical evaluation are promising. Largelyundisturbed in situ walking levels, acting asstratigraphic barriers, have been determined forall settlement periods excavated up to now.

Therefore, as opposed to Tis sa 1, heldoverpottery from lower strata is restricted in upperlevels and that which does persist is in a badlyworn state. Additionally, these sherds oftendisplay abraded sections, obviously having beenused as tools for rubbing (Fig. 2 f . This practiceis confined to fragments with the very densepaste and of rather hard firing distinctive to

Fine Grey Pottery , but moreover especiallyto pieces of foreign amphorae. On the otherhand, well-preserved and rather large sherds of

Fine Grey Pottery were retrieved from fea

tures of phases dl and c2. The latter periodexperienced the emergence of the local imitationin BR W which is supposed to be one of thekey types for this phase. This early appearancecould not be ascertained at Tissa 1 but wasalready suspected (Schenk 2000: 668; 2001a: 95).

Sherds of imitated R W belong to just a fewvessels representing the last development ofBRW at Tissamaharama. From phase dl onwards strikingly few BRW sherds occur, mostlyvery worn just like the RW ones. In combination with the sudden emergence of RW imita

tions, this observation at Tissamaharama pr ovides clear hints regarding the duration ofproduction of both BRW and imitation RW.

Sites, independently dated on a site-by-sitebasis, which arose after the supposed end ofmanufacture of RW provide a further possibility to confirm the terminal dating of this ware.Such a site is Godavaya, situated at about 20 kmsouth of Tissamaharama directly at the coast(Roth / Kessler/Recker/Wijeyapala 2001 . Go-davaya is reputedly a harbour. The study of itspottery yielded no evidence for settlement ac

tivities prior to phase dl (Schenk 2001 b). Besidea few worn pieces of BRW, no trace of RWor other kinds of Fine Grey Pottery haveoccurred. However, some fragments of RW-imitation are recorded. They are not manufactured in BRW-technique but in plain CoarseRed Ware 43 This new pottery production,

different not only in production technique butalso in vessel forms, replaces BRW (Schenk2000; 2001a). Such specimens of imitated R Win Coarse Red Ware also occur in Tissamaharama, but not before phase d2.

This situation strengthens the observationthat BR W as well as the group of Fine GreyPottery no longer existed when Godavaya wasfounded. Furthermore, it also indicates that theproduction of an imitated RW has a shortlifespan. All in all, the transition of BRW to theusage of entirely red-fired pottery ( Coarse RedWare ) and from RW to the occurrence of animitation apparently took place within the 1century B.C.

This must be verified independently at othersites combined with a study of their pottery

sequences.

An approach to a historical interpretation

Communication and trade routes establishedwith the expansion of the Mauryan empire areoften described in literature. Mauryan relationswith the world beyond its own frontiers areknown as early as for Chandragupta Maurya inthe late 4 h century B.C. 44 Travel routes followthe given possibilities by natural geography as

already mentioned above. The spreading ofAsokan inscriptions and the findings of NBP

96 (Vadd amanu); Nath 1995a: 158 (Adam); Datta 1999:106 (Bairat, Ujjain, Rupar, Besnagar); Sinha 1997: 90(Kumrahar, Sonpur , Ropar) - On utiliarian pottery:Ahmed 1950: pls. IVb; V; IX, X (Kondapur); Salles /Boussac/B r euil 2002: 541 and n. 36 (Mahasthan): rejecting that such a repair could be a him for high esteem.- Sankalia/Deo 1955: 118 and Pl. XXIX: 1 (Nasik, ariveted shell).

4; See also at Arikamedu: Wheeler/Gosh / Krishna Dcva1946: 55 Wheeler type 3c exclusively in red ware andlisted among local wares of infe r ior and coarser fabri c .

Begley 1992, Kamunen 1997; Mukherjee 1999; 'Thapar1997: 40 f. and 125 ff., she mentions Suvarnabhumiknown from lite r ary sources as contact to SoutheastAsia. t is interpreted as Burma by Allchin/ Allchin 1997:248 and as Malay peninsular and the Malay Archipelagoby Rahman 1998: 81. - Glover 1996: 130-131: Suvarnabhumi as place for profitable trade and as a field forBuddhist prosclytisation , mentioned in India n texts.


17/30

The Dating and Historical Value o Rouletted Ware 39

are t he main ac cepted indic ato rs for thi s p eriod.Starting with Chandragupt a and s tren gthenedmainly b y A soka the Mauryan Empire wit nesses the rise of cities in a ph enomenon called theSecond Ur b anization of India (Allchin / Allchin

1997: 223 f. and map 7).The dating ran ge of RW propo sed here

allows the associ ation of si tes which contain thispottery to the above -mentioned Maur yan settlement expan sion. Th i s was not possible witht he beginnin g of R W to 1 centur y Romantimes. Th u s RW has lost releva nce as evidencefor Indo-R oma n t rade. NBP is largel y acceptedas a marker fo r the M aur y an period. At som esites, R W seems in eviden ce sl ightl y later thanNB P , which ma y be cited as a counter-argument. Howe ve r, if RW dishes and also Wheelertypes 10 and 18 indeed were kept pr olonged lydue ro their prec iousness , one would not expe ctthem to get lost du r ing the ir he yday. Suchqu estion s surround the rather delicate value ofR W as a key typc 45

Additi onally to the valu e of RW , du e to thedistant ori gin and the very spec ial appear ance,a particular conno ta t ion ma y be furth ermorelinked to the M aur yan expans io n d urin g A so ka 'stim e in th e 3 d century B.C. The spreadin g ofth e Buddhist fait h by Asok a is o ften describedas a reason for thi s expansion . Ho w ever, thisp urely relig ious motif h as been qu es tio n ed(T hapar 1997: 137 ff. esp. 144-14 5) and Rayexp lains the Maur yan e xpa n sion wit h eco nomica l intenti o n s co m bin ed with the in stitutiona llogistic of Buddhi s t mon as terie s46 Addition ally,the land beyo nd the Vindhya range, th e peninsular Indi a, provi ded m in eral resource s such asgo ld and other go ods such as pearls (Ra y 1987;1996). The r elatively l arge freque nc y of RWdiscoveries reach in g as far as Sri Lank a can beexp lain ed hypotheticall y by a special relationship b etween Aso ka and th e co nt emporaneousk ing Devanampi ya Ti ssa at A nuradh apura (P rcmati lleke 1999; Pa nth 2004 . Tissa is said to haveadmired A soka (T hapar 199 7: 135) .

However, the distributi ona l pattern of thesevery di st inct ive v essels of RW and W heelertypes 10 and 18 is exceptional and obvious lyreflects Maur ya n contact s. Thus, wh y sh o uld

t hose vessels , thi s extraordinar y kind of dish,not be a custom-made product, initiall y aim edfor South Indi an and Sri L ankan mark ets ?A ccording to the find concentration, the se regions are the main recipients of RW as well asWheeler typ es 10 and 18. There, the populationwere accustom ed to vessels ma d e of BR W -f irin gtech nique. T his prod uct ion me thod was sharedin order to fabri cat e vessels of R W and Wheelertyp es 10 and 18, used b y potte rs usuall y produ cing NBP. The first emergen ce of this p ot teryseems to coincide with the rei gn of Asok a. P otsof F ine Grey Pottery may have been di stributed perhaps as presents or spec ial trade goodfollowi ng the routes of Mauryan trade and assu ch also r eaching places at So uthe ast A sia andthe eastern trading ce ntre s o f the Hell enisticworld at th e Red Sea re gio n. This may beco nnected with the spread of Buddhism andmay have b een used as a pr esent for co n version4 7. How ever, regarding a further suppl ybey ond the decline of t he Mauryan Empire,alr eady establi shed trade connec tions sure lycontin ued (Ray 1996: 354).

Of cour se it remains highly sp ecu lativ ew hether th ose di stincti ve vessels had some kindof connotation assoc iated to Budd hi st conversion or other meaning now unknown to u s o rwhethe r the y were them selve s traded as simple goods. Y et it must be str e sse d that thi sex tr ao rdin ary di s tribution from th e Red Sea inthe West to Vietnam in the East refl ects n oto nly Mauryan expans ion indicated b y Asoka 'sinscrip tions, but also the r ange of the h istorically kn o w n dip lom a tic act ivitie s of the Maury as . An explanation as a kind of present wo uld

s Al so Smith 1999 : 7 : . . . the po ssibilit y o f it bein g tradedmuch la t er th an t he date of m anu factu r e, again cauti o nsaga im t see ing th ese it ems as defin ite p roof of large -sca leex ch ang e in the earl y centuries C.E. .Ra y 198 7: 96 and 102; on Bu ddhi sm and trad e als o Ray199 4: 121 ff. Karttuncn 1997: 229 n. 263 o n Bu d d histm o nk s in do u b le fun ct ion as tr ad er s.

. Fo r N BP in a mi ssio na r y fu n ct ion see a L~ o Sa r ma 199 0/9 1. - Bet w ee n Sou theast Asia an d Indi a: G lo ve r 1996:130 ; 144: mu t ua l exchange . . . th at Budd hi st mission ar i ~ w ere alread y ac t ive, in deed were es tabli s hed, mSo uthea st Asia before the C hri stian e ra .


18/30

14 Heidrun Schenk

well fit especially to the very beautifully executed vessels of RW and Wheeler types 10 and18 with decoration not known in contemporaneous South Asian pottery. The obvious needfor a local substitute (imitation) of R W after a

cessation of delivery or production would confirm this assessment.

Conclusions

A revised assessment for R W has consequencesfor the dating of numerous sites until recentlyusually linked to the first centuries A.D. andto Roman contacts. RW seems to be contemporaneous with NBP, which is regarded asevidence of Mauryan dating and influence. Yet,

regarding the whole group of Fine GreyPottery , its value for dating purposes dependson their thorough evaluation within the localstratigraphy and finds of the different excavatedsites. The mere existence of a few, often wornsherds from a distant origin is at best animponderable support for dating. Even therelatively high amount of Fine Grey Potteryat Tissamaharama is insignificant compared tothe abundance of the local pottery.

The occurrence of such RW and Fine GreyWare on the whole only indicates that the

respective site has already existed within the lastthree centuries B.C. However, due to the prolongued use of these sherds, as here supposed,they cannot be used for ascenaincd datingpurposes on a long-lasting site. The emergenceof local imitations in the 1 century B.C., onthe other hand, can serve as key type for dating.This is evidenced at least at Tissamaharama andhas to be reaffirmed by further studies on othersites. After all, the distinctive group of FineGrey Pottery traces a kind of contact tooutside the region supposed to be the heartland

of the Mauryan Empire.In the light of different material analyses, one

indeed must accept that Fine Grey Potterydoubtless was not produced in southern Indiaand Sri Lanka. However, both regions representthe main recipients of R W and Wheeler types10 and 18, not to mention the still rather rare

appearances in Southeast Asia and the Red Searegion. The exact location of the productionremains unknown. Such vessels may have beenproduced either at different sites or at a singlekiln site in the plains of northern India, be it

Bengal e. g Chandraketugharh, Mahasthan) orthe middle Ganga plains e. g. Rajghat, Ayodhya) or both. Therefore, further laboratoryanalyses s hould necessarily include samples fromthe latter region.

f R W and Wheeler types 10 and 18 indeedare special products produced for export outsidethe Mauryan heartland, one would not expectthem among simple household pottery andamong the find assemblages of northern Indiansettlement sites. Therefore, the lack of RW inNorthern India (besides Ayodhya and Rajghat)

does not disprove its manufacture in this area.A new evaluation of most of the sites ex

cavated up to now with regard to our newassessment of the pottery would probably changetheir historical significance. Evidence for stratigraphic disturbances at long-sequence settlement sites such as Mahasthan, Arikamedu orTissamaharama have been noted. They are certainly not exceptions and a careful study offinds combined stratigraphically in situ on anindependent site-by-site basis is a logical furtherapproach. The review of the dating range of R W

alone, as proposed here, shifts the settlement ofsites such as Arikamedu back as early as theAsokan period. This changes the distributionmaps of the early historical period considerably.

Summary

RW, NBP, Wheeler type 10, Wheeler type 18and Plain Grey ware with burnished surface orwith a paddle-stamped base belong to oneceramic group designated Fine Grey Pottery

ar Tissamaharama. A very fine and grey pasteis distinctive for the whole group and is as sucheye-catching among southern Indian and SriLankan pottery assemblages. This ware is distinguishable despite different firing techniqueand surface treatment. Various material analysesprove a single source of clay.


19/30

The Dat ing and H istori cal Vall te of Rouletted Ware 4

Th e clay ong matcs from some w h ere at theplains of northern India evidenced by the maindistributi on of NBP. Further mate rial analysesshould th er efore include samples from th isre gio n for exa mple fro m Rajghat. Sites su ch asMahasthan and Chandraketugarh n ear the Bayof Benga l may be involved as well with aprodu ction of their own.

Ancient inhabitants may have held the verydi st in ctive R W in high esteem . Alone the distantorigin of Fine Gr e y p ottery" in general ma yhave enh anced it s va lue . Th erefore, s uch vessel srem ained in u se lo n g afte r th eir m anufa cture .Th is reduces the value of thi s ware for dati ng.At Tis sa maharama, fragments of R W are ratherworn and ti ny in layers from the 1 centuryA.D. onwards as can be st a ted for most of thepubli shed f ragme nts from ot h er findspots.

Th e di str ib u tio n pattern of RW, Wheelertypes 10 a nd 18 is mainl y re st ricted to regio nsoutside the here supposed a rea of manufactureas indi cated by the mai n di sp ers ion of NBP.An ove rlapping can be ascer tained only inBengal and in the middl e Ganges p lain represen ted b y th e only find sp ots Ayod hya a ndRajghat. Th e manufacturi ng tec hnique of RW ,W h eeler types 10 and 18 can be d esc ribed asa combi nat ion of u sin g clay simil ar to N BP anda f ir ing techniq u e especially p opu l ar in SouthIn dia and S ri La nka at that time. A custommade produ ct for South India and Sri Lankaseems to b e a ve ry pr obab le explanat ion fo r th isphenom enon .

The occurr enc e of RW and its associat es on lyindicates the d eliver y o f these vessels during theperiod of its manuf acture. Its occurrence on lydemonstrates the antiquity of the rele vant sit es,assoc iating them rat her with the phen om e no nof the Seco nd Urbanization" of the M auryanage . This appli es to the si te of Arikamedu aswell.

Sites lacking RW and derivative s may h avebeen founded after th ese wares ceased to beproduced.

The manuf act ur e of R W is restrict ed fromthe 3 d century to th e 1 t ce ntu ry B.C. at thelat es t. Imitati ons in l oca l BRW emerge in the1 century B.C. as evi denced in ma ny co n textsat Tissamaharama. These imitations are neverdecorated. RW as we ll as Wheeler t ypes 10 and18 can ha ve a m o ttl ed or dull s ur f ace t hu ssuggesting a coarser fabric .

A comprehensive study on the R W knownup to no w is necessa ry. Th is would at leas tterminate the confusion of its definitio n. Manyexcav ations have b een dated on the ba sis of rareand special potteries or finds such as R W.Therefore, a review of impo rtant excavatio ns, ashas been done at Arik am edu, woul d be d esirab le. The evalu ation sh ould at fir s t base on th eloca l pottery d evelopme nt .

RW do e s no t in dicate Indo-R o man trade .Arikamedu is a s it e w ith a lo n g sequencereaching from the d cent ury B.C. in t o them edieva l p er io d It is by no mean s a sing leperiod "Indo -Ro m an trading post . It s fi ndasse mb l ages as a wh o le cannot be used asexe mpl ary fo r th e respec tive period .

Addr ess:

Dr. Heidrun Schenkc/o Ko mmiss ion ur r ch aologie Auflercur opa iKherKu lwrcnEndenich er Str . 4D - 53115 Bonn

schcnkwc is@t o n line. de

F igure C reditsI a- b, 2 Heidru n Sche nk ; l c, 3, 4 Ha n s P. Witter sheim .


20/30

142 H eidrun S chenk

Ap p endi x: Sites w ith Rouletted Wa r e

Sites in Bangladesh ndia and Sri La nka Fig. 3 48

1. Gobinda Bhita (Bog ra District, B angladesh).

Rahman 1999: 123.2. M aha sthangarh (Bogra Distri ct, Bangl adesh) .Rahman 1999: 122 and plate; Alam / A lam2001: 344, figs. 2-3; Salles /B o u ssac/Breuil2002: 555, figs. 1 0; 11 49

3. Ra m sa ha r (Bogra District, B anglad esh) . R ahman 1999 : 123 and plate.

4 . Wari-B ateshwar (District Narshin gi, B angladesh). H aque /R ah man /A s han 2001: 17, pl.1: 5, 6.

5. Atg ha r a (Distr ict Nonh 24-Parganas, We stBengal . IAR 1957- 58: 70, pl. LXXXIll : 4b, 5 .

6. Chandrakct ugarh/Berachampa/Khana -Mihirer -D hipi 0 (District North 24-Parg anas, WestBengal). IAR 1956-57: 29-30 , fig . 14: 8, 10;pl. XX X IX: 6, 8; 1957-58: pl. LXXII: 1-5(R W ); 1958-59: 55-56, fig. 25; 1959-60: 50-52, pl. LV: A; 1960--61: 39-40, fig. 11; Jahan2004: 92, fig. 2 (Wheeler type 1 0).

7 . Boral Bara l (District South 24-Pargana s, WestBe ng al). IAR 1957-58: 70.

8. D eulpota (Di st rict South 24 -Parganas, WestBengal). Singh 1977 /7 8: 91.

9 . H adipur (Distr ict South 24 -Parganas , West

Ben gal . Sure sh 2004: 91 .10. Harina ray anpur (District South 24-P arga

nas, West Bengal ). IAR 1956- 57: 81; 195 7-58 : 70; 1958- 59: 77.

11. Hariharpur (District South 24 -P a rga nas, WestBengal). Suresh 2004: 91.

12. M ahina ga r (District South 24-P arganas, WestBengal) . Singh 1977/78: 155; Niranjan Goswaml 1n: www.banglapedia.org/HT /A_0341.htm; Suresh 2004: 91.

13. Mangalk ot / Ma n go lkot (District Burd w an /Bardd h aman, West Ben gal). JAR 1989 - 90:

109, pl. XXXI: B.14. P akh ann a ( District Bankura, West Bengal).

IAR 199 7- 98: 200 ff., fi g. 144 .15 . Saptagram=Satgao n (Distr ict Hu gli/ Ho og li,

West Bengal). IAR 1961-6 2: 59 .

16. T a mluk=Tamralipti (Dis tr i c t Medinipur,W est Bengal). IAR 1 Y54-55 : 20, pl. XXXV II ;1974- 75: 52.

17. Rajghat=Varanasi (Di st rict Varana si, UttarPradesh ). IAR 1963-64: pl. 40a ; Narain / Ro y

1977: 2651

18. A yodhya (District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh).IAR 1976-77: 52-53, pl . L: D.

19. Manikpatna (Puri Di str i ct , Orissa). Patra/Patra 2004: 111.

20 . Palur (District Ganjam, Ori ssa . Pat ra / Patra2004: 109.

21. Radhanagara / Radha N agar( R ajnaga r? ) (D istrict Kendrapara, Orissa) . Pa t ra / Patra 20 04:110 .

22. Sisupa lgarh (District Bubhane swa r, O riss a).Lal 1949: 86-87, fig. 8: 13; pl. XLII .

23. Dantavarapuk o ta (Dantapuram ?) ( Di striktSrikakulam, Andhr a Pr ad esh . Surcsh 20 04:91

24. Kalingapatnam /Calingap atnam (District Srikakulam, Andhra Prade sh . IAR 1967 - 77:10; 1977-78: 14; 1978 -79: 66 .

25 . Mukhalingam (District Srik ak ul am, AndhraPradesh). Suresh 2004: 91.

26. Nagarlapet (D istr ict Srik ak ulam, AndhraPradesh) . IAR 1976- 77: 10.

27 . Salihundam (Distri ct Srik aku lam, AndhraPradesh). IAR 195 3-5 4: 11 ; Subrahmanyam

1964: 41-46, figs.1 3; 14.28. Gopalapatn am / Gopa lpa t nam (Distric t Visha

khapatnam, Andhra Prad esh . IAR 1990-9 1:2; 1992-93: 3; 1993-94: 5.

29. Nara sapatnam /N a rsipa tnam (Dist rict Visakhapatnam, Andhra Prad esh) . Suresh 2004:91.

30 . Ramatirtham/Ramateertham (District Visakhapa tnam,Andhra Prade sh). Suresh 2004 : 91.

48 Some of the si tes a re loca ted o nly wi thin distric t borders.This is true for sites numbered: 9, 11, 12, 14 , 15, 26,

28, 31, 32, 3 4, 36, 38, 43 , 45 , 47, 49 , 50, 55- 57, 59, 62,63, 66 , 68, 72, 73, 85, 89, 90, 92 , 94, 100, 1 12, 114 - 116.

, . Th e re named as NBP; ro ulette d de co rat ion on bot h sidesof the bottom.

>l Ray 1994, 29: site o s s ~ of a series of mound s, viz .Khana- Mihir er -Dip i.

" T here refe rrin g to " bich ro me N BP ", no mentioning ofroul ett ed decora tion or bea ked rim


21/30

Th e ating and H istorical alue o Ro uletted Ware 43

31. P avu ra lakonda/Pavurall a Konda Distric tVisakhap atnam, Andhra Pradesh).www.th e hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2002/08/12/ stories/200208120091 0200.h tm

32. Kotamita District Warangal, AndhraPradesh). IAR 1980--81: 8.

33. Pithapur am District East Godavari, Andhr aPrade sh). Suresh 2004: 91.

34. Aunangi near)/ Annangi Hill 52 District Krishna Andhra Pradesh). IAR 1977- 78: 1.

35. Ghantasala District Krishna, AndhraPrad esh). IAR 1959-6 0: 31.

36. Jujjuru D istrict Krishna, Andhra Prade sh).IAR 1994-9 5: 1; 1995 - 96: 1.

37. Kesarapalli/Kesarapalle D istrict Krishna ,Andhra Pradesh). Sarkar 1966: 43; 63, fig. 11.

38. Paritala District Krishna, Andhra Pradesh).Sur esh 2004: 91.

39. Amaravati District Guntur, AndhraPr ades h . Wheeler/Gosh / Krishna Deva 1946 :49; 48, fig. 13: v.vi; pl. XXVII: A: 2, 3; IAR1958-59: 5 ; 1973 -74: 4-5.

40. Chebrolu District Guntur , Andhra Pradesh).IAR 1960 - 61: 1.

41. Chcjerla District Guntur, Andhr a Pradesh).Suresh 2004: 91.

42 . Dharanikota Di st ri c t Guntur, AndhraPrade sh . IAR 1962-6 3: 1-2; 1963--64: 2;1964 -6 5: 2.

43. Mallipadu District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh).IAR 87- 88: 1.

44. Vaddam anu District Guntur, AndhraPradesh) . Sastri / Ka sturib ai/Veere nder 1992:94-96, pi s. LVII-LIX ; fig. 31.

45 . Vai kuntapuram District Gu ntur, AndhraPrad es h . IAR 1960 -6 1: 1.

46 . Kond apur District Medak, Andhra Pradesh).Ahmad 1950: 4-5, pls. IV a; VIlla.

47. Pagidigutta District Mahbubnagar, AndhraPradesh). IAR 1978-79: 65.

48 . Chagatur District Kurnool, AndhraPradesh). IAR 1976-77: 7; Subranmanyam1997: 57; 228

49. mbuladunic District Kurnool, AndhraPradesh). IAR 1963- 64: 4.

50. Karp aka la District Kurno o l, AndhraPr adesh). JAR 1976- 77: 7.

St. Kudavelli D istrict Kurnool, AndhraPradesh). Surcsh 2004: 91.

52. Mittapali Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh).IAR 1963 - M: 4.

53. Nihugondl a/ Nilu go ndla Distri ct Kurnool ,Andhra Pradesh ). IAR 1963-M : 4.

54. Satanikota District Kurnool, AndhraPradesh). IAR 1978-79: 35; Gosh 1986: 107-113, fig.34: 11-14; fig.34: 1-4, 4a -c BRWimitations?).

55. Siddhirajalingapuram District Kurnool,Andhra Prad esh). IAR 1976-77: 7.

56. Tippaipalli District Kurnool, An dh raPradesh . IAR 1976-77: 7.

57. Vamulapadu D istrict Kurnool, An d hraPradesh). IAR 1976-77: 7; 1978: 35-36.

58. Veerapuram District Kurnool , AndhraPradesh). Sascri/Kasturi Bai/Rao 1984: 61,pl. XXVI: A, B.

59. Vyaparladevipadu Di strict Kumool, Andhra Pradesh). IAR 1976-77: 7.

60. Chandavaram Distric t Prakas am, A ndhraPradesh). IAR 1974 - 75: 6-7.

61. Medarametla District Prakasam, AndhraPradesh). Sure sh 2004: 91.

62. M ylava ram ne ar) District Pr a kasam, An dhr a Prade sh . IAR 1979-80: 11.

63. Kambaduru D istri ct Anantapur/Ananthapur,Andhra Prad esh). Su res h 2004: 91.

64. Allur District Ncllore , Andhra Pradesh).Suresh 2004: 91.

65. Duvvuru-Duwur Ne llore District , Andhr aPradesh). IAR 1978 - 79: 93.

66. Gandavaram Ne llore Di st rict , A ndhraPradesh). Suresh 2004: 91.

67. Kottapatnam/Kothapa tnam Ncllore District,Andhra Prade sh ). IAR 1996-97: 1.

68. Puduru Distri ct Nellore, Andhra Pradesh).IAR 1994 -95: 2; 1995- 96: 2.

69. Adam Di stri ct N agpur, Maharashtra). Nath1992: 69-79; 1995a: 167, fig. 15 stratig raphical distribut ion); 1995b: 135, pl. 19: 3.

70. Paunar District Wardha, Maharashtra). IAR1966-67: 27.

52 An nan gi Hill: Sur esh 2004: 91.


22/30

a ; ~ . r ~ r ~

.

. . .

.......___ . _- - - - --

H eidmn Sch e n

7 1 Arn i (Di strict Yavatmai /Yeotmal, M aharashtr a) . IAR 1978- 79: 71-72.

72. Ma rd a ( District Ch anda / C handrapu r, M aha rash tra). IAR 1959- 60: 31.

73. Jun na r (D istrict Aurangabad, Mahara shtr a).Surcsh 2004: 91.

74. Paithan (District Aurangabad, Maharashtra).Sur esh 2004: 91.

75. Nevasa (District Ahmadnagar, M aharashtra).Sankalia/Deo/ Ansari/Ehrhard t 1960: 280,name d as NBP p. 278-9 , fig . 140 (Tlll);IAR 1960 - 61: 21; Begley 1992: 191 n. 37.

76. Nasik (District Nasik, Maharas ht ra). Sankalia/ Deo 1955: 69-70, fig. 42: j-o; pl. X IX: 1-5, 7; 63 (RW); fig. 25: type 36c (BRW w ith" int erna lly beaked r im = BRW Imitation? ).

77. Ter=Tagara (District Osmanabad, Maharashtra). Chapekar 1969: v; 62-63; 64, fig. 23:18- 20.

78. Sannathi/Sannati (District Gulbarga , Kamataka). IAR 1966-67: 29 (pl. XVI below left:a worn body shcrd?); 1990-91: 31; 1993-94:65; 1994-95: 39; 1995-96: 40; Howell 1995:31.

79. Maski (Distric t Raichur, Karnataka). Wheeler 1946/48: 308; Thap ar 1957: 79, fig. 26:t ypes 6, 6a-b; Gurumurthy 1981: 131 (surface find only).

80. Kopbal (District Raichur, Karn ataka ). F o rd /Pollard / Co n ingham/St ern 2005: 9 12.

81. Brahmagiri (D istri ct C hitradu rga , Karnat aka). Wheeler 1947-48: 236-237 ; 238, fig. 27:Tl29; 240, fig. 28: T143-144; pl. CX I: l - 7.

82. C handra valli (D istr ict Chi t radurga, Karnataka). Wheeler/Gosh/Krishna Deva 1946: pl.XX VII: A: 1; Wheel er 1947--48: 278; 282,fig. 47: Al0-14, A16-20; pl. CXXIII: 1- 3.

83. Banavasi (District Uttar Kannada, Karnataka). IAR 70-71, 29, pl. XLVII: B; 1994-95:40; Narasimha Murth y ct al 1997: 120; 119,fig. 33; 195, pl. 55.

85. T Narsipur (Di stri ct M ysore, Karnatak a).Sure sh 2004: 91.

85. Appukallu (Di stric t North A rcot =Vellore?,Tamil N adu ). IAR 1976-77: 47-48 .

86. Santhome=Mylapore (Di s tri ct Madras =Ch e nn ai, Tamil N adu) . IAR 1992 - 93: 11 6.

87. Kanch. ipuram (D istri ct Ka nchccpu ram , T amilN adu). TAR 1962-63: 12; 1 971-72: 42--43;1972- 73: 30, p l. XXXll: A ); 1974- 7 5 : 3R;Subr ahman ya m 1974/75: 27; G urum ur t hy1981: 275, table 8.

88 . Mahaba lip ura m / Mamallapuram (Dis t rictKanchcepu ram, Tamil Na d u). Sounda r aRajan/Raman 1 994: 144.

89. Nerumbur (D istrict Kancheepuram, TamilNadu). Sur esh 200 4: 91.

90. Punjeri (District Chingleput=Tiruvallur?Kancheepuram?, Tamil Nadu). SoundaraRajan / R ama n 1994: 144.

91. Vasavasamudram (District Kancheepuram ,Tamil Na d u). IAR 1970 - 71: 33; Nagaswa my/ M ajeed 1978: 11- 13, fig. 4.

92. Mel Sathamangalam (District Tiru vannamalai, Tamil Nadu ). Sound ara Rajan /Raman1994: 1441 1 .

93. Sengamedu (Dis tr i ct Villup u ram / Vi luppuram, T am il Nadu). Banerjee 1956: 32.

94. Tirukoilur (D is tr i ct Villupuram, TamilNadu). Suresh 2004: 91.

95. Tiruvam attur (District South Arcot= Vill upuram? Tamil Nadu). Sur esh 2004 : 91.

96. Arikamedu / Virampatnam (Pondicherry,Tam il N adu).l . l isred as imported: Whe eler/ Gos h/ Krishna

D eva 1946: 45-49, pl s. XXV -XXV I; 47,fig. 12; p l XXX: B: 6 (W heeler type 1 androuletted fragment s); listed as local: Wheelertype 2 (simple ri m ) but "id ent ical in fabric"to Wheeler type 1: W heeler/ G osh/Kr ishnaD eva 1946: 55; 53, fig. 14: 2, 2a-c; 55:Wheeler type 3c, d, f of " inva riably greywares" and ri m form like W heele r t ype 1

2. Wheeler type 3 listed as local and of"inferior and coarser fabric": WheelerGosh/Krishna Deva 1946: 55, 53 fig. 14:3 (= BRW - lmitation?); 55: Wheeler type3e "exclusively in red ware = Imitation?).Be gley 1996: 52, figs. 2.12- 13; 226-228(form 1); 238-245, figs. 4.243 - 4.259(W heel er t ype 1 ); 246 - 249, figs. 4.260-4.267 (Wheeler type 2 ); 238- 241, figs.4.243-4.252 (Wh eeler type 3 ).

" mentioned und er loca t ion Po nd icher ry.


23/30

The ati ng nd H istori ca l Value of Rouletted Ware 45

97 . Ki laiyur / Kilaiyoor (Pondichcrr y, Tami lNadu). Sou nd ara Raj an / Raman 1994 : 47 .

98 . Manapattu (Pondichcrr y , Tamil Nadu) .Surc sh 2004: 9 1.

99. K u d i k a d u K a r a i k a d u N a t ta m e d u~4 (Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu). IAR 87- 88,

103 (K u d ikadu ); 1988 - 89, 80; Sound a raRaj an/Raman 1994: 144; G lover 1996: 152,pl. II , e -g (Karaikadu); Nattamedu/Nathamedu : IAR 1955-56, 27; 1965-66, 25; TAR1966 / 67, 25; www.tamilnaduonlinc.com/arcbilogy / nat tametu.tx t.

100. M aligaimedu (Di st r ict Cudda lo rc, Tami lNadu). Surcsh 2004: 91.

101. Ka rur (Distric t K a ru r , Tamil Nad u ). Nagaswam y 1995 : 63-65.

102. Koduma nal (D ist rict Erode, Ta m il Nadu ).R ajan 1998: 67.

103. Perur (D istric t Coimbator e, T am il N adu ).G uru m urth y 1981: 157.

104 . Sulur (D istric t Coim batore , Tamil Nadu ).Suresh 2004: 91.

105 . Ve llalur (District Coimbato rc, Tamil Nadu).Suresh 2004: 91.

106. Uraiyur (District Tiruchirapalli, Tami lN adu). I AR 1964- 65 : 25, p l. XI X ; 1965 -66: 26; Gurum ur th y 19 81: 275 , table 8 ; pl.31b; K ri shn a murth y 1988: 61-6 4 , fig . 62;pl. 18.

107 . Kav c ri p a ttinam / Poompuh ar (Di s tr ictTh a n jav ur , Tamil Na du ). IAR 1964-65 : 24;Soundara Rajan / R aman 1994: 48, fig. 11.

108. Nagapattina m (D istric t N ag ap a t t inam,Tami l Na d u). Soun dara Raj an/ Rarna n 1994:144.

109. Ma ni gra mam /M a nigiramam (District Nagapatti na m, Tamil Na d u ). Soundara Rajan /Rama n 1994: 50; 56, pl. XI X : B (w avylines); Jahan 2004: 94 .

110 . Vanagi ri (Di s tri ct N agapattinam (Nagai),Tami l N adu). Soundara R ajan / Ra m an 1994:47 , fig. 11 ; pl. XIX: A; XX : A -B .

111 . l a g a n k u l a m K o t t a i me d u 5 (Dis tri ct R amanat hapura m , Tamil Na d u ). IAR 1990-91 :68 ; 1996- 97: 1 00; Nagaswarn y 1991, 249 -254 and pl. 25 .1 : 1; pl. 25 .2: 6 (in scribed );1995: 70-81; Raman 1992: 128 , f ig.7 : 4;129; Sur esh 2004: 95, p l. 9.

1 12. Peri yapattinam (Di sa ict Rama n athapura m,Tamil Nad u). Beg ley 1996 : 25 n. 6.

113. Tondi (District R amanathapuram , TamilNa du ). So un d ara R ajan/ Raman 1994: 144.

114 . S. P appinayakka npatti (Di str i ct Madura i,Tamil Nadu). Selvakumar 2000: 126.

115. T. Kallupatti (Distric t Madurai , TamilNadu) . Selvakumar 2000: 126.

116. Kayal (Dis tri ct Tirunclvcli , Tami l Nadu).Soundara Raj an/Raman 1994: 144

11 7. Korkai (Dist rict Ti r unclv cli, Tami l Nadu).IAR 196 8-69: 32 . N agaswarny 1970: 52.

118. P a tt anam/Muzir is ? (D istrict Ernaku lam,Kerala ). Shaj an / T o mb er/Selva kumar /Cherian 2004: 31 7

119. Ka ntarodai (Sr i Lanka ). Begl ey 1967: figur es o n p. 25 (above le ft RW) and 26; p.25 (below right Wheeler ty pe 18); 1996: 25

(Wheeler t ype 10).120. Mantai (Sri Lanka) . C a rswell / Pr icket 1980:

pl. 7a.121. Anuradh ap ur a (Sri Lanka). Dcran iyagala

1972: 67, fi g. 12: 16i.k.h; Bouz e k/Deraniyagala 1985: 590, fig. 1-2; Prickctt- Ferna ndo 1990: 65, fig. 3: d; Bouz ek 1993: 84,fig. 55: 1; U eyema / No za ki 1996: 45, fig. 15,119.

122. Tiss amaha ram a (Sri Lank a). Sch enk 2001 :127, fig. 106; 176, fi g. 14 1: 13, 14 (RW );135, fig. 11 0 (BRW -i mitati o n).

123. Goda vaya (Sri Lanka) . Schenk 2001 b: 343,figs. 257 : 17; 258 : 1 (imitation in Co a rseRed Ware ).

124. Kelaniya (Sri L an ka) . Bop earach c hi 1999:13, fig. 10.

Soundar a Rajan/Raman 1994: 144 (Kudikadu /N atham cdu); Jaha n 2004: 94 (K a raikadu/ : J at tamed u). Sur csh2004: 181 n 2 ( Kara ikad u, K ud ikadu and Na ttamcduarc neig hb ou r ing coa sta l si tes in So uth Arcot Dis tr ic t,Tamil Na d u . - K ara ikad u = Kudik adu and Na tt am cduacco rding to Ra m an 19 :12: 128 .

ss A t first quoted in lA R 1965-66 , 25 as Ko t taimedu ;Naga sw am y 1995 , 7 1: (Al agank u lam) the s it e is no wca lled Kott aim ed u; S ur esh 200 4, 114 : Al ag anku lam ,locat ed in t be Del ta oi th e V aigai, on th e north ern ban kof the r iver, is loca lly referred 10 a ~' Ko tt aimedu ' or ' for tmound'.


24/30

146 H eidnm Schenk

Sites in nd ia, mentioned m literat ur e, butdistri ct area indeterminate

Bachri (Wesr Bengal) .Suresh 2004: 91.

Chint amani Dibba (Andhra Pr adesh ).Suresh 2004 : 91.

Kotesva rayalam (Andhra Pradesh).Suresh 2004: 91.

Nallur (Andhra Pradesh).Suresh 2004: 91.

N ereduband ag uddu (Andhra Pradesh ).Suresh 200 4: 91.

Roj a (Karnataka).Surcsh 2004: 91.

Sasanakota (And hr a Pradesh).

Suresh 2004: 91.Sendaman galam (Tamil Nadu).

Suresh 2004: 91.

Simhapu 56 (Singupuram 57 ) (Andhra Pradesh).Suresh 2004: 91.

Sites out side o f South Asia Fig. 4

1. M yos Hormos , Egy pt.Tomber 2002 : 27, fig. 6.

2. Coptos, Egypt.T ombcr 2000: 630.

3. Berenike, Egypt .Tomber 2002: 27, figs. 4-5.

4. Qana, Ycmen.Sedov 1996: 17, fig. 4: 19 (described as "finered slipp ed pottery ; Sedov / Benvenuti 2002:186.

5. Khor Rori, Oman .Sedov /Benvenuti 2002: 186 ; 219, pl. 10: 3(BRW Imitation ? and RW accordi ng topers . comment A. Sedov (se e n. 23).

6. T ra Kieu, Vietnam.Glover Yamagata 1995 : 166 , fig . 139; Gl o ve r1996: 152, p l. II: i; 2005: 17, fig. 3a.

7. Go Cam, Vietnam.Glover 2005 : 17, fig. 3b.

8. Sembiran, Bali/Pacung, Bali.Ardika/Bcllwood 1991: 224, fig . 2 (RW);fig. 3 (Wheeler type 0 ; Glover 1996: 152,pl. II: b, d; Ardika 1999: 83 .

9. Buni Complex (Kobak Kendal), Ja va .Walker and Santo so 1977: 230 , fig. 1; Glover1996: 152, pl. II: h .

10. Palembang, Sumat r a.www. users. sk y oe t .be/ ne twork. indonesia /ni4001c3.htm

11. Bukit Tengku Lembu, Malay sia.Sieveking 1962: 25-26, fig. 1 (o n ly Wheelertype 18).

Di stri ct N algonda" Di stri ct Srikaku lam


25/30

The Datin g and Historical Value o Rouletted Ware 47

Bibl iography

Ahmad , K .1950 In sc ribed and rivete d po tt ery of Ko nd apur.

Kondapur se ries 1. H yd er ab ad.

A am,200 1

M. S. I Alarn, M. M.Ceramics from Ma hasthan. In : A lam , M . S. I

Salles, J.-F. eds.), Fr ance- Bang ladesh JointVent ure Excavations at Mah as th angar h. f irstinterim report, pp. 342-426. Dhaka .

Allc hin, B. I Allchin, f R .9 97 Origins of a Civilization. T he Prehistory and

Earl y Archaeology of South Asia. New Delhi.

Ardika, I. W.1999 Ancient T rade Relatio n Between India and

Ind ones ia. In: Behera , K. S. cd . , M ar itimeH er itage of Indi a. pp. 8 0-8 9. New D elhi .

A rdik a, 1. W. I Bellwo o d, P. I Egg leton, R. A. I E llis, D. J.199 3 A sin gle so ur ce for Sou th As ian export -qu ali ty

Ro ul etted W are ? In : Man and Env ironment 181): 101-1 09.

Aung Th aw1968 Report o n the excava tio n s at Beik th ano. Ra n

goon.

Aung -Thwin , M.1982 Burma before Pagan: The Stat us of A rch aw l

ogy Today. In : Asian Pers pectives 25 2): 1-21.

Ball, W.200 1 Ro m e in th e Ea st. Th e Transformatio n o f an

Empire. Lond on Ne w Yor k.

Banerj ee, N. R .19 56 T he Mega lithi c pr o ble m of C hi nglepu t in th e

light o f re cent exp lorat ions. In : An cie nt india 12: 2 1- 34 .

Basa, K. K.1999 Ea rly T rade in the In dian Ocea n: Persp ecti ves

on In do-South-cas t Asian Ma ritim e Co nt acts.In : Behera, K. S. ed.), M a ri time H er itage o fIndia . pp. 29- 71. N ew Delhi.

Basa, K. K. I Beher a K. S.199 9 Ind o -Rom an T rad e. In: Beh era, K. S. ed.),

Ma r itim e Her itage of in di a. pp . 15- 28. NewDelhi.

Beg ley, V.1967 Archaeo log ical exp loratio n in Nort hern Cey

lo n . In: Exped ition 9 {4 : 2 1-29.1983 Ari kamed u reco ns id ered . In : Ameri can Jour

nal o f A rchaeo logy 87: 46 1-4 8 1.

1986

1988

1992

1996

F ro m Iron Age t Early Historical in So uthInd ian Archa eology . I n: Jaco bson, J. cd .),Stu dies in the Archaeo logy of In dia and Pak ~ t a n p p . 297-319. New D d h i.Rou lett ed Wa re at Arikamcd u: A New A pproa ch . In : Am erican Journa l of Arch aeo logy 92: 427-440.

Ce ramic E vidence for Pr e Periplus T rad e onthe I nd ian Coasts. In: Begle y , V. I D e Puma,D. cds. ), Ro m e and Ind ia. T he Anc ient SeaTr ade, p p . 157- 196. Del h i. In dia n Ed ition .The Ancient Po rt of A rik a.mcdu . N ew Excava t ion s and R esearch es 1989 - 1992. Vol. 1.M cmo ires Archeologiques 22. Pondi ch er ry .

Begley, V. I De Pum a, D. eds.)1992 Rome and India. The Ancient Sea Trade.

D elhi. Indian edi ti on .

Behcra , K. S. cd. )1999 Mari tim e H eritage of In d ia. N ew Delhi .

Bopcarac hchi, 0

1999 Si tes portu aires e t em por ia d e 'an cien SriL anka - n o uve lles do nnees arc heolog ique s. In:Ar t s A siati qu es 54: 5- 23.

Bouze k, J. ed. )1993 Ce y lon Betwe en E ast and West . An urad hapu

ra Abh aya giri V ihara 1981 - 1984 . Excava tionsand Srudies. Pra gue .

Bouzek , ] I De r ani yagal a, S. U.1985 Tesso n s de va ses Hc llenis tiqu es trou ves e n S r i

Lan ka. In: Bull eti n de Cor rcsp ondance He llenique 109: 589- 596.

C arsw ell , J. I Pr ickct , M.1984 Mantai 1980: A P reliminary In vestigation. In :

Ancient Cey lon 5: 3-81.

C hapeka r, B. N1969 Repo rt on t he Excav atio n at Ter 1958. Poona .

D as, A. K. I P anj a, S. I M ukhop a dh yay , T. K . I C hak r ab art i, S.2002 Po tte ry T echno lo gy and Prove n ance Stud ies

fo rm the Site of C h and rak eruga rh in L owerBenga l, In: Seng upta, G. I Panj a, S. cds.),Ar ch aeo logy of Easter n In dia. N ew Persp ectives, pp. 425 -4 50 . Kol kata .

Datt a, A.1999 Northern Black Po lished Ware (N BPW ) - A

Typical Marker of M auryan C ultur al Ex pa nsion. In: Indian

schenk datinghistoricalvalueroulettedware

Documents