New Iron Age funerary data from collective graves in the Wādī Fizḥ, Northern Oman

(1)

P

^roceedings

of the

s

^eminar ^for

a

^rabian

s

^tudies

V

^olume

47 2017

Papers from the fiftieth meeting of the Seminar for Arabian Studies held at the British Museum, London,

29 to 31 July 2016

s

^eminar ^for

a

^rabian

s

^tudies

a

rchaeoPress

o

xford

(2)

Orders for copies of this volume of the Proceedings and all back numbers should be sent to Archaeopress Publishing Ltd, Gordon House, 276 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7ED, UK.

Tel +44(0)1865-311914 Fax +44(0)1865-512231 e-mail info@archaeopress.com

http://www.archaeopress.com

For the availability of back issues see The British Foundation for the Study of Arabia’s website:

http://www.thebfsa.org/content/seminar-proceedings Seminar for Arabian Studies

c/o the Department of the Middle East, The British Museum London, WC1B 3DG, United Kingdom

e-mail psas@thebfsa.org

The British Foundation for the Study of Arabia: www.thebfsa.org

The Steering Committee of the Seminar for Arabian Studies is currently made up of fifteen academic members. The Editorial Committee of the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies includes seven additional members as follows:

STEERING COMMITTEE EDITORIAL COMMITTEE: ADDITIONAL MEMBERS Dr Derek Kennet (Chairperson)

Dan Eddisford (Secretary) Dr Robert Wilson (Treasurer) Dr Janet Starkey (Editor of PSAS)

Dr Harry Munt (Assistant Editor of PSAS) Dr Julian Jansen van Rensburg

(Assistant Editor of PSAS) Professor Rob Carter Dr Nadia Durrani Dr Orhan Elmaz

Michael C.A. Macdonald Dr Tim Power

Dr St John Simpson Dr Lucy Wadeson Professor Lloyd Weeks Dr Iwona Zych

Professor Alessandra Avanzini Professor Soumyen Bandyopadhyay Dr Ricardo Eichmann

Professor Clive Holes Professor Khalil Al-Muaikel Professor Daniel T. Potts Professor Christian J. Robin

Opinions expressed in papers published in the Proceedings are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by the Editorial Committee.

The Proceedings is produced in the Times Semitic New font, which was designed by Paul Bibire for the Seminar for Arabian Studies.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0308-8421

ISBN 978-1-78491-520-9 ISBN 978-1-78491-521-6 (e-pdf)

(3)

The Steering Committee of the Seminar for Arabian Studies is most grateful to the MBI Al Jaber Foundation

for its continued generosity in making a substantial grant towards the running costs of

the Seminar and the editorial expenses of producing the Proceedings.

(4)

(5)

Guidelines and Transliteration �� iii Editors’ Foreword ��v Textiles and personal adornment in the Arabian Peninsula: papers from the special session of the Seminar for Arabian Studies held on 29 July 2016 ��vii Aisa Martinez

In memoriam Beatrice Eileen de Cardi OBE FSA FBA, 1914–2016 ��xi In memoriam Ernie Haerinck, 1949–2016 ��xix In memoriam Maurizio Tosi, 1944–2017 �� xxiii Pearl merchants of the Gulf and their life in Bombay ��1 Saif Albedwawi

An integrated approach to surveying the archaeological landscapes of Yemen ��9 Rebecca Banks, Michael Fradley, Jérémie Schiettecatte & Andrea Zerbini

Traces of date palm in an early third-millennium BC tomb in Zukayt, al-Dākhiliyyah, Sultanate of Oman (poster) ��25 Eugenio Bortolini, Juan José García-Granero & Marco Madella

A niche construction approach to vegetation community development in the south-west Arabian Neolithic:

preliminary results ��31 Abigail F. Buffington, Michael J. Harrower, Joy McCorriston & Eric A. Oches

A Crowded Desert: early results from survey and excavation of nomadic sites in north-west Qatar (poster) ��43 Jose C. Carvajal Lopez, Kirk Roberts, Gareth Rees, Frank Stremke, Anke Marsh,

Laura Morabito, Andrew Bevan, Mark Altaweel, Rodney Harrison, Manuel Arroyo-Kalin, Robert Carter, Richard Fletcher & Faisal Abdullah al-Naimi

Excavation at the Bronze Age tower of al-Khutm (Bāt, Sultanate of Oman): a preliminary evaluation of the

monument (poster) ��51 Maurizio Cattani, Hassan al-Lawati, Sultan al-Bakri, Maurizio Tosi, Enzo Cocca, Alessandro Armigliato,

Simone Mantellini & Giacomo Vinci

Excavations in Area 2A at Sarūq al-Дadīd: Iron Age II evidence of copper production and ceremonial activities ��57 Fernando Contreras Rodrigo, Bernardo Vila, Pedro Albarracín, Rashad Mohammed Bukhash,

Sheikha Obaid Al Abbar, Mansour Boraik Radwan Karim & Hassan Mohammed Zein

Zooarchaeological analysis of two dromedaries (Camelus dromedarius L.) from late Iron Age graves in

Wādī ΚUyūn at Sināw (al-Sharqiyyah, Sultanate of Oman) (poster) ��67 Antonio Curci & Elena Maini

New Iron Age funerary data from collective graves in Wādī FizΉ, northern Oman ��75 Bleda S. Düring, Eric Olijdam & Sam A. Botan

New Iron Age funerary data from collective graves in Wādī FizΉ, northern Oman

b

^ledA

s. d

^ürinG

, e

^ric

o

^liJdAM

& s

^AM

A. b

^otAn

Summary

In the 2016 campaign of the Wādī al-Jīzī Archaeological Project a rich collection of Iron Age funerary artefacts was found from disturbed (probably collective) burials in Wādī FizΉ. These graves have relatively few comparanda in eastern Arabia and are therefore of some significance for our understanding of this period. In this paper, we will first discuss the broader Iron Age cultural landscape of Wādī FizΉ, and then focus on the cemetery site. We subsequently discuss the pottery, soft-stone vessels, and miscellaneous artefacts retrieved from these grave contexts, and compare our data with those from other sites in Oman and the Emirates.

Keywords: Wādī FizΉ, collective burials, Iron Age, soft-stone vessels, ceramics

Introduction

This paper will present new Iron Age funerary data discovered in Wādī FizΉ in the northern BāΓinah region of Oman. These data were obtained in the 2016 season of the Wādī al-Jīzī Archaeological Project (WAJAP). This is a systematic and multi-period survey of an area of about 1800 km² in the region behind modern Сuhār (Fig. 1). The Wādī al-Jīzī region was chosen because it controls one of the few natural passages through the Omani mountains, has major copper deposits, which were exploited from late prehistory onwards, and terminated at a coastal town important over millennia. Investigations started in 2014 and are scheduled to run for a decade (Düring & Olijdam 2015).

The key question we want to investigate in this survey project is how we can best understand the fact that for some archaeological periods we have a lot of data (structures and artefacts) whereas other periods are very poorly visible archaeologically, and how to explain this

‘boom and bust’ pattern of occupation. This paper will explore data pertaining to one ‘Dark Age’ in our region (and across much of Oman): the Iron Age I (1300–1000 BC) and its relation to the ubiquitous Iron Age II (Magee 2014: 190; Yule & Weisgerber 2015a: 10).

The relevant site, WAJAP-S51, located in Wādī FizΉ, is one of two corridors from the coast to the mountains that we have been investigating. One of our aims is to compare the archaeological remains of these corridors.

Already clear differences are becoming apparent. Wādī

al-Jīzī has a much greater density of funerary monuments, dating to the Hafīt, Umm an-Nar, Wādī Sūq, and Sasanian periods, than Wādī FizΉ, but lacks settlement data from the Iron Age, which is abundant in Wādī FizΉ. Such contrasts tell us much about the use and perception of the landscape in the past.

In our survey region there are tens of thousands of small single-person cairns with inward sloping retaining walls. Based on shape and size, this type of cairn has often been dated to the Iron Age (e.g. Frifelt 1975: 373). Among the thousands of cairns of this type that we documented, however, as well as the dozens excavated in the СuΉār region in rescue work in advance of the BāΓinah Express Way, no Iron Age materials were found. Instead, these cairns were consistently found with turquoise glazed pottery for which an early first-millennium AD date is most likely (Düring & Olijdam 2015: 103), as indicated by glass, metal objects, and stamp seals.

Cairns of this type are clustered in the direct hinterlands of the СuΉār coastal plain, and disappear further away from the coast. By contrast, the known Iron Age and Bronze Age settlements, apart from Tell al- Shabūl (WAJAP–S54),¹ are all located in the foothills of the Дajar al-Gharbī, where water sources are located, at some distance from the cairn fields. This, therefore, raises the interesting question: where are the Iron Age graves actually located and what do they look like?

1 The site, a small tell, was discovered in 1973 by the Harvard Archaeological Survey of Oman (Humphries 1974) and is commonly referred to in the literature as SH11.

Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 47 (2017): 75–92

(8)

The Iron Age landscape of Wādī FizΉ

The Bronze and Iron Age settlements of Wādī FizΉ were first investigated by Paolo Costa and Tony Wilkinson (Costa & Wilkinson 1987: 105–107, pl. 43). Although they provide a brief two-page report, the interpreted oblique aerial picture of a walled Iron Age settlement and associated field systems has understandably become famous because it captures an Iron Age cultural landscape in a single image (also reproduced in Cleuziou

& Tosi 2007: 286). Furthermore, although the report by Costa and Wilkinson was concise, they located several prehistoric sites in Wādī FizΉ and effectively described their main characteristics.

During the 2015 and 2016 WAJAP seasons we started to map out the archaeology of Wādī FizΉ in detail. In particular, the upper Wādī FizΉ, which is located due west of the modern town and the gardens of FizΉ, contains a well-preserved Iron Age II cultural landscape (Fig. 2). In

the wadi we have the remains of relatively large, well- preserved settlements located less than 1 km apart, with associated field systems, and the cemetery site that is the focus of this paper.

One of the Iron Age settlements we mapped is WAJAP-S45. Unlike the Iron Age site reported by Costa and Wilkinson (our WAJAP-S47), this settlement is not fortified, although it does have several substantial terrace walls that demarcate what appear to be various neighbourhoods in the settlement. We mapped a total of nearly 140 structures at the site (not all of which are buildings), made a digital elevation map, mapped the sherd densities, and collected diagnostic sherds and other artefacts from all buildings. We estimate that between fifty and eighty households would have lived at the site (Fig. 3), thus about 200–400 people if we assume they were inhabited by nuclear households of 4–5 people, and more if we postulate extended households.

f^igure 1. A map of the Wādī al-Jīzī Archaeological Project research region with sites investigated so far (produced by Jordy Aal).

Bleda S. Düring, Eric Olijdam & Sam A. Botan 76

(9)

It has often been argued that the relatively densely populated Iron Age II landscapes in eastern Arabia were made possible by new irrigation technologies, possibly including the introduction of falaj-type irrigation (Magee 2005; 2014; Méry 2013; Charbonnier 2015). In our survey region, however, we note that Iron Age settlements are clustered in landscapes with high

groundwater tables, and not in landscapes that could only be irrigated with canals.

To gain a better understanding of Iron Age agriculture we have started to map Iron Age field systems in Wādī FizΉ, and the fields associated with WAJAP-S48 and WAJAP-S45. These field systems have massive terrace walls and silty flat fields that differ dramatically in figure 2. A map of the upper Wādī FizΉ showing the Iron Age sites documented by the Wādī al-Jīzī Archaeological

Project in 2015 and 2016 (produced by Bleda Düring).

figure 3. A plan of WAJAP-S45 showing buildings on a digital elevation model (produced by Harmen Huigens).

New Iron Age funerary data from collective graves in Wādī FizΉ, northern Oman 77

(10)

elevation. Remarkably, apart from a later Islamic canal cutting the system at an angle and reusing some of the fields, there are no canals associated with the Iron Age fields. Instead, we appear to be dealing with a cascading runoff system in which the water inundated each terrace in turn (Fig. 4). Although more research is needed, we have no evidence as yet of Iron Age period qanat systems in Wādī FizΉ or elsewhere in our research region.

Given the substantial evidence of settlement remains and field systems dating to the Iron Age II period in the upper Wādī FizΉ, one question arose: where were the graves of these communities located? Various small circular cairns were found, of about 3–4 m across, on top of Iron Age II abandoned buildings at our sites WAJAP-S48 and WAJAP-S50/51, as well as at Zahra 2 (Costa & Wilkinson 1987: 99–102). These are rare, however, and clearly post-date (the main phase of) the Iron Age II occupation on stratigraphic grounds.

Fortunately, at WAJAP-S50/51, to which we now turn, we found a cemetery dating to the Iron Age.

The Wādī FizΉ Iron Age cemetery

WAJAP-S50/51 is located on a hill situated at the confluence of two wadis. It has a palimpsest of structures and assemblages

dating to various periods of occupation. At the eastern end is the martyr’s grave of Shaykh Mismār, most likely dating to the late Islamic period. Directly adjacent to the tomb, and probably associated with it, is a cemetery containing at least 114 graves. This cemetery sits on top of several Iron Age structures, which take the form of buildings with numerous rooms of moderate size (c.3 by 4 m) associated with a limited amount of Iron Age II pottery. Further west, there is a perimeter wall that could mark either the edge of the Islamic cemetery or, alternatively, relate to the Iron Age structures. The masonry of this wall suggests a prehistoric date, as it resembles Iron Age domestic architecture in this region. West of this wall are several very large compounds, measuring up to 8 by 14 m. Their walls are about 1 m wide and constructed of two rows of boulders placed upright with their flat sides facing outwards. Not much pottery is present, but what was found is consistently Iron Age II in date. Some of these compound buildings are overlain by the above-mentioned cairns, which we cannot date for lack of associated materials. Further west, in a small wadi system, we came across a small concentration of slag fragments, as well as fragments of furnace walls. These indicate that (a limited amount of) metal smelting took place there, probably representing a single smelting furnace. Furthermore, we found fourteen boulders exhibiting rock art depicting animal,

figure 4. The Iron Age field system

at WAJAP-S48 (photograph by Bleda

Düring).

(11)

humans, and an abstract motive. These are the first examples in our surveys so far. One of them was incorporated into the perimeter wall with the petroglyph shown upside down. If this wall does indeed date to the Iron Age, it would mean that the rock art predates it. All the elements discussed so far suggest that WAJAP-S50/51 was occupied in Iron Age II, during which some structures were built at the site, and that there is a second phase of use in the late Islamic period, during which a martyr’s tomb and a cemetery were located at the site.

The most remarkable structures found at site WAJAP-S50/51, however, consist of a series of oval and round enclosures best understood as grave structures. We documented approximately thirty such structures located on the ridge of the hill. Even though they have a well- built exterior wall it is clear they are not true cairns, given the lack of stones in their centre (Fig. 5). They measure between 3 and 8 m in length and are usually slightly raised. In some cases, we could make out small partition walls perpendicular to the grave, and possible roof slabs of the subterranean burial chambers, but we cannot say much about grave construction without excavation. On and adjacent to these structures we found two carnelian beads, a soft-stone vessel fragment, a bronze arrowhead, as well as some pottery.

In one part of the site earthworks had taken place for the construction of an installation for crushing wadi stones. In the process of its construction the bulldozer had hit at least two grave structures. In the overlying spoil

heaps, we found large amounts of artefacts, consisting of soft-stone vessel fragments, as well as tiny pieces of human and animal bone, fragments of bronze objects, a bronze arrowhead, and significant amounts of pottery.

The density and quality of these objects is substantial.

We therefore set up a grid of 2 x 2 m squares, which were cleaned on the surface, photographed each square, and proceeded to collect the artefacts. Each square was assigned a locus number. Over the larger concentration (structure 50) we gridded a total of forty-four squares and collected a large amount of material (255 fragments of soft-stone vessels, 470 pottery sherds), whereas for the smaller concentration (structure 51) we used twelve squares and collected thirty-eight fragments of soft-stone vessels and ninety-three sherds. Other, less common artefacts included a total of seven metal artefacts, and four beads made of shell and stone. Given the number of artefacts found in these disturbed contexts we are certain we are dealing with collective burials with a relatively rich inventory of burial goods.

In the remainder of this paper the pottery, soft-stone vessels, and miscellaneous finds are discussed in more detail, followed by a comparative discussion linking our data to other assemblages across the Oman peninsula.

Ceramics

A total of 565 ceramic fragments have been collected and recorded from grave structures 50 and 51 at WAJAP-S51.

f^igure 5. Grave structure 28 at WAJAP-S51 (photograph

by Bleda Düring).

(12)

Unfortunately, most fragments consist of small body sherds that could only be dated approximately, based on their fabric. Eighty-five percent (479 fragments) can be dated to Iron Age II and 15% (85 fragments) to the Wādī Sūq period. A single sherd from the Umm an-Nar period was identified within the assemblage. At the moment, a clear explanation for its presence cannot be provided, especially when we consider that this type of ceramic is usually found in domestic, rather than funerary contexts.

Parallels for this Umm an-Nar fabric have been found at the site of Zahra 1 (Costa & Wilkinson 1987: 174).

The ceramics from the Wādī Sūq period are among the most fragmented and most of them can only be classified as such by their fabric. Unfortunately, no diagnostic sherds were present within the assemblage and only one body sherd can be picked out as a good example for this period. The fragment derives from S51_St50_L49 and the interior displays horizontal and parallel ‘ripples’, which are created by finger pressure when a vessel is turned on a wheel. This feature is more common on ceramics from the second millennium BC than on ceramics from the Iron Age. When considering this specific feature, the style of decoration, and the fabric (which is discussed below), parallels can be found at numerous sites across the Oman peninsula, such as Jabal BuΉayΒ, Shimāl, and Hīlī. The closest parallel displaying a similar decoration is a spouted vessel from tomb 103 at Shimāl (Méry 2000:

263, fig. 169/1).

The Wādī Sūq sherds consist of a pinkish to pale red fabric with a vegetal temper and small white inclusions, although the amount of inclusions seems to vary per fragment. This type of fabric seems to correspond with Méry’s description of the Wādī Sūq fabrics from Hīlī 8 (Méry 1991: 251–252; 2000: 254–255). Although the Wādī Sūq fabric from Hīlī 8 appears to be similar to the Shimāl Wādī Sūq type 5, the main difference seems to lie in the consistency of the inclusions. The inclusions appear to vary within the Wādī Sūq ceramics from Hili 8, while the ceramics from Shimāl display a more consistent number of inclusions. Thus, it is our opinion that the fabric found at WAJAP-S51 displays closer parallels with the Hīlī 8 fabric than the Shimāl type 5. It is of interest in this regard that the clay in Hīlī 8 fabric does not actually derive from the al-ΚAyn oasis itself, but rather from the area east of Hīlī, along the Jabal Дajar mountains (Méry 1991: 253).

The Iron Age II ceramics can be divided into three main categories: carinated bowls, open bowls, and jars.

The bulk of Iron Age II diagnostics consist of carinated bowls. In our classification, ‘carinated bowls’ include all

bowls with an undulating profile and not only those with a sharp bend in the profile. This type of vessel is well attested in Iron Age II settlements and burials throughout the Oman peninsula, as well as at certain sites in Iran. The carinated bowls from WAJAP-S51 all belong to one sub- group: carinated bowls with incurving and rounded rims.

This type is the most common of the Iron Age II carinated bowls and parallels occur at many sites. The fragment S51_St50_L12 for example, displays very close parallels with a carinated bowl at Sharm, which has been described as having ‘a knife-shaped’ profile (Barker 2002: 28, fig.

22/7). Two fragments deriving from the same locus, S51_St51_L07, have what can be described as a ‘second carination’ or ‘double carination’. Both fragments display parallels with a type of carinated bowl from Rumāylah (Benoist 2001: 49, fig. 3).

The second category of Iron Age II ceramics consists of open bowls (Fig. 6). This is another type of vessel commonly found at Iron Age II sites. The best example is a small bowl found in S51_St50_L20. The closest parallel that can be found in the literature is a ‘cup’, which has been unearthed at Sharm (Barker 2002: 32–33, fig. 27/6).

The designation ‘cup’ is understandable, given the small size of the vessel — 6 cm wide and less than 12 cm high

— but for our project and for practical reasons we have classified it as a small bowl.

The final category of Iron Age II ceramics consists of jars. This category is represented in the current assemblage by only five fragments, of which four are badly preserved. The best and most preserved example is a rolled rim from S51_St50_L24. This jar type is rare within Iron Age II contexts and parallels are therefore scarce. There has even been some discussion in recent years about whether this type derives from outside the Oman peninsula, more particularly Iran or Mesopotamia, or whether it is a local production imitating imported vessels. A ‘flaring rim’, which is vaguely reminiscent of the fragment recovered from S51_St50_L24, has been attested at Sharm in an Iron Age II context (Barker 2002:

34, fig. 28/10), but the best and only good parallel derives from Дamriyyah (Fritz 2009: 198).

More than 90% of the Iron Age carinated and open bowls have a fine, sandy fabric with small (grain-sized) brown and white inclusions. The definitions of Sandy Ware given by Barker (2002) and Fritz (2009) have been used in the analysis of the Iron Age ceramics.

The main reason for this is the fact that by looking at their definitions, we can broaden our research for the Sandy Ware complex. Barker has a good and detailed description of the inclusions, which are described as Bleda S. Düring, Eric Olijdam & Sam A. Botan

80

(13)

figure 6. Selected ceramics from WAJAP-S51 structures 50 and 51 (produced by Raf Timmermans).

(14)

f^igure 7. Selected soft-stone vessels from WAJAP-S51 (produced by Raf Timmermans).

(15)

‘Largely brown grain-sized inclusions, with some white inclusions within the temper and some mica’ (2002: 48).

This gives a slightly broader definition of the complex when compared to Fritz’s definition: ‘small, rounded, well sorted sand inclusions’ (2009: 88). We should mention that Fritz distinguishes between two types of Sandy Ware: one type with inclusions and one without.

The second type is not discussed by Barker. Thus, the Sandy Ware complex within the Wādī FizΉ assemblage can be defined as fine, sandy fabric with possible inclusions in the form of brown grain-sized inclusions, with some white inclusions and some mica. A smaller group of the bowls (5%) are made in a fine, orange to light red fabric with few to no visible inclusions. This fabric seems to reoccur across various Iron Age sites in Oman and the UAE and is often described as ‘Fine Ware’ or ‘Fine Painted Ware’. According to Magee, the sandy fabric is the most common one in the Iron Age II and primarily used to produce utilitarian vessels such as drinking bowls (Magee 2004: 37). By contrast, he argues that the Fine Painted Ware is much less common, accounting for less than 1% of the ceramic corpus at most sites. A study conducted by Fritz on the ceramics from two Iron Age II sites, Muwāylah and Дamriyyah, demonstrated a similar distribution of fabrics and showed that the carinated and incurving bowls are most commonly made in the Sandy Ware fabric (Fritz 2009:

216–219). The ceramics from WAJAP-S51 discussed here show similar characteristics.

It appears, therefore, that the ceramics from the collective burial at WAJAP-S51 derive from two distinct periods, the Wādī Sūq period and the Iron Age II period.

No ceramics from the Iron Age I or Iron Age III periods have been positively identified within the assemblage.

Based on vessel type and decorative style, the ceramics have parallels at several sites across the peninsula (Jabal BuΉayΒ, Sharm, Shimāl, Rumāylah, and Дamriyyah).

When we take a closer look and compare the vessel fabrics, however, we can clearly see evidence of a strong relationship between the Wādī al-Jīzī region and the area surrounding the al-ΚAyn oasis. This relationship is clearly present in Iron Age II, but was most likely already established in the second millennium BC.

Soft-stone vessels

As with the pottery, no complete soft-stone vessels were recovered, only fragmented remains. Although they came primarily from structures 50 and 51, which were heavily affected by bulldozing activities, a good portion

represents old breakage, as evidenced by a patina and/

or concretion covering the breaks. This shows these vessels were already broken before being displaced by the bulldozer.

The earliest soft-stone vessels from this collection date to the Wādī Sūq period. They are few in quantity and consist of some lids, small vases with globular body, and large conical vases (Fig. 7: S51_St50_L16_M32;

S51_St50_L49_M6; S51_St50_L16_M31/32). The latter are both classified as late introductions in the Wādī Sūq period (Velde 2003: 108).

Most vessels belong to the Iron Age II assemblage, as widely attested across the peninsula. Our collection displays a limited array of shapes: conical vases with convex bases, large bowls with convex bases, and oval vases, undoubtedly also with convex bases (Fig. 7).

Other characteristics are the small number of lids, and the complete absence of vases with knobs or pierced lugs and of rectangular boxes. The exterior surfaces of these vessels are decorated in two horizontal panels, each bordered and separated by one or more lines. In the case of vases, the main panel consists typically of several large, filled triangles separated by a series of horizontal ‘zigzag’

lines that may be accompanied by similar lines placed diagonally or vertically. Most bowls have as the principal decorative element either vertical bands or gadroons (which are vertical bands with a tapering or semi-circular finial); these are also the main decorations adorning the shoulders of lids. The top panel on both vases and bowls is always significantly narrower than the main panel, and usually features a band of chevrons or cross-hatching.

There is a large group of vessels that do not fit the known Wādī Sūq, Late Bronze, or Iron Age assemblages.

Preliminary analysis strongly suggests that these date to the Late Bronze–Iron Age transition. An Iron Age I soft- stone assemblage has not yet been defined as no tomb has so far been discovered that can be attributed exclusively to this period, although Iron Age I ceramics are reported from some long-term used collective tombs. The starting point for identifying an Iron Age I soft-stone assemblage is tomb 100 at ΚAsimah (Vogt 1994) in combination with tomb 102 at Shimāl (Vogt & Kästner 1987) (Fig.

8).² The most typical and diagnostic vessels are thin- walled and appear in two shapes: a bowl with a slightly convex base and a beaker-like vessel with a flat base.

2 A detailed analysis based on a re-examination of major collections is currently being undertaken by Christian Velde and Eric Olijdam to define an Iron Age I soft-stone assemblage for both the Emirates and Oman. Results presented in this paper therefore represent only a preliminary assessment.

(16)

The exterior surface of these vessels is typically covered by a limited number of elements, particularly small and finely executed ‘zigzag’ lines in combination with dotted circles, often bordered by a series of horizontal lines. A preliminary examination of the literature suggests that thin-walled vessels and/or similar decorations are attested in a significant percentage of the collective tombs from across the peninsula, including those without Iron Age I pottery (Fig. 9). These are usually attributed to Iron Age II, while those that have been ascribed to Iron Age I seem to have escaped wider recognition. If their identification as Iron Age I is indeed correct this will have major implications for our understanding of this poorly known transitional period, even if there are usually not more than one or two examples per tomb. Iron Age I remains are more common than presently assumed, particularly in the coastal region of the northern BāΓinah, and are more

f^igure 8. Iron Age I soft-stone vessels from ΚAsimah 100 and Shimāl 102 and some close comparanda from settlements and burials (produced by Eric Olijdam).

widely dispersed, including several regions of Oman, all the more so when one realises that other, less distinctive, vessels from tomb 100 at ΚAsimah must also be attributed to the Iron Age I as it is devoid of any Iron Age II material (Vogt 1994: 84–96; Magee & Carter 1999: 166). These vessels represent transitional pieces that already display traits indicative of the Iron Age II period.

Thin-walled vessels from our cemetery seem to display a wider range of shapes and have a decorative scheme different from that of Shimāl and ΚAsimah (see Fig. 7). Other vases and bowls combine Iron Age I stylistic traits or shapes with Iron Age II characteristics.

In this regard, they remind us of similar vessels from tomb 100 at ΚAsimah. Special attention may be drawn to two biconical vases, a vessel type introduced during the Late Bronze Age (Velde 2003: 109). Our specimens are thin-walled and have a decoration unlike those from the Bleda S. Düring, Eric Olijdam & Sam A. Botan

84

(17)

figure 9. Distribution map of Iron Age I soft-stone vessels (provisional) (produced by Eric Olijdam). Sites — United Arab Emirates: 1. Shimāl (B = burial) (Vogt & Kästner 1987: fig. 14/3–5,7–11; Vogt & Velde 1987: fig. 28a/4);

2. Tell Abraq (S = settlement) (Potts 1991: figs 128–132); 3. Jabal BuΉayΒ (B) (Jasim 2006: figs 70/1; 76/1–2;

90/3,8,10–13); 4. ΚAsimah (B) (Vogt 1994: figs 42/3–13; 43/4–11,15); 5a. BiΓnah (B) (Corboud et al. 1996: pls 15/2, 19/1, 22/3–4, 23/5); 5b. BiΓnah (S) (Benoist & Rougeulle 2013: fig. 135/1); 6. Џadnā (B) (Benoist & Hassan 2010:

fig. 8/1–2,7); 7. Sharm (B) (Ziolkowski 2001: figs 26, 31, 38, 43, 47, 60, 79, 89, 91, 93); 8. QidfaΜ (B) (Ziolkowski 2001: 17); 9. Wādī al-Qūr; 9a. Fashrah (B) (Phillips 1987: figs 23/1, 25/11, 27/15, 29/20, 36/43–45; Phillips [n.d.]:

figs 6.32/21–23; 6.37/3,7,9; 6.38/17–19,23); 9b. NaΒlah (B) (Phillips [n.d.]: figs 7.35/68–69; 7.52/3,10,12–13;

7.53/15,18,20–21; 7.54/27–31; 7.55/43; 7.58/58–60; 7.59–7.60; 7.78/6,8,10; 7.80/1–5); 9c. WaΜab (B) (Huckle 2003;

Phillips [n.d.]: figs 5.15/19–20; 5.20/3,6,12–20,22; 5.21/34–35,37,43; 5.23/2); 9d. Rafaq (S) (Phillips [n.d.]: fig.

8.28/8,10); 10. Rumāylah (S) (Boucharlat & Lombard 1985: pls 60/4,7; 61/10); 11. Qarn bint SaΜīd (B) (Zutterman 2004: figs 1/4,8; 8); Oman: 12. Wādī FizΉ (B) (WAJAP); 13. Zahra (S) (Costa & Wilkinson 1987: fig. 92/a,c); 14.

Tell al-Shabūl (S) (Yule 2001: pl. 542/47–48; WAJAP); 15. Wādī Bawshar (B) (Costa et al. 1999: figs 17/87–88,91–

93; 20/107–110,117; 21/120); 16. Manāl (S) (ElMahi & Ibrahim 2003: fig. 15/top row); 17. MaΉleya (B) (ElMahi &

Al-Jahwari 2005: fig. 8/b–d); 18. Maysar (B) (Yule 2001: pls 13/19; 14/28); 19. Samad al-ShāΜn (B) (Yule 2001: pls 260; 267/3; 336/2; 342/13; 351/1; 370/2 right; 385/3; 386/1); 20. Bustan (B) (Yule 2001: pl. 491/2); 21. Al-AkhΡar/

KhuΡra (B) (Yule & Weisgerber 2015b: pls 19/2; 20/5; 21/11).

(18)

Late Bronze Age (Fig. 7). They have close parallels in vessels from Rumāylah (Boucharlat & Lombard 1985: pl.

60/7), from tomb 27 at Jabal BuΉayΒ (Jasim 2006: fig.

70/1), and in a surface find recovered near tomb 103 at Shimāl, but which is clearly unrelated to the materials inside the tomb (Vogt & Velde 1987: 42, fig. 28a/4).

Miscellaneous finds

Due to our limited understanding of the chronological intricacies of small-finds categories, it is difficult, based on the available literature, to attribute most miscellaneous artefacts beyond a generic Late Bronze to Iron Age II time bracket.³ Possible exceptions are long biconical beads made from high-quality carnelian. They are rare in Iron Age funerary contexts, but are found in tomb 100 at ΚAsimah and several other multi-period tombs with Iron Age I materials (Vogt & Kästner 1987: fig. 17/14; Phillips 1987: 16, fig. 39 beads/3 left; Vogt 1994: fig. 44/17;

Hartnell & Barker 1999; Corboud et al. 1996; pl. 29/2–4;

ElMahi & Al-Jahwari 2005: fig. 12 left margin, just above the centre; Benoist & Hassan 2010: fig. 9/13–18,24–30).

This makes them, after ceramics and soft-stone vessels, potentially the third Iron Age I marker. Two have been found in association with different graves in our cemetery (Fig. 10).

A remarkable find is a roughly shaped hexagonal bead, made from the sawn-off apex of a Conus shell (Fig. 11: S51_St0_L0_M4). It has a clear perforation running parallel to its base, which indicates it was worn on a string, probably as part of a necklace. Its exterior is randomly decorated with eight shallow depressions created by a drill. The shallow drillings are reminiscent of those adorning the exterior of a shell ‘button’ from Dibbā (Caputo & Genchi 2016: fig. 4; see Davis 1999 for other uses of drills in decorating these objects).

Our large collection of grave-goods harbours one such

‘button’ (Fig. 11: S51_St51_L2_M1). It appears to have been made of a slightly curved piece of bone, possibly a scapula (preliminary determination from photographs by Mark Beech). The exterior is decorated with crudely incised, thin horizontal and vertical lines, while the edge appears to have been modified. Its interior has a series of converging holes, the telltale fastening mechanism of this type of object. Although usually made from shells, other materials were also used (e.g. Vogt & Kästner 1987:

fig. 18/1–4; Phillips 1987: fig. 39 shell/1; Corboud et al.

3 The lack of Late Bronze Age ceramics and soft-stone vessels from WAJAP-S50/51 seems to narrow this down to the Iron Age I–II periods.

1996: pl. 27/1–6; Barker & Hartnell 2000; Benoist &

Hassan 2010: fig. 9/7–10; Caputo & Genchi 2016).

Equally interesting items are the bronze arrowheads, of which we have two complete specimens, both of distinctly different shapes and both without decoration on their mid-rib (e.g. Boucharlat & Lombard 1985: pl. 62/1–

2; Phillips 1987: figs 37/1–7, 38/10–13; Potts 1991: figs 121–122; Vogt 1994: fig. 44/2; Magee 1998; 1999; Weeks 2000: figs 3–4; Benoist & Hassan 2010: fig. 9/1–3) (Fig.

11: S50_St15_L2_M1; S51_St0_L0_M5). Another metal item is an elegantly shaped rim fragment of a small bronze pot (Fig. 11: S51_St50_L16_M29). Fragments of bronze pots, both full-sized and miniature, have been recovered in many collective burials, but these are all open vessels (for an overview see Yule & Weisgerber 2015a: fig. 9).

Finally, we would like to draw attention to the discovery of a small fragment of a glass bracelet (Fig. 11:

S51_St50_L47_M3). This is potentially groundbreaking, as glass has not been reported from Iron Age II or earlier contexts. The bracelet is dark coloured and shows spiralling incisions along its exterior surface. A preliminary attribution to the Iron Age is supported by the find of an identical bracelet fragment during our reconnaissance of Tell al-Shabūl, which yielded a host of Wādī Sūq, Late Bronze, and Iron Age artefacts, but no materials post-dating the Iron Age. A potential link with two glass bangles from the Painted Grey Ware culture in north-west India is feasible, but a closer inspection of our items and their Indian counterparts from Haryana (Lal 1996: 422; Kanungo et al. 2010: 900) is required before a more definitive answer can be given. A rim fragment of a glass flask has been found elsewhere at WAJAP-S50/51.

While definitely pre-Islamic, it is clearly more recent than Iron Age II. Given the fact that it is the only later find in our assemblage, we presume it to be unrelated to the

figure 10. Long biconical carnelian beads from WAJAP-S50/51 (produced by Bleda Düring).

(19)

f^igure 11. Selected miscellaneous objects from WAJAP-S50/51 (produced by Raf Timmermans).

(20)

Iron Age cemetery. Perhaps it is possible to link it with the people who built the cairns? Our fragment matches that of an unpublished flask from tomb 2 at Fashrah (Fashgha), where it is linked to an intrusive burial that also contained an iron arrowhead and an alabaster vessel and lid (Phillips [n.d.]: fig. 6.45/1–4; see Phillips 1997:

216). These suggest a tentative date to the PIR/Samad period.

Discussion and conclusion

In conclusion, we have discovered a cemetery of about thirty collective tombs with apparently rich inventories.

It is clear that the cemetery was in use over a long period.

In terms of dating we have a collection of predominantly Iron Age II artefacts — a few that date to the late phase of the Wādī Sūq period — and there is no evidence of items dating to Iron Age III.

Interestingly, we appear to have a significant amount of Iron Age I materials. This presents us with somewhat of a problem as we are missing important settlement data in the area in and around Wādī FizΉ, but given the difficulties archaeologists face across the peninsula, and particularly Oman, in locating Iron Age I sites this is hardly surprising. If our identification of Iron Age I soft-stone vessels in multi-period tombs and several settlement sites is correct, then the consensus of this poorly understood phase of the Iron Age needs a re-evaluation. A more detailed examination of post-Late Bronze Age soft-stone vessels is therefore warranted and indeed required.

Our preliminary results are strongly reminiscent of the rest of the second millennium, where we have predominantly funerary remains and only a few major settlements (Carter 1997; Velde 2009). Most major settlements display an uninterrupted occupation from the Umm an-Nar down to the Iron Age II period. The discovery at Tell al-Shabūl, located at the other end of our research area, of a variety of Late Bronze and Iron Age I materials is therefore highly significant as it indicates that permanent occupation did also exist in our part of the BāΓinah during this ‘Dark Age’.

It is important to find out how our Iron Age I materials relate to the chronological schemes proffered for Central Oman (see Fig. 9) where, based on the absence of Iron Age I ceramics, this cultural horizon is believed to have been non-existent (e.g. Phillips 2010; Schreiber 2010;

Yule & Weisgerber 2015a: 11). The discovery of Iron Age I ceramics and soft-stone vessels at Tell al-Shabūl, and the identification of Iron Age I soft-stone vessels in a good number of grave contexts as well as settlements in

the northern BāΓinah, and even in Central Oman, add new dimensions to this ongoing debate. The main question we are now facing is whether the Iron Age I artefacts in our part of the BāΓinah constitute ‘exotica’ from the Emirates into the ‘Omani’ Early Iron Age horizon or whether there is a genuine Iron Age I horizon in this part of Oman. We are inclined to favour the latter scenario, but only more research can settle the issue.

Acknowledgements

The Wādī al-Jīzī Archaeological Project is a collaboration between Leiden University and the Ministry of Heritage and Culture of Oman. We are grateful for the support of the Ministry of Heritage and Culture, in particular the late Prof. Maurizio Tosi, Sultan Al-Bakry, Khamis Al-Asma, Mohammed Al-Waily, and Nasser Al-Hosni. We would also like to thank Derek Kennet, Christian Velde, Leiden University, and our field team members of the 2014–2016 seasons.

References

Barker D. 2002. Wadi Suq and Iron Age period ceramics from Sharm, Fujairah (UAE). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 13: 1–94.

Barker D. & Hartnell T. 2000. Notes on a decorated spiny oyster from Sharm. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 11: 204–206.

Benoist A. 2001. Quelques réflexions à propos de l’utilisation des céramiques dans la péninsule d’Oman au cours de l’Âge du Fer (1350–300 av. J.C.).

Paléorient 27: 45–67.

Benoist A. & Hassan S.A. 2010. An inventory of the objects in a collective burial at Dadna (Emirate of Fujairah).

Pages 85–99 in L. Weeks (ed.), Death and burial in Arabia and beyond. Multidisciplinary perspectives.

(Society for Arabian Studies Monographs, 10) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 2107).

Oxford: Archaeopress.

Benoist A. & Rougeulle A. 2013. Le mobilier de Bithnah–44/45. Pages 156–172 in A. Benoist (ed.), La vallée de Bithnah au cours de l’Age du Fer. (British Foundation for the Study of Arabia Monographs, 14) (British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 2510). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Boucharlat R. & Lombard P. 1985. The oasis of Al ΚAin in the Iron Age. Excavations at Rumeilah 1981–1983.

(21)

Survey at Hili 14. Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates 4: 44–73.

Caputo F.P. & Genchi F. 2016. Seashell discs from the Early Iron Age graves of Daba (Dibbā, Sultanate of Oman) (poster). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 46: 41–44.

Carter R. 1997. The Wadi Suq period in south-east Arabia: a reappraisal in the light of excavations at Kalba, UAE. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 27: 87–98.

Charbonnier J. 2015. Groundwater management in Southeast Arabia from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age: a critical reassessment. Water History 7: 39–71.

Cleuziou S. & Tosi M. 2007. In the shadow of the ancestors: the prehistoric foundation of the early Arabian civilization in Oman. Muscat: The Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Sultanate of Oman.

Costa P.M. & Wilkinson T.J. 1987. The hinterland of Sohar. Archaeological surveys and excavations within the region of an Omani seafaring city. Journal of Oman Studies 9: 9–238.

Costa P.M., Costa G.G., Yule P., Weisgerber G. et al. 1999.

Archaeological research in the area of Muscat. Pages 1–90 in P. Yule (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of the Sultanate of Oman. (Orient-Archäologie, 2) Rahden:

Verlag Marie L. Leidorf.

Corboud P., Castella A.C., Hapka R. & im Obersteg P. 1996. Les tombes protohistoriques de Bithnah, Fujairah, Émirats Arabes Unis. (Terra Archaeologica, 1) (Monographies de la foundation Suisse- Lichtenstein pour les recherches archéologiques à l’étranger). Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

Davis K.M. 1999. Optical microscopic analysis of some decorated discs from Sharm, Fujairah. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 10: 213–215.

Düring B.S. & Olijdam E. 2015. Revisiting the СuΉar hinterlands: the Wādī al-Jīzī Archaeological Project.

Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 45:

93–106.

ElMahi A.T. & Ibrahim M. 2003. Two seasons of investigations at Manāl site in the Wādī Samāyil area, Sultanate of Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 33: 77–98.

ElMahi A.T. & Al-Jahwari N.S. 2005. Graves at Mahleya in Wādī ΚAndām (Sultanate of Oman): a view of a late Iron Age and Samad period death culture. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 35: 57– 69.

Frifelt K. 1975. On prehistoric settlement and chronology of the Oman Peninsula. East and West 25: 359–423.

Fritz C.D. 2009. A regional ceramic analysis of Iron

Age II southeastern Arabia. PhD thesis, Bryn Mawr College. [Unpublished].

Hartnell T. & Barker D. 1999. Decorated discs from Sharm. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 10:

205–212.

Huckle M. 2003. A unique soft-stone tri- compartimentalised vessel (probably from WaΜab 4, in the Wadi al-Qawr, Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E.). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 14: 58–62.

Humphries J.H. 1974. Harvard Archaeological Survey in Oman: II. Some later prehistoric sites in the Sultanate of Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 4: 49–77.

Jasim S.A. 2006. The Archaeological sites of Jebel al- Buhais. Pages 13–68 in H.P. Uerpmann, M. Uerpmann

& S.A. Jasim (eds), Funerary monuments and human remains from Jebel al-Buhais. (The Archaeology of Jebel Buhais, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, 1).

Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.

Kanungo A.K., Misra V.N., Dutta K., Ravi Prasad G.V. et al. 2010. The radiocarbon chronology of Kopia, an early glass manufacturing centre in India.

Archaeometry 52: 899–918.

Lal B.B. 1996. The Painted Grey Ware culture of the Iron Age. Pages 412–431 in A.H. Dani & V.M. Masson (eds), History of civilizations of Central Asia. i. The dawn of civilization: earliest times to 700 B.C. Paris:

UNESCO Publishing.

Magee P. 1998. The chronology and regional context of late prehistoric incised arrowheads in south-eastern Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 9: 1–12.

Magee P. 1999. A proposed function for late prehistoric incised arrowheads in southeastern Arabia. Isimu 2:

353–363.

Magee P. 2004. The impact of southeast Arabian intra- regional trade on settlement location and organization during the Iron Age II period. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 15: 24–42.

Magee P. 2005. The chronology and environmental background of Iron Age settlement in southeastern Iran and the question of the origin of the qanat irrigation system. Iranica Antiqua 60: 217–231.

Magee P. 2014. The archaeology of prehistoric Arabia.

Adaptation and social formation from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. (Cambridge World Archaeology).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Magee P. & Carter R. 1999. Agglomeration and regionalism: southeastern Arabia between 1400 and 1100 BC. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 10:

161–179.

(22)

Méry S. 1991. Wadi Suq fine wares from Shimal and Hili sites (United Arab Emirates). A technological and provenience analysis. Pages 245–255 in K. Schippmann, A. Herling & J.F. Salles (eds), Golf-Archäologie. Mesopotamien, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate und Oman.

(Internationale Archäologie, 6). Buch am Erlach:

Verlag Marie L. Leidorf.

Méry S. 2000. Les céramiques d’Oman et l’Asie moyenne.

Une archéologie des échanges à l’Âge du Bronze.

(CRA Monographies, 23). Paris: CNRS Éditions.

Méry S. 2013. The first oases in Eastern Arabia: society and craft technology, in the 3rd millennium BC at Hili, United Arab Emirates. Revue d’ethnoécologie 4: 2–17.

Phillips C. 1987. Wadi al Qawr, Fashgha 1. The excavation of a prehistoric burial structure in Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E., 1986. A preliminary report. (Department of Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Project Paper, 7). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

Phillips C. 1997. The pattern of settlement in the Wadi al-Qawr. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 27: 205–218.

Phillips C. 2010. Iron Age chronology in South East Arabia and new data from Salut, Sultanate of Oman.

Pages 71–79 in A. Avanzini (ed.), Eastern Arabia in the first millennium BC. Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider.

Phillips C. [n.d.] Excavations at Wadi Al-Qawr.

[Unpublished circulated report and catalogue].

Potts D.T. 1991. Further Excavations at Tell Abraq.

Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Schreiber J. 2010. The Iron I period in South-Eastern Arabia. A view from Central Oman. Pages 81–90 in A.

Avanzini (ed.), Eastern Arabia in the first millennium BC. Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider.

Velde C. 2003. Wadi Suq and Late Bronze Age in the Oman Peninsula. Pages 101–113 in D. Potts, H. Al Naboodah & P. Hellyer (eds), Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates. London: Trident Press.

Velde C. 2009. The landscape of the Middle Bronze Age in the UAE — Where did people live? Pages 61–74 in National Centre for Documentation and Research (ed.), New perspectives on recording UAE History.

Abu Dhabi: National Centre for Documentation and Research.

Vogt B. 1994. Asimah. An account of a two months rescue excavation in the mountains of Ras al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates. Dubai: Shell Markets Middle East.

Vogt B. & Kästner J.M. 1987. Tomb SH 102. Pages 23–

36, pls 5–6, figs 7–21 in B. Vogt & U. Franke-Vogt (eds), Shimal 1985/1986. Excavations of the German Archaeological Mission in Ras Al-Khaimah, U.A.E. A preliminary report. (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient, 8). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Vogt B. & Velde C. 1987. Ghalilah Tomb SH 103. Pages 37–43, pls 7–9, figs 22–28 in B. Vogt & U. Franke- Vogt (eds), Shimal 1985/1986. Excavations of the German Archaeological Mission in Ras Al-Khaimah, U.A.E. A preliminary report. (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient, 8). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Weeks L. 2000. Metal artefacts from the Sharm tomb.

Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 11: 180–198.

Yule P. 2001. Die Gräberfelder in Samad al Shān (Sultanate of Oman): Materialien zu einer Kulturgeschichte. (Orient-Archäologie, 4). Rahden:

Verlag M.L. Leidorf.

Yule P. & Weisgerber G. 2015a. Al Wasit tomb W1 and other sites: redefining the second millennium BCE chronology in south-eastern Arabia. Pages 9–108 in P. Yule (ed.), Archaeological research in the Sultanate of Oman. Bronze and Iron Age graveyards. (The Expedition of the Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum in Oman, 1) (Der Anschnitt, 28) (Veröffenlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum, 208).

Rahden: Verlag Marie L. Leidorf.

Yule P. & Weisgerber G. 2015b. The cemetery at al- AkhΡar near Samad al-Shān in the Sharqīya (Oman).

Pages 111–172 in P. Yule (ed.), Archaeological research in the Sultanate of Oman. Bronze and Iron Age graveyards. (The Expedition of the Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum in Oman, 1) (Der Anschnitt, 28) (Veröffenlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum, 208). Rahden: Verlag Marie L. Leidorf.

Ziolkowski M.C. 2001. The soft stone vessels from Sharm, Fujairah, United Arab Emirates. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 12: 10–86.

Zutterman C. 2004. The softstone vessels from Qarn Bint SaΜud, Abu Dhabi (U.A.E.). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 15: 105–114.

(23)

Authors’ addresses

Bleda S. Düring, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, PO Box 9514, 2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands.

e-mail b.s.during@arch.leidenuniv.nl

Eric Olijdam, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Adriaan Butijnweg 1, 4411 BT Rilland, Netherlands.

e-mail olijdam@zeelandnet.nl

Sam A. Botan, Department of Archaeology, Sultan Qaboos University, PO Box 42, 123 Al-Khod, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman.

e-mail sbotan@gmail.com