Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros47-2Settlement and Chronology in the ...

Settlement and Chronology in the early Bronze Age of Southeastern Arabia

The view from Umm an-Nar period Bat, Oman
Jennifer Swerida, Eli N. Dollarhide et Reilly Jensen
p. 75-96

Résumés

Résumé. La période d'Umm an-Nar (vers 2700-2000 av. J.-C.) du sud-est de l’Arabie est une phase fondamentale de croissance sociale et de développement culturel dans la région, mais la compréhension archéologique de cette période clé a été limitée par une imprécision chronologique, en particulier à l’intérieur de la péninsule d’Oman. Les peuplements et les contextes locaux, trop souvent sous-étudiés dans la Préhistoire arabique, offrent des ensembles de données riches et diachroniquement significatifs, qui sont bien adaptés pour combler les lacunes des chronologies régionales généralement développées à partir de fouilles de contextes funéraires ou monumentaux. Cet article combine des données architecturales et céramiques provenant de fouilles récentes d’habitats sur le site de Bat, au sultanat d’Oman, classé au patrimoine mondial de l’UNESCO, utilisées ici pour construire une chronologie fine des occupations de la période d'Umm an-Nar. Les résultats de notre analyse placent Bat dans le contexte temporel et matériel des peuplements de l’Arabie ancienne et offrent des comparaisons précieuses pour établir des modèles chronologiques pour la région.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

This article was written during Jennifer Swerida’s tenure as Visiting Assistant Professor of Archaeology at the American University of Beirut and while Eli Dollarhide was a Humanities Research Fellow at NYU Abu Dhabi. The ceramics research presented here was supported by grants from the National Geographic Society (9820-9815), the International Association for the Study of Arabia, the Penn Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, the Center for the Study of Human Origins at NYU, and NYU Abu Dhabi. We are grateful for the generous support from the Ministry of Heritage and Tourism of the Sultanate of Oman and especially Director General for Archaeology Mr. Sultan bin Saif al-Bakri, Director of UNESCO Sites Mr. Sultan al-Maqbali, and Mr. Suleiman al-Jabri, which made this research possible. Essential encouragement and advice were provided by Christopher Thornton, Charlotte Cable, Emily Cole, and Rita Wright. We also offer many thanks to Miss ‘Asma al-Jassasi, Sophie Walsh, Kia DaSilva, Josephine Schmollinger, Marya Soubra, Nathan Azar, Cindy Srnka, Mina Megalla, and Evan Curtis Charles Hall for their diligent ceramic processing.

Introduction

1Archaeological interest in southeastern Arabia, although beginning later than that of other regions in the Near East and South Asia, has grown substantially in recent years. Numerous projects conducted by scholars worldwide are now underway across the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the Sultanate of Oman. This new generation of research promises to bring a previously under-valued corner of the ancient world to the forefront of archaeological conversations. However, despite this rush of attention, scholarly understanding of southeastern Arabian chronology remains coarse, especially compared to that of neighboring regions in Mesopotamia, Iran, and the greater Indus Valley region.

2The Umm an-Nar period (ca. 2700-2000 BC) of the Early Bronze Age (EBA), a phase of growing sociopolitical complexity and interaction throughout the Greater Near East, has been a focal point of prehistoric research for scholars of southeastern Arabia since the initial discovery in 1958 (Højlund 2012: 12-13; see following section). Differences of opinion persist, however, regarding the period’s duration, material signatures, and internal sub-phases (see Cleuziou and Tosi 1989: 19-21, 2020: 331-343; Potts 2001: 39-43; Méry 2010: 33-42; Thornton and Ghazal 2016: 193-208). The causes of this chronological imprecision are multifaceted, originating from overlapping issues in the history of scholarship of the region, the nature of its archaeological remains, and widespread taphonomic conditions. This temporal ambiguity limits scholars’ ability to understand the developmental processes at play within Umm an-Nar period society and their interactions with neighboring polities.

3While interest in the region surges, the time is ripe for renewed conversation on methods of and evidence for refining Umm an-Nar period chronology. This period is widely recognized as an essential phase of incipient socioeconomic complexity and cultural development, during which irrigation agriculture, permanent settlements that feature monumental tombs and towers, and specialized technologies (e.g., copperworking, ceramic and softstone vessel production) spread across the Oman Peninsula (Méry et al. 2010; Magee 2014: 98-125; Cleuziou and Tosi 2020: 331-365). Among the new wave of research projects are a subset targeting Umm an-Nar domestic settlement contexts (e.g., Frenez et al. 2016; Barker 2018; al-Jahwari et al. 2018; Schmidt 2018; Azzarà and De Rorre 2019; Castel et al. 2020), which provide a welcome counter-perspective to an archaeological literature that has skewed toward the monumental and mortuary (e.g., Potts 1990, 1991, 2000; al-Tikriti and Méry 2000; Eddisford and Phillips 2009; Böhme and al-Sabri 2011; Williams and Gregoricka 2013, 2019; Degli Esposti 2016; Thornton et al. 2016; Deadman 2017; Schmidt and Döpper 2017). Such settlement contexts—reflecting the day-to-day lifeways of the resident population—have the potential to provide the temporally sensitive data necessary to further clarify and refine Umm an-Nar chronology.

4This paper presents the chronological framework constructed for the Umm an-Nar period settlement contexts of the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Bat in the Sultanate of Oman (fig. 1). Bat is the ideal location to address regional chronological shortcomings due to its continuous occupation throughout the third millennium BC and the presence of limited stratified contexts, extensive ceramic and architectural assemblages, and regional comparanda (see Thornton et al. 2016; Dollarhide 2019; Swerida and Thornton 2019a, 2019b). Excavations conducted by the Bat Archaeological Project (BAP) since 2007 support the existence of four sub-phases within the site’s Umm an-Nar occupation. BAP’s recent focus on Umm an-Nar settlement contexts, as opposed to the monumental towers and tombs that have long drawn the attention of archaeologists, equips the authors with previously unknown or underutilized material culture trends. This research expands and refines existing chronological frameworks using excavated architecture and ceramics as well as 14C dates from various domestic contexts on the Bat landscape. The defined trends in these most frequently found and diagnostic types of Umm an-Nar domestic material culture offer valuable comparanda for dating and interpreting sites within southeastern Arabia’s interior and beyond. Rather than identifying new ceramic types, this research presents a new temporality for forms and wares common across the region through a close look at secure settlement contexts at Bat, and macroscopic and petrographic analysis of associated ceramics.

Fig. 1. Map of southeast Arabia indicating locations of Bat and sites mentioned; Inset map of the Bat landscape indicating locations of contexts discussed.

Fig. 1. Map of southeast Arabia indicating locations of Bat and sites mentioned; Inset map of the Bat landscape indicating locations of contexts discussed.

Building a Southeastern Arabian Chronology

5The unique history of archaeology in southeastern Arabia has directly led to the complexity of establishing a regional EBA chronology. The first studies of the region were conducted through the lens of external observers—research focused on identifying connections to southeastern Arabia’s better-studied neighbors and references to the area in cuneiform texts. Early excavation projects were closely linked to the discovery of oil in the then-called “Trucial States” of the modern UAE and neighboring Oman (Glob 1954, 1959: 238; Bibby 1964; Cardi 1970; During-Caspers 1970b; see Potts 1986). Research highlighted prominent Bronze Age mortuary features located on the western Gulf coast of the UAE (Frifelt 1991) and, eventually, into the Peninsula’s interior, beginning with the al-‘Ain/al-Buraimi oasis (Bibby 1970; Frifelt 1971; Cleuziou 1980). The study of these easily-visible tombs led to the creation of two cultural horizons in the third millennium BC: the Hafit and Umm an-Nar periods (Weisgerber 1981: 261; Potts 1986: 128-134, 2012: 372-374)—both named for their respective type sites. This initial chronological framework has remained largely unchanged and implemented in research projects across the region (see Magee 2014: 87-125; Cleuziou and Tosi 2020: 197-224). Additional chronological developments have been hindered by the region’s general lack of mounded or tell sites, complex taphonomic issues resulting in few carbonized remains, and an enduring focus on tomb and tower monuments.

6These monumental remains are rarely, however, ideal contexts for constructing a nuanced chronology. Southeastern Arabia’s third millennium BC towers—circular stone or mudbrick platforms ca. 20 m in diameter, often featuring a central well—appear to have been utilized primarily with episodic ritual activities (Cable and Thornton 2013: 383-385), rather than sustained daily use. While construction styles and occasional additions or alterations may indicate broad use phases for individual towers (e.g., Cleuziou 1989b: 66-72; Degli Esposti 2016: 668-670; Thornton et al. 2016; Swerida and Thornton 2019b: 12-13), such monument-focused sequences are limited by a general scarcity of associated stratigraphy and artifacts. Gradual changes in construction style can also be observed in Umm an-Nar tombs (Méry 2010: 37-41). Yet, with individual tombs continuing in use for multiple generations and both human remains and material culture interred collectively, the discernment of discrete phases is nearly impossible in most cases. The ceramic assemblage recovered from within the tombs is remarkably consistent across southeastern Arabia, further reducing their utility in defining trends of material culture change over time (Méry 2010: 41-42; Magee 2014: 120-122; Williams and Gregoricka 2019: 9-12; Cleuziou and Tosi 2020: 216-220). While their prominence on the landscape makes them the Umm an-Nar period’s most visible features, these issues lessen the efficacy of the tombs and towers as chronological markers. Exceptions to these trends are inevitable and well-published, with efforts to develop an Umm an-Nar chronology based on monuments and their associated finds made at several noteworthy sites (e.g., Hili Tomb N [McSweeney et al. 2008], al-Sufouh [Benton 1996], Tell Abraq [Potts 1990, 1991; Magee et al. 2017] among others).

7Settlements may offer a richer alternative data source for building a refined Umm an-Nar chronology. Domestic contexts are more sensitive to shifts in cultural practice due to the density of deposits left by frequent or daily use. This greater depositional intensity also renders settlements more likely to possess stratified contexts useful for associating material culture with architectural changes and shifts in practice (LaMotta and Schiffer 1999: 19-22; Steadman 2010: 28-29). Though few have yet been excavated, southeastern Arabia is host to an ever-growing number of identified Umm an-Nar domestic sites (Swerida in press b) typically featuring rectilinear stone or mudbrick architecture and collections of ceramics and, less consistently, other forms of material culture. The sites of Umm an-Nar Island (Frifelt 1995), Ra’s al-Jinz 2 (Cleuziou and Tosi 2000: 27-40; Azzarà 2018), Tell Abraq (Magee et al. 2017: 216-218; Barker 2018: 352-362), and Hili 8 (Cleuziou 1989a, 1989b; Méry 2013) have been significant for establishing comparative domestic assemblages and chronological sequences.

8The Hili chronology is especially important for the present study as excavations at the site generated the only fully published, stratified EBA sequence for southeastern Arabia’s inland regions (see table 1). Published by Serge Cleuziou (1989a, 1989b), the Hili sequence has been applied broadly across different archaeological projects in the peninsular interior. The chronology is based on a total of over 2,700 diagnostic sherds found during stratigraphic excavations at the tower known as Hili 8 and comparisons from two tombs (tomb “A” at Hili North and tomb “M” at Hili)—not settlement contexts (Cleuziou 1989a: 48-49; Cleuziou et al. 2011). The discoveries of many more inland settlement locations (e.g., Weisgerber 1980; al-Jahwari and Kennet 2010; Kennet et al. 2016; al-Jahwari et al. 2018, 2020; Schmidt 2018; Castel et al. 2020) and their subsequent excavation in the thirty years since Hili’s publication provide crucial new information.

Table 1. Umm an-Nar chronologies (after Cleuziou 1989b: table 1; Thornton and Ghazal 2016: table 9.3; Swerida 2018: fig. 3).

Table 1. Umm an-Nar chronologies (after Cleuziou 1989b: table 1; Thornton and Ghazal 2016: table 9.3; Swerida 2018: fig. 3).

Context and Methodology

9Due to the size and scope of its material remains, the site of Bat has long captured the attention of archaeologists of southeastern Arabia. Located in the tributaries of the wadis al-Hijr and al-Sharsah and on the neighboring slopes of the Jebel Wahrah, the Bat archaeological site covers ca. 400 hectares of present-day fertile wadi valley and raw stone hillsides (Janjou et al. 1986). This landscape is scattered with conspicuous monuments—seven towers (Thornton et al. 2016) and hundreds of EBA burial structures (Cable and al-Jabri 2019; Dollarhide 2019)—interspersed with areas of domestic settlement (Swerida 2018). These third millennium BC remains collectively led to Bat’s inscription on the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites (UNESCO 1988).

10As is typical of the region at large, archaeological research at Bat initially focused on the site’s monuments (see Thornton et al. 2016). Excavations at Kasr al-Rojoom (Frifelt 1976: 58-61, 1985: 94-98), Matariya (Cable 2016), Kasr al-Khafaji (Thornton et al. 2013; Thornton 2016), Tower 1156 (Mortimer 2016; Mortimer and Thornton 2018), and al-Khutm (Cocca et al. 2019) provide a wealth of information on the history and construction of the site’s towers, while numerous surveys and targeted excavations detail the scope and contents of Bat’s Umm an-Nar necropolis (Gentelle and Frifelt 1989; Böhme and al-Sabri 2011; Döpper 2015; Cable and al-Jabri 2019; Miki et al. 2020; Schmidt 2020). More recent survey and excavation by BAP have now exposed Umm an-Nar domestic contexts at the Settlement Slope (Swerida and Thornton 2019b; Swerida et al. 2020a: 86-95, 2020b: 22-34), al-Khafaji (Swerida and Thornton 2019a), al-Khutm (Swerida 2018: 62-65), and the nearby satellite site of Rakhat al-Madrh (Dollarhide 2019: 109-116; Swerida et al. 2020b: 35-42). This unrivaled concentration of Umm an-Nar settlement data provides valuable insights into the lives and gradual changes experienced by Bat’s EBA inhabitants.

11Settlement buildings (e.g., houses, workshops, storage structures, public buildings) provide physical structure for, and communicate social-behavioral cues to, the resident community (Flannery 2002; Ingold 2013: 47-59). Such spaces require regular maintenance and are the stage for day-to-day activities, evidence for which can be observed archaeologically when preservation allows (Matthews 2012: 186-193; Rainville 2012: 139-146). More substantial alterations to existing structures or the construction of new settlement buildings are less frequent—annual or generational—events that indicate corresponding changes in daily social practice (Foxhall 2000: 491-495; Banning 2010: 50-53). Stylistic and typological developments in the material culture found in settlement spaces, such as utilitarian ceramics, similarly relate to evolutions in social preference, practice, and patterns of material engagement (Boivin 2008: 131-138; Hodder 2012: 154-156, 186-189). As chronological indicators, settlement contexts that reflect the gradually changing cycles of day-to-day lifeways provide far more temporal sensitivity than the conservative practices and architectural/material culture styles typically associated with ritual contexts (Ristvet 2014: 25-35).

12The breadth of documented Umm an-Nar contexts on the Bat landscape is paralleled by its temporal depth. Recent research demonstrates that activity at the site shifted in location and intensity throughout the EBA (Thornton et al. 2016; Swerida 2018). While no single known location was occupied throughout the entirety of the Umm an-Nar period, excavated contexts collectively account for the full 700+ year time span and beyond. Such a rich and diverse concentration of third millennium BC material makes Bat an ideal setting for the development of a robust and comparatively refined Umm an-Nar chronology for the interior region.

13The first attempt to construct a sub-phased chronology for the site’s EBA remains was conducted by Christopher Thornton and Royal Omar Ghazal (2016). Using ceramics collected during excavation of three of Bat’s monumental towers—Kasr al-Khafaji, Matariya, and Tower 1156—Thornton and Ghazal were able to link stylistic changes in the Bat ceramic assemblage to 14C-dated architectural phases of the site’s towers. Stylistic developments in the Bat ceramic assemblage were compared to similar trends identified in the Hili 8 tower relative sequence (Cleuziou 1989a, 1989b). The result is a tripart Umm an-Nar chronology with material indicators (ceramics and monumental architecture) consistent across two of the major excavated sites in the interior region of the Oman Peninsula (table 1).

14The chronology posed by Thornton and Ghazal (2016: table 9.3) takes full advantage of the excavated contexts available to the authors at the time. However, the dependence of this chronology on tower contexts—both at Bat and at Hili—limits the scope of its utility. Since the publication of this tower-focused chronology, excavation of domestic settlement contexts at Bat and other sites in its environs now allows for the incorporation of more diverse and temporally sensitive data. This paper builds upon Thornton and Ghazal’s chronology using excavated material culture and 14C dates from various domestic contexts on the Bat landscape. Incorporated cultural data include architectural styles, an expanded ceramic repertoire, and evidence for human behaviors. When compared and contrasted with the monument-based sequence established by Thornton and Ghazal (2016), and by extension to Cleuziou’s Hili 8 sequence (1989a, 1989b), the settlement-based sequence presented in this paper provides another step toward the development of a refined regional chronology for the Umm an-Nar period.

15The methodology used to construct the sub-phased Bat settlement chronology consists of a blended architectural stratigraphy and stylistic material culture typology, anchored to 14C dates when possible. The taphonomic processes at work on the Bat landscape have created an archaeological matrix in which Umm an-Nar contexts are either heavily deflated and disturbed by erosion (e.g., the Settlement Slope) or embedded in a dense, silty clay that has accumulated in the wadi valley in such a way that obscures most stratigraphic changes (e.g., Khafaji). In the absence of consistent stratified contexts, the architectural remains of Bat’s Umm an-Nar settlement spaces provide the greatest source of spatial and temporal clarity. Chronological sequences are tied to architectural phases (construction and/or renovation episodes) that are identifiable through structural relationships and differences in floor and wall foundation elevations. Such structural sequences create a framework for contextualizing finds from the same elevation within or around the building in question. The sequences of individual buildings within the same settlement can be linked based on similarities in elevation and architectural and ceramic styles. Using the available 14C dates to anchor identified phases (see table 2) creates a robust chronological framework that mimics those based on stratified contexts. While accounts of the stratigraphic/architectural sequences and inventories of associated finds for each of the excavated Bat settlement spaces are published in full elsewhere (Swerida and Thornton 2019a: 6-10, 2019b: 82-104; Swerida et al. 2020b: 21-33), summaries of significant contexts, architectural styles, and the ceramic corpus of the four identified Umm an-Nar sub-phases are presented below.

Table 2. 14C samples from Bat settlement or related contexts

Table 2. 14C samples from Bat settlement or related contexts

16Typological discussion is restricted to domestic architecture and ceramics, as the most consistently encountered and temporally diagnostic forms of material culture in Umm an-Nar settlement contexts. Stylistic and technical changes in Bat’s ceramics corpus have been observed over a seven-year program of analysis. The ceramics examined include over 3,800 diagnostic sherds. Initial macroscopic work conducted immediately post-excavation recorded characteristics across six categories: vessel form; diameter; wall thickness; texture and inclusions; color; and decoration. From this initial analysis, particularly significant and/or well-preserved sherds were photographed and drawn individually.

  • 1 Dollarhide E. N. in prep. – Local Ceramics and Intra-regional Dynamics: Ceramic Petrography in al- (...)

17Forty-one additional ceramic samples were selected from Bat and excavations conducted by Beatrice de Cardi (et al. 1976: 101-176) at the nearby settlement of ‘Amlah for a preliminary program of thin-section petrography. These samples were specifically selected to represent a range of Umm an-Nar forms, decorative styles, and contexts. The characterization methodology proposed by Whitbread (1986, 1996) was adapted and abridged for this small and primarily qualitative analysis; in addition to mineralogy, this included characterizing the microstructure of the sherd; the optical and textural properties of the clay matrix; the sorting, mode, and modality of any inclusions; and a description of any additional layers of paints/slips visible in thin section. This study revealed a single preliminary petrographic group for funerary wares and three distinct petrographic fabric groups for domestic wares, which were compared with the analysis of Sophie Méry (2000: 37-75, 165-168, 200-201). The results of this mineralogical and textural analysis further refine the ware definitions summarized below and are reported in full elsewhere (Dollarhide 2019: 118-145, in prep.1); relevant petrofabric features are described within the context of each period and, for domestic wares, in figure 2.

Fig. 2. Summary table and examples of petrographic thin-sections (40× in XPL) from Domestic Ware Sherds. a. Sample MM14: Middle Umm an-Nar I Domestic ware sherd, Petrofabric Group (PFG) 1, the dominant domestic ware petrofabric group at Bat; b. Sample MM24: Middle Umm an-Nar II Domestic Ware sherd, PFG 2, a more heterogenous matrix abundant in rounded micritic inclusions; c. Sample MM3: Middle Umm an-Nar II domestic ware sherd, PFG 3, from the nearby settlement at ‘Amlah.

Fig. 2. Summary table and examples of petrographic thin-sections (40× in XPL) from Domestic Ware Sherds. a. Sample MM14: Middle Umm an-Nar I Domestic ware sherd, Petrofabric Group (PFG) 1, the dominant domestic ware petrofabric group at Bat; b. Sample MM24: Middle Umm an-Nar II Domestic Ware sherd, PFG 2, a more heterogenous matrix abundant in rounded micritic inclusions; c. Sample MM3: Middle Umm an-Nar II domestic ware sherd, PFG 3, from the nearby settlement at ‘Amlah.

18From these different analyses two overarching ceramic ware types were identified and are summarized in table 3. Intentionally broad, these two wares are inclusive of different macro fabrics, primary forms, decorative styles, and distinct petrographic fabric groups evidenced in the Bat area. Changes within these characteristics over time, rather than the wares themselves, offer chronological markers which are discussed below. When compared to and combined with those of other sites in the interior of the Oman Peninsula, the Bat stratigraphic/architectural sequence and its associated material culture forms the foundations of a regional sub-phased chronology.

Table 3. Table of ceramic wares. Two overarching domestically-produced Umm an-Nar Ware types evidenced at Bat and defined through macroscopic and petrographic fabric and decoration

Table 3. Table of ceramic wares. Two overarching domestically-produced Umm an-Nar Ware types evidenced at Bat and defined through macroscopic and petrographic fabric and decoration

Chronological Phases of the Bat Settlements

19Data discussed in this paper are drawn from excavations of settlement contexts at al-Khafaji, two locations on the Settlement Slope, and the Bat satellite settlement of Rakhat al-Madrh. All excavated Umm an-Nar remains at Khafaji are situated on a large clay mound, which elevates the tower above the surrounding floodplain (Swerida and Thornton 2019a: 5-6). Settlement at al-Khafaji is limited to a small assortment of buildings and associated outdoor activity areas characterized by dense concentrations of ceramics in the space immediately surrounding the tower. The Settlement Slope, in contrast, provides a ca. 500 m long expanse of domestic buildings and contexts situated on the south-facing slope of a hillside bordering the Wadi Sharsah floodplain. Excavations have targeted the comparatively flat northwestern end of the hill (Swerida and Thornton 2019b) and a tapered area of preserved architecture on the southeastern slope (Swerida et al. 2020b: 21-33). Both areas produced domestic architecture with associated features, activity areas, and portable material culture. Rakhat al-Madrh is located ca. 7.5 km to the southeast of Bat and provides architectural comparisons to Umm an-Nar settlement buildings found in the Bat center (Dollarhide 2019: 109-116; Swerida et al. 2020b: 34-41).

Early Umm an-Nar (E-UaN)

20The first of the defined sub-phases at Bat, the Early Umm an-Nar (E-UaN), dates to ca. 2800-2500 BC. Pinpointing the transition between the Hafit and the E-UaN is problematic due to the limited number of known contexts dating to this time and differences in the criteria used to define the Umm an-Nar cultural horizon (cf. Potts 2012: 372-374; Magee 2014: 98-99; Cleuziou and Tosi 2020: 100-103, 331-334). At Bat, the E-UaN begins with the first instances of (a) stone tower monument construction, (b) the adoption of mass collective burial practices, and (c) a locally produced ceramic tradition (Thornton et al. 2016: 3-4). The first of these criteria, specifically the construction of Tower 1156 (Mortimer 2016: 127-132) at the Settlement Slope and the later stone wall phase of the Matariya tower (Cable 2016: 65-66), place the beginning of Bat’s E-UaN earlier in time (ca. 2800 BC) than is recognized in other chronologies.

21Securely dated E-UaN contexts at Bat have been excavated at several of the site’s tower monuments. Construction dates for the earliest stone towers—Kasr al-Khafaji (Thornton 2016: 39), Tower 1156 (Mortimer 2016: 130), and the stone tower phase at Matariya (Cable 2016: 52)—are established by multiple 14C samples. These towers are built of large, roughly hewn limestone blocks without apparent mortar and, at Khafaji and the Settlement Slope, are associated with surrounding metallurgical activity areas. No settlement architecture has yet been identified in association with Bat’s E-UaN towers or in dated contexts elsewhere on the landscape. However, indications of E-UaN activity below later settlement contexts suggest that architecture and material culture may yet survive at these locations.

22The E-UaN also marks the beginning of the region’s first, large-scale ceramic tradition with the production of funerary ware (table 3). The fineness and technology evidenced in these vessels have led to considerable research on their origins (Blackman et al. 1989; Méry 2000, 2013; Potts 2005). Though some limited evidence for local ceramic manufacture in earlier periods exists (Thornton and Ghazal 2016: 190-192), the E-UaN ceramics from Bat represent a break with previous pottery traditions. These first vessels are commonly referred to as “funerary ware” (Thornton and Ghazal 2016: 193-195) or red fine ware (céramique fine rouge “omanaise”; Méry 2000) and begin to appear near towers at Bat around 2800 BC (Thornton and Ghazal 2016: 212-216) and in mortuary contexts throughout the period (Böhme and al-Sabri 2011: 123-131; Schmidt and Döpper 2016; Schmidt 2020). Although this ceramic style also appears within domestic contexts in later periods at Bat (fig. 3e-i), the funerary ware nomenclature is adopted here to provide continuity with previous BAP research.

Fig. 3. Early Umm an-Nar/Funerary Ware. a-c, e, h, i. al-Khafaji ceramics; d, f, g. Settlement Slope ceramics; j, k. Examples of funerary jar from Bat; l. Example of funerary jar from Hili North.

Fig. 3. Early Umm an-Nar/Funerary Ware. a-c, e, h, i. al-Khafaji ceramics; d, f, g. Settlement Slope ceramics; j, k. Examples of funerary jar from Bat; l. Example of funerary jar from Hili North.

23The advanced technical knowledge evidenced in the manufacture of funerary ware from its first appearance on the Oman Peninsula suggests the technology was not indigenously developed, but rather arrived from elsewhere (Tosi 1986: 468-469). Daniel Potts (2005) has noted stylistic and technical similarities between these funerary wares and the “black-on-red” fine wares known from the Jiroft region of southeastern Iran (Majidzadeh 2003). Chemical and mineralogical analyses suggest that some examples of this ware found in the Oman Peninsula were produced in the Pakistani Makran, while others possess geological components consistent with a local origin (Blackman et al. 1989: 71-75; Méry et al. 2013: 194). Geochemical and technological evidence both suggest that the pots, potters, and pottery technology that catalyzed domestic ceramic production on the Oman Peninsula originated in the Indo-Iranian borderlands and crossed the Strait of Hormuz into southeastern Arabia in the early third millennium BC, sparking the beginning of local, wide-scale ceramic production. Other imported ceramics from the Indo-Iranian borderlands, especially black-painted Emir (Wright 1989) and incised greywares (During-Caspers 1970a), are found in Umm an-Nar mortuary contexts at Bat in later periods, though the complex stratigraphy of these tombs and the contexts in which they are found in Iranian sites limit their utility as chronological markers.

24In examples from Bat, macroscopic analysis has shown that the funerary wares are produced from a very fine, non-porous red paste (inclusions over 0.5 mm are very rare), covered in a red slip, and painted with black chevrons or triangles placed between banded registers (fig. 3a, l). The typical form is a short-necked vase with a flat base and vessel walls averaging in thickness from 2-4 mm. Technical studies suggest that the vessels were formed by coiling, perhaps finished on a slow-turning wheel or tournette (Méry 2013: 5), and kiln-fired in an oxidizing atmosphere. Petrographic thin-section analysis conducted on funerary ware samples from Bat and surrounding sites defined a single petrofabric group, confirming the results of petrographic work conducted by Méry (2000: 103-106) on funerary wares from a variety of settlement and tomb locations. This group is characterized by an optically inactive clay-matrix that was nearly fully sintered in four of fifteen funerary sherds examined (Dollarhide 2019: 137-138), indicating high firing temperatures above 800°C (Quinn 2013: 191). Inclusions were very small and comprised less than 2% of the total fabric, making mineralogical analysis difficult. No features were observed that would preclude the Bat samples from a local origin.

25Outside of mortuary settings, funerary ware from E-UaN contexts at Bat is rare. At al-Khafaji, a small collection of sherds was recovered from E-UaN contexts next to a monumental platform to the east of the tower. Several sherds were recovered here belonging to a single jar with horizontal black lines painted on the shoulder (fig. 3b). Although close to an area of domestic activity, the immediate proximity of the monumental platform to the find spot suggests that this collection of sherds may not represent a typical E-UaN domestic assemblage. More convincing settlement contexts to the northeast of the al-Khafaji tower—below the Middle Umm an-Nar domestic courtyard—contained sherds from two vessels, one of which is decorated in the typical funerary pattern of cross-hatching and horizontal bands below the vessel neck (fig. 3a). At the Settlement Slope, excavations of E-UaN crafting contexts near to Tower 1156 produced a single sherd from the neck of a small jar (Mortimer 2016: fig. 6.33). Further to the northwest, an E-UaN surface identified below a Middle Umm an-Nar house—Structure SS1—bore a small number of non-diagnostic sherds and one base (fig. 3d).

Middle Umm an-Nar (M-UaN)

26The Middle Umm an-Nar is the period of occupation at Bat with the most extensive archaeological footprint (Swerida 2018: 59-65). As first delineated by Thornton et al. (2016: 3), this phase dates to 2500-2200 BC. It is characterized by the construction of small-scale stone architecture in several locations on the Bat landscape and the introduction of domestic ware ceramics that occur in significantly more diverse forms and decorative styles than the E-UaN/funerary ware. The results of settlement excavations at al-Khafaji, the Settlement Slope, and Rakhat al-Madrh now make it possible to divide the Middle Umm an-Nar into two sub-phases—Middle Umm an-Nar 1 and Middle Umm an-Nar 2—each with distinct architectural and ceramic styles.

Middle Umm an-Nar 1

27The earlier of the sub-phases, Middle Umm an-Nar 1 (M-UaN1), dates to approximately 2500-2400 BC. During this time, the earliest known domestic architecture was constructed at al-Khafaji, the Settlement Slope, and Rakhat al-Madrh. In all instances, M-UaN1 settlements are comprised of free-standing, rectilinear buildings constructed of unworked stone blocks set horizontally into a mud mortar. Stones are roughly dove-tailed to create double-faced walls that are between 50 and 80 cm wide (fig. 4s-u). Walls are preserved between one and four stone courses in height (ca. 15-60 cm). While no trace of a superstructure survives in a M-UaN1 context, the consistent low height of the walls and the absence of surrounding stone collapse strongly suggests that these features served as foundations for walls built of perishable materials (e.g., mud bricks or palm fronds).

Fig. 4. Middle Umm an-Nar 1. a, d, g-h, n, p. al-Khafaji ceramics and architecture (s); b-c, e-f, i-j, l-m, o, q-r. Settlement Slope ceramics and architecture (t); k. Operation A ceramic; u. Rakhat al-Madrh architecture.

Fig. 4. Middle Umm an-Nar 1. a, d, g-h, n, p. al-Khafaji ceramics and architecture (s); b-c, e-f, i-j, l-m, o, q-r. Settlement Slope ceramics and architecture (t); k. Operation A ceramic; u. Rakhat al-Madrh architecture.

28Beginning in the M-UaN1 a new ceramic group appears at Bat: domestic ware (table 3). From 2500 BC onwards, domestic ware becomes the predominant type of pottery at Bat. Petrographic analysis has revealed at least three distinct domestic ware fabric groups (fig. 2); further research will likely reveal additional variation. Common to all of the domestic ware petrofabrics are an optically-active groundmass, characterized by few inclusions (2-5%) and vughy microvoids. The domestic ware petrofabrics groups are mineralogically diverse, likely indicating a range of clay sources utilized in their production. Macroscopically, the fabric of domestic ware ranges from light red to a common pink-orange color, often with a grey core indicating a lower firing temperature than the funerary wares. Inclusions are very few, comprising between 2-5% of the total paste.

29The most common form is an open-mouth globular jar with an exterior slipped in a fine, reddish-brown clay (fig. 4a-g). Other forms include bowls (rim diameters averaging 10-25 cm) (fig. 4h-j), which become more common in later periods, and suspension vessels (fig. 4o-r). The latter type are small vases with projected bases, painted with a black cross-hatch or “net design” below the neck and have four perforated holes (or lugs). Though these lugs might have been used for suspending the vessel from above, the holes are often imperfectly punctured or left plugged with clay, indicating their presence is more decorative than utilitarian. In addition to several examples of suspension vessels known from the Bat towers (Thornton and Ghazal 2016: fig. 9.4t, 9.6v) and Settlement Slope area excavations (fig. 4o-r), this form is also known from Umm an-Nar tombs in the Bat necropolis (Böhme and al-Sabri 2011: fig. 16; Schmidt and Döpper 2016: 427).

30Surface decoration on domestic wares adhere to a restricted repertoire. Vessels were slipped in a red- to buff-colored clay wash. Black painted designs, nearly always located above the vessel midpoint (cross-hatching on suspension vessels being a notable exception), are applied on top of this slip. Painted decorations consist of registers of geometric designs framed by sets of two horizontal black lines (fig. 4k, m). Variation in these decorations, in both the design and the precision with which the paint was applied, is diagnostic of different periods at both Bat and Hili (Cleuziou 1989a: 53-67; Thornton and Ghazal 2016: 195-200). The most common motif is dual waving lines, the space between which is sometimes filled with hatch marks (fig. 4a, n). These patterns in ceramic forms and decorations parallel those of Hili phase IIc2; however, the domestic ware fabric used at Bat lacks the density of quartz inclusions that are typical of the so-called “sandy red ware” (céramique sableuse rouge “omanaise”; Méry 2000: 125-134) of the Hili settlement assemblage, rendering the fabric less “sandy”.

31In addition to these traditional Umm an-Nar domestic wares, fragments of black-slipped jars appear in Bat settlement contexts beginning in the M-UaN1 and continue through the end of the third millennium BC. These large storage vessels, which average 70 cm in height, are commonly found in Umm an-Nar contexts across southeastern Arabia and have long been considered imports from the Indus Valley across the Gulf. Recent petrographic and geochemical analyses, including sherds from Bat, indicate that some of these amphorae-like containers may also have been produced within the Oman peninsula (Méry and Blackman 2005; Patel 2015).

32Excavations at al-Khafaji provide particularly coherent and secure contexts for this phase. In the M-UaN1, a compound of three buildings—Structures KA1, KA2, and KA4—was constructed on the northeastern quarter of the tower mound (Thornton et al. 2013: 258; Thornton 2016: 34-39; Swerida and Thornton 2019a: 6-9). All three rectilinear buildings have slightly irregular proportions (between ca. 6 × 3.5 m and 7 × 4.5 m) due to the limited space on the mound. Interiors are subdivided into narrow rooms that run the width of the building. A particularly dense concentration of occupational debris and sherds of domestic ware vessels (fig. 4d, g, j, l; see also Thornton and Ghazal 2016: fig. 9.4b-c, f-g, i, k) and Indus black slipped jars (Thornton 2016: 37) were found in a sealed and 14C-dated context in the outdoor “courtyard” space between the buildings and the tower. A second activity area located to the south of the tower also provides a collection of domestic ware ceramics, including the earliest dated example of an Umm an-Nar bowl (fig. 4h) known from Bat, found in association with a large tannur (Swerida and Thornton 2019a: 10). The fabric of this bowl is wholly consistent with Bat’s domestic ware and examples of similar vessel forms have been found in broadly dated burial and tower contexts elsewhere at Bat (Schmidt and Döpper 2016: fig. 9). Bowls with comparable rim forms—a rounded surface and small lip on both the interior and exterior—were also found at Hili 8 in the contemporaneous phase IIc2 (Cleuziou 1989a: Plate 24, 2-4).

33At the Settlement Slope, following the abandonment of the site’s E-UaN Tower 1156, rectangular buildings ranging in size from 9 × 8 m to 11 × 7.5 m were constructed. Two buildings in particular—Structures SS1 and SS2—have observable architectural phasing (Swerida and Thornton 2019b: 82-94). In their earliest forms both featured an open floor plan and were entered through a doorway in their downhill-facing southwestern walls. Dated contexts from within Structure SS1 and from an outdoor activity area to the east of the building contained an assortment of domestic ware sherds, including several painted globular jars (fig. 4b, e-f) and fragments from one or more suspension vessels (fig. 4o-r).

34Beyond the Bat center, initial excavation of the settlement at Rakhat al-Madrh indicates the site was first occupied during the M-UaN1. The site consists of four buildings situated around a wide natural fluvial catchment area. The relatively unrestricted terrain allowed for the construction of large buildings (the largest 12 × 20 m) out of locally available rounded wadi cobbles and small boulders (Dollarhide 2019: 109-116; Swerida et al. 2020b: 34-41; fig. 4u), contrasting with the narrow settlement spaces and angular stone blocks found at al-Khafaji and the Settlement Slope. While complete floor plans and architectural sequences are not yet available from Rakhat al-Madrh, chains of long, narrow rooms and adjacent enclosed courtyards are visible in overhead images of the buildings. Such layouts are especially comparable to Structure SS2 at the Settlement Slope. Differences in building size, location, and construction style between the Rakhat al-Madrh structures and those in better-known sections of the Bat landscape illustrate variations in Umm an-Nar settlement form.

Middle Umm an-Nar 2

35The second of the sub-phases, Middle Umm an-Nar 2 (M-UaN2), dates to approximately 2400-2200 BC and is characterized by the intensification of M-UaN1 settlements and a broadening of architectural and ceramic styles. Occupied spaces at al-Khafaji and the Settlement Slope become more densely constructed with the addition of rectilinear buildings and the enclosure of outdoor activity areas within defined courtyards. Construction styles of the new settlement buildings and alterations made to existing structures are consistent with those of the M-UaN1. Building interiors are consistently organized into chains of parallel narrow rooms, some of which were used for specialized purposes (e.g., storage, metallurgy, food production, etc.; Swerida and Thornton 2019b: 106-109; Swerida in press a). Courtyards, in contrast, are multifunctional spaces enclosed with extremely wide (ca. 1.5-1.7 m) walls that stretch between two buildings (see Swerida and Thornton 2019a: 8-9, 2019b: 99-100). The enclosure of outdoor living spaces is a structural and behavioral trend first observed at Bat in the M-UaN2 and is associated with a distinct type of wall construction (Swerida and Thornton 2019b: 107-108). Courtyard walls are constructed of two parallel rows of stone, three courses high and faced outwards, that are set 50-80 cm apart and the space between them filled with stone rubble and packed mud (fig. 6b-d). No evidence of a superstructure has yet been identified.

36The M-UaN2 phase of settlement at al-Khafaji is characterized by the enclosure of the courtyard space between the domestic buildings and the tower by the exceptionally large Connecting Wall (fig. 5f) and further subdivision of building interiors. The M-UaN2 phase of Structure KA4 is especially noteworthy because of its preserved mudbrick superstructure, constructed of 35 × 35 × 7 cm bricks and surviving approximately 35 cm in height. It is probable that other Umm an-Nar settlement buildings at Bat and elsewhere in the region once featured similar mudbrick walling. In the neighboring courtyard, the M-UaN2 level provides yet another sealed and scientifically dated context containing a dense concentration of domestic ware (fig. 5a, e-g, k-l, t-u; see also Thornton and Ghazal 2016: fig. 9.4a, d, e, h, j, l-q, r-u) and Indus black slipped jar (Thornton 2016: 37) sherds.

Fig. 5. Middle Umm an-Nar 2. a, e-g, k-l, u-v. al-Khafaji ceramics; b-d, h-j, m-t. Settlement Slope ceramics.

Fig. 5. Middle Umm an-Nar 2. a, e-g, k-l, u-v. al-Khafaji ceramics; b-d, h-j, m-t. Settlement Slope ceramics.

37Both domestic and funerary wares continue to be found at Bat during this phase. The funerary wares continue to be produced in typical fine fabrics and short-necked vase forms. Open-mouthed, globular jars with flat bases (fig. 5e-g, l-r) remain the most common vessel form for domestic wares, comprising over 65% of identifiable M-UaN2 diagnostic forms. However, bowls (fig. 5k; 24%) and vases (fig. 5a-b; 11%) are now found with some regularity—a situation paralleled at the nearby and contemporaneous settlement at al-Zebah (Schmidt and Döpper 2016: 253). Macroscopic fabrics appear relatively uniform across these forms, while initial petrographic analysis has revealed at least two groups of production with different mineralogical signatures (Dollarhide 2019: 144), suggesting that ceramic production was more widespread.

  • 2 Dollarhide E. N., Swerida J. and Jensen R. in prep. Globular Jars and Painted Whirls: an interpret (...)

38In addition to these changes in form, painted decoration on the pottery also becomes more diverse. Black painted designs continue to cover the upper halves of both jar and bowl exteriors, often but not always organized within registers defined by horizontal lines. Designs include rows of rounded triangles, waving bands filled with hatch marks, and distinctive spiral patterns. Decorative motifs comparable to those of the previous M-UaN1 period are executed in thicker lines of paint and with less technical precision (fig. 5m-n). This departure from a strictly codified painted design language may indicate the use of ceramics for increasingly utilitarian purposes. A particularly noteworthy example of a large globular jar decorated with a combination of spirals and hatched waving bands (fig. 5r; see also fig. 6a) was recovered from the floor of the Structure SS1 central room, which functioned during this phase as a storage space. This spiral-painted jar is a distinctive type (Dollarhide et al. in prep.2) found in tower (Cleuziou 1989b: pl. 24, 27; Potts 1990: figs. 49, 56; Méry 2000: fig. 76, nos. 8, 9) and settlement (Frifelt 1995: figs. 97, 240; Schmidt and Döpper 2016: fig. 7) contexts across much of the Umm an-Nar region. Comparable jar forms and designs have also been found at Bat in a M-UaN2 courtyard next to Structure SS4+ (fig. 5o-p), near Structure SS12 (fig. 5s), elsewhere on the Settlement Slope hill (Frifelt 1976: figs. 6, 8), and at the Operation B/Building II tower (Schmidt and Döpper 2016: fig. 9).

Fig. 6. Middle Umm an-Nar 2. a. Settlement Slope painted jar and architecture (c-d); b. al-Khafaji architecture.

Fig. 6. Middle Umm an-Nar 2. a. Settlement Slope painted jar and architecture (c-d); b. al-Khafaji architecture.

39The internal organization of the settlement buildings at Rakhat al-Madrh and their consistent use of enclosed courtyards suggests that the site continued to be occupied into the M-UaN2. Forthcoming excavation will clarify the site’s occupational history and will doubtless further refine this chronology.

Late Umm an-Nar (L-UaN)

40The final phase of the Umm an-Nar period at Bat, the Late Umm an-Nar (L-UaN), dates to 2200-2000 BC. This phase is one of reduced presence on the Bat landscape in comparison to the M-UaN. The domestic buildings at al-Khafaji and Rakhat al-Madrh are abandoned, leaving the Settlement Slope as the only source of L-UaN occupational materials yet discovered at the site. Results of recent excavations at the nearby al-Khutm tower (Cocca et al. 2019), located ca. 3 km northwest of Bat, suggest that this site and its nearby settlement (Swerida 2018: 63-65) may have been active during this phase. Architectural styles in the L-UaN differ slightly from those of the M-UaN, as do ceramic forms and decorative motifs. Wall foundations (ca. 60-80 cm wide) are constructed of two parallel rows of unworked stone slabs set horizontally into a mud mortar with a thin spine of rubble filling the space between them (fig. 7m-n). Building layouts are similar to those of the M-UaN; however, the increasing density of built space at the Settlement Slope and possibly changing resident preferences result in some floor plan variations.

Fig. 7. Late Umm an-Nar. a-e. Northwest Settlement Slope ceramics and architecture (m-n); f-l. Southeast Settlement Slope ceramics.

Fig. 7. Late Umm an-Nar. a-e. Northwest Settlement Slope ceramics and architecture (m-n); f-l. Southeast Settlement Slope ceramics.

41Ceramics found in connection with this phase at the Settlement Slope are a mix of bowl (fig. 7f, h-l) and open-mouth jar (fig. 7a-e) forms. Vessel walls become thicker and fabrics contain larger inclusions and sandier textures. The black painted decorations are more loosely executed—typically consisting of one or two waving lines that occasionally break free of their horizontally defined registers (fig. 7a-c, k). Decorations may also extend onto the vessel lip and rim (fig. 7a-b) and, less frequently, below the midpoint of the vessel wall (fig. 7g). Such L-UaN domestic ware ceramics have also been found in Umm an-Nar burial contexts at Bat and nearby ‘Amlah alongside imported Iranian grey wares (Cardi et al. 1976: 120-126; Böhme and al-Sabri 2011: fig. 10-2). This shift in mortuary practice, along with the apparent general increase in the availability of Umm an-Nar ceramics, suggests that such vessels had lost their status as prestige goods and become objects typical of everyday life.

42Although only partially excavated, Structure SS12 at the southeast Settlement Slope provides the most securely dated sample of L-UaN occupation at Bat (Swerida et al. 2020b: 28-30). The building is oriented to the slope of the hillside and is accessed via a short series of stone steps leading to a south-facing doorway. A set of L-UaN style walls expand a typical M-UaN floor plan of parallel narrow rooms with the addition of a perpendicular room to the west and a longer room to the south. This mixture of construction styles suggests that, like many buildings at the Settlement Slope, Structure SS12 had an extended occupation that spanned multiple chronological phases. A diverse collection of sherds recovered from within the building likely date to its final use. Particularly noteworthy are the contents of two 14C-dated contexts—a rubbish pit in the western perpendicular room and an activity area immediately next to the southern door—which demonstrate a preference for small, deep bowl forms (fig. 7h, j-k) rather than the quintessential Umm an-Nar jar.

43At the flatter northwest Settlement Slope, two buildings have a L-UaN phase: Structures SS1 and SS3. Structure SS1, another example of an Umm an-Nar settlement building with a use life extending across multiple phases, was constructed in the M-UaN1 but featured a L-UaN floor in its southeastern room (Swerida and Thornton 2019b: 89-91). In contrast, Structure SS3 was built in the L-UaN and provides especially clear examples of the period’s architectural construction style (fig. 7m-n; Swerida and Thornton 2019b: 94-97). A number of wide-mouth jar rims found on the Structure SS1 floor (fig. 7c, e; Swerida in press. a: fig. 10) and in an outdoor activity area immediately south of and associated with Structure SS3 (fig. 7a-b) demonstrate the flexible decorative style that is typical of the period.

Discussion and closing thoughts

44Over 40 years ago, pioneering archaeologists of the region remarked on the consistency and patterns apparent in third millennium material culture in southeastern Arabia and across the Arabian/Persian Gulf (Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi 1973; Frifelt 1975). Early scholarship found connections in ceramics, foreign texts, and mortuary practices that connected disparate archaeological cultures. In the intervening years, the diligent collection of new data and perspectives has enabled scholars to flip the lens of analysis, zooming in on the dynamic shifts that occurred within the Omani peninsular interior. This paper joins the growing body of literature shifting focus away from the well-studied corpus of monumental architecture and imported ceramics found across the Gulf and focuses on what is now a more temporally-sensitive collection of domestic architecture and locally produced ceramics. The settlement-based sequence presented here for Umm an-Nar period Bat offers further chronological resolution for the southeast Arabian interior and a methodological framework for identifying cultural changes across the third millennium BC Oman Peninsula.

45The methodology underpinning this framework focuses on materials from day-to-day contexts of settlements. Widespread taphonomic issues have long-hindered the development of settlement-based chronology in southeast Arabia. Most EBA sites in the region, including Bat, lack the stratigraphy that has been the cornerstone of sequences across the ancient Gulf—evidenced locally at sites like Hili 8 (Cleuziou 1989a, 1989b) and Tell Abraq (Potts 1990, 1991, 2000; Magee et al. 2017). The present research demonstrates that poor preservation and lack of stratigraphy need not prevent the identification of temporal trends in architecture and ceramics. Building on the work of scholars such as Cleuziou (1989a, 1989b), Potts (1992) and Thornton et al. (2016), among many others, this paper also broadens and refines chronological conversations through stylistic architectural and ceramic analysis and petrography. Founded on day-to-day contexts, the chronology presented above is also sensitive to behavioral/temporal trends and changes—the diversity of domestic architecture and domestic ware jar and bowl forms, fabrics, and decorative styles—that are less visible or wholly absent in the better-studied ritual tomb and tower contexts of monument-based chronologies. The analysis incorporates 14C dates and architectural styles from multiple areas of the Bat landscape, considers a larger ceramic assemblage than previous studies, and includes new frameworks for defining Umm an-Nar ceramic wares.

46Future steps in studies of Umm an-Nar chronology and culture will include establishing connections between the Bat sequence and other sites and integrating other forms of material culture. The utility of this framework is already visible when applied to sites near Bat, such as ‘Amlah (Cardi et al. 1976), where M-UaN1 and M-UaN2 forms and fabrics are evident, and Zebah (Schmidt 2018), where material culture and 14C dates tightly align with Bat M-UaN2 and L-UaN. Southeast of Bat, excavations at Maysar’s settlement (Weisgerber 1980, 1981) revealed ceramics consistent with Bat’s L-UaN. Farther afield, regional variations in material culture traditions will inevitably differ from those of the interior and require further study, enriching the emerging picture of a dynamic and multifaceted Umm an-Nar society. Yet general comparisons between the Bat sequence can still be made with established sequences at sites like Ra’s al-Jinz 2 (Cleuziou and Tosi 2000; Azzarà 2018), Umm an-Nar Island (Friflet 1995), and Tell Abraq (Potts 1990, 1991, 2000; Magee et al. 2017). Additional contributions from these sites and other ongoing and future settlement and ceramic studies (e.g., al-Jahwari et al. 2018, 2020; al-Shaqsi 2018; Bernardini et al. 2020; Castel et al. 2020; Schwall and Jasim 2020) will doubtless further refine and add regional clarity to Umm an-Nar period chronology. 

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Azzarà V. M. and De Rorre A. P. 2019 – The First Excavation Season at the Early Bronze Age Settlement of Ra’s al-Jinz RJ-3. Journal of Oman Studies 20: 25-47.

Banning E. 2010 – Houses, Households, and Changing Society in the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant. Paléorient 36,1: 49-87.

Barker D. E. 2018 – Mapping Continuity, Development, and Resilience in the Southeastern Arabian Bronze Age: The prehistoric settlement at Tell Abraq, United Arab Emirates. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Sydney: University of Sydney.

Benton J. N. 1996 – Excavations at al-Sufouh: A Third Millennium Site in the Emirate of Dubai. Turnhout: Brepols.

Bernadini F., Vinci G., Prokop D., Barro Savonussi L., De Min A., Lenaz, D., Princivalle F., Cocca E., Kasztovsky Z., Szilágyi I., Tuniz C. and Cattani M. 2020 – A Multi-analytical Study of Bronze Age Pottery from the UNESCO Site of al-Khutm (Bat, Oman). Archaeological and Anthropological Studies 12,8: 1-22.

Bibby G. 1964 – A Forgotten Civilization of Abu Dhabi. British Petroleum Magazine 13: 29-33.

Bibby G. 1970 – Looking for Dilmun. New York: Praeger.

Blackman M. J., Méry S. and Wright R. P. 1989 – Production and Exchange of Ceramics on the Oman Peninsula from the Perspective of Hili. Journal of Field Archaeology 16,1: 61-71.

Böhme M. and al-Sabri B. A. 2011 – Umm an-Nar Burial 401 at Bat, Oman: Architecture and Finds. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 22: 113-54.

Boivin N. 2008 – Material Cultures. Material Minds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cable C. M. 2016 – Excavations at Matariya (Tower 1147). In: Thornton C. P., Cable C. M. and Possehl G. (eds.), The Bronze Age Towers at Bat Sultanate of Oman: Research by the Bat Archaeological Project 2007-2012: 49-82. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Cable C. M. and Thornton C. P. 2013 – Monumentality and the Third-millennium ‘Towers’ of the Oman Peninsula. In: Abraham S., Gullapalli P., Raczek T. P. and Rizvi U. Z. (eds.), Connections and Complexity: New approaches to the archaeology of South Asia: 375-399. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

Cable C. M. and al-Jabri S. 2019 – The Wadi al-Hijr (Sultanate of Oman) in the Third Millennium BC. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 30,1: 15-31.

Cardi B. de 1970 – Excavations at Bampur, a Third Millennium Settlement in Persian Baluchistan, 1966. New York: Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History.

Cardi B. de, Collier S. and Doe D. B. 1976 – Excavations and Survey in Oman, 1974-1975. The Journal of Oman Studies 2: 101-87.

Castel C., Barge O., Besnard B., Beuzen-Waller T., Brochier J.-É., Darras L., Régagnon E. and Sanz S. 2020 – First Discoveries of the Bat/al-Arid Mission (Sultanate of Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 50: 71-84.

Cleuziou S. 1980 – Three Seasons at Hili: Towards a Chronology and Cultural History of the Oman Peninsula in the 3rd Millennium BC. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 10: 19-32.

Cleuziou S. 1989a – The Chronology of Prehistoric Oman as Seen from Hili. In: Costa P. M. and Tosi M. (eds.), Oman Studies: 279-293. Rome: IsMEO (Serie Orientale Roma 63).

Cleuziou S. 1989b – Excavations at Hili 8: A Preliminary Report on the 4th to 7th Campaigns. Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates 5: 61-88.

Cleuziou S., Méry S. and Vogt B. (eds.) 2011 – Protohistoire de l’oasis d’al-Aïn, Travaux de la Mission archéologique française à Abou Dhabi (Émirats arabes unis): Les sépultures de l’âge du Bronze. Oxford: BAR Publishing (BAR International Series 2227).

Cleuziou S. and Tosi M. 1989 – The South-Eastern Frontier of the Ancient Near East. In: Frifelt K. and Sørenson P. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1985. Copenhagen: Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies (Occasional Papers 4).

Cleuziou S. and Tosi M. 2000 – Ras al-Jinz and the Prehistoric Coastal Cultures of the Ja’alan. Journal of Oman Studies 11: 19-73.

Cleuziou S. and Tosi M. 2020 – In the Shadow of the Ancestors: The Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilization in Oman. Second Edition with Frenez D. and Garba R. Muscat: Ministry of Heritage and Culture.

Cocca E., Vinci G., Cattani M., Armigiato A., Di Michelle A., Bianchi M. and Gennuso I. 2019 – Al-Khutm Project 2017/2018: A Bronze Age monumental tower (Bat, Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 49: 85-96.

Deadman W. 2017 – Early Bronze Age society in eastern Arabia: an analysis of the funerary archaeology of the Hafit period (3,200-2,500 BC) in the northern Oman Peninsula, with special reference to the Al-Batinah region. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Durham: Durham University.

Degli Esposti M. 2016 – Excavations at the Early Bronze Age site ‘ST1’ near Bisya (Sultanate of Oman): Notes on the architecture and material Culture. In: Kaelin O. and Mathys H.-P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. June 9-13, 2014, University of Basel. Vol. III: reports: 665-678. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Dollarhide, E. N. 2019 – Mapping Magan: The ancient social landscape of north-central Oman. PhD Dissertation, New York University. Ann Arbor: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Döpper S. 2015 – The Reuse of Tombs in the Necropolis of Bat, Sultanate of Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 45: 1-10.

During-Caspers E. C. L. 1970a – A Note on the Carved Stone Vases and Incised Grayware. In: Cardi B. de (ed.), Excavations at Bampur, a Third Millennium Settlement in Persian Blauchistan, 1966: 319-320. New York: American Museum of Natural History.

During-Caspers E. C. L. 1970b – Trucial Oman in the Third Millennium BC. Origini 4: 205-76.

Eddisford D. and Phillips C. 2009 – Kalba in the Third Millennium (Emirate of Sharjah, UAE). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39: 99-112.

Flannery K. 2002 – The Origins of the Village Revisited: From nuclear to extended households. American Antiquity 67,3: 417-434.

Foxhall L. 2000 – The Running Sands of Time: Archaeology and the short-term. World Archaeology 31,3: 484-498.

Freeze D., Degli Esposti M., Méry S. and Kenoyer J. M. 2016 – Bronze Age Salūt (ST1) and the Indus Civilization: recent discoveries and new insights on regional interaction. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 46: 107-124.

Frifelt K. 1971 – Jamdat Nasr fund fra Oman/Jamdat Nasr Graves in the Oman (English version). Kuml 1971: 355-383.

Frifelt K. 1975 – On prehistoric settlement and chronology of the Oman Peninsula. East and West 25,3-4: 359-424.

Frifelt K. 1976 – Evidence of a third millennium BC town in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 2: 57-74.

Frifelt K. 1985 – Further Evidence of the Third Millennium Town at Bat in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 7: 89-104.

Frifelt K. 1991 – The Island of Umm an-Nar. vol.. I: Third millennium graves. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Frifelt K. 1995 – The Island of Umm an-Nar. vol.  II: The third millennium settlement. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Gentelle P. and Frifelt K. 1989 – About the Distribution of Third Millennium Graves and Settlements in the Ibri Area of Oman. In: Kenoyer J. M. (ed.), Old Problems and New Perspectives in the Archaeology of South Asia: 116-119. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Glob P. V. 1954 – Temples at Barbar. Kuml 1954: 142-53.

Glob P. V. 1959 – Archaeological Investigations in Four Arab States. Kuml 1959: 238-9.

Hodder I. 2012 – Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

Højlund F. 2012 – The First Excavations in the UAE, 1959-1972: Glimpses into the Archive of Moesgård Museum. In: Potts D. and Hellyer P. (eds.), 50 Years of Emirates Archaeology: 10-19. Abu Dhabi: Motivate Publishing.

Ingold T. 2013 – Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art, and Architecture. London: Routledge.

al-Jahwari N. S., Douglas K., al-Belushi M. and Williams K. D. 2018 – Umm an-Nar Settlement at Dahwa (DH1), Oman: Preliminary results of the archaeological investigation, 2014-2016. In: Döpper S. (ed.), Beyond Tombs and Towers: Domestic architecture of the Umm an-Nar period in Eastern Arabia: 29-50. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

al-Jahwari N. S., Douglas K, and Kennet D. 2020 – Al-Ghoryeen: An Early Bronze Age settlement in central Oman peninsula. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 31,2: 281-300.

al-Jahwari N. S. and Kennet D. 2010 – Umm an-Nar settlement in the Wadi Andam (Sultanate of Oman). Proceedings of the Seminary for Arabian Studies 40: 201-212.

Janjou D., Minoux L., Beurrier M., Gramont X. de, Le Metour J., and Villey M. 1986 – Geological Map of ‘Ibri. Sheet NF40-2F. Sultanate of Oman: Ministry of Petroleum and Minerals.

Kennet D., Deadman W. M., and al-Jahwari N. S. 2016 – The Rustaq-Batinah Archaeological Survey. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 47: 155-168.

LaMotta V. and Schiffer M. 1999 – Formation Processes of the House Floor Assemblages. In: Allison P. (ed.), The Archaeology of Household Activities: 19-29. New York: Routledge.

Lamberg-Karlovsky C. C. and Tosi M. 1973. – Shahr-i Sokhta and Tepe Yahya: Tracks on the Earliest History of the Iranian Plateau. East and West 23,1: 21-57.

Magee P. 2014 – The Archaeology of Prehistoric Arabia: Adaptation and social formation from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Magee P., Händel M., Karacic S., Uerpmann M. and Uerpmann H.-P. 2017. – Tell Abraq during the second and first millennia BC: site layout, spatial organisation, and economy. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 28: 209-237.

Majidzadeh Y. 2003 – Jiroft: The Earliest Oriental Civilization. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.

Matthews W. 2012 – Defining Households: Micro-contextual analysis of Early Neolithic households in the Zagros, Iran. In: Parker B. and Foster C. (eds.), New Perspectives on Household Archaeology: 183-216. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

McSweeney K., Méry S. and Macchiarelli R. 2008 – Rewriting the End of the Early Bronze Age in the United Arab Emirates through the Anthropological and Artefactual Evaluation of Two Collective Umm an-Nar Graves at Hili (Eastern Region of Abu Dhabi). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 19: 1-14.

Méry S. 2000 – Les céramiques d’Oman et l’Asie moyenne. Paris: CNRS Éditions.

Méry S. 2010 – Results, Limits, and Potential: Burial practices and Early Bronze Age societies in the Oman Peninsula. In: Weeks L. (ed.) Death and Burial in Arabia and Beyond: Multidisciplinary Perspectives: 33-44. Oxford: BAR Publishing (International Series 2107).

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

Méry S. and Blackman M. 2005 – Socio-Economic Patterns of a Ceramic Contained: The Harappan Black Slipped Jar. In: Jarrige C. and Lefèvre V. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 2001. Vol. I: Prehistory: 227-236. Paris: ERC.

Méry S., Blackman M., Didier A. and Besenval R. 2013 – A Centre of Production and Diffusion for Fine Grey Pottery in the Third Millennium: The Pottery Workshops of the Dasht Plain (Makran, Pakistan) and the Oman Peninsula. Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 45: 169-198.

Méry S., Dupont-Delaleuf A. and Van der Leeuw S. 2010 – Analyse technologique et expérimentations. Les techniques de façonnage céramique mettant en jeu la rotation à Hili (Émirats arabes unis) à la fin du IIIe millénaire (âge du Bronze ancien). Les nouvelles de l’archéologie 119: 52-58.

Miki T., Kuronuma T. and Kondo Y. 2020 – Burial Landscape of Bat during the Um An Nar Period: Reconsideration through Spatial Statistics. Journal of Oman Studies 20: 48-77.

Mortimer A. E. 2016 – Excavations at Tower 1156. In: Thornton C. P., Cable C. M. and Possehl G. (eds.), The Bronze Age Towers at Bat Sultanate of Oman: Research by the Bat Archaeological Project 2007-2012: 123-154. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Mortimer A. E. and Thornton C. P. 2018 – Bronze Age Towers and the Control of Water: New evidence from Bat, Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 19: 65-84.

Patel S. P. 2011 – Identifying Trade Networks through Petrographic Analysis: The Black-Slipped Storage Jars of Harappa. Unpublished MA Thesis, New York University: Department of Anthropology.

Potts D. 1986 – Eastern Arabia and the Oman Peninsula during the Late Fourth and Early Third Millennium B.C. In: Finkbeiner U. and Röllig W. (eds.) Ğamdat Naṣr: Period or Regional Style?: 121-170 Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert (Beihefte zum Tuibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B 62).

Potts D. 1990 – A Prehistoric Mound in the Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain, UAE.: excavations at Tell Abraq in 1989. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Potts D. 1991 – Further Excavations at Tell Abraq: the 1990 season. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Potts D. 1992 – The Chronology of the Arabian Gulf. In: Ehrich R.W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (3rd ed.): 66-72. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Potts D. 2000 – Ancient Magan: The secrets of Tell Abraq. London: Trident Press.

Potts D. 2001 – Before the Emirates: An archaeological and historical account of developments in the region c. 5000 BC to 676 AD. In: al-Abed I. and Hellyer P. (eds.), United Arab Emirates: A new perspective: 28-69. London: Trident Press.

Potts D. 2005 – In the Beginning: Marhashi and the Origins of Magan’s Ceramic Industry in the Third Millennium BC. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 16: 67-78.

Potts D. 2012 – The Hafit-Umm an-Nar Transition: Evidence from Falaj al-Qabail and Jabal al-Emalah. In: Giraud J., Gernez G. and Castéja V. de (eds.), Aux Marges de L’archéologie: Hommage à Serge Cleuziou: 371-377. Paris: de Boccard (Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 16).

Quinn P. S. 2013 – Ceramic Petrography: The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery & Related Artefacts in Thin Section. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Rainville L. 2012 – Household Matters: Techniques for Understanding Assyrian Houses. In: Parker B. and Foster C. (eds.), New Perspectives on Household Archaeology: 139-164. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Ristvet L. 2014 – Ritual, Performance, and Politics in the Ancient Near East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

al-Shaqsi, S. 2018 – Pottery of Umm an-Nar Period from Dahwa Settlement (DH1), al-Batinah North, Sultanate of Oman: Comparative analytical study. Unpublished MA thesis. Muscat, Sultanate of Oman: Sultan Qaboos University.

Schmidt C. 2018 – The Umm an-Nar Settlement of al-Zebah. In: Döpper S. (ed.), Beyond tombs and towers: Domestic architecture of the Umm anNar period in eastern Arabia: 87-96. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Schmidt C. 2020 – Die Bestattungsgruben in Bat. Oxford: Archaeopress (Arabia Orientalis: Studien zur Archäologie Ostarabiens 1).

Schmidt C. and Döpper S. 2016 – Umm an-Nar Pottery Assemblages from Bat and al-Ziba and their Functional Contexts. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 46: 247-262.

Schmidt C. and Döpper S. 2017 – The Development of Complexity at Third-Millennium BC al-Khashbah, Sultanate of Oman: Results of the First Two Seasons, 2015 to 2016. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 47: 215-228.

Schwall C. and Jasim S. H. 2020 – Assessing Kalba: New fieldwork at a Bronze Age coastal site on the Gulf of Oman (Emirate of Sharjah, UAE). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 50: 321-332.

Steadman S. 2010 – Agency, Architecture, and Archaeology: Prehistoric settlements in central Anatolia. In: Steadman S. and Ross J. (eds.), Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New paths forward: 27-46. London: Equinox.

Swerida J. 2018 – Bat and the Umm an-Nar Settlement Tradition. In: Döpper, S. (ed.), Beyond Tombs and Towers: Domestic architecture of the Umm an-Nar period in eastern Arabia: 51-70. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz.

Swerida J. in press. a – House, Household, and the Umm an-Nar: Structure SS1 at Bat, Oman. In: Steadman S., Brody A., and Battini L. (eds.), No Place Like Home: Ancient Near Eastern Houses and Households. Oxford: Archaeopress (Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology Series).

Swerida J. in press. b – Revisiting ‘Settlement’: A case study of terminology and its implications in Early Bronze Age southeast Arabia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology.

Swerida J. and Thornton C. P. 2019a – al-Khafaji Reinterpreted: New insights on Umm an‐Nar monuments and settlement from Bat, Oman. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 30: 1-16.

Swerida J. and Thornton C. P. 2019b – Umm an‐Nar Architecture and Society at the Bat Settlement Slope, Sultanate of Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 20: 78-111.

Swerida J., Cable C. M. and Dollarhide E. N. 2020a – Survey and Settlement: Preliminary Results of the Bat Archaeological Project’s 2019 Field Season. Journal of Oman Studies 21: 82-101.

Swerida J., Dollarhide E. N. and Cable C. M. 2020b – Bat Archaeological Project: Preliminary Report of the 2019-2020 Season. Manuscript on File, Department of Archaeology and Excavations, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Muscat, Oman.

al-Tikriti W. Y. and Méry S. 2000 – Tomb N at Hili and the Question of Subterranean Graves during the Umm an-Nar Period. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39: 205-219.

Thornton C. P. 2016 – Excavations at Kasr al-Khafaji (Tower 1146). In: Thornton C. P., Cable C. M. and Possehl G. (eds.), The Bronze Age Towers at Bat Sultanate of Oman: Research by the Bat Archaeological Project 2007-2012: 25-48. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Thornton C. P., Cable C. M. and Possehl G. 2013 – Three seasons at Kasr al-Khafaji (Tower 1146) at Bat, Oman. In: Frenez D. and Tosi M. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 2007: Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the European Association of South Asian Archaeology (Ravenna, Italy, 2-6 July 2007): 255-268. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Thornton C. P., Cable C. M. and Possehl G. 2016 – The Bronze Age Towers at Bat Sultanate of Oman: Research by the Bat Archaeological Project 2007-2012. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Thornton C. P. and Ghazal O. R. 2016 – Typological and chronological consideration of the ceramics at Bat, Oman. In: Thornton C. P., Cable C. M. and Possehl G. (eds.), The Bronze Age towers at Bat, Sultanate of Oman: 179-216. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Tosi M. 1986 – The Emerging picture of Prehistoric Arabia. Annual Review of Anthropology 15: 461-90.

UNESCO 1988 – Inscription: Archaeological sites of Bat, al-Khutm, and al-Ayn (Oman). 12th session of the Committee, http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3690.

Weisgerber G. 1980 – …und Kupfer in Oman. Der Anschnitt 32: 62-110.

Weisgerber G. 1981 – Mehr als Kupfer in Oman—Ergebnisse der Expedition 1981. Der Anschnitt 33: 174-263.

Whitbread I. K. 1986 – The Characterisation of Argillaceous Inclusions in Ceramic Thin Sections. Archaeometry 28,1: 79-88.

Whitbread I. K. 1989 – A proposal for the systematic description of thin sections towards the study of ancient ceramic technology. In: Maniatis Y. (ed.), Archaeometry: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium (Amsterdam): 127-138.

Williams K. and Gregoricka L. 2013 – The Social, Spatial, and Bioarchaeological Histories of Ancient Oman Project: The Mortuary Landscape of Dhank. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 24: 134-150.

Williams K. and Gregoricka L. 2019 – A Path Forward to an Integrated Study of Bioarchaeology in Southeastern Arabia. In: Williams K. and Gregoricka L. (eds.), Mortuary and Bioarchaeological Perspectives on Bronze Age Arabia: 1-18.

Wright R. P. 1989 – New Perspectives on Third Millennium BC. Painted Grey Wares. In: Frifelt K. (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1985: 137-149. London: Curzon Press.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Dollarhide E. N. in prep. – Local Ceramics and Intra-regional Dynamics: Ceramic Petrography in al-Dhahirah, Oman.

2 Dollarhide E. N., Swerida J. and Jensen R. in prep. Globular Jars and Painted Whirls: an interpretation of an Umm an-Nar ceramic type.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1. Map of southeast Arabia indicating locations of Bat and sites mentioned; Inset map of the Bat landscape indicating locations of contexts discussed.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1135/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,0M
Titre Table 1. Umm an-Nar chronologies (after Cleuziou 1989b: table 1; Thornton and Ghazal 2016: table 9.3; Swerida 2018: fig. 3).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1135/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 112k
Titre Table 2. 14C samples from Bat settlement or related contexts
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1135/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 441k
Titre Fig. 2. Summary table and examples of petrographic thin-sections (40× in XPL) from Domestic Ware Sherds. a. Sample MM14: Middle Umm an-Nar I Domestic ware sherd, Petrofabric Group (PFG) 1, the dominant domestic ware petrofabric group at Bat; b. Sample MM24: Middle Umm an-Nar II Domestic Ware sherd, PFG 2, a more heterogenous matrix abundant in rounded micritic inclusions; c. Sample MM3: Middle Umm an-Nar II domestic ware sherd, PFG 3, from the nearby settlement at ‘Amlah.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1135/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 106k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1135/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 294k
Titre Table 3. Table of ceramic wares. Two overarching domestically-produced Umm an-Nar Ware types evidenced at Bat and defined through macroscopic and petrographic fabric and decoration
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1135/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 224k
Titre Fig. 3. Early Umm an-Nar/Funerary Ware. a-c, e, h, i. al-Khafaji ceramics; d, f, g. Settlement Slope ceramics; j, k. Examples of funerary jar from Bat; l. Example of funerary jar from Hili North.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1135/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 316k
Titre Fig. 4. Middle Umm an-Nar 1. a, d, g-h, n, p. al-Khafaji ceramics and architecture (s); b-c, e-f, i-j, l-m, o, q-r. Settlement Slope ceramics and architecture (t); k. Operation A ceramic; u. Rakhat al-Madrh architecture.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1135/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 620k
Titre Fig. 5. Middle Umm an-Nar 2. a, e-g, k-l, u-v. al-Khafaji ceramics; b-d, h-j, m-t. Settlement Slope ceramics.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1135/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 337k
Titre Fig. 6. Middle Umm an-Nar 2. a. Settlement Slope painted jar and architecture (c-d); b. al-Khafaji architecture.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1135/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 634k
Titre Fig. 7. Late Umm an-Nar. a-e. Northwest Settlement Slope ceramics and architecture (m-n); f-l. Southeast Settlement Slope ceramics.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1135/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 470k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Jennifer Swerida, Eli N. Dollarhide et Reilly Jensen, « Settlement and Chronology in the early Bronze Age of Southeastern Arabia »Paléorient, 47-2 | -1, 75-96.

Référence électronique

Jennifer Swerida, Eli N. Dollarhide et Reilly Jensen, « Settlement and Chronology in the early Bronze Age of Southeastern Arabia »Paléorient [En ligne], 47-2 | 2021, mis en ligne le 01 mars 2022, consulté le 10 novembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/1135 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/paleorient.1135

Haut de page

Auteurs

Jennifer Swerida

Penn Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia – United States of America

Eli N. Dollarhide

New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi – United Arab Emirates

Reilly Jensen

University of Utah, Salt Lake City – United States of America

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search