Taming the Great Desert: Adam in the Prehistory of Oman [1 ed.] 9781789691818
Located at the margins of the Rub Al-Khali desert, a place of interactions between settled and nomadic populations, the
196 31 19MB
English Pages 145 Year 2019
Recommend Papers
![Taming the Great Desert: Adam in the Prehistory of Oman [1 ed.]
9781789691818](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/taming-the-great-desert-adam-in-the-prehistory-of-oman-1nbsped-9781789691818.jpg)
- Author / Uploaded
- Guillaume Gernez
- Jessica Giraud
File loading please wait...
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 . 3
TAMING THE GREAT DESERT
ADAM IN THE PREHISTORY OF OMAN Guillaume Gernez and Jessica Giraud
MIN ISTRY OF H E RITAGE A ND C ULT UR E - SULTANAT E OF OMAN 2019
The Archaeological Heritage of Oman
TA MING THE GR EAT DESERT
Adam in the Prehistory of Oman
GUILLAUME GERNEZ & JESSICA GIRAUD
Sultanate of Oman Ministry of Heritage and Culture
Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com
© Guillaume Gernez & Jessica Giraud 2019 Taming the Great Desert: Adam in the Prehistory of Oman (Includes bibliographical references and index). 1. Arabia. 2. Oman. 3. Adam. 4. Prehistory. 5. Antiquities. Cover image: Copper quivers in the “room of the weapons” of Mudhmar East, Building 1 (photograph by G. Gernez).
First published in 2017 by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Sultanate of Oman, Muscat. This edition is published by Archaeopress Publishing Ltd in association with the Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Sultanate of Oman. Printed in England ISBN 978-1-78969-180-1 ISBN 978-1-78969-181-8 (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 Culture, Sultanate of Oman. Ministry of Heritage and Culture Sultanate of Oman, Muscat P.O. Box 668 P.C. 100 Khuwair, Muscat Phone: +968 24 64 13 00 Fax: +968 24 64 13 31 Email: [email protected] Web Site: www.mhc.gov.om
Contents
List of illustrations
vii
Acknowledgments
xiii
1 Archaeology in Adam from the first steps to the latest discoveries and methods. Ten years of research Guillaume Gernez
1
2 Geoarchaeological investigation in the Adam region. A regional study of past human-environment interactions Tara Beuzen-Waller and Guillaume Gernez
16
3 Palaeolithic period in the Sufrat Valley. The first inhabitants of Adam Stéphanie Bonilauri, Tara Beuzen-Waller and Guillaume Gernez
25
4 Neolithic sites near Jabal Salakh Marion Lemée, Guillaume Gernez, Jessica Giraud and Tara Beuzen-Waller
33
5 The new funerary landscape during the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Adam, Jabal Salakh and Jabal Qarah Jessica Giraud and Guillaume Gernez
43
6 A tale of two graveyards. The excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam Guillaume Gernez and Jessica Giraud
49
7 The Iron Age in Adam. The discovery of a ritual complex near Jabal Mudhmar Guillaume Gernez, Anne Benoist, Mathilde Jean
81
8 Water-sharing techniques of Falaj Al-Māleh in Adam Julien Charbonnier
102
9 Prehistoric and protohistoric heritage in Adam. A challenge for the future Guillaume Gernez
114
Bibliography
121
Index
127
vii
List of illustrations
FIGURES 1.1.
Adam in central Oman (source Google Maps).
2
1.2.
Landscape near Adam with Jabal Salakh in background (photograph by J. Giraud).
3
1.3.
Carved stone discovered at Al-Qutayinah near Adam in 2006. Two humans face each other in a scene of unknown meaning (photograph by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture of Oman).
3
1.4.
The first day of surveys in Adam (January 2007). Jessica Giraud is explaining the field operations to the late Professor Serge Cleuziou, Olivier Blin and other members of the team (photograph by G. Gernez).
4
1.5.
Surveyed area around Adam (map by J. Giraud).
5
1.6.
The offering place in Al-Qutayinah. The carved stone (Figure 1.3) come from this building that could also reuse other stones of an Early Bronze Age house or tomb (drawing by C. Sévin-Allouet).
6
1.7.
Map indicating one day of survey track (by car) in Jabal Qarah (map by J. Giraud).
7
1.8.
Adam North (Qala‘a) graveyard during excavations in January 2013 (photograph by G. Gernez).
7
1.9.
Adam South. Detail of the first layer of bones in the collective tomb 2000 (photograph by G. Gernez).
9
1.10.
Early Bronze Age tower discovered at Wedhha (photograph by G. Gernez).
10
1.11.
Complete map of the archaeological sites around Jabal Salakh. Survey 2014 (map by D. Arhan).
10
1.12.
New technologies used during the surveys in January 2015: CAPTAIR team programming two simultaneous eBee flights and making a video report (photograph by G. Gernez).
11
1.13.
Mudhmar East. The “Columned building of the Archers” appears as a darker area near the center indicated by the arrow (orthophotograph by CAPTAIR).
12
1.14.
Digital Elevation Model of Adam South graveyard. Each small round anomaly indicates the presence of a grave (center left of the DEM) (image by CAPTAIR).
14
2.1.
Central part of Jabal Salakh, view from the north (photograph by G. Gernez).
17
2.2.
Western part of Jabal Salakh, view from the north (photograph by J. Giraud).
17
2.3.
Palm trees inside the Adam oasis (photograph by J. Giraud).
18
2.4.
Rocky landscape of the Jabal Salakh, view from the north during the survey (photograph by G. Gernez).
18
ix
x
2.5.
Scheme of human/environment interactions since the beginning of the Holocene to the Iron Age in Oman. Regarding the evolution of the Holocene climate, a major pluvial period has been identified from approximately 10500 BP to 6000 BP, a short return to pluvial conditions from 5100 BP to 4200 BP to finally lead to the actual arid conditions that we now know. Concerning the archaeological context during the Bronze Age, the Hafit and Umm an-Nar Periods are related to the onset of the agriculture oasis. The Wadi Suq Period (Late Bronze Age) is generally characterized by a cultural shift that coincides with demographic down shifts and a possible return to semi nomadism in this area (diagram by T. Beuzen-Waller).
19
2.6.
Geomorphologic map of Adam (map by T. Beuzen-Waller).
20
2.7.
Geomorphologist analyzing the cut of a terrace (photograph by M. Lemée).
21
2.8.
Geomorphologic map of Wadi Dishshah (map by T. Beuzen-Waller).
22
2.9.
Evolution of settlement pattern from Palaeolithic to the Wadi Suq Period (map by T. Beuzen-Waller).
23
3.1.
Sufrat Dishshah from south (photograph by T. Beuzen-Waller).
26
3.2.
Chert outcrop in Sufrat Dishshah (photograph by S. Bonilauri).
27
3.3.
Lithic concentration over a flat summit of Sufrat Dishshah (photograph by S. Bonilauri).
28
3.4.
Sufrat Dishshah. Lithics (Levallois Middle Palaeolithic industry) (drawing by S. Bonilauri).
29
3.5.
Sufrat Dishshah. Lower Palaeolithic bifaces (photograph by S. Bonilauri).
31
4.1.
Topographic map and distribution of archaeological remains (map by O. Barge).
35
4.2.
Jabal Al-Aluya. Schematic plan of the Neolithic site (map by M. Lemée).
36
4.3.
Jabal Al-Aluya. Locus 8001: U-shaped structure after cleaning (photograph by M. Lemée).
37
4.4.
Jabal Al-Aluya. Locus 8113, U-shaped structure surrounded by a probable fence (drawing by A. Benoist and M. Lemée).
38
4.5.
Jabal Al-Aluya. Cores and laminar flakes (drawing by M. Lemée).
40
4.6.
Jabal Al-Aluya. Intentional plunging process (drawing by M. Lemée).
41
5.1.
Collapsed tower-tomb in Jabal Qarah (photograph by G. Gernez).
44
5.2.
Small tower-tomb in Jabal Salakh (photograph by J. Giraud).
45
5.3.
Tower-tombs on hills in Jabal Qarah (photograph by J. Giraud).
45
5.4.
Weddha. Cairns and tower-tombs distributed along the crest lines (map by D. Arhan).
46
5.5.
Funerary landscape in Jabal Qarah (photograph by J. Giraud).
47
5.6.
a) 3D Model of Jabal Qarah (eastern foothill); b) Orthophograph detail showing an alignment of four tombs; c) Digital Elevation Model of the same area (photographs and graphic elaboration by CAPTAIR).
48
6.1.
Main necropolises in Adam including Adam North and Adam South (map by G. Gernez).
50
6.2.
Adam South. View from the ground with Jabal Hinaydil on the left. Stone concentrations and mounds indicate eroded graves (photograph by G. Gernez).
50
6.3.
Adam South. Isolated facing stone discovered during the 2008 survey (photograph by G. Gernez).
51
6.4.
Digital Elevation Model of Adam South. Each circular anomaly corresponds to a grave (image by CAPTAIR).
52
6.5.
Adam South. Tomb 2000 before excavation. The structure was indicated by a large concentration of broken stones (photograph by G. Gernez).
53
6.6.
Adam South. Umm an-Nar Tomb 2000 (Early Bronze Age) after excavation. Large stones of the circular foundation are visible together with the stone pavement (photograph by G. Gernez).
53
6.7.
Adam South. Plan of Tomb 2000. The original plan is clear despite significant destructions (drawing by G. Gernez).
54
6.8.
Adam South. Collapsed facing stones of Tomb 2000 (photograph by G. Gernez).
55
6.9.
Adam South. Bone concentration in the north chamber of Tomb 2000 (photograph by E. Germain).
56
6.10.
Adam South. The only complete pot in Tomb 2000 (photograph by G. Gernez).
56
6.11.
Adam South, Tomb 2000. 1) Buffed-ware small jar; 2) Black-on-Red painted local jar; 3) Rectangular chlorite box; 4-5) Black-painted fine grey ware imported from Iran/Baluchistan (photograph by G. Gernez).
57
6.12.
Adam South, Tomb 2000. Black-on-red pottery (drawing by G. Gernez).
58
6.13.
Adam South, Tomb 2000. Fine grey ware pottery (drawing by G. Gernez).
58
6.14.
Adam South, Tomb 2000. Types of chlorite vessels (drawing by C. Paladre).
60
6.15.
Adam South, Tomb 2000. Decorated chlorite rectangular box (photograph by C. Paladre).
60
6.16.
Adam South, Grave 2006. Painted Wadi Suq goblet (drawing and photograph by G. Gernez).
61
6.17.
Adam South. Wadi Suq cist grave 2007 during excavation. Note the facing stone probably reused from Tomb 2000 (photograph by G. Gernez).
62
6.18.
Adam South. Tomb 2001 (Wadi Suq Period?) after excavation (photograph by G. Gernez).
63
6.19.
Topographic plan of Adam North graveyard (map by O. Barge and E. Regagnon).
64
6.20.
Aerial kite view of Adam North. Burial mounds before excavations (photograph by O. Barge).
64
6.21.
Central part of Adam North during excavation. View from Jabal Mudhmar foothill to the east.
65
6.22.
Adam North. General map of the excavated area (map by G. Gernez).
66
6.23.
Adam North. Grave 1030 (Wadi Suq Period) after excavation (photograph by G. Gernez).
67
6.24.
Adam North, Grave 1030. Truncated bronze bowl, bronze dagger and chlorite pot in situ (photograph by G. Gernez).
68
6.25.
Adam North. Stone (mainly carnelian) and shell beads from Grave 1030 (photograph by G. Gernez).
69
6.26.
Adam North, Grave 1030. Cosmetic container (photograph by G. Gernez).
70
6.27.
Adam North. Tomb 1029 (Wadi Suq Period) (photograph by G. Gernez).
71
6.28.
Adam North. Tomb 1013 (Wadi Suq Period) (photograph by G. Gernez).
71
xi
xii
6.29.
Adam North, Tomb 1033. Bronze socketed spearheads (photograph by G. Gernez).
72
6.30.
Adam North, Tomb 1026. Globular chlorite lugged pot with lid (photograph by G. Gernez).
72
6.31.
Adam North, Grave 1017. Chlorite globular lugged pot with lid (picture. G. Gernez).
73
6.32.
Adam North. Chlorite globular lugged pots and associated lids (Early Wadi Suq Period) (photograph by G. Gernez).
74
6.33.
Adam North. Chlorite vessels (Early Wadi Suq Period) (drawing by M. Jean).
75
6.34.
Adam North, Grave 1002. Samad Period burial. Iron and stone tools, shell and coral raw materials and one gold earring are associated to a young girl (photograph by G. Gernez).
76
6.35.
Adam North, Grave 1002. Bronze or Iron Age cylinder seal discovered in the filling (photograph by G. Gernez).
77
6.36.
Adam North, Grave 1024. Second burial (Samad Period). The iron arrowheads and spearhead indicate that the deceased was probably a warrior (photograph by G. Gernez).
78
6.37.
Adam North, Grave 1002. Gold earring discovered under the skull in the second burial (Samad Period) (photograph by G. Gernez).
79
7.1.
Mudhmar East. Aerial view of the Iron Age complex. Building 1 known as “Columned building of the Archers” and the related platform labeled Building 2 (photograph by R. Hautefort).
82
7.2.
Mudhmar East. Building 1 after excavation (photograph by G. Gernez).
83
7.3.
Mudhmar East. Plan of Building 1 with indication of the room of weapons (drawing by G. Gernez and M. Jean).
84
7.4.
Mudhmar East, Building 1. Stone basement and the mudbrick elevation of a wall with the coating preserved on its base (photograph by M. Jean).
86
7.5.
Mudhmar East, Building 1 (locus 3060). Burnt coating and traces of a green painting (photograph by M. Jean).
87
7.6.
Mudhmar East. 3D Model of Building 1 (model by R. Hautefort).
89
7.7.
Mudhmar East, Building 2. Copper snake discovered in the platform (photograph by G. Gernez).
90
7.8.
Mudhmar East, Building 1 (room 3036). Two copper quivers in the “room of the weapons” (upper deposit) (photograph by G. Gernez).
91
7.9.
Mudhmar East, Building 1 (room 3036). Five sets of weapons (bows, axes, daggers and arrowheads) in the “room of the weapons” (middle deposit) (photograph by G. Gernez).
92
7.10.
Mudhmar East, Building 1 (room 3036). Unfinished copper/bronze shaft-hole axe in the “room of the weapons” (middle deposit) (photograph by G. Gernez).
93
7.11.
Mudhmar East, Building 1 (room 3036). Copper bow from the middle deposit (photograph by G. Gernez).
94
7.12.
Mudhmar East, Building 1 (room 3036). Miniature copper weapons (bows, spear, quiver), arrowheads and other objects (snake, ring, cup and fragments) from the northeastern corner of the room (photograph by G. Gernez).
95
7.13.
Mudhmar East, Building 1. Composite dagger with iron blade and copper handle (photograph by G. Gernez).
96
7.14.
Mudhmar East, Building 1. Pottery shapes (bowls, jars and handles) (drawing by M. Jean).
97
7.15.
Mudhmar East, Building 1. Silver tetradrachm from the late occupation of the building (Samad Period).
100
8.1.
Location of Adam and a map of the oasis (photograph by J. Charbonnier).
103
8.2.
Plan of the Falaj Al-Māleh irrigation system (aerial map by J. Charbonnier).
104
8.3.
Sundial of Falaj Al-Māleh, plan and view from east (photograph by J. Charbonnier).
105
8.4.
Timing with the Falaj Al-Māleh sundial. A) placing a stick; B) waiting for the shadow to reach the stick; C) removing the stick; D) shifting the sluice in a channel (photograph by J. Charbonnier).
106
8.5.
The mosque sundial from north-east (photograph by J. Charbonnier).
108
8.6.
Distribution of water shares on the sundial on January 14th 2012 (drawing by J. Charbonnier).
109
8.7.
Distribution of water in the palm grove on January 14th 2012 (aerial map by J. Charbonnier).
110
8.8.
Sketch plans showing the relationship between the position of a field and the volume of water it receives (drawing by J. Charbonnier).
111
8.9.
Hamed bin Salem throwing straw into a channel (photograph by J. Charbonnier).
112
9.1.
Adam. View of the oasis showing traditional architectures (J. Giraud).
115
9.2.
Orthophotograph of the Adam oasis (image by CAPTAIR).
116
9.3.
3D Model of Hosn Al-Hawashim (model by CAPTAIR).
116
9.4.
3D Model of the Al-Sha’ra falaj tower (model by CAPTAIR).
117
9.5.
Adam team members overhanging Adam North graveyard in January 2013. Hugo Naccaro, Damien Arhan, Mathilde Jean, Jessica Giraud, Aurélie Paci and Clélia Paladre (photograph by G. Gernez).
118
xiii
Acknowledgments
This book is dedicated to Serge Cleuziou (1945-2009)
This decade of work in Adam would not have been possible without the sponsors, members, workers and Omani friends of the French Archaeological Mission. This project could not have existed without the financial and logistical support of the Ministry of Heritage and Culture and the help of Omani companies. We would like to express our thanks to the Undersecretary for Heritage, His Excellency Salim Mohamed al-Mahrooqi; the Advisor to His Highness the Minister of Heritage and Culture for Special Projects, His Excellency Hassan Mohamed al-Lawati; the Assistant Director General for Archaeology, Mr. Sultan Saif al-Bakri; the Director of the Department of Excavations and Archaeological Studies, Mr. Khamis al-Asmi; Ms. Biubwa Ali al-Sabri and Mr. Ahmad Mohamad al-Tamimi for their help, strong support and great interest for Adam. We also thank Mohamad al-Wahili for his logistic help in every situation, Sumaya for her efficency, Khalil al-Nadabi, Sheikha alRasbi and Khalid al-Swafi for their help with the materials. We thank also Philip Koch and Qais alMazrouai for the photographs. Special thanks go to Dennys Frenez, for his work on this book. For drone flights, the help of the National Survey Authority was essential, so we thank Colonel Saif, and also Fahad who came on the field. We would like to express our grateful thanks to Sheikh Salim Ahmed al-Mahrooqi, Ali Ahmad al-Mahrooqi, Mohamad Ali al-Mahrooqi, Ahmad Haroub al-Mahrooqi, Mohammed Eid, for their help and support in Adam. We also thank the members of Adam Municipality, especially Ali Said al-Adami, the Safari Hotel, the Sede company, The National Blue Line Project Company and its Director Saif al-Mahrooqi, Nawras company, Hamood al-Mahrooqi. We also address our thanks to Jamal bin Hassan al-Moosawi, Director General of the National Museum, and to Christine Pariselle and Gianluca Regoli and their teams for the restoration of copper objects. Several French institutions, companies and people generously granted financial support. We would like to express our special thanks to our French sponsors without whom this campaign would not have been possible: the French Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, the CNRS, the UMR 7041 ArScAn team VEPMO (Régis Vallet, former Director, and Victoria de Castéja, engineer), and UMR 5133 Archéorient, the French Embassy in Muscat, especially H.E. Roland Dubertrand (French Ambassador), H.E. Yves Oudin and Malika Berak (former French Ambassadors), Clément Moutel and his predecessor Houcine Damane (Cooperation and Cultural Action Advisor, French Embassy), the French Center for Archaeology and Social Sciences of Sana’a and its director Dr. Michel Mouton and former director Michel Tuchscherer, the MEDEE Program and its director, Pr. Éric Fouache, the ANR program “Altérité culturelle” under coordination of Éric Boëda, ANR programs “PHOENIX” (dir. Margareta Tengberg), and “SOPHOCLE” (dir. Serge Cleuziou), the company CAPTAIR, the company DIAG. Special thanks also to the Institut des Déserts et des Steppes and Pierre-Henri Giscard. A final thanks to all the team members for their great work during many years and to all friends and visitors who came to visit the sites and encouraged us for this research. xv
Chapter 1
Archaeology in Adam from the first steps to the latest discoveries and methods. Ten years of research Guillaume Gernez
The region of Adam, in the region Ad-Dakhiliyah is located on the southern flank of Al-Hajar Mountains and in the northern part of interior Oman, sixty kilometers from Nizwa (Figure 1.1). At the door of the Rub Al-Khali desert, the modern town of Adam is the last oasis on the road to Salalah. Located at the crossroads of the north-south way from Muscat to Salalah and the northwest with a market, it has been for a long time a stage before the crossing of the desert. Today, Adam is composed of a large oasis including several traditional villages and a part of the modern town that is extending year after year. This urban development can be a danger for archaeological remains, so the preservation of heritage in the area of Adam was an important factor of the research from its beginning. The landscape of the southern boundary of Oman mountains is characterized by a succession of small whaleback structures, also known as the “Salakh Arch” (Figure 1.2). Standing 1014 m above sea-level (highest point of Jabal Salakh), the arch is made of a chain of anticlinals, each separated by a gap. From East to West: Jabal Mudhmar, Jabal Hinaydil (or Hunayd), Jabal Salakh, Jabal Nahdah (or Rashid) and Jabal Fitri. All share an asymmetrical structure. Indeed, all of Salakh Arch is concave, bent to the north, with steeper slopes on its southern flank. On the other side, the northern flank side is characterized by mild slopes. Each anticlinal is surrounded by a glacis creating a link between the mountains and the plain. Other hills and small mountains are located around Adam: Jabal Qarah (or Khatmah) 20 km to the north, and Sufrat Dishshah, Sufrat Al-Khays 35 km to the west. The area of Adam is crossed by two major wadis: Wadi Umayri (or Uwaifi), close to the western part of Jabal Salakh, and Wadi Halfayn (here called Wadi Izz) in the east side of Jabal Mudhmar. There are also numerous smaller wadis all over the region; most of them meet in Adam oasis, between Jabal Hinaydil and Jabal Mudhmar.
History of research in the area of Adam The discovery of the stone and the new project proposed by Prof. Serge Cleuziou (2006) Until 2006, Adam and its surroundings had not been visited by archaeologists, but the discovery of a broken carved stone in an offering place near the southwest of Jabal Salakh, in a place called Al-Qutayinah, suggested that this region might have been important during the Early Bronze Age. Indeed, the Ministry of Heritage and Culture asked to the late Professor Serge Cleuziou to identify the style and date of this stone, and he had the surprise of observing some similarities with the famous carved facing stone of the Great Tomb at Hili: two humans next to each other (Figure 1.3). Since Hili was one of the main oasis of Eastern Arabia during the Early Bronze Age (Umm an-Nar Period, 2700-2000 BC), it became possible to suppose that Adam might have been an important protohistoric site.
1
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 1.1. Adam in central Oman (source Google Maps).
For this reason Serge Cleuziou, co-director of the Joint Hadd Project, created an expedition in order to explore the whole area from January 2007, and his Ph.D Student Jessica Giraud was given the responsibility of the 3000 km² survey (Figure 1.4). When this small project started, none of us expected that the work would still go on ten years later. Surveys and archaeological map: early years of the French Mission led by Jessica Giraud (2007-2011) Before any excavation, the first aim of the new mission was to explore Adam and its surroundings (Figure 1.5), in order to identify the main sites, their location, size, date, and also to evaluate the quantity and the density of structures and artefacts. During this first ten-days campaign the archaeological map was created implementing a Geographical Information System, GIS. 390 archaeological structures, mainly tombs, were located and described on the western foothill of Jabal Mudhmar (including the Adam North graveyard), and on the top of Jabal Hinaydil and its north and east foothills. Two Late Iron Age graves were excavated, but were completely empty. Inside the oasis, no evidence of protohistoric remains (Umm an-Nar tomb or tower) was observed.
2
Archaeology in Adam from the first steps to the latest discoveries and methods – Ten years of research
Figure 1.2. Landscape near Adam with Jabal Salakh in background (photograph by J. Giraud).
Figure 1.3. Carved stone discovered at Al-Qutayinah near Adam in 2006. Two humans face each other in a scene of unknown meaning (photograph by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture of Oman).
3
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 1.4. The first day of surveys in Adam (January 2007). Jessica Giraud is explaining the field operations to the late Professor Serge Cleuziou, Olivier Blin and other members of the team (photograph by G. Gernez).
The second season was also short (18 days in April 2008), divided into two parts. 228 new structures were discovered. During one week, the south and west foothills of Jabal Hinaydil were surveyed, and brought to light Adam South graveyard. The other ten days, the team moved to the region called Al-Qutayinah, looking for the original tomb where the carved stone had been taken. Even if this tomb was never found, the modern offering place (or sanctuary) where the carved stone was discovered seemed to present architectural features of a 3rd millennium BC building (Figure 1.6). A sounding in the neighborhood of this sanctuary revealed two pits surrounded by stones, at the bottom of which camel bones were discovered, unfortunately without material evidence that could date the ensemble. During the third season (one month in December 2008 - January 2009), 547 new structures, mainly tombs, were localized, revealing the wide area of ancient occupation: a large necropolis was found in Jabal Qarah (Figure 1.7), and an Iron Age site was identified on the eastern slope of Jabal Mudhmar. The fourth season (five weeks in February-March 2010) revealed the first Neolithic sites of Adam. Among the 533 structures and flint concentrations discovered, several stone circles associated with Neolithic tools were identified on the southern side of Jabal Salakh. Hafit and Wadi Suq tombs were found in the western tip of Jabal Salakh, forming a small necropolis, and we localized tombs also in the southern part of Jabal Qarah. A series of archaeological structures, very small and difficult to date were discovered on the terraces to the south of Adam.
4
Archaeology in Adam from the first steps to the latest discoveries and methods – Ten years of research
Figure 1.5. Surveyed area around Adam (map by J. Giraud).
Because of the extension of the suburbs, part of the fifth season (seven weeks in January-February 2011) focused on the excavations of three graves in Adam North, where new buildings were beginning to destroy this important site. Wadi Suq Period (2000-1600 BC) material was found in the three graves, confirming the chronology of the site. In the same time, surveys continued inside the oasis and to the west of Jabal Salakh, with the surprising discovery of Early, Middle and maybe Upper Palaeolithic flint tools on the slope of Sufrat Dishshah. From this moment, it was possible to sketch the chronology of Adam from Palaeolithic to the Islamic Period and to propose a regional, diachronic and thematic research program. The diachronic and regional program, led by Guillaume Gernez and Jessica Giraud (2012-2016) 1800 structures were documented between 2007 and 2011, confirming the high potential of the region. At this stage of the research, they were concentrated in 30 major sites from several periods: Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Copper Age (Hafit Period) necropolises, Early and Middle Bronze Age graveyards (Umm an-Nar and Wadi Suq periods), Iron Age II cultic site, Samad (Late Iron Age) graveyards, other sites (pre-Islamic and Islamic periods). These discoveries made possible the proposition of a five-years program focused on the study of human communities, in order to specify the evolution of human communities and to determine factors of cultural changes in relation with environment.
5
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 1.6. The offering place in Al-Qutayinah. The carved stone (Figure 1.3) come from this building that could also reuse other stones of an Early Bronze Age house or tomb (drawing by C. Sévin-Allouet).
6
Archaeology in Adam from the first steps to the latest discoveries and methods – Ten years of research
Figure 1.7. Map indicating one day of survey track (by car) in Jabal Qarah (map by J. Giraud).
Figure 1.8. Adam North (Qala‘a) graveyard during excavations in January 2013 (photograph by G. Gernez).
7
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
In order to manage this dense and multidisciplinary project, the support from the Ministry of Heritage and Culture and French Ministry of Foreign Affairs increased, thereby enlarging during the sixth campaign (December 2011-January 2012). Thus began parts of the program: Palaeolithic and Neolithic surveys and first sounding in Jabal Al-Aluya (Salakh South), excavations of Adam North graveyard, environmental study (geomorphology), ethnological study of water management in the oasis, precise cartography and GIS of main sites (including kite views), pottery study, database. The seventh campaign (Dec. 2012 – Jan. 2013) followed the same system, with three main places of work: surveys, soundings and geomorphology in the Palaeolithic site of Sufrat Dishshah, extension of excavated Neolithic shelters in Jabal Al-Aluya and most of all the excavations of the central part of Adam North graveyard (Figure 1.8), with significant results (Chapter 6). During the eighth season (December 2013-January 2014), most of the work was carried out in the Adam South graveyard, where the noteworthy Umm an-Nar tomb 2000 was excavated (Figure 1.9). New surveys revealed two Hafit necropolises near Wedhha, and one of the most southern 3rd millennium BC tower was identified in the vicinity (Figure 1.10). The ninth season (Dec. 2014 – Jan. 2015) offered the opportunity of experiencing new imagery technology by drones on the different fieldworks (excavated areas and surveys). Even if the Palaeolithic research linked with paleo-environment was continuing in Sufrat Dishshah, and if surveys were completed, the main archaeological operation was the excavation of Building 1 (E 1193) in Mudhmar East (Iron Age). Unique copper weapons were discovered there, including two quivers. Finally, the tenth campaign (Jan. 2016) was planned to be the last. Excavations at Mudhmar East yielded a series of copper weapons, revealing the importance of the site for metallurgy, Iron Age ritual and material culture, and had a large media coverage. Therefore, several weeks will be necessary to excavate around the main buildings of the site. Methodology As the research program was becoming multidisciplinary, the variety of methods had to increase. Since the first stages were focused on the exploration of the area leading to the development of the Archaeological Map of Adam, the first methods were used to locate and identify sites (pedestrian surveys and remote sensing) (Figure 1.11). In order to clarify the chronology of populated places and to obtain new data about settlements, funerary practices, society and culture, excavation began, adapted to the kind of remains (unstratified settlements, single burials, collective tombs using physical anthropology methods, collapsed buildings). Methods of physical geography were concurrently used to identify the kind of environment where ancient people lived, and its evolution through time. For all these operations, new techniques and methods (drone high-resolution imagery, orthophotography and 3D models) were developed from 2015 (Figures 1.12 and 1.13). Finally, all of the archaeological material was classified, illustrated, and studied (typology, technology). Pedestrian surveys, remote sensing and GIS According to the very large surface (3000 km² = 30 000 hectares) and the presence of mountains, it is not possible to survey the whole region with the same level of precision. Only the combination of several survey techniques can provide the means to obtain a more complete overview.
8
Archaeology in Adam from the first steps to the latest discoveries and methods – Ten years of research
Figure 1.9. Adam South. Detail of the first layer of bones in the collective tomb 2000 (photograph by G. Gernez).
9
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 1.10. Early Bronze Age tower discovered at Wedhha (photograph by G. Gernez).
Figure 1.11. Complete map of the archaeological sites around Jabal Salakh (Survey 2014, map by D. Arhan).
10
Archaeology in Adam from the first steps to the latest discoveries and methods – Ten years of research
Figure 1.12. New technologies used during the surveys in January 2015: CAPTAIR team programming two simultaneous eBee flights and making a video report (photograph by G. Gernez).
Work was divided into four main stages: 1. Identification of archaeological sites, either from satellite pictures or (more often) travelling by car around the area looking for isolated or multiple structures. We also tested every kind of environment, where pedestrian survey was made randomly in order to find material. The combination of these three elements made it possible to locate archaeological concentrations and empty places. This phase was facilitated by the absence of sediment on every relief, due to erosion: thereby making all stones and architectural remains still visible. The situation is quite similar on glacis, so that imperishable material can be found on the surface. Only in wadis and alluvial plains the sediments cover potential archaeological sites. 2. Once found, each structure was precisely located (GPS), described, pictured, measured, and registered into the Survey Database, including the material found inside or around it, and geological and topographic features. 3. In many cases, a very intensive and exhaustive pedestrian survey was carried out, especially in sites with lithic concentrations and excavated sites. 4. The database was associated to a GIS, so we obtained thematic maps indicating each archaeological site in Adam.
11
Mudhmar East. The “Columned building of the Archers” appears as a darker area near the center indicated by the arrow (orthophotograph by CAPTAIR).
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
12
Archaeology in Adam from the first steps to the latest discoveries and methods – Ten years of research
Excavations Soundings were occasionally made during the surveys (Sufrat Dishshah, Al-Qutayinah, Hinaydil North), but main excavations were carried out in four sites: • Jabal Al-Aluya (Salakh South): Neolithic excavations on a non-stratified settlement. Due to the high difficulty of this kind of field, complete clearing, precise position of each stone and posthole. A complete archaeological and topographical survey was made. • Adam North: Early and Middle Bronze Age graveyard. A large rectangular area was opened in the central part of the graveyard, including 37 funerary mounds, in order to identify them from an architectural point of view, to understand spatial organization and to date them (according to their characteristic features and/or associated artefacts). Since all of the mounds were partly eroded and crumbled, structures were not always easy to make out without excavation: despite very precise surveys, the forms and dates of the structures were often different from what we expected before cleaning. Each tomb was excavated in the same way: we first dug out the crumbled stones of the structures in order to study the process of collapse and the building method, and to reveal the original structure. In a second stage the funerary chambers were excavated layer by layer. Each step was documented during the course of excavation with drawings, and photos. Anthropological studies were conducted on human bones, the aim being to identify the number of individuals, age, sex, pathologies. • Adam South: In this Bronze and Iron Age graveyard, the same method was used. However, due to lack of time, only a selection of 8 structures was chosen for excavation. Two tasks were very difficult: the cleaning of a large monumental cairn, and most of all the excavation of a destroyed collective grave where thousands of crushed bones had to be excavated and identified within three weeks. Several hundred potsherds also needed to be collected, located, classified in order to restore some pots. • Mudhmar East. This Iron Age complex was intensively surveyed, then excavations began inside and outside the main stone/mudbrick building. With 1.7 meters of filling in its western part, the building needed a precise stratigraphic excavation. Orthophotographs of every main stage of excavation (including one layer of copper objects) were made, and a complete 3D Model was obtained.
Geomorphology and environment The complete geomorphological map of Adam was produced in order to place archaeological sites in their present, and ancient (after reconstruction) environment. Both geological maps, satellite/drone pictures and field surveys were used, sometime on a small scale. Cuts in terraces and core sampling were carried out in Sufrat Dishshah to collect sediments and remains of molluscs for OSL dating (for details, see Chapters 2, 3 and 4).
13
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 1.14. Digital Elevation Model of Adam South graveyard. Each small round anomaly indicates the presence of a grave (center left of the DEM) (image by CAPTAIR).
Aerial surveys and photography (kite and drone), 3D modelling The first experiences of aerial view, photogrammetry and topography were made by the Archéorient team (Olivier Barge and Emmanuelle Regagnon), using a kite and differential GPS in several sites. Since the results were promising, we invited a team of the French company CAPTAIR Imaging for Archaeology & Heritage to participate in the 2015 campaign, since they used the most advanced technologies, including hexacopter and eBee drones, high resolution cameras, photogrammetric software and GIS (Figure 1.12), to produce: 1) aerial orthophotography and Digital Elevation Model of excavated sites at Adam South, Adam North, Mudhmar East and Jabal Al-Aluya (Figure 1.14), 2) Large Digital Elevation Model of landscape in Wadi Dishshah and Jabal Qarah, in order to evaluate a new method of aerial survey for geomorphology and archaeology, 3) Topography and architecture of Building 1 in Mudhmar East, and 4) orthophotography and 3D modelling of the Oasis, including the traditional village of Hosn Al-Hawashim and a tower of Falaj Al-Shār‘a.
14
Archaeology in Adam from the first steps to the latest discoveries and methods – Ten years of research
Material studies All artefacts and biofacts were inventoried into several databases (Adam excavations, Pottery Adam, Pottery Surveys, Human Bones, Animal Bones, Lithics). Typological studies were undertaken on metal objects (Guillaume Gernez), shell objects (Lyne al-Toki) and pottery (Bronze Age, Iron Age, Islamic Period) (Anne Benoist and Mathilde Jean), while complete studies (typology, technology, lithology) were made on lithic industries from excavations and surveys (Palaeolithic: Stéphanie Bonilauri and Amir Beshkani, and Neolithic: Marion Lemée). One preliminary study about chlorite manufacturing techniques is in preparation (Cécile Guitard), as well as stone beads production (Jonathan Mark Kenoyer and Dennys Frenez). We can also mention the ongoing metallurgical study (XRF and ICP-AES methods, still to be finished (Julie Goy). Human bones were classified (Yannick Prouin, Mathilde Cervel and Élodie Germain). The study of animal bones discovered in the Mudhmar East Building 2 is under process (Delphine Decruyenaere). Charcoal samples were sent to Beta Analytic, Miami. The final reports of these studies will be published – as well as the surveys and excavations – in the final publications of the research carried out by the French Archaeological Mission.
15
Chapter 2
Geoarchaeological investigation in the Adam region. A regional study of past human/environment interactions Tara Beuzen-Waller and Guillaume Gernez
From the Paleolithic period to the Late Iron Age several climatic cycles have occurred in Oman that have both modified its landscapes and environments. Due to the general arid to semi-arid conditions, fluctuations in water resources, soil quality or local topography could have a non-negligible impact on human occupation and define specific settlement patterns. Archaeological sites distribution often constitutes a geographic relict of these patterns and highlight different strategies through time. Geomorphological and paleoenvironmental studies led in the region of the Salakh Arch aim to reconstruct a local hydroclimatic signal to point out the potential of Adam territories and its vicinity during the late Pleistocene and the Holocene. By doing a geomorphological map of the Salakh Arch region and merging it with archaeological data, we also provide a synthetic document that exposeinherited landforms, active geomorphological features and areas of archaeological potential per period. The analysis of Adam’s area aims to provide a better understanding of how ancient societies took advantage of natural resources and when/how they started to modify their use of land to adopt the current oasis settlement strategy. Location and environment The Adam area is in the interior of the Sultanate of Oman, at the interface between the semi-arid AlHajar Mountains and the hyperarid Rub Al-Khali desert. Currently, its strategic location positions Adam as the last oasis before the long southern road of Salalah. An anticlinal chain formed of five mounts each separated by a gap, named Salakh Arch, dominates Adam’s area landforms (Figure 2.1). This arch, which is the last fold of the Al-Hajar Mountains, acts like a natural dam in the sense that it concentrates seasonal flooding from the north into the gap outlets. Therefore, the current Adam oasis is located in the narrowest gap of the arch where the water table is much higher than all the alluvial plains and could easily be used for agricultural activities. Today, the semi-arid climate allows a non-permanent flow fed by winter rains only, which may nevertheless be abundant. The water table can be recharged by annual rain. Vegetation is scarce but shrubs and acacias can be found in wadi beds (Figure 2.2). Palm trees are mainly concentrated in the oasis, where the falaj system is still used and where electric water pumping is often necessary (Figure 2.3). Since there are no sand dunes and little vegetation near Adam except in wadi beds, the landscape appears to be very rocky and barren (Figure 2.4). Inherited fluvial landforms (bajada) are easily readable. Several levels of alluvial terraces occupy the vast alluvial plain that surround the Salakh Arch. They attest to the impact of the rainfall variability on fluvial dynamics and, hence, water resources reachability.
16
Geoarcheological investigation in the Adam region: a regional study of past human/environment interactions
Figure 2.1. Central part of Jabal Salakh, view from the north (photograph by G. Gernez).
Figure 2.2. Western part of Jabal Salakh, view from the north (photograph by J. Giraud).
17
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 2.3. Palm trees inside the Adam oasis (photograph by J. Giraud).
Figure 2.4. Rocky landscape of the Jabal Salakh, view from the north during the survey (photograph by G. Gernez).
18
Figure 2.5. Scheme of human/environment interactions since the beginning of the Holocene to the Iron Age in Oman. Regarding the evolution of the Holocene climate, a major pluvial period has been identified from approximately 10500 BP to 6000 BP, a short return to pluvial conditions from 5100 BP to 4200 BP to finally lead to the actual arid conditions that we now know. Concerning the archaeological context during the Bronze Age, the Hafit and Umm an-Nar Periods are related to the onset of the agriculture oasis. The Wadi Suq Period (then Late Bronze Age) is generally characterized by a cultural shift that coincides with demographic down shifts and a possible return to semi nomadism in this area (diagram by T. Beuzen-Waller).
Geoarcheological investigation in the Adam region: a regional study of past human/environment interactions
19
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Objectives and methods The aim of the studies was to reconstruct a local paleoclimatic signal to compare the evolution of human/ environment interactions in Adam with data from other studies conducted in Eastern Arabia. Indeed, it is admitted that wetter conditions during the Pleistocene could have allowed the occupation of some territories and that the dispersion of Middle Palaeolithic groups in Oman, more precisely during the pluvial phase of the MSI (Marine Isotopic Stage) 3 (54 to 40 ky) and during the MSI 5 (between 76-68 ky 5A and 114-104 ky 5E). Later on, during the mid-Late Holocene, some studies have highlighted the fact that the introduction of the oasis system in Oman, which was based on irrigation agriculture and a sedentary way of life, was indeed a technological response from Bronze Age societies to climate aridification and the increasing scarcity of runoff and rainfall inputs (Figure 2.5). The geoarchaeological studies conducted in Adam have the ambition to examine the current state of hydrological dynamics, to realize the geomorphologic map of the region with an emphasis on inherited fluvial formations, to establish a local palaeo-hydroclimatic signal by dating fluvial terraces (by Radiocarbon and OSL), and to analyze the evolution of the occupation patterns.
Figure 2.6. Geomorphologic map of Adam (map by T. Beuzen-Waller).
20
Geoarcheological investigation in the Adam region: a regional study of past human/environment interactions
Figure 2.7. Geomorphologist analyzing the cut of a terrace (photograph by Marion Lemée).
Results Regional geomorphologic map and Pleistocene fluvial landforms The first part of the work was dedicated to creating a geomorphologic map of the Adam region to promote a better understanding of the environmental frame of human population and quaternary dynamics (Figure 2.6). This map was realized using geological data (Béchennec et al. 1990), satellite imagery (Landsat ETM 7 + 40 N, Google Earth) and fieldwork observations. The map shows that the main part of the alluvial plain is made of an old bajada incised by a fan network that testifies to the morphogenic influence of past pluvial periods (Pliocene Barzaman Formation). Previous research done along Wadi Halfayn indicates that they are mainly correlated to the northward shift of the Indian monsoon notably during the MIS 7, 9 and 11 (Blechschmidt el al. 2009). We related those humid phases to the Level 1 terrace (see geomorphological map). According to OSL age-dating realized in the Adam gap along Wadi Lathil and Wadi Muhanna in 2014 (Figure 2.7), the Level 2 terrace were related to the humid phase of the MIS 5 (ages obtained: 119 ± 8 ky, 117 ± 9 ky, 98 ± 10 ky). The present-time major wadi bed that is embedded in the Level 2 terrace is the result of an early Holocene incision and is still reoccupied during extreme flood events. As a result, we consider that at the scale of the Adam area the main landforms have been edified during the Late Pleistocene. The current floodplain has been established during the Holocene pluvial period and was still active during extreme events. Therefore, recent fluvial archives are not well preserved notably along major wadi streams.
21
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 2.8. Geomorphologic map of Wadi Dishshah (map by T. Beuzen-Waller).
Sufrat Dishshah studies and identification of a Mid-Late Holocene humid period. To complete the hydroclimatic chronology obtained in the Adam gap, we studied a secondary stream characterized by a small watershed concentrated in the Sufrat Dishshah. The Sufrat Dishshah is located on small marly hills in the southwestern parts of the Adam area. Elevation does not exceed 300 meters and the current environment is particularly barren. Geoarchaeological investigations and mapping focused on the survey of one wadi, called Wadi Dishshah that is sourced in the marly hills. Along the upper part of the Wadi Dishshah, alluvial accumulations are organized in three levels of fluvial terraces identified during topographic and geomorphologic surveys (Figure 2.8). They were classified from T1 to T3 considering the T1 as the oldest formation (it is the highest one as well). Several sections of T2 and T3 were studied and dated. The age obtained highlighted an important phase of alluvial accumulation during the mid-late Holocene, in between 6.225 ± 0.465 BP and 5.040 ± 0.03. This phase is related to the building of T2, its stratigraphy is mainly composed of fine sediments related to low flow dynamics. Malacological studies made on the Section 3 reveals that the environment was more humid and fed by continuous low flooding. It led to the development of two species that thrived in humid and shady environments: Zootecus insularis and Pupoides conoepictus. The study of the T3 highlights a detritic phase, dated at 2.620 ± 0.21. This phase is related to the edification of the T3, made of torrential and unclassified deposits.
22
Figure 2.9. Evolution of settlement pattern from Palaeolithic to Wadi Suq Period (map by T. Beuzen-Waller).
Geoarcheological investigation in the Adam region: a regional study of past human/environment interactions
23
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Paleoenvironment and settlement patterns The treatment of the archaeological database through GIS led to the realization of diachronic maps of sites distribution per periods (i.e. Figure 2.9). During the Palaeolithic period, the sites are concentrated into the Sufrat Dishshah complex, probably due to the presence of a raw material (brown chert) and thank to more humid conditions, probably between the MIS 5 and 3. The density of artefacts dating to the Palaeolithic is extremely high but evidences of occupation for the following periods is anecdotal and led to think that this area was abandoned after the Palaeolithic. During the Neolithic period, taking the opportunity of the Holocene humid phase, small groups of people started to settle around the Salakh Arch meanwhile the raw materials changed in favor of Hawasina chert that can be found in high densities in the Barzaman Formation. This Pliocene formation is also surrounded the Salakh and might be a proximity stake. From the Bronze Age, sites were concentrated along main wadi courses as water resources began to be a focal point. However, we can see that this land occupation strategy started before the onset of the aridity in the Adam area regarding age obtained for the fluvial accumulation of the T2. The progressive concentration towards the wadis continued during the Umm an-Nar and the beginning of the Wadi Suq Period. It led to a condensed occupation around the gaps, including the place where the Adam oasis is today. From 1700-1600 BC (4000 BP), the region was deserted, indicating that it was too dry for populations to stay. It is only from 1000 BC (3000 BP) that a reoccupation of the area can be observed, possibly due to the ability to manage the falaj irrigation system. Iron Age II and Late Iron Age burials reusing older tombs indicate a possible continuity of the preferential settlement locations. From the Islamic Period, sedentary populations seem to remain in Adam. Conclusions Site distribution reflects a progressive occupation of the Adam gaps that started from the Early Bronze Age, continued during the Wadi Suq Period, then through to the Iron Age. According to the hydroclimatic dataset, it can be argued that the oasis settlement began before the onset of arid conditions (as humid conditions are still recorded at 5.040 ± 0.03). Therefore, in Adam, the oasis strategy might not be considered as an answer to aridity as this organization appeared to exist before the arid crisis. However, aridity led to a concentration of places where surface water diversion was possible and that fostered few favorable areas that are still populated today.
24
Chapter 3
Palaeolithic period in the Sufrat Valley. The first inhabitants of Adam Stéphanie Bonilauri, Tara Beuzen-Waller and Guillaume Gernez
During the surveys in January 2010, lithic artifacts from the Palaeolithic period were discovered on the southeastern foothill of the Sufrat Dishshah (Figure 2.6), located west of Jabal Salakh, initiating the researches on the Early Prehistory in Adam and its surroundings. The first investigations conducted in the Sufrat Valley highlighted several areas where a very high density of lithic artifacts was visible in surface, distributed in a large geographical zone (more than 10 km2). Systematic surveys and analyses have been done in only a part of the Sufrat Valley, mostly around the southeastern part of the Sufrat Dishshah. Our initial results demonstrated the presence of numerous lithic artefacts on hill summits as well as on slopes and piedmonts. These artifacts exhibit typo-technological features related to the Middle Palaeolithic period and, for some of them, to the Lower Palaeolithic period. They bring forward the geographic importance of the Sultanate of Oman, especially the northern part during the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods. Indeed, during the last decades, archaeological research conducted in Oman highlighted numerous Palaeolithic sites, particularly near the seacoast (for example, see Rose and Usik 2009). The main part of these sites is ascribable to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods and are located in the south of the Huqf region and in the center of the Dhofar region. But so far, similar findings were extremely unusual in the northern part of the Sultanate of Oman. Consequently, the new discoveries in Adam area appear crucial for understanding Palaeolithic occupations in north of Oman, and broadly in the Arabic Peninsula. The discoveries near in Sufrat Dishshah are a new addition to the knowledge about this period. In order to understand the chronology, the environmental conditions and – if preserved sites could be identified – settlement patterns and their evolution in Sufrat Dishshah, surveys and soundings were made following a multi-scale approach (regional, local and micro-local, including density analyses). These works were completed by a preliminary work on flint tools typology and technology. Settings and environment The Sufrat Valley consists of several low marly hills with flat-top summits which provide raised spots overlooking the valley and the Wadi Umayri passageway, which is one of the most important watercourses in this region (Figure 3.1). The Sufrat low hills offer a rich geological setting where raw materials are easily available (Figure 3.2). Indeed, the lithic resources in this valley are abundant, consisting of radiolarian chert veins or chert nodules in the limestone background. Thanks to differential erosion and deflationary processes, the chert nodules (complete or fractured) are freed from their chalky matrices and are therefore readily available. The siliceous material is of excellent quality with perfectly homogenous fine grains. It has largely been exploited by prehistoric men for flake or blade debitage. The valley is now very arid and inhospitable. However, some geomorphological formations designed during past pluvial periods were identified along the dried-out watercourses, indicating that cooler/wetter conditions impacted the Sufrat Valley environment. 25
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 3.1. Sufrat Dishshah from south (photograph by T. Beuzen-Waller).
It evidences higher fluvial activity in the past, in the inner Sufrat Valley as in Wadi Umayri, which is nowadays a specific ecological niche. It then appears that regarding the raw materials availability and past water resources, this valley was an ideal place for human settlements. Lithic artifacts Lithic artifacts were found on the flat-top summits of the Sufrat hill, on its slopes and on the foothills. But the highest density of lithic materials was observed on the summits (around 80 artifacts per square meter) (Figure 3.3). This exceptional density of archaeological artifacts can be partly explained by the phenomenon of chronological overlapping, caused by deflationary processes. Despite the lack of stratigraphical context, these artifacts appear unmoved since the deposition and may certainly be in situ. Furthermore, the artifacts generally are well-preserved, without any apparent post-depositional alteration except the patina. The Sufrat Dishshah slopes show both high and medium density of artifacts (48 artifacts per square meter). The lithic artifacts were found along with rock and debris deposits that had been disturbed by slope dynamics and gravity. The main part of them certainly comes from the upper tabular surfaces, which are gradually shredded by erosion processes. Because of these natural dynamics, two preservation states were observed: the good preservation may be due to slow perturbations that characterizes artifacts found nearly “on site”; and a lower preservation status, that concerns eroded and fractured artifacts, which suffered from natural slopes dynamics.
26
Palaeolithic period in the Sufrat Valley – The first inhabitants of Adam
Figure 3.2. Chert outcrop in Sufrat Dishshah (photograph by S. Bonilauri).
27
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 3.3. Lithic concentration over a flat summit of Sufrat Dishshah (photograph by S. Bonilauri).
Lithic types are the following: Upper Palaeolithic period A lot of tools remain unidentified, and it is not impossible that a proportion of them can be dated to this period, bad known in Central Oman, and maybe not occupied during this period. Middle Palaeolithic period: Levallois, Wa’Shah, Laminar and Bifacial Many types of artifacts were discovered lying on the surface in the midst of each topographical unit of the Sufrat Dishshah (summits, slopes, piedmonts). The typo-technological characteristics enable us to date it from the Middle Palaeolithic period (Figure 3.4), despite the lack of a clear stratigraphical context. The most significant materials found in the Sufrat Valley and their characteristics are presented below. Levallois productions present a number of cores dominated by a Levallois debitage of a unique preferential flake. The aim of such a debitage is to produce predetermined removals of various contours, whereby they are convergent and non-convergent. Convergent artifacts, including Levallois points with three removals and triangular flakes, are characterised by a convergent unipolar preparation. Nonconvergent artifacts include wide or oval flakes and elongated Levallois flakes that are characterized by a centripetal preparation.
28
Palaeolithic period in the Sufrat Valley – The first inhabitants of Adam
Figure 3.4. Sufrat Dishshah. Lithics (Levallois Middle Palaeolithic industry) (drawing by S. Bonilauri).
29
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
In addition, we may also find centripetal, bipolar and convergent unipolar recurrent Levallois cores. The aim of these cores also is to produce predetermined removals of various contours, such as convergent flakes and non-convergent flakes. Convergent products, including “constructed” Levallois points and triangular flakes, are characterized by a convergent unipolar and centripetal preparation. On another hand, nonconvergent products, including wide or elongated removals, are characterized by a centripetal and a bipolar preparation. Many Levallois flakes of various contours (Levallois points, triangular flakes and wide Levallois flakes) are also identified and often found in association with Levallois cores. Some of these flakes are retouched but most of them remain unretouched. These types of Levallois artifacts, their preparation method and the production objectives are similar to those discovered in neighboring regions such as Hadramawt in Yemen (Crassard 2009) or in the Shabwa region (Inizan and Ortlieb 1987). They may also be closely related to the Levantine Mousterian culture, that was an emblematic technical culture from the Near-East during the recent Middle Palaeolithic, which was oriented towards the production of convergent products. This culture in particular included “constructed” Levallois points, points with three removals and triangular flakes. It has to be mentioned that two Nubian cores were identified, for the first time in Central Oman. Usually, Nubian products are well represented in the other sites of the Arabic Peninsula afore-mentioned (Haramawt in Yemen, Crassard 2009), and above all in south of Oman, in the Dhofar region (Rose et al. 2011). Numerous Wa’Shah type cores, similar to those studied in Wadi Wa’Shah in the Hadramawt region of Yemen were discovered (Crassard 2008). They are characterized by a preferential unipolar convergent laminar debitage that aims to produce predetermined elongated convergent products with three removals, and that ends up being relatively narrow. The volumetric conception of the cores (two ranked secant debitage surfaces) and the platform surface (with technical predetermination criteria; left/right lateral convexities; distal convexities) seem to us comparable to the Levallois debitage, and especially to the preferential convergent Levallois debitage. Indeed, the preparation of these cores is made through lateral unipolar removals. These observations make us relate the Wa’Shah type cores to the Middle Palaeolithic period, but we stay cautious on this topic. As a matter of fact, the laminar debitage conception and the probable use of indirect percussion as a production conception may be from the Upper Paleolithic period. Numerous laminar remains (blades and laminar cores) were systematically identified in association with Levallois and bifacial remains. The cores (which are triangular) show a platform surface or an opposed platform surface. Debitage is made through internal percussion with a hard hammer, and in line with recurring bipolar or unipolar production methods (convergent or non-convergent). The main aim of such a technique is to produce a series of laminar removals from each debitage surface, whether they are convergent or not. Numerous blades were also identified, which are relatively thick and never retouched (with few exceptions). Associated with Levallois and laminar remains were numerous bifacial artifacts. Their size goes from 80 to 120 mm length and from 40 to 80 mm width. They are large or narrowly elongated and/ or oval. The lateral edges are convergent or non-convergent and show various delineations (convex, concave, straight). It should be noted that the plan section of some convergent pieces is plano-convex, such as some Eastern European micoquian bifacial remains that have been dated back to the recent Middle Palaeolithic. This type of bifacial artifacts is quite common. In fact, they were found in other Palaeolithic industries in the south of the Arabic Peninsula, in Central Oman (Rose and Usik 2009) and in the United Arab Emirates.
30
Palaeolithic period in the Sufrat Valley – The first inhabitants of Adam
Figure 3.5. Sufrat Dishshah. Lithic handaxes from Lower Paleolithic (photograph by S. Bonilauri).
Lower Palaeolithic remains In the southeastern foothills of the Sufrat Dishshah, two bifacial remains were found in association with many large elongated flakes and a few flake cores (i.e. cores with one striking platform and a single flaking surface for the detachment of one or two wide thick removals) and probably one discoid core. The two bifacial artifacts of amygdaloid and oval contours are formed by two secant and relatively convex surfaces, and are shaped by an internal and tangential percussion. Their volumetric configuration and their technical traits are similar to those observed on some Lower Palaeolithic bifacial artifacts of the Arabian Peninsula, in East Africa, the Near East and Pakistan (only regarding the neighboring regions) (Figure 3.5).
31
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
The bifacial artifacts discovered in the Adam region, although few, are nonetheless important since they are current evidences of one of the furthest east extensions of the bifacial phenomenon in the Arabian Peninsula. It witnesses Lower Paleolithic occupations on the edge of the Asian continent. Conclusion To sum up, Sufrat Dishshah is a large Middle Palaeolithic site where high-densities of lithic artifacts have been discovered on each topographical unit of the valley. Evidences of Lower Palaeolithic have also been found. Comparable findings are extremely scarce in Central Oman, what makes this the most eastern evidence of this type in the Arabic Peninsula. The whole lithic remains from Sufrat Dishshah certainly correspond to many technical facieses, considering that the Lower and the Middle Palaeolithic periods are two wide entities, each of them including several cultural and technical facieses. They so witness the successive occupations of a same region by different cultural human groups. In addition, the Levallois, laminar and bifacial remains discovered in the Sufrat Valley share some technical features with other remains found in close or far outlying regions, such as the Middle East. Based on these technological comparisons, some links may be draw between west and east, but also north and south during different periods. They could result from various scenarios: 1) Some technical convergences arising from the invention or reinvention in different places of one or several technical ideas, without any transmission between human cultures; 2) Dissemination of technical ideas through connections between different human groups; 3) successive phases of hominization. At the crossroads between East Africa and the Middle East, the Arabic Peninsula has always been occupied by Paleolithic populations and has often been considered as a turntable in the diffusion of cultural streams or / and population migrations from East Africa to the Middle East and to western and eastern Asia.
32
Chapter 4
Neolithic sites near Jabal Salakh Marion Lemée, Guillaume Gernez, Jessica Giraud and Tara Beuzen-Waller
The Neolithic period in Arabia is known to be original, completely different than what occurs in Mesopotamia, Iran and the Levant during the same period, even if connexions with the north are well attested during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Obeid (or Ubaid) periods. The Mesopotamians develop agriculture, domestication and pottery, living in good environmental conditions where they live sedentary in very big villages then first cities. During the same period, Eastern Arabian people continue to be mostly nomadic in arid regions, do not practice agriculture, and their economy is based on hunting in the inland, or fishing and gathering molluscs near the coast. They live in groups in small dwellings. Domestication of animals (goat, cattle and donkey) appears gradually, under the influence of the northern practices. This period is generally divided into two main parts: first, the Early Neolithic / Epipaleolithic (8000 BC-5300 BC), characterized by a specific flint industry including lithic projectile points called “Fasad points”, with a very traditional way of life (hunting, fishing and gathering). Then the (Late) Neolithic (5300-3300 BC), corresponding to the invention of a new technique (the plunging process) and, most of all, to the diversification of funerary practices and crafts, while the way of life could become less nomadic on the coast (Zazzo, Munoz and Saliège 2013). The sites discovered near Adam belong to this second period. Very few inland Neolithic sites are known in Southeastern Arabia. Those that have delivered structure remains and lithic industries are even more rare. The most famous inland Neolithic site is Al-Buhais in the Sharjah Emirate (Uerpmann 2003). Inland again, Umm Al-Zummul (Kharimat Khor Al-Manahil and Khor Al-Manahil) in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, is also dated back to the Neolithic (Kallweit et al. 2005). In Oman, Neolithic sites are best known on the coast, and a number of Neolithic building structures were investigated (Charpentier, Blin and Tosi 1998; Charpentier et al. 2000; Biagi et al. 1984; Marcucci et al. 2011; Cavulli 2004). Most sites are shell middens, where the only remains of architectural structures are postholes and trenches revealing circular houses made of branches. Because of this global lack of Neolithic sites in Central Oman, we paid special attention to this period, examining every evidence of flint tool or unidentified structures during the surveys around Adam, in order to identify some settlements. The evidences finally came from several small sites around Jabal Salakh, including one main settlement called Jabal Al-Aluya (see below) where we surprisingly discovered the remains of architectural structures associated with flint tools. Neolithic sites in the area of Adam Only few Neolithic sites have been identified during the surveys, sometimes with only few flint tools and scarce remains of circle of stones or U-shaped structures. Some of them are located north of Jabal Salakh, but most of them lie in the southern glacis of the jabal, and a few kilometres west, in Sufrat Dishshah.
33
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Sixth millennium pits in Adam South During the excavations of the 3rd-2nd millennium BC necropolis in Adam South (see below, Chapter 6) led in January 2014, dozens of flint tools (unfortunately with no diagnostic type) were found on the surface of the eastern part of the site, and a series of pits were discovered near the tombs, especially around or under the destruction layer of the Umm an-Nar tomb 2000. No artefact was found into the pits, but the filling included ash and charcoal layers that had been sampled to check the date and examine the association of the pits with the Umm an-Nar tomb, or not. Surprisingly, it appeared that Pit 2010 – and probably the others as well – was dug and filled three millennia before the first occupation of the necropolis, 5140 BC cal. according to the calibrated C14 date. It is highly probable that the pits and the flint tools were associated, and it confirms the presence of a small dwelling in this place, close to Wadi Adam and Jabal Hinaydil. It has to be mentioned that other similar flint artefacts have been discovered on the glacis near the western foothill of Jabal Mudhmar. The most important Neolithic site in central Oman, called Jabal Al-Aluya, was discovered in 2010 and partly excavated between 2012 and 2013. Jabal Al-Aluya: A Neolithic inland site near Jabal Salakh The inland location of Jabal Al-Aluya, the abundance of the archaeological architectural remains and the homogeneity of the lithic industry make this site very significant to reach a better understanding of the Neolithic period in the Oman Peninsula. Indeed, hut dwelling remains of this period are quite poorly known, and their association with well dated evidences of lithic industry is still very uncommon so far. Geographical and geomorphological context of Jabal Al-Aluya (Figure 4.1) Jabal Al-Aluya is located on the southern slope of Jabal Salakh, on a surface of Upper Cretaceous detritic deposits whose surface was shaped by a gently sloping glacis. The glacis is 2 to 3 m higher than the east-west elongated wadi-shaped depression stretching between the Jabal Salakh piedmont and the late Neogene detritic deposits to the south (Barzaman Formation) (Béchennec et al. 1992). The strip of glacis on which the site rests is dissected by a network of intermittent water streams (wadis) flowing down the ravines that were formed on the southern slope of Jabal Salakh. These thalwegs were already incised in the mountain slope when the site was occupied: indeed, we located a structure a little further down, right over a channel. The southern slope of Jabal Salakh overhanging the glacis by ca. 700 m is a link with a strongly eroded reverse fault which is located right behind the site. A limestone crest overhangs the mountaintop. Collapses are frequent; that is why there is a mass of fallen rocks in the western part of the site, and very large boulders in the wadi bed. The reverse fault favored artesian hydrothermal activity at the scale of geological time (Béchennec et al. 1989), as indicated by very strong stone alteration in the fault zone. during the Quaternary, the reverse fault functioned as a water table drain. If there was a settlement in the wetter conditions of the first part of the Holocene, before 5900 cal. BP, it would be an indication that peri-annual water-supply was available (Clark and Fontes 1989; Sanlaville 1992). Archaeological structures may be seen on the surface of the glacis. The existing possibility of aeolian removal of superficial fine sediments is called deflation. The deflation makes possible the accumulation of artefacts dated from different ages, but it does not affect the arrangement of structures made of larger stones. In most cases, the archaeological layers disappeared (except in pits) but the horizontal position of structures remains intact. 34
Neolithic sites near Jabal Salakh
Figure 4.1. Topographic map and distribution of archaeological remains (map by O. Barge).
The archaeological remains A precise survey of the site was carried out to locate all the anthropic structures surrounding the first ones, initially discovered in 2010. A total of 127 structures and 10 lithic scatters/concentrations were identified over an area of approximately 65 ha (Figure 4.1). The remains are clearly concentrated in three zones. Four types of structures were identified: • Round, U-shaped or crescent-shaped structures made of limestone blocks, associated with little sedimentation, that could be hut-dwelling remains (51 structures). The entrance is often oriented to the south. Such structures are located all over the site, but are concentrated in two main areas. • Round to quadrangular structures made of a heap of stone blocks buried in sediments, which might be interpreted as graves. When round and with no recognizable wall, we preferentially use the term “pit” to describe them (31 structures). They are interspersed with the round or crescent-shaped structures. • Round structures made of limestone blocks, some of them still being in elevation, are cairns within which a chamber is still visible. These structures are clearly graves (4 structures). They are located on the banks of the wadis near the jabal foothills, in the western part of the site. They do not appear to be associated with any other structures, and are probably later. • Structures made with heated stones, probably fireplaces (4 structures). 35
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 4.2. Jabal Al-Aluya. Schematic plan of the Neolithic site (map by M. Lemée).
A large number of structures (37) do not fit into this classification, because they are very large and do not show any clear structural pattern, which makes them difficult to understand. Excavation of a part of Jabal Al-Aluya site (Figure 4.2) Several U-shaped stone structures were excavated as well as their surrounding area in order to find shallows structures, like postholes or pits that could not be seen without clearing the surface. The following list is not exhaustive. Locus 8001 and surroundings (Figure 4.3): Locus 8001 is a U-shaped stone construction measuring 2.5 x 2.7 m, opening to the south-east. The structural stones directly lie on the floor and no foundation trench had been observed. Some empty spaces were noted in the external stone border. It probably marks the location of wooden posts that were maintained in place with large stone blocks and pebbles. The inside space was divided into two parts by a straight alignment of stones: in the northern part the surface is covered with stones, while it is bare to the south. In the surrounding area, the excavation exposed several pits and postholes (a dozen in total). Some of the postholes may have been associated with the U-shaped structure, while the others probably belong to other structures extending further north. 36
Neolithic sites near Jabal Salakh
A rectangular hearth (Locus 8003) was found east of 8001. It was composed by a central limestone block blackened and cracked by heat, surrounded by burnt sand and ashes. Seven postholes of around 30 cm in diameter and 8 cm in depth, were found around the hearth. Four of these were disposed in a two by two pattern. It suggests that a kind of installation was associated with the hearth. A pit (Locus 8002) was observed approximately 1 m east of the hearth. It is almost round in shape, and measures 1.50 m in diameter and 25 to 30 cm in depth. The location of the pit, close to the hearth, together with the presence of a few burnt stones in the filling, suggests that they might have been associated. Locus 8159: Locus 8159 is a U-shaped stone structure of 3.40 m long and 2.80 m wide. It is built of natural big and medium-sized blocks of limestone (around 0.30 to 0.40 m wide). The eastern and western walls are made of postholes that can be identified thanks to the blocking stones. 22 flint pieces have been gathered; most of them are located immediately north of the U-shaped structure, outside of it. Among them is a part of a foliated bifacial piece. The others are flakes. Locus 8116: Locus 8116 is a complex structure. A central U-shaped stone structure is made of one tier of a row of natural big limestone blocks (some of which are more than 0.70 m long). It measures 2 m by 3 m. Its orientation is north-west/east-west, and opens to the south-east. Postholes can be identified in the wall, thanks to circular empty spaces between stones. They measure 0.20 to 0.30 m in diameter. Two more U-shaped structures seem to extend to the north. They are connected to the northern part of the wall of the central structure. To the west and south, a space is delimited by a curved line of 8 postholes (visible thanks to the blocking stones) of 0.20 to 0.30 m in diameter.
Figure 4.3. Jabal Al-Aluya. Locus 8001: U-shaped structure after cleaning (photograph by M. Lemée).
37
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 4.4. Jabal Al-Aluya. Locus 8113, U-shaped structure surrounded by a probable fence (drawing by A. Benoist and M. Lemée). The enclosed space is 3 m wide to the west, and 1,50 m to the south. In the delimited place, four flint pieces have been gathered. They come from the surface. Two of them are tools: one bifacial foliated point found on the surface of a posthole delimited by its blocking stones, and one retouched flake. The foliated point seems to be broken, but it could be an intentional fracture. The shattered face is oblique. It looks like the type I of the intentional plunging process defined by Inizan and Tixier (1978). A burin spall has been discovered in the inner space of the central U-shaped structure. Locus 8112: A very big locus has been drawn in order to understand its general configuration. Finally, we can define several rounded or semi-circular structures that are connected to each other. The walls are built of big natural limestone blocks, with circular empty spaces that are postholes. Two almost concentric circular lines of stones suggest the existence of several successive occupations in the same place, with re-building of the structures. 41 flint pieces have been gathered on the surface of the locus. They have been especially found in the space defined by the circular structures described above. Among them are 3 tools: 2 end-scrapers and one retouched flake. One orthogonal flake core has been gathered. The other pieces are flakes or splinters. Locus 8113 (Figure 4.4): Locus 8113 is a U-shaped stone structure, 3 m long and 3 m wide. It is made of one layer of two rows of big natural limestone blocks (whose bigger examples are more than 0.50 m wide). Smaller stones and gravels are found between the big blocks. The wall opens to the southeast. Big calcareous stones without any clear organization are located north-east of locus 8113. Two soundings into two concentrations of stones revealed a curved line of postholes. It defines a U-shaped space that measures 8 m long and 5 m wide. 38
Neolithic sites near Jabal Salakh
All excavated structures are of the same type: U-shaped structures built of big natural limestone blocks disposed in a trench, with an opening/entrance to the south-east. These U-shaped structures are probably a kind of hut-dwellings. Two of them are actually a combination of several structures of this type. An oval space defined by postholes has been observed in Locus 8113. It could be a part of the dwelling or an enclosure for animals. The walls of the dwellings must have been made of vegetal material immediately available in the wadis, as it is still observed in the Omani desert today. The big limestone blocks come from the collapse located to the western part of the site. In some cases, the big blocks fallen on the surface of the glacis were used in their primary position, indicating that people who lived there took advantage to the location of the biggest stones to define the location of their dwellings. We can compare the U-shaped structures from Jabal Al-Aluya to other places in Oman and Eastern Arabia, for instance Lizq 2 (Gebel 1981) located less than 100 km north-east from Jabal Al-Aluya, and Umm Al-Zummul. In Kharimat Khor Al-Manahil, three circular structures are associated with scatters of flints, while in Khor Al-Manahil, at least five “building structures” (Kallweit et al. 2005: 103) with bifacial lithic industry were discovered. Comparisons are also known inland but only from surveys. Zarins, Murad and Al-Yaish (1981) describe architectural remains (stone circles) at 217-131, on a high bluff overlooking the Tihama, and at Usran (217-132) in the Asir region, west of Nadjran, in Saudi Arabia. Despite the differences in size, it also seems possible to make comparisons with the round dwellings on load-bearing posts at Ras Al-Khabbah KHB-1 which is dated back to the 5th millennium BC (Cavulli 2004) and SWY-2, 4th millennium BC (Charpentier, Blin and Tosi 1998). Furthermore, the remains of circular trenches of Ras Al-Hadd HD-5 have been dated back to the 4th millennium BC (Marcucci et al. 2011). Lithic material from Jabal Al-Aluya Lithic material was found all over the surveyed surface, mainly gathered into ten concentrations, in association or not with structures. The material consists of Barzaman chert pebbles of various colors (red, yellow, grey or brown), coming from a hill located 1.6 km to the south, where a lot of good quality raw material was found during the pedestrian survey. Morphologically they are very varied and were all manufactured in chert pebbles from the Barzaman Formation. There were small and large bifacial pieces as well as points. On some of the bifacial pieces it was observed that the blanks were flakes because the bulb was not removed in the course of the manufacturing process. Manufacturing was carried out, at least in its final stages, by soft percussion. Points were shaped by pressure, except one, made by soft percussion. Among them, a tanged foliated point was observed and a fragment of a tanged and barbed point, a complete fusiform point as well as a fragment, and an oval point with a pointed tip. Blades from the site mostly are large and short (Figure 4.5. 3-6), of varying thickness. Bladelets are present as well. Cores are scarce, compared to the several thousands of pieces scattered over the site. They are unipolar or multipolar flake cores (Figure 4.5. 1-2). The cores mostly are blanks of chert pebbles from the Barzaman Formation. In the lithic concentrations at the foot of the jabal, most of the flakes were not knapped, but some of them were retouched. It seems therefore that opportunistic tools were made from natural blanks. Between locus 8067 and locus 8001, a concentration of 142 pieces has been gathered and located on a map. Among them, 11 pieces are associated to the bifacial shaping. The technique of the intentional plunging process has been identified on six of them (Figure 4.6), enabling us to precise the chronology of the site. 39
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 4.5. Jabal Al-Aluya. Cores and laminar flakes (drawing by M. Lemée).
40
Neolithic sites near Jabal Salakh
Figure 4.6. Jabal Al-Aluya. Intentional plunging process (drawing by M. Lemée).
41
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Chronology of the site according to lithic material Bifacial pieces collected from the entire site share many common characteristics with those attributed by V. Charpentier to the Suwayh facies (4500-3700 BC) (Charpentier 2008), or to the Saruq facies (around 5th millennium BC) (Uerpmann 1992), which is known in Ja‘alan, in the Wahiba Sands, in Dhofar and in Rub Al-Khali. Among them are the fusiform and the tanged arrowheads, barbed or un-barbed, a fragment of a “dagger”, and small bifaces. Pullar (1974 and 1985) and Smith (1976 and 1977) published similar material coming from the region immediately north of Adam. Moreover, the plunging process on large bifaces is already known in Oman at the end of the period and confirms the date (Charpentier 2008). Discussion on the chronology of Jabal Al-Aluya site To sum up, the lithic industry is especially homogeneous and may be dated back to 4500-3700 BC. Its association with the surveyed structures would suggest that they are of a similar chronological period. The large site of Jabal Al-Aluya is of major importance in Oman even if it still difficult to understand its organization. Despite several millennia of erosion, we know from now on that a village, or more likely a temporary camp, existed here. This site benefitted from quite good environmental conditions: presence of water and wood, raw material in the neighborhood and wild animals in the mountain and the plain. Moreover, it reveals that Central Oman was occupied during the Neolithic period. Further research near Al-Hajar Mountains should bring new data on the tracks of the Neolithic people, living, moving, hunting, and maybe trading from the Al-Buhais region in the North to the East coast of Oman.
42
Chapter 5
The new funerary landscape during the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Adam, Jabal Salakh and Jabal Qarah Jessica Giraud and Guillaume Gernez
Tombs of Hafit Period are the most frequent archaeological structures that were found during the surveys in Adam and its surroundings. About 750 cairns and tower-tombs were discovered, all of them being located (GPS), described and measured. Despite their frequent collapse, most of them can be seen in the current landscape. The Hafit Period in Oman The Hafit Period (3200-2700 BC), also known as Copper Age (Chalcolithic Period) or beginning of the Early Bronze Age, is one of the most remarkable periods of Late Prehistoric Oman. Cleuziou and Tosi (2007) called this phase “the great transformation”, since many changes happened in the whole peninsula: new settlement patterns, sedentary villages (Ras Al-Hadd HD-6), new kind of domestic architecture and monumental buildings, like the tower/platforms in Bat, long distance trade to Iran and Mesopotamia, first development of agriculture in oases. The demographic change and the new way of life are very remarkable because of the establishment of a completely new funerary landscape, where thousands of monumental tombs are built within a few centuries on the top and slopes of hills, crests and foothills of mountains. Most of them are collective/multiple burials, and the presence of all these landscape funerary markers seems to indicate that Hafit people settled in new territories. They created their own geography and, at the same time, their own history, living henceforth “in the shadow of their ancestors” (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007). Since Hafit necropolises are noticeable and easy to find and survey in the rocky landscape of Oman, they have been discussed for a long time (Frifelt 1975; Yule and Weisgerber 1998) and a lot of spatial studies have been made, for instance in the Ja’alan (Giraud 2012), near Zukait (Bortolini 2012), Wadi Andam (Deadman 2014) and Dhank (Williams and Gregoricka 2013). However, since they are difficult to excavate, bringing few material and partial data, being often looted and/or later reused, excavated Hafit tower-tombs or cairns are scarce. In Oman, most data come from Ras Al-Hadd (Salvatori 2001) and Dhank (Williams and Gregoricka 2013), the necropolis near Sinaw / Barzaman being unfortunately unpublished so far. It appeared that these tombs contain in most cases between two and ten individuals (Cleuziou and Munoz 2007; Munoz 2011; Munoz et al. 2012; Williams and Gregoricka 2013). In some cases, the spatial analysis demonstrate that the density of graves decreases from the gravity center toward the external part, what means that the spatial organization follows a center towards periphery plan (Giraud 2012). Sometimes, tombs are following crest lines. The association of the necropolis with settlements – coupled with favorable conditions for oasis agriculture (Giraud and Cleuziou 2009; Giraud 2012) – might indicate the creation of a territory linked to a new, sedentary way of life. It is interesting to note that more recent funerary structures (or reuse events) such as Umm an-Nar, Wadi Suq, Iron Age tombs are all located in the vicinity of Hafit necropolises.
43
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Necropolis and tombs around Adam Several Hafit necropolises were discovered in the area of Adam, the largest comprising several hundred tombs (see Figure 2.9). In Adam, two main tomb types are known, both built with stones: small or medium-sized cairns (diameter < 4 m and height < 1,5 m) and larger, higher tower-tombs, some reaching over 5 meters at Jabal Qarah (Figure 5.1). Despite the frequent collapse of the second type, it is still possible to identify the entrance (Figure 5.2). Some confusion may happen when a medium-sized towertomb is completely collapsed, appearing similar to a simple cairn. However, even if the raw material (limestone) is far from being as good as the one used at Bat or Sinaw, it is possible to observe preserved courses of stones in most cases. During the survey, little Hafit pottery was recovered, while more plentiful, recent materials (especially Iron Age) such as metal arrowheads and pottery indicate the later reuse of the tombs. As observed elsewhere in southeastern Arabia, the location of the tombs is quite remarkable. All were built on the highest points of the landscape, atop hills, terraces, crests and slopes (Figures 5.3 and 5.4). This situation is completely different from the previous Neolithic period, where only pit graves are found within or nearby small dwellings and where monumentality is absent (Cleuziou and Munoz 2007). Therefore, these tombs are easily noticeable from far away and give the impression of a well-bounded territory. Thus, they form well-defined groups that are identified as necropolises. Close to Adam, three large necropolises were surveyed (see Figure 2.9). The first one surrounds Adam, as the tombs located to the west of Jabal Mudhmar (near the Adam North graveyard) and to the east of Jabal Hinaydil (near the Adam South graveyard) (see below, Chapter 6). The second important necropolis is located along the western end of Jabal Salakh, while the third and largest one is located further north, on the hills of Jabal Qarah.
Figure 5.1. Collapsed tower-tomb in Jabal Qarah (photograph by G. Gernez).
44
The new funerary landscape during the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Adam, Jabal Salakh and Jabal Qarah
Figure 5.2. Small tower-tomb in Jabal Salakh (photograph by J. Giraud).
Figure 5.3. Tower-tombs on hills in Jabal Qarah (photograph by J. Giraud).
45
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 5.4. Weddha. Cairns and tower-tombs distributed along the crest lines (map by D. Arhan).
The Hafit necropolis of Adam The large Hafit necropolis of Adam is interesting because it lies on the two hills/foothills surrounding the oasis. Around 200 cairns and tower-tombs, medium-sized mortuary structures (1-3 m high) built with local hard limestone were identified there. The tombs are badly preserved due to the inferior quality of the stones and especially to events of looting and reuse. Analysis of the necropolis’ organization through its density reveals an empty center, where the Wadi Adam is, and two dense groups of graves constituting the periphery. No graves or other structures were found in the center. It is highly probable that the oasis gardens and domestic dwellings were located here during the Hafit Period, but were destroyed by later settlements (including the modern development of the area) and by successive millennia of agricultural work in the oasis. The later graveyards of the Umm an-Nar, Wadi Suq, and Iron Age periods are located amidst or close to this Hafit necropolis. The necropolis of West Jabal Salakh Another smaller Hafit necropolis is located to the west of Jabal Salakh, close to Wadi Bahla, and to Wadi Umayri. Fifty small and medium-sized Hafit tower-tombs were identified among a total of over 150 archaeological structures. The tombs are located in high places along the lateral crests of the jabal. They all dominate the wadi and the lower terraces, where Wadi Suq tombs comparable to the ones at Adam North were recognized. 46
The new funerary landscape during the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Adam, Jabal Salakh and Jabal Qarah
Here again, Hafit tombs mark the funerary landscape, which is also organized from the center (looking over the wadi) to the periphery. This area gathers the waters of Wadi ’Umayri: oasis agriculture would have been possible during the Hafit Period as it is today, as shown by several small modern gardens around the site. The necropolis of Jabal Qarah The Jabal Qarah necropolis is the largest and best preserved in the Adam region. It is located 20 km to the north of Adam, expanding on a series of rocky hills near Wadi Halfayn. To date, 360 tombs have been identified, including 5-6 m high tower-tombs (Figure 5.1). Located on hilltops, crests, and sometimes along slopes (Figure 5.5), these funerary structures are highly concentrated on three areas: the northeastern, southeastern and southwestern parts of the jabal. Graves were constructed so as to be conspicuous from far away and to mark the territory (Giraud 2012). In several cases, pottery and metal artifacts found in the graves indicate a reuse of the tomb during the Iron Age. No settlement was identified, but it might be hidden by meters of sediment. We decided to elaborate a new kind of survey using remote sensing and 3D models of the whole necropolis and mountain created with aerial photos by e-bee drones and photogrammetry (Figure 5.6). For the first time, this detection technique was used on a very large surface (40 km² = 4000 ha). The resolution (6 cm by pixel) was good enough to detect microtopographic anomalies on the resulting 3D Model and then to determine their nature on the orthophotographs, with precise details that would not have been visible on satellite imagery. These results are still under study.
Figure 5.5. Funerary landscape in Jabal Qarah (photograph by J. Giraud).
47
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 5.6. a) 3D Model of Jabal Qarah (eastern foothill); b) Orthophograph detail showing an alignment of four tombs; c) Digital Elevation Model of the same area (photographs and graphic elaboration by CAPTAIR).
Conclusion: Hafit necropolises in Adam In the region of Adam, Hafit necropolis are located near areas where water is available and where oasis gardens still exist. These observations may support the hypothesis of a definite relation between the development of sedentary life and the new funerary landscape appearing during the Hafit Period, notwithstanding absent dwellings which have not yet been discovered here yet (Giraud 2012; Cleuziou and Munoz 2007). It is worth noting that, according to the density and the location of Hafit tombs, the region of Adam was never as widely populated as during this period, and would not be thereafter. From the Umm an-Nar Period onwards, graves were built in the plains (see Chapter 6). Their visibility and monumentality were still important to the tomb builders, but they nevertheless demonstrate a new conception of space by inserting the graves closer to the probable settlements and gardens. In the Umm an-Nar Period, there was actually no need to occupy the top of crests and hills, because this was an already existing funerary landscape inherited from the Hafit people.
48
Chapter 6
A tale of two graveyards. The excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam Guillaume Gernez and Jessica Giraud
After the first phase of the Early Bronze Age (Hafit Period), it is well known in Oman that funerary practices change, since there are many social, economic and cultural evolutions in Eastern Arabia. The second phase of the Early Bronze Age (called Umm an-Nar Period, 2700-2000 BC) is characterized by new connections with the Indus Valley, Iran and Mesopotamia, development of local copper production and export, pottery production, wider use of oasis agriculture, increase in the number of sedentary settlements (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007). Even if Adam could have seemed out of the main production and trade networks due to its marginal location, surveys revealed the presence of some monumental tombs of this period throughout the whole area. They indicate that Adam was populated during the whole 3rd millennium BC, taking advantage of the presence of water to develop palm-tree gardens and the quite short distance (about 45 km) to Bisya which is one of the main site of this period in Oman. However, during the surveys, the most significant discoveries were tombs of the Middle Bronze Age (called Wadi Suq Period, 2000-1600 BC), concentrated in large or small graveyards. Previous studies demonstrated that after the collapse of the Early Bronze Age, several regions seem mostly depopulated, with a contraction of settlement patterns to the north maybe for better economic conditions. Since the 3rd millennium BC was already very well known in Oman, we decided to focus on 2nd millennium BC tombs. Considering the risk of destruction of these sites due to urban development, this choice was essential. It appeared that tombs of several periods were located in the same space. Two graveyards have partly been excavated (Figure 6.1). The size, organization and morphology of graves differ, but they seem to share a common history, making possible a restitution of the main phases of occupation of this area: Early and Middle Bronze Age, Iron Age II and Samad Period. Tombs of both sites can be divided into five types based on their morphology. As will be observed below, the typology of each graveyard is the same and can be explained by historical, environmental and cultural factors. Adam South graveyard. The Umm an-Nar tomb and later Wadi Suq / Iron Age graves During the second campaign of surveys in April 2008, a small graveyard was discovered near the foothills of Jabal Hinaydil (Figure 6.2). This site includes forty-six structures (Figure 6.3), most of them difficult to identify due to their extensive erosion, but pottery and beads collected on the surface of one large circular flat structure indicated the presence of at least one Umm an-Nar tomb, and was confirmed by the identification of an isolated well-finished facing stone (Figure 6.4). Despite its poor state of preservation, this site provides the first data on the funerary practices and material culture of the 3rd millennium BC in Adam, and evidences a continuity of occupation and activities on the site after this period.
49
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.1. Main necropolises in Adam including Adam North and Adam South (map by G. Gernez).
Figure 6.2. Adam South. View from the ground with Jabal Hinaydil on the left. Stone concentrations and mounds indicate eroded graves (photograph by G. Gernez).
50
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Figure 6.3. Adam South. Isolated facing stone discovered during the 2008 survey (photograph by G. Gernez).
The site The site is located in the plain near the eastern foothills of Jabal Hinaydil. It is surrounded by two small wadis delimiting the graveyard. There are several tombs – supposedly Hafit – on crests of foothills, but the graveyard itself lies on the flat center of the glacis, which is oriented west-east with a very slight slope. The density is significant: forty-six structures have been identified, most of them on a surface of only 200 × 70 m (see Figure 6.4). The graves of the western part are very close to each other and seem comparable (circular shape and small size). By contrast, in the central and eastern parts of the graveyard all kinds of shapes and sizes are present. No other graves were discovered in the vicinity, even though the environment is identical, and the concentration of burials in the same place therefore seems to be intentional. Seven graves were chosen on the eastern part. The conditions of preservation differ from those observed in Adam North (see below) because the humidity of the substratum is lower: stones are less eroded and bones are usually better preserved. Unfortunately, almost all graves were reused and looted at least once, and although the shape and architecture can often be determined, it is difficult to date the building of the graves.
51
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.4. Digital Elevation Model of Adam South. Each circular anomaly corresponds to a grave (by CAPTAIR).
At least four main periods have been identified during excavations and surveys: Umm an-Nar, Wadi Suq, Iron Age (surveys), and Late Iron Age (Samad) reuse. The Umm an-Nar tomb (type 1) Tomb 2000 is an eroded funerary building. During the surveys, only a few sherds found on the surface of a large, flat, circular concentration of small broken stones indicated its presence (Figure 6.5). The excavations confirm that this tomb was almost destroyed as it was used as a stone quarry. Several parts, however, were preserved enabling the architecture to be identified (Figure 6.6). Architectural features and content: The tomb is 9.5 m in diameter, stone-paved, and surrounded by a circular wall (Figure 6.7). Only the large foundation slabs have been partly preserved, but facing stones made of fine worked limestone dressed on all five sides were discovered in the collapsed layer around the tomb (Figure 6.8). Two parallel straight walls (oriented east–west) constructed of large slabs divide the tomb into three parts, either into three chambers or into two chambers and a corridor. The size, shape, and quality of the facing stones are comparable to the Hili discoveries (end of phase 2/beginning of phase 3) (Méry 2010: 37–40), thus Tomb 2000 could have been in use around 2500–2300 BC. A similar tomb is known at Bat (55B) (Frifelt 1975: 363, fig. 1). 52
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Figure 6.5. Adam South. Tomb 2000 before excavation. The structure was indicated by a large concentration of broken stones (photograph by G. Gernez).
Figure 6.6. Adam South. Umm an-Nar Tomb 2000 (Early Bronze Age) after excavation. Large stones of the circular foundation are visible together with the stone pavement (photograph by G. Gernez).
53
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.7. Adam South. Plan of Tomb 2000. The original plan is clear despite significant destructions (drawing by G. Gernez).
Despite the destruction of a large part of the tomb and of its content, 3967 human bones (a total of 8267 fragments) were identified. Most of them were badly preserved and highly fragmented (Figure 6.9). Bones were found in the whole tomb but only the north-eastern part was less damaged. In this area long bones, coxae (or hip) bones, and parts of skulls were found on the top while small bones (particularly hand and foot bones) seemed to be located around the lower layer. No organization was observed, as it is often the case in this type of collective tomb that has been widely disturbed during funerary use (Cleuziou and Munoz 2007; Bortolini 2012: 355) and/or later lootings. The minimal number of individuals is: twenty-three adults or subadults and two infants. Biological data: It was not possible to determinate the sex of the individuals, since the hip bones were completely fragmented. Moreover, the age of these individuals is still unknown, because we could not use the method based on the iliac sacro-pelvic surface observation. Most individuals are adults or sub-adults. 54
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Only two bones and one tooth (second mandibular molar) were enough preserved to make possible an estimation of the age of children. Two ulna fragments belong to children younger than twelve years old. From the tooth, it is also certain that one individual was between 4.75 and 7.9 years old. Most bones were badly preserved and the well represented bones were skulls, long bones and feet bones (talus, calcaneus). The best score to estimate the Minimal Number of Individual was left calcaneus: 23 bones. So, at least 23 adults or sub-adults were buried in this grave and 2 children/infants (only 31 children bones have been identified in the grave, 0.3 % of the total). Pathologies were observed on five adult or sub-adult bones. On three patellae and one vertebra, we observed osteophytes (3.24 mm), and eburnation on the hillside side of the articular surface. They are characteristics of degenerative osteoarthritis. On a right half mandible fragment, we observed bone resorption of all teeth sockets what shows a bad dental state. Funerary goods: As the bones, most of the funerary goods were broken, either during the looting of the stones or while the tomb was in use (Figure 6.10). Copper objects, chlorite vessels and carnelian beads were found, but pottery is, unsurprisingly, present in greater quantity. • Copper: Six tools were found, including perforating tools (four awls) and small chisels. Among ornaments, the most significant are a complete ring made from a bent rod, an earring with pointed tip, and a pendant made of a spiraled rod. Three rivets (probably for the handle of a dagger) and a riveted plate were also found. This plate is asymmetrical, and has a roughly oval shape.
Figure 6.8. Adam South. Collapsed facing stones of Tomb 2000 (photograph by G. Gernez).
55
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.9. Adam South. Bone concentration in the north chamber of Tomb 2000 (photograph by E. Germain).
Figure 6.10. Adam South. The only complete pot in Tomb 2000 (photograph by G. Gernez).
56
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Figure 6.11. Adam South, Tomb 2000. 1) Buffed-ware small jar; 2) Black-on-Red painted local jar; 3) Rectangular chlorite box; 4-5) Black-painted fine grey ware imported from Iran/Baluchistan (photograph by G. Gernez).
It is slightly concave on the reverse side, the ends are rounded, and one is larger than the other. There are two incomplete rivets on reverse side. It could have been used as decoration plate for a wooden handle. • Beads: 137 beads were found in Tomb 2000. Most of them are made of shell or carnelian, others are made of chlorite, serpentine, limestone and lapis lazuli. Carnelian is dark orange or light orange and sometimes veined with white. No decoration has been observed on these beads. The more common shapes are discoid and tubular. • Pottery: Small pots made of buff ware (Figure 6.11.1), Oman type black-painted fine red ware (Figure 6.11.2 and Figure 6.12) and painted grey ware imported from Southeastern Iran or Baluchistan (Méry, Besenval, Blackman and Didier 2012) (Figure 6.11.4-5 and Figure 6.13) and sherds of small storage jars with meandering reliefs (snakes?) could indicate a mid-3rd millennium BC date (Jarrige, Didier and Quivron 2011: 28). • Chlorite: Eighteen fragments were discovered, including two rectangular boxes, one lid, one bottom, eight body fragments included three with decoration, and six rims with only one undecorated. Only three types are attested: rectangular boxes (with or without compartment) (Figure 6.11.3, Figure 6.14 right and Figure 6.15), bowls and small pots with lugs (Figure 6.14). 57
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.12. Adam South, Tomb 2000. Black-on-red pottery (drawing by G. Gernez).
Figure 6.13. Adam South, Tomb 2000. Fine grey ware pottery (drawing by G. Gernez).
58
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Most pots are engraved with double dotted circles and lines located near the rim. It is worth noticing that a lot of execution failures are visible. From their colour, two different raw materials were used: the first one is dark grey (five pieces), whereas the second is light grey (thirteen pieces). Surface is always polished, and scraping traces can be observed. We can compare the opened decorated bowls to Umm an-Nar Period bowls discovered at Hili North Tomb A, in the Tombs A and B in Ajmar (Al-Tikriti 1989: pl. 45), and in the “rectangular grave” at Mowaihat (Haerinck 1991: 13, fig. 612). Rectangular compartmented box extremely similar to No. 447-1 are known in Ajmar (Al-Tikriti 1989: pl. 45), Hili North Tomb A (David 2011: 191) and Mleiha (Jasim 2003). It is worth noticing that the lugged pot can be compared with the common type well attested on the site of Adam North, dated to the Early Wadi Suq Period. It should be a transitional type, indicating a late 3rd millennium date for the Grave 2000. Wadi Suq graves (types 2-4) Most of the other excavated graves appear to date from the Wadi Suq Period, but they were all looted and/ or reused. From the size of the chambers and known parallels, each grave would have contained a single burial. Four main types of tombs were identified: stone-lined and cist graves, stone-lined graves with ring, large circular graves made of concentric rows of stones, and round stone-lined graves. Stone-lined grave with ring (type 2): The rectangular stone-lined grave 2005 (chamber 1.8 × 1 m; northwest–south-east orientation) is surrounded by an oval ring built of one layer of stones. The layers show evidence of reuse and looting (iron arrowheads can be dated from the Samad Period). Despite the lack of in situ material, this kind of architecture – well known in Adam North – indicates that this grave was built during the Wadi Suq Period (Righetti 2012: 380-381). Stone-lined and cist graves (type 3): Despite several differences, graves 2003, 2006, and 2007 belong to the same type. Grave 2003, badly preserved, is the simplest: its rectangular chamber (1.8 × 0.7 m) is lined with one row of stones and has an east–west orientation. No material and only few bone fragments were found inside as it was looted over a long period. About forty small- and medium-sized stones found near this grave may come from its destruction. Grave 2006 is also partly destroyed and reused. This rectangular stone-lined grave has a dug chamber (1.9 × 0.8 m; north–south orientation). The only undisturbed part, to the north, consists of a skull and a Wadi Suq painted cup (Figure 6.16) (parallels: Shimal, Velde 2003: 103; Hili 8 period III, Righetti and Cleuziou 2010: 296), both crushed by a large stone that could have fallen from the roof. This stone is similar to that used in the foundations of the Umm an-Nar Tomb 2000. Bones, shells, stone beads, and pottery have been found in the later layer (Late Iron Age [?] reuse), which was also completely destroyed. The cist grave 2007 has a small chamber (1 × 0.6 m; north–south orientation) (Figure 6.17). The stones that form the cist could originally have come from the foundations of Tomb 2000, and one stone in the north-west corner is a white limestone Umm an-Nar facing stone. Only few bone fragments were found in the chamber, and the only evidence of a grave-good is a fragment of a shell that could have contained a cosmetic product (common in Adam North Wadi Suq graves, see below).
59
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.14. Adam South, Tomb 2000. Types of chlorite vessels (drawing by C. Paladre).
Figure 6.15. Adam South, Tomb 2000. Decorated chlorite rectangular box (photograph by C. Paladre).
60
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Figure 6.16. Adam South, Grave 2006. Painted Wadi Suq goblet (drawing and photograph by G. Gernez).
Large circular tumulus (type 4): Grave 2001 is a wide stone monument lying directly on the ground, topped by a stone tumulus (Figure 6.18). The structure consists of a succession of concentric lines (at least ten) built from the inside towards the outside. They are constructed of large and medium-sized blocks. The gap between the lines is filled with a row of roughly medium-size stones, gravel, and small limestone blocks wedged in between. The diameter is around 10.7 m, while the apsidal chamber, in the center, is small (1.6 × 0.9 m; east–west orientation). The first layer lies on the ground, while the other layers (at least three have been identified) rise until the burial chamber that may have been covered by a kind of cantilevering. The material found inside the burial chamber (i.e. iron arrowheads and bronze riveted flat loop) can be dated from the Samad Period and indicates at least one occupation of this period. It is difficult to be more precise about the date of construction: according to the shape and architecture, it possibly is Wadi Suq (known parallel: Samad grave S101040 [= M30], Weisgerber 1981: 206, fig. 36; Yule, personal communication). Several large circular graves are known in Adam North (see below), but of different architecture. Round stone-lined grave (type 5): No grave of this type has been excavated, but several were identified in the western part during the survey. According to their size (diameter 3 m), circular shape, and several sherds found on the surface – all features similar to grave 1004 in Adam North – they should be from the Iron Age (see below, grave 1004).
61
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.17. Adam South. Wadi Suq cist grave 2007 during excavation. Note the facing stone probably reused from Tomb 2000 (photograph by G. Gernez).
Adam South: chronology Even though only a few graves were excavated during the 2013-2014 campaign, these first results and detailed surveys make it possible to give a preliminary overview of the history of this graveyard. The oldest grave is a large collective Umm an-Nar tomb, which was built around 2500–2400 BC and then abandoned and completely looted, the stones being used for the construction of later Wadi Suq (and later?) graves. No continuity was observed between the Umm an-Nar and Wadi Suq funerary traditions and the newcomers did not show any respect for the oldest graves. The graveyard itself, however, was used during both periods and during the Iron Age, and graves were reused until the Late Iron Age and Samad Periods. Since all surrounding plains are empty of settlements and the graveyard is specifically concentrated in this small area, it seems clear that the inhabitants of each period wished to set up their tombs and burials in the same place as the previous inhabitants. More than a settlement continuity, it seems to indicate a possible awareness of the specific purpose and symbol of this area, although it may be linked to the presence of raw material that is easy to reuse.
62
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Figure 6.18. Adam South. Tomb 2001 (Wadi Suq Period?) after excavation (photograph by G. Gernez).
Adam North: the main Wadi Suq graveyard in Adam Adam North graveyard, also called Qala’a, is located between the foothills of Jabal Mudhmar and Wadi Adam, mostly on the gravelly surface of the glacis, in the north-east suburbs of Adam. A total of 138 graves were discovered during the surveys, a large part of them being small tumuli and presenting a different situation than in Adam South (Figures 6.19 and 6.20). The site The graveyard extends over three main areas. The northern part is separated from the center by a small wadi cutting the plain. The central part contains a high density of graves. The southern part is also very dense and divided into three small areas. Thirty-seven graves were excavated in the central part (60 × 100 m) (Figures 6.21 and 6.22). All the graves were built of low-quality limestone blocks. The raw materials can be found on the slope near the site, but it is likely that the more ancient graves were used as stone quarries for building the later ones. Throughout the graveyard, very few (if any) human bones were found in the levels associated with Wadi Suq vessels and weapons (see below).
63
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.19. Topographic plan of Adam North graveyard (map by O. Barge and E. Regagnon).
Figure 6.20. Aerial kite view of Adam North. Burial mounds before excavations (photograph by O. Barge).
64
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Figure 6.21. Central part of Adam North during excavation. View from Jabal Mudhmar foothill to the East.
The lack of bones is due to the nature of the soil and to the water that caused the complete disintegration of the bones in the plain. Nevertheless, from the size of the chambers, the types and location of artefacts (chlorite pots, bronze socketed spearheads, and tanged daggers), and the archaeological parallels, we know that the Umm an-Nar grave were collective (see Tomb 2000) and that the Wadi Suq graves contained single (or double/triple) burials (Righetti 2012: 381). Five types of graves had been defined, from the Umm an-Nar Period to the Iron Age. Most of the graves belong to the Wadi Suq types. Umm an-Nar grave(s) (type 1) Large circular grave(s)/tomb(s) with facing stones, plinth, and paving (type 1): Only one grave of this type is firmly attested (tomb 1001). It is a typical Umm an-Nar tomb with a well-finished facing wall made of triangular flat stones. The only preserved layers are the plinth and the first layer. It had not been completely destroyed – in contrast with 1022 and 1010, which might also have been Umm an-Nar tombs but whose preservation is poor [Graves of type 1: 1001, 1010?, 1022?]. (Example) Umm an-Nar tomb 1001: This Umm an-Nar tomb is about 6 m wide with a perfectly circular wall (1 m thick), including facing stones over a plinth. The chamber is entirely paved and a central wall appears to divide the space into two parts. Only a few traces of eroded bones were found and one single bead is the only material preserved. As observed in Adam South, looting is almost complete. Size, morphology, and architectural characteristics (especially the form and quality of the facing stones, flat and roughly dressed) lead us to suppose that this tomb might be earlier than the Adam South Tomb 2000 (parallels: Hili H, Phase 1, Méry 2010: 38), but because of the lack of preserved funerary material and bones, it is not possible to confirm it. However, it is certain that, as in Adam South, this tomb was the first to be built on the plain.
65
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.22. Adam North. General map of the excavated area (map by G. Gernez).
66
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Wadi Suq graves (types 2-4) Except graves 1001 and 1004, most graves can be dated from the Wadi Suq Period. Adam North thus appears as one of the most remarkable Wadi Suq graveyards in central Oman. Cist chamber with tumulus and ring (type 2): Two variants of this type are attested. The first one is small, very similar to the simple cist-grave type, the only difference being that a ring wall is built only 0.2-0.4 m from the chamber. They would have been very low, like small tumuli (3 m in diameter). The second variant is larger: the chamber is higher and only partly buried, and the ring wall is wider (5 m in diameter). In both cases, the chamber orientation is north–south (or north-north-east–southsouth-west). The tumuli are made of stones and sand, except in graves 1003 and 1015, which are entirely made of stones. They are all located in the western part of the graveyard. In both variants, Wadi Suq objects were discovered in the lower level, including spearheads and chlorite vessels. Parallels are well known in Samad (Yule 2001), Wadi Suq, and Bidya 5A (Righetti 2012: 381). These graves (especially the largest ones) were reused once or even twice during the Late Iron Age (Samad Period) [Graves of type 3: 996, 1002, 1003, 1006, 1015, 1016, 1024, 1029, 1032, and 1033].
Figure 6.23. Adam North. Grave 1030 (Wadi Suq Period) after excavation (photograph by G. Gernez).
67
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.24. Adam North, Grave 1030. Truncated bronze bowl, bronze dagger and chlorite pot in situ (photograph by G. Gernez).
(Example) Grave 1029: This oval stone-lined grave is encircled by a row of stones (Figure 6.27). The east side of this ring is no longer preserved, but at least one layer of stones remains on the other sides. The grave itself consists of a dug chamber oriented north–south and lined with a wall made up of two rows (partially collapsed into the chamber). This wall is built of three layers of stone blocks and tiered corbelled flat stones that are still in place in the southeastern and southwestern sides (28-45 cm long, about 10 cm thick). Two bronze spearheads embedded in a gritty compact sediment were discovered near the southeastern corner of the chamber, next to a few collapsed stones. A chlorite lid was located near the opposite corner. Simple stone-lined graves (type 3): They consist of an oval chamber dug in the soil (0.6-1 m deep) and lined with stones. The corbelled roof is often collapsed into the chamber. The average dimension of the chamber is about 1 m wide and 1.50-2 m long. The orientation is generally north–south (or northnorth-west–south-south-east). These graves contain Wadi Suq vessels and weapons and no (or very few) human bones were found inside. Three graves (1034, 1035, and 1040) are smaller and adjacent to average-sized graves. The graves of this type are located in the western part of the graveyard. Similar graves are well known in Samad (Yule 2001) [Graves of type 2: 997, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1017, 1019, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1030, 1031, 1034, 1035, and 1040].
68
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Figure 6.25. Adam North. Stone (mainly carnelian) and shell beads from Grave 1030 (photograph by G. Gernez).
(Example) Grave 1030 (Figure 6.23): Grave 1030 has an oval chamber dug into the ground and walled with two layers of large stone blocks (40 to 50 cm wide, 20 to 30 cm thick). On the north-west side, flat stones were still in primary position and formed the corbelled roof. The chamber filling was loose and sandy in the south-west of the chamber, compact and very gritty in the north, and the south-east. Stones from the walls had collapsed into the chamber. One copper/bronze vessel (truncated pot) was discovered next to the north-west wall, associated to a copper/bronze dagger, and a chlorite suspension vessel (Figure 6.24). Pottery fragments, copper awl and stone and shell beads were also found (Figure 6.25). On shell containing cosmetic complete the assemblage (Figure 6.26). Large oval/circular graves with rectangular room and concentric rows (type 4): These monuments considerably differ from the other graves: the chamber is rectangular (sometimes with an apse on the western side) and its soil is not deeper than the surface of the glacis. The size of the graves is about 1 m wide and 1.40-2 m long, of east–west orientation. The wall is made of four to five layers of large flat stones, and no evidence of corbelling had been observed. The roof was probably made of larger stones laid on the walls. All around the chamber are two or more concentric walls, including at least one carefully faced external wall made of large stones. The total diameter is about 6.0-6.5 m. It is difficult to ascertain the original height, but it seems likely that these graves only had two or three layers of stones. The final shape probably looked like a wide and low cylinder. 69
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
All type 4 graves are located in the eastern part of the graveyard, either on the plain or on the bottom of the slope. One to three skeletons were found in each chamber, but very few objects, except shell beads. Comparisons can be made with Bawshar Tomb B1 (Costa et al. 1999), which confirms the Wadi Suq date, as well as Bidya 5B and 5C, Jabal Al-Buhais and Wa’as (Righetti 2012: 381) [Graves of type 4: 1012, 1013, 1014?, 1023, 1036, 1038, 1039]. (Example) Grave 1013 (Figure 6.28): This 6 m wide circular grave is formed of a small rectangular/ apsidal chamber (2.1 × 0.9 m), partly dug, orientated east–west, surrounded by a wall made of large slabs, and one or two circular concentric rows composed of large triangular white limestone blocks. The second row is only present to the east and north. The gap between the circular rows and the chamber’s wall is filled with medium-sized stones, gravel, and small limestone blocks. The southern part of the grave is damaged and a portion of the wall is missing on the inside, either because the stones were collected and used for another purpose or because they were worn by erosion (the sand is packed with bits of smashed stones). The burial chamber is built on the ground, with two to three layers of large slabs (up to 0.60 × 0.60 m). It was filled with loose sand and some small bone fragments are the last remains after complete looting. There is no evidence of cantilevering. Wadi Suq materials Despite the looting, archaeological material was found in most graves. It was not abundant, but highly significant. Surprisingly, almost no pottery was found, and the four kinds of common artefacts were bronze weapons, stone vessels, stone/shell beads and shells, that compose the classical Early Wadi Suq assemblage in Adam. Bronze socketed spearheads are typical from the Wadi Suq Period (Figure 6.29). The size and morphology are similar to those of the socketed spearheads discovered in Al-Buhais 18 Wadi Suq tombs and hoards (Jasim 2012: 25). Tanged spearheads and daggers were also found. Chlorite pots with lid were located near the north-west corner of the chamber (Figure 6.30). They belong to a very simple type of pot with four small perforated lugs in the middle of the body, and a decoration frieze made of a single row of dotted double circles. The lids bear the same decoration (Figures 6.31, 6.32 and 6.33). Shells (Trachycardium sp.) with cosmetic residue in it were also found in several graves (Figure 6.26). They are known since the Umm an-Nar Period. Carnelian and shell beads complete the assemblage (Figure 6.26). Finally, one truncated bronze pot found in 1030 is of a rare type known in Al-Buhais (Jasim 2012: fig. 24). These archaeological remains witness a material culture, which is very homogeneous in Adam, and that can be dated back to the Early Wadi Suq Period. Some parallels are known in Bawshar tomb B1 (Costa et al. 1999) and Bawshar B1G4 (Al-Bakri 2007: 215), and in Samad S21 North and South (pots in S2106, S2134, S2141, S2165, S21103, lids in S2107 and S2109, pot and lid in S2148). Socketed spearheads were found Figure 6.26. Adam North, Grave 1030. Cosmetic container (photo by G. Gernez). in S21103, S2146, and S1080 (graveyard Samad S10) (Yule 2001). 70
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Figure 6.27. Adam North. Tomb 1029 (Wadi Suq Period) (photograph by G. Gernez).
Figure 6.28. Adam North. Tomb 1013 (Wadi Suq Period) (photograph by G. Gernez).
71
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.29. Adam North, Tomb 1033. Bronze socketed spearheads (photograph by G. Gernez).
Figure 6.30. Adam North, Tomb 1026. Globular chlorite lugged pot with lid (photograph by G. Gernez).
72
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Figure 6.31. Adam North, Grave 1017. Chlorite globular lugged pot with lid (picture. G. Gernez).
73
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.32. Adam North. Chlorite globular lugged pots and lids (Early Wadi Suq Period) (photograph by G. Gernez).
Iron Age graves and burials (type 5) If only one grave can be dated to the first part of the Iron Age, several reuses have been observed and date from the Late Iron Age (Samad). Round stone-lined grave (type 5): A unique grave (1004) differs from the other cist graves: the chamber is circular, surrounded by a double circular wall (3 m in diameter), made of larger stones (0.6–0.8 m for the external row), and is not dug. The material found inside and outside (bronze arrowheads, stone beads, coarse pottery) is dated back to Iron Age II. It is the only grave built during this period that has been excavated in Adam North. Grave of type 5: 1004. Samad Period reuses Eight burials of Samad Period have been discovered in the seven taller graves of type 3 (tumulus and ring wall) (996, 1002, 1003, 1006, 1015, 1016, and 1024). These are the only cases of good preservation of the skeletons, as they are located in a stratigraphical level higher than the substratum. Evidence of burial reuse (iron fragments) is also known in one grave of type 2 (1017).
74
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Figure 6.33. Adam North. Chlorite vessels (Early Wadi Suq Period) (drawing by M. Jean).
75
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.34. Adam North, Grave 1002. Samad Period burial. Iron and stone tools, shell and coral raw materials and one gold earring are associated to a young girl (photograph by G. Gernez).
The burials of Samad Period are single adult or subadult burials. Bodies were not placed in the center of the original chamber. One of them, oriented at right angles to the chamber in grave 1002, is a teenage individual, who was buried with stone and iron tools, shells, and ornaments, including a gold earring and a bead (Figure 6.34). A Bronze or Iron Age cylinder seal was also discovered in the filling of this grave (Figure 6.35). It is one of the very few cylinder seals discovered in Oman (Potts 2010: 37). Grave-goods are more diversified than during the Wadi Suq Period: riveted bronze sheets, an iron dagger, several types of iron arrowheads, iron spears and fragments of iron swords, a bronze bowl, a small bronze collar, beads and earrings, including a gold earring (see the Bawshar B1G8 gold earring, Al-Bakri 2007: 215) (Figure 6.37). Comparisons for these objects can be found in Samad and Amla (Yule 1999, 2001). (Example) Grave 1024 Burial 1: This burial is located in the lower part of the chamber, almost under a second Samad burial (Figure 6.36). The whole skeleton is well preserved except for the rib cage. The skeleton, a 25-year-old individual of uncertain sex, was lying in a fetal position on its right side with the head to the west. Eighteen iron arrowheads – probably originally grouped in a quiver – were discovered next to the pelvis, one copper earring under the skull, and one small iron arrowhead very close to the pelvis. A bronze bowl was located near the eastern wall and should be associated with this burial rather than with the above one.
76
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
Adam North: synthesis and chronology While the Hafit graves were located on the crests, from the Umm an-Nar Period inhabitants started building their tombs on the flat glacis. At least one Umm an-Nar tomb is attested in the excavated part of the Adam North graveyard. But the main construction phase corresponds to the beginning of the Wadi Suq Period, although it is difficult to be precise about the chronology of the Wadi Suq graves. The large circular type with concentric walls, located in the eastern part of the graveyard and on the slope, could be a transitional type inspired by the Umm an-Nar tradition, but the single rectangular funerary chamber containing one to three individuals has not been attested before (Figure 6.22). Either this type is older than the other types, or the architectural and locational differences are linked to a different social status of the deceased. The other graves, located on the west side of the excavated area (individual burials, stone-lined grave with or without ring, and tumulus) all contain the same categories and types of objects and are probably contemporaneous. Two main factors make it possible to suggest this chronology: the alteration of stones (very advanced for the Umm an-Nar tomb 1001, advanced for the large oval/circular graves, and lighter for the other graves) along with the almost complete destruction of two graves of the large type, which were clearly used as stone quarries. The architecture of the other Wadi Suq graves remain intact (except that the chamber was often reused).
Figure 6.35. Adam North, Grave 1002. Bronze or Iron Age cylinder seal discovered in the filling (photograph by G. Gernez).
77
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 6.36. Adam North, Grave 1024. Second burial (Samad Period). The iron arrowheads and spearhead indicate that the deceased was probably a warrior (photograph by G. Gernez).
78
A tale of two graveyards: the excavations of protohistoric funerary sites in Adam
It seems likely that a fairly short time span at the beginning of the Wadi Suq Period, according to the homogeneity of vessels and bronze objects. After the Wadi Suq Period, the graveyard was no longer in use. The only clear evidence of a later grave is the round grave dated back to Iron Age II. The last occupation is actually a reuse of Wadi Suq graves: during the Samad Period, the larger graves were re-opened in order to bury one individual in each, and then carefully sealed. As in Adam South, this graveyard is characterized by a complete tradition change between the Umm anNar and Wadi Suq Periods (funerary practices, grave architecture). However, the continuity of the graveyard is clear and the same periods as in Adam South have been identified. Despite some differences (size, place, density), these two graveyards seem to share the same history that probably reflects the main periods of development of the Adam oasis.
Figure 6.37. Adam North, Grave 1002. Gold earring discovered under the skull in the second burial (Samad Period) (photograph by G. Gernez).
Two graveyards, one history The two main graveyards of Adam witness the same history that could reflect the main phases of occupation in Adam: Hafit (graves located in the crests and hills) (3200-2700 BC), Umm an-Nar (2600-2100 BC), early Wadi Suq (2000-1800 BC), Iron Age II (900-500 BC), and Late Iron Age/Samad Period (300 BC-AD 500). It should be noted that late Wadi Suq, Late Bronze Age, and early Iron Age I are absent. The spatial continuity between Umm an-Nar and Wadi Suq cultures, followed by the Iron Age and the Samad Period – both in Adam North and Adam South graveyards – is quite unexpected. It could highlight the continuity of the settlements, which would mean that the cultures of these periods share some common features. Moreover, the graves of each period are deliberately concentrated in a small area in Adam South. That makes us think that the settlement location is not the main nor the only explanation of this concentration. The continuity could also be very pragmatic, merely due to the presence of raw material from older graves in these locations, which are easy to use as stone quarries and which have indeed been repeatedly looted and reused. Were the inhabitants of each period able to understand the meaning of the former spatial landscape (both Hafit and Umm an-Nar) and did they wish to occupy the same location as their ancestors for a symbolic purpose? There is little doubt that Wadi Suq (and then Iron Age) people were able to recognize the human bones and artefacts they found during the plundering of the older graves, so they knew the funerary function of the site. Maybe they chose to locate their graves into older graveyards for symbolic reasons, not only for pragmatic ones. Then two quite contradictory explanations can be proposed. First, they identified the funerary purpose and symbol of these places linked to people that they considered more or less as their ancestors: in this case, they placed the graves there with the symbolic idea of continuity and/or protection. Second, they understood the funerary purpose of the site but each new group of inhabitants wished to erase the past and occupy the area for themselves. 79
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
These questions about the evolution and continuity of funerary practices and places are useful for the understanding of how the ancient inhabitants lived and conceived their landscape, but the form and location of settlements of each period still are unknown. Further research on this topic is necessary to reconstruct the early history of Adam.
80
Chapter 7
The Iron Age in Adam. The discovery of a ritual complex near Jabal Mudhmar Guillaume Gernez, Anne Benoist and Mathilde Jean
In the area of Adam, the Iron Age in only known by a few sites, mainly graves, discovered during surveys and excavations. This situation is not easy to understand since this period, especially after 1000 BC, is characterized by the revival of oases in Central Oman. This development is due to the introduction of falaj system, to an important mining and metallurgical activity in several parts of Oman and to the domestication of the camel, which is important for trade around Arabia. Salut, one of the main sites in the region – with the famous fortress “Hosn Salut”, is located only 40 km north-west of Adam. Two main reasons could explain the lack of archaeological sites from this period in Adam: either the oasis was small and had little importance during this period, or the main settlements were located in the same place than the modern oasis (several Iron Age sherds discovered in Hosn Al-Hawashim could confirm that hypothesis). If so, they were destroyed step by step over time and it is not possible to find archaeological evidences without deep excavations in the modern villages. Moreover, since the inhabitants reused oldest tombs from Hafit and Wadi Suq periods for the deceased, we may have and incomplete knowledge about the real number of tombs where Iron Age people were buried. In this general context, the discovery of the site near Jabal Mudhmar was a surprise. During the 2009 survey, an unexpected group of buildings and structures was found on the eastern tip of Jabal Mudhmar (Figure 7.1). The pottery discovered on the surface led us to propose an Iron Age date for the main collapsed building. We observed that the collapsed walls were made of brown and grey sandstone squared blocs that had been brought from the other side of Wadi Halfayn (this part is called Wadi Izz). This single fact, in addition to the location on the eastern tip of the jabal, made us suppose an important investment in relation with a specific status of the building. The complex includes four main buildings: one stone platform (?) or sign (?) located on the top of the crest, two rectangular buildings, and one circular small well (or tomb ?) between them. Some evidences of walls have been found in the northern slope. This location, on the edge of the mountain, gives a large view over the desert and a strategic position on the passageway of Wadi Halfayn. The excavation of Building 1 started in 2015 (Figure 7.2). The other structures remain untouched up to date and the circular one was destroyed by the construction of an electric line. Building 1 – The “Columned building of the Archers” Building 1 is the biggest building of the Mudhmar East complex. It measures 15 x 8 m, i.e. 120 m², and is oriented East-West. The plan includes seven distinct spaces, whose five are clearly separated rooms. The original plan is simple (Figure 7.3). Two rooms (including one courtyard) located to the east seem to be the entrance of the building. Three steps lead to a corridor. On each side, there is a small square/rectangular room. A stone threshold and a wooden door (only attested by a stone hinge) opens to the main room that includes a series of stone pillars, and could have been a meeting room.
81
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 7.1. Mudhmar East. Aerial view of the Iron Age complex. Building 1 known as “Columned building of the Archers” and the related platform labeled Building 2 (photograph by R. Hautefort).
A very small room, which was full of collapsed stones, is located in the south-western corner. Its purpose remains unknown (reinforce a weak part of the building near the slope of the jabal? Foundations for a small tower?). The excavations of room 3036 and of the main pillared room 3007, along with C-14 dates, made possible to propose a general phasing of Building 1 in Mudhmar East. .
Phase 1: Iron Age II (1000-800 BC). Construction and first occupation, then destruction (fire). First deposit of copper weapons in room 3036. Phase 2a: Iron Age II (800-760 BC). Cleaning and reuse. Copper bows and assemblage in room 3036. Phase 2b: Continuity. Iron Age II (760-600 BC). Quivers in room 3036. Collapse/Abandonment (about two/three centuries?). Phase 3a: first reuse during Samad Period (300 BC-300 AD). Layer with pits and one hearth. Phase 3b: main reuse during Samad Period. One altar (?) and several pits, partial reconstruction. Last abandonment and collapse.
82
Figure 7.2. Mudhmar East. Building 1 after excavation (photograph by G. Gernez).
The Iron Age in Adam – The discovery of a ritual complex near Jabal Mudhmar
83
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 7.3. Mudhmar East. Plan of Building 1 with indication of the room of weapons (drawing by G. Gernez and M. Jean).
84
The Iron Age in Adam – The discovery of a ritual complex near Jabal Mudhmar
According to its form, size and organization, the building is clearly not a house. The main room could be a meeting space, as in some buildings known in the UAE. It seems highly probable that the Building 1 and its surrounding complex has a ritual/cultual function, as indicated both by the unique bronze objects found in Building 1 and by the Building 2 discoveries which include copper snakes, censers/lamps and burnt animal bones. Architecture The walls are made of several materials: the foundation is of local limestone from Jabal Mudhmar, while the elevation is of russet sandstone coming from 12-15 km east of the site and, above, of mudbrick. The foundation was partly buried while the elevation was covered by a coating on the inner side of the walls (Figure 7.4). The coating is silty, compact, of white-yellowish color and with vegetal inclusions whose imprints were visible (Figure 7.5). Its thickness varies from 3 to 12 cm. The walls, the stairs, the threshold and the soil of the main room were all covered by the same coating. Stratigraphy of the lower layers (Iron Age II) In all rooms, the excavation stopped on the natural substratum made of the limestone bedrock itself on the western part of the building or, in the other rooms, of beige silt and angular limestone pebbles (natural colluvial deposits). In Loc 3007 only, the excavation stopped on the first original burnt soil. The first occupation of the building, during the Iron Age II (1000-600 BC), is marked by a fire. This fire was mostly visible in room 3007 (Figure 7.5). The burnt soil, silty and powdery and of red to black color, was installed on a bed of limestone pebbles. The walls suffered also from the fire, as the inner faces of the bricks were red to dark brown and harder than the interior of the bricks. A burnt soil was also observed in Loc 3050, and a burnt stratum in the copper/bronze weapons room 3036 (see below). It seems that the building was then directly reused, in the same plan and same function, just after the fire and without any rupture in the occupation. Indeed, the coating of the soils and walls was restored upon the burnt ones. According to the materials discovered in the building, this second phase is also from Iron Age II. After the Iron Age II occupation, the building is abandoned. A first thin stratum of natural filling is observed, before the collapse of the roof and mudbrick walls. After this collapse, the filling continues naturally, made of beds of silty eolian deposits. The last occupation was during the Samad Period. And finally, the natural filling continues along with the collapse of some stone walls to lead to the aspect in which the building was discovered during the survey. Description of the internal structures The main entrance is located on the western part of wall 3025. It was partly filled in by stones to make the entrance smaller, probably during or just at the end of the Iron Age II occupation. The door between Loc 3016 and Loc 3005 was situated on the western part of wall 3026, in front of the main entrance. It was completely and deliberately obstructed by stones, likely also at the end of the Iron Age II occupation. A stairway leads from the courtyard to the corridor (Figure 7.6). It is made of three steps of 10 cm high. The stairway was coated. The corridor leads, on the right side, to a small room, whose soil is partly covered by a white coating, likely lime. Most important, this corridor opens on the main room (Figure 7.6), whose access is indicated by a coated threshold of stones associated with a door, evidenced by a stone hinge on the floor. 85
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 7.4. Mudhmar East, Building 1. Stone basement and the mudbrick elevation of a wall with the coating preserved on its base (photograph by M. Jean).
86
The Iron Age in Adam – The discovery of a ritual complex near Jabal Mudhmar
Figure 7.5. Mudhmar East, Building 1 (locus 3060). Burnt coating and traces of a green pigment (painting?) (photograph by M. Jean).
In the center of the main room are three to four stone pillar bases. These pillars might be entirely made of stones, as suggested by numerous collapsed stones on the bases and on the surrounding soil. In this room, one dagger and a series of miniature weapons were found along the northern wall. One undefined structure is located in the western part of the room, against the western wall. The stones constituting the structure are coated and painted in green (Figure 7.5). This is the only case of painted coating observed in the building. Traces of fire indicate that this structure also dates from the first phase of construction, during Iron Age II. Our attention was drawn to one specific structure situated in the north-eastern corner of the main room (Figure 7.3). It first appeared as a circular non-burnt area on the burnt soil. The excavation revealed, below a pit, a rectangular structure made of stone. It measures around 1 x 2 m and one meter high, and is closed by cantilevering. This structure includes three walls; the northern wall is absent but may have collapsed into the structure, as indicated by collapsed stones discovered in the filling. At the bottom of the western wall is an aperture. Outside of the walls and between the stones was a silty and compact sediment, looking like brick material (without brick form). Some charcoals were observed on the internal side of the walls, included between the stone of the walls. This structure may be linked to water, as a cistern, a tank for water storage and/or source capture system.
87
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Room 3036 “Room of the weapons” The 2015 campaign unearthed two bronze quivers and one bronze bow in this room. It was already an exceptional discovery, but the 2016 excavation revealed very richer objects. Two more deposits of bronze weapons were excavated in room 3036, comprising bows, daggers, axes and arrowheads. Here is the stratigraphy of the filling of room 3036 (see below for a more detailed presentation): First layer: 4 axes, 2 daggers, 3 groups of arrowheads. Burnt stratum: burnt sediment, red to brown, and lot of charcoals. Second layer: 5 bows (of which one without string and one string without bow, forming maybe one entire bow), 5 daggers, 5 axes, 5 groups of arrowheads. It is a unique discovery in Oman and the whole Arabian Peninsula. Filling stratum: no materials. Third layer: 2 complete quivers, arrowheads and copper flat lozenges in the filling.
Function of Building 1 The excavation of Building 1 was completed during the 2016 campaign. It appears that this building and the materials discovered in it are exceptional. The building may have been a meeting place with a very high symbolic value, where ancient people regularly went. Regarding its environment and strategic position, it seems likely that these people were nomadic. They offered votive bronze weapons to one very important figure, or to a divinity. But to fully reconstruct the function of the building, the entire complex of Mudhmar East still has to be excavated and understood. The weapons found in Mudhmar East (see below) correspond to the general context of increasing metallurgical production observed in Eastern Arabia during the Iron Age, and to the social complexity evidenced by the proliferation of fortified sites and non-domestic architecture. However, in this society without writing, the political system and social structures remain mainly unknown. The continuation of archaeological research in Adam surrounding region, on the site of Mudhmar East and its integration with archaeological research on this period in the macro-regional level will increase the knowledge on the dawn of history in Arabia. Building 2. An Iron Age ritual platform/building? Building 2 was also discovered during the survey of Adam region (Figure 7.1, foreground). It is very close to Building 1 but is smaller. In order to understand the complex site of Mudhmar East, the excavation of Building 2 started in 2016, during the two last weeks of the campaign. It is a rectangular building of north-east/south-west orientation, measuring 6 x 8 m, i.e. 48 m². The external walls are well visible, but the internal structure of the building is not understood yet. It seems that the main part of the building has been destroyed, and only one row of limestone foundation is preserved. Inside the walls are big blocks of limestone, around 40 to 80 cm. This level of big blocks seems in situ, but exhibit important holes, especially in the western part of the building: the stones may have been removed or reused, or destroyed by erosion. 88
The Iron Age in Adam – The discovery of a ritual complex near Jabal Mudhmar
Figure 7.6. Mudhmar East. 3D Model of Building 1 (model by R. Hautefort).
Ceramics, animal bones and bronze objects were discovered in Building 2, but none of them was in a distinguishable structure or in situ. It seems that all the materials were loose into the filling of the building, which was of loose buff silts and limestone pebbles. One area of bones concentration was identified, in the southeastern quarter of the building. Most of these animal bones were burnt and broken. Among the bronze materials were some votive snakes (Figure 7.7). This discovery could link the site to the cult of snakes, well-known during the Iron Age in south-east Arabian Peninsula. In this respect, Building 2 may be an offering platform or shrine, as indicated by the censers/lamps. The presence of burnt animal bones, which suggests the existence of animal sacrifices, supports this hypothesis. A better understanding of Building 2 may necessitate more time for excavation, and especially excavation of its surroundings. The open space between Buildings 1 and 2 still has to be investigated, along with other installations of Mudhmar East. 89
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Copper weapons discovered in Building 1, the “Columned building of the Archers” Deposits of the room 3036 “room of the bows” Several sets of metal weapons were discovered in the building, the most outstanding being located in a small room without a door (Room 3036). According to their location, most object could have fallen from shelves that supported them. Weapons from this room can be divided into three main groups. The upper deposit, which is the most recent, consists of two small quivers and six arrows in each, made of copper/bronze (Figure 7.8). This extraordinary discovery seems to be unique: the two small quivers (too small to be useful, so linked to a votive or gift or prestige purpose) have a copper thong and each of them contains six arrows also made of bronze, including fletching and shaft. It is possible that they were originally hanged to one wall of the room, and then fall when the wall collapsed. According to their dimensions (35 cm), the are reduced models imitating original ones in perishable material. Such objects are extremely rare.
Figure 7.7. Mudhmar East, Building 2. Copper snake discovered in the platform (photograph by G. Gernez).
90
The Iron Age in Adam – The discovery of a ritual complex near Jabal Mudhmar
Figure 7.8. Mudhmar East, Building 1 (room 3036). Two copper quivers in the “room of the weapons” (upper deposit) (photograph by G. Gernez).
The middle deposit, which was located 20 cm under the first, includes five sets of weapons which were not used in a fight, according to their dimensions and/or lack of finishing (Figure 7.9). Each set is formed of one unfinished shaft-hole axe, one dagger with crescentic pommel, about eleven arrowheads forming a group (originally in a perishable quiver ?) and one bow that consists of a flat curved branch and a bronze rope (Figures 7.10 and 7.11). Again, the size of the bows (70 cm on average) and the use of copper indicate that they are imitation of real bows, and not usable ones. So far, no metal bow was known in Arabia nor in the Middle East. The lower deposit was find in the lower layer of the same room. It consisted of four axes, two daggers and two groups of arrowheads. All these weapons were of the same types than those of the middle deposit. We observed that at least one axe was handled, and however seems unfinished. 91
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 7.9. Mudhmar East, Building 1 (room 3036). Five sets of weapons (bows, axes, daggers and arrowheads) in the “room of the weapons” (middle deposit) (photograph by G. Gernez).
Other copper weapons In the north-eastern corner of the main room, 13 arrowheads, one ring, one snake, and miniature weapons (spear, quiver and two bows) were lying on a soil (Figure 7.12). These miniatures are unique and make an echo to the room of the bows. The quality of their making is impressive, since the very thin copper plates form a realistic tiny quiver and bow. Daggers: Three other daggers were discovered in the building, one near the northern wall, and two in the southeastern angle. One bronze dagger has a crescentic pommel (5,5 cm wide). A dotted-circle in relief is located at the basis of the elongated triangular blade. The point is missing. This type, similar to the daggers found in the deposits of “the weapons” room 3036, is well known in Oman Peninsula, in Daba, Ibri/Selme, Jabal Al-Buhais grave BHS 27 and 30 (Jasim 2012: fig. 127 and 350) and some foreign parallels are known in Northern Iran (Marlik). The second dagger is rare, since the blade is made of iron and the bronze handle is cast on it (Figure 7.13). The pommel is crescentic, and the handle is decorated of round knobs. This type is known during the Iron Age at Daba. The use of iron is not unique for this period (Muweilah, see Magee 1998, 2003: 189), but seems very rare (except in Saruq AlHadid), indicating a high-value dagger. The third bronze dagger is divided into two parts: an elongated triangular blade and a rectangular tang. Only traces of the handle are preserved. Daggers of the same type are known in Ibri/Selme (Yule and Weisgerber 2001: 1.3-5). 92
The Iron Age in Adam – The discovery of a ritual complex near Jabal Mudhmar
Arrowheads: 120 complete arrowheads (and a lot of fragments) have been found in the central part of the building, especially in room 3036. Also 5 small spearheads from the surface can be added to this corpus. All are made in two parts: the head itself (triangular, biconvex or with parallel edges) and the rectangular tang, generally short and thin. Three groups can be made according to their size: elongated arrowheads (more than 8 cm length), short arrowheads (between 3 and 8 cm) and miniature arrowheads (less than 3 cm, with the same form but reduced). They all belong to types well known during the Iron Age at Daba and Salut (Avanzini and Phillips 2014: fig. 21), and at Jabal Al-Buhais tomb BHS 30 (Jasim 2012: 103, fig. 128). In summary, these sets of a unique kind offer a new insight on the weaponry of the Iron Age II in Eastern Arabia – especially archery – and on the social and symbolic practices of that time. The character of nonutilitarian weapons may indeed indicate that they are designed to be offered to a warrior deity, and/or as a key element of social practices, of which we know nothing. If we consider the whole site, we noticed that Building 2, very badly preserved, could have been a platform for offerings. It already revealed some broken handled cups (censers/lamps) and small copper/bronze snakes, elements which are considered as ritual markers and which seem to support the hypothesis of a religious function of the site.
Figure 7.10. Mudhmar East, Building 1 (room 3036). Unfinished copper/bronze shaft-hole axe in the “room of the weapons” (middle deposit) (photograph by G. Gernez). 93
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 7.11. Mudhmar East, Building 1 (room 3036). Copper bow from the middle deposit (photograph by G. Gernez).
94
The Iron Age in Adam – The discovery of a ritual complex near Jabal Mudhmar
Figure 7.12. Mudhmar East, Building 1 (room 3036). Miniature copper weapons (bows, spear, quiver), arrowheads and other objects (snake, ring, cup and fragments) from the north-eastern corner of the room (photograph by G. Gernez).
Pottery from Building 1: preliminary study 623 potsherds have been collected during the excavations, including 68 fragments of rims. The pottery from Mudhmar East is quite homogenous, most of the pottery belonging to Iron Age common wares (1300 – 300 BC). Pastes are light buff, orange to light red, sometimes with a grey core, tempered with mineral grits. Pots are mostly handmade, with a finishing on a slow rotating base for a few of them, indicated by tiny horizontal lines visible on the surface. Surfaces are mate, often slipped in red or black. Common wares We distinguished several groups of common wares owing to the density and the size of the temper present in the paste. Common wares with medium temper comprise pastes with inclusions 0.5 to 2 mm thick, frequent enough for us to think that they represent an intentional addition to the natural clay. Four groups have been defined:
95
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 7.13. Mudhmar East, Building 1. Composite dagger with iron blade and copper handle (photograph by G. Gernez).
Group 1: sharp grits of light red to dark brown colour, that could correspond to grog fragments. Some inclusions appear to be harder and could be of mineral origin. These inclusions are often associated with smaller and scarcer inclusions of white color (limestone?). Group 2: sharp grey to black grits also associated to white inclusions. Group 3: white calcareous grits alone. Group 4: mixed temper: grits of red, grey-black and white colors.
The medium-tempered common wares share comparable shapes, mostly represented by large bowls or basins, medium jars, jugs and handled bowls. All groups are represented. Common wares with coarse temper exhibit generally thick walls and belong to large vessels, with coarse mineral grits (up to 4 mm in size) present in large quantity. All groups are represented. The shapes are of large to medium size, including storage jars and lids but also handled bowls, jugs and basins similar to those of medium-tempered common ware. Common ware with fine temper correspond to very fine pastes with occasional inclusions, less than 0.5 mm large, that might have been naturally present in the clay. These fine inclusions can be of white, red of grey color (groups 1, 2 and 3). Common wares with fine temper mainly include small bowls and jugs, mostly slipped in red or black. One or two potsherds present traces of painted decoration. These different groups form together the most part of the common pottery recorded. It is not possible to know yet if they represent several productions of different origins, or several parts of a single production.
96
The Iron Age in Adam – The discovery of a ritual complex near Jabal Mudhmar
Figure 7.14. Mudhmar East, Building 1. Pottery shapes (bowls, jars and handles) (drawing by M. Jean).
Typology of ceramic shapes: The whole pottery assemblage is highly fragmented and fragment of identifiable shapes are few, mainly corresponding to rims. Open shapes: Bowls (Figure 7.14.1-9): Bowls are largely predominant (36 fragments of rims). Small bowls mostly have a flat rim, sometimes slightly thickened (“nailheaded” rim) but bowls with a thinned or rounded rim are also present. It includes simple convex bowls, but also bowls with marked shoulder, and undulated bowls of a type common on other early Iron Age / Iron Age II sites such as Rumeilah I (Benoist 1998: fig. 3B.12-15). Some have an open spout. Others present a perforated lug on the rim, a shape known in Hili-17 (Benoist 2000: fig. 103a). Three bowls with an elongated unperforated lug fixed outside under the rim could be compared to an example collected by J. Schreiber in Izki, which he dates from the early Iron Age (Schreiber 2007: pl. 20.6). In Mudhmar East, these bowls with unperforated lugs were collected on the surface: their dating from early Iron Age does not seem extremely reliable, but their paste is very similar to those of the very characteristic early Iron Age shapes found on the site. Two small bowls with a rounded rim present traces of painted decorations on the inside: one has a wavy line painted in black reminding decorated vases from Lizq (Kroll 1998: fig. 1.15-16). The other shows a straight vertical line that might be part of a triangle decoration. Larger bowls or basins present a flat horizontal or oblique rim, more barely a concave rim. They may be compared with examples collected at Rumeilah (Benoist 2000: fig. 45.7-8; fig. 54) and Al-Madam (Benoist and del Cerro Linares 1998: fig. 10). A very large opened vessel with a thickened triangular rim has been collected on the surface of the site. It has parallels among potteries from Lizq (Kroll 1998: fig. 8.69-70).
97
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Closed shapes: Jars (Figure 7.14.10-12). Among jars are large storage jars with thickened rim, comparable to examples from Lizq (Kroll 1998: 51), along with a small hole-mouth jar with overhanging rim, which finds some parallels in Rumeilah (Benoist 1998: fig. 2.19-21). Two fragments of small necked jars have also been collected. One presents a concave neck and a flat rim, the other has a rounded rim with a flat handle fixed on it. This latter fragment could belong to a spouted jug. Fragments of spouts are recorded, which might be part of bridge spouted vessels or simpler U-shaped spouted vessels, recorded on several Iron Age settlements (Lizq: Kroll 1998: fig. 3.27-33; Rumeilah I: Benoist 2000: fig. 74). This type is particularly well represented in some collective buildings such as Salut (Phillips 2010: fig. 5), Muwailah II (Magee 2003: 184) or Masafi-1 (Benoist 2010: 136). One of the spouts collected in Mudhmar East exhibits traces of a painted decoration made of oblique lines on the side (fig. 575), reminding some examples from Lizq (Kroll 1998: 27). Handled bowls: Censers or lamps (?) (Figures 7.14.13-15). Three fragments of bowls with a horizontal handle fixed on the side have been collected, two outside of the building, the latter in the western courtyard. These handled bowls are found only in places with a proper ritual background such as Salut (Avanzini et al. 2007: fig. 19.1,2), Bithnah (Benoist 2013: fig. 113) and Masafi-3 (Benoist et al. 2011: fig. 14). They have been interpreted as possible incense burners or lamps. Handled bowls are also mentioned by J. Schreiber in Nizwa (Schreiber 2007: pl. 67) and in the Jabal Akhdar (Schreiber 2007: pl. 79: 9-10), where Iron Age cultic places might be represented. In Adam region, some of these vessels also have been collected in graves (Adam North, grave 1004: Gernez and Giraud 2012: fig. 84; reused Hafit grave from Jabal Hinaydil: Giraud et al. 2010: fig. 26.A.1031), and the hypothesis of cultic rituals related to ancestors have been expressed in our previous reports. Handled bowls from Mudhmar are exclusively decorated of incisions which might constitute vegetal motives that are also depicted in Salut and Nizwa. Examples with snake decorations appear in Adam region in graves areas. A small common ware plate with red slip that has been collected in the western courtyard could belong to the same type. It presents a short vertical wall comparable to some handled bowls from Bithnah (Benoist 2013: fig. 114.2,8). Tiny traces of burning appearing inside make possible its use as a small brazier. But no evidence of handle is visible on the preserved part of this vessel. Larger plates with a similar shape are known from Rumeilah II (Benoist 2000: fig. 62.6). Other shapes: A fragment of perforated lid collected on the surface also represents an object barely encountered in Iron Age private houses. It reminds two other examples, one from the collective building at Muwailah (Magee 1999: fig. 7), the other from the Bithnah sanctuary (Benoist 2013: fig. 111.3). A complete cauldron with two vertical handles has been found in the southeastern part of the main room (Locus 3007). It is completely burnt and probably has been used for cooking. This vase is of common ware with coarse temper. The paste is greyish inside and very friable. This cauldron finds two parallels at Rumeilah, among a small group of wares locally called “cooking wares”, which were collected in the last layer of Excavation 2, dated from the 3rd century BC (Benoist 2000: fig. 60.20,21). In the UAE, these cooking ware vessels may also be encountered at Mleiha, at the beginning of the Late Pre-Islamic Period. Closer to Jabal Mudhmar, two vessels of comparable shape but without handles are mentioned by J. Schreiber in Izki (Schreiber 2007: pl. 36.3) and in Nizwa (Schreiber 2007: pl. 71.3), which he dates from the Late Iron Age (300 BC-400 AD). The shape of Mudhmar cauldron’s handles is reminds handles encountered among Samad pottery, although they are not incised. 98
The Iron Age in Adam – The discovery of a ritual complex near Jabal Mudhmar
Other wares A few vessels present a different paste, although it can be classified among regional common wares. These vessels might have been brought from other places in south-east Arabia. Among these is an undulated bowl of red sandy ware including exploding grits. This kind of ware that also has been recorded on several other Iron Age sites in the UAE Its origin is not precisely defined yet, but could be located in coastal areas along the southern fringe of the Arabian Gulf: from north-western Emirates to eastern Saudi Arabia and Bahrain Island, where pottery with similar exploding grits is known. Fragments of a jar in a light buffgreenish ware of porous texture and other potsherds in a red wheel-made paste with vegetal prints might also be of foreign origin. Finally, an almost complete small ovoid jar in a fine wheel-made grey paste has been collected on the floor of the courtyard, in front of the entrance. It may correspond to an Iranian import (Figure 7.14.12). Grey jars of Iranian origin usually are of similar shape but bigger size. They occasionally appear in Iron Age graves such as Bithnah (Corboud et al. 1996: pl. 10.3-6) and Dadna (Benoist and Ali Hassan 2010: fig. 6.6-8). One example is also recorded at Rumeilah in the collective building (Benoist 2000: fig. 49.13). The one from Mudhmar East might proceed from the same tradition, despite its smaller size. Conclusions As a whole, the pottery assemblage clearly belongs to the early Iron Age cultural horizon. None of the categories appearing in Southeastern Arabia between 600 and 300 BC is represented, which differs from Salut where fine burnished ware and fine orange ware are known. The maintenance of an occupation in Mudhmar East between 600 and 300 BC could be suggested by the cauldron, whose only parallels belong to the end of Early Iron Age or to the Late Iron Age. But cooking ware is barely considered as a very good chronological indicator, and this possibility should be confirmed by further researches. To conclude, in the light of the ceramic study, it is confirmed that Mudhmar East Building 1 can be seen as an Early Iron Age collective ritual building, with reoccupations at the end of the Iron Age. Characteristic elements usually encountered during this period in collective building (spouted jugs, handled bowls, perforated lid, etc.) are well represented, although the quantity of collected pottery here appears less abundant than in other places. One must underline the absence here of any representation of snake on ceramics, an element also mentioned in Bida bint Sa’ud by W.Y. Al-Tikriti. The metal finds suggest a collective function including some elements of symbolism. The excavation of the surroundings of the main building will be completed, in order to define better Iron Age local collective practices, and maybe highlight some differences between Adam and other regions of Southeastern Arabia. Note on the Late Iron Age Reuse of Building 1 (Samad Period) As we mentioned, the plan of the upper layer is not clear, with several postholes, a series of pits full of big stones and one rectangular podium or pillar. Very few materials come from this layer, but a bronze tetradrachm (eastern Arabian coinage?) indicates a date around the 2nd century BC to 2nd century AD (Samad Period in the region).
99
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 7.15. Mudhmar East, Building 1. Silver tetradrachm from the late occupation of the building (Samad Period).
Silver coin 737-1 (DA 43818): Tetradrachm, Abi‘el type (Figure 7.15). After restoration, it seems that the tetradrachm Abi‘el is made of silver with a quite high percentage of copper (which explains the corrosion). Diameter: 2,5 cm. Obverse: Head of (probably) Herakles. Reverse: figure sat on a throne, one arm stretched forward, crossed legs. A bird on the arm, looking at the face. Near the legs: a stylized tree or plant. Copper coin: A small (1,3 cm) and thin copper coin was found during the 2009 survey. It should be restored, because nothing can be seen on its surfaces. From its size, it could be a drachm or an obol. Meaning of these discoveries Only another coin of this period is published in Oman. The discovery of two coins coming from this building may indicate that the site of Mudhmar East was located near a commercial road, or maybe two. The first, east/west, makes a link between the southern oases (Adam, Sinaw, Ibra, Samad and the sites of Samad culture, where the other coin come from) and the northern sites (Late Pre-Islamic Period). The second could go farther to the south, to Duqm, following Wadi Halfayn. The sites discovered in 2015 (some of them surveyed by F. Genchi and others) seem to evidence occupations of this area and contact with central Oman, at least from the Wadi Suq Period. The domestication of camel should have strengthened and facilitated the links between both regions.
100
The Iron Age in Adam – The discovery of a ritual complex near Jabal Mudhmar
To sum up, coins (and especially the Abi‘el one) indicate a first establishment of a monetary economy and the circulation of wealth in central Oman. They could mean more than a simple echo of the contact between ancient Eastern Arabia and the Hellenistic (and later) world.
Conclusion: new lights on the Iron Age in Adam No evidence of Early Iron Age I occupation has been found in Adam, what is similar to the situation observed in Central Oman. It is highly probable that people start to settle in the area of Adam around 1000 BC, maybe reactivating the oasis using new irrigation techniques (falaj). However, only few graves dated to the Iron Age II were found, and it is still difficult to evaluate demography and kind of settlements near the oasis. Thus, it appears that the ritual complex of Mudhmar East is the major Iron Age site remaining in the whole area. It could have been used as a meeting pole for nomadic and sedentary populations living in the neighborhood, or travelling. Further researches about this site and its surroundings, the “Columned building of the Archers” (Building 1) and the unique copper objects discovered inside will provide important data about the Iron Age in the margins of the desert.
101
Chapter 8
Water-sharing techniques of Falaj Al-Māleh in Adam Julien Charbonnier
The region of Adam is mostly constituted by rocky and sandy plains and is crossed by large wadis coming from the mountains. Adam is located at the level of the anticlinal arc of Falaj Salakh, which is cut by several faults. The mountains constituting the anticlinal block the wadis whose floods rush into the faults. Reservoirs of groundwater thus form at those points. The oasis of Adam was established in one of these faults, which separates the Jabal Mudmār to the east from the Jabal Al-Handalī to the west, on the bank of Wadi Al-Gharbī. It therefore benefits from this accumulation of water and relatively shallow groundwater (located 10 to 18 m below the ground). These important water resources offered the possibility to sustain an oasis of about 150 ha. Groundwater was drained at the surface by qanats, regionally called aflaj (sing. falaj), to irrigate the fields and to provide water for the daily life. Four aflaj, Falaj Al-Māleh, Falaj Al-Ayn, Falaj Al-Shar‘a and Falaj Al-Filayj, are still in activity in Adam (Figure 8.1). Al-Māleh, which is the topic of the present paper, is the longest falaj in Adam, it stretches on about 4,5 km west of the Wadi Al-Gharbī. It is used to irrigate about 40 ha of gardens at the northwest of the palm grove (Figure 8.2). The associated irrigation system is made of two main channels: one is oriented east-west and feeds the northern end of the palm grove while the other runs toward the south and splits rapidly into several secondary channels. Water is flowing constantly from a falaj and must be therefore shared permanently, day and night. Each user of the falaj possesses a certain number of water shares that correspond to time periods of varying length. During the time of his share, a user can divert all the flow of the falaj in his field(s). The shares are distributed along the water cycle (dawrān) and their position is generally fixed, i.e. they are always allocated in the same order. In Southeastern Arabia, the movement of celestial bodies are traditionally used for the timing of water shares: the sun is taken into account by using a sundial during the daytime and stargazing is practiced during the night. In the oasis of Adam, two of the original four sundials – the ones of aflaj Al-Māleh and Al-Ayn – are still in use but watches have entirely replaced old techniques of stargazing. Indeed, the strong luminosity produced during the night by the city of Adam prevents the observation of the sky. The present chapter discusses the results of two short fieldworks dedicated to the water-sharing practices of Falaj Al-Māleh. They have been conducted during the 2011 and 2012 campaigns of the French Archaeological Mission. This study followed interviews made with people involved in water management in 2010. My work focused on the functioning of a sundial and the management of water in the oasis, i.e. identifying the techniques used to divert water in a field and to move it to another place. Indeed, despite the relative importance of the bibliography devoted to the falaj system and water-sharing methods in Southeast Arabia (Al-Ghafri et al. 2004; Dutton 1989; Wilkinson 1977), our knowledge is rather limited. Unlike the dawrān, the spatial distribution of water has never been fully analyzed. On the field, I first mapped the channels located inside the palm grove with the help of a GPS device and I draw the sundial. Every day I recorded the position of water shares on the sundial and the position of fields successively irrigated with a GPS. I also recorded information concerning the water shares: owner, length, hours and possible swapping or renting. All these data were later integrated to a database and a GIS. In the meantime, when waiting at the sundial, I asked questions about the functioning of the sundial. 102
Water-sharing techniques of falaj al-Māleh in Adam
Figure 8.1. Location of Adam and a map of the oasis (photograph by J. Charbonnier).
The distribution of water during the night has not been integrated to this preliminary study, as the traditional technique for timing shares – stargazing – is not in use anymore in Adam. The general rules of the dawrān and the organization of water management of Falaj Al-Māleh will be presented, as well as the functioning of the sundial. I will then show how flexible is time management in the palm grove and how water is circulating in the network of channels. Time management in the oasis of Adam The shares of Falaj Al-Māleh are distributed during a 14 days dawrān that starts on Friday. A day of the dawrān is called bāddah and bears a specific name. Each bāddah is composed of two halves, daytime and night time, each of them divided in 24 to 28 athars, which is the basic unit for timing water shares in Adam. A smaller unit called qiyās (pl. qissāt) do exists and represents one twenty-fourth of an athar. Unlike what has been noted in other oases of Oman (Al-Ghafri et al. 2004: 12; Nash 2011: 33-34), water shares don’t alternate between day and night from a bāddah to another. While they belong to individuals or families during the rest of the week, water shares distributed on Fridays are sold at auction. Money collected is used to maintain the falaj and the channels network. The auction sale is directed by the wakīl. The wakīl (lit. “the representative”) of the shareholders community is at the head of one or several aflaj. He appoints workers for digging or maintaining tunnels and channels. He is in charge of setting conflicts but was not involved into the day-to-day water management. A small group of elderly people, who are hired by the other shareholders, nowadays perform this task. They time water shares at the sundial and move the sluices (jālah) to distribute water in the palm grove. They are sometimes in charge of one water share and sometimes of part of a day. They do not use any book recording and have to remember the order as well as the length of the shares. Falaj management is an oral tradition in Adam. 103
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
The functioning of the sundial of Falaj Al-Māleh Falaj Al-Māleh sundial is located in an open space, at the border between the palm grove and the settlement, where shadows cannot interfere with the shadow of the vertical pole, i.e. the gnomon (Figure 8.3). The sundial is also located close to the main water distributor so that people can easily reach it and move the sluice gate in order to divert water to another part of the oasis. The role of the sundial is to divide the day in time periods corresponding to water shares and thus to allow timing the athars. As the length of the day varies according to the season, their duration is permanently altered. The sundial measures 28 m east-west by 11 m north-south. It is horizontal and set up on top of a low platform of concrete. The gnomon (khashabah) is located in a central position south of the sundial. It is almost vertical, 1.72 m high and 2.5 cm in diameter. Small iron markers (mismār), spread north of the gnomon, form seven curved lines oriented east-west. They are used successively depending on the season. The two lines located close to the sundial are shorter and used in summer while those located north of the dial are longer and help to time athars in winter. The two southernmost lines are also located south of the khashabah, which implies that the sun projects its rays toward the south during summer. This is related to the fact that Oman is mostly situated between the tropic of Cancer and the equator. Adam is at the latitude of 22° N. At this latitude, the sun is to the north during part of the summer.
Figure 8.2. Plan of the Falaj Al-Māleh irrigation system (aerial map by J. Charbonnier).
104
Water-sharing techniques of falaj al-Māleh in Adam
Figure 8.3. Sundial of Falaj Al-Māleh, plan and view from east (photograph by J. Charbonnier).
Within each line, the space between two markers represents an athar but there are few exceptions: in the central part of the sundial there is a large empty space that actually corresponds to four athars. This central space is called waqfah. Concerning the two northernmost lines, the space between the two markers located immediately east of the waqfah corresponds to two athars instead of one. Finally, an athar is counted from the sunrise to the first marker to the west and from the last marker to the east to the sunset. The markers are used to put in place wooden sticks (hatab) that mark the beginning of water shares (Figure 8.4. A). Each shareholder, or his representative, has to place the stick corresponding to its share, perpendicularly to the line used, at the appropriate time on the sundial. He must wait until the top of the gnomon shadow reaches his hatab, which marks the beginning of his share (Figure 8.4. B-C), and then he has to run toward the palm grove in order to move the sluices and guide water toward his field(s) (Figure 8.4. D). Once the water has arrived on his plot, he has to wait until it stops flowing. 105
Figure 8.4. Timing with the Falaj Al-Māleh sundial. A) placing a stick; B) waiting for the shadow to reach the stick; C) removing the stick; D) shifting the sluice in a channel (photograph by J. Charbonnier).
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
106
Water-sharing techniques of falaj al-Māleh in Adam
When the weather is cloudy, the shareholder, or his representative, taps on the top of the gnomon with his hand in order to see the position of the shadow. Sometimes he takes profit of sunny spells to mark the position of the shadow with a stick. Watches are used when the shadow is not visible at all. Water clocks might have served the same purpose in the past. The number of athars is varying from season to season. While there are 28 athars during the daytime in winter, spring and autumn, there number decreases to 24 in summer. The reason for this evolution is still unclear: I was explained by one of my informers that water shares of more than two athars would be shortened in summer according to an ancient rule. The smaller shares would conversely remain unchanged. According to another person however, only the shares located in the central waqfah would be modified. This question should be solved during the next field seasons, which will take place in summer. The mosque sundial During specific days of the dawrān, some water shares are not timed from the main sundial of Falaj AlMāleh but from a smaller sundial situated in the courtyard of a mosque, located next to the main water distributor. This is ca. 2 m long structure, made of two lines of iron markers perpendicular to the eastern wall of the mosque, whose shadow is used to time the shares (Figure 8.5). This practice remains unexplained. One possibility is that these shares could have been initially devoted to land belonging to the mosque: hence the necessity to divide the flow in a way that best fits the size of each of its fields. The distribution of water shares of Falaj Al-Māleh Figure 8.6 represents the distribution of water shares during the 14th of January 2012 (bāddat al-Manzaryah). Every two weeks, this bāddah should theoretically reproduce identically, i.e. the same people (or people from the same family) should recover their shares at an appointed time and an appointed place, as implied by J.C. Wilkinson (1977: 102 and 116). However, I found out that in Adam water is managed with much more flexibility. The dawrān never reproduces identically but is altered regularly (scheduled swapping of shares) or randomly (exchange or renting of shares). 1. Taghayr al-bāddah (“switching of the bāddah”) is a practice that consists in swapping shares between people from a cycle to another. Three members of the same family can for example use three contiguous shares of different duration in turns. 2. Some people own shares that can be recovered only every two or every four dawrāns. Meanwhile the share belongs to someone else. 3. Shares can also be exchanged or rented. This is common practice in Adam, it happens every day. This custom gives more flexibility to the irrigation system. A person can give away his share when its fields require less water, for example in winter, when fewer crops are cultivated. Conversely, fields sometimes need more water because several crops, including vegetables, are cultivated at the same time.
107
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 8.5. The mosque sundial from north-east (photograph by J. Charbonnier).
108
1¾
2¾
6
2½
1½
¾
1¾
2
3½
4
Nasirah
Ali bin Amir
Sulayman bin Salem
Saïd bin Hamed
Malek bin Nasser
Hamoud bin Saïd
Ali al-Abd
Saïd bin Nasser
Salem bin Mohammed
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2
Mohammed bin Saïd
Saïd bin Areb
1
Number of Athars
2
Water share owner
Order
Figure 8.6. Distribution of water shares on the sundial on January 14th 2012 (drawing by J. Charbonnier).
16:05
15
14:21
13:52
13:30
12:47
11:42
9:23
8:09
7:40
?
Beginning of the share (sundial)
Water-sharing techniques of falaj al-Māleh in Adam
109
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 8.7. Distribution of water in the palm grove on January 14th 2012 (aerial map by J. Charbonnier).
110
Water-sharing techniques of falaj al-Māleh in Adam
Figure 8.8. Sketch plans showing the relationship between the position of a field and the volume of water it receives (drawing by J. Charbonnier).
The spatial distribution of water in the oasis The flexibility we have noted in the management of water shares has an impact on the distribution of water. Indeed, water is not allocated spatially: from one share to another, it can be sent in distinct areas of the palm grove. In concrete terms, water can be used by a shareholder on the field he wants, even if it is at the other end of the irrigation system compared to the preceding field. In order to understand how the water can be moved from one place to another, I recorded the spatial allocation of water during several bāddat. Figure 8.7 provides an example of the distribution of water during the 14th of January 2012 (baddat al-Manzaryah). This method of water management poses problem: the velocity of water flow is about 2 km/h and it must sometimes travel on a long distance to reach a field. The distance between the main water distributor upstream and the southern end of the channel network is about 800 m: the travelling time for water between these two points will then be approximately 24 minutes. Another problem that arises is the fact that they could generate inequality between the shareholders. The time given by the sundial cannot be used alone to time water shares; the travelling time of water must also be taken into account. Indeed, a field will receive more or less water if the following field to be irrigated is located upstream or downstream. Figure 8.8 provides three hypothetical scenarios. In all cases, the first field to be irrigated is at the same place, on the westernmost main channel. The position of the next field to be irrigated is however each time different: in case A, it is upstream and on another channel; in case B it is also upstream but on the same channel; in case C, it is downstream on the same channel. • In case A, when it is time for the owner of the second field to collect his water share he will go to the upstream water distributor (it will take about 1:30 minutes) and move the sluice. A large volume of water will remain in the channel and will reach the first field when he will move the sluice. • The sluice to be moved in case B is much closer from the first field. Of course, it will take a little bit more time to the shareholder to reach this sluice but he runs anyway much faster than the water. If he moves the sluice straightaway, the volume of water that will remain in the channel and that will reach the first field will be much smaller than in case A.
111
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 8.9. Hamed bin Salem throwing straw into a channel (photograph by J. Charbonnier).
112
Water-sharing techniques of falaj al-Māleh in Adam
• In case C, the sluice to be moved is just next to the first field. It is located farther away from the sundial but what I have said about case B applies also here. When the sluice will be moved, nothing will reach the first field since the sluice is adjacent to it. For a fair distribution of water, the sluices cannot always be moved at the time indicated by the sundial (or just after). How to take into account the travelling time of water to make its distribution fair? If we are in case A, the sluice will be moved straightaway. Concerning case B and C however, shareholders wait until a volume of water similar than in case A has reached the field. To do so, they throw straw (teben) from the upstream water distributor into the channel feeding the first field (Figure 8.9). Then, they follow the straw and move the sluice only when it reaches the water distributor so that the first field receives a volume of water that corresponds to the duration of the share.
Conclusion The study of water-sharing in Adam shows that volume is actually taken into account when distributing water in the palm grove through a very simple method, i.e. the floating of straw in channels. We have seen that in Adam the dawrān is constantly modified, temporarily or permanently, even from a cycle to another. This organzation seems to allow flexibility in the management of water and favor the growing of some crops. Each user can send water in the one of his fields that needs to be irrigated or rent his share if he doesn’t need it. If the dawrān was too rigid, it would be difficult to cultivate crops that need a regular supply of water. Such an organzation of water sharing is close, although not completely similar, from the one observed by J.C. Wilkinson on Falaj Malki in Izki, which according to him “is peculiar to a few places in central Oman” (Wilkinson 1977: 114). In this system, water and land ownerships are separated and “a man acquires a share of water on whatever day he wants for the period he wants, and can draw it at the place he wants” (Wilkinson 1977: 116). Unfortunately, the sophisticated methods of timing and flow diversion applied in Adam are disappearing, as the new generation is not trained to take over the elders. It is therefore an important task to record and analyze the social aspects of falaj technique.
113
Chapter 9
Prehistoric and protohistoric heritage in Adam. A challenge for the future Guillaume Gernez
Research carried out in Adam by the French Archaeological Mission to Central Oman has brought to light the long and rich Prehistoric and Early Historic times of this region, from the Palaeolithic to the Islamic Period. Throughout the ages, following the evolution of environment and the development of human societies in the whole Near and Middle East, societies of Eastern Arabia appear to have followed their own way even if they were partly connected to other regions. Despite its position in the desert margins, the area of Adam participated in the main phases of development, since the presence of water facilitates human settlement. Main results After ten winter campaigns of surveys and excavations, data processing, analyses and bibliographical research, with the participation of senior and junior archaeologists, anthropologists, geographers, botanists, zoologists, and other specialists of all periods, most of the original goals were achieved. More accurately, research and results went far beyond what we expected. Most discoveries were in fact unforeseen. This book presents the first synthesis on the archaeological work in Adam, but the complete and final publication is now in preparation, as well as further papers (see below). Paradoxically, one case was not solved: while the discovery of the carved stone in Al-Qutayinah led Professor Serge Cleuziou to initiate the project, no further evidence of a major monumental Bronze Age tomb similar to Hili was found. It remains possible that new surveys further south, following Wadi Umayri, could unravel this mystery. Apart from this case, results are numerous and provide new insights about Adam and the archaeology of Central Oman. • The archaeological map is completed and should become both an analytical tool to understand the precise evolution of settlement patterns, and a heritage management tool (protection of discovered sites). • Geomorphological studies highlight the importance of climate evolution, water supply and raw material for the preferential location of nomadic, and then sedentary, settlements. • Early and Middle Palaeolithic lithic tools discovered confirm the age of the first human population in Oman. • Despite the difficulty of their identification, Neolithic non-coastal sites can be found in Oman, as demonstrated by the discovery on Jabal Al-Aluya (Salakh South). This camp, probably linked to hunting, consists of U-shaped structures, was occupied around 4000 BC according to the associated lithic industry.
114
Prehistoric and protohistoric heritage in Adam: a challenge for the future
Figure 9.1. Adam. View of the oasis showing traditional architectures (J. Giraud).
• Notwithstanding, the absence of a settlement in the first phase of the Early Bronze Age (Hafit Period), the 750 tombs and their concentration enable us to identify in Adam the great transformations (demographic change, oasis agriculture, new way of life, new funerary landscape, new trade networks and others) known elsewhere in Oman. According to the number of tombs, this period seems to have been the most populated in pre-Islamic times. • Excavations in Adam North and Adam South highlight continuity and change between Umm anNar and Wadi Suq periods. It appears that there is no evidence of late Wadi Suq nor Late Bronze Age burials, an indication that the area might have been deserted due to aridification. • Adam was reoccupied in the Iron Age II period (1000-600 BC), and had an important position for ritual activities in the margins of the desert, as evidenced by the “Columned building of the Archers” discovered in Jabal Mudhmar. • Late Iron Age (Samad / Pre-Islamic Period) occupation is known from burials reusing Wadi Suq graves, and from two coins (including a Tetradrachm of Abi‘el type) discovered in the latest reuse of Building 1 in Mudhmar East. With this, we observed the continuity of Adam as a crossroad for trade.
115
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 9.2. Orthophotograph of the Adam oasis (image by CAPTAIR).
Figure 9.3. 3D Model of Hosn Al-Hawashim (model by CAPTAIR).
116
Prehistoric and protohistoric heritage in Adam: a challenge for the future
Figure 9.4. 3D Model of the Al-Sha’ra falaj tower (model by CAPTAIR).
• From the Islamic Period, most of the inhabitants live inside the oasis. The last remains of traditional architecture are still visible in the old villages, like Harrat Al-Jami, Hosn Al-Hawashim and others. This material heritage is important, as well as the immaterial heritage, such as traditional water management.
Archaeological and Traditional Heritage in Adam: virtual data and memory Adam oasis and its inside villages represent a wonderful case for the study of traditional architecture and urbanism, as well as immaterial heritage such as traditional oasis agriculture and water management systems in Oman (Figure 9.1). In a period of important development of the city, it is crucial to retain the memory of this heritage. Restoration and protection of ancient buildings are important, but for places which have no programmed heritage plans, aerial view, and 3D models will be useful to preserve the memory of Adam. A part of this work was carried out in 2015: orthophotography and 3D modelling of the oasis, including the traditional village of Hosn Al-Hawashim and the falaj tower called Al‐Shar’a (Figures 9.2 to 9.4). The main advantage of numeric data is their high accessibility to a wide public in Adam, Oman and the world, what is important for both study and general knowledge. Taking the region as a whole, the archaeological map will be a very helpful management tool to control and avoid site destruction in the wake of urban expansion and land development. Boards were put in most important sites, but fences could be a useful solution in some isolated places. 117
Taming the great desert – Adam in the prehistory of Oman
Figure 9.5. Adam team members overhanging Adam North graveyard in January 2013. Hugo Naccaro, Damien Arhan, Mathilde Jean, Jessica Giraud, Aurélie Paci and Clélia Paladre (photograph by G. Gernez).
Museum and exhibitions As underlined by the exceptional press coverage, the discovery of unique copper/bronze weapons in Mudhmar East site is of high interest for our knowledge of ancient craft, warfare and ritual practices. Some of these objects have been restored in the National Museum and the Ministry of Heritage and Culture, and two quivers were already displayed in the central case at the GCC Exhibition in Muscat (autumn 2015). These rare objects and one bow will become part of the National Museum collection, but many other rare objects (unfinished axes, bows, other miniature weapons) or more common weapons (daggers, arrowheads, shaft-hole axes) could be displayed in other thematic exhibitions in Muscat, Nizwa and Adam, or exported to foreign countries. Apart from the Iron Age Mudhmar East discoveries, other kinds of material could be part of exhibitions: Early Palaeolithic bifaces, Wadi Suq copper weapons and chlorite vessels, antique Samad Period coins. The sharing of our research and discoveries with the scientific community and the people of Oman is essential. For this reason, scientific as well as general publications (books, articles and online publications) are planned. They will be the next and final stages of the explorations in Adam led by the French Archaeological Mission in Central Oman and will be offered to the inhabitant of Adam as a fragment of their history (Figure 9.5).
118
Bibliography
AL-TIKRITI, W. 1998. Iron Age Pottery at Bint Sa‘ud settlement. In Mouton M. (ed.), Assemblages céramiques des sites de l’Age du Fer en péninsule d’Oman (Documents d’Archéologie de l’Arabie 1). Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. AL-BAKRI, S. 2007. Muaqa’ al-‘asr al-hadidi fi Sultanat Oman. In Proceedings of the International Symposium Archaeology of the Arabian Peninsula Through the Ages. Muscat, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Sultanate of Oman, pp. 211–231. AL-GHAFRI, A., T. Inoue and T. Nagasawa 2004. Irrigation Scheduling of Aflaj of Oman: Methods and Modernization. University of Hokkaïdo. AVANZINI, A. and C. Phillips, 2010. An Outline of recent Discoveries at Salut in the Sultanate of Oman. In Avanzini A. (ed.), Eastern Arabia in the first Millennium BC (Arabia Antica 6). Rome, “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, pp. 93–108. AVANZINI, A., C. Phillips, M. Al-Jahfali, C. Condolucci, M. Cremaschi, M. Iamoni and R. Santoni 1997. Salut. Preliminary Report (Italian Mission to Oman). Pisa, University of Pisa. BÉCHENNEC, F., J. Le Métour, D. Rabu, M. Beurrier, C. Bourdillon-Jeudy-De-Grissac, P. De Wever, M. Tegyey and M. Villey 1989. Géologie d’une chaîne issue de la Téthys : les montagnes d’Oman. Bulletin de la Société Géologique Française 2, 167–188. BÉCHENNEC, F., J. Le Métour, D. Rabu, Ch. Bourdillon-de-Grissac, P. De Wever, M. Beurrier and M. Villey 1990. The Hawasina nappes: stratigraphy, palaeogeography and structural evolution of a fragment of the south-Tethyan passive continental margin. In Robertson A. H., M. P. Searle and A. C. Ries (eds.), The geology and tectonics of the Oman region (Geological Society Special Publication 49). London, Geological Society, pp. 213–223. BÉCHENNEC, F., R. Wyns, J. Roger, J. Le Métour and S. Chevrel 1992. Geological Map of Nazwa (Sheet NF 40-07, Scale 1: 250 000). Muscat, Ministry of Petroleum and Minerals, Sultanate of Oman. BENOIST, A. 2013. La vallée de Bithnah au cours de l’Age du Fer (BAR International Series 2510 / Society for Arabian Studies Monographs 14). Oxford, Archaeopress. BENOIST, A. 1998. Rumeilah. In Mouton M. (ed.), Assemblages céramiques des sites de l’Age du Fer en péninsule d’Oman (Documents d’Archéologie de l’Arabie 1). Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. BENOIST, A. 2000. La céramique de l’Age du Fer en Péninsule d’Oman (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Paris, University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.
121
BENOIST, A., V. Bernard, O. Brunet and A. Hamel 2011. The Iron Age occupation at Masafi: report on two seasons of excavations. 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. Abu Dhabi, Motivate Publishing, pp. 148–181. BIAGI, P., W. Torke, M. Tosi and H. P. Uerpmann, 1984. Qurum: a case study of coastal archaeology of Northern Oman. World Archaeology 16.1, 43–61. BORTOLINI, E. 2012. The Early Bronze Age of the Oman Peninsula: From Chronology to Evolution. In Giraud J. and G. Gernez (eds.), Aux marges de l’archéologie. Hommage à Serge Cleuziou. Paris, De Boccard, pp. 353–369. CAVULLI, F. 2005. L’insediamento di KHB-1 (Ras Al-Khabbah, Sultanato dell’Oman). Lo scavo, i resti strutturali e i confronti etnografici. Ocnus 12, 37–48. CHARPENTIER, V. 2008. Hunter-gatherers of the ‘empty quarter of the early Holocene’ to the last Neolithic societies: chronology of south-eastern Arabia (8000-3100 BC). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 38, 93–115. CHARPENTIER, V., D. E. Angelucci, S. Méry and J.F. Saliège 2000. Autour de la mangrove morte de Suwayh, l’habitat VIe-Ve millénaires de Suwayh SWY-11, Sultanat d’Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 30, 69–85. CHARPENTIER, V., O. Blin and M. Tosi 1998. Un village de pêcheurs néolithiques de la Péninsule d’Oman: Suwayh 2 (SWY-2), première campagne de fouille. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 28, 21–37. CLARK, I. D. and J.-C. Fontes 1989. Paleoclimatic Reconstruction in Northern Oman Based on Carbonates from Hyperalkaline Groundwaters. Quaternary Research 33, 320–336. CLEUZIOU, S. and O. Munoz 2007. Les morts en société: une interprétation des sépultures collectives d’Oman à l’âge du Bronze. In Baray L., P. Brun and A. Testard (eds.), Pratiques funéraires et sociétés. Nouvelles approches en archéologie et en anthropologie sociale. Dijon, Éditions Universitaires de Dijon, pp. 295–319. CLEUZIOU, S. and M. Tosi 2007. In the Shadow of the Ancestors. The Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilization in Oman. Muscat, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Sultanate of Oman. COSTA, P. M., G. Graziosi Costa, P. A. Yule, K. Kunter et al. 1999. Archaeological Research in the Area of Muscat. In Yule P.A. (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of the Sultanate of Oman (Orient Archäologie 3). Rahden, Verlag Marie Leidorf, pp. 19–23. CRASSARD, R. 2008. The “Wa’shah method”: an original laminar debitage from Hadramawt, Yemen. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 38, 3–4. CRASSARD, R. 2009. The Middle Palaeolithic in Arabia: The view from the Hadramawt region, Yemen. In Petraglia M. D. and J. Rose (eds.), The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: Paleoenvironments, Prehistory and Genetics. Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 151–168.
122
DAVID, H. 2011. Les vases en chlorite. In Cleuziou S., S. Méry and B. Vogt (eds.), Protohistoire de l’oasis d’al-Aïn, Travaux de la Mission archéologique française à Abou Dhabi (Émirats Arabes Unis): Les sépultures de l’âge du Bronze (BAR, International Series 2227). Oxford, Archaeopress, pp. 184–201. DEADMAN, W. M. 2014. Investigating the orientation of Hafit tomb entrances in Wādī Andām, Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 44, 139–152. DUTTON, R. W. 1989. Aflaj renewal in Araqi: a village case study from Oman. In Beaumont P., M. Bonine and K. McLachlan (eds.), Qanat, Kariz and Khattara: Traditionnal Water Systems in the Middle East and North Africa. London, Middle East Centre, School of Oriental and African Studies / Wisbech, Middle East &North African Studies Press, pp. 237–256. FRIFELT, K. 1975. On prehistoric settlement and chronology of the Oman Peninsula. East and West 25.3-4, 329–424. GEBEL, H. G. 1981. Der Siedlungsplatz Lizq 2. In Weisgerber G. (ed.), Mehr als Kupfer in Oman - Ergebnisse der Expedition 1981 (Der Anschnitt 33.5-6), 252–256. GERNEZ, G. and J. Giraud (eds.) 2012. Report of the sixth campaign of surveys and excavations in the area of Adam (Oman). Muscat, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Sultanate of Oman (Unpublished report). GIRAUD, J., A. Al-Mahrooqi, G. Gernez, S. Righetti et al. 2010. The first three campaigns (2007 to 2009) of the survey at Adam (Sultanate of Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 40, 175–184. GIRAUD, J., G. Gernez, J. Charbonnier, M. Le Mée, S. Righetti and R. Thomas 2010. Report on the fourth campaign of Survey in the area of Adam (Oman). Muscat, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Sultanate of Oman (Unpublished report). INIZAN, M.-L. and L. Orlieb, 1987. Préhistoire dans la région de Shabwa au Yemen du Sud (RDP Yemen). Paléorient 13.1, 5–22. INIZAN, M.-L. and J. Tixier 1978. Outrepassage intentionnel sur pieces bifaciales neolithiques du Qatar (Golfe arabo-persique). Quaternaria 20, 29–40. JARRIGE, J.-F., A. Didier and G. Quivron 2011. Shahr-i Sokhta and the chronology of the indo-Iranian regions. Paléorient 37.2, 7–34. KALLWEIT, H., M. Beech and W. Yasin Al-Tikriti 2005. Kharimat Khor Al-Manahil and Khor Al-Manahil: New Neolithic sites in the south-eastern desert of the UAE. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 35, 97–113. KROLL, S. 1998. Characteristics of the pottery assemblage from Lizq. In Mouton M. (ed.), Assemblages céramiques des sites de l’Age du Fer en péninsule d’Oman (Documents d’Archéologie de l’Arabie 1). Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. MAGEE, P. 1999. Settlement patterns, polities and regional complexity in the south-east Arabian Iron Age. Paléorient 24, 49–60.
123
MAGEE, P. 2003. Authority, Legitimisation and Columned Halls in the southeast Arabian Iron Age. In Potts D. T., H. Naboodah and P. Hellyer (eds.), Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of the UAE. Trident Press, London, pp. 181–194 MARCUCCI, L.G., F. Genchi, E. Badel and M. Tosi 2011. Recent investigations at the prehistoric site RH-5 (Ra’s al-Hamrā, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 41, 201–222. MÉRY, S. 2010. Results, limits and potential: burial practices and Early Bronze Age societies in the Oman Peninsula. In L. Weeks (ed.), Death and Burial in Arabia and Beyond. Multidisciplinary perspectives (Society for Arabian Studies monographs 10 / BAR International series 2107). Oxford, Archaeopress, pp. 33–43. MÉRY, S., R. Besenval, M. J. Blackman and A. Didier 2012. The origin of the third-millennium BC fine grey wares found in eastern Arabia. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42, 96–204. NASH, H., 2011. Water Management: the Use of Stars in Oman (BAR International Series 2237 / Society for Arabian Studies monographs 11). Oxford, Archaeopress. POTTS, D. T. 2010. Cylinder seals and their use in the Arabian Peninsula. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 21, 20–40. PULLAR, J. 1974. Harvard archaeological survey in Oman, 1973. Flint sites in Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 4, 33–48. PULLAR, J. 1985. A selection of aceramic sites in the Sultanate of Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 7, 49-87. RIGHETTI, S. and S. Cleuziou 2010. The Wādī Sūq pottery: a typological study of the pottery assemblage at Hili 8 (UAE). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 40, 283–292. RIGHETTI, S. 2012. Analyse des pratiques funéraires à l’âge du Bronze Moyen et Récent dans la Péninsule omanaise: une fenêtre ouverte sur la société. In Giraud J. and G. Gernez (eds.), Aux marges de l’archéologie. Hommage à Serge Cleuziou. Paris, De Boccard, pp. 379–385. ROSE, J. I. and V. I. Usik 2009. The Upper Palaeolithic of South Arabia. In Petraglia M.D. and J. Rose (eds.), The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: Paleoenvironments, Prehistory and Genetics. Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 169–185. ROSE, J. I., V. I. Usik, A. E. Marks, Y. H. Hilbert et al. 2011. The Nubian Complex of Dhofar, Oman: An African Middle Stone Age Industry in Southern Arabia. PLoS ONE 6.11 [Online]: URL: http://dx.doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028239; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028239. SALVATORI, S. 2001. Excavations at the funerary structures HD 10-3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 2.1 at Ra’s AlHadd (Sultanate of Oman). Rivista di archeologia 25, 67–77. SANLAVILLE, P. 1992. Changements climatiques dans la péninsule arabique durant le Pléistocène Supérieur et l’Holocène. Paléorient 18.1, 5–26.
124
SCHREIBER, J. 2007. Transformationsprozesse in Oasensiedlungen Omans. Die vorislamische zeit am Beispiel von Izki, Nizwa und dem Jabal Akhdar (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). München, Ludwig Maximilians Universität. SMITH, G. 1976. New Neolithic sites in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 2, 189–198. SMITH, G. 1977. New prehistoric sites in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 3, 71–81. 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. Naboodah and P. Hellyer (eds.), Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates. Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates. London, Trident Press, pp. 73–84. VELDE, C. 2003. Wadi Suq and Late Bronze Age in the Oman Peninsula. 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 United Arab Emirates. London, Trident Press, pp. 102–113. WEISGERBER, G. 1981. Mehr als Kupfer in Oman - Ergebnisse der Expedition 1981. Der Anschnitt 33, 174–263. WILLIAMS, K. and L. Gregoricka 2013. The Social, Spatial, and Bioarchaeological Histories of Ancient Oman project: The mortuary landscape of Dhank. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 24.2, 134–150. WILKINSON, J. C. 1977. Water and Tribal Settlement in South-East Arabia, a study of the Aflāj of Oman. Oxford, Clarendon Press. YULE, P. A. 1999. ‘Amla/al Zahira - Späteisenzeitliche Gräberfelder. In P. A. Yule (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of the Sultanate of Oman (Orient Archäologie 3). Rahden, Verlag Marie Leidorf, pp. 119–186. YULE, P. A. 2001. Die Gräberfelder in Samad al Shan, Sultanat Oman (Orient Archäologie 4). Rahden, Marie Leidorf. YULE, P.A. and G. Weisgerber 1998. The Tower Tombs at Shir, Eastern Hajar, Sultanate of Oman. Beiträge zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie 18, 183–241. YULE, P. A. and G. Weisgerber 2001. The Metal Hoard from ‘Ibri/Selme, Sultunate of Oman (Prahistorische Bronzefunde 20.7). Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag. ZARINS, J., A. Murad and K. Al-Yaish 1981. The second preliminary report on the Southwestern Province. Atlal 5, 9–42 and plates. ZAZZO, A., O. Munoz and J.-F. Saliège 2013. Diet and 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.
125
Index
3D modeling, 8, 13, 14, 47, 48, 89, 117, 117 Abi‘el (coin), 100, 115 Abu Dhabi, 33 Adam North, 2, 5-8, 13, 14, 44, 47, 50, 51, 59-79, 98, 115, 118 Adam South, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 34, 44, 49-65, 79, 115 Africa, 31, 32 Ajmar, 59 Al-Ayn, 102 Al-Buhais, 33, 42, 70, 93, 95 Al-Filayj, 102 Al-Hajar Mountains, 1, 16, 42 Al-Madam, 98 Al-Māleh, 102-107 Al-Qutayinah, 1-4, 13, 114 Al‐Shār‘a, 14, 102, 117 Amla, 76, 125 animal bones, 15, 85, 90 arrowheads, 42, 44, 59, 61, 74-78, 88, 91-95, 118 Asir, 39 athars, 103-107 awls, 55, 69 axes, 88, 92, 93 bāddah, 103, 107 Bahrain, 99 bajada, 16, 21 Baluchistan, 57 Barzaman Formation, 21, 24, 34, 39, 42, 43 basins, 97, 98 Bat, 43, 44, 52 Bawshar, 70, 76 beads, 15, 49, 55, 57, 59, 65, 69, 70, 74, 76 Bida bint Sa’ud, 100 Bidya, 67, 70 bifacial stone tools, 28-32, 37, 38, 39, 42 Bisya, 49 Bithnah, 98, 99
bowls, 68, 76, 97, 99 bows, 82, 88, 91, 92, 95, 118 boxes, 57, 59, 60 bronze, 61, 65, 68-79, 85, 88-95, 100, 118 Bronze Age, 1, 5, 6, 10, 13, 15, 19, 20, 24, 43, 49, 53, 79, 114, 115 Building 1 (Mudhmar East), 8, 14, 81-101, 115. See also Columned building of the Archers Building 2 (Mudhmar East), 15, 85, 89, 90 cairns, 36, 43, 44, 46 camel, 4, 81, 100 carnelian, 55, 57, 70 cauldrons, 99 censers, 85, 90, 95 Chalcolithic period, 43 chlorite, 15, 55, 57, 60, 65-75, 118 cisterns, 88 cist graves, 59, 62 Cleuziou (Serge, Professor), 1-4, 43, 44, 48, 49, 54, 59, 114 coins, 100, 115 Columned building of the Archers, 12, 81, 82, 91, 101, 115. See also Building 1 (Mudhmar East) copper, 5, 8, 13, 43, 49, 55, 69, 76, 82, 85, 88-101, 118 copper/bronze, 69, 85, 91-95, 118 cosmetics, 59, 69, 70 cups, 59, 95 cylinder seal, 76 Daba, 93 daggers, 42, 55, 65, 68-70, 76, 87, 88, 92, 93, 96, 118 dawrān, 102, 103, 107, 113 Dhank, 43, 125 Dhofar, 25, 30, 42 drachm (coin), 100 Duqm, 100 earrings, 55, 76, 79
East Africa, 31, 32 Falaj Al-Ayn, 102 Falaj Al-Filayj, 102 Falaj Al-Māleh, 102-107 Falaj Al-Shār’a, 14, 102 Falaj Malki, 113 Falaj Salakh, 102 foliated points (stone tools), 38, 42 French Archaeological Mission to Central Oman, 15, 102, 114, 118 Geographical Information System, GIS, 2, 8, 11, 14, 24, 102 Global Positioning System, GPS, 11, 14, 43, 102 gnomon, 104-107. See also khashabah gold, 76 Hafit (Period), 4, 5, 8, 19, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 77, 79, 81, 98, 115 handled bowls, 97, 98, 100 Haramawt, 30 Harrat Al-Jami, 117 hatab, 105 Hawasina, 24, 120 HD-5 (Ras Al-Hadd), 39 HD-6 (Ras Al-Hadd), 43 Hili, 1, 52, 59, 65, 97, 114 Hinaydil North, 13 Holocene (Period), 16 Hosn Al-Hawashim, 14, 81, 117, 117 Hosn Salut, 81 Huqf, 25 Ibra, 100 Ibri/Selme, 93 incense burners, 98 Indus Valley (Civilization), 49 Iran, 33, 43, 49, 57, 93 iron, 59, 61, 74, 76, 93, 96, 104, 107 Iron Age, 2-8, 12-15, 19, 24, 43-51, 61, 62, 65, 74-101, 115, 118 Islamic Period, 5, 15, 24, 99, 100, 114, 115, 117
127
Izki, 98, 99, 113 Ja‘alan, 42 Jabal Akhdar, 98 Jabal Al-Aluya, 8, 14, 33-42, 114 Jabal Al-Buhais, 93, 95 Jabal Al-Handalī, 102 Jabal Fitri, 1 Jabal Hinaydil, 1-4, 34, 44, 49-51, 98 Jabal Mudhmar, 1-4, 34, 44, 63, 65, 81, 99, 115 Jabal Nahdah, 1 Jabal Qarah, 1, 4, 7, 14, 43-48 Jabal Salakh, 1-5, 10, 17, 18, 25, 33, 34, 43-46 jālah, 103 jars, 98 Joint Hadd Project, 2 Kharimat Khor Al-Manahil, 33, 39 khashabah, 104. See also gnomon KHB-1 (Ras Al-Khabbah), 39 Khor Al-Manahil, 33, 39 lamps, 85, 90, 95, 98 lapis lazuli, 57 Late Iron Age, 2, 5, 16, 24, 51, 59, 62, 67, 74, 79, 99, 100, 115 Levallois (stone knapping technique), 28-32 lids, 57, 68, 70, 72, 73, 99, 100 limestone, 25, 34-39, 44, 46, 52, 5763, 70, 85, 89, 90, 96 Lizq, 39, 98 Lower Paleolithic (Period), 25, 31, 32 Malki (Falaj), 113 Marlik, 93 Masafi, 98 Mesopotamia, 33, 43, 49 Middle East, 32, 92, 114, 122 Middle Paleolithic, 20, 25, 28-32, 114 mismār, 104 Mleiha, 59, 99 Mousterian (Period), 30 Mowaihat, 59 mudbricks, 13, 85, 86 Mudhmar East, 8, 12-15, 81-101, 115, 118 Muscat, 1, 118 Muwailah, 98, 99 Nadjran, 39 Neolithic, 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 24, 33-36, 42, 44, 114 Nizwa, 1, 98, 99, 118 Nubian, 30
128
oasis, 1, 2, 5, 8, 16, 18-20, 24, 43, 4649, 79, 81, 101-104, 111, 115-117 Obeid, 33. See also Ubaid Obol (coin), 100 painted grey ware, 57 Pakistan, 31 Paleolithic (Period), 5, 8, 15, 20, 2325, 28-32, 114, 118 palm (tree), 16, 18, 49, 102-105, 111, 113 pendants, 55 perforated lid, 100 plates, 55, 57, 98 Pleistocene (Period), 16, 20, 21 Pliocene (Period), 21, 24 Pre-Pottery Neolithic, 33 Pupoides conoepictus (shell), 22 Qala’a, 63 qanats, 102 qissāt, 103 qiyās, 103 Quaternary (Period), 34 quivers, 8, 88, 91, 92, 95, 118 Radiocarbon, 20 Ras Al-Hadd, 39, 43 Ras Al-Khabbah, 39 remote sensing, 8, 47 reservoirs (water), 102 rings, 55, 59, 67, 68, 74, 77, 92, 95 Room of the bows, 91, 92 Rub Al-Khali, 1, 16, 42 Rumeilah, 97-99 Salakh (Falaj), 102 Salakh Arch, 1, 16 Salakh South, 8, 13, 114 Salalah, 1, 16 Samad, 5, 49, 51, 59-62, 67-70, 74, 76-79, 82, 85, 99-101, 115 Samad (Period), 49, 59, 61, 67, 74, 76-79, 82, 85, 100, 101, 118 sandstone, 81, 85 Saruq Al-Hadid, 93 Saruq facies, 42 Saudi Arabia, 39, 99 serpentine, 57 Sharjah (Emirate of), 33 shell, x, 15, 33, 57, 59, 69, 70, 76 Shimal, 59 Sinaw, 43, 44, 100 snakes, 57, 85, 90, 95, 98, 100 spearheads, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 78, 92, 93, 95 spouted vessels, 98, 100
stargazing, 102, 103 Sufrat Al-Khays, 1 Sufrat Dishshah, 1, 5, 8, 13, 22-33 Sufrat Valley, v, 25, 28, 32 sundial, 102-113 Suwayh, 39, 42 Suwayh facies, 42 swords, 76 SWY-2 (Suwayh), 39 Taghayr al-bāddah, 107 tetradrachm (coin), 100, 115 Tihama, 39 Trachycardium sp. (shell), 70 tumulus, 61, 67, 74, 77 Ubaid, 33. See also Obeid Umm Al-Zummul, 33, 39 Umm an-Nar, 1-5, 8, 19, 24, 34, 4353, 59, 62, 65, 70, 77, 79, 115 Umm an-Nar (Period), 1, 48, 49, 53, 59, 65, 70, 77 United Arab Emirates (UAE), 30, 85 Upper Paleolithic (Period), 30 Usran, 39 Wa’as, 70 Wadi Al-Gharbī, 102 Wadi Andam, 43 Wadi Halfayn, 1, 21, 47, 81, 100 Wadi Izz, 1, 81 Wadi Lathil, 21 Wadi Muhanna, 21 Wadi Suq, 4, 5, 19, 23, 24, 43, 46-51, 59-81, 100, 115, 118 Wadi Suq (Period), 5, 19, 23, 24, 49, 59, 63, 67-79, 100 Wadi Umayri, 1, 25, 26, 46, 114 Wadi Wa’Shah, 30 Wahiba Sands, 42 wakīl, 103 waqfah, 105, 107 Wa’Shah, 28, 30 weapons, 8, 63, 68, 70, 82-95, 118 Wedhha, vii, 8, 10 Yemen, 30 Zootecus insularis (shell), 22 Zukait, 43
http://mhc.gov.om
Ministry of Heritage and Culture
@mhc_gov
mhcgov
Located at the margins of the Rub Al-Khali desert, place of interactions between settled and nomadic populations, the Adam oasis occupies a pivotal role in the history of Oman. However, almost nothing was known about its foundation and early developments. In 2006, the French Archaeological Mission in Central Oman begun the exploration of this area. After ten years of field research using innovative methods and technologies, much is now revealed about the importance of Adam in the prehistory and early history of Oman. This first monograph about the research carried out at Adam includes seven chapters written by specialists directly involved in the field activities. Each major period is described in detail, including evidences of Palaeolithic occupation, Neolithic settlements, Early and Middle Bronze Age necropolises, Iron Age ritual sites and also an ethnographic study of the traditional water sharing within the oasis. Guillaume Gernez is associate professor of Near Eastern Archaeology at the University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne and Director of the French Archaeological Mission in Central Oman. Former researcher at the French Institute for the Near East in Beirut, he is specialized on protohistoric periods, material culture and funerary customs. For more than fifteen years, he participates in archaeological excavations, surveys and material studies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Oman. He already published books on the prehistory and antiquity of Lebanon (2010) and about the history and early developments of weapons in the ancient Near and Middle East (2017). Jessica Giraud is associated researcher at the Laboratory Archaeology and Sciences of Antiquity (CNRS / University Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne) and is CEO and founder of the company ArCHaios — Archaeology, Culture & Heritage. She is working on the archaeology of Oman since fifteen years, researching mainly on landscape archaeology in the Ja’alan province and in the Adam oasis, where she conducted the very first surveys and excavations. From 2012, she is working also in Kurdistan as Director of the French Archaeological Mission to the Governorate of Sulaimaniyah (Iraq), but she continues to work in Oman at Adam and Quriyat.
Archaeopress Archaeology www.archaeopress.com