Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman: The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-hamra Rh-5 (Archaeological Heritage of Oman, 6) 9781803270340, 9781803270357, 1803270349

Citation preview

T H E A R C H A E O LO G I C A L H E R I TA G E O F O M A N - V O L . 6

PREHISTORIC FISHERFOLK OF OMAN THE NEOLITHIC VILLAGE OF RAS AL-HAMRA RH-5

Lapo Gianni Marcucci, Emilie Badel & Francesco Genchi

MIN ISTRY OF H E RITAGE AND TOUR I SM - SULTANAT E OF OM AN 2021

The Archaeological Heritage of Oman

PREHISTORIC FISHERFOLK OF OMAN

The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

LAPO GIANNI MARCUCCI, EMILIE BADEL & FRANCESCO GENCHI

Sultanate of Oman Ministry of Heritage and Tourism

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com © Lapo Gianni Marcucci, Emilie Badel & Francesco Genchi 2021 Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5 (Includes bibliographical references and index). 1. Arabia. 2. Oman 3. Neolithic. 4. Antiquities 5. Ras Al-Hamra 6. Muscat. This edition is published by Archaeopress Publishing Ltd in association with the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism, Sultanate of Oman. Printed in England ISBN 978-1-80327-034-0 ISBN 978-1-80327-035-7 (e-Pdf) This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism, Sultanate of Oman. Ministry of Heritage and Tourism Sultanate of Oman, Muscat P.O. Box 200, Postal Code 115 Thaqafah Street Muscat, Sultanate of Oman Cover image: Rendering of the archaeological park at Ras Al-Hamra (image by F+LR Architecture).

Note: The maps in this book are historical and cannot be modified as they are specifically drawn for that period only and they do not reflect political, geographical and administrative boundaries. The administrative boundaries in these maps are drawn for the purpose of this project only and not real or approved by the concerned authorities. They shall not be published and circulated. The Geographical Place Names (GPN) in these maps are not written by the Arabic Standardized Romanization System applied in the National Survey Authority of Oman (NSA).

Contents

List of Illustrations, Maps and Tables

v

Acknowledgments

xix

Introduction

xxi

1 Environmental Setting

1

2 Human Occupation at Qurum

19

3 Shell Middens and Ras Al-Hamra

41

4 Stratigraphy and Chronology

61

5 Settlement Structures

80

6 Activities

106

7 Material Culture

124

8 Mobility

161

9 Society

168

10 Demography

172

11 Comparisons

174

12 Conclusions

193

Bibliography

197

Index

219

List of Illustrations, Maps and Tables

FIGURES A.

Topographic map of the promontory of Ras Al-Hamra, the mouth of Wadi Aday, the Qurum mangrove and the position of the archaeological sites (modified after Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: fig. 45).

xxii

1.1.

Map of Oman with various regional geographic areas (after Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: fig. 1).

2

1.2.

Reconstruction of the paleo-shorelines of the Arabian Gulf and the western Sea of Oman in a, 18000 BP, b, 12000 BP, c, 10000 BP and d, 8000 BP. The isobaths are at -20, -50, -75, -100 and -150 m (after Lambeck 1996: fig. 7).

6

1.3.

Position of the winds and the ITCZ (Intertropical Convergence Zone - a narrow latitudinal zone of wind convergence and precipitation) in the northern Indian Ocean during: 1) The winter monsoon from north-east in January; 2) The season of the rains from southwest in May; 3) The summer monsoon from south-west in July; 4) The season of the rains from north-east in November (after Van Ramperlbergh et al. 2013: fig. 2).

8

1.4.

Synthesis of the paleoclimatic data in the south of the Arabian Peninsula, in the Sea of Oman and western Arabian Sea. Concerning the references see Marcucci, 2015 (modified after Bourget 2009: fig. I-24).

9

1.5.

Geological map of Oman with the indication of the most important outcrops (after Garzanti et al. 2003: fig. 2).

11

1.6.

Mineral resources along the Wadi Aday and position of the archaeological sites in Qurum and Ras Al-Hamra (after Maggi and Gebel 1990: fig. 1).

12

1.7.

Several plants of the species Avicennia marina photographed at the periphery of the lagoon of Khor Jaramah, in the northern part of the Ja’alan region, in the extreme eastern coast of the Arabian Peninsula. At the feet of the trees, one can note hundreds of aerial roots (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

13

1.8.

The north-eastern edge of the Qurum mangrove seen from north. Site RH-6 is located few meters on the right side of the image (photograph by R. Merlo).

14

1.9.

Several species of plants and shrubs identified in the samples of charcoals coming from sites RH-5 and RH-6: A) Tamarix sp.; B) Ziziphus sp.; C) Rizophora sp.; D) Lycium shawii; E) Acacia sp.; F) Nerium oleander (photographs by M. Tengberg).

16

1.10.

Fishing in the mangrove is a weekend activity for Indian residents in Oman in the mangroves of Qurum at low tide. Here abundant small fish of Ambassis gymnocephalus species is catched in a plastic bucket with a very fine net (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

17

1.11.

Small crab caught with bare hands during the weekend by Indian residents in the mangroves of Qurum at low tide (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

17

1.12.

Bivalves (Veneridae family) gathered during the weekend by Indian residents on the seashore of Qurum at low tide (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

18

2.1.

The most important centres in which the domestication has occurred with the dates for earliest plants and animals (after Price and Bar- Yosef 2011: fig. 1).

20

v

vi

2.2.

Map of Oman and UAE indicating the most characterizing lithic tools of the Early and Middle Holocene. As stated by Cleuziou and Tosi the distribution of the archaeological sites and tools is uneven. Indeed the areas with less data are those in which the research has been minimal or absent, in particular in the desert areas (modified after Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: fig. 27).

25

2.3.

Topographic map on a 1:5000 scale of Ras Al-Hamra made by the Petroleum Development Oman (PDO) with the handwritten notes of the first 1970s of R. Jäckli and the 1975 ones of M. Tosi. The small and full black circles relate to stone structures while the large and empty ones to settlements (photograph by Petroleum Development Oman).

26

2.4.

Ras Al-Hamra in 1977 and the location of the major archaeological sites found and excavated in this area: RH-4, RH-5, RH-6 and RH-10 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

27

2.5.

M. Tosi during the rescue excavation at RH-4 in 1977 working between the sections of the trenches opened by construction work before the complete destruction of the site (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

28

2.6.

Hut composed of curvilinear alignment of stones found during the excavation of RH10 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

30

2.7.

View from south of site RH-6 during the first excavation in the 1980s (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

30

2.8.

View from south of site RH-5 from the plane before the beginning of the 2009-2010 excavation mission (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

31

2.9.

Grave dated to the Umm an-Nar Period according to the pottery found by K. Frifelt, head of the Danish Archaeological Mission, in the winter of 1972-1973 on the site of the Gulf Hotel (now re-named Crowne Plaza Hotel) before its construction (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

32

2.10.

View from east of the stratigraphic excavation carried out by P. Biagi in 1984 in the central-southern portion of site RH-5 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

33

2.11.

Sepulchral area characterized by secondary graves, called “Area 43” during the 1984 excavation campaign (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

33

2.12.

Overview of the promontory of Ras Al-Hamra before the rescue excavation of 20042005. At the end of the 1980s excavation campaigns the owner of the land, H.H. Said Faisal bin Ali Al-Said, built a garden over the sites: the bigger garden corresponds to RH-5 and the smaller one to RH-10 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

34

2.13.

A) the garden over site RH-5 before the rescue excavation; B) the extensive excavation of the central-eastern portion of site RH-5 opened in January 2005; C) close-up of the excavation area (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

36

2.14.

The division into squares of the surface of site RH-5 and the grid of the excavation were the same as those of the 1980s excavations. Each unit is given by an acronym of three letters: the first identifies the 50 x 50 m square, the second the 10 x 10 m one and the third the 2 x 2 m one. If necessary this last square is divided into other four squares of 1 x 1 m (A-D clockwise) in order to identify with more precision the finding of an important artefact (e.g. HSN-B). The image has been downloaded from Google Earth and shows the property of the former Omani Minister of Heritage and Culture as it appeared on March 16, 2003 before the emergency excavation of 2004-2005. The ground where RH-5 is found is delimited in red while prehistoric site RH-10, by now destroyed, was found in square D. The exposed ground was divided in five excavation sectors: A, B1, B2, C, D and E (drawings by L.G. Marcucci; satellite image from Google Earth).

38

2.15.

RH-5. Sector B1, procedure adopted for the survey of the living structures detected on the bedrock: A) photomosaic; B) manual drawing; C) digital drawing (photomosaic by F. Genchi; drawings by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

39

2.16.

RH-5. A) kite photo of Sector E in 2009 (photograph by M. Zanfini and P. Baldassarri); B) Sector E-east seen from south; C) Sector E-south seen from south; D) plan of the structures found in Sector E (photomosaic by F. Genchi; drawing by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

40

3.1.

Examples of shell midden deposits in Oman and UAE. Oman (photographs L.G. Marcucci): A) Ras Al-Hamra RH-6 Sector C, 2012. The distance between the pairs of stakes at the sides of the section is of 1 m each; B) Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Sector B1, close up of the west section, 2008; C) Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Sector A, TT-84, close up of the south section, 2010; D) Ras Al-Hamra RH-6, Sector C, TT-Z, close up of the north section, 2012. UAE: F) Khuwaymah KHU-2, test trench (after Charpentier, Berger et al. 2012: fig. 14). UAE: E) Umm Al-Qaiwain, test trench (after Méry 2015: fig. 3.13).

42

3.2.

Some examples of shell middens in the world: A) Kaizuka at Nakazato, Tokyo in Japan, 1997 (after Habu 2004: fig. 3.9); B) pit C of the shell ring near Ilo in Peru (after Sandweiss 2008: fig. 10.2); C) sambaqui of Jaboticabeira II at Santa Caterina in Brazil, surface of 36 m2 (after Gaspar et al. 2008: fig. 18.3); D) shell mound at Saqid Island of the Farasan Islands (Saudi Arabia) in the south-eastern Red Sea, height of the tell 3 m, 2006 (after Alsharekh and Bailey 2014: fig. 25).

43

3.3.

Close-up of the reference section in Sector C, Ras Al-Hamra RH-6, 2012. The stratigraphy is constituted mainly by thin layers of shells, fish bones, fish powder, stones, charcoals and artefacts entrapped in a sandy matrix (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

44

3.4.

Environmental evolution of SWY-1 site at As-Suwayh in Oman resulting from the study of shells in relation to their habitats and the stratigraphy of the site (after Serrand et al. 2008: 74).

46

3.5.

Perforated Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from the Middle Stone Age of Blombos Cave in South Africa recovered from archaeological levels dated to 75000 years ago, scale bar 5 mm (after Henshilwood et al. 2004: fig. 1).

48

3.6.

Large gastropods like Fasciolaria trapezium, Turbinella pyrum, Lambis truncata sebae and Chicoreus ramosus were used by Indian craftsmen during the Mature Indian Civilization (2500-1700 BC) for making tools and ornaments demonstrating the highly specialized production of marine shell objects (after Kenoyer 2008: fig. 3).

50

3.7.

The Kula circuit in the Massim archipelago area east of Papua New Guinea. On the right the soulava article (necklaces of red Spondylus sp. shell) and on the left the mwali one (bracelets of white Conus sp. shell) (modified after Malinowski 1932: map V, pls. XVI, XVIII).

52

3.8.

Wooden fish trap remains from the Zamostje 2 site in the late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the Russian plain (after Lozovski et al. 2013: fig. 12).

53

3.9.

Skull of a Chelonia mydas turtle found in the graveyard excavated in the 1980s at site RH-5 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

55

3.10.

Figure 3.10. The different ecosystems where shells live in Qurum: 1) the undercut of the cliff of Ras Al-Hamra is caused by bivalves (e.g. Saccostrea cucullata) boring into the soft rock and eroded by the action of waves and wind; 2) off-shore in deep waters along the coast live large gastropods like Lambis truncata sebae; 3) the open sand beach where many molluscs (e.g. Conus flavidus, Umbonium vestiarium, Callista erycina, Strombus decorus persicus, Oliva bulbosa) burrow into the wet sand; 4) the sheltered side of the sea beach where many molluscs (e.g. Dosinia alta, Circe currogata) live away from the surf; 5) the rocky stream bed where the older juvenile shells live (e.g. Pinctada margaritifera,

57

vii

Pinctada radiata, Nassarius coronatus, Nassarius arcularius plicatus, Nassarius albescens gemmuliferus, Cypraea gracilis, Cypraea turdus) when they leave the nursery and make their way to the sea; 6) the upper reaches of the stream is the nursery area where many molluscs (e.g. Pinctada margaritifera, Pinctada radiata, Umbonium vestiarium, Thais alouina) come to lay their eggs and the young hatch, and spend their early days here; 7) in the deep quiet pools amongst the mangrove live molluscs (e.g. Serpulorbis variabilis, Strombus decorus persicus, Umbonium vestiarium) with other animals; 8) in the muddy soil between the roots of the mangroves live many endemic species like Terebralia palustris, Cerithidea cingulata, Telescopium telescopium, but also Saccostrea cucullata, sometimes attached to Terebralia palustris and Isognomon legumen (photograph from the Fred Scholz Collection).

viii

3.11.

Close-up of the shells belonging to the species Terebralia palustris present at the feet of the trees of Avicennia marina between the roots, photographed during the low tide in the mangrove of Qurum at a short distance from the RH-6 site (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

58

3.12.

Pinctada margaritifera shell at the Natural History Museum of the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism of Oman. This bivalve is one of the most important shells used by the fishermen of Ras Al-Hamra and the Oman Peninsula at least from the 6th millennium BC for making tools and ornaments. Average size of adult specimens is 200 mm (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

59

4.1.

RH-5. A) position of the 1980s excavations and the trenches opened in 1982 and 1984; B) position of the trenches opened during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 compared to the excavation sectors of 2008-2010 (drawing by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

62

4.2.

Kite view of the area opened in 2008 at RH-5: in red the alphanumerical codes of the various excavation sectors and in black the ones of the trenches opened in 2004-2005 and by P. Biagi in the 1980s (photograph by M. Zanfini).

63

4.3.

A) location of site RH-5 and other prehistoric sites in the area of Ras Al-Hamra; B) the extension of sites RH-5 and RH-10 and the area in which the graveyard of RH-5 has been detected; C) location of the various graves identified, excavated or sampled in the 1980s and in 2005/2008 (after Zazzo et al. 2013: fig. 1).

64

4.4.

RH-5. Micromorphological profile and photomosaic of a portion of the north section of trench EW-1 comprised between Sector D and Biagi’s 1982 trench (drawing by I. Béguier; photomosaic by T. Conci).

65

4.5.

RH-5. Micromorphological profile and photomosaic of a portion of the north section of Sector E-west (drawing by I. Béguier; photomosaic by T. Conci).

66

4.6.

RH-5. Plan (left) and photomosaic (right) of the structures found in the bedrock of Sector B2 (photomosaic by F. Genchi; drawing by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

67

4.7.

RH-5. Plans of Phase 2 (2a, 2b and 2c) of Period I of occupation in HUT B56 (drawing by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

68

4.8.

RH-5. Detail of the plans of the living structures recovered in the bedrock in Sector B2 except HUT B56: A) HUT B61; B) HUT B57; C) HUT B58; D) HUT B59; E) HUT B60 (drawing by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

69

4.9.

RH-5. Biagi’s excavation of 1982-1983: A) northern section of east-west test trench of 1982 cut across the western half of the site; Biagi’s excavation of 1983-1985: B) level 0 (Phase VII); C) level 1 (Phase VI); D) level 3 (Phase V); E) levels 3b, 3c and 3d (Phase IV); F) level 5a (Phase II); G) level 5b (Phase I). The above sequence seems to be valid only for the investigated area and cannot be extended for sure to the entire site (A, after Biagi et al. 1984; fig. 5; B-G, after Biagi and Salvatori 1986: figs. 1-4).

70

4.10.

RH-5. Test trench 1982 with the large pit where sixty-five sherds of black burnished grey ware were found belonging to the same jar coming from Iran and dated to the end of the 4th millennium BC (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

72

4.11.

RH-5. View from north of the postholes found in 2008 in Sector A, under excavation, probably belonging to a hut or to an open shelter (HUT A1). In the foreground the pit of Grave 410 (photograph by F. Genchi).

74

4.12.

RH-5. Three examples of the sedimentary pattern (1, ash; 2, charcoals; 3, crushed fish bones) that is repeated in the sequence of occupation of the site that suggests a combustion à l’étouffé (i.e. smothered combustion). In this case detected in the sections of the test trench 1984: A) West section; B-C) North section (photographs by F. Genchi).

75

4.13.

RH-5. View from east of the central portion of Sector B1 at the end of the 2008 excavation campaign. The cleaning of the bedrock has brought to light circular base foundations and hundreds of postholes relating to the first period of occupation of the village (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

76

4.14.

RH-5. Portion of the northern section of Sector E-west. Multi-stratified large pit in the middle of the image relating to the last period of occupation of the village (photograph by I. Béguier).

77

4.15.

Multifunctional copper “knife” (DA 26720) found at RH-10 in the 1980s at the time of its discovery, dated to the end of the 4th millennium BC. It is considered one of the oldest metal artefacts from Oman (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

79

5.1.

A posthole found in the 5 m reference section in Sector C at RH-6 in 2012 (A) and its highlighting (B). As can be noted, its detection is not at all easy since the filling is very similar to the stratigraphic layers in which the hole has been cut. The greatest difference for its identification is given by the orientation of the shell fragments along the wall of the hole (photograph by E. Badel).

80

5.2.

Two examples of postholes found during the excavation of test trench TT-Z (Sector C) at RH-6 in 2012 in which large stones in lime or quartz (A) or shells, like Anadara sp., Pinctada sp. and Ostrea sp. (B) have been employed as wedging (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

81

5.3.

RH-5. Density map of the postholes recovered in Sectors B1, B2 north and E excavated directly in the bedrock (drawing by LG. Marcucci and E. Badel).

83

5.4.

Hypothetical use of the postholes for the foundations of the huts according to the findings at RH-5 (modified after Ciarla 1982: fig. 3).

84

5.5.

Cluster of postholes recovered in Sector B2 at RH-5 (photograph by T. Conci).

84

5.6.

Schematic interpretation of a recurrent system of postholes at Ras Al-Hamra constituted of a main post, larger, eventually coupled with a smaller one, and one or more of smaller size arranged in the vicinities employed as oblique backing (drawing by M. Tosi).

85

5.7.

Sizes of the huts identified on the bedrock of Sector B1 of RH-5 according to the structural remains found (in yellow) (drawing by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

86

5.8.

Plan of HUT B1, sector B1 of RH-5 (drawing by E. Badel and L.G. Marcucci).

88

5.9.

RH-5. A) photo from south of the postholes relating to HUT B23; B) the main postholes of HUT B23 highlighted in red; C) tridimensional digital model of HUT B23 (photograph and tridimensional model by F. Genchi).

89

5.10.

Plan of HUTs B17-18, sector B1 of RH-5 (drawing by E. Badel and L.G. Marcucci).

90

5.11.

RH-5. Plan (top) and position on the ground (bottom) of the linear structures constituted of posthole alignments that cross each other, like in this case for HUT E32 in Sector E-east (photograph and drawing by L.G. Marcucci).

91

ix

x

5.12.

RH-5. Plan (top) and position on the ground (bottom) of the linear structures constituted of posthole alignments that cross each other, like in this case for HUT E40 in Sector E-east (photograph and drawing by L.G. Marcucci).

92

5.13.

RH-5. View from east of a fireplace in Sector A (photograph by F. Genchi).

93

5.14.

RH-5. View from east of a fireplace found during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

94

5.15.

RH-5. Burnt vegetal remains recovered in Sector A (photograph by F. Genchi).

94

5.16.

RH-5. Close-up of the large area of thick greyish deposit relating to continuous and repeating ash dumping found during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 close to the test trench opened in 1982, wide 1 m (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

95

5.17.

RH-5. Large sub-circular fireplace of burned rock, charcoal and groundstone fragments found during the 1980s excavations (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

96

5.18.

RH-5. Photographs and drawings of Grave 411 showing faunal remains (top) deposited over the skeleton of an adult male (bottom) (after Zazzo et al. 2012: fig. 2).

97

5.19.

RH-5. Concave structure dug directly in the bedrock of Sector B1 that could have hosted the rests of domestic activities or a fireplace excavated in the 1980s and cleaned in 2009 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

98

5.20.

RH-5. A) view from the north of the fireplace and the pit oven found in Sector C; B) plan of the structures found in Sector C; C) close-up of the buried external wall seen from east; D) the pit oven; E, the annexed fireplace (photographs and drawing by F. Genchi).

99

5.21.

Sketch for the production of embers to be used in an adjacent pit oven for cooking or smoking (modified after Kidder, 1997: Figs. 1 and 4).

100

5.22.

Traditional huts in the highlands of Dhofar in the south of Oman taken by Scholz in the 1970s (after Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: 48).

102

5.23.

Traditional huts in the highlands of Dhofar in the south of Oman (after Peyton 1983: fig. 69).

102

5.24.

Hut-shelter, indlu, of the Zulu of Southeastern Africa. Sequence of construction phases and details (after Cataldi et al. 1982: tab. 16).

103

5.25.

The huts of the Afar and Saho in the village of Buia in the Danakil Depression, eastern Eritrea in Africa: A) light hut; B) finished hardy hut; C) hut under construction; D) close-up of posthole and wedging stones; E) close-up of the ligature of the posts; F) linear alignment of posts (photographs by F. Genchi).

104

5.26.

Sunshade, toldo, from Patagonia, southern America (after Cataldi et al. 1982: tab. 43).

105

6.1.

Fishing in the mangrove of Qurum during the weekend: A-B, E) Small and medium fish caught with fine meshed nets; C-D) Some species of fish that one can catch in the tidal channels of the Qurum Nature Reserve (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

107

6.2.

Straight fish-hook and its use according to Sirélius (after Cleyet-Merle 1990).

108

6.3.

RH-5. Very large net sinker, possibly an anchor, recovered during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 up to the covering stones of Grave 320 (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

109

6.4.

Mineralized remains of vegetal elements relating to two fragments of rope (DA 18243) found in the living area during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

109

6.5.

A sample of fish remains from RH-5 (photograph by A. Marrast).

110

6.6.

Remains of exceptionally large fish identified by H.-P. Uerpmann and M. Uerpmann studying the fish remains coming from the 1980s excavations at RH-5: A) articular bone of a grouper (Epinephelus sp.) from the settlement (est. TL 150 cm); B) premaxilla of a grouper (Epinephelus sp.) from Grave 15 (est. TL 150 cm); C) incisor of a Starry triggerfish (Abalistes stellatus) from the settlement (est. TL 60 cm); D) centrum of a large shark from the settlement; est. TL = estimated total length (modified after Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: fig. 9.10).

110

6.7.

Some species of fish that one can catch today in Oman identified between the faunal remains of RH-5: A) yellow fish tuna at the Mutrah fish market in Muscat (Thunnus albacares, com. TL 150 cm); B) sardine at the Mutrah fish market in Muscat (Sardina sp., com. TL 20 cm); C) hound needlefish (Tylosurus crocodilus, com. TL 90 cm); D) seabream (Rhabdosargus sp., com. TL 35); E) bludger trevally (Carangoides gymnosthetus, com. TL 90 cm); F) little tuna or Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis, com. TL 60 cm); G) golden trevally (Gnathanodon speciosus, com. TL 75 cm); H) Seabream (Acanthopagrus sp., com. TL 35 cm); I) Indian oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps, com. TL 20 cm); J) bluebarred parrotfish (Scarus ghobban, com. TL 30 cm); com. TL = common total length (A-B, photographs by Italian Archaeological Mission; C-I, photographs by P. Béarez and A. Marrast; J, photograph by P. Béarez).

112

6.8.

Close-up of small molluscs (Naticidae family) in the mangrove near the tidal channels where it is also possible to collect the endemic shell of Terebralia palustris (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

113

6.9.

Intertidal zone down to the promontory of RH-5 during the low tide. Here it is possible to gather many molluscs like Callista erycina, cockles, mitre shells and others (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

113

6.10.

During the low tide it is possible to gather from the rocks and cliffs of Ras Al-Hamra shells like oysters (e.g. Saccostrea cucullata) cemented to the rocks and to each other, found in very high quantities in the surrounding archaeological sites (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

114

6.11.

The five main species of shells identified on the sites and gathered by the inhabitants of Ras Al-Hamra: A) Terebralia palustris (Potamididae family); B) Saccostrea cucullata (Ostreidae f.); C) Anadara sp. (Arcidae f.), Acrosterisma sp. and Trachycardium sp. (Cardiidae f.); D) Strombus sp. (Strombidae f.); E) Pinctada sp. (Pteriidae f.), Isognomon sp. (Isognomonidae f.) (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

115

6.12.

Concentration of small fragments of Pinctada sp. and Isognomon sp. shells recovered during the excavation of test trench TT-Z, Sector C at RH-6 in 2012 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

116

6.13.

Scraper from Veneridae family shell found during the excavation of test trench TT-Z, Sector C at RH-6 in 2012 (DA 28662) (photograph by S. Oboukhoff, MAE CNRS).

116

6.14.

Wild animals living in Oman and found in the archaeological deposits of Ras Al-Hamra: A) oryx (Oryx leucoryx); B) ass (Equus africanus); C) gazelle (Gazella gazella arabica); and D) tethering stone (used as tools in hunting and for other means of livelihood) found in Wadi Massawa in 2000 (A-C, photographs by Tosi’s archive; D, photograph by P. Casacci).

117

6.15.

Herder accompanying village goats on their daily grazing itinerary on al Jabal al Akhdar (after Buerkert and Schlecht 2010: 39).

118

6.16.

Only one arrowhead has been found in all the archaeological sites identified and excavated at Ras Al-Hamra and Qurum area since their discovery, at the RH-6 site in

119

xi

2012 in test trench TT-Z. According to D. Usai it is a barbed and tanged arrowhead from a dark grey-blue chert flake with a triangular section, retouched bifacially by pressure except on the ventral side where the retouch is limited to the tang (photograph by E. Badel).

xii

6.17.

Dolphin otoliths coming from the North Trench opened at RH-6 in 2013. Counting the annual growth rings on the otoliths is a common technique in estimating the age and the season of the capture of fish and marine mammals (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

120

6.18.

Two vertebrae of small whale found during the excavation of Grave 88 made in the 1980s at RH-5 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

120

6.19.

In the graveyard of RH-5 near the deceased or, as in this case, among the stones of the covering of a grave, excavated during the 1890s, it is usual to find small oval or spherical pebbles which seems to be analogous to turtle eggs (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

121

6.20.

Several charred stones belonging to different species of trees recovered in the settlement during the rescue excavation 2004-2005 at RH-5 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

123

7.1.

Some examples of shell fish-hooks made from mother-of-pearl coming from the recent excavations of RH-5 and RH-6 (drawing by E. Devidal, © L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

126

7.2.

Two drop-shaped preforms and a complete shell fish-hook from RH-5 recovered during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

127

7.3.

Manufacturing process for the reproduction of shell fish-hooks made in 2009 in Pistoia (Italy) by A. Tomaselli with the collaboration of E. Badel and L.G. Marcucci (photographs by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

127

7.4.

Possible spoon found in test trench TT-Z of Sector C at RH-6 obtained from the last turn of the spire of a large gastropod of the family of the Muricidae or of a juvenile Chicoreus ramosus (drawing by E. Devidal, © L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel; photograph by E. Badel).

128

7.5.

RH-5. A large gastropod of Tutufa tutufa bardeyi with two small, probably suspension, holes (DA 6693) found between the covering stones of Grave 211 during the 1980s excavations (after Salvatori 2007: pl. 46).

129

7.6.

Four specimens of containers obtained from juvenile Lambis truncata sebae found by Biagi in the extensive excavation located in the northern portion of the 1986 test trench (after Biagi 1999: fig. 17).

130

7.7.

Three examples of large gastropods found during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 in the living area of RH-5. From left to right: columella and spire of Fasciolaria trapezium (DA 18250.189); Fasciolaria trapezium lacking the apex with a hole on the body (DA 18250.135); Lambis truncata sebae without the digitations with a hole on the body (DA 18250.186) (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

131

7.8.

RH-5. Beads from gastropods and bivalves: A) Nassarius sp. (DA 18266.248); B) Conus sp. (DA 18247.321); C) Cypraea sp. (DA 18246.410); D) Dentalium sp. (DA 18232.289); E) Engina mendicaria and Nassarius sp. (DA 18229.245); F) Nerita sp. (DA 18267.259); G) Naticidae family (DA 18265.262); H) Acrosterigma sp. (DA 18233.393); I) Marginellinae subfamily (DA 18268.343); J) Spondylus sp. (DA 18231.428); K) Pinctada sp. (DA 22973); L) Strombus sp. (DA 18248.92) (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

132

7.9.

Eighteen pearls found in the Akab shell midden in the Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate, UAE, none have a hole (after Charpentier et al. 2012: fig. 3).

133

7.10.

RH-5. Cluster of pendants in mother-of-pearl found over a gabbro stone of the covering of Grave 118 in the graveyard excavated in the 1980s (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

133

7.11.

RH-5. Pendants in mother-of-pearl (Type 1) found during the excavation of the living area and graveyard during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (drawings by L. Cenci).

135

7.12.

RH-5. Pendants in mother-of-pearl (Type 2) found during the excavation of the living area and graveyard during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (drawings by L. Cenci).

136

7.13.

RH-5. Close-up of a pendant in mother-of-pearl Type 2 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

136

7.14.

RH-5. Some sections of bracelet found in the graves excavated in the 1980s and in 2008 (drawings by L. Cenci).

137

7.15.

RH-5. One of the three small sections of a bracelet (DA 22789) found on the left wrist of the child in Grave 406 excavated in 2008 (photograph by O. Munoz).

137

7.16.

Different necklace types in mother-of-pearl and beads in shell and stone found in the graveyard of RH-5 (drawing by H. David-Cuny).

138

7.17.

Photo documentation of some necklaces and bracelets found in the Ras Al-Hamra sites taken in 2011 for the selection of the objects for the showcases of the new National Museum of Muscat: A) bracelet of chlorite beads (DA 26620 P); B) necklace of chlorite and shell beads, RH-5 Grave 33 (DA 6654/DA 6670); C) necklace of chlorite beads (DA 26621 P); D) necklace of chlorite and shell beads and mother-of-pearl pendants, RH-10 Grave 107 (DA 11977); E) necklace of Dentalium sp. beads, RH-5 Area 43 (DA 6669) (photographs by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

140

7.18.

RH-6. Bracelet made from chlorite and shell beads (DA 28675) found in situ in 2012 on the right wrist of the individual from Grave 2 (photographs by O. Munoz).

141

7.19.

RH-5. Frontal and lateral view of some softstone beads (photographs by T. Conci).

141

7.20.

RH-5. Hemispherical vesicular basalt bead found in Grave 68 sup. (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

142

7.21.

RH-5. Broken earring found during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

142

7.22.

RH-5. Some earrings (finished, unfinished, broken or repaired) found in both the settlement and graveyard during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (drawings by L. Cenci).

144

7.23.

RH-5. Broken earring decorated with a zigzag pattern (DA 18241.386) found during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

145

7.24.

RH-5. Possible phase of the manufacturing process for making earrings of a rough-out plaque of softstone with a central hole (DA 23446) found during the excavation of 2008 on the west section of Sector B1 (photographs by R. Chemin and L.G. Marcucci).

146

7.25.

RH-5. Chipped stone industry coming from Sector B2 in the 2009 and 2009-2010 excavations: A) perforator of hyaline quartz; B) lithic assemblage; C) small hammer from quartz pebble; D) single-platform core made of jasper; E) perforator; F) perforator called “Ras Al-Hamra chisel/punch”; G) perforators and “Ras Al-Hamra chisel/punch” coming from the test trench 2x1 m made in 2009; H) lithic assemblage (A-B/G-H, photographs by L.G. Marcucci; C-F, after Marcucci and Usai 2010: figs. 2-3, 5-6).

147

7.26.

RH-5. Perforators recovered during the 1980s excavations (after Usai 2005: fig. 7).

148

xiii

xiv

7.27.

RH-5. A-E) some net sinkers from the settlement recovered during the 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 excavations (DA 18252.81/204/384/86, DA 23453); F) example of attachment of the rope along the notches of the sinker (A-E, photographs by L.G. Marcucci; F, photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

149

7.28.

RH-5. A/C) hammerstones recovered during the 2004-2005 excavation (DA 18251383/108); B) a hammerstone handle coming from the 1980s excavations (A/C, photographs by L.G. Marcucci; B, photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

150

7.29.

RH-5. Pitted crushing stone found in situ during the 2004-2005 excavation (DA 18251.508) (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

151

7.30.

RH-5. Small grooved stone with three linear incisions in both sides found cleaning the bedrock of Sector E in the 2009-2010 excavation (drawing by E. Devidal, © L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel; photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

152

7.31.

RH-5. Other categories of stone tools recovered during the 1980s excavations and recently: A) cutting tool (DA 6649); B) file (DA 18251.366); C-D) multi-functional tool (A/D, photographs by Italian Archaeological Mission; B-C, photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

152

7.32.

Very flat oval millstone (DA 6622) recovered among the covering stones of the Grave 61 excavated during the 1980s, in the box the object after restoration (photographs by Italian Archaeological Mission).

153

7.33.

RH-5. Iron oxide pebble of reddish colour found during the rescue excavation of 20042005 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

153

7.34.

RH-5. Some mammal bone tools from the settlement and graveyard recovered during the 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 excavations: A) awl (DA 18230.97); B) gorge hook (DA 18230.158); C) puncher (DA 18230.158); D) needle (DA 18230.365); E) small mammal rib completely polished and sharpened at the extremities found in Grave 405 during the emergency excavation of 2004-2005 (DA 22969); F) awl (DA 18230.464); G) gorge hook (DA 25246) (A-D/F-G, photographs by L.G. Marcucci; E, photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

154

7.35.

RH-5. Shark teeth recovered from the settlement and graveyard during 2004-2005 and 2008 excavations: A) projectile point, perforated by two fastening holes, drilled through the root (DA 18234.83); B) DA 18234.102; C) large hole made at the centre by crushing the bone surface (DA 18234.256); D) Grave 411 (DA 22981); E) Grave 411 (DA 22982); F) Grave 411 (DA 22983) (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

156

7.36.

RH-5. A perforated shark tooth (DA 7262.02) found hammered into a lumbar vertebra of an adult male in cluster 43.5 in Area 43 of the graveyard excavated in 1984 (drawing modified after Santini 2002: fig. 5; photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

157

7.37.

RH-5. Mineralized vegetal remains related to a series of knots in one or more ropes recovered above Grave 410 during the 2009-2010 excavation (photograph by T. Conci).

158

7.38.

RH-5. Sharply carinated jar containing remains of bituminous substance on the bottom (DA 11510a) discovered in a pit belonging to the last period of occupation of the site during the 1980s excavations (drawing by L. Cenci; photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

159

8.1.

Aerial view of site BHS-18 from north to south located in the interior of the Sharjah Emirate at the foot of the Jebel Al-Buhais. Photo taken during the 1999 excavation (after Uerpmann et al. 2006: fig. 2.1d).

162

8.2.

Aerial view from south of site KHB-1 at Ras Al-Khabbah in the Ja’alan region taken in the 1980s (photograph by Joint Hadd Project).

162

8.3.

Kite view from north of site SWY-1 at As-Suwayh in the Ja’alan region taken in 2004 (photograph by Joint Hadd Project).

163

8.4.

Aerial view from west of site GAS-1 at Wadi Shab in the Ja’alan region taken in 1981 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

163

9.1.

Plan of HUTs B23/26-28, sector B1 of RH-5 (drawing by E. Badel and L.G. Marcucci).

169

11.1.

Map of the southern and eastern Arabian Peninsula with the major sites indicated dated to the Early and Middle Holocene (modified after Marcucci et al., 2011: Fig. 9).

175

11.2.

Living structures from: A) GAS-1 at Wadi Shab (after Tosi and Usai, 2003: Fig. 3); B) HD-5 at Ras Al-Hadd (after Maini and Curci, 2013: Fig. 4); C) RJ-41 at Ras Al-Jinz (photograph by Joint Hadd Project); D) RJ-39 at Ras Al-Jinz (after Charpentier, 1999: Fig. 2); E) RJ-2 at Ras Al-Jinz (photograph by Joint Hadd Project).

176

11.3.

Zenithal kite view of the base trench foundations of five huts belonging to the first phase of occupation of the site KHB-1 at Ras Al-Khabbah (modified after Cavulli 2004: fig. 4).

177

11.4.

Living structures from As-Suwayh: A) SWY-1 (after Charpentier et al., 2003: Fig. 6); B) SWY-2, layer 1 (after Charpentier et al. 1998: fig. 5).

178

11.5.

Photomosaic of the living and auxiliary structures cut in the bedrock in Sector A of RH6 at Ras Al-Hamra (after Marcucci et al. 2014: fig. 2).

180

11.6.

Living structures from settlements of the Arabian Gulf: A) H-3 at As-Sabiyah in Kuwait (after Beech and Al-Husain 2005: fig. 3); B) Akab, in the homonymous island, in the Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate, sector 1-2 (after Charpentier and Méry 2008: fig. 7); C) MR11, in the island of Marawah in the Abu Dhabi Emirate, area A structure MR11.6 (after Beech et al. 2005: fig. 8); D) UAQ-2, in the Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate, sector 1-2 layer 12 (after Méry et al. 2016: fig. 7b); E) DA-11, in the island of Dalma in the Abu Dhabi Emirate, trench 1 phase 5 (modified after Beech and Elders 1999: fig. 4).

181

11.7.

The importance of site H-3, at As-Sabiyah in Kuwait, is given by the finding of numerous artefacts related to maritime activities, already starting from the second half of the 6th millennium BC. Other than numerous fragments of bitumen with incrustations of barnacles and reed and rope imprints (C) employed for caulking boats, also a small pottery model of a boat (A, D) and painting depicting a boat (B) have been found (A, after Carter 2008: fig. 4; B-D, after Carter 2005: figs. 3-5).

183

11.8.

Some mother-of-pearl shell fish-hooks: A) the bigger specimens have been found at KM-1 (DA 1926) and GAS-1 (inside Grave 3, DA 15926), respectively at Khor Milkh and Wadi Shab located along the northern coast of Oman (photographs by L.G. Marcucci); B) Akab, in the homonymous island, in the Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate (modified after Méry et al. 2008: fig. 2).

184

11.9.

Different types of net sinkers coming from some prehistoric Omani shell middens: A) RH-6, Sector C, Ras Al-Hamra (DA 28202); B) RH-6, Sector A, Ras Al-Hamra (DA 28600); C) Ras Al-Hamra, 1980s excavations (DA 19780); D), KHB-1, Ras Al-Khabbah; E) JBH-1, Ras Jibsh (DA 20222); F) RH-6, Sector C TT-Z, Ras Al-Hamra (DA 28850) (A-C/E-H, photographs by L.G. Marcucci; D, after Cavulli and Scaruffi 2011: fig. 2.1619/23-25).

185

11.10.

Flat stone of quartzite (DA 30401), found in the low part of the deposit of the North Trench at RH-6, used for polishing or grinding some substance. Indeed some orange (ochre?) traces are visible on one face (drawing by E. Devidal, © L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel; photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

186

11.11.

Disc in softstone (DA 28671) with a groove along the perimeter found at RH-6 in Sector C TT-Z (drawing by E. Devidal, © L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel; photographs by S. Oboukhoff).

186

xv

11.12.

Large and long flat stone (DA 30724) with wear traces along an edge used probably for cutting found in the north trench of RH-6 (drawing by E. Devidal, © L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel; photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

187

11.13.

Grooved stones from the north trench (DA 30402, above) and from Sector A (DA 30430, below) of RH-6 (after Marcucci et al. 2014: fig. 4.5-6).

187

11.14.

Sample of chipped stone industry from the excavation of GAS-1 at Wadi Shab: 1-3, “Ras Al-Hamra chisel/punch” type; 4-12, backed pieces; 13-15, other tools (after Usai and Cavallari 2008: fig. 12).

189

11.15.

Special beads from RH-6: A) shell bead of tubular shape obtained from the columella of a large gastropod found in Sector C TT-Z (DA 28708); B), rectangular and flat bead in chlorite with bevelled edges and a double hole at each extremity found in Sector C TT-Z (DA 28880) (drawing by E. Devidal, © LG. Marcucci and E. Badel; photographs by S. Oboukhoff).

190

11.16.

Manufacturing process for making beads from Spondylus sp. according to the findings recovered in the Akab site, in the homonymous island, in the Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate (modified after Charpentier and Méry 2008: fig. 14).

191

11.17.

Different types of earrings coming from some prehistoric Omani shell middens: A) GAS-1 at Wadi Shab (after Tosi and Usai 2003: fig. 9); B) SM-10 at Ras Dah in the Masirah Island (after Charpentier et al. 2013: fig. 4/1-3); C) RH-6 at Ras Al-Hamra, Sector C TT-Z (photograph by S. Oboukhoff).

192

12.1.

The project of the archaeological park at RH-5: A) oblique view; B) section; C) plan (drawings by F+LR Architecture).

194

12.2.

The project of the information centre at RH-6: A) section; B) plan and profile (drawings by F+LR Architecture).

192

TABLES

xvi

1.1.

Synthesis of the different sea levels of the Arabian Gulf and the Sea of Oman during the last ten thousand years (modified after Beech 2004: tab. 2 and references; Berger et al. 2013).

4

2.1.

Chronology of the prehistoric cultures and/or lithic industries in the south and southeast of the Arabian Peninsula and chronological correspondences with the Near East and Mesopotamia. ABT= Arabian Bifacial Tradition, UNT= Upland Neolithic Tradition, Ubaid N= North Ubaid, PN= Pottery Neolithic, PPNA/B/C= Pre-Pottery Neolithic A/B/C (modified after Drechsler 2009: fig. 1; for the Near East and Mesopotamia see Garelli et al. 1997: 22-23).

22

2.2.

Comparative chronology between the various cultures of the Bronze Age between Mesopotamia, southern Iran, Indus Valley and Oman Peninsula (Oman and UAE). The correlations are indicative. PD= Proto-Dynastic (modified after Cleuziou and Méry, 2002: tab. 1; Boivin and Fuller 2009: fig. 1; Olijdam 2010: fig. 3).

24

2.3.

The most important archaeological sites of Ras Al-Hamra and Qurum and their main features: S= settlement, G= graveyard, SAS= scatter of artefacts in surface, E= excavation, TT= test trench, SC= surface collection, CSM= coastal shell midden, ISM= shell midden situated more inland, MSM= shell midden next to the mangrove (modified after Durante and Tosi, 1977: tab. 1; IsMEO Activities 1983: tab. 1; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 3-15).

29

4.1.

RH-5. Correlation between the living structures found in the northern portion of Sector B2 and the phases of occupation identified during the excavation (table by L.G. Marcucci).

67

4.2.

Periodization of site RH-5 according to the different excavations carried out between 1982 and 2010, above-all taking in account Biagi’s excavation of 1983-1985 carried out in the central-southern portion of the site (Biagi et al., 1984; Biagi and Salvatori, 1986; Usai, 2005). In this case Biagi has been the only one to excavate the anthropic deposit in its wholeness, even if reducing the area of research during the excavation (table by L.G. Marcucci).

73

5.1.

RH-5. Description of the variables employed for the typological study of the postholes of Sector B1 (modified after Cavulli 2008: tabs. 1.7-1.9).

82

xvii

Acknowledgments

This volume of the Archaeological Heritage of Oman was commissioned and supported by the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism (at the time Ministry of Heritage and Culture) of the Sultanate of Oman. The Authors are very grateful to the Minister of Heritage and Tourism of the Sultanate of Oman for the financial and logistical support during the excavations at Ras Al-Hamra, in particular to H.E. Salim Mohammed Almahruqi, Minister of Heritage and Tourism, H.E. Hassan Mohammed Ali Al-Lawati, former Director General for Archaeology and Museum and present Adviser for Special Projects, Mr. Sultan Saif AlBakri, Director General for Archaeology, Mr. Khamis Al-Asmi, Director of the Department of Excavations and Archaeological Studies, Mrs. Rahma Qassim Al-Farsi, Director General of Museums, and Mrs. Biubwa Ali Al-Sabri. We deeply thank the late Prof. Maurizio Tosi, then Adviser for Archaeology to the Minister, Director of the Italian Archaeological Mission and co-director, along with the late Prof. Serge Cleuziou, of the Joint Hadd Project, for having given the research group the opportunity to resume the excavations of the important site of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, and for having guided and constantly advised the experts in the field, thanks to their professional competence and decennial experience of the Arabian Peninsula. A particular thank to all who have participated directly in the excavations and post-excavations activities of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5: archaeologists, anthropologists, specialists, students and the workers. Special thanks to Mrs. Maggie Jeans OBE and her late husband, Prof. William Dampier Jeans, for their indefatigable aid and continuous support during our missions in Oman as well as the Historical Association of Oman, their friends and a numbers of private donors. Finally, we would like to express our sincerest thanks and appreciation to Mrs. Carla Conti and Mrs. Maggie Jeans for editing the English version of this manuscript.

This book is dedicated to the memory of the late Prof. Maurizio Tosi

xix

Introduction 1

The discovery of aceramic shell middens clustered along the western cliff of Ras Al-Hamra in the Capital Area has provided the consistent evidence for the investigation of an early stage in the still poorly documented prehistory of coastal adaptations in the Middle East.1 The district of Qurum represents for Muscat one of the most exclusive zones in the capital of the Sultanate, not only from a tourist-residential point of view but even from an environmental one, for the presence of the Qurum Nature Reserve, and, last but not least, from a patrimonial one, thanks to rich archaeological sites explored in the area (Figure A). This cluster of sites which belongs to the Omani cultural heritage represents an exceptional area of fieldwork not only for archaeologists, but also for anthropologists, geologists, climatologists and many other specialists of natural and human sciences. The resumption of the excavations at RH-5, and recently also at RH-6, thus far have brought new and numerous data that provide precise details on the synchronous and diachronic dynamics of the human occupation in this zone, as also on the economic and social dynamics of the Neolithic societies of Southeastern Arabia giving new information to the scientific debate for the study of hunter-gatherers Neolithic populations. The sites named RH-5 and RH-6, inhabited between the 6th and 4th millennia BC, represent exceptional examples of the coastal adaptation of Neolithic groups in Oman during the Middle Holocene period. Archaeological research has provided plentiful evidence of daily life and mortuary practices of these ancient societies, whose subsistence was mainly oriented toward marine and coastal resources. In both, abundant remains have been found in the settlement structures made up by huts, whose foundations, recognized thanks to the postholes and by the small base trench foundations, allow us to reconstruct the architectural development of the two sites, in space and in time. The excavations have also brought to light numerous auxiliary structures, such as fireplaces for fish processing or areas destined only for shell processing, as well as a large pit oven for the needs of the entire community. Moreover, research has confirmed the importance of the graveyard of RH-5 with the excavation of many graves and the finding of new ones in a zone that was suspected to have none, making the sepulchral area the most extended in Oman2. These and other discoveries confirm that the area of Ras Al-Hamra represents a highly strategic point for the human development in Oman. Surrounded by various ecological niches, since antiquity, it could have hosted numerous tribal groups and allowed them to create a new style of life, the sedentary one that a few millennia after will determine the “Great Transformation” (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007) that will permit the growth of the “Land of Magan”, which the cuneiform texts speak about3.

This book was written and illustrated between 2016 and 2017 updating the data provided in the original field reports submitted by the authors to the Ministry of Heritage and Culture (now Heritage and Tourism) and the derived scholarly papers. Therefore, the most recent publications and discoveries are not taken into account. 1

Regarding the anthropological study of the graveyard of RH-5 see the publications by Sandro Salvatori (Excavations 1981-1985) and Olivia Munoz (Excavations 2005, 2008-2010). 3 The term Magan appears for the first time in a cuneiform text of ca. 2300 BC under the reign of Sargon of Akkad (it is reported that boats of Dilmun, Magan and Meluhha were docked at the port of his city), even if it is believed that the eastern region of the Arabian Peninsula was for a long time known in Mesopotamia during the period of this first citation for its supply of copper and diorite. 2

xxi

Figure A. Topographic map of the promontory of Ras Al-Hamra, the mouth of Wadi Aday, the Qurum mangrove and the position of the archaeological sites (modified after Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: fig. 45).

Then followed two military expeditions (2220 and 2200 BC) from Mesopotamia by Man-ištuśu and Naräm Sîn, respectively son and nephew of Sargon of Agade. The first brought to the conquest of thirty-two strongholds (maybe to identify with the towers of the oasis of Magan; others believe that they can refer to strongholds in Iran), while the second defeated a fleet and captured a “lord” of Magan (probably a temporary commander elected to head a tribe coalition). In another case, an administrative text informs us (2040 BC) of a certain Nabud-‘El, qualified as “Prince” of Magan (Glassner 1989: 181/185-187, and 1996: 156; Potts 1990: 138-139).

xxii

Chapter 1

Environmental Setting

Geography Despite “the insularity” that constitutes one of the characteristics of Oman, delimited on one side by the desert, particularly that of Rub Al-Khali, and on the other by the sea, in the country one can distinguish a certain duality between the inland areas and the coast. Two distinct ways of living and of adaptation to the climate and to the territory have given life to two different lifestyles: the Bedouin tribes of the inland and the now-known populations of the Ichtyophagoi of the coast, which are the “fish eaters” mentioned by the ancient Greek historians (Arrian VIII: 29.5, 29.15). In other words, rural communities and fishing communities. Oman possesses about 2000 km of coast (of which 1300 km are beaches), between the Strait of Hormuz, in the north, and the border with Yemen, in the south, overlooking on three seas: the Arabian Gulf, the Sea of Oman and the Arabian Sea (Figure 1.1). The coast is different from north to south passing from an indented relief (the Musandam Peninsula) constituted by high mountains and fjords, resulting from the tectonic activity that has pressed and ll presses the Arabian Plate against the Eurasian one, to level areas like the Al-Batinah flat, a stretch of 270 km of coast highly fertile cultivated during the year and situated between the frontier with the UAE and the city of Seeb, at the doors of Muscat. From Ras Al-Hamra until the furthermost point of the Arabian Peninsula, Ras Al-Hadd, the coast regains its mountainous aspect interspersed with small beaches and cut by numerous important wadyan1 that in many cases have given life to many important coastal oasis (e.g. Wadi Arbilyeen close to Quriyat, Wadi Shab close to Ash-Shab and Wadi Tiwi close to Tiwi). Therefore Ras Al-Hamra is, in the north of the Oman coast, the first watershed between two distinct coastal formations, one sandy and the other one mountainous. The sea represents for Oman an inexhaustible resource of richness since the prehistory, not only for the high abundance of fish in its waters but even for the presence of well-known coral reefs that offer shelter and protection to a rich marine fauna, such as that of Fahal Island, 4 km off of the Ras Al-Hamra promontory. Indeed, the Sea of Oman is characterized by its wealthy halieutic resources due to upwellings of cold water that bring plankton at the surface and near the coast, attracting every link of the food chain. This phenomenon is seasonal and occurs in symbiosis with the south-west monsoon, during summer, when the wind originating from land allows the movement of the surface waters. Such highly productive marine environment constituted a very attractive place for prehistoric communities. As specified by Berger et al. (2005), the intensity of this phenomenon has varied over the time and would have been significantly higher during the Middle Holocene. In the 4th millennium BC, the human groups preferred to settle in areas with varied ecosystems, such as the mouth of the wadis, where mangroves and lagoons allow the development of diversified economic strategy (Berger et al. 2013; Biagi 1988; Biagi and Nisbet 2006). Numerous Late and Middle Holocene coastal sites have been detected, surveyed and tested not only in the Capital Area of Muscat but also along the entire Omani coast particularly thanks to the joint efforts of the Italian Archaeological Mission and the French Archaeological Mission in the frame of the Joint Hadd Project2. Plural of wadi, watercourse with not perennial character. The Joint Hadd Project (JHP) was a joint Italian-French project born in 1984 and co-directed by S. Cleuziou and M. Tosi aimed at the study of the origin of navigation and long distance trade in the Indian Ocean. The JHP has worked without interruption, in the 1 2

1

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 1.1. Map of Oman with various regional geographic areas (after Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: fig. 1).

2

Environmental Setting

However, if coastal Neolithic sites are not lacking, what is the situation in the inland territories? Does the current state of research allow us to create one or more models of human adaptation in the piedmont and central areas of Oman? Unfortunately, the answer is no. If on the one hand the research on the coast have yielded benefits on the other our knowledge on human adaptation in the country’s inland areas still remain extremely incomplete. We can broadly affirm that the first archaeological research in Oman have been characterized by surveys carried out in the inland areas that in most cases have brought to the discovery of concentrations of lithic implements and of prehistoric and aceramic sites. But, through the years there have been other priorities: the larger coastal sites were excavated in a methodical way. Most of these sites are called shell middens and found all over the world along the coasts and rivers. In the Arabian Peninsula, settlements have been identified along the coasts of oriental Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE and naturally in the Sultanate of Oman (for exemple, see Biagi 1988, 1994, and 2008; Biagi and Maggi 1990; Boucharlat et al. 1991; Charpentier et al. 2012; Inizan 1988; Méry and Charpentier 2002). Shoreline The climatic changes and the related variations of the shorelines have certainly played a very important role in the history of human adaptation. The great marine transgression has cancelled the traces of eventual sites and coastal settlements along the coasts of the whole world and therefore also along the Omani ones and of the Arabian Gulf before 6500 BC. Starting from the last glaciation period (80000 BP) until its ending (12000 BP) the sea level was lower, reaching its maximum, at 150-135 m under the present level, during the Last Glacial Maximum (2200018000 BP). The Arabian Gulf was dry. The Tigris and Euphrates lengthened themselves until the Indian Ocean beyond the Straits of Hormuz. Regarding the Capital Area of Muscat, the shoreline was about 15 km from the terrace of Ras Al-Hamra, and about 10 km from the Fahal Island. Between 13000 and 10000 BP, the shoreline would be located about 10 km from the present coastline, while from 8000-7000 BP it would have been about 5 km (Durante and Tosi 1977: 154). Subsequently because of the marine transgression the sea starts to progressively enter in the Arabian Gulf until around 6000 BP (Sanlaville and Dalongeville 2005: 10). Such increase in sea level apparently occurred in two phases, a faster one between 12000 BP and 11000 BP followed by a slower one from 9000 BP to 8000 BP (Kassler 1973). Towards 6000 BP, the sea reaches its highest level, rising to about 1-2 m, and then definitely reaching the present level around 900 AD (Potts 1990: 12-16). In the last 6000 years, the sea level has undergone some oscillations comprised between +1.5 and –1 m according to different theories (Beech 2004: tab. 2) (Table 1.1). More precisely at a first maximum in 6000 BP, the sea level would have dropped half meter in 5000 BP, remounting around 4450 BP to 1.4 m, dropping again in 3900 BP to present levels to remount and drop half a meter, respectively in 3200 BP and 2000 BP (Dalongeville and Sanlaville 1987: 570-571, 583).

region of the Ja’alan, defining the evolution of the coastal cultures starting from the Early Holocene until the end of the Bronze Age on a chronological span of 4000-5000 years. According to the two directors, the region of the Ja’alan was an excellent laboratory to test the various evolution scenes for Arabia given that in a space of only 3000 square kilometers are concentrated three fundamental economical characteristics for the research: the exploitation of the marine resources along the coasts, the pastoralism on the steppes in the inland and the culture of the oasis between the piedmont areas and the desert (Cleuziou 1999: 117).

3

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Table 1.1. Synthesis of the different sea levels of the Arabian Gulf and the Sea of Oman during the last ten thousand years (modified after Beech 2004: tab. 2 and references; Berger et al. 2013).

Years (BP) Country

Study

8000

7000

6650

6000

5500

Rise -2 m (6-4000 BP)

Evans et al. 1969: 155-158 Kassler 1973: 11, 15 Present level

Nützel 1975: 104 Vita-Finzi 1978: 259 ARABIAN GULF

Dolangeville & Sanlaville 1987: 570-571, 583

Rise + 1.3 m (7950 BP)

Drop -1.3 m

Sanlaville 1989: 20 Dolangeville et al. 1993: 190

Rise +0.5 m Rise +2 m

Glennie et al. 1994/3: 3 Bernier et al. 1995: 100-102

Musandam to Muscat Ja’alan

OMAN

Lambeck 1996: 49

4

Rise +1.5 m Present level

Present level

Rise +2.5 m

Lambeck 1996: 49

Berger et al. 2013: 3096, 3099

Sudden increase of the sea level during the Early Holocene

Rise +1.2m

Environmental Setting

Years (BP) 5000

4800

4800-4400

4500

3900-3750

3200

2000

Drop -1 m (3750 BP)

c. 1000 AD Present level

Present level

Drop -0.5 m Present level (c. 4750 BP)

Rise +1.4 m (4450 BP)

Rise +1 m

Drop -0.1 m

Rise +0.5 m

Drop -0.5 m Drop -2 m

Present level Present level Present level Present level

Rise (3500 BP)

Drop (2600 BP)

Rise (1470 BP)

Drop -0.4 m (each 1000 years until the present) Drop >1 m (above present during the last 5000 years) The sea level rise slow down. Present level

Maximum postplacial sea transgression + 2/3 m

Fluctuations of the sea level

5

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 1.2. Reconstruction of the paleo-shorelines of the Arabian Gulf and the western Sea of Oman in a) 18000 BP, b) 12000 BP, c) 10000 BP, and d) 8000 BP. The isobaths are at -20, -50, -75, -100 and -150 m (after Lambeck 1996: fig. 7).

Recent studies showed that on the southern side of the Sea of Oman, between the Musandam Peninsula and Muscat, the sea level may have been less than 1 m above to the present one during the last 5000 years, that is at the end of the 4th millennium BC (Lambeck 1996: 49). Therefore, we could assert that during the occupation of site RH-6, at Ras Al-Hamra, the sea level probably was higher than the present, dropping a little during the occupation of RH-5, during the 4th millennium BC (Figure 1.2). However as reported by Hoffmann et al. the sea level is always a local issue (Hoffmann et al. 2013: 247). In Muscat there can be a relative sea level rise while in Bimmah, 130 km southward, there might be a sea level drop at the same time. The reason is the differential crustal movement. In fact, geological evidence suggests that the coast within the Musandam Peninsula in the north of Oman is subsiding, whereas the coastlines in the Ash Sharqiyah region in the east is being uplifted. This has consequences for the evolution of the sea level over time. Surely, if one accepts the models proposed for the marine transgression in the Arabian Gulf (Lambeck 1996), most parts of the contemporaneous coastal sites before to Wadi Wuttayah (ca. 9000 BC) have been swallowed by the sea starting from 6500 BP. The information relating to the human adaptation before this date, during the last humid phase, is now lost. Eventual archaeological evidence could derive from a new underwater research project or from soundings in depth in the coastal zones.

6

Environmental Setting

Climate During the Last Glacial Maximum, the rainfall in the arid regions was at minimum and the sea level was lower than 120 m. For instance in the Capital Area, dune fossils have been detected along the coast that now are under the sea and they demonstrate the presence in the past of extended sand dunes in the area of Ras Al-Hamra and Mina Al-Fahal and therefore the desert conditions of this zone (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 255). Right after the last glaciation period, towards 12000 BP, the climate of the Arabian Peninsula, and in our case of Oman, was very different from that of today. During some thousands of years, until 6000 BP, humid and arid phases have alternated until reaching the present arid phase. Some variations of the monsoonal regime can be found but one can broadly affirm that the direction and the provenance of the wind systems were the same as the present ones (Figure 1.3). From the Upper Palaeolithic to the present day, at least three humid phases have been identified. The last one is placed between 12000 BP and 6000 BP. The tropical rains determine the presence of vast mangroves along the coasts of Arabia. The landscape is not studded by lakes more or less broad as in the past but by sebkhas and/or swamps that hosted a flora and a fauna very similar to the present ones (Sanlaville 1992: 2123; 1997: 256-258) (Figure 1.4). Concerning the chronological definition of this last humid phase, there are different opinions that sometimes can seem to be discordant and that can in other cases furnish a further division of such a phase, as enumerated by P. Sanlaville. Some consider that during this last humid phase two others had occurred, one from 9000 to 8000 BP and the second from 7000 to 4500 BP (Diester 1972)3. Others (Chapman 1971), from a first arid phase from 11000 to 7000 BP, a moderate humid one had followed from 7000 to 4500 BP, while Larsen (1983: 170) believes that between two humid phases, of which the second of minor intensity, respectively dated the first between 9800 and 6000 BP and the second to 5000 BP, another arid one had been inserted between 6000 and 5000 BP. Lastly Hotzl et al. (1984: 312) recognize an only semiarid phase comprised between 9000 and 6000 BP. The Holocene period is characterized by what is commonly called climatic optimum, that represents the phase of maximum humidity between 8500-4900 BC distinguished by a warm and humid climate (Sanlaville 2000: 179). Heavy monsoon rains and intense upwelling characterize this period resulting in a major expansion of mangroves with more diversified plant and animal species. This climate of Southeastern Arabia has certainly facilitated the development of human communities. The area was inhabited since the beginning of the Holocene, and even before (Rose 2010: 861), as well as during the Bronze Age with the beginning of the current arid phase. During the last 12000 years various changes have taken place in the subsistence strategies determining probably the birth, development and collapse of numerous human groups. Sometimes evidence, often to the contrary, is difficult to identify in the archaeological record. From a pastoral lifestyle, of the inland regions in the valleys and in the piedmont zones, to one oriented on coastal resources deriving from the sea during the Early and Middle Holocene, the semi-nomadic populations of shepherd-hunter-fisherman-gatherers began to abandon many of their usual settlements, stations and villages concentrating themselves in specific environmental refugia (Rose 2010: 849), such as , for example in the northern peninsula of Oman giving life afterwards, at the beginning of the Bronze Age, to one of the greatest inventions of the Arab populations, the oasis.

3 Diester’s studies are related only to the analysis of five core samplings recovered at 65 m of depth in the central and eastern Arabian Gulf. In particular, in those coming from the Strait of Hormuz one can distinguish intervals of sediment of coarse and fine grain, and a rise in the terrigenous contribution from the bottom towards the top in the core samplings.

7

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 1.3. Position of the winds and the ITCZ (Intertropical Convergence Zone, a narrow latitudinal zone of wind convergence and precipitation) in the northern Indian Ocean during: 1) The winter monsoon from north-east in January; 2) The season of the rains from south-west in May; 3) The summer monsoon from south-west in July; 4) The season of the rains from northeast in November (after Van Ramperlbergh et al. 2013: fig. 2).

8

Environmental Setting

Figure 1.4. Synthesis of the paleoclimatic data in the south of the Arabian Peninsula, in the Sea of Oman and western Arabian Sea. Concerning the references see Marcucci, 2015 (modified after Bourget 2009: fig. I-24).

9

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Recent paleoclimatic studies have established that between 8000 BP and 5500 BP (for instance the time span in which are comprised the larger settlements found in the area of Ras Al-Hamra in Oman), occurs a considerable increase in human activities, corresponding to a period of greater humidity interrupted by brief aridity phases (Preston et al., 2012: 126-127)4. At the end of the 4th millennium BC the climate starts to change again and from the second half of 3rd millennium BC begins the actual arid phase. Geology The first geological research of Oman was carried out straddling between the 19th and 20th century (Blanford 1872; Lees 1928; Pilgrim 1908). After, starting from the 1950s, the increased interest of the energetic potentialities (petroleum and gas) of the Arabian Peninsula stimulated the first geological investigations and produced a series of publications on the geology of Oman5. But it is thanks to PDO (Petroleum Development Oman) that there was a more accurate knowledge of the outcrops and of the geological formations, in particular for the northern mountain range of the Hajar. In the second half of the 1960s the PDO sponsored a project realized by a team of geologists of the Shell petroleum company, directed by K. W. Glennie (Wilson 1969; Glennie et al. 1973, 1974), considered today to be the father of the Omani geology. The Samail Ophiolite Complex of the Hajar Mountains, in the north of Oman, located south-west of Muscat, gives one of the most important geological sets of Oman. It is a large slab of oceanic crust. The rocks that constitute it originating from the mantle (serpentine and ultrabasic rocks) and from the crust (peridotite and gabbro), of dark colour, are clearly visible in the Hajar Mountains even from satellite images. These same rocks can be found in the archaeological sites, such as those of Ras Al-Hamra, and were used by people for making tools (Figure 1.5). Ras Al-Hamra is a Tertiary calcareous promontory particularly indented by numerous rocky projections and sockets, that inserts itself between the sandy flat beaches of Batinah, at west, and the rocky shoreline, at east, that continues until Ras Al-Hadd (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 5). The sites of Ras Al-Hamra are situated near numerous lithic outcrops spread along the Wadi Aday at a dozen kilometers distance from the promontory. The different varieties of coarse lithic material are constituted by quartz, quartzite, chert, jasper and steatite while along all the course of the wadi one can collect river pebbles with nodules of olivine, gabbro or peridotite (Maggi and Gebel 1990: fig. 1) (Figure 1.6). Vegetation The Omani flora includes at least 1212 flowering plant species and about 60 endemic ones. These are concentrated in the monsoon woodlands of Dhofar, in the south, and to a lesser extent in the northern mountains of the Al-Hajar range (Gazanfar 2003). In the northern coasts of Oman, as well as at Ras AlHamra, the dominant plant species belonging to four specific areas are (Biagi and Nisbet 1989: 41 and 43)6:

The three brief phases of aridity have been dated to 8000-7800 BC, 7500-7200 BC and ca. 6500-6200 BC determining a decrease in the rainfalls of the Indian Ocean Monsoon. These two last ones have been recorded even in the record of the speleothems of the cave of Hoti near the Jebel Shams near the city of Al-Hamra, in the north of Oman (Fleitmann et al. 2007). 5 For the publications concerned with this period, see the bibliography present in Coleman and Bailey 1981. 6 Personal communication of R. Siddyqa, former director of the Natural History Museum in the Ministry of Heritage and Culture of Oman (now Heritage and Tourism), Muscat. 4

10

Environmental Setting

Figure 1.5. Geological map of Oman with the indication of the most important outcrops (after Garzanti et al. 2003: fig. 2).

11

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 1.6. Mineral resources along the Wadi Aday and position of the archaeological sites in Qurum and Ras Al-Hamra (after Maggi and Gebel 1990: fig. 1).

- Trees of the coastal plain found along the coast or the area of soft sand dominated by a mangrove forest: mainly Avicennia marina (Figure 1.7); - Trees found on foothills and along riverbanks (wadyan) of the coastal areas: Acacia tortilis, Salvadora persica, Dodonaea angustifolia and Tamarix mascatensis; - Shrubs and herbs found on Tertiary calcareous terraces located along the coast: small bushes like Anabasis setifera, Abutilum pannosum, Hammada salicornica and Salsola rubescens, and herbs like Centaura pseudosinaica and Convolvulus prostrates; - Shrubs found on the foothills of the coastal areas: Cistanche tubulosa, Heliotroium kotschi, Limonium axillare, Euphorbia balsamifera, Suaeda sp. and Chenopodium album.

12

Environmental Setting

The most important ecosystem in Ras Al-Hamra is those of the mangrove (in Arab qurm) exploited since the Holocene (Figure 1.8). The mangrove, though less extended compared to the past, is constituted of the Avicennia marina species (black mangrove), even if anthrocological analysis (Senelet 2013) of the charcoals originating from RH-5 and RH-6 have evidenced the presence of Rhizophora mucronata (red mangrove). These and other species occupy different zones along the estuaries, according to their tolerance towards salinity, to the preference of the substrate and to the fluctuations of the sea level. For these reasons, Avicennia marina tolerates more salinity and it will tend to develop in the higher and sporadically submerged areas while Rhizophora mucronata tends to occupy the borders of canals and the zones nearest the sea (Tengberg 2005: 40). Among the other species identified at Ras Al-Hamra there are also several shrubs (Chenopodiaceae, Tamarix sp. and Frankenia sp.), characteristic of the sandy and saline bars along the coasts at the back of mangrove environments. The Monocotyledons, Capparis sp., Ziziphus sp., Lycium shawii and Nerium oleander are a plant species that are found along the wadyan, associated to fresh water, and in prickly thickets (Figure 1.9). In the Ras Al-Hamra archaeological sites all the ecotypes existing along Oman coastlands were available within a very short distance, hardly more than an hour’s walk away.

Figure 1.7. Several plants of the species Avicennia marina photographed at the periphery of the lagoon of Khor Jaramah, in the northern part of the Ja’alan region, in the extreme eastern coast of the Arabian Peninsula. At the feet of the trees, one can note hundreds of aerial roots (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

13

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 1.8. The north-eastern edge of the Qurum mangrove seen from north. Site RH-6 is located few meters on the right side of the image (photograph by R. Merlo).

Sand beaches, mangrove forests, rocky cliffs, open acacia parklands, riparian thickets of tamarisk and acacia winding along the watercourses, hill slopes and terraced plateaux can all be found. In such a strategic location the sites granted several groups of foragers control over the broadest spectrum of resources for most of the year (Marcucci, 2014, 2015; Marcucci et al. 2011, 2014). Therefore the vegetation formation that dominated the environment of Ras Al-Hamra during the late and middle Holocene close to the prehistoric villages of RH-6 from the 6th millennium BC and RH-5 until at least the end of the 4th millennium BC was the mangrove, as it is the case today. The present mangrove is not so different from that of the past. However, in the past it was bigger and richer in biodiversity with the presence of two types of mangrove trees: Avicennia marina and Rhizophora sp. The last one, that no longer grows along the coasts of Southeastern Arabia (i.e. Oman and Arabian Gulf), has aerial roots above the ground. It is also assumed that this mangrove stand, at least at the beginning of the occupation of RH-6, consisted of larger trees and a richer fauna (bird, fish etc.). At present, the only mangrove forest sufficiently developed in the region of the Arabian Gulf and Oman Sea is the one in the Qeshm Island, an Iranian island in the Strait of Hormuz. Other mangrove forests with luxuriance comparable to those of prehistoric Oman can be found in India and Pakistan (e.g. Jiwani) and in Oman in Dhofar (e.g. Qurm Al-Khabir near Salalah) (M. Tengberg, personal communication) and maybe at Bandar Khayran near Muscat.

14

Environmental Setting

Resources The choosing of Ras Al-Hamra by prehistoric fishermen was due to the richness of the marine, terrestrial and floral resources deriving from the mangrove stand and by the proximity of Wadi Aday. The sea, the mangrove stand, the plain and the nearby ophiolitic mountains guaranteed, or could have guaranteed, a sedentary life style with a low mobility, of only few kilometers, for retrieving the raw materials necessary for the manufacturing of implements and ornaments or for hunting, that as we know was not much practiced in this area during the 5th-4th millennium BC. Apart from the few wild animals hunted, those domesticated, if not slaughtered when necessary, could have supplied other types of products like milk, wool, or leather. Fishing could be practiced along the coast or in open sea as witnessed by the presence in the anthropic deposit of pelagic fish that needed the employment of boats in order to be captured (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 192, tab. 9.7; Marcucci et al. 2013: 85, tab. 3). Besides fuel, the mangrove stand could supply a quantity of supplementary food easy to capture, such as small fishes and mammals, shellfish, molluscs and birds (Figures 1.10 to 1.12). The molluscs, other than the mangrove stand, could be collected daily along the beach. This task was undertaken by children. Women could collect timber and roots while men were

15

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 1.9. Several species of plants and shrubs identified in the samples of charcoals coming from sites RH-5 and RH-6: A) Tamarix sp.; B) Ziziphus sp.; C) Rizophora sp.; D) Lycium shawii; E) Acacia sp.; F) Nerium oleander (photographs by M. Tengberg).

16

Environmental Setting

Figure 1.10. Fishing in the mangrove is a weekend activity for Indian residents in Oman in the mangroves of Qurum at low tide. Here abundant small fish of Ambassis gymnocephalus species is catched in a plastic bucket with a very fine net (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

Figure 1.11. Small crab caught with bare hands during the weekend by Indian residents in the mangroves of Qurum at low tide (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

17

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 1.12. Bivalves (Veneridae family) gathered during the weekend by Indian residents on the seashore of Qurum at low tide (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

hunting at the foot of the mountains or fishing in the sea. The human presence at Ras Al-Hamra and in general at Qurum since the 9th millennium BC informs us of a continuous occupation, almost uninterrupted, in the same area. The lack of archaeological evidence for the 8th and 7th millennium BC does not necessarily mean the movement of the same populations to other areas but maybe simply a gap in the archaeological datum due to an incomplete reconnaissance of the territory. It could also be due to a high erosion of the ground that has determined the disappearance of other settlements, their destruction due to other human activities or submersal by the rising sea level and subsequent cover by marine sandy deposits, if not subsided due to telluric coastal movements.

18

Chapter 2

Human occupation at Qurum

How is the Neolithic in Oman? The excavations and archaeological literature teach us that the Neolithization process has occurred in an independent way in various parts of the world and at different moments (Figure 2.1). If with the term Neolithic one generally thinks at the sedentarization of human groups, the domestication of plants and animals and the invention of pottery at the beginning of the Holocene, if not before in the Far East, in the Oman Peninsula the evolution has taken another road. But how can we characterize the Omani Neolithic? The groups of Neolithic hunter-gatherers occupied the south-eastern Arabian territory at least until the end of the 4th millennium BC. The sedentarization, still not completely identified, could have already occurred at the time of RH-6, starting from the middle of the 6th millennium BC (Zazzo et al. 2016). The domestication of plants and animals was already marginally applied from the 6th-5th millennium BC, both in Oman and UAE, while pottery is found in Oman starting from the middle of the 4th millennium BC and regularly manufactured starting from the Late Bronze Age (Biagi and Salvatori 1986: 6; Méry 1995, 2000; Didier and Méry 2012). The generalized employment of metal seems to precede the use of pottery (Giardino 2015) (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). In order to characterize the Omani Neolithic, it is more convenient to use a chrono-cultural indicator, an abundant material constantly found in archaeological sites. Such material, that can better diversify the Neolithic of the Oman Peninsula, is chert (to a lesser degree radiolarite and hyaline quartz since they are regularly present in anthropic deposits). The different lithic industries can broadly characterize distinct periods of time and be related to certain human groups, that in their turn occupied a certain environmental territory and practiced a more or less distinct style of life. The differentiation of these technical traditions allows us therefore to establish a chrono-cultural attribution to the lithic industry to examine and identify a certain human group (Uerpmann 1992; Charpentier 2008) (Figure 2.2). The Archaeological Sites at Qurum In 1975 at the request of A. Williamson, first director of the former Department of Antiquities, M. Tosi was invited to carry out a first reconnaissance in Oman in order to define the area of research for an eventual Italian archaeological mission (Tosi 1975: 205). During this first visit, M. Tosi had the possibility to meet for the first time R. Jäckli and J. Jennings (respectively general manager and employee of the PDO). R. Jäckli gave to M. Tosi his map of Ras Al-Hamra with the indication of the archaeological sites situated on the western cliff of the promontory in front of the beach of Qurum that he had detected a few years before (Figure 2.3). M. Tosi, among other things, went for the first time in the RH-6 site (at the time called Qurum 1) and noticed the section constituted by continuous levels of pebbles, ashes, charcoals, shells and fish and animal bones, from which he took samples in order to date them. This first dating confirmed that they were prehistoric sites (Tosi 1975; Durante and Tosi 1977: 162, appendix 1; Marcucci et al. 2011: 204).

19

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 2.1. The most important centres in which the domestication has occurred with the dates for earliest plants and animals (after Price and Bar- Yosef 2011: fig. 1).

Afterwards Italian and German teams carried out several test trenches and excavations on the most important archaeological sites identified at Ras Al-Hamra (RH-4, RH-5, RH-6 and RH-10) (Durante and Tosi 1977; Biagi et al. 1984; Santini 1987) and Qurum (Qurum North, Qurum South, Wadi Wuttayah, Saruq, Wadi Saruq) (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003) (Figure 2.4). At present, one of the oldest sites in Oman were found in Qurum. Although now destroyed, due to the process of urbanization which occurred in the 1980s, the early Holocene site of Wadi Wuttayah 1, located a few kilometres from the coast south of Mina Al-Fahal, has given the oldest radiocarbon date of the south-east of the Arabian Peninsula, 9.615 ± 65 BP (it corresponds to ca. 9000 BC), originating from a fireplace (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 33). 20

Human Occupation at Qurum

Wadi Wuttayah yielded also a later date, between 6400 and 5900 BC that indicates another occupation three thousand years later and a few anthropic deposits occur during the late Bronze Age and much more recently. Between the mangrove and the marine terrace of Ras Al-Hamra twelve archaeological sites have been identified (from RH-1 to RH-12) that cover a chronological span comprised between the end of the early Holocene and the first part of the middle Holocene (6000-3000 BC) (Figure 1.1). Minor sites have been recorded in the surrounding area (Qurum North, Qurum South and Saruq). The larger sites are concentrated at the western edge of the Ras Al-Hamra headland, closest to the mouth of Wadi Aday (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 10-15). 21

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Table 2.1. Chronology of the prehistoric cultures and/or lithic industries in the south and south-east of the Arabian Peninsula and chronological correspondences with the Near East and Mesopotamia. ABT= Arabian Bifacial Tradition, UNT= Upland Neolithic Tradition, Ubaid N= North Ubaid, PN= Pottery Neolithic, PPNA/B/C= Pre-Pottery Neolithic A/B/C (modified after Drechsler 2009: fig. 1; for the Near East and Mesopotamia see Garelli et al. 1997: 22-23).

22

Human Occupation at Qurum

23

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Table 2.2. Comparative chronology between the various cultures of the Bronze Age between Mesopotamia, southern Iran, Indus Valley and Oman Peninsula (Oman and UAE). The correlations are indicative. PD= Proto-Dynastic (modified after Cleuziou and Méry, 2002: tab. 1; Boivin and Fuller 2009: fig. 1; Olijdam 2010: fig. 3).

Among the sites of Ras Al-Hamra, two have been destroyed by natural erosion (RH-1 and RH-9), six by building activities (RH-2, RH-3, RH-4, RH-7, RH-8, RH-10, RH-11 and RH-12) of which two of these after being partly excavated (RH-4 and RH-10). Only two have still survived, RH-6 and RH-5 (Table 2.3). RH-1 was a concentration of grey ashy soil with shells and some pieces of copper artefacts on Ras Al-Abyad area. RH-2 and RH-3 situated on the third limestone promontory north from the eastern edge of the mangrove yielded a scattering of artefacts (worked flint, quartz, stone tools, fish bones and small copper pins and bars) and the remains of old fireplaces with charcoal. RH-7 was located in the middle of the western extension of the Ras Al-Hamra limestone ridge and a sample of shell dated the site at the end of 6th millennium BC. RH-8 was located on a limestone plateau projecting into the lagoon from the north and yielded few prehistoric artefacts mainly made of quartz. RH-9 was a recent site characterized by a very small scatter of broken Murex sp. shells. RH-11 was a small surface scatter of shells and flint at east of RH-8 (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 6-11). All of these sites described above, dated from the middle Holocene to the recent times, seem to represent short-term occupations unlike the major sites found and excavated in this area: RH-4, RH-5, RH-6 and RH-10. The exploration of prehistoric sites tied to a first coastal and marine adaptation process in the south of the Arabian Peninsula began in 1977 with a four days rescue excavation carried out at RH-4 (Durante and Tosi 1977). According to R. Jäckli and A. Wells (both employed by PDO), the area in which the site was found had been the site of English military facilities during the Second World War. 24

Human Occupation at Qurum

Figure 2.2. Map of Oman and the UAE indicating the most characterizing lithic tools of the Early and Middle Holocene. As stated by Cleuziou and Tosi the distribution of the archaeological sites and tools is uneven. Indeed the areas with less data are those in which the research has been minimal or absent, in particular in the desert areas (modified after Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: fig. 27).

25

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 2.3. Topographic map on a 1:5000 scale of Ras Al-Hamra made by the Petroleum Development Oman (PDO) with the handwritten notes of the first 1970s of R. Jäckli and the 1975 ones of M. Tosi. The small and full black circles relate to stone structures while the large and empty ones to settlements (image by Petroleum Development Oman).

26

Human Occupation at Qurum

Fahal Island

RH-4 RH-10 RH-5

Gulf Hotel

Ma ng

RH-6

ro ve d Wa y  da iA Figure 2.4. Ras Al-Hamra in 1977 and the location of the major archaeological sites found and excavated in this area: RH-4, RH-5, RH-6 and RH-10 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

The construction of an anti-submarine observatory (Durante and Tosi 1977: note 2) had already partly determined the loss of a part of the anthropic deposit and the construction of the new houses would have caused the complete destruction of the prehistoric settlement and the graveyard. The excavation (Figure 2.5), in part carried out to investigate the trenches opened for the foundations of the new building, has permitted us to establish a stratigraphic sequence constituted of two phases: the most recent dated to the first half of the 3rd millennium BC while the earliest one to the first half of the 4th millennium BC. The sections have permitted the individuation of pits, fireplaces and six graves (dated to the most recent phase: primary and secondary; single, multiple and collective) and some postholes excavated directly on the bedrock of the promontory. The material culture is constituted by chert, mother-of-pearl fishing hooks and net sinkers in the deposit of the settlement and by shell and chlorite beads, stone earrings and mother-of-pearl pendants regarding the funerary set recovered in the excavated graves (Durante and Tosi 1977: 141-151). 27

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 2.5. Maurizio Tosi during the rescue excavation at RH-4 in 1977 working between the sections of the trenches opened by construction work before the complete destruction of the site (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

This first excavation of a coastal site, even if limited in time and space, has confirmed the importance of Ras Al-Hamra as one of the human adaptation centres during the middle Holocene not only for the concentration of living areas and prehistoric settlements but also for the peculiar characteristics of its natural environment constituted by a functional combination of various niche packing (Durante and Tosi 1977: 139) represented by the marine, mangrove and hinterland environment, through the fluvial artery of the Wadi Aday. RH-10, situated about 100 m north from RH-5, was a shallow deposit but with a very long occupation, from the second half of the 6th millennium BC to the end of the 3rd millennium BC. It was excavated from 1979 to 1984 and destroyed in 2008. The excavations showed the presence of three phases of occupation: the older one dated to the 5th millennium BC with hut structures of curvilinear alignments of postholes; the second one comprises a graveyard with almost twenty graves comparable to those of RH-4 and RH-5; the last phase is relating to a hut structures made by postholes that mark single-room units and horse-shaped compounds associated with fireplaces and stone-lined pits attributed to the 3rd millennium BC (Santini 1987: 180) (Figure 2.6). 28

Human Occupation at Qurum

RH-6 is, together with the neighbouring site of RH-5, the only site surviving the urbanisation of the Capital Area during the 1980s. RH-6 is located at the eastern borders of the mangrove, inside the Qurum Nature Reserve which is drained by Wadi Aday at only 600 m from the waters of the Sea of Oman (Figure 2.7). The main occupation of the settlement is dated from the middle of the 6th to the middle of the 5th millennium BC. A later occupation, corresponding to a graveyard, occurred at the beginning of the 4th millennium BC (Zazzo et al. 2016). The site was excavated during the 1980s and recently in 2012-2013. The period of occupation of RH-6 corresponds to a climatic change towards aridification.

Table 2.3. The most important archaeological sites of Ras Al-Hamra and Qurum and their main features: S= settlement, G= graveyard, SAS= scatter of artefacts in surface, E= excavation, TT= test trench, SC= surface collection, CSM= coastal shell midden, ISM= shell midden situated more inland, MSM= shell midden next to the mangrove (modified after Durante and Tosi, 1977: tab. 1; IsMEO Activities 1983: tab. 1; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 3-15).

29

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 2.6. Hut composed of curvilinear alignment of stones found during the excavation of RH-10 (photograph by the Italian Archaeological Mission).

Figure 2.7. View from south of site RH-6 during the first excavation in the 1980s (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

30

Human Occupation at Qurum

Figure 2.8. View from south of site RH-5 from the plane before the beginning of the 2009-2010 excavation mission (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

The excavations yielded a large amount of material culture constituted by different categories of stone tools (crushing stones, files, hammerstones, grooved stones, etc.) and stone ornaments (beads and one of the oldest earrings found in Oman made of chlorite), shell tools (fish hooks and containers) and shell ornaments (beads, pendants, necklaces and bracelets), lithic industry (flint, quartz, radiolarite, jasper, quartzite) and bone industry (gorges, awls, pins and needles) (Biagi 1999; Marcucci et al. 2014). The main findings are related to the discovery of the foundation of four huts of circular and oval shape made by curvilinear configuration of postholes cut directly on the bedrock on the upper part of the village and the presence of a graveyard composed by pit-graves similar to those excavated at site RH-5, dated from 3800 BC (Marcucci et al. 2014). RH-5, along with RH-6, is the main shell midden at Ras Al-Hamra. The archaeological deposit has almost entirely covered the surface of a tabular limestone of the first promontory overlooking the mangrove and the mouth of Wadi Aday (Figure 2.8). The village has been excavated at the beginning of the 1980s, in 2004-2005 and from 2008 to 2010. The main occupational sequence is very intense and continuous from the end of the 5th millennium to the end of the 4th millennium BC. The funerary practices, the living structures and the material culture are very similar to those found at RH-6 (Biagi and Salvatori 1986; Marcucci 2014; Marcucci et al. 2011).

31

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 2.9. Grave dated to the Umm an-Nar Period according to the pottery found by K. Frifelt, head of the Danish Archaeological Mission, in the winter of 1972-1973 on the site of the Gulf Hotel (now re-named Crowne Plaza Hotel) before its construction (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

Between the archaeological sites identified at Ras Al-Hamra the sites RH-1, RH-2, RH-3, RH-4, RH-5, RH10 and RH-12 are shell middens oriented towards the open sea while the sites RH-6, RH-7, RH-8 and RH-11 are shell middens situated farther inland and oriented towards the mangrove and the mouth of Wadi Aday (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 9), forming two different cluster of shell middens where the populations lived according to the geological formations where they had settled taking also into consideration the different ecological associations. The human occupation of Ras Al-Hamra and Qurum does not concern only the middle Holocene but also the early Bronze Age period. In fact the sites RH-1, RH-2, RH-3 and the most recent phases of occupation of RH-4 and RH-10 yielded occupations of the 3rd millennium BC. Moreover among the various activities of survey and excavation undertaken by K. Frifelt during her first Danish archaeological mission in Oman, in winter 1972-1973, there was the excavation of a group of graves located in Ras Al-Hamra, not far from RH5 and RH-6 (Frifelt 1975: 373, 389; IsMEO Activities 1981: 187; Biagi et al. 1984: 55; Cleuziou 2002: 208), where, between 1974 and 1976, the Omani authorities built one of the first luxurious hotel of the country, the Gulf Hotel (now the Crowne Plaza Hotel) (Figure 2.9). The graves, about forty, were built of local stone and they were small and in ruins. According to the pottery found the graves where dated to the Umm anNar Period. Only one grave has been excavated. Forty-five pottery fragments were retrieved (belonging to 9-12 jars), two fragments of worked stone (gabbro and granite) and several human bones ascribable to only one individual (Frifelt 1973: 1, 8). The construction works of the hotel led to their complete destruction. Even R. Jäckli, in his map recorded Umm an-Nar graves on the first limestone promontory north of the Qurum mangrove, i.e. the Gulf Hotel. 32

Human Occupation at Qurum

Mangrove

Stratigraphic excavation

L-shaped trench

Test trench 1982

Graveyard

Figure 2.10. View from east of the stratigraphic excavation carried out by P. Biagi in 1984 in the central-southern portion of site RH-5 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

Figure 2.11. Sepulchral area characterized by secondary graves, called “Area 43” during the 1984 excavation campaign (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

33

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 2.12. Overview of the promontory of Ras Al-Hamra before the rescue excavation of 2004-2005. (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

The Archaeological Site of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5 – History of the Research The first archaeological excavation based on a long-term project has been the one of site RH-5. The village, dated between the end of the 5th and the 4th millennium BC, is the most extensive of the sixteen detected in Qurum. From a stratigraphic point of view, it is among the most complex (together with RH-6), thanks to the presence of a vast living area of fishermen-gatherers and to one of the most extensive and ancient graveyards in the Arabian Peninsula, excavated in 1981-1985 (Tosi 1981; Ciarla 1982; Biagi and Salvatori 1986; Biagi 1987; Biagi et al. 1984, 1989; Biagi and Nisbet 1984, 1989, 1992, 1999, 2006), in 2004-2005 (Franceschini 2006; Munoz 2008, 2014) and 2008-2010 (Marcucci 2014, 2015; Marcucci et al. 2011). 34

Human Occupation at Qurum

The deposit has a maximum depth of around 1.50 m that thins gradually from the central zone moving towards the edges of the terrace. It is constituted of a continuous and stratified accumulation of anthropic remains made up for the most part of shells and fish bones. During the 1981 and 1982 seasons, the excavations were concentrated in the central-eastern portion of the site, in an area where there was a concentration of stone tools and stones of large size (that turned out to belong to the covering of pitgraves). The third season took place in 1983. It was decided to open a trench in an east-west direction that went through the entire site in its southern portion (22 x 0.80 m), and to excavate the south-eastern part of the promontory in an excavation area that afterwards took the shape of an inverted “L”. 35

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 2.13. A) the garden over site RH-5 before the rescue excavation; B) the extensive excavation of the central-eastern portion of site RH-5 opened in January 2005; C) close-up of the excavation area (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

36

Human Occupation at Qurum

In 1983 and 1984 a new strategy was adopted, that is, the excavation of an area possibly relating to the first occupational phase placed directly on the bedrock, as well as the stratigraphic excavation in the betterpreserved portion of the site and where the anthropic deposit was possibly the most complete. At the end of 1983 a large trench was opened, to the east of the south-western limit of the “L”-shaped trench, in order to detect the structures excavated directly in the bedrock belonging to the first period of the site. In the same period the excavation also involved the adjacent area of square-shaped ground (10 m per side), towards south, of the southern trench opened in 1982 in the hope of gathering information on the stratigraphic sequence of occupation (Figure 2.10). Among the structures found we can mention various posthole alignments, dumping pits and various fireplaces. Besides that, another trench (12 x 1 m) was opened in the middle portion of the site at its centre along the east-west axis. The last excavation season relating to the living area was carried out in the 1984-1985 winter. The stratigraphic excavation in the adjacent area to the trench opened in 1982 was concluded, reaching the deposits on the bedrock. The anthropic deposit revealed itself as particularly detailed. The study of the sections of the trenches and the stratigraphic excavation of the central-southern area of the site have allowed us to detect at least seven main occupational phases that then became nine (periods) after recent excavations. The graveyard, excavated from 1981 to 1985, was detected in the north-eastern portion bringing to light over one hundred graves for a total of almost two hundred individuals (Tosi 1981; IsMEO Activities 1981, 1982, 1983; Coppa et al. 1985; Biagi and Salvatori 1986; Macchiarelli 1989; Palmieri et al. 1994; Salvatori 1996 and 2007; Bondioli et al. 1986), to which are added at least another eighty individuals from a sepulchral area characterized by secondary graves, called Area 43 (Santini 2002) (Figure 2.11). The excavation has allowed us to establish that the graveyard begin to be used starting from 3800 until 3500 BC. The graveyard develops in three stratigraphic levels, of which the first (Level 1) is the nearest to the surface and therefore the most recent, whilst the third (Level 3) is the deepest and the earliest. In particular, as time goes by, one can observe a gradual movement of the burials towards the north. The entombed were arranged in a crouched position laid on their side, generally the right one, with the head oriented towards north-east, placed in shallow pits of oval or circular shape. The funerary set was essentially constituted of ornaments in shell (necklaces, pendants, bangles) or in stone (earrings and necklaces) and by probable food remains that covered for various centimeters the entombed. These are fish remains, turtle carapace plates and various mollusc species (more rarely land and marine mammal bones) that probably witness the presence of ritual offerings deriving from a funerary feast. In many graves turtle remains were numerous. The turtle had a particular significance in the eschatological thought of the fishermen of Ras Al-Hamra. This consideration is also corroborated by the frequent finding, near the entombed, of several spheroid pebbles of peridotite that recall the shape of turtle eggs. In 1985 the excavations at RH-5 ended but to preserve at best the anthropic deposit for eventual future investigations, the owner of the land, the former Minister of Heritage and Culture, built a garden over it (Figure 2.12). After the death of the owner of the land, the area was first sold to a group of contractors and afterwards it was acquired by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture (now Heritage and Tourism), thanks to the discoveries brought to light during the 2004-2005 rescue excavation (Figure 2.13), in particular the finding of a new portion of the graveyard in the central-northern part of the promontory. The discoveries reasserted the importance of the site and the Ministry of Heritage and Culture now Heritage and Tourism) acquired the ground (Al-Taie 2005; Marcucci 2014) and financed excavating campaigns for the complete spatial definition of the graveyard and the settlement, of their interaction and the development of a project for the exploitation of the site with the construction of an archaeological park designed by the Arch. Riccardo Merlo and the architecture office [F + LR] Architecture of Bologna, Italy. 37

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 2.14.The subdivision into squares of the surface of site RH-5 and the grid of the excavation were the same as those of the 1980s excavations. Each unit is given by an acronym of three letters: the first identifies the 50 x 50 m square, the second the 10 x 10 m one and the third the 2 x 2 m one. If necessary this last square is divided into other four squares of 1 x 1 m (A-D clockwise) in order to identify with more precision the finding of an important artifact (e.g. HSN-B). The image has been downloaded from Google Earth and shows the property of the former Omani Minister of Heritage and Culture as it appeared on March 16, 2003 before the emergency excavation of 2004-2005. The ground where RH-5 is found is delimited in red while prehistoric site RH-10, by now destroyed, was found in square D. The exposed ground was divided in five excavation sectors: A, B1, B2, C, D and E (drawings by L.G. Marcucci; satellite image from Google Earth).

38

Human Occupation at Qurum

Figure 2.15.RH-5. Sector B1, procedure adopted for the survey of the living structures detected on the bedrock: A) Photomosaic; B) Manual drawing; C) Digital drawing (photomosaic by F. Genchi; drawings by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

From 2008 to 2010 the excavations were resumed. After a surface cleaning of the central-northern portion of the site through the employment of a mechanical digger in order to remove the surface layers constituted of the superimposition of mud and sand previously placed for the installation of the garden of the villa of the former minister, the exposed ground was divided in five excavation sectors: A, B1, B2, C and D (Figure 2.14). The exposition of the living area levels and of the new graves detected as well as the cleaning of the bedrock, where in the 1980s the graveyard was excavated, required more time than scheduled. In 2009 it was decided to clean and completely document the living structures obtained directly on the bedrock of the promontory exposed in the 1980s (Sector B1, Figure 2.15), and to reopen the southern area previously investigated but never surveyed. In this new sector, called E, a mechanical digger was once again used since the anthropic deposit was completely removed, without excavating it, in the 1983-1984 winter and it had been replaced by an artificial deposit constituted of earth and gravel (Figure 2.16). 39

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 2.16.RH-5. A) kite photo of Sector E in 2009 (photograph by M. Zanfini and P. Baldassarri); B) Sector E-east seen from south; C) Sector E-south seen from south; D) plan of the structures found in Sector E (photomosaic by F. Genchi; drawing by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

In 2009-2010 an effort was made to continue the excavation of Sector A where the new graves, identified and partly excavated in 2008, have been found, alternated along with the living structures of the settlement and recorded in all the stratigraphic deposit until the bedrock, as shown in the section of Trench B. Moreover, even the excavation of Sector B2 was scheduled, where the reduced thickness of the anthropic deposit allowed the investigation of the first occupational phases of the site. The last three excavation seasons did not allow the carrying out of the previously scheduled aims. The problem concerned mainly the excavation of Sector A where the continuous superimposition along all the thickness of the anthropic deposit, comprised between 0.40 and 1.20 m, of living and funerary structures was identified. At any rate, the excavations confirmed the importance of the village of RH-5 in the context of archaeological research in Southeastern Arabia. 40

Chapter 3

Shell Middens and Ras Al-Hamra

Most of the coastal sites are tied to the intensive exploitation of the marine resources: in particular shells but also fishes and to a lesser degree marine mammals and lagoon and mangrove birds. Marine resources had a very important role in the development and diet of the human cultures that lived along the coasts. Even if most information on this type of adaptation comes from sites dated to the Early and Middle Holocene (but there are earlier ones even if in minor quantity) archaeological research has shown that the exploitation of the marine resources from man is much more earlier (Steele and Klein 2008: 64) dating back at least since 300,000 years ago. The Definition of Shell Midden The definition of shell midden is not univocal and according to the different authors that have spoken about it one can distinguish slight differences according to the geographic position in which they have been found, their stratigraphic structure and the artefacts that compose them (Meighan 1963; Fairbridge 1976; Ceci 1984; Waselkov 1987; Claassen 1998; Stein 1992a; Bowdler 2014). They are the places where prehistoric populations, whose subsistence depended mostly on marine resources, have lived and eventually buried their dead and where they have thrown away their food remains and discards deriving from craft activities of everyday life that accumulated over a long or short period of time. These sites are called shell middens since the presence of shells is particularly abundant when compared with other categories of artefacts present in the anthropic deposit. Molluscs have a very important role in the prehistoric diet but their abundance is due, above all, to the fact that they leave a greater residual compared to fish or mammal remains, and the abundant calcium carbonate that constitutes the shells tends to contrast the acidity of the soils giving them a neutral or slightly basic pH, independently from the place in which they were formed, allowing in this way the preservation of inorganic remains or the mineral parts of the organic remains (Chenorkian 1998: 321) and the total distribution of organic traces entrapped among the shells (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). The Shell/Fish-Bearing Midden Sites at Ras Al-Hamra But since not all the shells present in a site are the result of an accumulation about a hut per se, for the more stratified sites a more precise term has been proposed, shell-bearing (midden) site (Widmer 1989 in Stein 1992a: 6), that is a site that has shells in its deposit. This does not limit the archaeological deposits to only accumulations (middens) of shells. Not necessarily all the deposits could be continuous accumulations of shells. However, in general in English literature, for convenience the generic term of shell midden is employed. The Omani shell middens are cultural deposits in which the presence and remains of meals of shells are the dominant class among waste. Other classes of waste can include fish and marine and land mammals. The layers have accumulated for a relatively long period of time as a result of numerous and succeeding episodes of use, dumping, deposition and other activities. 41

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 3.1. Examples of shell midden deposits in Oman and UAE. Oman (photographs by L.G. Marcucci): A) Ras Al-Hamra RH-6 Sector C, 2012. The distance between the pairs of stakes at the sides of the section is of 1 m each; B) Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Sector B1, close up of the west section, 2008; C) Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Sector A, TT-84, close up of the south section, 2010; D) Ras Al-Hamra RH-6, Sector C, TT-Z, close up of the north section, 2012. UAE: F) Khuwaymah KHU-2, test trench (after Charpentier, Berger et al. 2012: fig. 14). UAE: E) Umm Al-Qaiwain, test trench (after Méry 2015: fig. 3.13).

42

Shell-Middens and Ras Al-Hamra

Figure 3.2. Some examples of shell middens in the world: A) Kaizuka at Nakazato, Tokyo in Japan, 1997 (after Habu 2004: fig. 3.9); B) Pit C of the shell ring near Ilo in Peru (after Sandweiss 2008: fig. 10.2); C) Sambaqui of Jaboticabeira II at Santa Caterina in Brazil, surface of 36 m2 (after Gaspar et al. 2008: fig. 18.3); D) Shell mound at Saqid Island of the Farasan Islands (Saudi Arabia) in the south-eastern Red Sea, height of the tell 3 m, 2006 (after Alsharekh and Bailey 2014: fig. 25).

The stones and charcoals of fireplaces as well as artefacts in bone, stone and shell are commonly present. Very often these deposits, of compact to loose consistency, present a remarkable variability in the composition of the single layers. In several, the shells are whole and compacted between them. In others, the sedimentary matrix is greater and comprises sandy, ashy, chalky, calcitic sediments and various artefacts including stones and gravel. Often the deposits have been excavated in order to bury in shallow pits the bodies of the dead. Moreover, in the most complex sites numerous living structures have been identified, like the postholes of huts or auxiliary structures, ovens, pits for dumping and eventually for storing, as well as fireplaces. 43

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

All this evidence indicates that the sites were clear living areas in which one can identify areas for the production of food, areas for dumping shells and other material and areas for craft activities. In the specific case of the sites of Ras Al-Hamra the remains of shells, whole or fragmented, are clearly visible in all or almost all of the stratigraphic units, but the presence of fish remains must not be underestimated. Several times they are included in the shell levels while other times they constitute proper stratigraphic units, from a few mm to some cm thick. They present themselves in the form of fragments more or less small, even burnt (of black or greyish colour), in particular vertebrae, or they are so much reduced as to form a kind of fish powder of light or dark brown colour (Figure 3.3). Since fish bone remains represent the second category of ecofacts most present and for certain periods the source of primary subsistence, it seems to be more appropriate, according to the definitions cited above, to call the sites of Ras Al-Hamra shell/fish-bearing midden sites. The enormous quantity of fish remains found in the sites tells us that fish was a capital resource for the community, as much as shells, practically permanently accessible all year round even if in several periods its yield varied.

Figure 3.3. Close-up of the reference section in Sector C, Ras Al-Hamra RH-6, 2012. The stratigraphy is constituted mainly by thin layers of shells, fish bones, fish powder, stones, charcoals and artefacts entrapped in a sandy matrix (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

44

Shell-Middens and Ras Al-Hamra

The Importance of shell in Archaeological Context Material culture, shells and other ecofacts like chert and to a lesser degree pottery represent the only means that indicate more than other the presence of an archaeological site. Their physical features, are unaffected by the passing of time, remaining practically unaltered in the archaeological record. Gathering several species of shells rather than others, for feeding and for the production of tools and ornaments, provides us, in advance, with fundamental information: their choice did not happen by chance and one or the other are always selected according to their employment and for a very specific purpose. The shells gathered by the prehistoric populations belong, for the most, to the intertidal and infralittoral zones, i.e. between the shores and a depth of about ten meters. Naturally the gathering could also entail dead shells (e.g. Conus sp., Pecten sp., Chlamys sp., Strombus sp. and other bivalves and gastropods according to regions and cultural contexts), due to the action of the currents and the backwash. The finding of shells in prehistoric settlements is for the archaeologists and for the experts of the sector (malacologists, paleoclimatologists, geochemists etc.) a fact of particular importance for a series of implications listed below: - The study of shells provides information on the diet of the population that utilized them, on the places where they went to collect them and on the strategies of collection, if aimed on several species or if selective on the size of the individuals. The soft parts of the molluscs could also be designed for feeding animals or employed as bait for fishing (Girod 2004: 126; see also Bailey 1975; Chenorkian 1986, 1990, 1992; Vaselkov 1987: 119-123); - They are a source of economical information since several species were traded whole or as products of specific finished objects. Their presence in determined archaeological contexts far from the coast or the simple fact that they are found far from their area of origin can supply information on terrestrial and maritime trade. With additional status as goods and objects of exchange at middle and large range they allow us to reconstruct the traffic routes in prehistoric and protohistoric societies (Durante 1977, 1979b; Biscione et al. 1981; Gensheimer 1984; Kenoyer 2008; Boivin and Fuller 2009); - They are a source of information on the ecological environment of a coastal site (Figure 3.4), allowing us to reconstruct the type of dominant coast, the salinity of waters and temperature of the sea. The molluscs are particularly sensitive to the environment that surrounds them and, in order to detect the microclimate of a given area, they are much more indicative than the remains of mammals, of birds and fishes as far as the study of the environmental variations of the Holocene is concerned. Therefore, the study of shells allows us to carry out local paleoenvironmental reconstructions. The molluscs are practically sedentary or move negligible distances. Because of this their paleoenvironmental importance concerns a very limited territory situated not far from the archaeological sites (Evans 1972; Claassen 1998; Girod 2004: 126); - The study of the molluscs can also help to identify the impact of human beings on the natural environment that surrounds them; - Oxygen isotope analysis can reveal information on the paleoclimate such as the temperature and the rainfall but also information about the period of shell gathering during the year, the seasonality and the long-term changes of the exploitation of the different species collected, in some cases also in relation to environmental and ecological changes (Goodfriend 1992; Thomas and Mannino 1999; Milner 2002; Mannino and Thomas 2007); - The presence of shells in the archaeological record allows us also to understand and interpret the stratigraphy of the site, the activities practiced and several occupation processes (levels of whole, burnt or extremely fragmented shells) (Waselkov 1987; Stein 1992b); 45

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 3.4. Environmental evolution of SWY-1 site at As-Suwayh in Oman resulting from the study of shells in relation to their habitats and the stratigraphy of the site (after Serrand et al. 2008: 74).

- If in the sites there are remains of pottery, the organic analysis of food residue that they contain can allow identification of the marine and terrestrial products present in the diet of the population that used them as well as on particular activities that were carried out in the village (Heron et al. 2007); - The shells supply numerous pieces of information on the various manufacturing methods and the manufacturing process applied for the production of tools and ornaments1. According to what was stated above, these are the great research axes on the shells found in the archaeological contexts: as food source, as marker for reconstructing the environment and as cultural element for manufacturing personal ornaments and tools. In the common imagination one always thinks of shells only as a food factor. But not all the shells present in the site were collected for eating its soft part. Several were already collected beached and others too small to eat, were used as beads for necklaces and bracelets or for decorating clothes and hair. From the beached ones, ornaments and tools could be obtained.

1 The studies on the production of tools and ornaments in shell in Middle Asia are numerous. Among the important publications see for the Civilization of the Indus Valley the works of Kenoyer (1983, 1984a, 1984b, 1985, 1991) and Durante (1977, 1979a, 1979b); for Oman and UAE Charpentier (1994, 2002), Charpentier and Méry (1997, 2008), Charpentier et al. (1997, 1998, 2012), Méry and Charpentier (2002), Biagi (1999), Biagi and Nisbet (1989, 1999), Marcucci (2004a, 2015).

46

Shell-Middens and Ras Al-Hamra

In the archaeological record these are identified because they are very eroded, especially in several areas like the umbo2. According to Dupont, the presence of a considerable quantity of subtidal shells3 in a site could indicate that the shells were already without the animal when they were collected (Dupont 2014: 43)4. Therefore their presence in the deposit was tied to some type of craft manufacturing and not to the diet. Moreover, Dupont believes that the shells employed as beads for the necklaces are not the same as those collected for the diet and that the shells consumed had not been recycled to be used in necklaces (Dupont 2007: 257)5. Therefore, there could be a differentiation between the activity of gathering shells for food use and those for ornamental use. This supposition could be partly right but it would seem to be valid above all for the small-sized shells that had no food interest (expenditure of useless energy for a quantity of negligible meat) while others, as for instance Pinctada margaritifera constantly found in the Omani prehistoric sites, could have a double if not triple function. In fact Pinctada margaritifera could supply a passable quantity of meat6 and with the valves could be manufactured tools for fishing (e.g. hooks) or ornaments found in the funerary set of the graves (e.g. pendants). Shells could be used in various ways in prehistory. The populations could collect them not far from the villages. In most cases there was a direct transport between the procurement source and the processing area, other times the processing and preparation area could be not far from the sea but not necessarily in the place of the final destination. In many cases it must be presumed that the opening of the shells had occurred right after gathering them at sea or in the lagoon and towards the village were transported only the soft parts or they were consumed directly where they were collected. In these two last cases, a sole accumulation of shells would form on the place where they were collected that tends to be removed by tide activities. It is assumed that in most cases in the coastal Omani sites the shells were brought directly to the village and processed there. Short Chronohistory of Man-Shell Relation Shells have always fascinated man with their almost incredible variety of shapes and colours. Already several tens of thousands years ago the Neanderthal covered long distances in order to collect them. In the Châtelperronian Culture, during the passage between the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic, in central France, the last Neanderthal humans collected marine shells (many are also pierced) and transported them over long distances, over 300 km from the Atlantic coasts (Bailloud 1955: 436). Another case that proves the presence of shells very far from their place of origin is represented by the Palaeolithic hunters of mammoth of Ukraine that brought to their camps numerous shells of Cypraea sp. gathered at more than 600 km of distance from Crimea, together with amber and ochre, all evidence of trade and exchanges with other communities (Biscione et al. 1981: 9).

2 Several shells can also present a hole, not anthropic, on the valve and on the umbo (in the case of bivalves) or on the wall of the last turn and on the apex (in the case of the gastropods) caused by marine erosion or by other gastropods in order to eat the animal inside. If necessary one can resort to the employment of a microscope in order to establish the anthropic or natural nature of the hole. 3 It is the area below the low tide water line. It is permanently submerged and has more stable conditions of salinity. 4 The example reported by Dupont is relating to the site of La Vergne in France. 5 Study in the case of the Mesolithic shell midden of Téviec and Hoëdic, two islands in the Quiberon bay in Brittany in France. 6 During the Italian Archaeological Mission of 2007 at a few meters of depth shells of Pinctada margaritifera have been fished in the small lagoon in front of the Turtle Beach Hotel, at Ras Al-Hadd in Oman. Several have been eaten raw in the boat when returning to the base camp while others have been cooked directly on the embers for dinner. The cooked soft part weighted more than 100 gr and their taste was not too dissimilar from the appreciated French scallop shells of Saint Jacques.

47

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 3.5. Perforated Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from the Middle Stone Age of Blombos Cave in South Africa recovered from archaeological levels dated to 75000 years ago, scale bar 5 mm (after Henshilwood et al. 2004: fig. 1).

Already, in the Upper Palaeolithic Period, the importance of shells as personal ornaments and prestige goods, symbols of superior social status, was fully affirmed. Numerous sites have given back several among the most ancient necklaces so far known, and the first are in shell. Two pierced shells of Nassarius gibbosulus originate from Mugharet Es-Skul near Haifa in Israel, dated between 130,000 and 100,000 years ago (Vanhaerem et al. 2006)7. Instead the findings made in the Cave des Pigeons (Bouzouggar et al. 2007), at Taforalt in Morocco, and in the Blombos Cave (Henshilwood et al. 2004) (Figure 3.5), situated at around 300 km east of Cape Town in South Africa, are dated to the Middle Stone Age (MSA), 82,000 and 75,000 years ago, respectively. But if the shells have a symbolic value for man other examples can be interpreted as indicative of the birth of cognition and modern human behavior. This occurs tens of thousands of years before, around 500,000 years ago. In fact, in 1891 E. Dubois finds at Trinit in the island of Java in Indonesia the remains that will be then identified as those of Homo erectus. In the same deposit at least 166 freshwater shells, belonging above-all to the species Pseudodon sp., that presented strange zigzag notches (Joordens et al. 2014). Moreover 33% of the shells had one or two characteristic holes corresponding to the point where the back adductor is found. Recent laboratory analysis (Joordens et al. 2014) allowed to confirm the antiquity and the contemporaneity of the shells with the remains of Homo erectus and the identification, on other shells, of manufacturing traces for transforming them in cutting tools. The valve of the shell with the notches represents the most ancient evidence for decorative marks and the first employment of shells for making tools. 7

They correspond to the level that contained the remains of ten archaic Homo sapiens.

48

Shell-Middens and Ras Al-Hamra

The meaning of the marine shell as a status symbol is made particularly evident in the rare burials preserved in the Upper Palaeolithic, having numerous ornamental elements, maybe tied to important symbolic values. Particularly indicative is the composition of a series of items of clothing with which the entombed were adorned. Among these are head gear, bracelets, necklaces and loincloths made of shells (Fiocchi 1998). In Italy there are at least three sites in which remains of this type have been discovered: the Cave of the Arene Candide at Pegli nearby Finale Ligure in Liguria (Cardini 1946, 1980), the Cave of the Fanciulli nearby the Balzi Rossi of Grimaldi in the Italian Riviera at the border with France (Cartailhac 1912; Graziosi 1976) and the Cave of Santa Maria of Agnano nearby Ostuni in Apulia (Coppola and Vacca 1995, Coppola et al. 2008). At the beginnings of the Holocene, with the revolution in subsistence activities associated to the Mesolithic period, the gathering of marine and freshwater molluscs for food purposes became a primary activity, and it was probably in this time span that man improved his knowledge of food and technical characteristics of the different species. With the development of sedentary life and of complex societies, the shells of the molluscs, collected or fished, and traded at variable distances, became soon an important indicator of trading activities and of the craftwork development of personal ornaments. Between the shores of the Indian Ocean and the inland stretches of the Early Near East and southern Asia numerous species of marine shells turn out to be amply collected, distributed and pierced by the proto-agricultural communities of the Neolithic. Judging by the data of Mehrgarh (Kacchi plain, present day Pakistan), the chronological span between the 7th and 6th millennium BC was much interested in intense and diversified traffic of marine shells, if it’s true that it comprises absolutely most of the species ever attested during the sequencing of the site (Jarrige et al. 1995). Between the 4th and 2nd millennium BC, in the entire southern Asia are attested and amply employed all the basic methods used in protohistory for working the shells: breaking, engraving, cutting with various types of saws in metal and other materials, drilling and polishing (Biscione et al. 1981: 34-37). Marine shell, in the long history of Eurasian craftwork, was employed for the production of bead elements, pendants, small figurines, seals, inlays, cameos, and buttons. The mother-of-pearl of large bivalves of Pinctada margaritifera and Isognomon sp. turns out to have been employed in the Arabian Peninsula, starting from the 6th millennium BC, in the production of discs and fish hooks also of large size (Charpentier and Méry 1997; Biagi 1999; Méry et al. 2008; Marcucci 2015). Already in the Uruk period, in the second half of the 4th millennium BC, the solid columellae and the most external part of the peristoma of the Xancus pyrum, residuals of other workings, traveled by sea from India to Mesopotamia as raw material for manufacturing cylindrical and stamp seals (Durante 1979a; Gensheimer 1984). In numerous proto-historic cultures of Eurasia, in different epochs, various types of shells were commonly transformed in precious containers, often with explicit symbolic-ritual importance like vessels for libations or sacred liquids and lamps8, but also containers of lesser value like the shells of bivalves employed in the Early Bronze Age settlement of RJ-2 at Ras Al-Jinz in Oman for packaging pyrolusite used as a make-up element (Cleuziou and Tosi, 2000: 33 and pl. 18; but also at HD-5 at Ras Al-Hadd, see Borgi et al. 2012: fig. 7). The sacral nature of the marine shell containers is not limited to eastern cultures. In the Greek myth, Venus is borne from a Pecten shell, and many Christian churches still use today the valve of Tridacna gigas as stoup, or during the sacrament of baptism, for this reason the French call this shell bénitier.

8

For instance, those found in the Royal Cemetery of Ur (Woolley 1934).

49

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 3.6. Large gastropods like Fasciolaria trapezium, Turbinella pyrum, Lambis truncata sebae and Chicoreus ramosus were used by Indian craftsmen during the Indus Civilization (2600-1900 BC) for making tools and ornaments demonstrating the highly specialized production of marine shell objects (after Kenoyer 2008: fig. 3).

In the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent the Turbinella pyrum is, at least starting from the Middle Holocene, the raw material from which white bracelets were cut, one of the most sacred symbols still today, it is tied to the condition of ritual purity of married woman. In the Indus civilization and in the Iranian area in the protohistoric period, shells like the Turbinella pyrum, Fasciolaria trapezium, Lambis truncata sebae, and Chicoreus ramosus were transformed by able craftsmen specialized in bracelets, beads, inlay elements of geometric form, figurines, vessels for libations and trumpets (Biscione et al. 1981; Durante 1977, 1979a, 1979b; Bhan and Kenoyer 1980-1981; Kenoyer 1984b, 1985) (Figure 3.6). Still today, Hindu society considers sacred the heavy shell as a calling instrument for religious functions, especially if the spire unwinds anticlockwise. It is not just a coincidence that the Hindu deity Vishnu holds in one of the four hands the sacred shell shanka (i.e. Turbinella pyrum) (Sachs 1940: 235) which is also an important ritual instrument in Buddhism in India, at Ceylon and in Southeast Asia (Montagu 1981: 273). In many other contexts, the shell of large gastropods, conveniently pierced, was often used as a trumpet, as in the past (Marshall 1931: pl. CLV; Kenoyer 1984b: 60), for calling the crowds in religious ceremonies relating to harvest, matrimony, in order to attract rain, in the gathering of secret cults, in the presentation of gifts, at funerals, royal ceremonies, fight encounters, for indicating danger and at musical performances, for curfew, to calm a rough sea or evoke wind (Sachs 1980; Montagu 1981; Schaeffner 1987; Clark 1996). 50

Shell-Middens and Ras Al-Hamra

Already, after 1000 BC the populations of the Syrian-Palestinian coasts, identified after with the ethnonym of Phoenicians, had found the way to extract a colourant from the bright red colour of several murices very common in the Mediterranean (Bolinus brandaris and Hexaplex trunculus) (see Giannakopoulos-Karali 2004; Haubrichs 2004). This contributed in increasing significantly the trade between the Mediterranean populations so much so that the great dignitaries and Greek and Egyptian priests and then the Roman and Byzantine emperors dyed their clothing with this colourant, so that they were generically called “clothed in purple”, as results when reading various passages of Aristotle (V: 15) and Pliny the Elder (IX: 62, 127, 141; X: 3, 4, 12; XXXI: 130, 131). The ethnography indicated that several societies of Central Africa, of Asia and of Oceania used a type of shell known with the name of cauri (Hindustani name of various species of shells of genus Cipraea), first as a barter, then as real and proper money. The most common are Cypraea moneta and Cypraea annulus. The pre-monetary use of the cowrie shells goes back to at least the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. In fact, in China, starting from 1300 BC hundreds have been found deposited in the royal burials of the Shang courts of Anyang and the Zhou of the west (Thierry 2001: 59-60). Another form of exchange equally based on shells is the one described by B. Malinowski, one of the fathers of the contemporary social anthropology. One of the main topics of his famous book “Argonauts of Western Pacific” is a specific form of exchange, called kula, that is in force in several tribes that live at north and east of the eastern extremity of Papua New Guinea, in the Trobriand islands, off the Australian continent. It is a form of intertribal exchange that determines a circular circuit of trading relations between the various islands. Inside this circuit only two types of articles were exchanged, that circulated continuously in opposite directions: the first object, constituted of long necklaces of red Spondylus sp. shell (soulava or bagi), circulated always clockwise, while the second object, composed of bracelets in white Conus sp. shell (mwali), circulated in opposite direction (Figure 3.7); so the exchange would occur only between different objects, bracelets in exchange of necklaces and vice versa that met each other continuously along the exchange circuit. The objects circulated without interruption, remaining in the hands of their possessors only for a limited period of time. According to B. Malinowski the continuous practice of kula was for the populations involved, the best way to guarantee the solidity of relations between the various groups and the creation of new ones (Malinowski 1932: 81). A sort of trade with shells also develops between several communities of central-southern America, where the shell employed was Spondylus sp., called mullu in Quechua language (spoken in Quechua, an ethnolinguistic family of Indians of southern America, and initially by the Inca), particularly sought for the bright colour of its shell. It was also used as votive offering for the gods and as funerary offering for highranking people, as well as for manufacturing ornaments for the community’s élite (Curatola Petrocchi 2002). For several thousands of years these shells were the base of the trade in the territories of the Andes, between Peru and Ecuador (Trubitt 2003: 261-262). The American Indians of the Atlantic coast used these shells for their decorations in order to create the so-called wampum (the term that they used for the species Dentalium sp.). These shells pieced together formed necklaces and bracelets, and were also applied for decorations on clothes, weapons and tools. They served as ransom money for prisoners, to indemnify a sustained damage and to compensate shamans. Anyway their employment is known above-all in relation to the manufacturing of belts called precisely wampum. These also had a strong ritual and symbolic value and, as in the case of the kula cited by Malinowski, they served as exchange money, to ratify treaties and as guarantee for agreements between tribes (Busatta 1998). 51

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

In colonial times, the wampum, continued to be used as exchange money, even by the first settlers that traded with the Europeans and the Iroquois (inland) and Algonquian (along the coast) tribes. The economy of shell beads was nothing else but the answer to the effects of the new fur trade with the European economic system (Ceci 1982: 105, 1984: 64; Trubitt, 2003: 247, 260). Other than processing shells, numerous species of molluscs continued to be collected also for nutritional benefits (in water, protein and mineral salts) that the mollusc was able to supply to the diet of the coastal populations (see Evans 1969; Meighan 1963; Morel 1974; Parmalee and Klippel 1974; Biscione et al. 1981: 3033; Dortch et al. 1984; Waselkov 1987: 119-123, tabs. 3.4, 3.5; Erlandson 1988; Henshilwood et al. 1994; Dupont 2005; Fischer et al. 2007). This last use has continued during the centuries and the millennia and currently in various regions of the world it represents an important economical factor giving life, along the coasts of the planet, to industrial and trading activities for the breeding, processing and selling of edible molluscs. Today, molluscs are not only important for the diet. The market of collecting is highly developed. But even if one is not a specialist collector, who has never collected on the beach shells? Beached or whole, broken or bevelled by the waves or by the sand? Thus our relationship with shells, started 500,000 years ago, continues today. We collect shells, we work them and wear them because they still have, for man, a deep and strong symbolic meaning. The Ichtyophagists and the Cheloniophagists of Greek and Latin Historians Previously we had pointed out how much the marine resources have influenced human adaptation starting, above-all, from the Holocene. The populations settled along the coasts in organized villages where for most of the day they employed themselves in obtaining the necessary food for their subsistence.

Figure 3.7. The Kula circuit in the Massim archipelago area east of Papua New Guinea. On the right the soulava article (necklaces of red Spondylus sp. shell) and on the left the mwali one (bracelets of white Conus sp. shell) (modified after Malinowski 1932: map V, pls. XVI, XVIII).

52

Shell-Middens and Ras Al-Hamra

Figure 3.8. Wooden fish trap remains from the Zamostje 2 site in the late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the Russian plain (after Lozovski et al. 2013: fig. 12).

Collecting molluscs was one of the main activities as much as fishing. For this reason, we have defined the villages of Ras Al-Hamra as shell/fish bearing midden sites. The anthropic deposits hide and partly preserve numerous fish remains. Fishing and manufacturing tools for fishing are one of the features of these types of settlements. Just think about the shell fish hooks and the various net sinkers found in many regions of the world and also, when environmental conditions allow it, the finding of traps9 (in the deposit, Figure 3.8) and structures10 tied to fishing (by now underwater) constructed in seawater a few meters from the beach or in inland rivers and lakes11. The importance of fishing for these coastal communities, as well as collecting molluscs, was already noticed in antiquity, well before contemporary archaeological research. The texts of Greek and Latin historians are the testimony and they called these populations ichtyophagists (or Ichthyophágoi, from Greek Ἰχθυοφάγοι, i.e. “fish eaters”). The first to mention it was Herodotus (Hérodote III 17-24 and 30) in the 5th century BC in relation to the conquest of Egypt in 525 BC by Cambise I, king of the Persians. After the victory, the king decided to carry out new expeditions, against Carthaginians, Ammonii (a population placed between Cyrenaica and Egypt) and Ethiopians. Not knowing well these last ones, Cambise I sent to call the Ichtyophagists who lived at Elephantine and charged them to go to the court of the Nubian king, since they spoke his language. Despite their message, the Persian king decided however to conquer Ethiopia but the campaign, logistically poorly organized, revealed itself a disaster and after a short march had to be abandoned. For instance the ones found in Russia in the region of the Volga (Lozovski et al. 2013). For instance those found in Neolithic and Mesolithic Danish sites of Rønstenen, Kalø Vig I, Ventehuse, Oleslyst, Nekselø, Vedskølle, Saltmade etc. (Fischer 2007). 11 For different traditional fishing methods currently employed or since a few decades ago in the Arabian Gulf, see Beech 2004: 44-49. 9

10

53

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Subsequently, Clearchus of Soli mentions it. He lived between the 4th and 3rd century BC. In one of his works now lost, he reports that Ichtyophagist slaves had been employed by the pharaoh Psamtik II in 593-591 BC in exploring the Nile source and the Libyan Desert (Nalesini 2007: 304). Therefore according to Herodotus and Clearchus of Soli the Ichtyophagists lived, at least starting from the 6th century BC, along the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. But according to others, first before all Nearchus of Crete in the second half of the 3rd century BC, their presence seems rather to be attested along the northern coasts of the Eritrean Sea. Of the Eritrean Sea or Mare Erythraeum the Periplus Mari Erythraei mentions it, a maritime document dated to the 1st century AD that describes the navigation routes across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean and the Arabian Gulf supplying much information on the coastal places and possible trading opportunities (Huntingford 1980)12. The Greeks undertook numerous expeditions along these coasts starting from the conquests of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC). At the end of the conquest campaigns in India, Alexander the Great decided to go back to Babylon. Part of his Macedonian army went back by land while another left by sea, exploring the coasts of the Arabian Sea from the Indus delta until the Arabian Gulf. Nearchus of Crete was charged to command the fleet in the winter of 325-324 BC. During the journey he noted, in his logbook, not only geographic and navigation information but also facts about populations that lived along the coast. Part of this information appeared afterwards in the Indica of Arrian (I-II century AD) where the settlements of the littoral populations of the Makran13 are reported in detail, and with others of the Eritrean Sea who were called precisely Ichtyophagists (Arrian VIII: 29.5-29.15). Afterwards, an intense exploration of these coasts and seas occurred with the first four rulers of the Ptolemaic dynasty, successors of Alexander the Great in Egypt. Accounts of these journeys are mainly preserved in several parts of the work De Mari Erythraeo of Agatharchides of Cnido, Greek historian and geographer of the 2nd century AD. In several passages of the first and fifth books, other than describing the fauna, he also reports about the customs of the people who lived along these coasts, reporting also part of the texts of other previous historians, like Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Claudius Aelianus and Diodorus Siculus (Burstein 1989: 77 40b, 89 51a, 140 85b, 140 85c, 144 85b). Therefore, according to different ancient sources with the ethnonym Ichtyophagists were identified all those populations that lived along the coast of the Eritrean Sea and fed on marine resources, in particular fish. Even if the Eritrean Sea was identified by the Greeks with the Red Sea, according to ancient sources it is noted that it was related to a more extended area that ranged from the coasts of northern Africa to the coasts of eastern India. Other than fish, these populations also fed on other marine animals. In several beaches of the northern coasts of the so-called Eritrean Sea numerous turtles went to lay eggs, as they still do today. These turtles were hunted not only during prehistory, and the excavations of the villages of Ras Al-Hamra in Oman are the evidence (Delfino et al. forth.; Frazier et al. 2018), but also in antiquity (Figure 3.9). In this second case, the written sources once again come to our aid, in particular the already mentioned work of Agatharchides of Cnido. He talks about enormous turtles captured, brought to shore and cooked under the sun that were employed in different ways (boats, huts etc.) by the so-called “turtle eaters” (i.e. Cheloniophagists), a primitive population that lived on the southern islands of the Red Sea (Burstein 1989: 85-86; Frazier 2007: 3)14. 12 The original of this work, in Greek and probably compiled by an Egyptian merchant of Roman times, has gone lost. The text has reached us through a Byzantine manuscript of the 10th century AD, preserved today in the library of the University of Heidelberg. It is a very accurate text that denotes a direct knowledge of these places by the author that does not limit himself in describing the coasts of the Red Sea, that for the Greeks was the Eritrean Sea, but also the ones of the Indian Ocean and of the Arabian Gulf. 13 It is the southern region of the Baluchistan, comprised between Iran and Pakistan, along the coast of the Arabian Sea and the Sea of Oman. The name Makran derives from the Persian mahi khoran, i.e. “fish eaters”. 14 For information it is defined that in the description of Agatharchides of Cnido on the populations that lived along the coasts of

54

Shell-Middens and Ras Al-Hamra

Figure 3.9. Skull of turtle Chelonia mydas found in the graveyard excavated in the 1980s at site RH-5 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

According to Pliny the Elder (Pliny the Elder VI 28, quoted by Burstein 1989) they lived in Carmania, the eastern part of ancient Persia, corresponding to present-day Fars in Iran, in front of the Strait of Hormuz while for Pomponius Mela (Pomponius Mela III 8, quoted by Burstein 1989) they were an Arabian population that lived in the deserts comprised between Egypt and the Arabian Gulf. In any case, whether one talks about Ichtyophagists or Cheloniophagists, the ancient authors refer to populations that lived along the coasts and islands of the Eritrean Sea feeding on resources originating from the sea, where the first favored fishing and the second hunting turtles. Therefore, these populations, also lived on the Omani coasts and Omani islands. Shell Species at Qurum In the waters of Southeastern Arabia live numerous shell colonies. In Oman the three classes that group together most numbers of species are the gastropods (30,000), bivalves (10,000) and cephalopods (500) (Bosh and Bosh 1982: 27, 147, 195). This area of Qurum and Ras Al-Hamra is considered one of the most important in terms of the natural wealth of Oman. At the north of this area there are a series of calcareous promontories and cliffs, at the south the broad mouth of Wadi Aday. To the west, start the flat beaches of the Batinah while to the east, a series of hills more or less high reach towards the Hajar Mountains. the Red Sea, of Arabia and in their first hinterland, even other populations are cited, like the Rhizophagists (“root eaters”), the Hylophagists (“fibre eaters”), the Spermatophagists (“fruit and seed eaters”), the Struthophagists (“ostrich eaters”), the Acridophagists (“locust eaters”), the Cynamolgists (“dog-milkers”) etc. (Burstein 1989: 89-108).

55

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Under the promontory where site RH-5 and the present Crowne Plaza Hotel (previously Gulf Hotel) are located flow several streams, more or less winding, that constitute the mouth of the Wadi Aday that runs directly into the sea. Another great canal is found in the western limit of the mouth near the Intercontinental Hotel, further south. The activities of the tides can change, according to the flow of the waters and the morphology of the mouth. On June 5th, 2007 after the cyclone Gonu, considered the most destructive tropical cyclone recorded in the Arabian Sea, the waters of the sea entered inland for kilometres inundating the Qurum area under different depths. After this event, quite naturally, the mouth of the Wadi Aday was again modified. Now other than the two main canals, at the sides of the mangrove a new one has been formed, central and wider than the others. The mangrove, though less extended compared to the past, is constituted of Avicennia marina species, even if anthropological analysis (M. Tengberg, personal communication) of the charcoals originating from RH-5 and RH-6 have evidenced the presence of Rhizophora mucronata, a species that tends to occupy the borders of canals and the zones nearest the sea (Tengberg 2005: 40). The mangroves of Qurum with their root system and the thick foliage of the branches provide a shelter for marine fauna and birds. The food chain that derives from the ecosystem of the mangrove, in primis thanks to the decomposition of the leaves in the slimy soil allows the development and growth of numerous marine species like molluscs, crabs and shrimps that in turn are the prey of fish and birds, and lastly of man (Preuss et al. 1996: 50). In addition, fish, with the high tide phases, lay their eggs between the roots of the mangroves. Among the various species that live between the mangrove and the sea in Qurum Nature Reserve and at Ras Al-Hamra shells are a constant form of life of the various ecosystems (Smythe 1983) (Figure 3.10). Several species are very common in all the area, Umbonium vestiarium, the common small shell very coloured that is found both in the sandy zones of the mangrove and on the beaches15, Strombus decorus persicus that lives on the sand of the beach like in the mud-sandy soils of the mangrove and Lambis truncata sebae very common in deep waters of the sea along the coast. In the canals of the mouth of the Wadi Aday the current is very reduced and the waters tend to concentrate inside the mangrove in small shallow ponds with a sandy or silty basal bottom, surrounded by trees of Avicennia marina. Other than several species of fish and birds here live several bivalves, among which the most common is Marcia ceylonensis. Several, dead, have in the valves a small hole after being hunted by birds. While in the muddy soil between the roots of the mangroves are abundant the endemic species of Terebralia palustris (Figure 3.11), Saccostrea cucullata, an oyster that sometimes can live attached to its shell, and Telescopium sp., differently from Isognomon legumen that fastens itself on roots. The Terebralia palustris like the Cerithidea cingulata (which can also live in silty or muddy soils) also inhabits the deeper ponds that are reached by the sea water only during the phases of high tide. Since they tend to contain stagnant water, numerous seaweeds and an elevated salinity, most of the molluscs do not live there. The eastern canal under the promontory of Ras Al-Hamra is populated by many molluscs. Its bottom is sandy and silty constituted of stones and low rocks covered by seaweeds. Here numerous shell species can be found (Cypraea turdus, Thais bimaculatus, Thais bufo and Pinctada radiata)16 as well as a varied marine fauna (anemones, ascidia, tubolar worms, serpentine stars, shrimps, small fish, small crabs ad sea snails). Shells of this species are very numerous on the beaches and assume a colouring that is constantly pink when they are dead. The Pinctada radiata is very fragile since the valves are not very thick. When it is young and small, as in the case of its larger species Pinctada margaritifera, it can be found in shallow waters during the low tide while at an adult stage it moves in deeper waters (several meters). The Pinctada radiata can be found in the upper stretch of the mouth of a river, between the rocks or even fastened to the roots of the mangroves (as in the case of Isognomon legumen) (Bosch and Bosch 1982: 156). 15 16

56

Shell-Middens and Ras Al-Hamra

RH-10 1

2

RH-5 5

3 4

6

RH-6 7 Shell ecosystems at Qurum 1) Under-cut of Ras Al-Hamra cliff 2) Deep waters 3) Open sand beach 4) Sheltered side of the sea beach 5) Rocky stream bed 6) Upper reaches of the stream 7) Pools 8) Mangrove

8

Figure 3.10. The different ecosystems where shells live in Qurum: 1) the under-cut of the cliff of Ras Al-Hamra is caused by bivalves (e.g. Saccostrea cucullata) boring into the soft rock and eroded by the action of waves and wind; 2) off-shore in deep waters along the coast live large gastropods like Lambis truncata sebae; 3) the open sand beach where many molluscs (e.g. Conus flavidus, Umbonium vestiarium, Callista erycina, Strombus decorus persicus, Oliva bulbosa) burrow into the wet sand; 4) the sheltered side of the sea beach where many molluscs (e.g. Dosinia alta, Circe currogata) live away from the surf; 5) the rocky stream bed where the older juvenile shells live (e.g. Pinctada margaritifera, Pinctada radiata, Nassarius coronatus, Nassarius arcularius plicatus, Nassarius albescens gemmuliferus, Cypraea gracilis, Cypraea turdus) when they leave the nursery and make their way to the sea; 6) the upper reaches of the stream is the nursery area where many molluscs (e.g. Pinctada margaritifera, Pinctada radiata, Umbonium vestiarium, Thais alouina) come to lay their eggs and the young hatch, and spend their early days here; 7) in the deep quiet pools amongst the mangrove live molluscs (e.g. Serpulorbis variabilis, Strombus decorus persicus, Umbonium vestiarium) with other animals; 8) in the muddy soil between the roots of the mangroves live many endemic species like Terebralia palustris, Cerithidea cingulata, Telescopium telescopium, but also Saccostrea cucullata, sometimes attached to Terebralia palustris and Isognomon legumen (photograph from the Fred Scholz Collection).

In the Qurum beach live many molluscs according to their distance from the sea: in the portion of covered sand by high tide live for instance the ones of the Naticidae families like the Polinices tumidus and Natica pulicaris, and of the Olividae like Ancilla scaphella and Oliva bulbosa; in the portion of sand that is exposed with low tide live the Veneridae families like the Callista erycina and Tivela damaoides, of the Cardiidae like the Cardita bicolor, and of the Mitridae like the Vexillum acuminatum. Lastly between the rocks of the cliff of Ras Al-Hamra live many shell species: between the rocks can be found species belonging to the family of the Thaididae like Thais bufo, Thais bimaculatus and Morula granulata; cemented in groups on rocks live different species of oysters; while everywhere between the rocks and the cliff live abundant chitons like the large Acanthopleura haddoni, and the smaller Chiton preregrinus and Chiton barnardi, and the Engina mendicaria. Currently the families of marine and mangrove shells most present and characteristic of Qurum are the following17: According to the collection carried out by K. Smythe (1983: 19-61) at the beginning of the 1980s and the species present in the permanent exhibition situated in the Natural History Museum at the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism in Muscat. 17

57

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 3.11. Close-up of the shells belonging to the species Terebralia palustris present at the feet of the trees of Avicennia marina between the roots, photographed during the low tide in the mangrove of Qurum at a short distance from the RH-6 site (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

- Gastropods: Fissurellidae: Diodora bambayana, Diodora imbricata, Fissurella townsendii; Acmaeidae: Acmaea profunda; Trochidae: Euchelus asper, Umbonium vestiarium; Neritidae: Nerita adenensis, Nerita albicilla; Architectonicidae: Architectonica laevigata; Vermitidae: Vermetus sulcatus; Planaxidae: Planaxis sulcatus; Potamididae: Pirinella conica, Cerithidea cingulata, Telescopium telescopium, Terebralia palustris; Cerithiidae: Cerithium caeruleum, Cerithium scabridum, Clypeomorus bifasciatus, Rhinoclavis sordidula; Triphoridae: Triphora cingulata; Epitoniidae: Epitoneum pallasii, Amaea acuminata; Melanellidae: Niso venosa; Calyptraeidae: Calyptraea pellucida; Strombidae: Strombus gibberulus, Strombus decorus persicus; Conidae: Conus flavidus, Conus betulinus, Conus quercinus, Conus taeniatus; Naticidae: Polinices tumidus, Natica pulicaris; Cypraeidae: Cypraea felina fabula, Cypraea gracilis, Cypraea turdus; Bursidae: Bursa granularis; Thaididae: Morula chrysostoma, Cronia konkanensis, Cronia margariticola, Thais bimaculatus, Thais bufo, Thais savignyi, Thais tissoti, Thais alouina; Columbellidae: Mitrella cartwrighti; Buccinidae: Engina mendicaria; Nassaridae: Nassarius albescens gemmuliferus, Nassarius arcularius plicatus, Nassarius coronatus, Nassarius deshayesiana; Fasciolariidae: Latirus nassatula forskalii; Olividae: Ancilla scaphella, Oliva bulbosa; Mitridae: Vexillum acuminatum; Acteonidae: Acteon affinis; Bullidae: Bullaria ampulla; Atyidae: Atys cylindrica; Aplysiidae: Aplysia cornigera, Barnardaclesia cirrhifera; Costellariidae: Costellaria acuminata; Planaxidae: Planaxis sulcatus; Muricidae: Hexaplex kuesterianus; - Polyplacophores: Chitonidae: Acanthopleura haddoni, Chiton preregrinus, Chiton barnardi; - Scaphopods: Dentaliidae: Dentalium octangulatum; - Bivalves: Arcidae: Barbatia helblingii, Barbatia obliquata, Barbatia setigera, Acar plicata, Anadara antiquata, Anadara ehrenbergi; Mytilidae: Lithophaga cumingiana, Leiosolenus tripartitus; Isognomonidae: Isognomon legumen; Pteriidae: Pinctada margaritifera (Figure 3.12), Pinctada radiata; Plicatulidae: Plicatula plicata; Ostreidae: Alectryonella plicatula, Saccostrea cucullata; Tellinidae: Tellina foliacea; 58

Shell-Middens and Ras Al-Hamra

Psammobiidae: Gari occidens; Veneridae: Circenita callipyga, Circe corrugata, Tivela damaoides, Callista erycina, Callista lilacina, Dosinia alta, Marcia ceylonensis, Marcia opima, Venerupis deshayesii; Corbulidae: Corbula modesta, Corbula sulculosa; Thraciidae: Thracia adenensis; Psammobiidae: Hiatula ruppelliana. - Cephalopods: Sepiidae: Sepia pharaonis, Sepia trygonina; Argonautidae: Argonauta argo.

In this environmental context, live and reproduce numerous shell species. The ones collected in the past, during the occupation of the prehistorical sites, are more or less the same species. Few are extinct while in other cases the colonies are reduced or have changed habitat adapting themselves to climatic changes. For instance several of the species most present in archaeological contexts, like oysters, are at the moment very reduced compared to the past, if one compares the ones visible on the rocks and in the cliff of Ras Al-Hamra, that often are of small size or dead, with those present in the anthropic deposit of the excavated sites. Other than the species cited above it must also be considered that in the Omani prehistoric archaeological deposits several shells of large gastropods have been found that were employed in manufacturing ornaments or tools.

Figure 3.12. Pinctada margaritifera shell at the Natural History Museum of the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism of Oman. This bivalve is one of the most important shells used by the fishermen of Ras Al-Hamra and the Oman Peninsula at least from the 6th millennium BC for making tools and ornaments. Average size of adult specimens is 200 mm (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

59

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

They could be easily collected on the beaches or fished in shallow waters above-all in the Sea of Oman as it happens still today. They were collected by the populations that lived along the coasts of Ras Al-Hamra but their presence also in other Mesopotamian, Arabian Gulf and north-western Indian sites, dated between the 6th-3rd millennium BC, informs us that they were exchanged with other goods (Biscione et al. 1981; Gensheimer 1984; Kenoyer 1984; Moorey 1994: 130-131). These species are: Fasciolaria trapezium, Lambis truncata sebae and Chicoreus ramosus.

60

Chapter 4

Stratigraphy and Chronology

Stratigraphy During two different excavation projects at RH-5, the one in the 1980s and the emergency one in 2004-2005, numerous trenches were opened. If in the first case they were opened in order to define the strategy to adopt for the excavation of the settlement, in the second they were necessary mainly to intercept possible residual graves that had escaped the past investigations and obtain a complete vision of the stratigraphic progression of the village, since soon afterwards it would be destroyed (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). In the middle part the deposit the site has an east/south-east slope and a maximum depth of around 1.50 m, that thins progressively from the central zone towards the edges of the terrace. The deposit is formed of tens of levels that vary from few millimeters to around twenty centimeters. These are constituted of thin charcoal, ash and gypsum lens, alternated by thicker levels of shells and fish and mammal bones in which abundant tools in polished stones (chert, quartz and jasper), bone and shell have been found, resulting from domestic and craft activities. The excavation strategies adopted during the 1980s differ from those of recent excavations. In the past the complete extensive stratigraphic excavation of a reduced area in the central-southern portion of the site was preferred, where the deposit seemed to be possibly the most complete. To this was added the opening of two trenches in east-west directions, long 22 m (that crossed the entire site) and 12 m, respectively TT 1982 and TT 1984, and around 1 m wide. In recent excavations, however, the strategies differ since, during the emergency excavation of 2004-2005, a series of new graves was found in the northern portion of the site in an area that did not correspond to the place in which the graveyard of the 1980s was excavated (Figure 4.3). Hence it was decided to excavate this new sector, Sector A, in which the new graves overlap each other with the living structures of the settlement. The funerary space did not seem distinct from the living one. Moreover, in order to understand better the different typologies of the living structures, it was decided to register those present in the bedrock in the excavation sectors excavated in the 1980s but not documented at that time. The settlement of RH-5 is a multi-stratified site. At least nine periods of occupation have been identified in the central-southern part of the site, in which the anthropic deposit presents the greater thickness. These periods, that as a general rule correspond to the observations deriving from the excavations of the 1980s (Biagi and Salvatori 1986), are constituted, in their turn, of various phases of occupation that in several cases have been identified during the extensive excavation (Biagi and Salvatori 1986; Marcucci 2014, 2015; Marcucci et al. 2011) or during micromorphological analysis (Béguier 2010; Béguier and Marcucci 2018). The analysis of the stratigraphic sections of the trenches (Figures 4.4 and 4.5) has highlighted a type of heterogeneous sedimentation formed of various levels made up of fish and mammal bones, of shells, artefacts in shell, in stone and bone laid out in a matrix of sandy, carbonaceous sediments and of ashes inside of which various living structures (postholes, base trench foundations for the huts, fireplaces and dumping pits) and pits for the graves have been excavated. The deposit horizontally denotes brief, repetitive dumping phases, close together in time, of abundant organic material occasionally interrupted by the abovementioned structures. 61

Figure 4.1. RH-5. A) position of the 1980s excavations and the trenches opened in 1982 and 1984; B) position of the trenches opened during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 compared to the excavation sectors of 2008-2010 (drawing by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

62

Stratigraphy and Chronology

Figure 4.2. Kite view of the area opened in 2008 at RH-5: in red the alphanumerical codes of the various excavation sectors and in black the ones of the trenches opened in 2004-2005 and by P. Biagi in the 1980s (photograph by M. Zanfini).

The study of the sections allow us to notice a temporal continuity in the choice of the construction of the huts and hence in the choice of the space reserved to the living structures. Other areas, in general more peripheral, were the large dumping pits or the buried oven of Sector C, were dedicated to the processing and treatment of fish and shells. As regards the areas designed for craft activities, for the time being we are not able to establish precisely where the craftsmen of Ras Al-Hamra practiced the manufacturing of shells, bones or stones. Probably there were not any circumscribed craft areas. The site could be considered as a large craft area, since the material culture is distributed more or less uniformly over all the promontory, both synchronically and diachronically. The micromorphological analysis (Béguier 2010; Béguier and Marcucci 2018) on one side and the macroscopic stratigraphic excavation on the other carried out during recent missions (2008-2010) (Marcucci 2014, 2015; Marcucci and Genchi 2008; Marcucci et al. 2009, 2010, 2011), allowed us to establish that site RH-5 had never been abandoned if not in several zones for brief periods and to the advantage of others. Beyond the general periodization that is considerably backed by the one proposed by P. Biagi in reference to his excavations of 1983-1985, the excavation of Sector B2 (Figure 4.6) has allowed us to identify various macroscopic phases and sub-phases of occupation (Table 4.1) inherent to a same living structure (HUT B56, Figures 4.7 and 4.8). 63

Figure 4.3. A) location of site RH-5 and other prehistoric sites in the area of Ras Al-Hamra; B) the extension of sites RH-5 and RH-10 and the area in which the graveyard of RH-5 has been detected; C) location of the various graves identified, excavated or sampled in the 1980s and in 2005/2008 (after Zazzo et al. 2013: fig. 1).

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

64

Figure 4.4.RH-5. Micromorphological profile and photomosaic of a portion of the north section of trench EW-1 comprised between Sector D and Biagi’s 1982 trench (drawing by I. Béguier; photomosaic by T. Conci).

Stratigraphy and Chronology

65

Figure 4.5. RH-5. Micromorphological profile and photomosaic of a portion of the north section of Sector E-west (drawing by I. Béguier; photomosaic by T. Conci).

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

66

Stratigraphy and Chronology

Table 4.1. RH-5. Correlation between the living structures found in the northern portion of Sector B2 and the phases of occupation identified during the excavation (table by L.G. Marcucci).

Figure 4.6. RH-5. Plan (left) and photomosaic (right) of the structures found in the bedrock of Sector B2 (photomosaic by F. Genchi; drawing by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

67

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 4.7. RH-5. Plans of Phase 2 (2a, 2b and 2c) of Period I of occupation in HUT B56 (drawing by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

68

Stratigraphy and Chronology

Figure 4.8. RH-5. Detail of the plans of the living structures recovered in the bedrock in Sector B2 except HUT B56: A) HUT B61; B) HUT B57; C) HUT B58; D) HUT B59; E) HUT B60 (drawing by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

69

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 4.9. RH-5. Biagi’s excavation of 1982-1983: A) northern section of east-west test trench of 1982 cut across the western half of the site; Biagi’s excavation of 1983-1985: B) level 0 (Phase VII); C) level 1 (Phase VI); D) level 3 (Phase V); E) levels 3b, 3c and 3d (Phase IV); F) level 5a (Phase II); G) level 5b (Phase I). The above sequence seems to be valid only for the investigated area and cannot be extended for sure to the entire site (A, after Biagi et al. 1984; fig. 5; B-G, after Biagi and Salvatori 1986: figs. 1-4).

70

Stratigraphy and Chronology

In the same way even the micromorphological analyses inform us that the formation and evolution of the deposit is much more complex than one would have thought. Indeed the microscope analysis detected the presence of micromorphological phases and sub-phases of occupation in their turn constituted of occupation cycles given by the alternation of grounds in use and activity, inside or outside, in the presence of a covering or not, and in conditions of water circulation and cleaning (Béguier and Marcucci 2018). A great forward step, compared to the excavations of the 1980s and the emergency one of 2004-2005, has been made with the recent excavations thanks to the combination of macrostratigraphic (even if only on the extremes of the sequence, i.e. Sectors A and B2) and microstratigraphic evidence supplying further and more specific information on the dynamics of the occupation of the village and the development of its deposit. Occupational Sequence The first periodization of the occupation of RH-5 has been proposed by P. Biagi, thanks to his stratigraphic excavation carried out in 1983-1985 in the south-eastern portion of the promontory. As a result, seven phases of occupation where detected inside thirteen layers, that, starting from the lowest one, can be summarized as follows: layer 5b (Phase I); layer 5a (Phase II); layer 5 (Phase III); layers 3d, 3c, 3b (Phase IV); layers 3a, 3 (Phase V); layers 1b, 1 (Phase VI); layer 0 (Phase VII) (Biagi and Salvatori 1986) (Figure 4.9). However, this occupational sequence does not mean that in all the settlement the same phases could be detected, since during the occupation (at least 700 years according to the radiocarbon dates) some areas could have been temporarily abandoned for others, according to the different needs of the population (increase/decline of family groups, intensification/decline of artefacts production, of marine hunting and mollusc gathering and fish processing and storage) (Marcucci 2014). Moreover, of the thirteen layers detected, Biagi interpreted layers 2 and 4 as fundamental separating elements of the various phases, since they were enough extended along the north-south and east-west sections of the excavations, and basically constituted by a sediment, deep until 20 cm, of marine and mangrove shell (Biagi and Salvatori 1986). Subsequently after the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 the Biagi’s periodization was a little modified by F. Franceschini dividing the anthropic deposit in four major macro-phases (layers 1-4) based on the evidence found by opening several trenches and the information of the topographic data for making a model of virtual restitution (Franceschini 2005). Adding to these two similar occupational sequences the information collected from the last research campaigns (2008-2010), the occupational sequence of the village can be divided in nine periods (Marcucci 2015). The periods identified1, from the most recent to the earliest, can be distinguished as follows (Table 4.2): Period 9 Corresponds to the top of the anthropic deposit of the site on which rested the layer of artificial soil placed for the implementation of the garden of the house of the owner. In various cases this level, poor in faunal and fish remains, turned out to have been reworked due to construction works of the area in the 1980s.

The periodization is very similar to the one proposed by Biagi (Biagi and Salvatori 1986: 5-8) since he was the only one that was able to excavate completely, between 1983 and 1985, the anthropic deposit in the centre-southern portion of the site where it was thicker, even if reducing the survey area during the excavation (IsMEO Activities 1983: 332-333; Biagi and Salvatori 1986). While the excavation campaigns of 2008-2010 were focused only on the extremes of the sequence: the most recent period (Sector A, C and D) and the most ancient period (Sector B1, B2 and E) of occupation. 1

71

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Pit in HWE belonging to the last period of occupation of the site where a sharply carinated biconical jar (Burnished Grey Ware) was found. Remains of a bituminous substance were found on the inner surface of the bottom part.

22 m Figure 4.10. RH-5. Test trench 1982 with the large pit where sixty-five sherds of black burnished grey ware were found belonging to the same jar coming from Iran and dated to the end of the 4th millennium BC (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

72

Stratigraphy and Chronology

The structures detected are made up of waste pits and several postholes that are cut at the top indicating that part of the anthropic deposit has gone lost due to erosive natural phenomena and/or construction works of the garden. To this period belongs the pit in HWE in which the remains of a jar with traces of bituminous substance (Biagi and Salvatori 1986: 6) on its bottom have been found (Figure 4.10). Period 8 Light grey layer of sandy matrix and of compact consistence discovered in all the surface of the site. Lens of ashes and charcoals can be noticed inside. The structures are constituted of postholes, waste pits and fireplaces. Large and small waste pits belong to this level. Living structures made of postholes with a semicircular alignment associated to waste pits and fireplaces found in Sectors A (Figure 4.11) and D (already detected by Biagi’s excavations in the central-southern portion of the site) and the pit oven of Sector C could belong to this level (Marcucci et al. 2011).

Table 4.2. Periodization of site RH-5 according to the different excavations carried out between 1982 and 2010, above-all taking in account Biagi’s excavation of 1983-1985 carried out in the central-southern portion of the site (Biagi et al., 1984; Biagi and Salvatori, 1986; Usai, 2005). In this case Biagi has been the only one to excavate the anthropic deposit in its wholeness, even if reducing the area of research during the excavation (table by L.G. Marcucci).

73

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 4.11. RH-5. View from north of the postholes found in 2008 in Sector A, under excavation, probably belonging to a hut or to an open shelter (HUT A1). In the foreground the pit of Grave 410 (photograph by F. Genchi).

Period 7 Thick grey layer constituted mostly of remains of marine and mangrove shells and small stones. This level has been interpreted by Biagi as one of the two fundamental separating elements of the various occupational phases, the other was the one he had identified as level 4, in which the sequence of living structures is interrupted. As can be seen in the section of 1982 (Biagi et al. 1984: fig. 5), this thick layer is not continuous along the east-west axis. The absence of structures such as postholes for the installation of huts maybe indicates that here the inhabitants of RH-5 adopted less complex living structures, that have not left visible traces. On the other hand, other structures could also be present in zones not yet investigated. The high concentration of shells could attest a particular subsistence phase of the rasalamrian population characterized by an intense gathering and exploitation of marine and mangrove shells in the diet, maybe after a fall in the fishing activities and turtle hunting due to a period of scarce abundance of fish in the sea. Period 6 Starting from this level the sequence of structures begins again. The layer is made up of thin charcoal lenses, fish bones and ashes resulting from continuous combustion activities (Figure 4.12). In general the postholes start from the level of charcoals or ashes. In the zone where Period 7 is absent, Period 6 seems to interface itself with Period 8. 74

Stratigraphy and Chronology

Period 5 In this level, constituted of layers of fish, shells and charcoal, the postholes tend to increase. A greater presence of fish bone remains can be noted, in many cases so fragmented that they present themselves as a brown powder. During this period the exploitation of marine resources increases at the expense of shell gathering. Therefore to this moment could belong structures similar to the pit oven found in Sector C mainly employed for processing and consumption of fish. Period 4 This level presents the same stratigraphic characteristics of Period 7 but of lesser thickness. Period 3 Even in this case the living structures (postholes and waste pits) reappear as well as the lenses of fish bones that determine a predominant dark brown colour in the level. It can be noted the presence of shell and charcoal lenses. In the zones where Period 4 is absent, Period 3 seems to interface itself with Period 5. Period 2 The postholes are still present. In the sandy level of grey colour the presence of fish bone remains decreases, while shells and stones of small size are predominant.

Table 4.12. RH-5. Three examples of the sedimentary pattern (1, ash; 2, charcoals; 3, crushed fish bones) that is repeated in the sequence of occupation of the site that suggests a combustion à l’étouffé (i.e. smothered combustion). In this case detected in the sections of the test trench 1984: A) West section; B-C) North section (photographs by F. Genchi).

75

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Period 1 To this level is attested the most ancient occupational phases of the site. The living structures are cut directly in the bedrock or a few centimetres over it. Differently from the foundations of the huts relating to the most recent phases, the foundations of the huts on the bedrock were made up not only of postholes, but also of circular base trench foundations around 10 cm deep and 10-20 cm wide (Figure 4.13). Associated to these there were also fireplaces and waste pits. All the area of the site is occupied, even if we can notice a lower concentration of living structures on the western part of the promontory. The shell remains are greater than the fish bone remains while there are poor traces of carbonaceous and ashy layers.

The graveyard excavated in the 1980s began to be used at the end of Period 3 until the end of Period 9 when the population also occupied the north-eastern part of the promontory. Even if this zone was completely dedicated to funerary practices we know that during Period 1, hence before the presence of the graveyard, numerous huts were built directly in the bedrock (Marcucci 2014, 2015; Marcucci et al. 2011). Afterwards, in this part of the promontory, the area dedicated to living changed utilization, as displayed by the three different levels of graves excavated in the 1980s (Salvatori 2007).

Table 4.13. RH-5. View from east of the central portion of Sector B1 at the end of the 2008 excavation campaign. The cleaning of the bedrock has brought to light circular base foundations and hundreds of postholes relating to the first period of occupation of the village (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

76

Stratigraphy and Chronology

Figure 4.14. RH-5. Portion of the northern section of Sector E-west. Multi-stratified large pit in the middle of the image relating to the last period of occupation of the village (photograph by I. Béguier).

But in 2005 a new area dedicated to the graveyard was found, in the north portion of the site (Franceschini 2005). Here the graves are present in all the stratigraphic deposit as witnessed by the eastern section of Trench B. On the contrary, in this case, the area was, since the beginning (Period 1), used also for funerary practices, that are superimposed with living structures. In all the deposit one can notice numerous charcoal lens, of fish bones and compact ash, considered as combustion areas tied to fireplace remains, to the activities of cooking molluscs and cleaning. Taking into account the complexity of the anthropic deposit and the stratigraphic studies carried out during the various excavation activities, it is possible to establish that the central part of the site presents the greater anthropic thickness and a likely complete living sequence. In the adjacent zones, until the edges of the promontory, the deposit tends to get thinner, also because of erosion, and does not include all the periods of occupation. Starting from Period 6 the living structures tend to increase until the most ancient period (i.e. Period 1). Therefore, Period 6 constitutes a temporal limit between two great exploitation phases of the resources surrounding the village. The anthropic deposit over this level seems to be characterized by an intense gathering of marine and mangrove shells, instead, the underneath one, by an intense exploitation of marine resources, thanks to fishing and turtle hunting. In the more recent occupations (Period 8 and 9) in various sectors of the site large waste pits have been detected, even multi-stratified, as in the case of the large pit visible on the eastern section of the excavation made for removing Grave 306 excavated in 2005, or those of large size visible on the northern section of Sector E-west (Figure 4.14). The detailed study of this type of structures could supply us with information on food activities and eventually on craft activities of the fishermen of RH-5. 77

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

The study of the sections allows us to note a temporal continuity in the choice of the construction of the huts and therefore on the selection of the space reserved for the living structures. Other areas, in general more peripherals, where large waste pits or the pit oven of Sector C are present, were used for processing fish and shells. End of the Occupation of the Village Site RH-5 was abandoned at the end of the 4th millennium BC. The reason could be the beginning of the climatic deterioration by now oriented in its current arid phase. Even if anthracological analysis of the charcoals of RH-5 and RH-6 inform us about the presence of Rizophora sp. species (M. Tengberg, personal communication), it is presumed that the mangrove had decreased in surface and that Avicennia marina was the predominant mangrove tree2. The spatial distribution of these two species is different. In general, Zizophora sp. tends to occupy the edges of the canals and the zones nearest to the sea protecting more, with its aerial roots, the inland grounds from sea storms and tempests while Avicennia marina, more resistant to salty water, grows in higher and more sporadically submerged zones placed in the interior of the mangrove (Tengberg 2005: 40). The decrease of Zizophora sp. during the occupation of RH-5 and above-all towards its final occupation could have modified the ecosystem of the mangrove and its surrounding environment reflecting negatively on subsistence activities of the population that lived in the promontory. Moreover, other factors can have determined the abandonment of RH-5 such as the demographic growth and eventual conflicts between different tribal groups. The growth of the population could have brought on the formation of other small and temporary settlements both in the area of Qurum and more south towards Muscat. But we have no evidence that this growth of the population could have determined the definitive collapse of the village (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 260). However, it must be said that an increase in the population could have triggered off conflicts within the village and then determined its total abandonment. These conflicts are evident at RH-5 above-all in the graveyard. For instance, in Area 43 a shark tooth has been found stuck in the lumbar vertebra of an adult male (Santini 2002: 163, fig. 5; Salvatori 2007: pls. 14-15). Moreover, the same Area 43, constituted of an ensemble of multiple secondary graves for a total of 82 individuals, could be related to a crucial episode in the life of the village. Maybe an epidemic is hypothesized but there aren’t any scientific analysis to give validity to this hypothesis, or it is a massacre due to an internal conflict or dispute between the inhabitants of the village or against other rival groups (Salvatori 2007: 31). In any case, other examples of violent death after probable intertribal conflicts, have been identified even before in the graveyard of BHS-18 at Al-Buhais in the UAE (end of the 5th millennium BC) where the excavation of several graves (both in the primary and secondary ones) has highlighted that some individuals had died of a violent death, witnessed by the violent head wounds (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 257; Kutterer and Uerpmann 2012), while a flint arrowhead had perforated the chest of an individual in a multiple grave in the graveyard of UAQ-2 at Umm Al-Qaiwain in the homonymous emirate (end of the 6th millennium BC) (Méry et al. 2016: 336). While at Ras Al-Hamra the mangrove survives until nowadays, in other parts towards the end of the 4th millennium BC along the coasts of the Arabian Sea it tends to disappear as shown by the sedimentary archives of the As-Suwayh lagoon. Here and elsewhere, the mangroves are substituted by sebkhas still present today (Berger et al. 2013: 3099). The sebkha is a typical depression of the arid zones, above-all North Africa and Middle East. A salty swamp that periodically collects the rainy waters that come down from the mountains through the wadyan, if it is located in the interior, or it receives a water coming from the sea, when it is located near the cost. Characterized by a permanent humidity, its surface is constituted by a thin water pellicle or by a thin salt crust. 2

78

Stratigraphy and Chronology

Figure 4.15. Multifunctional copper “knife” (DA 26720) found at RH-10 in the 1980s at the time of its discovery, dated to the end of the 4th millennium BC. It is considered one of the oldest metal artefacts from Oman (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

Uerpmann and Uerpmann (2003: 260-261) also believe that the increase of maritime contacts and trade at the end of the 4th millennium BC, spurred above-all by Mesopotamian traders and navigators, could have determined the end of the occupations of the coastal shell middens in order to give life to a new society, one that very soon will give life first to the Hafit Culture and then to the Umm an-Nar one. Indeed, for instance, the direct evidence of these new contacts is given by the finding at RH-5 of a bowl in fine black polished and burnished pottery (Didier and Méry 2012: 177), containing the remains of a bituminous substance, coming from Southeastern Iran and other small pottery sherds of Mesopotamian origin (Méry 1995). While the birth of a new lifestyle can be identified at RH-10 with the finding of a copper knife (Figure 4.15), the earliest evidence in the Oman Peninsula of the beginning of the exploitation of a copper mine and the emergence of the utilization of metal (Giardino 2017). All these findings are dated to the last quarter of the 4th millennium BC, when the “Great Transformation” began.

79

Chapter 5

Settlement Structures

Settlement Structures With the excavations of the 1980s at Ras Al-Hamra, Biagi was the first (Biagi and Salvatori 1986; Biagi 1999) to highlight clear prehistoric living structures in Southeastern Arabia constituted of curvilinear alignments of postholes, base trench foundations and accessory structures. One of the peculiarities of site RH-5, if compared with sites of the same period excavated between the western coasts of the Arabian Gulf and the Omani ones of the Oman Sea and Arabian Sea, is the finding of numerous architectural (postholes and base trench foundations) and structural elements (huts, pits, fireplaces and also a buried oven). The finding of such evidence is of great interest to archaeologists, above-all if they are more than only a few units, since they allow us to decipher the way in which the prehistoric populations of fishermen of Ras Al-Hamra have organized their living space and the activities that they practiced. In many cases, in sandy and intensely stratified sediments like those present in prehistoric sites discovered in the Ras AlHamra promontory, it is not easy to recognize, during the excavation, the various architectural elements characteristic of the living area, since the filling sediment of such structures (e.g. of a posthole) is almost identical to the one in which such an architectural element was excavated (Figure 5.1). Moreover, other types of processes may alter the traces of the archaeological remains: natural ones (e.g. deflation, aeolian erosion or paedogenesis) and also anthropic ones such as the activities of the past populations that lived in these villages and therefore their continuous walking and working during everyday life. In the particular case of RH-5 (but also in the other sites excavated in proximity: RH-4, RH-6 and RH10) the best way to compensate such interpretative and identification difficulties was to focus a part of the work in the survey of the structures and architectural elements excavated directly in the calcareous bedrock of the promontory belonging to the earliest period of occupation.

Figure 5.1. A posthole found in the 5 m reference section in Sector C at RH-6 in 2012 (A) and its highlighting (B). As can be noted, its detection is not at all easy since the filling is very similar to the stratigraphic layers in which the hole has been cut. The greatest difference for its identification is given by the orientation of the shell fragments along the wall of the hole (photograph by E. Badel).

80

Settlement Structures

Figure 5.2. Two examples of postholes found during the excavation of test trench TT-Z (Sector C) at RH-6 in 2012 in which large stones in lime or quartz (A) or shells, like Anadara sp., Pinctada sp. and Ostrea sp. (B) have been employed as wedging (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

This approach has allowed the exposure of around 600 m2 of bedrock in which have been detected 2300 postholes part of which belong to 62 huts, shelters or auxiliary structures dedicated to subsistence or craft activities. Moreover, at least 59 depressions have been recognized that are ascribed to fireplace or dumping pits (Marcucci et al. 2011). This area can be considered one of the most extensive living surfaces ever exposed in a prehistoric site in Southeastern Arabia, if one also takes into account the high concentration of architectural elements and structures found together and belonging to a same period. Living Structures The excavations have brought to light numerous architectural elements. The huts can be divided into two main categories: those made only by posthole alignments and those with base trench foundations even if, in some cases, both are employed. This architectural distinction presumes differences in the space and time of the settlement since the first period of occupation of the promontory. Several times their concentration is so high that often the small base trench foundations overlap each other, suggesting an intense and extended attendance of the site. Besides these structures, that define the huts of larger size, others have been detected, smaller, described by various series of postholes with a semi-circular or oval configuration and other series of postholes with a linear configuration that can be interpreted as sheds for carrying out craftwork or subsistence activities. Postholes The posthole is one of the most common architectural elements present in Neolithic sites in which living structures have been recognized. It is a hole, more or less deep (from a few centimetres to around 50 cm) often surrounded by wedging stones (sometimes they can be found also inside the hole), or in a lesser way by shells and animal bones (found vertically along the walls of the hole), necessary for blocking and stabilizing the wooden post for which it had been manually excavated by stone or wooden tools (i.e. hammers) (Figure 5.2). Generally, in the Arabian Neolithic sites, they are more deep rather than large (for instance the ones of the European Neolithic are very large and can reach also a meter in diameter).

81

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Table 5.1. RH-5. Description of the variables employed for the typological study of the postholes of Sector B1 (modified after Cavulli 2008: tabs. 1.7-1.9).

82

Settlement Structures

Figure 5.3. RH-5. Density map of the postholes recovered in Sectors B1, B2 north and E excavated directly in the bedrock (drawing by LG. Marcucci and E. Badel).

83

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 5.4. Hypothetical use of the postholes for the foundations of the huts according to the findings at RH-5 (modified after Ciarla 1982: fig. 3).

In a general way, the diameter of the wood placed in the hole is half the diameter of the hole itself. In surface they can have a diameter of 5-25 cm and different shapes, generally circular or oval but several, in minor quantity, are sub-quadrangular, double, “8”-shaped or irregular. The profile can be concave, “U”-shaped, cylindrical, trapezoidal, scaliform or irregular, while the base is in most cases concave or flat (Table 5.1). At least 2300 postholes have been detected within the bedrock of RH-5. Their arrangement in the ground reveals the different structures of the living area since the holes can define the corners, the sides or the limits of a structure. Many of these can be ascribable to structures such as huts or shelters while others, even if belonging to other huts or shelters, do not allow us to recognize with certainty the shape of the structures since their density is too high (Figure 5.3). At RH-5 the filling of the postholes is constituted by the same sediment found where these have been excavated, i.e. a sandy matrix, sometimes with traces of ashes and carbonaceous sediment, in which are present, above-all, meal remains made up of whole or fragmented shells and fish and mammal remains.

Figure 5.5. Cluster of postholes recovered in Sector B2 at RH-5 (photograph by T. Conci).

84

Settlement Structures

During the stratigraphic excavation structures of postholes that are not postholes also occur, because they are excavated by animals. Their shape, profile, length and position when compared to other structures will certify its animal nature. The acid soil has not allowed the preservation of the wooden post, that in several cases leaned on, at the base of the hole, on one or more stones in order to prevent dipping into the underneath deposit and maintained the post in the necessary position for the construction of the structure. On the ground the arrangement of the postholes presents differentiation according to their function during the construction of the structures (Figure 5.4). They can be found alone or grouped. In this second case, they can have a linear alignment constituted by more holes distributed along an axis in its turn perpendicular to one or more axes (in general for the structures intended for craft and domestic activities or partition walls) or a circular or oval alignment (in order to delimit the external limit of the huts). Often also small groups of postholes are found that are part of a cluster of postholes with circular alignment. These groups can be made up of only two holes (one bigger that the other), three postholes (a large one and two of smaller diameter) or more than three (Figure 5.5). In general the smaller postholes (secondary) near a larger one (main) serve as support at the base of the main wooden post. At RH-5 the circular or oval alignment of the postholes is the one most represented (Figure 5.6). The typological analysis (Marcucci et al. 2009: 28-53) of a sample of postholes found at RH-5 has allowed the detection of seven different groups of holes if one takes into account the two most important variables, depth and diameter. Even if they present similar morphological characteristics, the study of their size indicates a variation more or less important among the same group.

Figure 5.6. Schematic interpretation of a recurrent system of postholes at Ras Al-Hamra constituted of a main post, larger, eventually coupled with a smaller one, and one or more of smaller size arranged in the vicinities employed as oblique backing (drawing by M. Tosi).

85

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 5.7. Sizes of the huts identified on the bedrock of Sector B1 of RH-5 according to the structural remains found (in yellow) (drawing by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

86

Settlement Structures

The variations of size could be due to the utilization of a specific wood employed for the construction of huts and shelters. Important is also the fact that some postholes do not seem to be complete (reduced depth) and only the base has been identified. This could have two possible reasons: these holes are much reduced because they were nothing else but small depressions for the positioning of small secondary posts necessary for the support of larger sized ones; or they could belong to a previous occupational phase but belonging to the same period. Circular and Oval Structures (Huts) The huts recovered in the bedrock of RH-5, but also in several cases during the extensive stratigraphic excavation, presented a circular or oval shape. These huts are defined by posthole alignments (i.e. HUTs B1, B2, B21, B23) or by base-trench foundations or by both (i.e. HUTs B9, B17, B18) (Figure 5.7). The diameter varies according to the shape. The diameter found or recovered according to the rest of the hut detected varies from 1.60 and 4.20 m. The circular structures have an average diameter of 2.79 m while the oval ones 2.12 m for the larger one and 1.65 m for the smaller one. The base trench foundations have an average width of 5.8 cm and an average depth of 6.6 cm. The average surface is 4.72 m2 while, assessing singularly the two main categories, this is 6.39 m2 and 2.78 m2 for the huts with a circular and oval shape, respectively. The huts of circular or sub-circular shape are more than the oval ones. Sometimes one can find the partial or almost total superimposition of more huts, that denotes a repetitive occupation of the same space used for the same function during a more or less long period of time. Often groups or single postholes are found inside the trench. The entrance to the huts, according to cases, when it is recognized, is situated at south-east or south-west and in this point the bedrock seems to have been levelled and flattened (Marcucci et al. 2009; 2011). Inside the huts, at the centre, one or more postholes have been found that are constituted by a central post reinforced by others of smaller size arranged more or less circularly. This arrangement and their orientation let us suppose a central architectural element that could support a roof of conical or convex shape (i.e. HUT B1, Figure 5.8). Several huts, instead, present at the centre a group of postholes that describe a sub-rectangular architectural element (i.e. HUTs E43, E44) while others are lacking central elements (Marcucci et al. 2009). The study of the calcareous bedrock and of its various visible shapes has played an important role in the interpretation of the huts. The prehistoric inhabitants have modified in a more or less voluntary way the bedrock adapting it to their needs. In several cases the excavation of a depression has been detected inside the hut to correct the eventual slope of the ground (i.e. HUT B23, Figure 5.9) (Marcucci et al. 2011: 209). In other cases the bedrock can inform us on the presence or not of a hut even if the postholes are few or poorly preserved or if the base trench foundation is lacking, since the ground was preventively flattened compared to its abrupt progression outside the hut (i.e. HUT B19) (Marcucci et al. 2009). Some huts, independently from the shape, can host in their interior, between the entrance and the centre of the structure, a series of postholes that describe a “Y” shape, determining a tripartite division of the space (i.e. HUTs B17, E42, Figure 5.10) (Marcucci et al. 2009). The ensemble of the postholes of the huts detected with certainty or which are supposed represents only a part of the total postholes noted. The ones not assigned to any living structure surely belong to other huts or auxiliary structures but at the moment it is not possible to determine the alignments due to the high concentration and their nearness.

87

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 5.8. Plan of HUT B1, sector B1 of RH-5 (drawing by E. Badel and L.G. Marcucci).

88

Settlement Structures

Figure 5.9. A) photo from south of the postholes relating to HUT B23; B) the main postholes of HUT B23 highlighted in red; C) tridimensional digital model of HUT B23 (photograph and tridimensional model by F. Genchi).

89

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 5.10. Plan of HUTs B17-18, sector B1 of RH-5 (drawing by E. Badel and L.G. Marcucci).

The extensive excavation and the study of the structures in the bedrock attest that the huts with base trench foundations had not been built during all the occupation of the site but only from the oldest phase, the one present on the bedrock (Period 1), until the middle of the sequence (Period 6) (Biagi and Nisbet 1989: 34; Biagi and Salvatori 1986: 7; Marcucci et al. 2011: 209-210), while the huts built only with postholes do not present any discontinuity in time, indeed they have been often found during the extensive excavation (Biagi and Salvatori 1986; Marcucci et al. 2008, 2010). As far as the earliest period is concerned one can assert that proceeding from west towards east there is a decline in the concentration of postholes and therefore in living structures while from south to north the maximum concentration is attested in the central and eastern portion of the promontory. 90

Settlement Structures

Figure 5.11. RH-5. Plan (top) and position on the ground (bottom) of the linear structures constituted of posthole alignments that cross each other, like in this case for HUT E32 in Sector E-east (photograph and drawing by L.G. Marcucci).

91

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 5.12. RH-5. Plan (top) and position on the ground (bottom) of the linear structures constituted of posthole alignments that cross each other, like in this case for HUT E40 in Sector E-east (photograph and drawing by L.G. Marcucci).

92

Settlement Structures

Figure 5.13. RH-5. View from east of a fireplace in Sector A (photograph by F. Genchi).

Linear Structures (Craft and Domestic Activities) At RH-5, in the bedrock, other than huts, some alignments of postholes or base trench foundations have been identified with linear progression. They can be single or multiple. In the first case they are constituted by an only base trench foundation with a length of around 2 m (i.e. HUTs B10, B20). In the second case they can describe a rectangular shaped space constituted by a linear series of postholes perpendicular to each other (i.e. HUTs E32, E38, E40, E41, E50, E52) that cover a surface that varies from 3 to 15 m2 (Figures 5.11 and 5.12). The single alignments are not of easy interpretation. They could be simple partition walls constituted by reed roofs or they could lodge light vegetal elements for a temporary shelter constituted by an oblique wall that rests on the trench and is supported on the opposite side by two posts. While the rectangular structures would have sustained reed and shrub sheds that rested on posts arranged at a more or less regular distance between them, dedicated to domestic and craft activities. Structures of this type have been detected only in the southern portion of the site. Fireplaces and Combustion Areas The fireplace is the structure in which the fire was lit, necessary for executing various domestic and eventually craft activities. It is characterized by the presence of ashy (light) and carbonaceous (dark) sediments, delimited or less by the presence of burnt stones due to the continuous exposition to flames and embers (Figure 5.13). If employed for domestic activities, inside of it, it is usual to find shells and fish and/or mammal bones (Figure 5.14), while if utilized for craft activities they can comprise lithic artefacts.

93

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 5.14. RH-5. View from east of a fireplace found during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish a real and proper fireplace, if it lacks stones, from simple but clear traces of combustion. In other cases, it can be a simple dumping of ashy and carbonaceous sediments and stones that do not describe in surface a well delimited structure, and that correspond to fireplace structures commonly acknowledged. In fact, at RH-5, important and intense combustion activities have been identified that do not correspond to real and proper fireplaces but burned surfaces for cleaning the living area or for cooking molluscs (Béguier 2010; Béguier and Marcucci 2018) (Figure 5.12).

Figure 5.15. RH-5. Burnt vegetal remains recovered in Sector A (photograph by F. Genchi).

94

Settlement Structures

At a first, visual analysis of the sections of the trenches opened at RH-5, it can be noted that many stratigraphic units are totally or in part constituted of carbonaceous sediments and ashes mixed with stones. These are the result of intense combustion activities: tied to domestic works made by the fishermen of Ras Al-Hamra after the continuous and repeated burning of shrubs and timber, and to a lesser degree also shells and fish and turtle bones (Figure 5.15); or from simple dumping of fireplace residues; or from preparation activities of the surfaces before starting to live in them, voluntarily burning to clear the walking surfaces. These deposits can also be some centimetres thick, often lacking charcoal rests, determining a prolonged and superimposed combustion activity. In some cases, in the most recent period of the occupation of the site, in the central-eastern portion of the village, vast areas have been found composed almost exclusively by a unique thick deposit of greyish colour, very compact, resulting from continuous and repeated ash dumping (Figure 5.16). The fireplaces are the most common way to cook and warm up either outdoors or indoors. The fireplaces can be simple, due to a temporary combustion activity circumscribed in a restricted area that could have left in the ground grey-black coloured sediment with or without the presence of stones. Situations of this type were certainly very common in the village since they did not require a particular organization and were burning everywhere, in particular outside the huts. Other fireplaces are more structured, with a diameter more or less of 1 m. They are of sub-circular shape and installed in a concavity inside of which have been arranged numerous limestones of medium size (pebbles 10-15 cm long). The sedimentary and organic elements that compose it are similar to those of the simple fireplace (Figure 5.17).

Figure 5.16. Close-up of the large area of thick greyish deposit relating to continuous and repeating ash dumping found during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 close to the test trench opened in 1982, wide 1 m (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

95

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 5.17. RH-5. Large sub-circular fireplace of burned rock, charcoal and groundstone fragments found during the 1980s excavations (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

The combustion areas and the fireplaces are essential structures in a living space. During the stratigraphic excavation they can be detected thanks to their dark colouring while they are easily visible in the sections of the trenches. In the village of RH-5 the fireplaces are present in all the archaeological sequences. They rarely have been found inside the huts while they are frequent outside not far from the entrance. Generally the ones outside are more structured and of a larger size. Pits In archaeology in general a pit is nothing more than an accumulation of domestic waste situated near a living structure or an area dedicated to domestic activities. In other cases, these pits can be utilized to store and protect food surplus and protect it from bad weather, animals and insects (i.e. storage pits). In other cases there are pits for entombing the dead, this is the case of the graves discovered at RH-5 (Figure 5.18) and other sites of Ras Al-Hamra, where the first ones, contrary to the second ones, present a ritual of deposition which is very stratified (Munoz 2014). Shallow and large dump pits have been found during the excavation at RH-5. Many are also visible in the sections of the trenches. The formation of a pit suggests that the everyday activities which accompany daily life occurred at the village. They are present in all the sequences of the occupation of the site and shallow circular depressions can be found inside the huts but even in their immediate vicinity (Biagi et al. 1984: 50, fig. 3; Biagi and Salvatori 1986: fig. 2). The excavation has allowed us to notice a remarkable concentration of dumping pits at the extremes of the sequence (Periods 1, 2 and 9). Indeed, the earliest period of occupation is characterized by wide and deep pits of sub-circular shape and concave or truncated-conic profile that in some cases completely cut all the previous phases of occupation brushing the bedrock (Figure 4.14). They can have a diameter even greater than 2 m and a maximum depth of 70 cm. 96

Settlement Structures

They present different fillings characterized by flat and alternated levels of fish bone, often associated to fragments of shells scattered or crushed, and sand levels. In other cases, also carbonaceous levels mixed with fish bones, burnt or not, are visible. Deposits of aeolian sand can be found in the bottom of these pits or inside the filling denoting a non-regular utilization. These pits can have a life utilization more or less long, and have been detected in the north and at the centre and south of the village (Biagi and Salvatori 1986: 6-8; Béguier 2010: 3). The cleaning of the bedrock in the eastern and southern portion of the site has permitted the detection of numerous pits and concave depressions, at least 59, that could have hosted domestic activities or fireplaces (Figure 5.19). They presented a diameter of 30-120 cm and a depth of 15-20 cm. Often they have an irregular shape even if the sub-circular one is present. They are found above-all in the surroundings of the huts (Marcucci et al. 2011: 209).

Figure 5.18. RH-5. Photographs and drawings of Grave 411 showing faunal remains (top) deposited over the skeleton of an adult male (bottom) (after Zazzo et al. 2012: fig. 2).

97

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 5.19. RH-5. Concave structure dug directly in the bedrock of Sector B1 that could have hosted the rests of domestic activities or a fireplace excavated in the 1980s and cleaned in 2009 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

The irregularity of their shape and walls is due to the fact that these structures were excavated directly in the calcareous bedrock, naturally much harder than the deposit of sandy matrix in which were excavated the other pits that belonged to the successive periods of occupation. Finally noteworthy is another type of pit, solely or almost exclusively constituted of only one organic element. There are sixteen pits identified around the buried oven belonging to the last phases of occupation of the site, found in the north-eastern portion of the village (Marcucci et al. 2011: 207). These pits of medium size, of circular shape of 30-100 cm in diameter and at the most 20 cm deep, are constituted of shell or of fish bone remains. Maybe they are the result of domestic activities that accompanied the utilization of the pit oven, the meal scraps or, in the case of the fish ones, small pits for storage. Pit Ovens In the Neolithic sites, domestic activities are generally tied to the presence of fireplaces, necessary not only for warming but also for cooking, smoking and eventually storage of a significant amount of food, first of all fish, a fundamental resource for the coastal populations that settled Ras Al-Hamra. In order to achieve this the employment of one or more fireplaces, though functional, could not satisfy the needs of an entire community. Every single family group certainly had its own fireplace to satisfy the daily activities but in the case of RH-5 it necessitated, at least in its final phases of occupation, maybe after the growth of the population and the great economical and social transformation that was occurring (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: 63-97), an area dedicated to domestic activities common to the entire community. At RH-5 this area has been identified in the north-eastern portion of the village, in a zone lacking huts and graves, belonging to Period 8 or 9, in which has been found a large composite structure of combustion, constituted of a pit oven and a fireplace, made up of charred stones of small size, adjacent to it in its northern limit (Figure 5.20). 98

Settlement Structures

Figure 5.20. Figure 5.20: RH-5. A) view from the north of the fireplace and the pit oven found in Sector C; B) plan of the structures found in Sector C; C) close-up of the buried external wall seen from east; D) the pit oven; E) the annexed fireplace (photographs and drawing by F. Genchi).

99

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 5.21. Sketch for the production of embers to be used in an adjacent pit oven for cooking or smoking (modified after Kidder, 1997: Figs. 1 and 4).

It is a pit oven made up of a series of large stones (most probably extracted from the bedrock or from the rock that outcrops on the marine terraces) arranged sideways without mortar, very close together, that confer to the structure a sub-rectangular shape. Over these are resting a series of stones with a flattened upper face, overhanging and arranged in horizontal fashion compared to the ones that line the pit (Marcucci et al. 2011: 207). The size of the structure, in an excellent state of preservation, is 1.10 x 0.70 m, with a depth that reaches 45 cm. The constant action of combustion inside the structure and the high temperatures reached in the cooking phases confer to the stones a little compactness, with surfaces easily broken, and in some cases a partial fusion between the same stones. On the contrary, the filling of the structure (a sandy matrix of greyish colour) does not preserve elements that are related to combustion activity. Only some very small fragments of charcoal and thin levels of ashes mixed with sand have been found at the base of the structure. The fireplace placed against the pit oven on the north side is a structure in phase and tightly correlated to the same, made up of stones and pebbles of reduced size very burnt, circularly arranged according to the traditional mould of the fireplaces realized through a range of stones, extensively found in the southern area of the living zone. The fireplace retains currently a diameter of around 60 cm. It would be the area designed for the production of embers according to a scheme applied in particular contexts where an airflow control was necessary. In fact at Ras Al-Hamra the winds can also be high during the winter period and therefore the construction of a buried cooking pit, protected from the prevailing winds was necessary. The continuous combustion of the shrubs in the fireplace permitted a continuous production of embers, which in turn were transported towards the bottom of the pit, permitting the maintenance of a constant temperature inside the pit oven. The stones with the flat face of the pit oven, horizontally arranged and resting on the vertical large ones, could have played a double function. On one side they could serve as support for the structure, allowing the sealing of the walls of the cooking chamber, on the other side they could be directly connected to the cooking and/or smoking of fish and be therefore utilized as a base for leaning eventual supports. In this sense one can suppose that the fish was not cooked directly in contact with the embers but positioned at a certain distance (in this case around 50 cm from the base of the pit at the top of the stones) to be subjected to slow cooking or simply smoked (Marcucci and Genchi 2008: 21-28). The excavation has brought to light a series of pits, interpreted as waste pits of food or as pits for the preservation and storage of fish, distributed in areas at the margins of the combustion structure. It is possible that the waste pits were connected to an activity of rapidly cooking molluscs and utilized, precisely, as a dump while the deeper ones would be related to the smoking or to a simple cooking, and utilized as pantries for preserving food products available for several months (Marcucci et al. 2011: 207). 100

Settlement Structures

The interpretative-functional scheme proposed for the buried oven of RH-5 finds a precise comparison in the applications of experimental archaeology directed towards the comprehension of prehistoric technologies (Kidder 1997: fig. 4) (Figure 5.21). Reconstruction and Ethnography The structural remains found during the excavations of RH-5 allow us to hypothesize how they were constructed and what was the shape of the huts. But to give form to the archaeological evidence is not so simple. For this reason, to furnish a reconstruction, as plausible as possible, one often has to recourse to ethno-archaeological and ethnographic studies in order to give a more appropriate significance and a plausible interpretation to the structural remains found in a prehistoric living area. This allows us to interpret the findings and the prehistoric archaeological remains through the so-called “reasoning by analogy” in order to try to establish parallels between two cultures, even if they are distant in time between each other. The ethnographic comparisons of contemporaneous populations of hunter-gatherers (Bushmen, Pigmy, Dankali, Andamans, etc.) supplies us with useful hints on the life of a prehistoric village, as well as the different living structures recognizable. But one must not abuse of this type of ethno-archaeological approach because we will not find, in many cases, a contemporary society that presents the same cultural and social characteristics of the prehistoric ones. In the specific case of Ras Al-Hamra, the architectural elements identified (postholes, base trench foundations, fireplaces and pits) are the reflection of a well-organized village. The spatial analysis of the living structures and artefacts present in the archaeological deposit has allowed us to distinguish the areas dedicated to domestic and craft activities, the living structures with the construction of the huts and lastly those dedicated to funerary activities. In the specific case of the huts, the archaeological excavation and the ethnographic examples, allow us to advance several hypotheses. The huts present, at their base, a circular or oval shape whose perimeter was constituted by postholes or by base trench foundations with postholes inside. Wooden posts were arranged in holes of larger size, while the smaller holes served as support for the larger ones through the employment of smaller branches and were arranged obliquely, generally forming a tripartite system of postholes (one large and two small) (Figure 5.6). In other cases, one can find two postholes close to each other or “8”-shaped, both of large size. In general, the diameter of the wooden post represents half of the diameter of the hole; therefore employment of branches can be assumed, depending on their use, that present a 5-15 cm of diameter (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: 76). At the centre of some huts one or more postholes are found that allow the support of the roof of the hut of conical or convex shape (Marcucci et al. 2009: 55). In a few cases, the huts could have a kind of sub-rectangular covering over the entrance supported at the external end by two simple vertical posts. In order to maintain stability in the desired position, the wooden posts were placed in the holes with one or more wedging stones and/or shells and animal bones. The architectural skeleton constituted by postholes was then covered by shrubs, leaves and light branches that at the end conferred to the hut a dome-shaped form (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: 77). The fishermen of Ras Al-Hamra could retrieve the wood in the nearby mangrove or in the surroundings of the site, or driftwood or dry wood along the canals of the Wadi Aday. The charcoal and seed analysis found during the excavation inform us of the exploitation of five major species of trees: Avicennia marina, Rizophora sp., Tamarix sp., Ziziphus sp. and Acacia sp.. These species can be not only employed for burning on the fire but also for building huts (Biagi and Nisbet 1989: 41-43). In particular the wood of Avicennia marina is particularly elastic and pliable (Biagi and Nisbet 1999: 37). 101

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 5.22. Traditional huts in the highlands of Dhofar in the south of Oman taken by F. Scholz in the 1970s (after Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: 48).

Figure 5.23.Traditional huts in the highlands of Dhofar in the south of Oman (after Peyton 1983: fig. 69).

102

Settlement Structures

Figure 5.24. Hut-shelter, indlu, of the Zulu of Southeastern Africa. Sequence of construction phases and details (after Cataldi et al. 1982: tab. 16).

103

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 5.25. The huts of the Afar and Saho in the village of Buia in the Danakil Depression, eastern Eritrea in Africa: A) light hut; B) finished hardy hut; C), hut under construction; D) close-up of posthole and wedging stones; E) close-up of the ligature of the posts; F) linear alignment of posts (photographs by F. Genchi).

104

Settlement Structures

Figure 5.26. Sunshade, toldo, from Patagonia, southern America (after Cataldi et al. 1982: tab. 43).

The ethnographic comparisons allow us to have an idea of the prehistoric huts of RH-5. Indeed until the 70’s the tribe of the Jabali (Figures 5.22 and 5.23), that still lives in the highlands and in the mountains of Dhofar, in the south of Oman, built similar huts to those described above, of circular, bell-shaped form, constructed with the employment of wooden poles and shrubs (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: 77, fig. 48). Outside of the Omani territory, huts of this type can resemble those of the Turkana of east Africa, of the Pigmy of Equatorial Africa, of the Zulu of Southeastern Africa (Figure 5.24), of the Aranda of eastern Australia, of the Arrernte of the Australian North Territory, or of the Afar that live in the homonymous region, in eastern Eritrea (Figure 5.25); the Salish populations in Canada, the Kickapoo Indians of the Upper Mississippi in northern America, the Gagaba or Kogi Indians, settled on the northern mountainsides of the Sierra Nevada, towards the sea, in Colombia in southern America, etc. Moreover, at RH-5 other types of living structures can be supposed but intended more for domestic or craft activities. These are the rectangular shaped structures, made up of postholes that are perpendicular to each other whose branches supported a flat shelter always made up by shrubs and twigs (Figure 5.26). Under these types of coverings the fishermen could produce chert and shell tools necessary for hunting and fishing, for building and repairing the nets and fish traps, for producing the funerary sets or simply to get through activities tied to food preparation. Lastly several groups of postholes could describe simpler and temporary structures, like temporary shelters, that did not necessitate excessive construction work. They are structures opened at the sides and on the front part and rest on the back part directly on the ground. This type of structures can be found in the living areas of the Onge people of the Andaman Islands, an archipelago in the Bay of Bengal between India and Myanmar.

105

Chapter 6

Activities

The daily activities practiced by the population of Ras Al-Hamra were essentially of two types: those tied to the search for food and its preparation and those applied for the production of tools, basically for fishing activities, and ornaments, mainly found finished in funerary contexts. The anthropic deposit informs us that the gathering of shells and fishing were the activities undertaken for most by the community determining an economy oriented exclusively towards marine and coastal resources. Hunting turtles was equally practiced. On the other hand, the few animal bones found reveal that hunting terrestrial mammals was a secondary and occasional activity. Herding of terrestrial mammals (sheep, goat and cattle) is also well attested but suggest a minor role in subsistence. The study of the artefacts could supply information on the activities practiced on the site. In the case of a concentration of lithic artefacts, one can try to carry out some reconstructions and understand the chaîne opératoire (i.e. manufacturing process = operational chain) employed for making tools, even if these have not been found. In the same way, as in the case of Ras Al-Hamra, a concentration of mother-of-pearl fragments as well as the finding of several rough-out preforms from valves of Pinctada sp. or Isognomon sp. marine shell can provide useful information on the manufacturing of fish-hooks. The association of different artefacts to a same layer allows us to establish also the type of activity practiced in that precise moment. The presence of shell (fish-hooks) and stone tools (net sinkers) presumes a fishing activity, the finding of particular lithic tools (arrow points, perforators, scrapers etc.) could be related to a hunting activity while other tools in polished stone (file, hammers, grooved stones, pitted crushing stones, anvils etc.) inform us about craft activities for manufacturing jewellery elements (earrings, necklaces, beads, bracelets) or domestic activities (opening of the shells). Fishing The finding of numerous tools tied to a marine economy informs us that for the inhabitants of Ras AlHamra products deriving from the sea had a relevant part in the diet (Zazzo et al. 2016: 393). Even if in the anthropic deposit fish remains are less than the shell remains, this does not mean that they did not represent the most important part of the protein contribution in the diet. Despite the passing of time and taking into account the nature of the matrix where these remains have been entrapped, the shell tends to preserve itself better than the fragile bones of fish that tend to splinter and dissolve. Sometimes they are reduced to a kind of bone powder characterized in the anthropic deposit by lens, more or less thick, of a brown coloured powder. The place par excellence to practice fishing at Ras Al-Hamra was naturally the sea since it provided the major quantitative of fish, both in terms of volume and varieties of fish species. But there is some evidence for the exploitation of lagoon environments (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 179, 2007a: 104), like in the mangrove and in the various branches of the delta of Wadi Aday (Figure 6.1). The archaeological research on the sites of the 6th-4th millennium BC located along the coasts of the United Arab Emirates and the northern coasts of Oman proves that the coastal communities manufactured and possessed varied fishing equipment that allowed them to fully exploit the entire marine ecosystem. 106

Activities

Figure 6.1. Fishing in the mangrove of Qurum during the weekend: A-B, E) Small and medium fish caught with fine meshed nets; C-D) Some species of fish that one can catch in the tidal channels of the Qurum Nature Reserve (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

107

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 6.2. Straight fish-hook and its use according to Sirélius (after Cleyet-Merle 1990).

The most important equipment employed for fishing comes to us in an excellent state of preservation and the excavations at RH-5, and even before in the earliest and near shell midden of RH-6, have allowed to reconstruct the entire process of fish-hook manufacturing (Biagi 1985: 415, fig. 7; Biagi 1999: fig. 18; Marcucci et al. 2009). They are manufactured starting from the mother-of-pearl of the Pteriidae (Pinctada margaritifera and Pinctada radiata) and Isognomonidae family (Isognomon isognomon and Isognomon legumen). These shells can be fished at a few meters of depth in the intertidal and subtidal zones, in the rocky environments near the promontory of Ras Al-Hamra or in the coral reef. The fish-hooks can be obtained also from the long bones of mammals, called gorges (Figure 6.2). They are double-pointed in shape and polished all-over their surface. Differently from the shell fish-hooks, found in all the stratigraphic sequence, these in bone are particularly common in the uppermost layers of the sequence (Biagi and Travers 1985: 409), even if we know that they were employed already in the 6th-5th millennium BC, as at the RH-6 site (Biagi 1999: 66, fig. 19/32-42; Marcucci et al. 2012: 81, fig. 71-72). The shell fish-hooks can be of various sizes with a height of 3-10 cm while the gorges are between 3-5 cm.

Figure 6.3. RH-5. Very large net sinker, possibly an anchor, recovered during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 up to the covering stones of Grave 320 (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

108

Activities

Figure 6.4. Mineralized remains of vegetal elements relating to two fragments of rope (DA 18243) found in the living area during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

Other tools frequently found are the net sinkers. Most are obtained from river pebbles easily available in the nearby Wadi Aday. Others, like the ones in limestone, extracted from the rocky terrace, or in shell (i.e. Pecten sp.) are equally present even if in lesser number. The net sinkers of larger size (at least 300 gr) could have been employed for fishing with the gillnetting or seine fishing, while the smaller ones for fishing with casting nets or for fishing line (Charpentier et al. 1997: 103; Beech 2004: 61). The nets could be cast in low waters in front of the sites of Ras Al-Hamra or through boats in deeper waters offshore. The ones heavier than 300 gr. could be employed as anchors for the nets (Figure 6.3). Unfortunately, not all the fishing techniques leave traces. Think about the employment of vegetal materials for the production of baskets and creels which, even if not found, were probably employed. But concerning the fishing nets and the ropes in vegetal fibre we can supply much more precise information. This thanks to the meticulous work of microstratigraphic excavation of the fillings of the new series of graves found in the northern portion of RH-5 and dated to the last period of occupation of the site (Zazzo et al. 2012 and 2013). During the excavation numerous concentrations of gypsum around the skeletons and on the outside of the graves (Munoz and Candilio in Marcucci et al. 2010: 26-41; Munoz 2014: 169), and in minor quantity in the settlement area, have been brought to light. They are mineralized remains of vegetal elements for the most part manufactured by man or, at most, natural: organic vegetal remains (cortices or twigs), ropes and strings with knots or weaned together, elements in wicker (mats?), possible clothes and fishing remains (Figure 6.4). One can distinguish two main types of fishing: a passive one and an active one. The passive one does not require the presence of man in the fishing place since nets, fish and basket traps (mobile or stationary), manufactured with vegetal materials, are placed directly in the water (Cleyet-Merle 1990: 76). These allow the capture of small sized fish, hardly catchable with other manual methods, like sardines and anchovies. Unfortunately, it is not possible to show the employment of this type of equipment since it does not preserve itself in the archaeological deposit or at least it remains of difficult detection in spite of the finding at RH-5 of numerous mineralized vegetal remains mentioned above. One can also suppose structures, in stone or wood, like a barrier trap, set in the intertidal zones in narrow estuaries or in the lagoons. These types of structures, perpendicular to the shoreline leading out towards the main enclosure, have been found in several islands of the United Arab Emirates but seem to be dated to the Late Islamic Period (Beech 2004: 46, figs. 13-15). Instead, active fishing needs the presence of the fisherman and the direct employment of fishing tools: nets, fishing rods, harpoons, shell fish-hooks and gorges. 109

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 6.5. A sample of fish remains from RH-5 (photograph by A. Marrast).

In passive fishing one could also make tools to fit-in the gorges of Ras Al-Hamra. In fact, they can be fixed to a fishing rod with some common shell fish-hooks but more specimens could have also been assembled on a line expressly ballasted with net sinkers and left for several hours or all-night-long in the sea. Even if less effective than a shell fish-hook, its loss would not have been a great problem given the rapidity with which it could be made, differently from shell fish hooks that required numerous hours of work. The study of fish bone remains found at RH-5 has provided insights on the places and the techniques of fishing, as well as the determination of the species caught, their size and season of capture (Figure 6.5).

Figure 6.6. Remains of exceptionally large fish identified by H.-P. Uerpmann and M. Uerpmann studying the fish remains coming from the 1980s excavations at RH-5: A) articular bone of a grouper (Epinephelus sp.) from the settlement (est. TL 150 cm); B) premaxilla of a grouper (Epinephelus sp.) from Grave 15 (est. TL 150 cm); C) incisor of a Starry triggerfish (Abalistes stellatus) from the settlement (est. TL 60 cm); D) centrum of a large shark from the settlement; est. TL = estimated total length (modified after Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: fig. 9.10).

110

Activities

Bone remains suggest that numerous species of fish of different size and weight were caught, that went from a few centimeters (anchovies and sardines) to even a meter in length and various kilos in weight, even up to 10 kg (Biagi et al. 1984: 49; Marrast 2015) (Figure 6.6). The small fish, even if they did not have an important role in the subsistence economy, were caught with fine meshed nets to which were fixed stone net sinkers of various size according to need or they could be caught with smaller fish hooks nearby the coast or in the mangrove. Fish of average and large size were caught with nets or shell fish-hooks. Most belonged to the family of the Scombridae (tunas and mackerels) and Carangidae (pompanos and carangids) but even other species are attested of the families of the Clupeidae (herrings and sardines), Engraulidae (anchovies), Sparidae (breams) and Lethrinidae (emperor fish) (Biagi and Travers 1985: 409; Biagi et al. 1984: 49; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 178-188; Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: 73) (Figure 6.7). Fishing was carried out along the edge of the promontory at the borders of the cliff of RH-5 or of the next promontories with fishing rods and fish hooks or directly from the beach by means of large nets (Biagi et al. 1984: 50), but for the larger species, like tunas, it must be presumed the employment of simple boats that allowed to sail in the open sea even for several kilometers until reaching maybe the Fahal Island located 5 km faraway. Unfortunately there isn’t direct evidence relating to the employment of boats by the fishermen of Ras Al-Hamra even if indirectly there are some clues: the presence of fish bones of large size (tunas), therefore pelagic; the finding in the last period of occupation of RH-5 of a jar containing bitumen (Biagi and Salvatori 1986: 10; Cleuziou and Tosi 1989: 28-30, figs. 3-5, 2007: 88; Didier and Méry 2012) (generally employed for caulking boats); and the finding of bitumen, of models and depictions of boats in several sites of the Arabian Gulf (Carter 2002, 2006; McClure and Al-Shaikh 1993) which attest the employment of boats already during the 6th millennium BC. Even if fishing could be undertaken all year round several species were present above-all in certain periods. The most abundant and smallest species (sardines and herrings) could have been caught all year round (Biagi et al. 1984: 50) while tunas, which are a migrant species, were more abundant and convenient to capture during the winter phase, as occurs still today along the coasts of Ras Al-Hadd. However, the only seasonal species identified at Ras Al-Hamra are the yellow fin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and the skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis, Katsuwonus sp.). But their proportions are always less than those of the IndoPacific or longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol) and the little tuna or Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis) which instead aren’t seasonal. Their presence seems to indicate that the provision of food was possible for all periods of the year. Moreover, the species of carangids are present all year round both nearby the mouth of the Wadi Aday and on the open sea. So the study of the fish remains of Ras Al-Hamra allows us to presume the presence of a permanent occupation in the village or at least occupied by a part of the population (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003; Marrast 2015; Marrast et al. 2015). Shell Gathering For most of human history, people have practiced a foraging way of life. For the foragers of Ras Al-Hamra the gathering was one of the most important daily activities. Even if, in general, the gathering concerns in particular way the vegetal foodstuffs, in this type of practice can fall within also other foods of animal origin, like mammals of small size. But in coastal sites like RH-5 most of the day was dedicated to gathering mangrove and marine shells. Shells are an abundant source of food and can be easily gathered without the employment of specific equipment.

111

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 6.7. Some species of fish that one can catch today in Oman identified between the faunal remains of RH-5: A) yellow fish tuna at the Mutrah fish market in Muscat (Thunnus albacares, com. TL 150 cm); B) sardine at the Mutrah fish market in Muscat (Sardina sp., com. TL 20 cm); C) hound needlefish (Tylosurus crocodilus, com. TL 90 cm); D) seabream (Rhabdosargus sp., com. TL 35); E) bludger trevally (Carangoides gymnosthetus, com. TL 90 cm); F) little tuna or Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis, com. TL 60 cm); G) golden trevally (Gnathanodon speciosus, com. TL 75 cm); H) Seabream (Acanthopagrus sp., com. TL 35 cm); I) Indian oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps, com. TL 20 cm); J) blue-barred parrotfish (Scarus ghobban, com. TL 30 cm); com. TL = common total length (A-B, photographs by Italian Archaeological Mission; C-I, photographs by P. Béarez and A. Marrast; J, photograph by P. Béarez).

112

Activities

Figure 6.8. Close-up of small molluscs (Naticidae family) in the mangrove near the tidal channels where it is also possible to collect the endemic shell of Terebralia palustris (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

Shells could be collected every day mainly in three different environments: in the mangrove (Figure 6.8), in the intertidal zone that can be mainly muddy and/or sandy (Figure 6.9) and nearby reefs (Figure 6.10). They can be gathered by all the components of the population even if, according to ethnographic comparisons, it is hypothesized that it was an activity practiced by women, children or even older people. In the shell midden of RH-5 the shells represent the remains most present in the anthropic deposit. In most cases they are the result of meal remains even if several species could be employed for the production of tools and ornaments. Furthermore, the gathering of molluscs presents some advantages compared to hunting or fishing. The shells are present all-year; they can be collected easily without the employment of particular tools or technical competence. On the contrary hunting and fishing required a period of preparation, adequate tools whose production required a lot of time, and a good outcome depended on the experience of the hunter or fisherman and also seasonality. The nearness of the village to the sea and to the current mangrove of Qurum much favored this type of activity allowing the population to benefit from a food available all-year round. Of all the shell species identified in the deposits of Ras Al-Hamra only two classes are amply represented, bivalves and gastropods, collected for food purpose and for manufacturing ornaments and tools, while the class of the scaphopods is represented only by the species Dentalium sp., utilized for the production of beads.

Figure 6.9. Intertidal zone down to the promontory of RH-5 during the low tide. Here it is possible to gather many molluscs like Callista erycina, cockles, mitre shells and others (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

113

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 6.10. During the low tide it is possible to gather from the rocks and cliffs of Ras Al-Hamra shells like oysters (e.g. Saccostrea cucullata) cemented to the rocks and to each other, found in very high quantities in the surrounding archaeological sites (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

The excavations at RH-5 have permitted us to establish that most of the shells consumed can be identified under five main species (Ghisotti 1986; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2007a: 103) (Figure 6.11). The most common is the oyster, Saccostrea cucullata, a bivalve particularly abundant both in the rocky coasts and in the mangrove. At the feet of the promontory of Ras Al-Hamra one can collect them even today. In the mangroves this species is generally found attached to the roots of the Avicennia marina and sometimes even on other shells like Terebralia palustris. The second species is a gastropod, Terebralia palustris, an endemic species of the mangrove stand, that could be collected, as today, in abundance at the feet of the trees during low tide. Other families of bivalves, the Arcidae and Cardiidae, like Anadara antiquata, were collected systematically even if in lesser quantity compared to the two previous ones. These bivalves live in a sandy environment and must be collected by excavating in the sand of the beaches of Ras Al-Hamra. The same is true for the fourth species collected, the gastropod Strombus decorus persicus. Lastly, used both for eating and for manufacturing tools and ornaments, the fifth family most collected is represented by the Pteriidae/Isognomonidae, the large nacreous bivalves like Pinctada sp. or Isognomon sp. (Figure 6.12) that live in the channels under the promontory of Ras Al-Hamra in the sandy and muddy seabeds constituted of stones and low rocks covered by seaweed. These five species represent alone almost the totality of the malacofauna found on the site. To these can be added few other tens of species, gastropods or bivalves, mostly belonging to the family of the Veneridae, de facto edible but for their reduced size or for the difficulty in retrieving them, they aren’t systematically collected by the fishermen of Ras Al-Hamra, if not for well specified aims, as in the case of RH-6 for making scrapers (Marcucci et al. 2014) (Figure 6.13). 114

Activities

Figure 6.11. The five main species of shells identified on the sites and gathered by the inhabitants of Ras Al-Hamra: A) Terebralia palustris (Potamididae family); B) Saccostrea cucullata (Ostreidae f.); C) Anadara sp. (Arcidae f.), Acrosterisma sp. and Trachycardium sp. (Cardiidae f.); D) Strombus sp. (Strombidae f.); E) Pinctada sp. (Pteriidae f.), Isognomon sp. (Isognomonidae f.) (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

115

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 6.12. Concentration of small fragments of Pinctada sp. and Isognomon sp. shells recovered during the excavation of test trench TT-Z, Sector C at RH-6 in 2012 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

The inhabitants of Ras Al-Hamra did not solely collect the shells for food purposes. Other species, even if the animal could be eaten, were collected in most cases beached. These shells, like Pinctada margaritifera, Pinctada radiata, Isognomon sp., Conus sp., Engina mendicaria, Oliva sp., Ancilla sp., Strombus sp., Dentalium sp., Chlamys sp., Pecten sp. and several species of the Veneridae family were gathered with the aim to produce ornaments and tools. For instance the mother-of-pearl shells like Pinctada sp. and Isognomon sp. were used for making shell fish-hooks, pendants and necklace elements; gastropods like Conus sp., Strombus sp. and Engina mendicaria for producing bracelet elements or beads. Other species of gastropods, of bigger size, were collected and placed, in general, over the covering of the graves, as a distinctive sign of the funerary structure, maybe employed as musical instruments during the funerary ceremonies: Chicoreus ramosus, Tutufa tutufa bardeyi, Lambis truncata sebae and Fasciolaria trapezium (Salvatori 2007: 25).

Figure 6.13. Scraper from Veneridae family shell found during the excavation of test trench TT-Z, Sector C at RH-6 in 2012 (DA 28662) (photograph by S. Oboukhoff, MAE CNRS).

116

Activities

Figure 6.14. Wild animals living in Oman and found in the archaeological deposits of Ras Al-Hamra: A) oryx (Oryx leucoryx); B) ass (Equus africanus); C) gazelle (Gazella gazella arabica); and tethering stone (used as tools in hunting and for other means of livelihood) found in Wadi Massawa in 2000 (A-C, photographs by Tosi’s archive; D, photograph by P. Casacci).

Animal Herding Archaeozoological studies on mammal remains inform us about the major species found in the archaeological record and their possible origin or state (wild or domesticated). In some sites of the Capital Area, such as Ras Al-Hamra, and in the area of Quriyat the Late and Middle Holocene populations hunted wild animals like hare, wolf, fox, lynx, ass, gazelle and tahr but even bone remains of domestic animals like dogs, bovid, goats and rams (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 163-250) have been found (Figure 6.14). Regarding the domestication of sheep a northern origin is presumed, from the Fertile Crescent, while for the goat and cattle the situation is less clear since their wild progenitors, different from the goat, could have reached various regions of the Arabian Peninsula since the 6th millennium BC (Crassard and Drechsler 2013: 4). Contrarily, other scholars believe that, even if it is difficult to rule out a local domestication in Southeastern Arabia, this is not very probable (Uerpmann et al. 2009: 210-211). In any case, starting at least from this moment, the lifestyle of foragers changed. Other than subsistence activities tied to the sea, we can identify the first practice of animal husbandry (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: 55). If before the animals were hunted solely for their meat, now they were exploited also for other reasons. The milk of the ovicaprine and bovids probably represented an almost inexhaustible food supply with a considerable nutritional benefit (Figure 6.15). In addition, their bones were used to make tools and their skins for making cloths and for covering the huts. 117

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Mammal bone remains from RH-5 are mostly represented by goats and sheep, and cattle to a lesser extent (Uerpmann 2003: 79, fig. 6). According to the actual state of research, starting from the 6th millennium BC in Oman domesticated animals (rams – Ovis aries, goats – Capra aegrarus hircus and bovids – Bos primigenius taurus), probably of Levantine origin, have been found (Uerpmann et al. 2009). Dog domestication could be presumed starting from its local wild ancestor (Canis lupus arabs) as the remains found at RH-5 (Uerpmann 1989: 164), as well as in the oldest site of RH-6 (Mashkour and Debue 2015). At RH-5, some clues suggest that the dogs had a domestic status and could have been used as companion, while in other contemporaneous or older sites, cut marks found on the recovered bones indicate that they were consumed like other animals (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003; Maini and Curci 2013). While the few ass bones (Equusasinus africanus) found do not allow us to establish if they belonged to wild or domestic animals. It could be hypothesized that their utilization as beasts of burden (Uerpmann 1989; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2007b: 56-57) probably occurred later in the region, during the 3rd millennium BC, especially for agricultural labour. Hunting Hunting was a secondary activity at Ras Al-Hamra. The subsistence economy was almost completely oriented towards the sea and the mangroves. The domestication of animals was not completely established in the 4th millennium BC even if already from the second half of the 6th millennium BC the first domestic animals appear in the earliest levels of the near shell midden of RH-6 while in the intermediate levels the first goat bones are present (Biagi 1999: 44-45). Until the Early Holocene, hunting represented, for prehistoric men, the most important activity practiced by all the men of the group. The greatest food stocks were given by the abundant animal populations that had adapted to the desert environment of Arabia: gazelle, ibexes, asses, camels and ostriches grazed in the plains; bovids, hares and porcupines near lakes and seasonal pools; while goats, ibexes and tahr lived in the mountains and in the rocky areas (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: fig. 24).

Figure 6.15. Herder accompanying village goats on their daily grazing itinerary on al Jabal Al-Akhdar (after Buerkert and Schlecht 2010: 39).

118

Activities

Figure 6.16. Only one arrowhead has been found in all the archaeological sites identified and excavated at Ras Al-Hamra and Qurum area since their discovery, at the RH-6 site in 2012 in test trench TT-Z. According to D. Usai it is a barbed and tanged arrowhead from a dark grey-blue chert flake with a triangular section, retouched bifacially by pressure except on the ventral side where the retouch is limited to the tang (photograph by E. Badel).

Thousands and thousands of years of hunting had permitted the hunters to deeply understand the animal species mostly hunted and to refine their approach techniques employing instruments always more sophisticated. But the intense hunting in the Late Pleistocene had certainly reduced the wild herds. In particular at the end of the 5th millennium BC, when the climate began slowly to become drier, the animal herds started drastically to decrease. Starting from the Early Holocene prehistoric hunters became foragers. Hunting will become part of a different lifestyle, where the subsistence economy will be given by a broad range of resources, that in the case of the population that lived at Ras Al-Hamra, included in particular the gathering of molluscs and fruits and above-all fishing. Hunting was necessary but it was more convenient to have at hand several animals that were exploited for other purposes: every now and again the meat for protein contribution, the hides for clothing and milk for the diet. During a few centuries the domestication of animals will be an accomplished fact even in Southeast Arabia. The fishermen of Ras Al-Hamra had the possibility of hunting not far from the village. Indeed through the Wadi Aday they could reach, after a few hours of walking, the piedmont and mountain areas of the near Hajar Mountains. The lithic industry found during the excavations of RH-5 has not given back arrowheads or spearheads (Figure 6.16). This confirms that hunting was not an activity regularly practiced and when practiced it needed non standardized chert tools that were employed as throwaways. Once the animal was hunted, the tool was not retrieved, maybe because not too much time was required for producing a new one or maybe because it was damaged and broken after the capture of the animal.

119

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 6.17. Dolphin otoliths coming from the north trench opened at RH-6 in 2013. Counting the annual growth rings on the otoliths is a common technique in estimating the age and the season of the capture of fish and marine mammals (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

Figure 6.18. Two vertebrae of small whale found during the excavation of Grave 88 made in the 1980s at RH-5 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

120

Activities

Figure 6.19. In the graveyard of RH-5 near the deceased or, as in this case, among the stones of the covering of a grave, excavated during the 1890s, it is usual to find small oval or spherical pebbles which seems to be analogous to turtle eggs (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

Hunting, men’s prerogative, could be practiced in group for animals of large size (ass, bovid, gazelle, lynx, tahr) nearing the prey as close as possible and giving chase or organizing oneself for a beating where a group pushes the animals towards another group of hunters; or it could be practiced singularly, in the case of small preys like hares, foxes, goats and sheep or rodents. The archaeozoological studies notify that the hunting was practiced at RH-5 did not solely regard terrestrial mammals but, sometimes, also marine mammals. Dolphin and small whale bones have been found, among which are those of the short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) (Figures 6.18 and 6.17). Naturally, this does not give us the certainty that the whale was really hunted, since it would require great organizational effort and suitable equipment, but maybe they were found dead or beached (Uerpmann 1989: 166). Particular importance was given to the hunting of reptiles, in particular the marine turtle of the Chelonia mydas species. This species had a nutritional value but also a spiritual and ceremonial one. In fact even if commonly found in the deposit of the settlement, numerous skulls and carapace shells have been deposited in the grave pits next to or over the entombed. This lets us presume that this animal had a deep meaning and significance in the eschatological thought of the fishermen of Ras Al-Hamra (Biagi and Salvatori 1986: 9) (Figure 6.19).

121

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Cetacean and turtles are large and powerful animals. The equipment used in order to capture them, by means of boats, should have been strong enough to support the physical strain exercised by these animals. If nets were employed, these should have been large and resistant enough in order to entrap them. It could also be supposed that there was utilization of small harpoons, for cetaceans, even if there is no trace in the archaeological deposit. But, according to Mosseri-Marlio, several of the fishing tools typical of the Omani prehistoric sites, mother-of-pearl hooks and nets, would have been rapidly made unusable and the boats utilized, if of small size, would have been easily flooded (Mosseri-Marlio 2002: 202). Naturally hunting was easier if these animals were captured in low waters or driven in bays or lagoons (Mosseri-Marlio 2002: 202), like Ras al Hamra or Ras Al-Hadd. Even the birds were hunted. Already in the 4th millennium BC the presence of a thick mangrove at the mouth of the Wadi Aday hid a most varied ecosystem, where numerous migratory birds found relief and nourishment as well as nesting sites for many resident species. In spite of their presence, the excavations at RH-5 inform us that their remains are particularly reduced and so therefore they do not have an important role in the diet of the rasalamrian fishermen (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 205). Bird bones remains identified are: common cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), red heron (Ardea purpurea), smaller heron (cf. Egretta sp.), giant heron (Ardea goliath), and other few bones probably belonging to smaller species like the Larinae (e.g. seagulls) and Sternidae (e.g. terns) subfamilies. Plant Gathering Other than shells, the inhabitants of Ras Al-Hamra collected and consumed other types of foods that unfortunately have left no traces in the archaeological deposit but one can presume were part of their diet, like vegetal foodstuffs, shellfish, insects, honey, bird and turtle eggs and, possibly, even algae. The anthracological analysis carried out on the charcoals show a very limited number of tree species. Avicennia marina remains the dominant species but surprisingly one identifies also a small percentage of Rhizophora sp., still denoting the presence of this species in the mangrove stand. Different from the older site of RH-6, at RH-5 the exploitation of the two dominant species of the mangrove is the opposite. This means that the ecosystem was already in a period of fundamental climatic change that will bring on afterwards the disappearance of the Rhizophora sp. due to an always more arid climate. The climatic changes that were already taking place could have determined a change in the salinity levels of the grounds, more favorable for Avicennia marina, and contributions of fresh water, but one must not neglect a possible excessive exploitation of the wood of Rhizophora sp. by the population of RH-6 during the 6th-5th millennium BC. Moreover, the excessive exploitation of certain species has some consequences also on animal and plant species that lived in this ecosystem as well as on the protection of the coastlines, in particular during the monsoon season (storms, sea storms etc.) (Senelet 2013: 57-59). Therefore, the population of Ras Al-Hamra obtained wood almost exclusively in the mangrove, preferring the species Rhizophora sp., a much more resistant and less elastic wood than the Avicennia marina, and only found occasionally in its surroundings or in the hinterland. At Ras Al-Hamra one can note the clear presence and a systematic harvesting of the fruits of Ziziphus sp. for food. These trees grow on the calcareous terraces and along the banks of the wadyan in the hinterland even until 1000 meters in altitude (Costantini and Audisio 2000: 147) and the fruits could be picked certainly during several weeks in spring.

122

Activities

Figure 6.20. Several charred stones belonging to different species of trees recovered in the settlement during the rescue excavation 2004-2005 at RH-5 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

One specific feature of RH-5 is given by the finding of several hundred of seeds of Ziziphus sp., a plant species exploited for making fire and eventually for building huts. Indeed, the fruits of Ziziphus sp. were collected because edible (Figure 6.20). Several also present bite marks, probably made by small rodents, suggesting that at least part of these fruits were stored in pit structures (Biagi and Nisbet 1999: 44), even if this is particularly difficult and hard to verify. Their findings inform us that the village of RH-5 was at least in part occupied during the second half of the year while the research on shells and fish allow us to establish that according to the species, gathered or hunted, the site was also occupied the remaining part of the year. Differently from faunal remains (mammals, fish and shells), for which one could establish their nutritional intake, the contribution of plants remains is very difficult to quantify since the remains tend to not be preserved in the archaeological deposits (Biagi and Nisbet 1999: 245-246). Moreover, the population could have eaten plants during their daily movements in search of other food, not leaving any evidence in the village. Anyway, in general, one tends to presume that the contribution of plants to the diet was rather low as confirmed by the analysis on the wear of the teeth of the individuals entombed at RH-5 (Palmieri et al. 1994: 162), and that subsistence was given in the first place by fish followed by molluscs, turtles and to a lesser degree by land mammals and eventually marine mammals.

123

Chapter 7

Material Culture

The material culture of RH-5 corresponds to the one which is characteristic of the settlements of this period relating to coastal sites where the main handcraft activities were tied to the working of stone, shell and bone for making ornaments, both for daily life and funerary deposits, and for the equipment related to fishing and hunting. In all the anthropic deposits the artefacts give evidence of an intensive exploitation of the marine resources: the fishing tools (shell and bone fish-hooks and stone net sinkers) are the most frequent ones. The constant discovery of the various manufacturing phases of the fish-hooks in mother-of-pearl indicate the presence of workshops for the production in loco of such hooks. Since a specific area dedicated to their manufacturing has not been found it is presumed that the fishermen dedicated themselves to this activity more or less everywhere in the village. The chipped stone industry is not very abundant and it is characterized by tools of small size (scrapers, perforators, chisels and a few small blades) mainly employed for the production of ornaments or tools. The raw materials used are chert, quartz, jasper, radiolarite and agate that could be locally available after a few hours’ walk (Biagi et al. 1984: 48) (Figure 1.6) from the site just like softstone for making earrings and beads. On the contrary the ground and polished stone assemblage is abundant. It includes, among others, many hammers in wadi pebbles and crushing stones mainly employed for breaking shells, as well as files and anvils. Just like the case of the shell fish-hooks, the excavations have brought to light numerous earrings in softstone and most of the manufacturing process for their fabrication. In the living area it is usual to find preforms and those not finished, as well as broken ones, while in the graves they are worn by the deceased. Another recurring artefact is given by beads, present in all the sequence of the site. They are of small size and in most cases of cylindrical and discoidal shape, obtained from stones (chlorite, serpentine, schist) or from shells (generally bivalve or gastropod). Finished ornamental objects and tools are found frequently in the graves, deposited as a funerary gift next to the deceased (stone tools, worked or whole shells, bone points), worn by the same deceased (necklaces, beads, shell bracelets and softstone earrings) or in the stone covering of the graves (large gastropods that in some cases presented a hole in the wall, interpreted as containers or musical instruments). Meanwhile tools are present in the various occupational periods of the village. Lastly it must be noted that the excavations have given back numerous mineralized vegetal remains and in some pits, belonging to the last levels of occupation of the site, several rare fragments of pottery have been found of Mesopotamian origin (Méry 1995) and a fragmented pot coming from Southeastern Iran (Biagi and Salvatori 1986: 10; Cleuziou and Tosi 1989: 28-30, figs. 3-5, 2007: 88; Didier and Méry 2012) containing the remains of a bituminous substance. Shell Tools Despite their undeniable contribution to the diet, some shell species were also collected for manufacturing tools, in particular those related to fishing activities, or as containers for domestic activities, even if it can also be hypothesized their musical employment. 124

Material Culture

Shell fish-hooks The fish-hook had an essential role in the development of the coastal human cultures. It is the means par excellence employed by the fisherman for capturing fish normally tied to the terminal part of a line of a fishing rod or lure device. They can have different shapes and size according to the size and morphology of the fish caught. In the world there is a considerable variety of fish-hooks (Marcucci 2015: 409-410 and bibliography). In northern Oman, and also found not long ago in the United Arab Emirates in the Akab Island (Méry et al. 2008), the shell fish-hooks are more or less standardized with several variants characteristic of each site on which they have been found. Before the coming of the metals, at the end of the 4th millennium BC, fishhooks were manufactured starting from the mother-of-pearl shells of the Pteriidae/Isognomonidae family collected on the beach or directly from the oyster banks. The fishing hook is composed by four main parts: 1. the head, the terminal part of the hook where the fishing line was tied. There are two type of head, with eyelets or notches1; 2. the shank, the part more or less vertical or slightly tilted towards the inside of the hook comprised between the head and the bend; 3. the bend, the curved part that constitutes the base of the hook, comprised between the shank and the point; 4. the point, the sharp end that allows to catch fish penetrating in its mouth. The various manufacturing phases carried out for making these fish-hooks have been first recognized at RH6 (Biagi 1985) (Figure 7.1). At RH-5 fish-hooks, unfinished or finished, complete or fragmented, have been recorded in the entire sequence (Biagi and Nisbet 1999: 35), especially in the upper part of the occupation (Marcucci 2015: 414), showing all the stages of the chain production (Figure 7.2). All the fish-hooks were made from Isognomon sp. or Pinctada margaritifera, which are thick and heavy bivalves with a diameter that can reach respectively 15 and 20 cm. Generally, the thickest central part (the most resistant) of the valve was used to produce the fish-hooks. A single valve could also permit the realization of several fish-hooks, a larger one and several of small size. The portion of the shell chosen was reduced in order to obtain a drop-shaped preform. Afterwards an indentation was practiced in the edge in order to remove for reduction the shell in excess or a hole was made at the centre of the preform that then was enlarged through the employment of files of different diameter. At the end the fish-hook was smoothed in order to obtain the final shape. The terminal part of the fish-hook, where the fishing line was applied, could present one or two holes (medium and large sized hooks) or several notches (small sized hooks). The shank can be vertical or slanted inward and the point, where the bait is placed, can be more or less straight or curved towards the shank (Figure 7.3). Ichthyologic analysis inform us on the predominant presence of fish of Scombridae (e.g. tunas, mackerels) and Carangidae (e.g. jacks, pompanos, runners, scads) families, that for several species can reach even a meter in length and weight even more than 10 kg (Marrast 2015). So one must presume that the hooks found at RH-5, even if only supplied with notches, were as much functional as those with eyelets. It certainly cannot be excluded that the fragments of shank and bend of several specimens found during the excavations were not relating to hooks of large size with eyelets. Up to now at Ras Al-Hamra specimens of hooks with eyelets have not been found but only with notches. Instead hooks with eyelets are frequent in other sites of Oman (e.g. GAS-1, Gaultier et al. 2005: fig. 10; KM-1, Phillips and Wilkinson 1979). 1

125

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.1. Some examples of shell fish-hooks made from mother-of-pearl coming from the recent excavations of RH-5 and RH-6 (drawing by E. Devidal, © L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

126

Material Culture

Figure 7.2. Two drop-shaped preforms and a complete shell fish-hook from RH-5 recovered during the rescue excavation of 20042005 (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

Figure 7.3. Manufacturing process for the replication of shell fish-hooks made in 2009 in Pistoia (Italy) by A. Tomaselli with the collaboration of E. Badel and L.G. Marcucci (photographs by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

127

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.4. Possible spoon found in test trench TT-Z of Sector C at RH-6 obtained from the last turn of the spire of a large gastropod of the family of the Muricidae or of a juvenile Chicoreus ramosus (drawing by E. Devidal; © L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel; photograph by E. Badel).

Containers and Musical Instruments In addition, the fishermen of Ras Al-Hamra gathered large gastropods or bivalves to produce other daily tools (e.g., containers, spoons, scrapers, cutting tools). The bivalve Pecten sp. or Chlamys sp. may have been employed as a plate, while the gastropod Fasciolaria trapezium could serve as a drinking container. Other transformed shells can be interpreted as spoons (Figure 7.4): for instance, most of the body of several gastropods (e.g. Conus sp.) had been removed keeping a part of the last turn of the spire or of the external lip that was rough-hewed until reaching the shape of a spoon. The columella of large gastropods (e.g. Fasciolaria trapezium) could be employed as a striker instead of the stone tools. As specified above, several large gastropods (Fasciolaria trapezium, Chicoreus ramosus, Lambis truncata sebae and Tutufa tutufa bardeyi) have been found among the covering stones from the graves (Figure 7.5). 128

Material Culture

While some of them could have been used as drinking containers (Figure 7.6), others, which present one or two holes on the external wall could have been used as musical instruments (trumpets), according to ethnographic comparisons. Their association with burials suggests that their use could have been part of funerary ceremonies (Salvatori 2007) (Figure 7.7). Shell Ornaments The collecting of shells and their consequent manufacturing process for the production of ornaments was an important activity for the inhabitants of Ras Al-Hamra. Even if some categories of ornaments have been found in the settlement, most of the finished objects were deposited in the graves such as funerary gifts. Beads Among the beads the ones in shell are very common and can be found both in the living area and in the graves. One can distinguish beads obtained from small gastropods, scaphopods or bivalves. Among the gastropods the beads of Ancilla sp., Oliva bulbosa, Cypraea sp., Conus sp., Strombus sp. and Engina mendicaria are frequent. These species, that were collected even during the juvenile phase of growth (e.g. Conus sp. and Strombus sp.), have the characteristic of being of small size (15-30 mm high), being ideal as necklace elements.

Figure 7.5. RH-5. A large gastropod of Tutufa tutufa bardeyi with two small, probably suspension, holes (DA 6693) found between the covering stones of Grave 211 during the 1980s excavations (after Salvatori 2007: pl. 46).

129

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.6. Four specimens of containers obtained from juvenile Lambis truncata sebae found by Biagi in the extensive excavation of RH-6 located in the northern portion of the 1986 test trench (after Biagi 1999: fig. 17).

In some cases a hole was made through percussion on the external wall (Ancilla sp., Cantharus sp., Nerita sp., Neverita sp., Engina mendicaria and Oliva bulbosa) while in other cases on the apex (Conus sp.) or on the dorsal side (Cypraea sp.). Some shells may present both types of holes (Oliva bulbosa). The hole could also be made through the polishing of the apex (Conus sp.) (Figure 7.8A-C, E-G, I, L). Among the scaphopods, only Dentalium sp. was collected for producing ornamental items. The shell is naturally tubular and does not require any particular attention for manufacturing beads. Naturally 3-6 cm long, they could be cut in order to obtain beads of the desired length or employed whole (Figure 7.8D). The excavations have also brought to light beads made from bivalves (Figure 7.8H). It is not always possible to identify the species employed but, in most of the cases, it seems that the mother-of-pearl shells were used. They can be recognized from their whitish colour, opaque and translucent. 130

Material Culture

Figure 7.7. Three examples of large gastropods found during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 in the living area of RH-5. From left to right: columella and spire of Fasciolaria trapezium (DA 18250.189); Fasciolaria trapezium lacking the apex with a hole on the body (DA 18250.135); Lambis truncata sebae without the digitations with a hole on the body (DA 18250.186) (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

The consistency can be compact or fibrous and friable as in the case of the Pteriidae/Isognomonidae family (Figure 7.8K). It must not be ruled out that some were manufactured starting from the species Spondylus sp., a shell widely employed for making beads since the 6th millennium BC in the Oman Peninsula (de Beauclair 2008: 40-41; Charpentier and Méry 2008: fig. 14) (Figure 7.8J). In most cases, the beads obtained from bivalves have a discoidal shape (5-15 mm in diameter) and are flat, presenting only one hole at the centre. At RH-5 beads of Dentalium sp. are the most common ones, both in the living area and in the graveyard, followed by Engina mendicaria, Pinctada sp., Conus sp. and other small gastropods (e.g. Cypraea sp., Nerita sp., Neverita sp., Nassarius sp., Oliva sp.). Beads of Engina mendicaria, Nassarius sp. and Dentalium sp. are common in the graves, placed close to the head (i.e. hair, e.g. Grave 83) and the neck of the deceased, also associated to necklaces of mother-of-pearl pendant (e.g. Grave 411) (Munoz 2014: 180). Given the fact that some of the shells may have natural holes, it is sometimes necessary to observe them under microscope to identify if these perforations are man-made or not (e.g., perforations made by other animals, or naturally present on the shell). Pearls In the region of the Arabian Gulf and the Sea of Oman various species of shells can produce pearls: Pinctada margaritifera, Pinctada radiata, Pteria macroptera and the oysters in general. In archaeological sites they are not abundant and their finding has been above-all attested in funerary context. To date, the most ancient pearls found come from the northern part of the Oman Peninsula and have been found both in occupation and funerary contexts from the end of the 6th-5th millennium BC (e.g. As-Sabiyah H3 in Kuwait, Dosariyah in Saudi Arabia, Umm Al-Qaiwain in UAE, Al-Buhais 18 and FAYE-NE15 in UAE, Akab in UAE) (respectively, Carter 2002: 17; Drechsler 2018; Phillips 2002: 178; de Beauclair et al. 2006: 176; Kutterer and de Beauclair 2008: 137; Charpentier and Méry 2008) (Figure 7.9). At Ras Al-Hamra, RH-5, less than a dozen of pearls have been found so far during the excavation of the graves (Salvatori 2007: one in Graves 37, two in Graves 83 and 86a; Munoz 2014: one in Grave 405). 131

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.8. RH-5. Beads from gastropods and bivalves: A) Nassarius sp. (DA 18266.248); B) Conus sp. (DA 18247.321); C) Cypraea sp. (DA 18246.410); D) Dentalium sp. (DA 18232.289); E) Engina mendicaria and Nassarius sp. (DA 18229.245); F) Nerita sp. (DA 18267.259); G) Naticidae family (DA 18265.262); H) Acrosterigma sp. (DA 18233.393); I) Marginellinae subfamily (DA 18268.343); J) Spondylus sp. (DA 18231.428); K) Pinctada sp. (DA 22973); L) Strombus sp. (DA 18248.92) (photographs by L.G. Marcucci)

Pearls are generally pierced, probably in order to be strung and assembled with other beads (in stone and in shell) in bracelets, in necklaces or alone. Sometimes, the perforation is incomplete and they have been found, like at RH-5, near the face of the deceased. This could presume their utilization as labrets (?) (body piercing), even if the mode of attaching remains unknown. Nevertheless, it must not be ruled out that they could be laid near the deceased (in the hand or near the face), without being worn (Charpentier et al. 2003: 14; Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: fig. 89). The archaeologists have asked themselves the question of the intentional or accidental character of their acquisition (Carter 2005: 163; contra Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1996: 136). In several cases, as attested by the great number of specimens found in site BHS-18 (Kiesewetter et al. 2000; de Beauclair et al. 2006), in the United Arab Emirates, one could think that they were voluntarily sought and maybe also commercialized, given the distance of this site from the coast and the pastoral character that it had in the 5th millennium BC. 132

Material Culture

Figure 7.9. Eighteen pearls found in the Akab shell midden in the Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate, UAE, none have a hole (after Charpentier et al. 2012: fig. 3).

Figure 7.10. RH-5. Cluster of pendants in mother-of-pearl found over a gabbro stone of the covering of Grave 118 in the graveyard excavated in the 1980s (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

133

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Even their accidental finding must not be ruled out. Indeed, in coastal sites like RH-5, even if dated to the 4th millennium BC, the mother-of-pearl shells were constantly collected for the manufacturing of tools (fishhooks) and ornaments (beads, pendants). Therefore, every so often, a shell could conceal a pearl, that was always deposited near the deceased in the graves. Pendants The pendants have been found only in the graves, employed as necklace elements that are alternated with shell or stone beads, associated with the deceased (Biagi and Salvatori 1986: 10; Salvatori 2007: 32; Munoz 2014: 178) (Figure 7.10). In the Oman Peninsula, one could distinguish four main types of pendants, all obtained starting from mother-of-pearl shells (i.e. Pinctada sp. and Isognomon sp.): - Type 1: laurel-leaf shaped (Figure 7.11). Five subcategories can be identified: Type 1a, decorated or less with incisions along the edges and a suspension hole at one extremity; Type 1b with an empty space inside, decorated or less with incisions along the edges and with a suspension hole at one extremity; Type 1c, decorated with a cup-hole pattern on the surface and two suspension holes at one extremity; Type 1d, without decorations and with two holes, one at each extremity; Type 1e, without decorations and with four suspension holes, one at each extremity and two at the centre, parallel along the smaller axis of the ornament; - Type 2: drop shaped, decorated with a cup-hole pattern on the surface and/or incisions along the edges and a suspension hole at one extremity (Figure 7.12); - Type 3: triangular shaped, that recall the shape of a shark’s tooth, with incisions along the external edge and a suspension hole at one extremity; - Type 4: arrow shaped, truncated on the upper side with a notch on the side and a suspension hole on the extremity; At RH-5 the most recurrent shape is the laurel-leaf shape (Type 1a), which in most of the cases is decorated with incisions. This is followed by the drop shaped ones (Type 2, Figure 7.13). The other types are very rare and only from one to five specimens have been found for each category in the case of Ras Al-Hamra sites. Sometimes, various types of pendants are associated in the composition of the necklace, in a particular way for the two most frequent types. The number of pendants for necklaces is usually comprised between 1 and 20 pieces, but most commonly it is of 7-8 specimens (Munoz 2014: 178). The study of the mother-of-pearl pendants found in all the graves of RH-5 informs us that there isn’t a significant difference between the buried men and women even if, for the individuals comprised between 10 and 20 years of age, the necklaces of pendants are more frequent in the funerary set of women (Munoz 2014: 178). Bracelets Another category of ornaments relatively frequent in the graves but absent in the living area is constituted by bracelets placed nearby the wrists of the deceased (Figure 7.14). These ornaments, found between the 5th and the 3rd millennium BC in the Oman Peninsula, are obtained from the body of the last spire of large gastropods (e.g. Fasciolaria trapezium, Lambis truncata sebae, large species of Conus sp. and Strombus sp.)2. For the time being only one fragment of bracelet in stone (chlorite) has been found in the Oman Peninsula. It comes from SWY-1 at As-Suwayh (Méry and Charpentier 2009: fig. 6). 2

134

Material Culture

Figure 7.11. Pendants in mother-of-pearl (Type 1) found during the excavation of the living area and graveyard during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (drawings by L. Cenci).

135

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.12. RH-5. Pendants in mother-of-pearl (Type 2) found during the excavation of the living area and graveyard during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (drawings by L. Cenci).

Figure 7.13. RH-5. Close-up of a pendant in mother-of-pearl Type 2 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

136

Material Culture

Figure 7.14. RH-5. Some sections of bracelet found in the graves excavated in the 1980s and in 2008 (drawings by L. Cenci).

Figure 7.15. RH-5. One of the three small sections of a bracelet (DA 22789) found on the left wrist of the child in Grave 406 excavated in 2008 (photograph by O. Munoz).

137

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.16. Different necklace types in mother-of-pearl and beads in shell and stone found in the graveyard of RH-5 (drawing by H. David-Cuny).

138

Material Culture

They have a rectangular shape more or less convex according to the portion of shell used. They are constituted of shell plates, two or three in general, of rectangular shape and pierced along the short sides or/and at the centre of the edges in order to pass the string and assemble them together (Biagi and Salvatori 1986: 10; Salvatori 2007: 34; Munoz 2014: 181). Several are decorated with fringe incisions along the larger sides that form groups that are alternately inverted. These patterns are very similar to those carried out on the laurel leaf mother-of-pearl pendants (Types 1a and 1b) (Figure 7.15). Several plates seem to have been repaired in the past as displayed by the presence of additional holes when this broke in the corner3. At RH-5 these types of bracelets are composed of two, three and more rarely of four plates. In only two graves several bracelets have been found that are composed of a variable number of plates (Salvatori 2007: 134 for Grave 72b, 157 for Grave 86a). Differently from mother-of-pearl pendants, shell element bracelets are not very common in graves. Only 11 individuals of the 203 found in the graveyard of RH-5 wore one or more bracelets. Even in this case, a significant differentiation is not noted between the sexes (Munoz 2014: 181). Necklaces Several necklaces and bracelets composed of different elements (beads made of stone and/or shell, pendants and/or shark teeth) have been found only in graves. Sometimes one can suggest a reconstruction according to their finding in situ (Figure 7.16). Naturally the hundreds of beads found in the graves were relating to necklaces, to possible decorations made in the clothes of the dead or in women’s hair. It cannot be excluded that the inhabitants of the villages of Ras Al-Hamra didn’t wear them also in everyday life. The necklaces are composed of dozens of beads made of shell (Engina mendicaria, Ancilla sp., Oliva bulbosa, Cypraea sp., Conus sp. and Dentalium sp.) or softstone (chlorite and serpentinite), or both. Indeed, in several cases the necklaces are miscellaneous, that is constituted of a regular alternation both of beads in shell and stone (discoidal or tubular) and in mother-of-pearl pendants. In some cases, a shark’s tooth was also used (Figure 7.17). The necklaces are very common at RH-5, above-all if one considers the high presence of beads in the graveyard. Instead in the older site of RH-6 the graves do not have a substantial funerary set, sometimes they also lack it completely. Despite this scarcity of ornamental objects it must be noted the important finding that happened in Grave 2. The dead wore on his right wrist a bracelet (Marcucci et al. 2014: 252, fig. 11C) (Figure 7.18), found complete and in situ, composed by 8 cylindrical beads in chlorite and 16 small pierced shells (maybe very young and very small oysters). Stone Ornaments Other than shells, the ornaments were also made from softstone (chlorite, serpentinite and schist). These stones were employed for manufacturing beads and earrings that are numerous both in the settlement and in the graveyard, worn by the deceased. Beads Found in lesser quantity compared to the ones in shell, the stone beads obtained above-all from chlorite are common in all the sequence. According to Munoz (2014: 181) this could be an evidence that they were worn also during everyday life by several members of the community and not exclusively introduced in the graves as a funerary gift like the mother-of-pearl pendants. 3

139

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.17. Photo documentation of some necklaces and bracelets found in the Ras Al-Hamra sites taken in 2011 for the selection of the objects for the showcases of the new National Museum of Muscat: A) Bracelet of chlorite beads (DA 26620 P); B) Necklace of chlorite and shell beads, RH-5 Grave 33 (DA 6654/DA 6670); C) Necklace of chlorite beads (DA 26621 P); D) Necklace of chlorite and shell beads and mother-of-pearl pendants, RH-10 Grave 107 (DA 11977); E) Necklace of Dentalium sp. beads, RH-5 Area 43 (DA 6669) (photographs by L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel).

140

Material Culture

Figure 7.18. RH-6. Bracelet made from chlorite and shell beads (DA 28675) found in situ in 2012 on the right wrist of the individual from Grave 2 (photographs by O. Munoz).

Figure 7.19. RH-5. Frontal and lateral view of some softstone beads (photographs by T. Conci).

141

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.20. RH-5. Hemispherical vesicular basalt bead found in Grave 68 sup. (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

At RH-5 they are attested mainly in the living area. Indeed, in the graveyard they have been found only in a reduced number of graves (around 15%) having the form of bracelets or necklaces together with other shell beads and/or mother-of-pearl pendants (Salvatori 2007: tab. 3; Munoz 2014: 140-141). The beads of RH-5 present a dark colour (from dark green to black) and are chiefly of cylindrical shape even if discoidal specimens are present (Figure 7.19). The sizes seem standardized with an average diameter of 4.5 mm and a variable thickness comprised between 8 and 1 mm, even if slight variations can be identified, as in the case of the production of extremely small beads during the central phases of occupation of the site or of tubular beads. Analysis have established that the perforation of the hole is conical or cylindrical unipolar or symmetrical or asymmetrical bipolar (Pisan et al. 2013). Only at RH-5 a stone bead has been found which is very particular and doesn’t have parallels with other sites. It has been found in Grave 68 sup. excavated in the 1980s, a collective grave in which eight individuals of different sex and age (Salvatori 2007: pl. 29, DA 6660) have been entombed. It has a hemispherical shape and has been obtained from a dark volcanic rock with white spots called vesicular basalt (Figure 7.20).

Figure 7.21. RH-5. Broken earring found during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

142

Material Culture

It is a type of stone that is found in the Omani mountains in association with ophiolitic outcrops. The object, obtained probably from a wadi pebble is extraordinary both for the material used and the precision of the conical hole, maybe made with a metal drill (Randall Law, personal communication). Given the particularity of the artefact and the possible drilling with the employment of a metal point, it must not be excluded that it is an imported object even if there aren’t parallels in the Oman Peninsula in Neolithic periods and in the following ones. Earrings Another type of ornament characteristic of the 6th-4th millennium BC sites concerns the earrings in softstone. At Ras Al-Hamra they are found above-all at RH-5 where they were constantly manufactured during the occupation of the village (Figure 7.21). At RH-5 the proportion of earrings is more important in the living levels compared to the graves, and, since several have repair traces (Salvatori 2007: 34, note 3), it can be presumed that they were worn daily by the inhabitants of the village. They are obtained from serpentinite and to a lesser degree serpentinoschist, phyllite, mica-schist and plagioclase, common stones in the northern ophiolitic mountains of Oman (Isetti and Biagi 1989: 5-6). The excavations have given back numerous whole or fragmented earrings (Figure 7.22) and also possible remains of the working phases for their manufacturing, like small plates of serpentinite, of serpentinoschist and phyllite with bevelled corners and perforation traces (Isetti and Biagi 1989: 6). Even if a well defined area that was dedicated to their making has not been found it is believed that this type of ornament was produced in loco. In other cases, other fragments of softstone do not seem related to the production of earrings but rather to other ornaments, like a sort of pendant. Most of the earrings have a growing annular shape and a convex, plane-convex, biconvex, circular or triangular section and have traces of rough polishing, both internally and externally. Their average diameter lies between 18.5 and 42.5 mm. The finished and unfinished objects are recurrent in the living area. Their presence in the graves is frequent nearby the skull of the dead, both of men and women, even if in these last ones it is more usual to find them. While children under 12 years of age do not have them (Isetti and Biagi 1989: 6; Salvatori 2007: note 3; Munoz 2014: 179-180). Until now at RH-5 at least 308 whole or fragmented earrings have been found of which only 6.8% have been found whole and in association with the dead as an element of the funerary set, 3.2% were fragmented in the filling of the grave pits and 89.9% coming from the occupation levels of the living area (Munoz 2014: 179). Not all of them present decorations. The ones that are decorated reveal vertical, multiple, zigzag and engraved patterns (Figure 7.23) for the low part of the occupational sequence of the village and simple, horizontal and engraved patterns for the low part of the sequence. Only a few exemplars are decorated with cup-holes motifs (Isetti and Biagi 1989: 6 and 8). Both the proximal extremities, thinner than the median part, are very close together and sometimes have eyelets for fixing them to the ears. While those lacking eyelets, if the distance between the two extremities is reduced, they could be worn by making the earring pass through the lobe. The tools in chipped and polished stone found at RH-5 could be used certainly for their manufacturing, even if the operational chain is until now not completely clear. The softstone can be initially cut with chert blades, hence the preform of the earring was created polishing it with a sandstone and a first central hole (Figure 7.24) was practiced with an awl or a chert perforator (the so-called punch). Then stone files were used for modelling the internal and external part, widening always more the diameter of the hole previously obtained. Lastly, flint perforators could be employed for making the eyelets while the decorations could be done with burins (incisions), with sharp flakes or blades (excisions) and small double backed perforators (cup-holes) (Usai 2018). 143

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.22. RH-5. Some earrings (finished, unfinished, broken or repaired) found in both the settlement and graveyard during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (drawings by L. Cenci).

144

Material Culture

Figure 7.23. RH-5. Broken earring decorated with a zigzag pattern (DA 18241.386) found during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

Chipped Stone Industry The lithic industries identified in the Oman Peninsula do not completely fit in the typological European assemblages (Uerpmann 1992; Usai, 2005: 6), due to the presence, for instance at Ras Al-Hamra, of a high number of “unconventional” tools obtained with the hard hammering method (Maggi and Gebel 1990, quoted by Biagi 1999) while the “conventional” ones represent only a small percentage (Biagi et al. 1984: 48; Maggi and Gebel 1990; Usai 2005). The chipped stone industry was produced in loco, given the high presence of flakes, debris and cores. It is composed of tools for producing ornaments in shell or stone, like perforators, burins, small blades, scrapers, truncations, pièces esquillées and chisels. The raw materials employed are chert/flint (blonde and greenish-blue), jasper (red [radiolarite] and green), agate, sandstone (brownish colour) and quartz from white pebbles or tabular pieces available not far from the site (Biagi 2008: fig. 2). The lithic industry is mostly constituted of debris and flakes while the tools represent little more than 12% of the total (Biagi et al. 1984: 48; Maggi and Gebel 1990; Usai 2005: 3) (Figure 7.25). The lithic industry of RH-5 presents unique features of its kind, in particular for the presence of characteristic perforators. For this reason, they give the name to a specific lithic facies, the so-called Ras Al-Hamra Facies (Uerpmann 1992). The study of the objects has led to the identification of a very particular assemblage: microlithism, the use of the hard hammer technique, the widespread use of the bipolar-on-anvil core exploitation technique, a scarcity of “conventional tools”, a broad variety of raw materials used and a high degree of specialisation (Usai 2005: 2). The distribution of the various typological lithic categories is very similar in all the periods. Flakes are the most common by-products of the flaking process (>30%), blades are very few (2.6%), maybe produced accidentally, debris represent 50% of the total while cores present a low percentage. In the high part of the stratigraphic sequence jasper, radiolarite and chert seem to be equally present in the deposit while in the low part chert is in majority and of higher quality.

145

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.24. RH-5. Possible phase of the manufacturing process for making earrings of a rough-out plaque of softstone with a central hole (DA 23446) found during the excavation of 2008 on the west section of Sector B1 (photographs by R. Chemin and L.G. Marcucci).

146

Material Culture

Figure 7.25. RH-5. Chipped stone industry coming from Sector B2 in the 2009 and 2009-2010 excavations: A) perforator of hyaline quartz; B) lithic assemblage; C) small hammer from quartz pebble; D) single-platform core made of jasper; E) perforator; F) perforator called “Ras Al-Hamra chisel/punch”; G) perforators and “Ras Al-Hamra chisel/punch” coming from the test trench 2x1 m made in 2009; H) lithic assemblage (A-B/G-H, photographs by L.G. Marcucci; C-F, after Marcucci and Usai 2010: figs. 2-3, 5-6).

Perforators are made with jasper and chert while chisels mainly with jasper. Perforators represent almost 50% of all the tools found in each period. Various types are identified: several are obtained from flakes with a natural point, others present a simple retouch, marginal or deep. Instead, a few others have a double back, but they are in minority. In general, those of RH-5 are above-all simple perforators (Usai 2005: 5). Among the tools found at RH-5 the ones that were employed for piercing were the most important ones and could be used for various craft activities: manufacturing beads, hooks, earrings and for practicing any type of hole like the suspension ones for mother-of-pearl pendants or for the bracelet elements. The denticulated, the pièces esquillées and the scrapers are the other most frequent categories. Among all tools found, the perforator of Ras Al-Hamra represents the pièce maitresse of the chipped lithic industry of RH-5 (Figure 7.26).

147

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.26. RH-5. Perforators recovered during the 1980s excavations (after Usai 2005: fig. 7).

148

Material Culture

Figure 7.27. RH-5. A-E) some net sinkers from the settlement recovered during the 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 excavations (DA 18252.81/204/384/86, DA 23453); F) example of attachment of the rope along the notches of the sinker (A-E, photographs by L.G. Marcucci; F, photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

Ground and Polished Stone Industry A well represented category in all the occupational sequence of RH-5 is given by the tools in polished stone, that witness once again the intensive exploitation of the marine resources, since the net sinkers are the most manufactured category. The fishermen generally chose the limestone easily available in the terraces surrounding the village or pebbles in the bed of the near Wadi Aday or not far, nearby the piedmont areas. The type of stone used could be even of a different nature, like quartzite, schist, gabbro or peridotite. The most characteristic categories are three: net sinkers, hammerstones and pitted crushing stones. The net sinkers are the most abundant tools found in the living area (Figure 7.27) even if several have been found in the funerary set of the graves. Their shape is oval and to a lesser degree sub-circular or flat. They have an ellipsoidal or circular section, and present various sizes comprised between 5-18 cm in length and can also reach one kilo in weight. They present bifacial notches on the long sides (Biagi and Nisbet 1999: 35) where presumably a string of vegetal origin was run through. In one case net sinkers of sub-rectangular shape were found over Grave 320, probably part of the covering, with two deep notches on the short sides which could be interpreted as an anchor (Figure 7.3) given its elevated weight, about 5 kilos, supporting the hypothesis that already in the 4th millennium BC the fishermen of RH-5 employed boats as likely at RH-6 (Biagi et al. 1984: 50. Biagi and Nisbet 1989: 43; Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: 73) . 149

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.28. RH-5. A/C) hammerstones recovered during the 2004-2005 excavation (DA 18251383/108); B) a hammerstone handle coming from the 1980s excavations (A/C, photographs by L.G. Marcucci; B, photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

Net sinkers weigh between 70 and 300 gr even if several can reach 600 gr. These weights were probably employed for fishing with nets that were cast in the low waters in front of the site or from boats in open sea. Those heavier than 300 gr could be employed as net anchors. The second most represented category, very common in Neolithic sites, is constituted of hammerstones (Figure 7.28). Of oval or ellipsoidal shape, they are obtained from wadi pebbles. The stone employed was limestone, gabbro or sandstone. They have a length comprised between 8 and 20 cm. They present evident traces of wear on one or both extremities, so much that these are completely flat. Several tools present wear traces all around the tool while others also have notches along the smaller axis as in the case of the net sinkers. These could have been made when making the handle for the tool or in order to make it sturdy for the hand. Hammerstones were employed in activities tied to the manufacturing of tools in stone (e.g. net sinkers), in chert or in shell (in order to create the preform from a valve) as well as for opening shells gathered for food purposes. The third category is the pitted crushing stones. Generally, they are wadi pebbles of circular or oval shape with faces more or less flat (Figure 7.29). At the centre of one or both faces is found a small depression of 2-4 cm in diameter and several millimetres in depth. It is believed that these stones, in limestone and sandstone, were employed as pitted crushing stones, that is, as support where the shells were laid and afterwards broken with another stone tool (i.e. hammerstone or chisels in chert or something similar) (Strudwick 1995; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: fig. 7.8) or for working other stones (Biagi 1999: 63). As well as for the net sinkers even pitted crushing stones can present other wear traces that suggest their utilization for other activities, making them multi-functional tools used for other tasks such as hammering, polishing and breaking. At RH-5, other stone tools like pestles, files, cutting stones4, multi-functional tools, grinders, grooved stones (Figure 7.30), spherical stones and millstones have been found to a lesser degree (Figure 7.31). It is interesting to note that the files, made from sandstone and limestone, were employed among other things for the manufacturing of shell fish-hooks (Charpentier et al. 1997; Cavulli et al. 2009) and pendants in mother-of-pearl. 4 One may suppose that at the end of 4th millennium BC this tool was partially replaced by the same but in metal as proposed for the tanged knife found at RH-10 at Ras Al-Hamra. This tool was mainly used for fishing activities: cutting and scaling large fish; to sever lines, nets and ropes; to remove shellfish from the rocks or for opening shells (Giardino 2017: 34).

150

Material Culture

Figure 7.29. RH-5. Pitted crushing stone found in situ during the 2004-2005 excavation (DA 18251.508) (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

151

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.30. RH-5. Small grooved stone with three linear incisions in both sides found cleaning the bedrock of Sector E in the 20092010 excavation (drawing by E. Devidal, © L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel; photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

Figure 7.31. RH-5. Other categories of stone tools recovered during the 1980s excavations and recently: A) cutting tool (DA 6649); B) file (DA 18251.366); C-D) multi-functional tool (A/D, photographs by Italian Archaeological Mission; B-C, photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

152

Material Culture

Figure 7.32. Very flat oval millstone (DA 6622) recovered among the covering stones of the Grave 61 excavated during the 1980s, in the box the object after restoration (photographs by Italian Archaeological Mission).

With regard to the millstones, only one, oval (50 x 32 cm and 2.5 cm thick) made from a massive riverine pebble of coarse-grained sandstone, has been found at RH-5 and was part of the covering of Grave 61 together with other stones (Salvatori 2007: 115, pl. 23) (Figure 7.32). Colouring Stones Other than stones collected for manufacturing ornaments and tools, the excavations have allowed also the recovery of various fragments, 1-7 cm long, of colouring stones (red and yellow ochre and hematite) probably used for female cosmetics. In several women’s graves were deposited what today could be considered as a make-up kit. In Grave 83 of RH-5, excavated in the 1980s, other than common elements of jewellery (necklaces, bracelets and earrings) also two points in polished bone probably used for hairdressing have been placed near the deceased, along with two empty shells (Callista sp. and Tonna sp.) used as containers, a fragment of a bone sharpened at both extremities maybe for applying the paste for decorating eyes and lastly a set of three small pebbles of colouring stones of pink-reddish colour and a small block of black hematite with a polished surface (Salvatori 2007: 34). The powder produced by these stones was certainly employed for the women’s make-up.

Figure 7.33. RH-5. Iron oxide pebble of reddish colour found during the rescue excavation of 2004-2005 (photograph by L.G. Marcucci).

153

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.34. RH-5. Some mammal bone tools from the settlement and graveyard recovered during the 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 excavations: A) awl (DA 18230.97); B) gorge hook (DA 18230.158); C) puncher (DA 18230.158); D) needle (DA 18230.365); E) small mammal rib completely polished and sharpened at the extremities found in Grave 405 during the emergency excavation of 20042005 (DA 22969); F) awl (DA 18230.464); G) gorge hook (DA 25246) (A-D/F-G, photographs by L.G. Marcucci; E, photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

Fragments of ochre stones, predominantly red, as well as other stones of greenish, yellowish or whitish colour have been found in the levels of the living area of the sites of Ras Al-Hamra. Among the most interesting exemplars there is one found at RH-5. It is an iron oxide pebble with plano-convex shape of reddish colour with a diameter of 6 cm (Figure 7.33). One face was completely flat caused by continuous utilization. Probably it was used for painting the body or for obtaining ochre powder for making paste for decorating the eyes or elsewhere in the body. Bone Industry The bone industry does not include only the production of fish-hooks (the so-called gorge) but also awls, punchers, pins and needles. Every part of the bones of land mammals (e.g. bovines, ovine, goats, gazelle) could have been used for manufacturing these tools. Nevertheless, it seems that the long bones had been preferred by the fishermen of Ras Al-Hamra. Awls, 4-5 cm long, were obtained from the proximal or distal epiphysis of the bones when these were broken, but above-all from splinters of the shaft (Figure 7.34A, C, F). Afterwards they are scraped on an abrasive stone to give it the wanted shape, hence polished for sharpening using for instance stone tools like the grooved stones. In many cases, like the awls and punchers, the bone fragment isn’t completely polished and only the point is sharpened. The point presents a circular or oval section. These pointed tools could have been used as elements for fixing clothing or making fishing nets. Gorges have a narrow oval shape and double pointed pins or rods, manufactured with narrow splinters of bones polished on all surfaces (Figure 7.34B, G). At times it is possible to note the oblique striations left during the polishing activity.

154

Material Culture

They are 2-5 cm long, 3-6 mm wide and present an oval section. They never have an incision at the centre for binding the line therefore it can be presumed that they were used in composite fish-hooks or more probably as straight fish-hooks (Biagi 1999: 66; Salvatori 2007: 34)5. Unlike a shell fish-hook that wedged in the interior mouth of a fish, a gorge needs to be swallowed so it becomes lodged in the throat or stomach. The punchers are thin, 4-6 cm long and they get thinner in the final part. They are often obtained from ovicaprine ulnae. In many specimens the bone is totally polished and the point is slightly burnt. These tools could have been used for making holes in animal skin or employed in weaving and manufacturing baskets in vegetal fibre or eventually to adorn or decorate hair or the nose. Moreover, very few needles are found, fragmented, during the excavations (Figure 7.34D). In general, they are flat with an oval section. They are obtained from average long bones or from small ribs (Figure 7.34E). The eyelet is perforated in the proximal extremity and the tool is completely polished. They could have been employed for sewing clothes, or thin hides. Instead, extremely rare are the worked turtle and bird bones. In the first case only cut signs in the hyoid bone of the skulls (Delfino in Marcucci et al. 2009: 124-128) have been found while a small fragment of bird bone decorated with engraved patterns has been discovered (Biagi and Nisbet 1984: fig. 6/1-2). At RH-5 the gorges appear in the high part of the occupational sequence (Biagi and Travers 1985: 409; Biagi and Nisbet 1989: 37) while the other categories described above are common to the entire sequence, both in the living area (Biagi and Nisbet 1984, 1989) and in the graveyard (Salvatori 2007). In several cases the finding in several graves in the funerary set of women presumes their utilization as pins for the hair or as points for applying the powder for decorating the eyes when associated to other materials like the colouring stones (Salvatori 2007: 34) (e.g. Grave 83). While in another case, in Grave 405/409, a small mammal rib has been found near the head of individual B, long 25 cm, completely polished and sharpened at the extremities. Shark Teeth Another not much represented tool or ornament found at Ras Al-Hamra are shark’s teeth, many of which belong to the species Carcharhinus leucas. Some present two holes in the root while others do not have any at all (Figure 7.35). They have been found both in the graveyard and in the living area. Initially these teeth, pierced or not, have been found in the graves. Since they were part of the funerary set it was thought that they were elements of necklaces or pendants. Afterwards the discovery of Area 45 of RH-5 of a shark tooth with a double perforation in the root, stuck in the lumbar vertebra of an adult male, showed that this type of object was also used as an arrowhead (Santini 2002: 163, fig. 5; Salvatori 2007: pls. 14-15) (Figure 7.36). Nonetheless, the fact remains that they could also be used as elements of necklaces or pendants, since they were found in the graves together with other beads and pendants. Generally not pierced, in one case they have also been found around the skull of an individual (Grave 411) associated to other beads of Dentalium sp., suggesting the existence in the past of a sort of bandage or cap composed of these elements (Munoz 2014: 46, 182). They have been found only on 2% of the graves of the graveyard of RH-5, most of which in Area 43 but also in the Graves 68 lower, 329 and 411 (Salvatori 2007; Munoz 2014: 182). The presence of shark teeth could have had a prestigious nature (Charpentier et al. 2009) (just like the pearls) since their capture was certainly difficult and dangerous. The finding of beached carcasses must not be excluded given the almost total absence of shark bones among the faunal remains coming from the excavations. As mentioned by Biagi (1999), for the composite hooks see Schenck (1926: 226) while for the employment of straight bone hooks see Cleyet-Merle (1990: 84). Straight fish-hooks can be manufactured even in wood or with thorns. 5

155

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.35. RH-5. Shark teeth recovered from the settlement and graveyard during 2004-2005 and 2008 excavations: A) projectile point, perforated by two fastening holes, drilled through the root (DA 18234.83); B) DA 18234.102; C) large hole made at the centre by crushing the bone surface (DA 18234.256); D) Grave 411 (DA 22981); E) Grave 411 (DA 22982); F) Grave 411 (DA 22983) (photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

Mineralized Vegetal Remains At Ras Al-Hamra the stratigraphic levels with calcite and gypsum concentrations are very frequent and sometimes very thick. A typical feature of RH-5 is given by the presence of numerous mineralized vegetal remains6. They are found both in the living area and in the graveyard. In this last one these elements are so well preserved that it is possible to identify remains of ropes, knots, concentrations of knots, mats and eventually ornaments on the clothes of the dead (Munoz 2014: 169) (Figure 7.37). Preliminary chemical and microscopic analysis of a small sample has established that the remains are essentially constituted of gypsum and to a smaller degree of calcite. Over time, calcite has been transformed in gypsum in a soil with an acid pH in a humid environment with a continuous contribution of seawater. Since it must be excluded that graves were regularly submerged naturally by seawater it is supposed that such contribution was anthropic and intentional (Munoz 2014: 170).

For the Bronze Age period, only the HD-6 site at Ras Al-Hadd has given back similar remains like for example the bottom of a basket perfectly preserved (DA 14403). 6

156

Material Culture

Figure 7.36. RH-5. A perforated shark tooth (DA 7262.02) found hammered into a lumbar vertebra of an adult male in cluster 43.5 in Area 43 of the graveyard excavated in 1984 (drawing modified after Santini 2002: fig. 5; photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

The study of thin sections has shown that the inhabitants of RH-5 prepared the grounds in hard soil through the contribution of water and that they used water for cleaning activities. The preparation of the living surfaces was often given by the utilization of two main components, a sort of gypsum mud and fish bones remains, often burnt, present in different proportions. The porosity of these sediments suggests a mixture in moist condition (Béguier 2010; Béguier and Marcucci 2018). Hence, during these activities it must not be excluded that seawater was thrown over the funerary area.

157

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

Figure 7.37. RH-5. Mineralized vegetal remains related to a series of knots in one or more ropes recovered above Grave 410 during the 2009-2010 excavation (photograph by T. Conci).

Pottery Most of the Omani prehistoric coastal sites are considered as shell middens. In addition, they are aceramic. Indeed, the first evidence of the presence of pottery in Oman dates from the end of the 4th millennium BC but systematically starting from the Late Bronze Age (Méry 1995, 2000; Didier and Méry 2012). In the Arabian Gulf this evidence is definitely more ancient as attested by the numerous pottery sherds of the Ubaid Period, above-all those of Ubaid Period 3 of Mesopotamian sphere7, found in many coastal and inland sites8. Even if RH-5 is considered as an aceramic site, it is important to note that, in a pit belonging to the last period of occupation of the site a sharply carinated biconical jar has been found (Burnished Grey Ware type) with a truncated-conical neck lacking a rim in fine shiny and burnished black-grey pottery with thin walls, whose bottom, slightly convex, contained the remains of a bituminous substance (Figure 7.38), suggesting that this jar had been employed for heating bitumen (Biagi and Salvatori 1986: 6; Cleuziou and Tosi 1989: 28-30, figs 3-5, 2007: 88). The Ubaid culture appeared in Mesopotamia between the second half of the 7th millennium BC and end of the 4th millennium BC. However it must be specified that the sites of the Arabian Gulf that have given back Mesopotamian pottery are called ‘Ubaid-related sites since the pottery is the only cultural element that they have in common with the Mesopotamian sites in which agriculture was completely developed and the society and the architecture were definitely much more advanced (Phillips 2002: note 10). An important cultural fact to note is that the Mesopotamian pottery, apart the few fragments of RH-5, had never crossed, during the Neolithic, the Strait of Hormuz. 8 As for instance the Mesopotamian pottery sherds recovered at Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate in site UAQ-2 (Phillips 2002: 175, fig. 5; Méry et al. 2016: fig. 2H-I) and in the site of Akab in the homonymous island (Charpentier and Méry 2008: 127, fig. 12) which are found not far from Oman. 7

158

Material Culture

Figure 7.38. RH-5. Sharply carinated jar containing remains of bituminous substance on the bottom (DA 11510a) discovered in a pit belonging to the last period of occupation of the site during the 1980s excavations (drawing by L. Cenci; photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

159

Promontory of Hope – The Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Muscat

This pottery was manufactured in Southeastern Iran at the end of the 4th millennium BC, most probably in the regions of Gorgan and Elburz. It can be considered the most ancient attestation of pottery found until now in Oman (Didier and Méry 2012: 177). In addition, other very small fragments have been found in several pits in the southern portion of the site, always belonging to the last period of occupation, and they have been identified as being of Mesopotamian origin and dated, even these, to the last quarter of the 4th millennium BC (Méry 1995). Besides the finding of these ceramic sherds, in the entire sequence of RH-5, others haven’t been found9. Nevertheless, their presence attests the existence of contacts, direct or indirect, with other regions even distant at the end of the occupation of RH-5 and the passage to a new cultural reality that will characterize Oman and Southeastern Arabia starting from the Early Bronze Age (Cleuziou 2005: 136-137; Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: 61-97).

9 Other handmade and low-fired pottery sherds have been found at BJ-1 at Bandar Jissa and in Trench H of Wadi Wuttayah in the Capital Area not far from Ras Al-Hamra, coming from contexts that belong to the transition between the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 261).

160

Chapter 8

Mobility

Since the first excavations that had begun starting from the second half of the 1980s in the Capital Area and afterwards along the coasts of the Ja’alan and the UAE and in its inland territories, archaeologists have questioned whether the populations that first settled along the coast practiced a nomad (seasonal) or sedentary lifestyle. Initially, it was believed (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2000, 2007a; Potts 2001; Cavulli and Scaruffi 2013), in relation to the first data collected in the field, that the human groups moved according to a well-defined seasonal model, based on the availability of the resources of the various territories and climatic conditions, as well as in line with ethnographic observations (see Lancaster and Lancaster 1998, and their ethnographic research on contemporary Bedouins in the Ja’alan region): along the coast during autumn and winter living chiefly from fishing and trades, in the piedmont zones particularly in spring and in the mountain in summer for grazing activities (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2007a). But, if the coastal sites detected are hundreds, the same cannot be affirmed for the inland territories where our knowledge on human adaptation still remains extremely incomplete. Therefore, the model mentioned above remains difficult to verify, above-all for the inland sites, at least in Oman. Indeed, recently in the UAE various Neolithic inland sites have been found. Among the most important, one can mention the one found in the Sharjah Emirate, at the foot of the Jebel Al-Buhais, BHS-18 (Figure 8.1). It is a living area dated to the 5th millennium BC, occupied seasonally (in spring) and integrated to a mobility tied to an economy of pastoral nomad type (Uerpmann 2003). The excavations have shown the presence of several postholes, probably relating to light living structures, pits and fireplaces and a vast graveyard. In this last one, numerous shells have been found for making necklaces and accessories for clothes showing the existence of regular contacts with the sites of the coast (Uerpmann et al. 2006, 2008). Hence in the case of BHS-18 one can talk about a seasonal site, whose population moved between the coast (in winter) and the inland area (in the piedmont areas in spring and along the mountain widyan during summer). Even for several Omani coastal sites one could be inclined towards a model of seasonal type. For instance, in the Ja’alan region several among the most important sites that are dated to the 5th-4th millennium BC (e.g. KHB-1 at Ras AlKhabbah Figure 8.2, SWY-1 Figure 8.3 and SWY-2 at As-Suwayh and GAS-1 at Wadi Shab, Figure 8.4) have been assiduously investigated and could have had an occupation of seasonal type. Recently for this area a new model has been proposed that is tied to a micro-regional nomadism according to which human groups moved short distances scouring the widyan routes that go from the coast to the mountains according to a seasonal movement. During winter they lived on fishing and gathering between the coast and the lagoon, while in spring and autumn in the wadi in the piedmont areas, and finally during the summer in the mountain areas where animals could have grazed (Cavulli and Scaruffi 2013: 23). Unfortunately, even in this case it is not possible to confirm the accuracy of such a model due to the absence of identified corresponding inland settlements. In the case of the villages found at Ras Al-Hamra, RH-5 and RH-6, one could hypothesize another solution, that tends towards an occupation more or less sedentary. Their strategic position allowed the inhabitants to exploit the different ecological niches offered by the sea, the mangrove and by the inland hunting areas through the widyan, in particular the Wadi Aday, that connected directly the coast with the hinterland, nearby where it was possible to find various sources of drinking water. 161

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 8.1. Aerial view of site BHS-18 from north to south located in the interior of the Sharjah Emirate at the foot of the Jebel AlBuhais. Photo taken during the 1999 excavation (after Uerpmann et al. 2006: fig. 2.1d).

Figure 8.2. Aerial view from south of site KHB-1 at Ras Al-Khabbah in the Ja’alan region taken in the 1980s (photograph by Joint Hadd Project).

162

Mobility

Figure 8.3. Kite view from north of site SWY-1 at As-Suwayh in the Ja’alan region taken in 2004 (photograph by Joint Hadd Project).

Figure 8.4. Aerial view from west of site GAS-1 at Wadi Shab in the Ja’alan region taken in 1981 (photograph by Italian Archaeological Mission).

163

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

The resources produced by these niches could have been available all year round favouring a continuous occupation of the site (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003; Biagi and Nisbet 2006) with a minimum mobility. As regards the climatic aspects, during the Early and Middle Holocene (c. 9000-4000 BC) the last humid phase was established even if slight fluctuations and local variations have occurred. During the 4th millennium BC one can observe a progressive aridness in the climate until it becomes towards 2500 BC similar to the present one, the current arid phase. But if at the end of the occupation of RH-5 the presence of this arid phase was now a fact, for the rest of the 4th millennium BC and during the occupation of RH-6 (6th-5th millennium BC) the climate could have been cooler and hence allow a sedentary occupation. After, towards 3200 BC, the village of RH-5 was abandoned when deterioration in environmental conditions and the rise in the temperatures gave origin to a new lifestyle that brought on the birth of the inland oases and the application of the agricultural system (Cleuziou 1997; Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: 137-157). Moreover, differently from other contemporaneous coastal sites, at RH-5 as well as at RH-6 two greater features have been highlighted that define exactly a prehistoric village: a living complex characterized by numerous and various living structures as well as one of the most ancient and large graveyards of Southeastern Arabia (at RH-5), both comprised in a multi-stratified anthropic deposit that developed during a period of relatively long time, at least 700 years for RH-5 and more than one thousand years for RH-6. To this we can add other clues that inform us of an occupation not necessarily seasonal that presents a certain degree of sedentariness, retrieved during the excavation activities (see Biagi and Nisbet 2006; Marcucci and Genchi 2008; Marcucci et al. 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014; Munoz 2014): - The material culture denotes specific craft activities, intense and specialized, that indicate the presence of stable activities. Among these, the ones that have a greater interest for the populations are making tools for fishing (e.g. shell and bone fish-hooks, net sinkers, cordage and fishing nets), tools in polished stones (e.g. hammers, anvils, net sinkers, files, grindstones, stones for polishing and for cutting) and the chipped tools (e.g. perforators, burins, blades, scrapers, chisels) for carving, scraping, cutting, polishing, and making ornaments in shell (beads, pendants, bracelets) and in softstone (beads and earrings). All these activities took place in the villages, even if several believe that, for instance, the beads were a probable exogenous production (Pisan et al. 2013) and that only several phases for their production were occasionally practiced in the sites; - Permanent living structures that, even if considered light (huts), are present in all the periods of occupation and in several cases, like the ones detected in the bedrock, inform us that the sites were methodically and totally occupied as shown by the high number of postholes, of pits and huts that often, at RH-5, are superimposed and cut each other. This has allowed us to identify various categories of structures and their utilization for living and working (Marcucci et al. 2011, 2014); - The presence at RH-5 of a large graveyard of long duration, in which have been detected and excavated at least 150 graves (primary, secondary and multiple), present in all the sequence. If in the eastern portion of the site an area has been identified (divided into three different levels) that was entirely dedicated to funerary practices (Salvatori 2007), in the northern portion of the site the graves are present in all the sequence and interface themselves with the living area phases (Munoz 2014); - The presence of secondary graves could suggest that in the village of RH-5 were buried even individuals that did not belong to the original community of the site (Biagi and Nisbet 2006: 232) making the village of RH-5 a place of greater importance in the territory that it controlled;

164

Mobility

- The population of RH-5 displays a high rate of isolation and endogamy (Coppa et al. 1985: 101) which hasn’t been identified in other Omani Neolithic sites; - The orientation of the deposition of the dead doesn’t seem to justify an expressly seasonal occupation of the site (during the winter months) and, however, most of the dead are laid on the right side with the face turned towards some point between north-west to south-east (Salvatori 2007: 40-41); - At RH-5 a population composed of various tens of persons (Salvatori 2007: 36-37, 48-49, note 5; Marcucci et al. 2011: 213-216), hence a consistent group that requires a certain degree of organization; - Even if breeding was still not much practiced and did not represent a primary activity, the high marine and mangrove fish resources could have met the needs of the populations and determine a sedentary behaviour (Biagi and Nisbet 2006) since the occupation of RH-6; - Several hundreds of Ziziphus sp. stones found in both deposits of the two villages show that the sites were occupied at least in part during the summer season, period in which fruits of this tree ripen (Biagi and Nisbet 1989: 44, 1999: 44). Moreover, several stones present rodent bite traces that could suggest the practice of storage of these fruits in special pits (Biagi and Nisbet 1999: 44); - Shells, that represented a primary source of food, could be collected in considerable quantity all year long, originating from the three main biotypes present in the surroundings of Ras Al-Hamra: the sandy environment (e.g. Veneridae, Anadara sp., Strombus sp., Arca sp. and Callista sp.), the rocky environment (e.g. Ostrea sp.) and the muddy environment (e.g. Terebralia palustris and Saccostrea cucullata). Several species were present mainly at certain times of the year allowing a seasonal gathering of the different species; - Analysis of faunal remains shows that the curve of putting down small ruminants, at least at RH-5, denotes a permanent occupation of the site, in which at least part of the population lived continuously (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 251-254). Research on ichthyologic remains shows that the tunas and the carangids (Scombridae and Carangidae) are the ones most present in the deposit followed by breams (Sparidae). All these species are much more abundant during winter months between December and April, but these fish and several species in particular, were present all year round and therefore could be caught also in spring and summer as shown also by the information of the modern fishing activities in the Arabian Gulf and Sea of Oman (Beech 2004: 19-44). Moreover, fish could be desiccated and consumed during the summer months when fishing tended to decrease, as displayed by the fireplace structures dedicated only to processing fish found at RH-6 (Marcucci et al. 2014: 241, fig. 2) or by the community’s pit oven of RH-5 (Marcucci et al. 2011: 207, fig. 3). The abundant presence of turtle bone remains (Chelonia mydas) at RH-5 and in lesser quantity at RH-6 (Dermochelys coriacea) both in the living area and in the graveyard shows the importance that this reptile had in the diet and, in the case of RH-5, in funerary symbology. The current period of nidification (nesting) of the turtles lasts from July to December, with a peak in September. At Ras Al-Hamra there are bone remains both of males and females which were hunted, respectively, probably in the sea and on the beach (only the females go to the beaches for the nidification). Other than the favourable environmental aspects and clues deriving from the excavations, even some laboratory analysis and in particular research into diet and also micromorphological analysis suggest the sedentary behaviour of the population of Ras Al-Hamra.

165

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Recent geochemical analysis carried out on several graves excavated at RH-5 in 2005 and 2008 have allowed us to obtain new observations on the diet of the population of Ras Al-Hamra and on its mobility (Zazzo et al. 2012). The results show that the radiocarbon dates on human bones approached the ones of the shells indicating an important consumption of aquatic resources (marine or from the mangroves) by the population of Ras Al-Hamra (Zazzo and Munoz 2012). This suggests a permanent and not seasonal occupation, even if a minimum mobility along the coast cannot be excluded (Zazzo et al. 2013). In our opinion, the hypothesis that all the population of RH-5 abandoned the coast seasonally for long periods in order to go in the hinterland must be rejected. Lastly, preliminary micromorphological analysis (Béguier 2010; Béguier and Marcucci 2018) informs us that the stratigraphic sequences analysed suggest a continuous occupation, characterized by different ways to occupy the space (dumping, organization of the spaces, combustion, preparation of the grounds of the living area, cleaning). The study of the samples hasn’t revealed important moments of abandonment in the stratigraphic sections that have been sampled in various sectors of the two villages and in various parts of the sequence of the anthropic deposits. According to the information reported above it seems very probable that the craft and subsistence activities could be constantly practiced all year, so the two more important sites of Ras Al-Hamra, RH-6 and RH-5, were inhabited in a continuative way by at least a large part of the population, occupying permanently Qurum and Ras Al-Hamra since the middle of the 6th millennium BC. Fishing. Possible Means of a More Sedentary Lifestyle? The groups of Neolithic hunter-gatherers have occupied the territory of Southeastern Arabia at least until the end of the 4th millennium BC. The sedentarization could have already occurred during the occupation of RH-6. Domestication of plants and animals was already marginally applied from the 6th-5th millennium BC, while pottery is found in Oman starting from the end of the 4th millennium BC. The generalized utilization of metal seems to precede the use of pottery (Giardino 2015). But when and why for the sites of Ras Al-Hamra is a sedentary or semi-sedentary lifestyle proposed compared to the seasonality suggested by other scholars for all the other sites that are contemporaneous to them? As stated before thanks to: strategic position of the villages placed nearby ecological niches that could have supplied food resources all year round; the presence of well structured living areas characterized by different typologies of living structures; the presence of graveyards for the burial of hundreds of individuals; the exploitation of plant and animal resources; the presence of specialized craft activities; the practice of a specialized pelagic fishing that implicated maybe the utilization of boats. But one reason more than others would have given rise to a lifestyle more sedentary: the fishing. Due to fishing and the consequent technical progress for capturing fish as well as their processing and storage that has developed a first sedentarization. In our opinion, this solution could be plausible. At Ras Al-Hamra fishing represented the most practiced activity by the fishermen-gatherers. Fish bones are found in most of the archaeological deposits. Sometimes some levels are represented by fine layers of fish powder. Other times, in several periods and in several phases, there are bigger concentrations of fish bones that are the result of single days of specialized and particularly prolific pelagic fishing. Moreover, several of the most important craft activities practiced in the villages were connected to manufacturing tools tied to fishing (fish-hooks made of mother-of-pearl, gorges, net sinkers, ropes and fishing nets). Lastly, many combustion structures are tied to cooking and smoking fish and eventually to their storage in suitable pits.

166

Mobility

Hence, the community of Ras Al-Hamra could have occupied this same territory during all the year or eventually a part of the population, during summer, could have moved inland with the livestock. Those that remained gave continuity to the occupation of the villages and protected the material and structural goods of the entire community. They based their nutrition on shells and fish, even if maybe less abundant than during the other seasons, and certainly eating the flesh of domestic animals (surplus of goats, sheep and cattle, see Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 253) and also fruits as attested by the numerous stones of Ziziphus sp. that could have been picked only starting from spring. But fishing had however a central and primary role in everyday life. Without this activity the coastal populations of Oman probably would have never been able to evolve and give life to the successive Land of Magan.

167

Chapter 9

Society

One of the most difficult aspects when one tries to reconstruct the prehistoric occupation of a well-defined area rather than another in any part of the world, as well as in Oman, is the definition of the society that lived there. Even if the material culture and the architectural remains found in the living area (huts, dumping pits, fireplaces and ovens) are essential, an important amount of information can be deduced from the study of the mortuary practices. To this we can add eventual ethnographic studies carried out in the past and recently on the Bedouins of the Ja’alan in Oman (see Cordes and Scholz 1980; Lancaster and Lancaster 1992, 1998, 2002) and UAE (Lancaster and Lancaster 2011) even if they can be more relevant for reconstructing the Arab society starting from the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, with the birth of Magan. Indeed an apparently very rapid passage takes place towards an economy based completely on oasis agriculture, exploitation of copper mines (in inland areas), breeding (in the piedmont areas), an intensive fishing (in the coast), with the introduction of new burial practices, an intensification of interregional exchanges and the creation of a society, even if not urban, as much complex. It has already been pointed out that the living structures of Ras Al-Hamra can be divided into two main categories: the ones whose foundations are made up of postholes that describe a circular or oval shape, and those made up of a narrow base trench foundation and postholes inside. Given their reduced surface, the average is 4.72 m2, probably most of the activities were executed outside. The foundation structures are very similar, both in space and in time. Among the various structures detected, one could have had a different use from the others already mentioned. Here we could advance a hypothesis relating to the foundations of a structure found in the bedrock of Sector B1 of RH-5, dated apparently to the earliest period of the occupation of the village. It has to do with four series of postholes that describe as many circular structures, concentric to each other. For convenience, at the moment of their finding, to each structure was given their own number of inventory (HUTs B23, B26, B27 and B28, Figure 9.1). Unfortunately, apart HUT B23, the other alignments aren’t much preserved because they are cut by other huts and pits (Marcucci et al. 2011: fig. 7). The bedrock presents some differences, indeed the one in which are found the four alignments mentioned above had been levelled and entails a certain number of stones left in place for the arrangement of the postholes while the surrounding bedrock, external to this composite structure, has been left more or less intact. Moreover, between one circle and another, we can detect a series of postholes (often in pairs) that form lines that converge towards the centre of HUT B23, maybe necessary for supporting transversal wooden posts essential in their turn for supporting the roof, in this case of truncated-conic shape. These huts, if considered as a unique structure with a diameter of over 4 m could be the foundation of a more complex structure (possibly used for ceremonial purpose?) compared to the others found in the village, in which the community could meet in order to discuss important questions or practice particular activities, even if the cleaning of the bedrock seems to exclude its employment for craft activities1. 1 It is necessary to specify that Sectors B1 and E of RH-5 were excavated in the beginning of the 1980s but there is no information relating to the excavation of the living structures found in the bedrock. In 2008 and 2009, after the resumption of the excavations at RH-5, it was decided to clean these sectors and detect all the structures cut in the bedrock (Marcucci and Genchi 2008; Marcucci et al. 2009, 2011). The anthropic deposit was almost totally absent, if not in very few small portions of the ground. So, it is difficult to establish with certainty the personal, family, craft, ceremonial or other use of the identified structures.

168

Society

Figure 9.1. Plan of HUTs B23/26-28, sector B1 of RH-5 (drawing by E. Badel and L.G. Marcucci).

169

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Another structure that informs us about the activities practiced by the community of RH-5 is given by the finding of a pit oven, dated to the last period of occupation of the site (Marcucci et al. 2011: fig. 3). Other than the single fireplaces used daily by the single family groups for preparing food this oven was probably exploited by all the population for cooking and/or smoking fish and cooking other food. Such a structure, with its possible annexed dumping and storage pits, informs us that the area in which it was built was dedicated to domestic activities practiced by all the community, for the production of food goods shared by all the population both for the daily consumption and as surplus to compensate for the periods in which the fish products were less abundant. Moreover, the desiccated fish could be traded with other groups or consumed during the migrations of part of the population towards inland territories for hunting parties or searching for raw materials. The material culture denotes an organized society where craft and food activities necessary for supplying the needs of the community where constantly practiced. The vast range of tools and ornaments denotes an evolved community deeply installed in the territory that it controlled. And the two particular structures mentioned above (i.e. the large structure and the community pit oven) reveal the presence in the promontory of a large, well structured, human group. The subdivision of the daily tasks was motivated by the needs of the group. It can be presumed, taking into account also ethnographic comparisons (Waselkov 1987), that the men were occupied with the construction of the huts and hunting (marine and terrestrial) and all those activities that required a greater physical presence, while the women were occupied with the offspring and gathered, together with children and eventually older persons, shells, fruits and wood. The making of tools in chert, stone, bone and shell could be carried out by specialized persons or with good craft ability even if several stages of manufacture could have been also entrusted to children, like polishing the shell fish-hooks or the bone tools. The social structure of the population of Ras Al-Hamra can be deduced above-all from the study of the funerary sets and from the structure of the graves. The anthropological study of the graveyard of RH5 indicates that the society was of egalitarian type even though there seems to be codified a tenuous and unstable social hierarchy shown by the presence of mortuary gifts which cross through the division between the sexes, as proposed by Salvatori (2007: 46). The community had a strong endogamic tendency with a social organization per age group with a strong isolation and a marked genetic drift (Biagi and Salvatori 1986: 12-13). There aren’t striking differences between all the individuals entombed even if in few graves some exceptions can be noted, not only in the organization of the grave (several levels superimposed together of fish, mammals, shells, stones, mats as well as numerous turtle heads among the stones of the covering, e.g. Grave 411) but also in the richness of the jewellery elements (necklaces, bracelets, earrings, tools in bone and in stone, and mineralized vegetal remains referable to cordage, fishing nets and clothes or coverings) suggesting maybe that some individual could have had a social status more important than others, indicated by his entombment (Munoz 2014: 321). The excavation of the graveyard also informs us of a certain degree of dispute that could have occurred during the occupation of RH-5. The conflicts and the disputes could occur between different human groups that had the same lifestyle and attended and exploited the same territory and the resources present in it. Indeed, as mentioned above, one of the entombed individuals in the collective grave of Area 43 was killed by an arrowhead made with a shark tooth found stuck on a lumbar vertebra (Santini 2002: 163, fig. 5; Salvatori 2007: pls. 14-15).

170

Society

During the occupation of RH-5 the promontory of Ras Al-Hamra and the mangrove of Qurum were inhabited also by other groups of fishermen-gatherers as attested by the excavations of sites RH-4 and RH-10. In these sites the living and funerary structures, the material culture and the subsistence system did not differ substantially from those of RH-5. Hence, starting from the 4th millennium BC the various promontories of Ras Al-Hamra and the low parts of Qurum were inhabited by various human groups that belonged to the same population, where the village of RH-5 (and before RH-6) was certainly the centre.

171

Chapter 10

Demography

With regard to the demography, an accurate research on RH-5 has allowed the proposal of various solutions as regards the number of inhabitants. Different mathematical methods exist that are able to calculate the average size of the population of RH-5. One can reach this result covering two different methods. The first employs the information of the graveyard while the second the size of the living area and in particular its living structures (the huts). Salvatori has discussed the size of the population of the site (Salvatori 2007: 48-49), by making use of the formula of Acsadi and Nemeskéri1. At the end of the 1980s, the graveyard developed in the northeastern portion of the village and covered an area of around 160 m2 with a density of graves2 equal to 0.6 per m². The application of the demographic formulas of Acsadi and Nemeskéri for the calculation of the average number of persons that lived on the site, presuming a utilization of 500 years of the graveyard area, supplies an assessment of 15 individuals. However, Salvatori believes that this number is far too low and can certainly be raised to 25, according with ethnographic data (see Bettinger 1980; Hassan 1979; Martin 1973; Stewart 1969; Wobst 1974 quoted by Salvatori 2007), in which it is established that the minimum social unit in a society of hunter-gatherers is around 25 individuals, which are able to permit the survival of the entire community for a period of at least 400 years, which a group of 15 individuals would not have been able to guarantee as previously established. However, it must be taken in account the fact that the anthropological research employed for establishing the numeric entity of the population is relating only to a period of 500 years (3800-3300 BC), i.e. to that lapse of time in which the graveyard was in use; while in the village previous and succeeding occupation phases to this period have been identified, for this reason the size of the population could increase or decrease. Moreover, in this calculation the new graves discovered in the northern portion of the site recently excavated have not been taken into account because the anthropological study is still under progress. As a result of new research on site RH-5 and the discovery of new graves in the northern portion of the promontory, the average number of persons, which have lived in the village, could certainly increase. The second method which, potentially, could supply information on the number of individuals is the research of the living areas, i.e. the study of the surfaces of the huts. The principle on which this type of research is founded, the “allotropic principle”, has been widely used in biological and social sciences and in several cases it has been applied to archaeological research. The underlying principle is that “the rate of relative growth of an organ is a constant fraction of the relative growth of the total organism” (Nordbeck 1971: 54).

The formula of Acsadi and Nemeskéri (1970) is: P = K+(De/t), where “P” represents the size of the average population, “D” the total number of the deceased, “e” life expectancy at birth, “t” the period of the use of the graveyard; “K” a correction factor equal to 10% of t. The formula employed by Salvatori (2007: Note 5) results slightly different, P=(K+De)/t, since he says that Acsadi and Nemeskéri have used in their calculations a value of k oscillating between 0.1-200% of t, without clarifying how they got such values. 2 Between 1981 and 1985, 121 graves have been excavated that corresponded to not less than 215 individuals. According to radiocarbon analysis the graveyard was in use between 3800 and 3300 BC. 1

172

Demography

In ethnographic research, a modified allometric model has been applied by various researchers to the settlements of hunter-gatherers in order to establish the size of the population that lived in a particular place. The two couples of allometric variables employed are: the living surface (on the floor area of the huts) and the population of the village (settlement population). For instance, Naroll (1962) applies this principle to 18 societies and suggests, approximately, that the population of a prehistoric settlement is a constant fraction relating to the surface occupied, i.e. 1/10 of the surface occupied in square meters by the huts3 and the surface inhabited by each individual is comprised between 5 and 15 m2. While Wiessner (1974), even if he admits that Naroll’s work could be useful in certain situations (Leblanc 1971), he believes that it is inadequate for the society of hunter-gatherers since the surfaces of the huts are difficult to identify from archaeological remains. It is better to consider the total surface of the village, especially as Naroll’s model does not take into account any flexibility of the parameters employed. Others (Yellen 1976), applying several modifications to Naroll’s model (in particular to the values of the constants “a” and “b”) have studied the settlements of the populations of the Bushmen !Kung. The huts tend to be oriented in the same direction and have in front a fireplace and all around a deposit composed of ashes, vegetal and animal remains. In many cases the huts tend to be reconstructed on the old ones and the entrance tends to shift slightly according to the best position for shade. Therefore, the settlements are so much superimposed that each settlement seems a repetition of the previous, with slight differences tied to the topography. The research has been completed for a village constituted of not more than 25 individuals. Recently, Aurenche (1981), carrying out research for assessing the demography of the sites of the Near East from the 10th to the 4th millennium BC, criticizes the estimates made in the past by archaeologists in order to establish the population of a given site, proposing a downwards revision. In particular, the estimate of 100 persons per hectare is excessive and the individuals connected to each hut are around 5-6 in number. According to the models reported above, applying the allotropic principle to Sector B1 of site RH-54, various estimates can be proposed of the population of the village in this portion of the site belonging to the first period of occupation. If we take into consideration Naroll’s model, since the total surface occupied by the huts is 113.52 m2, the number of inhabitants is of 14.19. If we consider, instead of the surface of only the huts the total one of Sector B1, 160 m2, the individuals grow to 16. If instead, we take into account the observations of Aurenche, the group drops to 12.5 individuals. In any case these three options, 12.5, 14.19 and 16, must be further diminished by 3-4 units since in Sector B1 several huts are superimposed together. So, making a proportion between Sector B1 and the entire surface of the site, in the village of RH-5 a human group of at least 40 individuals could have lived. By way of comparison we can mention the case of the seasonal site of the 5th millennium BC of BHS-18 in Sharjah Emirate in the UAE that according to the excavators (Kutterer and Uerpmann 2012: 62), and their research on the graveyard (more than 400 individuals, Uerpmann et al. 2006: 109), was occupied only in spring by a population of nomad shepherds of 50-150 persons.

The formula used by Naroll is: A = a x Pb, where “A” is the surface covered by the huts, “P” the population, “a” and “b” two parameters that Naroll round off respectively to 10 and 1. According to Wiessner (1974), the values of “a” and “b” should be different, and not constant, depending on the type of the settlement studied. Others (Nordbeck 1971) take in account the total surface occupied by the settlement and not just that one of the huts. 4 Sector B1 of RH-5 is the best example for making this study because numerous huts foundations cut directly on the bedrock have been found (Marcucci et al. 2011). 3

173

Chapter 11

Comparisons

The research of the last thirty years along the western coasts of the Arabian Gulf, Sea of Oman and Arabian Sea have allowed us to detect and in part excavate several of the most important sites dated to the Early and Middle Holocene (Figure 11.1). In most cases, they are coastal sites. The present state of research informs us also of the existence of few sites of the same period in the inland. This lacuna in human occupation is distorted by the lack of continuous and extensive excavations and surveys, if compared with the research along the coast. Moreover, the coastal anthropic deposits, constituted mainly of shells, tend to preserve better than the inland ones, in which scattered structures in stone or concentrations of lithic material have been mainly identified that are continuously subjected to deflation processes, given the scarce or lacking vegetal cover, and to erosion. All these sites, above-all the coastal ones, if on one side they have many common points, on the other one can note differences both in the way of occupying the territory and in the mortuary practices as well as in the material culture. The size of the sites can be different, from a few square meters of concentrations of artefacts until one or more hectares, as in the case of the coastal shell middens. In this last case, the anthropic deposit is constituted of continuous levels of shells, fish bones, land and marine mammals deriving from the preparation and consumption of food of local species and artefacts in which living structures have been built and people buried. Settlement Structures The excavations have given back numerous details on the organization of the prehistoric living areas and their architecture. In Oman, fishermen’s villages of Ras Al-Hamra and of the Ja’alan region were constituted of light circular/oval structures of 2-4 m in diameter in which the foundations have been found. These were made up of postholes, postholes and/or base trench foundations, postholes and stone alignments or simply by circular alignments of stones. They are huts, shelters and windbreakers. Sometimes the high concentration of postholes found in a same layer makes it difficult to be able to identify the shape and the limits from one hut to another while in other cases its identification is clear and identifiable. In the Capital Area, the structures with postholes have been found at RH-5 and also in other sites of the same period or even more ancient. In the neighbouring site of RH-10 Period I (end of 5th millennium BC – beginnings of 4th millennium BC) has given back curvilinear alignments of postholes while Period III (3rd millennium BC) stone structures such as single-room and horse-shoe shaped compounds, fireplaces and stone lined pits (Santini 1987: 180) (Figure 3.6). Moving towards the south-east, various Neolithic sites along the coast comprised between Quriyat and the Ja’alan region have been recovered and excavated. At Wadi Shab, the excavations of GAS-1 (end of 5th-4th millennium BC) (Tosi and Usai 2003: 9, fig. 3b; Gaultier et al. 2005: 2-3, figs. 2-3, 7.) have revealed in the upper layers several fireplaces and semi-circular stone alignments of reduced size and postholes (Figure 11.2A) suggesting shelters or windbreakers, while in the bedrock semi-circular base trench foundations similar to those found at RH-5. 174

Comparisons

Figure 11.1. Map of the southern and eastern Arabian Peninsula with the major sites indicated dated to the Early and Middle Holocene (modified after Marcucci et al. 2011: Fig. 9).

In the most oriental limit of the Arabian Peninsula in the current village of Ras Al-Hadd various prehistoric sites have been detected. The site of HD-5 (4th-3rd millennium BC) is located on a rocky hillock constituted of a low terrace in limestone that overlooks the sea to the north of the coastal dune present in the ancient lagoon. It has given back on the bedrock a sub-oval structure (around 4 x 2 m) constituted of a postholes alignment surrounded by fireplaces and shallow pits (Borgi et al. 2012: 4, fig. 5) (Figure 11.2B). The particular shape of the structure is very different from those found in other sites of Oman. In the twin site of HD-99, located at the foot of HD-5 at a few tens of meters at west, in which were practiced above-all craft activities tied to the production of shell fish-hooks and beads, scattered postholes have been found in the different stratigraphic levels and a possible living structure, of around 2 m in diameter, constituted of stones and postholes (Marcucci 2004b). Always in the ancient lagoon of Ras Al-Hadd, at HD6, a unique site belonging to the Hafit Culture found along the coast, Period I (end of 4th millennium BC) is characterized by the presence of perishable structures with postholes, associated to pit fireplaces, in whose layers has been found the earliest evidence in situ of the manufacturing of copper artefacts in Oman. 175

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 11.2. Living structures from: A) GAS-1 at Wadi Shab (after Tosi and Usai, 2003: Fig. 3); B) HD-5 at Ras Al-Hadd (after Maini and Curci, 2013: Fig. 4); C) RJ-41 at Ras Al-Jinz (photograph by Joint Hadd Project); D) RJ-39 at Ras Al-Jinz (after Charpentier, 1999: Fig. 2); E) RJ-2 at Ras Al-Jinz (photograph by Joint Hadd Project).

Even though the first community that lived in the lagoon chiefly practiced fishing, the population was already inserted in the dynamics of exploiting and trading copper (Tosi et al. 2001-2002: 359), that will become one of the main activities for the development of the Magan civilization. Proceeding south along the coast, at about 11 km from Ras Al-Hadd, the area of Ras Al-Jinz was the main centre of research of the Joint Hadd Project for more than thirty years. The entire area can be intended as a single continuous archaeological complex whose human occupation begins in the 6th millennium BC. The most important site found is given by the village of RJ-2 whose Period II (second half of the 3rd millennium BC), is characterized by various buildings subdivided into rooms built with raw clay bricks, which represents the apogee of the Magan civilization. But in the previous period, dated to the 4th millennium BC, lacking pottery remains, the architecture is constituted mainly of postholes that describe circular shaped structures (Figure 11.2E), fireplaces and dumping pits cut directly in the bedrock (Cleuziou and Tosi 2000: 28). 176

Comparisons

Most of the prehistoric sites are found along the coast more or less at the same altitude as the sea in flat areas, but in the case of the Ja’alan, from Ras Al-Hadd to Ras Al-Khabbah, a 32 km cliff develops (high from 15 to 30 m) broken by small beaches. At the top of the marine terrace overhanging the sea various archaeological sites and scattered concentrations of artefacts have been found, and even some at Ras Al-Jinz. Other types of huts have been found at RJ-40 and RJ-41 in the form of small cells juxtaposed together delimited by dry-laid large stone walls that describe a circular shape. Each structure, of various meters in diameter, is constituted of a central circular or ellipsoidal room around which two or more rooms develop, also of sub-circular shape (Scaruffi 2004: 160-161) (Figure 11.2C). The finding of mother-of-pearl shell fish-hooks allows us to date the structures to at least the end of the 4th millennium BC. Lastly, in site RJ-39, dated at least to the 4th millennium BC, situated at around 6 km from the sea, at the foot of the Jebel Saffan, the mountain behind Ras Al-Jinz, several stone structures have been found, of which one had a diameter of 4.5 m associated to a small fireplace (Charpentier 1999: 29) (Figure 11.2D). This site, like the other ones in the vicinity, has been identified as workshops that contained a wide range of lithic manufacturing debris. On the same marine terrace, 20 km more southward, there is the KHB-1 site (second half 5th-beginning 4th millennium BC), close to Ras Al-Khabbah, at the end of the cliff that begins at Ras Al-Hadd. The excavations have brought to light a seasonal village of fishermen whose living structures are made up of huts.

Figure 11.3. Zenithal kite view of the base trench foundations of five huts belonging to the first phase of occupation of the site KHB-1 at Ras Al-Khabbah (modified after Cavulli 2004: fig. 4).

177

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

In three of the five occupation phases identified, alternated by periods of abandon, various living structures have been recovered (huts, shelters or windbreakers) constituted of postholes and well-delimited base trench foundations. The most representative huts originate from the earliest phase (Phase 1) where the base trench foundations of five huts are cut in the red and compact breccia (rock composed of broken fragments) of the terrace (Figure 11.3). Their diameter is 2-3 m and fireplaces can be found both inside and outside. The excavators suggest that each hut presented its own specificity according to the presence of particular artefacts (net sinkers, bone tools, chipped lithic industry, and concentrations of well-defined shell species) or structures (fireplaces) (Cavulli 2004). From the middle of the 1990s the Joint Hadd Project has started a research program with the aim to establish the chronology of the Middle Holocene between the villages of Ar-Ruways and As-Suwayh, situated right after the headland of Ras Al-Khabbah. Investigations have brought to light the presence of tens of sites, many of which are shell middens dated between the 6th and the 4th millennium BC. Those that have given back clear living structures are SWY-1 (end 6th-5th millennium BC) and SWY-2 (5th-4th millennium BC). At SWY-1 two structures have been identified: the first with a diameter of 2.5 m, dated at the end of the 5th millennium BC, had foundations with postholes while the second one, of semi-circular shape, was constituted only of stones (Figure 11.4A) that seemed to recall the windbreakers found at GAS-1 (Charpentier et al. 2003: 17). Anyway, the study of the deep section of over 2 m reveals an intense occupation in which one can identify numerous postholes, pits and well-structured fireplaces (Charpentier 2008: Fig. 3). In the two levels of occupation identified at SWY-2 Level 1, the most recent, has given back the remains of a possible circular shaped structure of 5 m2 made up of a series of postholes and of two long base trench foundations, around which there were various concentrations of shells and a combustion area (Figure 11.4B). In Level 2 another series of postholes, presumably belonging to a similar circular structure, were associated with a fireplace and to a second rectangular structure, relating to fish processing (Charpentier et al. 1998: 22-24).

Figure 11.4. Living structures from As-Suwayh: A) SWY-1 (after Charpentier et al., 2003: Fig. 6); B) SWY-2, layer 1 (after Charpentier et al. 1998: fig. 5).

178

Comparisons

In several sites quoted above it has been possible to point out that the huts were associated to other structures designed for particular activities, which often present sub-rectangular shapes. As already previously mentioned for RH-5, it has to do with linear structures probably with a flat roof whose foundations are constituted of lines of postholes parallel and perpendicular to one another under which various activities could be carried out, both craftwork and food preparation. Still for RH-5 even the pit oven, together with the fireplace and the adjoining pits (Marcucci et al. 2011: 207, fig. 3B), constitutes an innovation in the prehistoric living areas of this period. If instead one moves to the earliest site of RH-6 (6th-4th millennium BC), in the earliest phase of occupation on the bedrock two auxiliary structures have been recovered (Figure 11.5). The first is a pit fireplace lined with stones used only for cooking and/or smoking fish and the second one a stone structure used for cooking shells positioned around a huddle of huts (Marcucci et al. 2014: 241, fig. 2). These, for the time being, represent the clearest example of a social unit in a living area. A similar example has been found in site SWY-2 where in Level 2, associated with one hut, a sub-rectangular structure (around 2 x 1 m) with postholes at the corners has been identified. The surface was completely covered by fish bone remains and tools related to fishing (net sinkers and shell fish-hooks) to which a fireplace was annexed. The excavators have interpreted this zone as designed for fish processing and the sub-rectangular structure as a drying room for fish (Charpentier et al. 1998: 26-27, fig. 6), hence a structure annexed to the hut used for the preparation and transformation of food. Recently, a new research project (see Bérger et al. 2013; Charpentier, Bérger et al. 2012; Charpentier et al. 2013, 2016) has been launched with the aim to survey the coastal stretch comprised between As-Suwayh and the Dhofar region, in the extreme south of Oman, in order to reconstruct the evolution of recent prehistory from the passage of the groups of hunters and fishermen to the birth of complex societies of the 3rd millennium BC. Extensive excavations have not yet been programmed but investigations have allowed identifying tens of shell middens, several also of various hectares of surface and with a complex and deep anthropic deposit. Two of the most important discoveries are: on Masirah Island where the shell midden of Ras Dah (SM-10) delivered a deep stratigraphic sequence of over 1.50 m starting from the beginning of the 6th millennium BC; the other site is one of the oldest stratified sites known today in Oman, Natif 2 cave (HBM-10), dated 9th-8th millennium BC, located near Hasik in Dhofar. Other than Oman, further evidence on the prehistoric coastal human adaptation comes from various sites localized along the western coasts of the Arabian Gulf, from Kuwait to the UAE. In several sites clear architectural remains have been identified. From north to south of the Arabian Gulf, we can mention the following settlement: at H-3 at As-Sabiyah in Kuwait, dated between the end of the 6th millennium BC and the beginning of the 5th millennium BC, four periods of occupation (Carter and Crawford 2010) have been identified in which different stone buildings of cellular structures have been recognized, of dry-laid stones, arranged alongside each other (Figure 11.6A). Each room has a rectangular, circular or irregular shape and its surface is comprised between 1 and around 15 m2. In several cases, the walls are corbelled, perhaps in order to support a sloping or conical roof structure (Carter 2008: 92-94); at MR-11 in the Marawah Island, situated in the western region of Abu Dhabi, dated between the end of the 6th millennium BC and the middle of the 5th millennium BC (Beech et al. 2005), a structural complex has been brought to light that has three oval shaped rooms built with stone walls standing to a height of 0.75 m while another structure, but of rectangular shape, has been excavated in the immediate vicinity (Figure 11.6C). The rooms have a surface of around 9 m2; at DA-11 in the Island of Dalma, situated at 45 km off the coast of Abu Dhabi, dated between the end of the 6th millennium BC and beginning of the 5th millennium BC, in the earliest phase of occupation of the site eight postholes have been detected and excavated in Trench 1 (5 x 2 m), 179

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 11.5. Photomosaic of the living and auxiliary structures cut in the bedrock in Sector A of RH-6 at Ras Al-Hamra (after Marcucci et al. 2014: fig. 2).

180

Comparisons

Figure 11.6. Living structures from settlements of the Arabian Gulf: A) H-3 at As-Sabiyah in Kuwait (after Beech and Al-Husain 2005: fig. 3); B) Akab, in the homonymous island, in the Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate, sector 1-2 (after Charpentier and Méry 2008: fig. 7); C) MR-11, in the island of Marawah in the Abu Dhabi Emirate, area A structure MR11.6 (after Beech et al. 2005: fig. 8); D) UAQ-2, in the Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate, sector 1-2 layer 12 (after Méry et al. 2016: fig. 7b); E) DA-11, in the island of Dalma in the Abu Dhabi Emirate, trench 1 phase 5 (modified after Beech and Elders 1999: fig. 4).

181

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

of which seven form part of a circular structure (Beech and Elders 1999: 18-19, figs. 3-4; Beech et al. 2000) (Figure 11.6E). The structure could have a diameter of over 7 m; the site of Akab, in the island of the same name situated in the lagoon of Umm Al-Qaiwain in the homonymous emirate, dated from the end of the 5th millennium BC to the second half of the 4th millennium BC, has given back, among other things, numerous postholes. Even though several have been detected during the excavation and in section, most have been intercepted in the first phase of occupation of the site, excavated directly in the dune of virgin sand (Figure 11.6B). Indeed, in Sectors 1 and 2 in 2007, 175 postholes were excavated over a surface of about 40 m2 (a proportion similar to the one found in Sector B1 of RH-5). The limits of the structures have not been identified even though several postholes could design circular or linear alignments. About this the excavators assert that groups of 4-5 identical postholes could eventually be interpreted as awnings (Charpentier and Méry 2008: 122, fig. 7); lastly in the new excavation carried out at UAQ-2, always in the Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate, a village occupied for 1500 years from the mid-6th millennium BC, has delivered some architectural vestiges made of groups of postholes (Figure 11.6D), workshops and specialized areas with fireplaces for food preparation (Sector 1) and a semi-circular structure made of postholes (Sector 4) (Méry et al. 2016: fig. 7; Mashkour et al. 2016: 198). Summarizing, the living structures identified in the most important sites of Oman and Arabian Gulf can be divided into two main groups: those constituted of postholes and/or base trench foundations, present in almost all of the sites recorded in Oman (e.g. RH-5, 6 and 10, SWY-2 and KHB-1) and in some of the UAE (Akab, Dalma and UAQ-2); and those characterized by foundations with dry-laid stone walls, characteristic of some sites of the Arabian Gulf (e.g. H3 and MA11) and in Oman at RH-10 at Ras AlHamra, SWY-1 at As-Suwayh and RJ-40/41 at Ras Al-Jinz. A substantial difference to be noticed is that all the sites mentioned above are considered, at current state of research, as seasonal (i.e. occupied during the winter season) in which the phases of occupation, even if in certain cases long, are interrupted by phases of abandonment. The only sites that distance themselves from this pattern could be those of RH-6 and RH-5 at Ras Al-Hamra in Oman and maybe UAQ-2 in the Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate in UAE which show clear clues that suggest an elevated rate of sedentary behaviour. In fact the various ecological niches available around these coastal sites could have hosted the population throughout the year as clearly shown by the study of faunal remains. Material Culture From the 6th millennium BC until the end of the 4th millennium BC a clear cultural continuity is noted at Ras Al-Hamra and also in the rest of the Oman Peninsula. The transition between RH-6 and RH-5 seems to have been a necessary consequence. Even if the population moved only a few hundred of meters, from the mangrove to the promontory, one can however recognize some innovations. The huts are still built more or less in the same way but the funerary practices evolve and several traits of the material culture and of subsistence activities undergo some modifications. After, the transition from a subsistence economy (e.g. Neolithic sites of Ras Al-Hamra) to an exchange economy (e.g. Hili-8, in the UAE) gave life to the Southeastern Arabian society of the 3rd millennium BC. From a temporal point of view these two transitions have taken place with different times. In the first case the cultural continuity has developed and matured for around two thousand years while the transition at the end of the 4th millennium BC was accomplished very rapidly, in a reduced number of centuries.

182

Comparisons

Figure 11.7. The importance of site H-3, at As-Sabiyah in Kuwait, is given by the finding of numerous artefacts related to maritime activities, already starting from the second half of the 6th millennium BC. Other than numerous fragments of bitumen with incrustations of barnacles and reed and rope imprints (C) employed for caulking boats, also a small pottery model of a boat (A, D) and painting depicting a boat (B) have been found (A, after Carter 2008: fig. 4; B-D, after Carter 2005: figs. 3-5).

One can observe the passage from nomadism to sedentary lifestyle, from fishing-gathering-hunting to agricultural practices, from tools and ornaments in stone and shell to the employment of metals, from a local economy or at the most regional to an interregional one, from “simple” funerary structures to real and proper sepulchral monuments, from an egalitarian society of small groups of fishermen-gatherer-hunters to a much more complex one of tribal type based on kinship and on alliances. Thousands of objects have been collected during the excavations at Ras Al-Hamra both in the living area and in the graveyards (especially concerning the ornaments). In the prehistoric sites of Qurum the material culture is more or less similar. This can be noted in the findings of the two major sites where research has been focused, RH-5 and RH-6, without forgetting the other smaller ones of RH-4 and RH-10 and those discovered by the German mission during the expeditions of the 1980s and 1990s. Generally speaking, one can talk of “Culture of Ras Al-Hamra”. The subsistence activities remain the same. At Ras Al-Hamra during the Early and Middle Holocene periods fishing and gathering shells were the two main activities practiced by the community. To fishing on the coast and in the mangrove for catching small fish is also added fishing in the open sea, given by the presence of tuna and carangid bones in the deposit of the two main villages, which implies the use of boats (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 258) (Figure 11.7) even if until now one cannot demonstrate directly their presence. In any case faunal remains witness a subsistence economy oriented exclusively towards the sea (fish, shells, shellfish, marine turtles and sporadically marine mammals).

183

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 11.8. Some mother-of-pearl shell fish-hooks: A) the bigger specimens have been found at KM-1 (DA 1926) and GAS-1 (inside Grave 3, DA 15926), respectively at Khor Milkh and Wadi Shab located along the northern coast of Oman (photographs by L.G. Marcucci); B) Akab, in the homonymous island, in the Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate (modified after Méry et al. 2008: fig. 2).

Hunting land animals wasn’t a priority. For the time being, the few bones studied of wild animals inform us that the inhabitants of Ras Al-Hamra tended to organize hunting parties in the immediate hinterland and not very far afield. Indeed the bone remains of gazelle and ungulate would seem more than those of the tahr (whose bone anatomy resembles the one of the goats and sheep), that lives in mountainous habitats (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 243). The existence of domestic animals (goats, sheep and bovids) is attested already in the 6th millennium BC in Southeastern Arabia. At Ras Al-Hamra, among domestic animals, the bones of goats and sheep are those most identified. Naturally both were bred for meat but sheep were initially employed for milking and after a few years, butchered (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 241-242). Other than the animals mentioned above, and despite the fact that marine resources were those that most contributed to the diet, at Ras Al-Hamra, in site RH-6, the first evidence of consumption of dog meat by fishermen is attested, as proven by butchering traces and burnt bones. At RH-5, even if dog bones have been found, there are not indications that display their butchering (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 226, 246-247). On the contrary maybe they began to assume the role that they have today. Hunting birds was occasionally practiced and much less the hunting of marine mammals. A separate consideration needs to be made for marine turtles (Chelonia mydas), very abundant in all the sequence of RH-5 but almost absent in the earliest site of RH-6, where instead the earliest presence in archaeological contexts of the largest leather-back turtle (Drmochelys coriacea) has been attested (Frazier et al. 2018). Turtles are almost absent from the archaeological contexts of the sites of the 6th-4th millennium BC of the Arabian Gulf (several fragments at DA-11, H3 and maybe at UAQ-2) and southern Oman Sea (for example, in the Ja’alan they are absent at SWY-2; see Charpentier et al. 1998: 29). At RH-5 turtles had a double function, food and ritual and, differently from other animals, their bones were not used for making tools or ornaments. Instead at RH-6 they only had food value. 184

Comparisons

Figure 11.9. Different types of net sinkers coming from some prehistoric Omani shell middens: A) RH-6, Sector C, Ras Al-Hamra (DA 28202); B) RH-6, Sector A, Ras Al-Hamra (DA 28600); C) Ras Al-Hamra, 1980s excavations (DA 19780); D), KHB-1, Ras Al-Khabbah; E) JBH-1, Ras Jibsh (DA 20222); F) RH-6, Sector C TT-Z, Ras Al-Hamra (DA 28850) (A-C/E-H, photographs by L.G. Marcucci; D, after Cavulli and Scaruffi 2011: fig. 2.16-19/23-25).

185

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 11.10. Flat stone of quartzite (DA 30401), found in the low part of the deposit of the North Trench at RH-6, used for polishing or grinding some substance. Indeed some orange (ochre?) traces are visible on one face (drawing by E. Devidal, © L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel; photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

Figure 11.11. Disc in softstone (DA 28671) with a groove along the perimeter found at RH-6 in Sector C TT-Z (drawing by E. Devidal, © L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel; photographs by S. Oboukhoff).

186

Comparisons

Figure 11.12. Large and long flat stone (DA 30724) with wear traces along an edge used probably for cutting found in the north trench of RH-6 (drawing by E. Devidal, © L.G. Marcucci and E. Badel; photographs by L.G. Marcucci).

Figure 11.13. Grooved stones from the north trench (DA 30402, above) and from Sector A (DA 30430, below) of RH-6 (after Marcucci et al. 2014: fig. 4.5-6).

187

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Until the end of the 4th millennium BC the fishing equipment remains more or less the same. Shell fish-hooks are the main tool for fishing. Even though slight technical differences can be identified among those of Ras Al-Hamra and those found in the Ja’alan, the general features remain the same and are all manufactured starting from mother-of-pearl shells (Pinctada sp. or Isognomon sp.) (Figure 11.8A). Initially it was thought that this type of tool was characteristic only of the coastal sites of northern Oman and that it was not used by the fishermen of the Arabian Gulf. Recently the discovery of several fragmented shell fish-hooks in the Akab and UAQ-2 sites in the northern UAE (Méry et al. 2008: 17-19, figs. 2-3; Méry 2015: fig. 3.6) (Figure 11.8B), has put an end to the debate even if still there aren’t any evident traces of shell fish-hooks in the sites of the 6th-4th millennium BC located along the western coasts of the Arabian Gulf. However, it must be specified that the employment of fish-hooks can be presumed thanks to the finding of two mother-of-pearl fragments ascribable to two possible fish hooks in the inland site of BHS-18 (Kiesewetter et al. 2000: figs. 2.13, 6), in the Sharjah Emirate. The polished stone industry of Ras Al-Hamra is similar to the one of other coastal sites but with several differences. For example among the net sinkers of RH-5 several categories characteristic of contemporaneous or generally more ancient occupations are absent: net sinkers with pecked or continuous incision around the waistline (Figure 11.9A), net sinkers with notches on the smaller axis (Figure 11.9B/F) like at RH-6; or net sinkers of small size with two notches along the larger axis and a continuous or discontinuous incision around the waistline found at RH-6 (Figure 11.9C), KHB-1 (Cavulli and Scaruffi 2012: 29-30, fig. 2.12-19) at Ras Al-Khabbah (Figure 11.9D) and SWY-2 (Charpentier et al. 1998: 31, fig. 8.12-14) at As-Suwayh; or flat oval-shaped net sinkers with lateral central holes along the smaller axis, found at JBH-1 at Ras Jibsh. (Figure 11.9E). Furthermore at RH-6 polishing stones (Figure 11.10), grooved discs (Figure 11.11), cutting tools (Figure 11.12), grooved stones (Figure 11.13) (only a small one at RH-5) and few adzes of which one completely polished have been found (Biagi 1999: 63, fig. 14.1-7). The different size of the net sinkers in the various occupations with the passing of time could reflect a change in the fishing methods. Initially mainly net sinkers of small size were used, maybe in relation to fishing with a line, casting nets or using a long line for fishing. Later, larger net sinkers may have been used in conjunction with gill nets or beach seines (Beech 2004: 61). It must not be excluded that in each site one could use both the small and large net sinkers, perhaps favouring one more than the other. At present, only at RH-5 a large stone with side notches has been found that could be interpreted as a stone anchor for restricting the motion of the boats during the fishing (Marcucci 2015: 432-433). Pitted crushing stones are present everywhere in the Capital Area, above-all at RH-6 and KM-1 at Khor Milkh while a few other exemples have been found mainly at KHB-1 at Ras Al-Khabbah and Saruq (respectively, Biagi 1999: 63, fig. 14.12; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 113-114, fig. 7.7; Cavulli and Scaruffi 2012: 422, fig. 12.13-14; Uerpmann 1992: fig. 26b). As specified, the chipped lithic industry of Ras Al-Hamra is focused mainly on the production of small tools obtained from a broad variety of raw materials and characterized by a typical tool, the Ras Al-Hamra perforator, typical of RH-5, used for making beads and earrings (Usai 2005). According to some scholars, to this lithic tradition also belong the other sites of Ras Al-Hamra (RH-4, 6 and 10), the coastal sites of KM-1 and KM-2 at Khor Milkh, nearby Quriyat, and the upper levels WW-1 of Wadi Wuttayah in the Wadi Aday (Uerpmann 1992; Charpentier 2008). Others believe that the classes of tools of RH-5 do not include any of those of Quriyat but are more similar to those found at site GAS-1 at Wadi Shab (Figure 11.14), especially the “RH-6 drill” that corresponds well to the Wadi Shab type (Tosi and Usai 2003: 20).

188

Comparisons

Figure 11.14. Sample of chipped stone industry from the excavation of GAS-1 at Wadi Shab: 1-3, “Ras Al-Hamra chisel/punch” type; 4-12, backed pieces; 13-15, other tools (after Usai and Cavallari 2008: fig. 12).

189

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 11.15. Special beads from RH-6: A) shell bead of tubular shape obtained from the columella of a large gastropod found in Sector C TT-Z (DA 28708); B), rectangular and flat bead in chlorite with bevelled edges and a double hole at each extremity found in Sector C TT-Z (DA 28880) (drawing by E. Devidal, © LG. Marcucci and E. Badel; photographs by S. Oboukhoff).

Several ornaments in shell and stone manufactured with continuity by the craftsmen of RH-6 and RH-5 and deposited in the graves as funerary set elements are common even in other sites of Ras Al-Hamra, RH-4 and RH-10, and in a much lesser way in the earliest site of JHB-18 (Kiesewetter et al. 2000: figs. 2.14-15, 6) in the UAE. The bracelets in shell obtained from large gastropods or large Conus sp. are found in the graveyards of Ras Al-Hamra (except RH-6), KM-1 at Khor Milkh and in various sites of the Ja’alan (Charpentier 2002: 75, 77, 79, fig. 4; Salvatori 2007), dated to the 4th millennium BC, while they are rare in the UAE (Charpentier 2002: 75; Charpentier and Méry 2008: fig. 16.4). Shell and stone beads are an obvious finding in archaeological sites. At RH-6 they are not much represented but some of them are very singular (Figure 11.15). At RH-5 hundreds have been found, in the living levels but even in the graveyard. Only a few other prehistoric aceramic Omani and UAE sites can boast about having as many, that can justify craftwork areas dedicated to this particular type of ornament. At RH-5 some of them, those in shell, could have been manufactured in the site while for several scholars the ones made of softstone could have been produced elsewhere (Pisan et al. 2013).

190

Comparisons

In other coastal sites of the Ja’alan workshops have been identified for manufacturing beads like GAS-1 at Wadi Shab where they were manufactured in shell, green steatite and chlorite (Tosi and Usai 2003: 17, 19, fig. 10) with the employment of chert perforators as corroborated by the study of wear traces (Usai and Cavallari 2008: 131), while at BJD-1 at Al-Haddah there are workshops of Engina mendicaria (Charpentier et al. 1997: 109, fig. 5.19-23). In the southern Arabian Gulf, in the Akab site, excavations have enabled us to detect the different phases of the operational chain for manufacturing discoidal beads from the shell of Spondylus sp. (Figure 11.16) as well as tubular beads in softstone (chlorite and steatite) and from the shells of the family of the Muricidae (Charpentier and Méry 2008: 129-130, figs. 14, 16.1-2). With regard to the earrings in softstone, many come from RH-5. Even if the operational chain for manufacturing them is not all that clear, one can presume their continuous production in the village. Initially it was thought that this type of ornament was attested since the beginning of the 4th millennium BC but recently one has been found at RH-6 (Figure 11.17C) (Marcucci et al. 2014: 246, fig. 3.11) dating back its use of about a thousand years as also certified by the three exemplars found at SA-10 at Ras Dah on Masirah Island (Charpentier et al. 2013: 91, fig. 4.1-3) (Figure 11.17B). Other earrings have been recovered in several sites of the Capital Area and in the region of the Ja’alan (Isetti and Biagi 1989; Tosi and Usai 2003: note 26). For instance at GAS-1 at Wadi Shab where numerous earrings were produced, they were found complete or fragmented during excavation activities (Tosi and Usai 2003: 21) (Figure 11.17A).

Figure 11.16. Manufacturing process for making beads from Spondylus sp. according to the findings recovered in the Akab site, in the homonymous island, in the Umm Al-Qaiwain Emirate (modified after Charpentier and Méry 2008: fig. 14).

191

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 11.17. Different types of earrings coming from some prehistoric Omani shell middens: A) GAS-1 at Wadi Shab (after Tosi and Usai 2003: fig. 9); B) SM-10 at Ras Dah in the Masirah Island (after Charpentier et al. 2013: fig. 4/1-3); C) RH-6 at Ras Al-Hamra, Sector C TT-Z (photograph by S. Oboukhoff).

The material culture of the northern Omani aceramic sites seems to be homogeneous with slight differences from site to site (Biagi and Nisbet 2006; Méry and Charpentier 2013). Beyond the remains of shells and fish, land and marine mammal bones deriving from preparation activities and consumption of food, the material culture is characterized by the presence of ornaments (pendants, beads and bracelets) and tools (fish-hooks) in shell, beads and earrings, the chipped and polished stone industry, bone tools, and occasionally shark teeth (ornaments and arrowheads) and pearls. The excavations and the study of the material culture inform us that the populations of Ras Al-Hamra were self-sufficient, both from a food and craftwork point of view. While at the end of the occupation of RH5, towards the end of the 4th millennium BC, new exchange systems would have been established as shown for instance by the presence of the pottery jar with bitumen remains inside and other fragments of pottery (Figure 7.39)1. The “Great Transformation” was already taking place (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: 61-97).

1

As well as from the earliest findings of metal objects in the contemporaneous site of RH-10 (Giardino 2017).

192

Chapter 12

Conclusion

The Qurum area in Muscat, in particular the Ras Al-Hamra promontory and the mouth of Wadi Aday, represents a unicum for what concerns not only the prehistory of Oman but the entire Arabian peninsula. In fact, however limited this area is, it concentrates a large number of archaeological sites dated to the Middle Holocene, between the 6th and the 3rd millennium BC. Archaeologists investigated a few of them in the 1970s and 1980s, while many have been destroyed by urban development. Only two sites are now preserved: RH-5 located on the promontory overhanging the sea and RH-6 situated in the mangrove itself, some 700 m further south. The research in these sites is of a great importance for Oman and other countries in order to understand not only the way of life of the prehistoric fishermen populations along the shores of the Arabian Gulf and Sea of Oman, but also their mortuary practices and rituals. If past research has laid the foundations of our knowledge of this prehistoric culture, the new exceptional discoveries have been made possible by the application of more advanced modern methods of investigation at RH-5, both for settlement remains and the graveyard, as well as for RH-6. Foreign archaeological missions have investigated main prehistoric sites in Oman and in the neighboring countries over many years. Generally, excavations of Neolithic sites in Arabia have exposed small areas, whereas at RH-5 the total area investigated for the most ancient period of occupation is about 600 m2 and so it allows us to have a larger and more realistic overview of the settlement and daily life of the earliest populations of the shores of eastern Arabia and makes this site very important. There is no doubt, according to the information that we have collected until now, that the villages of RH-5 and RH-6 represent the greatest occupations of Ras Al-Hamra both relating to the surface occupied and the living and funerary structures identified. The other sites present in the same territory (e.g. RH-4 and RH-10) can be considered as smaller occupations or satellites of the larger ones. Probably, this is because tribal groups belonging to the same population shared the same cultural background. We are talking of family groups that present an egalitarian society, a high degree of isolation and limited territorial movement. The village of RH-5 was inhabited by dozens of people while the village of RH-6 by a more reduced group given the size of the site. The mobility was circumscribed to the coast overlooking the villages, for fishing and gathering, and the immediate hinterland, searching for raw materials and hunting. In the past, it was believed that in these types of settlements, the shell middens, were only large accumulations of superimposed food discards deriving from continuous and repeated subsistence activities. The Omani excavations and those started in various parts of the world have disavowed this cliché. The living structures, that often are superimposed and cut each other, the objects of daily use, the ornaments and the fauna and flora denote a human presence that can be to all intents and purposes described as sedentary. In these villages the fishermen-gatherers lived and produced garbage, manufactured tools and ornaments, reproduced and lived in symbiosis with an environment that annually supplied all that was necessary for their needs in terms of food and raw materials.

193

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Figure 12.1. The project of the archaeological park at RH-5: A) oblique view; B) section; C) plan (drawings by F+LR Architecture).

194

Conclusions

Figure 12.2. The project of the information centre at RH-6: A) section; B) plan and profile (drawings by F+LR Architecture).

195

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

With the term Neolithic one usually thinks at the sedentary behaviour of human groups, the domestication of plants and animals and the “invention” of agriculture and pottery, in the Oman Peninsula the evolution has taken another road. Gradually, and to the rhythm of the annual excavation campaigns, what is revealed to us at RH-5, and later at RH-6, is the memory of the soils and the buried strata of a millenary past. This cluster of sites, which belongs to the Omani cultural heritage, represents an exceptional area of fieldwork not only for archaeologists, but also for many other specialists. The importance of constructing an archaeological park and information centre (Figures 132.1 and 13.2) close to the RH-5 and RH-6 sites goes beyond the simple concept of another heritage site for national and foreign visitors. It allows for the development of different forms of cultural expression and for direct perception of the earliest foundations of Omani cultural identity.

196

Bibliography

AL-TAIE, H. 2005. ‫(ارمحلا سأر عقوم بيرخت ىلع ؤرجي نم بقاعي ينامعلا نوناقلا‬The Omani National Heritage Protection law set a penalty to whoever destroy the archaeological site of Ras Al-Hamra). Al Roya Magazine, 52-63. ALSHAREKH, A.M. and G.N. Bailey (Eds.) 2014. Coastal Prehistory in Southwest Arabia and the Farasan Islands 2004–2009 Field Investigations. King Abdullah Project for Cultural Heritage Care. Series of Archaeological Refereed Studies No 15. Riyadh, Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities. ANDERSEN, S.H. 2000. ‘Køkkenmøddinger’ (Shell Middens) in Denmark: a Survey. Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 66, 361-384. ARISTOTE, 1964. Histoire des Animaux. Text établi, traduit et commenté par P. Louis. Paris, Les Belles Lettres. ARRIAN, 1966. Indica, Book VIII, 3rd reprint, with an English translation by E. Iliff Robson. London/ Cambridge, Harvard University Press/William Heinemann. AURENCHE, O. 1981. Essai de démographie archéologique. L’exemple des villages du proche orient ancien. Paléorient 7.1, 93-106. BAILEY, G.N. 1975. The role of molluscs in coastal economies: the results of midden analysis in Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 2.1, 45-62. BAILLAUD, G. 1955. Coquilles fossiles des niveaux périgordiens supérieurs de la grotte du Renne (Arcysur-Cure, Yonne). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de France 52.7, 435-436. BEECH, M. 2004. In the land of the Ichthyophagi. Modelling fish exploitation in the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman from the 5th millennium BC to the Late Islamic period. Abu Dhabi Islands Archaeological Survey Monograph 1 (BAR International Series S1217). Oxford, Archaeopress. BEECH, M. and M. Al-Husaini 2005. Preliminary report on the vertebrate fauna from Site H3, Sabiyah: An Arabian Neolithic/-‘Ubaid site in Kuwait. In Buitenhuis H., A.M. Choyke, L. Bartosiewicz and M. Mashkour (Eds.), Archaeology of the Near East VI, Proceedings of the Sixt International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas. ARC-Publicates 13. Groningen, The Netherlands, 124-138. BEECH, M. and J. Elders 1999. An ‘Ubaid-related settlement on Dalma Island, Abu Dhabi Emirate, United Arab Emirates. Bulletin of the Society for Arabian Studies 4, 17-21. BEECH, M., J. Elders, E. Shepherd 2000. Reconsidering the ‘Ubaid of the Southern Gulf: new results from excavations an Dalma Island, U.A.E. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 30, 41-47. BEECH, M., R. Cuttler, D. Moscrop, H. Kallweit and J. Martin 2005. New evidence for the Neolithic settlement of Marawah Island, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Proceesings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 35, 37-56. 197

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

BÉGUIER, I. 2010. Modes et rythmes d’occupation à Ras Al-Hamra RH-5 (Oman). Approche géoarchéologique dans le Golfe Persique. Rome, IsIAO (unpublished report). BÉGUIER I. and L.G. Marcucci 2018. Première approche micromorphologique de la fin de l’occupation néolithique d’un amas coquillier de la côte omanaise: Données préliminaires sur les modes d’occupation du site de RH-5 dans la seconde moitié du IVe millénaire BCE. ArcheoSciences, revue d’archéométrie, 42/2: 7-30. BERGER, J.F., V. Charpentier, R. Crassard, C. Martin, G. Davtian and J.A. López-Sáez 2013. The dynamics of mangrove ecosystems, changes in sea level and strategies of Neolithic settlements along the coast of Oman (6000-3000 cal. BC). Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 3087-3104. BERGER, J.-F., S. Cleuziou, G. Davtian, M. Cattani, F. Cavulli, V. Charpentier, M. Cremaschi, J. Giraud, P. Marquis, C. Martin, S. Méry, J.-C. Plaziat and J.-F. Saliège 2005. Evolution paléogéographique du Ja’alan (Oman) à l’Holocène Moyen: impact sur l’évolution des paléomilieux littoraux et les stratégies d’adaptation des communautés humaines. Paléorient 31.1, 46-63. BETTINGER, R.L. 1980. Explanatory/predictive models of hunter-gatherer adaptation. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 189-255. BHAN, K.K. and J.M. Kenoyer 1980-1981. Nageshwar, an Industrial Centre of the Chalcolithic Priod. Puratattva 12, 115-120. BIAGI, P. 1985. Excavation of the Aceramic Shell Midden of RH-6, Qurm, Muscat. East and West 35.4, 410-415. BIAGI, P. 1987. The prehistoric fishermen settlements of RH-5 and RH-6 at Qurum, Sultanate of Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 17, 7-31. BIAGI, P. 1988. Surveys along the Oman Coast: Preliminary Report on the 1985-1988 Campaigns. East and West 38.1-4, 271-291. BIAGI, P. 1994. A radiocarbon chronology for the aceramic shell-middens of coastal Oman. Arabian archaeology and epigraphy 5, 17-31. BIAGI, P. 1999. Excavations at the Shell-Midden of RH-6 1986-1988 (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman). AlRafidan 20, 57-84. BIAGI, P. 2004. Surveys Along the Oman Coast: A Review of the Prehistoric Sites Discovered Between Dibab and Qalhāt. Adumatu 10, 29-50. BIAGI, P. 2008. The Shell-middens of the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf: Maritime Connections in the Seventh Millennium BP? In Al-Ansary A.R., K.I Al-Muaikel and A.M. Alsharek (Eds.), The City in the Arab World in Light of Archaeological Discoveries: Evolution and Development, Vol. 1, Al-Jouf, 5-7 December 2005. Riyadh, Al-Anshari Foundation, 7-16. BIAGI, P. and Maggi R. 1990. Archaeological Surveys along the Oman Coast: Preliminary Results of Five Years of Research (1983-1987). In Taddei M. (Ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1987, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference, Venice. (Serie Orientale Roma LXIV). Rome, IsMEO, 543-553. BIAGI, P. and R. Nisbet 1984. Excavation at RH5 Settlement, Qurum, Winter 1984-1985. East and West 34.4, 455-464.

198

Bibliography

BIAGI, P. and R. Nisbet 1989. Some aspects of the 1982–1985 excavations at the aceramic coastal settlement of RH5 at Qurum (Muscat-Sultanate of Oman). In Costa P.M. and M. Tosi (Eds.), Oman Studies (Serie Orientale Romana XCIII). Roma, IsIAO, 31-46. BIAGI, P. and R. Nisbet 1992. Environmental history and plant exploitation at the aceramic sites of RH5 and RH6 near the mangrove swamp of Qurm (Muscat, Oman). Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France. Actualités Botaniques 139.2-4, 571-578. BIAGI, P. and R. Nisbet 1999. The shell-midden sites of RH5 and RH6 (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman) in their environmental setting. Archaeologia Polona 37, 31–47. BIAGI, P. and R. Nisbet 2006. The prehistoric fisher-gatherers of the western coast of the Arabian Sea: a case of seasonal sedentarization? World Archaeology 28.2, 220-238. BIAGI, P. and S. Salvatori 1986. Gli scavi nell’insediamento preistorico e nella necropoli di Ras Al-Hamra RH-5 (Sultanato dell’Oman). Rivista di Archeologia 10, 5-14. BIAGI, P. and R.A. Travers 1985. Non-Mammalian Osteological Remains and Fishing Implements at RH5 and RH6, Muscat. East and West 35.4, 407-410. BIAGI, P., W. Torke, M. Tosi and H.-P. Uerpmann 1984. Qurum: a case study of coastal archaeology in Northern Oman. World Archaeology 16.1, 43-61. BIAGI, P., R. Maggi and R. Nisbet 1989. Excavations at the Aceramic Coastal Settlement of RH5 (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman) 1983-5. In Frifelt K. and P. Sørensen (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1985. Papers for the Eight International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, held at Moesgaard Museum, Denmark, 1-5 July 1985. Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies, Occasional Papers 4. London, Curzon Press, 1-8. BISCIONE, R., S. Durante and M. Tosi 1981. Conchiglie: il commercio e la lavorazione delle conchiglie marine nel Medio Oriente dal IV al II millennio a.C. Catalogo della mostra a Palazzo Brancaccio, Roma, 14 Maggio-19 Luglio 1981. Roma, De Luca Editore. BLANFORD, W.T. 1872. Notes on Muskat and Musandam on the coast of Arabia. Records of the Geological Survey of India 5.3, 75-77. BOIVIN, N. and D.Q. Fuller 2009. Shell Middens, Ships and Seeds: Exploring Coastal Subsistence, Maritime Trade and the Dispersal of Domesticates in and Around Arabian Peninsula. Journal of World Prehistory 22, 113-180. BONDIOLI, L., A. Coppa and R. Macchiarelli 1996. From the coast to the oasis in prehistoric Arabia: what the osteodental remains tell us about the transition from a foraging to the exchange economy? Evidence from Ras Al-Hamra (Oman) and Hili North (UAE). In Afanas’ev G., S. Cleuziou, J.R. Lukacs and M. Tosi (Eds.), The Prehistory of Asia and Oceania, XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlì, Italia, 8-14 September 1996. Forlì, ABACO Edizioni, 229-234. BORGI, F., E. Maini, M. Cattani and M. Tosi 2012. The Early Settlement of HD-5 at Ras Al-Hadd, Sultanate of Oman (four-third millennium BC). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42, 27-40. BOSCH, D. and E. Bosch (Smythe K. Editor) 1982. Seashells of Oman. New York, Longman Group.

199

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

BOUCHARLAT, R., R. Dalongeville, A. Hesse and M. Millet 1991. Occupation humaine et environnement au 5e et au 4e millénaire sur la côte de Sharjah - Umm Al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 2: 93-106. BOURGET, J. 2009. Les systèmes turbiditiques du Golfe d’Oman et la marge est-africaine: architecture, évolution des apports au Quaternaire terminal et impact de la distribution sédimentaire sur les propriétés géoacoustiques des fonds. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Bordeaux 1 (unpublished). BOUZOUGGAR, A., N. Barton, M. Vanhaeren, F. d’Errico, S. Collcutt, T. Higham, E. Hodge, S. Parfitt, E. Rhodes, J.-L. Schwenninger, C. Stringer, E. Turner, S. Ward, A. Moutmir and A. Stambouil 2007. 82,000-yearold shell beads from North Africa and implications for the origins of the modern human behavoir. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104.24, 9964-9969. BOWDLER, S. 2014. Shell Middens and Mollusks. In Balme G. and Paterson A. (Ed.), Archaeology in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses, 2nd Editor Malden, John Wiley and Sons, 361-384. BUERKERT, A. and E. Schlecht 2010. Oases of Oman - Livelihood systems at the crossroads. Muscat, Al Roya Press and Publishing House. BURSTEIN, S.M. 1989. Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society: Agatharchides of Cnidus, On the Erythraean Sea. Second Series 172. London, Hakluyt Society. BUSATTA, S. 1998. Wampum: da forma di comunicazione diplomatica a forma d’identità politica. Thule, rivista di studi di americanistica 4.5, 57-72. CARDINI, L. 1946. Gli strati paleolitici e mesolitici della Caverna delle Arene Candide. Rivista di Studi Liguri 1.1-3, 28-37. CARDINI, L. 1980. La necropoli mesolitica delle Arene Candide (Liguria). Memorie dell’Istituto Italaliano di Paleotnologia Umana 3: 9-31. CARTAILHAC, E. 1912. Les Grottes de Grimaldi (Baoussé-Roussé). Tome II, fascicule II. Monaco, Imprimerie de Monaco. CARTER, R. 2005. The history and prehistory of pearling in the Persian Gulf. Journal of the economic and social history of the Orient 48.2, 139-209. CARTER, R. 2002. Ubaid-period boat remains from As-Sabiyah: excavations by the British Archaeological Expedition to Kuwait. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 32, 13-30. CARTER, R. 2006. Boat remains and maritime trade in the Persian Gulf during the sixt and fifth millennia BC. Antiquity 80, 52-63. CARTER, R. 2008. Excavations and ‘Ubaid-Period Boat Remains at H3, As-Sabiyah (Kuwait). In Olijdam E. and R.H. Spoor (Eds.), Intercultural Relations between South and Southwest Asia. Studies in Commemoration of E.C.L. During Caspers (1934-1995) (Society for Arabian Studies Monographs n. 7 - BAR International Series 1826). Oxford, Archaeopress, 92-102. CARTER, R. and H.E.W. Crawford (Eds.) 2010. Maritime Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic. The Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid-related site in Kuwait. Leiden, Brill.

200

Bibliography

CATALDI, G., F. Farneti, R. Larco, F. Pellegrino and P. Tamburini 1982. Tipologie primitive. 1. I “tipi radice”. Quaderni di studio sulle tipologie e sull’architettura delle origini. Scritti grafici e preliminari elaborati nell’anno accademico 1980-81 dal corso di Composizione. Firenze, Alinea Editrice. CAVULLI, F. 2004. L’insediamento di KHB-1 (Ras Al-Khabbah, Sultanato dell’Oman): lo scavo, i resti strutturali e i confronti etnografici. Ocnus 12, 37-48. CAVULLI, F. 2008. Abitare il Neolitico: le più antiche strutture antropiche del Neolitico in Italia Settentrionale. Preistoria Alpina 43, Supplemento 1. Trento, Editrice Università degli Studi di Trento. CAVULLI, F. and S. Scaruffi 2011. Fishing kit implements from KHB-1: net sinkers and lures (poster). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 41, 27-34. CAVULLI, F. and S. Scaruffi 2012. The Holocene Settlement of KHB-1 (Ras Al-Khabbah, Sultanate of Oman): an Overview. In Giraud J. and G. Gernez (Eds.), Aux marges de l’archéologie, Hommage à Serge Cleuziou (Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 16). Paris, De Boccard, 405-429. CAVULLI, F. and S. Scaruffi 2013. Thoughts on nomadism in Middle Holocene Oman. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 24, 15-27. CAVULLI, F., E. Cristiani and S. Scaruffi 2009. Techno-Functional Analysis at the Fishing Settlement of KHB-1 (Ras Al-Khabbah, Ja’alan, Sultanate of Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39, 7380. CECI, L. 1982. The Value of Wampum among the New York Iroquois: A Case Study in Artifact Analysis. Journal of Anthropological Research 38.1, 97-107. CECI, L. 1984. Shell midden deposits as coastal resources. World Archaeology 16: 62-74. CHAPMAN R.W. 1971. Climatic changes and the evolution of landforms in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. Geological Society of America Bulletin 82, 2713-2728. CHARPENTIER, V. 1994. A specialised Production at Regional scale in Bronze Age Arabia: Shell Ring from Ras Al-Junayz Area (Sultanate of Oman). In Koskemienni K. and A. Parpola (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1993, Vol. 1, Soumalaisen Tiedakatemian Toimituksia ser. B tom 271. Helsinki, Soumalainen Tiedakatemia, 157-70. CHARPENTIER, V. 1999. Industries bifaciales holocènes d’Arabie orientale, un exemple: Ras Al-Jinz. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 29, 29-44. CHARPENTIER, V. 2002. Archéologie de la cote des Ichtyophages: coquilles, squales et cétacés du site VI-II millénaires de Ras Al-Jinz. In Cleuziou S., M. Tosi and J. Zarins (Eds.), Essays on the Late Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula (Serie Orientale Roma XCIII). Roma, IsIAO, 73-99. CHARPENTIER, V. 2008. Hunter-gatherers of the “empty quarter of the aerly Holocene” to the last Neolithic societies: chronology of the late prehistory of south-eastern Arabia (8000-3100 BC). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 38, 93-116. CHARPENTIER, V. and S. Méry 1997. Hameçon en nacre et limes en Pierre d’Océanie et d’Océan Indien: analyse d’une tendence. Journal de la Société des Océanistes 2, 147-156.

201

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

CHARPENTIER, V. and S. Méry 2008. A Neolithic settlement close by the Strait of Hormuz: Akab Island – United Arab Emirates. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 38, 117-136. CHARPENTIER, V., M. Cremaschi and F. Demnard 1997. Une campagne archéologique sur un site cotier du Ja’alan : Al-Haddah (BJD-1) et sa culture matérielle (Sultanat d’Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 27, 99-111. CHARPENTIER, V., O. Blin and M. Tosi 1998. Un village de pêcheurs néolithique de la péninsule d’Oman: Suwayh 2 (SWY-2), première campagne de fouille. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 28, 21-38. CHARPENTIER, V., P. Marquis and E. Pellé 2003. La nécropole et les derniers horizons Ve millénaire du site de Gorbat Al-Mahar (Suwayh, SWY-1, Sultanate of Oman): premiers résultats. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 33, 11-19. CHARPENTIER, V., C.S. Phillips and S. Méry 2012. Pearl fishing in the ancient world: 7500 BP. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 23, 1-6. CHARPENTIER, V., S. Méry, E. Fortini and E. Pellé 2009. « Un chef est un requin qui voyage par terre »: fonctions et status des armatures de projectiles en dent de Carcharhinus leucas et aiguillon caudal de raie dans l’Arabie des VIe-IIIe millénaires av. notre ère. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 20, 9-17. CHARPENTIER, V., J.-F. Berger, R. Crassard, M. Lacaze and G. Davtian 2012. Prehistory and palaeogeography of the coastal fringes of the Wahiba Sands and Bar Al-Hikman, Sultanate of Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42, 57-78. CHARPENTIER, V., J.-F. Berger, R. Crassard, F. Borgi and P. Béarez 2016. Les premiers chasseurs-collecteurs maritimes d’Arabie (IXe-IVe millénaires avant notre ère). In Dupont C. and G. Marchand (Eds.), Archéologie des chasseurs-cueilleurs maritimes. De la fonction des habitats à l’organisation de l’espace littoral. Actes de la Société préhistorique française de Rennes, 10-11 avril 2014. Séances de la Société préhistorique française 6. Paris, Société préhistorique française, 345-365. CHARPENTIER, V., J.-F. Berger, R. Crassard, F. Borgi, G. Davtian, S. Méry and C.S. Phillips 2013. Conquering new territories: when the first blanck boats sailed to Masirah Island. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 43, 85-98. CHENORKIAN, R. 1986. Caractères spécifiques et modalité d’étude des amas coquilliers anthropiques. Travaux du LAPMO, 1-20. CHENORKIAN, R. 1990. Conservation en milieu coquillier et reconstitution des diètes préhistoriques. Travaux du LAPMO, 133-146. CHENORKIAN, R. 1992. Saisonnalisation et malacofaune. Méthodes et possibilités. Travaux du LAPMO, 143-168. CHENORKIAN, R. 1998. Les amas coquilliers anthropiques: l’“autre” malacofaune. In Camps G. (Ed.), L’Homme préhistorique et la Mer. Actes du 120e Congrès national des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Aix-en-Province, 23-26 octobre 1995. Paris, Editions du CTHS, 321-337. CIARLA, R. 1982. RH-5: Campagna ottobre 1981 - gennaio 1982. Area meridionale (unpublished report).

202

Bibliography

CLAASSEN, C. 1991. Normative thinking and shell-bearing sites. Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 249-298. CLEUZIOU, S. 1999. De la Caspienne à la Mer Rouge, éléments pour une justification d’une archéologie exotique. Thèse d’habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (unpublished). CLEUZIOU, S. 2002. The Early Bronze Age of the Oman Peninsula from Chronology to the Dialects of Tribe and State Formation. In Cleuziou S., M. Tosi and J. Zarins (Eds.), Essays on the Late Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula (Serie Orientale Roma XCIII). Roma, IsMEO, 191-236. CLEUZIOU, S. 2005. Pourquoi si tard? Nous avons pris un autre chemin. L’Arabie des chasseurs-cueilleurs de l’Holocène au début de l’Age du Bronze. In Guilaine J. (Ed.), Aux marges des grands foyers du Néolithique. Périphéries débitrices ou créatrices? Paris, Éditions Errance, 123-148. CLEUZIOU, S and S. Méry 2002. In-between the Great Powers: the Bronze Age Oman Peninsula. In Cleuziou S., M. Tosi and J. Zarins (Eds.), Essays on the Late Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula (Serie Orientale Roma XCIII). Roma, IsMEO, 273-316. CLEUZIOU, S. and M. Tosi 1989. The southeastern frontier of the ancient Near East. In Frifelt K. and P. Sorensen (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1985. Paper for the Eighth International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, held at Moesgaard Museum, Denmark, 1-5 July 1985. (Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies, Occasional Papers 4). London, Curzon Press, 15-48. CLEUZIOU, S. and M. Tosi 2000. Ras Al-Jinz and the Prehistoric coastal cultures of the Ja’alan. Journal of Oman Studies 11, 19-73. CLEUZIOU, S. and M. Tosi 2007. In the Shadow of the Ancestors. The Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilisation in Oman. Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, Ministry of Heritage and Culture. CLEYET-MERLE, J.-J. 1990. La préhistoire de la pêche. Paris, Editions Errance. COLEMAN, R.G. and E.H. Bailey 1981. Mineral deposit and geology of northern Oman as of 1974. Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, Ministry of Development, Directorate General of Petroleum and Minerals. COPPA, A., R. Macchiarelli, S. Salvatori and G. Santini 1985. The prehistoric graveyard of Ras Al-Hamra (RH-5): A short preliminary report on the 1981-1983 excavation. The Journal of Oman Studies 8.1, 97-106. COPPA, A., S. Damadio, G. Armelagos, D. Mancinelli, R. Vargiu 1990. Paleobiology and paleopathology: a preliminary study of the prehistoric fishing population of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5 (Qurum, Sultanate of Oman, 3,700-3,200 BC). Antropologia Contemporanea 13.4, 329-336. COPPOLA, D. and E. Vacca 1995.  Les sépultures paléolithiques de la grotte de Sainte Marie d’Agnano à Ostuni (Italie). In Otte M. (Ed.), Nature et Culture: Actes du colloque International de Liège, 13-17 décembre 1993. Liége, Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 68.2, 797-810. COPPOLA, D., M. Denoyelle, M. Dewailly, I. Fusco, S. Lepetz, A. Quercia, W. Andrigina, T. van Compernolle and S. Verger 2008. La grotte de Santa Maria di Agrano (Ostuni) et ses abords: à propos des critères d’identification d’un sanctuaire messapien. In Dupré Raventós X., S. Ribichini and S. Verger (Eds.), Saturnia Tellus. Definizioni dello spazio consacrato in ambiente etrusco, italico, fenicio-punico, iberico e celtico. Convegno internazionale di studi, Roma 10-12 novembre 2004. Roma, CNR, 201-232.

203

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

CORDES, R. and F. Scholz 1980. Bedouins, wealth and change: A study of rural development in the United Arab Emirates and the Sultanate of Oman. Tokyo, United Nations University Press. COSTANTINI, L. and P. Audisio 2000. Plant and insect remains from the Bronze Age site of Ras Al-Jinz (RJ-2), Sultanate of Oman. Paléorient 26.1, 143-156. CRASSARD, R. and P. Drechsler 2013. Towards new paradigms: multiple pathways for the Arabian Neolithic. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 24, 3-8. CURATOLA PETROCCHI, M. 2002. L’archeologia delle pratiche culturali. America Meridionale - Gli oggetti del culto e i materiali votivi. Retrieved on 20/09/2014 from: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/larcheologia-delle-pratiche-cultuali-america-meridionale-gli-oggetti-del-culto-e-i-materiali-votivi_%28IlMondo-dell%27Archeologia%29/ DALONGEVILLE, R. and P. Sanlaville 1987. Confrontation des datations isotopiques avec les données géomorphologiques et archéologique: à propos des variations relatives du niveau marin sur la rive arabe du Golfe Persique. In Aurenche O., J. Evin and F. Hours (Eds.), Chronologies in the Near East (BAR International Series 379). Oxford, Archaeopress, 567-583. DE BEAUCLAIR, R. 2008. La parure funéraire de la nécropole néolithique de Jebel Al-Buhais 18 (Émirats Arabes Unis). Préhistoire Anthropologie méditerranéennes 14, 39–52. DE BEAUCLAIR, R., S. Jasim and H.-P. Uerpmann 2006. New results on the Neolithic jewellery from AlBuhais 18, UAE. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 36, 175-187. DELFINO, M., O. Munoz, J. Frazier, L.G. Marcucci and M. Tosi forth. Cultural background for the conservation of the sea turtles: news from the archaeological record of Oman. DIDIER, A. and S. Méry 2012. Les premières céramiques fines d’Asie moyenne aux IVe et IIIe millénaires av. J.-C. In Lefèvre V. (Ed.), Orientalisme. De l’archéologie au musée. Mélanges offerts à Jean-François Jarrige. Turnhout, Brepols Publishers, 177-192. DIESTER, L. 1972. Zur spätpleistozänen and holozänen Sedimentation im zentralen und östlichen Persischen Golf. Meteor Forschungergebnisse C8, 37-83. DRECHSLER, P. 2009. The Dispersal of the Neolithic over the Arabian Peninsula (BAR International Series 1069). Oxford: Archaeopress. DRECHSLER, P. 2018. Personal Adornment. In Drechsler P. (Ed.), Dosariyah: An Arabian Neolithic Coastal Community in the Central Gulf (British Foundation for the Study of Arabia Monographs 19). Oxford, Archaeopress, 319-331. DORTCH, C.E., G.W. Kendrick and K. Morse 1984. Aboriginal Mollusc Exploitation in Southwestern Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 19, 81-104. DUPONT, C. 2005. Les coquillages alimentaires des dépôts et amas coquilliers du Mésolithique récent/final de la façade Atlantique de la France. Préhistoires Méditerranéennes 12. Retrieved on 03/06/2014 from: http:// pm.revues.org/345 DUPONT, C. 2007. Les amas coquilliers mésolithiques de Téviec et d’Hoedic et le dépôt coquillier néolithique d’Er Yoc’h: de la ressource alimentaire à l’utilisation des coquilles vides. Melvαn - La Revue des Deux Îles 4, 251-264. 204

Bibliography

DUPONT, C. 2014. Do not mix up apples and oranges! A concept applied to shells from the Mesolithic. In Cantillo J.J., D. Bernal, J. Ramos (Eds.), Moluscos y pùrpura en contextos arqueológicos atlánticomediterráneos: nuevos datos y reflexiones en clave de proceso histórico. Actas de la III Reunión Cientifica de Arqueomalacología de la Península Ibérica celebrada en Cádiz los dias 3 y 4 de diciembre de 2012. Cádiz, Universidad de Cádiz, Servicio de Publicaciones, 41-50. DURANTE, S. 1977. L’utilizzazione delle conchiglie marine a Shahr-i Sokhta e la natura dello scambio economico tra l’Iran interno e le coste dell’Oceano Indiano. In Tucci G. (Ed.), La città bruciata nel deserto salato, Venezia, E.J. Brill Academic Publishers, 214-228. DURANTE, S. 1979a. The utilization of Xancus pyrum (L.) at Shahr-i Sokhta: a further evidence for cultural relations between India and Iran in 4th-3th millennia BC. In Van Lohuizen-de Leeuw J.E. and J.M.M. Ubaghs (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1975. Leiden, E.J. Brill Academic Publishers, 27-42. DURANTE, S. 1979b. Marine shells from Balakot, Shahr-i Sokhta and Tepe Yahya: Their significance for trade and technology in Ancient Indo-Iran. In Taddei M. (Ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1977. Naples, Istituto Universitario Orientale, 275-316. DURANTE, S. and M. Tosi 1977. The Aceramic Shell-Middens of Ras Al-Hamra: a Preliminary Note. The Journal of Oman Studies 3.2, 137-62. ERLANDSON, J.M. 1988. The role of Shellfish in Preistoric Economies: a Proteine perspective. American Antiquity 53, 102-109. EVANS, J.G. 1969. The exploitation of molluscs. In Ucko P.J. and G.W. Dimbleby (Eds.), Domestication and exploitation of plants and animals, London, Duckworth, 479-484. EVANS, J.G. 1972. Land Snails in Archaeology. With special reference to the British Isles. London, Seminar Press. FAIRBRIDGE, R.W. 1976. Shellfish-eating Preceramic Indians in Coastal Brazil. Science 191: 353-358. FIOCCHI, C. 1998. Le conchiglie marine nei siti del Paleolitico superiore europeo: strategie d’approvvigionamento, reti di scambio, utilizzo. PhD Thesis, Consorzio Universitario di Bologna, Ferrara e Parma, Dipartimento di Paleontologia Umana. FISCHER, A. 2007. Coastal fishing in Stone Age Denmark – evidence from below and above the present sea level and from human bones. In Milner N., O.E. Craig and G.N. Bailey (Eds.), Shell Middens in Atlantic Europe. Oxford, Oxbow Books, 54-69. FISCHER, A., J. Olsen, M. Richards, J. Heinemeier, A.E. Sveinbjörnsdóttir and P. Bennike 2007. Coastinland mobility and diet in the Danish Mesolithic and Neolithic: evidence from stable isotope values of human and dogs. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 2125-2150. FLEITMANN, D., S. Burns, A. Mangini, M. Mundelsee, J. Kramers, I. Villa, U. Neff., A. Al-Subbary, A. Beuttner, D. Hippler and A. Matter 2007. Holocene ITCZ and Indian monsoon dynamics recorded in stalagmites from Oman and Yemen (Socotra). Quaternary Science Reviews 26.1-2, 170–188. FRANCESCHINI, F. 2006. Scavo d’emergenza per la salvaguardia del sito di RH-5, Sultanato dell’Oman. Rapporto preliminare. OCNUS 14: 117-134.

205

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

FRAZIER, J.G. 2007. The oldest place where there is always something new. Turtle Newsletter 106. 3-6. FRAZIER J.G., V.M. Azzarà, O. Munoz, L.G. Marcucci, E. Badel, F. Genchi, M. Cattani, M. Tosi and M. Delfino 2018. Remains of Leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, at Mid-Late Holocene archaeological sites in coastal Oman: clues of past worlds. PeerJ 6: e6123, doi: 10.7717/peerj.6123. FRIFELT, K. 1973. Danish archaeological mission to Oman 1972/1973. Report of the campaign (unpublished report). FRIFELT, K. 1975. On Protohistoric Settlement and Chronology of Oman Peninsula. East and West 25, 359-424. GARELLI, P., J.-M. Durand, H. Gonnet and C. Breniquet 1997. Le Proche-Orient Asiatique. Tome 1. Des Origines aux invasions des peuples de la mer, 3ème édition. Paris, PUF. GARZANTI, E., S. Andò, G. Vezzoli and D. Dell’Era 2003. From Rifted Margins to Foreland Basins: Investigating Provenance and Sediment Dispersal Across Desert Arabia (Oman, UAE). Journal of Sedimentary Research 73.4, 572-588. GASPAR, M.D., P. Deblasis, S.K. Fish and P.R. Fish 2008. Sambaqui (Shell Mound) Societies of Coastal Brazil. In Silvermann H. and W.H. Isbell (Eds.), Handbook of South American Archaeology. New York, Springer, 319-335. GASPARINI, D. and S. Scaruffi 2005. RH-5: relazione preliminare di scavo. Rome, IsIAO (unpublished report). GAULTIER, M., H. Guy, O. Munoz, M. Tosi and D. Usai 2005. Settlement structures and cemetery at Wadi Shab-GAS1, Sultanate of Oman: Report on the 2002 and 2003 field seasons. Arabian Epigraphy and Archaeology 16, 1-20. GHAZANFAR, S.A. 2003. Flora of the Sultanate of Oman, Vol. 1, Piperaceae-Primulaceae. Meise, Belgium, National Botanic Garden of Belgium. GENSHEIMER, T.R. 1984. The role of shell in Mesopotamia: evidence for trade exchange with Oman and Indus Valley. Paléorient 10.1, 65-73. GHISOTTI, F. 1986. Shell Finds in the Course of the Archaeological Excavations at Ras Al-Hamra. East and West 36.4, 471-472. GIANNAKOPOULOS-KARALI, L. 2004. Testimonianze della produzione della porpora nell’Egeo nell’antichità. Preistoria Alpina 40, 161-166. GIARDINO, C. 2015. The Beginning of Copper Metallurgy in Oman. In Proceedings of the International Symposium, The Archaeological Heritage of Oman. UNESCO, Paris, September 7th, 2012. Muscat, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, 115-126. GIARDINO, C. 2017. Magan. The Land of Copper. Prehistoric Metallurgy in Oman (The Archaeological Heritage of Oman 2). Muscat & Oxford, Ministry of Heritage and Culture & Archaeopress. GIROD, A., 2004. Importanza dei molluschi terrestri e d’acqua dolce in archeologia. Preistoria Alpina 40.1, 125-132. GLASSNER, J.-J. 1989. Mesopotamian textual evidence on Magan/Makan in the late 3rd millennium. In Costa P.M. and M. Tosi (Eds.), Oman Studies, Papers on the archaeology and history of Oman (Serie Orientale Romana LXIII). Roma, IsIAO, 181-191. 206

Bibliography

GLASSNER, J.-J. 1996. The Bronze Age complex societies of Eastern Arabia: a survey of the cuneiform sources. In Afanas’ev G., S. Cleuziou, J.R. Lukacs and M. Tosi (Eds.), The Prehistory of Asia and Oceania, XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlì, Italia, 8-14 September 1996. Forlì, ABACO Edizioni, 155-158. GLENNIE, K.W., M.G.A. Boeuf, M.W. Hughes Clarke, M. Moody-Stuart, W.F.H. Pilaar and B.M. Reinhardt 1973. Late Cretaceous nappes in the Oman Mountains and their geologic evolution. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 57.1, 5-27. GLENNIE, K.W., M.G.A. Boeuf, M.W. Hughes Clarke, M. Moody-Stuart, W.F.H. Pilaar and B.M. Reinhardt 1974. Geology of the Oman Mountains. Transactions of the Royal Dutch Geological and Mining Society of the Netherlands 31. The Hague, KNGMG. GOODFRIEND, G.A. 1992. The use of land snails in palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. Quaternary Science Reviews 11, 665-685. GRAZIOSI, P. 1976. I Balzi Rossi. Bordighera, Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri. HABU, J. 2004. Ancient Jomon of Japan. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. HASSAN, R.A. 1979. Demography and Archaeology. Annual Review of Archaeology 8, 137-160. HAUBRICHS, R. 2004. L’étude de la pourpre: histoire d’une couleur, chimie et experimentations. Preistoira Alpina 40, 133-160. HENSHILWOOD, C.S., P. Nilssen and J. Parkington 1994. Mussel drying and food storage in the late Holocene, SW Cape, South Africa. Journal of Field Archaeology 21.1, 103-109. HENSHILWOOD, C.S., F. d’Errico, M. Vanhaeren, K. van Niekerk and Z. Jacobs 2004. Middle Stone Age Shell Beads from South Africa. Science 304, 404. HÉRODOTE, 1939. Histories. Livre III. Text établi et traduit par P.E. Legrand. Paris, Les Belles Lettres. HERON, C.P., O.E. Craig, M. Forster, B. Stern and S.H. Andersen 2007. Residue analysis of ceramics from prehistoric shell middens: initial investigations at Norsminde and Bjørnsholm. In Milner N., O.E. Craig and G.N. Bailey (Eds.), Shell Middens in Atlantic Europe, Oxford, Oxbow, 78-85. HOFFMANN, G., M. Rupprechter and C. Mayrhofer 2013. Review of the long-term coastal evolution of North Oman – subsidence versus uplift. Zeitschrift der Deutschen für Gesellschaft Geowissenschaften [Journal of the German Society of Geosciences] 164.2, 237-252. HÖTZL, H., A.R. Jado, H. Moser, W. Rauert and J.G. Zölt 1984. Climatic fluctuations in the Holocene. In Jado A.R. and J.G. Zölt (Eds.), Quaternary Period in Saudi Arabia, Vol. 2. New York, Springer, 301-314. HUNTINGFORD, G.W.B. (Ed.) 1980. The periplus of the Erythraean Sea. London, The Hakluyt Society. INIZAN, M.L. (Ed.) 1988. Mission archéologique française à Qatar, Tome 2. Préhistoire à Qatar. Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations. ISETTI, E. and P. Biagi 1989. The polished stone earrings of site RH-5 and the distribution and chronology of the prehistoric earring of coastal Oman. Rivista di Archeologia 13, 5-19. ISMEO ACTIVITIES 1981. Oman. Excavations at Site RH5. Excavations at Site RH10. East and West 31.1-4, 182-195.

207

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

ISMEO ACTIVITIES 1982. Oman. Oman. Summary Report on the Archaeological Activity. Anthropological Research at RH5. Preliminary Evidence from Palaeobiochemical Analyses on the Prehistoric Population of Qurum. East and West 32.1-4, 223-230. ISMEO ACTIVITIES 1983. Oman. Reconnaissance Activity. Excavations of the RH5 Settlement. Excavations at Site RH10. Excavation of the RH5 Graveyard during the 1983-84 Campaign. Anthropological Studies. East and West 33.1-4, 330-340. JARRIGE, C., J.-F. Jarrige, R.H. Meadow and G. Quivron (Eds.) 1995. Mehrgarh: Field Reports 1974-1985. From Neolithic Times to the Indus Civilization. Karachi: Department of Culture and Tourism, Government of Sindh. JOORDENS, J.C.A., F. d’Errico, F.P. Wesselingh, S. Munro, J. de Vos, J. Wallinga, C. Ankjærgaard, T. Reimann, J.R. Wijbrans, K.F. Kuiper, J. Mücher, H. Coqueugniot, V. Prié, I. Joosten, B. van Os, A.S. Schulp, M. Panuel, V. van der Haas, W. Lustenhouwer, J.J.G. Reijmer and W. Roebroeks 2014. Homo erectus at Trinil on Java used shells for tool production and engraving. Nature 518, 228-231. KASSLER, P. 1973. The structural and geomorphic evolution of the Persian Gulf. In Purser B.H. (Ed.), The Persian Gulf: Holocene carbonate sedimentation and diagenesis in a shallow epicontinental sea. New York, Springer, 11-32. KENOYER, J.M. 1983. Shell Working Industries of the Indus Civilisation: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley. (University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, 1986). KENOYER, J.M. 1984a. Shell Industries at Moenjodaro, Pakistan. In Jansen. M. and Urban G. (Eds.), Interim Reports 1. Reports on Field Work Carried out at Mohenjo-Daro Pakistan 1982-83 by the IsMEOAachen University Mission. Aachen, RWTH, 99-116. KENOYER, J.M. 1984b. Shell Working Industries of the Indus Civilization: a Summary. Paléorient 10.1, 49-63. KENOYER, J.M. 1985. Shell Working at Moenjo-Daro, Pakistan. In Schotsman J. and M. Taddei (Eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1983. Papers from the 7th International Conference of the Association of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. (Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor XXIII). Naples, Istituto Universitario Orientale, 297-344. KENOYER, J.M. 1991. Shell Working in the Indus Civilization. In Jansen. M., M. Mulloy and G. Urban (Eds.), Forgotten cities on the Indus: Early civilization in Pakistan from the 8th to the 2nd millennium BC. Mainz, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 216-219. KENOYER, J.M. 2008. Indus and Mesopotamian Trade Networks: New Insights from Shell and Carnelian Artifacts. In Olijdam E. and R.H. Spoor (Eds.), Intercultural Relations between South and Southwest Asia. Studies in Commemoration of E.C.L. During Caspers (1934-1995) (Society for Arabian Studies Monographs n. 7 – International Series 1826). Oxford, Archaeopress, 19-28. KIDDER, N. 1997. Primitive Cooking. Bulletin of Primitive Technology 13, 35-37. Retrieved on 07/12/2012 from: http://www.primitiveways.com/primitive_cooking.html

208

Bibliography

KIESEWETTER, H., H-P. Uerpmann and S.A. Jasim 2000. Neolithic jewellery from Jebel-al Buhais 18. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 30, 137–146. KUTTERER, A.U. and R. de Beauclair 2008. FAY-NE15 - Another Neolithic graveyard in the central region of Sharjah Emirate? Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 19, 134–143. KUTTERER, A. and H.-P. Uerpmann 2012. Social implications and potential causes of violence at neolithic al Buhais 18. In Potts D.T. and P. Hellyer (Eds.), Fifty years of Emirates Archaeology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates. Ajman, UAE, Motivate Publishing, 55-67. LAMBECK, K. 1996. Shoreline reconstructions for the Persian Gulf since the last glacial maximum. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 142, 43-57. LANCASTER, W. and F. Lancaster 1992. Tribe, Community and the Concept of Access to Resources: Territorial Behaviour in South-East Ja’alan. In Casimir M.J. and A. Rao (Eds.), Mobility and Territoriality, Social and Spatial Boundaries among Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists and Peripatetics. New York/Oxford, BERG, 343-363. LANCASTER, W. and F. Lancaster 1998. Reflections on the social organization of the Arabian Bedu in costal Oman. In Afanas’ev G., S. Cleuziou, R. Lukacs and M. Tosi (Eds.), The Prehistory of Asia and Oceania, XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlì, Italia, 8-14 September 1996. Forlì, ABACO Edizioni, 141-154. LANCASTER, W. and F. Lancaster 2002. Trade and stratified society information from southeast Ja’alan. In Cleuziou S., M. Tosi and J. Zarins (Eds.), Essays on the Late Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula (Serie Orientale Roma XCIII). Roma, IsMEO, 247-256. LANCASTER, W. and F. Lancaster 2011. Honour is in Continent. Life before Oil in Ras Al-Khaimah (EAU) and some Neighbouring Regions. Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur des Islamischen Orients, Neue Folge, Vol. 25. Berlin, De Gruyter. LARSEN, C.E. 1983. Life and Land Use on the Bahrain Islands: the Geoarchaeology of an Ancient Society. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. LEBLANC, S. 1971. An Addition to Naroll’s Suggested Floor Area and Settlement Population Relationship. American Antiquity 36, 210–211. LEES, G.M. 1928. The geology and tectonics of Oman and parts of south-eastern Arabia. The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 84.4, 585-670. LOZOVSKI, V.M., O.V. Lozovskaya, C.I. Conte, Y. Maigrot, E. Gyria, V. Radu, N. Desse-Berset and E. Gassiot Balbe 2013. Fishing in the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic of the Russian plaIn the case of site Zamostje 2. In Lozovski V.M., O.V. Lozovskaya and C.I. Conte (Eds.), Zamostje 2 lake settlement of the Mesolithic and Neolithic fisherman in Upper Volga region. St. Petersbourg, Russian Academy of Science, 19-45 MACCHIARELLI, R. 1989. Prehistoric “Fish-Eaters” Along the Eastern Arabian Coasts: Dental Variation, Morphology, and Oral Health in the Ras Al-Hamra Community (Qurum, Sultanate of Oman, (5th-4th Millennia BC). Journal of Physical Anthropology 78, 575-594.

209

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

MAGGI, R. and H.G. Gebel 1990. A preliminary report on the chipped stone industries of the midHolocene shell-midden communities of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5, Layer 1 (Muscat-Sultanate of Oman. Rivista di Archeologia 14, 5-24. MAINI, E. and A. Curci 2013. New evidence for dog butchering from prehistoric coastal sites in the Sultanate of Oman. In De Cupere B., V. Linseele and S. Hamilton-Dyer (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East, Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of the South-Western Asia and Adjacent Areas. Leuven, Paris, Walpole, Ma., Peeters, 403-415. MALINOWSKI, B. 1932. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London, Georges Routledge and Sons. MANNINO, M.A. and K.D. Thomas 2007. Determining the season of collection of inter-tidal gastropods from δ18 analysis of shell carbonates: modern analogue data and ‘internal analysis’ of data from archaeological shells. In Milner N., O.E. Craig and G.N. Bailey (Eds.), Shell Middens in Atlantic Europe. Oxford, Oxbow Books, 111-122. MARCUCCI, L.G. 2004a. L’industria su conchiglie di Conus sp. nell’Oman durante l’Antica età del Bronzo (c. 3000-2000 a.C.). Master Thesis in Preistoria e Protostoria dell’Asia. Università degli Studi di Bologna, Ravenna (unpublished). MARCUCCI, L.G. 2004b. HD-99: preliminary report 2003-2004 excavation (unpublished report). MARCUCCI, L.G. 2014. The Site of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5 (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman). Brief Chronicle of the Excavations (1973-2010). With the contribution of Al-Taie H. In Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C., B. Genito and B. Cerasetti (Eds.), “My life is like the summer rose”, Maurizio Tosi e l’Archeologia come modo di vivere. Papers in honour of Maurizio Tosi for his 70th birthday (BAR International Series 2690). Oxford, Archaeopress, 505515. MARCUCCI, L.G. 2015. I siti preistorici di RH-5 e RH-6 a Ras Al-Hamra (Muscat, Sultanato d’Oman): analisi comparativa della stratigrafia, delle strutture di abitato e della cultura materiale. Continuità e sviluppo di due villaggi di pescatori-raccoglitori. PhD Thesis, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and Università di Bologna (unpublished). MARCUCCI, L.G. and F. Genchi 2008. Scientific Report of the Habitat of Site RH-5 at Ras Al-Hamra (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman). RH-5 Heritage Site Project. Summary Report on the First Season (JanuaryApril 2008). IsIAO, Rome (unpublished report). MARCUCCI, L.G. and D. Usai 2010. More data on Ras Al-Hamra RH-5 (Oman) prehistoric lithic industry: records from the most ancient recognised phase. Poster delivered at the Seminar for Arabian Studies Conference, held at the British Museum the 22-24 July 2010, London (unpublished). MARCUCCI, L.G., A. Tomaselli and E. Badel 2009. Hypothesis of chaîne opératoire for the realization of shell fish-hooks made of Pinctada margaritifera according to the findings of the Italian Archaeological Mission in the Sultanate of Oman, Pistoia 3-4 January 2009 (unpublished). MARCUCCI, L.G., F. Genchi, E. Badel and M. Tosi 2011. Recent investigations at the prehistoric site RH-5 (Ras Al-Hamra, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 41, 201-222. MARCUCCI, L.G., F. Genchi, E. Badel, M. Delfino and L. Speciale 2009. Scientific Report of the Habitat of Site RH-5 at Ras Al-Hamra (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman). RH-5 Heritage Site Project. Summary Report on the Second Season (March-April 2009). Rome, IsIAO (unpublished report). 210

Bibliography

MARCUCCI, L.G., E. Badel, F. Genchi, O. Munoz, A. Todero and M. Tosi 2014. New Investigations at the Prehistoric Shell-midden of Ras Al-Hamra 6 (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman): result of the 2012 and 2013 excavation seasons. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 44, 235-256. MARCUCCI, L.G., E. Badel, F. Genchi, O. Munoz, E. Quintana Morales, I. Béguier and G. Vianini 2013. Preliminary report. Exploration at RH-6. A prehistoric shell-midden in the Qurum Nature Reserve (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman). RH-6 Heritage Site Project. Summary Report on the Second Season (February-April 2013). Rome, IsIAO (unpublished report). MARCUCCI, L.G., O. Munoz, F. Genchi, E. Badel, F. Candilio, I. Béguier and D. Usai 2010. Scientific Report of the Habitat of Site RH-5 at Ras Al-Hamra (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman). RH-5 Heritage Site Project. Summary Report on the Third Season (November 2009-January 2010). Rome, IsIAO (unpublished report). MARCUCCI, L.G., E. Badel, F. Genchi, O. Munoz, A. Todero, G. Bocchini, M.G. Belcastro, I. Béguier and A. Zazzo 2012. Preliminary report. Exploration at RH-6. A prehistoric shell-midden in the Qurum Nature Reserve (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman). RH-6 Heritage Site Project. Summary Report on the First Season (February-May 2012). Rome, IsIAO (unpublished report). MARRAST, A. 2015. Etude archéo-ichtyologique de Ras Al-Hamra-6 (Qurum, Muscat, Sultanat d’Oman). Propositions de reconstitutions de l’exploitation des différents milieux environnants. Master Thesis, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris (unpublished). MARRAST, A., P. Béarez, A. Zazzo, M. Tengberg, M. Mashkour, K. Debue, M. Delfino, O. Munoz, F. Genchi, E. Badel and L.G. Marcucci 2015. Subsistence and environment in Ras Al-Hamra 6 (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman). Paper delivered at the Seminar for Arabian Studies 2015, London July 24-26 (unpublished). MARSHALL, Sir J. 1931. Mohenjo-Daro and Indus Civilization. London, A. Probsthain. MARTIN, J.F. 1973. On the Estimation of Sizes of Local Groups in a Hunting-Gathering Environment. American Anthropologist 75, 1448-1468. MASHKOUR, M. and K. Debue 2015. Ras Al-Hamra 6 mammalian remains (unpublished report). MASHKOUR, M., M. Beech, K. Debue, L. Yeomans, S. Bréhard, D. Gasparini and S. Méry 2016. Middle to Late Neolithic animal explotation at UAQ2 (5500-4000 cal BC): an’Ubaid-related coastal site at Umm AlQuwain Emirate, United Arab Emirates. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 46, 195-210. McCLURE, H.A. and N.Y. Al-Shaikh 1993. Palaeogeography of an ‘Ubaid Archaeological Site, Saudi Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 4.2, 107-125 MEIGHAN, C.W. 1963. Molluscs as Food Remains in Archaeological Sites. In Brothwell D. and E. Higgs (Eds.), Science in Archaeology. New York, Praeger, 415-422. MÉRY, S. 1995. Archaeology of the Borderlands: 4th Millennium BC Mesopotamian Pottery at Ras AlHamra RH-5 (Sultanate of Oman). Annali 55.2, 193-208. MÉRY, S. 2000. Les céramiques d’Oman et l’Asie moyennes: Une archéologie des échanges à l’Âge du Bronze. Paris, Éditions du CNRS. MÉRY, S. 2015. Mobilité et interculturalité en Arabie orientale durant la Protohistoire ancienne: la formation d’un ensemble culturel et d’entités régionales. In Naudinot N., L. Meignen, D. Binder and G. Querré (Eds.), Les Sistème de mobilité de la Préhistoire au Moyen Âge. XXXVe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes. Antibes, Édition APDCA, 353-368. 211

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

MÉRY, S. and V. Charpentier 2002. Around Suwayh (Ja’alan): a summary of some recent discoveries from coastal shell middens of Eastern Arabia. Journal of Oman Studies 12, 181-195. MÉRY, S. and V. Charpentier 2009. Rites funéraires du Néolithique et de l’âge du Bronze ancien en Arabie Orientale. In Guilaine J. (Ed.), Sépoltures et sociétés. Du Néolithique à l’Histoire. Collection des Hespérides. Paris, Errance, 11-40. MÉRY, S. and V. Charpentier 2013. Neolithic material cultures of Oman and the Gulf seashores from 55004500 BC. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 24, 73-78. MÉRY, S., V. Charpentier and M. Beech 2008. First Evidence of Shell Fish-Hook Technology in the Gulf. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 19, 15-21. MÉRY, S., D. Gasparini, G. Basset, J.-F. Berger, A. Berthelot, F. Borgi, K. Lidour, A. Parker, G. Preston and K. Mc Sweeney 2016. Mort violente en Arabie. La sépulture multiple d’Umm Al-Quwain UAQ2 (Émirat arabes unis), VIe millénaire BC. In Dupont C. and G. Marchand (Eds.), Archéologie des chasseurs-cueilleurs maritimes. De la fonction des habitats à l’organisation de l’espace littoral. Actes de la Société préhistorique française de Rennes, 10-11 avril 2014. Séances de la Société préhistorique française 6. Paris, Société préhistorique française, 323-343. MILNER, N. 2002. Incremental growth of the European Oyster, Ostrea edulis: seasonality information from Danish kitchenmiddens (BAR International Series 1057). Oxford, Archaeopress. MONTAGU, J. 1981. The Conch in Prehistory: Pottery, Stone and Natural. World Archaeology 12.3, 273-279. MOOREY, P.R.S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. Oxford, Oxford University Press. MOREL, J. 1974. La faune de l’escargotière de Dra-Mta-El-Ma-El-Abiod (Sud-Algérien). Ce qu’elle nous apprend de l’alimentation et des conditions de vie des populations du Capsien supérieur. L’Anthropologie 78.2, 299-320. MOSSERI-MARLIO, C. 2002. Sea turtles and dolphins: Aspects of marine animal exploitation from Bronze Age Ras Al-Hadd, Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 12, 12-15. MUNOZ, O. 2008. Fouille du cimetière de RH-5 à Ras Al-Hamra (Muscat, Sultanate d’Oman). Rapport archéo-anthropologique. Campagne 2008. Rome, IsIAO (unpublished report). MUNOZ, O. 2014. Caractérisation anthropologique de la transition démographique dans la péninsule arabique à l’Âge du Bronze. PhD Thesis, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and Università di Roma La Sapienza (unpublished). NALESINI, O. 2007. The Fish-Eaters (Ichthyophagoi). In Cleuziou S. and Tosi M. (eds.), In the Shadow of the Ancestors. The Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilisation in Oman. Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, 304-305. NAROLL, R. 1962. Floor area and settlement population. American Antiquity 27, 587-588. NORDBECK, S. 1971. Urban allometric growth. Geografiska Annaler 53B-1, 54-67. OLIJDAM, E. 2010. Probing the Early Dilmun funerary landscape: a tentative analysis of grave goods from non-elite adult burials from City IIa-c. In Weeks L. (Ed.), Death and Burial in Arabia and Beyond Multidisciplinary perspectives (Society for Arabian Studies Monographs n. 10 - BAR International Series 2107). Oxford, Archaeopress, 141-152.

212

Bibliography

PALMIERI, A.M., A. Coppa and P. Francalacci 1994. Problems of an aquatic diet in trace element analysis: the coastal site of Qurum RH5 (Sultanate of Oman, 3.700-3.200 BC). Human Evolution 9, 155-164. PARMALEE, P.W. and W.E. Klippel 1974. Freshwater mussels as a prehistoric food resource. American Antiquity, 39.3, 421-434. PEYTON, W.D. 1983. Old Oman. London, Stacey International. PHILLIPS, C.S. 2002. Prehistoric Middens and a Cemetery from the Southern Arabian Gulf. In Cleuziou S., M. Tosi and J. Zarins (Eds.), Essays on the Late Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula (Serie Orientale Roma XCIII). Rome, IsIAO, 169-186. PHILLIPS, C.S. and T.J. Wilkinson 1979. Recently Discovered Shell Middens near Quriyat. The Journal of Oman Studies 5, 107-110. PILGRIM, G. 1908. Geology of the Persian Gulf and adjoining portions of Persia and Arabia. Memoirs of the Indian Geological Survey 34.4, 1-77. PISAN, A., P. Biagi and G. Gasparotto 2013. The stone and shell beads of the shell-midden settlement of RH-5 (Muscat, Sultanate of Oman). In Al-Ansary A.R., K.I. Al-Kuaikel and A.L. Alsharek (Eds.), Man and Environment in the Arab World in Light of Archaeological Discoveries, Vol. 1. Riyadh, Abdul Rahman AlSudayri Foundation, 73-84. PLINE L’ANCIEN, 1955. Histoire Naturelle. Texte établi, traduit et commenté par E. de Saint-Denis. Paris, Les Belles Lettres. POTTS, D.T. 1990. The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity. From Prehistory to the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, Vol. 1. Oxford, Clarendon Press. POTTS, D.T. 2001. Before the Emirates: An Archaeological and Historical Account of Developments in the Region c. 5000 BC to 676 AD. In Al Abed I. and P. Hellyer (Eds.), United Arab Emirates: a New Perspective. London, Trident Press, 28-69. PRESTON, G.W., A.G. Parker, H. Walkington, M.J. Leng and M.J. Hodson 2012. From nomadic herderhunters to sedentary farmers: The relationship between climate change and ancient subsistence strategies in south-eastern Arabia. Journal of Arid Environments 86, 122-130. PREUSS, P., G. Duke and Victorian Association for Environmental Education 1996. Investigating Australian ecosystems. Melbourne, Cambridge University Press. PRICE, T.D. and O. Bar-Yosef (Eds.) 2011. The Origins of Agricultures: New Data, New Ideas. Current Anthropology, Supplementary Volume 4. Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press. ROSE, J.I. 2010. New light on human prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis. Current Archaeology 51, 849-883. SACHS, C. 1940. The History of Musical Instruments. New York, Norton. SALVATORI, S. 1996. Death and ritual in a population of coastal food foragers in Oman. In Afanas’ev G., S. Cleuziou, R. Lukacs and M. Tosi (Eds.), The Prehistory of Asia and Oceania, XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlì, Italia, 8-14 September 1996. Forlì, ABACO Edizioni, 205-222. SALVATORI, S. 2007. The Prehistoric Graveyard of Ras Al Hamra 5, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. The Journal of Oman Studies 14: 5-206.

213

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

SANDWEISS, D.H. 2008. Early Fishing Societies in Western South America. In Silvermann H. and W.H. Isbell (Eds.), Handbook of South American Archaeology. New York, Springer, 145-156. SANLAVILLE, P. 1992. Changements climatiques dans la Péninsule Arabique durant le Pléistocène supérieur et l’Holocène. Paléorient 18.1, 5-25. SANLAVILLE, P. 1997. Les changements dans l’environnement au Moyen-Orient de 20.000 BP à 6.000 BP. Paléorient 23.2, 249-262. SANLAVILLE, P. 2000. Le Moyen-Orient arabe. Le milieu et l’homme. Collection U Série Géographie. Paris, A. Colin. SANLAVILLE, P. and R. Dalongeville 2005. L’évolution des espaces littoraux du Golfe Persique et du Golfe d’Oman depuis la phase finale de la trasgression post-glaciaire. Paléorient 31.1, 9-26. SANTINI, G. 1987. Site RH-10 at Qurum and preliminary analysis of its cemetery: essay in stratigraphic discontinuity. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 17, 179-198. SANTINI, G. 2002. Burial Complex 43 in the RH-5 Prehistoric Graveyard at Ras Al-Hamra, Northern Oman. In Cleuziou S., M. Tosi and J. Zarins (Eds.), Essays on the Late Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula (Serie Orientale Roma XCIII). Rome, IsIAO, 147-167. SCARUFFI, S. 2004. Il popolamento medio olocenico delle regioni orientali del Sultanato d’Oman e della costa dello Ja’alan. Master Thesis, Università di Bologna (unpublished). SCHAEFFNER, A. 1987. Origine degli strumenti musicali. Palermo, Sellerio. SCHENCK, W.E. 1926. The Emeryville Shellmound Final Report. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 23.3, 147-282. SENELET, C. 2013. Dynamique des mangroves de la peninsula d’Oman en interaction avec les sociétés humaines, du néolithique à l’âge du Bronze – Approches anthracologique et malacologique. Master Thesis, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris (unpublished). SERRAND, N., C. Dupont and C. Martin 2008. L’archéomalacologie. Apport de l’étude des restes de mollusques à l’interprétation des sites archéologiques. Archéopages 22, 62-75. SMYTHE, K. 1983. Seashell of the Sultan Qaboos Nature Reserve at Qurm. Singapore, Hagley and Hoyle Private LimitEditor STEELE, T.E. and R.G. Klein 2008. Itertidal shellfish use during the Middle and Later Stone Age of South Africa. Archaeofauna 17, 63-76. STEIN, J.K. 1992a. The analysis of shell middens. In Stein J.K. (Ed.), Deciphering a Shell Middens. New York, Academic Press, 1-24. STEIN, J.K. 1992b. Interpreting stratification of a shell midden. In Stein J.K. (Ed.), Deciphering a Shell Middens. New York, Academic Press, 71-91. STEWARD, J.H. 1969. Postscript to bands: on taxonomy, processes, and causes. In Damas D.E. (Ed.), Contribution to Anthropology: Band Societies. National Museums of Canada Bulletin 228. Anthropological Series 84. Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, 288-295.

214

Bibliography

STRUDWICK, I. 1995. The multi-functional pitted stones of coastal California and their use in marine shell processing. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 8, 147-166. TENGBERG, M. 2005. Les forêts de la mer. Exploitation et évolution des mangroves en Arabie orientale du Néolithique à l’époque islamique. Paléorient 31.1, 39-45. THIERRY, F. 2011. Origine e sviluppo del sistema monetario cinese tradizionale. Rivista Italiana di Numismatica e Scienze Affini 112, 57-104. THOMAS, K.D. and Mannino M.A. 1999. The bio-archaeology of the Culverwell shell midden. In Palmer S. (Ed.), Culverwell Mesolithic Habitation Site, Isle of Portland, Dorset: Excavation Report and Research Studies (BAR International Series 287). Oxford, Archaeopress, 94-114. TOSI, M. 1975. Notes on the Distribution and Exploitation of Natural Resources in Ancient Oman. The Journal of Oman Studies 1, 187-206. TOSI, M. 1981. Excavation of Ras Al-Hamra. First Progress Report to the Director of Antiquities for the 1981 Campaign. The Italian Archaeological Mission to the Sultanate of Oman. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale (unpublished report). TOSI, M. and D. Usai 2003. Preliminary report on the excavations at Wadi Shab, Area 1. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 14, 8-23. TOSI, M., M. Cattani, A. Curci, L.G. Marcucci and D. Usai 2001-2002. Missione archeologica nel Sultanato d’Oman Joint Hadd Project. Campagna di ricerca 2000-2001. Ocnus 9-10, 357-366. TRUBITT, M.B.D. 2003. The Production and Exchange of Marine Shell Prestige Goods. Journal of Archaeological Science 11, 243-277. UERPMANN, H.-P. 1989. Problems of archaeo-zoological research in eastern Arabia. In Costa P.M. and M. Tosi (Eds.), Oman Studies. Rome, ISMEO, 163-168. UERPMANN, M. 1992. Structuring the Late Stone Age of Southeastern Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 3, 65-109. UERPMANN, M. 2003. The dark Millennium: remarks on the Final Stone Age in the Emirates and Oman. In Potts D.T., H. al Naboodah and P. Hellyer (Eds.), Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates, Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of the U.A.E. London, Trident Press, 73-81. UERPMANN, M. and H.-P. Uerpmann 1996. ‘Ubaid pottery in the eastern Gulf – New evidence from Umm Al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 7, 125-139. UERPMANN, M. and H.-P. Uerpmann 2000. Faunal remains of Al-Buhais 18, an aceramic neolithic site in the Emirate of Sharjah (SE-Arabia) - Excavations 1995-1998. In Mashkour M., A.M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis and F. Poplin (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East IVB – Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on the archaeozoology of southwestern Asia and adjacent areas. Groningen, Netherlands, ARC Publicatie 32, 40-49. UERPMANN, M. and H.-P. Uerpmann 2003. Stone Age Sites and their Natural Environment. The Capital Area of Northern Oman. Part III. (TAVO Beihefte Zum Tübingen Atlas des Vorderen Orients A, 31.3). Wiesbaden, Reichert.

215

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

UERPMANN, M. and H.-P. Uerpmann 2007a. Shell Midden Economy in the 4th millennium BC. In Cleuziou S. and M. Tosi (Eds.), In the Shadow of the Ancestors. The Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilisation in Oman. Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, 103-104. UERPMANN, M. and H.-P. Uerpmann 2007b. Early Bronze Age Animal Economy in the Sultanate of Oman and the United Arab Emirate. In Proceedings of the International Symposium Archaeology of the Arabian Peninsula Through the Ages. Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, 53-60. UERPMANN, H.-P., D.T. Potts and M. Uerpmann 2009. The Holocene (Re-)Occupation of Eastern Arabia. In Petraglia M.D. and J.I. Rose (Eds.), Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia, Paleoenvironments, Prehistory and Genetics. Vertebrate Palaeobiology and Palaeoanthropology. Heidelberg, Springer, 205-214. UERPMANN, H.-P, M. Uerpmann and S.A. Jasim (Eds.) 2006. The Archaeology of Jebel Al-Buhais, Volume 1 - Funeral Monuments and Human Remains from Jebel Al-Buhais. Sharjah and Tübingen, Kerns Verlag. UERPMANN, H.-P., M. Uerpmann and S.A. Jasim (Eds.) 2008. The Archaeology of Jebel Al-Buhais, Volume 2 – The Natural Environment of Jebel Al-Buhais: Past and Present. Sharjah and Tübingen, Kerns Verlag. USAI, D. 2005. Chisels or perforator? The lithic industry of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5 (Muscat, Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 35, 1-9. USAI, D. 2018. Middle Holocene Oman jewels: Thoughts on softstone earring production. In Simpson St.J. and C. Phillips (Eds.), Softstone in Arabia and Iran. London, Archaeopress. USAI, D. and A. Cavallari 2008. The lithic industry of Wadi Shab, a Middle Holocene site on the coast of Oman. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 19, 120-132. VANHAEREM, M., F. d’Errico, C. Stringer, S.L. James, J.A. Todd and H.K. Mienis 2006. Middle Palaeolithic Shell Beads in Israel and Algeria. Science 312, 1785-1788. VAN RAMPELBERGH, et al. 2013. Mid- to late Holocene Indian Monsoon variability recorded in four speleothems from Socotra Island, Yemen. Quaternary Science Reviews 65, 129-142. WASELKOV, G.A. 1987. Shellfish Gatering and Shell Midden Archaeology. Archaeological Method and Theory 10, 93-210. WEISSNER, P. 1974. A Functional Estimation of Population from Floor Area. American Antiquity 39, 343350. WILSON, H.H. 1969. Late Cretaceous eugeosynclinal sedimentation, gravity tectonics and ophiolite emplacement in the Oman Mountains, southeast Arabia. American Association of petroleum Geologists Bulletin 53, 626-671. VOBST, H.M. 1974. Boundary conditions for Paleolithic social systems: a simulation approach. American Antiquity 39.2, 147-178. WOOLLEY, Sir C.L. 1934. Ur Excavation, II. The Royal Cemetery. London, The British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. YELLEN, J.E. 1976. Settlement Pattern of the !Kung: An Archaeological Perspective. In Lee R.B. and De Vore I. (Eds.). Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers. Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 47-72.

216

Bibliography

ZAZZO, A. and O. Munoz 2012. Datation 14C et alimentation: une clé pour apprehender la mobilité des populations côtières de la Peninsule Arabique au Néolithique. Annales de la Fondation Fyssen 27, 136-144. ZAZZO, A., O. Munoz, J.-F. Saliège and C. Moreau 2012. Variability in the marine radiocarbon reservoir effect in Muscat (Sultanate of Oman) during the 4th millennium BC: reflection of taphonomy or environment? Journal of Archaeological Science 39/7: 2559-2567. ZAZZO, A., O. Munoz and J.-F. Saliège 2013. Diet, Mobility in a Late Neolithic Population of Coastal Oman Inferred from Radiocarbon Dating and Stable Isotope Analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 153.3, 353-364. ZAZZO, A., O. Munoz, I. Béguier, E. Badel, F. Genchi and L.G. Marcucci 2016. Chronology of occupation at Ras Al-Hamra 6 (Sultanate of Oman): implication for the estimation of the reservoir effect on the Omani coast during the 6th-5th mill. BC. Radiocarbon 58.2, 383-395.

217

Index

!Kung, 173, 216 Abu Dhabi, 179, 181, Abutilum pannosum, 12 Acacia sp., v, 16, 101 Acacia tortilis, 12 Acanthopleura haddoni, 57, 58 Acar plicata, 58 Acmaea profunda, 58 Acmaeidae, 58 Acteon affinis, 58 Acteonidae, 58 Agatharchides of Cnido, 54 Akab Island (Umm Al-Qaiwain), 125, 131, 133, 158, 181, 182, 184, 188, 191 Al-Batinah (Oman), 1 Alectryonella plicatula, 58 Alexander the Great, 54 Al-Haddah (Oman), 191 Amaea acuminata, 58 Ambassis gymnocephalus, v, 17 America, 51, 105 Anabasis setifera, 12 Anadara antiquata, 58, 114 Anadara ehrenbergi, 58 Anadara sp., 81, 115, 165 anchovies, 109, 111 Ancilla scaphella, 57, 58 Ancilla sp., 116, 130, 139 Andaman Islands (India), 105 Anyang (China), 51 Aplysia cornigera, 58 Aplysiidae, 58 Arabian Gulf, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 14, 53, 54, 55, 60, 80, 111, 131, 158, 165, 174, 179, 181, 182, 184, 188, 191, 193 Arabian Sea, 1, 9, 54, 56, 78, 80, 174 Arca sp., 165 Architectonica laevigata, 58 Architectonicidae, 58 Arcidae, 58, 114, 115 Ardea goliath, 122 Ardea purpurea, 122 Argonauta argo, 59

Argonautidae, 59 Aristotle, 51 Arrian, 1, 54 Ar-Ruways (Oman), 178 ascidia, 56 ass, xi, 117, 118, 121 As-Sabiyah (Kuwait), 131, 179, 181, 183 As-Suwayh (Oman), 46, 78, 134, 161, 163, 178, 179, 182, 188 Atyidae, 58 Atys cylindrica, 58 Australia, 105 Avicennia marina, 12, 13, 14, 56, 58, 78, 101, 114, 122 Babylon (Iraq), 54 Bahrain, 3, 209 Bandar Khayran (Oman), 14 Barbatia helblingii, 58 Barbatia obliquata, 58 Barbatia setigera, 58 Barnardaclesia cirrhifera, 58 Bedouins, 161, 168, 204 BHS-18 (Jebel Al-Buhais 18), 78, 132, 161, 162, 173, 188 Bimmah, 6 bitumen, 111, 158, 183, 192 BJD-1 (Al-Haddah 1), 191 Blombos Cave (South Africa), 48 Bolinus brandaris, 51 Bos primigenius taurus, 118 Buccinidae, 58 Bullaria ampulla, 58 Bullidae, 58 Burnished Grey Ware, 72, 158 Bursa granularis, 58 Bursidae, 58 Bushmen, 101, 173 Callista erycina, 57, 59, 113 Callista lilacina, 59 Callista sp., 153, 165 Calyptraea pellucida, 58 Calyptraeidae, 58 camel, 118

Canada, 105 Canis lupus arabs, 118 Cape Town (South Africa), 48 Capital Area (Muscat), 1, 3, 7, 29, 117, 160, 161, 174, 188, 191 Capparis sp., 13 Capra aegrarus hircus, 118 Carangidae, 111, 128, 165 Cardiidae, 57, 114, 115 Cardita bicolor, 57 cattle, 106, 117, 118, 167 Cave des Pigeons (Morocco), 48 Cave of Santa Maria of Agnano (Italy), 49 Cave of the Arene Candide (Italy), 49 Cave of Fanciulli (Italy), 49 Centaura pseudosinaica, 12 Cephalopods, 59 Cerithidea cingulata, 56, 57, 58 Cerithiidae, 58 Cerithium scabridum, 58 cetacean, 122 Ceylon, 50 Chelonia mydas, 55, 121, 165, 184 Cheloniophagists, 52, 54, 55 Chenopodiaceae, 13 Chenopodium album, 12 chert, xii, 10, 19, 27, 45, 61, 105, 119, 124, 143, 145, 147, 150, 170, 191 Chicoreus ramosus, 50, 60, 116, 128, 129 China, 51, 220 Chiton barnardi, 57, 58 Chitonidae, 58 Chiton preregrinus, 57, 58 chlorite, 27, 31, 124, 134, 139, 140, 141, 190, 191 Circe corrugata, 59 Circe currogata, 57 Circenita callipyga, 59 Cistanche tubulosa, 12 Chlamys sp., 45, 116, 128 Claudius Aelianus, 54 Clearchus of Soli, 54 Clupeidae, 111

219

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Clypeomorus bifasciatus, 58 Columbellidae, 58 Conidae, 58 Conus betulinus, 58 Conus flavidus, 57, 58 Conus quercinus, 58 Conus sp., vii, xii, 45, 51, 52, 116, 128, 130, 131, 132, 134, 139, 190 Conus taeniatus, 58 Convolvulus prostrates, 12 copper, 24, 79, 168, 175, 176 Corbula modesta, 59 Corbula sulculosa, 59 Corbulidae, 59 cormorant, 122 Costellaria acuminata, 58 Costellariidae, 58 Crimea, 47 Cronia konkanensis, 58 Cronia margariticola, 58 Cypraea annulus, 51 Cypraea felina fabula, 58 Cypraea gracilis, 7, 58 Cypraea moneta, 51 Cypraea sp., 47, 130, 131, 132, 139 Cypraea turdus, 56, 57, 58 Cypraeidae, 58 DA-11 (Dalma Island 11), 179, 181, 184 Dalma Island, 179, 181, 182 Dentaliidae, 58 Dentalium octangulatum, 58 Dentalium sp., 51, 113, 116, 130, 131, 132, 139, 140, 155 Dermochelys coriacea, 165 Dhofar (Oman), 10, 14, 102, 105, 179 Diodora bambayana, 58 Diodora imbricata, 58 Diodorus Siculus, 54 Dodonaea angustifolia, 12 dog, 118 Dosariyah (Saudi Arabia), 131 Dosinia alta, 57, 59 Drmochelys coriacea, 184 Ecuador, 51 Egretta sp., 122 Egypt, 53, 54, 55, 220 Engina mendicaria, 57, 58, 116, 130, 131, 132, 139, 191 Engraulidae, 111 Epitoneum pallasii, 58 Epitoniidae, 58 Equus asinus africanus, 117, 118 Euchelus asper, 58 Euphorbia balsamifera, 12 Euphrates River, 3

220

Euthynnus affinis, xi, 111, 112 Fahal Island (Oman), 1, 3, 27, 111 Fasciolaria trapezium, 50, 60, 116, 128, 129, 131, 134 Fasciolariidae, 58 Fissurella townsendii, 58 Fissurellidae, 58 flint, 24, 31, 78, 143, 145 fox, 117, 219, 220, 221, 222 France, 47, 49 Frankenia sp., 13 gabbro, 10, 32, 133, 149, 150 Gari occidens, 59 GAS-1 (Wadi Shab 1), 125, 161, 163, 174, 176, 178, 184, 188, 189, 191, 192 Gastropods, 58 Gazella gazella arabica, 17 gazelle, 117, 118, 121, 154, 184 Globicephala macrorhynchus, 121 goats, 117, 118, 121, 154, 167, 184 H3 (As-Sabiyah 3) 131, 182, 184 Hafit Culture/Period, 79, 175 Haifa (Israel), 48 Hajar Mountains (Oman), 10, 55, 119 Hammada salicornica, 12 hare, 117, 118, 121 Hasik (Oman), 179 Heliotroium kotschi, 12 Herodotus, 53, 54 Hexaplex kuesterianus, 58 Hexaplex trunculus, 51 Hiatula ruppelliana, 59 Homo erectus, 48, 208 Hormuz Strait, 1, 3, 7, 14, 55, 158 ichtyophagists, 1, 52, 53, 54, 55 India, 14, 49, 50, 54, 105 Indian Ocean, 1, 3, 8, 10, 49, 54 Indonesia, 48, 219, 221 Iran, 24, 54, 55, 72, 79, 124, 160 Isognomonidae, 58, 108, 114, 115, 125, 131 Isognomon legumen, 56, 57, 58, 108 Isognomon sp., 49, 106, 114, 115, 116, 125, 134, 188 Israel, 48 Ja’alan (Oman), 3, 4, 13, 161, 162, 163, 168, 174, 177, 184, 188, 190, 191 jasper, 10, 31, 61, 124, 145, 147 Java, 48 Jebel Al-Buhais, 161, 162 Jebel Saffan (Oman), 177

Katsuwonus pelamis, 111 Kawakawa, 111, 112 KHB-1 (Ras Al-Khabbah 1), 161, 162, 177, 182, 185, 188 Khor Jaramah (Oman), 13 Khor Milkh (Oman), 184, 188, 190 KM-1 (Khor Milkh 1), 125, 184, 188, 190 KM-2 (Khor Milkh 2), 188 Kuwait, 131, 179, 181, 183 Lambis truncata sebae, 50, 56, 57, 60, 116, 129,130, 131, 134 Larinae, 122 Latirus nassatula forskalii, 58 Leiosolenus tripartitus, 58 Lethrinidae, 111 limestone, 24, 31, 32, 109, 149, 150, 175, 221 Limonium axillare, 12 Lithophaga cumingiana, 58 longtail tuna, 111 Lycium shawii, 13, 16 lynx, 117, 121 mackerels, 111, 128 Magan Civilization/Land 167, 168, 176 Makran, 54 mangrove, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 41, 56, 57, 58, 71, 74, 77, 78, 101, 106, 107, 111, 113, 114, 122, 161, 165, 171, 182, 183, 193 Marawah Island (Abu Dhabi Emirate), 179 Marcia ceylonensis, 56, 59 Marcia opima, 59 Masirah Island (Oman), 179, 191, 192 Mediterranean Sea, 51, 54 Mehrgarh (Pakistan), 49 Melanellidae, 58 Mesolithic Period, vii, 47, 49, 53 Middle Holocene Period, 1, 7, 25, 41, 50, 117, 164, 174, 175, 178, 183, 193 Mississippi River, 105 Mitrella cartwrighti, 58 Mitridae, 57, 58 Monocotyledons, 13 Morocco, 48 Morula chrysostoma, 58 Morula granulata, 57 mother-of-pearl, 27, 49, 106, 108, 116, 122, 124, 125, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 142, 147, 150, 166, 177, 184, 188 Mugharet Es-Skul (Israel), 48 Murex sp., 24 Muricidae, xii, 58, 128, 191

Index

Musandam Peninsula/Governorate, 1, 4, 6 Muscat (Capital Area), 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 57, 78, 112, 140, 193 Myanmar, 105 Mytilidae, 58 Nassaridae, 58 Nassarius albescens gemmuliferus, 57, 58 Nassarius arcularius plicatus, 57, 58 Nassarius coronatus, 57, 58 Nassarius deshayesiana, 58 Nassarius gibbosulus, 48 Nassarius sp., 31, 132 Natica pulicaris, 57, 58 Naticidae, 57, 58, 113, 132 Natif Cave (Oman), 179 Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis), 47 Nearchus of Crete, 54 Nerita adenensis, 58 Nerita albicilla, 58 Nerita sp., 130, 131, 132 Neritidae, 58 Nerium oleander, 13, 16 Neverita sp., 130, 131 Nile River, 54 Niso venosa, 58 ochre, 47, 153, 154, 186 Oliva bulbosa, 57, 58, 130, 139 Oliva sp., 116, 131 Olividae, 57, 58 oryx, xi, 117, 221 Oryx leucoryx, 117 Ostrea sp., 81, 165 Ostreidae, 58, 115 ostriches, 118 Ovis aries, 118 Palaeolithic Period, 7, 47, 48, 49 Papua New Guinea, 51, 52 pearls, 131, 133, 155, 192 Pecten sp., 45, 49, 109, 116, 128 peridotite, 10, 37, 149 Persia, 55, 213 Peru, 43, 51 Phalacrocorax carbo, 122 Phoenicians, 51 Pinctada margaritifera, 47, 49, 56, 57, 58, 59, 108, 116, 125, 131 Pinctada radiata, 56, 57, 58, 108, 116, 131 Pinctada sp., 81, 106, 114, 115, 116, 131, 132, 134, 188 Pirinella conica, 58

Planaxidae, 58 Planaxis sulcatus, 58 Plicatula plicata, 58 Plicatulidae, 58 Pliny the Elder, 51, 54, 55 Polinices tumidus, 57, 58 Polyplacophores, 58 Pomponius Mela, 55 porcupines, 118 Potamididae, 58, 115 Psammobiidae, 59 Pseudodon sp., 48 Pteriidae, 58, 108, 114, 115, 125, 131 Qatar, 3, 207, 221 quartz, 10, 19, 24, 31, 61, 81, 124, 145, 147 quartzite, 10, 31, 149, 186 Quriyat (Oman), 1, 117, 174, 188 Qurm Al-Khabir (Oman), 14 Qurum (Muscat, Oman), 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 32, 34, 55, 56, 57, 58, 78, 107, 113, 119, 166, 171, 183, 193 radiolarite, 19, 31, 124, 145 Ras Al-Hadd (Oman), 1, 10, 47, 49, 111, 122, 156, 175, 176, 177 Ras Al-Jinz (Oman), 49, 176, 177, 182 Ras Al-Khabbah (Oman), 161, 162, 177, 178, 185, 188 Ras Dah (Oman), 179, 191, 192 Red Sea, 43, 54, 55 RH-1 (Ras Al-Hamra 1), 21, 24, 32 RH-2 (Ras Al-Hamra 2), 24, 32 RH-3 (Ras Al-Hamra 3), 24, 32 RH-4 (Ras Al-Hamra 4), 20, 24, 27, 28, 32, 80, 171, 183, 188, 190, 193 RH-6 (Ras Al-Hamra 6), 6, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 42, 44, 56, 57, 58, 78, 80, 81, 108, 114, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 125, 128, 130, 139, 141, 149, 161, 164, 165, 166, 171, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196 RH-7 (Ras Al-Hamra 7), 24, 32 RH-8 (Ras Al-Hamra 8), 24, 32 RH-9 (Ras Al-Hamra 9), 24 RH-10 (Ras Al-Hamra 10), 20, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 38, 57, 64, 79, 80, 140, 150, 171, 174, 182, 183, 190, 192, 193 RH-11 (Ras Al-Hamra 11), 24, 32 RH-12 (Ras Al-Hamra 12), 21, 24, 32 Rhinoclavis sordidula, 58 Rhizophora mucronata, 13, 56

Rizophora sp., 16, 78, 101 Rub Al-Khali desert, 1 Saccostrea cucullata, 56, 57, 58, 114, 115, 165 Salalah, 14 Salsola rubescens, 12 Salvadora persica, 12 Samail, 10 sandstone, 143, 145, 150, 153 sardines, 109, 111 Saudi Arabia, 3, 43, 131 Scaphopods, 58 schist, 124, 139, 143, 149 Scombridae, 111, 128, 165 Sea of Oman, 1, 4, 6, 9, 29, 54, 60, 131, 165, 174, 193 Sepia trygonina, 59 Sepia pharaonis, 59 Sepiidae, 59 serpentine, 10, 56, 124 serpentinite, 139, 143 Serpulorbis variabilis, 57 shark, 78, 110, 134, 139, 155, 157, 170, 192 sheep, 106, 117, 118, 121, 167, 184 shell-midden, 29, 31, 41, 42, 47, 108, 113, 118, 133, 179 short-finned pilot whale, 121 shrimps, 56 skipjack tuna, 111 South Africa, 48 Sparidae, 111, 165 Spondylus sp., 51, 52, 131, 132, 191 steatite, 10, 191 Sternidae, 122 Strabo, 54 Strombidae, 58, 115 Strombus decorus persicus, 56, 57, 58, 114 Strombus gibberulus, 58 Strombus sp., 45, 115, 116, 130, 132, 134, 165 Suaeda sp., 12 SWY-1 (As-Suwayh 1), 46, 134, 161, 163, 178, 182 SWY-2 (As-Suwayh 2), 161, 178, 179, 182, 184, 188 Taforalt (Morocco), 48 tahr, 117, 118, 121, 184 Tamarix mascatensis, 12 Tamarix sp., 13, 16, 101 Telescopium sp., 56 Telescopium telescopium, 57, 58 Tellina foliacea, 58 Tellinidae, 58

221

Prehistoric Fisherfolk of Oman – The Neolithic Village of Ras Al-Hamra RH-5

Terebralia palustris, 56, 57, 58, 113, 114, 115, 165 Thaididae, 57, 58 Thais alouina, 57, 58 Thais bimaculatus, 56, 57, 58 Thais bufo, 56, 57, 58 Thais savignyi, 58 Thais tissoti, 58 Thracia adenensis, 59 Thraciidae, 59 Thunnus albacares, 111, 112 Thunnus tonggol, 111 Tigris River, 3 Tivela damaoides, 57, 59 Tonna sp., 153 Tridacna gigas, 49 Triphora cingulata, 58 Triphoridae, 58 Trobriand Islands, 51 Trochidae, 58 tunas, 111, 128, 165 Turbinella pyrum, 50

222

turtles, 37, 54, 55, 74, 77, 95, 121, 122, 155, 165, 170, 184 Tutufa tutufa bardeyi, 116, 129 UAQ-2 (Umm Al-Qaiwain 2), 78, 158, 181, 182, 184, 188 Ubaid (Iraq), 22, 158 Ukraine, 47 Umbonium vestiarium, 56, 57, 58 Umm Al-Qaiwain, 42, 78, 131, 133, 158, 181, 182, 184, 191 Ur (Iraq), 49 Uruk (Iraq), 49 United Arab Emirates (UAE), 1, 3, 19, 24, 25, 42, 46, 78, 131, 133, 161, 168, 173, 179, 182, 188, 190 Veneridae, 18, 57, 59, 114, 116, 165 Venerupis deshayesii, 59 Vermetus sulcatus, 58 Vermitidae, 58 Vexillum acuminatum, 57, 58

Wadi Aday, 10, 12, 15, 21, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 55, 56, 101, 106, 109, 111, 119, 122, 149, 161, 188, 193 Wadi Arbilyeen, 1 Wadi Massawa, 117 Wadi Saruq, 20 Wadi Shab, 1, 161, 163, 174, 176, 184, 188, 189, 191, 192 Wadi Tiwi, 1 Wadi Wuttayah, 6, 20, 21, 160, 188 wolf, 117 WW-1 (Wadi Wuttayah 1), 188 Xancus pyrum, 49 yellow fin tuna, 111 Ziziphus sp., 13, 16, 101, 122, 123, 165, 167 Zizophora sp., 78 Zulu, x, 103, 105

OmanMHT

OmanMHT

OmanMHT

OmanMHT