potts 1993 (e. arabia)

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1993

The Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Early Historic Periods in Eastern Arabia (ca. 5000-1200 B.C.)

D. T. Potts I

This paper presents an overview of cultural developments in eastern Arabia during the Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Early Historic periods (ca. 5000- 1200 B. C.) as defined here. l~,mphasis is placed on the indigenous lithic industries, ceramics, architecture, burial practices, and subsistence data, while interregional ties and comparative chronology are treated as well. A unified chronological schema for the entire region is proposed which can function alongside local, regional sequences.

KEY WORDS: Arabia; prehistory; protohistory; archaeology.

INTRODUCTION

In comparison with most of their neighbors, the countries along the eastern seaboard of the Arabian peninsula have been the subject of intensive archaeological scrutiny for a very short period of time. Nevertheless, in the space of but a few decades a chronological and culture-historical framework has been set in place (Potts, 1992a) and a veritable explosion of literature has occurred (Haerinck and Stevens, 1985). A two-volume synthesis of the pre-Islamic archaeology and history of the region, running to nearly 800 pages (Potts 1990a), is an indication of the amount of data currently available from this region. Due to the rapid progress of research in eastern Arabia, the task of synthesizing the earliest periods of human settlement in the region within a journal-length article is, however, considerably more difficult than it would have been only a few

School of Archaeology, Classics & Ancient History, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.

163

0892-7537/93/0600-0163507.00/0 © 1993 Plenum Publishing Corporation

164 Potts

years ago. In writing the following essay ! have attempted to stay within a reasonable page length by moving fairly rapidly over the subject matter, while giving extensive bibliographical orientation for readers who wish to pursue a particular problem.

G E O G R A P H Y

The human and physical geography of eastern Arabia, as indeed its archaeological geography, may be classified and studied in at least three ways. On the one hand, we can subdivide the area according to its physical features and geomorphology (cf. Berghaus 1832, 1835; Brice 1966; Wilkinson 1977). If we were to do this in simplified form, then virtually the entire coastal plain from Kuwait to Ras al-Khaimah (with the associated offshore islands), the so-called "desert foreland," would comprise one geographical division, bounded to the north and east by the Arabian Gulf and on the west and south by the Jafurah and Rub al-Khali deserts. The wadi sediments of the interior of the United Arab Emirates and Oman, as well as those of the coastal plain of Oman, fronting the Arabian sea, would represent a second division; and the mountains of inner Oman, extending from the limestones of the Musandam peninsula (cf. Costa 1991) in the north to the Upper cretaceous formations just west of Ras al-Hadd in the south, would form a third division. Naturally, this is a crude and over- simplified classification of what is in reality an infinitely more variegated landscape, but the general scheme is not inaccurate.

A second, related approach, would be to employ the traditional classifactory terminology of the Arabic-speaking populations who have inhabited this area for roughly the past 1700 years. As in all parts of the world, such a system has been subject to modification through time, and the nomenclature of the ninth or tenth century (cf. Wfistenfeld, 1874) differs in some respects from that of the nineteenth or twentieth century (cf. Lorimer, 1908; Raswan, 1930). The richness of such indigenous classifactory systems is illustrated by the fact that, around the turn of the present century, some 22 designations, grouped together under 5 major geographical rubrics, were applied to distinct subregions within the areas of the present-day Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia (Potts, 1989, p. 11). In southeastern Arabia, another set of traditional, subregional names has been used for centuries, but whereas some of these, such as Sharqiya, B~.tinah, and Ja'lfin, continue to be used in common parlance, others, such as Sir, Tu'fim, Ghadaf, or Sirr, have lost their currency (Wilkinson, 1977, Fig. 2). The present- day national boundaries are of no relevance to a discussion of the spatial distribution of the region's archaeological assemblages, however, for they are recent, political creations which cross-cut both the traditional and the physico- geographical subareas described above.

The utility of grouping and analyzing the archaeological assemblages of

Eastern Arabia (ca. 5000-1200 B.C.) 165

the region according to either the physiographic or the ethnohistoric approach must be questioned, however, in light of the information available to us on the Gulf region in much earlier cuneiform sources. These make it clear that, during the late third and second millennia B.C., the area from Kuwait to Qatar, including Bahrain and the modem Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, constituted a "country" called Dilmun (Sumerian) or Tilmun (Akkadian), whereas the Oman peninsula, presently divided between the United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm al-Qaiwain, Fujairah and Ras al-Khaimah) in the north and the Sultanate of Oman in the south, made up the region of Magan (Sumerian) or Makkan (Akkadian). Even a cursory study of the spatial distribution of some of the major categories of material culture (e.g., funerary architecture, ceramics, stone vessels, metal weaponry) found in the region shows that the literary distinction between Dilmun and Magan is matched by a palpable contrast in material culture. Thus, the late third and early second millennium Barbar ceramic tradition of Bahrain and northeastern Arabia (Dilmun) is easily distinguishable from the painted Umm an-Nar and Wadi Suq material of the Oman peninsula (Magan). The ancient ethnolinguistic situation in this area is less clear, but the cuneiform sources from and about Dilmun/Bahrain (and Fai- laka) and relating to Magan/southeastem Arabia contain Amorite names [e.g., Nadu-beli in Magan, Janbi'-na'im, 'Ila'milkum, and Jisi'-tambu, on Bahrain (see Potts, 1990a, pp. 144, 218, 228); Jamiu on Failaka (see Zarins, 1986, p. 249; Glassner 1988)], suggesting that at least part of the population of the east Arabian littoral, in the northern, central, and southern portions, spoke the same Semitic language.

CLIMATE, ENVIRONMENT, AND NATURAL RESOURCES

However one chooses to subdivide eastern Arabia, there are several over- arching environmental constraints and enabling factors which must be considered in any discussion of the region, past or present. In spite of the fact that several Early and Mid-Holocene subpluvials have been documented [for discussion with bibliography, see Potts (1990a, pp. 19-22)], eastern Arabia's climate has been generally hyperarid since the Pleistocene, making dry-farming of any sort impos- sible. Ever since figures have been kept regularly on annual rainfall, it has been apparent that variation from year to year can be enormous. Thus, only 2 mm of rain felt at Fujairah on the east coast of the U.A.E. in 1966, as opposed to 206.8 mm in 1968 (Wilkinson, 1977, p. 37, Table 4). If one takes the rainfall figures from Kuwait, Bahrain, Dhahran, Abqaiq (Eastern Province), and Muscat for the years 1966-1974, the annual average in the region amounts to no more than 90.46 mm (Potts, 1990a, p. 22). Having said this, what rainfall does occur usually falls in winter, when an explosion of desert grasses, wild flowers, and shrubbery can occur, as demonstrated vividly during the past few years. As Lorimer noted, apropos Bahrain, in 1908, "in exceptionally wet years grass is

166 Po~s

said to grow knee-deep all over the central depression of the main island" (Lorimer, 1908, p. 242). This winter vegetation provides important pasture for sheep, goat, and camel, and whereas the era of camel domestication in eastern Arabia postdates the period to which this essay is devoted (ca. 1500 B.C. on present evidence from Tell Abraq, H.-P. Uerpmann, personal communication), domesticated sheep and goat have been herded in the region for roughly the past 7000 years (see below). Thus, the winter rains, sparse though they may be, have always been an important enabling factor in the pastoral economy of eastern Arabia.

The paucity of rainfall in eastern Arabia, however, is more than made up for by the abundance of groundwater available in the region. Northeastern Ara- bia, including Bahrain, is underlain by one of the richest aquifer systems in the world (Potts, 1990a, p. 19, n. 79). Aquifers underlie the gravel plains and mountains of Oman and the U.A.E. as well, where moreover, the sparse rainfall which does fall provides limited recharge (Wilkinson, 1977, p. 44). Throughout eastern Arabia these aquifers can be tapped at relatively shallow depths, and hand-dug wells, followed in the first millennium B.C. by more sophisticated qanats orfaIaj systems, have enabled oasis cultivation to flourish in the area since the late fourth millennium B.C.

Aside from pastoralism and agriculture, fishing, and shell-fish gathering have always been important subsistence activities on the coasts of Arabia. Yet the occupations of the interior should not be viewed in opposition to those of the coast, for there has always been a considerable amount of interchange between the two zones. Traditionally, dried and salted fish has been traded by coastal groups for products from the interior of Oman, such as ghee (clarified butter) and dates (cf. Carter, 1851, p. 324; Miles, 1877, pp. 47-48). On Bahrain, moreover, fish manure was traditionally applied as fertilizer in the date groves (Lorimer, 1908, p. 242). Furthermore, throughout the region winter pastoralism in the interior was often combined with summer shell-fish gathering and fishing on the coast (see below), as evidenced by the mammalian faunal remains found on shell middens along the coasts of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the U.A.E., and Oman which date from the fifth millennium B.C. to the first centuries A.D. (H.-P. and M. Uerpmann, personal communication). One specific result of this pattern of transhumance and interior-coastal interaction is that cattle herds in coastal Oman have traditionally been fed dried fish (Ovington, 1929, p. 248), a practice documented on Bahrain as well (Lorimer, 1908, p. 243).

Leaving aside subsistence questions, eastern Arabia offers a number of other exploitable natural resources such as copper, lead, silver, gold, and iron (Oman mountains); mangrove wood (coasts of Bahrain, the U.A.E., and Oman); terrestrial woods other than date-palms (U.A.E. and Oman); salt (Bahrain, Oman); diorite and soft-stone (Oman mountains); pearls (Bahrain and the coast of the U,A.E.); and beach-rock (farush), commonly used as a building material

Eastern Arabia (ca, 5000-1200 B.C.) 167

(eastern Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the coastal U.A.E.). Although not all used during the periods discussed here, the recognition that these resources exist in the region is important as a counterbalance to the prevailing and largely erroneous image of eastern Arabia as a desert wasteland capable of offering only a marginal existence to scattered, impoverished settlements and pastoral groups.

TERMINOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY

To the extent that archaeological assemblages are invariably dated by a combination of relative and absolute means, time brackets are suggested for different manifestations, and names or numbers are given to the sequence of assemblages in a given area, questions of archaeological terminology and chronology are often inextricably entwined. Despite the fact that relatively little archaeological work has been undertaken in eastern Arabia, the area has already witnessed the appearance of a plethora of both local and supraregional periodizations. The sheer size and geographical diversity of the region make it hardly surprising that the same archaeological assemblages are not present everywhere from southeastern Oman to Kuwait, and many scholars, I suspect, are quite happy to go on living with local periodizations in which the names are taken from local type sites. But a problem arises as we find out just how diverse the former populations of east Arabia were. The last decade of research has shown conclusively that eastern Arabia was just as pluralistic in premodern times as it is today. By this I mean that it was inhabited by numerous coexisting groups which were often characterized by very" different economic and technological orientations. No doubt this has been the case in many parts of the world, but archaeological terminology is not very adept at dealing with such technologically heterogeneous, yet contemporary groups. As Childe noted in the Huxley Mem- orial Lecture for 1944, the notion of universally applicable archaeological ages runs into difficulty because, for instance, the Neolithic in one area may be contemporary with the Bronze Age in another (Childe, 1944, p. 1). While archaeologists generally have no problem acknowledging this on a global scale, it has not been so easy to find terminology and a system of periodization which can accommodate this variability on a local scale. As recent research into the late prehistory of Mesopotamia has shown, a traditional "chest of drawers" chronology of successive, discrete phases (Hassuna, Samarra, Hataf, Ubaid) is no longer appropriate as scholars discover that what were formerly considered periods are in fact regional traditions or facies with a considerable amount of chronological overlap (Oates, 1987, pp. 167-168). The same phenomenon can be observed in eastern Arabia, where, for example, many Late Prehistoric sites can be shown to date well into the third millennium B.C., overlapping with the Protohistoric and Early Historic periods. Indeed, one of the aceramic, Late

168 Po~s

Prehistoric facies in Oman (see below) is even characterized by the limited use of copper or bronze tools. Yet to assign the copper-using, aceramic fishing, shell-fish gathering, and herding communities of coastal Oman to the "Bronze Age" would be unsuitable, both terminologically and culture-historically.

Even at this relatively early stage in the study of southeastern Arabia, we can recognize "Late Stone Age" groups fishing and gathering molluscs at certain coastal sites, and perhaps keeping herds as well, only a few kilometers away from towns or large villages which could be assigned to the Bronze Age. Although his attempt to present archaeological sequences as technological stages which could be broken down into "modes" was not entirely successful, Childe's rejection of traditional archaeological "ages" is, I think, of some relevance for the future direction of archaeological terminology is eastern Arabia. At the very least, I believe that we should pay more attention to the contemporaneity of technologically distinct economic adaptations throughout the area, although recognizing that, in traditional terminology, the lastest manifestations of the Late Stone Age and the earlier part of the Bronze Age can be contemporary does not solve the terminological problem.

Finally, terms such as "Pre-Pottery Neolithic," "Aceramic Neolithic," "Early Neolithic," or "Late Neolithic" are equally inappropriate because of the implicit connotations which these terms convey and because of the fact that the subsistence base of the populations responsible for the finds from the earliest periods of human occupation in eastern Arabia was not primarily an agricultural one. While herding played a limited role in certain areas, fishing, shell-fish gathering, and hunting were generally more important activities. Moreover, as imported pottery may be present or absent on sites in close proximity with technologically comparable tool-kits, it is not appropriate to use terms such as "prepottery" and "aceramic," for these are adjectives which can easily cause confusion.

In conclusion, I suggest that we should continue to retain local names for sequences and phases, rather than importing a system from outside the region. The subdivisions of Early, Middle, and Late Bronze in Palestine and Syria, or the phasing of Iron I, II, HI, and, some would add, IV, in Iran, were developed to suit different archaeological pasts and have no necessary relevance to cultural developments in eastern Arabia. At the same time, a uniform, supraregional terminology for the various chronologically contemporary facies observed throughout the region might help, if nothing else, to broaden our perspectives and give form to the particularistic nature of our periodizations. For this reason I am introducing here a periodization (Fig. 1) that can function alongside the regionally specific ones which will, no doubt, continue in use for some time to come. These broad period designations can remain in the background, while we continue to work with our local sequences. They may, however, be helpful, particularly for nonspecialists in this area.

PE

RIO

D

Lat

e P

rehi

stor

ic A

(e

. 500

0-45

00 B

.C.)

Lat

e P

rehi

stor

ic B

(c

. 4.5

00-3

800

B.C

,)

Lat

e P

rehi

stor

ic C

(e

, 380

0-20

O0

B.C

.)

Pro

tohi

stor

ic A

(c

.340

0-29

00 B

.C.)

Pro

tohi

stor

ic B

(c

, 29

O0-

2300

B.C

.)

Ear

ly H

isto

ric

A

(c. 2

30O

-200

0 B

,C.)

Ear

ly H

isto

ric

B

(c. 2

000-

1700

B,C

.)

Ear

ly H

isto

ric

C

(c.

1700

-150

0 B

.C.)

Ear

ly H

isto

ric

D

(c,

1500

-120

0 B

.C.)

Ear

ly H

isto

ric

E

(e.

1200

-100

0 B

.C.)

Ear

ly H

isto

ric

F (c

. I0

0O-6

0O B

.C,)

Ear

ly H

isto

ric

(}

(c. 6

OO

-30O

B.C

0

A

Ku

wa

it

Ba

hra

in

........

....

RE

GIO

NA

L

FA

CIE

S

IN E

AS

TE

,.R

N,

AR

AB

IA ...

....

E.

Pro

vin

ce

Qat

ar

UA

E

Qat

ar B

Ara

bia

n

bir

acia

l si

tes

Qat

ar A

-C-D

site

s A

rabi

an b

irac

ial s

ites

Om

an

W

adi W

utay

ya fa

cies

D

hofa

ri s

ites

wit

h Fa

sad

poin

ts

Saru

q fa

cies

b i

f a

c i

a 1

s i

t e

s R

as a

I-H

amm

, B

it B

ir'a

, and

Ban

dar

Jiss

a fa

cies

foun

dmio

n of

Cit

y I

Cit

y I

earl

y gr

aves

at R

ifa'

a B

arba

r tem

ple

I

Lat

e U

ruk

thro

ugh

ED

I-

reIa

ted

find

s

Cit

y 1-

rela

ted m

ater

ial

peri

od I

at H

ill 8

H

afit

an

d

bee

hiv

e g

rav

es

settl

emen

t on

Um

m a

n-N

at

earl

y Pe

riod

II a

t Hill

8

earl

y

Ur~

m

an-N

at

gra

ves

late

per

iod

1l a

t Hil

l 8

mo

st

Um

m

an-N

at

sett

lem

ents

an

d

gra

ves

Per

iods

l-3A

C

ityl

I C

ity

ll

-rel

ated

fi

nd

s co

ntem

pora

ry b

uria

ls

Bar

bar

tem

ples

II/e

arly

11I

Peri

od 3

B

Cit

y Il

la

mid

dle

Wad

i Suq

co

ntem

pora

ry b

uria

ls

at T

ell A

braq

la

te B

arba

r te

mpl

e III

Peri

od 4

a-b

City

llI

b

peri

od I

Va-

b in

M. K

etw

~:ar

Cs s

~ur~

dirtg

2-

3, 8

-9 a

t Qa/

at el

-Bah

rain

earl

y

Cit

y

IV

and

re

late

d

fin

ds

earl

y

Wad

i S

uq

g

rav

es

and

se

ttle

men

ts

late

Wad

i Suq

at

"Fel

l Abr

aq a

nd S

him

a]

earl

y lm

n A

ge a

t Tel

l Abr

aq a

md S

him

al;

'cla

ssic

' Ir

on

A

ge

o

f R

um

eila

h

l/L

izq

Tel

l Kha

zneh

Ia

te C

ity

IV

Rum

eila

h It

, lat

e Tel

l Abr

aq

Fig

. 1.

Sug

gest

ed p

erio

diza

tion

for

the

arc

haeo

logi

cal

asse

mbl

ages

of

Eas

tern

Ara

bia

ca.

50

00

-12

00

B.C

.

> g~

to

t/i g ,L,,

170 Potts

The terms employed in this article--Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Early Historic--were chosen for various reasons. Late Prehistoric has been used in preference to the Late Stone Age of M. Uerpmann because it is more neutral and at the same time more inclusive, since much of the surviving material dating to these periods is made of clay, shell, and even copper or bronze, and not just stone. Protohistoric has been chosen as a term suitable for those centuries when, elsewhere in Western Asia, writing was in its infancy, yielding references to the Gulf region in economic accounts (e.g., at Uruk) which, however, cannot really be considered historical sources. Early Historic has been chosen because of the fact that, from ca. 2300 B.C. onward, various parts of eastern Arabia figure in the historical record of literate Mesopotamia, and while these texts provide us only with an external rather than an internal source of documentation, there is a neutrality to the term Early Historic which transcends regional nomenclature.

As for the specific lengths of the time periods, these represent for the most part a combination of archaeological and historical phases. Thus, Late Prehis- toric A, B, and C are based on the available C-14 dates for the specific archaeological assemblages represented, whereas Protohistoric A through Early Historic G are units which represent an amalgam of C-t4-determined stratigraphic phases and relative chronological phases (i.e., based on parallels with neighboring areas). The latter periods can be linked to the absolute chronology of Meso- potamia, the political and economic history of which impacted on the Gulf region, but the internal divisions are in each case based upon local, east Arabian assemblages. Archaeological sites outside of the Gulf region which are mentioned in the text for comparative purposes are shown in Fig. 2.

The reader should note that, whenever calibrated C-14 dates are given, these have been calibrated following Pearson and Stuiver (1986).

LATE PREHISTORIC A (CA. 5000-4500 B.C.)

The earliest Holocene sites in the region are those of the Qatar B group, some half a dozen related sites in Dhofar and the Wahiba sands of southern Oman, and the Wadi Wutayya facies in the Capital Area on the Coast of Oman near Muscat (Fig. 3).

Qatar B was the name given by H. Kapel to the collections made at eight sites in Qatar which were distinguished by the presence of blade arrowheads and blade cores (Kapel, 1967, pp. 20, 30-32, Figs. 16-17). A single C-14 date of 6970 B.P. + 130 years (NM VIII A 4741) from the site of Shagra (Kapel, 1967, p. 17), as well as the typological affinities of the blade arrowheads and other tools from these sites, suggested a broad linkage between Qatar B and the PPNB tradition of Syro-Palestine (Mortensen, cited by Kap¢l, 1967, p. 18). In their as yet unpublished, comprehensive survey of Western Asiatic prehistory,

• TE

LL Z

UB

EID

I H

,~M

A

M

k.

"TEL

L I~

LIm

VE

BA

BY

LO

~

.~.

CH

OG

A M

AM

I •

"~"

NIP

PUR

A

BU

SA

LAB

IKIJ

*..~

,~*

OU

~A

TELL

OU

E~'

[I -

~.~

* IE

LL

O

" ~k

'~.*

UR

UK

"" C

HO

GA

ZA

NB

IL

• TE

P¢ H

JSSA

R

Lt't

ba

C' ¢¢

BA

ND

AR

BU

SHIR

E •

TE

Pg Y

~,bl

V~

2~

3

~.

Fig

. 2.

Sit

es i

n W

este

rn a

nd S

outh

Asi

a m

enti

oned

in

the

text

, ex

clud

ing

thos

e lo

cate

d in

eas

tern

Ara

bia.

172 Potts

N

WAI)

SCALE

0 100 200 300 kin.

* JABAL DABA

* RAMLAT FASAD

* HABARUT

• MUGH$1tlN

* B m KHASFA

R J 37

F ig . 3 . Principal sites o f the Late Prehistoric A facies in eastern Arabia (ca, 5 0 0 0 - 4 5 0 0 B.C. ) .

the late F. Hours and his colleagues have placed the Qatar B sites within the period bracketed to ca. 7600-5000 B.C., although L. Copeland (personal communication) is of the opinion that the Qatar material dates to the end of this time span.

Inland sites with related, but not necessarily identical, material are known at Jabal Daba, 30 km south of the Yabrin oasis in southeastern Saudi Arabia (Masry, 1974, p. 91); Ramlat Fasad in northern Dhofar (Pullar, 1974, Fig. 9a-b); and Bir Khasfa, Habarut, and Mughshin in southern Dhofar (Smith, 1977, p. 74; Edens, 1988a, pp. 119-122). "Fasad points," made from "pointed, lamellar flakes on which a stem has been formed" (Edens, 1988a, p. 115 and


Fig. 2.1-13), are a distinctive type on these sites, particularly in the area of the Wahiba sands. These have been compared to type A.8 of PPNB date at Beidha, an Epi-Natufian type at Mureybit IB, Early Neolithic types at Abu Hureyrah, and type A. 1 at Umm Dabaghiyah (Edens, 1988a, p. 119) and have recently been discovered at RJ37 near Ras al-Junayz in easternmost Oman (Charpentier, 1991, Fig. 4.1-3, 5-7).

On the coast of Oman, the Wadi Wutayya facies represents a contemporary industry. Soundings in Wadi Wutayya, conducted in 1983, revealed over 1 m of deposit. The site was revisited over a long period of time, as the C-14 dates show. The date of 7250 B.P. + 85 years represents the Wadi Wutayya facies, while a date of 5725 B.P. ___ 100 years comes from an occupation contemporary with the "Arabian bifacial tradition" (see below), and a still later date of 3525 B.P. + 65 years, in association with sherds of Umm an-Nar pottery, probably marks an occupation from the period defined here as Early Historic A (M. Uerpmann, 1989, p. 170, 1992, p. 69). Quartz, followed by red and green chert, was the preferred raw material used in this facies, and retouch was applied to only 5 % of the tools recovered. In contrast to Qatar B, the Wadi Wutayya facies is not a blade industry. Unfortunately, no faunal remains were found, although "a hunter/gatherer economy is assumed to have existed" at this time (M. Uerpmann, 1992, p. 102). The excavators would correlate the Wadi Wut- ayya facies, Qatar B, and related sites in inner Oman and Dhofar with an early Holocene "climatic optimum" dating to ca. 7000-6500 B.P. (M. Uerpmann, 1992, p. 103). Biagi, on the other hand, believes that both the "coastal environment and climatic conditions" of a site such as Wadi Wutayya were "almost identical to the present ones" (Biagi 1992).

LATE PREHISTORIC B (CA. 4500-3800 B.C.)

The next major period in east Arabian prehistory is dominated by a large number of sites which generally fall into the "Arabian bifacial tradition," a lithic tradition characterized by fine pressure-flaking and extensive retouch, par- ticulafly on barbed and tanged arrowheads, unifacial " t i le" scrapers, and bifacial " t i le" knives and saws [so-called because these tools "are fashioned of flat flint 'tiles' of natural origin with edge-flaking along one of the edges" (Kapel, 1965, p. 150)]. Sites (Fig. 4) occur throughout the interior of eastern Saudi Arabia, in the eastern Rub al-Khali (Edens 1988b), around Yabrin (Sordinas, 1973, Fig. 9), Hofuf (Golding, 1974, Fig. 2), Abqaiq, and Ayn Dar (Potts et al., 1978, P1. 18), as well as along the coast (Masry, 1974, pp. 92-93). In Qatar, Kapel's original surveys identified approximately 60 main sites, as well as a host of minor sites, of what he called the A, C, and D groups (Kapel, 1967), all of which, as we now know, belong to the same complex (Inizan 1988). Later British (Snfith, 1978a,b) and French (Inizan, 1980, 1988) work in

174 Potts

N

ABv KHAMIS

DOSARIYAH

AYN DAR "

ABQAIQ *

HoFuUAtN QANNAS *

U A E SITES IN S HARJAH~ AJMAN, UMM AL-QAtWAIN~

JAZIRAT AL-HAMRA WAHIBA YABR[N * SANDS

SCALE

0 100 200 300 km.

AR RVB' AL t

Fig. 4. Principal sites of the Late Prehistoric B facies in eastern Arabia (ca. 4500-3800 B.C.).

Qatar has increased this number. On Bahrain, at least 11 sites have been recorded (Larsen, 1983a, p. 29).

In the United Arab Emirates comparable material has been found near the coast in Sharjah (Cauvin and Catley, 1984; Boucharlat et a l . , 1991a), Ajman (Haerinck, 1991; Millet, 1991), Umm al-Qaiwain (Boucharlat et al . , 1991b), and Jazirat al-Hamra (M. Uerpmann, 1992, pp. 89-90; Uerpmann and Uerp- mann, 1992) as well as inland around A1 Ain (Copeland and Bergne, 1976; Inizan and Tixier, t980; Gebel, 1982) and Khatt (picked up by this writer and numerous other visitors to the area during the past few years). H-P. and M. Uerpmann have recently suggested that the flint industry on these sites, which is characterized by a leptolithic tendency and a greater tendency to core reduc- tion, should be considered a facies unto itself. They have proposed the name Ras al-Khaimah facies after the region in which the first sites of this type were discovered in the U.A.E. C-14 dates of 5955 B.P. ___ 100 years (Hv13192) and 5845 B.P. _+ 105 years (Hv13191) have been obtained from the sites Jazirat al- Hamra 1 and 2, respectively (Uerpmann and Uerpmann, 1992).

When we move to the east coast of Oman fronting the Arabian Sea, we


find a variant of this tradition which has recently been called the Saruq facies (M. Uerpmann, 1992, p. 88), after the site of Saruq in the Capital Area of Oman, where, in 1983, 6892 flints were collected in an area of ca. 1300 m 2. This facies is distinguished from the rest of the Arabian bifacial sites by the absence of tanged and barbed arrowheads, although other bifacially retouched tools, such as simple, lancet-shaped foliates (also known in Umm al-Qaiwain), are present. Several types of groundstone were also found at Saruq. These included generally oval, flat pebbles of sandstone, limestone, or soft metamor- phic rock, which are pitted on both sides and probably functioned as hammerstones used in conjunction with chisels in the opening of shellfish, and pebbles with a pecked groove around the middle which served as net-sinkers (M. Uerp- mann, 1992, pp. 92-95). Similar finds have also been made at sites on the coast of the U.A.E. [for grooved net-sinkers in Ajman, see Haerinck (1991, Figs. 6-7)], although the hammerstones, in particular, continued in use well into the Early Historic and even later Pre-Islamic era (e.g., Potts 1990b, Figs. 152.2-3 and 154, 1991, Figs. 18 and 145-147).

Elsewhere in the Capital Area a series of now partially destroyed shell middens was found by an Italian expedition at Ras al-Hamra. The Saruq facies and the Arabian bifacial tradition are represented at RH5 (IsMEO, 1981, 1982, 1983; Biagi et al., 1984a,b, 1989; Isetti and Biagi, 1989; Macchiarelli, 1989; Maggi et al., 1985; Maggi and Gebel, 1990), RH6 (Maggi et al., 1985), and RH10 (IsMEO, 1981, 1983; Santini, 1987) (M. Uerpmann, 1992, Fig. 23). Both RH5 and RHI0 have yielded foliates (M. Uerpmann, 199t, p. 89). Five years of survey (1983-1987) along the coast of Oman have brought to light comparable finds on the southern coast of Oman, at sites such as Ras Saqallah (Biagi, 1988; M. Uerpmann, 1992, Fig. 24). Despite the fact that the earliest C-14 dates from RH10 fall, when corrected, into the late sixth millennium B.C. [6910 B.P. _+ 105 years (Hv-10001), 6755 B.P. ___ 100 years (Hv-10002)], M. Uerpmann is of the opinion that the Ras al-Hamra sites cannot, generally speaking, predate _+5000 B.C. [contra Biagi et al. (1984b, Fig. 6) and Potts (1990a, p. 37), where a sixth millennium date is assumed], because of the fact that the marine transgression at ca. 7000 B.P. would have inundated them (M. Uerp- mann, 1989, p. 170). She has pointed to the clustering of C-14 dates from Saruq (6685 B.P. _+ 105 years, 6445 B.P. _+ 100 years, and 6275 B.P. _+ 100 years run on Terebralia palustris from the surface of the site) and levels III and IV at Wadi Wutayya. When corrected for the reservoir effect by subtraction of approximately 800 years, these dates range between ca. 6000 and 5500 B.P. and suggest a calibrated date in the first half of the fifth millennium B.C. (M. Uerpmann, 1992, p. 88).

Many sites in the bifacial tradition have been found in the interior of Oman and Dhofar (Pullar, 1974, 1985, Figs. 3.7, 6.1, 7.1, 9.4, 15.3; Pullar and J~ickli, 1978, p. 54; Smith, 1976, Fig. 3.6, 1977, Figs. 3.17, 4.21; Villiers-

176 Potts

Petocz, 1989), near Ras al-Junayz (Charpentier, 1991, Fig. 4.9-11), and on the edge of the Wahiba sands (Edens, 1988a, Figs. 5-6). In some parts of the Rub al-Khali (Edens, 1988b, pp. 29-30) and Qatar (Kapel, 1967, p. 22; Smith, 1978a, p. 71, t978b, p. 78), groundstone has been found as well, although this should perhaps not unhesitatingly be taken as evidence for the processing of wild cereals (Kapel, 1967, p. 22), since groundstone could have been used in other, nonagricultural activities such as the preparation of meat or the softening of hides (P. Anderson-Gerfaud, personal communication).

A characteristic of many Arabian bifacial sites in northeastern Saudi Arabia (Masry, 1974; Oates, 1976, 1982, 1986; Oates et al., 1977; Vita-Finzi and McClure, 1991; McClure, 1992; Hermansen 1992), Bahrain (Roaf 1976), Qatar (Inizan, 1980; Courtois and Velde, 1984; Midant-Reynes 1985), and the coast of the U.A.E. (Cauvin and Calley, 1984; Boucharlat et al., 1991a,b; Haerinck, 1991) is the presence of imported Mesopotamian pottery (Oates et aI., 1977) of Ubaid 2-4 type. Much has been written over the years about the significance of this material in its east Arabian context (Frifelt, 1989). The absence of Ubaid 1 types in the region, coupled with the recent discovery of Ubaid 0, Choga Mami Transitional-related pottery at sites such as Tell Oueilli in southern Iraq (Calvet, 1986; Huot, 1989), makes it clear that the Ubaid culture did not orig- inate in eastern Arabia. Rather, the material culture of the indigenous population of the area is represented by the bifacial tradition, whereas the "flints from typical Mesopotamian 'Ubaid sites reflect a different techno-tradition" (Uerp- mann and Uerpmann, 1992) which we may consider that of the 'Ubaid population of southern Mesopotamia. The mechanisms responsible for the spread of pottery of Ubaid type throughout eastern Arabia, however, remain elusive. Else- where, I have suggested that we might be witnessing the southward, seasonal movement of fishermen who brought with them small quantities of painted pottery to trade with the local inhabitants of the coast, perhaps for products such as dates, meat, milk, or cheese. It is not unlikely that these Ubaid fishermen spent months at a time drying their catches on the shores of eastern Arabia (Potts, 1990a, pp. 57-58). Uerpmann and Uerpmann (1992) have suggested that Ubaid pottery may have been brought to the Gulf to exchange for local goods, such as pearls.

The appearance of a coarse, handmade, chaff-tempered redware on some of these sites would not seem to signal the origin of a local ceramic tradition but probably represents the ad hoc manufacture of pottery by ceramically untrained Ubaid fishermen or traders, which nevertheless may have been exchanged by them in order to obtain goods from the local population. The redware never occurs on Arabian bifacial sites which lack imported Ubaid pottery, and at al-Markh on Bahrain, where Ubaid pottery is present in the lowest levels and absent in the upper levels, no redware was found which could indicate


a perpetuation of ceramic manufacture after the imported painted wares ceased to circulate in the area (Roaf, 1976). Finally, it is interesting to note that obsidian blades, knives, and beads were found on the surfaces of a number of the Ubaid- related bifacial sites in eastern Saudi Arabia [Sites 1, 2, 7, and 23 (see Potts, 1990a, pp. 59-60)]. Analysis showed that the obsidian came from the Lake Van-Azerbaijan-Armenia area (Renfrew and Dixon, 1976, p. 141). It is logical to assume that this obsidian was brought south by the same people who brought the Ubaid pottery.

While Edens has advocated a broad dating for the Arabian bifacial assemblages, ranging from 8000 to 4000 B.P. (Edens, 1988a, p. 113). M. Uerpmann, as noted above, prefers a date in the first half of the fifth millennium B.C. The evidence of the imported Ubaid pottery, however, suggests that the tradition continued at least into the late fifth and early fourth millennium B.C.

Faunal remains have been recovered at a number of Arabian bifacial sites. The inland site of Ain Qannas, in the northern part of the Hofuf oasis, yielded only 23 identifiable mammals bones, predominantly ass (Equus asinus) teeth, with a few cattle and goat bones (Masry, 1974, p. 236). Uerpmann and Uerp- mann consider Ain Qannas a settlement of "hunting farmers" (Uerpmann and Uerpmann, 1992). On the coast of Saudi Arabia, excavations at Dosariyah yielded a collection dominated by cattle, gazelle, sheep/goat, and equids (Masry, 1974, p. 238), clearly suggesting that they were essentially herders who did a little hunting. Although only the Dosariyah cattle were considered definitely domesticated, it should be stressed that neither sheep nor goat would have been indigenous to the region (Uerpmann and Uerpmann, 1992). Abu Khamis, on the other hand, which is further up the Saudi Arabian coast to the north of Dosariyah, seems to have had a mixed economy in which fishing, shellfish gathering, and some hunting were practiced. The faunal assemblage there was dominated by fish remains, followed by turtle, molluscs, gazelle, sheep/goat, and rodent (Masry, 1972, p. 240). The diet of the coastal population in the U.A.E. at this time was dominated by shellfish, crabs and smaller fish, while small numbers of sheep, goat, or gazelle were exploited as well (Uerpmann and Uerpmann, 1992).

Generally speaking, Uerprnann and Uerpmann conceive of the populations of the Arabian biracial tradition as herders who spent most of the year grazing their herds in the interior pastures, repairing to the coast, perhaps in later winter, where they gathered shellfish and did some fishing (Uerpmann and Uerpmann, 1992). The fact that some of these herders also hunted (viz., their tanged arrowheads) is hardly surprising, for they must have made every effort to exploit wild resources in order to conserve their herds, or "walking larders." Herds would also have functioned as walking water purification systems. In areas where brackish water is often more common than sweet water, "herds of goats, camels, cows and s h e e p . . , convert inaccessible liquids into drinkable milk" (Lancaster and Lancaster, 1992, p. 345).

178 Potts

LATE PREHISTORIC C (CA. 3800-2800 B.C.)

It is clear that the use of chipped stone continued quite late in eastern Arabia (cf. the discussion of Structure 5 Ras al-Junayz 1, under Early Historic B, below) and that what is termed Late Prehistoric C (Fig. 5) probably does not represent the end of stone tool use in the region. Into this period, however, can be put various assemblages of fourth and third millennium B.C. date which are clearly post-Ubaid.

In eastern Saudi Arabia it is ditticult, in the absence of many C-14 dates, to know to what extent sites of the bifacial tradition continued in use during the post-Ubaid contact period. That many do postdate the Ubaid contact period seems likely. Sickle blades picked up at Tell al-Murrah in the Hofuf oasis (Raikes, 1967, Fig. 2.1-15; cf. Golding, 1974, p. 25), as well as similar ones from Bahrain (Glob, 1968, p. 26; Larsen, 1983, p. 29), could be compared with examples found on Ubaid sites in Mesopotamia (e.g., Kozlowski, 1987, Fig. 7.3, 8; Inizan, 1987, Fig. 3.2), but they are similar to specimens of mid- third millennium B.C. date from Abu Salahikh, as well (Crowfoot Payne, 1980).

N

TELL AL°MURRAH *

SCALE

I I IO 100 200 300 km.

RAs AL-HAMRA o ~ KHAWR AL-MILKH

BtR BIR'A

RAS AL-JUNA'J RAS AL-HADD

Fig. 5. Principal sites of the Late Prehistoric C facies in eastern Arabia (ca. 3800-2800 B.C.).


Denticulates, on the other hand, have been found in all of the Late Stone Age shell midden industries in Oman (M. Uerpmann, 1992, p. 81), suggesting that they were in use over quite a long period of time.

On Akab, a small island in the lagoon of Umm al-Qaiwain on the coast of the U.A.E., an interesting dugong butchery site has been recently excavated which yielded C-14 dates of 4555 B.P. + 70 years (Ly-5171), 5695 B.P. _+ 90 years (Ly-5172), and 5445 B.P. +_+ 90 years (Ly-5t73) (Prieur and Guerin, 1991). A number of long, shell or stone beads with perforations at each end found at Akab find parallels on sites of the Jamdat Nasr period (ca. 3200-3000 B.C.) in Mesopotamia [e.g., at Gubba (Li, 1989, Fig. 16.9 and P1. 38.9)].

In the Capital Area, M. Uerpmann has defined three facies which fall into this period. These are the Ras al-Hamra facies, of early fourth millennium B.C. date, best attested in the later phases at sites like RH5; the contemporary Bir Bir'a facies, named after a site on the east coast of Oman between Quriyat and Ras al-Hadd, the character of which cannot be fully described until more material from Ras al-Junayz (cf. Biagi et al., 1989a) and Ras al-Hadd is published; and the Bandar Jissa facies, a copper-using, "aceramic Bronze Age" component represented by the uppermost levels at sites such RHt, RH2/3, and RH10 in the Capital Area (M. Uerpmann, 1992, pp. 86-87). Much more will be known about these facies when the abundant material from the Italian excavations and surveys in Oman has been published, but already a number of interesting points have emerged. Diagnostic tools found on sites of the Ras al-Hamra facies include the "Ras al-Hamra drill," a piercing tool with steep retouch, and a particular type ofpikce esquill~e, probably used for opening shellfish, called the "Ras al- Hamra wedge" (M. Uerpmann, 1992, pp. 79, 82; cf. Maggi and Gebel, 1990, p. 18). Simple net-sinkers, consisting of flat pebbles with crude notches on each side (as opposed to the earlier, grooved examples of the Saruq facies), are found in all three of the late Omani facies. According to M. Uerpmann (1992, p. 96) "most of the netsinkers of the Ras al-Hamra-Facies and contemporary sites are too heavy to have been used to cast nets by hand from the shore. They must have been sinkers for nets put out from boats or whatever vessels were in use at that t ime." Shell fishhooks are found in the Ras al-Hamra facies, while copper ones appear in the Bandar Jissa facies (M. Uerpmann, 1992, 97, Fig. 31). Shell and stone beads, bracelets, and earrings are characteristic of the Ras al-Hamra facies and have been recovered both from surface sites (e.g., Khawr Milkh 1 and 2) and in excavation [e.g., in the cemetery at RH 5 (Coppa et al., 1985, P1.3; Biagi and Nisbet, 1989; Isetti and Biagi, 1989, Fig. 5)]. At RH 5, believed on the basis of a series of 23 C-14 dates to have been settled from the middle of the fourth to the early third millennium B.C. (for dates, see Isetti and Biagi, 1989, Table 1 and Fig. 2), there seems to have been an industry in the manufacture of earrings and plaquettes made out of locally available serpentinite, serpentinoschist, phyllite, micaschist, and plagioclase. A sand-tempered, gray/

180 Potts

black burnished, biconical pot from a pit in RH 5 is thought by Tosi and Cleuziou to be the earliest example of pottery found yet on the coast of Oman (leaving aside the Ubaid material from the coast of the U.A.E.), and they have proposed comparisons with material from Iran (Cleuziou and Tosi, 1989, Fig. 3). As they point out, however, the shape is unknown in fourth and third millennium graywares and is, to this writer, suspiciously reminiscent of more recent, submodern cooking pottery in eastern Arabia.

All of the sites belonging to the Ras al-Hamra, Bir Bir'a, and Bandar Jissa facies were almost exclusively marine oriented. As H.-P. Uerpmann (1989, p. 167) has said, "There is no doubt that the Stone Age dwellers of Ras al-Hamra were skillful fishermen. From finger-sized sardines to meter-long tunas all sizes of fish are represented among the bone finds." After fish remains, which pre- dominate by far, turtle, shellfish, whale, and dolphin were recorded among the faunal remains recovered at RH 5. The enormous biomass of the Arabian Sea was supplemented by various hunted, terrestrial mammals such as wild ass (Equus africanus), the Arabian gazelle (Gazelle gazella), and the Arabian thar (Hermitragusjayakari) (H.-P. Uerpmann, 1989, pp. 164-166). Small amounts of domestic animals, including sheep, goat, cattle, and dog, are present as well (M. Uerpmann, 1992, p. 102), and once again, it should be stressed that none of the domesticated ruminants or bovids were indigenous to eastern Arabia. If the seed fragments present at RH 5 are correctly identified as sorghum [(Nisbet, 1985), but several scholars have expressed some doubt about this identification (C. S. Phillips, personal communication)], then it represents the earliest sorghum in Asia and another important resource available to the populations of this period. Stones of Zizyphus, a protein- and carbohydrate-rich fruit, have also been recovered from RH 5 (Biagi et al., 1989b, p. 7).

PROTOHISTORIC A (CA. 3400-2900 B.C.)

Aside from those sites of the Arabian bifacial tradition, some of which we assume were still inhabited during the late fourth and early third millennium B.C., there are very few sites in eastern Saudi Arabia or Bahrain which fall into this time range (Fig. 6), and none yet discovered in Kuwait. The onset of a warm phase in the fourth millennium B.C. has been posited by Larsen (1983a, p. 146), and this may be partially responsible for the lack of settlement, On the other hand, a rise in sea level during the early third millennium B.C. may have inundated fourth millennium sites which were close to the coastline of that time (Larsen, 1983b, pp. 11-12). These points should not obscure the fact, however, that there must have been some population in the region between ca. 3400 and 3000 B.C., for several finds of probable Mesopotarnian origin have been made over the years. These include a possible clay bulla found near Dhahran, which has been compared with Late Urnk examples in Susiana and Mesopotamia


N

DHAHRAN

SABKHAH HAMMAM •

UMM AR-RAMADH *

t JABAL

TAW! SILAIM *

S C A L E

0 100 200 300 kin.

Fig. 6. Principal sites of the Protohistoric A facies in eastern Arabia (ca. 3400-2900 B.C.).

(Schmandt-Besserat, 1980, p. 363); a drooping, buffware spout of Late Uruk type from Dhahran (Ports, 1986b, P1. lb); and a stray sherd of Jamdat Nasr polychrome found near the Barbar temple on Bahrain (Mortensen, 1971, Fig. 3). Moreover, this is the time, contemporary with the Late Uruk and Jamdat Nasr periods in Mesopotamia, in which we find the earliest protocuneiform references to Dilmun in the archaic texts from Uruk (Englund, 1983; Nissen, 1985, p. 229).

During the early third millennium B.C. we find several sites with imported examples of Early Dynastic I and II pottery, usually storage jars with straight spouts, rope ridges, and collared rims (which may well have held a commodity such as oil). Examples have been found in nine graves excavated in the cemetery at Sabkha Harnmam, ca. 13 km southeast ofAbqaiq (Piesinger, 1983; Cleuziou, 1988; Zarins, 1989, Figs. 4-5), which was probably linked to an as yet unex- cavated settlement called AS 27 (Zarins, 1989, p. 78). Comparable finds have also been made near Hofuf at the settlement of Tell or Umm ar-Ramadh (Zarins, 1989, Fig. 9) and in the Dammam-Dhahran area (Potts, 1986b, P1. lc-d; 1989, Figs. 2-3).

182 Potts

When we look at the archaeological record in the Oman peninsula at this time, we are much better informed. Although Hili 8, in the At Ain oasis, is the only settlement in southeastern Arabia dating to ca. 3000 B.C. that has been excavated to date, it has provided some very important information. Excavated by a French team under the direction of S. Cleuziou between 1977 and 1984, the Period I occupation of the site consisted of an area of habitation, centering on a roughly square, mudbrick fortification (Building III) measuring ca. 16 m on a side, with a smaller, adjacent rectangular building (Building VI), as well as some enigmatic, adjacent drainage (irrigation?) ditches (Cleuziou, 1982, 1986, 1989a; Cleuziou and Tosi, 1989). Architecturally, the square tower with rounded corners was the predecessor of the later third millennium B.C. round towers which are one of the hallmarks of the later Umm an-Nar period (Early Historic A). Their defensive nature is indicated not only by analogy with the round towers of seventeenth century through submodern date which abound in Oman (Ports, 1991, p. 22), but by the massive manner of their construction. At Hill 8, and indeed at most third millennium sites (with the exception of Tell Abraq; see below), only the foundations of these buildings have been excavated. These consist of a thick ringwall and a crisscrossing pattern of interior crosswalls. The intervening space was occupied by sterile gravel fill. Located roughly in the center of the building was a stone-lined well. The entirety of this structure, however, served as the support for the actual living or use platform which would have stood higher up. Presumably, the walls of the tower rose higher still. Both psychologically and in material terms, these were fortified buildings, not unlike the Martello towers which originated on Corsica and spread throughout other parts of Western Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century.

Building VI at Hill 8 contained a deposit of charred seeds, as well as the impressions of plant matter, showing that by 3000 B.C. the agricultural regime of the site was a highly diversified one (Cleuziou, 1982). The domesticated cereals cultivated included emmer (Triticum dicoccum), bread wheat (T. aesti- vum), two-row (Hodeum distichon) and six-row (H. vulgare) hulled barley, six- row naked barley (H. vuIgare var. nudum), and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Melons (Cucumis sp.) and dates (Phoenix dactylifera) were also grown, while wild oats (Arena sp.) and jujube seeds (Zizyphus sp.) were gathered. The faunal inventory included domesticated sheep, goat, and cattle, as well as donkey (Equus asinus), dog, and camel. Thus, a fully developed, oasis economy was in place in the largest oasis in Oman by ca. 3000 B.C., and although the problem of water acquisition and management at this early date is not, as yet, fully understood, it is clear that whether from springs, surface runoff, wells, or a combination of all three, sufficient water was available to support this diversified economy. The early domestication of the date palm is particularly important since the shade of the palm is vital for the cultivation of fruits, vegetables, and cereals in an area as arid as eastern Arabia. Sorghum, moreover, although


present already over a millennium earlier at RH 5, was being cultivated at Hili 8, where impressions of domesticated Sorghum bicolor Linn. [Moench] ssp. bicolor have been identified by L. Costantini in mudbrick found in a context datable to ca. 2900 B.C. (Cleuziou and Costantini, 1980; for the date, see, however, Cleuziou and Tosi, 1989, p. 25). This antedates the cultivation of sorghum in either East Africa or India, areas traditionally associated with its exploitation (Cleuziou and Costantini, 1980). That the population of this period, as known from contemporary graves (see below), was herbivorous and consumed both sweet fruits (e.g., dates) and cereals has also been confirmed by dental anthropological investigations of material from graves excavated by the Danish expedition (HCjgaard, 1984, 1985; cf. Kunter, 1983; Macchiarelli t989).

Ceramically, Period I at Hili 8 evinces the beginnings of the later black- on-orange ceramic tradition of the later Umm an-Nar (Early Historic A) period (Cleuziou, 1989b, pp. 49-53). At the same time, there are signs of contact with Mesopotamia which parallel those documented above from northeastern Arabia. Several high-necked jars from the earliest occupation at the site are comparable to ED I and II types in Mesopotamia (Potts, 1986b, Fig. 6; Cleuziou and Tosi, 1989, p. 25).

The population of the Protohistoric A period was buried in single-cham- bered, stone graves composed of a double ringwall. These so-called "Hafit" graves were named because of the proximity of many of them to Jabal Hafit, a large rock outcrop outside of the AI Ain/Buraimi oasis near the border of Abu Dhabi and Oman (Potts, 1986b, pp. 128-134; 1990a, pp. 72-78). In fact, examples have been reported widely throughout the Oman peninsula, from Qam Bint Sa'ud in the north-central interior and the Wadi Suq near the Batinah coast, to Tawi Silaim in the Sharqiyah (Potts, 1986b, Map 2). The great novelty of these graves originally consisted in the fact that some of them contained what was unmistakably imported Jamdat Nasr potychrome pottery (During Caspers, I971; Frifelt 1971, 1980). In fact, there is much greater typological variety in the corpus of so-called Jamdat Nasr jars from the Oman peninsula than was originally realized, including forms which probably span the entire Early Dynas- tic era (Potts 1986b). A link to Iran can be seen in the presence of square beads of bone or ivory with two diagonal perforations, at least four examples of which have been found in the Hafit graves. These have very close parallels in Tepe Hissar II, in period IVC at Tepe Yahya (Potts, 1980, Fig. 57A), and at Susa during the Proto-Elamite period (Cleuziou and Tosi, 1989, Fig. 1), although examples are also known at Uruk (Limper, 1988, p. 1896, Fig. 333-334).

The Protohistoric A period in eastern Arabia is contemporary with the Late Umk through Early Dynastic I periods in Mesopotamia. As the Oman peninsula was rich in copper, and as there is evidence of small quantities of copper-bronze objects in the Hafit tombs, suggestive of an incipient metallurgical industry, it is logical to assume that, already by the Late Uruk or Jamdat Nasr period,

184 Potts

Oman's copper was traveling north to supply the needs of the city-states of southern Mesopotamia (Potts, 1986b, pp. 132-134, 1990a, pp. 85-89).

PROTOHISTORIC B (CA. 2900-2300 B.C.)

On Tarut island, opposite the Qatif oasis (Fig. 7), a considerable quantity of Early Dynastic II-III-related material has been found, including pottery and human statuary, as well as hundreds of plain and sdrie ancienne soft-stone vessel fragments, and alabaster bowls (Burkholder, 1971, 1984, e.g., Figs. 10, 13, 15a/d, and 16-17; Rashid, 1972; Ports, 1986b, Pls. 2-3, 1989, Figs. 4-15). The amount of Early Dynastic-related material on Tarut suggests the existence of close ties to Mesopotamia during the middle of the third millennium B.C., and although there is no evidence from the sizable mound in the center of Tarut which predates the late third millennium B.C. (Bibby, 1973, pp. 29-31; Masry, 1974, p. 143), the island was obviously already important several centuries earlier. It is tempting to see the appearance of these Mesopotamian imports in northeastern Arabia as a reflection of those contacts which are implied by the

N

TARUT-

1,8

SCALE

0 100 200 300 kin.

Fig. 7. Principal sites of the Protohistoric B facies in eastern Arabia (ca. 2900-2300 B.C,),


numerous references to Dilmun in Archaic Umk through Early Dynastic cuneiform sources (Englund, 1983; Nissen, 1985; Hru~ka, 1983; Pettinato, 1983; Potts, 1983, 1990a, pp. 85-92). On Bahrain, the presence of sherds of torpedo- based amphorae, probably imported from Mesopotamia and of ED III atfinity (as on Umm an-Nat; see below), in the basal levels of City I (see below under Early Historic A) suggests that the origins of the settlement on Ras al-Qalat may go back to the end of the Early Dynastic era, or the very late Protohistoric B period (Potts, 1990a, p. 157).

In Protohistoric B times occupation continued at Hili 8 (see above), and probably toward the end of this period (ca. 2600/2500 B.C.) circular, fortified towers (see above) were established at Hili 1 (Frifelt, 1975a) and Tell Abraq (Potts, 1990b, 199l). A new type of circular, communal grave, called the Umm an-Nar grave, appears in the Oman peninsula at this time, continuing in use throughout Early Historic A times. The name Umm an-Nar comes from that of the small island opposite the U.A.E. capital city of Abu Dhabi where, in 1958, T. Hillyard first showed P. V. Glob and T. G. Bibby examples of graves and a settlement which they were soon to excavate (Bibby, t964). As these were the earliest excavated assemblages of late third millennium B.C. material in the Oman peninsula, the name of the type site was once again given to the period which it represented, lasting from ca. 2500 to 2000 B.C. and spanning, in the terms used here, the Protohistoric B and Early Historic A periods. So-called "Umm an-Nat" graves are normally circular graves consisting of a wall of unworked limestone set upon a masoned plinth and faced with finely cut ashlars of variable size. Excavated examples range in diameter from 5 to 13 m and have been known to hold up to 200 individuals. In several cases (e.g., Umm an-Nar graves, I, II, IX, and X and the later, Early Historic A Hill North Tomb A), evidence has been found of a "second storey," consisting of a floor of thin slabs of stone propped up by rough stone supports (Vogt, 1985, pp. 129-130). Whether this was a regular feature, or an ad hoc arrangement to accommodate numbers of individuals in excess of what the available floor space of a given tomb could contain, is unknown. Two graves, one on Umm an-Nar and one in the Hili oasis, were decorated on the exterior with human and animal figures in raised relief (Potts, 1990a, Pls. V-VI; Frifelt, 1991). Individual interments were usually found in a flexed position with various grave goods, including ceramic and stone vessels, personal jewelry, and bronze weaponry, associated. It has been suggested that a particular type of beehive-shaped tomb (Frifelt, 1975a, pp. 389-391, 1975b; Ports, 1986b, pp. 131-132) represents a transitional stage between the Hafit and the Umm an-Nat types.

Physicochemical analyses have shown that a group of torpedo-based jars from some of the earliest graves on Umm an-Nar (Frifelt, 1991, p. 96) are in fact ED HI imports from Mesopotamia (Mynors 1983). One of the early Umm an-Nar graves also contained a sdrie ancienne soft-stone canister, comparable

186 Potts

to finds from the Royal cemetery at Ur (Frifelt, 1991, p. 105). A settlement on Umm an-Nar island, consisting of rectangular houses made of slabs of beach- rock, must have been founded at this time as well. A cylinder seal-impressed sherd found there (Amiet 1975) compares closely with Syrian, seal-impressed pottery from Hama, Tell Chuera, and particularly Ebla, datable to ca. 2500- 2250 B.C. (Amiet 1985).

Once again, if a raison d'Otre is sought for this evidence of contact with the north, then one is immediately led back to the early cuneiform sources which refer to the importation of Dilman copper (almost certainly of Omani origin).

EARLY HISTORIC A (CA. 2300-2000 B.C.)

At Hili 8 (Fig. 8) we see continuity of settlement extending from at least 3100-3000 B.C. through ca. 1900 B.C. (Cleuziou, 1982, 1989b). Nor is there a chronological gap of any kind in the funerary tradition. In every way, the Early Historic A (late Umm an-Nar) period is one of expansion. The number of sites, both graves and settlements, is far greater than in the preceding Pro-

N

ABQAIQ •

SCALE

0 100 200 300km.

H I L l

1, 8, TOMB A • BAT

• AMLAH

MAYSAR •

BAHLA

Fig. 8. Principal sites of the Early Historic A facies in eastern Arabia (ca. 2300-2000 B.C.).


tohistoric A/B (Hafit) periods. The evidence of local ceramic, stone, and metals industries is technologically impressive. Contacts with Mesopotamia are attested to in cuneiform sources and through imports, while contacts with Iran and the Indus Valley are demonstrated by archaeological finds of various types.

The major settlements of the period investigated to date include Umm an- Nar (Frifelt, 1975a, 1979a,b; Hoch, 1979; al-Tikriti, 1981), Ras Ghanadha (al- Tikriti, 1985), Hili 1 (Frifelt, 1975a, 1990), Hili 8 (Cleuziou, 1982, 1989a,b; Cleuziou and Tosi, 1989), Bidya (al-Tikriti, 1989b), and Tell Abraq (Potts, 1990b, 1991) in the U.A.E. and Maysar (Weisgerber, 1980a,b, 1981, 1991a), 'Amlah (de Cardi et al . , 1976), Bat (Frifelt, 1976, 1985; Brunswig, 1989; Gentelle and Frifelt, 1989), Wadi Bahla (Orchard and Orchard 1985), and Ras aI-Junayz (IsMEO, t981; Cleuziou et al. , 1988; Cleuziou and Tosi, 1989; Coltorti, 1989) in Oman. As noted above in connection with Period I at Hili 8, the earlier square tower of that era developed into a round tower which is a feature of all Umm an-Nar settlements. Excavated examples range in diameter from the 20-m tower at Bat (Frifelt 1976) to the 40-m tower at Tell Abraq (Potts, 1991). Depending on the availability of local raw materials, these were built of mudbrick (e.g., Hili 1, Hili 8, Bidya), stone (e.g., Maysar, Bat), or a combination of both (e.g., Tell Abraq). The towers were, presumably, the foci of the settlements of this period, although in some cases, such as the Hili and Bat areas, more than one tower per settlement has been documented. Whether these were all precisely contemporary or not, however, is not known, and some of the smaller ones may have functioned more as watchtowers than as true, defensive buildings. An indication of the potential size of these fortifications has recently been gained at Tell Abraq, where the preserved mudbrick interior features are some 8 m above the exterior base of the walls. Outside of these towers, all of which are equipped with a well, the population of each settlement need not have always lived in permanent, mudbrick, or stone dwellings, as found at Maysar (Weisgerber, 1981), but may have resided, at least to some extent, in cool, palm-frond houses not unlike the barastis which, until very recently, characterized this part of Arabia (Costa, 1985).

The population of the Early Historic A period was buried in large, communal tombs of the type which originated in Protohistoric B times. Individual inhumations from this period are not attested. Umm an-Nar graves have been found all over the Oman peninsula, from Ras al-Hadd in the east, to Khasab in Ras Musandam (Potts, 1990a, p. 95, n. 4), and Ras al-Khaimah (Shimal, Wadi al-Qawr) in the Northern Emirates (A1-Tikriti, 1981, t989a,b; Bibby, 1964; de Cardi et al . , 1976; Cleuziou and Vogt, 1985; During Caspers, 1970; Frifelt, 1975a,b, 1991; Gentelte and Frifelt, 1989; Haerinck, t991; C, S. Phillips, personal communication; Potts, 1990a, Fig. 11; Vogt, 1985; Weisgerber, 1990a, pp. 92-94; 1981, pp. 205-206). Tomb A at Hill North (Cteuziou and Vogt, 1985) is one of the best representatives of its type. An anomalous, rectangular

188 Potts

grave of this period has also been excavated recently alongside the circular grave at Mowaihat in Ajman (Haerinck, 1990-t991).

The subsistence base of the Early Historic A period (Potts, 1990a, pp. t27- 133) was as varied as it had been during the Protohistoric A/B period. Along the coast, at sites such as Umm an-Nar (Hoch 1979), Ras Ghanadha (A1-Tikriti 1985), and Tell Abraq (H.-P. Uerpmann, personal communication), fish, shellfish, dugong, and turtle were consumed in large quantities, although terrestrial mammals (camel, sheep, goat, bovids, oryx, gazelle) were kept and hunted, and agriculture (at least at Tell Abraq) was practiced as well. In the interior, Hili 8 again provides a long list of eukivars. The fact that some of the plants present in the Protohistoric period, including naked six-row barley, bread wheat, dates, wild oats, and melons, are absent in the Early Historic period is, in the opinion of this writer, more likely to be an accident of discovery and limited exposure than a true reflection of the economy of the period (Potts, 1990a, p. 131). The allegation that the Oman peninsula, during the late third millennium, was unable to feed itself, and received large cereal imports from Mesopotamia (During Caspers, 1989; Edens, 1992, p. 127), is pure fantasy and is, from the Mesopotamian side, supported by a single cuneiform text dating to the very end of the third millennium when the region may, in fact, have been under the control of the Ur III state (see below). The excavation of a well in the Maysar 25 tower produced a considerable amount of faunal material of Early Historic A date, including the incomplete skeleton of a wild ass or donkey and a nearly complete skeleton of a male ox, showing stress signs which indicate that it was employed as a draught animal, perhaps for plowing or drawing water from the very well in which it was found (Potts, 1990a, p. 133). Tell Abraq has produced a large collection of third millennium B.C. faunal remains, currently under study by H.-P. Uerpmann. Once again, both dental and skeletal studies have substan- tiated the excavated evidence for diet in this period (HCjgaard, 1980a, 1985; Kunter, 1981, 1983). On Umm an-Nar island an analysis of teeth from three burials excavated by the Danish expedition showed that the population subsisted on a diet of fish and game, rather than cereals (HCjgaard 1980a; cf. Kunter, 1991), a conclusion reached in the study of teeth from a contemporary tomb in the Wadi Jizzi, close to the Batinah coast of Oman (HCjgaard 1985). At Maysar, on the other hand, the dental evidence points to a diet rich in cereals and meat, suggesting a subsistence base of agriculture and herding (Kunter, 1981, p. 207; 1983, p. 340).

The industries of the Early Historic A period have been intensively studied in recent years. Foremost among these have been the processes of copper extraction, refining, and casting (Peake, t928; Meadow et al., 1976; Berthoud et aL, 1980, 1982; Kroll, 1984; Hauptmann, 1985; Hauptmann et al., 1988; Weis- gerber, 1980, 1991a; Pedersen and Buchwald, 1991). It has long been recognized that Oman was an important source of copper for Mesopotamia and, to


some extent perhaps, Susiana as well. This has now been confirmed by recent archaeometric investigations in Oman, where all stages of the metallurgical process have been documented, ancient areas of copper mining have been located, and ingots for export have been found. The ceramic technology of the Umm an-Nar period was also very advanced (Blackman et al., 1989; Wright, 1989; Frifelt, 1990), and the finer ceramics, often found in graves but attested in settlements (e.g., at Tell Abraq) as well, are made of finely tevigated clay fired at a high temperature and represent a standard of ceramic manufacture rarely matched in Western Asia. An important industry in soft-stone is also attested (David et al., t 990). Bowls, canisters, and compartmented vessels of soft-stone, decorated with a double-dotted circle made with a bow drill, in a style known as sdrie r~cente (Potts, 1990a, pp. 106-110), were probably used to hold fatty substances, such as unguents. Little is known of the glyptic of this time, but a three-sided, prismatic stamp seal with affinities to Central Asian material was found at Maysar (Weisgerber, 1980a,b; During Caspers, t983; Potts, t990a, pp. 110-112).

The foreign relations of the Umm an-Nar period are well attested. S~rie rOcente soft-stone of southeast Arabian origin has been found from Tello in southern Mesopotamia (T. F. Potts, 1989) to Mohenjo-Daro in the Indus Valley (Cleuziou and Tosi, 1989, Fig. 12). Ceramic parallels with sites in southeastern Iran and Afghanistan have long been noted (e.g., During Caspers, 1970; Frifelt, 1975a; Cleuziou and Vogt, 1985; Blackman et al., 1989; Wright, t989). Har- appan weights have been found at Tell Abraq (Potts, 1990b), while Harappan ceramics are now known at many sites including Tell Abraq, Ras al-Junayz (Tosi, 1986, Fig. 24), Asima (B. Vogt, personal communication), and Hili 8 (Cleuziou and Tosi, 1989, Figs. 10-11; Gouin, 1990). At least two Old Akka- dian kings, Mani~tusu and Naram-Sin, campaigned against the region, known in cuneiform sources as Magan (Potts, 1986a; Braun-Holzinger, 1987; Heimpel, 1982, 1987, 1988; Glassner, 1989), while the mention of an ensi, or governor, of Magan, during the reign of Amar-Sin (2046--2038 B.C.), suggests that Magan may, however briefly, have become a province of the Ur III empire late in the third millennium B.C. (Potts, 1990a, p. 144).

Farther north, the major settlement in eastern Arabia was the City I occupation at Ras Qatat/Qalat al-Bahrain on the island of the same name. There is no evidence of late third millennium occupation in Kuwait and, to date, nothing on Bahrain (apart from the stray Jamdat Nasr polychrome sherd and the fragments of torpedo-based storage jars on the Qalat, mentioned above) which could fill in the gap between the late Ubaid settlement at al-Markh and the foundation of the settlement which has come to be known as City I. Whether this gap is an artifact of exploration or not, 40 years of excavation has failed to identify any remains datable to between ca. 3800 and 2400 B.C. Due to the limited size of the excavated trenches, little is known of City I, the most important levels

190 Potts

of which were encountered in the North Wall Sounding (Potts, 1990a, pp. 156- 159). The diagnostic pottery of this period is known as chain-ridged ware. It is a coarse, handmade redware with lime-grit temper, decorated with plastic chain ridges. Although HCjlund (1989a) has stated that approximately half of the City I pottery from the Qalat is Mesopotamian in origin, further study of the material has led him to downscale this estimate drastically so that it now approaches only a few percent of the total (HCjlund, personal communication). Late Umm an- Nar black-on-orange fineware, imported Mesopotamian ED III torpedo-based amphorae, of the sort found on Umm an-Nat and noted above, and storage jars with raised, meandering ridges, also known in Umm an-Nar contexts [e.g., at Tell Abraq (see Potts 1990b, Fig. 28)], have all been fbund in City I levels in the North Wall Sounding, providing a synchronism with the southeast Arabian sequence which spans the last four centuries of the third millennium B.C. This is confirmed, moreover, by the presence of s~rie r~cente soft-stone in the same levels (Potts, 1990a, p. 158). Burials excavated at Rifa'a, in the north-central part of Bahrain, have also yielded imported Umm an-Nar pottery (Lowe, 1986), while the tombs and burial complex at Saar, consisting of hundreds of interlocking stone grave chambers (Ibrahim, 1982; Mughal, 1983), have produced numerous examples of sOrie r~cente soft-stone (Potts, t985, pp. 689-693, 1990a, p. 176, Table 3).

Apart from the graves and the single, City I settlement on Bahrain, there are at least two sites where contemporary religious buildings have been uncov- ered. At Diraz, a British team excavated what is, on analogy with the later temple at Saar (Killick et aI., 1991, Fig. 4), a small temple with columned interior (Potts, 1990a, p. 173). At Barbar, the Danish expedition excavated a large, temple oval with a rectangular shrine standing on it, the earliest phase of which (Temple Ia-b), is contemporary with the late City I and early City II (see below) levels in the North Walt Sounding (Andersen, 1986; Mortensen, 1986). The late Umm an-Nar sherds from Temple I are unlikely to predate 2200 B.C., according to S. Cleuziou (1986, p. 150).

Both the early graves and the settlement at Qalat al-Bahrain have also produced evidence of an indigenous glyptic tradition on Bahrain. The early, so- called "Persian Gulf seals," are circular stamp seals, normally made of soft- stone, with a high back ("boss") perforated longitudinally and incised in the opposite direction across the top surface (Bibby 1958). The sealing face shows animals, particularly a bull in profile, and in t 1 of 29 seals published to date, bears an Harappan inscription (Potts, 1990a, pp. 162-163 and Fig. 18). This suggests that Harappans, whose presence in the Oman peninsula at this time has already been mentioned, and who had, by this point, developed their own glyptic tradition employing square stamp seals, played a role in the actual "invention" of a sealing tradition on Bahrain. Contact with the Indus Valley is also attested to by the presence of at least three cubical stone weights (cf. Tell Abraq) in late

Eastern Arabia (ca. 5000-1200 B,C.) 191

City I and early City II levels in the North Wall Sounding (Bibby, 1986, p. 110).

Mainland northeastern A1abia was very much part of the same cultural sphere as Bahrain at this time. Although less welt explored, sites such as Tarut and Abqaiq have produced fragments of City I chain-ridged ware, Umm an-Nar black-on-orange fineware, black-on-grayware from southeastern Iran (cf. Wright 1989), incised grayware, sdrie ricente soft-stone, and pottery with Akkadian and Ur III parallels in Mesopotamia (Potts, 1990a, pp. 178-181; Zarins, 1989, pp. 81-83).

By this point, it is generally assumed that references to Dilmun in late pre- Sargonic, Old Akkadian, and Neo-Sumerian cuneiform sources pertain to Bah- rain (Butz, 1983a; Cornwall, 1946a; Heimpel, 1987; Hrugka, 1983; Pettinato, 1983; Potts, 1983, 1990a, pp. 181-189). In the late third millennium Dilmun was a source of wood and copper, the latter almost certainly originating in Magan, i.e., southeastern Arabia.

EARLY HISTORIC B (CA. 2000-1700 B.Co)

During the early second millennium B.C. Dilmun entered a period of expansion. The size and number of the known settlements on Bahrain increased, as did the number of burial mounds (Fig. 9). Evidence of a sizable population in nearby eastern Arabia, around modern Dhahran, is indicated by a large field of identical burial mounds. A colony was established on the previously uninhabited island of Failaka, in the bay of Kuwait, and contacts with Oman seem to have intensified as the need grew to acquire larger amounts of copper for the southern Mesopotamian market.

The center of this florescence seems to have remained Qalat al-Bahrain. During the early second millennium B.C. much of the main mound, the extent of which is estimated to cover t8 ha [or 45 acres (Bibby, 1974); contra Larsen (1983, p. 47), who, misciting Bibby (1974), puts the figure at ca. 41.7 ha], was enclosed now by a 3.5-m-thick city wall made of stone [HCjlund, (1989b, p. 55), puts the walled area of the settlement at ca. 250 x 600 m, or 15 ha]. Once again, our knowledge of this important site is hampered by the limited nature of the Danish excavations in so-called City II levels. The local ceramic industry witnessed an evolution (HCjlund 1986) and is characterized at this time by "red- ridged" pottery, with plain, rather irregular raised ridges, the successor of the City l "chain-ridged" ware. Seals became more abundant, and their iconogra- phy much more complex, featuring many different scenes of humans and animals engaged in various activities. The glyptic of this period shows definite, icono- graphic influence from Anatolia (Boehmer, 1986; Kjaerum, 1986), perhaps a result of the caravan trade which we know linked Dilmun with Marl and Assyria at this time (see below). An important settlement is currently under excavation

192 Potts

N

DHAHRAN

HILI 8, QATTARAH

KHUDRA, SA~ AsH-SHAN *

TAWl SA~ID •

SCALE

0 100 200 300 km.

SACHRUT AL-HADRI,

Fig. 9. Principal sites of the Early Historic B facies in eastern Arabia (ca. 2000-1700 B.C.).

by a British team at Saar, where a complex of remarkably regular, stone houses and a temple have been excavated (Killick et al., 1991; Crawford, 1991). Other, contemporary shrines on Bahrain include Barbar Temples II and early III (Ander- sen, 1986; Dtrring Caspers, 1971, 1973; Mortensen, 1971, 1986), which must have been one of, if not the, largest religious center on the island, and the so- called well temple at 'Ain Umm es-Sejour (Bibby, 1954).

A vast number of burial mounds (Durand, 1880; Cornwall, 1943, 1946b; Ibrahim, 1982; Mughal, 1983) dating to the early second millennium B.C. occur in massive concentrations throughout northern Bahrain (estimates of their total ranging around 100,000), as well as on the mainland around Dhahran (Cornwall, 1946b; Potts et al. , 1978; Zarins et al., 1984, 1989, pp. 81-83). Dental anthropological and skeletal studies of the human remains found in these graves con- firm the importance of the famous "Dilmun date" in the diet of ancient Bahrain (Nesbitt, 1992), for the incidence of caries is extremely high, and tooth extraction was even practiced (HCjgaard, 1980b; Littleton and FrChlich, 1989).

Cuneflbrna sources give us information on the principal deities worshipped in Dilmun, Enzak and Meskilak (Nashef 1984), and it it also interesting to note


that Enzak was venerated at this time at Susa in southwestern Iran (Vallat 1983), a site where excavations have also produced a number of Dilmun seals as well as locally manufactured imitations of Dilmun glyptic (Amiet, 1986). A group of texts from Ur, dating to the reign of Rim-Sin of Larsa, late in the nineteenth century B.C., documents the activities of a copper merchant named Ea-nasir who was one of the alik Tilmun, or "Dilmun traders" (Oppenheim, 1954; Leemans, 1960; Butz, 1983b; Zaccagnini, 1986; Potts, 1990a, pp. 221-225). One of the very few cuneiform tablets found at Ras al-Qalat contains three personal names, one with a patronymic, which are Amorite (Bmnswig et al., 1983, p. 107). The Amorites, generally considered nomads on the borders of Mesopotamia, may have been infiltrating the east Arabian region since the late third millennium, when "Amorites and diviners from Dilmun/Amorite diviners from Dilmun" were mentioned in an Ur III text from Drehem (Butz 1983a; cf. Zarins 1986). It has been suggested that pressure from such nomadic groups may have helped bring about the coalescence of an early Dilmun "state" (HCjlund, 1989b). Whatever the scope of Dilmunite interaction with the Amor- ites, it is clear that their presence in eastern Arabia was not such as to impede overland caravan traffic between Dilmun and the great city of Marl on the Euphrates during the late nineteenth and early eighteenth centuries B.C. Three letters from Marl, dating to the reigns of Shamshi-Adad I (1813-1781 B.C.) of Assyria and Hammurapi of Babylon (1792-1750), mention Dilmunite caravans and messengers (Potts, 1986d; Reade, 1986). Moreover, a recently published economic text from Mari mentions "oil for the king (lugal) of Dilmun" (Potts, 1990a, p. 229), which certainly suggests that some form of kingship existed in Dilmun by the Old Babylonian period.

The obvious vitality of Bahrain during the early second millennium B.C. is also reflected in the fact that, shortly after 2000 B.C., a colony was founded on the island of Failaka, off the coast of Kuwait, by people who must have come from Bahrain and perhaps also the opposite shore of eastern Arabia. Prior to this time, Failaka had been uninhabited, but the sudden appearance of pure City II pottery and stamp seals on the site of a domestic complex with associated temple, F3, within what has been interpreted as a palace, F6 (Kja~mm, 1986b; HCjlund, 1987), and at the site of a nearby, presumed "temple tower," also on F6 (Satles, 1983; Calvet and Salles, 1986; Calvet, 1989; Calvet and Gachet, 1990), suggests that indeed the island was colonized at the time. With time, Mesopotamian types enter the Failaka repertoire [cf. also the evidence of the fragmentary lapidary cuneiform inscriptions (Glassner, 1984, 1990)], but ini- tially they are numerically few in comparison with the pottery of Bahrain City II. In comparison with Bahrain, however, Failaka provides us with a much larger sample of Dilmun stamp seals (Kjeerum, 1980, 1983), perhaps because this was a more narrowly focused trading community, and relatively few of the levels on the Qalat dating to this period have actually been exposed. It is also

194 Potts

clear that soft-stone workshops existed on the island, and it is probable that the fragments of mid-third millennium B.C. soft-stone of so-called sOrie ancienne type found on Failaka, which predate the foundation of the settlement there by four to five centuries, were in fact already ancient scrap brought down from Mesopotamia to be recarved in the early second millennium B.C. (Ciarla, t985). Crucibles and slag from F6 also attest to the existence of a metallurgical industry on the island as well (Pracchia et a l . , 1985, p. 231), while three kilns excavated on F3 show that pottery was manufactured on Failaka as well (HCjlund, 1987, pp. 171-173). The City II-related horizon on Failaka is equivalent to periods 1-3A in the local ceramic sequence (Hg~jlund, 1987, Fig. 707).

Failaka is endowed with fresh water, available at depths of no more than 2 m (Potts, 1990a, p. 284), and indeed this would have been the water source for any gardening or farming, given the low annual rainfall in this part of the Gulf. Date stones from early second millennium B.C. contexts attest to the presence of the date-palm from the very beginning of human settlement on the island (Rowley-Conwy, 1987). A variety of desert shrubs was used as fuel, but the second millennium B.C. levels excavated on Failaka have not yielded the seeds of any cultivated plants (Willcox, 1990). French excavations in early second millennium B.C. levels on Failaka have brought to light a wide range of faunal remains, including domesticated sheep, goat, cattle, pig, and camel; gazelle, small numbers of dolphins, and dugong; as well as the remains of many different kinds of fish (Desse and Desse-Berset, 1990) and molluscs (Cataliotti- Valdina, 1990).

The early second millennium B.C. in the Oman peninsula belongs to the so-called early Wadi Suq period (Frifelt, 1975a; Cleuziou, 1981; Potts, 1990a, p. 234). Although it was once thought that the Wadi Suq period dated exclusively to ca. 2000-1700 B.C., it is now clear that a later Wadi Suq phase, spanning the centuries from ca. 1700 B.C. to the beginning of the Iron Age around 1200 B.C., is attested at both Tell Abraq and Shimal (see below). The old notion of a "Dark Age" between ca. 1700 B.C. and the beginning of the Iron Age was simply a reflection of inadequate exploration and excavation in the Oman peninsula (Potts, 1992b). And while there are, at the time of writing, fewer settlements from the Early Historic B (early Wadi Suq) period than from the preceding, Early Historic A (late Umm an-Nat) period, it is obvious from the large number of second millennium B.C. graves located throughout the peninsula that we cannot speak of depopulation at this time. Nor, if the evidence from sites such as Tell Abraq and Shimal is considered, is there any evidence for what was once envisaged as the transfbrmation of southeast Arabian society to full-time nomadism (Cleuziou, 1981).

Although part of a badly eroded, early second millennium settlement was excavated in 1976 and 1978 at Tawi Sa'id in the Sharqiyah by B. de Cardi (de Cardi et a l . , 1982), and at Hill 8 shortly thereafter (Cleuziou, 1981), it was not


until 1989 and 1990 that the excavations at Tell Abraq brought to light a better- preserved settlement from this period (Potts, 1990b, 1991). Not only was the large, Early Historic A (late Umm an-Nat) period fortification tower still in use, but a kind of stone-clad, brick enclosure wall was constructed, behind which settlement in barastis or tents was indicated by a plethora of postholes. Ceram- ically, we can detect some measure of transition from the Umm an-Nat to the Wadi Suq tradition, although generally speaking, the latter is technically less sophisticated, as indicated by the incomplete firing of much of the pottery (result- ing in a gray core) and by the coarser, vegetal tempering, which produced a result far inferior to the well-fired, finely levigated products of the late third millennimn B.C. (Mrry, 1989, 1991). String-cut bases are common, as is the use of string or cord to wrap vessels of large girth during firing, which subse- quently left string impressions on the walls of heavy storage jars. Painted Wadi Suq pottery, differing demonstrably from the Umm an-Nat tradition, is particularly common in the graves of this period (see below), although beakers with simple stripes under the rim are well attested at Tell Abraq. Ceramics of Isin- Larsa and Old Babylonian type attest to contacts with Bahrain, Failaka, and/or southern Babylonia (Potts 1992b), while the presence of nearly 300 sherds of City II red-ridged ware (Potts, 1990b, 1991, 1992b) proves that contacts with Bahrain and/or northeastern Arabia were constant.

Structure 5 at Ras al-Junayz 1 on the eastern headland of Oman is a "prehistoric" site consisting of stone structures, one of which was excavated and produced C-14 dates of 3450 B.P. + 70 years (Bin-3689), 3290 B.P. + 60 years (Bln-3652/I), and 3450 B.P. + 60 years (Bln-3652/II). When corrected according to Stuiver and Reimer, the first of these dates comes out to 1895- 1692 cal. B.C. (Biagi et al., 1989a, p. 19), although some of the pottery from the structure appears to be Umm an-Nar painted ware (Biagi et al., 1989a, Fig. 4.8). This may simply indicate that the building was inhabited continuously from the late third into the early second millennium B.C. The building, which also yielded sherds of Harappan pottery, is of interest because it was a workshop for the production of polished tings of Conus shell, using a chipped stone industry characterized by very little use of retouch. This clearly demonstrates the longevity of late prehistoric lifeways well into the Early Historic period.

Contemporary with this period of settlement we find a large number of collective burials, examples of which have been excavated in Ras al-Khaimah, particularly at Shimal, Ghaliah, and Dhaya (Donaldson, t984; de Cardi, 1988; Vogt, 1985; Vogt and Franke-Vogt, 1987; David, 1991; H/iser, 1991; Kfistner, 1991); at al-Quasis, in Dubai (Taha, 1982-1983); on Qarn Bint Sa'ud, north of A1 Ain (Vogt, 1985, p. 189); and at Qattarah, in the Hili oasis (Potts, 1990a, p. 240). These take various forms, including long, narrow, oval graves of so- called Shimal type; broader, oval graves with an internal wall running down the center (but not dividing) the chamber, of Ghalilah type; and graves of Shimal

196 Potts

type which have been enclosed by an outer ringwall, the so-called Khatt type (Vogt, 1985; Potts, 1990a, pp. 240-243). In addition, single-burial, subterra- nean cist-graves are also known, e.g., in the Wadi Suq near Sohar in Oman, from which the period takes its name (Frifelt, 1975a, pp. 405-408); at Khudra and Samad ash-Shan in the Wadi Samad (Weisgerber, 1991b, pp. 324-327); and at Sachrut al-Hadri on the island of Mesirah (Weisgerber, 1991b, pp. 324- 326). The Early Historic B (early Wadi Suq) period graves are characterized by a large amount of grave goods, including pottery, bronze weaponry [particularly socketed spearheads; arrowheads with flattened midrib, often incised with simple X's, and short, square-sectioned tang; and long, triangular dagger blades with rivet holes for attachment to a hilt, as described by A1 Shanfari and Weisgerber (1989) and Weisgerber (1991b)], soft-stone vessels belonging to the so-called s~rie tardive (David, 1991; H~iser, 1988, 1991), and personal jewelry (K/istner, 1991, Fig. 6a). The skeletal remains of the Shimal graves and their dietary implications have recently been the subject of considerable study (Grupe and Schutkowski, 1989; Kunter, 1981, 1983). Grupe and Schutkowski suggest, on the basis of trace element and stable isotope analysis of the skeletal material from three graves excavated at Shimal, that the population of the early second millennium B.C. lived on a diet rich in the milk and meat of domestic sheep and goat, and perhaps other terrestrial mammals such as camel (Grupe and Schutkowski, 1989, p. 82). Copper mining and refining at this time are well attested, both in the Wadi Samad (Hauptmann, 1985) and on Masirah island (Weisgerber, 1991b, p. 327).

The expansion of Dilmun in the early second millennium B.C. has often been viewed in conjunction with the cessation of direct trade between Ur and Magan (Oman) at the end of the Ur III period, ca. 2000 B.C. (e.g., Oppenheim, 1954). Dilmun, it was generally assumed, had become Babylonia's major southern copper broker, effectively inserting itself between the supplier, Magan, and the market, Babylonia. The presence of almost 300 sherds of City II red-ridged ware at Tell Abraq suggests that the contacts which were assumed to have taken place between Dilmun and Magan, it is assumed for the acquisition of copper, indeed took place. In the interior of Oman, Wadi Suq period copper extraction and refinement have been documented (Hauptmann, 1985; Hauptmann et al., 1988), but there is a need to differentiate more closely between slag concentrations dating to the Umm an-Nar period (Protohistoric B and Early Historic A) and the early, middle, and late Wadi Suq period (Early Historic B-D).

EARLY HISTORIC C (CA. 1700-1500 B.C.)

This mid-second millennium horizon (Fig. 10) is represented on Bahrain by City IIf and City IIIa (Hgtjlund, 1986, pp. 219-220), while on Failaka it is roughly equivalent to period 3A/B and would equate to a late Old Babylonian/


Fig. 10. Principal sites of the Early Historic C facies in eastern Arabia (ca. 1700-1500 B.C.).

early Kassite horizon in Mesopotamia, if material from this poorly known era were available. According to HCjtund, the later phases of Temple III at Barbar date to this period as well (HCjlund, 1986, p. 224). Recently published evidence from Qalat aI-Bahrain shows that the earliest madbasa (an installation for the manufacture of date honey) yet discovered in Western Asia was in operation during City IIIa times (HCjlund 1990).

In the Oman peninsula, Tell Abraq is the only site yet investigated where excavations have brought to light material dating to this period. Unlike the earlier second-millennium assemblage, with its abundance of City II red-ridged pottery, or the latest Wadi Suq horizon (see below), which has Kassite and Middle Elamite-related material, the middle Wadi Suq horizon at Tell Abraq is characterized by the appearance of distinctive forms combined with incised decoration, such as large jars with comb incision around the shoulder (e.g., Ports, 1990b, Fig. 87.4-Fig. 88), sometimes topped with painted, wavy lines as well (e.g., Potts, 1990b, Fig. 81.1-Fig. 82, bottom). Large jars with deep grooves around the body also occur, and examples of this kind of pottery have also been found at the small site of Khor-Ile in Qatar (Edens, 1981, Fig. 6,

198 Pot~

middle; Potts, 1992b). Soft-stone vessels from this period, decorated with a combination of incised lines and double-dotted circles, were traded widely throughout the Gulf region and have been found not only on Failaka, Bahrain, and Tarut, but at Bushire and Susa in Iran as well (Potts, 1992b).

EARLY HISTORIC D (CA. 1500-1200 B.C.)

We can discern a third phase within the Wadi Suq period dating to the period ca. 1500-1200 B.C. in the sequence at Tell Abraq (Fig. 11), where there is a clear evolution in the local ceramic industry. A settlement which appears to date exclusively to this period is that of Shimal (Vogt and Franke-Vogt, 1987; Franke-Vogt, 1991; Glover, 1991; H~iser, 1991; M613~, 1991; Velde, 1991, 1992), where some 50-60% of the pottery can be paralleled with the late Wadi Suq levels in Squares OI and I Tell Abraq (Velde, 1992, p. 96). C-14 dates of 1570-1465 cal. B.C. (Hv14520) and 1410-1250 cal. B.C. (Hv14521) have been

N

DHAHRAN

NIZWA •

SCALE

0 I00 200 300 kin.

Fig, 11. Principal sites of the Early Historic D facies in eastern Arabia (ca. 1500-1200 B.C.).


obtained from the settlement (Velde, 1992, p. cf. Franke-Vogt, 1991, p. 197). Several dozen imported sherds of Kassite and Middle Elamite affinity have been found in mid to late second-millennium B.C. levels at Abraq, and it is clear that there is no gap between the end of the Wadi Suq period and the beginning of the Iron Age at the site. A clearly Middle Elamite cylinder seal of faience with good parallels at Susa and Choga Zambit in Iran was also found in a late Wadi Suq period context [(Potts, 1990b, Figs. 150-151), where it was, as excavation in 1992 proved, mistakenly assigned to the early Iron Age; corrected by Potts (1992b)]. Burials which probably belong to this period include the collective burial at al-Wasit, in Oman (Weisgerber, 1991b, p. 328), and perhaps the somewhat younger individual "warrior burial" at Nizwa (al-Shanfari and Weis- gerber, t989). Grupe and Schutkowski's trace element and stable isotope analyses of the skeletal material from a burial at Shimal belonging to this horizon suggest that the diet of the population was based largely on molluscs (Grupe and Schutkowski, 1989, p. 82; Glover, 1991), a conclusion borne out by the results of the excavations in the settlement at Shimal, as well, where over a ton of molluscs was recovered in the first two seasons of excavation alone (Vogt and Franke-Vogt, 1987, pp. 91-93).

In addition to the remains of a "storeroom" excavated at Qalat al-Bahrain, many graves on Bahrain, particularly those at A1-Hajjar (Rice 1988), have yielded material of Kassite or Middle Babylonian affinity, including several Mitanni Common Style cylinder seals. The large amount of Kassite pottery on Bahrain (Denton and MacAdam, 1992, pp. 125-126) was not, however, merely the by- product of commerce. By the fourteenth century, as we know from cuneiform sources, a Kassite governor, with close ties to Nippur, was stationed in Dilmun (Cornwall, 1952; Potts, 1986c; Reade, 1986). Similar Kassite pottery has been recovered from grave A6 in the Dhahran moundfield (Zarins et al. , 1984, P1. 43), while related finds have also been made in a shallow settlement consisting of a few simple stone foundations for tents (?) at Khor-Ile Sud in Qatar (Edens, 1981).

This same horizon is also well represented on Failaka, (HCjlund 1987), where there is basic continuity in settlement from the City II-related, Isin-Larsa/ Old Babylonian settlement, through the Kassite, City III-retated periods 3B to 4B, and perhaps as late, in Mesopotamian terms, as the Isin II period. Along with the ceramic markers which show a clear affinity to Bahrain and Babylonia, it is also interesting to note the presence on Failaka of glazed wares which can be paralleled in thirteenth-century B.C. Kassite contexts in Mesopotamia, e.g., at Babylon, Tell Imlihiye, and Tell Zubeidi (Potts, 1990a, p. 275 and Fig. 32). The Danish excavations on Failaka have also yielded examples of other vitreous materials, including high-magnesium glazed waves and glass, dating to this period (Pollard and HCjlund, 1983; Pollard, 1987).

200 Potts

CONCLUSION

This survey was written primarily for scholars in fields other than Arabian archaeology, not so much as a distillation of the pre-Iron Age archaeology of the region, but as an aid to help facilitate entry into what is often perceived as a marginal subject area and as a bibliographical guide. Quite obviously, it is not possible, within the limits of a study such as this, to go into all of the problems which exist, but if nothing else, the bibliography should alert scholars to the enormous amount of research that has been going on in this region during the past few decades, and this will, I hope, encourage more archaeologists to take cognizance of eastem Arabia in studying the broader issues of Western Asiatic archaeology and early history. It should also be stressed that the chronological limits of this essay reflect the task which I was asked to undertake for the Journal of Worm Prehistory. In studying eastern Arabia, there is no justi- fication for supposing that a curtain rose, or fell, at the end of what is conven- tionally termed the Bronze Age (Early Historic D) or at the beginning of what is usually called the Iron Age (Early Historic E). The morphology of settlements and artifacts, the patterns of agriculture, fishing, hunting, and gathering, and the involvement of the different subareas of eastern Arabia with neighboring political powers continued to evolve after this point, as they had been doing for thousands of years. Thus, I would not wish to give the impression that the "early periods" can be studied quite satisfactorily without paying any attention to the "late periods," nor would I wish to encourage the disciplinary divisions which already exist in Western Asiatic archaeology.

Finally, I would like to close with a few words about "marginality" and "center and periphery." For many years, the study of the great civilizations and cultural centers of western Asia has so dominated the research agenda in this part of the world that little work, relatively speaking, has been conducted in the interstices between those centers. Yet as this survey has shown, many of the same problems being addressed today in Egypt, Palestine, Anatolia, Syria, Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley are under investigation in the Gulf region. Hunter-gatherer adaptation to the desertic environment, problems of early domesticates, the growth in societal complexity, interregional commerce, the evolution of metallurgical and ceramic technologies, the scale and significance of foreign influences, climatic and environmental problems, and a host of other topics are all being studied here, and many of these studies have undoubted implications for our understanding of the allegedly more "civilized" parts of Western Asia. Yet to persist in considering eastern Arabia marginal is to deny what, in no uncertain terms, many of the cuneiform sources tell us. The personal involvement of numerous Mesopotamian and later Persian rulers in the affairs of this region would never have occurred if the gains to be won in this arena


had not been considerable. In my opinion, the question of marginality can be traced back to the beginnings of colonial exploitation in the region. Successive Portuguese, Ottoman, Dutch, Persian, and finally, British Indian involvement turned what had been, well into the Medieval era, a prosperous area into an economically stagnant one. This lingering shadow hung over the region until the discovery of oil transformed the societies of the Gulf region and brought them undreamed of wealth, accentuating the contrast with their poverty in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Yet it should be stressed that, by the nineteenth century, copper mining and refining had ceased altogether in Oman; the transit trade between India and Mesopotamia via Bahrain, which must have made the merchants of Dilmun the envy of many an Old Babylonian resident of Ur, had long since come to an end; and the pride with which Sargon of Agade boasted that ships from Dilmun, Magan, and Meluhha made fast at the quay of Agade in the twenty-fourth century' B.C. would have been unimaginable to a sailor from Dubai or Basra. The stamp of marginality which clings to the eastern Arabia of the nineteenth and prepetroleum twentieth century has distorted the reality of the more ancient past. I have no desire to mythologize that past and turn it into some sort of glorious Golden Age; rather I simply wish the stigma of marginality to be recognized as the product of relatively recent events.

This brings me, ultimately, to question what has become almost an industry' in the historical and archaeological sciences lately, namely, center-periphery studies. Like the elusive Dark Ages of so many regions, which, as in the case of southeastern Arabia, quickly fade away with the intensification of research, the definition of "centers" and "peripheries" has a quantitative component about it. Areas which are understudied are all too easily categorized as periph- eral, while those where much work has been conducted are almost automatically considered centers. Yet we shall never understand ancient Western Asia if we approach it as a landscape dominated by several megacenters, viz., Sumer (later Babylonia and Assyria) and Egypt, each with its periphery. Research conducted during the past three decades in many different parts of Western and Central Asia, including eastern Jordan, northern Syria, Luristan, eastern Ivan, Turk- menistan, Bactria, and Margiana, not to mention northeastern and southeastern Arabia, has conclusively demonstrated that a mosaic of interlocking cultures flourished throughout this vast region. The complexity of that mosaic and the multidirectionality of cultural orientations throughout space and time cannot be reduced to a simplistic center-periphery formula, for to do so is an abuse of both the archaeological and the historical record. A study of the late prehistory, protohistory, and early history of eastern Arabia, while interesting in its own right, may also, it is hoped, help to redress some of that imbalance in the historical and archaeological scholarship of Western Asia as we know it today.

202 Potts

AC KNOWLEDGM ENTS

It is obvious from the nature of a study such as this and the bibliography appended here that I have drawn on the work of innumerable individuals, many of them good friends. In particular, ! would like to acknowledge my debt to Margarethe Uerpmann's (1992) recent study of the Late Stone Age in southeastern Arabia, which offers the first attempt at putting the many different facies now known in the Oman peninsula into some kind of order. Both Hans-Peter and Margarethe Uerpmann were kind enough to read an early draft of this paper, contributing greatly to the clarification of a number of obscure points. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers who read an early draft of this paper for their suggestions, which, if not followed in each case, were nevertheless appreciated. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Angela E. Close for her patience and advice. The paper took much longer to produce than either she or I ever anticipated.

It will be obvious to scholars familiar with this area that some of the individual chronological assignments of facies described here differ from those found in some of my previous works (particularly Potts, 1990a, 1992a). This is a simple reflection of the growth in material available since those earlier studies were written and the consequent refinements in chronology which have thereby been made possible. I therefore stress that the chronology followed here supersedes what appears in my earlier works, a point which is particularly important to bear in mind when reading my now very antiquated contribution to the greatly delayed third edition of the late R. W. Ehrich's Chronologies in OM World Archaeology (Potts, 1992a).

REFERENCES

A1-Shanfari, A. A. B,, and Weisgerber, G, (1989). A late bronze age warrior burial from Nizwa (Oman). In Costa, P. M., and Tosi, M. (eds,), Oman Studies, Serie Orientale Roma LXIII, Rome, pp. 17-30.

A1-Tikriti, W. Y. (1981). Reconsideration of the Late Fourth and Third Millennium B.C. in the Arabian Gulf with Special Reference to the United Arab Emirates, Ph.D. dissertation, Trinity College, Cambridge.

AI-Tikfiti, W. Y. (1985). The archaeological investigations on Ghanadha Island t 982-1984: Further evidence for the coastal Umm an-Nar culture. Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates 4: 9-19.

A1-Tikriti, W. Y. (1989a). Umm an-Nar Culture in the Northern Emirates: Third millennium BC tombs at Ajman. Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates 5: 89-99.

Al-Tikriti, W. Y. (1989b). The excavations at Bidya, Fujairah: The 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C. culture. Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates 5:101-114.

Amiet, P. (1975). A cylinder seal impression found at Umm an-Nar. East and West 25: 425--426. Amiet, P. (1985). Quelques trmoins des contacts de Suse avec les pays du Levant au IIIe et IIe

milldnaires. In Durand, J.-M., and Kupper, J.-R. (eds.), Miscellanea Babylonica: MElanges offerts g~ Maurice Birot, Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris, pp. 9-12.

Amiet, P. (1986). Susa and the Dilmun culture. In A1 Khalifa, H. A., and Rice, M. (eds.), Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology, Kegan Paul International, London, pp. 262-268.


Andersen, H. H. (1986). The Barbar Temple: Stratigraphy, Architecture and Interpretation. In AI Khalifa, H. A., and Rice, M. (eds.), Bahrain Through the Ages: the Archaeology, Kegan Paul International, London, pp. 165-177.

Berghaus, H. (1832). Geo-hydrographisches Memoir zur Erklgirung und Erlaatering der reduzirten Karte vom Persischen Golf. Justus Perthe, Gotha.

Berghaus, H. (t 835). Geo-hydrographisches Memoir zur Erklarung and Erlaatering der General- Karte yon Arabia und dem NiI-Lande, Justus Perthe, Gotha.

Berthoud, T., Bonnefous, S., Dechoux, M., and Frangaix, J. (1980). Data analysis: Towards a model of chemical modification of copper from ores to metal. In Craddock, P. T. (ed.), Proceedings of the XIXth Symposium on Archaeometry, London, pp. 87-102.

Berthoud, T., Cleuziou, S., Hurtel, L. P., Menu, M. and Volfovsky, C. (1982). Cuivres et alliages en Iran, Afghanistan, Oman au cours des IVe et IIIe millEnaires. Pal~orient 8(2): 39-54.

Biagi, P. (1988). Surveys along the Oman Coast: Preliminary report on the 1985-1988 campaigns. East and West 38: 271-291.

Biagi, P. (1992). A radiocarbon chronology for the aceramic shell-middens of coastal Oman. Ara- bian Archaeology and Epigraphy (in press).

Biagi, P., and Nisbet, R. (1989). Some aspects of the 1982-1985 excavations at the aceramic coastal settlement of RH5 at Qmvn (Muscat-Sultanate of Oman). In Costa, P. M., and Tosi, M. (eds.), Oman Studies, Serie Orientale Roma LXIII, Rome, pp. 31-46.

Biagi, P., Nisbet, R., and Maggi, R. (1984a). Excavation at the RH5 Settlement, Qurm, Winter 1984-1985. East and West 34: 455-465.

Biagi, P., Torke, W., Tosi, M., and Uerpmann, H.-P. (1984b). Qurum: A case study of coastal archaeology in Northern Oman. World Archaeology 16: 43-61.

Biagi, P., Jones, D. A., and Nisbet, R. (1989a). A preliminary report on the excavation of structure 5 at Ra's al-Junayz 1 (Sultanate of Oman). Rivista di Archeologia 13: 18-30.

Biagi, P., Maggi, R., and Nisbet, R. (1989b). Excavations at the Aceramic Coastal Settlement of RH5 (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman), 1983-5. In Frifelt, K., and SCrensen, P. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1985, Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Occasional Paper 4, London, pp. 1-8.

Bibby, T. G. (1954), Tyrebr0nden (The Well of the Bulls). Kuml 1954: 154-163. Bibby, T. G. (1958). The "'Ancient Indian Style" Seals from Bahrain. Antiquity 32: 243-246. Bibby, T. G. (1964). A forgotten civilization of Abu Dhabi. B.P. Magazine 13: 24-33. Bibby, T. G. (1973). Preliminary Survey in East Arabia 1968, Jutland Archaeological Society

Publication XII, Aarhus. Bibby, T. G. (1974). Bahrain and the Arabian Gulf. In Hawkes, J. (ed.), Atlas of Ancient Archae-

ology, McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 187. Bibby, T. G. (1986). The origins of the Dilmun civilization. In At Khalifa, H. A., and Rice, M.

(eds), Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology, Kegan Paul International, London, pp. 108-115.

Blackman, J. Mfry, S., and Wright, R. P. (1989). Production and exchange of ceramics on the Oman Peninsula from the perspective of Hill. Journal of Field Archaeology I6: 61-77.

Boehmer, R. M. (1986). Einftfisse der Golfglyptik auf die anatolische Stempelglyptik zur Zeit der assyrischen Handelsniederlassungen. Baghdader Mitteilungen 17: 293-298.

Boucharlat, R., Dalongeville, R., Hesse, A., and Millet, M. (t991a). Occupation humaine et environnement au 5e et au 4e millrnaire sur la c6te Sharjah-Umm al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.). Ara- bian Archaeology and Epigraphy 2: 93-106.

Boucharlat, R., Haerinck, E., Phillips, C. S., and Potts, D. T. (1991b). Note on an Ubaid-pottery site in the Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwan. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 2: 65-71.

Braun-Hotzinger, E. A. (1987). Nochmals zu Naramsins "Beute yon Magan." Oriens Antiquus 26: 285-290.

Brice, W. C. (1966). South-West Asia, A Systematic Regional Geography VIII, London. Brunswig, R. H., Jr. (1989). Culture, history, environment and economy as seen from an Umm

an-Nar settlement: Evidence from test excavations at Bat, Oman, 1977/78. Journal of Oman Studies 10: 9-50.

Brunswig, R. H., Jr., Parpola, A., and Potts, D. T. (1983). New Indus type and related seals from the Near East. In Potts, D. T. (ed.), Dilmun: New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bahrain, Berliner Beitr~ige zum Vorderen Orient 2, Reimer, Berlin, pp. 101-115.

Burkholder, G. (1971). Steatite carvings from Saudi Arabia. Artibus Asiae 33: 306-322.

204 Potts

Burkholder, G. (1984). An Arabian Collection: Artifacts from the Eastern Province, GB Publica- tions, Boulder City.

Butz, K. (1983a). Dilmun in Wirtschaftstexten der Ur-III-Zeit. In Potts, D. T. (ed.), Dilumn: New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bahrain, Berliner Beitr/ige zum Vorderen Orient 2, Reimer, Berlin, p. 91.

Butz, K. (1983b). Dilmun in the altbabylonischen Quellen. In Potts, D. T. (ed.), Dilmun: New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bahrain, Berliner Beitr~ige zum Vorderen Orient 2, Reimer, Berlin, pp. 143-145.

Calvet, Y. (1986). La phase Oueilli de l 'rpoque d'Obeid. In Huot, J.-L (ed.), Prdhistoire de la M~sopotamie, Editions du CNRS, Paris, pp. 129-139.

Calvet, Y. (1989). Failaka and the northern part of Dilmun. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 19: 5-11.

Calvet, Y., and Gachet, J. (eds.) (1990). Failaka Fouilles Frangaises 1986-1988, Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 18, Lyons.

Calvet, Y., and Salles, J.-F. (eds.) (1986). Failaka Fouilles Francaises 1984-1985, Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 12, Lyons.

Carter, H. J. (1851). A geographical description of certain parts of the southeast coast of Arabia to which is appended a short essay on the comparative geography of the whole of this coast. Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 3/2:224-317.

Cataliotti-Valdina, J. (1990). Les coquillages de Failaka. In Calvet, Y., and Gachet, J. (eds.), Failaka Fouilles Fran9aises 1986-1988, Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 18, Lyons, pp. 71-84.

Cauvin, M.-C., and Calley, S. (1984). Annexe 1: Premieres observations sur le matrriel lithique. In Al-Abboudi, N. H. (ed.), Survey in Sharjah Emirate, U.A.E. on behalf of the Department of Culture, Sharjah, First Report (1984), Department of Culture and Information, Sharjah, pp. 17-20.

Charpentier, V. (1991). La fouille du campement prrhistorique de Ra's A1 Junayz 37 (RJ 37)-- Sultanat d'Oman. Pal~orient 17: 127-141.

Childe, V. G. (1944). Archaeological ages as technological stages. Journal of the Royal Anthro- pological Institute 74: 1-19.

Ciarla, R. (1985). Bronze-Age crafts at Failaka: Some preliminary observations on stone vase fragments. East and West 34: 396-406.

Cleuziou, S. (1981). Oman Peninsula in the early second millennium B.C. In H~irtel, H. (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1979, Reimer, Berlin, pp. 279-293.

Cleuziou, S. (1982). Hili and the beginnings of oasis life in Eastern Arabia. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 12: 15-22.

Cleuziou, S. (1986). Dilmun and Makkan during the third and early second millennia B.C. In AI Khalifa, H. A., and Rice, M. (eds.), Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology, Kegan Paul International, London, pp. 143-155.

Cleuziou, S. (1988). Dilmoun-Arabie (en marge de C. M. Piesinger: "The Legacy of Dilmun"). In Salles, J.-F. (ed.), L'Arabie et ses mers bordikres, Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 16, Lyon, pp. 27-58.

Cleuziou, S. (1989a). Excavations at Hili 8: A preliminary report on the 4th to 7th campaigns. Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates 5" 61-87.

Cleuziou, S. (1989b). The chronology of protohistoric Oman as seen from Hili. In Costa, P. M., and Tosi, M. (eds.), Oman Studies, Serie Orientale Roma LXIII, Rome, pp. 47-78.

Cleuziou, S., and Costantini, L. (1980). Premiers 616ments sur l'agriculture protohistorique de l'Arabie orientale. Paldorient 6: 245-251.

Cleuziou, S., and Tosi, M. (1989). The southeastern frontier of the ancient Near East. In Frifelt, K., and SCrensen, P. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1985, Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Occasional Paper 4, London, pp. 15-48.

Cleuziou, S., and Vogt, B. (1985). Tomb A at Hili North (United Arab Emirates) and its material connections to Southeast Iran and the Greater Indus Valley. In Schotsmans, J., and Taddei, M. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1983, Istituto Universitario Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici Series Minor XXIII, Naples, pp. 249-277.

Coltorti, M. (1989). Geomorphological Characteristics of the Ras al-Junayz Area (Sultanate of


Oman). In Costa, P. M., and Tosi, M. (eds.), Oman Studies, Serie Orientale Roma LXIII, Rome, pp. 79-96.

Copeland, L., and Bergne, P. (1976). Flint artifacts from the Buraimi area, Eastern Arabia and their relations with the Near Eastern post-Paleolithic. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 6: 40-61.

Coppa, A., Macchiarelli, R., Salvatori, S., and Santini, G. (1985). The prehistoric graveyard of Ra's a/-Hamra (RH 5). Journal of Oman Studies 8: 97-102.

Cornwall, P. B. (1943). The Tumuli of Bahrein. Asia and the Americas 43: 230-234. Cornwall, P. B. (1946a). On the location of Dilmun. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research 103: 3-11. Cornwall, P. B. (1946b). Ancient Arabia: Explorations in Hasa, 1940-41. Geographical Journal

107: 28-50. Cornwall, P. B. (1952). Two letters from Dilmun. Journal of CuneiJbrm Studies 6: 137-145. Costa, P. M. (1985). The palm-frond house of the Batinah. Journal of Oman Studies 8/2:117-

120. Costa, P. M. (1991). Musandam: Architecture and Material Culture of a Little Known Region of

Oman, Immel, London. Courtois, L., and Velde, B. (1984). Recherches comparres sur les matrriaux et les techniques de

peintures crramique de Mrsopotamie (VI-Ve millrnaires). Pal~orient 10: 81-93. Crawford, H. E. W. (1991). Seals from the first season's excavation at Saar, Bahrain. Cambridge

Archaeological Journal 1: 255-276. Crowfoot Payne, J. (1980). An Early Dynastic III flint industry from Abu Satabikh. Iraq 42: 105-

120. David, H., Tegyey, M., Le Metour, J., and Wyns, R. (1990). Les vases en chloritite dans la

prninsule d'Oman: une 6tude prtrographique appliqure h l'archrologie. Comptes Rendus de l'Acad~mie des Sciences Ser. II 311: 951-958.

de Cardi, B. (1988). The grave-goods from Shimal Tomb 6 in Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E. In Potts, D. T. (ed.), Araby the Blest, Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publication 7, Copenhagen, pp. 45-71.

de Cardi, B., BeI1, R. D., and Starling, N. J. (1982). Excavations at Tawi Silaim and Tawi Sa'id in the Sharqiya, 1978. Journal of Oman Studies" 5: 61-94.

de Cardi, B., Collier, S., and Doe, D. B. (1976). Excavations and Survey in Oman, 1974-1975. Journal of Oman Studies 2: 101-187.

Denton, B. E., and MacAdam, H. I. (1992). The other Mediterranean: Archaeology and the Gulf. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23:119-131.

Desse, J., and Desse-Berset, N. (1990). La Faune: Les mammifferes et tes poissons. In Calvet, Y., and Gacbet, J. (eds.), Failaka Fouilles Franqaises 1986-1988, Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 18, Lyons, pp. 51-70.

Donaldson, P. (1984). Prehistoric tombs of Ras aI-Khaimah. Oriens Antiquus 23: 193-312. Durand, Capt. (1880). Extracts from report on the Islands and Antiquities of Bahrein. Journal of

the Royal Asiatic Society 12: 1-13. During Caspers, E. C. L. (1970). Trucial Oman in the third millennium B.C. Origini 4: 205-276. During Caspers, E. C. L. (1971). New archaeological evidence for maritime trade in the Persian

Gulf during the Protoliterate Period. East and West 21: 21-55. During Caspers, E. C. L. (1971). The bull's head from Barbar Temple II, Bahrain: A contact with

Early Dynastic Sumer. East and West 21: 217-224. During Caspers, E. C. L. (1973). Sumer and Kulli meet at Dilmun in the Arabian Gulf. Archivfar

Orientforschung 24: 128-132. During Caspers, E. C. L. (1983). Triangular stamp seals from the Arabian Gulf and their Indus

Valley connection. Annali dell'Istituto orientale di Napoli 43: 661-670. During Caspers, E. C. L. (1989). Some remarks on Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian

Studies 19: 13-31. Edens, C. (1988a). Archaeology of the Sands and adjacent portions of the Sharqiyah. Journal of

Oman Studies Special Report 3:113-130. Edens, C. (1988b). The Rub al-Khali "Neolithic" revisited: The view from Nadqan. In Potts, D.

T. (ed.), Araby the Blest, Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publication 7, Copenhagen, pp. 15-43.

206 Potts

Edens, C. (1992). Dynamics of trade in the Ancient Mesopotamian "World System." American Anthropologist 94:118-139.

Englund, R. (1983). Dilmun in the Archaic Uruk Corpus. In Potts, D. T. (ed.), Dilmun: New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bahrain, Berliner Beitr~ige zum Vorderen Orient 2, Reimer, Berlin, pp, 35-47.

Frifelt, K. (1971). Jamdat Nasr fund fra Oman (Jamdat Nasr Finds in the Oman). Kuml 1970: 355- 383.

Frifelt, K. (1975a). On prehistoric settlement and chronology of the Oman Peninsula. East and West 25: 359-424.

Frifelt, K. (1975b). A possible link between the Jemdet Nasr and the Umm an-Nar Graves of Oman, Journal of Oman Studies 1: 57-80.

Frifelt, K. (1976). Evidence of a third millennium BC town in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 2: 57-73.

Frifelt, K. (1979a). Oman during the third millennium BC: Urban development or fishing/farming communities? In Taddei, M. (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1977, Istituto Universitario Ori- entale Seminario di Studi Asiatici Series Minor VI, Naples, pp. 567-588.

Frifelt, K. (1979b). The Umm an-Nar and Jemdet Nasr of Oman and their Relations Abroad. In van Ix~huizen-de l.e.euw, J. E. (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1975, Brill, Leiden, pp. 43 -60.

Frifelt, K. (1980). "Jemdet Nasr Graves" on the Oman Peninsula. In Alster, B. (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriotogy 8, Copenhagen, pp. 273-279.

Frifelt, K. (1985). Further evidence of the third millennium BC town at Bat in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 7: 89-I04.

Frifelt, K. (1989). 'Ubaid in the Gulf area. In Henrickson, E. F., and Thuesen, I. (eds.), Upon this Foundation: The "Ubaid Reconsidered, Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publication I0, Copen- hagen, pp. 405-417.

Frifelt, K. (1990). A third millennium kiln from the Oman Peninsula. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 1: 4-15.

Frifelt, K. (1991). Third Millennium Graves, The Island of Umm an-Nar 1, Jutland Archaeological Society, Publication 26: 1, Aarhus.

Gebel, H.-G. (1982). Erste Ergebnisse der Frfih-/Mittelholoz~nforschung im 6stlichen Golfgebiet (Oman). ArchaeoIogica Venatoria e. 1I. Mitteilungsblatt 4: 13-19.

Gentelle, P,, and Frifelt, K. (1989). About the distribution of third millennium graves and settlements in the Ibri area of Oman. In Costa, P. M., and Tosi, M. (eds.), Oman Studies, Serie Orientale Roma LXIII, Rome, pp. 119-126.

Glassner, J.-J. (1984). Inscriptions cunriformes de Failaka. In Salles, J.-F. (ed.), Failaka Fouilles Fran¢aises 1983, Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 9, Lyons, pp. 31-50.

Glassner, J.-J. (1988). Dilmun, Magan and Meluhha: Some observations on language, toponymy, anthroponymy and theonymy. In Reade, J. E. (ed.), The Indian Ocean in Antiquity (in press).

Glassner, J.-J. (1989). Mesopotamian textual evidence on Magan/Makan in the late 3rd millennium B.C. In Costa, P. M., and Tosi, M. (eds.), Oman Studies, Serie Orientale Roma LXIII, Rome, pp. 181-191.

Glassner, J.-J. (1990). Inscriptions cun~i~brmes de Failaka, complrment. In Calvet, Y., and Gachet, J. (eds.), Failaka Fouilles Frangaises 1986-1988, Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 18, Lyons, pp. 123-124.

Glob, P. V. (1968). Al-Bahrain, Gyldendal, Copenhagen. Golding, M. (1974). Evidence for pre-Seleucid occupation of eastern Arabia. Proceedings of the

Seminar for Arabian Studies 4: 19-32. Gouin, P. (1990). Rapes, jarres et faisselles: la production et l'exportation des produits laitiers dans

l'Indus dn 3e milldnaire. Paldorient 16/2: 37-54. Grupe, G., and Schutkowski, H. (1989). Dietary shift during the 2rid millennium B.C. in Prehistoric

Shimal, Oman Peninsula. Paldorient 15: 77-84. Haerinck, E. (1990). The rectangular Umm an-Nar period grave at Mowaihat (Emirate of Ajman,

UAE). Ms.on file, Seminar of Near Eastern Archaeology, Rijksuniversiteit Gent, Belgium. Haerinck, E. (I991). Heading for the Straits of Hormuz, an 'Ubaid site in the Emirate of Ajman

(U.A.E.). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 2: 84-90.


Haerinck, E., and Stevens, K. G. (1985). Pre-lslamic Archaeology of Kuwait, Northeastern Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman: A Bibliography, Peeters, Gent.

Hfiser, J. (1988). Steingefi~fle des 2. vorchristtichen Jahrtausends im Gebiet des Arabischen/Per- sischen Golfes: Typologie der Gefgifie und Deckel aus Serpentinit, Chlorit, Steatit und vet~ wandten Steinarten, Unpublished M.A. thesis, Free University, Berlin.

H~iser, J. (1990). Soft-stone vessels of the 2nd millennium B.C. in the Gulf region. Proceedings of the Seminar Jbr Arabian Studies 20: 43-54.

Hauptmann, A. (t985). Die Entwicklung der Kupfermetallurgie yore 3. Jahrtausend bis zar Neuzeit, Der Anschniti Beiheft 4, Bochum.

Hauptmann, A., Weisgerber, G., and Bachman, H. G. (1988). Early copper metallurgy in Oman. In Maddin, R. (ed.), The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 34-51.

Heimpel, W. (1982). A first step in the diorite question. Revue d'Assyriologie 76: 65-67. Heimpel, W. (1987). Das Untere Meer. Zeitschrififar Assyriologie 77: 22-91. Heimpel, W. (1988). Magan. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7: 195-199. Hermansen, B. D. (1992). Ubaid and Early Dynastic pottery from five sites at 'Ain as-Sayh, Saudi

Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy (in press). Hoch, E. (1979). Reflections on prehistoric life at Umm an-Nar (Trucial Oman) based on faunal

remains from the third millennium BC. In Taddei, M. (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1977, Istituto Universitario Orientale Seminario di Studi Asiatici Series Minor VI, Naples, pp. 589- 638.

Htjgaard, K. (1980a). Dentition on Umm an-Nar (Trucial Oman), 2500 B.C. Scandinavian Journal of Dentat Research 88: 355-364.

Htjgaard, K. (1980b). Dentition on Bahrain, 2000 B.C. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research 88: 467-475.

Htjgaard, K. (1984). Dental anthropology in relation to the north-west coast of the Indian sub- continent in the third millennium BC. tn Allchin, B. (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1981, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 202-204.

Htjgaard, K. (1985). SEM (scanning electron microscopic) examination of teeth from the third millennium BC excavated in Wadi Jizzi and Hafit. In Schotsmans, J., and Taddei, M. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1983, Istituto Universitario Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici Series Minor XXIII, Naples, pp. 151-156.

Htjlund, F. (1986). The chronology of City II and III at Qal'at al-Bahmin. In A1 Khalifa, H. A., and Rice, M. (eds.), Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology, Kegan Paul International, London, pp. 217--224.

Htjlund, F. (1987). The Bronze Age Pottery, Failaka/Dilmun: The Second Millennium Settlements 2, Aarhus.

Htjlund, F. (1989a). Some new evidence of Harappan influence in the Arabian Gulf. In Frifelt, K., and Strensen, P. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1985, Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Occasional Paper 4, London, pp. 49-53.

Htjlund, F. (1989b). The formation of the Dilmun State and the Amorite Tribes. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 19: 45-59.

Htjlund, F. (1990). Date honey production in Di|mun in the mid 2nd Millennium B.C.: Steps in the technological evolution of the madbasa. Pal~orient 16: 77-86.

Hm~ka, B. (1983). Dilmun in den vo1~argonischen Wirtschaftstexten aus Sumppak und LagaL In Potts, D. T. (ed.), Dihnun: New Studies in the Archaeology and FaTrly History of Bahrain, Berlinger Beitr~,ige zum Vorderen Orient 2, Reimer, Berlin, pp. 83-85.

Huot, L-L. (1989). 'Ubaidian villages of lower Mesopotomia. In Henrickson, E. F., and Thuesen, I. (eds.), Upon this Foundation: The "Ubaid Reconsidered, Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publi- cation 10, Copenhagen, pp. 19-42.

Ibarhim, M. (1982). Excavations of the Arab Expedition at Sar el-Jisr, Ministry of Information, Bahrain.

Inizan, M.-L. (1980). Site h pot6rie "Obeidienne" h Qatar. In Barrelet, M.-T. (ed.), L 'Archdologie de l'Iraq du ddbut de l'dpoque n~olithique ~ 333 avant notre Ore., Editions du CNRS, Paris, pp. 209-221.

Inizan, M.-L. (1987). Technologie et prrhistoire rrcente en Mrsopotamie: L'exemple du drbitage

208 Potts

par pression et de l'rconomie de l'obsidienne. In Huot, J.-L. (ed.), Prghistoire de la Mdso- potamie, Editions du CNRS, Paris, pp. 305-315.

Inizan, M.-L. (1988). Prghistoire g~ Qatar, Mission archEotogique Frangaise ~t Qatar 2, Paris. Inizan, M.-L., and Tixier, J. (1980). Industrie taillre de Hili 8. Archaeology in the United Arab

Emirates 2-3: 72-73. Isetti, E., and Biagi, P. (1989). The polished stone earrings of Site RH5 and the distribution and

chronology of prehistoric earrings of Coastal Oman. Rivista di Archeologia 13: 5-17. IsMEO (I981). IsMEO Activities: Oman. East and West 31: 182-198. IsMEO (t982). IsMEO Activities: Oman. East and West 32: 223-230. IsMEO (1983). IsMEO Activities: Oman. East and West 33: 330-340. Kapel, H. (1965). Stenalderfund fra Qatar (Stone Age discoveries in Qatar). Kuml 1964:112-155. Kapel, H. (1967). Atlas of the Stone-Age Cultures of Qatar, Jutland Archaeological Society Pub-

lications 6, Aarhus. Killick, R. R., Crawford, H. E. W., Flavin, K., Ginger, H., Lupton, A., Maclaughlin, C.,

Montague, R., Moon, J. A., and Woodbum, M. A. (1991). London-Bahrain Archaeological Expedition: 1990 excavations at Saar. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 2: 107-137.

Kj~erum, P. (1980). Seals of "Dilmun-Type" from Failaka, Kuwait. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 10: 45-53.

Kj~erum, P. (1983). The Stamp and Cylinder Seals, Failaka/Dilmun: The Second Millennium Settlements 1 : 1, Aarhus.

Kjaerum, P. (1986a). The Dilmun seals as evidence of long distance relations in the early second millennium B.C. In AI Khalifa, H. A., and Rice, M. (eds.), Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology, Kegan Paul International, London, pp. 269-277.

Kjaerum, P. (1986b). Architecture and settlement patterns in 2nd Mill. Failaka. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 16: 77-88.

Kozlowski, S. K. (1987). Chipped stone industry of the Ubaid site Tell el-Saadiya in Iraq (Hamrin). In Huot, J.-L. (ed.), Prdhistoire de Ia Mdsopotamie, Editions du CNRS, Paris, pp. 277-291.

Kroll, S. (1984). Op zoek naar de koperindustrie van Makan. Phoenix 30: 10-25. Kunter, M. (1981). Bronze- und eisenzeitliche Skelettfunde aus Oman. Bemerkungen zur Bev61k-

erungsgeschichte Ostarabiens. Homo 32: 197-210. Kunter, M. (1983). Chronologische und regionale Unterschiede bei pathologischen Zahnbefunden

auf der arabischen Halbinsel. Archiiologisches Korrespondenzblatt 13: 339-343. Kunter, M. (1991). Die menschlichen Skelettreste aus den Grfibern von Umm an-Nar, Abu Dhabi,

U.A.E. (3. Jt. v. Chr.). In Frifelt, K. Third Millennium Graves, The Island of Umm an-Nar 1, Jutland Archaeological Society Publication 26:1, Aarhus, pp. 163-178.

Larsen, C. E. (1983a). life and Land Use on the Bahrain Islands, University of Chicago, Chicago and London.

Larsen, C. E. (1983b). The early environment and hydrology of ancient Bahrain. In Putts, D. T. (ed.), Dilmun: New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bahrain, Berliner Beitr/ige zum Vorderen Orient 2, Reimer, Berlin, pp. 3-34.

Lemmans, W. F. (1960). Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period, Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia 6, Leiden.

Li, H. (1989). Finds from Tell Gubba: Beads, pendants, rings, glass objects, spindle whorls, metal and bone objects (in Japanese). Al-Rafidan 10: 167-243.

Limper, K. (1988). Uruk. Perlen, Ketten, Anh~nger, Grabungen 1912-1985, Endberichte/Aus- grabungen in Uruk-Warka 2, Mainz.

Littleton, J., and FrChlich, B. (1989). An analysis of dental pathology and diet on historic Bahrain. Paliorient 15: 59-75.

Lorimer, J. G. (1908). Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, 'Omfin, and Central Arabia, VoL ii, Geo- graphical and Statistical, Government Printing, Calcutta.

Lowe, A. (1986). Bronze age burial mounds on Bahrain. Iraq 48: 73-84. Macchiarelli, R. (1989). Prehistoric "fish-eaters" along the Eastern Arabian Coasts: Dental vari-

ation, morphology, and oral health in the Ra's al-Hamra community (Qualm, Sultanate of Oman, 5th-4th Millennia BC). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78: 575-594.

Maggi, R., and Gebel, H. G. (1990). A preliminary report on the chipped stone industries of the


Mid-Hotocene shell-miden communities of Ra's al-Hamra, 5, Layer 1 (Muscat-Sultanate of Oman). Riv&ta di Archeologia 14: 5-24.

Maggi, R., Biagi, P., Travers, R. A., and Nisbet, R. (1985). Excavations at the RH5 and RH6 Sites, Qurm, Winter 1985-1985. East and West 35: 407-417.

Masry, A. H. (1974). Prehistory in Northeastern Arabia: The Problem of lnterregional Interaction, Field Research Projects, Coconut Grove.

McClure, H. A. (1972). Palaeogeography of an 'Ubaid Archaeological Site, Saudi Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy (in press).

Meadow, R.H., Humphries, J. H., and Hastings, A. (1976). Explorations in Oman, 1973 and 1975: Prehistoric settlements and ancient copper smelting with its comparative aspects in Iran. In Bagherzadeh, F. (ed.), Proceedings of the IVth Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran, Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, Teheran, pp. 110-I29.

M6ry, S. (1989). Studies of Bronze Age pottery in the Oman peninsula: An archaeometricat perspective. In Costa, P. M., and Tosi, M. (eds.), Oman Studies, Serie Orientale Roma LXIII, Rome, pp. 127-134,

M6ry, S. (1991). Wadi Suq fine wares from Shimal and Hili Sites (United Arab Emirates): A technological and provenance analysis. In Schippmann, K., Herling, A., and Salles, J.-F. (eds.), Golf-Archdologie, Leidorf, Buch am Erlbach, pp. 245-255.

Midant-Reynes, B. (t985). Un ensemble de s6pultures en fosses sous cairn h Khor (Qatar): l~tude des rites fun6raires. Paldorient 11: 129-144.

Miles Lt-Col, S. B. (1877). On the route between Sohzir and el-Bereymi in 'Omen, with a note on the Zat, or gipsies in Arabia. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 46: 41-60.

Millet, M. (1991). Comments on the lithic material from an 'Ubaid site in the Emirate of Ajman (U.A.E.). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 2: 91-92.

Mortensen, P. (1971). Om Barbartemplets datering (on the date of the Barbar Temple in Bahrain). Kuml 1970: 385-398.

Mortensen, P. (1986). The Barbar temple: Its chronology and foreign relations reconsidered. In AI Khalifa, H. A., and Rice, M. (eds.), Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology, Kegan Paul International, London, pp. 178-185.

Mughal, R. (1983). The Ditmun Burial Complex at Sar: The 1980-82 Excavations in Bahrain, Ministry of Information, Bahrain.

Mynors, H. S. (1983). An examination of Mesopotamian ceramics using petrographic and neutron activation analysis. In Aspinall, A., and Warren, S. E, (eds.), The Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Archaeometry, Schools of Physics and Archaeological Sciences, Bradford, pp. 377-~387.

Nashef, K. (1984). The deities of Dilmun. Akkadica 38: 1-33. Nisbet, R. (1985). Evidence of sorghum at Site RH5, Qurm, Muscat. East and West 35" 415-417. Nissen, H. J. (1985). Ortsnamen in den archaischen Texten aus Umk. Orientalia 54: 226-233. Oates, J. (1976). Prehistory in northeastern Arabia. Antiquity 50: 20-31. Oates, J. (1982). Archaeological evidence for settlement patterns in Mesopotamia and Eastern

Arabia in relation to possible environmental conditions. In Bintliff, J. L,, and Van Zeist, W. (eds.), Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human Conditions in the Eastern Mediter- ranean Region in Later Prehistory, BAR Int. Ser. 133, Oxford, pp. 359-393.

Oates, J. (1986). The Gulf in prehistory. In AI Khalifa, H. A., and Rice, M. (eds.), Bahrain through the ages: the Archaeology, Kegan Paul International, London, pp. 79-86.

Oates, J. (1987). The Choga Mami transitional. In Huot, J.-L. (ed.), Prdhistoire de la Mdsopotamie, Editions du CNRS, Paris, pp. 163-180.

Oates, L, Davidson, T. E., Kamilli, D., and McKerrell, H. (1977). Seafaring merchants of Ur? Antiquity 51: 221-234.

Oppenheim, A. L. (1954). Seafaring merchants of Ur. Journal of the American Oriental Society 74: 6-17.

Orchard, J. J., and Orchard, J. C. (1985). The University of Birmingham Archaeological Expedition to the Sultanate of Oman, Birmingham.

Ovington, J. (1929). A Voyage to Surat in the Year 1689, In Rawlinson, H. G. (ed.), Oxford University Press, London.

Peake, H. (1928). The copper mountain of Magan. Antiquity 2: 452-457.

210 Potts

Pedersen, C. H., and Buchwald, V. F. (1991). An examination of metal objects from Tell Abraq, U.A.E. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 2: 1-9.

Pettinato, G. (1983). Dilmun nella Documentazione Epigrafica di Ebla. In Potts, D. T. (ed.), Dilmun: New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bahrain, Berlin Beitrfige zum Vorderen Orient 2, Reimer, Berlin, pp. 75-82.

Phillips, C., and Wilkinson, T. J. (1982). Recently discovered shell middens near Quriyat. Journal of Oman Studies 5:107-110.

Piesinger, C. M. (1983). Legacy of Dilmun: The Roots of Ancient Maritime Trade in Eastern Coastal Arabia in the 4th/3rd Millennium B.C., University of Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Pollard, A. M. (1987). Report on the analysis of Failaka glass, glazed pottery and faience. In HCjlund, F., The Bronze Age Pottery, Failaka/Dilmun: The Second Millennium Settlements 2, Aarhus, pp. 185-189.

Pollard, A. M., and HCjlund, F. (1983). High-magnesium glazed sherds from Bronze Age Tells on Failaka, Kuwait, Archaeometry 25: 196-200.

Potts, D. T. (1980). Tradition and Transformation: Tepe Yahya and the Iranian Plateau during the Third Millennium B.C., PhD. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Potts, D. T. (1983). Dilmun: Where and when? Dilmun (Journal of the Bahrain Historical and Archaeological Society) 11: 15-19.

Potts, D. T. (1985). Reflections on the history and archaeology of Bahrain. Journal of the American Oriental Society 105: 675-710.

Potts, D. T. (1986a). The booty of Magan. Oriens Antiquus 26: 271-285. Potts, D. T. (1986b). Eastern Arabia and the Oman Peninsula during the late tburth and early third

millennium B.C. In Finkbeiner, U., and R611ig, W. (eds.), Gamdat Nasr: Period or Regional Style? Ttibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Beiheft B 62, Wiesbaden, pp. 121-170.

Potts, D. T. (1986c). Nippur and Dilmun in the 14th century B.C. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies" 16: 169-174.

Potts, D. T. (19g6d). Dilmun's further relations: The Syro-Anatolian evidence from the third and second Millennia B.C. In AI Khalifa, H. A., and Rice, M. (eds.), Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology, Kegan Paul International, London, pp. 389-398.

Potts, D. T. (t989). Miscellanea Hasaitica, Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publication 9, Copenhagen. Potts, D. T. (1990a). The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, Vol. I, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Potts, D. T. (1990b). A Prehistoric Mound in the Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain: Excavations at Tell

Abraq in 1989, Munksgaard, Copenhagen. Potts, D. T. (1991). Further Excavations at Tell Abraq, The 1990 Season, Munksgaard, Copen-

hagen. Ports, D. T. (1992a). The chronology of the archaeological assemblages from the head of the

Arabian Gulf to the Arabian Sea (8000-1750 B.C.). In Ehrich, R. W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 3rd ed., University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 63-89,

Potts, D. T. (1992b). Rethinking some aspects of trade in the Arabian Gulf, World Archaeology 24: 423-440.

Potts, D. T., Mughannum, A., Frye, J., and Sanders, D. (1977). Preliminary report on the second phase of the Eastern Province Survey, 1397/1977. Atlal 2: 7-27.

Ports, T. F. (1989). Foreign stone vessels of the late third millennium B.C. from southern Meso- potamia: Their origins and mechanisms of exchange. Iraq 51: 123-164.

Pracchia, S., Tosi, M., and Vidale, M. (1985). On the type, distribution and extent of craft industries at Moenjo-Daro. In Schotsmans, J., and Taddei, M. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1983, Istituto Universitario Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici Series Minor XXIII, Naples, pp. 207-247.

Prieur, A., and Guerin, C. (1991). Ddcouverte d'un site prdhistorique d'abattage de dugongs /t Umm at-Qaiwain (Emirats Arabes Unis), Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 2: 72-83.

Pullar, J. (1974). Harvard Archaeological Survey in Oman, 1973, i: Flint Sites in Oman. Proceed- ings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 4: 33-48.

Pullar, J. (1985). A selection of aceramic sites in the sultanate of Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 7: 49-87.


Pullar, J., and J~ickli, B. (1978). Some aceramics sites in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies" 4: 49-97.

Raikes, R. L, (1967). Field archaeology in Saudi Arabia. East and West 17: 27-40. Rashid, S. A. (1972), Line friihdynastische Statue yon der Insel Tarut im Persischen Golf. In Edzard,

D. O. (ed.), Gesellschaj2sklassen im alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten (X~'711. Recontre Assyriologique lnternationale), Bayrische Akademie tier Wissenschaften, phil.- hist. Kt. 75, Serie AI6, Munich, pp. 159-166.

Raswan, C. R. (1930). Tribal areas and migration lines of the North Arabian Bedouins. The Geo- graphical Review 20: 494-502.

Reade, J. E. (1986). Commerce or conquest: Variations in the Mesopotamia-Dilmun relationship. In AI Khalifa, H. A., and Rice, M. (eds.), Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology, Kegan Paul International, London, pp. 325-334.

Renfrew, C., and Dixon, J. (1976). Obsidian in western Asia: A review. In de Sieveking, G., Longworth, I. H., and Wilson, K. E. (eds,), Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology, Duckworth, London, pp. 137-150.

Rice, M. (1988), AI Hajjar revisited: The grave complex at A1 Hajjar, Bahrain (report revised, with photographs, 1988). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 18: 79-94.

Roaf, M. (1976). Excavations at AI Markh, Bahrain. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 6: 144-160.

Rowley-Conwy, P. (1987). Remains of date (Phoenix dactili¢era) from Failaka, Kuwait. In HCjlund, F. (ed.), The Bronze Age Pottery, Failaka/Dilmun: The Second Millennium Settlements 2, Aarhus, pp. 181-183.

Salles, J.-F. (ed.) (1983). Failaka Fouilles Franf'aises 1983, Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 9, Lyons.

Santini, G. (1987). Site RH 10 at Qumm and a preliminary analysis of its cemetery: An essay in stratigraphic discontinuity. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 17: 179-198.

Schmandt-Besserat, D. (1980). The envelopes that bear the first writing. Technology and Culture 21: 357-385.

Smith, G. H. (1976). New neolithic sites in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 2: 189-198. Smith, G. H. (1977). New prehistoric sites in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 3: 71-81. Smith, G. H. (1978a). AI-Da'asa, Site 46: An Arabian neolithic camp site of the fifth millennium.

In de Cardi, B. (ed.), Qatar Archaeological Report: Excavations 1973, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 53-75.

Smith, G. H. (1978b). Two prehistoric sites on Ras Abaruk, Site 4. In de Card.i, B. (ed.)~ Qatar Archaeological Report: Excavations 1973, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 80-106.

Sordinas, A. (1973). Contributions to the Prebistory of Saudi Arabia II, Field Research Projects, Coconut Grove.

Taha, M. (1982-1983). The archaeology of the Arabian Gulf during the first millennium B.C. Al- Rafidan 3-4: 75-87.

Tosi, M. (1986). Early maritime cultures of the Arabian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. In AI Khalifa, H. A., and Rice, M. (eds.), Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology, Kegan Paul Inter- national, London, pp. 94-107.

Uerpmann, H.-P. (t989). Problems of archaeo-zoological research in Eastern Arabia. In Costa, P. M., and Tosi, M. (eds.), Oman Studies', Serie Orientale Roma LXIII, Rome, pp. 163-168.

Uerpmann, M. (1989). Some remarks on Late Stone Age industries from the coastal area of Northern Oman. In Costa, P. M., and Tosi, M. (eds.); Oman Studies, Serie Orientate Roma LXIII, Rome, pp. 169-177.

Uerpmann, M. (1992). Structuring the Late Stone Age of southeastern Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 3: 65-109.

Vallat, F. (1983). Le dieu Enzak: une divinit6 dilmunite venerre a Suse. In Potts, D. T. (ed.), Dilmun: New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bahrain, Berliner Beitr~ge zum Vorderen Orient 2, Reimer, Berlin, pp. 93-100.

Velde, C. (1991). Preliminary remarks on the settlement pottery in Shimal. In Schippmann, K., Hefting, A.,and Salles, J.-F. (eds.), Golf-Archaologie, Leidorf, Buch am Eftbach, pp. 265- 288.

Viltiers-Petocz, L. E. (1989). Some notes on the lithic collections of the Oman Department of Antiquities. Journal of Oman Studies 10:51-59.

212 Potts

Vita-Finzi, C., and McClure, H. A. (1991). High-resolution ~4C dating of an uplifted Holocene shoreline in eastern Saudi Arabia. Tectonophysics 194: 197-201.

Vogt, B. (1985). Zur Chronologie und Entwicklung der Gri~ber des spgiten 4.-2Jtsd. v. Chr. auf der ttalbinsel Oman: Zusammenfassung, Analyse und Wardigung publizierter wie auch unver- Offenllichter Grabungsergebnisse, Ph.D. dissertation, Georg-August University, G6ttingen.

Vogt, B., and Franke-Vogt, U. (1987). Shimal 1985/1986: Excavations of the German Archaeo- logical Mission in Ras Al-Khaimah, U.A.E., A Preliminary Report, Bediner Beitr',ige zum Vorderen Orient 8, Reimer, Berlin.

Weisgerber, G. (1980a). " . . . und Kupfer in Oman." Der Anschnitt 32/2-3:62-110. Weisgerber, G. (1980b). Arch~iologische und areh~iometallurgische Untersuchungen in Omam All-

gemeine und vergleichende Archiiologie Be#rage 2: 67-90. Weisgerber, G. (1981). Mehr als Kupfer in Oman--Ergebnisse der Expedition 1981. Der Anschnitt

33/5-6: 174-263. Weisgerber, G. (1991a). Die Suche nach dem altsumerischen Kupferland Makan. Dos Altertum 37:

76-90. Wilkinson, J. C. (1977). Water and Tribal Settlement in South-East Arabia: A Study of the Aflhj of

Oman, Oxford Research Studies in Geography, Oxford. Willcox, G, (1990). The plant remains from Hellenistic and Bronze Age levels at Failaka, Kuwait:

A preliminary report. In Calvet, Y., and Gachet, J. (eds.), Failaka Fouilles Frangaises 1986- 1988, Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 18, Lyons, pp. 43-50.

Wright, R. P. (1989). New perspectives on third millennium painted grey wares. In Frifelt, K., and SCrensen, P. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1985, Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Occasional Paper 4, London, pp. 137-t49.

Wiistenfeld, F. (1874). Bahrein und Jemglma, nach arabischen Geographen beschrieben, Ab- handlungen der KOniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu GOttingen XIX, G6ttingen, pp. 173-222.

Zaccagnini, C. (1986). The Dilmun standard and its relationship with Indus and Near Eastern weight systems, lraq 48: 19-23.

Zarins, J. (1986). MAR-TU and the land of Dilmun. In AI Khalifa, H. A., and Rice, M. (eds.), Bahrain Through the Ages: The Archaeology, Kegan Paul International, London, pp. 233- 250.

Zarins, J. (1989). Eastern Saudi Arabia and External Relations: Selected ceramic, steatite and textual evidence--3500-1900 B.C, In Frifelt, K., and S~rensen, P. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1985, Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Occasional Paper 4, London, pp. 74-103.

Zarins, J., Mughannum, A. S., and Kamal, M. (1984). Excavations at Dhahran South: The Tumuli Field (208-92), 1403 A.H./t983, a preliminary report. Atlal 8: 25-54.

potts 1993 (e. arabia)

Documents

eastern seaboard

entire region

arabian peninsula

potts years

place potts

pages potts

early historic periods

coastal plain of oman