Khawr Rūrī [ancient Sumhuram]

The port of Sumhuram was founded by the kingdom of Ḥaḍramawt at the end of the 3rd cent. BCE and remained active until the beginning of the 4th cent. CE. During its long history, the port was involved in long-distance maritime trade, and forged links with many faraway countries. As classical authors already know, port trade revolved around frankincense. The beautiful walled city presents a regular layout. Several industrial activities are attested in the city.

Location

The ancient port of Sumhuram, in the area of Khawr Rūrī (Khor Rori), is located 45 km east of Salalah in the Dhofār (Ẓufār) governorate in the Sultanate of Oman. The wādī Darbāt forms a lagoon near the site. Two promontories flank the wādī mouth towards the sea (Fig. 1). Discovery and exploration The British explorer J.T. Bent visited the area of Khawr Rūrī at the end of the 19th cent. According to his conclusions, the ruins near the lagoon were the city the Peripl. M. Rubr. (Casson 1989) and Ptolemy called Moscha Limén (Bent 1985: 124–125). In 1952, W. Phillips, leader of the American Foundation for the Study of Man (AFSM) conducted archaeological work in the Dhofār region. The American team, directed by F.P. Albright, arrived in Dhofār in March 1952. For 13 months, F.P. Albright carried out an archaeological survey of the Dhofār region and excavated Sumhuram. The final report of the expedition was published many years later (Albright 1982). In 1960, the AFSM returned to Dhofār for a short time (Cleveland 1960). Excavations at Sumhuram by the Italian Mission to Oman (IMTO) of the University of Pisa, directed by A. Avanzini, started in February 1996 and continued until December 2019. A.V. Sedov was the chief archaeologist of the mission (Avanzini 2002; Avanzini & Sedov 2005; Avanzini 2008; Buffa 2019).

Place name in ancient sources

In the inscriptions found by the AFSM and published by A. Jamme, the name of the city was S¹mhrm/ S¹mrm. A. Jamme transcribed it as: Sumhurām; Sumhuram in IMTO’s publications. However, the transcription is uncertain: h could be a mater lectionis and a transcription Samār is probably more correct. But, the easy etymology: ‘His (of the god) name is high’ makes the transcription Sumhuram more appealing. S¹mhrm is a royal name in Ḥaḍramawt (ʿUqayba 5, near Shabwa; Ja 892, from Ḥanūn Dhofār); S¹mhrym is a royal patronymic in the inscription Musée de Mukallā 219. In ancient South Arabia, it is rare for a city to bear the name of a king. The name of the port emphasizes that it was considered to be a neo-foundation, a colony far from the centre of Ḥaḍrami power. The identification of Sumhuram with Moscha Limén, mentioned in classical sources, is in fact credible, but definite evidence in support of the hypothesis is still lacking.

The city

Sumhuram is a small walled city (Fig. 2) – the internal surface area is 7,290 m² with 200/300 inhabitants. The city walls were certainly over 10 m in height. The offset built into the wall at regular intervals of 7.5 or 8 m is noteworthy. The settlement is accessible through a monumental and fortified entrance (Avanzini & Orazi 2001). A secondary entrance, with access to the market square from outside, is located in the south-eastern area. The fortune of Sumhuram certainly derives from the presence of fresh water. A huge building protected the well, and several channels have been individuated. IMTO excavated three temples, two within the city (the main temple dedicated to the god Syn and a shrine: Pavan & Degli Esposti 2016), and the third outside, near the wādī. The organisation of urban space in some districts clearly emerged after excavations by IMTO. Several private houses were excavated. A palace of much larger dimensions than a private house has been published (Buffa 2019: 15-50). Its presence is proof of differentiation in the social status of the port inhabitants. The urban city plan is regular, streets follow an orthogonal matrix, with large geometrically-designed squares. During its long history, the city experienced numerous construction phases: houses were demolished to be replaced by squares, the main buildings were modified over time. Thanks to the pottery typology published by Alexia Pavan (Pavan 2017) and the vast numismatic corpus, it is possible to chronologically connect the construction phases of some areas with the material, and to recognize diagnostic pottery typologies (Buffa 2019: 247–273). It was unlikely that Sumhuram would have been surrounded by imposing walls during the earliest construction phase and earlier settlement is conceivable. The IMTO excavation campaigns provide evidence of this earliest settlement phase.

Metal-working workshops (see Metallurgy) are attested in Sumhuram. Furnaces for producing iron and bronze objects are located in the area around the market square. In the city, ovens for baking bread, kilns for making building-plaster and a pottery kiln were identified (Fig. 3). A complete inscription KR 11 on a bronze tablet (Avanzini 2014) presents clear evidence of the trade of bronze (ingots or objects) from Sumhuram to Yemen. Various artistic items in different materials bear witness to the refined tastes of the rich inhabitants of this port. Objects produced by local artisans exhibit many unique elements; for example, beautiful incense burners have come to light, with different shapes and iconography to those produced by Ḥaḍrami artisans (Fig. 4). A huge numismatic Ḥaḍrami corpus is attested throughout all the historical phases of the port (Sedov 2002, 2008, 2019). The presence of a mint in Sumhuram is likely, as hypothesized by the American team (Chiarantini & Benvenuti 2014).

History of the port

Pottery imported from India (true Rouletted Ware, Paddle impressed Ware), Hellenistic pottery, Ḥaḍrami coins (“early Ḥaḍramawt imitations” minted following the design of the Athenian tetradrachms, series head/owl — see Coinage), bear witness to a possible foundation date of a first settlement at the end of the 3rd cent. BCE. In the last centuries BCE, Sumhuram became part of the new trading network between Egypt and India that formed in the 3rd cent. BCE, before the development of sea trade (see Maritime trade) in the Roman period. The existence of this network has been clearly demonstrated by the presence of similar pottery in Berenike, Mouziris, Sri Lanka, and Arikamedu (Pavan & Shenk 2012; Pavan 2015). The port of Sumhuram was active for about eight centuries. During the course of this long history, contacts were established between Sumhuram and many faraway countries: certainly with Yemen, but not only with the motherland, also with Qatabān; with northern Oman, the Gulf, India, Aksum, Egypt, the Mediterranean. An exceptional large corpus of amphorae, numerous sherds of terra sigillata, imported objects, bear witness to a close relationship with the Mediterranean (Tomber 2017). Trade relations between Sumhuram and India were also very close; the Peripl. M. Rubr. says that Indian traders spent the winter there. The presence of Indian storage jars, kitchenware and table bowls (a sherd of which bears a Tamil-Brahmi inscription), alongside objects imported from India (Fig. 5), might suggest at least a temporary presence of Indian merchants in Sumhuram.

In the second half of the 1st cent. BCE, major construction work started. The inscription KR 8 on the interior wall of the monumental gate hypothetically suggests that the mukarrib of Ḥaḍramawt Yashhurʾīl Yuharʿish was behind these radical changes in the construction of the city. The reorganization of the city continued in the 1st cent. CE, as evidenced by the inscriptions placed along the path to the city in the first building phase of the gate. The king Ilīʿazz Yaluṭ, to be identified with the Eleazos quoted in the Peripl. M. Rubr., is mentioned in these inscriptions (e.g., KR 2, KR 3). An inscription (KR 6) from the 3rd cent. CE was placed on the most recent extension of the monumental gateway to the city. Sumhuram was not definitively abandoned until sometime in the 4th cent. CE. It was probably still temporarily inhabited in the Islamic period. Early Islamic settlements have been identified in the plain around Sumhuram and on the eastern promontory (Inqitat) flanking the mouth of wādī Darbāt (Rougeulle 2008).

Locals

Sumhuram was cosmopolitan, but apparently totally isolated, as it was far from the capital city of Shabwa in a geographical area perfectly suited to commerce with India. The presence of freshwater ensured the survival of its inhabitants. The choice of such a suitable site for the construction of the port of Sumhuram cannot be explained by the simple intuition of the king of Ḥaḍramawt. Groups of Ḥaḍramis had probably been living in Dhofār when earlier trade by land developed. Nevertheless, other actors in the history of Sumhuram were certainly present; the local inhabitants of Dhofār. Archaeological remains bear witness to the presence of local settlements contemporaneous with Sumhuram (Newton & Zarins 2017: 27–29). J. Zarins (1997) hypothesized that the local inhabitants of Dhofār were already engaged in commerce with India, and that the Ḥaḍramawt took over this profitable trade. However, no corroborating evidence has been brought to light so far. Recently, new excavations at the Inqitat revealed several megalithic structures contemporaneous with Sumhuram (Lischi 2019). The structures composed a settlement that appears to cover an area of about two hectares. Inside the structures, the finds included handmade pottery which, given the lack of comparison, appears to be locally produced. But there are also imported materials, such as Indian pottery and amphorae, pointing to importations from Sumhuram, or proof of direct contacts between the ‘locals’ and foreign merchants.

Alessandra Avanzini

References and suggested reading

• Albright, F.P. 1982. The American Archaeological Expedition in Dhofar, Oman 1952-1953 (Publications of the AFSM, VI). Washington DC: AFSM.
• Avanzini, A. (ed.) 2002. Khor Rori Report 1 (Arabia Antica, 1). Pisa: Edizioni Plus.
• Avanzini, A. (ed.) 2008. A port in Arabia between Rome and the Indian Ocean (3rd c. BC-5th c. AD). Khor Rori Report 2 (Arabia Antica, 5). Rome: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider.
• Avanzini, A. 2014. Un port d’Arabie entre Rome et l’Inde. CRAI 2014: 483–505. DOI : 10.3406/crai.2014.95111.
• Avanzini A. & R. Orazi. 2001. The construction phases of Khor Rori’s monumental gate. AAE 12: 249–259. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0471.2001.d01-9.x.
• Avanzini A. & A.V. Sedov 2005. The stratigraphy of Sumhuram: new evidence. PSAS 35: 11–17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41219365
• Bent, J.T. 1895. Exploration of the Frankincense Country, Southern Arabia. Geogr. J. 6: 109–134. DOI: 10.2307/1773739.
• Buffa, V. 2019. Sumhuram. The becoming of the town. Khor Rori Report 4 (Arabia Antica, 16). Rome: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider.
• Casson, L. 1989. The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with introduction, translation and commentary. Princeton: University Press.
• Chiarantini, L. & M. Benvenuti 2014. The evolution of pre-Islamic South Arabian coinage: a metallurgical analysis of coins excavated in Sumhuram (Khor Rori, Sultanate of Oman). Archaeometry 56: 625–650. DOI: 10.1111/arcm.12036.
• Cleveland, R.L. 1960. The 1960 American Archaeological Expedition to Dhofar. BASOR 159: 15–26. DOI: 10.2307/1355615.
• Lischi, S. 2019. Dal Paleolitico al periodo islamico: la storia del Dhofar attraverso lo studio archeologico dell’Inqitat, in M. Cattani & D. Frenez (eds) Sognatori. 40 anni di ricerche archeologiche italiane in Oman: 149–151. Roma: BraDypUS.
• Newton, L.S & J. Zarins 2017. Dhofar through the ages. An ecological, archaeological and historical landscape. Muscat: Ministry of heritage and culture.
• Pavan, A. 2015. Trade and commercial routes along the Indian Ocean from the early centuries BC to the beginning of Christian Era. New lights from the Indian pottery discovered at Sumhuram (Sultanate of Oman). ABADY 14: 121–133.
• Pavan, A. 2017. A cosmopolitan city on the Arabian coast. The imported and local pottery from Khor Rori. Khor Rori Report 3 (Arabia Antica, 12). Rome: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider.
• Pavan, A. & M. Degli Espositi 2016. The urban shrine in Quarter A at Sumhuram. Stratigraphy, architecture, material culture (Quaderni di Arabia, 4). Rome: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider.
• Pavan, A. & H. Schenk 2012. Crossing the Indian Ocean before the Periplus: a comparative assemblage at the sites of Sumhuram (Oman) and Tissamaharama (Sri Lanka). AAE 23: 191–202. DOI: 10.1111/aae.12000.
• Rougeulle, A. 2008. A medieval trade entrepôt at Khor Rori? the study of the Islamic ceramic from Ḥamr al-Sharqiya, in A. Avanzini (ed.) 2008: 645–667.
• Sedov, A.V. 2002. The coins from Sumhuram: the 1997-2000 seasons, in A. Avanzini (ed.) 2002: 249–270.
• Sedov, A.V. 2008. The coins from Sumhuram: the 2001A-2004A seasons, in A. Avanzini (ed.) 2008: 277–316.
• Sedov, A.V. 2019. The coins from Sumhuram: the 2004B-2016B seasons, in V. Buffa (ed.) 2019: 153–243.
• Tomber, R. 2017. The late Hellenistic and Roman pottery, in Pavan 2017: 321–397.
• Zarins, J. 1997. Persia and Dhofar: aspects of Iron Age international politics and trade, in G.D. Joung, M.W. Chavalas & R.E. Averbeck (eds) Crossing boundaries and linking horizons. Studies in honor of Michael C. Astour on his 80th birthday: 615–689. Bethesda: Md.

_{Alternate spellings: Khor Rori, Khor Rôrî, Khor Rorî, Khawr Rôrî, Khawr Rorî, Khawr Rûrî, Ruri, S¹mhrm, S¹mrm, Smhrm, Smrm, Moscha Limén, Moscha Limen}