Arab. arch. epig.

2014: 25: 186–213 (2014)

Printed in Singapore. All rights reserved

Nabataean or not? The ancient necropolis of Dumat.

First stage: a reassessment of al-Dayel’s excavations
Two reports on excavations carried out in 1985–1986 by archaeologist Khaled Ab- Guillaume Charloux1,
dulaziz al-Dayel and published in the journal Atlal (1988, 1986) have revealed the Marianne Cotty2, Ariane
existence of ‘Hellenistic tombs’ in the D
umat al-Jandal oasis (ancient Adummatu/ Thomas2
1
Dumat/Dumata) in northern Saudi Arabia. Although attributed more precisely to the CNRS/UMR 8167 Orient &
Nabataeans by Khalil al-Muaikel (1994), these tombs nevertheless appear not to Mediterranee, 27 rue Paul Bert,
have interested specialists of this historical period in the least. Moreover, a re-exami- 94204 Ivry-sur-Seine cedex,
nation of the architectural data and of the grave-goods indicates the difficulty of France
establishing a link between the unearthed remains and a purely ‘Nabataean’ cultural 2
Musee du Louvre, Departement
sphere (i.e. of the Petra type). This study therefore attempts to reassess published des Antiquites orientales,
archaeological data, formulate questions on the Nabataean presence in the oasis, and Pavillon Mollien, 75058 Paris
also to demonstrate the relations connecting Dumat to the great Levantine and Meso- cedex 01, France
potamian cultural spheres between the first century BC and the second century AD.

Keywords: Dumat, D
umat al-Jandal, funerary archaeology, trans-Arabian trade,

pre-Islamic period, Nabataean period, Roman period, oasis, Arabia, Mesopotamia,
Levant e-mail: guillaume.charloux@cnrs.fr

‘For when we refer to Nabataeans we do not mean “every-
one who used the Nabataean script” but a distinct and self-
conscious community, members of which actually referred
to themselves as “Nabataean” and were so designated by
the others.’
(Macdonald 1993: 307)
Dumat/Dumata (modern D
umat al-Jandal or D
uma) is a
large oasis in northern Arabia (Fig. 1) known to both Pliny
the Elder (Historia Naturalis 6.2.824) and Ptolemy (Geog-
raphia 5. C. 18: 382). One of the main branches of current
research on the Nabataean and Roman periods there is an
investigation of mortuary practices, but unlike Petra, Hegra
and a few other sites from this period, where some of the
tombs are identified by majestic facades carved into the
bedrock (Wenning 1987; McKenzie 1990; Wadeson 2013),
nothing, at first sight, reveals the location of the ‘city of the
dead’ at Dumat. Yet, according to the conclusions of the
Saudi archaeologist Khaled Abdulaziz al-Dayel, it would
seem that its ancient necropolis had already been brought
to light in the mid-1980s by excavations that continued at
least until 1989 (al-Dayel 1986: Anon. 1989; 74–79
[Eng.], 79–95 [Ar.], pls. 74, 76, 79– 85; 1988: 37–40, 43–
46 [Eng.]; 46–50, 52–55 [Ar.]; pls. 28–42). This discovery
went relatively unnoticed except by a few local research-
ers, in particular Khaleel Ibrahim al-Muaikel (2001: 47–
48; al-Muaikel & al-Theeb 1996: 40–44).
Al-Dayel dates the grave-goods to the Hellenistic per-
iod, from roughly the second century BC to the second
century AD (1988: 45). During this period, in spite of
the limited amount of Nabataean epigraphic and archae-
ological evidence (al-Muaikel 1988, 2001; al-Muaikel
& al-Theeb 1996; Charloux & Loreto 2014a), the Du-
mat region is generally perceived as having been on the
eastern borders of the Nabataean kingdom, in the same
way as Hegra is understood to have been on its south-
ern border (Sartre 2001: 57, 1005). The epigraphic
sources make no mystery about a permanent Nabataean
settlement in the Jawf area of modern Saudi Arabia: in
particular we know of a sanctuary to Dushar
a, of the

186
 NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT
Fig. 1.
The main routes in Pre-Islamic Arabia (©G. Charloux, after H. David).
presence of a garrison commanded by a stratopedarch
(rb msryt’, ‘head of the camp’) under Malichos II in
AD 45 (Savignac & Starcky 1957) and of a few graffiti
in Nabataean script recorded in the region, which date
at the earliest to the reign of his father, Aretas IV (9
BC–AD 40) (Milik & Starcky 1970; al-Muaikel 1988;
al-Theeb 2010; Charloux & Loreto 2014a). Since the
end of the 1970s there have been a limited number of
archaeological finds related to this period which include
the discovery of a Nabataean triclinium, a huge enclo-
sure of uncertain date in the western part of the oasis
and a long stratigraphic sequence with evidence for the
first Nabataean settlement in the historic centre of
the oasis (Adams et al. 1977; al-Dayel 1986, 1988;
al-Muaikel 1988, 1994; Charloux et al. Forthcoming;
Charloux & Loreto 2013, 2014b, Forthcoming, in pre-
paration; Loreto 2012). At the beginning of the second
century, around AD 106, Dumat was probably peace-
fully integrated into the new Roman province of Ara-
bia, assuming one accepts the model put forward for
the rest of Nabataea (Bowersock 1983, 1984; Sartre
2001: 525; Gatier & Salles 1988: 185); nevertheless,
the way in which this transition occurred here remains
difficult to define. A Roman presence at Dumata is con-
firmed only until the third century AD, both through a
dedication in Latin by a centurion, Flavius Dionysius of
the 3rd Cyrenaica, engraved on a stone altar found in
situ (Jasir 1981: 135–136; Bowersock 1983: 98, pl. 14;
Bauzou 1996: 24), and by the so-called praetensio stela
discovered in Azraq, which mentions the route between
Bostra and Dumata (Speidel 1987; Bauzou 1996; Chri-
stol & Lenoir 2001). The persistence in the use of Na-
bataean script in the second–third centuries AD
probably underlines the Nabataean heritage of the local
population, and it is likely that, during this period at
least, Roman political and military control was exer-
cised over the local population. There is a real hiatus in
the documentation for the following centuries (fourth–
sixth) at this stage of research.
The discovery, in 1985–1986, of graves with archaeo-
logical finds in context provides an important source of
information for the imperial period. Their re-evaluation is
187
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS
Fig. 2.
The location of the ancient necropolis at D

uma looking east (©Archaeological Project in D

all the more necessary1 since these graves and artefacts
display unusual characteristics, particularly if they are to
be attributed to the Nabataeans (al-Muaikel & al-Theeb
1996: 40–44; al-Muaikel 2001: 47–48). This article repre-
sents the first stage in the analysis of mortuary practices at
Dumat in antiquity and is in no way a complete and defini-
tive study:2 it is based on the published data alone and not
on any of our own fieldwork. The main aim of this article
is to investigate the nature of the populations present in
the oasis and to re-evaluate Dumat’s location, halfway
between the Levant and Mesopotamia, as well as to alert
the authorities and the local population to the need to pro-
tect the area of the necropolis because it is in imminent
danger of being destroyed.
The size of the necropolis
The necropolis is located in the western part of the oasis,
in the middle of a small, shallow valley in a large graben
1
The Saudi team’s reports constitute both an indispensable source
of information and a real obstacle, given how difficult the data
are to interpret. Firstly, the reports do not reflect the final state
of exposure of the structures (cf. for example al-Dayel 1988:
pls. 31–32 and R
ashid 2003: 127). Secondly, the group of struc-
tures, layers and archaeological features are briefly and unsys-
tematically described. Levels are taken as negative numbers
below the surface: the clearing did not respect archaeological
layers but was done in arbitrary levels of between 20 and 30
cm.
2
Ideally, the second stage of our research would be to review all
the data (dig notebooks, objects drawings, etc.) with the agree-
ment of the excavators.
188
umat al-Jandal, P. Simeon & G. Charloux).
(al-Ajmi 2005; Thomas, Testa & Courbon 2013, forthcom-
ing) (Fig. 2). It is not far (750 m) from Qasr M
arid, a
citadel whose earliest foundations probably date to the
pre-Islamic period and which now constitutes the touristic
heart of D
umat al-Jandal (Fig. 3).
Given that the ancient mounds have been flattened and
thus are no longer visible on the ground or on recent
satellite photographs, we must rely on an aerial view taken
in 1964 to try to delimit the ancient necropolis. Based on
the presence of mounds, three areas can be identified
between the historic area and the ancient enclosure to the
west (Fig. 4); the area that interests us here lies in the
quarter known as ‘al-Sunamiyat’ (site numbered 201–19
SN,3 after Adams et al. 1977: 33). A burial ground in this
quarter was already known by Musil (1927: 474) at the
beginning of the twentieth century. It contains around
forty mounds, 10–17 m in diameter, spread across an area
of about 800 x 300 m that is aligned roughly east–west.
What appears to be an enclosure wall can be seen in its
lower part. The aerial photograph makes it clear that both
modern constructions and ancient villages intentionally
avoided using this area: presumably the presence of
human burials was still known about in the mid-twentieth
century and this protected the site. The identification of a
necropolis in this location relies mainly on the results of
soundings and the exposure of collective graves by the
Saudi team in the eastern half of the study area. By
comparison with the aerial image from 1964, the extent of
the necropolis has today been reduced to its north-western
3
SN for al-Sunamiyat was added by al-Dayel in 1986.
 NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT

Fig. 3.
The ancient necropolis located between the ancient settlement and the historic area (©Archaeological Project in D

umat al-Jandal, G. Charloux).

half (see Fig. 2) and recent roadworks have reduced it
further. The review by the Saudi-Italian-French Project
during the 2013 season shows that the area is on the point
of being entirely built over and it is therefore urgent to
study it.
The graves
Of the five trenches (A–E) opened in 1985 and 1986 in
the defined area, only trench E (al-Dayel 1988: pl. 34),
located to the east of the others (Fig. 4) did not show any
traces of graves; perhaps it was an alley running north–
south leading to the necropolis. Trenches A (al-Dayel
1986: 74 & 77 [Eng.], 91 & 95 [Ar.], pls. 76 & 79) and
B (al-Dayel 1986: 74–75 and 77 [Eng.], 92 & 95 [Ar.],
pls. 76 & 80; 1988: pl. 30),4 only had narrow slit
4 5
The excavation of square B2 is probably the one described in
the second (1988) report: most probably, the details pertaining
to ‘trench A2’ (1988: 37 & 43 [Eng.], 46 & 52 [Ar.], pl. 28
[location plan]) refer to the sounding in question.
trenches opened up, thus providing a very limited picture
of the remains (Fig. 5). The style of the graves (including
their orientation) and of the finds, however, are compara-
ble to those in trenches C (al-Dayel 1986: 75–76, 78–79
[Eng.], 92–94, 95–96 [Ar.]; 1988: 38 & 43 [Eng.]) and D
(1988: 38–40, 43–44 [Eng.], 47–50, 54–55 [Ar.]), which
are far more extensive and coherent. It should be noted
that no grave was excavated in its entirety, at least not
prior to 1987.
Architectural scheme
According to the published plans, there seems to be a
recurring architectural scheme consisting of dry-stone
structures, probably half-buried, of imposing dimensions
—within trench D the structure measured a minimum of
around 10 x 6 m (after R
ashid 2003: 127) (Figs. 6–7).5
No significant results came from D4 (5 m to the north of D1–
D3), apart from a surface 70 cm below the ground surface and a
few human bones, pottery sherds and metal objects (al-Dayel
1988: 40).

189
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS
Fig. 4.
The supposed extension of the ancient necropolis (white oval) based on the localisation of mounds (white dots) and ancient excavations trenches (white
squares) (©Archaeological Project in D
umat al-Jandal, G. Charloux; 1964 aerial image of the oasis courtesy of Hussain Ali Al-Khalifah, director of the
Jawf branch of the SCTA).
Each grave had in its centre at least three adjacent cham-
bers (named ‘tombs 1–3’ by the excavator) separated by
equidistant, parallel walls of identical length. In trench C
(Fig. 8), these central walls were an average of 4.20 m
long and 0.48 m wide, and separated spaces 0.80 m wide,
while in trench D, the walls were around 6 m long and
0.59/0.60 m wide, subdividing spaces of between 1.09 and
0.95 m wide. The walls, covered in a coating on both sides
and at the extremities, were preserved to a height of
around 1.30 m (1.50 m in trenches A and B), according to
the cross-sectional drawings. Perpendicular corridors were
located to the north-west and south-east of these central
chambers.
In trench C, the corridor to the north-west, which was
of exactly the same width (0.81 m) as the chambers, was
190
delimited by a northern wall (0.47 m wide).6 The corridor
to the south-east, which the excavator named ‘tomb 4’,
was a minimum 0.85 m wide.
In trench D, the south-eastern corridor was probably
of the same width (c.1 m) as the central chambers; the
southern side of this space was possibly delimited by
another stone wall. To the north-west of the central
chambers, however, the corridor was much larger,
c.1.80 m according to the photograph. Unlike what was
exposed in trench C, the easternmost wall in trench D
was longer than the other parallel central segments and
linked the northern and southern ends of the structure,
6
Al-Dayel 1988: pl. 31, section AA seems to contradict 1988:
38: ‘The northern edge of this wall could not be identified.’
 NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT
B2
B1
Wall
A1
Wall
5m
Fig. 5.
Plans of trenches A and B (after al-Dayel 1986: pl. 79; 1988: pl. 30;
©Archaeological Project in D

umat al-Jandal, G. Charloux).
thus creating a perimeter wall to the structure. Notably,
there was also a peculiar layout on the north-west side
of trench D: a small wall abutted the northern limit cre-
ating a passageway or door through the westernmost
wall alignment.
Excavation of trench C, behind the grave’s northernmost
wall, stopped at a sand layer, 0.80 m below the surface,
without producing any finds, confirming the hypothesis for
the reconstruction of a perimeter wall in trench D.
What covered the tombs is not known. The presence of
surface mounds on the 1964 aerial photographs suggests
either the existence of a tumulus, or of a stone or brick
superstructure that no longer exists today. The 1 m-wide
chambers could easily have been covered with slabs. In
the case of the larger spaces at the north and south ends of
the tombs, which can reach a width of 2 m, the span
requires a rather more complex solution: perhaps long
monolithic slabs or vaulting.
From a structural point of view, a scheme employed at
least two or three times implies a willingness to use a simi-
lar plan within the necropolis. For graves C and D, an
identical model was used, but in differing proportions, the
orientation is the same (NW–SE) and there is regularity in
the dimensions (walls of the same length and same width;
same width of the spaces between the walls). The use of a
modular grid seems, therefore, fairly likely. At this stage,
however, the data are insufficient to allow reconstruction
—even though it would be attractive to consider structure
D as being the eastern half of a complete tomb.
Some other suggestive technical details exist: the
masonry is well made—the excavator links the technique
used here to that at Qasr M
arid—and the wall faces were
coated with care. In addition, the identical orientation of
the tombs (NW–SE), which might correspond to the
summer solstice sunset could indicate an attempt at large-
scale planning. Taken together, these elements, although
incomplete, suggest the participation of specialists (archi-
tects?) in the construction of the collective tombs.
Mortuary practices
The sequence of layers identified by the excavator is simi-
lar from one tomb to the next (from top to bottom, Figs. 6
& 8—note that al-Dayel did not take into account the
possibility of recent disturbances):
1. Surface layer composed of fine sand;
2. Soil, sand and small- and medium-sized stones;
3. Layer of white coating (?) in some cases (perhaps
fallen from the wall faces, e.g. in ‘tomb 4’ in
trench C);
4. Dark grey sandy soil mixed with some bones,
charcoal and black charred material. The objects
and bones were found mostly in a 40 cm-thick
band lying between 0.60 and 0.80 m below the
surface and the floor at 1.30 m;
5. Floor covered with lime-gypsum layer (tomb 1,
grave D)/hard light green or greenish coloured
floor in trench C. In trench D, the bottom surface
is ‘covered with original sandstone in tomb 2’.
The excavator went no deeper.
Unfortunately, the data in the reports relating to the
burials is very limited: al-Dayel tells us that they were col-
lective, but without detailing the number of individuals in
question. Furthermore, the dead probably belonged to a
single social group, perhaps a family living at Dumat,
since the excavator mentions the presence of adults, nota-
bly females, and of children (?) (al-Dayel 1988: 44).
In some cases, articulated bones suggest that these were
primary deposits: on the floor of ‘tomb 3’ (trench D), the
excavators uncovered part of a skeleton articulated from
the waist to the knees (presumably the pelvis bones and
191
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS

4.31 m
B B’
2m 2m
0.59 m 0.61 m 0.59 m 0.59 m
1.13 m 0.95 m 0.95 m

1m 1m

0m 0m

5.43 m

c. 2.00 m

D3 White coating

5.50 m 5.95 m

D1 Tomb 1 Tomb 2 Tomb 3

D2

B B’

0.50 m 1.09 m 0.98 m 0.95 m

c. 1.00 m 0.59 m 0.61 m 0.59 m 0.59 m

White coating Stone Reconstruction using the 2003 image

Surface layer "Lime-gypsum" floor ?

Grey to black sandy layer with human bones 0 1 2m

N.B. : The longitudinal A-A’ section (cf. Dayel [al-] 1988: pl. 32) is not reproduced here.

Fig. 6.
A plan and section of trench D (after al-Dayel 1988: pl. 32; R
ashid 2003: 127; ©Archaeological Project in D

umat al-Jandal, G. Charloux).

192
 NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT
Fig. 7.
An image of trench D (after R
ashid 2003: 127).
femurs?). According to al-Dayel, the complete human
skeletons (trench A) were covered by ‘burned clothes’
(1986: 75). Since a thick ashy deposit with charcoal was
found in the tombs, does this mean that the shrouds were
charred together with the wooden coffin (e.g. Zayadine
1982: 366) instead of suggesting the existence of clothes
coated in a resinous material (see Bouchaud, Sachet &
Delhopital 2010: 8, 18)? Or does it attest to the practice of
cremation? In the Nabataean cultural sphere, cremation—a
burial practice well known to the Romans—is only
attested in the Roman military cemetery in Mampsis (Ne-
gev 1971: 125–127) and in Amman (Ibrahim & Gordon
1987: 17, 38, pls. 6, 19, 20). At Dumat, complete bodies
and partly burned shrouds contradict the cremation
hypothesis and preferentially suggest the deposition of
‘burning material over the skeletonized bodies, rather than
incineration of the corpses themselves’ (Perry 2002: 266),
as evidenced by the excavation of the Triple Dushara tomb
at Petra (Horsfield & Horsfield 1938: 109–110). This prac-
tice of unknown origin could well be related to funerary
activities (meals or offerings, see Negev 1971: 127; or
fumigation of odoriferous plants?), as recognised by the
multiple findings of ash layers inside or near the entrance
of other Nabataean burials (Wadeson 2011: 9; Schmid
2010: 232; al-Salameen & Falahat 2009: 100; Farajat &
Muwafleh 2005: 375, 379; Zayadine 1974: 138).
Re-evaluation of the grave-goods
The aim of this new examination of the objects is to re-
evaluate their dating and establish their provenance. This
study faces several obstacles: it is based on the descrip-
tions and illustrations published in the two reports in the
journal Atlal,7 which constitutes a non-negligible source
of error. Apart from the lack of detailed information on the
context and exact location of the finds, the object descrip-
tions are very brief (Table 1).8
Pottery
The collection of nineteen ceramic vessels is divided into
three ware categories: yellowish, glazed and red/reddish
(Table 2).
—The yellow to yellowish ware (Fig. 9) seems to have
been exclusively used to make bowls and cups. Vessels
nos. 1 and 2 belong to types that are too common to be
diagnostic. Cups and bowls nos. 3–6 are widely distrib-
uted in the Gulf and Mesopotamia, at least between the
third century BC and the second century AD, although it
seems mainly during the second–first centuries BC. The
neighbouring site of al-Tuwayr, in the Sak
ak
a basin, pro-
duced an identical type. Related vessels from the Levant
seem to be shallower, finer and with more angular profiles.
—Five containers covered with a blue or yellow-green
glaze came from the tombs (Fig. 10), to which can be
7
Some of the archaeological objects found in the burials are
exhibited at the National Museum of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh
(see Tables 2 & 3) but have not been studied in detail by the
present authors.
8
In the case of the ceramics, the description of the wares and dec-
orations is insufficient, being limited to the colour and the occa-
sional indication of the thickness of the sherd and whether the
vessel is wheel-turned (?). Furthermore, the photographs and
drawings of the pottery have no scale (although a scale of ½
seems to prevail, apart from the lamps which are at 1/1, accord-
ing to the parallels available to us).
193
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS

4.31 m

B B’
2m 2m
0.49 m 0.48 m 0.48 m 0.48 m
0.80 m 0.77 m 0.81 m

Surface

1m 1m

White lime between layers

Main quantity
of material
0m 0m

Cervical vertabrae
4.00 m connected with a skull
(in 1988 ; sq. C2)

0.71 m Excavation stopped at -0.80 m from surface

Tomb 3 and northern area (1988)
1. Pottery: white painted pottery sherd / pottery sherds /
red clay vessel base / vessel rim with deeply incised designs in the middle
0.47 m 2. Beads: rounded bead of white and red marble with a hole in the center/
number of small beads.
3. Shells bored on two sides as a necklace.

1986 Excavation
0.81 m White coating

C2

4.20 m
Tomb 3
1. Pottery: 4 light green pottery sherds (almost complete vessel) /
C1 complete vessel with lid
2. Metal: rings
3. 3 coins
4. Beads
1985 Excavation

Tomb 1 Tomb 2 Tomb 3

0.80 m 0.77 m 0.81 m

0.85 m
B B’
Tomb 4 0.48 m
0.49 m 0.48 m 0.48 m

Tomb 4
1. Pottery: small Roman type pottery jar (found 100 cm below surface)
2. Metal pieces like rings
Tomb 1 4.31 m 3. 3 coins
1. Pottery: pottery sherds of a light greenish colour. to form 2 complete vessels / 4. 65 beads of various forms and size
glazed sherds / complete red burned clay pot with lid.
2. Metal: circular metal pieces / copper wire and seven pieces of copper /
big ring of copper
3. 15 beads
Tomb 2
4. 2 small shells
1. Pottery: red pottery sherds of Roman type/ Pottery jar (found 105 cm below surface)
2. Metal: 4 metal earrings (+ 2 metal earrings?) / gold earring
3. 3 coins
4. 2 cylindrical spindles made of clay
5. Stamp with a relief in the form of a scarab (scorpion )
6. 65 beads of various forms and sizes.

White coating Stone

Surface layer "Lime-gypsum" floor?

Grey to black sandy layer with human bones 0 1 2m

N.B. :The longitudinal A-A’ section (cf. Dayel [al-] 1988: pl. 33) is not reproduced here.

Fig. 8.
A plan and section of trench C with the excavator's notes for each ‘tomb’ (after al-Dayel 1986: pl. 81; 1988: pl. 31; ©Archaeological Project in D

umat
al-Jandal, G. Charloux).

194
 NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT

Table 1. Archaeological small finds from the al-Sunamiyat graves (terminology and raw data as presented in the excavator’s reports; al-Dayel 1986,
1988).
Material Excavator’s notes
Trenches A1–B1
Pottery Black pottery of medium size/unpainted pottery sherds and one sherd with incised decoration/sherd of metallic coating
and another of a turquoise colour.
Metal 3 metallic cylindrical objects, metal pieces, few copper pieces, a copper vessel, 2 earrings
Coin Copper coin dating to Arethas IV, in good condition (from trench A1)
Stone Pieces of flasks made of flint stone
Seashell Seashell bead

Trench A2 (B2?)
Pottery Small sherds of pottery vessels
Metal A few metal pieces
Glass Base of a vessel

Trench C
Pottery Sherds of a light greenish colour, to form 2 complete vessels/glazed sherds/complete red burned clay pot with lid (tomb 1); red pottery
sherds of Roman type/pottery jar (found 105 cm below surface) (tomb 2); 4 light green pottery sherds (almost complete vessel)/complete
vessel with lid (tomb 3); white painted pottery sherd/pottery sherds/red clay vessel base/vessel rim with deeply incised designs in the middle
(tomb 3 + northern area 1988); small Roman type pottery jar (found 100 cm below surface) (tomb 4).
Metal Circular metal pieces/copper wire and seven pieces of copper/big ring of copper (tomb 1); 4 metal earrings (+ 2 metal earrings?)/gold earring
(tomb 2); rings (tomb 3); rings (tomb 4)
Beads 15 beads (tomb 1); 65 beads of various forms and sizes (tomb 2); beads (tomb 3); 65 beads of various forms and size (tomb 4) shells bored on
two sides as a necklace/rounded bead of white and red marble with a hole in the centre/number of small beads (tomb 3 + northern part 1988)
Coins 3 coins (tomb 2); 3 coins (tomb 3); 3 coins (tomb 4)
Shell Shells (non bead?): 2 small shells (tomb 1)
Other 2 cylindrical spindles made of clay/stamp with a relief in the form of a scarab (scorpion) (tomb 2)

Trench D
Pottery 3 pieces of burnt coarse clay/burnt vessel/rim of a brownish vessel/brownish pottery/reddish base (contra ‘5 pottery sherds’/‘a few
pottery artefacts’) (Trench D1); 3 fragments of pottery handles/rim of small vessel connected with body/flat base (tomb 2 in D2)/pottery sherds
(tomb 1 in D3)/pottery sherds (between tomb 2 & 3)/complete globular vessel (circular base diameter of the mouth 14 cm)/glazed
turquoise sherd (tomb 3)
Metal Gold nose ring/fragments of metal or bronze rings/ broken bracelet (tomb 2 in D2)/2 metal pieces (tomb 1 in D3)/piece of iron (tomb 2 in
D3)/metal pieces (between tomb 2 & 3)/2 pieces of iron (+ a piece of metal?) (tomb 3).
Glass 2 “glazed beads of glass” (contra one glazed bead in listing?) (Trench D1)
Other Number of beads (tomb 2 in D2)/one bead (tomb 2 in D3)/5 beads (between tomb 2 & 3)/5 beads (tomb 3)

added three sherds with a green to dark green glaze from
unknown contexts (no. 8):
The yellow-green glazed lamp no. 7 is a common type
in a Parthian and Sasanian context, and is known as the
‘Mesopotamian type’ (Venco-Ricciardi 1970: 475),
numerous examples of which are known from the Meso-
potamian world and in Susa, at least from the third century
BC to the fourth century AD. The small jar no. 9 with a
short neck, concave on the interior, a flattened triangular
rim and a sloping shoulder, covered with a greenish-tur-
quoise glaze, suggests a Mesopotamian influence or origin
even though we have not found any perfectly identical
examples; a local provenance cannot be excluded.
The three vessels nos. 10–12 are distinctive in this
assemblage: they are small and very similar kraters, in a
fine fabric (the walls are no more than 0.5 cm thick) cov-
ered in a turquoise-blue glaze. They have a high and wide
neck, an average of 20 cm in diameter, with a marked cari-
nation that protrudes 1 or 2 cm beyond the rim. Based on
silver vessels (Hochuli-Gysel 2002: 304), this form of kra-
ter was distributed across the whole Hellenistic world,
from Athens to Bactria (second century BC–second cen-
tury AD) and in India (second–first century BC). These
kraters were probably moulded, a technique which is well
attested during this period, particularly in Ptolemaic fa€ı-
ence and in lead glaze from Asia Minor from the first cen-
turies BC/AD, which also provide excellent typological
parallels. This type of krater is also found in other eastern
productions: in Cypriot sigillata and in Eastern Sigillata A
(ESA) between the mid-first century BC and the mid-first
century AD, and in Nabataean ‘sigillata’ (between 30 BC
and AD 50), sometimes even among the common produc-
tions in Tarsus and Antioch, for example. In the Gulf
region, a type of krater without handles and with three
shell-shaped feet probably belongs to the same category
(see Salles 1990: 322–323, figs. 6–7). Towards Mesopota-

195
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS
Table 2. Description and parallels for the pottery.
No. Identification
1 Hemispherical bowl
with simple slightly
incurving rim
2 Carinated bowl with straight
vertical rim (lid?)
3–6 Bowls and cups with flaring walls
marked by a high carination and
an S-shaped rim, with a flat or a
ringed base, quite narrow
7 Yellowish-green glazed
lamp‘Mesopotamian type’
8 Three sherds covered in a green
glaze of a streak going from green
to dark green
9 Small jar with a very short neck,
concave interior, with a flattened
triangular rim profile and a
drooping shoulder, covered in a
greenish-turquoise glaze
(undescribed thick oblique line
on shoulder).
10–12 Small kraters whose
marked carination exceeds
by 1 or 2 cm the vertical
edge of the rim, covered in
blue-turquoise glaze.
196
Reference Description of excavator
al-Dayel 1986: pl. ‘yellowish ware, wheel
82, no. 8. made’
al-Dayel 1986: pl. ‘yellowish ware with a
82, no. 4 groove in the middle’
al-Dayel 1986: pl. ‘thin yellowish ware, wheel
82, no. 5, 6, 7; made’
1988: pl. 35, no. 4
al-Dayel 1988: pl. ‘fine pottery with green
35, no. 3 & pl. 42, glaze’, ‘Hellenistic lamp’
fig. 3 [Ar.]
R
ashid 2003: 128 ‘Glazed sherds’
al-Dayel 1986: pl. ‘greenish turquoise shiny
82, no. 1 ware’
al-Dayel 1988): pl. 10: ‘Glazed pottery with
36, nos. 5–6, pl. light blue color and
37, no. 9 engraved with leaves
design’ (sherd exhibited in
the D
umat al-Jandal
showcase at the Riyadh
National Museum)
11: ‘Glazed pottery with
light blue color’
12: ‘Glazed pottery,
turquoise in color
with engraved leaves’
Comparisons
Pottery from Mesopotamia (Lecomte 1993: 26, nos.
3–4; 2nd c. BC; Debevoise 1934: 47, nos. 23, 25;
Strommenger 1967: pl. 1, nos. 5–6, 8).
Pottery from the Levant (Lapp 1961: 173, type 51.2.B).
Pottery from the Levant (Lapp 1961: 181, type
62; Gerber 1996: pl. 32, no. m).
al-Tuwayr (Parr et al. 1978: pl. 33, no. 45 [S-shaped rim]).
Mesopotamia (Rutten 1996: fig. 7; Petrie 2002:
fig. 10, no. 8 [Neo-Bab. Type]; Lecomte 1993:
34, fig. 14, nos. 10–11; Debevoise 1934: 81,
no. 190; Cellerino 1987: fig. 9, nos. 54, 56–58;
Finkbeiner 1993b: fig. 7, no. 894;
Strommenger 1967: pl. 5, no. 8; Potts 1993a:
101, fig. 9, types 1 & 2; Andersen & Salman
2006: 117, fig. 8.B; al-Muaikel 1994: 271, fig.
viii, no. 8).
In the Levant (Lapp 1961: 179, type 54.1A;
Negev 1986: 77, no. 579).
Mesopotamia: Doura Europos (Baur 1947:
58–59, type VIII, fig. 33); Niniveh (Thompson
& Hutchinson 1929: pl. 54); Seleucia-on-the-
Tigris (Debevoise 1934: 127, figs. 403–406);
Choche (Venco-Ricciardi 1967: 99, figs.
185–191, nos. 49–55); Tell Mahuz
(Venco-Ricciardi 1970: fig. 94, no. 81).
Eastern Arabia and Iran (Gachet & Salles 1993:
fig. 12, no. 58 & p. 73; Bernard, Gachet & Salles 1990:
275, fig. 13, no. 235; Hannestad 1983: pl. 68; Haerinck 1983:
58, fig. 9, no. 29); Susa (Boucharlat 1987: fig. 64, nos. 4, 6;
fig. 66, no. 6, fig. 71, nos.
10–11; de Miroschedji 1987: fig. 12, nos. 9–12).
/
Mesopotamia (Lecomte 1993: fig. 8, no. 1;
Petrie 2002: fig. 7, type 24a).
Jawf Region (al-Muaikel 1994: 276, fig. 13, no. 31; 1993: 12,
no. 1; Parr et al. 1978: pl. 33, no. 44).
Form:Bactria (Lyonnet 1997: 133, 381, fig. 42, type O2-1);
India (Schenk 2007: 82, figs. 8–9).
Ptolemaic faience (Nenna & El-Din 1993:
fig. 6b [bowl] and 6d [goblet]).
Lead glazing from Asia Minor (Hochuli-Gysel 1977; 2002:
fig. 3, no. 6.; cf. esp. Hochuli-Gysel 1977: pl. 9, no. T 186;
pl. 16, nos. W 87, W 89. Thanks to Sylvie Marchand
for her identification).
Cypriot sigillata (Meyza 2002: 29, fig. 3, no. 10).
Oriental sigillata A (see Gunneweg, Perlman & Yellin 1983:
fig. 24/1). Nabataean ‘Sigillata’ (Negev 1986: 8–9; 26–27).
Common productions at Tarsus and at Antioch (Jones 1950:
figs. 181, no. 88; 183, no. 123; 290, nos. h & 355;
Waage 1948: pl. 2, no. 65).
Eastern Arabia (Salles 1990: 322–323, figs. 6–7).
Mesopotamia (Cellerino 1987: fig. 13, nos. 89–90, 93–94;
Petrie 2002: fig. 6, nos. 7, 12–13, 14; Finkbeiner 1992: 546,
no. 704; 550, no. 745; 551, no. 755).
 NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT

Table 2. Continued.
No. Identification Reference Description of excavator Comparisons

Syria (Schmidt-Colinet & Al-As’ad 2013: figs. 64e, 66d)

Decoration: Grooves: see e.g. Rotroff et al. 2003: 174, pl.
25; Marquie 2002: fig. 4, no. 1; Oswald & Pryce 1966:
171, pl. 40. See also the group of ‘bi-wares’ in
eastern Arabia (Salles 1990; Hayes 1985: 21, pl. 3,
nos. 1–2; or e.g. Herbert 1997: pls. 22–23). For the
decoration of successions of three vertically incised
grooves, see Jackson & Tidmarsh 2011: 493, fig. 147.
Band of stylized leaves: see e.g. Medri 1992: pl. 3.1.; cf.
Strommenger 1967: pl. 30, nos. 12–13.
Carinated bowl from Nimrud (Oates & Oates 1958: 145,
pl. 21, no. 11; pl. 24, nos. 7 & 5).
Vase from Qala’at Bahrain (Lombard & Kervran 1993:
143, fig. 9, no. 14 [rim not preserved and two ear-shaped
lugs attached to carination]).
13 Krater al-Dayel 1986: pl. 82, ‘Reddish ware decorated No exact parallel known: we refer the reader
no. 3 with vertical lines, looks to numbers 10–12.
like Hellenistic’; ‘reddish
ware with grooves’
14 Lamp in the shape of a al-Dayel 1988: pl. 35 ‘Red ware sherd, burnt and In the Levant (Sussman 2009: 52, fig. 30A [1st col. left,
dolphin with S-shaped no. 1 decorated with grooves on 5th from top]; 184, nos. 224a, 226; 186, no. 241;
thumb handle the upper part’ 187, no. 251).
15–17 Squat globular pots, flat al-Dayel 1986: pl. 82, ‘red ware sherd with Mesopotamia (Debevoise 1934: 55, no. 66/69; 51, no. 48;
base no. 2; 1988: pl. 36, grooves on the rim’; 89, no. 236; Toll 1943: fig. 27, no. 1938.4777; Lecomte
no. 7; pl. 37, no. 10 ‘reddish pottery sherd with 1993: 32, fig. 13, no. 4).
grooves’; ‘Reddish ware Jawf region (Parr et al. 1978: pl. 32 no. 23;
with grooves’ al-Muaikel 1994: 268–269, figs. v–vi, no. 2–3, 5; no. 276,
fig. xiii, no. 39–40); See also in eastern Arabia (Salles
1990: fig. 7/f).
For vase no. 17, cf. e.g. the profile and the flattened
rectangular rim in Petrie 2002: fig. 7, type 24b; Boucharlat
1993: table 11, 2nd row; Finkbeiner 1991: 621, no. 230.
18 Small table jar or amphora al-Dayel 1988: pl. 36, ‘Reddish pottery with Parthian world (Debevoise 1934: 73, no. 157; Finkbeiner
with rounded thickened no. 8 grooves’ 1993b: abb. 7, no. 939; Langdon & Harden 1934: fig. 3,
rim nos. 14–15).
Jawf region (al-Tuwayr: Adams et al. 1977: pl. 7, no. 21;
Parr et al. 1978: pl. 32, no. 26 [without a handle];
al-Muaikel 1994: no. 7, 14; Zubayda: Parr et al. 1978: pl.
34 no. 61).
Hawran (Renel 2010: fig. 3, nos. 1–2). Nabataean world
(e.g. Gerber 1996: pl. 31, nos. H–I).
19 Small jar with a high al-Dayel 1988: pl. 35, ‘Reddish thick ware’ Mesopotamia and eastern Arabia (Debevoise 1934: 69,
everted neck and no. 2 fig. 135; Lecomte 1993: 30, fig. 11, nos. 1–2; see also
thickened rim Bibby 1973: fig. 15, no. 1; Jasim 2006: fig. 25, nos. 2, 5;
fig. 26, nos. 1, 5).
In the Levant (see Lapp 1961: type 21).

mia, a few rare typological parallels nevertheless seem rea-
sonably convincing (Table 2).
Parallels are much rarer for their decorations, which
consist of vertical grooves (or for krater no. 11, three
grooves separated by an empty space) and bands com-
posed of palm-leaf motifs or stylised leaves, probably
stamped or incised. The difficulty here is the association
of the two motifs on the upper part of the vessel with the
turquoise-blue glaze, an association that seems to be
unknown in the Mediterranean basin and the Levant. A
decoration of vertical fluting in a band is certainly well
attested in the Mediterranean basin, but on ESA and on
several eastern productions, it is rather the lower part of
open forms that is decorated. As for the bands of stylised
leaves, it is also a decorative motif of Hellenistic origin
that is often found, for example on the bottom of sigillata
containers, and is frequently observed on the bodies of
vessels in a Mesopotamian context, particularly Parthian.

197
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS
In Mesopotamia, a large carinated bowl from Nimrud cov-
ered in a blue glaze and with a ‘raised rib’ decoration on
the body (Oates & Oates 1958: 145, pl. 21, no. 11; pl. 24,
no. 7; illustrated as grooves in the drawing, which does
not seem to be our case) is surprisingly illustrated just
below a vessel with a band of stylised leaves above the
carination (Oates & Oates 1958: pl. 24, no. 5). But the
most convincing parallel is a vessel attributed to phase
VIII (between 250 BC and AD 100) of the French excava-
tions at Qala’at Bahrain: a row of palm leaves under a
band of vertical grooves decorates the upper part of the
carination; the vessel belongs to a homogeneous group
(beige fabric and pale blue glaze), which suggests local
production. To sum up, it is clear on the one hand, that the
form of the kraters nos. 10–12 from Dumat is inspired by
Western models, adapted to local tastes and on the other,
that their decoration seems closer to Mesopotamian mod-
els. This production can be reasonably dated to around the
first centuries BC/AD.
—Seven vessels in red/reddish ware were illustrated in the
reports (Fig. 11). The krater in red ware no. 13 should not
be distinguished from those described above (nos. 10–12),
even though it is larger: it has a band of vertical grooves
on the high neck, this time properly rectangular and cen-
tred in the band. On the assumption that the identification
made by the excavator is correct, the coexistence of two
pottery productions that are morphologically and decora-
tively identical but differ in their ware—one being red, the
other covered in a blue glaze—is certainly not insignifi-
cant. That the four examples studied—examples that are
1 2
3 4
5 6
5 cm
Fig. 9.
Yellow to yellowish ware open forms (after al-Dayel 1986; 1988 [see
Table 2]; ©G. Charloux).
198
unique to this day—come not only from a single site, but
also from the same necropolis, might indicate the exis-
tence of a production workshop, possibly regional or Mes-
opotamian (?), that remains to be identified. J-F. Salles,
who clearly demonstrated the correlation between Eastern
Sigillata and glazed forms in the Gulf region for this type
of krater, raised the question of its transfer to the eastern
part of the Arabian Peninsula (Salles 1990: 324). Yet the
discovery of ESA sherds in the historic part of Dumat (Lo-
reto 2012: 174, 176, fig. 10/1–2) indicates not only sound
knowledge of this Levantine production, but also long-dis-
tance contacts from (or towards) the West at the turn of the
first millennium BC/AD. From this point of view, do the
Dumat kraters constitute one of the missing links in this
transfer? The evidence of a Western inspiration for the
form and Eastern for the decoration? The ‘middleman’
spoken of by Salles (1990: 324)?
Lamp no. 14 belongs to a popular category of ‘delphini-
form’ moulded lamps with an ‘S’ thumb-plate dating to
the Hellenistic period (second–early first century BC,
probably extending to the end of the first century BC).
The decoration consists of an incised circle with ridges
radiating out from it, each separated by two oval petals.
This type of lamp was produced in various places in the
Mediterranean basin (Cyprus, Phoenicia, Delos) and par-
ticularly in Palestine (Mlynarczyk 1997; Sussman 2009);
local imitations were produced in Syria (Renel 2010: 529)
and in Nabataea (see Barrett 2008: 68–69). We do not
know of any lamps of this type found further east (see
Table 2).
Pots nos. 15–17 are small globular forms that are short
or with a sloping shoulder (no. 17), with fairly thick walls
and a flat base. The upper body is incised with deep, paral-
lel horizontal lines, as is often the case in the Mesopota-
mian and Arabian worlds.
The small jars or table amphorae nos. 18 and 19 are
harder to identify: exact parallels are known for the vessel
with moulded sides (no. 18) in the Parthian world and in
the Sak
ak
a basin. This type is also known in the Hawran
with two symmetrical handles, and is not very different
from some Nabataean forms with apparently wider, shorter
necks (see Table 2). Jar no. 19 with a high everted neck
and thickened rim is similar to some vessels from Mesopo-
tamia and the Gulf. A Levantine inspiration cannot be
excluded.
In summary, the pottery vessels represent either the
remains of funerary feasting or the subsistence needs of the
deceased after death: bowls and cups for drinking and eat-
ing, kraters for mixing or presenting, amphorae and small
 NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT
7 5 cm
8 9
10 11
Diam ?
12 5 cm
Fig. 10.
Glazed pottery (after al-Dayel 1986; 1988 [see Table 2]; ©G. Char-
loux).
jars for serving and preserving, lamps for lighting. These
are all small- and medium-sized vessels, with thin walls—
some decorated, often glazed—that one might call luxury
items. Although the homogeneity of the assemblage over a
short time span remains questionable and the fact that the
origin of all the vessels cannot be identified with certainty,
the pottery pieces present largely Mesopotamian character-
istics and Levantine in one case at least (no. 14).
Small finds (Table 3)
JEWELLERY (FIG. 12)
The two (nose?) rings 20 and 219 both bear an alignment
of small spheres on one half. On the better-preserved
example (no. 21), these spheres are assembled one against
the other in groups of four, in a cross-like pattern. These
rings are comparable to models known from Mesopotamia
during the Neo-Assyrian period and later in the Neo-Baby-
lonian, Persian, Hellenistic and Parthian periods, as well
as from Iran, Lydia, Cyprus and Greece. Such rings are
9 10
On the question of nose rings, see the comments by Sachet
(2006: 149).
5 cm
14
13
15 16 17
19
18
5 cm
Fig. 11.
Red to reddish ware vessels (after al-Dayel 1986; 1988 [see Table 2];
©G. Charloux).
also found in Hellenistic contexts in Nabataea, eastern
Arabia and the Gulf.
Several other jewellery fragments came from the
necropolis: earrings, rings, bracelets, numerous beads,
ornaments and ‘metal pieces’ (Table 3), of which only two
necklaces (nos. 22 & 23) were reproduced in the report.
Unfortunately, the photograph only allows a glimpse of an
assemblage of circular beads with a few other more elon-
gated ones here and there and a larger bead in the centre.
According to a brief examination of them in the National
Museum in Riyadh, these necklaces include beads made
of lapis lazuli and glazed ones made, among others, of yel-
low and orange stones.
DECORATIVE METAL PIECES
The two stylised figurines (nos. 24 & 25) are made of thin
metal plate (silver?) pierced in the centre with a hole that
must have made it possible to wear them as a pendant.10
The dromedary (no. 24) is similar to other decorative pen-
dants found in the Arabian Peninsula, while the dog (no.
25) can be compared to pendants found in a tomb from the
Based on comparable objects: Haerinck 2003: 89–90; Calvet
et al. 1997: 247.
199
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS
Gulf (Haerinck 2003: 90, fig. 3). Perhaps these were not
offerings intended for the deities, but rather ornaments
worn by the dead (Sachet 2006: 161–162), which does not
exclude a protective or symbolic function.11 These
figurines were probably suspended as parts of a necklace
or bracelet, or perhaps sewn onto a piece of clothing, a
tradition well attested in the Middle East (Haerinck
2003: 88).
THE INTAGLIO (FIG. 13/26)
This ovoid intaglio of dark stone (garnet, jasper or ser-
pentine) is decorated with a lion lying down in a peace-
ful position, the head facing forwards. The muscles,
ribs, mouth and mane of the animal are finely modelled
with a chisel. It is comparable to the so-called ‘Graeco-
Persian’ seals, but the cosmopolitan and syncretic char-
acter of this style, found from Persia to Anatolia and
from Egypt to Babylonia, demands the greatest prudence
when assigning a date or a place of manufacture. The
picture of a lion, emblem of sovereigns and of some
warrior deities, is of course a common motif in the east-
ern glyptic.
TERRACOTTA FIGURINES
The female figurine no. 27 is missing the head and part
of the legs; it is of a naked woman holding her breasts.
Although it is fairly crudely modelled, the arms roughly
outlined and the hips but little emphasised, certain
details are made with more precision. Thus, the mod-
elled and incised necklace forms a string of small seg-
ments. Here and there traces of two plaits falling on the
shoulders can be discerned. The enlarged navel is above
a pubic belt suggested by two folds and a slit. This fig-
urine is perhaps the one mentioned by al-Dayel as
found close to the skeleton of a young child (1988:
45). It is a modelled and unelaborated type of female
figurine current in Seleucid-Parthian Mesopotamia. The
Br€ustehalterin of Mesopotamia,12 made using moulds,
have the same type of necklace and hairstyle as the fig-
urine from D
uma. The bulge (or belt: Karvonen-Kannas
1995: 49) and the clearly defined navel and pubis were
also part of their attributes. It should be noted that the
female figurines from the Nabataean world are rarely
naked and usually adopt a stance of benediction and
11
Dromedaries were sometimes buried in the tombs with the
deceased (Haerinck 2003: 91).
12
A female figurine with the hands resting on or below the
breasts.
200
not that of fertility (el-Khouri 2002: 9–13). Another
female figurine holding her breasts has been found at
D
umat al-Jandal (al-Muaikel 1994: pl. 16/a).
The fragmentary terracotta figurine no. 28 represents a
dromedary with raised head; the legs and all but the
beginning of the tail are missing, as well—perhaps—as
part of the hump, which seems slightly flattened. Based
on the drawing, this figurine—certainly hand-modelled
and rather crudely—can be compared to a relatively large
group of clay figurines of dromedaries (see Table 3). This
example seems to present no details of harnessing; the
incised decoration (parallel vertical lines between the
eyes, closed by a horizontal line) seems to represent ritual
painting that is still used today (al-Ghabb
an et al. 2010:
330).
THE GLASS VASE (FIG. 13/29)
This type of glass vase (no. 29) with globular body and
high neck might originate from Iran, but equally from
Mesopotamia, Egypt or Arabia. Even though several simi-
lar examples have been found in late pre-Islamic levels,
such vases are generally dated to between the seventh and
tenth centuries AD (in the so-called early Islamic period).
The original context of this vase is not mentioned in the
reports or in the more recent overview.
THE COINS (FIG. 14/30–32)
The three coins nos. 30–32 published in the excavation
reports can probably be linked to the rite of Charon’s obol
(a coin placed on the mouth or eyes of the deceased),
which was widespread from the second century BC
onwards in the Mediterranean world (Lenoble et al. 2001:
147). The presence of this rite in Dumat would indicate a
strong link with the Levant. Sachet notes (2006: 169–170)
that the coins used as Charon’s obol in Nabataean tombs
located outside Petra are almost always Roman.
—On the obverse of the silver denier no. 30 is the bust of
the emperor with a laurel wreath crown, a beard and a
cloak on his right shoulder. The inscription reads IMP
(ERATOR) CAESAR TRA[IANUS HADRI]ANUS AUG
(USTUS). On the reverse, the draped female figure stand-
ing face forwards represents eternity. She is holding the
heads of the Sun and the Moon in her hands. Around the
edge is written (ONTIFEX) M(AXIMUS) TR(IBUNICIA) P
(ROTESTATE) CO(N)S(UL) [III] and AETER(NITAS)
[AUG](USTI) on either side of the central figure. Identical
examples have a diameter of around 19 mm. According to
RIC II (no. 115a & b), this denier was struck in Rome
between AD 119 and 122.
 NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT

Table 3. Description and parallels for the objects.

No. Identification Reference Description of excavator Comparisons

20–21 Two rings al-Dayel 1986: 78; 1988: ‘Nose rings of Hellenistic Mesopotamia: Neo-Assyrian period (Berlin, Vorderasiatisches
38, 43; pl. 40 (trench D2, period’; ‘a gold nose ring’ Museum, inv. VA 8847, VA 960, 963; British Museum, inv.
tomb no. 2) AN 124920; Maxwell-Hyslop 1971: 239; Curtis &
Maxwell-Hyslop 1971: pl. 31); Neo-Babylonian, Persian,
Hellenistic and Parthian (Baghdad Museum, inv. IM 66830;
Maxwell-Hyslop 1971: 268, pl. 217; Amiet 1981, no. 189;
McCown et al. 1978, pl. 74, no. 10).
Iran: www.iranicaonline.org/articles/juban: fig. 2.
Lydia and Cyprus: Maxwell-Hyslop 1971: 268 & pl. 256.
Greece: Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 37.11.8-.17
Nabatene: Goldman 1996; Rosenthal 1970: 95; 1974.
Eastern Arabia: al-Ghabb
an et al. 2010: 403, no. 242.
Gulf region: Boucharlat & Lombard 1985: pl. 73, no. 10;
Haerinck 1992: 201, fig. 24.
22–23 Two necklaces of al-Dayel 1988: pl. 41 ‘Necklaces made of /
stone pearls precious stone’
24–25 Metal figurines of al-Dayel 1986: pl. 85, ‘A camel and dog in Dromedary: Haerinck 2003: 89, fig. 2; Calvet et al.
dromedaries no. 4; 1988: pl. 37, bronze’; ‘Metal figure 1997: 247, cat. 175.
and a dog no. 13–14 of a camel [foll. Dog] Dog: Haerinck 2003: 90, fig. 3.
with a hole in the middle’
26 Intaglio R
ashid 2003: 129 ‘Seal with the image of Boardman 2001: 313, fig. 286
a lion on it’ [Ar.]
27 Female figurine al-Dayel 1988: 45, ‘A terracotta figurine of Mesopotamia and Central Arabia: Thaj (al-Hashash et al.
of baked earth pl. 37, no. 11, pl. 40 mother goddess, crudely 2002: pls. 2.13 & 2.15; Bibby 1973: fig 10.
represented and yellow in [bottom]); Failaka-Ikaros
color’; ‘A human figurine, (Mathiesen 1982: fig. 5, no. 24), Uruk (Ziegler 1962: 111–113,
of burnt clay’; ‘Female nos. 741–744, 746–749, etc.); Babylon (Klengel-Brandt &
terracotta figurine’ Cholidis 2006): 1034–1078; Karvonen-Kannas 1995: 119–120,
nos. s1–10, pls. 2–4,A); Seleucia-on-the-Tigris (Van Ingen 1939:
pl. 1, nos. 7, 13d & 15); Ctesiphon (Hauser 1993: pl. 131 c,
no. 113); Assur (Klengel-Brandt 1978: 74–75, nos. 432, 435,
438, pl. 13).
28 Baked earth figurine al-Dayel 1988: ‘A terracotta figurine Arabia (Bowen et al. 1950: 40, fig. 21c–d; Bibby 1973: 18,
of dromedary pl. 37, no. 12 of camel, haked and fig. 9; Haerinck 1994: 187, fig. 5: 188, fig. 6: 189, fig. 7;
yellow in color’ Arbach & Audouin 2007: 140, nos. 121–124); Nabatene
(Sachet 2006: 174).
29 Stone vase with R
ashid 2003: 129 ‘Glass vase’ [Ar.] Mesopotamia and Egypt: V. Arveiller, personal communication,
globular body 21/05/2013. Arabia: objects handed in 2012 to Saudi authorities
and high neck (www.alsharq.net.sa/2012/12/26/647976).
Pre-Islamic period: Langdon & Harden 1934: fig. 5, no. 32;
al-Ghabb
an et al. 2010: 354, no. 194; Mouton 2008: figs. 97/3,
137/7; Malter Galleries 2001: lot 118 (attributed to the Parthian
period). Early Islamic period: Lamm & Lamm 1935: pls. 7, A,
12a–f & i, 21d; Clairmont & Lamm 1977: pl. 11, no. 197,
pl. 21, nos. 357–358; Kr€ oger 1995: 67, nos. 71–74: 68,
nos. 75–78: 69, no. 79; Hadad & Arubas 2005: pl. 5,
nos. 102–103, pl. 6, nos. 104–107.
30 Silver Denarius Reverse: al-Dayel 1986: ‘A Roman coin (Emperor Mattingly & Sydenham 1997 (RIC II): no. 115a & b.
of Hadrian (obverse pl. 85, no. 3; 1988: 45. Hadrian)’; ‘representation
and reverse) Obverse: 1988: 45 & pl. 39 of Emperor Hadrian with
inscriptions around it reading
‘Emperor Terjan Haderiatus
Augustus’ [. . .] A clock
appeared on his right shoulder.
The reverse contained
representation of ‘Eternity’
idol holding the moon with
his left hand with some
inscriptions around it.

201
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS
Table 3. Continued
No. Identification Reference
31 Coin belonging to stylised al-Dayel 1986: pl. 84, no. 1
owl group
32 Coin al-Dayel 1988: 45(?) & pl. 41
33 Coin al-Dayel 1988: 45–46
—Coin no. 31 (bronze; reverse) belongs to the ‘stylised
head of Athena/stylised owl group’ (Auge 2010, 2012),
inspired by the Athenian tetradrachmas with owls. The let-
ters theta and epsilon of the original legend (here the alpha
is missing from the abbreviation AΘΕ: nomisma t^ on Athe-
nai^on, which means ‘coins of the Athenians’) are still visi-
ble to the right of the figure, but the olive branch normally
on the top left of the tetradrachmas is not present here. The
obverse of this type of coin generally carries a head of
Athena. This stylised group dates back to the Late Hellenis-
tic period, between the late third and first centuries BC, and
it was in use particularly in north-western Arabia, perhaps
with a production workshop in the Hejaz (Auge 2010:
277). The legend to the illustration in al-Dayel’s report
reads ‘Nabataean copper coin’, and indeed some coins in
the group were reused and restruck during the Nabataean
period (2010: 277), although this cannot be verified in the
present case.
—The poor state of preservation of coin no. 32 makes it
impossible to discern its type and the place of issue. A
seated person wearing a loincloth probably holds a lance
in the left hand and an eagle in the other. It might be a
seated Zeus (or Fortuna) on the reverse of a royal portrait:
indeed, al-Dayel (1988: 45) indicates the presence of a
human face on the obverse.
—A new ‘copper’ coin, not illustrated and here numbered
no. 33, is described by the excavator as the ‘head of a
Roman ruler [. . .] on the obverse [. . .;] reverse: two inter-
locked horns [. . .]’. With the greatest caution, it might be
202
Description of excavator Comparisons
It was dated 118 A.D.’
Reverse: ‘A silver coin.
Hellenistic period’
‘Nabataean copper coin’ Auge 2010: 277; 2013: 132.
‘Hellenistic copper coin’; (45: ‘coin, /
of Bronze. The obverse represented a
person sitting on the throne, possibly,
Zeus the head of Greek deities.
The reverse contained an unclear
representation of a human figure,
perhaps Hercules the Greek divine
Hero. The coins of Alexander the Great
remained in use in the Arab Gulf towns
till the end of the Hellenistic period and
the beginning of the Roman period.’)
‘Copper coin’, ‘head of a Roman ruler [. . .] Meshorer 1975: pl. 2, no. 24,
on the obverse [. . .;] reverse: two pl. 3, nos. 42–45, pl. 7,
interlocked horns [. . .]’ nos. 112–118, pl. 8,
no. 140; Auge 2010: 276.
possible to recognise a group of Nabataean coins well
attested in the first centuries BC/AD, notably presenting
two crossed cornucopiae on the obverse, and usually the
portrait of the Nabataean sovereigns on the obverse
(Meshorer 1975: 25, 34; NB: a Hasmonean mint cannot
be excluded).
The small finds recovered in the graves reflect the
characteristic corpus of Near and Middle Eastern tombs:
jewellery and terracotta figurines, coins, shells. Their ori-
gins differ and are often difficult to locate: the modelled
figurines (nos. 27–28) are probably more specific to the
Eastern world and the coins to the Western world (nos.
30–33).
A singular necropolis
Comparison of architectural data
The architectural character of the collective tombs of Du-
mat is original because of the presence of the two lateral
corridors at each end of the adjoining burial chambers
positioned in the centre of the structure. Access to the cen-
tral chambers was thus through these two ends, perhaps
making it easier to manoeuvre a body in this limited
space.
Whether in the Levant, South Arabia, Mesopotamia or
the Gulf, graves are numerous and funerary practices were
diverse during the Late Hellenistic period. In Nabataea, in
areas where the local geology did not favour the creation
of the famous rock-cut tombs with facades, collective
 NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT
Fig. 12.
Jewellery and metal objects (after al-Dayel 1986; 1988 [see Table 3];
©G. Charloux), not to scale.
graves are often in shaft tombs. Sometimes, simple loculi
are dispersed around a chamber (e.g. in Umm al-Jimal, see
Butler 1913: fig. 185), or more unusually, as at Khirbet
edh-Dharih (Lenoble et al. 2001: fig. 5; Villeneuve &
Chambon 2000: 25), a tomb might consist of several care-
fully faced and coursed, superimposed cells; this provided
proper partitioning between the dead. The tombs with
rows of superimposed loculi are equally common in south-
ern Syria in the Hawran (Sartre-Fauriat 2001); mainte-
nance and distribution was done from a central corridor.
These buried hypogea were probably all topped with a
monument which could itself also be used as a burial
place. In Palmyra, this type of tomb, with superimposed
loculi opening onto a central chamber, is also the most
common (Gawlikowski 2005; see also Bletry 2012) and
again, this is the type found in South Arabia. For example,
at Ḥaid bin ʿAqil (Antonini & Agostini 2010), there are
chambered masonry tombs with loculi accessed along cor-
ridors, the graves being grouped close to one another
forming funerary ‘islands’. The architectural solutions
seem to be different along the Gulf coast and in eastern
Arabia where the burial styles are very varied, as is often
the case at the turn of the first millennium BC/AD. Among
Fig. 13.
Intaglio, terracotta figurines and glass vase (after al-Dayel 1986; 1988
[see Table 3]; ©G. Charloux), not to scale.
the built funerary monuments known today, one of the
tombs at ʿAyn Jawan (al-Saud 2010; Potts 1993b; Golding
1984; Vidal & Anon. 1953; Bowen et al. 1950) stands out
because of its monumentality and organisation: its plan is
cruciform and there are eight chambers with loculi provid-
ing space for many bodies (Bowen et al. 1950: 23).
At Qaryat al Fau, in the kingdom of Kinda, the dead
were placed in subterranean chambers cut into the bed-
rock. One of the largest, the tomb of Maʿsad bin ʾArsh,
was accessed by steps leading to a room opening onto
three chambers (so-called ‘hoof-like tomb’) (al-Ansari
1982: 48). According to the excavator, these rooms were
probably used for funerary ceremonies (1982: 20). On
the surface of these tombs were the remains of
quadrangular constructions, accompanied by monuments
emblematic of the north Arabian and Nabataean world:
mortuary towers.
In Mesopotamia, as on the Gulf coast, mortuary prac-
tices were varied. For the collective tombs, vaulted cham-
bers and chambers with a pitched roof with benches or
loculi are the most common type. The size (10 x 6 m) and
richness of the tomb of Hillah near Babylon (Chevalier
2008; Tallon 1999) provide a nice example of a family
tomb containing burial goods comprising ancient artefacts
and a large number of so-called ‘Graeco-Oriental’ pieces.
203
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS
Fig. 14.
Coins (after al-Dayel 1986; 1988 [see Table 3]; ©G. Charloux), not to
scale.
To sum up, collective burials in the Late Hellenistic per-
iod that are entirely made of masonry apparently have a
different design from those at Dumat: they are either or-
ganised around a central corridor or are accessible from
the top. None of the examples above displays a double
access to the central chambers: could this represent a mis-
understanding during the excavation at D
uma or a mistake
in the plan and reconstruction? Without excluding these
possibilities, the presence of skeletons scattered around
the central walls—as mentioned by the excavator—as well
as the applications of a coating on the wall faces, seem to
confirm the overall reconstruction.
From this general overview, it emerges that the type of
tomb in the Dumat necropolis is perhaps unique and spe-
cific to the region. Suffice to say that the tombs have some
affinities with Nabataean ones, and also with monumental
tombs in general: the graves are masoned semi-buried col-
lective family tombs with multiple chambers, recalling for
example those at Sadaqa (Kurdi 1972). A white coating
often covers the inner faces of Nabataean tombs as well
(e.g. Wadeson 2012: 212; Zayadine 1974: 138) and the
probable use of a modular grid for the construction of the
tombs is common in monumental architecture (Dentzer-
Feydy 2003: 77–79, pls. 183, 185). Finally, the type of
204
roofing—one of the most pertinent indicators from a cul-
tural point of view—remains unknown. We must therefore
acknowledge that most of the identified clues are wide-
spread and are not sufficient to prove the Nabataean origin
of Dumat’s grave plan. Moreover, even locally funerary
practices are obviously heterogeneous and the Nabataean
burial customs are proof of this: the burial process, body
treatment and type of construction vary greatly.
Dating
The date of the necropolis is still imprecise. By looking at
the objects found during the excavations, it is possible to
date it to at least the first century BC (perhaps even the
second century BC) until the first half of the second cen-
tury AD (Fig. 15). This is, of course, a rather mobile ter-
minus post quem, since dating an object in no way
provides the dating of the tomb construction or of the
deposition of the dead. The only really convincing chrono-
logical argument is the overall homogeneity of the mate-
rial (in particular the groups of pottery fabrics —yellow,
red and turquoise-blue to green glaze) and the absence of
more recent finds (apart from the glass vase no. 29). Only
the Hadrianic coin provides clear evidence for the use of
the tombs in the second century AD. Thus, the finds could
indicate a more or less continuous use of the tombs at least
from the first century BC to the mid-second century AD.
Suggesting a late use, after the early second century, is
of course not impossible; nevertheless, the preference for
older objects would then need to be explained. Although
this phenomenon is well attested in the Near East—even
common where a few scattered objects are concerned—it
is rare that the entire material assemblage should consist
of reused objects. Given our current knowledge, it seems
therefore reasonable to accept the dating suggested earlier,
that is, a use of the necropolis over at least two and a half
centuries, from the time that the Nabataeans are known to
have settled in the region until the beginning of the Roma-
nisation phase.
Provenance and origin of the grave-goods
The ceramics display mainly Mesopotamian and some
Levantine characteristics, clearly attesting to long-distance
contacts between Dumat and these regions (Fig. 16). The
artefacts (pottery and small finds) discovered in the tombs
put into question the provenance and the intermediaries: is
there any meaning to the presence in Dumat of objects
from distant origins which could have been passed from
hand to hand over hundreds of kilometres? Furthermore,
does an apparently ‘Mesopotamian’ object indicate a real
 NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT
pre 3rd c. BC
3rd c. BC 2nd c. BC 1st c. BC
Bowls and cups 3-6
Kraters 10-13
Lamp 14
Lamp 17
Rings 20-21
Pendants 24-25
Figurines 27-28
Coin 31
Coin 33
Fig. 15.
Chronological scheme and dating proposal (light grey) (©G. Charloux).
provenance or only an inspiration? Indeed, the Sak
ak
a
basin certainly produced pottery in antiquity, some dis-
playing marked regionalism, sometimes inspired by Meso-
potamian models, for example the use of stamped leaf or
dotted circle motifs (al-Muaikel 1994: 275, fig. 12/22;
Loreto 2012: 176, fig. 10/C) often found on ‘Parthian’ pot-
tery (e.g. Strommenger 1967: pl. 30; cf. Khairy 2009: 886,
fig. 9). Pottery from the sites in the Sak
ak
a basin, which
deserves its own study, exhibits a regional character with
Mesopotamian influences.
The main surprise—even when being extremely careful
regarding the context, homogeneity and provenance of
the finds—is the absence of pottery and objects that are
typically ‘Nabataean’ (i.e. characteristic of the production
in the Petra region), particularly the fine painted ceramic
so often found in the Petra tombs (e.g. Bikai & Perry
2001: 68, 73), except for one mention unfortunately
unpublished and therefore unverifyable (al-Dayel 1986:
74, 91; ‘fine red Nabataean sherd’ [Ar.]—trench A1). As
for the copper coin attributed to Aretas IV, either it is not
illustrated or only its reverse was photographed (no. 32).
Based on the excavator’s description only the coin (no.
33), which he identified as Roman, actually resembles
Nabataean coins, but once more we have nothing to
confirm this.
post 2nd c. AD
1st c. AD 2nd c. AD
Vase 29
Coin 30
We know that in Nabataean necropolises grave-goods
cover all the categories of objects found in the Dumat
tombs (jewellery, metal objects, terracotta figurines, pot-
tery including lamps, coins and shells), and sometimes
also include artefacts of stone, ivory, bone and glass.
Unfortunately, this practice of depositing different types of
objects is widespread in the Near East and is not diagnos-
tic. The same applies to the depositing of ancient or for-
eign objects (as in our present case) as part of the goods in
Nabataean tombs, a practice that demonstrates a reoccur-
ring attraction to exotic products. This phenomenon does
not seem to hold true for the pottery in Nabataean tombs
in the centre of Nabataea where, according to Sachet
(2006: 162), ‘non-Nabataean’ imports are rare. In Hegra,
one tomb (IGN 117) produced two locally produced ves-
sels and a glazed jug of Parthian type, along with a few
Nabataean painted sherds from the Petra region (Gerber &
Durand 2009: 281–282; I. Sachet, personal communica-
tion). In the Dumat tombs, there seems to be no pottery
imported from Petra. This leaves us with very little purely
‘Nabataean’ material (i.e. from Petra) for an oasis thought
to be on the eastern borders of the kingdom. The lack of
characteristic Roman material is equally noticeable.
This suggestion should be qualified in the present case,
however: is there really any sense in speaking of Nabata-
205
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS
Fig. 16.
Proposed provenance of pottery and objects at Dumat (after H. David; ©G. Charloux).
ean or Roman productions? A local production of the Na-
bataean and Roman periods could just as easily have been
produced and used by Nabataeans from Petra, by local
Nabataeans and/or non-Nabataean oasis dwellers.
A Nabataean necropolis?
This two-fold observation—the ‘regional’ character of the
architecture on the one hand and the grave-goods from or
inspired by Mesopotamia (as well as the Levant) on the
other—poses a problem: should the tombs be attributed to
the Nabataeans, as suggested by al-Muaikel (2001: 47–48;
al-Muaikel & al-Theeb 1996: 40–44)? Moreover, what
should one understand ‘Nabataeans’ to mean in this case?
Although, as we have seen, it is impossible at this stage
of the study to be categorical on the identity of the popula-
tions present in Dumat from an archaeological point of
view, the epigraphic evidence is of great help. An inscrip-
tion (Fig. 17) published for the first time in 1970 by Milik
and Starcky (1970: 144–145, no. 16) provides some infor-
mation on the tomb builders in Dumat. On a block of cut
local stone (L: 64 x H: 14 cm), probably a lintel, used in a
wall at Hayy al-Dira’ (a quarter located near the ʿUmar bin
al-Khattab mosque in the heart of the oasis) but which was
dislodged and stolen before 2009, there are three lines of
206
text in Nabataean incised in a tabula ansata frame. Here is
a reading suggested by Laila Nehme13 based on the text
transcribed by al-Muaikel and al-Theeb (1996: 160–174
[no. 34]), al-Theeb (2010: 930–934 [no. 782]) and R
ashid
(2003: 83):

1. This is the tomb built by Slymw 
son of Slmw son
of Mynw. . . son of Mwzy son ofTymw for himself
and for his sons {and}
2. for his children, his descendants, for the eternity of
eternity, in the month of Siy
un [May–June] in the
year thirty-five of Aretas the king of Nabaṭ
u, who
loves his people.
  u {made}. O ^
3. And Sulaym
u son of — son of Salm

that he should be safe and sound d.l..ʾʾ
Thus the inscription evokes:
—The construction of a family tomb (qbrʾ) in Dumat in
May–June of the year AD 26, the superstructure of which
must have allowed the inclusion of a commemorative block:14
13
We are very grateful to Laila Nehme for her reading and very
useful comments.
14
The presence of this block in the walls of the medieval village
might indicate that the tombs were looted in the distant past in
order to obtain building materials. To move such a block over
several kilometres does not pose any difficulties.
 NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT
Fig. 17.
A Nabataean inscription reused in a wall at Hayy al-Dira’ (after R
ashid 2003: 83).
the lack of caves in present-day D
umat al-Jandal suitable for
use as burial cavities could confirm that this is referring to a
masonry tomb.
—The composition of an inscription in a calligraphic style
typical of scribes from Petra and Hegra, according to Milik
and Starcky (1970: 145).
—The proper names in the Dumat inscription are well
attested in the north of Arabia, with the exception of
mynw, mnw and mwzy.
Since this individual extends his genealogy over seven
generations, Milik and Starcky conclude that the family
settled in Dumat in the second century BC and that cara-
van trade existed between the Gulf and the Levant at
that time. Even though their suppositions might be cor-
rect, this kind of shortcut is clearly untenable methodo-
logically: the dedicator could just as easily be
mentioning his ancestors in a commemorative text and
himself having only recently settled in the oasis. What-
ever the case, it is impossible to establish the origin of
this family, be it indigenous or foreign, based on ono-
mastic information of this kind (see Macdonald 1991:
108; 1993: 378–379).
Even though it is likely, we cannot designate the indi-
vidual as ‘Nabataean’ with any certainty, but it is clear that
the author of the inscription recognises a Nabataean form
of authority by using a Nabataean dating system that refers
to the reigning sovereign.15
15
Our thanks to Laila Nehme and Michael Macdonald for their
observations.
Given their apparent contemporaneity and their single
location (Dumat), it is very tempting to link this Nabata-
ean dedicatory inscription on a lintel with the tombs cur-
rently studied. Several arguments do converge: under
discussion are family tombs of masonry built around the
first century AD which display several principles known
to the Nabataeans: the use of a modular grid (?) or at least
large architectural planification, use of plaster for the walls
of the tombs, partial cremation of the dead wrapped in
shrouds, Charon’s obol and deposit of a wide variety of
exotic grave-goods.
Taking all these architectural, archaeological and tex-
tual arguments together, we are probably dealing here
with the necropolis of an oasis population that identifies
itself as Nabataean or at least recognises Nabataean
authority. Since the necropolis was still in use after the
period of the inscription (i.e the second century AD),
whether the population would still identify itself as
‘Nabataean’ remains uncertain but plausible.
With regard to the archaeological finds recovered, one
can reasonably conclude that, in spite of Nabataean and
Roman control over the oasis (Bowersock 1983: 58, 98),
the local people maintained a large part of their regional
characteristics and their natural link with Mesopotamia, as
Bauzou (1996: 24) had understood. In fact, the pottery
assemblages from neighbouring sites (al-Tuwayr16 etc.)
bear witness to this. As one might expect for a society
established halfway between the Gulf and the Mediterra-
16
Based on the pottery assemblage of the site (Adams et al.
1977; al-Muaikel 1994; Parr et al. 1978), we readily consider
an occupation during the first centuries BC/AD.
207
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS
nean Sea, at the end of the long natural corridor of W
ad
ı
Sirh
an, the grave-goods from the Dumat tombs reflect a
taste for products of both Mesopotamian and Levantine
provenance or influence. The caravan route between these
two extremities meant that the western part of the Fertile
Crescent, and thereby Roman power, could be avoided
during the first centuries BC/AD in order to trade with the
Parthian principalities (1996: 24). Such a link between the
Nabataean kingdom and the Parthian principalities is
known to historians, since the Nabataean king Malichos I
was heavily fined by the Romans in 40 BC for his support
of the Parthians (R.H. 48.41.5). Archaeologically, evi-
dence of this contact is limited. Parthian pottery has been
found on Nabataean sites such as M
adaʾin S
alih (Gerber
& Durand 2009: 281–282), and according to Schmid
(2007: 69–70), a new type of pottery imported from Par-
thian lands even appears in Petra itself in the first century
AD, which is suggestive of intense Nabataean trading with
the Parthian principalities.
The legitimacy of Nabataean power over this territory,
which lies beyond its direct political influence, must be
questioned: did the Nabataeans not settle there rather
late, during the reign of Aretas IV, to which time
belongs the earliest evidence for Nabataeans in the
region? And as a consequence, what was the status and
role of the oasis within the kingdom during this golden
age of Nabataean trade (Durand C. 2009: 409): a cara-
van station of primary importance on the eastern route
(Glueck 1944: 11, 15; Graf & Sidebotham 2003: 67, 71;
Schmid 2007: 67–68); a route the existence of which is
suggested in the third century BC in the Zenon papyri
(Durand X. 1997: 146–149; 2009); or a second-level
trading post (Bauzou 1996: 23–24) useful for security in
W
ad
ı Sirh
an and to control movement from the Arabian
deserts towards Bosra and Petra? Without being able to
be conclusive, we can nonetheless underline the fact that
the whole Sak
ak
a basin—the main sites of which are
Dumat, al-Tuwayr, Qiy
al and probably Sak
ak
a—cer-
tainly constitutes a major regional centre in northern
Arabia at the turn of the millennium; and it was also a
‘province’ of the Nabataean kingdom at least during the
first century AD.
The Roman acquisition of the Nabataean kingdom in
AD 106 did not put an end—at least not immediately it
seems—to ancient burial practices in Dumat/Dumata. As
elsewhere in Nabataea, these customs continued into the
early days of Romanisation (Lenoble et al. 2001; Politis
1998; Negev 1971), as attested by a Hadrianic coin (no.
30) found in one of the tombs.
208
Politically, the Roman annexation was most probably
peaceful; nevertheless, it may have initiated the gradual
decline of the oasis and the Jawf region, as supposed
by the alleged end of the occupation at Qiy
al and
al-Tuwayr in the second century AD (al-Muaikel 1993,
1994, 2001) and the very little third- to sixth-century
epigraphic and archaeological evidence in Dumat and
around: perhaps trade with the southern Mesopotamian
principalities was limited under Roman pressure, the bal-
ance of wealth between north Arabian populations came
to an end, caravan routes became increasingly insecure
(Kennedy 2004: 41) and inter-tribal tensions grew (see
Parker 2006: 531–574), which Rome had to address by
providing financial aid and by gradually retreating from
inner Arabia. This decline, also perceived in Hegra
(Nehme 2009), could be reflected in the way the name
Dumata was used in the classical sources, firstly by
Pliny the Elder in the first century where it is mentioned
positively next to Hegra, on Ptolemy’s map in the sec-
ond century and then by Porphyrius in the third century
(Porphyrius 1979: II.46), but this time in not very com-
plimentary terms; finally, it seems absent at the end of
he fourth century in the Notitia Dignitatum, which lists
the Roman military positions.17
From the second century, the gradual decrease of the
caravan road via Dumat may be seen as a consequence of
the intensification of maritime trade, the development of
the Mesopotamian route via Palmyra (see Fiema 2003: 50)
and the strengthening control of W
ad
ı Sirh
an, notably
under Septimus Severus (Parker & Dermott 1978: 65;
Bowersock 1984: 135; Speidel 1987: 213; Parker 2006:
537; for a contrary point of view see Fiema 1995), then
under Diocletian and the Tetrarchs (Speidel 1987: 220–
221 vs. Christol & Lenoir 2001, particularly on the Aur-
elian period). According to this possible evolution, the
Roman presence in Dumat in the second and third centu-
ries AD seems to have been aimed at gaining military and
strategic advantage (Bauzou 1996: 24; Parker 2006: 543–
544) rather than commercial (Isaac 1989: 256), in contrast
to the previous period, a statement which future excava-
tions will be able to re-evaluate.
17
Despite the fact that the name of the garrison, Admatha (Dux
Palaestinae), with its auxiliary regiment Ala Antana dromeda-
riorum (Notitia Dignitatum: 73, Oriens 34/33) looks
suspiciously like ‘Adummatu’. NB: Admatha is identified with
al-Hamm
am by Fiema (1995: 263; thanks to Z. Fiema for his
comment).

Acknowledgements
We wish to address our sincerest thanks to Caroline Du-
rand, Michael Macdonald, Olivia Munoz, Laila Nehme,
Jer^
ome Rohmer and Isabelle Sachet for their useful com-
ments and corrections.
References
Adams, R., Parr, P., Ibrahim, M. & al-
Mughannum, A.S. 1977. Preliminary
report on the first phase of the
Comprehensive Survey Program. Atlal 1:
21–40.
al-Ajmi, H.F. 2005. Geology of Sakaka area.
Riyadh: King Saud University Press.
Amiet, P. 1981. Sumer Assur Babylone: Chefs-
d’oeuvre du musee de Bagdad. Paris:
Association Francßaise d’Action Artistique.
Andersen, S.F. & Salman, M.I. 2006. The
Tylos burials in Bahrain. Proceedings of
the Seminar for Arabian Studies 36: 111–
124.
Anon. 1989. News and Events. Atlal 12: 85.
al-Ansari, ‘A. al-R. 1982. Qaryat al-Fau: a
portrait of pre-Islamic civilisation in Saudi
Arabia. London: Valin Pollen.
Antonini, S. & Agostini, A. 2010. Excavations
of the Italian Archaeological Mission in
Yemen: a Minaean necropolis at Bar^aqish
(Wadi Jawf) and the Qatabanian necropolis
of Hayd bin ‘Aqil (Wadi Bayh
an). Pages
215–224 in Weeks, L. (ed.), Death and
Burial in Arabia and Beyond.
Multidisciplinary Perspective (Society for
Arabian Studies Monographs 10) (BAR
International Series 2107). Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Arbach, M. & Audouin, R. 2007. San‘^ a’
national museum: collection of epigraphic
and archaeological artifacts from al-Jawf
sites, Part II. Sanaa: UNESCO-Social
fund for development Republic of
Yemen.
Auge, C. 2010. The Coins. Pages 275–280 in
al-Talhi, D., Nehme, L. & Villeneuve, F.
(eds.), Report on the Third Excavation
Season (2010) of the Mad^ a’in S^alih
Archaeological Project. http://halshs.
archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00542793,
version 1, accessed 6/4/2013.
Auge, C. 2013. Coin Circulation in Early
Petra: A Summary. Pages 129–134 in
Mouton, M. & Schmid, S.G. (eds.), Men
on the Rocks. The Formation of
Nabataean Petra. Berlin: Logos Verlag.
NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT
Sigla
R.H. Cassius Dio 1914.
RIC Coinage in Mattingly & Sydenham 1997.
Barrett, D.G. 2008. The Ceramic Oil Lamp As
an Indicator of Cultural Change Within
Nabataean Society in Petra and Its
Environs Circa CE 106. Piscataway, NJ:
Gorgias Press.
Baur, P.V.C. 1947. The Excavations at Dura-
Europos. Final Report IV. Part IIII. The
Lamps. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Bauzou, T. 1996. La praetensio de Bostra a
Dumata (el-Jowf). Syria 73: 23–35.
Bernard, V. Gachet, J. & Salles, J.-F. 1990.
Apostilles en marge de la ceramique des

Etats IV et V de la forteresse. Travaux de
la maison de l’Orient 18: 241–284.
Bibby, G. 1973. Preliminary survey in East
Arabia 1968. (Jutland Archaeological
Society publications). Copenhagen:
Gyldendal.
Bikai, P.M. & Perry, M.A. 2001. Petra North
Ridge Tombs 1 and 2: Preliminary Report.
Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 324: 59–78.
Bletry, S. 2012. Les necropoles de Halabiya-
Zenobia. Premiers resultats (2009 et
2010). Syria 89: 305–330.
Boardman, J. 2001. Greek gems and finger
rings: early Bronze Age to late classical.
(2nd edition). London: Thames and
Hudson.
Boucharlat, R. 1987. Les niveaux post-
achemenides a Suse, secteur nord. Cahiers
de la delegation archeologique francßaise
en Iran 15: 145–291.
Boucharlat, R. 1993. Pottery in Susa. Pages
40–57 in Finkbeiner 1993a.
Boucharlat, R. & Lombard, P. 1985. The oasis
of Al Ain in the Iron Age. Excavations at
Rumeilah 1981–1983. Pages 44–69 in
Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates.
Al-Ain: Department of Antiquities and
Tourism.
Bouchaud, C., Sachet, I. & Delhopital, N.
2010. Les bois et les fruits des tombeaux
nabateens de Mad^a’in S^alih/Hegra
(Arabie Saoudite): les provenances des
vegetaux et leur utilisation en contexte
funeraire. Pages 3–21 in Delhon, C.,
Thery-Parisot, I. & Thiebault, S. (eds.),
Actes du colloque ‘Des hommes et des
plantes. Exploitation et gestion des
ressources vegetales de la prehistoire 
a
nos jours’. (Session usages et
symboliques des plantes. XXXes
rencontres internationales d’archeologie et
d’histoire d’Antibes, 22–24 Octobre 2009,
Antibes).
Bowen, R.L., Albright, W.F., Matson, F.R. &
Day, F.E. 1950. The Early Arabian
Necropolis of Ain Jawan: A Pre-Islamic
and Early Islamic Site on the Persian Gulf.
Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research, Supplementary Studies
7/9: 1–70.
Bowersock, G.W. 1983. Roman Arabia.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bowersock, G.W. 1984. Nabataeans and
Romans in the Wadi Sirhan. Pages 133–
136 in Abdalla, A.M., Saqqar, A.M. &
Mortel, R.T. (eds.), Studies in the
History of Arabia. Vol. 2. Pre-Islamic
Arabia. Riyadh: King Saud University
Press.
Butler, H.C. 1913. Publications of the
Princeton University Archaelogical
Expedition to Syria in 1904–1905 and
1909. Division II. Section A, Southern
Syria. Part III. Umm idj-Djimal. Leiden:
Brill.
Calvet, Y., Robin, C., Briquel-Chatonnet, F. &
Pic, M. (eds.). 1997. Arabie heureuse,
Arabie deserte: les antiquites arabiques du
musee du Louvre, Notes et documents des
Musees de France. Paris: Reunion des
musees nationaux.
Cassius, DIO. 1914. Roman History.
Cambridge: Loeb Classical Library.
Cellerino, A. 1987. La ceramica dal sondagio
di Shu-Anna a Babilonia. Mesopotamia
39: 93–168.
Charloux, G. & Loreto, R. 2013. D
umat al-
Jandal. 2800 years of History in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Paris/Riyadh:
209
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS
Saudi Commission for Tourism and
Antiquities.
Charloux, G. & Loreto, R. 2014a. Historical
Overview. Pages 25–56 in Charloux, G. &
Loreto, R. (eds.), D^uma I. The 2010
Report of the Saudi–Italian–French
Archaeological Project in D
umat al-
Jandal. Riyadh: Saudi Commission for
Tourism and Antiquities.
Charloux, G. & Loreto, R. (eds.). 2014b.
D^uma I. The 2010 report of the Saudi–
Italian–French Archaeological Project
in D
umat al-Jandal. Riyadh: Saudi
Commission for Tourism and
Antiquities.
Charloux, G. & Loreto, R. (eds.).
Forthcoming. D^uma II. The 2011 report of
the Saudi–Italian–French Project in
D
umat al-Jandal. Riyadh: Saudi
Commission for Tourism and Antiquities.
Charloux, G. & Loreto, R. (eds.). In
preparation. D^uma III. The 2012 report of
the Saudi–Italian–French Project in
D
umat al-Jandal. Riyadh: Saudi
Commission for Tourism and Antiquities.
Charloux, G., al-Traad, A.K., al-Qayead, A.A.
& Morel, Q. Forthcoming. The Western
Settlement, Sector C. Pages 183–226 in
Charloux, G. & Loreto, R. (eds.), D^ uma II.
The 2011 Report of the Saudi–Italian–
French Archaeological Project in D
umat
al-Jandal. Riyadh: Saudi Commission for
Tourism and Antiquities.
Chevalier, N. 2008. Les fouilles
archeologiques francßaises au XIXe siecle.
Pages 513–515 in Andre-Salvini, B. (ed.),
Babylone. Paris: Hazan, Musee du Louvre.
Christol, M. & Lenoir, M. 2001. Qasr el-Azraq
et la reconqu^ete de l’Orient par Aurelien.
Syria 78: 163–178.
Clairmont, C.W. & Lamm, C.J. 1977. Benaki
Museum: Catalogue of Ancient and
Islamic Glass. Athens: Benaki Museum.
Curtis, J.E. & Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R. 1971.
The Gold Jewellery from Nimrud. Iraq 33:
101–112.
al-Dayel, K.A. 1986. Excavation at Dumat
al-Jandal 1405/1985. Atlal 10: 64–79.
al-Dayel, K.A. 1988. Excavations at Dumat
al-Jandal Second Season 1406/1986. Atlal
11: 37–46.
Debevoise, N.C. 1934. Parthian Pottery from
Seleucia on the Tigris. (Humanistic Series,
32). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Studies.
Dentzer-Feydy, J. 2003. C. Metrologie et
geometrie. Pages 77–79 in Zayadine, F.,
210
Larche, F. & Dentzer-Feydy, J. (eds.), Le
Qasr al-Bint de Petra: l’architecture, le
decor, la chronologie et les dieux. Paris:
Recherche sur les civilisations.
Durand, C. 2009. The Nabataeans and Oriental
Trade: Roads and Commodities (Fourth
Century BC to First Century AD). Studies
in the History and Archaeology of Jordan
10: 405–411.
Durand, X. 1997. Des Grecs en Palestine au
IIIe siecle avant Jesus-Christ: le dossier
syrien des archives de Zenon de Caunos
(261–252). (Cahiers de la Revue
Biblique). Paris: J. Gabalda.
Farajat, S. & Muwafleh, S. 2005. Report on
the Al-Khazna Courtyard Excavation at
Petra (2003 Season). Annual of the
Department of Antiquities of Jordan 49:
373–393.
Fiema, Z.T. 1995. Military Architecture and
the Defense ‘System’ of Roman-Byzantine
Southern Jordan – A Critical Appraisal of
Current Interpretations. Studies in the
History and Archaeology of Jordan 5:
261–269.
Fiema, Z.T. 2003. Roman Petra (A.D. 106–
363): A Neglected Subject. Zeitschrift
des Deutschen Pal€ astina-Vereins 119:
38–58.
Finkbeiner, U. 1991. Keramik der
seleukidischen und parthischen Zeit aus
den Grabungen in Uruk-Warka. I.
Baghdader Mitteilungen 22: 537–637.
Finkbeiner, U. 1992. Keramik der
seleukidischen und parthischen Zeit aus
den Grabungen in Uruk-Warka. II.
Baghdader Mitteilungen 23:
473–580.
Finkbeiner, U. (ed.). 1993a. Materialien zur
Arch€ aologie der Seleukiden- und
Partherzeit im s€ udlichen Babylonien und
im Golfgebiet. T€ ubingen: E. Wasmuth.
Finkbeiner, U. 1993b. Uruk-Warka.
Fundstellen der Keramik der Seleukiden-
und Partherzeit. Pages 3–16 in Finkbeiner
1993a.
Gachet, J. & Salles, J.F. 1993. Failaka,
Koweit. Pages 66–85 in Finkbeiner 1993a.
Gatier, P.-L. & Salles, J.-F. 1988. Aux
frontieres meridionales du domaine
nabateen. Travaux de la maison de
l’Orient 16: 173–190.
Gawlikowski, M. 2005. The City of the Dead.
Pages 44–73 in Cussini, E. (ed.), A
Journey to Palmyra. Collected Essays to
Remember Delbert R. Hillers, Culture and
History of the Ancient Near East. Leiden/
Boston: Brill.
Gerber, Y. 1996. Die Entwicklung der lokalen
nabat€aischen Grobkeramik aus Petra/
Jordanien. Pages 147–151 in Hellenisti-
sche und kaiserzeitliche Keramik des
€
ostlichen Mittelmeergebietes (Kolloquium
Frankfurt 24–25 April 1995). Frankfurt.
Gerber, Y. & Durand, C. 2009. Pottery Study.
In Nehme, L., Villeneuve, F. & Talhi, D.A.
(eds.), Report on the Second Season
(2009) of the Mad^ a’in S^
alih
Archaeological Project. http://
halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-
00548747, accessed 6/4/2013.
al-Ghabb
an, A.I., Andre-Salvini, B., Demange, F.
& Cotty, M. (eds.). 2010. Routes d’Arabie:
archeologie et histoire du royaume
d’Arabie Saoudite. Paris: Musee du
Louvre, Somogy.
Glueck, N. 1944. W^ad^ı Sirḥ^an in North
Arabia. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research 96: 7–1.
Golding, M. 1984. Artefacts from Later Pre-
Islamic Occupation in Eastern Arabia.
Atlal 8: 159–164.
Goldman, B. 1996. Nabataean/Syro-Roman
Lunate Earrings. Israel Exploration
Journal 46: 77–99.
Graf, D.F. & Sidebotham, S.E. 2003.
Nabataean Trade. Pages 65–74 in Markoe,
G. (ed.), Petra rediscovered: the lost city
of the Nabataeans. New York: Harry N.
Abrams in association with the Cincinnati
Art Museum.
Gunneweg, J., Perlman, I. & Yellin, J. 1983.
The Provenience, Typology and
Chronology of Eastern Terra Sigillata.
(Qedem, 17). Jerusalem: Institute of
Archaeology, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
Hadad, S. & Arubas, B. 2005. Islamic Glass
Vessels from the Hebrew University
Excavations at Bet Shean. Vol. 2.
Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Haerinck, E. 1983. La ceramique en Iran
pendant la periode parthe (ca. 250 av.
J.-C. 
a ca. 225 apres J.-C.): typologie,
chronologie et distribution.
(Supplements a Iranica antiqua). Gent:
Iranica Antiqua.
Haerinck, E. 1992. Excavations at ed-Dur
(Umm al-Qaiwain, UAE) – preliminary
report on the fourth Belgian season (1990).
AAE 3: 190–208.

Haerinck, E. 1994. Excavations at ed-Dur
(Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) – Preliminary
report on the sixth Belgian season (1992).
AAE 5: 184–197.
Haerinck, E. 2003. Metal animal figurines
from southeastern Arabia. AAE 14:
88–94.
Hannestad, L. 1983. The Hellenistic Pottery
from Failaka: Ikaros. The Hellenistic
Settlements 2. Text. (Jutland
Archaeological Society Publications, 16/
2). Aarhus: Jysk Arkeologisk Selskab.
al-Hashash, A.M., al-Saif, Z.A., al-Sanna, N.
& al-Shaikh, N. 2002. The Archaeological
works at the site of Thaj 1420 A.H./1999
A.D. Atlal 17: 17–22.
Hauser, S.R. 1993. Eine arsakidenzeitliche
Nekropole in Ktesiphon. Baghdader
Mitteilungen 24: 325–420.
Hayes, J.W. 1985. Enciclopedia dell’arte
antica classica e orientale: Atlante delle
forme ceramiche. Vol. II. Ceramica fine
romana nel bacino mediterraneo (tardo
ellenismo e primo impero). Rome:
Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.
Herbert, S.C. (ed.). 1997. Tel Anafa. (Journal
of Roman Archaeology Supplement). Ann
Arbor, MI: JRA/Kelsey Museum
fieldwork series.
Hochuli-Gysel, A. 1977. Kleinasiatische
glasierte Reliefkeramik (50 v. Chr. bis 50 n.
Chr.) und ihre oberitalienischen Nachah-
mungen. (Acta Bernensia). Bern: St€ampfli.
Hochuli-Gysel, A. 2002. La ceramique a
glacßure plombifere d’Asie Mineure et du
bassin mediterraneen oriental (du Ier s. av.
J.-C. au Ier s. ap. J.-C.). Travaux de la
maison de l’Orient Mediterraneen 35:
303–319.
Horsfield, G. & Horsfield, A. 1938. Sela-Petra,
The Rock of Edom and Nabatene.
Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities
in Palestine 8: 87–115.
Ibrahim, M.M. & Gordon, R.L. 1987. A
cemetery at Queen Alia International
Airport. (Yarmouk University
Publications, Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Series 1). Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Isaac, B. 1989. Trade-routes to Arabia and
the Roman presence in the desert. Pages
241–256 in Fahd, T. (ed.), L’Arabie
preislamique et son environnement
historique et culturel. (Actes du
colloque de Strasbourg). Strasbourg:
Universite des sciences humaines de
Strasbourg.
NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT
Jackson, H. & Tidmarsh, J. 2011. Jebel Khalid
on the Euphrates. The pottery.
(Mediterranean archaeology, Supplement
3). Sydney: Mediterranean Archeology.
Jasim, S.A. 2006. Trade centres and
commercial routes in the Arabian Gulf:
Post-Hellenistic discoveries at Dibba,
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. AAE 17:
214–237.
Jasir, H. 1981. Fi shamal gharb al-Jazirah,
nusus, mushahadat, intiba’at. Riyadh:
Manshurat Dar al-Yawamah lil-Bahth
wa-al-Tarjamah wa-al-Nashr.
Jones, F.F. 1950. The Pottery. Pages 143–247
in Goldman, H. (ed.), Excavations at
G€ozl€u Kule, Tarsus I. The Hellenistic and
Roman Periods. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Karvonen-Kannas, K. 1995. The Seleucid and
Parthian terracotta figurines from
Babylon in the Iraq Museum, the British
Museum and the Louvre. (Monografie di
Mesopotamia). Florence: Casa editrice le
lettere.
Kennedy, D.L. 2004. The Roman army in
Jordan. (2nd revised edition). London:
Council for British Research in the
Levant.
Khairy, N.I. 2009. A Study of Nabataean
Minor Arts and Their Cultural
Interpretation. Studies in the History
and Archaeology of Jordan 10:
881–898.
el-Khouri, L.S. 2002. The Nabataean
Terracotta Figurines. (BAR international
series 1034). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Klengel-Brandt, E. 1978. Die Terrakotten aus
Assur im Vorderasiatischen Museum
Berlin. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der
Wissenschaften.
Klengel-Brandt, E. & Cholidis, N. 2006. Die
Terrakotten von Babylon im
Vorderasiatischen Museum in Berlin.
Berlin: Saarwellingen Saarl€andische
Druckerei & Verlag.
Kr€oger, J. 1995. Nishapur: Glass of the Early
Islamic Period. New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
Kurdi, H. 1972. A New Nabataean Tomb
at Sadagah. Annual of the Department
of Antiquities of Jordan 17: 85–
163.
Lamm, C.J. & Lamm, D. 1935. Glass from
Iran in the National Museum, Stockholm.
Stockholm/London: Kegan Paul &
Company.
Langdon, S. & Harden, D.B. 1934.
Excavations at Kish and Barghuthiat 1933.
Iraq 1: 113–136.
Lapp, P.W. 1961. Palestinian ceramic
chronology, 200 BC–AD 70. New Haven,
CT: American Schools of Oriental
Research.
Lecomte, O. 1993. Stratigraphical analysis and
ceramic assemblages of the 4th–1st
centuries BCE Babbar of Larsa. Pages 17–
39 in Finkbeiner 1993a.
Lenoble, P., al-Muheisen, Z., Villeneuve, F.,
Auge, C. & Boyer, R. et al. 2001. Fouilles
de Khirbet edh-Dharih (Jordanie), I: le
cimetiere au sud du Wadi Sharheh. Syria
78: 89–151.
Lombard, P. & Kervran, M. 1993. Les niveaux
‘hellenistiques’ du Tell de Qal’at al-
Bahrain. Donnees preliminaires. Pages
127–160 in Finkbeiner 1993a.
Loreto, R. 2012. The Saudi–Italian–French
Archaeological Project at D
umat al-Jandal
(Ancient Adumatu). A first relative
chronological sequence for D
umat al-
Jandal. Architecture and pottery.
Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian
Studies 42: 165–182.
Lyonnet, B. 1997. Prospections archeologi-
ques en Bactriane orientale: 1974–1978.
(Memoires de la Mission archeologique

francßaise en Asie centrale). Paris: Editions
Recherche sur les civilisations.
McCown, D.E., Haines, R.C., Biggs, R.D. &
Carter, E. 1978. Nippur II. The North
temple and sounding E: excavations of the
joint expedition to Nippur of the American
Schools of Oriental Research and the
Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago. (Oriental Institute Publications).
Chicago: Oriental Institute, University of
Chicago Press.
Macdonald, M.C.A. 1991. Was the Nabataean
Kingdom a ‘Bedouin State’? Zeitschrift
des Deutschen Pal€ astina-Vereins 107:
102–119.
Macdonald, M.C.A. 1993. Nomads and the
Hawran in the late Hellenistic and roman
periods: a reassessment of the epigraphic
evidence. Syria 70: 303–403.
McKenzie, J. 1990. The architecture of Petra.
(British Academy Monographs in
Archaeology). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Malter Galleries. 2001. Greek, Roman,
Egyptian and Persian Artifacts along with
Fine Pre-Columbian Art. Catalogue.
211
G. CHARLOUX, M. COTTY AND A. THOMAS
Marquie, S. 2002. La circulation des sigillees
d’epoque imperiale au sud de Chypre.
Travaux de la maison de l’Orient
Mediterraneen 35: 289–301.
Mathiesen, H.E. 1982. The Terracotta
Figurines. Ikaros. The Hellenistic
Settlements. Copenhagen: Jutland
Archaeological Society Publications.
Mattingly, H. & Sydenham, E.A. (eds.). 1997.
The Roman imperial coinage. London:
Spink and Son.
Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R. 1971. Western Asiatic
Jewellery c.3000–612 B.C. London:
Methuen.
Medri, M. 1992. Terra Sigillata Tardo Italica
Decorata, studia Archaeologica. Rome:
‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider.
Meshorer, Y. 1975. Nabataean Coins. (Qedem,
3). Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
Meyza, H. 2002. Cypriot Sigillata and its
hypothetical predecessors. Travaux de la
maison de l’Orient Mediterraneen 35: 23–
31.
Milik, J.T. & Starcky, J. 1970. Nabataean,
Palmyrene, and Hebrew Inscriptions.
Pages 139–163 in Winnett, F.V. & Reed,
W.L. (eds.), Ancient Records from
North Arabia. Toronto: University of
Toronto.
Miroschedji, P. de. 1987. Fouilles du chantier
Ville Royale II a Suse (1975–1977). II.
Niveaux d’epoques archemenide,
seleucide, parthe et islamique. Cahiers de
la delegation archeologique francßaise en
Iran: 11–144.
Mlynarczyk, J. 1997. Alexandrian and
Alexandria-influenced mould-made lamps
of the Hellenistic period. (BAR
International Series 677). Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Mouton, M. 2008. La Peninsule d’Oman de la
^ du Fer au debut de la periode
fin de l’Age
sassanide, 250 av.-350 ap. JC. (Society for
Arabian Studies Monographs, 6) (BAR
International Series, 1776). Oxford:
Archaeopress.
al-Muaikel, K.I. 1988. A critical study of the
archaeology of the Jawf region of Saudi
Arabia with additional material on its
history and early Arabic epigraphy.
Durham: University of Durham.
al-Muaikel, K.I. 1993. Qy^al – A Nabataean
Military Post N.W. of Sak^ak^a, Saudi
Arabia. Ages 8: 5–16.
al-Muaikel, K.I. 1994. Study of the archaeo-
logy of the Jawf Region, Saudi Arabia.
Riyadh: King Fahd National Library.
212
al-Muaikel, K.I. 2001. Buhuth fi athar
mintaqat al-Jawf. Riyadh: Muassasat
ʿAbd al-Rahman al-Sudayri al-Khayriyah.
al-Muaikel, K.I. & al-Theeb, S. ibn ʿAbd al-R.
1996. al-Athar wa-al-kitabat al-nabatiyah
fi mintaqat al-Jawf. Riyadh: King Saud
University.
Musil, A. 1927. Arabia Deserta: A
Topographical Itinerary. New York: AMS
Press.
Negev, A. 1971. The Nabatean Necropolis of
Mampsis (Kurnub). Israel Exploration
Journal 21: 110–129.
Negev, A. 1986. The Late Hellenistic and
Early Roman Pottery of Nabatean Oboda:
Final Report. (Qedem, 22). Jerusalem:
Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
Nehme, L. 2009. Quelques elements de
reflexion sur Hegra et sa region a partir
de IIe siecle apres J.-C. Pages 37–58 in
Schiettecatte, J. & Robin, C.J. (eds.),
L’Arabie  a la veille de l’islam. Bilan
Clinique. (Table ronde tenue au College
de France les 28 et 29 ao^ ut 2006).
(Orient & Mediterranee, 3). Paris: De
Boccard.
Nenna, M.-D. & El-Din, M.S. 1993. La
vaisselle en fa€ıence du musee greco-romain
d’Alexandrie. Bulletin de correspondance
hellenique 117: 565–602.
Oates, D. & Oates, J. 1958. Nimrud 1957:
the Hellenistic settlement. Iraq 20:
114–157.
Oswald, F. & Pryce, T.D. 1966. An
Introduction to the Study of Terra
Sigillata. London: Gregg Press Ltd.
Parker, S.T. 2006. The Roman frontier in
central Jordan: final report on the Limes
Arabicus project, 1980–1989. Washington:
Dumbarton Oaks studies, Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Parker, S.T. & Dermott, P.M. 1978. A military
building inscription from Roman Arabia.
Zeitschrift f€
ur Papyrologie und Epigraphik
28: 61–66.
Parr, P.J., Zarins, J., Ibrahim, M., Waechter, J.,
Garrard, A. et al. 1978. Preliminary report
on the second phase of the Northern
Province survey 1397/1977. Atlal 2: 2: 9–
50.
Perry, M.A. 2002. Life and Death in Nabataea:
The North Ridge Tombs and Nabataean
Burial Practices. Near Eastern
Archaeology 65: 265–270.
Petrie, C. 2002. Seleucid Uruk: An analysis of
ceramic distribution. Iraq 64: 85–123.
Pliny the Elder, G. 1980. Livre VI, 2e partie
(L’Asie centrale et orientale, l’Inde). Paris:
Belles Lettres.
Politis, K.D. 1998. Rescue Excavations in the
Nabataean Cemetery at Khirbet Qazone
1996–1997. Annual of the Department of
Antiquities of Jordan 42: 611–614.
Porphyrius, T. 1979. De l’abstinence.
(Collection des Universites de France/
Association Guillaume Bude). Paris:
Belles Lettres.
Potts, D.T. 1993a. The Sequence and
Chronology of Thaj. Pages 87–110 in
Finkbeiner 1993a.
Potts, D.T. 1993b. The Sequence and
Chronology of Ayn Jawan. Pages 111–126
in Finkbeiner 1993a.
Ptolemy. 1838. Claudii Ptolemaei
Geographiae Libri Octo: Graece Et Latine
Ad Codicum Manu Scriptorum Fidem.
Edidit Frid. Guil. Wilberg. Sumptibus et
typis G.D. Baedeker.
R
ashid, S.Ibn ‘A. AL-’A. (ed.). 2003. Ath^ar
mintaqat al-Jawf, Idarat al-Athar wa-al-
Matahif. Riyadh: Silsilat Athar al-
Mamlakah al-ʿArabiyah al-Saʿudiyah.
Wakalat al-Athar wa-al-Matahif.
Renel, F. 2010. La ceramique antique de
Syrie du sud de la periode hellenistique a
la periode byzantine (IIe s. av. J.-C.-VIe

s. ap. J.-C.). Etude de cas: le Jebel et le
Leja. Pages 515–544 in Maqdissi, M.,
Braemer, F. & Dentzer, J.-M. (eds.),
Hauran V: la Syrie du sud du
Neolithique a l’Antiquite tardive.
Damascus: Institut francßais du Proche
Orient.
Rosenthal, R. 1970. Der Goldschmuck von
Mampsis und Oboda. Pages 95–96 in J.
Kellner (ed.), Die Nabat€ aer: ein
vergessenes Volk am Toten Meer 312
V.–106 N. Chr. Munich: Austellung der
Pr€ahistorischen Staatsammlung im
M€ unchener Stadtmuseum.
Rosenthal, R. 1974. A Nabatean Nose-Ring
from ‘Avdat (Oboda). Israel Exploration
Journal 24: 95–96.
Rotroff, S.I., Oliver, A., Hanfmann, I. &
Hanfmann, G.M.A. 2003. The Hellenistic
pottery from Sardis: the finds through
1994. (Archaeological Exploration of
Sardis, 12). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Rutten, K. 1996. Late Achaemenid and
Hellenistic Pottery from the Tombs of
Mahmudiyah Abu Qubur and Tell ed-Der.

Northern Akkad Project Reports 10:
7–20.
Sachet, I. 2006. La mort dans l’Arabie antique:
pratiques funeraires nabateennes

comparees. PhD thesis, Ecole Pratique des

Hautes Etudes, Paris. [Unpublished.]
al-Salameen, Z. & Falahat, H. 2009. Burials
from Wadi Mudayfa’at and Wadi Abu
Khasharif, Southern Jordan—Results of a
Survey and Salvage Excavations.
Mediterranean Archaeology and
Archaeometry 9: 85–108.
Salles, J.-F. 1990. Questioning the BI-Ware.
Travaux de la maison de l’Orient 18: 303–
334.
Sartre, M. 2001. D’Alexandre  a Zenobie:
Histoire du Levant antique (IVe siecle av.
J.-C.-IIIe siecle ap. J.-C. Paris: Fayard.
Sartre-Fauriat, A. 2001. Des tombeaux et des
morts: monuments funeraires, societe et
culture en Syrie du Sud du Ier s. av. J.-C.
au VIIe s. apr. J.-C. Beirut: Bibliotheque
archeologique et historique, Institut
francßais d’archeologie du Proche-Orient.
al-Saud, A. 2010. ʿAyn Jawan. Pages 398–403
in al-Ghabb
an, A.I., Andre-Salvini, B.,
Demange, F. & Cotty, M. (eds.), Routes
d’Arabie: archeologie et histoire du
royaume d’Arabie Saoudite. Paris: Musee
du Louvre/Somogy.
Savignac, R. & Starcky, J. 1957. Une
inscription nabateenne provenant du Dj^ of.
Revue Biblique 64: 196–217.
Schenk, H. 2007. Parthian glazed pottery from
Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean trade.
Zeitschrift f€ur Arch€aologie
Außereurop€aischer Kulturen 2: 57–90.
Schmid, S.G. 2007. La distribution de la
ceramique nabateenne et l’organisation du
commerce nabateen de longue distance.
Topoi, Supp. 8: 61–91.
Schmid, S.G. 2010. The International W^ad^ı
Farasa Project (IWFP): preliminary report
on the 2009 season. Annual of the
Department of Antiquities of Jordan 54:
221–235.
Schmidt-Colinet, A. & Al-As’ad, W. (eds.).
2013. Palmyras Reichtum durch
weltweiten Handel. Vol. 1. Architektur und
NABATAEAN OR NOT? THE ANCIENT NECROPOLIS OF DUMAT
ihre Ausstattung. Vol. 2. Kleinfunde.
Vienna: Holzhausen.
Seeck, O. 1876. Notitia dignitatum. Accedunt
Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae et
Laterculi provinciarum. Weidmann,
Berolini.
Speidel, M.P. 1987. The Roman Road to
Dumata (Jawf in Saudi Arabia) and the
Frontier Strategy of ‘Praetensione
Colligare’. Historia 36: 213–221.
Strommenger, E. 1967. Gef€ asse aus Uruk von
der neubabylonischen Zeit bis zu den
Sasaniden, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen
Forschungsgemeinshaft in Uruk-Warka.
Berlin: Mann.
Sussman, V. 2009. Greek and Hellenistic
Wheel- and Mould-made Closed Oil
Lamps in the Holy Land: Collection of the
Israel Antiquities Authority. (British
Archaeological Reports S2015). Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Tallon, F. 1999. Les rubis d’Ishtar: etude
archeologique. Pages 229–243 in Caubet,
A. (ed.), Cornaline et pierres precieuses.
La Mediterranee, de l’Antiquite 
a l’Islam:
Actes du colloque organise au musee du
Louvre les 24 et 25 novembre 1995. Paris:
Documentation francßaise.
al-Theeb, S. ibn ʿAbd al-R. 2010. Mudawwanat
al-nuqush al-Nabatiyah fi al-Mamlakah al-
ʿArabiyah al-Saʿ udiyah. Riyadh: Darat al-
Malik ʿAbd al-ʿAziz.
Thomas, M., Testa, O. & Courbon, P. 2013.
Les puits et qan^ats de D

umat al-Jandal
(Arabie Saoudite). Spelunca 129: 43–47.
Thomas, M., Testa, O. & Courbon, P.
Forthcoming. Preliminary Study of Wells
and Qan^ats of D
umat al-Jandal. In
Charloux, G. & Loreto, R. (eds.), D^ uma
III. The 2012 Report of the Saudi–Italian–
French Project in D
umat al-Jandal.
Riyadh: Saudi Commission for Tourism
and Antiquities.
Thompson, R.C. & Hutchinson, R.W. 1929.
The Excavations on the Temple of Nab^ u at
Nineveh. Archaeology, Second Series 79:
103–148.
Toll, N.P. 1943. The Excavations at Dura-
Europos. Final Report IV. Part 1. The
Green Glazed Pottery. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Van Ingen, W. 1939. Figurines from Seleucia
on the Tigris. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press.
Venco-Ricciardi, R. 1967. Pottery from
Choche. Mesopotamia 2: 93–104.
Venco-Ricciardi, R. 1970. Sasanian Pottery
from Tell Mahuz. Mesopotamia 5: 427–
482.
Vidal, F.S. & Anon. 1953. The Jawan
Chamber Tomb Adapted from a report by
F.S. Vidal. Dammam.
Villeneuve, F. & Chambon, A. 2000. Khirbet
Edh-Dharih: des Nabateens aux
Abbassides. Irbid: Al-Shaeb Press.
Waage, F.O. (ed.). 1948. Antioch-on-the-
Orontes. IV. Part One. Ceramics and
Islamic Coins. Princeton/London:
Princeton University Press/Oxford
University Press.
Wadeson, L. 2011. Nabataean tomb complexes
at Petra: new insights in the light of recent
fieldwork. Proceedings of the Australasian
Society for Classical Studies 32: 1–24.
Wadeson, L. 2012. Excavations at Petra: the
International al-Khubtha Tombs Project
(IKTP). Palestine Exploration Quarterly
144/3: 208–218.
Wadeson, L. 2013. Nabataean Facßade Tombs:
A New Chronology. Studies in the History
and Archaeology of Jordan 11: 507–528.
Wenning, R. 1987. Die Nabat€ aer, Denkm€ aler
und Geschichte: eine Bestandesaufnahme
des arch€aologischen Befundes. (Novum
Testamentum et orbis antiquus). Freiburg:
Universit€atsverlag.
Zayadine, F. 1974. Excavations at Petra
(1973–1974). Annual of the Department of
Antiquities of Jordan 19: 135–150.
Zayadine, F. 1982. Recent excavations at
Petra (1979-81). Annual of the
Department of Antiquities of Jordan 26:
365–393.
Ziegler, C. 1962. Die Terrakotten von Warka,
Ausgrabungen der deutschen
Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka.
Berlin: Mann.
213