A MULTITUDE OF MONUMENTS: FINDING AND DEFENDING ACCESS TO RESOURCES IN THIRD MILLENNIUM BC OMAN By Charlotte Marie Cable A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Anthropology 2012 ABSTRACT A MULTITUDE OF MONUMENTS: FINDING AND DEFENDING ACCESS TO RESOURCES IN THIRD MILLENNIUM BC OMAN By Charlotte Marie Cable How do different types of monuments and different monumental forms express social realities and inform larger social patterns? This dissertation research adds to this discussion from the perspective of the region best known for its ancient monuments: the Middle East. Known to its neighbors as the land of “Magan,” the Oman Peninsula in the third millennium BC was the location of a dispersed yet well-integrated cultural tradition known as the Umm an-Nar. The people of Magan were trade partners with both the Mesopotamians to the west and the Indus to the north. Beginning in the late fourth millennium, the integration of coastal fishing communities and interior agricultural oases across the hyper-arid peninsula was matched by the development of a monumental tomb tradition spanning the length and breadth of Magan. In certain places – such as the Wadi al-Hijr – a second monumental tradition developed alongside the tomb tradition: that of the Umm an-Nar “tower.” The combination of these two types of monuments provides a unique opportunity to consider the way(s) in which middle-range societies use monuments. This data set is a combination of published and unpublished excavation reports – particularly the towers of Bat by the American Expedition – and a survey designed and carried out for this project. The research progresses in several stages. Survey results indicate a high degree of clustering among the tombs, and occur within a variety of landscapes. I argue that the earliest (“Hafit”) tombs mark access to resources, but are also mnemonics of regional social integration. Although the later (“Umm an-Nar”) tombs do not mark resources, they reference the earlier tomb tradition, concentrate energy in the mortuary realm and on the monument itself, and thereby indicate a shift toward local (tomb-based) group identity. Excavations (led by the author) at the Hafit-Umm an-Nar transitional tower at Matariya demonstrate a change over time in the monumental aspects of the structure. This research argues that intensification limited access to underground and permanent water sources, and was used by local groups to leverage relative social, economic, and political position. Resource exclusivity flew directly in the face of ideologies of integration, visible in the Hafit tomb tradition, and Umm an-Nar people attempted to off-set this tension through an intensification of their mortuary practices. Contemporary monument types balance tensions between environments, individuals, kin and corporate groups. A diachronic study points to the ways in which structures of both types expand in monumentality. Together, synchronic and diachronic comparisons between different monument types indicate both growing friction between social groups, and a refusal to admit these divisions. Future research should investigate the tensions noted here. To Jay and Charlotte iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to begin by thanking the residents of Bat, Sultanate of Oman, who have always demonstrated graciousness, patience, and good humor. To all of the “shebab” with whom I have worked, and to their parents, I send my particularly heart-felt thanks. We have learned together. I wish I had thought, years ago, to keep track of the volume of correspondence between my advisor, Dr. Lynne Goldstein, and me. It would have been impressive. Many thanks to her for shepherding me through the process; for providing opportunities for me to learn and practice what I love; and for excellent stories and cuisine throughout. My committee members – Dr. Jodie O’Gorman, Dr. Ashton Shortridge, Dr. Christopher Thornton, and Dr. Ethan Watrall – have been supportive over thousands of miles and many years. They brought to my research their individual expertise and their professional flare. Endless thanks for both. As additional academic mentors I also thank Dr. Jon Frye, Dr. William Lovis, and Dr. Gregory Possehl. A thousand thank-yous to Nancy, Peggy, Gail, Roxanne, Sonia, and Annette: you have made my life much easier than it should have been! In the field I have had support from a number of sources. The Bat Archaeological Project, under the direction of Dr. Gregory Possehl, provided infrastructure, excavation experience and data, and the opportunity to conduct research in a fascinating part of the world. The Ministry of Heritage and Culture and the Director of Excavations and Archaeology, Mrs. Biubwa al-Sabri (“Umm Ammar”), provided resources and support in kind, including the field assistance and never-ending patience of Suleiman al-Jabri. Other irreplaceable research assistance came from Rebecca Gilmour, Ruth Hatfield, Gareth Rees, Charlotte Faiers, Leslie and David Bosch, and Anne Mortimer. In the lab David Bosch acted as my malacology expert, and in my life in Oman v he and Leslie were my parents away from home. Illustration expertise was provided by Gabrielle Choimet, Hania Sosnowska, and Jennifer Swerida. Running partners and hugs were provided in part by Sosnowska, Swerida, and Hatfield. Tower 110980, Gareth Rees, and Charlotte Faiers were also provided by Hatfield. Professional camaraderie in and out of Oman was provided in part by Manfred Böhme, Eugenio Bortolini, Dr. Jessica Giraud, Dr. Kimberly Williams, Valentina Azzara, Smitha Kumar, Dr. Eric Fouache (Paris 1), and Teresa Costa. Dr. Yasuhisa Kondo (Tokyo Institute of Technology) provided moral and technical support not limited to GIS, gourmet cooking, and good humor. Many thanks also to Dr. Ryosuke Nakamura (AIST, Japan) for kind permission to use JAXA’s “DAICHI” satellite imagery. Financial support was provided through Michigan State University’s Graduate School and Department of Anthropology. Thank you to Sarah AcMoody, Bob Goodwin, and Joe Welsh at Michigan State University’s Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Science Research and Outreach Services (RS&GIS) for help with everything from GPS to ArcGIS. Thanks to Dr. Steven Pierce and Dr. Sarah Hession of MSU’S Center for Statistical Training and Consulting (CSTAT) for their statistical expertise, patience, and insight. To my writing partners, Rowenn Kalman, Adrianne Daggett, Meryem Zaman, Jennifer Swerida, Dr. Kimberly Williams, and Dr. Lauren Ristvet: ___[speechless]____. Special acknowledgments go to Amy Michael, Jane Wankmiller, Erica Dziedzic, Sylvia Deskaj, Deon Clairborn, Terry Brock, Marcy O’Neil, Carolyn Lowry, Emily Weigel, and Christine Sprunger for all of the pages of text on which they have provided invaluable feedback. Dr. Duane Quates, the imminently Dr. Jon Carroll, Dr. John Norder, Dr. Alison Rautman, and Dr. Laura DeLind have provided mentorship over the longue durée and punctuated advice at critical moments. vi My extended “Michigan family” – the Dunhams (Jennifer, Sean, E, P, C, and B); Joe and Mary Dziedzic et al.; and Erica, Oz, and Dahlia – have all provided love, hilarity, food, sympathetic ears, and the opportunity to participate in authentic family experiences. I’ve loved every moment of it. The Rivendwellers, and various and sundry cyclists and physicists – including the 6am Spinners (Tom, Robin, Vennie, Sarah, Jessica, Jill, etc.), the NSCL cyclists (Bono, Matthias, Floyd, Randy, Sara, A-Rat, etc.), Steve, and others – have kept me sane through distraction. Finally, innumerable thanks and hugs all around to Charlotte Ann, Jay Earl, Jay Egbert, Dwight Christopher, Theresa Mary, John Guido, Mary-Clare Angela, and Mary Kay. You made this possible. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................... XIII LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. XIV CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE MONUMENT...................................................................... 1 LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY ....................................................................................................... 3 CHRONOLOGY OF THE OMAN PENINSULA .................................................................................... 3 Bat and the Wadi al-Hijr ......................................................................................................... 6 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 10 METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 12 ORDER OF THE DISSERTATION .................................................................................................... 12 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 13 CHAPTER TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL, ETHNOGRAPHIC, AND PREHISTORIC CONTEXTS................................................................................................................................. 14 PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE OMAN PENINSULA ................................................ 14 Physical and Social Geography of the Study Region ........................................................... 18 ETHNOGRAPHIC INSIGHTS INTO OMANI LAND USE AND ACCESS TO RESOURCES ....................... 21 The Middle-Range Society in Anthropology ........................................................................ 21 Modern Tribes in Oman and Ethnographic Parallels ............................................................ 22 The Tribe in Modern Oman: Middle Range Responses to the Omani Environment ............ 22 Rights to Resources, and Accessing Them ........................................................................... 24 THE HISTORY OF PREHISTORY: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY IN THE NORTHERN OMAN PENINSULA ................................................................................................................................................... 25 Framework ............................................................................................................................ 25 Previous Archaeological Survey – Early Phase .................................................................... 26 The Danish Expedition ..................................................................................................... 27 The American Expedition ................................................................................................. 27 The British Expedition ...................................................................................................... 28 Previous archaeological survey – Middle Phase ................................................................... 28 The German Expedition .................................................................................................... 28 The Italian Expedition....................................................................................................... 29 Previous Archaeological Survey – Current Phase ................................................................ 29 Omani Research ................................................................................................................ 29 The French Expeditions .................................................................................................... 30 Other Projects.................................................................................................................... 30 SUMMARY OF THE LATE PREHISTORY OF OMAN ......................................................................... 31 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 31 Neolithic (ca. 10,000–3100 BC) ........................................................................................... 31 The Third Millennium BC .................................................................................................... 33 Hafit period (ca. 3100–2600 BC)...................................................................................... 34 Umm An-Nar period (ca. 2600–2000 BC) ........................................................................ 36 viii Wadi Suq Period (ca. 2000–1300 BC) .................................................................................. 37 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 38 CHAPTER THREE: EXPECTATIONS FOR THE USE OF MONUMENTS IN MARKING, MAINTAINING, AND LIMITING ACCESS TO RESOURCES .................... 39 THE MONUMENT IN LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY .................................... 39 Monuments and Mortuary Archaeology ............................................................................... 40 THE BRONZE AGE MONUMENTS OF OMAN ................................................................................ 43 The Hafit Tomb ..................................................................................................................... 43 The Umm an-Nar Tomb ........................................................................................................ 44 The Bronze Age Towers of Oman......................................................................................... 48 Bronze Age Towers – Distribution.................................................................................... 51 RESEARCH QUESTIONS REVISITED ............................................................................................. 52 EXPECTATIONS OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 53 Hypothesis 1a: Hafit Period Tombs Will Cluster. ................................................................. 53 Hypothesis 1b: Hafit and Umm an-Nar Period Tomb Distributions Will Differ but Complement Each Other. ...................................................................................................... 53 Hypothesis 1c: Third Millennium BC Tomb and Tower Distributions Will Differ. ............. 54 Hypothesis 2a: Hafit Period and Umm an-Nar Period Tomb Distributions Will Mark Access to Resources. ......................................................................................................................... 54 Hypothesis 2b: The Mortuary Realm Will Provide Opportunities for Integration at the Level of the Group and the Broader Society. .................................................................................. 55 Hypothesis 3: Variation in Third Millennium BC Tower Form is Due at Least Partially to Change Over Time. Third millennium BC towers demonstrate increasing monumentality (e.g., in their façade) over time. ............................................................................................ 56 Hypothesis 4a: Third Millennium BC Tower Monuments Will Be Associated with a Specific, and Critical, Resource. That is, towers will primarily mark access to well water (ghayl). .................................................................................................................................. 57 Hypothesis 4b: Changing Access to ghayl Over Time Will be Evident through Changes in Third Millennium BC Towers. These changes will be increasingly restrictive in their accessibility. .......................................................................................................................... 58 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 58 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA COLLECTION.............................................................................. 60 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 60 LANDSCAPE PROPERTIES AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY DESIGN ON THE ARABIAN PENINSULA ................................................................................................................................................... 60 Archaeological Survey Design in the Wadi al-Hijr............................................................... 62 Survey universe ................................................................................................................. 62 Survey methods and coverage .......................................................................................... 64 Alternative data collection methods.................................................................................. 67 Transect orientation........................................................................................................... 70 DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................................................................... 70 Field Data Recovery ............................................................................................................. 70 Spatial data recovery ......................................................................................................... 71 Qualitative locational assessment ..................................................................................... 73 Visibility of other archaeological features ........................................................................ 73 ix Architectural data recovery ............................................................................................... 74 Artifact collection ............................................................................................................. 82 Other data collection methods .......................................................................................... 85 Excavation Data and Methods .............................................................................................. 85 SURVEY POST-FIELD METHODS ................................................................................................. 86 Spatial data and digital photography pre-processing ............................................................ 86 Field Note Transcription and Conservation .......................................................................... 87 Artifact Processing and Analysis .......................................................................................... 87 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 88 CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF DATA COLLECTION ................... 90 SURVEY METHODS EVALUATION ................................................................................................ 90 Transect Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 90 50 meter intervals .............................................................................................................. 92 ASSIGNING DATES TO A FEATURE ............................................................................................... 92 ASSIGNING A FUNCTION TO A FEATURE ...................................................................................... 94 Mortuary ............................................................................................................................... 94 ASSIGNING A FORM TO A FEATURE ........................................................................................... 102 ASSIGNING LIKELIHOODS TO FUNCTIONAL AND DATING CATEGORIES ....................................... 102 GENERAL SURVEY RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 103 Disturbance ......................................................................................................................... 104 Features Not Discussed Elsewhere ..................................................................................... 104 Third Millennium BC and Tomb Features .......................................................................... 105 Tomb statistics: dimensions ............................................................................................ 107 Tomb clusters .................................................................................................................. 107 Summary of the Tower Features of the Hijr Valley .............................................................118 Tower dimensions ........................................................................................................... 121 Bat towers ....................................................................................................................... 121 Tower functions .............................................................................................................. 142 Tower dating ................................................................................................................... 142 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 144 CHAPTER SIX: LANDSCAPE METHODOLOGY, CLUSTER ANALYSIS, AND SPATIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS .............................................. 146 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 146 THE GIS ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 147 CLUSTER ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 148 Ripley’s K Function ............................................................................................................ 148 Density Analysis ................................................................................................................. 149 FEATURE LOCATION CLASSIFICATION ...................................................................................... 150 RESOURCE ACCESS .................................................................................................................. 151 Land Classification ............................................................................................................. 151 VISIBILITY ............................................................................................................................... 156 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 156 x CHAPTER SEVEN: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF SPATIAL AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES................................................................................................................................ 157 THIRD MILLENNIUM BC TOMB DISTRIBUTIONS ....................................................................... 157 Ripley’s K Function ............................................................................................................ 157 Third Millennium Features ................................................................................................. 157 Umm an-Nar Tomb Distributions ....................................................................................... 165 Tomb type: formal clusters ............................................................................................. 168 Tomb locations on the landscape .................................................................................... 168 VISIBILITY ............................................................................................................................... 173 “Transitional” Tombs .......................................................................................................... 175 Formal Variation in Hafit Tombs ........................................................................................ 175 Tower Visibility................................................................................................................... 181 Tower-Tomb Visibility ........................................................................................................ 181 COMPARISON OF TOMB TYPES BY LOCATION ........................................................................... 183 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 187 TOMB LOCATIONS AND RESOURCE ASSOCIATIONS ................................................................... 187 The ad-Dariz South Cluster ................................................................................................ 188 The ad-Dariz North Cluster ................................................................................................ 190 The Bat Cluster ................................................................................................................... 193 The Significance of Negative Data ..................................................................................... 196 FORMAL TOWER TYPES ............................................................................................................ 197 PROPOSED TOWER CHRONOLOGY ............................................................................................ 198 TOWERS AS MONUMENTS AND RESOURCES ............................................................................. 199 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................ 201 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 202 CHAPTER EIGHT: INTERPRETATION, SUMMARY, AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 204 WHY MORTUARY MONUMENTS? ............................................................................................. 204 WHY TOWER MONUMENTS? .................................................................................................... 209 WHY TOMB AND TOWER MONUMENTS? ...................................................................................211 FUTURE DIRECTIONS.................................................................................................................211 Site Conservation and Management ....................................................................................211 Hafit Tomb Construction .................................................................................................... 212 Tomb Typologies and Spatial Relationships ....................................................................... 212 Hafit Period and Umm an-Nar Period Tomb Membership ................................................. 213 Integration of the Mortuary Realm ..................................................................................... 213 Tower Contemporaneity...................................................................................................... 214 Tower Function ................................................................................................................... 214 Communities of Comparison .............................................................................................. 214 Resource Identification and Regional Study....................................................................... 214 Maximizing Negative Data ................................................................................................. 215 Advancing Archaeological Survey Potential in Northern Oman ........................................ 216 What Lies Ahead ................................................................................................................. 216 What Lies Before and After ................................................................................................ 216 Monuments and Identity ..................................................................................................... 217 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 217 xi APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 219 APPENDIX A: GAZETTEER OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................. 220 APPENDIX B: ARTIFACT LIST AND DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................. 309 APPENDIX C: MAPS AND VISUAL STATISTICS ........................................................................ 347 APPENDIX D: THE OMAN ARCHIVE ...................................................................................... 364 APPENDIX E: RESEARCH FORM SAMPLES ............................................................................. 379 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 383 xii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Some Comparative Chronologies of Southwest Asia. Based on D. Potts (1993b:169); Ur (2004:49); and Weiss and Courty (1993:151). ........................................................................ 4 Table 2. Likelihood of Third Millennium BC Tombs by Date and Function. ............................ 104 Table 3. Archaeological Features by Functional Type (Field Assessments). .............................. 105 Table 4. Hafit Tomb Dimensions, N-S and E-W. ........................................................................ 107 Table 5. Umm an-Nar Tomb Dimensions, N-S and E-W (in meters). ........................................ 107 Table 6. Tower Dimensions. ....................................................................................................... 121 Table 7. Bat Tower Dates (continued on following page). Based on Possehl et al. (2010) and Thornton and Mortimer (2012). .......................................................................................... 143 Table 8. Primary Location Reclassification. ............................................................................... 150 Table 9. Secondary Location Reclassification. ........................................................................... 151 Table 10. Land Use Classes. ....................................................................................................... 154 Table 11. Land Ownership Classes. ............................................................................................ 154 Table 12. Tower-Tomb Visibility. Note that many of the tombs within sight of a tower but furthest away are "transitional". .......................................................................................... 183 Table 13. Tower Characteristics. ................................................................................................. 197 Table 14. Gazetteer of Archaeological Resources. ..................................................................... 221 Table 15. Ceramic Descriptions. ..................................................................................................311 Table 16. Bead Descriptions. ...................................................................................................... 327 Table 17. Lithic Descriptions. ..................................................................................................... 330 Table 18. Metal and Small Finds Descriptions. .......................................................................... 336 Table 19. Marine Shell Descriptions. .......................................................................................... 337 Table 20. Groundstone Descriptions. .......................................................................................... 338 Table 21. Ripley's K Function Results (100 Distance Bands). ................................................... 356 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Oman (ancient "Magan") and other cultures of the third millennium BC.. .................... 5 Figure 2. Location of Bat and Sultanate of Oman. ......................................................................... 7 Figure 3. The Wadi al-Hijr. ............................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. The Sultanate of Oman. ................................................................................................. 15 Figure 5. Irrigated fields surrounded by non-irrigated fields; the Bat oasis is in the background.17 Figure 6. "Gulf Gothic" architecture, Muscat. .............................................................................. 19 Figure 7. fields near Bat, looking north. Note the abandoned date grove (north) with an irrigated grove (east), and irrigated and fallow fields (foreground). ................................................... 20 Figure 8. Limestone bedrock rising vertically up from the wadi floodzone. Note the pickup for scale....................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 9. Hafit tomb. ..................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 10. Outer ringwall of Matariya (Tower 1147), facing southwest. Figure courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. .................................................................................................. 37 Figure 11. Some tombs in Bat cemetery. Hafit tombs on the ridgeline, Umm an-Nar tomb in the foreground (a); closeup of Hafit tomb (b)............................................................................. 44 Figure 12. Examples of original pecked white limestone tomb facing (camera lens in lower right corner for scale). ................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 13. Partially reconstructed Umm an-Nar tomb at Bat (left) and Hili, UAE (right). Note the rock art relief above the tomb entrance on the right (ca. 40 cm wide). ................................ 47 Figure 14. Locations of known ancient towers on the Oman Peninsula. ...................................... 51 Figure 15. Approaching tombs (mounds of stone silhouetted against the sky), south of Bat. ...... 61 Figure 16. The survey area. ........................................................................................................... 63 Figure 17. Landscape south of Bat, looking south across a bedrock ridgeline. ............................ 64 Figure 18. David and Leslie Bosch documenting an archaeological feature near Bat, 2011. ...... 66 Figure 19. Satellite imagery of field systems east of ad-Dariz. .................................................... 68 Figure 20. Hafit cairn in plan and section. Note single rubble-filled ringwall. After Frifelt 1971:Figure 8, Cairn 17. ....................................................................................................... 76 xiv Figure 21. Umm an-Nar tomb “401”. Note double-faced ringwall, ashlar facing stones on SE corner, and interior support wall (scale is 2m). After Bohme (2011). .................................. 77 Figure 22. Hafit tomb corbelling in plan and section views. After de Cardi et al. (1979:Figure 5), Cairn 4................................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 23. Umm an-Nar tomb, Bat cemetery. Note that this tomb lacks white ashlar facing stones but is finely built. .................................................................................................................. 81 Figure 24. Hafit tomb "603" (after Bohme 2011:Figure 4) with roughly shaped white limestone facing..................................................................................................................................... 82 Figure 25. The survey area showing coverage (and coverage intensity). ..................................... 91 Figure 26. Feature 100439. The slight mound on the right represents the bulldozed remains. The structural disturbance resulted in relatively simple identification of feature function and date. ....................................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 27. Copper-bronze ring (probably finger ring) .................................................................. 95 Figure 28. An assortment of beads from third millennium tombs. ............................................... 97 Figure 29. Black-on-Red UAN funerary jar. Feature 111273, mouth diameter = 5 cm. Mediumbrown fabric without visible inclusions. Interior red-slipped to below neck. Exterior redslipped with traces of back paint. .......................................................................................... 99 Figure 30. Umm an-Nar funerary vessel base. Feature 110987. Base diameter = 5 cm. Fabric is pink with few, very fine inclusions. Interior is thickly pink-slipped. Exterior is tan slipped. ............................................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 31. Black-on-gray ware. Feature 110968. Fabric is gray without visible inclusions. Interior and exterior black painted. ..................................................................................... 100 Figure 32. An example of a "circle-dot" groundstone box. ........................................................ 101 Figure 33. Location of Hafit and Umm an-Nar tombs in the study region. ................................ 106 Figure 34. Third millennium BC tombs and towers at ad-Dariz South. ..................................... 108 Figure 35. The ad-Dariz North third millennium BC tomb clusters (a) and (b) are small and spatially distinct. ..................................................................................................................112 Figure 36. Archaeological features in the Wahrah area. Note the third millennium tombs on the northeastern side of the wadi. ..............................................................................................114 Figure 37. Close-up of third millennium BC tomb cluster north of Wahrah. Note the evidence of modern agriculture to the south and pastureland to the north. .............................................115 Figure 38. Further prospection on foot followed the wadis to the south and west of the study area xv (center). ................................................................................................................................116 Figure 39. Bat cemetery. Towers 1145 and 1156 (circled in red), and the “Settlement Slope” (outlined in blue). Tombs are visible as lines of dark brown dots in the center and northeastern portions. ...........................................................................................................119 Figure 40. Third millennium BC towers in the study region. ..................................................... 120 Figure 41. Kasr al-Rojoom. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. .................................. 122 Figure 42. Central well, Kasr al-Rojoom. ................................................................................... 123 Figure 43. Kasr al-Khafaji. Figure courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. ........................ 124 Figure 44. Kasr al-Khafaji, plan view. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. ................. 125 Figure 45. Central well of Kasr al-Khafaji. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project........... 126 Figure 46. Matariya (before excavation). Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. ............. 127 Figure 47. Central well of Matariya. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. .................... 128 Figure 48. Matariya, plan view. Note the stone ringwalls, mud brick structure, and central stonelined well. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. ..................................................... 129 Figure 49. Kasr al-Sleme, looking east. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. ............... 130 Figure 50. Kasr al-Sleme, plan view. Figure courtesy of Yasuhisa Kondo and AJBAP. ............ 131 Figure 51. Husn al-Wardi, Bat village, looking Northeast. The base of this mud brick tower dates to the third millennium BC. ................................................................................................ 132 Figure 52. Husn al-Wardi. Note the transition from large, even blocks on the right to irregular, smaller stones on the left. Also note the bare conglomerate upon which it sits. ................ 133 Figure 53. Tower 1156, looking West. Note Kasr al-Rojoom in background. Photo courtesy of AJBAP. ................................................................................................................................ 134 Figure 54. Stone ringwall of Tower feature 110980. .................................................................. 135 Figure 55. Feature 110980, stone revetment wall downslope..................................................... 135 Figure 56. Tower at al-Khutm, prior to excavation. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. ............................................................................................................................................. 136 Figure 57. Al-Khutm, plan view. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. .......................... 137 Figure 58. Stone foundation of Wahrah Qala, with rockfall extending downslope. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project ................................................................................................. 138 xvi Figure 59. Wahrah Qala. Note the change in construction from the right to left. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. ................................................................................................ 139 Figure 60. Ad-Dariz South 1. ...................................................................................................... 140 Figure 61. Ad-Dariz South 1, plan view. Figure courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. ... 140 Figure 62. Ad-Dariz South 2. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. ............................... 141 Figure 63. Ad-Dariz South 2, plan view, with 10 cm contour intervals. Courtesy of Yasuhisa Kondo and AJBAP. ............................................................................................................. 141 Figure 64. Land classification in the study area. ........................................................................ 153 Figure 65. Distribution of all third millennium BC features. .................................................... 158 Figure 66. Distribution of third millennium BC features (Mortuary and Non-mortuary). ......... 159 Figure 67. Third millennium BC tombs by period. Hafit period tombs are found in association with other Hafit tombs. Umm an-Nar period tombs are found in association with Hafit period tombs, and also cluster with other Umm an-Nar period tombs. .............................. 160 Figure 68. Kernel Density Map (2.3 km kernel) of Hafit period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. ...................................................................................................................... 162 Figure 69. Kernel Density Map (2.3 km kernel) of Umm an-Nar period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. ...................................................................................................................... 163 Figure 70. Kernel Density Map (2.6 km kernel) of all third millennium BC tombs. Natural Breaks classification. .......................................................................................................... 164 Figure 71. Distribution of Umm an-Nar period tombs. .............................................................. 166 Figure 72. Distributions of Hafit and Umm an-Nar tombs ......................................................... 167 Figure 73. Map of Hafit period tombs by primary location. ....................................................... 169 Figure 74. Map of Umm an-Nar period tombs by primary location. .......................................... 170 Figure 75. Close-up of location of third millennium BC tombs (ad-Dariz South). The tombs sit on relatively flat areas on top of the ridge (signified by parallel dark lines on both sides of a lighter gray central line). ..................................................................................................... 172 Figure 76. Detail of tomb locations north of al-Khutm. Note the location of the tombs overlooking the wadi (center). ............................................................................................ 174 Figure 77. Hafit period tomb, feature 111122. Note the tomb "skins". ...................................... 176 Figure 78. Feature 100866 - note the uncoursed wall. This Hafit tomb was also built on a xvii platform. .............................................................................................................................. 177 Figure 79. Remains of wall construction, feature 111261. Note that the inner and outer ringwalls both have exterior faces. ..................................................................................................... 178 Figure 80. Feature 100864. Note the un-coursed ringwall in profile on the south side of the tomb, and the rubble fill pouring out where the ringwall has been removed................................ 179 Figure 81. Hafit period tomb feature 100888. Note the use of bedrock in the southwestern side of the ringwall. ........................................................................................................................ 180 Figure 82. Feature 100861: Hafit period tomb over a platform built specifically to provide a level foundation. .......................................................................................................................... 180 Figure 83. The western end of the ad-Dariz South tomb cluster. Note evidence of farming. .... 185 Figure 84. The eastern end of the ad-Dariz South survey area, looking southeast. Note the dark mid-ground, evidence of undisturbed rocky sediment ........................................................ 185 Figure 85. Ad-Dariz North (a), Hafit period and Umm an-Nar period tomb distributions......... 186 Figure 86. Third millennium features in the ad-Dariz cluster, according to location. ................ 189 Figure 87. The ad-Dariz North (a) and ad-Dariz North (b) feature clusters. .............................. 191 Figure 88. Ad-Dariz North and Wahrah North landscape, looking north-northwest. ................. 192 Figure 89. Location of third millennium tombs in the Bat area.................................................. 194 Figure 90. The geology of the Bat area. To the south are red-tipped ridges; to the north are visibly gentler hills.......................................................................................................................... 195 Figure 91. 111067-c1. ................................................................................................................. 339 Figure 92. 100122-c4. ................................................................................................................. 340 Figure 93. 100116-c1. ................................................................................................................. 341 Figure 94. 100105-c1. ................................................................................................................. 341 Figure 95. 100105-c4. ................................................................................................................. 342 Figure 96. 100105-c1. ................................................................................................................. 342 Figure 97. 100460-c6. ................................................................................................................. 343 Figure 98. 111265-c2. ................................................................................................................. 343 Figure 99. 100105-c2. ................................................................................................................. 344 xviii Figure 100. 100108-c5. ............................................................................................................... 344 Figure 101. 110987-c2. ............................................................................................................... 345 Figure 102. 111001-c1. ............................................................................................................... 345 Figure 103. 111367-c1. ............................................................................................................... 346 Figure 104. Kernel Density Map (2.6 km kernel). Natural Breaks classification. ..................... 348 Figure 105. Kernel Density Map (350 m kernel). Natural Breaks classification. ...................... 349 Figure 106. Kernel Density Map (350 m kernel) of Hafit period and Umm an-Nar period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. ............................................................................................. 350 Figure 107. Kernel Density Map (2.3 km kernel) of Hafit period and Umm an-Nar period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. ............................................................................................. 351 Figure 108. Kernel Density Map (2.3 km kernel) of Umm an-Nar period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. ...................................................................................................................... 352 Figure 109. Kernel Density Map (350 m kernel) of Umm an-Nar period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. ...................................................................................................................... 353 Figure 110. Kernel Density Map (350 m kernel) of Hafit period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. ...................................................................................................................... 354 Figure 111. Kernel Density Map (2.3 km kernel) of Hafit period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. ...................................................................................................................... 355 Figure 115. Sample survey form. ................................................................................................ 380 Figure 116. Sample Field Photo Log. ......................................................................................... 381 Figure 117. Sample Lab Photo Log. ........................................................................................... 382 xix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Landscape Archaeology and the Monument The study of monuments is an important part of archaeological research into prehistoric societies. This research falls at the junction between the study of monuments, of mortuary practices, and the ways ancient cultures organized themselves and moved within the landscape. Landscapes are full of meaning. They are invoked to reinforce and create a sense of cultural place and order (Basso 1996) and a physical link to past and present (Hingley 1996). Landscape archaeology evaluates the environment in terms of dynamic physical, cultural, and social interactions in space, and is therefore both “a material record of patterned behaviors within specific environmental contexts and a symbolic construction” (Anschuetz et al. 2001:179). As such it mutually produces and reproduces social action, and is itself the means of social system reproduction (Giddens 1984:19). It is based on the premise that the underlying spatial patterns visible archaeologically may correlate with certain social organizational features (Anschuetz et al. 2001) and cultural maps (e.g., Richards 1999). The study of monuments is therefore the study not of a built environment, on the one hand, and a natural environment on the other, but rather of the creation and re-creation of communities within multi-dimensional space and time (e.g., Buikstra and Charles 1999; Charles and Buikstra 2002; O’Shea and Milner 2002; Tilley et al. 2000). Locating, building, altering, and even viewing monuments can generate a new understanding of potential interactions with and within that world (Ashmore and Gellar 2005; Bradley 1998). Monuments are most frequently thought to be associated with complex societies, in which they are evidence of vertical stratification and the consolidation of elite power (e.g., Earle 2000; Kirch 1990; see Kaplan 1963). Yet smaller-scale societies also have a long tradition of monument building. Kaplan suggests that monuments may function in chiefdoms as “a system1 maintaining mechanism” specifically because less complex societies are less rigidly organized (1963:404). Similarly, monuments can be employed to solve what O’Shea and Milner (2002) call the “two opposing problems” of the tribal system: large-scale integration and local differentiation (201). While studies of mortuary monuments tend to emphasize the exclusive rights of members to burial, ritual practice, territories and resources there is another kind of monument whose role it is to integrate. That is, depending upon the scale of analysis and the audience(s) in question, different levels of social access may be afforded – or at least made visible – through access to specific monuments, built for different audiences and in order to facilitate identification of members and non-members at different levels of society. Tombs have a history of use as territory markers (e.g., Mathews 2006; O’Shea and Milner 2002), in which the group’s space is marked through the maintenance of mortuary monuments. In this way, tombs are located in areas of contention along borders. A second relationship between tombs and the landscape correlates the maintenance of cemeteries – groups of tombs – with access to specific resources (Goldstein 1976, 1981; Saxe 1970). In this scenario it is not the territory itself that is of interest, but localized resources on the landscape. In either case the spatial relationship of mortuary monuments to each other and to the landscape are significant, and can be identified and characterized using a variety of clustering and cost surface techniques. Howey (2007) argues that monumental earthwork enclosures of Late Prehistoric (AD 1200–1600) Michigan acted as points of inter-tribal interaction. This myriad of responses to the question, “Why monuments?” is summed up in the variety of deliberate and tacit social statements that the structures themselves are built to evoke. That different monument types can have different meanings in the same cultural tradition is possible, but how to understand those differences? This dissertation seeks to answer not only the question, 2 Why monuments? But also, Why multiple types of monuments? Limitations of This Study Relatively little is known about the ancient cultures of the Oman Peninsula. As discussed in Chapter 3 there is a general paucity of research on ancient Oman. We are, however, at the beginning of a period of intense research, which should facilitate rapid growth and change in our understanding of and ideas about the ancient land of Magan. Chronology of the Oman Peninsula As Childe (1944) pointed out long ago, archaeological ages and technological stages do not necessarily match up nicely (Table 1). The normative material-based development of Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age is of limited use on the Oman Peninsula. Rather there was a primary Neolithic followed by an extended Chalcolithic with Neolithic elements into the first millennium BC. In an effort to build a more localized chronology D. Potts (1993b) has developed the terms Late Prehistoric (5000–2000 BC), Protohistoric (3400–2300 BC), and Early Historic (2300–300 BC) to refer specifically to the Oman Peninsula, but they have not caught on. The result has been the use of terms such as “Early Bronze Age” or “early third millennium BC” when the speaker links ancient Oman to its contemporaries (e.g., in Southwest Asia). This is discussed in further detail in Chapter 2. 3 Table 1. Some Comparative Chronologies of Southwest Asia. Based on D. Potts (1993b:169); Ur (2004:49); and Weiss and Courty (1993:151). Absolute Northern Southern South Iran Indus Magan Dates Mesopotamia Mesopotamia Valley 1600 Middle Bronze Old Babylonian II/Khabur 1700 Late Wadi Suq Harappan 1800 Middle Bronze I Isin-Larsa 1900 2000 Post-Akkadian Ur III 2100 Old Elamite 2200 Akkadian Akkadian Umm anMature 2300 Nar Harappan Period 2400 Early Dynastic 2500 Early Dynastic III III 2600 2700 Ninevite 5 Early Dynastic 2800 I-II Hafit 2900 Post-Uruk ProtoEarly Period Elamite Harappan 3000 Late 3100 Late Uruk Uruk/Jemdet Nasr 3200 3300 Late 3400 Middle Uruk Prehistoric 3500 Middle Uruk C/ 3600 Northern Middle Neolithic Uruk 3700 3800 Eanna XIV- Mehrgarh Northern Early VI II-VI 3900 Early Uruk Uruk 4000 Late 4100 Prehistoric 4200 B Terminal Ubaid Late Ubaid 4300 4400 During the 3rd millennium BC, while the Mesopotamian and Indus civilizations flourished, the Oman Peninsula was likewise the site of an ancient culture of great regional importance (Figure 1). The Umm an-Nar people of ‘Magan’, the Sumerian word for ancient Oman, were well known by their Mesopotamian and Harappan neighbors for their seafaring and boat-building, their utilization of precious white stone (diorite) in statues of the Mesopotamian kings, and the copper 4 that was so famous that ‘Magan’ became the Sumerian word for the precious metal itself. Figure 1. Oman (ancient "Magan") and other cultures of the third millennium BC. Figure compliments of Gregory L. Possehl. For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this dissertation. In spite of their close trade networks the Umm an-Nar culture was very different from both the Mesopotamian city-states and the Indus civilization. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Umm an-Nar was organized in small settlements rather than impressive cities. Rather than building empires, they engaged in a wide variety of small-scale farming, herding, mining, fishing and other maritime pursuits. These vastly diverse economic enterprises occurred in correspondingly disparate environments. Beginning in the late fourth millennium, the integration 5 of these communities was matched by the development of a monumental tomb tradition spanning the length and breadth of Magan. In the centuries that followed, in certain places a second monumental tradition developed alongside the tomb tradition: that of the Umm an-Nar ‘tower.’ Towers were first identified in the 1970s as 20–30 m circular stone above-ground structures, lacking burials, that resembled the Islamic watch-towers found across the Oman Peninsula (de Cardi et al. 1976; Frifelt 1976; Hastings et al. 1975). These two different yet contemporary monumental forms provide the opportunity to consider the way(s) in which monuments and their distinct positions can reflect social organization and ecological interaction. Bat and the Wadi al-Hijr Previous and on-going research on the Oman Peninsula has focused on a single monumental context, almost exclusively the third milllennium tomb, with little understanding of the contemporary tower. The relative paucity and erratic distribution of towers compared to tombs has meant that few researchers have had the opportunity to study the tower, particularly in regards to the importance of their placement on the landscape. This dissertation combines both monuments into a single research program. The Wadi al-Hijr (Hijr Valley) provides a unique opportunity to study both types of third millennium monuments within a relatively small area (Figure 2). The survey region stretches from the UNESCO World Heritage site of Bat in the southeast to the mouth of the Wadi al-Hijr, where it joins with the Wadi al-Kabir (Figure 3). 6 Figure 2. Location of Bat and Sultanate of Oman. 7 2010-2011 Survey Area Town Road Survey boundary N ad-Dariz Wadi al-Hijr Bat Figure 3. The Wadi al-Hijr. 8 This space, from the village of ad-Dariz to the west and Bat to the southeast, provides a unique window into third millennium BC life on the Oman Peninsula. Bat's third millennium monuments were the basis for its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list, where it is described as one of “the most complete collection of settlements and necropolises from the third millennium BC in the world” (UNESCO 2009). The site of Bat encompasses a modern village as well as extant agricultural fields. The third millennium component of Bat consists of multiple parts: (1) as many as seven Bronze Age towers, several of which are currently under study; (2) hundreds of Bronze Age tombs of various styles, clustered in a side valley at the so-called ancient “Necropolis” as well as arranged along the northern and southern ridges of the valley; (3) ancient agricultural fields, the presence (if not extent) of which have been briefly studied (Frifelt 1989); and (4) the Settlement Slope, where hints of domestic materials and architecture have been recovered (Brunswig 1989; Frifelt 1989). At the western end of the study region beyond the UNESCO boundaries, the ad-Dariz environs have been found to include numerous third millennium BC tombs in addition to several of its own towers. Unlike the tombs, which are estimated to number over one hundred thousand across the entire Peninsula (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007:107), towers are relatively scarce; only 64 have been identified to date, and only in the last several years has there been any concentrated effort at their documentation (Cable and Thornton, 2012). Most third millennium sites have no towers at all. Those sites with towers tend to have one or two; on the entire Oman Peninsula, only in two cases are there as many as seven. The site of Bat belongs to this exceptional latter group, and as early as the 1980s archaeologists recognized that Bat was the most likely place to understand the purpose of the third millennium BC towers (Gentelle and Frifelt 1989:125). Only Bisya, ca. 100 km south of Bat, has a comparable number of towers, yet Bisya lacks such an extensive 9 collection of contemporary tombs. The nature and distribution of the third millennium monuments in Oman – including those in the UNESCO World Heritage Site – has been up-to-now unknown. These investigations into the third millennium BC mortuary and non-mortuary stone-built monuments of Bat and the Wadi alHijr, northern Oman, evaluate the relationships between land use, landform, and the creation and distribution of different types of monumental architecture. Specifically, I ask: • How can spatial relationships between third millennium BC monuments in the Hijr Valley inform our understanding of Umm an-Nar social interactions? • What can the positioning of monuments in relation to landform and landscape tell us about how Umm an-Nar people organized their social and physical worlds? • What are the implications of the spatial distribution of monuments and resources for understanding Umm an-Nar cultural interactions and social organization?  Why are there two different kinds of monuments in the third millennium BC? Argument This research agrees with contemporary literature, that tombs from the first half of the third millennium marked access to resources (Harrower 2008a; Cleuziou and Tosi 2007). Specifically, this dissertation argues that Hafit and Umm an-Nar people used Hafit tombs to mark access to a wide variety of resources, and further argues that these tombs acted as necessary integrative mechanisms across an extremely flexible social system. The mortuary record supports the idea that third millennium BC people of the Wadi al-Hijr were part of an active network of trade stretching along the western piedmont of the Hajar Mountains. However, this dissertation also asserts that the ideology of different-yet-equal, played out during the interment of a group member, expressed through the tomb monument itself, and made real through access to different 10 resources, is strained over time. This strain is visible in the mortuary record, but also in the development of the second monumental tradition: the tower. This dissertation also posits that the development of the Umm an-Nar tower began with access to water. Seasonal flood water (sayl) flows slowly enough in the piedmont region so as to make possible limited horticulture and a variety of pastoral activities. However, in Bat this quickly became a more specific relationship: that of a tower with a central well. Unlike surficial water, wells provided access to semi-permanent, sub-surface wadi flows (ghayl), which is a predictable yet even more spatially limited resource. This dissertation argues that the formalization of access to ghayl in the tower monument limited an important resource to a specific subgroup. Although initially social access may have proceeded along the same lines as other resources, the association of towers with a resource as significant as ghayl became indelible, such that over time it was no longer necessary that every tower actually contain water; the idea of water was there. As the monumental aspects of towers increased over time, access to this one particular resource became more formal and limited, and the social rights to that access became more limited in tandem. By the end of the third millennium, there was a strong disconnect between the mortuary monument, which expressed open social access to a variety of resources, and the tower monument, which expressed a more closed access to a specific resource. As such, I argue that the Umm an-Nar people employed their mortuary monuments as signs of culture-wide authoritative access and horizontal differentiation, while at the same time some people leveraged their specialized access to towers – and thereby to water – in order to promote their own interests. Both monument types signal access to resources, and in doing so they reinforce ideologies of social integration while promoting opposing social realities. 11 Methods A Geographic Information System (GIS) provides the ability to store, manage, and query spatial data (Longley et al. 2005). In order to evaluate these relationships, survey methods specific to the environment and features to be observed were applied. The region was surveyed with an eye towards complete coverage both in terms of intensity and extensity. All potential third millennium features were documented, along with their surroundings. These were entered into a GIS using ArcGIS 10.0. The GIS was used to query field-collected data in a number of ways, combining non-spatial and spatial elements of the archaeological landscape. Combining unpublished, published, and field collected data it was possible to assign dates to some specific monuments and to types of monuments. These were then integrated into the GIS to facilitate a study of change over the third millennium. Formal and spatial groups of towers were parsed out using data collected in the field and spatial visualizations. Cluster analysis was used to determine the nature of the distribution of the tombs and towers on the landscape. Where relevant, tomb clusters and tomb-tower clusters were compared to determine environmental and archaeological differences. Order of the Dissertation This dissertation progresses in several stages. Chapters 2 and 3 establish the archaeological, theoretical and ethnographic bases appropriate for a landscape study of monuments in ancient Oman, and set out the research questions. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on data collection and description: the survey of a16-x-8-km area along the Wadi al-Hijr extending from the town of adDariz in the northwest to Bat in the southeast. It describes the collection of archaeological survey data and its collation with excavation and physiographic data in order to characterize the third millennium BC landscape of the Wadi al-Hijr. 12 In Chapters 6 and 7 I assess the archaeological and physical features on the landscapes and in relation to each other using a combination of clustering analysis, spatial and formal, and comparing these clusters. Different patterns characterize the different types of monuments and resources. Finally, Chapter 8 discusses these relationships according to the ways in which people may have used monuments to identify and defend social and spatial boundaries, as proposed in the first stage of this dissertation. Chapter 8 also sets out future research and potential broader impacts of this research. Summary Monuments play an important role in signaling cultural and local identity. Mortuary spaces have been shown to be linked to resource access. The study of these monuments on the landscape has proven to be a fruitful way of understanding how ancient peoples marked access to resources. This research therefore seeks to understand the nature of the distributions of third millennium BC monuments in the Wadi al-Hijr, and to determine whether those distributions are socially meaningful in regards to resources or identity. 13 CHAPTER TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL, ETHNOGRAPHIC, AND PREHISTORIC CONTEXTS Physical and Social Geography of the Oman Peninsula The Oman Peninsula is located on the southeast end of Arabia on the eastern edge of the Middle East along the Tropic of Cancer (Figure 4). It is made up of the United Arab Emirates and the Sultanate of Oman, and is bordered by land to the west and southwest (i.e., by Saudi Arabia and Yemen), and by water in every other direction: to the east by the Arabian Sea and Indian Oceans, to the northeast by the Gulf of Oman, and the northwest by the Persian Gulf. Today, as in the past, these numerous water routes provide relatively easy access from the Peninsula to Iran, Pakistan, and India as well as Bahrain, Iraq, and Qatar. 14 Figure 4. The Sultanate of Oman. The unifying element of this geographic area is the rugged al Hajar Mountains, which stretch 700 km from the Straits of Hormuz in the northwest to the Arabian Sea and Ra’s al-Hadd in the southeast. The Hajar Mountains are the boundary between the Indian and Arabian continental 15 plates and are one of the best examples of abduction in the world (Glennie et al. 1974; Robertson et al. 1990:xi). The result is the presence of older geological deposits above younger ones, and easy access to minerals and ores usually found only through deep subsurface prospection (Adachi and Miyashita 2003). Petroleum, copper, asbestos, diorite and limestone, chromium, gypsum, natural gas, and softstone have all been mined from these mountains at some point over the past 5000 years (CIA World Factbook; Hauptmann 1985; Hauptmann et al. 1988; Weeks 2004; Weisgerber 1980). The Hajar Mountains separate the Oman Peninsula into two parts: on the eastern side of the range is the coastal plain, which is hot and humid; and on the western side are the hot, arid interior plains that merge into the Rub’ al-Khali (or “Empty Quarter”). These areas can be further divided according to their relationship with the mountains and the coast: the western piedmont (foothills) region is the location of a number of settlements sustained by oasis agriculture; the coast maintains agricultural, fishing, and entrepôt communities; and the mountain altitudes provide the more moderate climate necessary for horticulture (Peterson 1990; Potts 1993b). The ruggedness of the mountains encourages cultural and ecological diversity, with ocean, mountain, and plain ecosystems all within a 100 mile stretch (Tosi 1986). The interior oases focus on date farming, which provides a canopy (and thereby protection from the brutal summer sun) for alfalfa, which is used as animal fodder, and household-oriented horticulture (Wilkinson 1977:16). While most employed Omanis work in the cities, they retain their connections to their tribal homes and villages through frequent, weekly visits by car. For many Omani men, this has meant leaving wives and children with their mothers and extended relatives, and even those Omanis who live and work in their family areas travel extensively on the weekends to maintain extended family networks. In effect, for the short- and long-term success of individuals, families, 16 and supra-family units each level must maintain a great deal of social and economic flexibility and integration. Paleoenvironment. The Oman Peninsula has maintained ecological conditions similar to those of today for the past 5000 years or more (McClure 1976; 1988; D. Potts 1990a; cf. Stanger 1994). It consists of an arid landscape dotted with limited areas of higher population density, centered around oasis agriculture, mining, fishing, and coastal trading, and with extensive maritime trade and pastoral networks (Brooks 2006; Glennie et al. 1974(1994); Tosi 1975). Oman is above the isohyets (i.e., lines of precipitation – in this case, specifically referring to the 300mm isohyet that separates dry farming from irrigated agriculture) that denote dry farming areas; as such, all agriculture requires irrigation of some sort, whether by surface or ground water (R. M. Adams 1981). Figure 5. Irrigated fields surrounded by non-irrigated fields; the Bat oasis is in the background. Although an eighth of the country’s land is arable, the majority of the land is too extreme (in 17 temperature, aridity, or topography) for sustainable human occupation (Figure 5). Runoff in the mountains tends to be too rapid for use in agriculture, while the coastal region suffers from brackish waters more suitable for mangrove swamps (Tengberg 2005). The piedmont region, however, has both space for alluvial soil accumulation and water for irrigation, especially where gabarbands and dams are used to divert surface flood-water (Costa 1983; Kalyanaraman 2003). Until the recent addition of motorized pumps, the water table has been relatively close to the surface for 5000 years. As few as 15 years ago in the oasis community of Bat, it was possible to reach ground water only seven meters below the surface while today the water table is 18-20 meters below the surface (Fouache and Desruelles 2010). Similarly, the early third millennium BC well at Hili was dug only four meters below the ancient ground surface (Cleuziou 1989:64). Access to the water table comes in the forms of wells and aflaj (singular falaj) systems of distributary irrigation channels that frequently run underground. Falaj wells may be vertical or “horizontal,” dug into the bases of mountains and extending at a slight negative gradient for kilometers. Contrary to its use in Iran (where they are called “qanats”), on the Oman Peninsula the term falaj refers generally to semi-subterranean irrigation systems rather than to specific hydro-technologies (English 1998; Wilkinson 1977, 1983a). Physical and Social Geography of the Study Region There are four natural valley systems that act as corridors from the interior piedmont region to the coast: the Wadi al-Kabir, the Wadi Khalfain, the Wadi Bahla, and the Wadi Suma’il (Shahin 2007:72). The Wadi al-Hijr is a tributary valley for the Wadi al-Kabir (literally, “The Big Valley”) on the western piedmont of the Hajar Mountains. (Bowen-Jones 1978:24) The Wadi al-Hijr. This small side valley, several kilometers wide, is a seasonally-flooding tributary of the Wadi al-Kabir, joining one of the few natural routes leading through the virtually impassible Hajar Mountains (Glennie 2005; Glennie et al. 1974; Shahin 2007:72). The small and 18 intermittent flows of water that run seasonally along the northern and southern edges of the alHijr are essential for oasis agriculture. This area receives approximately 200 mm of annual precipitation. Here the schist of the Oman mélange geologic formation splits naturally into almost-modular preforms used in ancient and pre-modern stone architecture. Nearby to the north, the Jebel Shuwā’ī is still mined today for its white limestone, which once provided the building material for the finished facing stones (“sugar lumps”) found on Umm an-Nar tombs of the Bronze Age (Tosi 1975:204) and now is found in every “Gulf Gothic” façade (Figure 6). Geologically, the western end of the Wadi al-Hijr is made up of rows of vertically striking banded siltstone divided by deeply sedimented wadi bottoms, arid channels, and some low rocky plateaus. Figure 6. "Gulf Gothic" architecture, Muscat. 19 The western end of the Wadi al-Hijr is bounded by Shuwā’ī and Wahrah Mountains to the north and south, respectively, while to the west the Wadi al-Hijr meets the Wadi al-Kabir. Where the Hijr Valley joins with the Wadi al-Kabir is the modern village of ad-Dariz. Sixteen kilometers up the valley to the east of ad-Dariz is the modern oasis village and archaeological site of Bat. Today settlements cluster in the modern villages of Bat, al-Wahrah, and ad-Dariz. The abandoned date groves to the north and west of the current settlement of Wahrah suggest that there has been a rapid and recent drop in water levels (probably coupled with a greater dependence on remittances) (Figure 7). A similar shift can be seen in the construction boom centering around the paved highway adjacent to ad-Dariz. Figure 7. fields near Bat, looking north. Note the abandoned date grove (north) with an irrigated grove (east), and irrigated and fallow fields (foreground). Topography in this section of the Wadi al-Hijr is dramatic. Bedrock outcrops of the alWahrah Series, oriented and striking northwest-southeast, rise out of alluvium (Bowen-Jones 1978). The result is a flat wadi plain of varying depth, with sudden outcrops of bedrock intermittently breaking through an otherwise gently sloping alluvial plain (Figure 8). 20 Figure 8. Limestone bedrock rising vertically up from the wadi floodzone. Note the pickup for scale. Water in the Hijr Valley either comes from seasonal surface rains (sayl) or is in underground rivers (ghayl). The exploitable aquifer flows in Pleistocene conglomerate (and later) deposits in the al-Wahrah group (Bowen-Jones 1978:3; Fouache and Desruelles 2011), today providing relatively easy and regular access to water, but in limited locations. Pragmatically, one may expect multiple uses out of such marginal landscapes (Arikan 2012). Ethnographic Insights into Omani Land Use and Access to Resources The Middle-Range Society in Anthropology Definition of a tribe. Tribes are characterized by dual and opposing forces: organizational flexibility and independence on the one hand; and a predictable, universally acknowledged societal framework on the other (O’Shea and Milner 2002). The tribe is a “pivot” between kinbased and territory-based societies, where it acts as a corporation that manages resources (Lancaster and Lancaster 1986; 1992a). For the purposes of this research, the tribe is an 21 arrangement of social, political, and economic relationships balancing societal integration and organizational flexibility. This balance requires some effort. Giddens (1984) argues that this is achieved in two necessary parts: (1) it occurs in the ideological realm, and (2) it depends “overwhelmingly upon interaction in the settings of locales of high presence availability” (182). That is, ideologies of integration and cultural one-ness are necessary, and these ideologies are reinforced at regular, ritualized events. Modern Tribes in Oman and Ethnographic Parallels It is only in the last 25 years that Oman has undergone a dramatic shift such that the use of the landscape has dramatically changed. Because the modern ecological constraints on groups in the recent past are similar to those that existed 5000 years ago there may be greater similarity between modern and ancient cultures in Oman than in many other places in the world. Modern tribes on the Arabian Peninsula are somewhat unique: they do not act as legally corporate groups; they are not necessarily localized nor do they invoke the same concepts of territoriality; marriage is endogamous; and tribal kinship is manipulated as justification for membership (Lancaster and Lancaster 1992a). It is therefore worthwhile considering potential ethnographic insights regarding the ways people may maintain access to resources in an environmental context such as the Oman Peninsula. The Tribe in Modern Oman: Middle Range Responses to the Omani Environment The natural environment plays an important role in the ways in which people of Oman have organized themselves in the recent past. The knowledge that “no one area or resource is able to sustain a livelihood over the year” (Lancaster and Lancaster 1996:141) has framed strategies of livelihood and concepts of identy. There are 12 tribal groups in modern Oman (Chatty 1996) and each has traditionally held a specific role in the overall functioning of the society at large. Certain tribes are traditionally known for camel or sheep/goat herding, acting as pastoralists 22 engaged in mixed horticulture. Others are agriculturalists with year-round cash-cropping (in the form of dates). Coastal tribes engage primarily in maritime-oriented activities. As each of these groups has its own socio-economic (and, to varying extents, geographically defined) niche, a fourth tribal group specializes in acting as intermediaries between the other, often warring, tribal groups (Wilkinson 1977). That is, different tribes have different generalized economic roles to play, making up a heterogeneous network stressing their homogeneous culture. Specific tribal identities were subject to a much broader system of identity. In the fourteenth century Ibn Khaldûn described a distinction that is continually being lost today. According to Ibn Khaldûn (1967 [1377]), Badw did not refer to a particular subsistence strategy or style of living, but instead referred to “a politically 'primitive', decentralized tribal society, incorporating also 'settled' peoples who cultivate and trade, and many of whom live in 'towns'” (Wilkinson 1990:56). As Khuri (1980) describes them, bedw refers to a “tribally organized society whose elite operates from oasis settlement and whose power derives from manipulating 'kinship principles to regulate marriage, social interaction and the redistribution of power, force, wealth and benefits'” (Wilkinson 1983b:313). It is important to recognize that oases are not isolated settlements, although they do function partially as agricultural centers. Rather, they are “nodes” or fixed points in a larger network of seasonality and spatially varying subsistence patterns based on complementary resources that “can only be exploited by mobility” (Wilkinson 1978:7; emphasis added). As with other parts of the tribal network, they only exist as part of a greater exchange economy bound up in tribal networks spanning great distances (Wilkinson 1978). From this description it is also possible to see some tension between two anthropological concepts, that of tribe and of chiefdom. It is the degree of flexibility and distinction between the 23 political, economic, and kin systems that is the primary distinction culturally; archaeologically, chiefdoms are noted primarily for their redistributive structures and emerging hierarchies, which are nevertheless bound up in social relationships of reciprocity. Where resources are unpredictable and scarce, such as Oman, access is controlled not through defense of a territorial space, but through membership in a social group with rights to the space, what Casimir terms social boundary defense (1992:12). Lancaster and Lancaster (1992a; 1996) have found this strategy at work on the Oman Peninsula today, specifically in the Ja’alan. However, they also note that even in the Ja’alan there are “alternative views of territorial behavior; the tribes of Beni bu Ali would seem to view anchorages as possible nodes, those of Beni bu Hassan do not” (Lancaster and Lancaster 1992b:354). Among the nomadic (camelherding) groups, territories are functional rather than formal, and non-exclusive; this is because one place can have multiple uses and at different times of year (Wilkinson 1983b:308). This emphasizes the extraordinary flexibility that characterizes the regularization of access to resources in this landscape. Rights to Resources, and Accessing Them Even without land ownership, it is possible to create notions of sovereignty framed around control of land (Wilkinson 1978:308). Modern Islamic land ownership law – specifically in conjunction with water – is framed around the fruits of the land and its active development (Wilkinson 1977) and it is the human input of labor and the development of land that marks the right to that resource (Lancaster and Lancaster 1986; 1996:147; 2002:239). While not at odds with the concept of a territory, it provides nuance. A territory marks out a space within which lie a variety of different types of land and resources (Dresch 1989: 81; Wilkinson 1983b) in order to regularize access to those resources (Casimir 1992). Rights to a resource, or a specific use of the landscape, however, is a slightly different way of conceiving of (and maintaining) access. In 24 addition, if a territory is “an area which is habitually exploited” (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1972:30), it is important to consider the degree to which flexibility is important in the Omani environment; although some are more reliable than others, no one space or subsistence practice has what is needed to support a group on its own. In Oman during earlier, historic periods access to resources was marked by the construction of simple ephemeral shelter for animals or people, and acknowledged in tribal terms. In the ethnographic present access to resources is established through the maintenance of more permanent structures (Lancaster and Lancaster 1992b:356), and also through the development of resources (e.g., through wells, cisterns, gardens). However, “a map of well ‘ownership’ would also be misleading as ownership is not synonymous with maintenance or use” (Lancaster and Lancaster 2002:240); rather, maintenance and use are matters of relationships between groups and people. Access to resources is maintained through relationships. In total, there are two main, related problems confronting those who live in patchy environments such as the Oman Peninsula: first, there is the question of creating a system of access to resources over great distances and seasons, and with a limited population. The second is in maintaining that access. In Chapter Three, the monument comes to the rescue. The History of Prehistory: Archaeological Survey in the Northern Oman Peninsula Framework Unlike most of the Arab world, very little was known archaeologically about the Oman Peninsula until a century ago. Situated beyond the Islamic empires to the northwest and the Mandate powers of Europe, the Oman Peninsula was considered lawless, lacking a stable, centralized (and principally European) governing body with which foreign scientists could negotiate (Potts 1998). It was not until petroleum companies began their forays into the Peninsula in the 1940s that research followed; by the 1960s several large-scale non-systematic 25 surveys and a few key excavations were underway (e.g., Pullar 1974:33). The purpose of these early ventures was descriptive and exploratory rather than systematic. The goals were to develop a very general model of ancient landscape use, and to identify the sites most likely to yield, through excavation, the greatest amount of information about this region. In particular, the purpose of these early forays was to relate the Oman Peninsula to its ancient neighbors in Mesopotamia, the Gulf, Iran, and Baluchistan, so as to link ancient Oman to better understood civilizations. The early Danish, British, German, and American surveys and excavations during this period began to fill the gap in archaeological knowledge of the Oman Peninsula. While the number of archaeological survey projects in this region remains small, it is important to note that most archaeological expeditions have included survey of their research areas. Although these are rarely systematic, many of their results are included in annual reports presented to the Oman government. Over the past decade, survey methods in this region have improved dramatically, and archaeological surveys in northern Oman are beginning the transition from haphazard explorations to systematic GIS-aided landscape studies. Previous Archaeological Survey – Early Phase The 1970s were the first opportunity for archaeological surveys and excavations on the Oman Peninsula, birthed in the context of a political coup and a suddenly outward-looking alignment of government. The Danish survey under Karen Frifelt came from the west, seeking comparanda for the finds excavated by Bibby (1969) in Bahrain and throughout the Gulf. The British survey under Beatrice de Cardi came from Baluchistan in the east, where Mortimer Wheeler had sent de Cardi to search for the western extent of the Harappan Civilization (de Cardi 2008). The American team under Meadow and Humphries came to the Oman Peninsula from the north, looking for comparisons for Lamberg-Karlovsky’s excavations at Tepe Yahya in southern Iran. The German survey team under Gerd Weisgerber came looking for the famed 26 copper mines of ancient “Magan,” described in Mesopotamian texts of the third millennium BC. Thus, all four early studies came to the Oman Peninsula seeking evidence of outside contacts and far-flung trade relations – an extroverted vision that would affect the archaeology of this region for many decades. The Danish Expedition The Danish Expedition in the 1960s identified three of the most famous third millennium sites on the Oman Peninsula: Umm an-Nar, Jebel Hafit, and Hili (Frifelt 1971, 1975a, 1975b) – all in Abu Dhabi, UAE. This work was quickly followed by surveys and excavations in northern and central Oman, such as Danish work at the second millennium BC type-site of Wadi Suq) and several surveys and excavations in the ‘Ibri area (e.g., Frifelt 1976; Gentelle and Frifelt 1989). Although much work was accomplished the surveys undertaken were unsystematic, and synthetic journal reports describe the surveys and excavations in lieu of primary publications. Many of the primary field reports and photographs have been preserved in the Ministry of Heritage and Culture archives and proved crucial to later survey and excavations in the Bat area, as well as to the inscription of Bat and al Ayn on the UNESCO World Heritage Site List. As with the British Expedition led by de Cardi (see below), the Danish Expedition was primarily interested in providing a broad overview of the kinds of archaeological resources visible on the landscape and in identifying a few key sites for excavation. The result was a number of preliminary reports indicating clusters of archaeological remains for further exploration. The American Expedition The Harvard Archaeological Survey organized one of the earliest archaeological surveys of northern Oman, in 1973. Its results were published in the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies and focused on three distinct parts of the archaeological record: the lithic 27 assemblages (Pullar 1974); the port town of Sohar in the Medieval Islamic Period (Williamson 1974); and “later prehistoric” sites (Humphries 1974). As Humphries himself notes, “the survey was by no means exhaustive, either throughout the Sultanate or even within the area of concentration” – that is, in the Wadi Bahla and the Jebel Akhdar in central Oman; the Batinah coast near Sohar; and the northern Dhoar region (1974:49). Several of the third millennium BC sites discovered by the Harvard Survey (e.g., BB-16) have since been excavated (Carl Phillips/Michaele, Orchard). The most significant results of this survey were in establishing the first lithic typology for the Oman Peninsula (Pullar 1974, 1985) and the first typology of Islamic ceramics (Whitcomb 1975). The British Expedition In late 1971, de Cardi surveyed part of the Musandam Peninsula, and from 1974 to 1978 she continued exploration in the adh-Dhakhiliya and Sharqiyah regions of central and northern Oman (de Cardi et al. 1976, 1977). Her 1976 “Gazetteer” of sites in north-central Oman identifies some of the most famous prehistoric sites known in the region and remains a major reference guide for archaeological exploration. Although the survey methods were not systematic, the British Expedition was the first to pay close attention to the third millennium towers (including revisiting areas explored by the Harvard Survey) and paid near-equal attention to later prehistoric and early historic sites. Previous archaeological survey – Middle Phase The German Expedition Inspired by Mesopotamian references to the copper of Magan, the German teams have retained a general focus on the archaeometallurgy of Oman. From the late 1970s Gerd Weisgerber et al. surveyed the copper-bearing ophiolites, particularly from Wadi Izki to Wadi Samad, and have led research on the second and first millennium BC cultures of Oman (Weisgerber 1980, 1981, 1983). Their research included more focused and systematic survey, in 28 both geographical and thematic terms. Not only did this result (in conjunction with the French expeditions (Berthoud and Cleuziou 1983) in a study of all of the copper ore sources in the region, it also led to several pivotal excavations at Maysar, Lizq, and Samad. The Italian Expedition In the late 1970s Paola Costa conducted a series of archaeological surveys along the coast. Although originally interested in the lithic technologies of Oman, Costa soon focused on the medieval port city of Sohar, and as such laid the groundwork for research on medieval Islamic settlements in the region. As part of Costa’s Sohar Expedition Tony Wilkinson conducted the first systematic landscape survey in Oman, of the Sohari hinterland. Soon afterwards Maurizio Tosi began survey work near R’as al-Hadd, where he was joined by French and British teams by the 1990s. Costa’s key work on “traditional Oman” is the first overview of the historic roots and layouts of many of the better-populated Islamic settlements of the Sultanate. Specifically he provides an overview of the character of traditional Omani settlements, which he differentiates into interior oasis settlements (following Wilkinson’s 1977 report on aflaj and social organization) and coastal sites, such as those described by Barth (1983). Previous Archaeological Survey – Current Phase Omani Research Nasser Al-Jahwari’s dissertation on the Wadi Andam near Sinaw in the Sharqiyah region is the first published systematic survey in the Sultanate of Oman (2008). Al-Jahwari uses a probabilistic sampling method to locate sites within the Andam watershed, and develops a framework for studying third millennium BC settlements, thus attempting to deal with the ubiquitous problem of finding ancient remains under millennia of later occupation. In addition to his own survey, Al-Jahwari (2008) provides a complete literature review of all sites found in the Sultanate of Oman. 29 The French Expeditions Working with Cleuziou, Jessica Giraud integrated 25 years of survey research – extensive and intensive, systematic and non-systematic – in the Ja’alan under the aegis of the Joint Hadd Project (Giraud 2007). Giraud’s research argues that third millennium tombs cluster into “necropolises”, indicating the location of contemporary settlement (2009). Since 2006, Giraud has been carrying out new surveys in the Wadi Adam, the southernmost oasis in northwestern Oman on the edge of the Rub’ al-Khali. While her research is ongoing, she has identified important new “necropolises” of the third millennium that will no doubt change the way we understand this marginal zone along the desert fringes (e.g., Giraud et al. 2010). Other Projects Also on-going is Eugenio Bortolini’s survey of tombs in the Zukayt (Izki) region of central Oman, directly to the north of Giraud’s current study area. His work focuses on understanding structural patterns of use and reuse during the third millennium BC, and as such will add immeasurably to our ability to date these enigmatic and diverse mortuary cairns. Most importantly, Bortolini will be the first to apply neo-Darwinian theories (a la Shennan 1982) to archaeological survey on the Oman Peninsula. It is important to emphasize that the scarcity of information about the archaeological landscape of Oman should not detract from the important research conducted there over the past several decades. Rather, not only is opportunistic survey an important methodological first step in creating knowledge about ancient cultures, it is also the initial response to unique survey conditions such as are found on the Oman Peninsula. The traditional systematic, probabilistic survey methods are appropriate for relatively flat, ploughed land – such as much of Europe and the Mediterranean – but Oman exhibits extraordinary variation in topography and hydro-geology, and demands careful re-consideration of traditional survey methods (al-Jahwari 2008:7). 30 Furthermore, as the country develops and modernizes at a rapid speed, new roads and expanding populations provide access to never-before-seen archaeological sites on an annual basis. Summary of the Late Prehistory of Oman Introduction When speaking to archaeologists who work outside of the Arabian Peninsula, the terms “Neolithic”, “Chalcolithic”, “Bronze Age”, and “Iron Age” are sometimes useful, but they bear little resemblance to the material culture of this region. On the Oman Peninsula there is evidence for a rather limited (probably due to research rather than representation of the archaeological world) Neolithic based largely around coastal resources, followed by an enigmatic “Chalcolithic” and “Bronze Age” that lasted well into the first millennium BC. As Oman was a prime producer of copper, there was little development of any reliance on iron, and even bronze was sporadic (Weeks 1999, 2003). The continued significance of lithic technologies on the other hand means that a finely developed and sophisticated stone tool tradition persists throughout prehistory (e.g., Giraud et al. 2010). Because these terms are misleading – at no time was iron a defining material component of life in Arabian Prehistory – they will only be used when there is no agreed-upon term (ironically, as is the case with the Early Samad and Lizq Periods in the Iron Age). Neolithic (ca. 10,000–3100 BC) Along the coast of Oman aridization occurred (i.e., both begins and culminates) slightly earlier, during the fifth millennium BC, and may correlate archaeologically with the peak of the shell midden tradition (Biagi 1994; Lézine 2009; Uerpmann 1992:103). Neolithic sites in this region consist of shell middens, rock shelters, lithic workshops, and/or butchering camps (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007). Domestic contexts tend to be made up of clusters of rough circular shelters that may have been the foundations for organic (wood or hide) superstructures. Fifth and fourth millennia BC coastal sites such as Ras al-Hamra (Biagi and Nisbet 1989:44), 31 Bir Bir'a, and Bandar Jissa give overwhelming evidence for skilled fishing and marine activities linked both to mangrove swamps (near the shore) and the open ocean (Biagi and Nisbet 1992; Biagi 2004). Shellfish, crab, turtle, whale, and dolphin have all been found at Neolithic sites, in addition to sheep, goat, cattle (all in relatively small numbers), Arabian gazelle, and wild ass (Mosseri-Marlio 1998; H.-P. Uerpmann 1989; M. Uerpmann 1992). The fifth millennium BC midden site of al-Buhais 18, located 60 km inland from the northern coast, yielded a few examples of domesticated cattle remains and a large number of mature goats (Uerpmann et al. 2000:231). None of the domesticated ruminants from the fifth millennium BC – the goat, sheep, or cattle – were indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula, and by the third millennium BC all are found at the coastal site of Ras al-Jinz (Bökönyi 1992; Cleuziou and Tosi 2000:43; Costantini and Audisio 2001). There is a long tradition of the exploitation of coastal mangrove swamps, sometimes intensively, that develops in the Neolithic (Tengberg 2005). Coastal communities were actively making use of their terrestrial and marine resources (Biagi et al. 1984), and were engaged in curing fish for off-season consumption or long-distance trade (Charpentier et al. 1998). In the Ja’alan of eastern Oman, there is good evidence for a close complementarity between agricultural, coastal, and herding landscapes. Whether this relationship is based on trade or kinship networks is unclear, and probably both are significant to the integration that occurs in the following centuries (Cleuziou 2003:139). Regardless, this adaptive scheme – a system of production and exchange including pastoralism, fishing, and oasis farming – is in keeping with ecological expectations of such a small area with a high level of environmental diversity. Since the material signatures of the Neolithic on the Oman Peninsula are less visible than in later periods, the majority of known and excavated Neolithic sites (i.e., shell middens) has been 32 located along the coast (where much of the population of Oman lives even today), among mangrove swamps and overlooking the ocean. There is a growing interest in locating sites on the interior and along the few routes linking the coast with the western piedmont areas. The Third Millennium BC By the beginning of the Hafit period, these patterns of transhumance and season-specific subsistence practices seem to have resulted in significant networks across ancient Oman. Although there is no direct evidence for date palms in the beginning of this period, it is hypothesized that they provided the micro-environment for intensive oasis farming (D. Potts 1994:616; Tosi 1986:475). Sorghum bicolor Linn. [Moench] ssp. bicolor race durra or race durra bicolor (Cleuziou 1989; Cleuziou and Costantini 1980:249) and Ccumis (melon) grew, potentially under the canopy. Nearby irrigated fields grew wheat (either Triticum astivum or T. durum) and barley (Brunswig 1989; Wilcox 1989), and oat probably grew wild nearby (Cleuziou 1989a:79). Camel, equid, and bird bones, found in midden contexts at Hili, indicate that the early third millennium BC people of Magan also hunted (Cleuziou 1989b:81), while copious evidence for ziziphus (both stones and charred fruits) have been found in archaeological contexts, giving evidence for some localized gathering (e.g., Biagi 1987:16; Biagi and Nisbet 1992; Cleuziou and Costantini 1980). Additionally, shell midden sites continue to give evidence to the presence of mangrove swamps, the importance of the turtle and the pearl even in the fifth millennium BC, and a variety of marine animals including dolphin (Mosseri-Marlio 1998). The Hafit marks the beginning of a period of inter-regional trade networks that included Mesopotamia and the Indus. Beginning in the fourth millennium BC Mesopotamian (Jemdet Nasr) ceramics were finding their way into Hafit tombs (Frifelt 1971, 1975b), and by the Mature Harappan (i.e., mid-third millennium BC) there is ample evidence of Indus craftsmanship found 33 across Oman. In addition, key sites arise in Magan that are clearly situated according to ancient maritime access; while some sites have both agricultural land and marine access (e.g., ancient Sur), and therefore hypothetically could have been self-sufficient, others – such as Umm an-Nar Island and Ra’s al-Hadd – have moorage (marine transport access) but no agricultural hinterland (Cleuziou 2003:138). Their primary justification was therefore likely related to foreign trade. Numerous Mesopotamian economic texts mention the importance of Magan as a trade partner, for a combination of copper, diorite, soft stone in addition to timber. Hafit period (ca. 3100–2600 BC) The Hafit Period in Oman is the first time that a unified cultural group, covering nearly the entire Oman Peninsula, maintained cultural links both at local and regional levels. The development and elaboration of a monumental tomb tradition provides the most overwhelming evidence of this cultural change. Interment is in stone-built cairn tombs (Figure 9). At some point in the Hafit Period, the tomb tradition was expanded to include the beginnings of what was to become the Umm an-Nar “tower tradition”: structures roughly 20 meters in diameter with interior wells, located in or around oasis settlements. However, there are numerous other differences in the material record. The most common imports, usually found in mortuary contexts, are the Jemdet Nasr / ED I-II style jars from Mesopotamia, although pottery from Southeastern Iran has also been identified (Méry 2000). 34 Figure 9. Hafit tomb. Equally, materials from the Omani coast are first found inland in great numbers during the Hafit Period, and materials from interior Oman are found along the coast. By the beginning of the third millennium, individual sites are unequivocally parts of larger, inter-digitated social and political entities, exploiting a variety of resources and ecological niches (Cleuziou 2003:140). The Hafit Period witnesses the beginnings of a cultural community that eventually spans the entire Oman Peninsula, a distinct culture shared among disparate sites and populations. Beyond the break in mortuary practices – i.e., the change from below-ground pit burials to above-ground stone cairn monuments – there is a dramatic change in domestic architectural styles. As opposed to the earlier oval stone domestic structures, Hafit settlements feature rectilinear stone foundations with mud brick superstructures (HD-6). 35 The Hafit Period is also the first time that there is evidence for permanent oasis development for agricultural purposes (Cleuziou 1996). It is likely that Neolithic agro-pastoralists exploited oases, but by the Hafit period this exploitation develops into permanent settlement and the cultivation of agricultural products to support pastoralism and long-distance trade networks. While the Hafit period can certainly be seen as the early stage of the Umm an-Nar Culture that lends its name to the following period, it is notable that the Neolithic and Hafit periods are both defined by an aceramic tradition. That is, it is clear that people of the Hafit period had both the technology and the understanding to develop a ceramic tradition of their own. However, there is little evidence for locally made ceramics in the Hafit period, and those that do exist are imitations of Mesopotamian imports. This changed dramatically in the Umm an-Nar period. Umm An-Nar period (ca. 2600–2000 BC) By the middle of the third millennium BC, oasis communities were thriving agricultural settlements with close ties (social as well as economic) to coastal communities. In addition to the settlement of oases and the further exploitation of marine and mangrove resources along the coast, there is evidence of copper mining (Hauptmann et al. 1988) and accounts of such trade with Mesopotamia. The traditions of rectilinear domestic structures with mud brick superstructures, and of above-ground circular stone tombs, continue and are elaborated. The towers develop into increasingly impressive circular monuments, with internal supporting cross-walls and external walling consisting of stones weighing up to a ton and a half each (1360 kg). Umm an-Nar architecture – from domestic to agricultural contexts – is unique throughout Omani Prehistory in the quality of the construction. Stone walls are dry- or mud-mortared, coursed, frequently with alternating header and footer stones, and are faced on visible sides (Figure 10). 36 Stone dimensions: ca. 55 x 30 cm Stone dimensions: ca. 135 x 60 cm Figure 10. Outer ringwall of Matariya (Tower 1147), facing southwest. Figure courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. Wadi Suq Period (ca. 2000–1300 BC) In the beginning of the second millennium BC, there is a sharp break in material culture that likely reflects an accumulation of social change that began in the late Umm an-Nar Period. The material signatures of the third millennium are eschewed, or at the least repurposed or rebuilt. With the notable exceptions of Kalba and Tell Abraq – both located along the northern Emirati coast as opposed to in the western piedmont – the third millennium BC “tower” is almost completely abandoned; tombs are built and rebuilt in a number of dramatically different styles and types; the ceramic assemblage becomes coarser overall; and there is a dramatic decrease in 37 foreign imports found in Wadi Suq contexts (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007). This is an ongoing debate about whether the Wadi Suq period represents a “dark age” of the Arabian Peninsula (Gregorička 2011). The expansion in the number of tomb styles during the Wadi Suq Period is extraordinary. The apparently homogeneous tomb styles of the third millennium BC give way to a combination of above-ground, semi-subterranean and subterranean cist graves with single or double interments, in addition to “over-ground” single and monumental collective tombs. In addition, “casual” burials (single interments in older tombs) are relatively common. Summary The Oman Peninsula is a complex environment of extremes over short distances. Resources are patchily distributed both over time (seasonally) and space. It is rare that a single environmental zone provides access to resources year-round based on a single subsistence strategy, nor does it support large populations that could maintain access to all of these resources through sheer occupational numbers. The result, visible ethnographically up through the late-twentieth century AD, is a system of fluid territories and subsistence practices spanning considerable distances. The exceptions to this are oases, which act as nodes of permanence in a much larger shifting landscape. The question of how ancient peoples survived and thrived in a remarkably similarly landscape to that of today demands a look at the kinds of information known about the prehistory of the Oman Peninsula. In such an archaeologically undiscovered landscape, it is equally important to place what little is known into its historical context. This chapter therefore introduced the prehistory of the Oman Peninsula, and the history of archaeological survey on the Oman Peninsula. 38 CHAPTER THREE: EXPECTATIONS FOR THE USE OF MONUMENTS IN MARKING, MAINTAINING, AND LIMITING ACCESS TO RESOURCES The Monument in Landscape Archaeology and Anthropology Monuments are built elements on the landscape. They act as markers of membership and reminders of group interactions (Bradley 1998). Monuments can also be the site of group inclusive or group exclusive activity (Howey 2007; Howey and O’Shea 2006; Johansen et al. 2004). This section discusses the ways in which monuments have been both used to mark and to limit access to resources and territories for middle range societies, and to have provided occasions for integration and exclusion. Chapter 3 goes on to outline the archaeological patterns of monuments that would represent those social practices and past social structures. Monuments can be particularly useful in large-scale archaeological survey by providing points of relative consistency on the shifting landscape, thus populating the landscape and helping, at least initially, to frame ancient settlement patterns (e.g., Adams 1981; de Cardi et al. 1976; Wilkinson and Bond 2001; Wilkinson 2000). The exploration of monuments as part of the landscape can be a useful way of understanding cultural interactions (Brown 1995), particularly when monuments are maintained and altered across time. The study of monuments has been an important part of research into prehistoric societies since Napoleon sent scientists to measure and study the pyramids of Egypt. However, it was not until the late 20th century that archaeologists became concerned with the spatial context of monuments in and on the landscape. Such developments in “landscape archaeology” (an outgrowth of settlement survey) rose in tandem with new methodological advancements in Geographical Information Systems and satellite remote sensing. The research presented in this dissertation falls at the junction between the study of monuments and the ways ancient cultures organized themselves within the landscape. 39 Landscape archaeology has flourished in many parts of the world, but has only recently become a major influence in archaeologial studies of Southwest Asia. Robert McCormick Adams (1965; 1981), Hole et al. (1969), and others blazed the trail with their prescient integration of settlement patterns, landforms, and human ecology models in Mesopotamia and Southwest Iran. Tony Wilkinson (2000; 2003) and his students have done perhaps the most to make landscape archaeology a driving force in studies of the ancient Middle East over the past decade. The Oman Peninsula has seen relatively few studies of landscape archaeology, despite the omnipresence of prehistoric stone monuments from Abu Dhabi to R’as al-Hadd. A notable exception is Costa and Wilkinson’s (1987) important monograph The Hinterland of Sohar: Archaeological surveys and excavations within the region of an Omani seafaring city (described in the previous chapter). Monuments and Mortuary Archaeology The location of a monument or group of monuments can be a fruitful area of inquiry when trying to understand a culture. The study of monuments, the mortuary record, and landscape has been gaining ground since the 1970s, when several keys works (i.e., Saxe 1970; Goldstein 1976) brought to light the relationship between access to critical resources and formal cemeteries. While cemeteries need not be monumental, they are formal and visible; clusters of mortuary monuments (such as tombs), therefore, are the most obvious examples of the relationship between resource access and the mortuary realm. Two complementary interpretations of the spatial distribution of tombs are found in archaeological literature. The most well-known, “Hypothesis 8,” correlates the presence of bounded spaces reserved for the dead with control over nearby crucial and limited resources (Goldstein 1981). That is, there is a link between making claims to resources and making claims to the dead such that social boundaries have material markers (i.e., cemetery spaces) and 40 environmental benefits (i.e., access to resources). A second tomb distribution, described by O’Shea and Milner (2002), links cemetery distributions and territory boundaries. They suggest that Juntunen band territories were marked with a combination of built and natural features, in which mortuary mounds were one of several types of built features on the Juntunen landscape. Mathews (2006) argues that the Straits Salish development of two new mortuary practices – building above-ground burial cairns and locating them in cemeteries on the edges of Salish territory – was the Salish answer to a growing need for definitive cultural boundaries. Both tomb distributions link “right-of-access” to the presence of tombs, and both have been employed for third millennium BC Oman, but their distributions are not necessarily the same: Hypothesis 8 suggests that there will be tomb clustering and will indicate access to a specific resource, while tombs as territorial markers suggests that highly visible tombs should be disbursed along (potentially disputed) boundaries between tribal communities. The distinction between accessing a territory and accessing a resource is an important one, and according to Casimir (1992), has more to do with the characteristics of a suite of resources, which together constrain options for subsistence strategies based on routinized access to all of the resources that make a living possible. It may be more accurate to speak of resources as potential tools for subsistence – the ideology attached to a subsistence practice or of a worldview having a substantive impact on choices of resource or combinations of resources (Lancaster and Lancaster 1992a). Although it is tempting to dismiss ideology as a factor in impacting subsistence practices, Giddens (1984) points out that, for tribal groups, integration is focused in the ideological realm, and upon most of the tribal members participating in activities that consolidate those ideologies with some frequency (182). That is, ideologies of integration and cultural one-ness are necessary. 41 Mortuary rites provide opportunities for the enactment of just these ideologies and for this purpose. While mortuary spaces can mark access to adjacent resources, participation in funerary ritual places individuals and groups within a larger social tradition and worldview (Goodale 1985). Funerary rites can be opportunities to manipulate the mortuary record to further the aspirations of the living, whether according to the goals of specific individuals or groups (e.g., Brück 2001; Cohen 2005; Gillespie 2002; Hendon 2000; O’Gorman 2001). Mortuary ritual can also play an important role in reminding members of who they say they are (Chesson 1999) and in the active recreation of social relations (Walter et al. 2004). These rituals and the ideologies behind them can persist well beyond the social reality (e.g., Kuijt 2001; Porter 2002a). Mortuary rituals – and the monuments themselves – can also be a form of legitimizing control or reinforcing the supremacy of an elite (Brown 2003; Cohen 2005). Pollock (2003) argues that funerary and commemorative feasts and comestible distribution in Early Dynastic (mid-third millennium BC) Mesopotamia were employed as opportunities both to reinforce social stratification and, conversely, to create ideological brethren of very disparate groups, thereby encouraging participation in and support of the state systems which may have conflicted with the interests of the other members. Tombs – mortuary monuments – are particularly suited to the dual needs of tribal societies (i.e., on the one hand, flexibility and independence; on the other hand, the need for integration). As built elements on the landscape they act as markers of membership and as reminders of group interactions (Bradley 1998; Porter 2002b). Monuments – whether mortuary or non-mortuary – can therefore play important roles by evoking memory (Gillespie 2001), referencing specific ideologies of power and control (Kirch 1990), and providing opportunities for activities of social integration and differentiation (Blake 2001, 2002; Gili et al. 2007; O’Shea and Milner 2002). 42 Gili et al. (2007) argue that megalithic burial rites in Bronze Age Menorca was an active attempt to create an ideology of social solidarity while maintaining local (and immigrant) identities. The Bronze Age Monuments of Oman Third millennium burials are markedly different from those that came before. Fourth millennium burials, such as those at RH-5 near the present-day capital of Muscat, are primary and secondary pit interments of one or several individuals and located within settlements or in adjacent cemeteries (e.g., Salvatori 1996). The adoption of monumental tombs – indeed, the adoption of monumentality – on the Oman Peninsula began with the Hafit and Umm an-Nar periods. Tombs of the third millennium reveal several similarities: they are domes or cylinders, built on a plinth and usually consisting of one or several layers (or “skins”) of stone walling and with small, triangular or trapezoidal entrances. Their variation is considerable (Blau 2001:Table 1). Although research has proposed widely differing typologies and chronologies ranging from four to ten distinct types (e.g., Böhme 2011, 2012; Doe 1977), as of now there is a general acceptance of only two basic, chronologically and stylistically distinct, tomb types: one tomb type dating to the Hafit period, and the other to the Umm an-Nar (e.g., Schippman et al. 1991). Third millennium towers are also quite variable in style and size, and their function is unknown. It is not even certain that they served the same function(s). Although the first tower was excavated 50 years ago, these monuments are still enigmatic. The Hafit Tomb The development and elaboration of a monumental tomb tradition provides the most overwhelming evidence of long-range cultural integration. Hafit tombs date to the transition between the fourth and third millennia. They tend to be four to seven meters in diameter, with one or more layers (or “skins”) of perimeter walls forming a single interior chamber. The tombs 43 make use of the local brown and gray schist that splits naturally into blocks (Bortolini 2007), and generally contain the remains of only a few individuals. These are found across the entire Oman Peninsula. These collective, single-chambered stone-built cairn tombs (Figure 11) group on low ridges overlooking “cultivated areas” (Cleuziou 1996:160). Figure 11. Some tombs in Bat cemetery. Hafit tombs on the ridgeline, Umm an-Nar tomb in the foreground (a); closeup of Hafit tomb (b). Working to the south of the Oman Peninsula, in Yemen, Harrower (2008b) suggests that there were similar relationships between monuments “marking territorial claims to land, water, and irrigated areas reinforced through reference to ancestry” (197) – though again, this was not studied. Rather it is generally accepted that the third millennium BC tombs of the Oman Peninsula similarly map territories (e.g., Bortolini 2007; Cleuziou and Tosi 2007). Studies along the east coast of Oman by Giraud (2007, 2009; Giraud and Cleuziou 2009) have found that Hafit tombs are likely to be situated along ridgelines, surrounding contemporary settlements. Human remains tend to be poorly preserved, but tombs contain one to four individuals of all ages and both sexes. Although these tend to be primary interments there is evidence of secondary burial as well. The Umm an-Nar Tomb The basic tomb idea – the circular stone-built monument – continued in elaborated form with 44 several structural, stylistic, and situational changes. These tombs are multi-chambered, with a plinth, sometimes partially or completely paved, circular or sub-circular in plan with a diameter greater than 7 m and up to 2 m tall. These tombs have double-faced ringwalls without a fill, and generally very finely constructed dry masonry of both local and non-local stone. The outer white limestone facing, which is non-local (or at least not expedient), is pecked, wedge-shaped ashlar (Figure 12); the local stone is chipped into blocks which are sometimes wedge-shaped and tend to be used to make the plinth, internal ringwall, and any interior wall support. Stone size varies dramatically, from 15-x-15 cm square face to 70-x-150 cm. The roof is built of flat slabs and lack a keystone. 45 Figure 12. Examples of original pecked white limestone tomb facing (camera lens in lower right corner for scale). Another dramatic development marking the transition from the Hafit to the Umm an-Nar tomb architecture is the addition of an imported white limestone facing which covers the local brown or grey stone structure (Figure 13). This facing varies from roughly hewn cobble-sized chunks of white limestone (fresh breaks oriented outwards), to carefully pecked ashlar blocks up to 1.5 m tall, some of which display some of the only examples of third millennium BC sculptural art on the Oman Peninsula. 46 Figure 13. Partially reconstructed Umm an-Nar tomb at Bat (left) and Hili, UAE (right). Note the rock art relief above the tomb entrance on the right (ca. 40 cm wide). This is partially due to the need to span an increasingly wide roof, and results in numerous internal walling styles and chamber shapes. As the structure increased in size, so too did the number of interments. While burials in Hafit cairns tended to be single interments or a few individuals, Umm an-Nar tombs are dramatically larger, and may easily contain the remains of hundreds of individuals. Individuals of all ages and both sexes have been interred in the same tomb, and while people can be related, that is not necessarily so (Frifelt 1991). Recent isotopic studies on third millennium remains by Gregorička (2011) support the theory that group membership may have been broadly (as opposed to exclusively) recognized through mortuary practices. Artifacts associated with the Umm an-Nar tomb include local finewares and imported ceramics from Iran, Baluchistan, and Mesopotamia; beads made from exotic materials (e.g., carnelian), finished in exotic technologies, or both. Bronze artifacts including daggers, pins, razors, and rings are found as well, and stone (e.g., chlorite) vessels are quite common. In a few cases seals – cylinder and stamp – have been found. Finally, Giraud (2007, 2009; Giraud and Cleuziou 2009) suggests that in the Ja’alan, Umm 47 an-Nar tombs were located within settlements and on low, flat areas (including wadi bottoms and low plateaus) (see Figure 11). The Bronze Age Towers of Oman At some point in the Hafit Period, the monumental tomb tradition was expanded to include the beginnings of what was to become the Umm an-Nar “tower tradition”: structures roughly 20 meters in diameter with interior wells, located in or around oasis settlements. The Bronze Age towers of the Oman Peninsula were first identified in the 1970s as “circular walled enclosures,” generally 20–30 meters in diameter and usually constructed of either large stone boulders or square stone blocks (de Cardi et al. 1976; Hastings et al. 1975). The first attempt at a typology of these structures used a number of features to distinguish between different types of circular walled enclosures. Humphries’ and de Cardi’s typologies relied upon extant remains and surface pickup for both classification and dating. The first of these “walled enclosures” to be excavated was at the site of Hili near Buraimi, where a 24 meter-in-diameter circular building made of mud bricks was uncovered (Frifelt 1971:376; 1975a:368–370). In the middle of this structure was found a stone-lined circular shaft, or “well,” nearly in the center of a compartmentalized complex of internal mud brick walls. These compartments were not rooms per se, but were filled with compact rubble and sand. The excavator referred to this building as a “circular watchtower” (Frifelt 1971:376), even though only “half a meter’s height of wall remain[s] above the surface” (Frifelt 1975a:369). The second of these monuments to be excavated, known as Tower 1145, is located at Bat in the center of this survey area, and its form reminded the excavator of “a fortification, a watch tower perhaps. … The same principle is known from much later towers” (Frifelt 1976:59). The association of these “walled enclosures” with medieval towers has become a convenient gloss for these archaeological structures, but it is not intended to suggest either a specific form or function. 48 It is, however, the most common way to communicate about these monuments. One reason for the vagueness of the term is the need to consider a great deal of variation amongst these Bronze Age monuments. While no known towers are currently buried, some were placed prominently on rocky hill-tops, while others are located within the flood plain on what is now agricultural land. Their location is clearly significant; but variation in precise location also suggests that the term “tower” may combine different types of monuments into a single category based primarily on formal similarities. Most of the known towers are built of stone, although they vary in the architectural techniques and features employed in their creation. The stones used to construct the tower walls could be either rough-hewn boulders or partially-dressed blocks. In addition, while there is some consistency in the size, shape, and color of stones used in any one tower, there is quite a bit of variation between towers, sometimes even at the same site. For example, at the site of Khadil in northwest Oman there are three known towers: one made of massive white limestone boulders; a second made of a mix between large white limestone boulders and brown limestone slabs; and a third made of small, rose-colored limestone blocks. The white limestone tower sits atop a natural outcrop of rose-colored limestone, with the nearest source of white limestone located many kilometers away. From this we can infer that while a significant amount of energy and resources was expended in the construction of these monuments, it was not uniformly distributed. Even the shape of the towers is non-uniform. Most are circular or near-circular; some are oval or semirectangular with rounded edges; and a rare few are distinctly rectangular. Towers are generally ca. 20–25 m in diameter but may be as small as 18 m and as large as 50 m external walls tend to be ca. 2–3 meters thick, often consist of two layers of stone (an inner and outer), and each is held together by a simple mud mortar. Many towers seem to have been 49 combined with structures that abut or sit adjacent, while others have a series of circular ring walls or retaining walls surrounding them. Most of the excavated towers have internal walling, usually made of smaller stone blocks. The site of Hili has the only known example of towers built entirely of mud-brick; only the offcentered “wells” were made of stone. After stripping away the variation, few elements endure. Of course, this is no different from any other “type tool” paradox, in which by virtue of sharing the most singular characteristics with others of its type, it is as a whole the least like any other single tool of its type. The function of these towers has remained a matter of some debate. Weisgerber (1981:198– 204) described the tower at Maysar as a “Fluchtberg” (i.e., a refuge or keep) used to protect the ancient inhabitants from invading forces. Orchard and Orchard (2008) argue that the towers at Bisya are ritual platforms on which were built temple superstructures that have since disappeared. Cleuziou and Tosi (2007:147) suggest that the towers were “fortified residences for prominent members of the community.” Frifelt presented a number of potential functional possibilities for the towers at Bat (e.g., Frifelt 1976:64; 1985:92), but most strongly saw their role linked to irrigation and agriculture (Frifelt 1989:113; 2002:107). It is clear that the towers were neither mortuary nor purely domestic in nature. 50 Bronze Age Towers – Distribution Across the Emirates and the Sultanate of Oman are sixty-four known towers. When plotted on a map (Figure 14) it is clear that the majority of towers are located along the southern foothills of the Hajar Mountains. Figure 14. Locations of known ancient towers on the Oman Peninsula. These sites create a line that may indicate the ancient east-west trade routes that moved copper and other goods between Abu Dhabi and R’as al-Hadd (Frifelt 1985). Most of the known tower sites of the plateau are spaced between Hili and Khashbah, two well-known and important locales in the 3rd millennium BC, with few known towers either to the east of Khashbah or to the 51 west of Hili. In the UAE all towers except those at Hili are located along the coast; in Oman not a single tower has been reported from lowland coastal contexts. These differences may reflect archaeological realities; the coastal towers in the UAE date to the end of the Umm an-Nar period (ca. 2100 BC) and reach their zenith in the Wadi Suq period (ca. 2000–1500 BC) (Carter 1997:95), while most of those in the Omani highlands appear to date to the first half of the third millennium (ca. 2700–2400 BC) and are abandoned before the Wadi Suq period. However, the lack of systematic surveys in the regions left blank on this map (e.g., the Batinah coast of Oman) may have skewed these data significantly, and it has been argued that we should find them in similar locations (Cleuziou 2003:137). Second, there is a notable distinction between sites with two or more towers compared to those with only one. This differentiation raises a series of important questions about settlement types and histories of the Bronze Age on the Oman Peninsula, regarding (1) population density; (2) towers as ritual or economic centers; (3) towers as nodes of small communities living in close proximity; and (4) phases of use and abandonment. On-going excavations suggest that there is indeed a chronological component, at least at Bat (Possehl et al. 2010; Possehl et al. 2011), but it is more likely that this represents an addition to, rather than a replacement of, earlier towers. Research Questions Revisited With the exception of the Ja’alan survey (Giraud 2009), research on third millennium monuments in Oman have been divided into broad, impressionistic studies and small, targeted excavations. While both of these have yielded certain results in the Wadi al-Hijr region, what is needed now is two-fold: first, a systematic study of the distribution of these monuments as architectural forms in their own right, and in relation to the larger landscape and surrounding resources; and second, a comparison of the roles that the two types of monuments may have held 52 to third millennium BC Oman culture. In addition, no one has yet asked why Umm an-Nar people of third millennium BC Oman chose to build two different kinds of monuments in a specific geographic range. The research questions, then, focus on understanding those monuments in relation to each other and to the broader landscape: 1. What are the spatial distributions of third millennium BC monuments in the Wadi al-Hijr? Do they differ? 2. What are the relationships between tombs, resources, and social inclusion or exclusion? How do these relationships change over time? 3. How can we account for formal and spatial variation in third millennium BC towers? 4. What is the relationship between towers, resources, and social inclusion or exclusion, as it develops through the third millennium BC? How does this change over time? Expectations of Research Questions Hypothesis 1a: Hafit Period Tombs Will Cluster. Saxe (1971) and Goldstein (1981) have found that formal, bounded areas for the exclusive disposal of the dead are used to mark resources and justify access to those resources. If this is the case in the Wadi al-Hijr, tombs will be arranged spatially in the following manner: 1. Hafit period tombs will cluster; 2. Hafit period tomb clusters will exclude non-mortuary features as evidence for exclusive mortuary uses of the space. Hypothesis 1b: Hafit and Umm an-Nar Period Tomb Distributions Will Differ but Complement Each Other. If Umm an-Nar period people are culturally contiguous with the earlier (Hafit period) people and continue their Hafit ideologies, we can expect that they will use the same manner of 53 indicating access as the Hafit period people (i.e., cemetery location). However, since the Hafit period cemeteries will already be positioned on the landscape: 1. Umm an-Nar tombs will be located within or on the edges of Hafit tomb clusters (i.e., associated with earlier tomb clusters); 2. Umm an-Nar tombs will be located elsewhere, but serve the same purpose (i.e., clustering near other resources); 3. Umm an-Nar tombs will not cluster exclusively. Hypothesis 1c: Third Millennium BC Tomb and Tower Distributions Will Differ. If the different kinds of monuments serve different technical and social functions, then we can expect that contemporary tombs and towers will exhibit different distributions. As others have noted (Cable and Thornton 2012), on a regional scale towers are associated almost exclusively with the western piedmont of the Hajar Mountains. A closer look at the distributions of tombs and towers on the western piedmont, using a finer scale and a more targeted region such as the Wadi al-Hijr, will allow for a more careful look at their respective distributions. I expect that the towers will be located near oases, while tombs will have a broader distribution. Hypothesis 2a: Hafit Period and Umm an-Nar Period Tomb Distributions Will Mark Access to Resources. In the Wadi al-Hijr, resources will consist minimally of the following: 1. Regular, dependable water 2. Land beyond (above) regular flood zones 3. Soil buildup In general, the greater the combination of these three resources the more likely it is that these spaces will be marked by clusters of Hafit tombs. Umm an-Nar tomb distributions will coincide with all of the Hafit tomb distributions, i.e., Umm an-Nar tombs will also be associated with crucial, limited resources. However, parts of the natural environment considered “resources” 54 expand during the Umm an-Nar period. During the Umm an-Nar period Magan entered an interregional trade network which featured, among other natural resources, white stone (diorite or limestone) which was used in building and statuary in Mesopotamia (Glassner 1989; Leemans 1960). This white stone also became significant to the Umm an-Nar people, who used it to face their tombs. Since this natural resource, in boulder form, is found at the base of Jebel Shuwā’ī on the northern edge of the study region, Umm an-Nar tombs will also be found there. Umm an-Nar tombs will be associated with the following: 1. The same sets of resources as those marked by Hafit tombs; 2. Additional parts of the landscape, made into resources by new technology and/or new, Umm an-Nar, conceptions of resources. Hypothesis 2b: The Mortuary Realm Will Provide Opportunities for Integration at the Level of the Group and the Broader Society. Monuments and the mortuary realm provide opportunities for expressions – both ritual and physical – of social integration (Blake 2002; O’Shea and Milner 2002). These opportunities and emphases will differ between the Hafit and Umm an-Nar periods. Specifically, the Umm an-Nar mortuary realm demonstrates a shift in focus from the participation of the individual in the broad society, to a focus on the participation of the individual in the local group. To this end: 1. Hafit mortuary rituals will allow for the greatest number of participants; 2. Hafit mortuary traditions will provide frequent occasions to reinforce ritual ideologies of integration; 3. Hafit mortuary monuments will provide visual reminders of broad social integration. 4. Umm an-Nar tombs will provide visual reminders of Hafit tombs; 5. Differences between Hafit and Umm an-Nar mortuary practices indicate a shift in worldview. 55 The first of these expectations of the Hafit period will be evident through (a) the inclusion of all members through participation in building the monuments; and (b) the inclusion of all members through participation in death. These will manifest through variation in tomb construction style, and through tomb interment of individuals of all ages and both sexes. The second of these Hafit period expectations – the provision of opportunities for rites of integration – is expressed in the frequency of Hafit tomb building. If the building of the tomb itself is a ritualized opportunity for individuals to create integration, then these opportunities will be maximized through high tomb-interment ratios. Finally, while Hafit tombs themselves may vary in construction technique, an emphasis on the universal form of the monument should be evident in several ways. First, the form itself should be consistent. Second, the overall form, as opposed to the form of a particular tomb type, should be emphasized on the landscape. Third, these monuments should be in some sense ubiquitous, plentiful, and virtually indistinguishable. Umm an-Nar tombs reinforce links with resource access and the Hafit world order. They continue an emphasis on the monument form through individualized tomb construction; a continuation of the general shape of the monument; and the construction of these later monuments in easy sight of earlier Hafit tombs. Those parts of the third millennium mortuary tradition that change from the Hafit to the Umm an-Nar periods indicate parallel changes in third millennium BC worldview. Hypothesis 3: Variation in Third Millennium BC Tower Form is Due at Least Partially to Change Over Time. Third millennium BC towers demonstrate increasing monumentality (e.g., in their façade) over time. While a typology of third millennium BC tower has been frustrating researchers for decades (Cable and Thornton 2012), there remains a strong sense that these monuments are somehow linked. The technical function of the Umm an-Nar tower has been in question since the first 56 tower excavations, with emphasis placed either on the association of some towers with central wells or on the fort-like tower construction (Gentelle and Frifelt 1988; Weisgerber 1981). The picture is muddied because until quite recently nearly all towers were undated; the result was at least a partial confusion of temporal variation with functional variation. New dates from tower excavations by the American Expedition at Bat, combined with excavations by Frifelt in the 1970s and 1980s, allow seriation of five of the towers in the Bat. If towers are distinct both due to their associations with water and to their constructions, a seriation of third millennium BC towers in the Wadi al-Hijr will allow the disentanglement of tower water associations from tower fort-like construction. Specifically, it will be possible to document a trajectory of increasing monumentality: 1. Changes to the towers over time will consist of changes to the tower form (as opposed to function). 2. Changes to the tower form will consist of increasingly complex and energy-intensive façades. Hypothesis 4a: Third Millennium BC Tower Monuments Will Be Associated with a Specific, and Critical, Resource. That is, towers will primarily mark access to well water (ghayl). The presence of internal wells (or rather, to subsurface groundwater, ghayl) in third millennium BC towers is central to the argument that these towers are related to irrigation (Gentelle and Frifelt 1989). However it is likely that a number of towers did not have access to ghayl. If it is true that the towers came to be associated with access to a consistent water source, then we will see two related phenomena: 1. In cases where the structure of a specific tower changes over time, access to water will continue throughout the tower’s use as a tower; 2. The earliest towers will always be associated with water. 57 Hypothesis 4b: Changing Access to ghayl Over Time Will be Evident through Changes in Third Millennium BC Towers. These changes will be increasingly restrictive in their accessibility. Umm an-Nar efforts to limit and consolidate access to well water (ghayl) will be visible in changes to tower structures over time. Tower structures will provide more and more restricted access to their interiors over time. First, the resource itself will be less accessible when raised above ground level. Second, the resource will be located within highly and actively visible spaces (Howey 2007). Third, the resource may be physically bounded. Summary Cemeteries – land maintained exclusively for the disposal of the dead – are one method of marking access to resources. Where resources are unpredictable and scarce, access is controlled not through defense of a territorial space, but through membership in a social group with rights to the space, what Casimir (1992) terms social boundary defense. Lancaster and Lancaster (1992; 1996) have found this strategy at work on the Oman Peninsula today. Where resources are spatially limited yet predictable - as characterizes the distribution of oases in modern Oman – access is more likely to resemble spatial boundary defense (Casimir 1992). Well water, the source of oasis agriculture, was accessible in the third millennium through the towers and would have been worth defending. In ancient Oman, where both social and spatial boundary defense are logical extensions of complex resource distributions and diverse subsistence patterns, tombs will cluster on the landscape and, as a whole, in highly visible locations. These clusters, while marking the landscape as “taken”, nevertheless admit access to those communities (and their resources more generally), an access made visible in the inclusiveness of the individuals interred there. The location of these clusters should be adjacent to, or surrounding, at least one limited resource. The 58 resource need not be the same in every place where tomb clusters are found. The towers, however, provide alternative views of access and integration: specifically, this research proposes that they will offer far fewer opportunities for integration, and far greater restrictions. 59 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA COLLECTION Introduction Plog et al. (1978) and others have pointed to the importance of field survey methods that are uniquely tailored to the kinds of data meant to be detected through survey. Banning et al. (2006) introduce the impact that obtrusiveness has on deciding which are appropriate methods for the detection of archaeological material (or in fact, any other type of field survey). In effect, proper survey methodology is dependent upon whatever minimizes false targets and maximizes detection of real targets, both of which are functions of the survey area, the “obtrusiveness” (Banning et al. 2006) of the target material sought. Survey methods, therefore, are extremely individualized. This chapter describes the strategies of other quantitative archaeological surveys in similar landscapes, and outlines the methods used in this survey. Landscape Properties and Archaeological Survey Design on the Arabian Peninsula Sampling strategies in archaeological survey allow for the high-intensity inspection of a limited area, and make statistically valid statements based on these samples. Traditional systematic, probabilistic survey methods work well in landscapes that are relatively flat, or have been ploughed (e.g., Europe, the Mediterranean); for areas like Oman, in which there is extraordinary variation in topography and hydro-geology (see Figure 8), these survey methods become problematic. While landscape and topography impact the choices people make about movement and spatial organization across the globe, the Oman Peninsula presents very few locations suitable for settlement and vastly different “costs” for movement across and through it (alJahwari 2008:7). At this stage, the nature of the distribution of tombs in north-central Oman is unknown. In fact, such distributional information will be invaluable to understanding land use patterns and social organization as it is written onto this extreme landscape. Therefore, it was 60 necessary to conduct a full-coverage survey and measure the location of each monument to describe accurately their distribution. The appropriate methods for achieving “full coverage” survey vary according to landscape and the kinds of information to be collected. The obtrusiveness of a feature is the sum of the characteristics that lend themselves to detection or concealment (Schiffer et al. 1978; Banning et al. 2006). Specifically, obtrusiveness refers to the difference between the object one is trying to locate and its background (false targets included). Monuments tend to be highly obtrusive, and the obtrusiveness of third millennium monuments on the Omani landscape in particular can be quite high (Figure 15). Figure 15. Approaching tombs (mounds of stone silhouetted against the sky), south of Bat. There is a trade-off between survey intensity and output (i.e., the likelihood of correctly 61 identifying the sought-after data and false targets). Transect intervals are primarily limited by a combination of the need to minimize false targets (targets incorrectly identified as third millennium monuments), and to maximize the detection of real features (Banning et al. 2006:726). This is also of vital importance if we are to have confidence in any patterns that may be parsed out from the location of these features (Banning et al. 2006:724). Archaeological Survey Design in the Wadi al-Hijr Survey universe The survey boundary is a combination of natural and semi-arbitrary boundaries (Figure 16). The study region follows and includes a 16km-long section of a valley, the Wadi al-Hijr. At the western boundary the Wadi al-Hijr meets the larger Wadi al-Kabir, which forms a major route through the Oman Mountains. A series of parallel ridges (Figure 17), running northwestsoutheast, provide the southern edge of the study region, and are included in it. 62 Figure 16. The survey area. 63 Figure 17. Landscape south of Bat, looking south across a bedrock ridgeline. The decision to limit the southern boundary to the fourth series of ridges was arbitrary, and it is important for future research to consider the continuation of tombs on ridges further to the south. In the Bat area the wadi is relatively narrow, and widens as it joins the Wadi al-Kabir. The survey area follows the shape of the wadi. The southern edge is staggered to accommodate the ridgelines’ strikes, which veer from northwest-southeast to NNW-SSE from the western to eastern halves of the study area. The total survey area is 123.9 square km. Survey methods and coverage In a 2008 pre-dissertation study of different field survey methods in the research area I evaluated the effectiveness of different transect intervals and directions in the survey area, varying from intensive circular pickup sub-areas to half-kilometer transect intervals. Although visibility tends to be quite high, 300 m transect intervals were a little less than twice the visible distance to a third millennium tomb – about 175 m. At that distance and beyond it was more 64 difficult to move off of the transect line in order to verify a positive target than simply to walk another transect. As described below, other survey methods and other intervals of pedestrian survey were tested in areas in which feature obtrusiveness varied. The survey area was roughly divided into topographic zones based on the obtrusiveness they provided for the monuments. In general this translated into 300 meter intervals in which the surveyor could anticipate 150 m views to the right and the left. Seven 0.5–1.0 square kilometer areas were randomly chosen to survey at 50 m intervals. Direction of data collection varied: mostly the transect orientation followed topographic elements – usually ridgelines, which tended to run NNW-SSE. On open wadi floors (that is, those not under cultivation) transects tended to be oriented N-S or W-E. Data collection within the Bat cemetery itself was pragmatically oriented to take into account the site’s fence and its topography. 65 Figure 18. David and Leslie Bosch documenting an archaeological feature near Bat, 2011. Data was usually collected in teams of two (Figure 18). In areas of low feature density the pair split between 150 m and 300 m apart, depending upon topography, rate of false positives, etc. In areas of extremely high density and relatively high preservation, as within the UNESCO boundaries, two teams of two worked side-by-side. Both teams had one GPS running a constant tracklog at 10 m intervals. In seven cases areas were randomly selected for survey at 50 m intervals. All of these were accomplished with two to four surveyors at 50 m intervals, with 25 m to both sides the expected visibility. In each 50 m interval, 0.5-1.0 square km were covered. Surveyors walked parallel lines, usually along cardinal directions to aid in maintaining direction and interval distance. The 66 beginning and end of each transect line for every surveyor was marked with the GPS, and the transect lines recreated in the lab using Garmin’s MapSource and ESRI’s ArcMap software. Alternative data collection methods Nearly all data was collected on foot. There were three exceptions to this rule: first, parts of the research area have previously been surveyed, and excavations have been conducted by a Danish expedition, two German expeditions, and an American expedition. In any cases where these data were available they were incorporated into this analysis. Second, modern manipulation of the landscape sometimes made vehicular survey a better option. This was particularly true in the wide agricultural plain of the wadi bottom, where bulldozing had let to the development of tall berms of sediment aimed to contain water and to act as field boundaries (Figure 19). These berms frequently obscured views when on foot. 67 Figure 19. Satellite imagery of field systems east of ad-Dariz. Third, in a few cases local research collaborators were able to explain recent environmental and developmental histories. These included knowledge of unpublished excavations as well as the ways in which modern building practices have altered the landscape, whether this was dambuilding, fluctuations in ground-water levels, or the destruction of specific monuments. The survey area was roughly divided into topographic zones based on the type of landscape and recent or current land use. These two characteristics directly impact the obtrusiveness of a monument, and therefore the distances between individual transects. Of the total survey area (124 sq km), ca. 90% was open landscape; “open” in this case does not mean a flat horizon, but rather lacking ground cover, where feature-landscape obtrusiveness 68 would be high. This was determined to consist of the ability to positively identify archaeological features easily at a distance of up to 150 m and to limit false positives. Full coverage of areas designated as highly obtrusive therefore consisted of pedestrian survey at 300 m intervals. Obtrusiveness was maximized by aligning survey transects with topographic contours to allow for the greatest amount of uninterrupted visibility and landscape- feature contrast. Landscape-feature areas with lower obtrusiveness were divided according to the likely success of different survey methods and surveyed with one or the other in mind: at 50 meter intervals on foot for areas where distance visibility was low (e.g., in cultivated date groves); or at 300 m intervals in a 4-x-4 vehicle, where visibility was limited by modern manipulation of the landscape. The latter was particularly likely in the wide agricultural plain of the wadi bottom, where bulldozing had led to the development of tall (in some cases nearly two meters high) berms of sediment aimed to contain water and to act as field system boundaries. These berms frequently obscured views when on foot. These areas account for 4% (5 sq km) of the survey area. The remaining 16% (20 square km) went unsurveyed. Two-thirds of that area was determined to be unlikely to yield ancient archaeological remains. These areas consist of: modern construction; areas with recent and extensive surficial disturbance for no known reason (e.g., clear evidence of bulldozing without evidence of nearby construction); areas where the surface has been masked by modern rubbish; and heavily cultivated plots. A final ca. 8 sq km were enclosed areas where it was determined that survey would be culturally inappropriate (e.g., where the field’s owner could not be contacted for permission, enclosed modern cemeteries). Several areas were surveyed at 50 meter intervals. These were identified following the initial 300 m-interval survey according to initial qualitative assessments of feature density: (1) in 69 apparently “empty” areas, to verify that archaeological features were not going undetected; (2) in areas of apparent low feature density, that the spatial distribution of the archaeological features (regardless of their form and function) was accurate; and (3) in areas of high feature density, to facilitate data collection (i.e., increase the ability of the surveyors to remain within and aligned to their survey tracts). Transect orientation Direction of data collection varied based on maximizing obtrusiveness, and took into account anthropogenic and environmental pragmatics (such as fenced plots and sheer cliffs). Most transect orientations followed topographic elements: usually ridgelines, which tended to run NNW-SSE. On open wadi floors (that is, those not under cultivation), transects tended to be oriented N-S or W-E. Data collection within the Bat cemetery itself was pragmatically oriented to take into account both the site’s boundary fence and its topography. Data Collection For each feature a series of characteristics were assessed in the field and in the laboratory. Field assessments remained separate from post-field analysis records. Laboratory analysis was aimed at artifact documention, and functional and period assessments. Field Data Recovery Field data recovery took several forms for each feature: spatial data (X, Y, Z) were gathered using Garmin GPSMaps; photographic documentation was gathered using digital cameras; architectural, qualitative (relational) landscape, and preservation data were recorded on a onepage field form (see Appendix E); and associated artifacts were collected and/or noted (presence/absence; photographed) and left with the feature. 70 Features identified were given a designation consisting of a year prefix and a unique feature number (e.g., 100089 is feature 89, year 2010). Eight sets of data were gathered for each documented feature: - Spatial and locational - Visibility of other archaeological features - Overall and wall dimensions - Material (e.g., stone) specifications - Tomb-specific construction style and elements - Feature in-field qualitative assessments regarding dating, function, reuse, and destruction. - Photograph data for cross-verification with the photo log, and associated notes - Comments and comparisons to other features Spatial data recovery Accuracy, precision (reproducibility), and cost (measured in both time and money) vary considerably between recreation- and survey-grade handheld GPS units. Recreation-grade GPS units – specifically, the Garmin GPSMap 60 and 76 and the Garmin eTrex Vista – are capable of logging the accuracy of the X, Y data captured, and have a 95% probability that any single data capture event will be precise to within 10 m (Garmin 2007:49). Although the GPSMap76 is designed for marine use, water resistance is useful in arid environments to keep out dust and fine sand. For all three models precision increases significantly (e.g. from 10 m down to as little as sub-meter) as data from single capture events of the same location are averaged, particularly for the first 100–120 events. For this reason all feature X,Y locational data were averaged for a minimum of two minutes (a single event was captured every second). All features attained a horizontal planar accuracy greater than 4.8 m, with an average accuracy of +/-2.4 m. The tomb and tower features surveyed here range from two meters to 30 m in diameter. The 71 distance between features can be quite small – in some cases tombs may be touching – yet for the most part at least 10 m separates them. Since the averages and medians are far better than the minimum accuracy appropriate for the scale of this study, the use of recreation-grade GPS units was the best answer to the cost-benefit quandary. Data from the Garmin GPS units were downloaded using MapSource, computer software that facilitates creating, viewing, and editing waypoints and tracks from Garmin devices. These data were then exported as tab delimited text files, which registers the spatial coordinates as a single value. These need to be separated to be read in ESRI’s ArcMap software. Therefore the text files were opened in the Microsoft spreadsheet application, Excel. Spatial coordinates (Zone, Easting, and Northing) were separated using the Data Text To Columns function, and the text file resaved as a .xls file (Excel spreadsheet). The spreadsheet was then added in ArcMap, the coordinates displayed using “Display X/Y Data”, and the projected coordinate system set (UTM WGS 1984 Zone 40N). Finally the exported data were saved as a shapefile. Tracklog data were organized according to day, such that a query by date would bring up the route taken that day. Waypoints were renamed in MapSource according to the associated feature’s name and were organized into a single growing file. Spatial data files were saved separately at all stages of manipulation so that it would be possible to refer back to the data at any step of the translation process. Of the several competing standard projection-datum systems found in Oman, the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection / WGS 84 datum and spheroid are the most common in research and government contexts. This system also makes possible spatial analysis in ways nonprojected data do not (e.g., Euclidean distance measurements). Digital photographs can be invaluable resources during post-excavation study and analysis. For each feature, a minimum of one overview photo was taken. At least one additional photo 72 documenting specific architectural elements (e.g., building material, wall curvature or coursing) was taken as well. Qualitative locational assessment Feature location is an important part of its chronological and functional identification. Hafit tombs are typically located on ridges, low enough to be visible from the valley bottom. Umm anNar tombs tend to be found on low plateaus within or just above valley bottoms (and therefore just outside flood zones), where it is likely that flooding was infrequent. Locational data were collected for each feature, including primary and secondary location, and further notes in the “notes on surroundings” field. Primary locations consisted of one of these, and refers to the main landform upon which the feature was built: foothill, low rise, other, plain/wadi, plateau, or ridgeline. Secondary locations referred to where, on the main landform, the feature was situated and were more varied: base, end-slope, foothill, low rise, mid-slope, plain, plateau, prominence, ridgeline, and saddle. During analysis Primary and Secondary locations were then assigned ordinal numbers based on elevation from the wadi floor and visibility (Primary locations were assigned based on the elevation; Secondary locations were assigned based on visibility). Ordinals were assigned from lowest to highest. For Primary locations: plain = 1, low rise or plateau = 2, foothill = 3, ridgeline = 4. For Secondary locations base or plain = 1, low rise or plateau = 2, end-slope, mid-slope, saddle, or foothill = 3, and prominence or ridgeline = 4. The product of the two ordinal values approximated the relative visibility of each feature. These, and the primary and secondary locations, were later mapped using the GIS in order to see their distributions. Visibility of other archaeological features For every feature, data was collected relating specifically to visibility from the feature in question. Each cardinal direction was assessed independently, and any combination of the following could be applied as visible in a particular direction: tombs; towers; settlement; other 73 archaeological features; agricultural fields; no archaeological features; wells; or other. Tombs, towers, and settlement each referred specifically to third millennium features. “Other archaeological features” referred to any non-third millennium features. “Agricultural fields” included any evidence of field systems, either currently in use or in the past. Although this was not quantifiable, it was useful in assessing the agricultural potential of nearby landforms, and it was also helpful in documenting whether features were likely to have been removed from the immediate landscape by later land development. When “no archaeological features” were found the landform visible was specified, e.g. “ridgeline only” or “wadi only”. Although these never appeared to be third millennium, wells and falaj access points were noted as general indicators of potential stable water sources. Finally, if an “other” feature was notable on the landscape – a modern vehicle track (indicating possible modern stone removal), a check dam, white limestone sources, or modern date palm groves (thereby obstructing the view in that direction), this was explained in the “notes on surroundings” field with the relevant direction(s). Architectural data recovery Construction techniques and building styles are important elements in assigning both functional and chronological information to archaeological features. The following architectural information was gathered for each feature: wall orientation, construction style, dimensions, number, fill, and coursing; overall dimensions and orientation; stone size, shape, color, and whether the feature is situated on the same material as that from which it was built. Despite thousands of years of re-use and abuse, there are several aspects of third millennium BC mortuary and tower monument architecture that make them unique. Here they are described and explained for tombs. Tomb ringwalls. Hafit tomb ringwalls vary in number, presence/absence of between-wall fill, in the type of wall fill, and in wall coursing (Figure 20). Sufficient-but-not-necessary for Hafit 74 tombs is the presence of multiple ringwalls. Sufficient and necessary for Umm an-Nar tombs is a double-faced (i.e., to the interior and exterior) ringwall (Figure 21). The Umm an-Nar ringwall stone is pecked on the exterior and the stones are closely fitted in place, while Hafit walls tend to be only roughly faced. Tombs from both periods are dry-wall construction. 75 Figure 20. Hafit cairn in plan and section. Note single rubble-filled ringwall. After Frifelt 1971:Figure 8, Cairn 17. 76 Figure 21. Umm an-Nar tomb “401”. Note double-faced ringwall, ashlar facing stones on SE corner, and interior support wall (scale is 2m). After Bohme (2011). Entrance. There is much debate about why certain Hafit tombs do not have entrances, while others do (e.g., Vogt 1985; Williams 2012). The presence of an entrance – frequently quite small (ca. 40 cm wide and 50 cm tall) and varying in shape from trapezoidal to triangular – is useful (though neither necessary nor sufficient) as a functional feature characteristic. For the potentially Hafit tombs, the presence of entrance is a stylistic indicator, but its absence is not. Umm an-Nar tombs all have entrances and may have door stones. These entrances are similarly quite small. Entrances of tombs from both periods tend to be raised. 77 Diameter. In general, tomb diameter increases from four to as much as 14 m in diameter across the third millennium BC. Regardless of the diameter or of period, third millennium tombs and towers are circular, to the near-exclusion of features from other periods and with other functions. However, it is rare that the ringwall is intact and clear enough to discern precise dimensions. Corbelling. Construction technology in third millennium BC Oman did not include the arch; therefore roofing construction was limited in its unsupported distances. During the Hafit period tombs were therefore quite small in diameter, and corbelled in such a way as to provide a successively smaller distance to roof as the structure gained height (Figure 22). During the Umm an-Nar period the base diameter of the tombs increased considerably to accommodate the growing number of individual interments (from several to several hundred individuals), and as such tombs dating to the latter half of the Umm an-Nar period tend to have central walls. 78 Figure 22. Hafit tomb corbelling in plan and section views. After de Cardi et al. (1979:Figure 5), Cairn 4. Internal walling. Central walling in a variety of shapes and directions served a technological function for Umm an-Nar tombs; it is unknown whether there was also a social distinction. Regardless, the presence of central linear walling – cruciform, single or double dividing, or even central posts – within a circular stone structure is a clear indication of an Umm an-Nar tomb. No 79 such internal walls are present in Hafit tombs, although the shape of the internal chamber can vary from circular to “P”-shaped. Ashlar. Ashlar is any dressed (prepared) stone. Siltstone schist of this region cleaves easily into blocks and is a ready building material and is the primary building material (besides mud brick), so it is the evidence of further stoneworking – specifically, stone pecking to create wedgeshaped cuboid blocks with square edges and smooth faces – that is particularly useful in identifying Umm an-Nar period tomb masonry. This kind of stone dressing applies specifically to the outermost skin, facing outwards, of third millennium tombs dating to the middle and latter half of the third millennium BC. These are most diagnostic when the stones are themselves nonlocal; this is discussed further below. Hafit tombs are not faced with ashlar. Local and nonlocal stone. In the Omani landscape construction stone is plentiful. Upright beds of siltsone and limestone provide excellent building material and these (or other local stone) are always used in the construction of Hafit tombs. The inclusion of nonlocal stone in a feature is limited to the Umm an-Nar period (or re-use of features originally dating to that period). Limestone – specifically hewn or pecked white limestone – is frequently added as the outer, “facing” wall for Umm an-Nar tombs. This creates a starkly white face to the tombs, and is highly visible against a backdrop of brown, gray, and green. The white limestone, which is still mined today, is quarried from Jebel Shuwā’ī, which forms the northern boundary of the study area. Stonemasonry was assessed according to the amount of finishing (and thereby effort) put into dressing it: from 0 (non-worked stone, such as natural cobbles) to 3 (finely pecked ashlar). Pavement. Sufficient but not necessary, Umm an-Nar tombs frequently have flat stones arranged in something like a full or partial pavement inside the tomb chamber(s). It is important to remember that the above distinctions between Hafit and Umm an-Nar 80 period tomb architecture are somewhat false; it is not only possible but rather very likely that these architectural distinctions morphed from one form into the other over time such that the transitional phase has architectural features either combining both styles, or intermediary between them on the same architectural feature which is not faced with white limestone but has and external ringwall made of carefully pecked and fitted brown (i.e., local) limestone (Figure 23). Figure 23. Umm an-Nar tomb, Bat cemetery. Note that this tomb lacks white ashlar facing stones but is finely built. Conversely, Bohme’s (2011) reconstructed Hafit tomb (603) has an exterior facing of rough white limestone chunks (Figure 24). That “Hafit” tomb interior chambers vary in shape may be coincidental, or it may also signal attempts to alter the shape of the tomb to increase the interior space, as is later achieved by internal walls in the Umm an-Nar period. For this reason Hafit and Umm an-Nar period dates were assigned independently to each feature (discussed in Chapter 5). 81 Figure 24. Hafit tomb "603" (after Bohme 2011:Figure 4) with roughly shaped white limestone facing. Artifact collection The level of detail in the analysis of artifacts is frequently too in-depth to be achieved in the field (Plog et al 1978; Schiffer and Gumerman 1977). This includes assigning both chronological and functional attributes to features based in part on associated artifacts. Generally speaking, the disturbance of sealed features provides greater opportunities for associated artifact recovery, but at the expense of the intact feature – so there is something of an inverse relationship between tomb dating and identification and its level of disturbance. This is helpful, because it is the combination of artifacts and structure that make possible the identification of a particular feature as (for example) a third millennium BC tomb. Therefore a surface artifact or ecofact was collected if it was likely to give insight into the function(s) of the associated feature, or to aid in 82 dating the feature. Where possible, these artifacts were collected according to the following infield assessments: Ceramics. In survey research ceramics are one of the best ways of determining the function and/or age of a feature or site. All diagnostic sherds, and a representative sample of body sherds with a range of fabrics. Body sherds were considered non-diagnostic if they were indistinguishable from other sherds of different periods or functions. For example, the presence of a thin-walled body sherd increases the probability that a stone-built feature may have been a tomb, even if it is impossible to determine the associated period. Metal. Throughout antiquity, metal – specifically, copper – artifacts are found primarily in two archaeological contexts: at copper-working sites (such as Maysar), and in burials. Shell. Because of their clearly foreign origin, and therefore cultural significance, marine shell was always collected. Worked shell (which was always marine) was also collected, as it is frequently found in prehistoric burials. Skeletal remains: in assigning a burial function to a particular feature skeletal analysis is clearly helpful. However, the collection and analysis of the skeletal remains was practically more complicated. First, in a country where animal remains are deposited across the landscape (whether by the side of the road or in a rubbish dump) and left to the elements as standard disposal practice, the likelihood that any particular remains will be both modern and faunal is quite high. Second, exposure of a burial’s internal contents to pedestrian survey is quite likely to result in grave goods as well as human remains, and therefore the assignment to a particular feature to the mortuary realm is as likely to occur based on grave goods as on human remains. This may be problematic in terms of the Hafit tombs, which contain both fewer individuals and significantly fewer grave goods, and therefore may result in lower feature recognition rates. 83 Taphonomically speaking skeletal remains that have been exposed to the elements (and therefore to the eye of the surveyor) are likely to be in extremely poor condition. In these cases, it was better to identify patches of bone debris, then look closely in that area for micro-beads (described below) or other small artifacts, rather than attempting to collect and identify the bone fragments. Where identifiable, human skeletal fragments were collected, photographed, and analyzed in the field, then deposited back with the feature. Lithics. Although little research has been undertaken with the lithic assemblages of Oman, there are clear trends in lithic technology and forms through time. As they are found with some regularity in mortuary contexts, they can be helpful in assigning both an age and a function to an associated feature. Groundstone. Softstone vessels are found in mortuary contexts dating to all Prehistoric periods. They vary stylistically across these periods and are therefore useful chronological and functional indicators. However, hammerstones were in use in Eastern Arabia until the late PreIslamic (e.g., Potts 1990b:Figures 152.2–3, 154; 1991:145–147) and therefore are not useful as chronological or functional indicators. These were documented and left in place. Other. As is usually the case – particularly when dealing with mortuary contexts – there are significant numbers of artifacts that simultaneously defy easy categorization and facilitate feature identification (of period or function). These may be singular examples (e.g., a glass stylus) or a series of artifacts better categorized according to form than material (e.g., beads). Micro-beads are found throughout the first three millennia BC, but are particularly diagnostic of mortuary contexts. In addition they can be technologically and stylistically diagnostic, and therefore can be useful chronological and functional markers. Artifacts belonging to this category were always collected. 84 Other data collection methods In recreational grade GPS units, vertical accuracy is sacrificed to obtain greater horizontal planar accuracy. I acquired altitude data from GPS-recovered X,Y coordinates, which then were overlaid on a JAXA satellite-derived DEM with a 2.5 m resolution. The DEM was built by Robert Goodwin at MSU’s Remote Sensing & GIS, Research and Outreach Services using ERDAS and rectified using ArcGIS 10.0. Basemap imagery included freely available lowresolution world satellite imagery and i-cubed 15 m eSAT imagery at medium-to-large scales (down to 1:70,000) (accessed June 2012 at http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/World_Imagery). As discussed in previous chapters three other archaeological expeditions have collected data on the third millennium landscape in the survey region. In ca. 35 cases it was possible for features from one expedition to be associated with features identified during my survey, the data culled from other project reports were appended to my own data. Although this rarely saved time, it frequently provided additional data helpful in identifying a feature’s function and/or date(s) of use. In a few cases, local research collaborators were able to explain recent environmental and developmental histories. These included knowledge of unpublished excavations as well as the ways in which modern building practices have altered the landscape, including dam construction, fluctuations in ground-water levels, and the destruction of specific monuments in recent times. Excavation Data and Methods To anchor an understanding of the towers in the Wadi al-Hijr this research will combine published and unpublished excavation reports of towers in the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Bat. Many of these third millennium monuments were first identified in the 1970s by de Cardi et al. (1976). Excavations at four of these towers – 1145, 1146, 1147, and 1148 – by Frifelt (1976, 1979, 1985, 1989, 2002) in the 1970s and 1980s have been introduced in Chapter 3. In 2007 the 85 American Expedition at Bat, directed by Dr. Gregory Possehl of the University of Pennsylvania, began work on these monuments (Possehl and Thornton 2007). In 2008 excavations began at Matariya (Tower 1147) and Kasr al-Khafaji (Tower 1146), and in 2011, excavations were reopened at 1156. I led excavations at Matariya (Tower 1147) from 2008 to 2011, under the aegis of the American Expedition at Bat (Possehl et al. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011). Until 2009, Building III at Hili was the only tower known to have a well and to date to the Hafit period (Cleuziou 2009; Possehl et al. 2009). Research into the construction phases at Matariya are used here to understand changes in the towers over time. Records of excavations at Kasr al-Khafaji (Tower 1146), under the direction of Dr. Christopher Thornton, and at Tower 1156, under the direction of Anne Mortimer, have both been made available by the American Expedition at Bat (Possehl et al. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011; Thornton and Mortimer 2012). Together they form the basis for an understanding of change in towers over time. Descriptions of the methods used at each tower are thoroughly outlined in the annual reports (Possehl et al. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011; Thornton and Mortimer 2012). Survey Post-Field Methods Daily laboratory activities proceeded on three fronts: (1) spatial data and digital photography pre-processing; (2) field note transcription and conservation; and (3) artifact processing, documentation, and analysis. Spatial data and digital photography pre-processing Pre-processing of digital data were daily activities. Tracklogs were downloaded from the Garmin GPS units separately from waypoints. Where relevant tracklogs were created in Garmin’s MapSource software to account for a second, separate surveyor’s track based on the beginningand end-of-line waypoints recorded in the field. These were then exported as tab-delimited text 86 files according to date of data collection. Waypoints were also downloaded using MapSource. Waypoint numbers were replaced with feature names (IDs). Simultaneously coordinates were checked against those collected on the field forms. This acted as an initial verification process so as to minimize clerical errors. Then these too were exported as tab-delimited text files, according to date of data collection. Both sets of files were then brought into separate spreadsheet workbooks. A main sheet kept a running log of all archaeological features; daily logs were kept as separate sheets and locked, so that they could be used as cross-references during data manipulation. Tracklogs were maintained as separate sheets for every day and, in the case of morning and afternoon survey sessions, designated AM or PM. These could then be imported and displayed in ArcGIS with relative ease. Digital photographs taken during fieldwork were downloaded daily and checked against the handwritten field photography log, and inconsistencies noted on the field log. Field Note Transcription and Conservation As a form of data checking, data collected on the field forms were entered into a spreadsheet that same day. Inconsistencies were addressed using a combination of assessments from photographs, consultation with research collaborators, and secondary field visits. For data conservation purposes field forms were also scanned as PDFs and stored separately. Artifact Processing and Analysis Artifacts were labeled during collection according to associated feature and material type and cross referenced on the field form. Artifacts were cleaned, relabeled, documented, analyzed according to material type, and in some cases set aside for specialists. All artifacts were documented using digital photography of at least three angles, with a color bare and scale, and where necessary and possible, stanced appropriately. All ceramics were individually analyzed for 87 ware and style. Where possible diagnostic sherds were assigned comparanda from published and gray literature. Ceramics assigned to the third millennium BC were hand illustrated, then used as comparanda as other samples were analyzed. These were later digitized by Ms. Jen Swerida. As mentioned above all artifacts were photographed. In two cases Dr. M. Kenoyer examined the drilling patterns for two beads, first through visual inspection in the field and later using SEM photographs of drill hole casts made by Dr. R. Law. Several lithics, unique in the Bat assemblage, were illustrated and later digitized. All were analyzed macroscopically and formally described (Appendix B). All artifacts were given over to the care of the Ministry of Heritage and Culture (MHC) at the end of the field season. Registration numbers were assigned to each set of artifacts according to material and as specified by the MHC. Summary The field methods used in this research were developed over the course of several years in order to most efficiently collect data to respond to the research questions at hand. Full-coverage pedestrian survey, at 300 m transect intervals, was conducted across 80% of the 124 sq km area. A randomly chosen set of sub-areas were walked at 5 m intervals and the results of each interval coverage compared. All archaeological features were documented using digital photography, field forms, and recreation-grade GPS. Artifacts useful in establishing the function and/or age of an associated feature were either documented on-site or collected for further analysis. Features were identified according to dimensions, construction style, and associated artifacts. Each feature was assigned independently a probability (0-3) for its functional type (e.g., tomb or tower) and its age(s) of use (e.g., 3rd millennium BC, 2nd millennium BC). Results of excavations at several of the towers at Bat will be used to understand changes in 88 the towers over time. Excavations I led from 2008 to 2011 at Matariya (Tower 1147) under the auspices of the Bat Archaeological Project form the center-piece of the study of diachronic tower variation, and are supported by contemporary research (also by the Bat Archaeological Project) at other towers in Bat. 89 CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF DATA COLLECTION This chapter lays out the general results of the survey and excavations at the Bat towers. Survey Methods Evaluation Survey methods were evaluated on three lines. First, it was known that feature distributions from different periods were likewise different from the third millennium distributions. If distributions of features from all periods were the same, this could indicate survey bias rather than a representation of the extant features on the landscape. Second, finer 50 m intervals were randomly chosen from across the survey region in order to determine whether any features were being missed at wider intervals. If the survey results from the 50 m interval areas resembled those of the 300 m interval areas then this would indicate that the 300 m interval transects were allowing for the documentation of the archaeological landscape as well as transects six times more intensive (Figure 25). Transect Data Collection Transects were documented using the tracklog option using GPSMap76. Points were taken at 10 m intervals, and tracklogs were imported from Garmin MapSource as tab-delimited files. MapSource exports Easting and Northing as a single tabbd variable; the exported tab-delimited column was therefore separated using Microsoft Excel and then imported into ArcMap for display. 90 Figure 25. The survey area showing coverage (and coverage intensity). 91 50 meter intervals In ArcGIS I turned each tracklog into a polyline, buffered each line (25 m buffer), dissolved any overlaps, and calculated each area. A total of 4.226 sq km were covered at 50 m intervals, or 3.4% of the total survey area (4.2% of the actual area surveyed). Assigning Dates to a Feature Third Millennium BC is a convenient term to describe the Hafit and Umm an-Nar periods combined; however it is generally agreed that the Hafit begins ca. 3100 BC, and the Umm anNar ends ca. 2000 BC, thus spanning ca. 1100 years. Each feature was assigned a likelihood of dating to the third millennium BC from zero to three (0–3) based on a combination of factors. Because reuse, human and nonhuman disturbance, material removal, etc. can each complicate assessment of a feature to different degrees and in different ways, each feature could date to any or all time periods. Although only those third millennium features with a likelihood of 2–3 are discussed here, attempts were made to date all features to all of their represented time periods. Because they are not included in the bulk of the discussion, this section will discuss those features assigned as “possibly” tombs and dating to the third millennium; i.e., assigned a score of 1 for third millennium BC and/or tomb assessments. A full third of archaeological features assessed in the survey area were scored 1, “possibly” third millennium tombs. Surface survey allows for a limited age and functional assessment; therefore to be assigned a score of 1 it was only necessary that a feature date to the third millennium BC in one of the six sets of field data. Artifact assemblages were also used to date associated features; the individual artifact’s date likelihood was assigned to the feature as well, but whichever likelihood was higher was assigned overall. For example, feature 100439 had been almost completely destroyed by bulldozing such that any dimensions, architectural elements, etc. were ambiguous if present at all (Figure 26). The late third millennium style soapstone bowl found in the feature’s remains, however, gave a 92 third millennium (and Umm an-Nar) score of “3” to both the artifact and the feature overall. Figure 26. Feature 100439. The slight mound on the right represents the bulldozed remains. The structural disturbance resulted in relatively simple identification of feature function and date. The assignment of a feature to the Hafit or Umm an-Nar periods was completely independent from each other. A feature could independently be assigned a third millennium score of “1” but an Umm an-Nar score of “2”; or a third millennium score of “2” but a Hafit score of “1” and an Umm an-Nar score of “1”. Dating features was more difficult than assigning a functional identity. Three hundred fifty features were completely undateable or clearly not third millennium BC. Of the rest, 286 features were highly probably third millennium; 397 features were probably third millennium; and 456 features were potentially third millennium for a total of 1138 features that may have belonged to the third millennium landscape. 93 Assigning a Function to a Feature Mortuary Mortuary artifacts tend to include: A. Copper-bronze weaponry and jewelry B. Jewelry of various materials C. Ceramics D. Groundstone vessels E. Human skeletal remains F. Lithics. Metal objects tend to be weaponry (primarily blades) and jewelry. Copper rings are found in mortuary contexts, as are copper pins, and copper, silver, and gold beads (Figure 27). 94 Figure 27. Copper-bronze ring (probably finger ring) 95 Jewelry is most commonly beads, which come in huge varieties of styles and materials (See Appendix B). Typical of the Hafit period are disc-shaped micro beads, usually of frit, stone, and bone, and pierced shell. By the Umm an-Nar period beads are of carnelian, banded agate, steatite, faience/frit, shell, and quartz crystal, among others. Their shapes change dramatically and exhibit beautiful craftsmanship that takes advantage of natural elements in the material. For example, the agate may be shaped, and the hole drilled, such that the natural light bands in the agate are highlighted in bead form. The technology changes to reflect foreign manufacture (pers comm. 2012, Mark Kenoyer) (Figure 28). 96 Figure 28. An assortment of beads from third millennium tombs. Ceramic mortuary wares tend to be synonymous with fine wares. The Hafit period ceramic 97 assemblage is characterized by imported forms, or local copies of these forms. Petrographic analysis on these wares and fabrics are ongoing, but initial identification as local, non-local, or specifically Mesopotamian are relatively simple and easy to make with the naked eye. The Mesopotamian Jemdet Nasr/Early Dynastic I–II (JN/ED I–II) fabric and form are well documented: one shape includes a closed mouth jar with everted rim, the profile of which is quite distinctively wedge- or beak-shaped and vaguely platformed. These ceramics are well fired, turning the fabric a greenish-buff color. The fabric is sandy in texture and friable, due both to age and over-firing. A second (“red”) ware is either polychrome (for the Jemdet Nasr period) or unpainted (Jemdet Nasr or Early Dynastic I–II). There are interesting examples of this ware and style in ancient Oman (Blackman et al. 1989). Specifically, these precise forms and wares have been found in numerous funerary contexts across northern Oman. Red-brown wares found on the Oman Peninsula are a combination of local imitations and imports. Early “black-on-red” ware ceramics are imported from Iran and found in Hafit burials. The Umm an-Nar period is marked in part by the adoption of local ceramic production into major spheres of life. While the forms from settlement contexts tend to be slightly sturdier and are more likely to be undecorated, fine ware tends to be finer, miniature versions of domestic wares, and are more likely to be decorated. Decoration tends to be black paint over a red/orange (“black-on-red or buff (“black-on-buff”) slip. Generally speaking mortuary ceramics of the Umm an-Nar period tend to be of the “black-on-red” variety (Figures 29 and 30). 98 2 cm Figure 29. Black-on-Red UAN funerary jar. Feature 111273, mouth diameter = 5 cm. Medium-brown fabric without visible inclusions. Interior red-slipped to below neck. Exterior red-slipped with traces of back paint. 2 cm Figure 30. Umm an-Nar funerary vessel base. Feature 110987. Base diameter = 5 cm. Fabric is pink with few, very fine inclusions. Interior is thickly pink-slipped. Exterior is tan slipped. Painted designs on Umm an-Nar vessels are generally linear; often either chevrons or trellis patterns below one or two horizontal painted bands at the neck. Nearly all paint is confined to the upper half of the vessel, and is carefully applied. The pierced hanging vessel so characteristic of the Umm an-Nar period is found in both domestic and funerary contexts; when associated with tombs they are likewise miniatured. Black-on-gray ware (Figure 31) is stylistically and formally assigned as Iranian imports (Méry 1996). The paste is fine and uniformly gray; decorations consist either of black paint 99 (hence “black-on-gray”) or incised designs. 2 cm Figure 31. Black-on-gray ware. Feature 110968. Fabric is gray without visible inclusions. Interior and exterior black painted. From the Indus there are several types of ceramic forms. These are likely to reflect domestic as well as mortuary contexts. They tend to be quite distinct in decoration. Nevertheless there appear to be numerous local copies, especially of the black-slipped-jar form, although these are thought to have been used for storage and trade and are usually associated with non-mortuary contexts. The “censor” – a cylindrical multi-pierced ceramic vessel of unknown purpose – is another form attributed to the Indus and which is found in Umm an-Nar contexts. While ceramics may have been a foreign-borne addition to ancient Magan, such was not the case with ground stone artifacts. Much, if not all, of the raw material for these vessels were probably from the Oman Peninsula; however, sourcing is still underway (e.g., R. Lawler). By the Umm an-Nar, stone vessels in mortuary contexts were very common. Two distinct forms existed simultaneously: the open or closed bowl form, and the rectangular subdivided box (Figure 32). 2 cm While the forms remained fairly static through time, the decorative techniques as well as the style change fairly dramatically from the Umm an-Nar to the Wadi Suq to the Iron Age. The Umm an-Nar style is quite clean, with few stray lines or irregularities in design. Designs tend to be less busy, as well: they focus on the repetition of two or three elements. By the Wadi Suq 100 period these elements have expanded to include what may be considered as decorative “fill”. In all periods the vessels have lids. These tend to have stylistic elements that match their associated vessels. Figure 32. An example of a "circle-dot" groundstone box. Human skeletal remains are sufficient to identify a feature as a tomb, but of course do not help in dating. (The reuse of third millennium tombs makes dating all the more problematic, but reiterates their function.) Chipped stone from the third millennium BC is little studied. The lack of data on mortuary chipped stone artifacts may indicate either a focus on other mortuary materials, or may be a deliberate break from domestic and non-mortuary patterns. 101 Assigning a Form to a Feature The tomb and tower formal descriptions were laid out in Chapters 2 and 3. For third millennium towers, these characteristics are sufficient in combination but not necessary: a diameter about 20 m; built of stone material, usually with large stone blocks and/or chiseled in such a way as to suggest a great deal of energy input; and a central well. Assigning likelihoods to functional and dating categories Where possible, all features were assigned an overall function and at least one date. Several data categories were important: specifically for dating is “Undateable”; this differs from “Unknown” in that it is likely that a collection of specialists could assign a date to a particular feature if it is “Unknown”, whereas “Undateable” truly has no characteristics that can be used as markers. “Not Applicable” and “Not Collected” are two further code categories maintained. These assignments were based on a number of specific factors and characteristics, and included qualitative and quantitative assessments. Since this research sought to determine the significance of landscape and situation to features, no locational data were used to assign dates to features. Each feature was assigned a single number describing its aggregated likelihood of belonging to the specific category: 0 was reserved for positively not belonging to that category; 1 is “possibly”; “2” is “probably”; and 3 is “definitely”. These overall assessments were made independently according to function (e.g., tomb likelihood 0–3), cultural tradition (e.g., Wadi Suq), and archaeological period (e.g., Hafit or Umm an-Nar). Regardless of the final number of observable characteristics, only a single characteristic was always sufficient to assign a feature to the “possibly” third millennium category. Probability categories 2 and 3 were weighted, depending upon the number and quality of observable characteristics. For example, data collection for a rubble-covered stone cairn may only involve information about stone size and type, and overall dimensions. Since 102 none of these characteristics are exclusive to third millennium features (i.e., certain characteristics are shared across different periods and feature types), such a feature would still receive only a rating of “1” for third millennium. However, a 50 cm section of roughly coursed stone walling visible on one side of the feature may be enough to consider it “probably” (2) dating to the third millennium. At the same time, those characteristics may also be used to assess feature function. In addition, certain characteristics – e.g., the presence of human skeletal remains – were alone enough to assess the function of a feature, but lent no weight towards assigning a date. Because it was easier to assign a “1” – i.e., a possible date and a possible function – to a feature than to assign either a 0 (a true negative) or a 2 or 3 to any feature, of greatest concern here are features that are rated 2-3 according to dating and 2–3 according to form (i.e., tomb or tower). However, features assigned to either “1” category were added to initial and final trends in order to determine whether those trends become more or less clear, as this would aid in future feature identifications. It was important to maintain the analytical distinctions between variables that were not applicable; in which data were not collected; in which the variable is unknown (i.e., cannot be determined from the available sources); and those whose data were negative (i.e., indicate a positive absence). General Survey Results Some general observations about the totality of the archaeological features are useful and necessary in order to understand the sub-groups defined below. Within the study area, 99.5 sq km (80% of the total survey area) were covered at 300 m survey intervals. Within this space 1497 features were positively identified. 103 In a cross-tabulation of features dating to the third millennium BC and functionally tombs (likelihoods 0–3), 204 were definitely third millennium tombs; another 63 features were definitely neither (Table 2). Of the 1497 features, those features that had any possibility of being third millennium or a tomb numbered 1106. Table 2. Likelihood of Third Millennium BC Tombs by Date and Function. Third Millennium BC feature likelihood 0 1 2 3 Undate-able – 66 Unknown – 99 Total 0 63 9 4 19 129 3 227 Tomb likelihood 1 2 21 3 306 100 84 206 26 36 101 5 0 1 538 351 Total 3 24 41 103 204 6 3 381 111 456 397 285 241 7 1497 Disturbance As became clear, those places that were inhabited in the past are still more likely to be inhabited than others. The opposite is equally true: those places that were uninhabited in the past are likely to remain uninhabited, or at the very least its use is light. This has a dramatic effect on the archaeological record, as there is a great deal of overlap between modern and ancient land use. Features Not Discussed Elsewhere Of all of the features identified, 233 (15%) were non-mortuary (Table 3). These included settlement (both contemporary and later), processing points (e.g., lithic workshop sites), and later water systems. Several unusual features were found. Several cases of what may have been a circular stone platform were found south of Bat. In both cases the features were surrounded by third millennium tombs, Hafit and relatively undisturbed, suggesting that the features too date to the early third millennium BC. Of the 1497 features, 111 of them were definitively not third millennium (and also not Hafit 104 or Umm an-Nar). A third millennium BC settlement immediately to the southeast of al-Khutm – on the southern slope of a ridge (currently identifiable by the satellite tower that caps it) – was located during survey. Third Millennium BC and Tomb Features Of the 1497 features found, 127 of them were assigned a score of 2 or 3 as third millennium BC, Umm an-Nar, and tomb features while 375 were assigned those same scores for Hafit ceteris paribus; as likelihoods were assigned independently to the Hafit and Umm an-Nar periods, the total number of features assigned to either period and scoring 2-3 is 469 (rather than 502) (Figure 33). Table 3. Archaeological Features by Functional Type (Field Assessments). Feature Types Antiquity Building(s) Cemetery (cluster of graves) Possible field systems Lithic scatters, sources, and Workshops Mud brick village Tombs Platform Tower Unknown Wall, falaj, or dam Well Total Frequency 5 19 14 1 5 1 1264 1 12 123 52 7 1497 105 Percent .3 1.3 .9 .1 .3 .1 84.4 .1 .8 8.2 3.4 .5 100.0 Figure 33. Location of Hafit and Umm an-Nar tombs in the study region. 106 Tomb statistics: dimensions Of the data set, 363 tombs were not only Third Millennium (scored 2-3), but also Hafit (scored 2-3) and included data on the overall dimensions (Table 4). The average diameter of a Hafit tomb is a little less than 6 m, although the largest Hafit tomb is nearly 11.5 m in diameter. Only 122 Third millennium tombs (2-3) had dimensions, and also scored 2-3 as Umm an-Nar tombs. The two smallest features, 111353 and 111286, are more likely Wadi Suq re-use of Umm an-Nar material; this is a drawback of dating according to associated finds. These two features were removed from the data set (Table 5). In the Umm an-Nar case, average diameter is about one meter larger than the diameter of the Hafit tombs, but there is still a great deal of overlap; in fact, it is nearly complete. Table 4. Hafit Tomb Dimensions, N-S and E-W. Dimensions Diameter N-S (m) Diameter E-W (m) Total N 363 363 363 Minimum 3.0 3.0 Maximum 11.4 11.4 Mean 5.864 5.946 Table 5. Umm an-Nar Tomb Dimensions, N-S and E-W (in meters). Dimensions Diameter N-S (m) Diameter E-W (m) Total N 120 120 120 Minimum 3.6 3.3 Maximum 15.0 14.2 Mean 7.068 7.081 Tomb clusters Ad-Dariz South. In the southwest corner of the survey area a large cluster of ancient features were documented (Figure 34). Modern land use was fairly light in this area, except where (1) a few houses had been built (some, since pre-dissertation research in 2008, placed on now-absent tombs), and (2) a large modern garbage and sewage dump was in use. This not only obscured the previous landscape, but the burning and concentration of the remains by bulldozer had a considerable effect on the features in that space. 107 Figure 34. Third millennium BC tombs and towers at ad-Dariz South. 108 It is known that more third millennium tombs exist to the immediate southwest of the study region. However, this survey was intended to focus on the Wadi al-Hijr rather than the Wadi alKabir and therefore the survey area did not continue further in that direction even though preliminary exploration of that area suggested that another tower and tomb concentration is located several kilometers away. Therefore absolute numbers should be taken with some flexibility. However, even with that caveat there are several clear patterns. First, the cluster is 2.6 km long, arranged NW-SE. Of the 366 total features in the ad-Dariz South cluster, only 5 were definitely not third millennium (although a further 28 were undateable). On the other end of the spectrum, 68 features were definitely third millennium, suggesting it was easier to positively identify third millennium features than to positively identify features as other than third millennium. With the features that scored “1” (“possibly”) and “2” (“probably”) third millennium, 111 and 154, respectively, a total of 333 of 366 were associated with the third millennium. Of the 366 features in this cluster, almost exactly half (n = 186) were rated 2-3 (“probably” and “positively”) as tombs and third millennium features. This is a considerably higher likelihood of being positively identified as a third millennium tomb than the overall likelihood. There is a sharp drop in tomb density at both ends of the cluster. While this is expected on the northwest end, where the landscape is interrupted by a major wadi plain, it is quite startling on the southeast end, where no obvious topographic changes occur. Of the 333 third millennium features, 322 and 19 were identified as at least possibly Hafit and Umm an-Nar, respectively. It was possible to distinguish very few Umm an-Nar period tombs. Those that were identifiable were located on the western end of the study region, much closer to the Wadi al-Kabir and to the ad-Dariz South towers. The majority of those third 109 millennium tombs that could be further identified were likely to be from the first half of the third millennium. An additional few features were unrecognizable. Notably absent were both modern and ancient settlements, with the exception of the remains of the small Islamic settlement already mentioned in association with ad-Dariz South 2. Well out on the southern edge of the alluvial fan of the Wadi al-Kabir, north of the cluster of third millennium features, the remains of the small, recent mud brick village of ad-Dariz was rapidly disappearing. This recent pre-modern settlement was clearly distinguishable from earlier (e.g., medieval) Islamic sites. The presence of cement-lined aflaj access points, now abandoned and empty, speak to a recent and dramatic drop in available subsurface water. Although the two towers at ad-Dariz South are assumed to date to the Umm an-Nar period, very few contemporary features were found. There was no visible evidence of a settlement, and only 17 tombs were dated to that period in that area. There are several potential explanations for this: 1. The towers are the only visible and extant Umm an-Nar features beyond those 17 tombs; 2. The towers are later (or, alternatively, earlier); 3. Similarly, the tombs could be miss-dated or transitional (i.e., the Umm an-Nar tombs are late Hafit) 4. The towers have no necessary-and-sufficient spatial relationship to the tombs. The first, and most likely explanation, is that the towers are the most visibly Umm an-Nar features in the area. The apparent silting of the wadis surrounding the towers makes this a likely area for buried third millennium settlement. Unlike the terraced areas surrounding Bat, ad-Dariz tends to be an area of greater extremes: there are ridges, and there are alluvial plains, and there is little in-between. It is therefore most likely that the more complex relationships we see between 110 landscape and third millennium feature location in the Bat area should be reflected in the adDariz South area, rather than the converse. The second and third explanations are always a possibility. However, while it is possible that one tower may have been mis-dated, it is unlikely that both towers would be. In addition, with the exception of the pre-modern and modern Islamic versions, towers are a third millennium BC phenomenon. Two notable exceptions to this trend are the Wadi Suq towers at Kalba and Tell Abraq. In the case of Tell Abraq, it appears that there may have been an earlier tower beneath the second millennium BC tower (Potts 1993a). It is probably also important to note that, along with Bidiyah, Kalba and Tell Abraq are two of only three sites with towers that are located on the coast, away from the piedmont of the Hajar Mountains (al Tikriti 1989). It therefore seems unlikely that the towers would not date to the third millennium BC, even if they were re-used in later periods. Although it is always possible that a single tomb feature has been misdated, it is unlikely that the overall number of Umm an-Nar tombs would either increase or decrease significantly. Finally, in the past, although tombs have been found without towers, towers have not been found without contemporary tombs. Therefore it has always been enough to find a tower for the archaeologist to ask the question, “where are the Umm an-Nar tombs?” rather than “are there any Umm an-Nar tombs?”. Ad-Dariz North. Two small clusters were identified north of the modern village of ad-Dariz. The two clusters were identified as ad-Dariz Na and ad-Dariz Nb, from west to east. ad-Dariz Na is made up of 37 features, and ad-Dariz Nb is made up of 68. Although not far apart, they are clearly clustered (Figure 35), with nearly a kilometer separating them. 111 Figure 35. The ad-Dariz North third millennium BC tomb clusters (a) and (b) are small and spatially distinct. 112 Ad-Dariz Na is made up of 37 features, one of which is not third millennium and nine of which were not tombs. Of the remaining 27 features, only one scored 2-3 as both third millennium and a tomb. Ad-Dariz Nb is made up of 68 features, 23 of which fall into the third millennium tomb 2-3 scored categories. Two features were not third millennium, and two others were definitively not tombs. Over half of the third millennium tombs in this cluster are located on ridges, albeit low ones. The other ten were even lower, frequently on low rises. State of archaeological remains. Features tended to be in relatively poor condition. There were several contributing factors for this. Almost exclusively archaeological features in this area are located on the limestone vertical ridges, which are considerably lower (though not less worn) in this area than in ad-Dariz South. In addition, this area is more closely associated with modern settlement and agro-pastoralism. Taken together, this suggests that these features have experienced greater stone robbing, either for houses or seasonal pastoral camps. The features located closest to the paved road are almost completely gone, either through robbing or bulldozing and general modern landscape alterations. It is possible that there is some relationship between the location of tombs and active floodzones: specifically, the tombs may be in slightly raised areas just above active flood zones. However a much larger survey area is necessary to study whether this is a phenomenon of the third millennium BC. Wahrah Cluster. At first glance it is a misnomer to describe the archaeological features in and around Wahrah as a cluster (Figures 36 and 37); this issue, however, is immediately cleared up as dating separates out the features more clearly. 113 Figure 36. Archaeological features in the Wahrah area. Note the third millennium tombs on the northeastern side of the wadi. Sixty-five features were registered in the Wahrah area in total; of these, 18 are third millennium BC tombs scoring 2-3, and 24 features were either not tombs or not dated to the third millennium BC. When the archaeological noise is removed, the Wahrah cluster becomes more distinct – though not as highly clustered as ad-Dariz South, for example. 114 Figure 37. Close-up of third millennium BC tomb cluster north of Wahrah. Note the evidence of modern agriculture to the south and pastureland to the north. Bat Cluster. A total of 961 features make up the Bat clusters as a whole. Of these, 223 are definitively other than third millennium BC tombs. An overview of the third millennium BC tombs only (scored 2-3) demonstrates that, at least in the Bat area, if there is a natural component of the landscape that has a general influence on tomb location, it is the Wadi al-Hijr. To verify 115 this I decided to look outside of my study area to the south, specifically, following the wadi cross-cutting the ridges to the west-southwest of Bat (Figure 38). Although this area was not surveyed according to the methods used in my survey region and although features dating to other periods were found in some density, all were relatively recent (i.e., dating to the last 200 years). Figure 38. Further prospection on foot followed the wadis to the south and west of the study area (center). 116 Features other than third millennium or tombs. Bat contains evidence of occupation throughout history and prehistory. It is clear that there was a thriving community in Bat during the Wadi Suq and later periods, and there is equally clear evidence of Neolithic use of the landscape. Although those features dated to before or after are not discussed here, they are included in Appendix A. Third millennium BC tombs. Both the north and south sides of the wadi have tombs on ridgelines. Of the 321 third millennium tombs in the Bat area, 210 are located on these ridges. Another 57 are located in the wadi itself – that is, in the wadi plain. The rest (n = 54) are on the plateau, on low rises, or on the ends of ridgelines facing the wadi. State of the archaeological remains. The state of archaeological remains varies dramatically in this cluster. Within the World Heritage Site are the remains of some well-preserved tombs spanning the entire Hafit-Umm an-Nar period (as well as tombs from later periods). Bat clusters. A number of archaeological features lie outside of the UNESCO boundaries, to the West, East, and South. Bat NE. The area on the northern and northeastern edge of Bat village is bounded by a wadi plain to the north, west, and south. To the east limestone ridgelines continue to run northwestsoutheast another full kilometer before descending to the plain of the Wadi al-Hijr, running eastwest. This area includes the Bat “cemetery” and UNESCO site. Unlike nearly any other area, the Bat cemetery is a collection of tomb features dating to the middle and second half of the third millennium, and in close proximity to each other. Directly to the E-SE of the cemetery within the UNESCO boundaries are the remains of the associated settlement (Figure 39). A handful of tombs in this area have been excavated or partially excavated over the past 40 years. Of the 489 features in this area, 174 can be positively dated to the third millennium. The 117 Hafit period tombs (n = 87) and Umm an-Nar tombs (n = 81) here tend to be in relatively intact. Bat South. The features to the south of Bat are of a variety of periods and functions, from third, second, and first millennium BC tombs to post-third millennium pre-Historic settlement. However, those tend to be located within and immediately to the south of Bat village; features located further south are third millennium tombs. Almost exclusively, these tombs are located on ridge-tops and also date to the Hafit period. Summary of the Tower Features of the Hijr Valley There were 11 towers located in the survey area (Figure 40): - ad-Dariz South 1 - ad-Dariz South 2 - Wahrah Qala - al-Khutm - Kasr al-Rojoom (1145) - Kasr al-Khafajii (1146) - Tower 1156 - Tower 110980 - Husn al-Wardi - Matariya (1147) - Kasr al-Sleme (1148) 118 Figure 39. Bat cemetery. Towers 1145 and 1156 (circled in red), and the “Settlement Slope” (outlined in blue). Tombs are visible as lines of dark brown dots in the center and northeastern portions. 119 Figure 40. Third millennium BC towers in the study region. 120 Tower dimensions There are 11 third millennium BC towers in the study area. Towers range in size from 16 m in diameter to 26 m, with an average of 21.5 m (Table 6). Average size of exterior stone walling varied dramatically, from 100-x-40 cm to half that size. Since height of the monument was difficult to assess for the majority of towers this was not figured for the group overall. Table 6. Tower Dimensions. Dimensions Diameter (m) (N-S) Diameter (m) (E-W) Stone L (cm) Stone W (cm) Stone H (cm) Total Minimum 16.0 16.0 49.0 25.0 20.0 Maximum 26.0 25.0 100.0 88.0 88.0 Mean 21.700 21.409 72.636 51.182 43.000 Bat towers Many of the towers in the Bat area are known both by local name and by the feature number originally assigned to them by researchers in the 1970s and 80s. Due to considerable amounts of reuse dating of the towers by material assemblage alone was therefore quite difficult. The primary dating methods were (1) radiocarbon dating, summarized by Thornton and Mortimer 2012, and the construction style. While far less exact than the radiocarbon dating, third millennium construction is so markedly different from that which came before and after that it is sufficient at the broadest level. Kasr al-Rojoom. One of the first third millennium BC towers excavated, and the first excavated in the Bat region, Tower 1145 (Figure 41) will here be identified as Kasr al-Rojoom. At the time of excavation (mid-1970s) al-Rojoom stood 2.5 m tall, above the alluvium. Reconstructions hypothesized by the excavator’s evaluation of associated rock fall suggest that the tower was ca. 6 m tall before it fell. As it stood in 1974, there remained standing a “crenelated” stone ringwall. The interior structure included a stone-lined well near the center 121 (Figure 42), and internal stone walls between which mud was packed to create a solid platform ca. 2.5 m tall. Excavations of the immediate surroundings indicate neither an entrance nor a gate system, but a series of stone revetment walls – presumably created to stabilize the foundation, which was built on alluvium – were dug around the feature. Figure 41. Kasr al-Rojoom. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. 122 Figure 42. Central well, Kasr al-Rojoom. Kasr al-Khafajii. Tower 1146 (Figure 43) was the second tower at Bat to receive the attention of excavators. It is named Kasr al-Khafajii, and is a mere 500 m from Kasr al-Rojoom on the same alluvium. Unlike Rojoom, Khafajii is circular in plan and only the top 50 cm is visible. Excavations by Frifelt and Possehl et al. confirm that this tower is also only ca. 1 m tall. Like Rojoom, al-Khafajii has a slightly off-center stone-line well (although it is square in plan 123 instead of circular), a stone ringwall, and stone internal walling filled with packed mud, again forming a platform. Kasr al-Khafaji underwent major changes during the Islamic period, when the south-eastern portion of the tower was partially disassembled to create an extended ramp (Figure 44). It is likely that better access to the square well was the aim of this: as was still common up into the 1970s and 1980s in Oman, water was drawn up from wells by means of a pulley system powered by cow, camel, or donkey aided in its efforts by an incline (Figure 45). Considerable artifacts have dated the secondary usage of al-Khafaji. The 2008 and 2009 excavations within and beneath al-Khafaji indicate that the tower was built on Hafit architectural remains. Immediately adjacent to al-Khafaji are the stone foundations of Umm an-Nar period domestic structures: rectilinear walls faced internally and externally, with relatively large concentrations of Umm an-Nar sherds on floor levels. Figure 43. Kasr al-Khafaji. Figure courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. 124 Figure 44. Kasr al-Khafaji, plan view. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. 125 Figure 45. Central well of Kasr al-Khafaji. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. Matariya. Tower 1147 was not identified as a tower in local memory, and is therefore named by its location: Matariya (Figure 46). Brief excavations in1980 yielded the information that this tower had no stone internal walling and was built upon mud brick. Further excavations (2008– 2011) have ascertained that this very early tower also has a stone-lined well (Figure 47), and (like 1145 and 1146) has internal walling. The internal walling, however, is made of large mud bricks, while the spaces between were filled with cobbles, broken or wet mud bricks, and packed mud. In addition, Matariya went through several massive construction phases during the first half of the third millennium. The first phase was one completely of mud brick and, as with 1145, crenelated in plan (Figure 48). In the second phase, a circular stone ringwall was cut into and around the mud brick structure; and in the third phase of building, the stone ringwall was 126 expanded and faced with a larger stone ringwall. Matariya is one of the earliest of the Bat towers, and demonstrates the evolution of the monumental style. Figure 46. Matariya (before excavation). Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. 127 Figure 47. Central well of Matariya. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. 128 Figure 48. Matariya, plan view. Note the stone ringwalls, mud brick structure, and central stone-lined well. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. Kasr al-Sleme. Tower 1148, or Kasr al-Sleme, is different from the three previously mentioned towers in several important ways (Figure 49). First, it is not located on the alluvium but rather on a small conglomerate hill in the center of the wadi; it is immediately surrounded on 129 three sides by alluvium, some of which is currently under cultivation, while to the immediate South there is an outcrop of the same conglomerate. It is likely that the conglomerate underlies the alluvium at least to the immediate west and east of Kasr al-Sleme. Kasr al-Sleme is unique in several other ways. First, its average stone size is considerably larger than Matariya and equaled only by the largest stones of Kasr al-Khafajii. Second, built on a natural prominence Kasr al-Sleme is considerably elevated, standing ca.4 m above the surrounding alluvial floor (Figure 50). Interestingly, although unexcavated and elevated this tower appears to have a central well. Figure 49. Kasr al-Sleme, looking east. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. 130 Figure 50. Kasr al-Sleme, plan view. Figure courtesy of Yasuhisa Kondo and AJBAP. Husn al-Wardi. Bat Qala – known locally as Husn al-Wardi – lies near the center of the modern Bat oasis (Figure 51). Like 1148 it is built on a conglomerate outcrop (which is probably part of the same outcrop as lies beneath 1148). Although it has undergone extensive reuse – it was until very recently a village compound – elements of the original stone foundation are still clearly visible, and markedly different from the later construction techniques (Figure 52). Suleiman al-Jabri, research partner and Bat local, confirmed that a modern (i.e., mechanized pumping) well had been in use there until very recently. Partially abandoned now, the mud brick 131 superstructure and Islamic period modifications have rendered internal exploration difficult. Figure 51. Husn al-Wardi, Bat village, looking Northeast. The base of this mud brick tower dates to the third millennium BC. 132 Figure 52. Husn al-Wardi. Note the transition from large, even blocks on the right to irregular, smaller stones on the left. Also note the bare conglomerate upon which it sits. Tower 1156. A mere 200 m away from Kasr al-Rojoom, until quite recently it was not known whether 1156 was a tower, or some other circular stone structure (Figure 53). Charcoal from ditch fill associated with the tower is dated to the late Hafit (Thornton and Mortimer 2012). Like Matariya it has several concentric stone ringwalls, lacks stone internal scaffolding, appears to be quite an early third millennium tower, and is surrounded by what looks like a ditch. However it is unusually placed – on a slight rise at the foot of the settlement slope, between two ridges and the wadi basin – and as yet no internal well has been found. It was also apparently destroyed – or at the very least, significantly dismantled and put to domestic use – within a relatively short time after its construction. 133 Figure 53. Tower 1156, looking West. Note Kasr al-Rojoom in background. Photo courtesy of AJBAP. Tower 110980. Five hundred meters north of Matariya, on top of a ridge prominence overlooking the Wadi al-Hijr, a seventh Bat tower was identified during this survey (Figure 54). It is of unknown age and has experienced the effects of time – the top is covered with stone rubble and second millennium graves – yet it is likely that this was once an even larger monument than Kasr al-Sleme. It has several stone ringwalls that take advantage of the ridgeline to increase its overall size (Figure 55). At this point little else can be determined for this monument, but it may be helpful to compare its remains to some of those found at Bisya (Cable and Thornton 2012). 134 Figure 54. Stone ringwall of Tower feature 110980. Figure 55. Feature 110980, stone revetment wall downslope. Al-Khutm. Several kilometers west of Bat is a tower known as al-Khutm (Figure 56). It is 135 circular in plan, sits on limestone bedrock, and is structurally similar to 1146 and 1147. There have been limited excavations of the interior of this tower due to the Iron Age tombs capping it, and have been left intact for research purposes at this time. Excavations by an Omani team of archaeologists in 2009 have cleared the exterior ringwalls and revetment walls (Figure 57). Figure 56. Tower at al-Khutm, prior to excavation. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. 136 Figure 57. Al-Khutm, plan view. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. Contours at 0.5 m intervals. Wahrah Qala. On the southern edge of the village of Wahrah, just to the west of al-Khutm, is Wahrah Qala (Figure 58). The structure is currently in use and it was never possible to visit the interior, so all assessments are based on exterior evaluations and extrapolations. The stone foundation has all of the characteristics of third millennium tower construction: stone size, coursing is even, and off-set stretcher stones all combine to form a well constructed stone base such as those of Kasr al-Rojoom, Kasr al-Khutm, Matariya, and all of the others. However, as with Husn al-Wardi the stone foundation has been altered in places (Figure 59). This has disrupted both the general shape of the tower – from circular to sub-circular – and altered the construction style. 137 Figure 58. Stone foundation of Wahrah Qala, with rockfall extending downslope. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project 138 Figure 59. Wahrah Qala. Note the change in construction from the right to left. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. Ad-Dariz South 1 and 2. One the far western end of the survey area, southwest of the main mosque in the modern village of ad-Dariz (and south of the pre-modern village remains, as discussed elsewhere), are two final towers (Figures 60–63). Located about 300 m apart, they are situated in the alluvium at the southern junction of the Wadi al-Hijr and the Wadi al-Kabir. No excavations have been undertaken on either, although AJBAP has extensively documented the visible remains. Ad-Dariz South 1 is circular in plan (Figure 61). Ad-Dariz South 2 is one of only two truly square towers known (Figure 63). It is located within the remains of an Islamic period settlement, including a small cemetery, and was used as a platform or foundation for later mud brick structures. However, based on the construction style it is likely that this tower, too, 139 dates to the third millennium. Figure 60. Ad-Dariz South 1. Figure 61. Ad-Dariz South 1, plan view. Figure courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. 140 Figure 62. Ad-Dariz South 2. Courtesy of the Bat Archaeological Project. Figure 63. Ad-Dariz South 2, plan view. Courtesy of Yasuhisa Kondo and AJBAP. 141 Tower functions Few artifacts are found in direct association with these features. There are several explanations for this. First, the archaeological remains of these towers tend to consist of raised platforms, so that excavating their interiors is merely excavating construction material. In a few cases the remains of artifacts and midden material were included in the building fill, but only in small amounts. This is consistent with the creation of a deliberate, energy-intensive multi-person effort and the mass manufacture that would have accompanied such a big work effort. At Matariya we have metal refining fragments, which points again to the integration of sites and settlements. Within the original monument, an apparent imitation of one of these JN/ED I–II forms was found; within the tower proper fill, a “true” JN/ED I–II rimsherd was found. Outside the towers – particularly within the “destruction layers” it is possible to see later use. The top of the towers tend to exhibit one or several later periods of reuse. In the case of 1146, there was a period of reuse in the Iron Age, and a major restructuring of the monument in the Islamic period to make use of the central well. Tower dating Four of the 11 towers in the study region have associated C14 dates (Table 7). Tower 1156. Recent excavations at tower 1156 yielded several charcoal samples used for radiocarbon dating. None of the samples from the earliest phases were from hearths or distinct deposits, so dates should be used with care. However, all four date to the late Hafit (i.e., 2800– 2600 BC) (Thornton and Mortimer 2012). Matariya. A number of charcoal samples were taken from hearths at Matariya for radiocarbon dating. Calib.Rev.5.0.1 (2-sigma) gives a date range from directly below the mud brick walls as 3110–2900 (98%) BC. 142 Kasr al-Rojoom. Three radiocarbon samples were run from fireplaces in strata underlying Kasr al-Rojoom. Using Calib.Rev.5.0.1 the updated dates range from 1970–2700 BC, with overlap occurring 2600–2220 BC. Kasr al-Khafaji. Dates taken from directly within Kasr al-Khafaji date the structure above to the Umm an-Nar period (Cal BC 2600–2280 (97%), Calib.Rev.5.0.1(2-sigma) (Thornton et al. 2011:259). Table 7. Bat Tower Dates (continued on following page). Based on Possehl et al. (2010) and Thornton and Mortimer (2012). Sample No. Tower Period Conventional 14C Age Calibrated Date (BETA) K-5470 1147 Beta 244213 1147 Late Hafit Late Hafit 4200 +/- 60 BP 4260 +/- 40 BP Cal BC 2885– 2679 2910–2860, 2800–2750 Beta 260667 1147 Late Hafit 4190 +/- 40 BP 2890–2830, 2820–2630 Beta 260666 1147 Medieval 360 +/- 40 BP Cal AD 1450– 1650 Beta 260665 Beta 277516 Beta 277517 Beta 260664 Beta 260663 1147 Late Hafit Hafit 1147 1147 1146.B 1146.B 4140 +/- 40 BP 4390 +/- 40 BP Hafit 4300 +/- 40 BP Umm 3850 +/- 40 an-Nar BP Umm 3900 +/- 40 an-Nar BP 2880–2580 3090–2900 3000–2880 Cal BC 2460– 220 Cal BC 2480– 2240 143 Calib.Rev.5. Bat Lot 0.1 (2 sigma) Number / Location 2910–2613 Trench 2 (100%) 2944–2851 2008 Tr (83%), 470569 2811–2660 (17%) 2890–2830 090826 (26%), 2820–2660 (72%)– AD 1450– 090611 1640 (100%)– 2880–2620 090419 (97%) 3110–2900 103603 (98%) 3020–2870 103604 (100%) 2460–2280 090310 (97%) 2480–2280 090308 (97%) Table 7 (cont’d) Sample Tower No. Period Conventional 14C Age Calibrated Date (BETA) Beta 260660 1146.A Umm 3820 +/- 40 an-Nar BP Cal BC 2450– 2140 Beta 260661 Beta 260662 1146.A Late Hafit Late Hafit 4330 +/- 40 BP 4070 +/- 40 BP Cal BC 3020– 2890 Cal BC 2850– 2810, 2750– 2720 K-2795 1145 1145 K-2797 1145 K-3207 1145 K-3208 1145 Beta 316675 1156 3510 +/- 55 BP– 3260 +/- 55 BP – 3980 +/- 80 BP – 3860 +/- 115 BP – 3900 +/- 85 BP 4080 +/- 30 BP 1920 BC K-2796 Wadi Suq Wadi Suq Umm an-Nar Umm an-Nar Umm an-Nar Late Hafit Beta 316679 1156 Late Hafit 4190 +/- 30 BP Cal BC 2890– 2670 Beta 316680 Beta 316677 1156 Late Hafit Late Hafit 4210 +/- 40 BP 4130 +/- 30 BP Cal BC 2900– 2670 Cal BC 2880– 2620 1146.A 1156 1610 BC 2570 BC 2400 BC 2455 BC Cal BC 2890– 2500 Calib.Rev.5. Bat Lot 0.1 (2 sigma) Number / Location 2460–2370 090110 (13%), 2370–2140 (87%) 3030–2890 090136 (97%) 2860–2810 090137 (14%), 2700–2480 (81%) 1975–1690 1145.CL (100%) 1660–1430 1145.CM (100%) 2700–2220 1145.CO (96%) 2625–1970 1145.IY (100%) 2600–2130 1145.IX (100%) 2850–2810 1255158 (10%), 2750–2550 (84%), 2540–2500 (6%) 2890–2840 1255244 (27%), 2830–2670 (73%) 2900–2670 1255253 (100%) 2870–2780 1255197 (32%), 2780–2600 (68%) Summary This chapter outlines the results of the field survey and data collection. The function and age of 144 individual features were assessed independently and according to (1) architectural characteristics and (2) associated artifacts, in the field and post-fieldwork. A summary of third millennium BC and mortuary architectural characteristics is included here. Similarly, this chapter details the highlights of those artifacts used in assigning dates and functions to the associated features. Archaeological features were assigned independent likelihoods for (a) function and (b) periods of use, from 0 (unlikely) to 3 (highly likely). Of 1497 features, 1106 (74%) were at least somewhat likely (i.e., rated 1) third millennium tombs, with 549 (37%) and 204 (14%) features rated third millennium BC tombs with likelihoods of 2 and 3, respectively. It was qualitatively clear during data collection that tombs tended to cluster, and were located on low ridges and hills. Significantly, the distribution of third millennium BC features closely resembled the distribution of modern settlement. This suggests that similar social and/or environmental factors were at work in the third millennium as compared to the twentieth century AD. Towers were far fewer – 11 were found – and are likely to date to the third millennium BC. Wells were found in the center of four of the 11 towers. All four towers with identifiable central wells are located in the oasis of Bat; several had been in use in later periods, one within living memory. 145 CHAPTER SIX: LANDSCAPE METHODOLOGY, CLUSTER ANALYSIS, AND SPATIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS Introduction This chapter covers the spatial and non-spatial analyses run on all of the collected survey data. My research questions were: 1. What are the spatial distributions of third millennium BC monuments in the Wadi al-Hijr? Do they differ? 2. What are the relationships between tombs, resources, and social inclusion or exclusion? How do these relationships change over time? 3. How can we account for formal and spatial variation in third millennium BC towers? 4. What is the relationship between towers, resources, and social inclusion or exclusion, as it develops through the third millennium BC? How does this change over time? Specifically, the following questions were asked about spatial relationships between monuments: - Do formal, bounded areas for the exclusive disposal of the dead exist during the Hafit period, the Umm an-Nar period, or both? o If so, what nearby resources might be marked by these clusters? - How do distributions of Umm an-Nar tombs compare to those of the Hafit period? - Is there a difference between tomb and tower distributions? The first step was to determine the basic relationships of tombs to tombs, tombs to towers, and towers to towers. This was formal and spatial, and visual as well as statistical. Unlike traditional statistical methods, spatial statistics incorporate spatial relationships (e.g., proximity) into their mathematics (Bailey and Gatrell 1995). The number of towers (n = 11) is too small for statistically valid analyses, so simple visual assessments were used to relate towers to each other 146 and to other archaeological features. The spatial relationships between tombs were analyzed using spatial statistics (cluster analysis), and using non-spatial statistics on spatial point data collected in the field. An example of the latter kind of data is the visibility of other archaeological features in all cardinal directions from each feature, data which were collected in the field. The GIS Environment All GIS data storage display, and analysis employed the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 40 coordinate reference system on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84) datum. Although there is a recognized Oman Datum, it is rarely used in archaeological research and for certain statistical analyses UTM, which uses meters as the horizontal unit of measurement, was important. A geographic information system (GIS) was created (1) to coordinate data collected in the field with data collected elsewhere (e.g., archives); (2) to manage large amounts of spatial data; (3) to assess the relationships between numerous environmental and cultural factors; and (4) for the discovery and interpretation of spatial distributional patterns of archaeological remains. Satellite imagery for this was made available by Dr. Ryosuke Nakamura (AIST, Japan) via Yasuhisa Kondo (JSPS Research Fellow, Tokyo Institute of Technology). The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) launched “DAICHI” Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS) in 2006 and completed its observations in May 2011 (JAXA 2012). The satellite has three sensors. The Panchromatic Remote-sensing Instrument for Stereo Mapping (PRISM) is a panchromatic radiometer with 2.5 m spatial resolution at nadir. Its extracted data was designed to provide a highly accurate digital surface model (DSM) and was therefore appropriate for this research. For information about transformations and other pre-processing the reader is referred to 147 the ALOS Data Users Handbook: Revision C (March 2008). Three tiles of raster datasets, each covering sections of the study area, were processed using ERDAS IMAGINE by the MSU Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Science (RS&GIS) Research and Outreach Services in 2011. A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) with 2.5 m resolution was created from the imagery. A DEM is a grid of cells with cell values equal to the land surface elevation and is therefore useful for research which takes into account an uneven surface. Relief in the Wadi al-Hijr is quite abrupt, and therefore a fine measure of the landscape elevations (and changes between them) are important. It was used to create a slope raster (in degrees) in ArcGIS 10.0. Cluster Analysis The first step in cluster analysis is always a visual assessment of the displayed feature data. As patterns can be masked by “noise” – from the archaeological record, the natural environment, modern land use, etc. – it is equally important, where possible, to check these visual assessments using spatial statistical methods. Ripley’s K Function Ripley’s K Function Statistic is a second-order analysis used to determine whether incident data are spatially clustered, random, or dispersed over a range of scales (Longley et al. 2005). It is particularly appropriate as a measure of the relation among objects (at a range of distances) rather than as independent objects (Getis 1984) and is therefore especially useful for spatial analysis of archaeological settlements (Bevan and Conolly 2006). Mathematically, K(d) is defined as the expected number of points within a distance d of an arbitrary chosen point, divided by the density of points per unit area (Longley et al. 2005:347). The ArcGIS 10.0 tool, Multi-Distance Spatial Cluster Analysis, implements a common transformation L(d) of Ripley's 148 K Function. In it, the expected result with a random set of points is equal to the input distance. The Multi-Distance Spatial Cluster Analysis Tool was run using the Ripley’s edge correction formula; with 10, 50, and 100 distance bands; and with and without the tomb likelihood (2 or 3) as weights. The tool computes the average number of neighboring features associated with each tomb; neighboring tombs are those closer than the distance being evaluated. Generally speaking, as the evaluation distance increases, each feature will have more neighbors. If the average number of neighbors for a particular evaluation distance is higher (larger) than the average concentration of features throughout the study area, the distribution is considered clustered at that distance. The results of third millennium BC tomb distributions are displayed and discussed in Chapter 7. The difference between the expected and the observed k values were mapped, and the “peaks” – the distances at which the spatial correlation is the strongest – were assessed as likely distance bands. Based on these scores and the size of the survey area (16-x-8 km) 2.3 km distance bands were chosen for kernel neighborhood and point pattern radius. Density Analysis Density analysis – specifically, Point Pattern and Kernel density – are used to identify whether occurrences are inter-related (Longley et al. 2005). In the case of third millennium BC towers and tombs in the Wadi al-Hijr, point pattern analysis is a useful way to determine whether tombs are spatially clustered, random, or dispersed. The Kernel Density tool in ArcToolbox calculate the density of point features around each output cell on a raster by calculating a magnitude per unit area from point features and using a kernel function to fit a smoothly tapered surface to each point (Conolly and Lake 2006). The result is a map showing the densities of points over space (ESRI 2012; Longley et al. 2005). 149 Feature Location Classification Since the landscape is hypothesized as a crucial variable in determining tomb and tower locations, a great deal of locational data was collected for each feature in the field. Primary locations, which referred to the landform on which the feature was situated, originally consisted of over 30 options. These were then collapsed into 4 weighted categories, according to distance from the wadi floor. The secondary location expressed where on the primary landform the feature was located, and these too were later collapsed into four weighted categories. Finally, notes were taken regarding the location of each feature and retained throughout analysis, so that future data aggregation could be checked easily against the original description. The result, for each feature, was a set of ordinal expressions for relative distance from the wadi floor, and for global (i.e., Primary) and local (i.e., Secondary) locations (Tables 8 and 9). These data were used for Exploratory Data Analysis and visually displayed in ArcMap 10.0. Table 8. Primary Location Reclassification. Field classification Foothill Low rise Plain Plateau Prominence / Hilltop Ridgeline Numerical Assignment 3 2 1 2 4 4 150 Table 9. Secondary Location Reclassification. Field classification Base End-slope Foothill Low rise Mid-slope Plain Plateau Prominence / Hilltop Ridgeline Saddle Numerical Assignment 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 4 4 3 Resource Access A second research goal was to understand the relationship between monuments and resources. To this end, landform and land use classes were identified using a combination of relatively coarse, modern land use maps; field data on modern land use and geology; and ethnographic literature (Wilkinson 1977). As has already been attested ethnographically, land use and land ownership are frequently not congruent. However, combinations of modern land use and ownership may be useful ways to understand the complexities of an environment as varied as the western al-Hajar piedmont. While admittedly crude, it is important to attempt some description of feature placement on the landscape in relation to potential land use. Land Classification In desert environments, land use and land cover classifications are quite similar. A 300 m land cover map, derived from the 2009 time series of global MERIS (MEdium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer) FR mosaics as part of the ESA GlobCover 2009 Project, was initially used to determine land use classes. Of the 22 land cover uses defined with the United Nations (UN) Land Cover Classification System (LCCS), only four are found in this area (Herold et al. 2009) (Figure 64). As LCCS is a classification system (as opposed to a land cover legend) (Di 151 Gregorio 2005), two of the four classes are found in the same spaces: (20) mosaic croplands/vegetation (n = 2.5% of the survey area); and (30) mosaic vegetation/croplands (n = 0.2% of the survey area). The other two classes – (150) sparse vegetation (n = 4.3% of the survey area) and (200) bare areas (n = 93% of the survey area) – make up over 97% of the survey area. However, this is as much an issue of scale as anything else, and to be expected: 300-x-300 m pixels provide considerably coarser resolution than would reflect the sort of resource patchiness found in this area. Therefore current land cover, hydrological, and topographical data were collected for the landscape adjacent (i.e., within several hundred meters) to each archaeological feature and assessed using Wilkinson (1977). 152 Figure 64. Land classification in the study area. 153 Wilkinson (1977) describes land use classes in addition to land ownership classes. What is interesting about these two different classifications is that there is very little overlap between them: ownership and land use are not exclusive, but neither is there any sense that they refer to the same thing. While one can assume that ownership allows for access to certain parts of the landscape it is not, in fact, necessary or sufficient as a way to describe land use access, or even land use. Wilkinson (1977) observed the following division in modern land use, extending in concentric rings out from the village center (Table 10), while Islamic law concerns itself with six land ownership classes (Table 11): Table 10. Land Use Classes. Land Use Class Village center permanent cultivation* seasonal crops village grazing mixed herding camel herding *from less financially reliable sources (e.g., alfalfa) Table 11. Land Ownership Classes. Land Ownership Class aradi atlal ashjar miyah aflaj sawaqi Brief Explanation economically valuable literally “hills”: the barren parts of the landscape large plants and cultivated fruit trees all wells irrigation systems distributary irrigation channels There are two other divisions of land ownership: haram (village grazing rights) and mar'a (general grazing area, further away from village, and un-owned). As is clear from a glance at these lists, the two sets (land use and land ownership) are not congruent. The land ownership classes are based in Islamic law, but that law is itself a reflection of social practice. The land use 154 classes are more informal, and are primarily from the perspective of the villagers. Land use classes were based on Wilkinson (1977). As this survey area does not include desert – that is found several kilometers further to the west, and is suitable only for camel herding – the land use classes do not include specific camel herding. This is unlikely to be problematic, for even though camel herding is found in the survey area today, (1) it is unknown exactly when the camel was domesticated, and (2) the herding landscape is best suited for any number of different types of herd animals. Of the land ownership classes the aflaj and sawaqi may be disregarded, as those are linked to more recent irrigation technology (Wilkinson 1977). The relevant distinctions in the research area are between aradi, atlal, and miyah, although ashjar are clearly important and linked to both aradi and miyah. Perhaps of greatest significance are the more general types of land ownership: haram and mar'a. These categories are easily distinguishable today, as the study region is under combinations of active pastureland, which is rain-fed, and multiple agricultural land uses, from date palms to alfalfa. Slope (measured in degrees) was calculated using the DEM, in degrees, and divided into 4 classes. These were classified geometrically, modified to account for qualitative difficulty of travel, and verified visually. The four categories were: 0-10 degree slopes; 10-20 degree slopes; 20-30 degree slopes; and 30-90 degree slopes. A 30-degree slope is quite steep, both in terms of ascension and in terms of foundation construction; for every four meters along a flat surface it is necessary to travel five, and considerable geotechnical effort is necessary to level a tomb’s foundation. 155 Visibility As described in Chapter 4, visibility information was collected from every feature for all four cardinal directions, specifying what archaeological, natural, and modern features were visible. These functionally non-spatial data were explored in conjunction with spatial queries and in SPSS. Maps for were created using ArcMap 10.0 and are found in Appendix C. A digital repository was created for all survey results (see Appendix D). All field and laboratory documentation that was not born digital was scanned; all data were ingested into the digital repository. Summary Data on the survey region’s archaeological features dating to the third millennium BC were managed, queried, and displayed using a GIS. Visual clusters were verified using cluster analysis. Environmental and land use characteristics regarding the landscape within and immediately adjacent to the clusters were combined to identify resources available in the third millennium. It was then possible to compare clusters according to their attributes and situation on the landscape. Feature clusters were assessed in combination and according to period (i.e., Hafit vs. Umm an-Nar) and monument type (Tower vs. Tomb). 156 CHAPTER SEVEN: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF SPATIAL AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES Third Millennium BC Tomb Distributions According to Saxe (1970) and Goldstein (1981) there is a relationship between critical resources and burial of the dead where the spaces themselves are exclusively mortuary. Therefore we can assume this relationship was true in the third millennium BC Wadi al-Hijr if tombs (1) cluster and (2) exclude non-mortuary features. Ripley’s K Function Using the ArcGIS 10.0 Multi-Distance Spatial Cluster Analysis Tool, which uses a common transform of Ripley’s K Function, I was able to explore the nature of the tomb distributions on the landscape. I used the Ripley’s edge correction formula; with 10, 50, and 100 distance bands; and with and without the tomb likelihood (2 or 3) as weights. As a comparison I also ran the Multi-Distance Spatial Cluster Analysis Tool using all third millennium BC tombs (likelihoods 1–3). The results are found in Appendix C. In the case of all third millennium BC tombs – whether Hafit, Umm an-Nar, combined, or totaled (i.e., including those third millennium BC tombs not assigned to either the Hafit or Umm an-Nar periods) – there was a significant amount of clustering at all measurable distances, but was particularly strong from 2.3 km to 2.8 km, where differences between expected and observed densities range from 1940 to 2604. Third Millennium Features There is a clear tendency for third millennium BC archaeological features to cluster spatially (Figure 65). However, it is important to remember that of the 682 features dated to the third millennium BC, only 25 (3.7%) are non-mortuary (Figure 66), and this overall clustering is itself a function of tomb clustering. In the Hafit period there is a very strong association between tombs, such that the presence of one tomb in an area is an excellent predictor for the presence of many more contemporary tombs 157 (Figure 67). 3rd Millennium BC Features Tower Dam Settlement Tomb Unknown Survey boundary 0 Figure 65. Distribution of all third millennium BC features. 158 1 2 km N Figure 66. Distribution of third millennium BC features (Mortuary and Non-mortuary). 159 Figure 67. Third millennium BC tombs by period. Hafit period tombs are found in association with other Hafit tombs. Umm an-Nar period tombs are found in association with Hafit period tombs, and also cluster with other Umm an-Nar period tombs. 160 Examples of three Kernel Density Estimations – for Hafit period tombs only (Figure 68), for Umm an-Nar period tombs only (Figure 69), and for all possible third millennium BC tombs, weighted by tomb likelihood (Figure 70) – demonstrate the high degree of clustering already visible on the maps of distributions. 161 Figure 68. Kernel Density Map (2.3 km kernel) of Hafit period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. 162 Figure 69. Kernel Density Map (2.3 km kernel) of Umm an-Nar period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. 163 Figure 70. Kernel Density Map (2.6 km kernel) of all third millennium BC tombs. Natural Breaks classification. 164 In order to assume that the Saxe-Goldstein hypothesis is in effect it is equally necessary that these clusters of features be exclusively mortuary in nature. There is numerous archaeological evidence of features located along-side the features I have identified as being highly likely (2-3) to be third millennium tombs. However, there is no evidence that these features are either contemporary or non-mortuary in nature. That is, these features are indeterminate by the standards of this analysis. In a few cases features that are probably some sort of platform are located within Hafit period tomb clusters, and which may be Hafit; however, there is nothing to indicate the function(s) of these platforms. In his research in the Wadi Andam region in central Oman, al-Jahwari (2008) indicated that even through excavation a number of cairns were inconclusive, in dating and in function. In no case were these cairns found to be definitely contemporary and non-mortuary. For the moment, at least, the Hafit tombs of the Wadi al-Hijr hold to Saxe’s (1970) and Goldstein’s (1981) specifications for the use of an exclusively mortuary space as marking access to critical resources. Umm an-Nar Tomb Distributions Umm an-Nar period people are culturally contiguous with the earlier (Hafit period) people (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007; cf. Orchard and Stanger 1994). However, since the Hafit period cemeteries were already positioned on the landscape, Umm an-Nar period tombs cluster, in part, with Hafit tombs as much as they do with each other (Figures 71 and 72), and the presence of Hafit tombs acts as an indicator for the presence of Umm an-Nar tombs. Taken together, then, third millennium BC tombs are strongly clustered. 165 Figure 71. Distribution of Umm an-Nar period tombs. 166 Figure 72. Distributions of Hafit and Umm an-Nar tombs 167 These clusters are based not only on tomb proximity to other tombs, but also to local topography. According to most researchers (e.g., Cleuziou and Tosi 2007; Giraud 2009), Hafit period and Umm an-Nar period tombs are located on different relief. Tomb type: formal clusters Literature to-date suggests that there are two types of third millennium tombs, and that these are distinguished by period. Although my data support this, there are a few points of interest relating to tomb construction and style. Some Hafit tombs found on steep slopes are built on top of platforms constructed to level them out, making possible building in an area that would otherwise be too steep. An extension of this is that the tomb itself is raised. However, there is very little expertise involved in the construction of these monuments. There is a clear Umm an-Nar preference for lower locations over higher; this may be pragmatic, since their footprint can be greater, but not significantly so. Tomb locations on the landscape Tombs were displayed according to their situations on the landscape (Figures 73 and 74). Neither Hafit nor Umm an-Nar tombs regularly occur mid-slope, but this is as much a function of the slope itself (and the structural engineering difficulties such slopes provide). In addition, of the 375 Hafit tombs only 32 (8.5%) were located in the wadi or plain, and only 19 (5.0%) were located on the lowest parts of the landscape (i.e., the primary and secondary locations were both “1”). Of that 19, six are equally likely to be Umm an-Nar as Hafit, suggesting that they are transitional. Therefore, there is a Hafit preference for locating tombs on ridges. 168 Figure 73. Map of Hafit period tombs by primary location. 169 Figure 74. Map of Umm an-Nar period tombs by primary location. 170 But where on ridges? This question becomes even more important when considering the local topography: ridge slopes tend to be very steep, often-times near-vertical, while the crest of the ridges is relatively flat (Figure 75). Strictly in terms of locations upon which to build a stone structure, the ridge crests provide much more level surfaces. In addition, access to the ridge crests is relatively easy when approached from the end (i.e., along the strike of the bedrock), as opposed to from the sides. The ridgeline in Figure 75 runs NW-SE, with the ridge sloping down to meet the valley floor on the northwestern end. As is clear in the figure, approaching the ridge from the northwest end it is possible to ascend the ridge quite quickly without having to traverse slopes that are at least twice as steep along the northeastern and southwestern faces. 171 Figure 75. Close-up of location of third millennium BC tombs (ad-Dariz South). The tombs sit on relatively flat areas on top of the ridge (signified by parallel dark lines on both sides of a lighter gray central line). 172 Visibility It is inaccurate, however, to suggest that the tombs are placed only in terms of convenience and limited-use space. Specifically, it has been proposed that visibility– either to or from – these features is important, and this does appear to be the case. Specifically, it is possible to see the valley floor quite clearly, and vice-versa. The tombs in the area in Figure 75, ad-Dariz South, are arranged on steep slopes that nevertheless do not extend particularly high up off of the valley floor. They have excellent local views (ca. 500 m) in most directions – the exception being looking along the strike. There are two reasons for this: first, it is sometimes difficult to identify tomb features from the natural bedrock, as the tombs are less likely to be outlined against the sky, and therefore their obtrusiveness is relatively low. Secondly, the ridge itself obstructs views from its crest along its strike (in this case, to the southeast). At other locations it is possible to see quite clearly that once a relatively flat location is found on limited-use landforms, the choice about where to locate a tomb is related to visibility. In Figure 76 tombs are preferentially lined up on the southern edges of the hilltops, overlooking an active flood zone in the valley. The hills themselves are gentler, and views to the north are of low stony plateaus and hills before Jebel Shuwā’ī encloses the viewscape. 173 Figure 76. Detail of tomb locations north of al-Khutm. Note the location of the tombs overlooking the wadi (center). 174 Besides the landscape, the third millennium tombs themselves may be points of visibility to each other. Out of all of the third millennium tombs (n = 549), all of them were visible to at least one other tomb. As tombs cluster so extensively this is not particularly surprising. The same is true of the towers: at least one tower is visible to and from one other tower. In the cases of ad-Dariz South 1 and 2, and al-Khutm and Wahrah Qala, these are “exclusive” pairs; ad-Dariz South 1 and 2 are only visible to each other, as are al-Khutm and Wahrah Qala. In addition, over one third (n = 220) of the third millennium tombs are within sight of one or more towers. “Transitional” Tombs Of the 549 tombs scoring 2-3 for the third millennium BC, 33, distributed randomly throughout the study region, appear to have a combination of Hafit and Umm an-Nar characteristics. As small as this group is these features are situated regularly across all of the landforms. For example, out of 375 Hafit tombs (including the 33 transitional tombs) there are 60 (16%) on any of the low spaces compared to 51% of the transitional tombs. While 272 (73%) of the Hafit period tombs are on the highest places only 36% of the transitional tombs are in that same locational range; and 40 (11%) of the Hafit tombs fell in the mid-range, compared to 15% of the transitional tombs. This strongly suggests that the transition from ridgeline to wadi plain occurred simultaneously with transitions in tomb style. Formal Variation in Hafit Tombs The attribution of certain tombs to a “transitional” category suggests variation due to temporal change. However, there are also numerous examples in the Wadi al-Hijr of variation in Hafit period tombs. Among those variations are (1) variation in the exterior wall construction style; (2) variation in the number of exterior ringwalls; and (3) integration of bedrock into the tomb exterior walling. There is considerable variation in the construction of the external “ringwalls” (outer walls 175 enclosing the interment). It is common for tombs of the Hafit period to have “skins”; that is a ringwall built of a single width of stones and laid directly against another ringwall, so that the walls are abutting rather than interlocking (Figure 77). Sometimes these skins are coursed, as in the previous figure, while on other occasions they are haphazard (Figure 78). There are also numerous examples of Hafit period tombs that appear to have variations of the skin-to-skin construction style: either ringwalls in which an internal ringwall, faced to the exterior, was later covered by another layer of walling but with rubble fill between the two faces (Figure 79); or a single wall, faced to the interior and exterior, with rubble fill (Figure 80). Figure 77. Hafit period tomb, feature 111122. Note the tomb "skins". 176 Figure 78. Feature 100866 - note the uncoursed wall. This Hafit tomb was also built on a platform. 177 Figure 79. Remains of wall construction, feature 111261. Note that the inner and outer ringwalls both have exterior faces. 178 Figure 80. Feature 100864. Note the un-coursed ringwall in profile on the south side of the tomb, and the rubble fill pouring out where the ringwall has been removed. Secondly, the number of ringwalls varied. Multiple ringwalls of 145 Hafit period tombs were visible in the survey region; they varied in number from two (n = 135) to four (n = 1) ringwalls per tomb. Third, on numerous occasions the tomb construction either incorporated the local topography into the tomb construction, or appears to have been constructed in spite of the local topography. It was quite common to find the naturally occurring vertical bedrock incorporated as exterior walling (Figure 81). On the other hand, at least seven Hafit period tombs in the ad-Dariz South cluster are built on their own individual platforms (Figure 82). The common factor in all of this appears to be the end result: a stone cylinder with a smooth profile, particularly effective when viewed from several hundred meters or more away and silhouetted against the sky. 179 Figure 81. Hafit period tomb feature 100888. Note the use of bedrock in the southwestern side of the ringwall. Figure 82. Feature 100861: Hafit period tomb over a platform built specifically to provide a level foundation. 180 Tower Visibility Before discussing visibility it is important to bring out one point. On an open landscape visibility is of course quite high, and vice-versa. We do not know when date palms were introduced (and actively cultivated) in Oman oases such as Bat. However, it is likely that these oases would have had relatively dense vegetation to some height. For towers located within the oases this may have limited visibility. However, this would have had little impact on those towers and tombs located on prominences. All towers can see at least one other tower. There are a few cases in which one tower is able to view several others. From Tower 1145 it is possible to see 1156, 1146, 1148, and Feature 110980, and from Feature 110980 it is possible to see 1147, 1146, 1145, Bat Qala, and 1148 (i.e., the entirety of the Bat tower system). For the most part, however, there is only dual intervisibility. In general, tower visibility is quite high, even in the wadi plain. That is because, even without a bedrock prominence, the towers themselves are raised platforms, so that standing on top of even the remains of one of these towers increases the viewer’s range. Even Tower 1156, the only tower located mid-slope, is elevated enough off the wadi plain to see across much of the western half of the Bat area, toward al-Khutm (although al-Khutm itself is not visible). Tower-Tomb Visibility Some of the Hafit and Umm an-Nar tombs can see (and be seen by) all of the towers. However, in no place are all tombs able to see a tower, or vice-versa. It is possible to view the towers from 65 out of the 127 Umm an-Nar tombs. Distances between towers and their furthest visible tomb varies dramatically from tower to tower. Unsurprisingly, the tower with the shortest visibility range is Tower 1156. On the other hand, somewhat surprisingly, Of the eight tombs furthest from the towers, it is probably quite 181 significant that only three are Umm an-Nar; the others are “transitional” (both Hafit and Umm an-Nar). In no case is the furthest tomb a Hafit tomb. A small number of tombs scoring 2-3 for both Hafit and Umm an-Nar period characteristics – which I have tentatively called “transitional” tombs – are the greatest distances within sight of the towers, and nearly all can see towers (Table 12). This suggests (1) that they may have been built after (or at least simultaneously with) the towers and/or (2) that their situation was deliberate. Another transitional tomb, 100328, is the furthest tomb able to see either Wahrah Qala or al-Khutm. 182 Table 12. Tower-Tomb Visibility. Note that many of the tombs within sight of a tower but furthest away are "transitional". Tower Furthest Distance Transitional Tomb Tower tomb ID tomb? location location 1247 m Y Mid-slope Wadi plain Ad-Dariz S1 100739 1183 m N (UAN) Plateau Wadi plain Ad-Dariz S2 100644 1878 m Y Prominence Wahrah Qala 100328 100328 647 m Y Prominence Al-Khutm 100076 1281 m N (UAN) Prominence Wadi plain 1145 111185 556 m N (UAN) Plateau Hill base 1156 100076 1495 m N (UAN) Plateau Wadi plain 1146 100273 1522 m Y Prominence Wadi plain 1147 100273 1891 m Y Prominence Prominence 110980 100238 655 m Y Prominence Prominence Bat Qala 100597 1659 m Y Mid-slope prominence 1148 Comparison of Tomb Types by Location Regardless of time period, one-quarter to one-third of the features found in the survey area were located on lower features. This survey dramatically under-represents later archaeological periods in terms of space covered, particularly for Islamic and pre-Modern features. This has to do, primarily, with a dramatically different archaeological footprint: while Umm an-Nar settlement was confined to two main locations, Islamic period use of the landscape was more extensive on the lower parts of the landscape. In keeping with data collection methods applied for the third millennium settlement, for example, only a single feature entry was made for the collective whole of an Islamic settlement. This is comparative issue is not unique to this survey, and no attempt was made to quantify feature densities according to, for example, feature footprint. Therefore the mud brick village located to the southwest of al-Khutm covered .75 sq km, as compared to the extant third millennium settlement nearby. While this is not problematic when comparing third millennium (or other period) land us, it is important to recall when considering the success of the survey methodology overall. This indicates that use by third millennium BC 183 people of hilltops and ridgetops for tomb location is not a side effect of survey methodology, but a cultural preference. Since tombs from both the Hafit and Umm an-Nar periods are located below ridgelines (e.g., on low terraces) this is not, however, an exclusive preference. Third millennium tombs of both periods are located on all landforms, from the wadi plain to ridges and prominences and in-between. It is likely that, after the primary land form is chosen, a major factor is the potential of the location as a solid foundation. When the landscape is taken into account – specifically, areas where it would be nearly impossible to have a tomb on one part of the landscape are removed from consideration – tomb clustering increases dramatically. For example, the Wahrah-Khutm tomb and tower groups become a single group with the Bat groups (see, for example, Figure 76) which themselves collapse into a single group. The same is true of ad-Dariz South. All of these have towers. The significance of landform on preferred Hafit tomb location is most clearly visible for adDariz South, where the spaces between Hafit tombs are nearly all correlated with archaeologically “empty” wadi plains. However, the thickly silted wadi plain between the ridges suggests that there may be a great deal of alluvial buildup in this area, and may have sealed a number of lower – and therefore statistically more Umm an-Nar – archaeological features. But this does not distract from the overall cluster; if anything, the potential for locating more tombs between the archaeologically dense ridges would merely increase the overall density of the cluster, which is already quite high. It is important to note that, in general, the further southeast along the ridges of the ad-Dariz cluster one goes, the less alluvial buildup (and therefore the rockier and less arable) the between-ridge plain is (Figures 83 and 84). That the two ad-Dariz South towers are located on the agriculturally rich northwestern end of the cluster is something that will be discussed later. 184 Figure 83. The western end of the ad-Dariz South tomb cluster. Note evidence of farming. Figure 84. The eastern end of the ad-Dariz South survey area, looking southeast. Note the dark mid-ground, evidence of undisturbed rocky sediment While the tombs of ad-Dariz North (a) do not cluster statistically – there are too few tombs (6 Umm an-Nar and 9 Hafit) – visually they appear to do so (Figure 85). 185 Figure 85. Ad-Dariz North (a), Hafit period and Umm an-Nar period tomb distributions. 186 Summary It has been generally established that the Umm an-Nar tombs are more “impressive” than Hafit tombs. At the risk of circular reasoning, this was true of those tombs in this survey area as well. The distinctions between Hafit and Umm an-Nar tombs are not as clear as tend to be stated in the literature. However, there are nevertheless clear trends in this study region that support the general views. In terms of landform location Hafit tombs were far more likely to be situated on the tops of ridges, where they are silhouetted against the sky, than elsewhere. They are also less finely finished on their exterior faces and make use primarily of local stone. The result is a feature that looks quite impressive from an easy distance of 300–500 m or more. Umm an-Nar tombs, on the other hand, tend to be located on lower features (although they, too, are found in a few cases on ridges) (see Figure 74). They also tend to cluster less regularly. Their overall visibility – i.e., from a distance – is therefore considerably lower than the visibility of Hafit tombs. However, their finer external construction suggests that they are intended to be seen up close. Together, this suggests that the distances at which Hafit and Umm an-Nar tombs are meant to be viewed are different. Tomb Locations and Resource Associations Why these differences in locations? According to Hypothesis 8, this suggests that Hafit tombs – as opposed to Umm an-Nar tombs – may have been marking access to resources. In order to understand this aspect of decision-making there are two further concerns: (1) during the Umm an-Nar period people were using something other than their contemporary tombs to mark resources (if resources were being marked); and (2) there should be resources in close proximity to Hafit tomb clusters. 187 The ad-Dariz South Cluster The wadi plains of Ad-Dariz South show several different types of evidence for potential agriculture. First, a modern system of wells, running along the southeastern edge of the Wadi alKabir, proves that the water table was relatively high even into the last 20 years in the ad-Dariz area. Second, field systems are still evident on the plains, despite regular seasonal flooding and erosion (see Figure 83). The ad-Dariz South cluster is remarkable partially because, as was noted in Chapter 5, most of the features seem to date to the Hafit period. Another remarkable aspect of this area is the divide between features located on the ridges and those located elsewhere (Figure 86): while 171 third millennium tombs were located on ridges, only 15 were found on plains, plateaus, or foothills (i.e., anything other than ridgelines). That there are two towers located in this area – and, therefore, probably signal some Umm an-Nar presence – it is possible that a number of late third millennium BC features are under the alluvium. 188 Figure 86. Third millennium features in the ad-Dariz cluster, according to location. 189 The ad-Dariz North Cluster Two small clusters of third millennium tombs were located to the northeast of the modern village of ad-Dariz (Figure 27). The environmental context for these features is markedly different from that of the ad-Dariz South cluster. The ridges in this area are a combination of the al-Wahrah series, limestone vertical ridges similar to those near Bat and ad-Dariz South, and Pleistocene riverine deposits (i.e., large cobbles). It is also bounded on the northern side by the limestone Jebel Shuwā’ī, boulders of which collect along its base. The area is less likely to be used for agriculture: There is little alluvial silt build-up in that area except in the immediate flood zones. The result is a patchy landscape of bare rock with some scrub, to active flood zones with full-grown trees and scrub. These both make good grazing zones but generally very poor agricultural zones (Figure 88). 190 Figure 87. The ad-Dariz North feature clusters. 191 Figure 88. Ad-Dariz North and Wahrah North landscape, looking north-northwest. 192 The Bat Cluster As was argued earlier, the Bat, al-Khutm, and Wahrah clusters can, for the most part, be considered as a single group – or perhaps more accurately, as a major cluster and a hinterland (Figure 89). The geological make-up of the southern and northern sides is quite different on each side, which accounts in part for the “messier” distribution of tombs (e.g., there are fewer linear ridgelines north of Bat village). A Pleistocene conglomerate – which surfaces in only a few places but notably under Kasr al-Sleme and Husn al-Wardi – divides the two halves of Bat along the southern side of the wadi plain, near the modern active flood zone. Although the limestone schist in both areas is similar and are similarly vertically shifted, the northern ridges (i.e., surrounding and east of the Bat cemetery) in part contain fewer chert extrusions and have weathered more quickly (Figure 90). The result has been gentler hills on the northern side of Bat valley, and far more steeply sloped ridges (visible by their dark red ridgetops) to the south. This has clear implications for the distribution of tombs: in this sense, the Bat cemetery space is unique in occurring both directly adjacent to a seasonally flooding arable plain and on a far gentler landscape than much of its surroundings. No doubt these two characteristics helped to simplify third millennium decision-making in regards to tomb location. 193 Figure 89. Location of third millennium tombs in the Bat area. 194 Figure 90. The geology of the Bat area. To the south are red-tipped ridges; to the north are visibly gentler hills. 195 The Significance of Negative Data As Hafit tombs are located near several different kinds of resources and therefore mark general access to resources, the opposite must also be true: there should be a noticeable lack of resources visible where no Hafit tombs are located. Although it is difficult to quantify, there is a case to be made that where there are no resources to mark, there are no third millennium tombs. The notable exception to this is chert. Abundantly available across the bedrock outcropping areas, particularly in the ridges to the south of the Wadi al-Hijr, there is little evidence for third millennium marking of this raw material (although lithic workshops from other periods were noted). As it is by far the most abundant resource in the area – and across much of the al-Hajar piedmont region – it was perhaps unnecessary to mark this local resource. The lithic assemblage collected in association with third millennium features reflects a broad range of cherts, some of which were probably local but others from unknown sources. This is an important area of future research. Before continuing it is equally important to note the relative distributions of third millennium BC tombs and towers. As has been noted, tombs are found in association with a wide variety of resources which, together, form an integrated subsistence matrix of agro-pastoralism. Towers, on the other hand, are associated only with oases: towers ad-Dariz South 1 and ad-Dariz South 2 near the ad-Dariz oasis; the Wahrah and al-Khutm towers near the al-Wahrah oasis; and all six of the Bat towers within a few hundred meters (at most) of the Bat oasis (see Figure 40). In nearly all cases the towers are situated within and surrounded by irrigable land. The two exceptions to this are 1156, which is mere meters away from agricultural fields, and 110980, which overlooks the entire Bat oasis. 196 Formal Tower Types In order to understand the towers as a monumental type it is necessary first to determine whether they are, indeed, of one type. It is tempting to group tombs according to one of their most obvious characteristics, but with the knowledge at hand it is unclear which one(s) (Table 13). Table 13. Tower Characteristics. Tower location Material 1147 Wadi plain 110980 Local prominence Local prominence Wadi plain Local prominence Mid-slope Wadi plain Local prominence Local prominence Wadi plain Bat Qalah 1146 1148 Mudbrick, stone Stone Stone Stone* Stone* Stone 1156 Stone 1145 Stone AlKhutm Stone Wahrah Qala Stone Ad-Dariz South 1 Stone Ad-Dariz Wadi plain South 2 *denotes blocks of the largest size Central Ext. Superwell (poss.) structures structure Y Y Y Entrance Unknown (N) Unknown (Y) Y Unknown (Y) Unknown Y Unknown Unknown (Y) Unknown Unknown N Unknown Unknown Unknown Y Unknown Unknown N N Y Y Y Unknown Y Unknown Unknown N Unknown Unknown N Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown N Unknown Unknown Unexcavated Unexcavated N N “Superstructure” refers to the probability that the stone ringwall was originally taller or created a separate superstructure above the current height of the tower. This is based on their surrounding rockfall, which has only been known to have accumulated at Kasr al-Rojoom and Matariya. In both cases large amounts of stone, of similar size and finish as the intact ringwalls, were uncovered during excavation. Only ad-Dariz 1, ad-Dariz 2, and Kasr al-Khafaji have any significant deposition at their bases, and it is known in the case of Kasr al-Khafaji that extensive 197 remodeling and reuse occurred up through the middle Islamic period. The other towers are both situated in currently developed lands and/or perched on prominences, from which any superstructure fall would have quickly been used for nearby more recent construction. Although their original heights are unknown, it is possible, if not likely, that they were all considerably taller than they currently stand. Many of the towers have central wells; several others may have wells; but certain others are highly unlikely to be so structured. Of note in this discussion is Tower 1156. It is unusual on a number of counts. It is the only tower to have been built mid-slope, and it was partially deconstructed during the Umm an-Nar period to make space for more rectilinear structures (and therefore presumably settlement). Although it is unlikely that it has a central well (based, in this case, strictly on the immediate hydrogeology), recent excavations by the American-Japanese Bat Archaeological Project have uncovered what may be a stepped system of water channels, ending at the lowest point in a stone-lined cistern (Thornton et al., 2012). Finally, as suggested by its deconstruction during the Umm an-Nar period, Tower 1156 was also a very early monument. Proposed Tower Chronology It does not appear, at least at this point, that any one set of characteristics – beyond a 20mdiameter semi-circular base – is held in common by the towers in the study area. Instead, using known tower construction dates it may be possible to develop a tower chronology. Specifically, we have radiocarbon dates from four of the 11 towers in the survey area: 1145, 1146, 1147, and 1156 (see Table 7). These have been published in excavation reports by the American team (Thornton and Mortimer 2012), and their construction and chronology is relatively neat. Dates from levels immediately beneath the mudbrick of the earliest tower, Matariya, date to ca. 3110–2900 (98%) BC (Calib.Rev.5.0.1, 2-sigma). This tower consists of 2– 198 4 construction phases, probably in relatively short succession. The first two were of mud brick, followed by a stone ringwall construction phase, and finally followed by a ringwall construction of stones ca. twice the size of the earlier (now internal) ringwall stones. The stone-lined central well construction is consistent with the earlier construction periods’ style rather than the later phases, suggesting that both it, and the mud brick platform within which it is situated, are early aspects of the tower’s construction. The stone ringwall appears to have originally been considerably taller, suggesting that this very early tower may once have been quite impressive. Tower 1156 is perhaps as old as Matariya (see Table 7). As already mentioned, although it is unlikely it had a central well, it may have been associated with water catchment. It was soon abandoned and, more strikingly, restructured as part of the “settlement slope” (Frifelt). The next oldest towers are Kasr al-Rojoom and Kasr al-Khafaji. Kasr al-Rojoom is still quite tall, and would have been several meters taller (Frifelt). It also has a central well – as does the Kasr al-Khafaji. That the central well in Kasr al-Khafaji was still usable in the medieval Islamic period is a testament to its success as a permanent access point for water. As these towers progress through time, they begin as mud brick, become stone, and the ringwall stones become continually larger until their surface area is over 1.5 meters square. This suggests an intensification of labor. It is likely that Matariya is unique, and most towers were built as single events. Towers as Monuments and Resources Nearly half (n = 5) of the towers in the survey region were located on the wadi plain, with an equal number located on prominences. Only 1156, nestled between the settlement slope and the cemetery, is situated mid-slope. One of the towers – 110980 – is very unlikely to have an interior well, or anything functionally to do with water. Of the other ten towers, three (i.e., Kasr al199 Rojoom, Kasr al-Khafaji, and Matariya) are known to have wells; one other (1156) has what may be a water channel around it; another (Husn al-Wardi) has a modern (pump) well; a sixth (Kasr al-Sleme) has surficial evidence of a central well; and the remaining four others (ad-Dariz South 1 and 2, al-Khutm, and Wahrah Qala) are unknowns. Overall there is a probable correlation between water resources and towers. Of the dated four towers, it is notable that they all have access to water. In addition, with the exception of Tower 1156 – which, notably, was quickly abandoned – the access was to permanent water sources. In addition, in at least two of the three known cases, such access would have been quite limited; if the ringwalls of Matariya and Kasr al-Rojoom were as tall as proposed, Matariya would have been ca. four meters tall and Kasr al-Rojoom perhaps as many as five meters tall, raising both considerably from off of the wadi plain. With the current foundations intact, it is possible to assert that there was no easy access to either monument. From admittedly rather meager data, it may be possible to present a picture of the third millennium BC tower as one that, from early on, was strongly associated with restricted access to a – perhaps the – permanent water source. With such limited access and such monumental structures, it takes no jump in the imagination to suggest that there would have developed an association of monumental circular stone architecture 20 m in diameter with permanent water. Those who had access to this water – via access to the monument – would have been in one of a limited number of powerful positions. In addition, the association of permanent water – and the significance such a resource would have had in an environment such as Oman’s – with the monument may have outstripped the actual presence of wells. That is, the monument itself may have come to signal resource security even in the absence of those resources. If access was, indeed, limited, it is not difficult for the concept of abundance to be maintained within the 200 monument, particularly if the monument was maintained as another part of that system of abundance. That towers with wells persisted throughout the third millennium suggests that this was, indeed, key to the functional and ideological aspects of the tower as a monument type. Conclusion All archaeological features in the survey area are clustered, suggesting that the same areas on the landscape have been reused for the past 5000 and more years. Hafit tombs are the most distinct feature type, both in terms of form and location. They cluster most clearly on ridges, where they can be seen from relatively great distances. Their form suggests that their primary role was to be viewed from those greater distances. Their relatively simple form may have required the combined effort of a small group, but in general would not have required much technological expertise. Hafit tombs are always located near resources, but the resources themselves vary. Umm an-Nar tombs are located near agricultural land, usually on low plateaus, and nearly always in close proximity to Hafit tombs on ridgetops. Together, this suggests that Hafit tombs were used to mark a variety of resources, and Hafit tombs called upon their proximity to Hafit tombs to lay claim to those same resources. Umm an-Nar construction is considerably finer than that of the Hafit tombs; this, combined with their decreased visibility in comparison to Hafit tombs, suggests that they were intended to be viewed close distances. That Umm an-Nar tombs are frequently located in close proximity to contemporary settlement structures in addition to towers, the effect is one of a constant reminder of Umm an-Nar mortuary ideology. When relating towers and tombs, towers are always found near tombs, but not necessarily vice-versa. Ad-Dariz North, for example has no tower. It is possible that this is somewhat related to tomb frequency: a tower may only occur at locations where there are great numbers of tombs. However, Wahrah Qala is part of only a small and loosely organized cluster of third millennium 201 tombs. While this may be somewhat dependent upon pre-historic to modern land use – Wahrah Qala itself was inhabited in recent memory – it is also true that tomb clusters exist outside of the western piedmont (see, for example, Giraud’s (2009) work in the Ja’alan). It is therefore unlikely that tombs correlate directly with the presence of towers. Summary Exploratory data analysis made evident the strong general tendency for like features to cluster with like features. Different patterns characterize the different types of monuments and resources. This is much stronger with third millennium tombs than with contemporary towers. Cluster analysis indicates that tombs were highly clustered, and towers were only located in association with groups of tombs (the opposite was not true). Northeast of the village of ad-Dariz, small clusters of tombs were found. This semi-open landscape, currently pastureland, receives seasonal flooding (sayl). South of ad-Dariz tombs array on the ridgelines to the south and east of two towers. The distance between the furthest tombs and closest tower is less than 2.6 km. Tomb clusters near Bat are made up of a combination of tomb types. Current land use demonstrates that tower wells would have readily accessed ghayl and provided year-round water for oasis agriculture. In addition, while the majority of tombs were located on resource-deprived locations, they were within 350 m of usable land (usable identified as arable land and pastureland). Pastureland was never associated with towers; only clusters of tombs. In areas where there was no pastureland or arable land, no third millennium BC tombs or towers were found. Hafit tombs have a different distribution than Umm an-Nar tombs and tend to cluster more. Umm an-Nar tombs are usually found in association with Hafit tombs. Towers are always associated with Hafit and Umm an-Nar tombs, although the opposite is not true. Towers 202 themselves cluster (this is not statistically significant). Towers are located either on local high points or on wadi plains. Hafit tombs are concentrated on local high points, but located on all other major landforms and elevations. Similarly, Umm an-Nar tombs are concentrated on low plateaus but are located on local high points and mid-slope as well. 203 CHAPTER EIGHT: INTERPRETATION, SUMMARY, AND FUTURE RESEARCH At the beginning of this research I asked the following questions about monuments, their relationship to each other, and the ways in which they “triangulate” between landscape, culture, and resources: 1. What are the spatial distributions of third millennium BC monuments in the Wadi al-Hijr? Do they differ? 2. What are the relationships between tombs, resources, and social inclusion or exclusion? How do these relationships change over time? 3. How can we account for formal and spatial variation in third millennium BC towers? 4. What is the relationship between towers, resources, and social inclusion or exclusion, as it develops through the third millennium BC? How does this change over time? Why Mortuary Monuments? I argue that the third millennium BC tombs of the Wadi al-Hijr served two critical, related roles for the people of ancient Magan: first, they provided the medium by which to mark access to a wide variety of disparate resources; and second, they provided the means by which social integration was achieved, enacted, and made visible in the world. Spatial and social maintenance systems are not discrete (Casimir 1992:13). Thus, it is possible for both exclusionary and integrative tendencies to be in play at the same time, particularly if they have social functions at different scales. These two are also responses to regularizing access to different things: while a territory can mark out a space within which lie a variety of different types of land and resources (Dresch 1989:81; Janzen 1986; Wilkinson 1983b), a cemetery space – the “permanent, specialized bounded area” (Goldstein 1981:61) for 204 the dead – correlates instead to rights over an adjacent resource. We see this in the Hafit period tombs of the Wadi al-Hijr. These tombs cluster spatially and create exclusively mortuary spaces. This research supports current ideas of early third millennium BC mortuary practices which suggest that during the Hafit period, tombs were located near resources. Specifically, tombs were located near a variety of resources, which were of varying importance depending upon the horizontally differentiated sector of society in question. In addition, this research suggests that Hafit tombs are only found in association with resources. Clusters of Hafit tombs are associated (i.e., within a few hundred meters, at most) with crucial and limited resources – of which there are many in the Wadi al-Hijr. These include regular, dependable water sources (both sayl and ghayl); land situated above flash flooding zones; and arable soil. Collections of resources in different parts of the landscape have different uses in different seasons, but together they form a complementary subsistence system of pastoral and agricultural land use that is successful because of its inter-reliance. Umm an-Nar period tombs demonstrate continuity with Hafit period tombs through their spatial association with Hafit tomb clusters (i.e., within or on the edges of Hafit tomb clusters). In doing so I argue that the Umm an-Nar period people of the Wadi al-Hijr sought to maintain access to these same resources. Small, exclusive clusters of Umm an-Nar tombs near contemporary quarry sites, which provided access to highly prized white limestone, confirms that the mortuary realm marked a widening social understanding of resources. Monuments and the mortuary realm provide opportunities for expressions – both ritual and physical – of social integration (Blake 2002; O’Shea and Milner 2002). Hafit period tombs facilitate the inclusion of all members of third millennium BC society in a number of ways. First, the low technology and skill levels necessary for tomb construction – visible through variation in 205 construction styles – allows for, at least in theory, the participation of all members in monument building. Second, each member of the society could expect to participate in this culture-wide ritual through his or her own eventual death and interment. Even with a relatively low population the occasion of tomb building would have been a regular – perhaps annual – occurrence, providing numerous opportunities across an individual’s life and death to participate. These integrative funerary events would have been relatively frequent, and simultaneously universal and personal. Finally, even when not actively participating in the construction of a tomb, Hafit period people created stunning reminders of their universal culture. Although individual Hafit tombs vary in construction technique, the form of the monument is consistent and the number of mortuary monuments is extraordinary. In addition to their development of a distinctive and ubiquitous mortuary form, Hafit people deliberately placed their tombs on highly visible parts of the landscape. Hafit tombs, which are primarily impressive from a distance, seem intended to be seen from afar, thereby signaling social identity to a wide audience. Silhouetted against the sky, these stark monuments would have been potent reminders of the life flourishing below, life made possible through a complex set of relationships. Hafit tombs signaled a broad, culture-wide access to both group identity and group resources, and these resources were as varied as the strategies undertaken by members of the group. If territory and tribal identity can be deeply entwined, and the purpose of the territory is to mark resources or subsistence practices, it is possible that, where there is no territory to speak of, it is the resource and its exploitation that is the identity-marker. In such a scenario, by choosing a specific way of interacting with the environment, an individual (or group of individuals) links their identity to their subsistence practices, and vice-versa: their subsistence strategies are employed in order to facilitate the maintenance of a specific cultural identity. 206 In an environmental context such as that provided by ancient Oman, and with a subsistence strategy which seeks to maintain access to shifting and/or unreliable resources over time and space, life is made possible through systems of social access negotiated via monument building and rights to burial. It is crucial that group members know – “know” in the ideological sense – how they will be received as they travel, and for those who remain in a single location that resources will regularly come to them in return. This is in keeping with Frangipane’s (2007) description of the Halaf culture in northern Mesopotamia. Specifically, Frangipane argues that entire communities were “devoted, at least partially, to certain subsistence activities … within one and the same socioeconomic and cultural system” (161). It would therefore have been necessary to integrate each group into a regular, stable, cooperative system in order to guarantee exchange and redistribution of both basic and luxury commodities. As in third millennium BC Oman, those cooperative exchange networks form the basis of the entire system. The corollary to this is that there is no need for consistent and defined territories. Howey argues that tribal social organization “predictably organizes dispersed groups, not linked by any hegemony, within defined territories. A defined territory ties groups to a localized, bounded set of resources” (Howey 2006:1). This does not appear to be the case in ancient Oman; it is not necessary that a tribe maintain a territory per se, so long as access to resources is regularized by other means – such as by reciprocity, by seasonal use patterns, or by other means. In this light, it makes a great deal of sense that later Umm an-Nar tombs should be found “in the shadow of the ancestors,” as Cleuziou and Tosi (2007) describe it. There are numerous elements of Hafit mortuary practices that are retained during this later period and in close proximity to the early practices. The very fact that Hafit tombs were rarely (if ever) disassembled 207 in the following period for reuse elsewhere suggests that something signaled in the Hafit tombs was still of significance to Umm an-Nar people. Yet, while Umm an-Nar period tombs referenced Hafit mortuary practices, they exhibit some clear breaks from the earlier patterns. Umm an-Nar period tombs do not cluster exclusively, but rather are interspersed with other structures within contemporary settlement. The Umm an-Nar mortuary realm shifts focus from the creation of monuments to the monuments qua monuments, and thus subsumes the individual participant to the local group. These groups would have been corporate and probably related through kinship. Collective burial, while common enough in the Hafit period, was nevertheless limited in number. During the Umm an-Nar period hundreds of individuals – male and female, and of all ages – were interred in the same tomb and over lengthy periods of time, in some cases several hundred years. Individuals were placed first as primary interments in the tomb, then over time skeletal elements and associated funerary materials were disarticulated and re-aggregated in a variety of ways. As is made clear by the secondary and tertiary manipulation of comingled human remains, the identity of the group in the Umm an-Nar period not only continues to be important, but gains prominence. Small entrances, which were also characteristic of Hafit tombs (when such entrances existed at all), obscured views of the interior of the tomb and again focused attention on the monument and the whole. Individuals are associated with a larger cultural body in death as they were in life. Nevertheless, the latter half of the third millennium BC shows a shift in mortuary practices, mortuary architecture, and tomb location. Tombs are now, in a word, beautiful: finely crafted facades made from stone at least 3–5 km distant, individually shaped and fitted to the exact specifications of a particular part of a particular tomb. While the number of individuals has increased dramatically, it is probable that the structural and stylistic intensification was equal per 208 individual to what it had been in the Hafit period. However, while the construction of a Hafit tomb provided opportunities for remembering the greater social whole of which each person was a part, fewer tombs were built during the Umm an-Nar period. On the other hand, these tombs were interspersed within the settlement, where daily life was ongoing; at Bat it is common for an Umm an-Nar tomb to be situated a few meters from a domestic structure. This is in keeping with the finer stylistic developments of the latter half of the third millennium BC; while Hafit tombs were impressive from a distance, Umm an-Nar tombs, as monuments, needed to impress under close scrutiny. Even as the mortuary realm became, literally, closer to home – one wonders about the smell – the mortuary monument becomes itself grander and more important. That is, while the ideology is still one of equal access and solidarity in heterogeneity, it is now an ideology that has subtly re-focused on the ritual structure – e.g., monument and the rituals surrounding it – rather than on the relationships that underwrote and were underwritten by them. From this perspective, there is intensification in the mortuary realm that focuses on the façade rather than on the vaguely accessible interior, with the potential for an increasing divide between ideology and daily life. Why Tower Monuments? This dissertation argued in Chapter 7 that the Umm an-Nar tower was originally dually a monument and a means of accessing – specifically, a means of limiting access to – ghayl (subsurface water). In conjunction with excavations at Matariya, recent excavations of tower 1156, also under the American Expedition at Bat (Possehl et al. 2011; Thornton and Mortimer 2012), confirm that all of the towers known to have their beginnings in the Hafit period are associated with regular access to water. In addition, those towers that continued in use through to 209 the Umm an-Nar period maintain access to ghayl, which is the only water source which is consistent year-round rather than seasonally. That is, early tower “success”, measured by its existence as a tower, is based on its association with unvarying access to water. According to Casimir (1992), where a resource such as ghayl is spatially limited (i.e., to wells) and relatively predictable, access is more likely to resemble a defense of the space itself. It is possible to see the Umm an-Nar tower as a compromise between two competing strategies of access: on the one hand, the horizontal access signaled by the mortuary realm, and upon which the entire structure of the social system relies; on the other hand, a space as limited and inaccessible as technology and group effort can make it. Instead of guarding the territories in which wells exist – as discussed in Chapter 2, a nearly impossible, endless, and fruitless (not to mention counterproductive) task – the towers have the “convenience” of requiring only infrequent exertions of great, collective effort and limiting access both through their location – within the heart of the contemporary settlement, which itself is surrounded by ancestral monuments – and their very structure. Chapter 7 also addressed one of the puzzles of third millennium towers: that they seem to have very little in common beyond being monuments. In the height of the Hafit period a tower tradition began; first made of mud brick, then later of stone. Over time they increased in monumentality, as measured by the effort needed to build the structure. The tower tradition began around control of wells as access to ghayl (i.e., limited and crucial resources). But the monumentality of these features exceeded simple access. These monuments were employed to make statements about those at the top – literally and figuratively. And those on top had access to and control of a limited resource. That is, limited physical (and thereby social) access to monumental structures that were already associated with a crucial resource would make it 210 possible for the monument itself to be leveraged by sub-groups within the society to gain ascendance. These individuals or groups need not have been directly involved in agriculture, although there is little doubt that the well water would have served that purpose – just as Ibn Khaldûn saw oases as belonging to the bedw even though the elite and much of the population were settled. Why Tomb and Tower Monuments? A delicate balancing act is a necessary complement to strategies of personal gain in systems of equality: as evidence to the contrary mounts, more and more effort must go into maintaining an ideology of flexibility, independence, and resource predictability. This may act to limit overt or even covert vertical differentiation, but it may also act to “exhaust” the ideological realm: the society (1) continues existing rituals enacting ideologies of social leveling, and also (2) creates new ones that (Kuijt 2001). And so the balance between tombs and towers continued. Why, then, monuments, and why different types of monuments? Both mark access to resources; in the case of the tomb, participation in the mortuary ritual provides access to the living via resources marked by that dead; in the alternative case, the tower limits access to water through social and physical exclusion. These two different types of monuments simultaneously signal two different types of social ideologies: one in which group members may seek to access and leverage specific resources nodes; and another type of monument in which group members seek to leverage access to specific resources as access to an entire network of resources. Future Directions Site Conservation and Management Documenting feature preservation – creating a system which helps to assess archaeological 211 feature distributions, significance, and relative state of preservation – is a crucial next step in this work. Not only may it be possible to predict endangered features, it may also be possible to develop a model for archaeological resources of which little is left in situ. It is of highest importance that this be integrated with research agendas. By developing an overarching research plan which includes endangered archaeological resources, research questions and data collection can be directed towards salvage excavations. Hafit Tomb Construction Monuments can serve a multitude of purposes and agendas. They can be a “systemmaintaining mechanism” (Kaplan 1963:404); they can be employed to solve the “two opposing problems” of the tribal system, that of large-scale integration and local differentiation (O’Shea and Milner 2002:201). Groups of mortuary monuments can mark access to resources (Goldstein 1981), and group burials can mark social solidarity and group identity (Chesson 1999). In environments such as that of third millennium BC Oman, where we would expect to see largescale integration in order to maintain access to disparate and patchily distributed resources, we can also expect local variation. Specifically, local traditions of tomb construction should vary across space. While the broadest level of tomb signaling is one of universality, we can expect that more intimate studies of the tomb clusters should provide different construction styles and local perspectives of identity and landscape. Tomb Typologies and Spatial Relationships The question of whether there is any significance to the relationship between towers and the “transitional” tomb type needs further study – as does the development of either a finer tomb seriation or finer spatial differences between contemporary tombs. I propose that more research on Umm an-Nar tomb layout, particularly in relation to isotopic and genetic studies, will go far to helping us to understand variation within cemeteries and between tombs. If the heuristic 212 divide between Hafit and Umm an-Nar is removed, what would be the result? Hafit Period and Umm an-Nar Period Tomb Membership The relationship between tomb membership and group membership is an important one. I have proposed that Hafit tomb membership is based solely on group membership. Others (e.g., Cleuziou and Tosi 2007) have proposed that Hafit tombs were distinct corporate units, and that the change in mortuary monuments in the Umm an-Nar period demonstrates a shift towards a larger corporate identity. The two hypotheses are not exclusive, but a study of relatedness between and within a cluster of tombs from the Hafit period, and another from the Umm an-Nar period, would be useful in a number of ways. First, it would provide comparability in space if not in time. At the moment tomb excavations have been extensive and opportunistic; while there are good reasons for this, a new, intensive study – particularly one that takes advantage of previous and ongoing research – is necessary in order to gain an understanding of the communities that made up specific third millennium BC settlements. Second, and more generally, it will allow us to capture what are probably very subtle differences between individuals by providing a baseline for comparability. Integration of the Mortuary Realm Interactions between the maritime, pastoral, and agricultural communities probably varied across a number of axes, from temporal (seasonally) to spatial (scalar). While most individuals living in a particular location at a particular time are likely to have been “local” – in the sense that their primary resources were nearby – a few individuals should be utilizing non-local resources. Gregorička (2011) found this pattern in the diets of Umm an-Nar individuals interred on the northern Oman Peninsula. A similar study of interments at a major interior third millennium BC oasis such as Bat would provide an important complement. 213 Tower Contemporaneity While this research has teased apart the change in towers over time, the question of tower contemporaneity is crucial to understanding local interactions. The water table at ad-Dariz south is relatively high and accessible across much of the area (Bowen-Jones 1978); why is it, then, that the only two (extant) towers in that area are a mere 300 m apart? Is this an indication of two different groups providing exclusive access to the same resource, or is it a matter of one tower waxing as the other waned? Tower Function It is difficult to support the idea that some towers provide access to ghayl, and other towers provide access to… nothing. Were these other towers used for surplus storage? Or were they, as has been suggested to me by numerous Omani acquaintances, the houses of elites much like modern sheikhs? Communities of Comparison There are clear differences between the distribution of third millennium features at ad-Dariz South and at Bat. One hypothesis, supported here, is that much of the Umm an-Nar archaeological signature is either buried under alluvium or removed (by natural or human means). A second hypothesis is that ad-Dariz South is a very different distribution. A third hypothesis is that there is scalar and/or edge distortion: ad-Dariz South may be a corner of a different or simply larger distribution of third millennium features that is confusing because it is fragmentary. Geophysical survey and hydrogeological studies, already planned for the next upcoming seasons, may help to understand this part of the study area better. Resource Identification and Regional Study As culturally important resources shift over time between the Hafit and Umm an-Nar periods, what distinctions can be made between critical resources and culturally significant resources? Comparing the development of oasis and non-oasis sites and social signatures may help to 214 confirm or problematize this argument, that differential access to ghayl through the towers provided opportunities for advancement of a sub-sector of the group (whether or not at the expense of others). Oasis sites with similar numbers of towers are few and far between, but ongoing work in the Bahla and Bisya-Salut areas will go far to refining our understanding of third millennium BC monuments on the Oman Peninsula. Since scale is so critical to understanding the relationships posited here, it is important to aggregate comparable survey data across quite a large portion of Oman if we expect to best understand the relationships between different people doing different things within the same long-distance integrated system. Understanding local geomorphological and hydrogeological constraints is an important aspect of this, which should be equally emphasized if we intend to understand the ways in which ancient people used their environment, and the cultural actions resulting in the feature distributions evident in the Hijr Valley. Maximizing Negative Data Maximum entropy (Maxent) modeling is a general-purpose model for making inferences from incomplete information (Phillips et al. 2006). This is assessed based on the difference between a feature’s “fundamental niche” – the set of all conditions that act as parameters for potential locations for that feature type – and the subset of the fundamental niche that an archaeological feature type actually occupies. If the realized niche and the fundamental niche do not fully coincide, then the modeling algorithm is missing specific characteristics that help to fully describe the feature type’s fundamental niche (“locational suitability” may be substituted here). In addition, Maximum Entropy (Maxent) models make possible the differentiation between suitability in terms of data variables – what Phillips et al. (2006) call ecological space – and suitability in terms of geographic space. This may be particularly useful in a highly fragmented and mosaicked landscape such as that of the piedmontane region of the Oman 215 Peninsula. Advancing Archaeological Survey Potential in Northern Oman More and more high-resolution satellite imagery is becoming available for public use the world over. The use of this imagery as a tool for identifying archaeological features is ongoing (e.g., Beck et al. 2007; Deadman 2012), but each geographic region has its own unique characteristics and therefore challenges and advantages. This research is part of a larger attempt to explore new ways of evaluating features on the landscape remotely. Ongoing research with Yasuhisa Kondo (Tokyo Institute of Technology) in this and neighboring regions will provide a baseline for understanding the relationship between pedestrian and satellite-aided archaeological prospection. What Lies Ahead Perhaps most key to our understanding of the Hafit and Umm an-Nar periods is an increased understanding of the fourth and second millennium cultures that bookend them. In order to understand the tensions present between Umm an-Nar tombs and towers it is necessary that we explore its resolution. This is to be found first and foremost in studies of the Wadi Suq period. The first step in this direction is a systematic look at Wadi Suq settlement in north-central Oman. What Lies Before and After If it is true that certain groups are benefiting from access to ghayl more than other groups, would this be marked in other parts of the archaeological record. As restrictions on access, or control of exchange of goods, increases it is likely that social stratification will increase (Lancaster and Lancaster 2002). This restriction, if it occurs, should be visible in trade and exchange networks. Though useful, this is made difficult by the dearth of excavated third millennium settlement sites. Plans to locate and excavate settlement related to Kasr al-Khafaji will greatly increase the little that is known about third millennium BC settlements. 216 Social stratification is also an outcome of redistributive (as opposed to reciprocal) resources. If such redistribution was occurring we should be able to identify it archaeologically at Bat. For groups in which stability, alliances, and exchange are maintained through heterogeneity in production according to social units, specialization and differentiation may act as catalysts for structural change (Johansen et al. 2004:52). These may be located in the prestige structure or even in gender differences (Crown and Fish 1996). Monuments and Identity Since the concept of identity and the idea of a territorial social group are closely linked, it is possible to reflect on the cultural homogeneity and heterogeneity of the Hafit and Umm an-Nar periods in Oman. Specifically, if “the ideas of ruling and access to resources were not about exclusive control and power … but rather about the provision of ‘peace’ through the expression of individual autonomy, and the defense of these moral attributes as tribes” (Lancaster and Lancaster 1992a:164), then monuments have an important role to play in our understanding of past social relations. Summary This research sought to understand the ways in which a culture employs different types of monuments. As a major part of the landscape the monument can be used to link people to places, people to resources, and people to people – and the employment of different types of monuments allows for people to highlight different kinds of relationships. In the case of third millennium BC Oman I argue that mortuary monuments had an important role to play as mnemonics of social integration, whether at the local or the regional scale. On the other hand, the tower monuments were employed to leverage certain groups over others. Both types of monuments triangulate between people and resources, balancing tensions between environments, individuals, kin and 217 corporate groups. While it is certain that further research will refine these relationships, the significance of third millennium BC monuments in the Wadi al-Hijr lies in their employment as bold, broad, social statements. These statements are repeated and patterned. Following Goldstein, I argue that “the most profitable way to begin a landscape analysis is to take note of basic visual patterns” (1981:67). For the third millennium BC monuments of the Wadi al-Hijr, this research contributes to that beginning. 218 APPENDICES 219 APPENDIX A Gazetteer of Archaeological Resources 220 Table 14. Gazetteer of Archaeological Resources. Material UTM Zone 40N ID Period Culture Easting Northing Type Tomb 100001 472362 2573169 Tomb 100002 472348 2573170 100003 472340 2573199 Tomb Iron Age 100004 472376 2573159 Tomb 100005 472391 2573156 Artifact(s) None None None None None 100006 472403 2573157 Tomb - None 100007 472406 2573153 Tomb - None 100008 100009 100010 472419 472452 472464 2573150 2573144 2573138 Tomb Tomb Tomb 100011 472468 2573130 Tomb 100012 100013 472460 472482 2573134 2573136 - 3rd Mill. BC - None None None Bone; Beads None Lithic 100014 472477 2573130 - - None 100015 100016 100017 472481 472377 472267 2573121 2572717 2572387 - - Lithic None None 100018 472254 2572373 Tomb - Lithic 100019 472272 2572363 - - Lithic 221 Description and Notes Poorly preserved. Roof collapsed. Abuts rock outrop. Honeycomb series of chambers. Robbed out and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Probably 100006 and 100007 have a chamber tombs b/w them. Probably 100006 and 100007 have a chamber tombs b/w them. Little preserved. Destroyed and stones robbed out. Destroyed and stones robbed out. Possible reuse for Wadi Suq-Iron Age tombs. Mostly intact. Stones removed. Lithics scattered across the entire ridge associated with this feature. Lithics scattered across the entire ridge associated with this feature. Lots of stone removal Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 100020 472277 2572358 - - Lithic 100021 472287 2572353 - - None 100022 472298 2572359 - - None 100023 472312 2572349 - - None 100024 472316 2572350 Tomb Hafit None 100025 472361 2572311 - - None 100026 472370 2572309 - - None 100027 472379 2572303 Tomb Hafit None 100028 472388 2572297 - - None 100029 472385 2572291 Tomb Hafit None 100030 472406 2572288 Tomb Hafit None 100031 472406 2572287 Tomb Hafit None 100032 472404 2572300 - - None 100033 472399 2572304 - - Lithic 100034 472420 2572305 Tomb Hafit None 222 Description and Notes Lithics scattered across the entire ridge associated with this feature. Roofing stones present but tomb not intact. Lithics scattered across the entire ridge associated with this feature. Lithics scattered across the entire ridge associated with this feature. Probably intact interior. Roofing stones still present. Lithics scattered across the entire ridge associated with this feature. Construction made use of vertical bedrock. Lithics scattered across the entire ridge associated with this feature. Lithics scattered across the entire ridge associated with this feature. Intact tomb; in relatively good condition. Probably collapsed in on itself. Lithics scattered across the entire ridge associated with this feature. One side of this tomb is missing (only ~0.4m tall and mostly soil). Corbelled roofing on intact side. Lithics scattered across the entire ridge associated with this feature. Lithics scattered across the entire ridge associated with this feature. Lithics scattered across the entire ridge associated with this feature. A "double" tomb with feature 100035 (to NE) Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 100035 472419 2572308 Tomb Hafit Ceramic 100036 100037 472492 472490 2573110 2573104 Tomb - None None 100038 472504 2573098 Tomb 100039 472512 2573092 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC - 100040 472517 2573089 - - None 100041 100042 472520 472530 2573090 2573086 Tomb None None 100043 472545 2573075 Tomb 100044 472585 2573025 Tomb Hafit Umm anNar Hafit 100045 472592 2573024 Tomb Hafit Lithic; Bone 100046 100047 472598 472607 2573021 2573019 Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit None None 100048 472622 2573021 Building(s) Hafit Lithic; Bone 100049 472577 2572974 - - None 100050 472571 2573015 Tomb Hafit None None None None None 223 Description and Notes A "double" feature with 100034 (to SW). Mostly intact; Jemdet Nasr sherds found in wall rubble. Mostly intact. Walls are visible. Stone removal makes renders the outline indistinguishable but interior is probably intact. Third millennium tomb with central dividing wall. In good condition. This feature is completely gone; it is only visible because of the artifact cluster, a very small rise, and a stone circle flush with the ground. A partially collapsed doorway is visible. This feature resembles a miniature circular tower base: only 1 stone course tall; the South and West sides are relatively intact. This has a thick wall with large blocks and a central circular void ca. 1 m in diameter. There is little distinctive about this feature of stones with fewer in center; a possible tomb. Feature exterior walling was reused as a windbreak. Table 14 (cont'd) 100051 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 472555 2573026 - 100052 472469 2573025 Tomb 100053 472457 2573026 - 3rd Mill. BC - 100054 472449 2573029 - - None 100055 100056 472439 472419 2573035 2573047 - None None 100057 472413 2573053 Tomb 100058 100059 100060 100061 100062 472496 472499 472506 472518 472479 2572968 2572963 2572964 2572966 2572994 Tomb - 100063 472520 2572890 Tomb 100064 100065 100066 100067 472481 472537 472592 472595 2572833 2572792 2572819 2572827 Tomb Tomb - 100068 472607 2572825 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit 3rd Mill. BC 100069 472626 2572859 Building(s) - 100070 472679 2572972 - ID UTM Zone 40N - Period Artifact(s) None None None None None None None None None Lithic None Lithic Lithic None None Lithic; Bone Lithic 224 Description and Notes Feature has a possible central wall. More recent building on top of and abutting (on E side) tomb. Possible tomb. Feature is collapsed. Considerable stone robbing. Tomb, fairly intact. Modern digging in feature center. This tomb has several nice exterior walls visible (at least 2). Multi-chambered tomb, now in poor condition. Rectangular building, with other probable buildings nearby (n = 4). - Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 100071 472667 2572997 Tomb Hafit 100072 100073 472678 472722 2572995 2572993 Tomb Tomb 100074 472731 2572987 Building(s) 100075 472737 2572983 Tomb 100076 472777 2572975 Tomb 100077 472776 2572969 - 100078 100079 100080 472782 472865 472886 2572966 2572918 2572913 Tomb Tomb Tomb Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit Hafit 100081 472923 2572883 - - 100082 100083 100084 100085 100086 100087 100088 100089 100090 100091 472671 472689 472690 472699 472716 472722 472737 472744 472741 472766 2572829 2572822 2572814 2572811 2572804 2572804 2572799 2572796 2572802 2572809 - Historic - Artifact(s) Description and Notes This feature is in good condition, with its ringwall visible to the South and East. None Feature in good condition. None This is a possible tomb, now completely gone: the circular Ceramic wall foundation is visible on South and West sides only. Feature possibly undisturbed. None None None None - This feature is made of unusually large stone blocks. None None None This feature is a "pavement" -- flat stones set into earth -- in a None ridge saddle. Stone robbing make this feature difficult to intepret. None Stone robbing make this feature difficult to intepret. None Stone robbing make this feature difficult to intepret. None Ceramic Stone robbing make this feature difficult to intepret. Stone robbing make this feature difficult to intepret. None Stone robbing make this feature difficult to intepret. None Stone robbing make this feature difficult to intepret. None Stone robbing make this feature difficult to intepret. None Stone robbing make this feature difficult to intepret. None Stone robbing make this feature difficult to intepret. Bone 225 Table 14 (cont'd) 100092 100093 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 472782 2572804 472813 2572785 - 100094 472824 2572782 Tomb Hafit None 100095 100096 472801 472813 2572752 2572737 Tomb Hafit None None 100097 472802 2572711 - Modern None 100098 100099 100100 472796 472792 472798 2572684 2572676 2572674 Tomb - Hafit - None None None 100101 472537 2572605 Building(s) Hafit-Umm an-Nar Lithic 100102 472727 2572422 Tomb 100103 472880 2572758 - 100104 472878 2572734 Tomb ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes - None None Tomb is partially destroyed and stones removed. Tomb is partially destroyed and stones removed. Feature is collapsed in on itself but its interior is possibly intact. Stone robbing and reuse makes this feature difficult to interpret. This feature is flat (no stone-on-stone); this is possibly a circular pavement with a ca. 2 m-void in its center. It is made up of large flat stones, possibly making up one circular or semi-circular wall. Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC 100105 472927 2572717 Tomb Wadi SuqIron Age 100106 100107 472954 472967 2572729 2572722 - - None None None - Ceramic; Metal; This tomb is partially disturbed but probably intact. Shell None There is a possible rectilinear structure near this feature. None 226 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 100108 472980 2572714 Tomb 100109 100110 472988 473002 2572710 2572705 Tomb - Umm anNar - 100111 473029 2572693 Tomb Wadi Suq 100112 100113 473037 473071 2572670 2572682 - - 100114 472878 2572535 Building(s) 100115 472931 2572480 Tomb 100116 472948 2572456 Tomb 100117 100118 100119 100120 100121 472966 473004 473016 472994 472983 2572469 2572477 2572479 2572455 2572436 Tomb Tomb 3rd Mill. BC Iron Age Wadi Suq Iron Age 100122 472997 2572436 Tomb Iron Age 100123 473025 2572412 Tomb Iron Age 100124 473056 2572387 - - Iron Age Artifact(s) Description and Notes Ceramic; Bone None None This feature consists of a mound of pebbles and stone None fragments with some blocks. None None This feature is a large rectangular building and platform on a None low rise on the West end of a ridge. It is possibly Iron Age. Ceramic; Shell Ceramic; Lithic Feature in good condition. Ceramic Bone This feature is potentially a tomb but very disturbed. None This tomb is probably Wadi Suq. None Ceramic This feature is a tomb but with a possibly later addition (or Ceramic two chambers). Ceramic; Bone; Stone vessel None 227 Table 14 (cont'd) Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes 100125 100126 100127 100128 100129 100130 100131 100132 100133 100134 100135 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 473073 2572379 Tomb 473082 2572368 473088 2572360 473042 2572342 473028 2572349 473013 2572354 Tomb 472998 2572378 Tomb 473001 2572385 Tomb 473002 2572389 Tomb 473000 2572393 Tomb 473016 2572389 Tomb Wadi Suq Wadi Suq Wadi Suq Wadi Suq Wadi Suq Wadi Suq Wadi Suq None None None None None None None None None None None 100136 472960 2572386 Tomb Wadi Suq None 100137 100138 100139 100140 100141 100142 100143 100144 100145 100146 100147 100148 100149 472988 472940 472933 472914 472903 472220 472206 472162 472131 472121 472115 472160 472074 2572351 2572178 2572182 2572181 2572181 2572389 2572404 2572426 2572447 2572452 2572461 2572485 2572485 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb - Iron Age Hafit Hafit - None None None None None None None None None None None None None Feature has been disturbed. Poorly preserved. Feature is probably intact beneath the reuse. This feature is made up of small stones or pebbles over larger (unaligned) stones. Poorly preserved. Feature is mostly intact. ID UTM Zone 40N 228 Feature is probably intact. Table 14 (cont'd) 100150 100151 100152 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 472030 2572517 471983 2572528 Tomb 471962 2572524 Tomb 100153 471939 2572544 Tomb - None 100154 100155 100156 100157 100158 100159 100160 100161 100162 471940 471919 471758 471773 471778 471740 471733 471728 471708 2572570 2572597 2572759 2572688 2572687 2572667 2572674 2572713 2572755 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb - None None None None None None None None None 100163 471692 2572780 Tomb 100164 100165 100166 100167 100168 100169 100170 100171 100172 100173 471681 471656 471639 471664 471583 471552 471570 471526 471499 471628 2572804 2572836 2572851 2572855 2572909 2572926 2572956 2572995 2573027 2572595 Tomb Tomb Tomb - Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit Hafit - ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes Hafit None None None Feature is disturbed but probably intact. There is a possible rectangular platform or building foundation to the southwest. Feature is probably intact. Considerable stone removal/robbing. Feature is possibly intact. Feature is probably intact but in poor condition. None None None None None None None None None None None 229 Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Table 14 (cont'd) 100174 100175 100176 100177 100178 100179 100180 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 471654 2572566 471690 2572513 Tomb 471723 2572482 471434 2572635 471356 2572642 Tomb 471295 2572596 Tomb 471309 2572585 Tomb 100181 471334 2572473 Tomb 100182 100183 100184 100185 100186 100187 100188 100189 100190 100191 100192 100193 100194 100195 100196 100197 100198 471351 471416 471522 471604 471583 471892 471972 471949 472498 472409 472392 472378 472301 472157 472045 472011 472102 2572457 2572469 2572452 2572407 2572291 2572277 2572207 2572229 2571954 2571932 2571956 2571974 2571997 2572089 2572151 2572137 2572056 Tomb Tomb - ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Hafit Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit Hafit - None None None None None None None None None None None None None Lithic None None None None None None None None None None None 230 Description and Notes Very poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. This feature is probably intact. Feature is probably intact but in poor condition. Feature has collapsed in on itself but is probably intact. Feature has collapsed in on itself but is probably intact. Feature has collapsed in on itself but is probably intact. Feature has collapsed in on itself but is probably intact. - Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 100199 472225 2571971 Tomb Hafit Bone 100200 100201 100202 100203 472299 472338 472351 472374 2571917 2571886 2571875 2571868 Tomb Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit Hafit None None None None 100204 472383 2571857 - - None 100205 472416 2571834 Tomb - None 100206 472463 2571804 Tomb Hafit None 100207 100208 100209 100210 100211 100212 100213 100214 100215 100216 472509 472513 472592 472732 472683 472649 472644 472638 472991 473003 2571826 2571764 2571679 2571642 2571685 2571753 2571767 2571774 2572171 2572084 Tomb Tomb Tomb - Hafit - 100217 473067 2572187 Tomb Hafit 100218 100219 473057 473176 2572193 2572248 - - Description and Notes This feature has a large diameter and is intact except for some (animal) digging in center. The feature has a potentially intact interior but some or most of the ringwall has been removed. This feature is in very good condition; ashlar blocks are visible at its base. Feature has seen lots of disturbance in its center. - None None None None None Lithic None None None None Ceramic; This feature has been disturbed. Bone None Ceramic - 231 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Umm anNar Wadi Suq Wadi Suq Hafit Iron Age 3rd Mill. BC Artifact(s) 100220 473157 2572156 Tomb Ceramic 100221 100222 100223 100224 100225 100226 473150 473164 473343 473369 473389 473370 2572147 2572151 2571960 2571943 2571961 2571992 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb - 100227 473415 2571916 Tomb 100228 473591 2571775 - Modern None 100229 473620 2571743 Tomb Hafit None 100230 473638 2571722 - - None 100231 100232 100233 100234 100235 100236 100237 473645 473657 473740 473959 473904 473767 473731 2571715 2571700 2571620 2571453 2571076 2571186 2571201 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb - None None None None None None None 100238 473720 2571209 Tomb Modern Hafit Hafit Hafit-Umm an-Nar None None None None None None None None 232 Description and Notes This is a third millennium (Umm an-Nar) tomb with a Wadi Suq tomb built on top and its outer skins removed. This feature is probably a Hafit tomb with Wadi Suq reuse. This feature is probably a Hafit tomb with Wadi Suq reuse. This feature is poorly preserved. It is surrounded (to the North and East) by Wadi Suq tombs. This feature is poorly preserved. It is surrounded (to the North and East) by Wadi Suq tombs. This feature is poorly preserved. It is surrounded (to the North and East) by Wadi Suq tombs. Poorly preserved. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 100239 473635 2571261 Tomb Hafit 100240 100241 100242 473331 473350 473190 2571552 2571573 2571667 Tomb - Iron Age - 100243 473237 2571687 - - 100244 100245 473134 473141 2571714 2571744 Tomb - Hafit - 100246 473149 2571778 Tomb Hafit 100247 473079 2571835 Tomb Hafit 100248 473023 2571828 - - 100249 472888 2571979 Tomb Wadi Suq 100250 100251 100252 100253 100254 100255 472851 472845 472840 472826 472800 473033 2571971 2571971 2571972 2571984 2572003 2571259 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb - Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit 100256 474492 2571232 Tomb - Artifact(s) Description and Notes Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. Ceramic Poorly preserved. None None The northern half of this feature is completely destroyed; the None south half resembles a tomb. None None Small stones appear to have been "sprinkled" over a rebuilt top part of tomb and has therefore probably been reused in the None Wadi Suq period. Small stones appear to have been "sprinkled" over a rebuilt top part of tomb and has therefore probably been reused in the None Wadi Suq period. None Evidence of outer large stone removal from this feature, None which has possibly been reused in the Wadi Suq period. Stone removal has made this feature clear in plan. None Stone removal has made this feature clear in plan. None Ceramic Stone removal has made this feature clear in plan. Stone removal has made this feature clear in plan. None Stone removal has made this feature clear in plan. None Poorly preserved. None Poorly preserved; only stones set flush into soil in circle are None evident. None 233 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 100257 474498 2571228 Tomb - 100258 474507 2571221 - Wadi Suq 100259 474510 2571217 - - 100260 100261 474542 474547 2571185 2571180 - Iron Age 100262 474614 2571117 - - 100263 100264 100265 100266 474621 474627 474661 474728 2571110 2571107 2571062 2570981 Tomb - Hafit - 100267 474750 2570945 Tomb Wadi Suq 100268 100269 474761 474846 2570932 2570842 Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit 100270 474868 2570822 Tomb Hafit 100271 474884 2570795 - - 100272 474935 2570739 - 100273 475094 2570566 Tomb Umm anNar Artifact(s) Description and Notes Poorly preserved; only stones set flush into soil in circle are evident. Poorly preserved; only stones set flush into soil in circle are Ceramic evident. Poorly preserved; only stones set flush into soil in circle are None evident. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. None Ceramic Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study, but None possibly Umm an-Nar. Poorly preserved; modern cairn has been built atop. None Poorly preserved. None Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. None Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. None Considerable stone removal is visible on the south side of this Ceramic feature. None None Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior None stone removal. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior None stone removal. Poorly preserved. None This is a large tomb, in fairly good architectural condition. None The interior has been partially disturbed. None 234 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N 100274 475192 2570435 - 100275 473272 2573841 Tomb 100276 100277 100278 473309 473317 473338 2573812 2573812 2573787 Tomb - 100279 473343 2573786 Tomb 100280 473387 2573760 - 100281 473401 2573751 - 100282 473420 2573733 Tomb 100283 100284 100285 100286 100287 100288 100289 100290 100291 100292 100293 100294 471232 471294 471275 471204 471173 471104 471052 470984 470963 471186 470539 469734 2573101 2573125 2573135 2573112 2573132 2573166 2573265 2573318 2573338 2572700 2573633 2574387 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb - Period Artifact(s) - None Umm anNar Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC Umm anNar Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit - None None Lithic None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 235 Description and Notes Stones from the top have been cleared and built into modern cairn. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Some white stones are intact in this feature. Although the exterior is poorly defined (due to stone removal) it is definitely a tomb. Feature has been reused but its interior is possibly intact. Feature has collapsed in on itself and is probably intact. Feature has collapsed in on itself and is probably intact. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone removal has left this tomb's "footprint" visible. Poorly preserved. Table 14 (cont'd) 100295 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 469792 2574356 - 100296 469695 2574354 Tomb 100297 469617 2574399 Tomb 100298 469585 2574418 - - None 100299 100300 471659 471633 2574081 2574085 Tomb - None None 100301 471620 2574086 Tomb 100302 100303 100304 471609 471594 471571 2574088 2574094 2574101 Tomb Tomb Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit 100305 471549 2574104 Building(s) 100306 100307 100308 100309 100310 100311 471330 471303 471334 471304 471245 471234 2574159 2574154 2574212 2574237 2574271 2574276 ID UTM Zone 40N Tomb Tomb - Period Hafit Umm anNar Umm anNar Artifact(s) Description and Notes Ceramic Poorly preserved. This is a large, mostly intact tomb; the face of its outer skin is None fully visible in plan. None None None None Lithic Hafit-Umm an-Nar Lithic Hafit Hafit - None None None None None None 236 This feature is potentially a building or part of a fortification. it is made up of huge blocks; a 1.2 m-wide stone wall ends at this feature and takes a 90 degree turn. There are lots of small stones on top if it, and its interior appears to have collapsed in on itself. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Portions of this tomb's "skin" are visible to the north. This feature consists of header-stretcher and double-faced rectilinear walling (with rubble fill between) and therefore is probably third millennium BC.. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100312 100313 100314 100315 100316 100317 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 471217 2574281 471197 2574302 471193 2574304 471182 2574301 471122 2574668 Tomb 471122 2574703 Tomb 100318 471147 2574650 Tomb 100319 100320 100321 100322 100323 100324 100325 471159 471178 471196 471236 471275 471338 471403 2574634 2574624 2574613 2574585 2574581 2574598 2574603 Tomb - 100326 471404 2574500 Tomb 100327 471427 2574469 - 100328 471450 2574458 Tomb 100329 471560 2574379 - Umm anNar - 100330 471586 2574374 Tomb Iron Age 100331 100332 471601 471612 2574390 2574380 - - ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Iron Age Hafit Hafit-Umm an-Nar - Ceramic None None None None None 3rd Mill. BC Ceramic None None None None Bone None None None None None Description and Notes Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. This feature is in fairly good architectural condition. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. This feature has experienced a great deal of stone removal. However, digging straight through to the center from the south side has made three stone-on-stone courses. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. None Ceramic; Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Bone Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. None None 237 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 100333 471693 2574345 Tomb 100334 100335 100336 100337 100338 100339 100340 100341 100342 471722 471760 471804 471823 471842 471847 471918 471954 471983 2574334 2574312 2574300 2574289 2574285 2574285 2574304 2574320 2574335 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit Hafit 100343 472015 2574353 Tomb Hafit None 100344 472020 2574369 Building(s) None 100345 472028 2574358 - 100346 100347 100348 100349 100350 100351 100352 100353 100354 100355 471972 471964 472005 472010 472101 472240 472268 472223 472201 472139 2574447 2574479 2574514 2574521 2574533 2574508 2574590 2574595 2574591 2574581 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 238 Description and Notes Feature interior is possibly intact. This is a large tomb with disturbance of its center. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Feature is partially intact to the south. Interior is probably intact. Only a few of the lowest courses are still intact, but this is probably a tomb. Rectilinear building with interior walling. This feature is almost completely gone except for large stones set into the soil in a circle. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Only the bottom few courses of this feature are intact. Only the bottom few courses of this feature are intact. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. This feature's interior is probably intact; corbelling in place. This very large tomb is fairly intact. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100356 100357 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 472029 2574600 Tomb 471514 2574870 Tomb 100358 471464 2574939 - - None 100359 100360 100361 100362 471421 471244 471328 471330 2574978 2574944 2574885 2574800 Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit None None None None 100363 471531 2574796 Tomb Hafit None 100364 100365 100366 100367 470953 470908 470891 470869 2574863 2574820 2574827 2574834 Tomb Tomb Tomb 3rd Mill. - None None None None 100368 470833 2574845 Tomb Hafit None 100369 470808 2574858 Tomb 100370 100371 470800 470787 2574862 2574867 Tomb Tomb 3rd Mill. BC Iron Age Hafit 100372 470783 2574873 Tomb Hafit None 100373 100374 100375 100376 471027 471063 472357 472412 2575063 2575033 2574807 2574534 Tomb Tomb Tomb Hafit - None None None None ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes Hafit - None None This feature has collapsed in on itself, and stones have been removed from its top. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. The top and outer stones of this feature have been "re-placed" in recent years. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Triangular stones are still visible, set in the bottom courses, Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. None None Bone 239 This feature's outer skin to is intact ca. 2 m on the North side. This feature's outer skin to is intact ca. 2 m on the North side. The outer face of the inner ringwall is partially intact. This tomb had been truncated by reuse (as the southern corner This tomb has been truncated by reuse as the western corner of a rectilinear building. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Only the bottom courses of this feature are original. Table 14 (cont'd) 100377 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 472406 2574536 Tomb 100378 472366 2574541 Tomb Hafit None 100379 100380 100381 100382 100383 100384 100385 100386 100387 100388 472626 472579 472520 472585 472570 472581 472580 472528 472550 472554 2574583 2574622 2574603 2574552 2574507 2574495 2574491 2574357 2574342 2574337 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb None None None None None None None None None None 100389 472430 2574406 Tomb 100390 100391 100392 100393 100394 100395 100396 100397 100398 472329 472785 472774 472764 472755 472800 472796 472787 472774 2574496 2574262 2574265 2574280 2574305 2574313 2574327 2574334 2574359 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Umm anNar Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit 100399 472754 2574404 Tomb - None ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes - None Only the bottom courses of this feature are original. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. Feature is partially destroyed and robbed out. Destroyed and stones robbed out. Poorly preserved. Destroyed and stones robbed out. Poorly preserved. - None None None None None None None None None None 240 Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Tomb is partially destroyed and stones removed. Feature interior is probably intact and collapsed inward; all recent buliding is on top and exterior. Table 14 (cont'd) 100400 100401 100402 100403 100404 100405 100406 100407 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 472725 2574379 472658 2574423 472742 2574471 Tomb 472746 2574463 Tomb 472772 2574491 Tomb 472902 2574370 Tomb 472835 2574422 472742 2574545 - 100408 472730 2574564 Tomb Hafit None 100409 472724 2574572 Tomb Hafit None 100410 100411 100412 472700 472825 472863 2574548 2574536 2574522 Tomb Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit None None None 100413 472915 2574506 Tomb - None 100414 472921 2574503 Tomb Hafit None 100415 472925 2574494 Tomb Umm anNar None 100416 472945 2574455 - Modern Bone 100417 100418 100419 472981 472978 472970 2574558 2574593 2574593 Tomb Tomb Hafit - None None None ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes Hafit Hafit - None None None None None None None None Feature has an intact interior. Feature is partially removed. Only this feature's bottom stones are visible and in situ. Poorly preserved. Despite modern disturbance this structure appears fairly intact beneath the rubble. Despite modern disturbance this structure appears fairly intact beneath the rubble. Possibly 2 chambers to this feature. The outer ringwall is visible ca. 3 m on the south side. Considerable stones removal and modern building over/in this feature. Except for a small cairn built atop, this feature's original stones have been completely removed, and only the plinth remains. Except for a small cairn built atop, this feature's original stones have been completely removed. Feature is probably intact under its collapsed rubble. - 241 Table 14 (cont'd) 100420 100421 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 468982 2574612 469018 2574587 - 100422 469048 2574656 Tomb 100423 469048 2574646 Tomb 100424 100425 100426 100427 100428 469061 469071 469078 469082 469086 2574616 2574607 2574598 2574591 2574577 Tomb Tomb Tomb 100429 469129 2574441 Tomb 100430 469175 2574232 - 100431 469223 2574181 - - Lithic 100432 100433 100434 100435 100436 100437 100438 469230 469319 469308 469343 469366 469410 469423 2574173 2574146 2574073 2574042 2574091 2573934 2573922 Tomb - - Bone None None None None None None ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes Hafit-Umm an-Nar 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit Hafit-Umm an-Nar Umm anNar None None This feature appears to have been a tomb which was reused as a watchtower. None None None None None None Bone None None 242 Poorly preserved. This large tomb is partially intact on its north and south sides. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. This feature was a large structure, probably a tomb with some internal rectilinear walling. It appears to have been disassembled by heavy equipment. This feature was bulldozed. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. This feature was bulldozed. Poorly preserved. Table 14 (cont'd) ID 100439 Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N 469479 2573883 Tomb 100440 100441 100442 100443 100444 100445 100446 469469 469521 469521 469517 469549 472866 469650 2573839 2573786 2573852 2573863 2573859 2575002 2576639 Tomb Tomb Tomb 100447 468932 2576992 Tomb 100448 100449 100450 468950 469456 469583 2576971 2576860 2576834 - 100451 469070 2576845 Tomb 100452 469848 2573935 - 100453 469746 2573954 Tomb 100454 100455 100456 100457 100458 100459 469665 469609 469714 469781 469821 470009 2574010 2574043 2573928 2573896 2573881 2573796 Tomb Tomb Tomb Period Umm anNar Hafit Hafit Hafit Umm anNar Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC Hafit - Artifact(s) Bone; Stone vessel None None None None Bone None None None None None None Beads None None None None Lithic None None None 243 Description and Notes This feature was bulldozed. This feature was bulldozed. This feature was bulldozed. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Feature is partially intact. Poorly preserved. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Feature's interior is probably intact. This feature was bulldozed. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100460 100461 100462 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 470024 2573735 470100 2573701 469731 2573510 - 100463 468140 2574478 Tomb 100464 467365 2577237 Tomb 100465 100466 100467 100468 100469 100470 100471 467352 467247 466850 466868 466899 466923 466950 2577236 2577262 2577284 2577332 2577305 2577286 2577260 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb 100472 466961 2577246 Tomb 100473 100474 100475 466982 467022 467046 2577224 2577214 2577181 Tomb Wadi Suq 3rd Mill. BC Hafit-Umm an-Nar Iron Age Hafit Hafit 3rd Mill. BC - 100476 467150 2577110 Tomb Hafit 100477 467226 2577165 Tomb 100478 467262 2577142 Tomb 100479 467391 2577130 Tomb ID UTM Zone 40N Period Hafit-Umm an-Nar Hafit-Umm an-Nar Hafit Artifact(s) Description and Notes Ceramic Completely destroyed feature. None None Bone None Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. None Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. None Lithic Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Bone None Ceramic Feature is partially intact. Feature is partially intact. None None Feature interior is probably intact. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Feature's outer stones have been removed. None None None Ceramic; Lithic Only the bottom course of ringwall remains in situ. There is a Ministry of Housing survey marker in the center of None this tomb. None None 244 Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Table 14 (cont'd) 100480 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 467423 2577131 - 100481 467097 2576818 100482 100483 100484 467088 467059 467045 2576801 Building(s) 2576849 Tomb 2576864 Tomb Hafit Hafit 100485 467006 2576864 Tomb Hafit 100486 467013 2576875 - - 100487 467016 2576891 - - 100488 466977 2576877 - 100489 466946 2576903 Tomb 100490 100491 100492 466902 466893 466868 2576965 2576974 2576988 Tomb - 100493 466827 2577006 Tomb 100494 467163 2577090 Building(s) 100495 466992 2575818 Iron Age 3rd Mill. BC Historic Umm anNar Umm anNar Historic ID UTM Zone 40N - - Period Artifact(s) - None Iron Age Description and Notes - Ceramic; Associated ceramics were dated to the Early Iron Age and Shell Islamic period (e.g., Schrieber 2007 55:2; 54:5; 20:7; 16:1,2) This feature is probably a rectilinear building. None exterior stones removed; interior skins visible to E None Bone Ceramic; Lithic; Bone None A fence runs through this feature, which is mostly destroyed. This feature has experienced digging; stone removal; and general disturbance. No real diameter is possible but it None appears to have been a large feature. Ceramic None Interior is probably intact. None Ceramic Ceramic Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Ceramic There is rebar in the center of this very large tomb. This feature is made up of two nice walls (perpendicular but Ceramic not abutting); others more difficult to see. Ceramic - 245 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 100496 460164 2576226 Tomb Hafit None 100497 100498 100499 460102 460682 460743 2576250 2575631 2575577 Tomb Tomb - Hafit Hafit - None None Bone 100500 460782 2575528 Tomb Hafit Bone 100501 460833 2575530 - - None 100502 100503 460949 460972 2575511 2575495 Tomb - Bone None 100504 461016 2575470 Tomb 100505 100506 461029 460953 2575466 2575451 Tomb Tomb Hafit Umm anNar - 100507 461052 2575428 Tomb Hafit None 100508 461064 2575410 Tomb Hafit None 100509 461082 2575387 Tomb 100510 100511 100512 100513 100514 461145 461240 461299 461352 461531 2575370 2575314 2575328 2575308 2575188 Tomb Tomb - Hafit-Umm an-Nar Hafit Hafit - None Shell None None None None None None None 246 Description and Notes This feature consists of a circle of flat stones in situ, so is probably the plinth of a tomb. The lowest two courses of ringwall appear to be intact. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. Parts of two ringwalls are visible to the north. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Feature was probably reused as a Wadi Suq burial. Stones were removed from the feature's exterior. Stones were removed from the feature's exterior. Although some stones still in situ, most have been removed from the feature's exterior and top. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. Stones were removed from the feature's exterior. Stones were removed from the feature's exterior. Stones were removed from the feature's exterior. All complete stones were removed from this feature. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Table 14 (cont'd) 100515 100516 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 461613 2575120 461755 2575067 Tomb 100517 461330 2575056 - - 100518 461271 2575088 Tomb 100519 461120 2575176 Tomb Hafit 3rd Mill. BC 100520 460999 2575240 Tomb Hafit None 100521 460949 2575269 Tomb Hafit None 100522 100523 100524 100525 100526 100527 460914 460851 460743 460729 460718 460706 2575295 2575325 2575399 2575412 2575421 2575431 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb - Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit - None None None None None None 100528 460696 2575435 - - None 100529 100530 100531 100532 100533 100534 100535 460650 460633 460626 460592 460581 460529 460519 2575453 2575462 2575467 2575491 2575502 2575521 2575523 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit None None None None None None None ID UTM Zone 40N Period Iron Age Artifact(s) Description and Notes Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. None Ceramic Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. This feature consists of a giant stone cairn with no visible None ringwall. None None 247 Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. This feature is probably intact on its interior; its exterior is preserved. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. There is evidence of some disturbance of the feature's interior. - Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 100536 460508 2575528 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC None 100537 460495 2575536 - - None 100538 100539 460480 460472 2575548 2575548 Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit None Bone 100540 460415 2575593 - - None 100541 100542 460403 460320 2575596 2575629 Tomb - None None 100543 460287 2575641 Tomb Hafit Hafit 3rd Mill. BC 100544 460276 2575648 - Hafit 100545 100546 100547 100548 100549 100550 100551 100552 100553 460264 460238 460001 459988 459948 459896 459891 459818 459781 2575656 2575673 2575813 2575824 2575851 2575889 2575888 2575937 2575964 Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit 100554 459748 2575988 Tomb Hafit None 100555 459708 2576011 - Hafit None Description and Notes This feature consists of a fairly disturbed ringwall visible in small sections. Poorly preserved. This feature is possibly not a tomb but rather a circular platform. This feature's interior is probably intact. Feature is obscured by windblown sand. None This feature consists of an oval, flat stone space; this may None have been a tomb or a platform. Feature is obscured by windblown sand. None Poorly preserved. None None Poorly preserved. None This feature's outer stones have been removed. None None Ceramic Bone Bone 248 This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 100556 459698 2576019 Tomb Hafit None 100557 459685 2576023 - - None 100558 459667 2576037 - - None 100559 459650 2576047 - - None 100560 100561 100562 100563 100564 459619 459921 459946 459967 460197 2576065 2575760 2575752 2575761 2575615 - - None None None None None 100565 460321 2575560 - - None 100566 460325 2575556 - - None 100567 472989 2573726 Tomb 100568 472999 2573728 Tomb 100569 473303 2573769 Tomb 100570 473343 2573756 Tomb 100571 473446 2573685 - Umm anNar Umm anNar Hafit-Umm an-Nar - None None None None None 249 Description and Notes This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature consists of a circle of stones. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Destroyed and stones robbed out. Destroyed and stones robbed out. Destroyed and stones robbed out. This feature includes a circular ditch where the ringwalls should be (i.e., evidence of stone removal). This feature includes a circular ditch where the ringwalls should be (i.e., evidence of stone removal). - Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Hafit-Umm an-Nar Hafit-Umm an-Nar Hafit-Umm an-Nar 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC Umm anNar Hafit-Umm an-Nar 3rd Mill. BC Artifact(s) 100572 473453 2573678 Tomb None 100573 473441 2573675 Tomb 100574 473458 2573661 Tomb 100575 473475 2573639 Tomb 100576 473494 2573625 Tomb 100577 473530 2573597 Tomb 100578 473559 2573567 - 100579 473559 2573562 Tomb 100580 473477 2573564 - Hafit None 100581 473458 2573824 - - None 100582 100583 100584 473523 473532 473541 2573738 2573741 2573749 Tomb Tomb None None None 100585 473546 2573754 Tomb 100586 473560 2573770 Tomb Hafit Hafit 3rd Mill. BC - None None None None None None None None None 250 Description and Notes This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature is probably a multi-chambered tomb. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100587 100588 100589 100590 100591 100592 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 473581 2573755 Tomb 473693 2573775 473757 2573732 473717 2573754 Tomb 473771 2573721 473788 2573714 - 100593 473793 2573668 - 100595 473916 2573834 Tomb 100596 473927 2573829 Tomb 100597 473951 2573825 Tomb 100598 473926 2573799 Tomb Hafit 100599 100600 100601 460455 460575 460622 2575502 2575388 2575375 Tomb - 100602 460645 2575374 Tomb 100603 460658 2575387 - 100604 460745 2575317 - 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC ID UTM Zone 40N 100594 Period Artifact(s) Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Hafit-Umm an-Nar Hafit Hafit-Umm an-Nar None None None Bone None None None None None Lithic Ceramic; Bone Bone None None None None None 251 Description and Notes Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. A vehicle track runs over the top of this feature. exterior stone removal; on flat, just inside an old fence; near road [ID number discarded] Corbelling stones are intact. Feature is mostly intact. Feature is obscured by windblown sand. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Corbelling stones are intact. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes None Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. 100605 460858 2575250 - 100606 460963 2575197 Tomb 100607 100608 100609 100610 100611 100612 100613 100614 100615 461026 461048 461089 461174 461296 461363 461131 460979 460516 2575160 2575150 2575123 2575073 2575003 2574968 2574279 2574377 2574618 Tomb - 100616 460342 2574727 Tomb 100617 100618 100619 100620 100621 100622 100623 460257 460221 460195 460185 460139 460078 460044 2574775 2574805 2574815 2574823 2574862 2574906 2574924 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit 100624 460023 2574930 Tomb Hafit None 100625 100626 459959 459919 2574977 2575000 Tomb Tomb Hafit - None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 252 Feature is obscured by windblown sand. This feature is a well-preserved tomb. Stone removal appears ancient. This feature is a well-preserved tomb. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100627 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 459915 2575002 Tomb 100628 459876 2575027 Tomb 100629 100630 100631 100632 459867 459847 459744 459688 2575034 2575052 2575114 2575181 Tomb Tomb 100633 459691 2575199 - 100634 100635 100636 100637 100638 100639 459692 459695 459676 459666 459661 459654 2575209 2575225 2575272 2575281 2575293 2575294 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit-Umm an-Nar Hafit Hafit Hafit 100640 459610 2575393 Tomb - 100641 100642 459583 459587 2575424 2575430 Tomb - 100643 459600 2575442 Tomb 100644 100645 459658 459664 2575405 2575407 Tomb - 100646 459851 2575254 Tomb Hafit Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Description and Notes This feature is partially preserved. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. None None Ceramic; Bone Sand obscures some aspects of this feature. None Ceramic Stones are weathered and there has been some stone removal Bone but lower stone wall courses are intact. 253 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) - None 100647 459619 2575322 - 100648 459576 2575362 Tomb 100649 100650 459518 459318 2575415 2575502 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit 100651 459313 2575506 Tomb Hafit 100652 100653 100654 100655 100656 100657 100658 100659 100660 459295 459287 459246 459233 459190 459176 459152 459043 459021 2575513 2575516 2575535 2575544 2575574 2575585 2575604 2575678 2575687 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb - Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit - 100661 459007 2575692 Tomb - 100662 458997 2575695 Tomb Hafit 100663 458984 2575699 Tomb Hafit 100664 458976 2575706 Tomb Hafit 100665 458802 2575799 Other - None Description and Notes This feature consists of a round ringwall adjacent to a later rectilinear wall. None Sand obscures some of this feature. None This feature has three concentric skins, all visible now as None "stepped" rings. Sand partially obscures this feature. None Sand partially obscures this feature. None None This feature's wall is faced on both the interior and exterior. None This feature's wall is faced on both the interior and exterior. None None None This feature's wall is faced on both the interior and exterior. None Ceramic This feature's wall is faced on both the interior and exterior None and built of large blocks. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. None This feature's wall is faced on both the interior and exterior None and built of large blocks. This feature's wall is faced on both the interior and exterior None and built of large blocks. This feature is a ground stone cone-shaped depression in N/A bedrock, facing up. 254 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Umm anNar Ceramic; Bone; Metal; Beads 100666 458695 2575851 Tomb 100667 459163 2575540 Tomb 100668 459448 2575344 Tomb 100669 459459 2575339 - 100670 459615 2575133 - 100671 100672 459592 459589 2575118 2575111 Tomb Tomb 100673 459672 2575112 Tomb 100674 100675 100676 459720 459735 460140 2575024 2575019 2574754 Tomb Tomb Umm anNar Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Hafit 100677 460730 2574402 Tomb Hafit 100678 460794 2574370 Tomb 100679 460830 2574353 Tomb 100680 100681 459652 459494 2574625 2574689 Tomb Tomb Umm anNar Umm anNar Hafit Hafit Ceramic Description and Notes This feature was once an Umm an-Nar tomb, but the circular ringwalls exist now only on the north side. This may have been due to the bedrock that may have formed the southern "wall" of the feature. - Ceramic; Poorly preserved. Bone Poorly preserved. None Bone None None Poorly preserved. This feature is partially sand-covered and obscured. Poorly preserved. None None None None None None None None None 255 This feature's ringwall is visible in sections. This feature is a large tomb, partially intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100682 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 459445 2574744 Tomb 100683 459411 2574725 - - None 100684 100685 100686 459373 459355 459315 2574757 2574781 2574805 Tomb Tomb - None None None 100687 459296 2574824 Tomb 100688 459289 2574829 Tomb 100689 100690 459276 459217 2574834 2574880 Tomb 100691 459190 2574907 Tomb 100692 459187 2574909 - 100693 459164 2574917 Tomb Hafit 3rd Mill. BC 4th-6th Mill. BC Hafit 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC 100694 459138 2574937 - Hafit None 100695 100696 459082 459246 2574966 2574924 Tomb Tomb None None 100697 459010 2575012 - 100698 100699 458967 458914 2575037 2575067 - Hafit Hafit 3rd Mill. BC - ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes Hafit None This was possibly reused as a Wadi Suq tomb. This feature consists of a semi-circular multi-coursed stone structure; the semi-circle "ends" at (i.e., the circle is truncated by) bedrock. This features is partially obscured by wind-blown sand. This features is partially obscured by wind-blown sand. None None None None None None None None None None 256 This feature is probably intact. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. Feature's ringwalls are clearly visible. This feature consists of a "stone circle," like a tomb base with all superstructure removed. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100700 100701 100702 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 458851 2575100 Tomb 458803 2575125 458714 2575157 - 100703 458671 2575181 Tomb 100704 458642 2575195 Tomb 100705 458676 2575216 - 100706 458843 2575164 - 100707 458852 2575164 Tomb 100708 458869 2575152 - 100709 458432 2575302 - 100710 458401 2575315 - 100711 458380 2575331 Tomb 100712 458428 2575328 Tomb 100713 100714 100715 458397 458370 458362 2575355 2575331 2575334 Tomb Tomb 100716 458353 2575341 Tomb ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Umm anNar Bone None None Hafit Umm anNar Umm anNar Hafit Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Umm anNar Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Shell Description and Notes This feature is partially obscured by wind-blown sand. Ceramic; Metal This feature consists of a sand- and soil-covered mound but is None probably Umm an-Nar. None None None None None None None None None Bone Bone 257 Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Feaure is lightly sand-covered. Feaure is lightly sand-covered. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100717 100718 100719 100720 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 458344 2575346 Tomb 458317 2575364 458298 2575380 458243 2575405 Tomb 100721 458214 2575457 - 100722 458204 2575418 Tomb 100723 100724 458197 458175 2575421 2575434 Tomb Tomb Hafit-Umm an-Nar Hafit - 100725 458163 2575440 Tomb Hafit 100726 458101 2575472 Tomb Hafit ID UTM Zone 40N 100727 100728 100729 458087 458101 458094 2575481 2575485 2575490 Tomb - 100730 458099 2575497 - 100731 458106 2575501 - 100732 458091 2575506 - 100733 458095 2575512 - Period Artifact(s) Hafit Hafit None None None None - None Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Iron Age 3rd Mill. BC Hafit-Umm an-Nar None None None Bone; Metal Ceramic; Bone; Beads None None None Description and Notes The interior of this feature is quare, made up of large blocks. Stone removal left the lower ringwall courses visible to the north. Feature interior is probably intact. This feature is mostly destroyed. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. None Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior Ceramic stone removal. None None 258 Feature is lightly sand-covered Some feature stones appear in situ and are quite large. Table 14 (cont'd) 100734 100735 100736 100737 100738 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 458084 2575484 Tomb 458040 2575512 Tomb 458028 2575516 Tomb 457996 2575525 457985 2575528 Tomb 100739 457959 2575542 Tomb 100740 100741 100742 100743 100744 100745 457956 457941 457939 457930 457922 457918 2575549 2575550 2575553 2575552 2575556 2575558 Tomb Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit-Umm an-Nar Hafit Hafit Hafit 100746 457891 2575570 Tomb - 100747 457864 2575585 Tomb - 100748 457835 2575631 - - 100749 457809 2575631 - 100750 457803 2575635 - 100751 457790 2575636 - ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) None Ceramic None None None 4th-6th Mill. BC Hafit-Umm an-Nar Description and Notes Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. - None None This feature is rubble-covered. None None None None None This feature is mostly gone; probably reused in the construction of the rubble wall extending several meters to the None southwest. This feature is mostly gone; probably reused in the construction of the rubble wall extending several meters to the None southwest. This semi-circle of stones abuts what appears to be two Ceramic straight walls with a right angle between them. Ceramic Stone None 259 Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. This feature consists of three "stepped" concentric ringwalls on the southwest side of the top of a ridge. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes This feature consists of two "stepped" concentric ringwalls on the southwest side of the top of a ridge. None This feature appears to have undergone considerable reuse. Shell None Poorly preserved. None Feature, possibly with heavy stone removal/destruction. None None None Feature has intact interior corbelling. None None None Shell This feature consists of a mound of earth with calcrete Ceramic (sample taken) from a nearby wadi bed and blocks forming and "edge". This feature is a low mound of soil and stone. Bone Poorly preserved. Bone 100752 457773 2575644 - Hafit None 100753 100754 100755 100756 100757 100758 100759 100760 100761 100762 100763 457738 457694 457665 457618 457605 457515 457510 457494 457486 457480 456534 2575664 2575687 2575699 2575734 2575742 2575797 2575800 2575809 2575812 2575816 2576317 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb - Hafit Hafit - 100764 456529 2575936 - - 100765 100766 457535 457612 2575673 2575631 - 100767 457656 2575605 - 100768 457682 2575593 - 100769 457533 2575478 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC Hafit-Umm an-Nar 100770 457403 2575531 Tomb Hafit None 100771 457393 2575526 - - None None Lithic None 260 Poorly preserved. Feature's interior is possibly intact. This feature's exterior is relatively intact. There is evidence of a possible third ringwall, mostly removed. - Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Bone; Beads None None None None None None None None None None None None None Bone None None None None None 100772 457256 2575649 Tomb 100773 100774 100775 100776 100777 100778 100779 100780 100781 100782 100783 100784 100785 100786 100787 100788 100789 100790 100791 457243 457116 457081 456858 456860 456901 456969 456972 456977 456994 457013 457021 457118 457128 457135 457235 457269 457336 457347 2575610 2575699 2575709 2575773 2575771 2575755 2575734 2575734 2575733 2575725 2575715 2575715 2575651 2575648 2575644 2575579 2575559 2575521 2575513 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Umm anNar Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit 100792 457374 2575498 - - None 100793 456916 2575665 - - None 261 Description and Notes Features 100779, 100780, 100781 are all in a row. Features 100779, 100780, 100781 are all in a row. Features 100779, 100780, 100781 are all in a row. This feature possibly has two chambers. This feature's ringwall was not laid according to 3rd mill. architecture: stones have been placed with the grains facing up and triangular blocks facing inward. - Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes Lithic; Bone None None 100794 456967 2575635 Tomb Hafit 100795 100796 457023 457026 2575613 2575607 - - 100797 457063 2575612 - Hafit 100798 457314 2575487 Tomb - 100799 457337 2575426 Tomb - 100800 457381 2575431 - 100801 100802 100803 100804 100805 100806 100807 100808 100809 100810 457377 457370 457405 457417 457452 457493 457527 457538 457587 457655 2575455 2575482 2575464 2575464 2575453 2575438 2575419 2575410 2575380 2575328 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit Wadi Suq Hafit Hafit Hafit 100811 457692 2575309 Tomb Hafit None 100812 457705 2575304 Tomb Hafit None 100813 457721 2575288 Tomb Hafit None Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior None stone removal. Ceramic This feature has intact corbelling. This feature consists of a mound of stones and soil with None spaces where wall stones have been removed. None None None None None None None None None None None 262 Feature's interior and corbelling are probably intact. This feature sits on a circular stone-built platform (6 courses visible, ca. 1 m tall and 3 m wide) on the southwest side. This feature is in good condition: six intact courses and corbelling are intact and visible. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100814 100815 100816 100817 100818 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 457752 2575274 Tomb 457796 2575244 Tomb 457877 2575203 Tomb 457885 2575195 Tomb 457804 2575144 Tomb 100819 457787 2575153 Tomb Hafit Bone 100820 457674 2575204 Tomb Hafit None 100821 457583 2575272 Tomb 100822 457569 2575279 - 100823 457496 2575324 Tomb 100824 100825 458016 458082 2575101 2575078 Tomb 100826 458122 2575062 Tomb 100827 458129 2575062 Tomb 100828 100829 100830 100831 458155 458179 458185 458180 2575056 2575045 2575044 2575083 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb 100832 458174 2575083 Tomb ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit None None None Lithic None Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC Hafit 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit 3rd Mill. BC None None None None None None None None None None None None 263 Description and Notes Bulldozed rubbish abuts the feature. This feature is "dusted" with rubbish. Some of this feature's ringwall and a few large stones are intact. There are spaces visible in the ringwall, where stones have been removed. Some of the feature's ringwall and a few large stones are intact. Corbelling is intact. The ringwall is preserved for six courses. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100833 100834 100835 100836 100837 100838 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 458124 2575107 Tomb 458224 2575064 458227 2575070 458225 2575037 Tomb 458225 2575028 Tomb 458219 2575028 - 100839 458219 2575030 Tomb Hafit 100840 100841 100842 100843 458222 458210 458209 458211 2575020 2575018 2575013 2575012 Tomb Tomb - 100844 458199 2575017 Tomb 100845 458196 2575010 Tomb 100846 458188 2575012 - 100847 458173 2575013 Tomb Hafit Iron Age 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC Iron Age 3rd Mill. BC 100848 458108 2575047 - - None 100849 458042 2575077 Tomb Hafit None 100850 458259 2574882 Tomb Hafit None ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Hafit Hafit Hafit - Description and Notes None None None None None Ceramic This feature consists of a low mound of soil and stone. This feature's ringwall is visible in profile and is intact for None three courses. None None Ceramic None None - None This feature has been recenty disturbed. Ceramic None 264 This feature is a possible tomb: the strong slope (ca 45 degrees) possibly contributed to the feature's demise. It is only recognizable by the rough blocks (none in situ), and disturbance of a small soil mound. The strong slope (ca. 40 degrees) probably facilitated this feature's destruction. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100851 100852 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 458388 2574831 Tomb 458250 2574990 Tomb 100853 458285 2574971 Tomb Hafit None 100854 458308 2574966 Tomb Hafit None 100855 458357 2574942 Tomb Hafit None 100856 100857 458368 458343 2574933 2574998 Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit 100858 458430 2574932 Tomb Hafit 100859 458401 2574927 Tomb Hafit 100860 458392 2574921 Tomb Hafit 100861 458436 2574897 Tomb Hafit 100862 100863 100864 100865 458491 458504 458513 458518 2574853 2574847 2574842 2574840 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit 100866 458545 2574826 Tomb Hafit 100867 100868 100869 458554 458560 458585 2574824 2574819 2574805 Tomb Tomb - Hafit Hafit - ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Hafit Hafit None None Description and Notes This feature has intact corbelling. This feature's interior ringwall is intact to a height of ca. 5 courses. This feature has two walls, which may be one ringwall and one platform wall; the interior wall is higher up-slope. This feature's ringwall is intact for at least five courses. - None None Shell (perforated disc) This feature is 10 courses tall on its north side and has intact None corbelling. None A platform built on this tomb's south (ca. .8 m tall and 3 m None long) supports the exterior ringwall. None None None None This feature has a square base or platform, with a circular None ringwall. None None None 265 Table 14 (cont'd) 100870 100871 100872 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 458605 2574794 Tomb 458603 2574790 Tomb 458631 2574770 - 100873 458639 2574759 Tomb 100874 459080 2574437 Tomb 100875 458485 2574508 Tomb 100876 100877 100878 100879 100880 100881 100882 100883 100884 100885 100886 100887 100888 100889 100890 100891 100892 458669 458688 458733 458727 458729 458747 458760 458789 458819 458884 458935 458973 459030 459113 459271 459420 464534 2574767 2574749 2574727 2574724 2574722 2574715 2574716 2574698 2574685 2574637 2574611 2574586 2574556 2574536 2574447 2573973 2578864 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes Hafit Hafit - Lithic None None Hafit None The strong slope has displaced this feature's stone walling. The strong slope has displaced this feature's stone walling, but the lowest courses are partially intact. Hafit-Umm an-Nar 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit - None Ceramic None None Ceramic None None None None None None None None None None None Bone None None 266 This feature's lowest courses are visible in plan. A doorway is visible. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100893 100894 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 464541 2578862 464504 2578899 Tomb 100895 464386 2579056 - 100896 464336 2579101 - 3rd Mill. BC - 100897 464250 2579119 - - 100898 464266 2579164 - - 100899 464197 2579231 - Iron Age 100900 464115 2579286 Tomb 100901 100902 100903 100904 100905 464100 464075 464111 464071 464056 2579297 2579273 2579292 2579292 2579341 Tomb 100906 464015 2579323 Tomb 100907 464036 2579351 - 100908 463985 2579386 Tomb 100909 463957 2579366 Tomb 100910 463936 2579326 Tomb ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) None None 3rd Mill. BC Hafit 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Lithic None None Description and Notes Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. There is some digging in the southwest side of this feature but it probably has an intact interior. - Lithic Ceramic; Lithic None None None Lithic Lithic None None None Ceramic None None 267 Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. This feature's interior is probably intact. This feature's interior is probably intact. - Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 100911 464064 2579257 Tomb - None 100912 100913 100914 463930 463925 463925 2579391 2579392 2579402 Tomb - None None None 100915 464195 2579562 - 100916 464183 2579568 - Hafit 3rd Mill. BC - 100917 464146 2579595 - - None 100918 464121 2579611 - - None 100919 464149 2579639 - 100920 464108 2579646 100921 464074 100922 None None - 3rd Mill. BC - None 2579646 - - Bone 464066 2579695 - - Metal 100923 464057 2579710 - - None 100924 464049 2579716 - - None 100925 464017 2579664 Tomb 100926 100927 463632 463605 2579604 2579610 Tomb - 3rd Mill. BC - Bone Ceramic Lithic None 268 Description and Notes The feature is made of local brown limestone but built on red bedrock. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. ext. stone removal; digging in center This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. - Table 14 (cont'd) 100928 100929 100930 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 463595 2579606 463644 2579661 Tomb 463635 2579706 - 100931 463578 2579756 - - 100932 463570 2579768 - - None 100933 463571 2579755 Tomb 100934 463348 2579928 Tomb 100935 100936 100937 100938 463895 463888 463883 463828 2579859 2579869 2579875 2579943 Tomb Tomb Tomb - 100939 463782 2580010 Tomb 100940 100941 100942 463739 463675 463663 2580027 2579973 2579951 Tomb Tomb Tomb Bone Bone; Beads None None None None Ceramic; Bone None None None 100943 463637 2579938 Tomb 100944 463577 2580031 Tomb Umm anNar Hafit Umm anNar Hafit Hafit Hafit 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC ID 100945 UTM Zone 40N 463408 2580201 Tomb Period Artifact(s) - None Bone None Ceramic; Bone 3rd Mill. BC None None Description and Notes This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature is two circular stone ringwalls visible in plan. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. This feature has a possible doorway to the west. Ceramic; Lithic; This feature has undergone extensive exterior stone removal. Bone 269 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) None 100946 463428 2580267 Tomb Umm anNar 100947 463508 2580384 - Historic 110948 110949 110950 463466 463705 463754 2580455 2580450 2580412 Tomb 110951 463734 2580357 Tomb 110952 463896 2580171 Tomb 110953 464069 2579972 Tomb 110954 110955 110956 464267 464120 463978 2579724 2580114 2580403 110957 464090 2580455 110958 463905 2581410 Tomb Tomb Lithic scatter - Umm anNar Umm anNar Umm anNar Hafit 110959 463549 2580785 Tomb 110960 474859 2572873 - 110961 474951 2572809 - Metal (coin) Lithic None Lithic Lithic Lithic Bone None Bone Lithic - Lithic - None Lithic; Bone Hafit Hafit-Umm an-Nar Hafit-Umm an-Nar None None 270 Description and Notes This feature is built of large cobbles on the edge of a cobble terrace and overlooking the wadi to the south. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. The lowest courses of this feature are intact. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 110962 474996 2572734 Tomb Hafit 110963 474998 2572708 - - 110964 110965 475016 474956 2572512 2572519 Tomb - 110966 474827 2572495 - Umm anNar 110967 474806 2572512 Tomb Umm anNar 110968 474780 2572535 Tomb Umm anNar 110969 474725 2572589 - 110970 110971 110972 474857 474997 475169 2572876 2572747 2572547 Tomb Tomb - 110973 474839 2572485 Tomb Umm anNar Hafit Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Artifact(s) Description and Notes There is a significant height of wall still standing on this feature's west side. this could possibly be 2 features. One on the west side has a Lithic clear circular wall. On the east side there is another wall with less curvature, which may or may not link. None Ceramic Destroyed and stones robbed out. None Ceramic - Ceramic; Bone; Shell; Copper; Stone vessel Large tomb, mostly disturbed. Ceramic; Bone; Beads The southern corner is fenced in. Ceramic The internal and external walls of this feature are visible. This feature has a thick wall with rubble fill. - None None Lithic Ceramic; Bone 271 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N 110974 474741 2572645 Tomb 110975 474773 2572540 Tomb 110976 110977 474731 474892 2572632 2572450 Tomb Tomb 110978 474907 2572383 Tomb 110979 474926 2572382 - 110980 474894 2572446 Tower Period Artifact(s) Umm anNar Umm anNar Hafit Umm anNar Historic Ceramic; Bone Bone; Shell Ceramic None 3rd Mill. BC 110981 474899 2572403 Tomb Umm anNar 110982 474904 2572390 Tomb Umm anNar None None None Description and Notes Two courses of stone are visible on tomb dividing wall (a central "post" style wall to support the roof), about 2m long. Destroyed and stones robbed out. This tower feature has multiple "stepped" stone walls; the stone dimensions vary per wall. This may have been reported by Frifelt in her 1977-1978 unpublished end-of-season report to the Ministry of Heritage and Culture: "Prehistoric buildings on this South-facing slope can be found as far as and beyond the Easternmost tower (1147) in the fields at the foot of the slope ... The ridge here carries walls of large fashioned stone blocks near the top. Defensive?" (Frifelt 1978) Ceramic; Bone; Stone vessel Some ashlar blocks and brown stone courses remain intact. Lithic; Stone Tomb interior is probably still intact, despite considerable vessel exterior stone removal. 272 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 110983 475027 2572271 Tomb Umm anNar None 110984 475044 2572257 Tomb Umm anNar None 110985 475065 2572245 - - None 110986 475076 2572235 - Umm anNar None 110987 475083 2572232 - Umm anNar 110988 475201 2572142 Tomb 110989 110990 475354 475399 2572079 2572142 - 110991 475564 2572095 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC 110992 475618 2572067 Tomb - 110993 475190 2572025 Tomb Umm anNar Umm anNar - Description and Notes Interior and exterior walling is visible on this feature's west side. This feature's wall is visible all the way around. Interior consists of a E-W running wall and N-S running wall, giving the feature interior a cruciform shape. The plinth is also visible most of way around, and is made up of significantly larger stone blocks than tomb wall itself. This is a feature of unknown type wedged between two Umm an-Nar tombs (and is therefore later). This feature sits mid-slope. This feature consists of scattered and fragmentary human Ceramic; remains to the south of and on a rough mound. The ringwall is visible to the south and east but no measurements were Bone possible. Ceramic; Bone None None Ceramic; Lithic; Bone None Ceramic; Stone vessel Poorly preserved. 273 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 110994 475036 2572094 - - 110995 475108 2572061 Tomb - 110996 475335 2571832 Well - 110997 475425 2571897 - - 110998 475238 2571768 Well - 110999 474759 2572105 Wall-dam - 111000 474684 2572213 Well Modern 111001 475059 2572249 Tomb - 111002 475069 2572240 Tomb Hafit Artifact(s) Description and Notes This is a raised mound of cobbles with some large blocks on and embedded in it. Possible camel grave: rectangular shape, outer walls now embedded in earth, three very large blocks covering the center of the feature laid flat atop, not sunk in. Stones were probably None reused from Matariya tower. The feature is oriented N-S on a small rise. Oval stone lined well and adjacent deep hole to the northwest. Both have rectangular bases. There seems to be a drain in the Ceramic stone lining, leading into the other hole. To the southeast are remains of a stone and mudbrick ramp for animals to pull the well retrieval mechanism. Dam, wall or falaj. The feature is faced on both sides with Ceramic stones of various dimensions and mudbrick on top (in places). It is possibly related to the well or bunds nearby. Well, now abandoned and partially filled in. Still visible is the ramp down from which the animal would have pulled the None water. This is a stone wall, rather ephemeral, one stone course wide, None and possibly part of a falaj. Tecent Modern or pre-Modern well, now abandoned. Two Ceramic ramps aflaj extend off opposite sides (the north and south). It is built of reused Umm an-Nar stones. Ceramic; Lithic This is a tomb with three cairns on top. The tomb ringwall is clearly visible. None None 274 Table 14 (cont'd) 111003 111004 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 475182 2572184 Tomb 475653 2572036 - 111005 475723 2571985 Tomb Hafit 111006 111007 111008 475040 475056 475450 2572086 2572060 2571936 Wall Wall-dam - 111009 475621 2571715 Well - 111010 475073 2571914 Well - 111011 111012 111013 111014 111015 111016 476275 476303 476163 475878 475580 475413 2572420 2572531 2572651 2572957 2573248 2572440 Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit 111017 475343 2572521 Platform - 111018 111019 111020 111021 111022 475269 475174 474999 474996 474996 2572589 2572547 2572708 2572735 2572751 Tomb Tomb Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit Hafit Hafit ID UTM Zone 40N Period Hafit Wadi Suq Artifact(s) Description and Notes Ceramic None Tomb is mostly gone, with only the northern half present, None where the ringwall is still visible in plan. None None Wall feature or possible falaj. None Well with excavated downward slope (for draft animal); Umm an-Nar tomb stones have been reused in its modern None holding tank. There is an associated stone-lined and concreted well plus remains of an attached falaj. This was probably a relatively recent well. The ox ramp and None well are still visible, though filled in with modern rubbish. None None None None None Hafit tom, collapsed inward but probably intact. None This feature is some sort of rectilinear platform. It consists of None a single course of stone laid over or in line with bedrock. None None None None None 275 Table 14 (cont'd) 111023 111024 111025 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 474950 2572811 474854 2572878 Tomb 474857 2572874 - 111026 474621 ID UTM Zone 40N 2572988 Tomb Period Artifact(s) Hafit Hafit None None None Ceramic; Lithic; Bone; Chisel debitage - 111027 474614 2572992 - - 111028 111029 111030 474598 474696 475354 2572999 2573184 2573376 Tomb - Hafit 111031 475365 2573380 - - 111032 111033 111034 475398 475428 475561 2573348 2573332 2573261 Tomb Tomb Hafit Hafit Hafit 111035 475471 2572174 Tomb Hafit 111036 111037 111038 111039 111040 475431 475383 475463 475440 475317 2572201 2572308 2573305 2573323 2573410 Tomb - Hafit Hafit Hafit - Description and Notes Low circle of stones of unknown purpose or age. - Tomb, very disturbed. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior Bone stone removal. None Bone Ceramic Ceramics indicate Iron Age reuse. This is the remains of a possible Hafit tomb, collapsed and fallen downslope. Though no longer in place the stones are None the correct size, shape etc. None None A possible door is partially visible. None This is a large (wide) cairn, possibly reused in the Wadi Suq None period for honeycomb tombs. None None None None None 276 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 111041 475064 2573503 - - 111042 474940 2573631 Tomb Hafit 111043 474996 2573432 - Hafit 111044 474939 2573356 Tomb Hafit 111045 475013 2573269 - - 111046 474783 2573676 Tomb Hafit 111047 474673 2573714 Tomb Hafit 111048 474625 2573740 - - 111049 474567 2573762 Tomb Hafit 111050 474628 2573582 - - 111051 474381 2573965 Tomb - 111052 474401 2573957 - - 111053 474407 2573957 - - 111054 474418 2573950 - Hafit Artifact(s) Description and Notes This feature is now just a large pile of stones without any visible order. It was once a very substantial structure. Given Ceramic its location and extensive viewscape, possibly some kind of viewing area? Tomb with 5-6 good courses visible and intact at its base. None This feature does not appear to have been robbed of stones, so None its interior is probably intact. This feature is a tomb, collapsed. The interior wall and None corbelling are partially visible. Poorly preserved. None This feature provides a good example of uncoursed Hafit None walling. None This is a possible partially subterranean feature. It seems circular, cut into the bedrock on the south side, and has None collapsed in on itself. This feature is largely surrounded by rubble but substantially intact, including corbelling of the interior, six courses of inner None ringwall, and part of the exterior ringwall. Feature is a low patch of rubble. None There is evidence of lots of exterior stone removal from this None feature but its interior is probably intact. None This is a small cairn with flat-laid stones under lots of stone None fragments. None 277 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 111055 474454 2573933 - - None 111056 111057 474483 474503 2573915 2573907 - None None 111058 474527 2573889 Tomb 111059 471724 2572203 Antiquity 111060 111061 111062 111063 111064 474545 474603 474713 474837 476205 2573860 2573846 2573813 2573827 2573205 Tomb Wall - 111065 475224 2573274 - 111066 475274 2573230 - Hafit 3rd Mill. BC 4th-6th Mill. BC Hafit Umm anNar - 111067 462201 2579030 Wall - 111068 462192 2579113 - 111069 111070 111071 462186 462179 462172 2579125 2579138 2579146 - Hafit-Umm an-Nar - None N/A Description and Notes This feature has no discernible walls but is a substantial stone cairn. The interior of this feature is probably intact under the substantial pile of stones. Arabian biface. Found in two pieces (refits); no other archaeological material found nearby. Stone cairn with corbelling visible but no wall. This feature is a platform built into the hillside. - None None None None None Ceramic; Lithic Poorly preserved. Unidentified stone mound. Bone Perpendicular stone walling, two courses wide, running NWSE, ca. .5 m wide. Stones are un-faced. The perpendicular Ceramic wall extends to the southwest and is ca. .2 m wide. Possibly the foundation of a mudbrick wall. This feature is the remains of a tomb, only in situ on its Bone southeast side. None None Bone 278 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Lithic; Bone; Beads Lithic; Bone 111072 462162 2579148 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC 111073 462151 2579156 - - 111074 462139 2579153 - - Bone 111075 462101 2579168 - - Lithic; Bone 111076 111077 111078 462112 462087 462095 2579184 2579212 2579265 - - 111079 462083 2579224 Tomb - 111080 462040 2579258 - 3rd Mill. BC 111081 462050 2579255 Tomb - 111082 462022 2579273 - - Lithic; Bead Lithic 111083 462102 2579286 - Hafit None 111084 111085 462124 462103 2579362 2579313 - Hafit None None None None None Lithic; Bone Lithic 279 Description and Notes This feature is a completely destroyed tomb: few stones are intact but tomb material found (e.g., human bone, beads). This is a low mound of stones and soil. If it was once a tomb it has been completely destroyed. Possible tomb. The feature uses curving bedrock on 2.5 sides. A ring of stones are on its eastern side and may be the remains of a wall. Feature consists of a raised stone pile using folds of bedrock in its walling to the south. Bone fragments indicate it was possibly a tomb, but no walls are visible. Feature is a possible tomb, but poorly preserved. This feature consists of a mound of stones with bone fragments visible in its disturbed center. This feature incorporates lots of bedrock in its construction. This feature is quite a tall mound of stone, with two small (modern) cairns on top. - Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 111086 462019 2579422 - Iron Age 111087 462120 2579328 - 111088 462020 2579404 - 111090 461583 2579800 - Iron Age 111091 462030 2579434 - - 111092 461892 2579836 Tomb Wadi Suq 111093 111094 462010 462215 2579459 2579678 - - 111095 462009 2579469 - - 111096 462275 2579645 Tomb Wadi Suq 111097 461907 2579392 - - 111098 462421 2579561 - - 111099 474473 2573410 Tomb - 111100 474472 2573795 Tomb Hafit 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC Artifact(s) Description and Notes Ceramic; Stone vessel; Beads A sunken channel to the west in the rubble could mark a None doorway location. Lithic This small low mound of rocks is distinctive: it is built of Ceramic cobble conglomerate and sits on shist. Bone Bone; This feature consists of a small mound with a cairn built in its Stone vessel center. Bone This is quite a large cairn. None Lithic; This feature is the most southerly cairn on this ridge. Four blocks form the fragment of wall to the east. Bone This cairn is situated on the edge of the wadi. None This feature consists of a small mound of rocks roughly Lithic circular in form. Poorly preserved. Bone One ringwall, two courses wide, is visible for this feature. No stone-on-stone is left but the lowest course is visible nearly None completely. None 280 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 111101 474463 2573799 - Hafit None 111102 111103 111104 111105 111106 474444 474428 474391 474363 474276 2573804 2573826 2573802 2573747 2573673 Tomb Tomb - None None Bone None Bone 111107 474263 2573738 - 111108 474297 2573894 Tomb 111109 111110 111111 111112 111113 111114 474386 474325 474301 474274 461764 461567 2573869 2573914 2573939 2573906 2579451 2580169 - 3rd Mill. BC Umm anNar Hafit Modern 111115 461974 2579828 - - 111116 111117 462270 462320 2579674 2579578 - Hafit - 111118 462476 2579397 Building(s) - 111119 474458 2573705 - - None None None None Lithic Lithic Bone None Lithic; Bone None None Description and Notes Little height of this feature is left but the lowest course of ringwall is visible most of the way around. This tomb had a doorway to the west. Feature consists of a low mound of stones. This feature is a large mound of fragmented stone. This is a large tomb with a W-E running wall on the west side of its interior. This is a low mound of stones. This is a circle of weathered black and white stone rubble. A wall is visible on this feature's west side. Poorly preserved. - Oval stone feature without visible structural elements. This feature has a grid peg on top. This feature is one, possibly two buildings made of stones laid Ceramic flat and upright in the walls. None 281 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 111120 474490 2573776 Tomb Hafit None 111121 474449 2573805 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC None 111122 474435 2573818 Tomb Hafit None 111123 474377 2573875 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC None 111124 474346 2573784 Tomb 111125 474284 2573697 - 111126 474367 2573882 Tomb 111127 474373 2573876 - 111128 474332 2573905 - 111129 111130 474316 474282 2573924 2573963 - 3rd Mill. BC - 111131 474279 2573974 Tomb Hafit 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC Hafit 3rd Mill. BC None None None None None None None None 282 Description and Notes Well preserved tomb, with corbelling intact and visible from above, with a triangular shaped doorway and six courses of interior wall visible. Wall is visible all the way around and up to four courses high, with a probable doorway to the northwest. This feature has an interior wall intact at least nine courses high and an exterior wall intact at least five courses. This feature is probably a largely collapsed tomb, but wall is visible to the north. Its central soil fill has no obvious signs of recent disturbance. Poorly preserved. Part of this feature's outer ringwall is visible (one course only) with clear triangular (worked) stones and possible interior walls. This feature has been subject to extensive robbing. This feature is quite well preserved. The interior wall is probably 70% complete, and most rubble is derived from exterior wall collapse. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 111132 474275 2573977 Tomb - None 111133 111134 111135 474270 474262 474270 2573986 2573984 2573972 Tomb Tomb - Wadi Suq - None Bone None 111136 474196 2573954 Tomb Hafit None 111137 474205 2573931 Tomb Hafit None 111138 474187 2573915 Tomb Hafit None - Bone; Shell; Beads 111139 474222 2573745 Tomb 111140 474153 2573876 Tomb 111141 474163 2573879 Tomb 111142 474151 2573888 Tomb 111143 474189 2573901 Tomb Hafit-Umm an-Nar Hafit-Umm an-Nar 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC Bone None None Description and Notes This feature is very well preserved (90% of exterior ringwall is visible). This is a small robbed mound of stone. This is a reconstructed tomb in the fenced enclosure within the UNESCO fence. Tomb to the southeast of reconstructed tomb 111136 and east of reconstructed tomb 111138. This one is not reconstructed. Outer wall and core have collapsed and there is a small hole in the roof. Its inner wall is probably relatively complete. Well preserved tomb to the east of reconstructed tomb 111145 and north of 111137. Wall has collapsed to the west and roof has collapsed into center. Tomb, probably dated to the Hafit-Umm an-Nar transition. Probably this was reused in a later (i.e., Wadi Suq) period. Ceramic; Exterior ringwall and corbelling intact, though there is Lithic evidence of reuse in the 2nd millennium BC. 283 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC Artifact(s) 111144 474168 2573921 Tomb 111145 474183 2573923 Tomb 111146 474194 2573939 Tomb Hafit None 111147 111148 474187 474182 2573742 2573772 - None None 111149 474175 2573776 Tomb 111150 474126 2573803 Tomb 111151 474135 2573794 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC Hafit 3rd Mill. BC 111152 474131 2573797 Tomb 111153 474183 2574112 Building(s) 111154 474172 2574127 Tomb 111155 474030 2574138 Tomb 111156 474023 2574144 - 111157 111158 474016 473871 2574149 2574127 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC Hafit None None None None None None None None None None Lithic None 284 Description and Notes Remains of two outer skins are visible. This is a white-faced tomb, fully reconstructed, without a door. This reconstructed tomb has paving slabs on the floor and its interior chamber is rectilinear in parts. Feature is obscured by rockfall and rubble. This feature has been partially cleared of rubble but it looks like its interior has collapse inward and therefore may not have been disturbed in recent times. This tomb has collapsed but is likely to be reasonably undisturbed. - Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 111159 473856 2574131 Tomb Hafit 111160 473821 2574142 Tomb Hafit 111161 473757 2574122 Tomb Hafit 111162 111163 111164 111165 474088 474124 474130 474114 2574232 2574075 2574081 2574078 Tomb Tomb Tomb - Wadi Suq Hafit Hafit - 111166 473886 2574122 - Hafit 111167 111168 111169 111170 473687 473672 473675 473624 2574094 2574095 2574092 2574081 - Hafit - 111171 473999 2574288 - Hafit 111172 474070 2574261 - 111173 474081 2574243 - 3rd Mill. BC 111174 474197 2574195 Tomb Wadi Suq Artifact(s) Description and Notes This feature consists of a small cairn with a central depression, and a ringwall visible on the west side. This feature demonstrates beautifully "intact" collapse on its None south side: eight courses have fallen in a curved line. This feature is in an advanced state of collapse, but its internal Ceramic ringwall is visible from above. This oblong feature is probably a Wadi Suq tomb. None None None None Lithic; This feature consists of a small cairn on a short ridge. Bone None Bone None Lithic This feature is highly disturbed, both from collapsed and stone None robbing. None None Lithic Beads 285 This is an intact Wadi Suq tomb that appears to have used stone from an Umm an-Nar tomb. Undisturbed. Covered in small, multicoloured (but predominantly dark) pebbles. Orientated northwest-southeast. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) 111175 474195 2574198 Tomb Wadi Suq Shell 111176 474190 2574202 Tomb Wadi Suq None 111177 473950 2574024 Cobble scatter - Lithic 111178 111179 473903 474189 2573999 2574191 Tomb Wadi Suq Hafit None None 111180 474162 2574207 - Hafit Lithic 111181 474160 2574224 - - Worked stone 111182 473896 2574066 - - Lithic 111183 473908 2574055 - Hafit 111184 473848 2574039 - - 111185 473775 2573356 Tomb 111186 473761 2573993 - 111187 473740 2574006 Tomb Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC - Description and Notes This is an intact Wadi Suq tomb that appears to have used stone from an Umm an-Nar tomb. Undisturbed. Covered in small, multicoloured (but predominantly dark) pebbles. Orientated northwest-southeast. This feature consists of scattered patches of grey, blue-grey, and light grey cobbles and white limestone chips, in stark contrast to the hillside bedrock. Lots of lithics are interspersed. This feature consists of a slightly raised mound, with evidence of partial circular walls. Stone robbing and/or reuse make this difficult to study. Feature consists of a rough pile of rubble with unclear edges and no visible walls. Ceramic; Lithic Ground stone None None Bone 286 - Table 14 (cont'd) 111188 111189 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 473740 2574001 473729 2574016 - 111190 473802 2573323 Tomb Umm anNar 111191 473786 2573329 - Iron Age 111192 473932 2573970 - - 111193 473973 2573949 Tomb Hafit 111194 473982 2573939 Tomb Hafit 111195 111196 473979 473992 2573954 2573814 Tomb Tomb Wadi Suq Hafit 111197 473926 2573789 Grave(s) Iron Age 111198 473892 2573947 - 111199 473934 2573915 Tomb 111200 473947 2573912 - 111201 473968 2573911 Tomb 111202 473979 2573910 Tomb Hafit-Umm an-Nar Umm anNar Umm anNar ID UTM Zone 40N Period - Artifact(s) Description and Notes Poorly preserved. Bone None Ceramic; Lithic; This tomb has one central dividing wall. Bone This is a mound of soil, pebbles, and stones, including a clear Ceramic reuse of Umm an-Nar pecked tomb-stones. This is a low pile of stones. Stone-on-stone evident but alignments are dif to observe b/c stones are irregularly None sized/shaped Ground This is a large, thick-walled tomb on the end of a ridge, part of a cluster of at least five large tombs. stone This large tomb has an internal wall separating the two None chambers. None This large tomb has relatively intact corbelling and walls. None Ceramic; This is a collection of features consisting of a possible Iron Age cemetary. Several have been excavated. Bone None Lithic None Lithic None 287 This prominent tomb appears to have seen very little robbing. The U-shaped chamber of this feature is visible. Large tomb with well-preserved inner wall and second outer skin preserved to the East and North. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 111203 473997 2573836 Tomb 111204 473972 2573823 Tomb 111205 473952 2573828 Tomb 111206 473916 2573833 Tomb Umm anNar Umm anNar Umm anNar Hafit 111207 473684 2573782 - - 111208 111209 111210 473692 473718 473459 2573774 2573754 2573825 - 111211 473928 2573799 Tomb 111212 111213 473756 473775 2573730 2573717 - 111214 473581 2573758 - 111215 473578 2573765 - 111216 473572 2573766 - 111217 473560 2573773 - 111218 473542 2573748 Tomb 111219 473548 2573753 - Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC Hafit-Umm an-Nar - Artifact(s) None None Description and Notes Well preserved tomb. - Ceramic; Lithic None This feature's wall is coarsely made and is therefore different None from many others. Lithic This feature is a low accummulation of rocks. None None Lithic; Bone Poorly preserved. None Ceramic Rubble scatter with fragments of white and black stones. This is a low feature of triangular and rectangular stones set None into a sub-circle (in plan). This is a low feature of triangular and rectangular stones set Bone into a sub-circle (in plan). This is a low feature of triangular and rectangular stones set Lithic into a sub-circle (in plan). Lithic Feature, mostly gone, with the plinth and wall (to the north) Lithic visible in plan. The wall is faced to the interior and exterior. Lithic - 288 Table 14 (cont'd) 111220 111221 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 473442 2573714 473606 2573740 - 111222 473595 2573750 - - 111223 473586 2573755 - 111224 473523 2573738 - 111225 473532 2573740 - Hafit-Umm an-Nar - 111226 473456 2573666 - Umm anNar 111227 473471 2573646 - - 111228 111229 111230 111231 473529 473555 473564 473792 2573596 2573566 2573560 2573667 - - 111232 474087 2573751 Tomb Hafit-Umm an-Nar 111233 474084 2573741 Tomb 111234 473440 2573690 - 111235 473451 2573681 - ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) - None Bone Ceramic; Lithic Lithic Hafit-Umm an-Nar Umm anNar Hafit-Umm an-Nar None None Lithic Ceramic; Lithic Lithic None None None None None Lithic; Bone Lithic 289 Description and Notes Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. This is a small, non-descript mound of rocks which may be rectangular structure. This is poorly preserved feature. Small mound with some (probably interior) wall visible. The thickness of the rubble may indicate an outer wall was present. Cairn built with bedrock ridge, c. 1 m high to the west. This feature sits on a low ridge in the plain. Some robbing of outer wall seems to have occurred but the roofing seems to be intact. This feature has good wall preservation to the west. This feature is a mound of at least three concentric ringwalls. Table 14 (cont'd) ID 111236 Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N 473437 2573676 Tomb 111237 473492 2573626 - 111238 473479 2573561 - 111239 111240 473577 473765 2573548 2573662 - 111241 474107 2573744 Tomb 111242 474095 2573750 Tomb 111243 474095 2573703 Tomb 111244 111245 474085 474101 2573705 2573715 Tomb Tomb 111246 474092 2573726 - 111247 474081 2573723 Tomb 111248 474068 2573728 Tomb 111249 474059 2573666 Tomb 111250 474089 2573713 Tomb Period Artifact(s) Iron Age Lithic; Bone; Metal; Beads; Shell 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. BC Iron Age Umm anNar Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Hafit Umm anNar Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Lithic Description and Notes Poorly preserved. Bone This is a mound of soil and stone fragments. None Ceramic Probable reuse of this feature in the Iron Age. Lithic None - None This is a reasonably tall standing tomb in a tomb cluster. None Ceramic None None None None None 290 Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. Two skins are visible for this feature, and the roof may be partially intact. This feature has ringwall just visible to the northwest under rubble. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Umm anNar Hafit 3rd Mill. BC Umm anNar 111251 474064 2573712 Tomb 111252 111253 474081 474062 2573668 2573673 Tomb Tomb 111254 474074 2573635 Tomb 111255 474044 2573659 - 111256 474033 2573627 Tomb Hafit 111257 474037 2573601 - 3rd Mill. BC 111258 474069 2573613 Tomb Hafit 111259 474003 2573570 Wall-dam - 111260 473986 2573564 - - 111261 473980 2573544 Tomb Hafit-Umm an-Nar 111262 473961 2573530 Tomb 111263 473957 2573514 Tomb Hafit-Umm an-Nar Umm anNar Artifact(s) None None Bone None Ceramic None Description and Notes This feature was probably reused in the Wadi Suq period. Poorly preserved. Feature is mostly intact, although there is evidence of exterior stone removal. This feature has good wall preservation. Well preserved outer wall is visible to the south and west, and well preserved inner wall is visible to the north. Ceramic; Lithic Ceramic; Very large stones make up what remains of this feature's ringwall. Bone This is a raised rectilinear mound running north-south, perpendicular to the wadi. It is 3.5 m wide, with traces of None linear N-S walls on both sides. None Remains consist of a very substantial tomb wall, including Bone; outer skin, space for a rubble core, then an inner wall faced on Beads both sides. Bone Bone 291 - Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 111264 473945 2573503 - Wadi Suq 111265 473935 2573509 Tomb 111266 473916 2573484 Tomb 111267 473875 2573455 - 3rd Mill. BC Umm anNar - 111268 473891 2573380 Tomb Hafit 111269 474008 2573537 - 111270 473992 2573533 Tomb 111271 473970 2573517 Tomb 111272 473973 2573510 Tomb - 111273 473980 2573497 Tomb Umm anNar 111274 473949 2573485 - - 111275 473934 2573467 Tomb 111276 473921 2573473 Tomb Umm anNar Umm anNar Umm anNar Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC Artifact(s) Description and Notes Ceramic; This feature has quite a bit of fragmented bone (<10 cm pieces), including cranial and long bones. Bone Ceramic - None None Ceramic; Significant amounts of stone robbing are visible but there is a large mound of soil. Bone None Bone Bone - Ceramic; Bone Ceramic; Bone This is a flattened mound of stones, slightly cleared in the Ceramic middle, few a triangular stones suggesting former walls of a tomb. None This tomb has been reconstructed. The walls are mainly collapsed but two chambers are visible. Ceramic The external wall survives to three courses. 292 Table 14 (cont'd) ID 111277 Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N 473888 2573469 Tomb Tomb Period Artifact(s) Umm anNar Ceramic Umm anNar Ceramic; Bone; Stone vessel - 111278 473858 2573422 111279 473864 2573399 111280 473871 2573391 111281 473831 2573351 111282 473827 2573365 111283 111284 473834 473791 2573367 2573390 111285 473868 2573361 111286 473862 2573366 111287 473856 2573342 111288 111289 473854 473844 2573331 2573324 3rd Mill. BC 3rd Mill. Tomb BC Umm anTomb Nar Hafit-Umm an-Nar Iron Age Wall-dam Umm anTomb Nar Umm anTomb Nar Umm anTomb Nar - 111290 473827 2573348 Grave(s) Tomb - None Ceramic None None Description and Notes - Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. - None None Ceramic; Bone This is a small pile of stones. It is possibly a more recent tomb Ceramic reusing blocks from the 3rd Millennium cemetery. Ceramic; This large tomb has one internal wall going half-way across. Bone Ceramic None This is a cluster of graves, re-using stones from early periods None (3rd millennium tombs mostly). 293 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) None 111291 473813 2573250 Wall Wadi SuqIron Age 111292 473850 2573298 - - 111293 473869 2573278 - Iron Age 111294 111295 473875 473865 2573298 2573318 Wall-dam 111296 473906 2573303 Tomb 111297 473869 2573320 - 111298 473889 2573351 Tomb 111299 473908 2573341 Tomb Umm anNar Umm anNar Umm anNar 111300 473927 2573335 Tomb 111301 473932 2573326 Tomb 111302 473939 2573325 Tomb 111303 473940 2573332 - Umm anNar Umm anNar Umm anNar - Description and Notes The wall of this feature is double-faced with a rubble core. This rectilinear structure is made up of four different types of linear constructions. To the north and south are stones on end. This is a collection of unidentifiable features, possibly small walls or dams and graves. They re-use Third Millennium BC None material. None None Ceramic; Feature made of large ashlar blocks, originally excavated by Frifelt (i.e., #1142). Bone None Ceramic; This tomb has a probable interior dividing wall between two Lithic chambers. None Ceramic - Ceramic; Lithic; Bone; Shell None Bone There is a possible dividing wall running north-south. This fairly flat mound is located on a gradual slope. Ceramic - 294 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 111304 473958 2573333 Tomb Umm anNar 111305 473946 2573345 - - 111306 474013 2573325 Tomb Hafit 111307 473917 2573315 Grave(s) 111308 473943 2573367 Tomb 111309 473943 2573397 Tomb 111310 473949 2573386 Tomb Iron Age Umm anNar Umm anNar Umm anNar 111311 473957 2573383 Tomb Umm anNar 111312 473971 2573373 Tomb Umm anNar 111313 473985 2573367 Tomb 111314 473984 2573431 Tomb Umm anNar Umm anNar Artifact(s) Description and Notes Ceramic; Lithic; Bone Lithic; Bone Thi is a sub-circular (in plan) low mound - circular with smaller circle attached to S. It is probably a Wadi Suq tomb. Ceramic; Lithic; Bone Ceramic This Iron Age grave reuses Umm an-Nar tomb stones. Ceramic; Bone Bone Bone Umm an-Nar tomb with Iron Age reuse on top. The corbelling on this tomb is intact to the northwest. Ceramic; Ceramics from the Iron Age (see Schreiber 2007:54 number Bone 6) indicate later reuse. Ceramic; Bone; This tomb was partially dismantled in antiquity, then graves Beads were built on top. This tomb is visible primarily in plan. Its ringwall is faced to Lithic the interior and exterior and filled with rubble. Lithic; Bone 295 Table 14 (cont'd) 111315 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 473997 2573463 Tomb 111316 474022 2573508 Tomb 111317 474030 2573508 Tomb 111318 111319 474123 474161 2573502 2573484 - Hafit Umm anNar Umm anNar - 111320 473982 2573414 Tomb Hafit Bone 111321 473996 2573417 Tomb Umm anNar Bone 111322 473994 2573405 Tomb Umm anNar 111323 474003 2573407 Tomb 111324 474011 2573401 Tomb 111325 474032 2573378 Tomb 111326 474038 2573375 Tomb 111327 473926 2573254 Wall ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) None Hafit-Umm an-Nar Umm anNar Hafit Umm anNar - Ceramic None None None Description and Notes This is a small tomb, its ringwall visible in plan to the west, south, and east. - Ceramic; Tomb with an interior dividing wall running west-east. It has a brown and grey limestone pecked ringwall visible for three Bone courses, suggesting that this did not have a white ashlar face. None None None None None 296 This tomb has been excavated. White limestone chunks remain in situ, but this feature was prob levelled in antiquity. This wall runs N-S, adjacent to a small tributary wadi. It is well coursed in places, and is probably a water management structure. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Ceramic; Lithic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic; Lithic None Ceramic; Lithic Debitage Ceramic; Lithic 111328 473890 2573254 - 111329 111330 473884 473886 2573263 2573250 Wall-dam 3rd Mill. BC - 111331 473894 2573245 - - 111332 473911 2573243 - 111333 473918 2573231 - 111334 473973 2573118 - Umm anNar - 111335 473982 2573105 Wall - 111336 474032 2573146 Wall - 111337 474033 2573093 Wall - 111338 474046 2573085 - 111339 111340 111341 111342 111343 474063 474103 474174 474183 474080 2573506 2573504 2573482 2573475 2573345 - Umm anNar Hafit - Description and Notes This is an ovoid cairn with no visible wall. This appears to be a continuation of a wall from the southwest. Poorly preserved. Poorly preserved. This wall runs north-south and may form part of a field Ceramic system with the E-W running wall to its south. Ceramic; Lithic This cairn could be assoc with field clearance,or it could be Ceramic the remains of a tomb with its walls robbed out. None None None None None 297 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 111344 473946 2573203 Tomb Wadi Suq 111345 111346 111347 473967 473930 2573186 2573151 Grave(s) Wadi Suq - 111348 473939 2573214 Grave(s) Historic 111349 473935 2573221 - Historic 111350 473976 2573170 - - 111351 111352 474205 474034 2573435 2573113 Building(s) 111353 474040 2573102 Tomb 111354 474041 2573095 Tomb Wadi Suq 111355 474046 2573094 Tomb Wadi Suq 111356 111357 111358 474059 474103 474112 2573107 2573108 2573146 Wall-dam Wall Wall Wadi Suq - Umm anNar Artifact(s) Description and Notes Ceramic; Lithic; Bone; Stone vessel Wadi Suq tomb. Ceramic This is probably a grave, oriented E-W. None [number discarded.] This is a small rectilinear feature, probably a pre-Modern Ceramic grave. Ceramic; Ths is a N-S oriented feature of stone with a small mound of Metal soil and pebbles in the center. This is a small mound of soil and stones - including ashlar Ceramic blocks - on top of an early wall extension. None Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic; Bone Ceramic; Bone None Ceramic None 298 This is a linear wall made up of stones on end. This is a small fragment of linear wall running roughly E-W. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) Description and Notes This feature is the foundation for a tomb, on the hillside. It has been cleared to expose the full extent of the wall in plan. This is a fragment of white limestone walling, appearing out None of the hillside to the north of feature 111359. None Ceramic Ceramic This very eroded cairn sits mid-slope. None None Lithic; Bone 111359 474149 2573152 Tomb Hafit None 111360 474154 2573152 - - 111361 111362 111363 111364 111365 474144 474085 474116 474135 474128 2573161 2573089 2573103 2573166 2573175 Wall Wall - - 111366 474299 2573334 - - 111367 474284 2573449 - Umm anNar 111368 474291 2573443 - - 111369 111370 474317 474343 2573427 2573412 - - Ceramic; Lithic; Bone None None 111371 474350 2573406 - - Bone 111372 474365 2573397 - None 111373 474431 2573376 Tomb 111374 474441 2573365 - 3rd Mill. BC - Ceramic None None 299 Bone fragments were found in this mound of rubble without discernible wall. This is a low mound of stone and soil with lots of bone fragments (from a medium-sized mammal). This is a mound of stone rubble without visible shape. Remains of a ringwall is visible to the south. - Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 111375 474187 2573183 Tomb Iron Age 111376 474192 2573176 Tomb Umm anNar 111377 111378 474198 474241 2573171 2573154 Tomb - Iron Age - 111379 474233 2573160 - - 111380 474224 2573164 - - 111381 474187 2573165 Lithic scatter - 111382 474149 2573122 - - 111383 474134 2573115 Grave(s) - 111384 474135 2573102 Building(s) 111385 474143 2573052 Tomb 111386 474155 2573041 Tomb 111387 474128 2573041 Wall Umm anNar Umm anNar - Artifact(s) Description and Notes Ceramic; This is an excavated Iron Age tomb beside a rebuilt Umm anNar tomb (feature 111376). The Iron Age tomb is rounded but Bone the chambers inside are rectilinear (N-S orientation). Ceramic; Bone; Grinding stone Ceramic Iron Age tomb with four chambers. Low mound of stone and soil. None Ground ground stone ('mano'). stone This is a large semi-circle of stones and rubble. Bone This is a workshop area associated with feature 111376. Not Ceramic; known if this is recent or ancient. Made up of blocks, Bone fragments, and chips of white limestone. This is an unidentified rectilinear feature. None This consists of several graves with a general orientation ELithic W; the precise number etc. cannot be determined. None None Bone - More than two courses are intact on the north side and visible. Ceramic; This is a wall feature running N-S; its stone blocks are placed Metal upright. 300 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 111388 474145 2573028 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC 111389 474130 2573011 Wall - 111390 111391 474105 474092 2573024 2573049 Wall Wall - 111392 474097 2573028 Tomb - 111393 111394 474093 474098 2573023 2573022 Tomb Tomb Wadi Suq Wadi Suq 111395 474100 2573017 Tomb Wadi Suq 111396 474103 2573012 Tomb Wadi Suq 111397 474111 2572996 Tomb 111398 474077 2573019 Tomb 111399 111400 474248 474258 2573049 2573049 - Umm anNar - 111401 474395 2573342 Tomb - 111402 474468 2573226 Tomb 3rd Mill. BC Artifact(s) Description and Notes Ceramic; Bone; Stone vessel Poorly preserved tomb, but visible in plan on its western half. This wall runs N-S for c. 12 m, then turns a corner at and runs Ceramic E-W for c. 2 m. The stones are placed upright. This wall, build of upright stones, runs E-W for c. 20 m. None This feature is a nearly completely buried wall. None Wadi Suq tomb, situated at the base of the settlement slope, None and oriented E-W. Ceramic Wadi Suq tomb built on bedrock. Ceramic Wadi Suq tomb built on bedrock. Wadi Suq tomb built on bedrock, and contains Umm an-Nar Ceramic reused stones. Ceramic; Wadi Suq tomb built on bedrock. Bone Ceramic This Wadi Suq tomb is oriented NE-SW and is covered in Ceramic Modern and pre-Modern finds. None None This cairn has traces of ringwall visible, especially on its west None side where it sits directly on vertical bedrock. Lithic; Bone; Beads - 301 Table 14 (cont'd) 111403 111404 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 474219 2572920 474246 2572900 Tomb 111405 474239 2572865 111406 474232 2572859 Building(s) 111407 111408 111409 474310 474394 474344 2572889 2572955 2572881 Tomb - Hafit - 111410 474367 2572884 - - 111411 474169 2572968 Tomb Wadi Suq 111412 474176 2572965 Tomb Wadi SuqIron Age 111413 474163 2572961 Tomb - 111414 111415 111416 474164 474503 474407 2572965 2573055 2572863 Tomb - Wadi Suq - 111417 474404 2572865 Tomb - ID UTM Zone 40N Antiquity Period Wadi Suq Hafit Umm anNar Umm anNar Artifact(s) Description and Notes This is a ground circular depression in a large piece of None bedrock half-way down the slope. This is a series of rectilinear walls with a great deal of surface ceramics, all on the southwest face of the hill (on the Ceramic "Settlement Slope"). Stones are large upright slabs, frequently at right angles or in line with each other, but not from the same bedrock sourc (i.e., not natural). None This is a large soil-filled cairn. None None Ceramic; Lithic; Bone Ceramic; Wadi Suq tomb on top of Tower 1156. It incorporates 1156 stones into its ringwall. Bone Ceramic; Wadi Suq tomb on top of Tower 1156. It incorporates 1156 stones into its ringwall. Bone Ceramic; Wadi Suq tomb on top of Tower 1156. It incorporates 1156 stones into its ringwall. Bone None None None Lithic; Bone None None 302 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 111418 474359 2572748 Wall-dam 111419 111420 111421 474287 473114 474580 2572795 2573821 2572722 Wall-dam Grave(s) Wall Wadi SuqIron Age Modern Historic 111422 474653 2572580 Wall-dam - 111423 474630 2572558 Well 111424 474538 2572584 Building(s) 111425 474559 2572595 Wall 111426 474408 2572698 Wall 111427 111428 474379 474214 2572714 2572795 Wall Wall-dam 111429 474195 2572810 Wall 111430 474191 2572764 Wall 111431 474153 2572858 Wall 111432 474084 2572887 Wall HistoricModern HistoricModern Umm anNar Umm anNar HistoricModern Umm anNar HistoricModern Umm anNar Artifact(s) None None None None None None Description and Notes Islamic graveyard. Wall built of blocks, one course wide, unfaced. Falaj, c. 1 m wide, made of subangular cobbles with mud fill between. Well feature, associated with falaj feature 111422. It has a Ministry of Water marker ("resources #320/873"). Ceramic; Lithic None None None None None None None None 303 This is a wall or dam, running NW-SE, over four courses high. Poorly preserved wall. One, possibly two rectilinear 3rd millennium-style walls. This wall is two courses wide, faced on both sides without fill, and two courses high. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period Umm anNar 111433 473985 2573067 Wall 111434 474066 2572995 - 111435 473812 2573083 - 111436 473751 2573104 - 111437 111438 473599 473538 2573191 2573179 Wall-dam 3rd Mill. BC Umm anNar - 111439 473771 2573058 Wall - 111440 111441 111442 473825 473824 473862 2572937 2573013 2572944 Modern - 111443 473966 2572872 111444 111445 474049 466042 2572835 2574305 Wall Grave(s) Field systems Wall Grave(s) 111446 465519 2575227 Lithic scatter - 111447 466089 2574590 Lithic scatter - 111448 465501 2575696 Grave(s) - Modern Artifact(s) None None None Description and Notes This feature is one long wall running NE-SW, with fragments of perpendicular walling at each end. Stones are upright and laid flat. - Operation 'A' Operation 'B'. Further excavations by Schmidt et al. (2012) None suggest this may be either settlement or a tower structure. Shell None Linear wall, oriented NE-SW, one couse wide, built of stones None upright and laid flat. None None Oval grave oriented N-S, with blocks laid around it. None Ceramic; Set of walls (NOT Umm an-Nar) stepped up. This is a poss Lithic field systems between two buildings. Double-faced wall. None None Collection of hammerstones and lithics: more than 30 gray Lithic and blue cobbles (ca. 10 cm in dia), with chunks of banded chert nodules. This "feature" consists of hundreds of lithics scattered about Lithic along a low line of hills, and made of the source material on which they sit. Three pre-Modern grave plots. None 304 Table 14 (cont'd) 111449 111450 Material Culture Easting Northing Type 465658 2575419 Grave(s) 465695 2575614 - 111451 466266 2574807 - - None 111452 468064 2577718 - Modern None 111453 468005 2577723 - - None 111454 111455 111456 111457 111458 111459 467998 467941 467949 467928 467796 467855 2577751 2577756 2577775 2577486 2577535 2577767 - Modern None None None Bone Bone Bone 111460 467301 2577916 - - Bone 111461 468142 2577745 - - 111462 461473 2587260 Tower 3rd Mill. BC 111463 111464 111465 464827 464837 464680 2577546 2577544 2577542 - - 111466 464110 2576942 Well - ID UTM Zone 40N Period Artifact(s) - None None Description and Notes This small cairn is not ancient and not a tomb; rather it is probably for navigation. This is a mound of stones and soil with a bit of circular ringwall visible on its southwest side. Mound of soil with a few sections of ringwall visible. - This is a low mound of soil and stones on a bedrock outcrop. Bone This tower has interior rectilinear stone walls built of large Ceramic roughly hewn blocks. Outer "ringwall" (like at Matariya's) is visible in most directions. Lithic None None Stone-lined well, probably an access hole to a falaj, which None appears to run N-S. 305 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 111467 470292 2575607 Wall-dam Modern 111468 111469 470187 470221 2575695 Building(s) 2575565 Building(s) 111470 470091 2575467 - 111471 470081 2575314 Tomb Modern HistoricModern 3rd Mill. BC 111472 471063 2574312 Building(s) 111473 470311 2574170 111474 470196 111475 111476 Artifact(s) This is probably a rectangular semi-subterranean open water tank/trough. Unworked stone lined rectangular semiNone subterranean structure with attached falaj. Ceramic Stone rectilinear two-part structure. Ceramic Ceramic; This is a mound of pebbles and soil in an abandoned field; Lithic possibly just a field clearance cairn. Ceramic Umm anNar Ceramic Mudbrick settlement - Ceramic; Metal 2574019 Tower Modern 470043 2573952 Wall-dam Modern 473512 2572299 Wall Modern 111477 473284 2572517 - Wadi Suq 111478 473286 2572538 Tomb Iron Age Description and Notes Ceramic; Serouj Ceramic; Serouj Ceramic; Serouj This is Umm an-Nar settlement associated with al-Khutm. Unlike the Settlement Slope this area is highly sedimented so it is possible that some of it is intact. Mudbrick village south of Wahrah, with a line of open and silted stone-lined wells (aflaj access points), mudbrick houses, etc. This is a pre-Modern mudbrick tower. Its stone foundation is visible, as well as two walls. This feature is a stone wall, ca. 40 m long, running parallel to the active wadi. Stone retaining wall, two roughly faced courses wide and several high, made primarily of nearby bedrock and nearby cobbles (from conglomerate). Ceramic; Lithic; Serouj None 306 Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N Period 111479 473441 2572475 - - 111480 473515 2572518 - 111481 473781 2572317 - Umm anNar 111482 473870 2572321 - - 111483 468088 2575783 - - 111484 468082 2575797 Tomb 111485 474057 2572925 Tower 111486 474219 2572581 Tower 111487 474952 2572081 Tower 111488 474167 2572962 Tower 111489 473741 2572180 Tower 111490 470807 2574527 Tower 111491 474120 2571728 Tower Umm anNar Umm anNar Umm anNar Umm anNar Hafit Umm anNar Umm anNar Umm anNar Artifact(s) Ceramic; Shell Ceramic Ceramic; Shell Ceramic; Shell Bone; Shell Bone See reports See reports See reports See reports See reports See reports See reports 307 Description and Notes This is a circular mound with a "tail" to the west. Large mound of soil. This is a semi-circular mound of light-colored soil and stone in center of a well-ploughed field. Tower 1145; "Karen's tower"; Kasr al-Rojoom. Tower 1146; Kasr al-Khafaji. Tower 1147; Matariya. Tower 1156. Tower 1148; Kasr al-Sleme. Tower al-Khutm. Tower Husn al-Wardi; Bat Qala. Table 14 (cont'd) ID Material Culture Easting Northing Type UTM Zone 40N 111492 469572 2574488 Tower 111493 458737 2576147 Tower 111494 459107 2576030 Tower 111495 473927 2572464 - 111496 474029 2571890 Building(s) 111497 473910 2572487 - 111498 465454 2575067 Antiquity 111499 - - Antiquity 111500 466564 2574703 Antiquity 111501 111089 467002 462118 2574037 2579335 Antiquity - Period Umm anNar 3rd Mill. BC Umm anNar Historic HistoricModern 4th-6th Mill. BC 4th-6th Mill. BC - Artifact(s) See reports See reports Description and Notes Tower Wahrah Qala. Tower ad-Dariz South 2 See reports Tower ad-Dariz South 1 Ceramic This is a rectilinear stone building walls with mudbrick walls Ceramic above. It has a Ministry of Heritage and Culture signpost. Ceramic N/A N/A N/A N/A None 308 - APPENDIX B Artifact List and Descriptions 309 Introduction Appendix B (Tables 15 – 20) lists all of the artifacts collected during the survey portion of data collection. All of these materials are held by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture in Muscat, Oman. 310 Table 15. Ceramic Descriptions. Find # Feature # # sherds Description 1 100666 1 black-on-buff 20 110968 20 black-on-buff 2 111296 2 black-on-brown 2 111302 2 black-on-red 1 100035 1 semi-coarse fabric 1 100121 1 semi-coarse fabric 1 100122 1 black-on-red 1-2 100220 2 cloth-impressed 1 100258 1 black-on-buff 1-2 100261 2 black-slipped 2-4 100267 3 black-on-red 1 100280 1 semi-coarse fabric 1 100485 1 glazed, turquoise 1 100491 1 glazed, turquoise 1-2 100495 2 glazed, turquoise 2 100643 2 polychrome 2 100666 2 black-on-buff 1 100667 1 glazed, brown 2-8 100875 7 unid. 1 100908 1 glazed, green 1 100925 1 glazed 10 110965 10 fine fabric 6 110967 6 unid. 22 11-12 14-19 2 110968 110968 110968 110974 22 2 6 1 black-on-buff red-on-red black-on-red fine fabric comments and comparanda similar shape and fabric as 100122-3 100122-3 black slip is fleeting (i.e., not Indus) Hili 8 3rd millennium wares #8; in "ceramics of Oman Prehistory" pdf 311 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # 3 110974 4 110974 1 110988 16-17 110991 3 110993 1 110996 2 110996 3 110996 5 111000 6 111000 7-11 111026 19 111065 33 111065 20-28 111065 2 111067 3 111113 2 111190 1 111257 2 111264 1 111274 1 111285 2 111298 3 111300 1 111307 2 111307 1 111316 1 111337 7 111344 # sherds 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Description incised gray ware black-on-red black-on-red Bahla glazed, brown combed Julfar coarse fabric combed combed black-on-red fine fabric black-on-red black-on-red semi-coarse fabric black-on-red black-on-red glazed, brown black-on-red black-on-red black-on-red black-on-red black-on-red semi-fine fabric fine fabric Islamic green-glazed vitreous fabric black-slipped comments and comparanda 312 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # 8 111344 1 111348 1 111349 4 111388 5 111388 6 111388 1 111424 4 111472 5 111472 6 111472 3 111477 2 111480 3 111480 2 111481 2 111482 6-7 100594 2-4 100035 1 100101 8 100105 1 100115 2 100217 1 100240 1 100267 2-3 100280 1 100312 2 100312 6 100318 2-5 100318 # sherds 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 Description glazed, green black-on-red glazed, green black-on-buff black-on-brown red-on-red Bahla black-slipped black-on-red black-on-buff black-on-brown glazed, turquoise glazed, green glazed, green glazed, green semi-coarse fabric unid. unid. coarse fabric unid. semi-coarse fabric coarse fabric coarse fabric semi-coarse fabric unid. fine fabric unid. very fine fabric comments and comparanda Refit with feature 111240 313 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # 1 100470 1 100488 1 100660 3-4 100668 1 100704 1 100726 2 100726 2-3 100731 2-5 100735 2 100764 3 100764 4 100764 5 100764 2 100798 # sherds 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 100838 1 3-5 100846 3 1 1 1 100899 100931 100939 1 1 1 1 9 1-8 1 2 100945 110965 110965 110967 110967 1 1 8 1 1 Description coarse fabric coarse fabric semi-coarse fabric semi-coarse fabric coarse fabric semi-fine fabric semi-fine fabric semi-coarse fabric semi-coarse fabric semi-coarse fabric non-diagnostic body sherd semi-coarse fabric semi-coarse fabric non-diagnostic body sherd semi-fine fabric; nondiagnostic semi-coarse fabric; nondiagnostic very coarse fabric; nondiagnostic coarse fabric; non-diagnostic coarse fabric; non-diagnostic semi-fine fabric; nondiagnostic unid. unid. unid. unid. comments and comparanda 314 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # 3 110967 4 110967 5 110967 10 110968 1-9 110968 1 110969 1 110974 # sherds 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 4 110987 1 2 1-15 7 8 110988 110991 110996 110996 1 15 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 110997 111000 111000 111000 111000 111001 1 1 1 1 1 1 12-15 1-18 111026 111065 3 18 4 5 111067 111067 1 1 Description unid. unid. unid. fine fabric; non-diagnostic fine fabric; non-diagnostic unid. fine fabric; non-diagnostic semi-coarse fabric; nondiagnostic semi-fine fabric; nondiagnostic coarse fabric; non-diagnostic coarse fabric; non-diagnostic coarse fabric; non-diagnostic semi-coarse fabric; nondiagnostic fine fabric; non-diagnostic coarse fabric; non-diagnostic coarse fabric; non-diagnostic coarse fabric; non-diagnostic fine fabric; non-diagnostic comments and comparanda very fine fabric; non-diagnostic fine fabric; non-diagnostic semi-coarse fabric; nondiagnostic coarse fabric; non-diagnostic 315 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # # sherds Description semi-coarse fabric; non6 111067 8 diagnostic semi-coarse fabric; non7 111067 8 diagnostic semi-coarse fabric; non3 111118 1 diagnostic 6 111118 1 fine fabric; non-diagnostic semi-fine fabric; non7 111118 1 diagnostic semi-coarse fabric; non8 111118 1 diagnostic semi-fine fabric; non4-5 111118 2 diagnostic semi-fine fabric; non9-10 111118 2 diagnostic 1 111143 1 coarse fabric; non-diagnostic semi-coarse fabric; non1 111190 1 diagnostic semi-fine fabric; non1 111213 1 diagnostic semi-coarse fabric; non1 111222 1 diagnostic semi-fine fabric; non1-2 111227 2 diagnostic semi-coarse fabric; non1 111242 1 diagnostic 1 111255 1 coarse fabric; non-diagnostic 1 111264 1 unid. comments and comparanda 316 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # # sherds Description 1 111272 1 fine fabric; non-diagnostic semi-fine fabric; non2 111272 1 diagnostic 2 111273 1 fine fabric; non-diagnostic comments and comparanda 8 111278 1 very fine fabric; non-diagnostic 9 111278 1 1 3 1 111280 111298 111300 1 1 1 2 4-5 1 2 1 2 111300 111300 111328 111328 111329 111329 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 4 111330 111330 111335 111336 100108 100108 100108 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 very fine fabric; non-diagnostic semi-coarse fabric; nondiagnostic fine fabric; non-diagnostic fine fabric; non-diagnostic semi-coarse fabric; nondiagnostic fine fabric; non-diagnostic unid. unid. unid. unid. semi-coarse fabric; nondiagnostic unid. fine fabric; non-diagnostic unid. unid. unid. unid. 317 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # # sherds Description 5-15 3-7 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 2 1 2 2 2 1-5 4 6 18-21 4 29-32 1-2 7 2 110987 111278 111303 111355 111338 111003 111333 111278 100318 111306 111462 111469 100485 110981 100749 111333 111344 110991 110996 111065 100598 100108 110987 11 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 4 2 1 1 1 7 6 111308 100105 100108 1 1 1 comments and comparanda very fine fabric; non-diagnostic black-on-red semi-fine footed base footed base pierced base, black-on-red pierced base pierced base raised base; gray fabric raised base raised base raised base Islamic brown-glazed Islamic ring-base Islamic ring-base base; fine fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; coarse fabric base; coarse fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; coarse fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; very fine fabric black-on-red base; very fine fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; semi-fine fabric 111338-1 111338-1 similar to 110987-2; but no interior slip Bat 100802-2 (Matariya) 111296-1 Similar to 100108-5 without the basal lip 111041-1 110996-6 111367-1 VERY coarse and thick version of 111001-1 Wadi Suq? 100108-5 100108-5 318 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # 2 100115 1 100117 2 100122 6 100764 1 100842 13 110968 3 110987 9 110996 1 111026 1 111090 1-2 111113 1-2 111118 1 111258 1 111265 1 111268 1 111278 2 111285 1 111299 3 111306 1 111331 3 111333 1 111336 2 111348 1 111353 1 111354 1 111363 2 111363 1 111388 # sherds 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Description base; coarse fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; semi-coarse fabric base; coarse fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; fine fabric base; fine fabric base; coarse fabric base; fine fabric base; semi-coarse fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; semi-coarse fabric base; semi-coarse fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; fine fabric base; very fine fabric base; fine fabric base; fine fabric base; fine fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; fine fabric base; fine fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; fine fabric base; fine fabric base; fine fabric base; fine fabric base; semi-fine fabric comments and comparanda 100108-5 coarser example of 11987-2 coarser example of 100108-5 110996-6 110987-2 111367-1 110987-2 110996-6 110987-2 coarser version of 111367-1 coarser than 111367-1 110987-2 111367-1 111367-1 111367-1 111367-1 larger example of 110987-2 coarser version of 111308-1 110987-2 110987-2 100108-5 111311-2 111296-11 coarser verion of 110987-2 319 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # 2 111388 2 111424 1 111472 3 111363 1 100123 1 100217 1-3 100253 1 100643 5 110996 6 110996 3 111030 1 111041 1-2 111086 1 111161 2 111311 1 111469 1 100735 2 111312 1 100105 6 100115 3 100217 5 100460 6-7 100460 1 100875 1 110981 6 111026 2 111468 1 111479 # sherds 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Description base; fine fabric base; fine fabric base; fine fabric base; fine fabric base; semi-coarse fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; coarse fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; semi-fine fabric base; fine fabric base; fine fabric base; coarse fabric black-on-brown beaker beaker; semi-fine fabric beaker; semi-fine fabric beaker; semi-fine fabric beaker beaker beaker beaker Wadi Suq beaker beaker glazed green beaker beaker comments and comparanda 110987-2 100108-5 100108-5 111367-1 100108-7 110996-6 Schreiber 2007 (PhD) p415/549 - rims w/lines across lip Mery 1991:64fig.12B 100108-1 Bat 101413-1 320 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # # sherds Description 1-4 100460 4 beaker pierced black-on-buff body 23 110968 1 sherd pierced black-on-buff body 1 111276 1 sherd 1 111481 1 green-glazed bottle 4 100217 1 bowl 3 100105 1 bowl, fine fabric 4 100105 1 base; semi-fine fabric 1 100108 4 bowl; fine fabric 3 100115 1 bowl; semi-fine fabric 4 100115 1 bowl; semi-coarse fabric 1 100116 1 bowl; semi-fine fabric 2 100116 1 bowl; semi-fine fabric 3 100116 1 bowl; fine fabric 4 100122 1 bowl; fine fabric 2-3 100123 2 bowl; fine fabric 1 100516 1 bowl; semi-fine fabric 3 100598 1 bowl; semi-fine fabric 21 110968 1 black-on-gray bowl 2 111265 1 bowl; semi-fine fabric 1 111296 1 bowl; fine fabric 3 111344 1 bowl; very fine fabric 1 111367 1 bowl; very fine fabric 3 111388 1 bowl; fine fabric 2 111473 1 bowl; semi-coarse fabric 2 111477 1 bowl; semi-fine fabric 1 111277 1 bowl; semi-fine fabric comments and comparanda 111003-3; 111338-1 Bat 102802 321 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # 3 111469 3 100122 5 100105 5 100115 # sherds 1 1 1 1 1 100645 1 3 111067 1 2 111333 1 4-5 2 1-5 111344 100594111240 1 100748 1 3 111424 1 1 111443 1 3 2 6 111473 100105 100105 1 1 1 1 111197 1 4 100598 1 6 Description bowl; coarse fabric Iron Age III; carinated bowl Iron Age III; carinated bowl Iron Age III; carinated bowl close-mouthed bowl; coarse fabric close-mouthed bowl; semicoarse fabric close-mouthed bowl; fine fabric close-mouthed bowl; fine fabric close-mouthed bowl; semicoarse fabric close-mouthed bowl; semi-fine fabric green-glazed open-mouthed bowl green-glazed open-mouthed bowl green-glazed open-mouthed bowl shouldered bowl shouldered bowl scored handle; semi-coarse fabric twinned handle; semi-coarse fabric comments and comparanda Qarn Bint Sa'ud 10:1, 13, 19, 10, 11; also Rumeilah 100122-3. Qarn Bint Sa'ud 10:1, 13, 19, 10, 11; also Rumeilah 100122-3. Qarn Bint Sa'ud 10:1, 13, 19, 10, 11; also Rumeilah 100115-3 coarser version of 100105-2 322 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # 26 110991 5 100108 1-2 100846 2 111355 1 111480 19 110966 1-2 111205 1 111298 1 111304 1 100731 7 110967 2 100899 2 111197 17 110966 18 110966 34 111065 2 111303 1 111306 3 111353 1 111473 1 111482 1 111345 # sherds 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 100240 1 Description twinned handle; coarse fabric unid. unid. unid. unid. unid. modern unid. unid. unid. unid. unid. unid. jar; fine fabric jar; fine fabric jar; fine fabric jar; semi-fine fabric jar; semi-fine fabric jar; fine fabric jar; semi-coarse fabric modern; jar; semi-fine fabric Julfar ware; close-mouthed jar close-mouthed jar; semi-coarse fabric 22-24 110991 3 collared jar; semi-coarse fabric 1-2 111030 2 collared jar; semi-coarse fabric comments and comparanda 111001-1 111367-1 100115-3 323 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # # sherds Description 1 100295 1 JN-EDI-II collared jar 1 100481 1 collared jar; semi-fine fabric 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 110993 111337 111344 111472 110987 111273 111322 110974 111026 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2-4 3 111026 111472 3 1 1 1 100330 110993 1 1 1 111067 1 2 1 111337 111344 1 1 2 111353 1 1 111474 1 comments and comparanda collared jar; semi-coarse fabric collared jar collared jar; fine fabric collared jar; fine fabric miniature jar; very fine fabric miniature jar; fine fabric miniature jar; very fine fabric miniature jar; very fine fabric miniature jar; very fine fabric black-on-red miniature jar; very fine fabric open-mouthed jar; fine fabric 111322-1 111322-1 111322-1 111273-1 open-mouthed jar; coarse fabric open-mouthed jar; fine fabric open-mouthed jar; semi-fine fabric open-mouthed jar; semi-coarse fabric open-mouthed jar; fine fabric open-mouthed jar; semi-fine fabric open-mouthed jar; semi-coarse fabric 324 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # # sherds Description comments and comparanda open-mouthed jar; semi-coarse 1-2 100668 2 fabric 1 100798 1 open-mouthed jar; fine fabric 111306-1 open-mouthed jar; semi-fine 3 111197 1 fabric open-mouthed jar; semi-coarse 2 111268 1 fabric 1 2 3 5 2 1 25 9 111468 111278 111481 111333 111276 111311 110991 100105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 16 1 1 3 3 111477 100551 100219 111001 111197 100764 110966 111260 111302 111311 111468 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 open-mouthed jar; coarse fabric black-on-red miniature jar green glazed plate plate cooking pot cooking pot open spout; course fabric open spout; Wadi Suq black-on-brown; three-quarter spout unid. unid. unid. unid. combed, paddled body sherd unid. unid. unid. unid. combed body sherd Bahla ware 111273-1 refits with 111312-1 similar to Plate 31:11 in Cleuziou 1989 (Hili 8 4-5 seasons) Plate 31:11 and 13, Cleuziou 1989 (Hili 8: seasons 4-7) Bat 090809 100330-1 325 Table 15 (cont'd) Find # Feature # 4 111473 1 111312 5-10 100598 1-15 110966 1112408-9 100594 # sherds 1 1 6 15 Description combed, paddled body sherd unid. unid. unid. comments and comparanda 2 unid. Refits with 100594-1 111311-1 326 Table 16. Bead Descriptions. ID Material type Find # # of pieces Color(s) 100011 stone 1 100217 stone 1 100451 stone 1 100666 stone 1 100726 stone 100726 stone 1 2 100772 stone 100939 stone 110967 stone 1 1 1 Description spherical white banded stone, poss. same type material as 111312. as w/111312 the color banding is perpendicular to the drill-hole 1 white, colorless direction. End 1 is the colorless translucent end sub-spherical. Limestone. Material may be clay: the "drill" holes are not circular, and their edges are rounded (probably worn). End 1 is more worn than end 2 (ie grooves have been worn into the 1 white material). rock(?) crystal, irregular rectangular. The stone appears v. hard. Driling runs between the two shorter sides of the rectangle in plan. Bi-directional drilling is uneven but successfully meets. There are bits of green (copper residue?) in the pits and crags of this bead. all 6 sides are unevenly chipped but all edges are 1 transparent smooth (ie you wouldn't hurt yourself wearing it). carnelian; large and flat: diamond-shaped in plan (lxw=23x21); rectangular in section parallel to drill holes; diamond in section perpendicular to drill holes (width-wise that is). Sl. chip out of 1 orange-red one corner. steatite (?) cylinder. Bead 1 has been worn/chipped slightly at one 1 white end. 1 white steatite (?) cylinder orange/redcarnelian. In section perpendicular to the drill hole this is square; in section parallel to drill hole this is oblong (convex rectangle, w/the long sides convex). Edges are smooth. Semitranslucent (can see the bi-direction drill holes through the side). 1 orange TONS of work to make this, I'd think! 1 black black, cylindrical, v small; slightly uneven thickness. 1 brownish red red, cylindrical. Carnelian 327 Table 16 (cont'd) ID Material type Find # # of pieces Color(s) 110967 stone 111072 stone 111072 stone 111072 stone 111072 stone 1 1 2 3-7 8-10 111081 stone 111086 stone 111139 shell 1 1 1 111174 glass 111236 stone 111261 stone 1 1 1 111312 stone 1 111312 stone 2 1 green, black 1 white 1 pink Description irregularly made: uneven thickness ("length"), while the overall shape in plan is round but unevenly cut. dark green/black, round white limestone cylindar pink limestone cylindar 5 chocolate brown 5 chocolate limestone cylindars: average measurements 3 green 3 green limestone: average measurements pendant-style cylindrical bead, both ends broken. The top end shows evidence of bi-directional drilling; on one side it appears to angle down, and on the other side to angle up, thus making the v. delicate bead stronger at the hole but it would have hung at an angle when threaded. Stone is possibly limestone. Length here refers to the length of the pendant rather than along the length of 1 white the drill-hole. 1 red-brown limestone cylinder "wheel" bead 1 white worn dentalia shell bead. barrel-shaped, poss. Faience; attempting to be circular in white, blue, perpendicular (according to hole) section, and oval in parallel 1 black section. Colors are swirled. Lightly patinated. 1 cream white stone, cylindrical 1 pink-brown "wheels". white, translucent 1 cream Banded stone, lozenge shape. This one is slightly smaller white, translucent 1 cream Banded stone, lozenge shape. This is the larger one 328 Table 16 (cont'd) ID Material type Find # # of pieces Color(s) blue-green, 111402 glass 1 1 white 111402 stone 2 1 gray 111402 stone 3 1 gray 111402 stone 4 1 green Description long barrel-shaped highly patinated glass, lightly faceted in 5 facets on each half barrel-shaped, in 2 pieces, bi-drilled cylindar tiny (3mm) drilled cylindar, gray stone: "wheels" 6mm dia drilled cylindar of green stone "wheels" 329 Table 17. Lithic Descriptions. ID # # pieces 100002 1 100013 1 100015 4 100018 1 100019 1 100020 1 100020 1 100020 1 100033 1 100063 1 100065 1 100066 1 100066 1 100070 1 100187 1 100187 1 100212 1 100277 1 100277 1 100768 1 100794 1 100794 1 100817 1 100824 1 100870 1 100895 1 100898 1 Description pale sandy brown flake, retouched on all edges except the platform of the bulb of percussion. brown, thick but small flake, retouched. 3 flakes with retouch, 1 drill, dark brown. thick flake with retouch, dark to pale brown thick chunk with many signs of working/retouch, dark brown with orange vein dark brown thick flakes with retouch dark and pale brown thick flake with retouch black and orange thick flake with retouch orange-brown retouched flake. Cortical running at right angle to striking platform mid orange-brown narrow blade flake, toffee-brown black, projectile point, tip broken black to light brown, heavily retouched red-brown/pale brown worked flake mid red-brown blade Pale brown, possible blade black and orange core, with four flakes removed from one side. All other sides are untouched. mid orange/brown pointed blade, retouched on the longest 2 sides light grey drill/borer/awl flake, very pale grey/white, with very fine retouch on one edge possible projectile point, brown-gray flake, no retouch, brown-gray caramel brown pointed flake, signs of retouch mid brown blade. Retouched on convex edge only. caramel brown blade fragment red-brown flake. flake, very dark purple-brown. No retouch. 330 Table 17 (cont'd) ID # # pieces 100899 1 100903 1 100903 1 100903 1 100904 1 100921 1 100926 1 100945 1 110948 1 110950 1 110951 1 110951 1 110952 1 110956 1 110959 1 110959 1 110972 1 110982 1 110991 1 110991 1 111001 1 111059 2 111065 1 111072 1 111073 1 111073 1 111073 1 Description thick flake, dark brown. Retouched on intact faces. pointed, retouched mid grey/brown flake Ovoid, mid-grey, heavily worked though small biface thick, small mid-brown chunk with many signs of retouch, unknown function/form flake with some retouch, reddish brown large red-brown flake light caramel brown blade, thickish blade, very dark brown, retouched along all edges blade frag (tip): light grey, ca. 1 cm long, retouched red-brown and pale brown scraper, 2 cm thick; biface speckled grey blade fragment, retouched on 3 sides dark red-brown scraper, finely retouched on all edges except striking platform. dark red/brown tool fragment: micro-retouch on 3 sides. tip of a large, t<1.5 cm-thick biface: dark brown, triangular, retouched on 2 sides. core, mid red-brown dark red-brown flake with retouch dark brown flake with blue streaks and retouch large, pale, tan flake; retouched worked rock crystal, transparent: rectangular in plan and triangular when bisected width-wise highly patinated dark brown flake; micro-retouch light greenish-brown retouched flake; partially retouched arabian biface: dark grey heavily retouched blade point, in 2 (refitting) pieces grey/brown stone, retouched edges reddish brown chip, possible retouch dark red core; scars from 11+ flakes evident notched flake tool, retouched fine brown drill,3.5 mm thick 331 Table 17 (cont'd) ID # # pieces 111073 1 111073 1 111075 1 111075 1 111075 1 111076 1 111079 1 111079 1 111080 1 111081 1 111081 1 111081 1 111082 1 111088 1 111095 1 111095 1 111097 1 111111 1 111112 1 111112 1 111113 1 111115 1 111117 1 111143 1 111157 1 111170 1 111173 1 Description purple blade, end missing translucent lithic; rectangular in plan, with a triangular cross-section grey, rectangular, retouched retouched flake red chunk with flakes removed sub-rectangular, brown, retouched fragment yellow-grey chip, retouched. retouched blade, dark brown; edges on both sides have been rounded and retouched. dark red retouched chip reddish brown core dark red flake/blade with lots of retouch multicolored retouched flake tool, squared off at both ends brown chert flake, worked on both sides projectile point. expedient tool; small flakes were removed along the long flat sides to emphasize edges expedient tool; retouched the edge brown concave scraper; retouched. retouched flake tool dark red micro-lith gray flake (no retouch visible) grey flake, no retouch visible biface; dark red, heavily worked, retouch reddish brown flake; possible drill dark red, retouched flake Caramel colour, retouched sub-rectangular scraper light brown, prismatic, retouched on all edges subrectangular tool, notched and retouched 332 Table 17 (cont'd) ID # # pieces 111173 1 111177 1 111182 1 111182 1 111182 1 111190 1 111191 1 111191 1 111193 1 111197 1 111199 1 111201 1 111206 1 111208 1 111216 1 111217 1 111222 1 111222 1 111222 1 111222 1 111222 1 111223 1 111226 1 111226 1 111227 1 111227 1 111234 1 Description notched, retouched red flake tool heavily retouched pink-brown flake tool dark brown subrectangular flake tool, retouched on all edges dark brown, single-edged tool scraper highly patinated large gray flake retouched white flake dark red flake; finely retouched edge dark red and white rectilinear tool with notched edge dark brown core, highly patinated dark brown flake brownish red rectangular blade dark brown scraper, rounded and retouched grey-brown flake, notched and retouched brown worked flake with some retouch mottled cream-brown blade with extensive reworking on 3 edges and retouched. dark red flake, broken: triangular cross-section, rectangular in plan grey brown triangular retouched flake mottled brown flake, worked red brown chunk (not flake), worked on both sides; possible micro-core dark brown notched flake retouched, orange-brown heavily patinated flake pinkish red re-touched flake dark red, slightly retouched flake, worked to a point on the side retouched and highly worked medium brown lithic light brown lithic, triangular in plan, rectangular in long cross-section; retouched on the three edges pink-tan blade fragment, retouched tool flake, retouched on four edges 333 Table 17 (cont'd) ID # # pieces 111235 1 111236 1 111241 1 111304 1 111305 1 111305 1 111305 1 111306 1 111306 1 111317 1 111319 1 111328 1 111328 1 111331 1 111333 1 111335 1 111337 1 111344 1 111344 1 111344 3 111424 1 111443 1 111443 1 111446 1 111446 1 111447 1 111447 1 Description dark red tool flake, retouched on four edges retouched microlith, bifacially worked, oval in short cross-section, rectangular in plan dark red blade, tip broken retouched on the long sides Light brown, rectangular bifacially worked flake, highly retouched Dark grey rectangular retouched flake caramel-brown flake tool, square, worked on all edges dark brown flake, scraper, retouched on most edges dark red retouched and worked flake tool/scraper purple/brown scraper, worked on one end dark brown expedient tool/scraper; one edge worked then retouched purple chip, squared, end has been blunted and retouched dark red, retouched drill light brown/grey flake, reworked edges purple/grey worked flake light brown retouched fragment yellow worked flake dark brown worked chunk light brown flake, retouched, broken purple chip with retouched point dark brown wide "halfted" biface large gray lithic tip of black retouched tool thick caramel-brown, possible expedient tool large notched tool, heavily patinated bifacially flaked rectangular worked tool, heavily patinated projectile point brown lithic, retouch 334 Table 17 (cont'd) ID # # pieces 111498 1 111499 1 111500 1 111501 1 Description large expedient rectangular scraper/blade, worked on two adjacent sides large tear-drop-shaped brown lithic, worked on all sides; highly patinated large multi-colored oval flake tool, highly retouched large, rectangular expedient scraper; worked on 3 sides 335 Table 18. Metal and Small Finds Descriptions. ID # material # pieces Description 100105 metal 1 copper alloy ring 100666 metal 1 copper alloy pin, perhaps awl 100704 metal 1 copper slag 100725 metal 1 metal ball (bullet) 100858 shell 1 shell disc: conus species with point cut off and ground smooth. 100922 metal 1 metal slag 100947 metal 1 Islamic coin 110963 stone 1 white and white-green limestone flake; example of construction debitage 110967 metal 1 copper fragment 110968 metal 1 fragment of small square nail 110975 metal 1 possible copper alloy fragment 111026 stone 1 white limestone fragment with possible chisel marks 111111 stone 1 white limestone chip 111236 metal 1 metal pin, curleded end 111236 metal 1 iron pin or hook 111236 metal 1 copper alloy rivet 111250 ceramic 1 ceramic spindle whorl 111298 metal 1 copper alloy point 111349 metal 1 metal debris 111473 ceramic 1 disc (partial) of overfired ceramic with incisions near edge 111473 glass 1 glass stylus 111473 metal 1 coin (1 mm thick) 111473 metal 1 coin (2 mm thick) 111474 unkn 1 serouj sample 111474 ceramic 1 green-glazed base, reused, probably as a spindle whorl 111489 metal 1 pin or hook 336 Table 19. Marine Shell Descriptions. ID # # pieces Description 100105 1 small oliva bulbosa 100105 2 shell fragments, bivalve species 100505 1 fragment of cardium pseudolina 100598 1 fragment of Anadara uropigimelana 100703 1 strombus (persicus) or conus species 100754 1 shell fragment, bivalve species 100763 1 shell fragment, bivalve species 110967 2 fragments of 2 different bivalve species 110975 1 shell fragment; possibly the hinge joint of a bivalve 110987 1 small, complete shell 111139 1 unid. 111175 1 unid. 111236 1 marine shell fragment 111300 1 unid. 111481 1 strombus (persicus) or conus species 337 Table 20. Groundstone Descriptions. ID # # pieces Description 100123 1 stone lid with design on top small stone bowl/cup, almost complete, in 2 pieces, design on 100439 1 outside 100750 1 stone ball 110967 6 fragments of stone vessels, all with patterns 110968 1 fragment of stone vessel with design 110981 1 square cup or bowl fragment with design 110981 2 rim fragments 110981 3 stone vessel fragments with designs 110982 1 stone vessel fragment 110993 1 stone vessel fragment with part of handle 111086 3 stone vessel fragments 111092 1 pierced weight 111344 2 ground stone bowl 111388 2 refitted ground stone bowl 338 Figure 91. 111067-c1. 339 Figure 92. 100122-c4. 340 Figure 93. 100116-c1. Figure 94. 100105-c1. 341 Figure 95. 100105-c4. Figure 96. 100105-c1. 342 Figure 97. 100460-c6. Figure 98. 111265-c2. 343 Figure 99. 100105-c2. Figure 100. 100108-c5. 344 Figure 101. 110987-c2. Figure 102. 111001-c1. 345 Figure 103. 111367-c1. 346 APPENDIX C Maps and Visual Statistics 347 Figure 104. Kernel Density Map (2.6 km kernel). Natural Breaks classification. 348 Figure 105. Kernel Density Map (350 m kernel). Natural Breaks classification. 349 Figure 106. Kernel Density Map (350 m kernel) of Hafit period and Umm an-Nar period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. 350 Figure 107. Kernel Density Map (2.3 km kernel) of Hafit period and Umm an-Nar period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. 351 Figure 108. Kernel Density Map (2.3 km kernel) of Umm an-Nar period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. 352 Figure 109. Kernel Density Map (350 m kernel) of Umm an-Nar period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. 353 Figure 110. Kernel Density Map (350 m kernel) of Hafit period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. 354 Figure 111. Kernel Density Map (2.3 km kernel) of Hafit period tombs. Natural Breaks classification. 355 Table 21. Ripley's K Function Results (100 Distance Bands). Hafit Tombs (Likelihood 2-3) Umm an-Nar Tombs (Likelihood 2-3) Distance Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Band Distance Distance L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference 1 46.89 399.43 352.54 417.18 370.29 44.86 755.33 710.47 766.71 721.84 2 93.78 568.3 474.52 588.61 494.83 89.73 1197.45 1107.73 1212.69 1122.96 3 140.67 719.5 578.83 740.98 600.31 134.59 1582.49 1447.9 1589.51 1454.93 4 187.56 849.75 662.19 870.94 683.38 179.45 1856.99 1677.54 1868.11 1688.66 5 234.45 983.72 749.27 1007.54 773.09 224.31 2038.65 1814.33 2051.14 1826.82 6 281.34 1090.65 809.31 1119.2 837.86 269.18 2132.99 1863.81 2141.89 1872.72 7 328.23 1201.67 873.44 1233.9 905.67 314.04 2231.54 1917.5 2239.88 1925.84 8 375.12 1332.2 957.08 1362.09 986.97 358.9 2358.2 1999.3 2361.68 2002.78 9 422.01 1462.04 1040.03 1492.78 1070.77 403.76 2511.16 2107.4 2516.73 2112.97 10 468.9 1577.34 1108.44 1608.28 1139.38 448.63 2659.37 2210.74 2659.93 2211.3 11 515.79 1698.45 1182.66 1728.03 1212.24 493.49 2823.05 2329.57 2828.37 2334.88 12 562.68 1807.27 1244.59 1839.22 1276.54 538.35 2974.22 2435.87 2987.32 2448.97 13 609.57 1901.92 1292.35 1934.49 1324.92 583.21 3097.38 2514.17 3112.2 2528.99 14 656.46 1990.89 1334.43 2025.65 1369.19 628.08 3199.24 2571.17 3217.61 2589.53 15 703.35 2071.07 1367.72 2108.92 1405.57 672.94 3269.64 2596.7 3287.71 2614.77 16 750.24 2155.43 1405.19 2194.29 1444.05 717.8 3320.9 2603.1 3342.02 2624.22 17 797.13 2247.35 1450.22 2289.18 1492.05 762.66 3379.26 2616.6 3397.14 2634.48 18 844.02 2328.01 1483.99 2369.91 1525.89 807.53 3419.32 2611.79 3439.42 2631.89 19 890.91 2395.34 1504.43 2436.33 1545.42 852.39 3470.44 2618.05 3491.9 2639.51 20 937.8 2464.75 1526.95 2508.11 1570.31 897.25 3500.48 2603.23 3526.43 2629.18 21 984.69 2554.15 1569.46 2594.79 1610.1 942.11 3525.73 2583.62 3552.58 2610.47 22 1031.58 2646.2 1614.62 2682.61 1651.03 986.98 3560.12 2573.14 3589.89 2602.91 23 1078.47 2722.48 1644.01 2758.72 1680.25 1031.84 3601.56 2569.72 3636.64 2604.81 24 1125.36 2795.95 1670.59 2832.86 1707.5 1076.7 3644.32 2567.62 3678.38 2601.68 25 1172.25 2866.56 1694.31 2900.29 1728.04 1121.56 3681.17 2559.61 3716.77 2595.21 26 1219.14 2937.47 1718.33 2971.79 1752.65 1166.43 3721.64 2555.21 3759.63 2593.21 356 Table 21 (cont'd) Distance Band Distance 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1266.03 1312.92 1359.81 1406.7 1453.59 1500.48 1547.37 1594.26 1641.15 1688.04 1734.93 1781.82 1828.71 1875.6 1922.49 1969.38 2016.27 2063.16 2110.05 2156.94 2203.83 2250.72 2297.61 2344.5 2391.39 2438.28 Hafit Tombs (Likelihood 2-3) Umm an-Nar Tombs (Likelihood 2-3) Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Distance L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference 3007.61 1741.58 3041.42 1775.39 1211.29 3773.36 2562.08 3814.37 2603.08 3073.4 1760.48 3108.44 1795.52 1256.15 3819.94 2563.79 3863.41 2607.26 3144.72 1784.91 3177.82 1818.01 1301.01 3863.72 2562.71 3910.67 2609.66 3215.3 1808.6 3247.38 1840.68 1345.88 3902.6 2556.73 3953.58 2607.7 3290.71 1837.12 3324.73 1871.14 1390.74 3955.97 2565.23 4004.43 2613.69 3369.9 1869.42 3403.69 1903.21 1435.6 4008.95 2573.35 4057.14 2621.54 3445.92 1898.55 3482.51 1935.14 1480.46 4076.23 2595.77 4128.77 2648.3 3526.85 1932.59 3568.54 1974.28 1525.33 4139.1 2613.78 4191.46 2666.13 3607.33 1966.18 3653.14 2011.99 1570.19 4196.04 2625.85 4250.07 2679.88 3682.48 1994.44 3731.53 2043.49 1615.05 4251.79 2636.74 4305.92 2690.87 3753.34 2018.41 3804.38 2069.45 1659.91 4296.9 2636.99 4354.82 2694.91 3820.49 2038.67 3872.89 2091.07 1704.78 4336.12 2631.34 4392.68 2687.9 3891.6 2062.89 3946.25 2117.54 1749.64 4372.78 2623.14 4430.55 2680.91 3953.93 2078.33 4011.03 2135.43 1794.5 4421.76 2627.26 4480.92 2686.42 4012.51 2090.02 4071.44 2148.95 1839.36 4473.13 2633.77 4534.52 2695.16 4073.48 2104.1 4133.07 2163.69 1884.23 4520.22 2636 4584.88 2700.66 4136.91 2120.64 4196.67 2180.4 1929.09 4558.59 2629.5 4624.7 2695.61 4200.01 2136.85 4260.24 2197.08 1973.95 4590.97 2617.02 4659.66 2685.71 4266.22 2156.17 4326.56 2216.51 2018.81 4607.35 2588.54 4676.85 2658.03 4333.04 2176.1 4394.56 2237.62 2063.68 4634.32 2570.65 4704.85 2641.18 4395.29 2191.46 4459.67 2255.84 2108.54 4657.21 2548.68 4727.75 2619.21 4465.96 2215.24 4530.43 2279.71 2153.4 4687.2 2533.8 4757.5 2604.1 4531.53 2233.92 4598.16 2300.55 2198.26 4716.23 2517.97 4786.76 2588.49 4583.59 2239.09 4651.75 2307.25 2243.13 4736.27 2493.15 4804.48 2561.36 4636.52 2245.13 4702.12 2310.73 2287.99 4749.86 2461.87 4817.12 2529.14 4688.37 2250.09 4755.04 2316.76 2332.85 4768.8 2435.95 4836.02 2503.17 357 Table 21 (cont'd) Distance Band Distance 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 2485.17 2532.06 2578.95 2625.84 2672.73 2719.62 2766.51 2813.4 2860.29 2907.18 2954.07 3000.96 3047.85 3094.74 3141.63 3188.52 3235.41 3282.3 3329.19 3376.08 3422.97 3469.86 3516.75 3563.64 3610.53 3657.42 Hafit Tombs (Likelihood 2-3) Umm an-Nar Tombs (Likelihood 2-3) Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Distance L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference 4741.85 2256.68 4808.13 2322.96 2377.71 4787.12 2409.41 4854.34 2476.63 4802.23 2270.17 4866.97 2334.91 2422.58 4798.25 2375.68 4864.86 2442.29 4856.33 2277.38 4919.54 2340.59 2467.44 4805.69 2338.25 4872.15 2404.71 4908.36 2282.52 4968.98 2343.14 2512.3 4816.02 2303.72 4883.64 2371.34 4953.6 2280.87 5012.72 2339.99 2557.16 4827.01 2269.85 4893.01 2335.85 5003.7 2284.08 5062.43 2342.81 2602.03 4844.1 2242.07 4906.88 2304.86 5053.41 2286.9 5111.26 2344.75 2646.89 4860.69 2213.8 4921.08 2274.19 5097.11 2283.71 5155.14 2341.74 2691.75 4876.84 2185.09 4935.76 2244.01 5139.09 2278.8 5196.52 2336.23 2736.61 4898.42 2161.81 4953.03 2216.42 5183.83 2276.65 5240.48 2333.3 2781.48 4913.33 2131.85 4964.74 2183.27 5220.67 2266.6 5275.75 2321.68 2826.34 4919.06 2092.72 4970.84 2144.51 5257.12 2256.16 5312.63 2311.67 2871.2 4922.18 2050.98 4973.76 2102.56 5292.75 2244.9 5347.13 2299.28 2916.06 4928.79 2012.73 4979.37 2063.3 5321.95 2227.21 5374.9 2280.16 2960.93 4934.72 1973.79 4985.48 2024.56 5350.73 2209.1 5403.02 2261.39 3005.79 4953.05 1947.27 5006.12 2000.34 5375.34 2186.82 5426.94 2238.42 3050.65 4983.55 1932.9 5040.03 1989.38 5401.09 2165.68 5451.15 2215.74 3095.51 5014.19 1918.68 5070.7 1975.19 5420.83 2138.53 5469.98 2187.68 3140.38 5035.45 1895.07 5091.12 1950.75 5442.23 2113.04 5491.43 2162.24 3185.24 5047.7 1862.46 5105.45 1920.21 5461.64 2085.56 5510 2133.92 3230.1 5051.85 1821.75 5109.77 1879.67 5479.96 2056.99 5527.29 2104.32 3274.96 5055.4 1780.43 5113.36 1838.4 5499.19 2029.33 5546.79 2076.93 3319.83 5060.38 1740.55 5116.96 1797.14 5522.41 2005.66 5568.36 2051.61 3364.69 5074.39 1709.7 5131.24 1766.56 5539 1975.36 5583.44 2019.8 3409.55 5081.62 1672.07 5137.99 1728.44 5552.16 1941.63 5595.64 1985.11 3454.41 5099.6 1645.18 5156.82 1702.41 5563.37 1905.95 5606.09 1948.67 3499.28 5105.94 1606.66 5162.7 1663.43 358 Table 21 (cont'd) Distance Band Distance 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 3704.31 3751.2 3798.09 3844.98 3891.87 3938.76 3985.65 4032.54 4079.43 4126.32 4173.21 4220.1 4266.99 4313.88 4360.77 4407.66 4454.55 4501.44 4548.33 4595.22 4642.11 4689 Hafit Tombs (Likelihood 2-3) Umm an-Nar Tombs (Likelihood 2-3) Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Distance L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference 5576.39 1872.08 5619.18 1914.87 3544.14 5118.5 1574.36 5175.96 1631.83 5588.76 1837.56 5631.73 1880.53 3589 5126.87 1537.87 5184.1 1595.1 5599.24 1801.15 5641.49 1843.4 3633.86 5130.63 1496.76 5187.77 1553.91 5610.88 1765.9 5652.89 1807.91 3678.73 5137.78 1459.05 5195.71 1516.98 5621.01 1729.14 5663.53 1771.66 3723.59 5144.29 1420.71 5202.27 1478.68 5631.68 1692.92 5673.84 1735.08 3768.45 5151.01 1382.56 5209.36 1440.91 5641.16 1655.51 5682.61 1696.96 3813.31 5160.33 1347.01 5219.08 1405.77 5649.7 1617.16 5691.71 1659.17 3858.18 5166.87 1308.69 5225.56 1367.39 5658.64 1579.21 5700.61 1621.18 3903.04 5172.96 1269.92 5231.43 1328.39 5664.86 1538.54 5706.64 1580.32 3947.9 5180.41 1232.51 5238.66 1290.76 5670.4 1497.19 5712 1538.79 3992.76 5186.55 1193.79 5244.59 1251.83 5678.24 1458.14 5719.36 1499.26 4037.63 5190.77 1153.15 5247.65 1210.02 5683.52 1416.53 5724.25 1457.26 4082.49 5196.07 1113.58 5253.25 1170.77 5690.77 1376.89 5731.19 1417.31 4127.35 5200.68 1073.33 5258.38 1131.03 5697.54 1336.77 5737.46 1376.69 4172.21 5201.49 1029.28 5259.34 1087.13 5702.65 1294.99 5742.04 1334.38 4217.08 5208.83 991.76 5266.83 1049.76 5707.21 1252.66 5746.4 1291.85 4261.94 5215.36 953.42 5273.89 1011.95 5713.54 1212.1 5752.33 1250.89 4306.8 5230.96 924.16 5290.06 983.26 5719.67 1171.34 5758.36 1210.03 4351.66 5247.28 895.62 5308.48 956.82 5726.89 1131.67 5764.71 1169.49 4396.53 5280.42 883.9 5345.31 948.78 5731.78 1089.67 5769.35 1127.24 4441.39 5307.07 865.68 5372.15 930.77 5738 1049 5775.61 1086.61 4486.25 5337.89 851.64 5406.05 919.8 359 Table 21 (cont'd) Hafit and Umm an-Nar Tombs (Likelihood 2-3) Third Millennium BC Tombs (Likelihood 1-3) Distance Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Band Distance Distance L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference 1 46.89 410.65 363.76 426.08 379.19 47.97 356.09 308.12 382.31 334.34 2 93.78 624.39 530.61 647.15 553.37 95.95 537.21 441.27 576.41 480.47 3 140.67 803.44 662.77 827.76 687.09 143.92 696.86 552.94 742.93 599.01 4 187.56 943.33 755.77 971.75 784.19 191.89 835.21 643.32 887.63 695.74 5 234.45 1070.01 835.56 1101.34 866.89 239.86 953.68 713.82 1017.47 777.61 6 281.34 1169.64 888.3 1204.58 923.24 287.83 1059.11 771.28 1128.06 840.23 7 328.23 1276.21 947.98 1313.41 985.18 335.81 1179.51 843.7 1250.43 914.62 8 375.12 1396.04 1020.92 1432.9 1057.78 383.78 1299.02 915.24 1370.55 986.77 9 422.01 1509.62 1087.61 1546.96 1124.95 431.75 1410.54 978.79 1486.4 1054.65 10 468.9 1614.78 1145.88 1653.11 1184.21 479.72 1520.93 1041.21 1599.48 1119.75 11 515.79 1728.61 1212.82 1767.44 1251.65 527.7 1628.29 1100.59 1710.37 1182.67 12 562.68 1821.79 1259.11 1862.14 1299.46 575.67 1726.1 1150.43 1810.98 1235.31 13 609.57 1910.5 1300.93 1953.68 1344.11 623.64 1820.42 1196.77 1908.38 1284.74 14 656.46 1988.27 1331.81 2034.45 1377.99 671.61 1905.32 1233.71 1996.05 1324.43 15 703.35 2057.18 1353.83 2106.64 1403.29 719.59 1985.14 1265.55 2074.63 1355.04 16 750.24 2131.5 1381.26 2182.07 1431.83 767.56 2072.39 1304.83 2162.15 1394.59 17 797.13 2208.04 1410.91 2260.95 1463.82 815.53 2154.61 1339.08 2244.01 1428.48 18 844.02 2274.79 1430.77 2327.99 1483.97 863.5 2221.76 1358.25 2311.35 1447.85 19 890.91 2325.57 1434.66 2378.44 1487.53 911.48 2282.54 1371.06 2371.43 1459.96 20 937.8 2381.45 1443.65 2435.58 1497.78 959.45 2343.02 1383.57 2430.49 1471.04 21 984.69 2447.23 1462.54 2499.58 1514.89 1007.42 2405.84 1398.42 2494.38 1486.96 22 1031.58 2517.8 1486.22 2567.92 1536.34 1055.4 2470.49 1415.1 2559.37 1503.97 23 1078.47 2584.91 1506.44 2633.66 1555.19 1103.37 2533.87 1430.5 2622.47 1519.1 24 1125.36 2644.91 1519.55 2693.73 1568.37 1151.34 2596.17 1444.83 2682.7 1531.36 25 1172.25 2706.15 1533.9 2752.53 1580.28 1199.31 2660.81 1461.49 2746.08 1546.76 26 1219.14 2768.42 1549.28 2815 1595.86 1247.29 2729.62 1482.34 2813.96 1566.67 360 Table 21 (cont'd) Hafit and Umm an-Nar Tombs (Likelihood 2-3) Third Millennium BC Tombs (Likelihood 1-3) Distance Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Band Distance Distance L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference 27 1266.03 2832.72 1566.69 2879.61 1613.58 1295.26 2797.77 1502.51 2884 1588.74 28 1312.92 2894.64 1581.72 2943.41 1630.49 1343.23 2864.93 1521.7 2954.28 1611.05 29 1359.81 2958.24 1598.43 3006.66 1646.85 1391.2 2934.23 1543.03 3026.27 1635.07 30 1406.7 3023.07 1616.37 3071.38 1664.68 1439.18 3007.91 1568.74 3103.41 1664.24 31 1453.59 3092.41 1638.82 3141.84 1688.25 1487.15 3082.31 1595.16 3182.62 1695.48 32 1500.48 3167.13 1666.65 3216.65 1716.17 1535.12 3153.98 1618.86 3258.88 1723.76 33 1547.37 3236.85 1689.48 3287.67 1740.3 1583.09 3222.46 1639.36 3331.33 1748.23 34 1594.26 3306.17 1711.91 3360.02 1765.76 1631.07 3290.75 1659.68 3403.33 1772.26 35 1641.15 3376.69 1735.54 3432.67 1791.52 1679.04 3358.02 1678.98 3474.18 1795.14 36 1688.04 3442.79 1754.75 3500.52 1812.48 1727.01 3430.19 1703.18 3549.76 1822.75 37 1734.93 3509.9 1774.97 3567.78 1832.85 1774.98 3496.7 1721.71 3618.16 1843.17 38 1781.82 3572.65 1790.83 3631.62 1849.8 1822.96 3564.26 1741.31 3687.24 1864.29 39 1828.71 3637.89 1809.18 3697.99 1869.28 1870.93 3629.37 1758.44 3753.97 1883.04 40 1875.6 3699.87 1824.27 3762.14 1886.54 1918.9 3697.9 1779 3823.74 1904.84 41 1922.49 3758.79 1836.3 3822.05 1899.56 1966.87 3762.43 1795.55 3889.2 1922.33 42 1969.38 3817.69 1848.31 3880.77 1911.39 2014.85 3829.43 1814.59 3954.14 1939.3 43 2016.27 3874.82 1858.55 3936.72 1920.45 2062.82 3897.26 1834.45 4022.74 1959.92 44 2063.16 3932.15 1868.99 3993.76 1930.6 2110.79 3962.1 1851.31 4087.53 1976.74 45 2110.05 3993.05 1883 4053.83 1943.78 2158.76 4025.79 1867.03 4153.58 1994.82 46 2156.94 4056.71 1899.77 4117.42 1960.48 2206.73 4089.92 1883.18 4218.75 2012.02 47 2203.83 4118.33 1914.5 4180.41 1976.58 2254.71 4155.24 1900.53 4283.94 2029.24 48 2250.72 4183.41 1932.69 4244.19 1993.47 2302.68 4214.63 1911.95 4343.5 2040.82 49 2297.61 4243.66 1946.05 4304.48 2006.87 2350.65 4270.45 1919.79 4398.8 2048.15 50 2344.5 4293.31 1948.81 4353.9 2009.4 2398.62 4324.68 1926.06 4450.06 2051.44 51 2391.39 4342.1 1950.71 4400.12 2008.73 2446.6 4375.94 1929.34 4500.03 2053.43 52 2438.28 4388.53 1950.25 4445.86 2007.58 2494.57 4429.61 1935.04 4552.62 2058.05 361 Table 21 (cont'd) Hafit and Umm an-Nar Tombs (Likelihood 2-3) Third Millennium BC Tombs (Likelihood 1-3) Distance Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Band Distance Distance L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference 53 2485.17 4434.98 1949.81 4491.29 2006.12 2542.54 4484.24 1941.69 4605.3 2062.76 54 2532.06 4487.7 1955.64 4542.12 2010.06 2590.52 4538.48 1947.96 4654.96 2064.44 55 2578.95 4532.96 1954.01 4585.11 2006.16 2638.49 4588.99 1950.5 4702.82 2064.33 56 2625.84 4578.44 1952.6 4627.91 2002.07 2686.46 4636.53 1950.07 4747.83 2061.37 57 2672.73 4620.58 1947.85 4668.51 1995.78 2734.43 4686.57 1952.14 4796.36 2061.93 58 2719.62 4667.86 1948.24 4714.01 1994.39 2782.41 4734.78 1952.38 4841.84 2059.44 59 2766.51 4714.57 1948.06 4758.77 1992.26 2830.38 4780.24 1949.86 4884.76 2054.38 60 2813.4 4753.83 1940.43 4797.67 1984.27 2878.35 4825.78 1947.43 4926.41 2048.06 61 2860.29 4790.66 1930.37 4832.64 1972.35 2926.32 4866.67 1940.34 4963.72 2037.39 62 2907.18 4826.44 1919.26 4866.43 1959.25 2974.29 4904.46 1930.17 4998.23 2023.94 63 2954.07 4854.19 1900.12 4892.36 1938.29 3022.27 4938.76 1916.49 5030.28 2008.01 64 3000.96 4883.65 1882.69 4921.46 1920.5 3070.24 4970.86 1900.62 5060.94 1990.7 65 3047.85 4914.21 1866.36 4951.19 1903.34 3118.21 4999.28 1881.07 5087.83 1969.61 66 3094.74 4940.41 1845.67 4975.93 1881.19 3166.18 5026.93 1860.75 5114.35 1948.16 67 3141.63 4965.1 1823.47 4999.64 1858.01 3214.16 5053.32 1839.16 5138.64 1924.48 68 3188.52 4985.98 1797.46 5020.08 1831.56 3262.13 5077.73 1815.6 5161.27 1899.14 69 3235.41 5007.06 1771.65 5040.04 1804.63 3310.1 5102.92 1792.82 5185.17 1875.07 70 3282.3 5025.66 1743.36 5058.22 1775.92 3358.08 5127.53 1769.46 5209.2 1851.13 71 3329.19 5044.59 1715.4 5077.22 1748.03 3406.05 5149.73 1743.68 5231.24 1825.19 72 3376.08 5063.17 1687.09 5095.53 1719.45 3454.02 5170.47 1716.45 5252.2 1798.18 73 3422.97 5081.04 1658.07 5112.75 1689.78 3501.99 5191.57 1689.58 5273.81 1771.82 74 3469.86 5099.86 1630 5131.68 1661.82 3549.96 5210.43 1660.46 5292.65 1742.69 75 3516.75 5123.33 1606.58 5153.98 1637.23 3597.94 5226.55 1628.61 5307.52 1709.58 76 3563.64 5139.16 1575.52 5168.88 1605.24 3645.91 5243.12 1597.21 5322.51 1676.6 77 3610.53 5151.08 1540.55 5180.29 1569.76 3693.88 5258.93 1565.05 5337.33 1643.45 78 3657.42 5161.77 1504.35 5190.3 1532.88 3741.85 5274.37 1532.52 5351.81 1609.96 362 Table 21 (cont'd) Hafit and Umm an-Nar Tombs (Likelihood 2-3) Third Millennium BC Tombs (Likelihood 1-3) Distance Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Band Distance Distance L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference L(d) Difference 79 3704.31 5173.83 1469.52 5202.37 1498.06 3789.83 5290.13 1500.3 5366.49 1576.66 80 3751.2 5184.92 1433.72 5213.57 1462.37 3837.8 5304.59 1466.79 5379.96 1542.16 81 3798.09 5195.31 1397.22 5223.41 1425.32 3885.77 5318.1 1432.33 5392.49 1506.71 82 3844.98 5205.42 1360.44 5233.18 1388.2 3933.74 5332.19 1398.44 5405.64 1471.89 83 3891.87 5214.75 1322.88 5242.69 1350.82 3981.72 5346.08 1364.36 5418.15 1436.43 84 3938.76 5225.01 1286.25 5252.68 1313.92 4029.69 5360.88 1331.19 5430.48 1400.79 85 3985.65 5234.17 1248.52 5261.54 1275.89 4077.66 5375.89 1298.23 5443.39 1365.73 86 4032.54 5241.82 1209.28 5269.23 1236.69 4125.64 5388.9 1263.26 5453.93 1328.3 87 4079.43 5250.23 1170.8 5277.4 1197.97 4173.61 5402.31 1228.7 5464.93 1291.32 88 4126.32 5256.03 1129.71 5283.04 1156.72 4221.58 5413.91 1192.33 5475.29 1253.71 89 4173.21 5261.9 1088.69 5288.93 1115.72 4269.55 5426.24 1156.69 5486.02 1216.47 90 4220.1 5268.78 1048.68 5295.44 1075.34 4317.52 5437.74 1120.21 5496.83 1179.31 91 4266.99 5274.45 1007.46 5300.87 1033.88 4365.5 5449.55 1084.05 5508.02 1142.52 92 4313.88 5282.79 968.91 5309.54 995.66 4413.47 5461.01 1047.54 5518.9 1105.43 93 4360.77 5290.32 929.55 5317.03 956.26 4461.44 5472.78 1011.34 5530.41 1068.97 94 4407.66 5298.25 890.59 5325.32 917.66 4509.42 5485.11 975.69 5542.44 1033.03 95 4454.55 5307.13 852.58 5334.49 879.94 4557.39 5498.14 940.76 5554.86 997.48 96 4501.44 5316.89 815.45 5344.34 842.9 4605.36 5510.27 904.91 5566.04 960.68 97 4548.33 5326.12 777.79 5353.85 805.52 4653.33 5522.1 868.77 5576.71 923.38 98 4595.22 5334.3 739.08 5361.56 766.34 4701.3 5534.11 832.81 5587.44 886.13 99 4642.11 5340.52 698.41 5367.63 725.52 4749.28 5544.48 795.2 5596.5 847.22 100 4689 5346.99 657.99 5374.23 685.23 4797.25 5554.89 757.64 5605.49 808.24 363 APPENDIX D The Oman Archive: A digital repository for archaeological research on the Sultanate of Oman 364 A. Project Activities Background to the Region and Survey Area This final report documents my early efforts to create a digital repository documenting the prehistoric archaeological remains in the Wadi al-Hijr surrounding the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Bat in north-central Oman (Figures 112 and 113). Bat is one of the few known parts of the Oman Peninsula in which extensive third millennium BC (“Umm an-Nar”) archaeological monuments are still extant. The third millennium BC the Umm an-Nar were in direct contact with Mesopotamians to the west and the Harappans to the northeast. Mesopotamia is characterized by state-level social and political organization, with a strong hierarchical system. On the subcontinent, the Harappans (also known as the Indus) can be characterized as “civilization without the state”: that is, a highly developed complex sociopolitical system lacking a pinnacled hierarchy. In contrast to both the Mesopotamians and the Harappans, the Umm an-Nar culture is a highly integrated middle-range culture with extensive socio-political and economic linkages over the entire Oman Peninsula maintaining important trade relationships with both Mesopotamia and the Indus (Figure 112). The basic structural differences in the cultures make their exchanges fascinating both as an example of ancient interactions and as an important contribution to our understanding of culture contact. 365 Figure 112. Location of Oman in South-central Asia. Recent development is radically changing this landscape and the experiences of the people who live there. This digital repository project, at its most basic level, is an attempt to document this archaeological heritage so that cultural heritage can be taken into account by future development projects at the local, regional, national, and even international levels. Throughout the third millennium BCE the site of Bat was a center of great importance, arguably second only to one 366 other settlement on the Oman Peninsula. Excavations and providential survey of the Bat region began in the 1970s. Despite forty years of research and several surveys of the UNESCO site proper it was not until 2010 that extensive fullcoverage archaeological survey was undertaken in the Bat region, thus allowing this important site to be situated within its environmental and archaeological context. Since Bat has become the main focus of research in understanding transitions to and changes in the Umm an-Nar culture, this research has application in any number of realms, from specific development plans for cultural heritage in the Bat area, to understanding interactions between wildly disparate cultural groups in the third millennium BC Middle Asian Interaction Sphere (Possehl 1007). 367 Figure 113: Location of the survey area in Oman 368 Yet the same problem that dogged earlier researchers existed: how to maintain the data and results in a way that was (a) stable, (b) accessible to future researchers, and (c) useful for heritage planning in conjunction with other development changes to the landscape in the area? Changes and Omissions to the Project There were two significant changes to the project. The first change was in the immediate audience and levels of access. The project was initially formulated as potentially encompassing four major audiences: (A) researchers; (B) development workers in the immediate area; (C) government servants responsible for decision-making on the national level; and (D) UNESCO employees and other members of the international community concerned about monitoring the World Heritage monuments as part of a larger landscape. Early on it became expedient to set aside the outward-facing application component and focus on the ways in which researchers store and access data in the Wad al-Hijr area. At the same time the structure of the digital repository was built to reflect the potential for additional audiences in later versions. Efforts to Publicize the Project The Beta version of this repository will be delivered to the Ministry of Heritage and Culture in the Sultanate of Oman. It will be available for immediate use by the Ministry, specifically as they formulate development plans for the project area. The American-Japanese Bat Archaeological Project (AJBAP) will regularly access the data in their upcoming 5-year plans to continue surveying the region and its environs for archaeological remains. During that time decisions will be made in regards to integrating the newly-collected 369 data with the 2010-2011 survey data, using this project as a model. This White Paper will be circulated as one of the CHII projects and highlighted in a less formal blog post on the MATRIX website. It will also be included as an appendix to this researcher’s dissertation, which summarizes and analyzes the repository data. In May 2013 there will be a program bringing together all research on the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Bat and its environs. This researcher will present the digital repository for its analytical and development capabilities, and invite other researchers into a discussion of creating a combined repository. B. Accomplishments Quantitative and Qualitative Accomplishments The project sacrificed quantitative coverage in organization for qualitative coverage in order to form a flexible backbone repository structure. There were four major goals for this project: 1. The curation of archaeological survey data 2. Familiarity with archaeological meta-data standards 3. Using KORA, conceiving of the relationships between data, storage, and access via digital repository structures, and confidence manipulating those digital structures 4. Creation in KORA of a repository capable of both qualitative and quantitative expansion 370 Curation of archaeological survey data. Before this project began, archaeological surveys of the research area had been undertaken seven times over the past 40 years; in no case has the data from those surveys been located, despite repeated attempts by a variety of researchers intimately linked to the projects. The original idea for this project, then, was to develop a digital storage facility that would manage all of the data files – many of which were born digital – while maintaining the particularities of the conditions under which the data were collected through the metadata. Archaeological survey data collected in 2010 and 2011 in 124 sq km section of the Wadi al-Hijr were the particular test case here. Data consisted of several types of survey forms, digital photographs, scanned and digitized hand drawings, born-digital and scanned maps, and coordinate data. Familiarity with archaeological metadata standards. Archaeological data varies widely depending upon the type of data being collected and the kinds of questions the researcher seeks to answer, as well as region-, institution-, and subfield-specific standards. The conditions and research questions under which data were collected therefore must be maintained within the data themselves and in a manner that is accessible and understandable to any researcher accessing the data. Several metadata sources were researched to understand different ways of thinking about the data. The Council of Europe’s Cultural Heritage Committee created the International Core Data Standard for Archaeological Sites provided a monument-specific detailed list of metadata options. The Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN) data dictionaries provide a breadth of standard fields for describing archaeological data. As a dictionary, it standardizes relationships 371 between terms and is therefore useful in collections management system design. Confidence structuring and manipulating data through digital repository design. KORA is a flexible, open-source online digital repository application capable of organizing, managing, and retrieving digital objects and metadata. Its flexibility makes it useful for working with different contents and metadata structures, which can be problematic when dealing with archaeological data. The repository underwent several structural iterations of increasing simplicity. Each iteration was a response to the dialectic between data particularities and structural complexities. In general, as the structure increased in complexity and thus more closely reflected the sample survey data, the less flexible it became in integrating other kinds of archaeological data. In order to allow for the greatest flexibility all data are collected and related under the following five schema (Figure 114):  Event  Unit of Analysis  Field Forms  Visual Data  Logs, Etc. An Event constitutes a specific activity taking place in time. Examples of an Event are Site visits; Survey; Construction; and Excavation. Since an archaeological project alone usually includes aspects of survey, excavation, and laboratory analysis – any combination of which may be taking 372 place synchronously or diachronically – this was an important organizational scheme that will be particularly useful heritage management, research, and development. The Unit of Analysis is primarily useful for researchers in comparing across units. An archaeological feature (e.g., a wall) may be one unit of analysis; an artifact may be another. Separating out these different categories will make organization and exploratory analysis of large amounts of data easier. Field Forms are any and all paper documents created in the field (as opposed to in the lab), and the intent is curation of original field documents for later retrieval and analysis. Visual Data includes maps; photographs; hand-drawn and digitally born drawings of artifacts; features; sites; and other media that may relate to an Event. “Other media” may including audio, such as an archaeologist’s tour of a site, or – quite frequently – a specialist’s visit and on-the-spot assessment of a specific artifact. Logs, Etc. curates all other forms associated with the archaeological heritage. These include copies of permits; field journals; interim reports; digitized selections of archaeological comparanda; and any other public documents relating to the archaeological heritage of the area. Every piece of data – stored in Field Forms, Visual Data, or Logs, Etc. – is associated with an Event, but may otherwise link with any combination of the other schema. 373 Event Object scheme based on an event related to an archaeological feature or set of features Visual Data Photos, illustrations, maps Logs etc. Photographic, analytical (lab),and coordinate logs Field forms Survey forms (organized according to unit of analysis) Unit of Analysis Common units for comparison Figure 114. Relationships between Oman Archive schema Creation of a repository capable of both qualitative and quantitative expansion. As is clear, major schema are very broad, allowing for easy extension of data types and linkages without compromising any of the associations already in place. 374 C. Audiences and Continuation of the Project Audiences The project has four major audiences. (A) Researchers. (B) Development workers in the immediate area. (C) Government servants responsible for decision-making on the national level. (D) UNESCO employees and other members of the international community concerned about monitoring the World Heritage monuments as part of a larger landscape. Continuation of the Project (Future Plans) As this was a start-up project, there is still much to do to make this project useful for all audiences. There are several main areas in which this repository can grow, and much of this is dependent upon the researchers involved. For example, the archaeological data storage at the moment is focused on survey. For a number of reasons it will be important to expand this to include excavation results: for example, this repository would be greatly complemented by the results of salvage excavation mediation. In order to make informed decisions about extant archaeological remains it is important to have a full understanding of those archaeological remains that have been excavated, removed, or altered for a number of reasons. New information can help us to better understand, protect, and evaluate extant archaeological heritage, in addition to anticipating archaeological remains invisible in surface survey examinations. The latter highlights a second goal for future applications of the repository: that of heritage 375 management. There are several directions for this. On a landscape in which resources are patchily distributed and localized, those areas that were best for human groups in the past are very likely to have remained popular throughout history and into the future. Therefore it is vital to have an understanding of the cultural heritage literally surrounding people today in order to make informed decisions about development (in its broadest sense) at the local, regional, and national scales. Second, under Royal decree the Ministry of Heritage and Culture (Sultanate of Oman) is intent on documenting and maintaining Omani heritage, and is beginning a strong push to conduct a series of comprehensive surveys of the entire country. In conjunction with this project, Dr. Yasuhisa Kondo (AJBAP) will be leading a 5-year survey plan to complement the 2010-2011 survey data stored in this repository project. The integration of these intensive plans to create massive amounts of comparable data – on the research level of this and Dr. Kondo’s data, and on the national scale – will require some system of digital curation, storage, and retrieval that is feasible for researchers and for ministry employees, who make daily decisions impacting the landscape across the country. For example, there is a major project in the works to build a transArabian railroad from southern Oman, through the UAE, and over to Saudi Arabia. As initial plans suggest a coastal route, where the probability of archaeological sites is quite high, it is crucial to know how, when, and where to mediate archaeological sites prior to construction. The creation of constraints – limitations on access – will be a simple but necessary step in the future. The repository is to be available to a wide variety of audiences with very different interests and agendas. For this reason every change to the repository – whether an ingestion or a 376 simple modification – is logged as a new Event and the data ingested is added and associated to the data it is updating; it does not replace earlier data. At this point anyone who ingests data may also make modifications (e.g., delete) data already entered. Again, what is to be created here is as much a log of changes over time (“When did looting begin at that site?”) as a tool for creating information about the ancient past (“Who has sought to date this artifact, what was the reasoning, and what was the conclusion?”). Site monitoring and action items related to future projects are important for long-term research and development plans. Changes to the platform will also impact the project’s future. KORA is going through extensive review, of which this digital repository was a part. Based on these and other recommendations the platform will be considerably modified for ease of repository development, ingestion of materials, and access by other researchers and projects. Although the repository as it stands now will be put to immediate use by researchers and Omani employees as soon as December 2012, the extension of this repository into other adjacent and complementary regions, and for archaeological materials of all periods, is an important next step (as described above). D. Evaluation, Long Term Impact, and Grant Products The evaluation of the project is still underway. The initial goal was to create a permanent place for the long-term digital storage of archaeological survey data on and surrounding the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Bat in the Sultanate of Oman. This has been accomplished. Its evaluation will primarily occur beginning in December 2012, when it will be integrated into the 5-year AJBAP survey research plan. Beginning in January 2013 it will also be made available to the 377 Ministry of Heritage and Culture; this stage will include evaluation and updating the repository structure to provide access to specific Ministry representatives, with an extended period of supervision by this researcher as Site Manager. The primary grant product is the digital repository created in KORA. 378 APPENDIX E Research Form Samples 379 __/05/_2011_ UTM: 40Q 04_________E; 25___________N (WGS84) Feat.#111 5 __ __ time:_________ GPS#: _1_ Tracklog interval: 10m GPS acc:±______ Ave#:________ Wypt. #_______ GPS notes___________________________ Location: plain/plateau/mid-slope/ridgeline/foothill/prominence/Other:______________ View from feature: N=__________ E=___________ S=____________ W=____________ Visible: Tower/Tomb(s)/Settlement/None/Unkn/Other ______________________________ Notes on surroundings:________________________________________________________ See Feat. # 111 Dimensions overall (m): N-S:_________ E-W:_________ ht:___________ ______wall: width(s):__________ dir. (NA)/:______ __ringwall visible? Y\ N\ NA ind. where ringwalls visible: mid int Stone: unworked→ground: 0-1-2-3; Local? (Y/N/Unkn) ext Dimensions: _______________ Color: red/brown/black/gray/white Soils: (und/disturbed/unkn/NA); soil fill: 0-1-2-3-4- NA Stones: triangular/Roofing/Block/Cobble/Frags/________ Uses bedrock? Y/N/unkn __ Notes: Tomb. #Chambers: (Unkn)/_____ Skins: Unkn/(# = ____) Plinth: (Y / N / Unkn) __ door: faces=____ HxW:______ Corbelling: (Y / N / Unkn / NA) Notes:______________________________________________________________________ Period(s): (unkn)/________ _ Stone reuse (Y\N\unkn) removal (Y\N\unkn):______________ Feature: Cairn/Tomb/Tower/Bldg(s)/Antiquity/Dam/Wall/Unknown/Other_______________ Finds: NONE/Pottery(P/C) Lithic(P/C) bone(P/C) Met.Debris(P/C) Other:_______________ Notes: Photos: #s (total): _( Other photo (none) #_( Notes/comments: See Feature #: 111______ -)_______________Overview photo (none) #_( -)________ -)_________ Stone photo (none) #_( -)_________ ____________________________________________________ Figure 115. Sample survey form. 380 Date: ______May_.2011 GPS #_1_ photo number Assoc. feature # Subject 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 100111 Figure 116. Sample Field Photo Log. to or from which direction? To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E To / From N S E 381 Notes W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W photo # 114-4566 114-4567 114-4568 feature date # collected 100074 27-Sep-10 100074 27-Sep-10 100074 27-Sep-10 material ceramic ceramic ceramic 114-4578 100101 26-Sep-10 ceramic 114-4579 100101 26-Sep-10 ceramic object # description Red ware base Red ware base Red ware base Coarse Red Ware Coarse Red Ware Figure 117. Sample Lab Photo Log. 382 photo view Profile Side Other Side scale 20cm 20cm 20cm camera height 32cm 32cm 32cm comments Profile 20cm 32cm - Side 20cm 32cm - - BIBLIOGRAPHY 383 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adachi, Yoshiko, and Sumio Miyashita 2003 Geology and Petrology of the Plutonic Complexes in the Wadi Fizh Area: Multiple Magmatic Events and Segment Structure in the Northern Oman Ophiolite. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 4(9):8619. Accessed online at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2001GC000272.shtml. Adams, Robert McC. 1981 Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. —1965 Land Behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Anschuetz, Kurt F., Richard H. Wilshusen, and Cherie L. Scheick 2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(2):157–211. Arikan, Bülent 2012 Don’t Abhor Your Neighbor for He is a Pastoralist: The GIS-Based Modeling of the Past Human-Environment Interactions and Landscape Changes in the Wadi el-Hasa, West-Central Jordan. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2908–2920. Ashmore, Wendy, and Pamela L. Gellar 2005 Social Dimensions of Mortuary Space. In Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium, edited by Gordon F. M. Rakita, Jane E. Buikstra, Lane A. Beck, and Sloan R. Williams, pp. 81–92. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Bailey, Trevor C., and Anthony C. Gatrell 1995 Interactive Spatial Data Analysis. J. Wiley, New York, New York. Banning, Edward B., A. L. Hawkins, and S. T. Stewart 2006 Detection Functions for Archaeological Survey. American Antiquity 71(4):723–742. Barth, Fredrik 1983 Sohar, Culture and Society in an Omani Town. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Basso, Keith H. 1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language among the Western Apache. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 384 Beck, Anthony, Graham Philip, Maamoun Abdulkarim, and Daniel Donoghue 2007 Evaluation of Corona and Ikonos High Resolution Satellite Imagery for Archaeological Prospection in Western Syria. Antiquity 81:161–175. Berthoud, Thierry, and Serge Cleuziou 1983 Farming Communities of the Oman Peninsula and the Copper of Makkan. Journal of Oman Studies 6:239–246. Bevan, A. and J. Conolly 2006 Multi-Scalar Approaches to Settlement Pattern Analysis. In Confronting Scale in Archaeology: Issues of Theory and Practice, edited by G. Lock and B. Molyneaux, pp. 217– 234. Springer, New York. Biagi, Paolo 1987 The Prehistoric Fishermen Settlements of RH5 and RH6 at Qurum, Sultanate of Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 17:15–19. —1994 A Radiocarbon Chronology for the Aceramic Shell-Middens of Coastal Oman. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 5:17–31. —2004 Surveys Along the Oman Coast: A Review of the Prehistoric Sites Discovered between Dibab and Qalhat. Adumatu 10:29–50. Biagi, Paolo, and Renato Nisbet 1992 Environmental History and Plant Exploitation at the Aceramic Sites of RH5 and RH6 near the Mangrove Swamp of Qurm (Muscat – Oman). Bulletin de la Societé Botanique Française 139:571–578. —1989 Some Aspects of the 1982–1985 Excavations at the Aceramic Coastal Settlement of RH5 at Qurm (Muscat-Sultanate of Oman). In Oman Studies, Vol. 63, edited by P. M. Costa and M. Tosi, pp. 31–46. Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente, Rome. Biagi, Paolo, Wolfgang Torke, Maurizio Tosi, and Hans-Peter Uerpmann 1984 Qurum: A Case Study of Coastal Archaeology in Northern Oman. World Archaeology 16(1):43–61. Bibby, Geoffrey 1969 Looking for Dilmun. Blackman, M. James, Sophie Méry, and Rita P. Wright 1989 Production and Exchange of Ceramics on the Oman Peninsula from the Perspective of Hili. Journal of Field Archaeology 16(1):61–77. 385 Blake, Emma 2001 Situating Sardinia’s Giants’ Tombs in their Spatial, Social, and Temporal Contexts. In The Space and Place of Death, edited by Helaine Silverman, pp. 119–127. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Vol. 11, No. 1. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia. —2002 The Spatial Relationship between Tombs and Towers in Bronze Age Sardinia. American Journal of Archaeology 105(2):145–162. Blau, Soren 2001 Fragmentary Endings: A Discussion of 3rd-Millennium BC Burial Practices in the Oman Peninsula. Antiquity 75(289):557–570. Böhme, Manfred 2012 The Recurring Monument: Records on Hafit- and Umm an-Nar Period Tomb Architecture on the Oman Peninsula. In “As Time Goes By?” Monumentality, Landscapes and the Temporal Perspective. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last 12,000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes II (14th–18th March 2011)” in Kiel, Vol. 2, edited by Martin Furhold, Martin Hinz, and Doris Mischka, pp. 85–94. Verlag, Bonn, Germany. —2011 Umm an-Nar Burial 401 at Bat, Oman: Architecture and Finds. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 22:113–154. Bökönyi, Sándor 1992 Faunal Remains from Excavations at Ras al-Junayz (Oman). In South Asian Archaeology 1989: Papers from the Tenth International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, Musee National des Arts Asiatiques – Guimet, Paris, France, 3–7 July 1989. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 14, edited by Catherine Jarrige, pp. 45–48. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Bortolini, Eugenio 2007 Distribution and Typology of Prehistoric Cairn-Graves in the Oasis of Zukayt (Ad Dakhiliyah, Northern Oman): Preliminary Report. Research report. Muscat, Oman: Ministry of Heritage and Culture. Bowen-Jones, R. 1978 Water. Research and Development Surveys in Northern Oman: Final Report 1978 vol. 2. University of Durham white paper. Manuscript on file, University of Durham Library, Durham, UK. Bradley, Richard 1998 The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. Routledge, New York, New York. 386 Braun, David P., and Stephen Plog 1982 Evolution of “Tribal” Social Networks: Theory and Prehistoric North American Evidence. American Antiquity 47(3):504–525. Brooks, Nick 2006. Cultural Responses to Aridity in the Middle Holocene and Increased Social Complexity. Quaternary International 151:29–49. Brown, James A. 2003 Collective Burial Practices across the Agricultural Transition in the Eastern Woodlands. In Goran Burenhult and Susanne Westergaard (eds.), Stones and Bones: Formal Disposal of the Dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic-Neolithic Interface 6000–3000 BC (Pp. 207–223). Proceedings of the Stones and Bones Conference, Sligo, Ireland, May 1–5, 2002. BAR International Series 1201. Archaeopress, Oxford, UK. —1995 On Mortuary Analysis – With Special Reference to the Saxe-Binford Research Program. In Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis, edited by Lane A. Beck, pp. 3–26. Plenum Press, New York, New York. Brück, Joanna 2001 Monuments, Power and Personhood in the British Neolithic. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institue 7:649–667. Brunswig, Robert H., Jr. 1989 Cultural History, Environment and Economy as Seen from an Umm an-Nar Settlement: Evidence from Test Excavations at Bat, Oman, 1977/78. Journal of Oman Studies 10:9–50. Buikstra, Jane E., and Douglas K. Charles 1999 Centering the Ancestors: Cemeteries, Mounds, and Sacred Landscapes of the Ancient North American Midcontinent. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 201–228. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Cable, Charlotte M., and Christopher P. Thornton 2012 Monumentality and the Third Millennium Towers of the Oman Peninsula. In Connections and Complexity: New Approaches to the Archeology of South and Central Asia, edited by Shinu Abraham, Praveena Gullapalli, Teresa Raczek , and Uzma Rizvi, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. In press. de Cardi, Beatrice 1975 Survey and Excavations in Central Oman, 1974–75. Journal of Oman Studies 1:109–111. —2008 Exploring the Lower Gulf, 1947–2007. Antiquity 28(315):165–178. de Cardi, Beatrice, R. D. Bell, and N. J. Starling 1979 Excavations at Tawi Silaim and Tawi Sa’id in the Sharqiya, 1978. Journal of Oman Studies 5:61–94. 387 de Cardi, Beatrice, S. Collier, and D. B. Doe 1976 Excavations and Survey in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 2:101–147. de Cardi, Beatrice, D. B. Doe, and S. P. Roskams 1977 Excavation and Survey in the Sharqiyah, Oman, 1976. Journal of Oman Studies 3:17–33. Carter, Robert 1997. The Wadi Suq Period in South-East Arabia: A Reappraisal in the Light of Excavations at Kalba, UAE. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 27:87–99. Casimir, Michael J. 1992 The Dimensions of Territoriality: An Introduction. In Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial Boundaries among Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists and Peripatetics, edited by M. J. Casimir and A. Rao, pp. 1–26. St. Martin’s Press, New York. Charles, Douglas K., and Jane E. Buikstra 2002 Siting, Sighting, and Citing the Dead. In The Space and Place of Death, edited by Helaine Silverman and David Small, pp. 13–25. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Vol. 11. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia. Charpentier, Vincent, Olivier Blin, and Maurizio Tosi 1998 Un village de pêcheurs néolithiques de la péninsula d’Oman: Suwayh 2 (SWY-2), première champagne de fouille. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 28:21–38. Chatty, Dawn 1996 Mobile Pastoralists: Development Planning and Social Change in Oman. Columbia University Press, New York, New York. Chesson, Meredith Slater 1999 Libraries of the Dead: Early Bronze Age Charnel Houses and Social Identity at Urban Bab edh-Dhra’, Jordan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:137–164. Childe, V. Gordon 1944 Archaeological Ages as Technological Stages. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 74:7–24. Cleuziou, Serge 1989a Excavations at Hili 8: A Preliminary Report on the 4th to the 7th Campaigns. Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates 5:61–87. —1989b The Chronology of Protohistoric Oman as Seen from Hili. In Oman Studies: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Oman, edited by P. M. Costa and M. Tosi, pp. 47–78. Serie Orientale Roma LXIII. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. 388 —1996 The Emergence of Oases and Towns in Eastern and Southern Arabia. In The Prehistory of Asia and Oceania Colloquia 16, edited by G. E. Afanas’ev, S. Celuziou, J. R. Luckacs, and M. Tosi, pp. 159–165. UISPP Forlì 8–14/9/1996. Forlì, Rome. —2002 The Early Bronze Age of the Oman Peninsula from Chronology to the Dialectics of Tribe and State Formation. In Essays on the Late Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula, edited by S. Cleuziou, M. Tosi, and J. Zarins, pp. 191–236. Istituto Italiano Per L'Africa e L'Oriente, Rome. —2003 Early Bronze Age Trade in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea: The Society behind the Boats. In Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of the U.A.E., edited by D. Potts, H. Al Naboodah, and P. Hellyer, pp. 133–148. Trident Press, London. —2009 Extracting Wealth from a Land of Starvation by Creating Social Complexity: A Dialogue between Archaeology and Climate? Comptes Rendus Geoscience 341:726–738. Cleuziou, Serge, and L. Costantini 1980 Premiers éléments sur l’agriculture protohistorique de l’Arabie Orientale. Paléorient 6:245–251. Cleuziou, Serge, and Maurizio Tosi 2000 Ra’s al-Jinz and the Prehistoric Coastal Cultures of the Ja’alān. Journal of Oman Studies 11:19–73. —2007 In the Shadow of the Ancestors: The Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilization in Oman. Muscat, Oman: Ministry of Heritage and Culture. Cleuziou, Serge, and Berkhard Vogt 1983 Umm an Nar Burial Customs: New Evidence from Tomb A at Hili North. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 13:37–52. Cohen, Andrew C. 2005 Death Rituals, Ideology, and the Development of Early Mesopotamian Kingship: Toward a New Understanding of Iraq’s Royal Cemetery of Ur. Brill, Boston, Massachusetts. Conolly, James, and Mark Lake 2006 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Costa, Paolo M. 1983 Notes on Settlement Patterns in Traditional Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 6(2):247– 268. Costa, Paolo, and Tony Wilkinson 1987 The Hinterland of Sohar: Archaeological Surveys and Excavations within the Region of 389 an Omani Seafaring City. Journal of Oman Studies 9. Costantini, L., and P. Audisio 2001 Plant and Insect Remains from the Bronze Age Site of Ra’s al-Jinz (RJ-2), Sultanate of Oman. Paléorient 26(1):145–156. Crown, Patricia L., and Susan K. Fish 1996 Gender and Status in the Hohokam Pre-Classic to Classic Transition. American Anthropologist 98(4):803–817. David, Helene 2002 Soft Stone Mining Evidence in the Oman Peninsula and Its Relation to Mesopotamia. In Essays on the late prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula, Vol. 43, edited by S. Cleuziou, M. Tosi, and J. Zarins, pp. 317–335. Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, Rome. Deadman, William M. 2012 Defining the Early Bronze Age Landscape: A Remote Sensing-Based Analysis of Hafit Tomb Distribution in Wadi Andam, Sultanate of Oman. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 23: 26–34. Di Gregorio, Antonio D. 2005 Land Cover Classificatoin System: Classification Concepts and user Manual for Software Version 2, FAO Environment and Natural Resources Service Series No. 8. Rome. Accessed online on March 17, 2012 at http://www.glcn.org/pub_5_en.jsp. Doe, D. B. 1977 Gazetteer of Sites in Oman, 1976. Journal of Oman Studies 3:35–57. Donaldson, P. (editor) 1985 Prehistoric Tombs of Ras-al Khaimah. Oriens Antiquus 24. Dresch, Paul 1989 Tribes, Government, and History in Yemen. Oxford University Press, New York. Earle, Timothy 2000 Archaeology, Property, and Prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 29:39–60. English, Paul Ward 1998 Qanats and Lifeworlds in Iranian Plateau Villages. Yale F&ES Bulletin 103:187–205. Fouache, Eric, and,Stéphane Desruelles 2010 Report of the Mission of Eric Fouache and Stéphane Desruelles, Bat Archaeological Project. Manuscript on file, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense (Paris 10), Institut Universitaire de France, EA 375 Gecko and UMR 8591 Frangipane, Marcella 390 2007 Different Types of Egalitarian Societies and the Development of Inequality in Early Mesopotamia. World Archaeology 39(2):151–176. Frifelt, Karen 1971 Jamdat Nasr Graves in the Oman. Kuml 1971:355–383. Copenhagen: Nordisk Forlag. —1975a On Prehistoric Settlement and Chronology of the Oman Peninsula. East and West 25:359–424. —1975b A Possible Link between the Jemdet Nasr and the Umm an-Nar Graves of Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 1:57–80. —1976 Evidence of a Third Millennium BC Town in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 2:57–74. —1978 Unpublished Manuscript on File, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Muscat, Oman. —1979 Oman during the Third Millennium BC: Urban Development of Fishing/Farming Communities? In South Asian Archaeology 1977: Papers from the Fourth International Conference of the Association of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, held in the Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples, edited by Maurizio Taddei, pp. 567–587. Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples. —1985 Further Evidence of the Third Millennium BC Town at Bat in Oman. The Journal of Oman Studies 7(1):89–104. —1989 Third Millennium Irrigation and Oasis Culture in Oman. In Old Problems and New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South Asia, edited by Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, pp. 105– 113. Wisconsin Archaeological Reports, 2. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. —1991 Third Millennium Graves, Vol. 1, The Island of Umm an-Nar. Jutland Archaeological Society, Aarhus, Denmark. —2002 Bat, a Center in Third Millennium Oman. In Essays on the Late Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula, edited by S. Cleuziou, M. Tosi, and J. Zarins, pp. 101–110. Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, Rome. Gentelle, P., and Karen Frifelt 1989 About the Distribution of Third Millennium Graves and Settlements in the Ibri Area of Oman. In Oman Studies: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Oman, edited by P. M. Costa and M. Tosi, pp. 119–126. Serie Orientale Roma LXIII.Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente, Rome. Getis, A. 1984 Interaction modeling using second-order analysis. Environment and Planning A 16:173– 183. 391 Giddens, Anthony 1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley. Gili, Sylvia, Vicente Lull, Rafael Micó, Cristina Rihuete, and Roberto Risch 2007 An Island Decides: Megalithic Burial Rites on Menorca. Antiquity 80: 829–842. Gillespie, Susan D. 2001 Personhood, Agency, and Mortuary Ritual: A Case Study from the Ancient Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:73–112. —2002 Body and Soul among the Maya: Keeping the Spirits in Place. In The Space and Place of Death, edited by Helaine Silverman and David Small, pp. 67–78. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Vol. 11. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia. Giraud, Jessica 2007 Restitution d’un espace géographique ancient: la province du Ja’alan à l’Âge du Bronze (Sultanat d’Oman). PhD Thesis, University of Paris 1, Sorbonne, Paris. —2009 The Evolution of Settlement Patterns in the Eastern Oman from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age (6000–2000 BC). Comptes Rendus Geosciences 341(8–9):739–749. Giraud, Jessica, and Serge Cleuziou 2009 Funerary Landscape as Part of the Social Landscape and Its Perceptions: 3000 Early Bronze Age Burials in the Eastern Ja'lan (Sultanate of Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39:163–180. Giraud, Jessica, Guillaume Gernez, Julien Charbonnier, Marion Lemée, Sabrina Righetti, and Romain Thomas 2010 Report of the Fourth Campaign of Surveys in the Area of Adam (Oman), 7th February 2012-10th March 2010. Manuscript on File, Department of Archaeology and Excavations, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Muscat, Oman. Glassner, J.-J. 1989 Mesopotamian Textual Evidence on Magan/Makkan in the Late 3rd Millennium B.C. In Oman Studies: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Oman, edited by P. M. Costa and M. Tosi, pp. 181–191. Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Rome. Glennie, K. W. 2005 The Geology of the Oman Mountains: An Outline of Their Origin. 2nd ed. Scientific Press, Bucks, UK. Glennie, K. W., M. G. A. Beouf, M. W. Hughes Clark, M. Moody-Stuart, W. F. H. Pilaar, and B. M. Reinhardt 392 —1974(1994) The Geology of the Oman Mountains. Verhandelingen - Koninklijk Nederlands Geologisch Mijnbouwkundig Genootschap Vol. 31. Royal Dutch Geological and Mining Society of the Netherlands, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Goldstein, Lynne G. 1976 Spatial Structure and Social Organization: Regional Manifestations of Mississippian Society. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. —1995 Landscapes and Mortuary Practices: A Case for Regional Perspectives. In Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis, edited by Lane A. Beck, pp. 101–121. Plenum Press, New York. —1981 One-Dimensional Archaeology and Multi-Dimensional People: Spatial Organization and Mortuary Analysis. In The Archaeology of Death, edited by R. Chapman, I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg, pp. 53–69. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Goodale, Jane C. 1985 Pig’s Teeth and Skull Cycles: Both Sides of the Face of Humanity. American Ethnologist 12:228–244. Gregorička, Lesley A. 2011 Mobility, Exchange, and Tomb Membership in Bronze Age Arabia: A Biogeochemical Investigation. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University. Harrower, Michael J. 2008a Hydrology, Ideology, and the Origins of Irrigation in Ancient Southwest Arabia. Current Anthropology 49(3):497–510. —2008b Mapping and Dating Incipient Irrigation in Wadi Sana, Ḥaḍramawt (Yemen). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 38:187–202. Hastings, A., J. H. Humphries, and R. H. Meadow 1975 Oman in the Third millennium BCE. Journal of Oman Studies 1:9–55. Hauptmann, A. 1985 5000 Jahre Kupfer in Oman 1: Die Entwicklung der Kupfermetallurgie vom 3. Jahrtausend bis zur Neuzeit. Bochum: Vereinigung der Freunde von Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau. Der Anschnitt Beiheft 4. Hauptmann, A., Gerd Weisgerber, and H. G. Bachmann 1988 Early Copper Metallurgy in Oman. In The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, edited by R. Maddin, pp 34–51. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hendon, Julia A. 393 2000 Having and Holding: Storage, Memory, Knowledge, and Social Relations. American Anthropologist 102(1)42–53. Herold, M., R. Hubald, and A. Di Gregorio 2009 Translating and Evaluating Land Cover Legends Using the UN Land Cover Classification System (LCCS). Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics (GOFC-GOLD) Report No. 43. Accessed online on July 2011 at http://nofc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/gofcgold/Report%20Series/GOLD_43.pdf. Higgs, E. S. and C. Vita-Finzi. 1972 Prehistoric Economies: A Territorial Approach. In Papers in Economic Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 27–36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hingley, Richard 1996 Ancestors and Edentity in the Later Prehistory of Atlantic Scotland: The Reuse and Reinvention of Neolithic Monuments and Material Culture. World Archaeology 28(2):231– 243. Højgaard, Karen 1980 Dentition on Umm an-Nar (Trucial Oman), c 2500 B.C. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research 88:355–364. Hole, Frank, Kent Flannery, and James Neely 1969 Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain: An Early Village Sequence from Khuzistan, Iran. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology No. 1, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Howey, Meghan C. L. 2006 Ritual, Resources, and Regional Organization in the Upper Great Lakes, A.D. 1200– 1600. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan. UMI Number 3224906. —2007 Using Multi-Criteria Cost Surface Analysis to Explore Past Regional Landscapes: A Case Study of Ritual Activity and Social Interaction in Michigan, AD 1200–1600. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:1830–1846. Howey, Meghan C. L., and John M. O’Shea. 2006 Bear’s Journey and the Study of Ritual in Archaeology. American Antiquity 71(2):261– 282. Humphries, J. H. 1974 Some Later Prehistoric sites in the Sultanate of Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 7:49–77. Ibn Khaldûn 1967 [1377] The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Translated from the Arabic by 394 Franz Rosenthal. 2nd ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. al-Jahwari, Nasser Said Ali 2008 Settlement Patterns, Development and Cultural Change in Northern Oman Peninsula: A Multi-Tiered Approach to the Analysis of Long-Term Settlement Trends. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Durham University, Durham, UK. Janzen, Jorg 1986 Nomads in the Sultanate of Oman: Tradition and Development in Dhofar. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) 2012 Advanced Land Observing Satellite “DAICHI” (ALOS). Accessed on April 12, 2010 at http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/alos/index_e.html Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Earth Observation Research and Application Center March 2008 ALOS Data Users Handbook. Revision C. Accessed April 12, 2010 at http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/ALOS/en/doc/fdata/ALOS_HB_RevC_EN.pdf. Johansen, Kasper Lambert, Steffen Terp Laursen, and Mads Kähler Holst 2004 Spatial Patterns of Social Organization in the Early Bronze Age of South Scandinavia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23(1):33–55. Kalyanaraman, S. 2003 Sarasvati: River Vol. 3. Baba Saheb (umakanta Keshav) Apte Smarak Samiti, Bangalore, India. Kaplan, David 1963 Men, Monuments, and Political Systems. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 19(4):397–410. Khuri, Fuad I. 1980 Tribe and State in Bahrain: The Transformation of Social and Political Authority in an Arab State. University of Chicago, Chicago. Kirch, P. V. 1990 Monumental Architecture and Power in Polynesian Chiefdoms: A Comparison of Tonga and Hawaii. World Archaeology 22(2):206–222. Kuijt, Ian 2001 Place, Death, and the Transmission of Social Memory in Early Agricultural Communities of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 10(1):80–99. Lancaster, William, and Fidelity Lancaster 395 1986 The Concept of Territoriality among the Rwala Bedouin. Nomadic Peoples 20. —1992a Tribe, Community, and the Concept of Access to Resources: Territorial Behaviour in South-East Ja'alan. In Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial Boundaries among Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists and Peripatetics, edited by Michael J. Casimir and Aparna Rao, pp. 343–363. Berg, New York. —1992b Tribal Formations in the Arabian Peninsula. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 3:145–172. —1996 Reflections on the Social Organization of the Arabian Bedu in Coastal Oman. In The Prehistory of Asia and Oceania, Vol. 16, edited by G. E. Afanas’ev, S. Cleuziou, J. R. Lukacs, and M. Tosi, pp. 141–154. International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlí. —2002 Trade and Stratified Society: Information from Southeast Ja’alan, Oman. In Essays of the Late Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula, edited by S. Cleuziou, M. Tosi, and J. Zarins, pp. 237–253. Serie Orientale Roma XCII. IsIAO, Rome. Leemans, W. F. 1960 Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period as Revealed by Texts from Southern Mesopotamia. Brill, Leiden, the Netherlands. Lézine, Anne-Marie 2009 Timing of Vegetation Changes at the End of the Holocene Humid Period in Desert Areas at the Northern Edge of the Atlantic and Indian Monsoon Systems. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 341:750–759. Longley, Paul A., Michael F. Goodchild, David J. Maguire, and David W. Rhind 2005 Geographic Information Systems and Science. 2nd ed. John Wiley, Chichester, UK. McClure, H. A. 1976 Radiocarbon Chronology of Late Quaternary Lakes in the Arabian Desert. Nature 263 (October 28 1976):755–756. —1988 Late Quarternary Palaeogeography and Landscape Evolution of the Rub al-Khali. In Araby the Blest: Studies in Arabian Archaeology, edited by D. T. Potts, pp. 9–14. Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 7, Copenhagen. Mathews, Darcy 2006 Burial Cairn Taxonomy and the Mortuary Landscape of Rocky Point, British Columbia. MA thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada. Méry, Sophie 1991 Origine et production des récipients de terre cuite dans la Péninsule d’Oman à l’âge du Bronze. Paléorient 17(2):51–78. 396 —1996 Ceramics and Patterns of Exchange across the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf in the Early Bronze Age. In The Prehistory of Asia and Oceania, edited by Afanas’ev, G. E., S. Cleuziou, J. R. Lukacs, and M. Tosi pp. 167–179. ABACO Edizioni, Forli. —2000 Les céramiques d'Oman et l'Asie moyenne. Une archéologie des échanges à l'Âge du Bronze. CRA Monographies 23. CNRS Éditions, Paris. de Miroschedji, P. 1973 Vases et objets en stéatite Susiens du Musée du Louvre. Cahiers de la DAFI 3:9–79. Mosseri-Marlio, Christine 1998 Marine Animal Resources at Ra’s al-Hadd during the Bronze Age. Bulletin of the Society for Arabian Studies 12–15. O’Gorman, Jodie A. 2001 Life, Death, and the Longhouse: A Gendered View of Oneota Social Organization. In Gender and the Archaeology of Death, edited by Bettina Arnold and Nancy L. Wicker, pp. 23–49. Walnut AltaMira, Creek, California. O’Shea, John M., and Claire McHale Milner 2002 Material Indicators of Territory, Identity, and Interaction in a Prehistoric Tribal System. In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, edited by W. A. Parkinson, pp. 200–226. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI. Orchard, J. C. and Orchard, J. J. (editors) 2008 The Third Millennium BC Oasis Settlements of Oman and the First Evidence of Their Irrigation by Aflaj from Bahla. In Proceedings of the International Symposium: Archaeology of the Arabian Peninsula through the ages, 7th–9th May 2006, 143–173. Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Muscat, Oman. Orchard, Jocelyn, and Gordon Stanger 1994 Third Millennium Oasis Towns and Environmental Constraints on Settlement in the alHajar Region. Iraq 56:63–100. O’Shea, John M., and Claire McHale Milner 2002 Material Indicators of Territory, Identity, and Interaction in a Prehistoric Tribal System. In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, edited by W. A. Parkinson, pp. 200–226. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI. Peterson, Jane E. 1990 Oman. Encyclopedia Britannica Phillips, Steven J., Robert P. Anderson, and Robert E. Schapire 2006 Maximum Entropy Modeling of Species Geographic Distributions. Ecological Modelling 190 (2006):231–259. 397 Plog, Stephen, Fred Plog, and Walter Wait 1978 Decision Making in Modern Surveys. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1:383–421. Pollock, Susan 2003 Feasts, Funerals, and Fast Food in Early Mesopotamian States. In The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires, edited by Tamara L. Bray, pp. 17–38. Kluwer Academic, New York, New York. Porter, Anne 2002a Communities in Conflict: Death and the Contest for Social Order in the Euphrates. Near Eastern Archaeology 65(3):156–173. —2002b The Dynamics of Death: Ancestors, Pastoralism, and the Origins of a ThirdMillennium City in Syria. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 325:1–36. Possehl, Gregory L. 2007 The Middle Asian Interaction Sphere. Expedition 49(1):40-42. Possehl, Gregory L., and Christopher P. Thornton 2007 Bat 2007: A Report from the American Team. An Occasional Paper of the Asia Section, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Possehl, Gregory L., Christopher P. Thornton, and Charlotte M. Cable 2008 Bat 2008: A Report from the American Team. An Occasional Paper of the Asian Section, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. —2009 Bat 2009: A Report from the American Team. An Occasional Paper of the Asian Section, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. —2010 Bat 2010: A Report from the American Team. An Occasional Paper of the Asian Section, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. —2011 Bat 2011: A Report from the American Team. An Occasional Paper of the Asian Section, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Potts, Daniel T. 1990a The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, vol I. Oxford University Press, Oxford. —1990b A Prehistoric Mound in the Emirate of Umm a-Quwain, UAE. Excavations at Tell Abraq 1989 Copenhagen. —1991 Further Excavations at Tell Abraq. The 1990 season. Copenhagen. —1993a Four Seasons of Excavation at Tell Abraq (1989–93). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 23:117–126. 398 —1993b The Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Early Historic Periods in Eastern Arabia (ca. 5000–1200 B.C.). Journal of World Prehistory 7(2):163–212. —1994 South and Central Asian Elements at Tell Abraq (Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain, United Arab Emirates), c. 2200BC – AD 400. In South Asian Archaeology: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists Held in Helsinki University 5–9 July 1993, Vol. 2, edited by Asko Parpola and Petteri Koskikallio, pp. 615–628. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki. —1997 Before the Emirates: An Archaeological and Historical Account of Developments in the Region c. 5000 BC to 676 AD. In Perspectives on the United Arab Emirates, edited by E. Ghareeb and I. al Abed, pp. 28–69. Trident Press, London. —1998 The Gulf Arab States and Their Archaeology. In Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, edited by Lynn Meskell, pp. 189–199. Routledge, London. Pullar, Judith 1985 A Selection of Aceramic Sites in the Sultanate of Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 11:49– 88. —1974 Flint Sites in Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 7:33–48. Richards, Janet 1999 Conceptual Landscapes in the Egyptian Nile Valley. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp pp. 83–100. Blackwell, Oxford. Robertson, A. H. F., M. P. Searle, and A. C. Ries (eds.). 1990 Introduction. In The Geology and Tectonics of the Oman Region, pp. xi–xviii. Geological Society Special Publication 49. The Geological Society, London. Salvatori, Sandro 1996 Death and Ritual in a Population of Coastal Food Foragers in Oman. In The Prehistory of Asia and Oceania, Vol. 16, edited by G. E. Afanas’ev, S. Cleuziou, J. R. Lukacs and M. Tosi, pp. 205–222. UISPP Forli 8–14/09/1996. Forli, Rome. Saxe, Arthur A. 1970 Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Schiffer, M., Alan P. Sullivan, and Timothy C. Klinger 1978 Field Techniques and Research Design. World Archaeology 10(1):1–28. Schippman, Klaus, Anja Herling, and Jean-François Salles 399 1991 Golf-Archäeologie. Verlag Marie L. Leidorf, Buch am Erlbach. Schmidt, Conrad 2012 German Expedition to Bat & Al-Ayn: Report 2012. Manuscript on File, Department of Archaeology and Excavations, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Muscat, Oman. Schrieber, Jurgen. 2007 Transformationsprozesse in Oasensiedlungen Omans. Die Vorislamische Zeit am Beispiell von Izki, Nizwa und dem Jebel Akhdar. Unpublished PhD dissertation, LudwigMaximilians-Universität München, München, Germany. Shahin, Mamdouh (ed) 2007 Water Resources and Hydrometeorology of the Arab Region. Water Science and Technology Library. Springer, Berlin. Shennan, Stephen 1982 Ideology, Change and the European Early Bronze Age. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 155–161. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Stanger, Gordon 1994 Part II: Environmental Factors Affecting Early Settlement South of the Jabal al-Akhdar, Oman. Iraq 56:89–99. Tengberg, Margareta 2005 Les forêts de la mer. Exploitation et évolution des mangroves en Arabie orientale du Néolithique à l'époque islamique. Paléorient 31(1):39–45. Thornton, Christopher P., Charlotte Marie Cable, and Gregory L. Possehl 2012 Three Seasons at Kasr al-Khafaji (Tower 1146) at Bat, Oman. In South Asian Archaeology 2007: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeology, Ravenna, Volume I: Prehistoric Periods, pp. 255– 268. BAR International Series. Thornton, Christopher P., and Anne F. Mortimer 2012 The AJBAP 2011–2012 Season at Bat. Manuscript on File, Department of Archaeology and Excavations, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Muscat, Oman. al Tikriti, Walid Yasin 1989 The Excavations at Bidya, Fujairah: The 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C. culture. Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates V:101–111. al Tikriti, Walid Y., and Sophy Méry 2000 Tomb N at Hili and the Question of the Subterranean Graves during the Umm an-Nar Period. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 30:205–219. Tilley, Christopher, Sue Hamilton, Stephan Harrison, and Ed Anderson 400 2000 Nature, Culture, Clitter: Distinguishing between Cultural and Geomorphological Landscapes; The Case of Hilltop Tors in South-West England. Journal of Material Culture 5(2):197–224. Tosi, Maurizio 1986 The Emerging Picture of Prehistoric Arabia. Annual Review of Anthropology 15:461–490. —1975 Notes on the Distribution and Exploitation of Natural Resources in Ancient Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 1:187–206. Uerpmann, Hans-Peter 1989 Problems of Archaeo-Zoological Research in Eastern Arabia. In Oman Studies, edited by P. M. Costa and M. Tosi, pp. 169–177. Serie Orientale Roma LXIII, Rome. Uerpmann, Margarethe 1992 Structuring the Late Stone Age of Southeastern Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 3:65–109. Uerpmann, Margarethe, Hans-Peter Uerpmann, and Sabath A. Jasim 2000 Stone Age Nomadism in SE-Arabia: Palaeo-Economic Considerations on the Neolithic Site of Al-Buhais 18 in the Emirate of Sharjah, U.A.E. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 30:229–234. UNESCO 2009 Archaeological Sites of Bat, Al-Khutm and Al-Ayn. Accessed on September 20, 2009 at http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=434 Ur, Jason Alik 2004 Urbanism and Society in the Third Millennium Upper Khabur Basin. PhD dissertation, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago. Vogt, Berkhard 1985 Zur Chronologie und Entwicklung der Gräber des späten 4.–2. Jtsd. v.Chr. auf der Halbinsel Oman: Zusammenfassung, Analyse und Würdigung publizierter wie auch unveröffentlichter Grabungsergebnisse. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. Walter, Richard, Tim Thomas, and Peter Sheppard 2004 Cult Assemblages and Ritual Practice in Roviana Lagoon, Solomon Islands. World Archaeology 36(1):142–157. Weeks, Lloyd R. 1999 Lead Isotope Analyses from Tell Abraq, United Arab Emirates: New Data Regarding the 'Tin Problem' in Western Asia. Antiquity 73:49–64. —2003 Early Metallurgy of the Persian Gulf: Technology, Trade, and the Bronze Age World. 401 Brill, Boston. Weisgerber, Gerd 1980 ... und Kupfer in Oman' - Das Oman-Projekt des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums, Der Anschnitt 32: 62–110. —1981 Mehr als Kupfer in Oman. Der Anschnitt 5-6: 174–263. —1983 Copper Production during the Third Millennium BC in Oman and the Question of Makan. Journal of Oman Studies (2):269–276. Weisgerber, Gerd, and Paul Yule 1999 Preliminary Report of the 1996 Season of Excavation in the Sultanate of Oman. In Studies in the Archaeology of the Sultanate of Oman, edited by Paul Yule, pp. 97–117. Rahden, Leidorf. Weiss, Harvey, and Marie-Agnès Courty 1993 The Genesis and Collapse of the Akkadian Empire: The accidental Refraction of Historical Law. In Akkad: The First World Empire, edited by Mario Liverani, pp. 131–156. Sargon, Padua, Italy. Wheatley, David, and Mark Gillings 2002 Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS. Taylor & Francis, New York. Whitcomb, Donald S. 1975 The Archaeology of Oman: A Preliminary Discussion of the Islamic Periods. Journal of Oman Studies 1:123–157. Wilkinson, John Craven 1977 Water and Tribal Settlement in South-East Arabia: A Study of the Aflaj of Oman. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. —October 1978 Problems of Oasis Development. Research Papers No. 20. School of Geography, Oxford. Oxford Publishing, Oxford, UK. —1983a The Origins of the Aflāj of Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 6(1):177–194. —1983b Traditional Concepts of Territory in South East Arabia. Geographical Journal 149:301–15. —1990. Muslim Land and Water Law. Journal of Islamic Studies 1:54–72. —2000 Nomadic Territory as a Factor in Defining Arabia’s Boundaries. In The Transformation of Nomadic Society in the Arab East, edited by Martha Mundy and Basim Musallam, pp. 44– 62. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 402 Wilkinson, Keith, and Clive Jonathon Bond 2001 Interpreting Archaeological Site Distribution in Dynamic Sedimentary Environments. In One Land, Many Landscapes: Papers from a Session Held at the European Association of Archaeologists Fifth Annual Meeting in Bournemouth 1999, edited by Timothy Darvill and Martin Gojda, pp. 55–66. BAR International Series 987. Archaeopress, Oxford, UK. Wilkinson, Tony J. 2003 Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, Arizona. —2000 Regional Approaches to Mesopotamian Archaeology: The Contribution of Archaeological Surveys. Journal of Archaeological Research 8(3):219–267. Willcox, George May 1989 Palaeoethnobotany at Bat, Sultanate of Oman, Preliminary field report on work carried out in 1986 and 1989. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Excavations and Archaeology, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Sultanate of Oman. Williamson 1974 Sohar and the Sea Trade of Oman in the Tenth Century AD. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 7:78–96. 403